For those who make scripture authentic, make it canonical; since it is only authentic scripture that is canonical, and it is canonical, because it is authentic. Now they have made their scripture authentic, forasmuch as it was not authentic previously. Therefore they make scripture canonical ; which yet they confess not to be placed in the power and judgment of the church.
— William Whitaker (1548-1595, from Whitaker’s Disputation on Scripture)
In this citation, Whitaker clearly connects canon and text. He is making an argument regarding the absurdity of Rome claiming the Latin Vulgate to be authentic (over the Greek and Hebrew) at the Council of Trent. He is saying that the Vulgate was not considered as authentic and thus canonical before Trent. How then could that which was not before considered by the church to be authentic/canonical for many long centuries now be considered by her as authentic/canonical?
In so doing, they, by their power, would logically make the Scripture canonical which is something even Rome doesn’t claim. Rather, Rome claim’s she is able to identify what is already canonical, not actually make it so. Trent’s ruling on the Latin Vulgate is then an absurdity according to Rome’s own doctrine.
Note that Whitaker clearly connects that which is canonical to the actual contents/text of the canon (it’s not just about the books!). They are one and the same. And so it was with virtually every Protestant work of the 16th and 17th centuries regarding the canon. The separation of canon and text is a modern development.