De Moor II:46: The Use of the Fathers in Interpretation, Part 1

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

Controversy is agitated with the Papists concerning the use and authority of the Fathers in the explaining of Sacred Scriptures and in matters of faith.  The Fathers, as it is well-known, are wont to be called the Doctors/Teachers of the Ancient Christian Church, who both in word and in writing set forth the doctrine of salvation, vindicating the same against the enemies of truth, and committing the history of the Church to writing so that posterity might ever remember; with the rationale for the name sought both from age, for they preceded our age by many years, indeed many centuries, and hence they are to be received as Fathers of great age; and from office and doctrine, for they begat children to God in the Church by inculcating doctrine in the disciples.  To what extent their age and succession is to be extended, all do not share one and the same opinion:  for some conclude it at the thousandth year or tenth Century after Christ, others at the sixth, yet others at the fifth or five hundredth year:  and the observation of DANÆUS and others is not able to be denied, who have observed that the doctrine and worship of Religion evidently declined in the East after CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, but in the West after AUGUSTINE.  It is especially evident that after the six hundredth year the purity of doctrine and worship, with errors and superstitions increasing by the just judgment of God, suffered a great blemish:  and that the liberty of the ministry in preserving religion was less thereafter, with the tyranny of the Papacy in Boniface III established by the Emperor Phocas soon after the beginning of the Seventh Century.[1]  Just as the later Doctors of the Church also had less authority, because they were further removed from the age of the Apostles, and were not at all equal to their predecessors in zeal for piety and in the glory of doctrine.  Inquiry is made concerning the authority of these Fathers, with their age hardly determined with sufficient certainty, in matters of faith and interpretation of Scripture.  We highly value the authority of the orthodox Fathers, and we make use of the same as Witnesses, from whose writings both the history and the doctrine of the Ancient Church, and also our agreement in matters of faith with the ancient Church, are able everywhere to be evident:  nevertheless, we recognize that their authority is only human and Ecclesiastical, which is of no weight in matters of faith, except insofar as it agrees with Scripture; indeed, in the Interpretation of Scripture it stands highly prized, yet it obliges the assent of no one.

The Papists here are divided into three parties.  There are those that equate the writings of the Fathers with Scripture, and bestow upon them almost the same faith and authority, as the Glossator Decreti on Distinction IX, chapter III, asserts that the Writings of the Fathers are authentical, both of each and of all, writing in column 29, “He speaks according to those times, when the writings of Augustine and of the other holy Fathers were not as yet authentical:  but today all are commanded to be embraced unto the last jot:”  which sentence others among the Papists expressly refute.  That is, others, on the other hand, acknowledge that their writings are merely human, which as such are not able to be the norm of truth, or the rule of the interpretation of Scripture, with Cajetan, in his preface to Quinque libros Mosis, whose words are in RIVET, opera, tome 2, page 1050.  Others, holding a middle position, concede that the individual Fathers separately have a human and fallible authority:  but either what the greater part of the Fathers understand thence from the Apostles, or especially in what there is a universal consent of all the Fathers, that they judge to be infallible and divine in the doctrines of faith and Interpretation of the Scriptures:  thus a great many of the Papists, siding with the Council of Trent, which states, Session IV, decree I, page 31b, “Traditions pertaining both to faith and to manners are to be received with an equal affection of piety as the books of the Old and New Testaments:”  and it forbids, decree II, page 33, “the interpretation of Scripture contrary to the Unanimous consent of the Fathers.”  PETRUS SUAVIS POLANUS, Historia Concilii Tridentini, book II, pages 177-180, 182, 183, records contentions of the Tridentine Fathers concerning this matter.

The Scope/Goal of the Papists, when they appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the interpretation of Scripture, our AUTHOR observes to be this, that they might decline the tribunal of Scripture, better protect their errors, and control interpretation themselves.

On this controversy read HEINRICH ALTING’S Theologiam Elencticam novam, locus II, controversy IV with the Papists, pages 73-84; TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question XXI, pages 179-184; JOHANN HEINRICH HOTTINGER’S Analecta historico-theologica, Dissertations VII, VIII, in which he supplies an Introduction to the Reading of the Fathers, and discusses the Use of the Fathers:  and his Dissertationum miscellanearum Πεντάδα, where in Dissertation I he treats of the Abuse of the Fathers, in Dissertation II he sets forth a Catalogue of Spurious Ecclesiastical Writings.  JEAN DAILLÈ’S libros duos de Usu Patrum ad ea definienda Religionis capita, quæ sunt hodie controversa:  and especially RIVET’S tractate de Patrum Auctoritate, which is set before Critici Sacri libris quattuor, opera, tome 2, pages 1047-1067, where in chapter I he teaches, What are the Fathers? What is the authority of the Fathers and for what?; in chapter II, Of what sort and extent according to the opinion of the Orthodox is the authority of the Fathers in matters of faith and manners?; in chapter III, Of what sort and extent according to the opinion of the Papists is the authority of the Fathers?; in chapters IV and V the opinions of the Papists are assessed and brought to nothing; in chapter VI by arguments and examples is shown the frailty of such a consent, of which sort the Papists boast, in the understanding of the Scriptures and in Theological disputations; in chapter VII by examples it is shown with refutation that the Papists think little of the Fathers even when agreeing completely, cast aside the interpretations of the Fathers, set the Pope before all the Fathers; in chapter VIII it is shown, How the authority of the Fathers is to be used in disputation with heretics; in chapter IX there is an admonition concerning the errors and blemishes of the Ancients; in chapter X it is taught that those Papists often note the errors and blemishes in the Fathers, and hence are unjustly angry with us for this; in chapter XI are indicated the Reasons why the Fathers sometimes speak incommodiously, and Cautions for reading the Ancients, from observations of various ones; in chapter XII it is observed that the Records of the ancient Fathers have been corrupted and adulterated in many ways formerly and at the present time; in chapter XIII it is taught that already of old, and also recently, spurious books have been ascribed to the Fathers, and various reasons for these frauds are treated; as are also in chapter XIV the indications and notes of spurious writings.  In like manner, consult BUDDEUS, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, tome 1, book II, chapter III, where he indicates who then should be understood by the name of Fathers, § 2, pages 535-537; who is able to be consulted concerning their writings, § 2, pages 537-546; what is to be embraced concerning their authority, § 9-11, 13, 14, pages 569- 601, 604-610.  While in Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, tome 2, book II, chapter VII, § 4, pages 1062-1065, he additionally warns that in this cause the Papists incorrectly appeal to VINCENT OF LERINS,[2] who in his Commonitorio commends the constant, more ancient Tradition of the Fathers as the best Rule of the Interpretation of Scripture and Controversies of Faith:  since he was more addicted to the Semi-Pelagians, in the writings of the Fathers of the previous age he sought whatever patronage he could plausibly gather for their error.

Our AUTHOR observes that here the Papists imitate, both the Pharisees, who were κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, holding the tradition of the elders, Mark 7:3, and who were wont to say, ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, that it was said by them of old time, Matthew 5:21, etc.; and many ancient Heretics, wont to appeal to the Fathers, among whom were the Donatists, concerning whom AUGUSTINE on Psalm 57 (more correctly, Psalm 58), opera, tome 4, column 407, says, “But those, turning a deaf ear to the Gospel, and not permitting us to read the Words of God, which they boast that they have preserved from the flame and desire to remove from the tongue, speak their own things, speak vanities:  This one said this, and that one said that.  Indeed, I also say, And this one said this, and that one said that:  and I speak the truth.  But what is that to me?  You do not read to me out of the Gospel those that you have named, and I do not read out of the Gospel those that I have named.  Let our books be removed from the midst, and let the codex of God proceed into the midst:  Hear Christ speaking, hear the truth speaking.”  Concerning the similar manner of acting among the Pelagians see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century V, chapter VII, § 2, number 4, column 991.

In a word, we say with our AUTHOR, 1.  that the Papists are refuted out of Matthew 5:21, 22, etc.  That is, what norm and criterion of truth Moses, the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles set forth and commended in the Old and New Testaments, that alone is to be credited with this name.  But they do not commend the writings of the ancients in addition to or beside the Scripture, or of the Fathers past, present, or future; but constantly the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone.  The Minor is able to be proven by a lengthy induction of the passages already quite frequently cited.  Indeed, it is so lacking that Scripture sends us away to the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers in searching out its sense and matters of faith, or much commends Traditions πατροπαραδότους, handed down from the Fathers, that, on the other hand, it manifestly rejects and condemns the ancient Fathers departing from the truth of Scripture unto false comments and worship, Ezekiel 20:18, 19; Matthew 5:21, 22; Mark 7:5, 8-13:  therefore, the Exegetical Traditions of the Fathers are not always true and are not always to be followed.

2.  We say here that the things requisite for the Criterion of true Interpretation, enumerated by our AUTHOR, are wanting, especially Infallibility, on account of the fallibility of all the Fathers; who, whether they be regarded as individuals separately, or all conjointly, were not Prophets nor Apostles, who, having been furnished with an immediate calling and extraordinary gifts, had a special claim to Infallibility:  but the Fathers were men, fallible and liable to error, into which they also frequently fell for want of the knowledge of the Original Languages, from the common errors of the time, from the zeal of disputation, etc.  That the individuals were fallible, the Papists everywhere concede:  but what is true of the individuals, is also true of the many or all, gathered together from the individuals; for the whole retains and presents again the nature of the integrating parts:  and, although authority increases with respect to degree because of multitude, yet it is not changed in kind, that the human might rise to the divine.  The dogmatic and exegetical Errors of the Fathers, whether peculiar to some, or even common to a great many, are also set forth by us in a long series; which neither Bellarmine, nor Sixtus Senesis in his Præfatione to book V of Bibliothecæ Sanctæ, pages 324, 325, or other learned men in the Roman communion are able to deny.  Consult the Writers commended above:  HEINRICH ALTING, Theologia Elenctica nova, locus II, controversy IV with the Papists, pages 78, 79; JEAN DAILLÈ, libris duis de Usu Patrum ad ea definienda Religionis capita, quæ sunt hodie controversa, book II, chapter IV, pages 252-294; RIVET, tractate de Patrum Auctoritate, which is set before Critici Sacri libris quattuor, opera, tome 2, chapters IX-XI; SPANHEIM, Historia Ecclesiastica, Century IV, chapter V, § 4, column 848, § 2, column 851.

3.  Moreover, we argue against the Papists from the Lack of unanimous Expositions of this sort, since the Father frequently disagree and rarely agree:  and a judgment concerning the Consent of the Fathers is hardly able to be made, since many writings of the Fathers have perished, and the Commentaries upon the whole Bible of exceedingly few or none survive; concerning many writing it is hardly evident whether they proceed from the Fathers themselves, for not a few counterfeit and spurious have been pawned off for ages as the γνησίοις/ legitimate or genuine writings of the Fathers, with Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine already lamenting this matter; and, on the other hand, those genuine monuments of the Fathers that survive are discovered to have been variously interpolated, and to have been corrupted with respect to sense, not only by the carelessness and ignorance of copyists, but also by the audacity of the monks, who, before the invention of the art of printing were almost alone in the possession of the Fathers in their monasteries, corrected and emended them at will; and especially by the wickedness of the Jesuits, who, with new Indices composed, which they call Expurgatory, removed from the monuments of the Fathers what things were adverse to their superstition, but replaced what things seemed to be advantageous for fostering it:  and so this infallible Criterion of true Interpretation is extremely difficult for the Learned themselves, but altogether impossible for the common people to search out, from whom the private Judgment of Discretion is certainly taken away in this way:  see HEINRICH ALTING, Theologia Elenctica nova, locus II, controversy IV with the Papists, page 80; HOTTINGER, Dissertationum miscellanearum Πεντάδι, Dissertation II; DAILLÈ, libris duis de Usu Patrum ad ea definienda Religionis capita, quæ sunt hodie controversa, book II, chapter V, pages 295-304, book I, chapters III, IV, pages 11-120; RIVET, tractate de Patrum Auctoritate, which is set before Critici Sacri libris quattuor, opera, tome 2, chapters XII-XIV; GERHARD, Confessione catholica, tome I, pages 602-608; SIXTUS SENENSIS, Bibliotheca Sancta, book IV at the end, pages 320-323.

4.  But finally, whatever the Papists may boast concerning the Consent of the Fathers, and however they may wish to appeal to that; the Papists themselves repudiate the Authority of the Fathers, and freely draw back from it, whenever it is not advantageous to their cause, while they give more credence to one supreme Pontiff, than to a thousand Augustines, Jeromes, and Gregories, as Cornelio Musso, Bishop of Bitonta, preached on Romans 14, and wrote on page 606.[3]  Erasmus on Jerome, tome 3, page 28, wrote:  When it is advantageous, the authority of Jerome prevails among us:  when it is not advantageous, he hardly prevails at all:  and afterwards they condemn us as too little trusting, while none believe less rightly than those that believe uncritically.  Let us hear one Melchior Cano, who, in his locorum Theologicorum, book VII, chapter III, after he had prefaced from AUGUSTINE, “God willed this felicity to be in the divine volumes alone, that in them there would not be any error,” rightly subjoins, “Every one, no matter how learned and holy, is mistaken sometimes, is blind occasionally, slips from time to time….  And so the Ancient Fathers shall be read by us with reverence indeed, but as men, with discrimination and judgment:”  see CALVIN, Præfatione Institutionis Christianæ Religionis ad Gallicum Regem, *5, 6; TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question XXI, § 10; DAILLÈ, libris duis de Usu Patrum ad ea definienda Religionis capita, quæ sunt hodie controversa, book II, chapter VI, pages 305-352; RIVET, tractate de Patrum Auctoritate, which is set before Critici Sacri libris quattuor, opera, tome 2, chapters VII, X; GERHARD, Confessione catholica, tome I, book I, generalem partem II, chapter XIII, pages 569-602; PETRUS ZORNIUS,[4] Historia Eucharistiæ Infantium, chapter XII, § I, pages 140-143.  The Fathers themselves did not desire that so much would be made of their writings:  see above on Chapter I, § 32; add HEINRICH ALTING, Theologia Elenctica nova, locus II, controversy IV with the Papists, pages 80, 81; TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question XXI, § 9; RIVET, tractate de Patrum Auctoritate, which is set before Critici Sacri libris quattuor, opera, tome 2, chapter II; DAILLÈ, de Usu Patrum, book II, chapter II, pages 212-233.  Concerning the opinion of today’s Greeks about this matter, and against it, see JAKOB ELSNER, nieuwste Beschzyving van de Grieksche Christenen in Turkyen, chapter V, § 28.

What things our AUTHOR has concerning holding all things to the last jot, have regard to the words of the Glossator Decreti Gratiani, which in defining the state of this Controversy I cited above.

[1] Boniface III was elected in 606, but did not take up the office until 607 (and served less than a year).  He is significant in the annals of the Papacy in that, due to his relationship with the Byzantine Emperor Phocas, he was able to secure for the Bishop of Rome the title of Universal Bishop.

[2] Vincent of Lerins (died c. 445) was a Gaulish monk.  He is most remembered for his rule in separating orthodox truth from error (namely, what is believed “everywhere, always, by all,” is to be embrace), and his Semi-Pelagianism.

[3] Cornelio Musso (1511-1574) was a Conventual Franciscan and Bishop of Bitonta in southern Italy.  He was one of the great preachers of his day, called the “Italian Demosthenes”.  Musso was prominent in the debates over Justification at Trent, and wrote a commentary on Romans.

[4] Peter Zorn (1682-1746) was a German Lutheran theologian, historian, and linguist.  He held a variety of academic posts.