BOOK THE SECOND. THE FATHERS ARE NOT OF SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION. CHAPTER I. REASON I. THAT THE TESTIMONIES GIVEN BY THE FATHERS, ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH, ARE NOT ALWAYS TRUE AND CERTAIN. WE have before shewn how difficult it is to discover what the sense of the Fathers has been, as respects the points at this day controverted in religion; owing to the small number of books of the Fathers of the first centuries that have been translated; and those which we have, moreover, treating of things of a very different nature from our present disputes; and of which besides we cannot be very well assured, by reason of the many forgeries and monstrous corruptions, which they have for so long a time been subject to; also by reason of their obscurity and ambiguity in their expressions; and their often representing to us numerous opinions rather of others than of their authors: besides those imperfections which are found in them; as for instance 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: 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 that this testimony 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 but what is sure and certain. 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 cites the said passage, lived and wrote in the first ages of Christianity; and moreover, that the said person is well known to be the author of the book out of which the passage is quoted and also that the passage cited is genuine, and no way corrupted nor altered and likewise, that the sense which he gives of it, is the true genuine sense of the passage; and that it was the opinion of the author, when he had arrived at ripeness of judgment, and which he changed not, or retracted afterwards. He must also make it appear in what degree he held it; and whether he maintained it as his own private opinion only, or as the opinion of the Church and lastly, whether it was the opinion of the Church Universal, or of some particular Church only which inquiry is of such vast and almost infinite labour, that it makes me very much doubt whether or not we can be ever able to attain a full and certain assurance what the positive sense of the ancients has been, on the whole body of controversies now debated in this age. Hence therefore our principal question seems to be decided; whether adducing the Fathers be a sufficient and proper means for demonstrating the truth of all those articles which are at this day maintained by the Church of Rome, and rejected by the Protestants. For who does not now see that this kind of proof hath as much or more difficulty in it than the question itself? and that such testimonies are as obscure as the controverted opinions themselves. Notwithstanding, that we may not be thought too hasty, and upon too light grounds to reject this way of proceeding, we will pass by all the obscurity that is found, as regards the opinions of the ancients; and supposing it to be no difficult matter to discover what the opinion and sense of the Fathers have been on the aforesaid points, we will now, in this Second Book, consider whether or not their authority be such, as that we ought or may, without further examination, believe, on their authority, what we know to a certainty was their belief, and to hold it in the same degree as they did. There are two sorts of sentiments 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 fulness and truth; but in a doctor, learning and knowledge. The one persuadeth us by the opinion we have of his veracity; the other, by the strength of his arguments. The Fathers are witnesses only when they barely tell us that the Church in their times held such or such opinions: and they are doctors, when, mounting as it were the dictatorial chair, they propose unto us their own opinions; making them good either according to Scripture or agreeably to reason. Now as it concerns the testimonies they give on 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 of this I am sure, that though they should deserve to be received by us for such, yet nevertheless would they answer little purpose as to the business now in hand. The reason which induces 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 err very little, or not at all, in matter of right, yet nevertheless they often err, and have their failings, in matter of fact because right is a universal thing, which is every way uniform, and all of one kind; 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 penetrating : I minds. Now the condition of the Church's belief in every particular age, is matter of fact and not of right; a point of history, and not an article of faith: so that it follows 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 falsehood. For how often do the most honest persons innocently testify to such things as they thought they had seen, which it afterwards appears 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 either: and there is no man but knows that passion very often disguises things, and makes them appear, even to the most honest men, much otherwise than they are; insomuch that sometimes they are affectionately carried away with one opinion, and do as much abhor another. This secret passion might easily make them believe that the Church held that opinion with which they themselves were most captivated; 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 persuaded to believe what they desire. I conceive we may here adduce the testimony of St. Hierome, where he affirms, "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 St. Augustin was in, in this particular, and his evidently inclining to the contrary opinion; which was, that the * Omne deinceps humanum genus quibus animarum censetur exordiis? utrum ex traduce, juxta bruta animalia, &c.; an rationabiles creaturæ desiderio corporum, &c.; an certè, quod ecclesiasticum est, quotidiè Deus fabricetur animas: cujus velle fecisse est, et conditor esse non cessat?-Hier. ep. 61. de Error. Jo. Hier. soul was propagated together with the body, and descended from the Father to the Son; this doubt, I say, manifestly proves that the Church had not at that time embraced or determined on the former of these opinions; it being utterly improbable, that so modest a man as St. Augustin would have rejected the general opinion of the Church, and have taken up a particular fancy of his own. But the feeling wherewith St. Hierome was at that time carried away against Ruffinus, a great part of the learned men of his time being also of the same opinion, easily brought him to a belief that it was the common judgment and opinion of the whole Christian Church.* From the same root also sprang that error of John bishop of Thessalonica, (if at least it be an error) 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 :"-Noɛpovs μev avtovs ἡ καθολικη ἐκκλησια γινώσκει, οὐ μην ἀσωματους παντη και ἀόρατους, λεπτοσωματους δε και ἀερώδεις, ή πυρώδεις.† For those who published the general councils of Rome conceive this to have been his own private opinion only.‡ 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 bore 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 was a man who was highly esteemed by the 7th council ;§ which not only cites 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 * Miraris si contra te fratrum scandala concitentur; cum id nescire te jures, quod Christi Ecclesiæ se scire fatentur?-Id. Apol. 2. contra Ruff. + Joan. Thessal. in Concil. 7, Act. Loquitur ex propria sententia-Ibid. in Marg. |