Book Review of
A Disputation on Holy Scripture
By William Whitaker (1588)
1. Bibliographic Information
- Title: A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton
- Author: William Whitaker
- Original Publication Date: 1588 (Several later reprints)
- Length: In its modern edited forms, the treatise often runs several hundred pages.
- Publisher (Modern): Various reprint editions exist, including Titus Books (2013).
2. Overview / Introduction
William Whitaker’s A Disputation on Holy Scripture stands as a rigorous Protestant polemic against Roman Catholic positions on the nature, scope, and authority of the Bible. Written in 1588, this treatise crystallizes the Reformed position on Scripture during the late sixteenth century, particularly in direct response to the Counter-Reformation’s more recent claims. Although Whitaker engages various Roman apologists, his principal interlocutor is Robert Bellarmine, the influential Jesuit theologian whose arguments for the expanded canon and the Church’s magisterial authority had gained considerable traction.
Whitaker, then a distinguished scholar at Cambridge, systematically dismantles Bellarmine’s positions on such issues as the number of canonical books, the authority and perspicuity of Scripture, and the role of tradition. The author’s style is dense, erudite, and replete with references to Scripture, Church Fathers, and scholastic authorities. A Disputation on Holy Scripture thus offers a thorough snapshot of confessional Reformed views at the close of the Elizabethan era, vigorously defending what would later be codified in historic Protestant confessions.
Crucially, Whitaker undergirds his theses with the claim that Scripture alone is the final rule of faith and practice. This work profoundly shaped the subsequent centuries of debate regarding the canon, biblical inspiration, and interpretative authority. Modern readers who champion “Confessional Bibliology”—which insists that the Bible’s scope and authority were providentially preserved and recognized by the church—will find in Whitaker’s text an early systematic articulation of that position, albeit framed in a contentious, sixteenth-century style.
3. Chapter-by-Chapter (or Thematic) Summary
Whitaker’s volume, in its classical structure, is commonly divided into major sections corresponding to six overarching “Questions” regarding Scripture: (1) the number of canonical books, (2) versions in the vulgar tongue, (3) the authority of Scripture, (4) the perspicuity of Scripture, (5) the interpretation of Scripture, and (6) its perfection against traditions.
Number of Canonical Books
Whitaker initiates the disputation by examining which books should be considered truly canonical. He refutes the Council of Trent’s decree (1546) that included the so-called “deuterocanonical” or Apocryphal writings. Drawing on patristic testimonies (notably Jerome), on Jewish witness (Josephus, the Hebrew canon), and on internal evidence of the books themselves, Whitaker concludes that the Apocryphal texts (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, plus certain “additions” to Daniel and Esther) do not meet the criteria for canonical inclusion.Versions in the Vulgar Tongue
He turns next to the question of biblical translation. Rejecting the claim that the Vulgate alone constitutes the “authentic edition,” Whitaker advocates for the permissibility—indeed, necessity—of reading Scripture in the common languages of God’s people. He draws from patristic tradition, the examples of the apostles quoting Greek or even Targumic versions, and the principle that Scripture is addressed to all Christians, not just a clerical elite.Authority of Scripture
Here Whitaker asserts the supreme authority of the Bible over all tradition, popes, or councils. He engages Bellarmine’s arguments that an ecclesiastical ratification or magisterium is necessary to endow Scripture with credibility. Whitaker insists, on the contrary, that Scripture is self-authenticating, inspired by God, and recognized (not created) by the Church. He cites numerous Fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, Athanasius) who taught that Scripture has inherent authority, not dependent on human decree.Perspicuity of Scripture
Whitaker challenges the Roman position that Scripture is too obscure to be plainly read by the laity. He acknowledges difficult passages but argues that the essential doctrines—especially those bearing on salvation—shine forth in clarity. By highlighting how Christ enjoins all to “search the Scriptures,” and how the Fathers often presume lay understanding of biblical truths, Whitaker defends a robust notion of scriptural clarity.Interpretation of Scripture
The fifth section addresses how believers should properly interpret the Bible. Whitaker insists that the Holy Spirit is the supreme guide to interpretation, ordinarily working through ordinary means: grammatical study, knowledge of biblical languages, historical context, and cross-referencing of texts (the analogy of faith). He rejects the notion that final interpretive authority resides in a single ecclesiastical tribunal.Perfection of Scripture Against Traditions
In the final part, Whitaker tackles the question of whether extrabiblical traditions can carry the same weight as Scripture. He dissects numerous claims about oral tradition and Apostolic unwritten teachings. He likewise examines alleged “ecclesiastical traditions” such as prayers for the dead, the cult of saints, and certain rites. Concluding that these cannot be equated with God’s inscripturated Word, he upholds Scripture’s sufficiency (or “perfection”), a hallmark of what later confessions would term “sola scriptura.”
Throughout these chapters, Whitaker’s method remains consistent: (a) he cites Roman Catholic arguments, often referencing Bellarmine’s texts, (b) marshals patristic, biblical, and rational evidence to refute them, and (c) presses the point that Scripture’s own witness must govern the Church rather than vice versa.
4. Strengths
Exegetical Depth and Patristic Engagement
Whitaker demonstrates astonishing familiarity with both Scripture in the original languages and the voluminous writings of the early Fathers. His argumentation rarely rests on mere assertion; he compiles, organizes, and interprets texts with thoroughness. For readers seeking a deep Reformed apologetic on the canon and scriptural authority, this is a valuable resource.Systematic Clarity
Dividing the “disputation” into six major questions provides a logical framework, making the treatise more navigable. Despite occasional digressions, his method generally moves from critical premise to elaborate proof, culminating in robust conclusions.Direct Refutation of Bellarmine and Stapleton
While many sixteenth-century Protestant works remain vague about Roman Catholic interlocutors, Whitaker explicitly engages Bellarmine, perhaps the Roman Church’s most formidable contemporary theologian. This direct approach illuminates the controversies of the time and offers the modern scholar a precise snapshot of post-Reformation polemics.Affirmation of the Hebrew Canon
Whitaker’s consistent emphasis on the Hebrew canon’s closure—coupled with references to Josephus, Talmudic evidence, and the rhetorical question of “Where is the prophet who authored these Apocrypha?”—helps anchor the Reformed confessional stance that only 39 books belong to the Old Testament. Such a line of argument is integral to Confessional Bibliology, which holds that God’s providence protected and recognized the canonical texts from the earliest eras of redemptive history.Earnest Pastoral Concern
Though often overshadowed by his vigorous polemical style, Whitaker evinces a pastoral aim: he wants believers to rest their faith on a sure foundation, unburdened by the uncertainties of unwritten traditions or Apocryphal texts. He quotes Augustine’s concern about reading certain spurious materials “with sobriety” and echoes that caution, thereby showing a practical awareness of the danger of conflating human tradition with the voice of God.
5. Weaknesses
Polemic Excess and Redundancy
The text, reflective of sixteenth-century scholastic disputation, can be repetitive. Whitaker wields a rhetorical style that modern readers may find tedious, rehashing the same patristic quotes at length. At times, he attacks minor details of Roman Catholic arguments with extreme vigor, potentially overshadowing bigger theological principles.Occasional Over-Dependence on Jerome
While Jerome’s authority in matters of biblical canon is indeed weighty, Whitaker sometimes leans heavily on him without fully exploring dissenting patristic opinions. For instance, Augustine’s more favorable stance on “Deuterocanonical” texts is handled but never truly engaged with the same nuance as Jerome’s.Selective Reading of Historical Councils
Whitaker dismisses certain councils (e.g., Florence, Trent) as “no legitimate councils.” Although consistent with his overall approach, this blanket dismissal occasionally under-explains why these assemblies’ rulings might be invalid. A modern academic might wish for more thorough historical context, though we must remember that Whitaker is producing a direct polemic.Insufficient Distinction between Canonical Reception and Inspiration
Although Whitaker thoroughly demonstrates that Apocryphal books were not received by the ancient Jewish or Christian communities, he occasionally fails to separate the historical recognition process from theological arguments about inspiration. While he successfully indicates that no prophet authored the Apocrypha, the deeper question of how the Holy Spirit testifies to canonicity is not as fully developed as some contemporary theologians might prefer.Occasional Conflation of Church Fathers
In a few instances, Whitaker’s citations blur the differences among earlier Fathers’ approaches to the Apocrypha. While most such confusion is minor, certain passages might leave a less-informed reader believing that the Patristic consensus against the expanded canon was more uniform than it actually was, though Whitaker does note exceptions (like Augustine).
6. Conclusion / Final Assessment
Overall Impression
A Disputation on Holy Scripture provides a thorough and logically rigorous defense of the Reformed approach to the biblical canon, translation, and interpretation. Whitaker’s relentless focus on the Apocrypha—demonstrating its non-prophetic origins, its exclusion by the Hebrews, and the suspicious historical contradictions in texts like Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees—remains a cornerstone in the confessional Protestant stance on Scripture. The treatise’s direct engagement with Bellarmine grants it historical significance, capturing the frontline of post-Tridentine theological debate.
Key Takeaways
- Scripture’s Self-Authenticating Status: Whitaker reaffirms the principle that the Bible is authoritative by virtue of divine inspiration, not ecclesial endorsement, thereby undercutting the Roman Catholic argument that councils define canonicity.
- Apocrypha’s Canonical Deficiencies: By highlighting internal contradictions, historical uncertainties, and the unanimous Jewish rejection of these texts, Whitaker shows that they lack the clear credentials of canonical Scripture.
- Christ’s and the Apostles’ Testament to the Hebrew Canon: A major refrain is that our Lord and His apostles (and, historically, the earliest Christians) recognized only the 39 books of the Old Testament.
- Clarity and Readiness of Scripture: Whitaker joins the broader Reformed tradition in championing Scripture’s relative perspicuity and the importance of vernacular translations.
Compatibility with Confessional Bibliology
Assessing A Disputation on Holy Scripture by Confessional Bibliology’s yardstick—i.e., how fully it upholds that the church recognized a divinely preserved, closed canon—yields a high score. Whitaker robustly defends the canonical boundary, excluding Apocryphal works, and aligns with the historic recognition of the 66-book Bible. He further anchors the argument in the earliest Christian and Jewish testimonies, thus buttressing the claim that the canon was never truly uncertain. Indeed, he contends that the Holy Spirit’s guidance and the consistent usage by the covenant community are sufficient to identify the true canon, making him a stalwart proponent of Confessional Bibliology.
Rating
In light of Confessional Bibliology, Whitaker’s treatise is highly consistent with the classic Reformed confession that the canon is self-authenticating, recognized by the church but not made canonical by it, and closed to Apocryphal additions. On a scale reflecting alignment with confessional doctrines of Scripture, A Disputation on Holy Scripture merits a 9.5/10 for its unwavering stance, historical detail, and sustained biblical argumentation.
Final Reflections
Whitaker’s polemic remains a hallmark in Reformed scholarship, offering an enduring resource for those contending anew with questions about the canon and biblical authority. Although modern readers may find certain rhetorical devices or historical allusions dated, the essential arguments remain remarkably relevant. For theologians, historians, or confessional pastors seeking a historical foundation for the Protestant scriptural canon, A Disputation on Holy Scripture stands as a formidable, if dense, testimonial to the Reformation’s unwavering trust in the sufficiency, clarity, and divine preservation of God’s Word.
