An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons and Martyr / Intended to Illustrate the Doctrine, Discipline, Practices, and History of the Church, and the Tenets and Practices of the Gnostic Heretics During the Second Century

by James Beaven

4. We use them to aid us in interpreting the text of Scripture. For many of them quote very largely from the Sacred Volume; and as some lived near apostolical times, and many wrote in the language in which the New Testament was written, whilst others were persons of great [pg x] inquiry and learning, and lived nearer to the localities of the sacred events than we do,—they had advantages which we do not possess. When, therefore, several or many of them concur in giving one uniform meaning to particular passages of Scripture, the evidence becomes very strong that they had the right interpretation: and even where only one writer gives any assistance upon any particular text, we shall frequently see reason for accepting his acceptation of it in preference to more modern suggestions. At the same time it is necessary to bear in mind, that most of them knew nothing of the original language of the Old Testament; and that they are often only applying passages according to the prevalent habit (countenanced indeed by our Lord and his Apostles, but carried to various degrees of excess by most of the early writers) of seeking for mystical accommodations: and we must distinguish between application and interpretation.

Now these methods of employing the writings of the Fathers are à priori so obvious and so unobjectionable, that few writers of any credit object to the principle: but as the results of the application of the principle are highly inconvenient to those who have rejected the doctrine or discipline universally upheld in the primitive ages of the Church, two lines of argument have been taken to nullify this application. And as they have been lately revived in various ways, and particularly by the re-publication of the work from which most of them have been derived, viz. Daillé's Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers, I have thought proper to notice them in that brief manner which the limits of a preface permit. Some, indeed, of the objections brought forward ought to be considered as simply [pg xi] cautions to the inquirer, and as such I have already treated them; the chief remaining ones I now proceed to mention.

(1.) Some contend that, however reasonable in the abstract this sort of appeal to the Fathers may appear, it is beset with such difficulties, that it is useless in practice: that we have so few early writings, that those we have are so adulterated, that we have so many forgeries in the names of early writers, that the writings of the Fathers are so difficult to understand, that they so often give the opinions of others without any intimation that they are not their own, that they so constantly altered their views as they grew older, and that it so frequently happened that the men who are now of most note were in a minority of their contemporaries,—that it is practically useless to attempt to apply the Fathers to modern use.

Now I do not deny that there is something in these difficulties; otherwise they would not have been brought forward at all. No doubt we have but few writings of sub-apostolical times: but then we must use such as we have, and illustrate their sense by such methods as are in our power; and we shall find that they give a clear and consistent testimony to several important matters, both of doctrine and of discipline. It might be true, when Daillé first wrote, that the very important epistles of S. Ignatius were much adulterated: but it is not so now; the genuine copies having become known to the world in his time: neither is it true to any considerable extent of subsequent writers; and when it is, it simply presents a difficulty, which must be surmounted as we best can, or must cast a doubt over any particular writing. Sermons [pg xii] and popular treatises of writers of note were often altered in transcribing; just as we, in these days, re-publish popular books with omissions and alterations suited to the change of times, or to the shade of difference between our own views and those of the writer: and for that reason works of that description, however useful for devotional reading and instruction, must be brought forward in controversy with more caution than others, and sometimes set aside altogether. In short there is need of judgment and discrimination in the use of the Fathers; and that is the whole amount of this difficulty. With regard to the difficulty of understanding them, that is of course a matter of degree, dependent upon the acquaintance of the student with the original languages, as used in the age and country of the writers, upon his acquaintance with Church history and the state of controversy, upon the degree of prejudice or false doctrine with which his own mind is imbued: but I do not think that they present nearly so much difficulty as the Platonical writers, which many persons study with great interest. As to the Fathers giving the opinions of others without intimating that they are so, that is no more than St. Paul himself does; and it very seldom occurs. So no doubt, like all other persons, they modify their views and occasionally change them, as they grow older: but that is, for the most part, only in subordinate matters, and it is very rarely that the circumstance presents any practical difficulty. Finally, that men whose name has become great amongst posterity were in a minority in their own age, is no doubt true in some instances: but when it is so, it can be ascertained, and must be allowed for; and when it cannot be ascertained it must not be surmised. And even where they were so, as in the case of Athanasius, they may be [pg xiii] connected with a majority in preceding and subsequent ages.

So that these objections are partly such difficulties as occur in every study, (but stated with much exaggeration,) and partly flimsy unpractical cavils, not worth dwelling upon.

(2.) But supposing that the writings of the Fathers are intelligible upon many points, another class of objections arises. It is asserted that they were themselves often mistaken, that they even contradict one another, and in short that no class or party is really willing to abide by their decision.

Here again, if they were mistaken, let it be shown by undoubted testimony (of Holy Writ or otherwise) that they were mistaken: but let no one take for granted that because they differ from the received notions of our own age, they were therefore in error. It should never be forgotten that every age has its errors: and it may be, possibly, that wherein we differ from them the error is our own. No doubt each eminent writer then, as each eminent writer now, was in some respects mistaken. It is the simple condition of humanity to be liable to error. But as that does not cause us to refuse the testimony of our contemporaries, or their aid in the pursuit of truth, so it need not cause us to turn a deaf ear to the earlier writers. The circumstance that in some respects each was in error only renders their combined testimony to truth more weighty. It has indeed been asserted that they were all in error upon certain points: [pg xiv] but that assertion the Author has elsewhere[1] shown to be totally destitute of truth. Again, with regard to their contradictions of each other, where they do occur they should of course be noted; but the cases will be found to be of little practical importance; and their differences upon some points only place in a clearer light their agreement where they do agree. Lastly, as to the alleged fact that no class or party heartily accepts even the combined evidence of the Fathers, it is certainly true of two opposite parties; viz. the Roman Church and those Protestants who have rejected the Apostolical succession,—both setting up modern opinions to oppose or to explain away primitive doctrine: but it is not true of the Church of England, which (as has been frequently shown) both formally recognizes the consent of Catholic Doctors, and does in point of fact, in her public acts and documents, agree substantially in doctrine and discipline with that consent, so far as it has yet been ascertained; whatever instances have been brought forward to the contrary being mistakes in matter of fact.

5. But besides this use of the Fathers as evidence, many persons attribute to them a certain degree of authority; and greater objection is felt to appealing to them as authority, than to using them as testimony. There are, however, very different ways of treating them as authority.

Now to quote sentences of the Fathers, as we do texts of Holy Writ, as being infallibly conclusive, (which has been [pg xv] done by writers of the Roman Church, especially before Daillé's time,) can only be done in ignorance or in bad faith; because every person acquainted with them knows that, like all uninspired writers, they differ from each other and from themselves. But if we simply quote them as persons whose opinion or testimony ought to have with us very great weight, either for what they were in themselves, or for the age in which they lived, this is a quite different matter; it is constantly done in the Homilies of the Church; and there surely can be no valid objection to it. We do not hesitate to appeal to the judgment of the great lights of our own Church, and to regard their dicta as not to be lightly questioned, partly for their own learning, judgment, and piety, (as Hooker, Sanderson, Wilson, Waterland,) partly for the era in which they flourished, (as Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel:) we give them authority over our own minds, and in deciding controversies between ourselves; and what valid objection can be raised to our giving corresponding weight to the worthies of more ancient times? And as the earliest writers conversed either with Apostles, or with those who had heard the Apostles, it is natural to attribute greater weight to their words than to those of subsequent writers. And what if they do show whilst writing, that they had no anticipation of being guides to posterity? what if they caution us against trusting them implicitly, and recommend us to search the Scriptures for ourselves? what if they were sometimes in error? Do not all these circumstances apply to those more modern authors whom we do not hesitate to recognize as, in themselves, authorities? and why then should we be reluctant to yield to the more ancient that authority, as individuals, which all subsequent time has [pg xvi] accorded to them? Authority may be great without being infallible. Authority may have weighty influence upon the judgment without directly binding the conscience.

These remarks and arguments are capable of being stated much more fully, and of being illustrated by instances throughout; but to do so would require a separate treatise; and it has been thought better to produce them thus nakedly than to omit them altogether.