What do you think?
Rate this book
Disputations on Holy Scripture
One of the premier issues that divides Protestants from Roman Catholics is the question of the place of Scripture. Protestants declare that the Scriptures alone are the rule of faith and practice, while Roman Catholics assert that it is Scripture and the traditions held by the Church that constitute the final word on a matter. This debate is not new. William Whitaker (1547-1595) championed the Protestant position in this book, first printed in 1588. He deals with the number of canonical books, the authority of Scripture, the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture, the proper interpretation of Scripture, and the perfection of Scripture against unwritten traditions.
718 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1588
32 people are currently reading
172 people want to read
About the author
William Whitaker
3 books1 follower1548–1595
English theologian
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
English theologian
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 30, 2019
The central dispute between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism lies in the doctrine of Scripture. In this work Whitaker responds to Roman Catholic apologists on the following issues related to Scripture: 1) the extent of the canon of Scripture; 2) the RC assertion that the authentic Scripture is found in the Vulgate and not in the Hebrew and Greek originals; 3) that the authority of Scripture depends on the church's affirmation of the Scripture; 4) that the meaning of the Scripture is often, if not mostly, obscure and unintelligible; 5) that the Roman pontiff, rather than Scripture, is the sole judge of ecclesiastical controversies; 6) that Scripture is incomplete and must be completed (and corrected) by unwritten tradition. The work is massive and detailed. It is not the easiest reading, but for the reader who reads carefully, it is very helpful.
October 24, 2014
Imagine the most lop-sided competition you can think of - a world heavyweight champion versus a 90-pound weakling, the 1927 Yankees versus the 1962 Mets, Garry Kasparov versus me - that's what this book felt like. As good a controversialist as Bellarmine may have been, he was so overwhelmingly outclassed by Whitaker that it was almost embarrassing. If you are looking for a defense of the sufficiency of Scripture, look no further. One thing I found amusing is that Bellarmine's defense of 'tradition' against the sufficiency of Scripture hinged on treating Scripture as a mere manual for good living, not a rule of doctrine. This is precisely the position held forth by countless contemporary "evangelicals." This is an excellent book and worth the effort on every level.
April 6, 2022
Definitely one of the best books I've read on this topic, it's up there with Gerhard and Chemnitz on the matter. I'd actually recommend this over Chemnitz's Examen V1 because this is more detailed and deals with Bellarmine; Chemnitz was primarily focused on Trent, and Whittaker responds to Bellarmine - who responds to Chemnitz. I'd also put this over Gerhard because it's more focused. If I could combine Examen V1, Gerhard's Nature of Scripture and Theology, and this book into a single work on Scripture, we'd be in serious business and I'd try to use it as a textbook.
December 28, 2023
One of the biggest areas of disagreements between Protestants and Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox believers) is the nature and place of Scripture. Protestants believe that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, while the latter believe that it is on par with (if not derivative of) church authority. Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scripture is thus a must-read for any Protestant looking to defend their doctrine of Scripture against such opponents, as Whitaker masterfully does in this book. Extremely thorough, walking through and answering every objection his Roman Catholic opponents throw at him (some of which are still being thrown around today) – a highly recommended read for a Protestant defence and understanding of the doctrine of sola scriptura. More of my thoughts can be found in the comments below due to lack of space.
My summary of the main points of the book follows below, hopefully serving as an aid for navigating through the book or as a general outline. I do not purport to summarise the entire book or all of Whitaker's arguments (if any portion interests you, please do read that part of the book in full to get the full force of his argument), nor do I summarise the micro-level analysis of each church father and/or citation of Scripture, as those can easily form a small book by themselves.
Summary
Whitaker breaks up the disputation into several issues: 1) Number of canonical books of Scripture; 2) Language of Scripture; 3) Authority of Scripture; 4) Perspicuity of Scripture; 5) Interpretation of Scripture; and 6) Perfection of Scripture
1. Number of Canonical Books
Whitaker first argues against the Roman Catholic argument that because certain councils and fathers that they point to affirm their expanded canon, the books included in their canon and not the 66-book canon ("the disputed books") are canonical and divine. He first denies that councils and fathers can never err (later pointing to Roman Catholics who voice a similar denial). He then points out that the councils which support the expanded canon suffer from defects such as thin attendance (and thus they can neither be called ecumenical nor purport to represent the church catholic), and pronouncements which suffer from factual errors, such as affirming that the apostle Peter was present when the gospel of John was accepted as Scripture (which cannot be the case, given his date of death). These councils also do not align perfectly with the Roman Catholic canon and disagree among themselves concerning which books are canonical, and thus it is not the case that they speak with one unified authoritative voice. It is also of no help to the Roman Catholics that some canons of these councils affirm doctrines which are against Roman Catholic teaching, such as the equality of the bishops of Constantinople and Rome (contra. supremacy of the Roman Pope), and thus if the councils are authoritative, more problems spring up for Roman Catholicism; what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Lastly, Whitaker points out that ascribing the term 'canonical' to the disputed books does not mean that they are treated as equally authoritative, pointing to the testimony of Augustine and (a more modern example) Cardinal Cajetan. In the next chapter (Chapter VI, but I put it at this part of the summary as it relates to the Roman Catholic claim), Whitaker also points out that if the Roman Catholics are right and the councils they appeal to are needed to know which books are canonical, this means that there was no certain canon of the Old Testament for 400 years after Christ and the church was "long ignorant" – "A pretence at once false and impious!" Indeed, the practice of the church fathers (appealing to and citing Scriptures) runs against this conclusion.
Whitaker then argues in Chapter VI for the 66-book canon (i.e. against the inclusion of the disputed books), pointing to the fact that they were not written by prophets nor in the prophetic tongue (Hebrew), nor did Christ or the apostles ever appeal to them, nor did "the church of the Israelites" receive them. He also points to the testimony of numerous church fathers who reject the expanded canon and favour a smaller Hebrew canon, such as Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, and Gregory the Great.
Lastly, Chapters VII-XIV walk through each individual disputed book, arguing why each is not canonical.
2. Language of Scripture
This issue can be split into two further sub-issues: 2.1) Whether the Latin Vulgate is authentic (contra. the Hebrew and Greek originals), and 2.2) Whether Scripture should be translated into the vernacular. This entire issue is likely of lower utility to the modern reader given that Roman Catholics don't argue on these grounds anymore.
Whitaker first addresses 2.1, appealing to Jerome and various commentators pointing out places where the Vulgate mistranslates the Hebrew and Greek. He also dismisses appeals made by Roman Catholics appealing to the length of time the Vulgate has been used, its use by various fathers, and the fittingness of the Latin church having its own translation (as the Hebrews and Greeks have theirs). He then walks through the mistranslations of the Vulgate in the Old and New Testaments in Chapters X-XII.
Concerning 2.2, Whitaker argues against the Roman Catholic claims that the post-exilic Jews did not understand Hebrew and the apostles' New Testament audience did not understand Greek, and thus there is no need to translate Scripture into the vernacular. He then argues that Scripture should be translated as Christians are called to read it and reading it yields real benefits for believers. Relatedly, Whitaker argues for rites and offices to be conducted in the vernacular.
3. The Authority of Scripture
Whitaker begins by putting forward the Protestant position: He accepts that the church did acknowledge and receive the Scriptures, but he denies that the Scriptures are to be believed solely because of the church, as if its authority is derivative. Rather, Scripture "hath all its authority and credit from itself", is to be received because it comes from God, and one knows of its origins not because of the church but because of the Holy Spirit. Even if one insists on the church being the one determining which books are Scripture, Whitaker presses: So are these books by nature divine or not? If no, the church erred in deeming them divine Scripture, but if yes, the church needs to have some grounds for recognising these books as divine (i.e. it ultimately boils down to an appeal to divine qualities — the Protestant position)
That is not to say the church does not have any role to play, as it plays the role of witness (like a notary, but no one believes the authenticity of documents by virtue of the notary alone but by the qualities of the documents themselves), distinguisher between true and false Scriptures (like a goldsmith who distinguishes between gold and copper, but in no way makes the metal gold), preacher and promulgator (like the herald of a king), and interpreter.
Apart from the internal testimony of the Spirit, Whitaker also appeals to other "external testimonies", such as the antiquity of the books, oracles and miracles attested in them, and the stark difference between the lives of the authors before and after they were called by God. However, he still acknowledges that it is only the testimony of the Spirit that will ultimately persuade the mind and soul. In this way, the authority of Scripture is in no way contingent upon the authority of the church – Scripture is authoritative by the witness of God the Spirit because it is God's word, and these attributes of the books point towards the divine nature of the books. The church plays the roles above, but does not imbue the Scriptures with divine qualities. Rather, she recognises the Scriptures for what they are.
In Chapters V-IX, Whitaker addresses Roman Catholic appeals to the church fathers by citing from the works of those same fathers, demonstrating that they held to the inherent authority of Scriptures, and none of them conceded that the Scriptures have authority solely due to the church.
The "learned adversity" (as Bellarmine put it elsewhere) of the Roman Catholics then puts forward 19 arguments in defence of the Protestant position in Chapter XI, including the circularity of the Roman Catholic position that the Scriptures' authority is contingent on the infallibility of the church – for how does such infallibility come to be? The Roman church claims it is due to the government by the Holy Spirit. How does it know that it is so governed? The Roman church answers that Christ promised so. But where did He promise so, and/or how does the Roman church know? They have to appeal to Scripture, thus defeating their claim that Scripture's authority depends upon the church.
This section can be summarised as such: "there is a wide difference between these two propositions; God speaks through the church, and, We cannot be otherwise certain of the scriptures and doctrine of God, but because the church attests to them". The Protestant position agrees with the former, but the latter, which the Roman Catholics defend, is dismissed by Whitaker.
4. Perspicuity of Scripture
Whitaker begins by setting out the Protestant position: "we never said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and plain; that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to be understood; but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult passages of scripture". Rather, "no dogma is obscure", and "all the articles of faith are plain." In Chapter II, he puts forward a few reasons why God would have obscurities in Scripture, such as making biblical truth more esteemed by us by requiring them to be sought with much labour, and to tame our pride (these reasons were also put forward by fathers such as Chrysostom and Augustine, whom he cites later in Chapter III).
In Chapter III, Whitaker argues against Bellarmine's citations, that parts of Scripture that are obscure and fathers who acknowledge that some parts of Scripture are obscure do not harm the Protestant position. In fact, the fathers writing that some parts of Scripture are obscure runs against the Roman Catholic position that all of Scripture is obscure, and thus there is a need for an infallible interpreter (the Magisterium) to rule on even the most basic articles of faith. Some fathers like Augustine go further, affirming that all things which make up the sum of faith and practice are plainly set down in Scripture, and that one does not come to "those things which are necessary to salvation with so much difficulty."
A defence of the Protestant position follows in Chapter IV. Whitaker points to passages of Scripture that describe itself as light (eg. 2 Pet 1:19) and not hard to understand (eg. Deut 30:11), and also to the fact that the fathers "proved their opinions out of the scriptures" and read and understood the scriptures without commentaries, demonstrating that "they are plain and easy in themselves." He also argues from the nature and character of God – if it is true that the scriptures are so obscure that they cannot be understood, that means either the Holy Spirit could not write more plainly, or He would not. But "God does not mock us when he bids us read the scriptures", and thus neither seems unlikely.
5. Interpretation of Scripture
Concerning the fourfold interpretation of Scripture, Whitaker submits that "there is but one true, proper and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly understood, which we call the literal[, and] allegories, tropologies, and anagoges are not various senses, but various collections from that one sense, or various applications and accommodations of that one meaning." To support this, Whitaker cites various figures such as the fathers and Aquinas who put forward the same point (see his Summa Theologica, Question 1 Article 10: "in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn")
Addressing the Roman Catholic claim that the Pope has the right to bind all Christians to his interpretation of Scripture, Whitaker replies that "the supreme right, authority, and judgment of interpreting the scriptures, is lodged with the Holy Ghost and the scripture itself". He refutes Bellarmine's arguments from Scripture in Chapters IV-V, including Matthew 16:18-19 that Roman Catholics still appeal to today, by pointing to the fact that the same authority was given also to the rest of the apostles (in Matthew 18), as well as the testimony of Augustine that "Peter signified the universal church" when the keys were given to him. In Chapter VI, Whitaker deals with Roman Catholic appeals to the early church fathers, arguing that they refuted their opponents (be it Judaizers, Arians, or Novatians) from scripture and its authority. He deals with each citation Bellarmine puts forward, including Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Augustine.
Whitaker then puts forward 16 arguments in Chapter VIII defending the Protestant position that the Holy Spirit and scripture (not the Pope) have the right to interpret scripture, appealing both to scripture (eg. 1 John 2:20, 27) and the testimony of the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, Hilary, and Augustine. Indeed, Augustine is especially helpful in defending the Protestant position, as he opines that it is a "great mystery" how "The sound of our [that is, teachers] words strikes the ear; the teacher is within", and that "External instructions are a sort of help and admonition: but he who teaches hearts hath his chair in heaven." From this, Whitaker argues that "Doubtless Augustine knew nothing of that chair [in Rome]", that is, the authority the Pope claims for himself.
Whitaker then explains how one goes about interpreting Scripture (in Chapter IX), including the principle that Scripture interprets itself. In support of his refutation of Roman Catholics who disagree (at Chapter XIII), on top of demonstrating how clearer passages of Scripture shed light on less clear ones, he appeals to church fathers such as Basil, Origen, and Augustine.
6. Perfection of Scripture
The question here is whether Scripture contains "a full and perfect body of teaching, or whether unwritten traditions are [required] to complete this necessary doctrine."
First, Whitaker addresses Bellarmine's argument that unwritten traditions can give rise to articles of faith and practices (as held by the Roman Catholic church) if the universal church holds to them. Whitaker demonstrates that "Bellarmine cannot prove that any popish tradition was observed in all churches" (in Chapter IV), pointing to examples such as the diversity concerning Mary's immaculate conception and how, when, and for how long Lent was observed. Whitaker also appeals to the lack of support for veneration of icons (affirmed by Nicaea II) from various fathers such as Gregory the Great as well as councils such as the Council of Hieria in response to Bellarmine's argument that when a council affirms something to have descended from apostolic authority, it is held to be apostolical.
Whitaker then puts forward the Protestant position: "all things appertaining to faith and morals may be learned and derived from scripture, so as that traditions are in no way requisite." (Chapter VI) Bellarmine argues against this by pointing to instances where fathers are told to teach their children in Scripture, and there are people without Scripture who were taught and held to apostolic tradition, but Whitaker responds that the former does not refute his position, while the latter do not prove that Scripture is unnecessary anymore than an illiterate student who hears the preaching of pastors and teachers (who derive their faith and knowledge from Scripture) does. He then points (in Chapter VIII) to multiple instances where people are commanded to read and search the Scriptures (eg. John 5:39, 1 Tim 4:13, 2 Tim 3:14-15) and where Christ holds his opponents accountable for not knowing Scripture.
In Chapter IX, in response to Bellarmine's argument that Scripture does not contain a document the apostles composed together like the apostle's creed, Whitaker replies with Augustine's Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed: that the creed is "scattered through the scriptures", and these are gathered into the creed "to help the memory of the weak". Responding to Roman Catholic arguments that the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father cannot be proven from Scripture, Whitaker points to the practice of the fathers (citing Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine): that they "formerly proved it by the express testimony of scripture" by finding in Scripture "the sense and meaning", even if Scripture does not contain the word 'homoousion'. Whitaker also shows that doctrines such as original sin and Christ's descent into hell, which his Roman Catholic opponents alleged could not be proven from Scripture, can be so proved by Scripture, and indeed were by the fathers.
Additionally, Whitaker notes in Chapter X (in refuting his opponents who find unwritten traditions referenced in Scripture) that when Roman Catholics argue that they have access to unwritten traditions, they "plainly imitate the ancient heresies". As Augustine observed in Tractates on John, the heretics tried to justify their teachings by appealing to passages such as John 16:12.
Whitaker then addresses other fathers his opponents cite in Chapter XII. He further cites various fathers in support of his position and the sufficiency of Scripture in Chapter XVII, including Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine.
Whitaker also points to Scripture in Chapters XIV-XV, first passages of that warn against additions, including Deut 4:2, 12:32, Rev 20:18, and Gal 1:8. He then notes Christ's appeal to the Scriptures (both in teachings and parables) and His condemnation of traditions inconsistent with Scripture. He then goes on to adduce 16 further passages in support of the Protestant position.
Conclusion
All in all, a vital read for anyone studying the theology of Scripture, especially for Protestants given the centrality of the authority of Scripture to the Reformation and how it is being attacked from all sides today. It is high time we retrieved a robust theology and defence of Scripture, grounded in historical and biblical theology.
My summary of the main points of the book follows below, hopefully serving as an aid for navigating through the book or as a general outline. I do not purport to summarise the entire book or all of Whitaker's arguments (if any portion interests you, please do read that part of the book in full to get the full force of his argument), nor do I summarise the micro-level analysis of each church father and/or citation of Scripture, as those can easily form a small book by themselves.
Summary
Whitaker breaks up the disputation into several issues: 1) Number of canonical books of Scripture; 2) Language of Scripture; 3) Authority of Scripture; 4) Perspicuity of Scripture; 5) Interpretation of Scripture; and 6) Perfection of Scripture
1. Number of Canonical Books
Whitaker first argues against the Roman Catholic argument that because certain councils and fathers that they point to affirm their expanded canon, the books included in their canon and not the 66-book canon ("the disputed books") are canonical and divine. He first denies that councils and fathers can never err (later pointing to Roman Catholics who voice a similar denial). He then points out that the councils which support the expanded canon suffer from defects such as thin attendance (and thus they can neither be called ecumenical nor purport to represent the church catholic), and pronouncements which suffer from factual errors, such as affirming that the apostle Peter was present when the gospel of John was accepted as Scripture (which cannot be the case, given his date of death). These councils also do not align perfectly with the Roman Catholic canon and disagree among themselves concerning which books are canonical, and thus it is not the case that they speak with one unified authoritative voice. It is also of no help to the Roman Catholics that some canons of these councils affirm doctrines which are against Roman Catholic teaching, such as the equality of the bishops of Constantinople and Rome (contra. supremacy of the Roman Pope), and thus if the councils are authoritative, more problems spring up for Roman Catholicism; what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Lastly, Whitaker points out that ascribing the term 'canonical' to the disputed books does not mean that they are treated as equally authoritative, pointing to the testimony of Augustine and (a more modern example) Cardinal Cajetan. In the next chapter (Chapter VI, but I put it at this part of the summary as it relates to the Roman Catholic claim), Whitaker also points out that if the Roman Catholics are right and the councils they appeal to are needed to know which books are canonical, this means that there was no certain canon of the Old Testament for 400 years after Christ and the church was "long ignorant" – "A pretence at once false and impious!" Indeed, the practice of the church fathers (appealing to and citing Scriptures) runs against this conclusion.
Whitaker then argues in Chapter VI for the 66-book canon (i.e. against the inclusion of the disputed books), pointing to the fact that they were not written by prophets nor in the prophetic tongue (Hebrew), nor did Christ or the apostles ever appeal to them, nor did "the church of the Israelites" receive them. He also points to the testimony of numerous church fathers who reject the expanded canon and favour a smaller Hebrew canon, such as Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, and Gregory the Great.
Lastly, Chapters VII-XIV walk through each individual disputed book, arguing why each is not canonical.
2. Language of Scripture
This issue can be split into two further sub-issues: 2.1) Whether the Latin Vulgate is authentic (contra. the Hebrew and Greek originals), and 2.2) Whether Scripture should be translated into the vernacular. This entire issue is likely of lower utility to the modern reader given that Roman Catholics don't argue on these grounds anymore.
Whitaker first addresses 2.1, appealing to Jerome and various commentators pointing out places where the Vulgate mistranslates the Hebrew and Greek. He also dismisses appeals made by Roman Catholics appealing to the length of time the Vulgate has been used, its use by various fathers, and the fittingness of the Latin church having its own translation (as the Hebrews and Greeks have theirs). He then walks through the mistranslations of the Vulgate in the Old and New Testaments in Chapters X-XII.
Concerning 2.2, Whitaker argues against the Roman Catholic claims that the post-exilic Jews did not understand Hebrew and the apostles' New Testament audience did not understand Greek, and thus there is no need to translate Scripture into the vernacular. He then argues that Scripture should be translated as Christians are called to read it and reading it yields real benefits for believers. Relatedly, Whitaker argues for rites and offices to be conducted in the vernacular.
3. The Authority of Scripture
Whitaker begins by putting forward the Protestant position: He accepts that the church did acknowledge and receive the Scriptures, but he denies that the Scriptures are to be believed solely because of the church, as if its authority is derivative. Rather, Scripture "hath all its authority and credit from itself", is to be received because it comes from God, and one knows of its origins not because of the church but because of the Holy Spirit. Even if one insists on the church being the one determining which books are Scripture, Whitaker presses: So are these books by nature divine or not? If no, the church erred in deeming them divine Scripture, but if yes, the church needs to have some grounds for recognising these books as divine (i.e. it ultimately boils down to an appeal to divine qualities — the Protestant position)
That is not to say the church does not have any role to play, as it plays the role of witness (like a notary, but no one believes the authenticity of documents by virtue of the notary alone but by the qualities of the documents themselves), distinguisher between true and false Scriptures (like a goldsmith who distinguishes between gold and copper, but in no way makes the metal gold), preacher and promulgator (like the herald of a king), and interpreter.
Apart from the internal testimony of the Spirit, Whitaker also appeals to other "external testimonies", such as the antiquity of the books, oracles and miracles attested in them, and the stark difference between the lives of the authors before and after they were called by God. However, he still acknowledges that it is only the testimony of the Spirit that will ultimately persuade the mind and soul. In this way, the authority of Scripture is in no way contingent upon the authority of the church – Scripture is authoritative by the witness of God the Spirit because it is God's word, and these attributes of the books point towards the divine nature of the books. The church plays the roles above, but does not imbue the Scriptures with divine qualities. Rather, she recognises the Scriptures for what they are.
In Chapters V-IX, Whitaker addresses Roman Catholic appeals to the church fathers by citing from the works of those same fathers, demonstrating that they held to the inherent authority of Scriptures, and none of them conceded that the Scriptures have authority solely due to the church.
The "learned adversity" (as Bellarmine put it elsewhere) of the Roman Catholics then puts forward 19 arguments in defence of the Protestant position in Chapter XI, including the circularity of the Roman Catholic position that the Scriptures' authority is contingent on the infallibility of the church – for how does such infallibility come to be? The Roman church claims it is due to the government by the Holy Spirit. How does it know that it is so governed? The Roman church answers that Christ promised so. But where did He promise so, and/or how does the Roman church know? They have to appeal to Scripture, thus defeating their claim that Scripture's authority depends upon the church.
This section can be summarised as such: "there is a wide difference between these two propositions; God speaks through the church, and, We cannot be otherwise certain of the scriptures and doctrine of God, but because the church attests to them". The Protestant position agrees with the former, but the latter, which the Roman Catholics defend, is dismissed by Whitaker.
4. Perspicuity of Scripture
Whitaker begins by setting out the Protestant position: "we never said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and plain; that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to be understood; but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult passages of scripture". Rather, "no dogma is obscure", and "all the articles of faith are plain." In Chapter II, he puts forward a few reasons why God would have obscurities in Scripture, such as making biblical truth more esteemed by us by requiring them to be sought with much labour, and to tame our pride (these reasons were also put forward by fathers such as Chrysostom and Augustine, whom he cites later in Chapter III).
In Chapter III, Whitaker argues against Bellarmine's citations, that parts of Scripture that are obscure and fathers who acknowledge that some parts of Scripture are obscure do not harm the Protestant position. In fact, the fathers writing that some parts of Scripture are obscure runs against the Roman Catholic position that all of Scripture is obscure, and thus there is a need for an infallible interpreter (the Magisterium) to rule on even the most basic articles of faith. Some fathers like Augustine go further, affirming that all things which make up the sum of faith and practice are plainly set down in Scripture, and that one does not come to "those things which are necessary to salvation with so much difficulty."
A defence of the Protestant position follows in Chapter IV. Whitaker points to passages of Scripture that describe itself as light (eg. 2 Pet 1:19) and not hard to understand (eg. Deut 30:11), and also to the fact that the fathers "proved their opinions out of the scriptures" and read and understood the scriptures without commentaries, demonstrating that "they are plain and easy in themselves." He also argues from the nature and character of God – if it is true that the scriptures are so obscure that they cannot be understood, that means either the Holy Spirit could not write more plainly, or He would not. But "God does not mock us when he bids us read the scriptures", and thus neither seems unlikely.
5. Interpretation of Scripture
Concerning the fourfold interpretation of Scripture, Whitaker submits that "there is but one true, proper and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly understood, which we call the literal[, and] allegories, tropologies, and anagoges are not various senses, but various collections from that one sense, or various applications and accommodations of that one meaning." To support this, Whitaker cites various figures such as the fathers and Aquinas who put forward the same point (see his Summa Theologica, Question 1 Article 10: "in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn")
Addressing the Roman Catholic claim that the Pope has the right to bind all Christians to his interpretation of Scripture, Whitaker replies that "the supreme right, authority, and judgment of interpreting the scriptures, is lodged with the Holy Ghost and the scripture itself". He refutes Bellarmine's arguments from Scripture in Chapters IV-V, including Matthew 16:18-19 that Roman Catholics still appeal to today, by pointing to the fact that the same authority was given also to the rest of the apostles (in Matthew 18), as well as the testimony of Augustine that "Peter signified the universal church" when the keys were given to him. In Chapter VI, Whitaker deals with Roman Catholic appeals to the early church fathers, arguing that they refuted their opponents (be it Judaizers, Arians, or Novatians) from scripture and its authority. He deals with each citation Bellarmine puts forward, including Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Augustine.
Whitaker then puts forward 16 arguments in Chapter VIII defending the Protestant position that the Holy Spirit and scripture (not the Pope) have the right to interpret scripture, appealing both to scripture (eg. 1 John 2:20, 27) and the testimony of the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, Hilary, and Augustine. Indeed, Augustine is especially helpful in defending the Protestant position, as he opines that it is a "great mystery" how "The sound of our [that is, teachers] words strikes the ear; the teacher is within", and that "External instructions are a sort of help and admonition: but he who teaches hearts hath his chair in heaven." From this, Whitaker argues that "Doubtless Augustine knew nothing of that chair [in Rome]", that is, the authority the Pope claims for himself.
Whitaker then explains how one goes about interpreting Scripture (in Chapter IX), including the principle that Scripture interprets itself. In support of his refutation of Roman Catholics who disagree (at Chapter XIII), on top of demonstrating how clearer passages of Scripture shed light on less clear ones, he appeals to church fathers such as Basil, Origen, and Augustine.
6. Perfection of Scripture
The question here is whether Scripture contains "a full and perfect body of teaching, or whether unwritten traditions are [required] to complete this necessary doctrine."
First, Whitaker addresses Bellarmine's argument that unwritten traditions can give rise to articles of faith and practices (as held by the Roman Catholic church) if the universal church holds to them. Whitaker demonstrates that "Bellarmine cannot prove that any popish tradition was observed in all churches" (in Chapter IV), pointing to examples such as the diversity concerning Mary's immaculate conception and how, when, and for how long Lent was observed. Whitaker also appeals to the lack of support for veneration of icons (affirmed by Nicaea II) from various fathers such as Gregory the Great as well as councils such as the Council of Hieria in response to Bellarmine's argument that when a council affirms something to have descended from apostolic authority, it is held to be apostolical.
Whitaker then puts forward the Protestant position: "all things appertaining to faith and morals may be learned and derived from scripture, so as that traditions are in no way requisite." (Chapter VI) Bellarmine argues against this by pointing to instances where fathers are told to teach their children in Scripture, and there are people without Scripture who were taught and held to apostolic tradition, but Whitaker responds that the former does not refute his position, while the latter do not prove that Scripture is unnecessary anymore than an illiterate student who hears the preaching of pastors and teachers (who derive their faith and knowledge from Scripture) does. He then points (in Chapter VIII) to multiple instances where people are commanded to read and search the Scriptures (eg. John 5:39, 1 Tim 4:13, 2 Tim 3:14-15) and where Christ holds his opponents accountable for not knowing Scripture.
In Chapter IX, in response to Bellarmine's argument that Scripture does not contain a document the apostles composed together like the apostle's creed, Whitaker replies with Augustine's Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed: that the creed is "scattered through the scriptures", and these are gathered into the creed "to help the memory of the weak". Responding to Roman Catholic arguments that the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father cannot be proven from Scripture, Whitaker points to the practice of the fathers (citing Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine): that they "formerly proved it by the express testimony of scripture" by finding in Scripture "the sense and meaning", even if Scripture does not contain the word 'homoousion'. Whitaker also shows that doctrines such as original sin and Christ's descent into hell, which his Roman Catholic opponents alleged could not be proven from Scripture, can be so proved by Scripture, and indeed were by the fathers.
Additionally, Whitaker notes in Chapter X (in refuting his opponents who find unwritten traditions referenced in Scripture) that when Roman Catholics argue that they have access to unwritten traditions, they "plainly imitate the ancient heresies". As Augustine observed in Tractates on John, the heretics tried to justify their teachings by appealing to passages such as John 16:12.
Whitaker then addresses other fathers his opponents cite in Chapter XII. He further cites various fathers in support of his position and the sufficiency of Scripture in Chapter XVII, including Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine.
Whitaker also points to Scripture in Chapters XIV-XV, first passages of that warn against additions, including Deut 4:2, 12:32, Rev 20:18, and Gal 1:8. He then notes Christ's appeal to the Scriptures (both in teachings and parables) and His condemnation of traditions inconsistent with Scripture. He then goes on to adduce 16 further passages in support of the Protestant position.
Conclusion
All in all, a vital read for anyone studying the theology of Scripture, especially for Protestants given the centrality of the authority of Scripture to the Reformation and how it is being attacked from all sides today. It is high time we retrieved a robust theology and defence of Scripture, grounded in historical and biblical theology.
March 20, 2023
Reminded me a bit of Le Morte d'Arthur, in some ways. Approximately the same time period, massive, arguably boring but strangely thrilling despite this.
Whitaker throws everything and the kitchen sink into his disputative stew, very effectively, but because of the sheer exhaustiveness of his argumentation he occasionally makes a weak point. This is obviated by the enormous weight of the rest of his points. After a while, you grin when he once again reaches "our fourteenth argument..." "our twelfth testimony..." "the twelfth place is taken from..." "eighthly..." and so on.
An authoritative treatment of the subject, unfortunate that it's so hard to snag a copy because it earns a place on any bookshelf.
Whitaker throws everything and the kitchen sink into his disputative stew, very effectively, but because of the sheer exhaustiveness of his argumentation he occasionally makes a weak point. This is obviated by the enormous weight of the rest of his points. After a while, you grin when he once again reaches "our fourteenth argument..." "our twelfth testimony..." "the twelfth place is taken from..." "eighthly..." and so on.
An authoritative treatment of the subject, unfortunate that it's so hard to snag a copy because it earns a place on any bookshelf.
June 3, 2021
This book had a very significant influence on the Westminster assembly in their formulating of Ch. 1 of their confession of faith, and eventually, those of the Congregationalists and Baptists later that same century. This was written against the Romish Counter-Reformation and their false teachings on the doctrine of Scripture.
An excellent defence of Reformed Protestant bibliology, sola scriptura, and the purity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Protestant Reformation and the faithful translations out of these texts.
An excellent defence of Reformed Protestant bibliology, sola scriptura, and the purity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Protestant Reformation and the faithful translations out of these texts.
June 22, 2022
Though it can get repetitive, it is simply a function of the fact this is a response to papist theologian arguments. It’s level of thoroughness is outstripped only by the respect paid to the scriptures.
July 7, 2020
Excrutiatingly thorough. Occasionally outdated. But it is the authoritative defense of Sola Scriptura for a reason.
July 22, 2025
Heavy Artillery
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews