The Rev. Dr. Bill Dickson on Anglicanism, Inerrancy, and William Whitaker

from Stand Firm by Matt Kennedy

via email

I had occasion recently to do some research on William Whitaker's classic work, "A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton" (1588) I was particularly interested in his defense of the scripture's perspicuity against the opposing arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine. Thus, the paper I read in Charleston recently at the Mere Anglicanism Conference was entitled, "William Whitaker’s Caveats: Or the Clarity of the Scriptures as Something other than Semantic Transparency." More on that some other time. But I would like to point out here and now that I cannot discern a hairsbreadth difference between Whitaker's understanding of the Scripture's inerrancy and that of the Chicago Statement.

Why is that significant? For two reasons.

By any measure Whitaker's work towers above all others as the definitive Anglican treatment of the place of the Bible in Anglican thought and practice. Secondly, one often hears that the Chicago statement was framed in language and categories which take as their given the rationalism of the Enlightenment. But Whitaker's great work was written in 1588.

Nice hardback available here, Kindle version here, free on google books here...on pp. 36-8 one reads,

At the same time that we justly condemn the heresies which I have mentioned, we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen into mistakes. That some of the ancients were of this opinion appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in opposition to them3, " that the evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that which is the result of forgetfulness." (De Cons. Ev. Lib. n. c. 12.) Consequently, Jerome judged wrong, if he really judged, as Erasmus supposes4, "that the evangelists might have fallen into an error of memory." Erasmus himself, indeed, determines that it is neither impious nor absurd to think so; and allows it possible that Matthew, for instance, in that place of his 27th chapter, may have put the name of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Upon which place Erasmus writes thus: " But although this were a slip of memory merely in the name, I do not suppose that one ought to be so over-scrupulous as that the authority of the whole scripture should seem invalidated on that account5.'" But it does not become us to be so easy and indulgent as to concede that such a lapse could be incident to the sacred writers. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. i. 21. And all scripture is inspired of God, as Paul expressly writes, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Whereas, therefore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or err, in any respect. Here, then, it becomes us to be so scrupulous as not to allow that any such slip can be found in scripture. For, whatever Erasmus may think, it is a solid answer which Augustine gives to Jerome: " If any, even the smallest, lie be admitted in the scriptures, the whole authority of scripture is presently invalidated and destroyed6." That form which the prophets use so often, " Thus saith the Lord," is to be attributed also to the apostles and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever things they wrote; whose grace (as Ambrose writes, Lib. n. in Luc.) "knows nothing of slow struggles1." Hence neither can that be tolerated which Melchior Canus has alleged, (Lib. n. c."18. ad 6) in explanation of a certain difficulty in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. vii. 16; where Stephen says, that Abraham bought a sepulchre from the sons of Emmor, whereas Moses relates that the sepulchre was purchased by Jacob, not by Abraham. Canus thinks that Stephen might have made a mistake in relating so long a history, but that Luke committed no error, since he faithfully recorded what Stephen said2. But that answer draws the knot tighter, instead of loosing it: for Stephen was not only full of the Holy Ghost, but is even said to have spoken by the Holy Ghost. Acts vi. 10. Stephen, therefore, could no more have mistaken than Luke; because the Holy Ghost was the same in Luke and in Stephen, and had no less force in the one than in the other. Besides, if we concede that Stephen mistook or was deceived, I do not see how he can excuse Luke for not rectifying the error. Therefore we must maintain intact the authority of scripture in such a sense as not to allow that anything is therein delivered otherwise than the most perfect truth required. Wherefore I cannot understand with what degree of prudence and consideration Jerome can have written that, which he says is to be noted, in his Questions upon Genesis: " Wherever the apostles or apostolical men speak to the people, they generally use those testimonies which had gotten into common use amongst the nations3."