a term of honour applied to the first and most eminent writers
of the Christian church. Those of the first century are called
Apostolical fathers; those of the first three centuries, and till the
council of Nice, Ante-Nicene; and those later than that council,
Post-Nicene. Learned men are not unanimous concerning the degree of
esteem which is due to these ancient fathers. Some represent them as the
most excellent guides, while others place them in the very lowest rank
of moral writers, and treat their precepts and decisions as perfectly
insipid, and, in many respects, pernicious. It appears, however,
incontestable, that, in the writings of the primitive fathers are many
sublime sentiments, judicious thoughts, and several things well adapted
to form a religious temper, and to excite pious and virtuous affections.
At the same time, it must be confessed, that, after the earliest age,
they abound still more with precepts of an excessive and unreasonable
austerity, with stoical and academical dictates, with vague and
indeterminate notions, and, what is still worse, with decisions
absolutely false, and in evident opposition to the commands of Christ.
Though the judgment of antiquity in some disputable points may certainly
be useful, yet we ought never to consider the writings of the fathers as
of equal authority with the Scriptures. In many cases they may be deemed
competent witnesses, but we must not confide in their verdict as judges.
As Biblical critics they are often fanciful and injudicious, and their
principal value consists in this, that the succession of their writings
enables us to prove the existence and authenticity of the sacred books,
up to the age of the Apostles.
The following is a list of the entire fathers: Contemporaries of the
Apostles, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
Papias, A. D. 116; Justin Martyr, 140; Dionysius of Corinth, 170;
Tatian, 172; Hegesippus, 173; Melito, 177; Irenæus, 178; Athenagoras,
178; Miltiades, 180; Theophilus, 181; Clement of Alexandria, 194;
Tertullian, 200; Minutius Felix, 210; Ammonius, 220; Origen, 230;
Firmilian, 233; Dionysius of Alexandria, 247; Cyprian, 248; Novatus, or
Novatian, 251; Arnobius, 306; Lactantius, 306; Alexander of Alexandria,
313; Eusebius, 315; Athanasius, 326; Cyril of Jerusalem, 348; Hilary,
354; Epiphanius, 368; Basil, 370; Gregory of Nazianzum, 370; Gregory of
Nyssa, 370; Optatus, 370; Ambrose, 374; Philaster, 380; Jerome, 392;
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 394; Ruffin, 397; Augustine, 398; Chrysostom,
398; Sulpitius Severus, 401; Cyril of Alexandria, 412; Theodoret, 423;
and Gennadius, 494.
Archbishop Wake, in his _Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of
England_ has very satisfactorily shown, that the deference paid by
Protestants to the Christian fathers of the first three ages, is neither
of such an idolatrous description as is generally represented, nor is
their authority ever extolled to an equality with that of the Holy
Scriptures. “Though we have appealed,” he says, “to the churches of the
first ages for new proofs of the truth of our doctrine, it is not that
we think that the doctors of those times had more right to judge of our
faith than those had that followed them; but it is because after a
serious examination we have found, that, as for what concerns _the
common belief_ that is among us, they have believed and practised the
same things without adding other opinions or superstitions that destroy
them,--wherein they have acted conformably to their and our rule, THE
WORD OF GOD: notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, but that they
effectually fell into some wrong opinions, as that of the Millenaries
and infant communion,” &c. The usefulness and necessity of studying the
ancient fathers have been defended by many persons eminent for their
learning and piety. Archbishop Usher was one who beyond all men then
living knew the vast importance of these studies, and had derived the
greatest benefits from them. The following brief advice, in the language
of Dr. Parr, his erudite biographer, will convey his sentiments on this
very interesting subject: “Indeed he had so great an esteem of the
ANCIENT AUTHORS, for the acquiring any solid learning, whether sacred or
profane, that his advice to young students, either in divinity or
antiquity, was, not to spend too much time in epitomes, but to set
themselves to read the ancient authors themselves; as, to begin with the
FATHERS, and to read them according to the ages in which they lived,
(which was the method he had taken himself,) and, together with them,
carefully to peruse the CHURCH HISTORIANS that treated of that age in
which those fathers lived: by which means the student would be better
able to perceive the reason and meaning of divers passages in their
writings, (which otherwise would be obscure,) when he knew the original
and growth of those heresies and heterodox opinions against which they
wrote, and may also better judge what doctrines, ceremonies, and
opinions prevailed in the church in every age, and by what means
introduced.”
of the Christian church. Those of the first century are called
Apostolical fathers; those of the first three centuries, and till the
council of Nice, Ante-Nicene; and those later than that council,
Post-Nicene. Learned men are not unanimous concerning the degree of
esteem which is due to these ancient fathers. Some represent them as the
most excellent guides, while others place them in the very lowest rank
of moral writers, and treat their precepts and decisions as perfectly
insipid, and, in many respects, pernicious. It appears, however,
incontestable, that, in the writings of the primitive fathers are many
sublime sentiments, judicious thoughts, and several things well adapted
to form a religious temper, and to excite pious and virtuous affections.
At the same time, it must be confessed, that, after the earliest age,
they abound still more with precepts of an excessive and unreasonable
austerity, with stoical and academical dictates, with vague and
indeterminate notions, and, what is still worse, with decisions
absolutely false, and in evident opposition to the commands of Christ.
Though the judgment of antiquity in some disputable points may certainly
be useful, yet we ought never to consider the writings of the fathers as
of equal authority with the Scriptures. In many cases they may be deemed
competent witnesses, but we must not confide in their verdict as judges.
As Biblical critics they are often fanciful and injudicious, and their
principal value consists in this, that the succession of their writings
enables us to prove the existence and authenticity of the sacred books,
up to the age of the Apostles.
The following is a list of the entire fathers: Contemporaries of the
Apostles, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
Papias, A. D. 116; Justin Martyr, 140; Dionysius of Corinth, 170;
Tatian, 172; Hegesippus, 173; Melito, 177; Irenæus, 178; Athenagoras,
178; Miltiades, 180; Theophilus, 181; Clement of Alexandria, 194;
Tertullian, 200; Minutius Felix, 210; Ammonius, 220; Origen, 230;
Firmilian, 233; Dionysius of Alexandria, 247; Cyprian, 248; Novatus, or
Novatian, 251; Arnobius, 306; Lactantius, 306; Alexander of Alexandria,
313; Eusebius, 315; Athanasius, 326; Cyril of Jerusalem, 348; Hilary,
354; Epiphanius, 368; Basil, 370; Gregory of Nazianzum, 370; Gregory of
Nyssa, 370; Optatus, 370; Ambrose, 374; Philaster, 380; Jerome, 392;
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 394; Ruffin, 397; Augustine, 398; Chrysostom,
398; Sulpitius Severus, 401; Cyril of Alexandria, 412; Theodoret, 423;
and Gennadius, 494.
Archbishop Wake, in his _Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of
England_ has very satisfactorily shown, that the deference paid by
Protestants to the Christian fathers of the first three ages, is neither
of such an idolatrous description as is generally represented, nor is
their authority ever extolled to an equality with that of the Holy
Scriptures. “Though we have appealed,” he says, “to the churches of the
first ages for new proofs of the truth of our doctrine, it is not that
we think that the doctors of those times had more right to judge of our
faith than those had that followed them; but it is because after a
serious examination we have found, that, as for what concerns _the
common belief_ that is among us, they have believed and practised the
same things without adding other opinions or superstitions that destroy
them,--wherein they have acted conformably to their and our rule, THE
WORD OF GOD: notwithstanding, it cannot be denied, but that they
effectually fell into some wrong opinions, as that of the Millenaries
and infant communion,” &c. The usefulness and necessity of studying the
ancient fathers have been defended by many persons eminent for their
learning and piety. Archbishop Usher was one who beyond all men then
living knew the vast importance of these studies, and had derived the
greatest benefits from them. The following brief advice, in the language
of Dr. Parr, his erudite biographer, will convey his sentiments on this
very interesting subject: “Indeed he had so great an esteem of the
ANCIENT AUTHORS, for the acquiring any solid learning, whether sacred or
profane, that his advice to young students, either in divinity or
antiquity, was, not to spend too much time in epitomes, but to set
themselves to read the ancient authors themselves; as, to begin with the
FATHERS, and to read them according to the ages in which they lived,
(which was the method he had taken himself,) and, together with them,
carefully to peruse the CHURCH HISTORIANS that treated of that age in
which those fathers lived: by which means the student would be better
able to perceive the reason and meaning of divers passages in their
writings, (which otherwise would be obscure,) when he knew the original
and growth of those heresies and heterodox opinions against which they
wrote, and may also better judge what doctrines, ceremonies, and
opinions prevailed in the church in every age, and by what means
introduced.”