The Authority of the Fathers
Are the writings of the fathers the rule of truth in doctrines of faith and in the interpretation of the Scriptures? We deny against the papists
I. Although from the preceding question we are already satisfied that the fathers cannot sit as judges in controversies of faith, yet because the papists frequently recur to them and are accustomed to obtrude upon us the consent of the fathers as a rule of truth, we must devote a separate question to this argument which is of the greatest importance in the controversies of the present day.
Who are meant by the fathers.
II. By “the fathers” we do not mean with Augustine the apostles as the first founders and patriarchs of the Christian church (Psalm 45, NPNF1, 8:153), but (in accordance with the present usage which is sanctioned by the ancients) the teachers of the primitive church who (after the death of the apostles) taught and illustrated the doctrine of salvation, orally and in writing. On account of age, they lived many years before our times; on account of doctrine (for by inculcating it upon their disciples), they begat sons to God in the church.
III. Although some extend their age down to the tenth century, we do not think it ought to be carried down further than the sixth. For it is certain that purity of doctrine and worship became greatly corrupted after the six hundredth year (in which Antichrist raised his head)—error and superstitions increasing by the just judgment of God. In the first century after the death of the apostles, the principal fathers were Ignatius and Polycarp, fragments of whose writings are extant. In the second, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. In the third, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius. In the fourth, Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom. In the fifth, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Hilary of Aries, Prosper of Aquitania, Leo I. In the sixth, Fulgentius the African, Gelasius (Cyzicus), Gregory the Great and others.
IV. There are three opinions among the papists as to the authority of the fathers. First, those who put them on an equality with the Scriptures: to which belong those decrees of the Glossator asserting, “the writings of the fathers to be authentic, individually as well as collectively” (Dist. 9+). Second (just the opposite), those who hold their writings to be merely human and therefore incapable of being a rule of faith. This was the opinion of Cajetan (“Praefatio,” Commentarii … in quinque Mosaicos libros in Sacrae Scripturae [1639], vol. 1) and of the wiser papists. Third, those who, holding a middle ground, concede that the authority of individual fathers is human and fallible, but think that the common and universal consent of the fathers in controversies is infallible and divine. This was the opinion of the Council of Trent, affirming that “the traditions of the fathers pertaining both to faith and practice must be received with an equal affection of piety with the Old and New Testaments” (Session 4, Schroeder, p. 17). And, in the same place, “It prohibits anyone from daring to interpret the Scriptures contrary to that sense which the holy mother church has held, or now holds … or even against the unanimous consent of the fathers” (Session 4, Schroeder, p. 19). Most of the papists—Stapleton, Bellarmine, Canus, Valentia and others—agree with this.
V. The orthodox (although they hold the fathers in great estimation and think them very useful to a knowledge of the history of the ancient church, and our opinion on cardinal doctrines may agree with them) yet deny that their authority, whether as individuals or taken together, can be called authoritative in matters of faith and the interpretation of the Scriptures, so that by their judgment we must stand or fall. Their authority is only ecclesiastical and subordinate to the Scriptures and of no weight except so far as they agree with them.
Statement of the question.
VI. The question is not Are the fathers to be considered witnesses, giving testimony of the consent of the ancient church and the opinion of the church in their own age? Rather the question is Are the fathers to be considered as judges, capable of deciding controversies of faith by their infallible authority? The papists maintain the latter; we hold the former. When we dispute at any time from the fathers against our adversaries, we use them only as witnesses, to approve by their vote the truth believed by us and to declare the belief of the church in their time. We do not use them as judges whose opinion is to be acquiesced in absolutely and without examination and as the standard of truth in doctrines of faith or in the interpretation of the Scriptures.
The fathers cannot be judges.
VII. The reasons are: (1) the fathers, regarded either separately as individuals or collectively, were not prophets or apostles who, acting through an immediate call and endowed with extraordinary gifts, had the privilege of infallibility; rather they were men fallible and exposed to error, of imperfect knowledge and capable of being influenced by hearty zeal and swayed by their feelings. Nor did that mediate calling with which they were furnished place them beyond the danger of error. Not only could they err, but they often undoubtedly did err on many vital points, whether as individuals or taken together. This might readily be proved, if the papists themselves did not agree with us here; as Bellarmine who confesses that even the most learned fathers seriously erred in many things (VD 3.3, 10, pp. 101–3, 111–14), contradict each other (“De Christo,” 2.2 in Opera Omnia [1856], 1:201–2) and that they all sometimes are blind (ibid.). Sixtus Senensis confirms this (“Praefatio” to Book 5, Bibliotheca Sancta [1575], vol. 2; cf. Salmeron, Commentarii in evangelicam historiam [1602–04], vol. 13, Part 3, Disputatio 6, pp. 206–9).
VIII. (2) The writings of the fathers have been in various ways corrupted and tampered with: partly through the various spurious writings circulated under the name of the fathers (which yet in the judgment of the learned are an adulterous offspring iniquitously laid at the door of the fathers) or through the artifice of sycophants, or the frauds and impostures of heretics, or the base love-of-gain (aischrokerdeian) of printers or booksellers; partly through corruption and falsification creeping into their genuine writings. These have evidently been corrupted in various ways, either by the injury of copyists, or the audacity of the monks, or above all through the villainy of the Jesuits in correcting, expurgating and castrating them. The learned in previous times have complained of this and our own have proved it by innumerable examples (as may be seen in Rivet, “Critici Sacri,” in Opera [1651], 2:1041–1152 and Daille, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers [1856] and others who handle this argument).
IX. (3) The fathers themselves acknowledge that their writings ought not to be authoritative, nor their bare assertion in matters of religion to be absolutely decisive. Augustine says: “I confess to thy love that I have learned to give this reverence and honor to those books of Scripture alone which are now called canonical, as firmly to believe that no one of their authors erred in writing anything … but I so read the others, that however excellent in purity of doctrine, I do not therefore take a thing to be true because they thought so; but because they can persuade me, either through those canonical authors, or probable reason, that it does not differ from the truth. Nor do I think that you, my brother, are of a different opinion. I say further, I do not suppose that you wish your books to be read as if they were the writings of the prophets or apostles, which beyond a doubt are free from any error” (Letter 82, “To Jerome” [NPNF1, 1:350; PL 33.277]). “We ought not to consider the disputations of any men, though they be catholic and praiseworthy men, as canonical Scriptures, so that we may not, saving the reverence due to those men, disallow or refuse anything in their writings, if perhaps we find that they thought otherwise than the truth is. Such am I in other men’s writings, such will I that other men be understanders of my writings” (Augustine, Letter 148, “To Fortunatianus” [NPNF1, 1:502; PL 33.628–29]). “We do no injury to Cyprian when we distinguish any writings of his whatsoever from the canonical authority of the holy Scriptures. For not without cause with such healthful diligence the ecclesiastical canon is appointed, to which certain books of the prophets and apostles do pertain, which we dare not judge at all and according to which we may freely judge of other writings either of faithful men or infidels” (Augustine, Contra Cresconium 2.31 [PL 43.489–90]). “I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not account the writings of Cyprian as canonical Scriptures, but I consider of them out of the canonical Scriptures and whatsoever in them agreeth with the authority of the Holy Scripture, I receive with his praise; but whatsoever agreeth not, I refuse it with his leave” [ibid., 2.32 (PL 43.490)]. Even more fully and strongly does he confirm the same thing: “There [i.e., in the canonical Scriptures] if anything strikes me as absurd, it is not lawful to say the author of this book held not the truth; but either the Codex is faulty or the interpreter has erred or you do not understand. But in the productions of those who lived afterwards, which are contained in numberless books, but in no way equal to the most sacred excellence of the canonical Scriptures, even in whatever one of these equal truth is found, yet their authority is far unequal” (Contra Faustum Manichaeum 11.5 [NPNF1, 4:180; PL 42.249]). In the same strain, Jerome says, “I know that I esteem the apostles differently from certain tractators [handlers]; the former as always speaking the truth, the latter as men sometimes making mistakes” (Letter 82, “To Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria” [NPNF2, 6:173; PL 22.740]). “Origen should be read occasionally, as Tertullian, Novatus and Arnobius, and some ecclesiastical writers, so that we may extract what is good from them and shun the opposite, according to the apostle’s direction, prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (Jerome,* Letter 62 [76], “Ad Tranquillanum” [NPNF2, 6:133; PL 22.606]). Jerome frequently inculcates this and with great freedom repeatedly censors the sentiments and expositions of his predecessors. Indeed he speaks of their writings thus: “If any one will speak better or even more truly, let us acquiesce freely in the better” (commenta. in Haba. et Zach., t. 5+). Likewise Ambrose testifies, “I am unwilling that you should believe me. Let the Scriptures be recited. I do not speak from myself because in the beginning was the word, but I hear. I do not attach, but I read” (The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 3 [FC 44:224; PL 16.857]). Also Cyril, “Do not attend to my fluent comments for possibly you may be deceived; but unless you receive the testimony of the prophets to each particular, you must not believe my words” (Catechetical Lectures [NPNF2, 7:73; PG 33.730]).
X. (4) Papists themselves reject the authority of the fathers (when opposed to them) and freely recede from them—so much is their recognition of them as judges in matters of faith worth. More passages to prove this could be adduced than those already referred to in Bellarmine, Sixtus Senensis and Salmeron. Speaking of his commentaries on the Scriptures, Cajetan says, “If at any time a new sense agreeing with the text occurs, and not contrary either to the Scriptures or to the doctrine of the church, although perhaps it differs from that which is given by the whole current of the holy doctors, I wish the readers not too hastily to reject it, but rather to censure charitably. Let them remember to give every man his due. There are none but the authors of the holy Scriptures alone to whom we attribute such authority, as that we ought to believe whatsoever they have written.” “But as for others,” says Augustine, “of however great sanctity and learning they may have been, I so read them that I do not believe what they have written merely because they have written it” (Letter 82, “To Jerome” [FC 12:392; PL 33.277]). Melchior Cano after having said from Augustine that only the holy Scriptures are exempt from all error, further adds, “But there is no man, however holy or learned, who is not sometimes deceived, who does not sometimes dote or sometimes slip” (“De Locis theolgicis,” 7.3, num. 3 in Opera [1605], p. 353). And afterwards, “We should therefore read the ancient fathers with all due reverence; yet, as they were but men, with discrimination and judgment” (ibid.). “To follow the ancients in all things, and to tread everywhere in their steps as little children do in play, is nothing else but to disparage our own parts and to confess ourselves to have neither judgment nor skill enough for searching into the truth. No, let us follow them as guides, but not as masters” (ibid., num. 10, p. 359). In his comments on the gospels, Maldonatus often says, “So almost all the fathers explain it, with whom indeed I cannot agree” (Commentary on the Holy Gospels: Matthew [1888], 2:34, 136, 179–80 on Mt. 16:18, 19:11, 20:22). Petavius says, “The fathers were men. They had their failings and we ought not maliciously to search after their errors that we may lay them open to the world; but that we may take the liberty to note them whenever they come in our way, to the end that none be deceived by them; and that we ought no more to maintain or defend their errors than we ought to imitate their vices, if at least they had any” (“Animadversiones in Epiphanium cum Appendice Gemina,” in Opera [1682], 2:205, 244, 285). Baronius frequently blames and refutes the fathers most freely whenever they happen to hold a different opinion from his own. If then our adversaries are discovered to so recklessly despise and trample under foot even the approved fathers whenever they do not agree with them, with what face can they insist upon their being heard as judges in our controversies?
Sources of explanation.
XI. What all the doctors deliver by unanimous consent according to the word of God, the universal church can and ought to believe. But if they do not speak out of the word, but rather against it, so far is the church from being bound to receive it that she is rather bound to anathematize them (Gal. 1:8).
XII. Although the fathers who were nearest to the age of the apostles were necessarily the purest, it does not follow that their writings can be considered as a rule of truth with the apostolic writings. The gift of infallibility was the peculiar distinction (axiōma) of the apostleship and cannot belong to their successors who were not furnished with the same gifts.
XIII. The unity of the church may be properly preserved by the unity of faith delivered in the Scriptures, not by the consent of the fathers (which is difficult and almost impossible to ascertain).
XIV. The obedience due to rulers (Heb. 13:17) is not blind and brute, so that we should yield ourselves to everything they say or write. Rather it should be rational, listening to them speaking and delivering the oracles of God which they have received from Christ (Mt. 28:20; 1 Cor. 11:23).
XV. Although we are unwilling to acknowledge the fathers as judges in matters of faith, we do not therefore mean that their authority is null. For they can be of great use (if not to the formation of faith, at least to its illustration and confirmation) to obtain testimony concerning the faith of the ancient church and to convince us that the papists rather boast of the consent of the fathers than follow it. Further that the doctrines which the papists obtrude upon us from tradition contrary to the Scriptures were unheard of in the first centuries.
XVI. In vain do the papists allege the consent of the fathers for the judgment of controversies and the interpretation of Scripture. (1) Even if it could be ascertained, it would make only a human and probable argument (such as might be obtained from the responses of prudent men), but not a necessary and absolute one (anypeuthynon), for even the fathers themselves submitted to the judgment of the Scriptures. (2) If not impossible, it is at least most difficult to get such a consent. Nor is that way (so lengthy and intricate and involved in such a labyrinth of volumes) fitted for terminating controversies especially since it is almost impossible to know what the ancients thought about our controversies. This follows: (a) because we have very few writings of the ancient fathers (especially of the first, second and third centuries, which nevertheless are those we are most especially to regard as nearest to the age of the apostles). For those writings of the first three centuries which are extant for the most part treat of subjects widely remote from our controversies and refer to them only in passing and in relation to some other thing. And this follows (b) because the fathers often differ one from another and are not always consistent with themselves in the same matters of faith. They often change their opinions, advancing in the knowledge of the truth with age and, when old, retracting the opinions they held in their youth.
XVII. We do not despise and treat the fathers injuriously when we deny to them that supreme power of judging. Indeed we must take care not to rob them of their just praise, but much more not to defer to them too much (there is more danger of the latter than of the former). Yea, if they could come forth from their graves, they could not endure the attribution of such authority to them and would sharply rebuke us in the words of the apostles to the Lycaonians (who would needs render them divine honor)—“we also are men of like passions [homoiopatheis] with you” (Acts 14:14, 15). They frequently declare that they wrote not to give authoritative rules, but to be useful. Thus they should be read not with a necessity of believing, but with the liberty of judging. They also openly acknowledge that their works are in no way to be placed on an equality with the authority of the most holy Scriptures (as Augustine says, Contra Faustum Manichaeum 11.5 [NPNF1, 4:180] and Contra Cresconium 2.31 [PL 43.489–90]).
XVIII. Therefore we gather that the fathers neither can nor ought to be regarded as judges in our controversies, but as witnesses who (by their wonderful consent) give testimony to the truth of Christianity and prove (by their silence or even by weighty reasons) the falsity of the doctrines introduced by the papists beyond and contrary to the Scriptures. Their writings must be respectfully received and may be read with profit. Yet at the same time they cannot have any other than our ecclesiastical and human authority (i.e., subordinate and dependent on the Scriptures).
Turretin, Francis. 1992–1997. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison Jr. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Vol. 1. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.