Concerning the Right Use of the Fathers in Controversies, Book 2 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
That the Fathers are not of ſufficient Authority for the Deciding of our Controverſies in Religion.
Reaſon I. That the Teſtimonies given by the Fathers, touching the Belief of the Church, are not always True and Certain.
WE have before ſhewed how hard a matter it is to diſcover what the Senſe of the Fathers hath been touching the Points at this day controverted in Religion; both by reaſon of the ſmall number of Books we have left us of the Fathers of the Firſt Centuries; and thoſe too which we have, treating of ſuch things as are of a very different nature from our preſent Diſputes; and which beſides we cannot be very well aſſured of, by reaſon of the many Forgeries and monſtrous Corruptions which they have for ſo long a time been ſubject to; as alſo by reaſon of their Obſcurity, and Ambiguity in their Expreſſions; and their repreſenting unto us many times the Opinions rather of others, than of their Authors: beſides thoſe many other Imperfections which are found in them, as namely, their not informing us in what degree of Faith we are to hold each particular Point of Doctrine; and their leaving us in doubt, whether what they teach be the Judgment of the Church, or their own private Opinion onelyonly: and whether, if it be the Judgment of the Church, it be of the Church Univerſal, or of ſome Particular Church only. Now, the leaſt of theſe Objections is ſufficient to render their Teſtimony invalid: And again, on the other ſide, that it may be of force, it is neceſſary that it be clearly and evidently free from all theſe Defects; foraſmuch as the Queſtion is here, touching the Chriſtian Faith, which ought to be grounded on nothing, ſave what is ſure and firm. Whoſoever therefore would make uſe of any Paſſage out of a Father, he is bound firſt to make it appear, that the Author out of whom he citeth the ſaid Paſſage, lived, and wrote in the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity; and beſides, that the ſaid Perſon is certainly known to be the Author of that Book out of which the ſaid Paſſage is quoted: and moreover, that the Paſſage cited is ſincere, and no way corrupted, nor altered: and likewiſe, that the Senſe which he gives of it, is the true genuine Senſe of the Place; and alſo, that it was the Opinion of the Author, when he was now come to Ripon…s of Judgment, and which he changed not, or retr…cted afterwards. He muſt alſo make it appear, in what degree he held it, and whether he maintained it as his own private Opinion onelyonly, or as the Opinion of the Church: and, laſtly, whether it were the Opinion of the Church Univerſal, or of ſome particular Church onelyonly: which Inquiry is a Buſineſs of ſo vaſt and almoſt infinite labour, that it makes me very much doubt whether or no we can be ever able to attain to a full and certain aſſurance what the Real Poſitive Senſe of the Ancients hath been, touching the whole Body of Controverſies now debated in this our Age. Hence therefore our principal Queſtion ſeems to be decided; namely, Whether the alledging of the Fathers be a ſufficient and proper Means for the demonſtrating the Truth of all thoſe Articles which are at this day maintained by the Church of Rome, and rejected by the Proteſtants, or not? For who doth not now ſee, that this kind of proof hath as much or more difficulty in it, than the Queſtion it ſelf? and that ſuch Teſtimonies are as Obſcure, as the Controverted Opinions themſelves? Notwithſtanding, that we may not be thought too haſtily, and upon too light grounds, to reject this way of Proceeding, we will paſs by all that obſcurity that is found touching the Opinions of the Ancients; and ſuppoſing it to be no hard matter to diſcover what the Opinion and Senſe of the Fathers hath been touching the aforeſaid Points, we will now in this Second Book conſider, whether or no their Authority be ſuch, as that we ought, or may, without further examination, believe on their ſcore, what we know them certainly to have believed, and to hold it in the ſame degree that they did.
There are two ſorts of Paſſages to be obſerved in the Writings of the Fathers: In the one, you have them ſpeaking only as Witneſſes, and teſtifying what the Belief of the Church was in their Time: In the other, they propoſe to you, like Doctors, their own Private Opinions. Now, there is a World of difference betwixt theſe two things: For in a Witneſs there is required only Faithfulneſs and Truth; but in a Doctor, Learning and Knowledge. The one perſwadeth us, by the opinion we have of his Veracity; the other, by the ſtrength of his Arguments. The Fathers are Witneſſes onelyonly, when they barely tell us, That the Church in their Times held ſuch or ſuch Opinions: And they are then Doctors, when getting up, as it were, into the Chair, they propoſe unto us their own Opinions, making them good either out of the Scripture, or out of Reaſon. Now, as concerning the Teſtimonies that they give, touching the Faith held by the Church in their time, I know not whether we ought to receive all they bring, for certain Truths, or not: But this I am ſure of, that though they ſhould deſerve to be received by us for ſuch, yet nevertheleſs would they ſtand us in very little ſtead, as to the Buſineſs now in hand. The Reaſon which moveth me to doubt of the former of theſe, is, becauſe I obſerve, that thoſe very Men who are the greateſt Admirers of the Fathers, do yet confeſs, that although they erre very little, or not at all, in matter of Right, yet nevertheleſs, they are often out, and have their failings in matter of Fact: becauſe that Right is an Univerſal thing, which is every way Uniform, and all of one ſort; whereas, matter of Fact is a thing which is mixed, and as it were enchaſed with divers particular Circumſtances, which may very eaſily eſcape the knowledge of, or at leaſt be not ſo rightly underſtood by, the moſt clear and piercing Wits. Now, the condition of the Churches Belief, in every particular Age, is matter of Fact, and not of Right; and a Point of Hiſtory, and not an Article of Faith: So that it followeth hence, that poſſibly the Fathers may have erred, in giving us an account hereof; and that therefore their Teſtimonies, in ſuch Caſes, ought not to be received by us, as infallibly True: Neither yet may we be thought hereby to accuſe the Fathers of Falſhood. For, how often do the honeſteſt Perſons that are, innocently teſtifie ſuch things as they thought they had ſeen, which it afterwards appeareth that they ſaw not at all? for Goodneſs renders not Men infallible. The Fathers therefore, being but Men, might both be deceived themſelves in ſuch things, and might conſequently alſo deceive thoſe who have confided in them, though innocently, and without any deſign of doing ſo. But beſides all this, it is very evident, that they have not been wholly free from Paſſion neither, and there is no Man but knows, that Paſſion very o…ten diſguiſeth things, and ma…h them appear, even to the honeſteſt Men that may be, much otherwiſe than they are; inſomuch that ſometimes they are affectionately carried away with one Opinion, and do as much abhor another. Which ſecret Paſſion might eaſily make them believe, that the Church held that Opinion, which they themſelves were moſt taken with, and that it rejected that which they themſelves diſliked; eſpecially, if there were but the leaſt appearance or ſhadow of Reaſon to incline them to this Belief: For Men are very eaſily perſwaded to believe what they deſire. I conceive we may hereto impute that Teſtimony of S. Hierome, where he affirms,*Hier. Ep. 61. de Error. Jo. Hier. Omne deinceps humanum genus quibus animarum cenſetur exordiis? utrum ex traduce, juxta bruta animalia, &c. an rationabiles creaturae deſiderio corporum, &c. an cerrè, quod Eccleſiaſticum eſt, quotidie Deus fabricetur animas: cujus velle feciſſe eſſ, & conditor eſſe non ceſſat? That the Churches of Chriſt held, That the Souls of Men were immediately Created by God, at the inſtant of their entrance into the Body. And yet notwithſtanding, that doubt which S. Auguſtine was in, touching this Particular, and his inclining manifeſtly to the contrary Opinion, which was, That the Soul was propagated together with the Body, and deſcended down from the Father to the Son; this doubt, I ſay, of his, manifeſtly proveth, that the Church had not as yet at that time embraced or concluded upon the former of theſe Opinions: it being a thing utterly improbable,Id. Apol. 2. contr. Ruff. Miraris ſi contra te fratrum ſcandala concitentur; cum id neſcire te jures, quod Chriſti Eccleſiae ſe ſcire fatentut? that ſo modeſt a Man as S. Auguſtine was, would have caſt off the general Opinion of the Church, and have taken up a particular Fancy of his own. But the Paſſion wherewith S. Hierome was at that time carried away againſt Ruffinus, a great part of the Learned Men of his time being alſo of the ſaid Opinion, eaſily wrought in him a belief, that it was the Common Judgment and Opinion of the whole Chriſtian Church. From the ſame Root alſo ſprung that Errour of John Biſhop of Theſſalonica, Joan. Theſſal in Concil. VII. Act. 5. foreign.(if at leaſt it be an Errour,) who affirmed, That the Opinion of the Church was, That Angels are not wholly Incorporeal, and Inviſible; but that they have Bodies, though of a very Rare and thin Subſtance, not much unlike thoſe of the Fire, or the Air. For thoſe who publiſhed the General Councils at Rome, conceive this to have been his own private Opinion onelyonly:aIbid in Marg. Loquitur ex propria ſententia. And if ſo, (neither ſhall we need at preſent to examine the Truth of this their Conceit;) you then plainly ſee, that the Affection this Author bare to his own Opinion, carried him ſo far away, as to make him father upon the whole Church, what was indeed but his own particular Opinion: though otherwiſe he were a Man who was highly eſteemed by the VII Council, bConcil. VII. Act. 5.which not onelyonly citeth him among the Fathers, but honours him alſo with the Title of a Father. Epiphanius muſt alſo be excuſed in the ſame manner, where he aſſures us, That the Church held by Apoſtolical Tradition the Cuſtom which it had of meeting together thrice a Week, for the Celebration of the Holy Euchariſt: which yetcPetav. in Epiphan pag 354. Petavius maketh evidently appear not to have been of Apoſtolical Inſtitution. The Miſtakes of Venerable Bede, noted and cenſured elſewhere bydPetav. in Epiphan▪ p. 113, 143, 145. Petavius, are of the fame nature alſo:eBeda lib. de Temp. rat. c 45 Habet enim, niſi… fallor, Eccleſiae fides, Dominum, in carne paulo plus minùs quam XXXIII annis, uſque ad ſuae tempora. Paſſionis vixiſſe. Mox Sancta ſiquidem Romana & Apoſtolica Eccleſia hane ſe fidem tenere & ipſis teſtatur indiculis, quae ſuis in cereis annuatim inſcribere ſolet, ubi tempus Dominicae Paſſionis in memoriam populis revocans, numerum annorum triginta ſemper & tribus annis minorem quam ab ejus Incarnatione Dionyſius ponit anno at. Id. ibid. Nam quod Dominus XV Luna, feria VI, crucem aſcenderit, &c. nulli licet dubitare Catholico. The Belief of the Church, if I miſtake not, (ſaith he) is, That our Saviour Chriſt lived in the Fleſh Thirty three Years, or there about, till the time of his Paſſion: And he ſaith moreover, That the Church of Rome teſtifieth, that this is Its Belief, by the Marks which they yearly ſet upon their Tapers, upon Good Friday; whereon they always inſcribe a Number of Tears, which is leſs by Thirty three than the common Aera of the Chriſtians. He likewiſe ſaith in the ſame place, That it is not lawful for any Catholick to doubt whether Jeſus Chriſt ſuffered on the Croſs the XV day of the Moon, or not. Now Petavius hath proved at large, that both theſe Opinions, which Beda delivers unto us as the Churches Belief, are nothing leſs than what he would have them.*Pe…av. in Epiphan. p. 113. 143. The curious Reader may obſerve many the like Carriages in the Writings of the Fathers: but theſe here already ſet down, in my judgment, do ſufficiently juſtifie the doubt which I have made, namely, that we ought not to receive as Certain Truths the Teſtimony which the Fathers give, touching the Belief of the Church in their Time. Nevertheleſs, that we may not ſeem to make a breach upon the Honour and Reputation of the Fathers, I ſay, that though we ſhould grant, that all their Depoſitions and Teſtimonies in this Particular were certainly and undoubtedly True; yet notwithſtanding would they be of little uſe to us, as to our preſent purpoſe. For, firſt of all, there are but very few Paſſages wherein they teſtifie plainly, and in direct Terms, what the Belief of the Church in their Time hath been, touching the Points now controverted amongſt us. This is the Buſineſs of an Hiſtorian, rather than of a Doctor of the Church, whoſe Office is to teach, to prove, and to exhort the People committed to his Charge, and to correct their Vices and Errours; telling them what they ought to do, or believe, rather than troubling them with Diſcourſes of what is done or believed by others. But yet when they do give their Teſtimony what the Belief and Diſcipline of the Church in their time was, this Teſtimony of theirs ought not to extend ſave onelyonly to what was apparently ſuch, and which beſides was apparent to themſelves too. Now, as we have formerly proved, they could not poſſibly know the Senſe and Opinions of every particular Chriſtian that lived in their time; nor yet of all the Paſtors and Miniſters who were ſet over them: but of ſome certain Particular Chriſtians onelyonly. Foraſmuch therefore as it is confeſſed, even by thoſe very Men who have the Church in greateſt eſteem, that the Belief of Particular Churches is not infallible, we may very eaſily perceive, that ſuch Teſtimonies of the Fathers as theſe can ſtandus in very little or no ſtead, ſeeing they repreſent unto us ſuch Opinions as are not always certainly and undoubtedly True, and which conſequently are ſo far from confirming and proving ours, as that, they rather ſtand in need of being examined aud proved themſelves. But, yet, ſuppoſe that the Church of Rome did hold, that the Beliefs of Particular Churches were Infallible, (which yet it doth not) yet would not this make any thing at all againſt the Proteſtants, foraſmuch as they are of the clean contrary Opinion. Now, it is taken for granted on all hands, that Proofs ought to be fetched from ſuch things as are confeſſed and acknowledged by your Adverſary, whom you endeavour to convince; otherwiſe you will never be able to move him, or make him quit his former Opinion. Seeing therefore, that the Teſtimonies of the Farthers, touching the State of the Faith, and Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline of their Times, are of this Nature; it remaineth, that we now conſider their other Diſcourſes, wherein they have delivered themſelves, not as Witneſſes, depoſing what they had ſeen; but as Doctors, inſtructing us in what they believed. And certainly, how Holy and Able ſoever they were, it cannot be denied but that they were ſtill Men, and conſequently were ſubject to Error, eſpecially in matters of Faith, which is a Buſineſs ſo much tranſcending Humane Apprehenſion. The Spirit of God onelyonly was able to direct their Underſtandings, and their Pens in the Truth, and to withhold them from falling into any Error; in like manner as it directed the Holy Prophets and Apoſtles, while they wrote the Books of the Old and New Teſtament. Now, we cannot be any way aſſured, that the Spirit of God was preſent always with them, to enlighten their Underſtandings, and to make them ſee the Truth of all thoſe things whereof they wrote. They neither pretend to this themſelves, nor yet doth any one, that I know of, attribute unto them this Aſſiſtance, unleſs it be perhaps the Author of the Gloſs upon the Decrees, *Gloſſ in Decr. D. 9. c. 3. Hodie jubentur omnia teneri, uſ que ad ultimum iota.who is of Opinion, that we ought to ſtand to all that the Fathers have written, even to the leaſt tittle: who yet is very juſtly called to a round account for this, by*Alphonſ. à Caſtr. l. 1. adverſ. Haer. c. 7. Alphonſus à Caſtro, and*Melch. Canus l. 7. loc. Theol. c. 3. Num. 4. Melchior Canus, Two Spaniſh Doctors. For as much therefore, as we are not bound to believe any thing, ſave that which is True; it is moſt evident, that we neither may, nor ought to believe the Opinions of the Fathers, till ſuch time as they appear to us to have been certainly True. Now, we cannot be certainly aſſured of this, by Their Single Authority; ſeeing that they were but Men, who were not always inſpired by the Holy Spirit from above: and therefore it is neceſſary, that we make uſe of ſome other Guides in this our Inquiry; namely, either of the Holy Scriptures, or of Reaſon, or of Tradition, or of the Doctrine of the Preſent Church, or of ſome other ſuch means, as they themſelves have made uſe of: So that it hence follows, that their bare Aſſertions, are no ſufficient Ground for us to build any of our Opinions upon: they only ſerve to encline us before hand to the Belief of the ſame; the great opinion which we have of them, cauſing us to conclude, that They would never have embraced ſuch an Opinion, except it had been True. Which manner of Argumentation how ever is, at the beſt, but Probable; ſo long as the Perſons we have here to do withal, are only Men, and no more: and in this particular Caſe, where the Queſtion is, touching Points of Faith, it is by no means in the world to be allowed of; ſince that Faith is to be grounded, not upon Probabilities, but upon neceſſary Truths. The Fathers are like to other great Maſters in this Point, and their Opinions are more, or leſs Valid, in proportion to the Reaſon, and Authority, whereon they are grounded: only they have this Advantage, that their very Name begets in us a readineſs, and inclination, to receive whatſoever comes from them; while we think it very improbable, that ſo Excellent men as they were, ſhould ever believe any thing that was Falſe. Thus in Humane Sciences, the ſaying of an Ariſtotle is of a far different Value, from that of any other Philoſopher of leſs Account; becauſe that all men are before-hand poſſeſſed with an Opinion, that this Great Philoſopher would not maintain any thing, that was not conſonant to Reaſon. But this is Prejudice only: for if upon better examination, it ſhould be found to be otherwiſe, his Bare Authority would then no longer prevail with us; what himſelf had ſometime gallantly ſaid, would then here take place; namely, That it is a ſacred thing, always to preferre the Truth,Ariſtot. in Ethic. l. 1. c. 6. foreign. before Friendſhip. Let the Fathers therefore if you pleaſe, be the Ariſtotles in Chriſtian Philoſophy: and let us have a Reverent eſteem of Them and their Writings, as they deſerve; and not be too raſh in concluding, that Perſons of ſo eminent, both Learning, and Sanctity, ſhould maintain any Erroneous, or vain Opinions, eſpecially in a matter of ſo great Importance: Yet notwithſtanding are we bound withal to remember, that they were but Men, and that their Memory, Underſtanding, or Judgment, might ſometimes fail them; and therefore conſequently, that we are to examine their Writings, by thoſe Principles from whence they draw their Concluſions; and not to ſit down upon their Bare Aſſertions, till ſuch time as we have diſcovered them to be True. If I were to ſpeak of any other Perſons than of the Fathers, I ſhould not add any thing more, to what hath been already ſaid, it having been already, in my judgment, clearly enough proved, that they are not of themſelves of Authority enough, to oblige us neceſſarily to follow their Opinions. But ſeeing the Queſtion here is, touching theſe great Names, which are ſo highly honoured in the Church; to the end that no man may accuſe us of endeavouring to rob them of any of the Reſpect which is due unto them, I hold it neceſſary to examine this buſineſs a little more exactly, and to make it appear, by conſidering the thing it ſelf, that they are of no more Authority, neither in Themſelves, nor in reſpect of Us, than hath been already by Us attributed unto them.