William Whitaker

As I was straightening my bookshelves last week, I pulled another yet unread fat puritan volume off the shelf and began reading. Published in 2005 by Soli Deo Gloria as Disputations on the Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (1547–1595), it was originally published in 1588 with the typically descriptive title A Disputation on the Holy Scripture against the Papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. I love that about Puritan writings; you never have to ask what they’re about.

The question before us today is, on what account do we recognize the canon of Scripture? Is it on account of the testimony of ecclesiatical authorities? That is, does Scripture derive its authority, or any part thereof, to the decrees of men? And if we say “no,” do we mean that the church has nothing to say in the matter? Whitaker writes:

. . . we do not deny that it appertains to the church to approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend the scriptures to all its members; and we say that this testimony is true, and should be received by all. We do not, therefore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scriptures solely on account of this commendation of them by the church. For we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony, whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books, that is to say, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, without which the commendation of the church would have with us no weight or moment. The papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of the church. For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, and admit its authority ; but we affirm that there is a far different, more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is [autopistos], that is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknowledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so determined and commanded, but because it comes from God; and that we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost. Now by the church we understand not, as they do, the pastors, bishops, councils, pope; but the whole multitude of the faithful. For this whole multitude hath learned from the Holy Spirit that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This persuasion the Holy Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful.
   The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony, or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 279–280

Continuing with William Whitaker’s “Disutation . . . against the Papists,” Whitaker takes up Calvin’s arguments against “The impiety of believing that the credibility of scripture depends on the judgement of the church” [Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1 Chapter 7].

Calvin’s first argument . . . is this: If the canon of scripture depend upon the determination of the church, then the authority, verity, of all the promises of salvation and eternal life contained in scripture depend upon a human judgment; because we believe those promises on accpount of the canonical authority of the scriptures in which they are contained. But it is absurd, that the promises of God should depend upon man, because then our consciences can have no confidence, no security. Therefore the canon of scripture does not depend upon the determination of the church.

. . . Stapleton . . . says, that the church does not make the contents of scripture true, yet does cause them to be believed by us as true. From which statement it is apparent that Calvin’s objection is just, that in this way our whole faith depends upon the authority and human judgment of the church. But scripture teaches us far otherwise and better. For thus we read, 1 John v. 10, “He who believeth not God, makes him a liar.” He therefore no no otherwise believes God promising, but on account of the authority of some one else, believes that other person more than God, and so makes God a liar. Besides, in this way, the church would be mistress of our faith, which is repugnant to that saying of Paul, 2 Cor. i. 24 . . . We stand, indeed, by faith, and that is the gift of the Holy Ghost, not of the church. We see, therefore, that it is not on the church’s, but on the Holy Spirit’s authority, that we persevere constant and stable in the faith, and fall not from divine grace.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 340–342

As heirs of the Reformation, and in distinction from Roman Catholicism, we hold to the perspicuity of Scripture. This is the doctrine that any believer can, by the illumination from the Holy spirit, understand the Scriptures adequately to know what God would have him believe and do. In saying this, we do not mean that all Scripture is equally easy to understand. Some passages are, as Peter confessed, “hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:15–16). On this subject, in his Disputation . . . against the Papists, William Whitaker quotes none other than a pope, Gregory the Great (540–604), whom Calvin is said to have called “the last good pope.”

The very obscurity of the words of God is of great use, because it exercises the perception so as to be enlarged by labour, and, through exercise, be enabled to catch that which a lazy reader cannot. It hath besides this still greater advantage, that the meaning of sacred scripture would be lightly esteemed, if it were plain in all places. In some obscure places the sweetness with which it refresheth the mind, when found, is proportionate to the toil and labour which were expended upon the search.

—Gregory the Great, quoted in William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 375.

To deny the perspicuity of Scripture is to find fault with God, for if the Scripture cannot be understood, then the Holy Spirit failed in his purpose for writing it. William Whitaker wrote:

If the Scriptures be so obscure and difficult to be understood, that they cannot be read with advantage by the people, then this hath happened, either because the Holy Spirit could not write more plainly, or because he would not. No one will say that he could not: and that he would not, is repugnant to the end of the writing; because God willed that they should be written and committed to letters for the very end, that we should learn what was written, and thence derive a knowledge of his will; as is plain from Rom. xv. 4, “Whatsoever things were written, were written for our learning:” where Paul speaks not only of the learned, but of the whole multitude of the faithful. The Scriptures, therefore, are clear. Besides, God does not mock us when he bids us to read the scriptures; but he would have us read the scriptures so that we may know and understand them. Again, the scripture is called a rule, a standard, a mark, laid open to the eyes of all: it is, therefore, of necessity easy and clear. Thus then we briefly conclude this argument. The Holy Spirit willed the scriptures to be consigned to writing in order that we might understand them; and that this was the end which he proposed there are many things in the scriptures themselves that testify: therefore, they are so written as to be intelligible by us, of else the Holy Spirit hath not gained his end; which cannot be thought without impiety.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 392

According to Rome, only the church, i.e., the pope and bishops, are vested with the authority to interpret Scripture. For centuries, Rome denied the laity direct access to the Bible. In modern times, while granting the words of Scripture to the masses, Rome still monopolizes the meaning. More than four hundred years ago, William Whitaker addressed this abuse in his Disputations on the Holy Scriptures. Among the arguments he addressed was the claim that the church fathers favored the papist dogma on the issue. Against their use of Augustine, Whitaker wrote:

Augustine is next objected to us, who, in his first book against Cresconius the grammarian, cap. 33, says, “Let him who fears he may be deceived, consult the church.” I answer: This we allow, but under the condition which Augustine subjoins; namely, that that church is to be consulted “which the scripture points out.” For otherwise than by the scriptures it cannot certainly be known which is the true church. We say that the church should be consulted in every cause which concerns faith, and that the church ought to consult the scriptures. And truly they are justly deceived who do not consult the church, and obey her pious counsels and admonitions. But, although pious doctors are to be sought for and inquired of, and all proud and perilous temptations to be avoided, as Augustine hath reminded us in the Prologue to his books of Christian Doctrine; yet we should consider both what they answer, and how truly, lest our faith should rest upon human teaching rather than upon divine testimony. That is not really faith, which is founded upon the authority of men; and upon such authority is founded whatever depends not on the word and voice of God.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 442.

William Whitaker cites the Apostle Paul’s praise of the Bereans against the Roman Catholic doctrine of sola ecclesia:

   Our seventh argument [demonstrating that scripture, and not the church, is the interpreter of scripture] is taken from Acts xvii. 11, where the Bereans are praised for searching the scriptures whether those things which Paul taught were so. From which place we argue thus: If the doctrine of the apostle was examined by scripture, then the doctrine of the church should also be examined by scripture. The antecedent is true; therefore also the consequent. The Jesuit here hath but one reply. He says that the person of the apostle was not known to the Bereans, and that they did not understand whether Paul was an apostle or not; and therefore that they did well in judging his doctrine by the scriptures: but we do know (says he) that the church cannot err, and therefore we ought not to examine its teaching. I answer: It makes little matter whether the Bereans knew Paul to be an apostle or not. The question is not about persons, but about the kind of teaching. The Bereans are praised for not rashly and hastily receiving whatever Paul taught them, but diligently examining his doctrine by scripture. Whence we draw two inferences: First, that all doctrine is to be judged by the scriptures. For, if the Bereans compared the preaching of an apostle with the rule of scripture, shall we embrace without any examination whatever the pope may please to maintain? Secondly, That the apostles preached nothing which could not be established by the scriptures of the prophets, and did perfectly agree with them. But we (says he) know that the church cannot err. But we (say I) know that the pope errs shamefully, and they who think otherwise err also to the eternal ruin of their own souls. . . . Verily, the church, that is, the pope, would be a kind of God if he could not err.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 457.

I know I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: I love Puritan titles; you never have to wonder what you’re about to read. And if the main title isn’t enough, the chapter titles fill in even more details.

Having completed “Our arguments whereby we prove that the supreme decision in interpreting scripture belongs not to the church, but to the scriptures themselves and to the Holy Spirit,” William Whitaker addresses “The state of the question, concerning the means of finding the true sense of scripture.” The first means he lists is one that ought to be the easiest, but I’m afraid is likely to be the most neglected.

   In the first place, prayer is necessary for reading the scriptures so as to understand them; and on that account David so often begs of God to illuminate his mind and to open his eyes; and, in Matth. vii. Christ says, “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” And James, chap. i. v. 5, says: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.” Whence a certain father said, that he profited more in the knowledge of scripture by prayer, than by reading and study. And Origen, in his 12th Homily on Exodus, says that we must not only apply study in order to learn the sacred word, but also supplicate God and entreat him night and day, that the Lamb of the tribe of Juda may come, and, taking himself the sealed book, vouchsafe to open it. Augustine too, in his book De Scala Paradisi, c. 2, writes thus admirably upon this subject: “Reading inquires, meditation finds, prayer asks, contemplation tastes: whence the Lord himself says, ‘Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.’ Seek by reading, and ye shall find in meditation: knock by prayer, and it shall be opened to you in contemplation. Reading does, as it were, set the solid food at the lips; meditation breaks and chews it; prayer gains a relish; and contemplation is the very sweetness itself which gives us pleasure and refreshment. Reading is in the rind, meditation in the marrow,, prayer in the demand of desire, contemplation in the delight of the sweetness now acquired.” Thus far Augustine. And Jerome says to Læta: “Let reading follow prayer, and prayer reading.” This should be always the first means, and the foundation of the rest.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 467–468.

I have frequently been amazed by ridiculous interpretations of Scripture of people who isolate single verses or passages from their contexts. I have been greatly dismayed at times to discover that I have done the same thing. It makes me feel only slightly better to know that I’m not alone, and that, as William Whitaker writes, “Indeed, the ancients frequently fell into mistakes from not attending to the series and connection of the text.”

[W]e ought to consider the scope, end, matter, circumstances (that is, as Augustine says, the persons, place and time), the antecedents and consequents of each passage; and by this means it will be no hard matter both to refute many errors, and to arrive at a clear understanding of those things which seemed at first obscure. The Rhemists conclude from 1 Pet iv. 8, (where Peter writes, that charity covers the multitude of sins,) that charity hath the power of taking away and extinguishing sins, and thereby of justifying us before God; and therefore, that faith alone does not justify. Now, if we consider the occasion, scope, preceding and following context, and the other circumstances of this passage, we shall find that the apostle is not speaking of our charity as justifying us before God or procuring remission of our sins, but of that fraternal love which represses many occasions of offence, and so quenches feuds and enmities amongst brethren. But how shall we understand that this is the sense of the passage? Why, from the context itself. The apostle says, in the words immediately preceding, “having sincere love one towards another.” He is speaking, consequently, of the love wherewith we should embrace and respect our brethren. And, if we compare this place with another, namely, with Prov. x. 12, whence Peter took these words, this will appear still more plainly. There we read thus: “Hatred stirreth up strifes and contentions, but love covereth the multitude of sins:” where, by reason of the antithesis between the first and second clauses of the sentence, the meaning of the latter may easily be gathered from that of the former. Christ says, Matt. xix. 17: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” From this all the papists collect that we are justified by the merit of our works, but, in the meanwhile, they reflect not what sort of person it was to whom Christ said this; a person, namely, who had come to Christ resting upon the opinion of his own righteousness, and, elevated with pride, had asked, what he ought to do to obtain eternal life. Such persons, who trust in their own merits, are deservedly referred to the law; that so they may come to understand how far they are from perfect righteousness. Indeed, the ancients frequently fell into mistakes from not attending to the series and connection of the text.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 470–471.

While we believe in the perspicuity of scripture, we also must acknowledge that all scripture is not equally clear. Some passages are undeniably difficult to understand, and others appear to be contradictory. How are we to deal with these problem passages?

[O]ne place must be compared and collated with another; the obscurer places with the plainer or less obscure. For though in one place the words may be obscure, they will be plainer in another. For example, James, chap. 2, verse 21, affirms that Abraham was justified by works. The place is obscure, and seems to favour the papists. Whence, then, shall we know the true meaning of this passage? Why, we must compare it with the second verse of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and so it will readily appear how this place is to be understood. For Paul, in Rom. iv. 2, expressly says, that Abraham was not justified by works, because then he would have whereof to glory: and it is sufficiently plain that the apostle Paul is speaking, in that place, of the works which followed the call of Abraham: first, because he says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness;” which every body knows to have taken place after his call: secondly, because afterwards he proceeds to the example of David, whom all know to have been a holy man, regenerated by the Spirit of God, and called by God. We must needs therefore confess that the term ‘justification’ is taken in different senses, unless we choose to suppose that the apostles are at variance, and pronounce contradictory declarations. In James, therefore, to be justified means to be declared and shewn to be just, as Thomas Aquinas himself confesses upon that place; but, in Paul, to be justified denotes the same as to be absolved from all sins, and accounted righteous with God.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 471–472.

William Whitaker on the use of commentaries an other extra-biblical writings:

[The unlearned] ought to have recourse to other persons better skilled than themselves, to read the books of others, to consult the commentaries and expositions of learned interpreters, and to confer with others. Such was the practice of Jerome, of Augustine, and of other fathers. But, in the meanwhile, care must be taken that we do not ascribe too much to them, or suppose that their interpretations are to be received because they are theirs, but because they are supported by the authority of scripture or by reason, so as to allow them no weight in opposition to the scripture. We may use their labours, advice, prudence, and knowledge; but we should use them always cautiously, modestly, and discreetly, and so as still to retain our own liberty. He that shall be content to make such a use of these means, and will lay aside his prejudices and party zeal, which many bring with them to every question, will be enabled to gain an understanding of the scriptures, if not in all places, yet in most; if not immediately, yet ultimately.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 473.

Related: Dumb Things I have Believed: Me & My Bible.

William Whitaker offers a few examples of scripture interpreting scripture:

[T]he scripture, where it speaks with some obscurity, explains its meaning sometimes immediately after in the very same place, sometimes accumulatively in several other places. This I will briefly illustrate by examples of both sorts of interpretation. In Isaiah li. 1, we have: “Look unto the rock whence ye were hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye were digged.” The language is obscure and ambiguous; but the obscurity is wholly removed by the words which follow: “Consider Abraham your father, and Sarah who bore you.” What better expositor do we require? Gen. xv. 2, Abraham says to the Lord: “What wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eleazar of Damascus?” These words are somewhat dark, but light is thrown upon them presently after: “Behold, thou hast given me no seed, and lo, my servant born in my house is my heir.” What could possibly be spoken more plainly? Gen. xi. 1, the whole world is said to have been of one lip; and, to make this better understood, it is immediately subjoined, that their speech was the same. Exod. xx. 4, in the second precept of the decalogue, we are commanded to “make no graven image, nor likeness of any thing;” and, to put us completely in possession of the drift of this law, a lucid exposition is added in the way of commentary. Deut. vii. 3, the Israelites are forbidden to unite themselves with the Canaanites by affinity. This might be plain enough by itself, but is rendered still more clear and definite by what follows in the same place, “Thou shalt not give thy daughter to the son of any of them, neither shalt thou take the son of any of them for thy daughter:” and the reason of the law, subjoined immediately in a large exposition, makes the meaning of the law still more evident. Isaiah i. 2, “I have brought up children, and they have rebelled against me,” saith the Lord; and then immediately shews that this declaration concerns the Israelites: “Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.” Isaiah liii. 1, “To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?”—the meaning of this is plain from the preceding clause, “Who hath believed our report?”—so as to make it evident, that the gospel is denoted by the arm of the Lord. In the sixth of John Christ is described as having discoursed at large of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and having given grievous offence by that discourse not only to the Capernaites, but also to his own disciples. Wherefore, to prevent that offence from sinking too deep or dwelling too long in pious minds, Christ himself at the last explains himself, saying, that the time should come when they should see the Son of man ascending up; that it is the Spirit that quickens, while the flesh profits nothing; and still more plainly, that those words which he had spoken were Spirit and life. So plainly, so carefully, so largely does Christ remove that stumbling-block from his discourse, and teach us that he spoke of a spiritual, not a carnal and bodily, sort of eating and drinking. Paul says, 1 Cor. v. 9, “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators:” but what sort of fornicators he meant, he presently indicates; not those who were strangers to the christian name and profession, but those who, professing to be Christ’s adherents, abstained not from fornication and such-like similar enormities; with such he hath forbidden us to have any familiarity, and hath clearly explained his mind upon that subject. So, in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking of marriage, he drops these words, “This is a great mystery:” where, foreseeing that some would hence infer that marriage was a sacrament, he subjoined what absolutely removes the ground of such a surmise, “But I speak concerning Christ and the church;” in which words he protests that it is not matrimony, but the union of Christ and the church, that is styled by him a mystery. Such examples are innumerable, wherein it is apparent that the Holy Spirit hath been careful that what he might seem at first to have expressed with some obscurity, should afterwards be clearly explained, so as to free the reader from all difficulty.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 488–490.

Sixteenth century Roman Catholic apologist Robert Belarmine (1542–1621) proposed “five rules whereby true and genuine traditions of the apostles [traditions held by Rome as equal to scripture] may be distinguished.” William Whitaker listed those rules along with his rebuttals. On the first:

   The first rule is this: Whatsoever the universal church holds as an article of faith, and which is not found in the Bible, is without any doubt apostolical. The reason of this rule is, because the church cannot err. That the church cannot err, he proves by a twofold argument: first, because it is the ground of truth; secondly, because, as Christ says, the gates of hell shall not prevail against that rock upon which the church is built. I reply: The present occasion does not permit me to handle the question, whether or not the church may err [Whitaker has already done so earlier in this work]: there will be another fitting place for discussing that subject. Meanwhile, I return two answers.
   First, I demand what they mean by the universal church? For although a very great number of men everywhere throughout the churches may have embraced some practice or opinion, it does not therefore follow that it should be ascribed to the whole church; because there may be many who condemn it, and amongst these the church may subsist. So when Christ was upon earth, there were many traditions of the Pharisees which had become prescriptive, such as are mentioned Matt. xv. and Mark vii.; some of which related to faith, and some to practice. These were universal (if those are to be styled universal which are observed by the great majority), and had prevailed in the church through a long course of years and ages; for they are called the traditions “of the elders.” Does it therefore follow, either that these were divine, or that all men who belonged to the church held them, especially when it is certain that some of them were plainly impious? Superstitious rites, then, and perverse opinions, and traditions repugnant to piety, may prevail amongst men professing God’s holy religion. For the church does not always consist of the greatest or the most numerous, but sometimes of the fewest and the meanest.
   Secondly, Bellarmine cannot prove that any popish tradition was observed in all churches. For, to take his own example, many churches have entertained doubts concerning the number of the canonical books, as we have shewn in the first controversy. It follows, therefore, that it was no apostolical tradition, because it was not received by the universal church, according to this rule of Bellarmine’s. . . . He says that all points which the church holds as articles of faith were delivered by the apostles or prophets, in writing or by word of mouth, and that the church is not now governed by new revelations, but remains content with that which it received from the apostles. If this be true, then the church cannot now deliver any thing as an article of faith which was not heretofore, from the very times of the apostles, received and preserved as an article of faith. 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. . . . [Bellarmine] says that the church is not now governed by new revelations, but remains content with those things which they who were the ministers of the word handed down. So beautifully do they agree among themselves. Some say that a new dogma, which never was such before, may be prescribed by the church; others, that the church is not governed by new revelations, but remains content with those things which were delivered from the beginning. So that either Bellarmine’s rule is false, or these articles of faith cannot and ought not to be considered necessary. But I demand of Bellarmine, whether it was delivered down by the apostles, that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul. All the papists allow it. [Bishop Lindanus (1525–1588, )] affirms that it is no less necessary to believe it Paul’s, than to believe its canonicity. If that be true, then this is an apostolical tradition: if it be apostolical, then it was always received by the universal church. But it may be easily shewn that many churches thought otherwise; yea, that the Roman church itself was once in the contrary opinion, as appears from Jerome’s catalogue of illustrious men, under the title Caius. Either therefore the Roman church erred in the one tradition or in the other; or else at least this first rule of Bellarmine’s is not true, certain, and perpetual.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 503–504.

William Whitaker closed his work, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, with a summary “To the Christian Reader”:

   If ever any heretics have impiously outraged the holy scripture of God, we may justly rank the papists of our time with this class of men, who pervert things the most sacred. For, not to mention how insultingly most of them speak, and how meanly they think, of the scriptures, and to pass by at present the insane slanders of certain of them, (because I would not hurt your pious ears with the foul speeches these men have uttered,) there are especially six opinions concerning scripture which they now hold and obstinately defend, that are eminently absurd, heretical, and sacrilegious.
   The first concerns the number of canonical and truly inspired books of scripture; since, not content with those which in the old Testament were published by the prophets, in the new by the apostles and evangelists—the chosen organs of the Spirit, they add to this fair and perfect body of canonical scripture, not only the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, but even the history of the Maccabees, the apocryphal stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, and fragments of Esther, than which nothing more spurious can be imagined.
   The second is, their placing the authentic scripture in the old Latin translation, which they call the Vulgate, and not in the sacred Hebrew and Greek originals: which is not merely, as Glaucus with Diomede [Iliad, vi. 234—236.], to exchange gold for brass, but to prefer the work of man to that of God. Who can doubt that Glaucus was a wise man compared with these? Brasen arms are as fit for all warlike purposes as golden; but who would not choose to learn true religion from the words of the Holy Ghost rather than from those of a translator—especially such a translator, and draw the water which he drinks from a spring, and not a cistern? Besides, in forbidding the people to read the scriptures, and performing their service in a strange language, they plainly take away all mutual converse of God with the people, and the people with God, and interrupt the intercourse and communion of the Deity with man.
   The third is, their determining that the authority of scripture depends upon the voice and testimony of the church, and their teaching that the scripture is no scripture to us except on account of the sentence of the church; which is just the same as Tertullian formerly so wittily charged upon the heathen, Apol. c. 5: “With you divinity depends on human choice. God is no God, unless it so pleases man. Man must now be kind to God.” It is absolutely thus that the papists maintain, that the scriptures would be no scriptures to us, if the church did not give them their authority, and approve them by her judgment.
   The fourth is, their complaining of the incredible obscurity of the scriptures, not for the purpose of rousing men to diligence in studying and perusing them, but to bring the scriptures into hatred and subject them to wicked suspicions: as if God had published his scriptures as Aristotle did his books of Physics, for no one to understand. “Know that they are published, and yet not published; for they are only intelligible to those who have heard myself.”
   The fifth is their refusal to have controversies decided by scripture, or to allow scripture to be its own interpreter, making the pope of Rome the solo judge of controversies and of scripture: as if scripture were of no force without the pope, could hold no sense but what it received from the pope, nor even speak but what the pope saw good; or as if God did not speak to us, but only by the pope as his interpreter.
   The sixth is, their asserting the doctrine of scripture, which is most full and absolutely perfect, to be incomplete; and therefore not only joining innumerable unwritten traditions, whereof their was no mention in the bible, with scripture, but even setting them on a level with scripture in dignity, utility, authority, credit, and necessity: wherein they fall under the weight of just so many anathemas from Christ as the traditions are which they add to scripture. Who can adequately conceive the greatness of this insult, that these rotten popish traditions, whereof there is not one syllable in scripture, should be counted equal to the scriptures?
   These monstrous errors of the papists, courteous reader, we refute in this book, not only by arguments and testimonies drawn from scripture, but also by those other proofs in which our adversaries principally confide; nor do we produce merely the ancient fathers of the church as witnesses on our side, but also the schoolmen and classic authors of the papists, who though, as the apostle says, they “held the truth in unrighteousness,” yet left it not without witness.

—William Whitaker, Disputations on the Holy Scriptures (Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 705–707.

You’ll notice that Whitaker wastes no time with soft, conciliatory words, but calls the “papist” doctrines what they are: insulting to scripture, “absurd, heretical, and sacrilegious,” “monstrous errors,” “under . . . anathemas from Christ.” There is no hint of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, only proof that such fellowship is not possible (2 Corinthians 6:14). This leads us to ask, what has happened to the church today? Where is the resolve to “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering” (Hebrews 10:23), to “guard what has been entrusted to you” (1 Timothy 6:20)? God help us to know the truth, and to stand firm in it — for the sake of the gospel and the souls of men, for the glory of God.