Who Are “the Fathers,” and What Is Their Authority?
By C. P. BOLLMAN
The designation “the Fathers” is applied chiefly to certain teachers who lived and wrote in the early centuries of the Christian church. Among the earlier of these teachers and writers were Ignatius, and Justin the Martyr, for that reason usually called Justin Martyr. The first of these is supposed to have lived from A. D. 30 to 107, the other from A. D. 110 to 165, so that Ignatius was probably for many years contemporary with the apostle John, while Justin Martyr is said to have received his Christian instruction from Polycarp, a disciple of John. Of the authority of the Fathers, the “Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,” article “Fathers of the Church,” says:— “Protestants refuse to accept the authority of any writer out of the sacred canon as conclusive and final in matters of doctrine and discipline.” There are several reasons for this attitude. First might be mentioned the fact that apostasy began to creep into the church even during the lifetime of the apostles. Paul refers to this in 2 Thess. 2:7. So the antiquity of a doctrine is no guaranty of its purity. Indeed, some of the earlier of the Fathers are the very ones most open to suspicion both as to their views and as pertains to the genuineness of the writings attributed to them. Of the era between the days of the apostles and the so-called conversion of Constantine, Dr. W. D. Killen says:— “Rites and ceremonies, of which neither Paul nor Peter ever heard, crept silently into use, and then claimed the rank of divine institutions. Officers for whom the primitive disciples could have found no place, and titles which to them would have been altogether unintelligible, began to challenge attention, and to be named apostolic. It is the duty of the historian to endeavor to point out the origin and to trace the progress of these innovations. A satisfactory account of them must go far to settle more than one of our present controversies. An attempt is here made to lay bare the causes which produced these changes, and to mark the stages of the ecclesiastical revolution. When treating of the rise and growth of the hierarchy, several remarkable facts and testimonies which have escaped the notice of preceding historians are particularly noticed.
“Some may, perhaps, consider that, in a work such as this, undue prominence has been given to the discussion of the question of the Ignatian epistles. Those who have carefully examined the subject will scarcely think so. If we accredit these documents, the history of the early church is thrown into a state of hopeless confusion; and men, taught and honored by the apostles themselves, have inculcated the most dangerous errors. But if their claims vanish when touched by the wand of truthful criticism, many clouds which have hitherto darkened the ecclesiastical atmosphere disappear; and the progress of corruption can be traced on scientific principles. The special attention of all interested in the Ignatian controversy is invited to the two chapters of this work in which the subject is investigated. Evidence is there produced to prove that these Ignatian letters, even as edited by the very learned and laborious Dr. Cureton, are utterly spurious, and that they should be swept away from among the genuine remains of early church literature with the besom of scorn.”—“The Ancient Church,” James Nisbet & Co., London, 1883, preface to the original edition. Nor is Dr. Killen alone in expressing such an opinion. For example, Dr. Cureton himself states that of the fifteen “epistles of Ignatius,” “eight bear in themselves indubitable proof of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. . . . Of the seven epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius, we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. . . . Scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius.”—“Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. I, pages 46, 47. But some scholars, for example Dr. Killen, do not grant the genuineness of even the shorter form of the seven accepted Ignatian epistles, so that not one of them is of undoubted authorship. But this makes little difference to those who hold and teach doctrines that cannot be proved from the Scriptures themselves; they, too, often show a readiness to maintain their theories by appeal to even the most questionable evidence. This is well illustrated in the familiar excerpt from the so-called epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, in which the writer is made to refer to Sunday, the first day of the week, as the “Lord’s Day.” The fact is that this is found only in the longer form, the one generally held by scholars to be corrupted by interpolations. Referring to the fact that these writings even where originally genuine had become so corrupted by later additions and interpolations as to be thoroughly unreliable, the noted church historian, Neander, says: “The writings of the7so-called apostolic Fathers have unhappily, for the most part, come down to us in a condition very little worthy of confidence.”—“General History of the Christian Religion and Church,” Vol. II, page 405, edition of 1886. “We may safely say,” wrote Adam Clarke, “that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed, that cannot be proved by their authority, nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish Church, that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of doctrine, their authority is nothing with me. The Word of God alone contains my creed.”—Adam Clarke’s Commentaries, New York, Phillips & Hunt, comment on Proverbs 8. “When God’s Word,” said Luther, “is expounded, construed, and glossed by the Fathers, then, in my judgment, it is even like unto one that straineth milk through a coal sack, which must needs spoil the milk and make it black; even so likewise, God’s Word itself is sufficiently pure, clean, bright, and clear, but through the doctrines, books, and writings of the Fathers it is very surely darkened, falsified, and spoiled.”—“Table Talks,” translated by Wm. Hazlett, Lutheran Board of Publication, Philadelphia, 1868, page 228. Similar opinions might be multiplied, but it seems unnecessary. The facts stated are known and admitted by scholars everywhere. Let us be careful, then, brethren, how we appeal to the Fathers in support of any doctrine, or even to establish a historical fact; for nothing can be proved by them that has not been previously established without them; and it is more than doubtful if their testimony strengthens anything, either fact or opinion.