Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Fathers Of The Church
Subjects in this Topic:
(Patres Ecclesiae), a name applied to certain ancient Christian writers, who have preserved in their writings, to a certain extent, the history, doctrines, and traditions of the early Church. The use of the name "father" for this purpose originated in the Oriental habit of styling the relation of teacher and pupil that of "father" and "son." So Alexander the Great called Aristotle his "father," Elisha calls Elijah his "father" (2Ki_2:12); the pupils of the prophets were called "sons of the prophets." At an early period in the Christian Church, this title was given to preachers and teachers; and later, the title "father" (papa, pope) was given to bishops especially.
The Greek Church closes the list of the "fathers," properly so called, with John of Damascus (t 754), the Latin Church with Gregory the Great (f 604). The use of the word "fathers" is by Protestants "limited to the more distinguished teachers of the first five or six centuries, excepting, of course, the apostles, who stand far above them all as the inspired organs of the Holy Ghost. It applies, therefore, to the period of the oecumenical formation of doctrines, before the separation of Eastern and Western Christendom" (Schaff, Church History, 1:454). The Roman theologians make the following qualities the criterion of a "Church father," viz. antiquity, orthodoxy, sanctity of life, and the approval of the Church (Fessler, Institutiones Patrologice, 1:26). Accordingly, the Roman Church denies the title fathers to such men as Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, etc., because their writings are not held to be in all respects orthodox; they are designated, not as patres, but as scriptores ecclesiastici (ecclesiastical writers). At a later period, the title doctores ecclesiae (doctors of the Church) was given to writers supposed to have the qualities cited above as constituting the criterion of " a father," substituting eminens eruditio for antiqgutas. A decree of pope Boniface (A.D. 1298) assigns the title macni ecclesice doctores to the four Latin fathers Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great. Among the Greeks, the title doctores ecclesiae was given to Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, and the Latins recognize them as such. To a few great men among the scholastics the sasme title was given, with an additional epithet to designate some special intellectual quality in gift; thus, in the 12th and 13th centuries, the following doctors of the Church were thus honored: Thomas Aquinas, Angelicus; Johannes Bonaventura, Seraphicus; Johannes Duns Scotus, Subtilis; Raimundus Lullius, Illuminatus; Alasus de Insulis (de l'Isle), Universalis; Durandus de S. Pourcain, Resolutissimus; Gregorius de Rimini, Authenticus; Johannes Taulerus, Illuminatus; Johannes Gersonus, Christianissimus; Alexander Hales, Irrefragabilis; Roger Bacon, Admirabilis; William Occam, Singularis. Since 1830, Bernard of Clairvaux has been included among the "doctors," and, since 1852, Hilary of Poitiers. Chronologically, the fathers are divided into three classes, the apostolical, the anti-Nicene, and post-Nicene.
I. The ApostolicalFathers are those Christian writers (of whom any remains asre now extant) who are supposed to have been contemporary with one or more of the apostles, that is to say, who lived and wrote before A.D. 120. There are five names usually given as those of the apostolic fathers, i.e., there are five men who lived during the age of the apostles, and who did converse, or might have conversed with them, to whom writings still extant have been ascribed, viz. Burnab's, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas. The following works are generally counted to these writers:
1. The epistle of Barnabas SEE BARNABAS;
2. Two epistles of Clement, bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians SEE CLEMENT. OF ROME;
3. Several epistles of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch SEE IGNATIUS;
4. An epistle of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to the Philippians SEE POLYCARP;
5. The epistle (of an unknown author) to Diognetus SEE DIOGNETUS;
6. The book entitled Pastor Hermas SEE HERMAS.
Certain fragments of Papias are also commonly included amon g the apostolical fathers. SEE PAPIAS. Of the writings attributed to these fathers, some at least are of doubtful genuineness (on this point, see the individual titles referred to). SEE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS,
II. The Ante-Nicene Fathers are those whose writings date before the Council of Nicex, A.D. 325. The chief among them are (lists from Eadie, Riddle, Alzog): Justin Martyr, born probably about A.D. 100; left Palestine 132; presented his first Apology to Antoninus about (140 or) 148; wrote his second Apology in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, probably about 162-4; has left a variety of other works, and a Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; suffered martyrdom at Rome about 165. Hermias wrote his work, D:rision of the Heathen Philosophers, probably about 170. Dioniysius of Corinth wrote somae epistles; all lost ex cept a very few fragniments; fl. 170. Hegesippus, origInally a Jew, wrote History of the Church, of which only a few fragments survive, about 175. Tatiasm wrote an Oration against the Greeks, which has been preserved; died probably about 176. Athenagoras wrote an Apology for the Christians, and also on the resurrection, both of which have been translated into English, 176. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, wrote his work on re ligion to Astolycus about 180; died 181. Irenseus, bishop of Lyons, Gaul, in the latter part of the second century (became bishop about A.D. 177), wrote his work Against Heresies, or A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called, between A.D. 182 and 188; died about A.D. 202. Minucius Felix wrote his Octavius, or defense of Christianity, about 208. Clement of Alexandria succeeded Pantinus in the catechetical school of that city 188 or 199; quitted Alexandria 202; died about 217. Tertullian became a Montanist about the year 200; his Apology was composed (198 or) 205; his work against Marcion, 207; has left a great variety of tracts on the vices and customs of his age — as on the theater, the dress of females, idolatry, second marriages, the soldier's crown, and on flight in persecution, etc.; died about 240. Hippolytus, bishop of Port Ramsnus, wrote, besides many other pieces, Philosophoumena, newly discovered; died about 230.
Origen, born 185; head of the catechetical school at Alexandria 204; went to Rome, and returned to Alexandria, 213; went to Caesarea, in Palestine, 215; ordained at Caesarea, and afterwards settled there, about 230; retired to Cappadocia 235; returned to Caesarea 239; a laborious scholar and critic; compiled a Hexapla, or Polyglot Bible; wrote commentaries on Scripture, some of which survive; a treatise on prayer; and a defense against Celsus; thrown into prison 250; died 254. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 248; fled from Carthage 250; returned 251; banished 257; author of epistles, addresses, and tracts; advocate of Episcopacy; suffered martyrdom 258. Dionysius, surnamed the Great, bishop of Alexandria, a scholar of Origen, 247 or 248; died 265. Gregory (Thaumaturgus), bishop of Neocaesarea, flourished 245; composed a creed, an oration in praise of Origen, and a paraphrase on Ecclesiastes; died about 270. Victorinus wrote scholia on the Apocalypse; died 303. Arnobius wrote his treatise of seven books Against the Gentiles about 305; died probably about 325. Lactantius, finished his Institutes about 320; wrote also on The Death of Persecutors, and on The Wrath of God; composed a symposium or banquet, and an itinerary, both in verse; died 325. For the literature, see each of these titles in its alphabetical place. The greater part of this period, down at least to the death of Origen, A.D. 254, may be called the apologetic period of the early Church, and many of the writers of that time belong to the class of apologists (q.v.). The last half of the period was one of construction of doctrines and of polemical discussion of them within the Church. Strife against pageans and pagan philosophy on the one hand, and against Judaic Docetism and Gnosticism on the other, characterizes the whole period (see Neander, History of Dognmas, Ryland's translation, 1:33 sq.). "While the so-called apostolical fathers (with few exceptions) were distinguished bsy a direct practico- ascetical rather then a definite doctrinal activity, the philosophizing tendency allied to Hellenism was in some measure represented by the apologists Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Minucius Felix in the West.
On the contrary, Irenceus, as well as Tertullian, and his disciple Cyprian, firmly adhered to the positive dogmatic theology of the Church, the former is a milder and more considerate, the latter in a strict and sometimes gloomy manner. Clement and Origen, both belonsning to the Alexandrian school, chiefly developed the speculative aspect of theology. But these contrasts are only relative; for we find, e.g. that Justin Martyr manifests both a leaning towards Hellenism, and a strong Judaizing tendency; that the idealism and criticism of Origen are now sad then accompanied with a surprising adherence to the letter; and that Tertullian, notwithstanding his and Gnostic tendency, evidently strives after philosophical ideas. It was the characteristic feature of the apologetical period, that the whole system of Christianity as a religious- moral fact was considered and defended rather than particular doctrines. Still, certain doctrines become more prominent, while others receive less attention. Investigations of a theological and christological nature are certainly more numerous than those of an anthropological character. On this account the doctrine of human liberty is made more conspicuous in this period than later writers approved. Next to theology and christology, eschatology engaged most the attention of Christians at that time, and was more fully developed in the struggle with millenarianism on the one side, and with the scepticism of Grecian philosophers on the other" (Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, § 26, 27).
A valuable literary history of the ante- Nicene fathers is furnished by Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine,from the death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council (Lond. 1864, 3 volumes, 8vo), a work which shows industry and ability, but is not remarkable for true critical judgment. Dr. Buchanan remarks that "Donaldson argues on the erroneous principle that the teaching of the earlier fathers may be applied as a test, if not of the truth of certain doctrines, at least of their necessity and importance as articles of faith. 'If the early writers were heterodox on the Trinity — if they knew nothing of a satisfaction of divine justice, but spoke only in a vague way of the matter — if they wavered in regard to original sin, some denying it entirely, and others expressing themselves with great uncertainty — if their testimony to the inspiration of the New Testament is unsatisfactory and inconclusive, where was Christianity in those days? Did it really sleep for three long centuries? ... Or may not the evangelical school be wrong in asserting that it is necessary for a man to believe in original sin, the Trinity, the atonement, and similar dogmas, before he can be a Christian?' (volume 1, page 64). Dr. Donaldson's work — considered as a 'Critical History of Christian Literature' in the first three centuries — is highly valuable, and exhibits the results of ripe scholarship, and extensive reading and research; but considered as a 'Critical History of Christian Doctrine,' it is far from being a safe guide. His interpretation of many passages in the writings of the fathers is, to say the least, highly questionable, and at direct variance with that of such writers as Bull, and Waterland, and Faber. But, even were it more certain than it is, and did it afford proof that their writings were less in accordance with Scripture than we believe them to have been, we should still fall back on the cardinal principle that they are to be tested by the only infallible standard, the inspired Word of God. 'To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, there is no light in them.' We should then be constrained to say of them, as the prophet said of ancient Israel, 'They have forsaken the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them?' but we should have no difficulty in answering the question, Where was Christianity then? for it existed then, as it exists still, in the Word of God, the Gospel of our salvation;' and it was neither dead nor asleep, but alive and active in the Church of the Catacombs" (Buchanan, Doctrine of Justification, Edinb. 1867, page 431).
III. Post-Nicene. — The principal post-Nicene fathers are as follows: Eusebius (Pamphili), born about A.D. 270; bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, 315; was a learned and laborious writer; wrote, besides many other things; the Evangelical Preparation, in fifteen books; Evangelical Demonstration, in twenty books — the half of which is lost — but both works belong to Apologetics (q.v.); an Ecclesiastical History, in ten books; died 340. Julius Firmicus Maternus, who wrote on the error of profane religions; flourished about 340. Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, born 305; banished to Phrygia 356; wrote on the Trinity, on councils, against the Arians, with a commentary on the Psalms and Matthew; died 366. Athanasius, born at Alexandria about 296; present as deacon at the Council of Nicea 325; bishop of Alexandria 326; fled to Rome 341; returned to Alexandria 346; fled to the deserts of Egypt 356; wrote a discourse against the Gentiles, on the Incarnation; against the Arians, on the Incarnation; against Apollinaris, etc.; died 373.
Basil, surnamed the Great, born 329; bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, 370; wrote homilies, expositions, panegyrics, Hexiimeron, and letters; died 379. Ephraim the Syrian, deacon of Edessa; published a variety of commentaries, polemical treatise, and smaller works; died about 379. Cyril of Jerusalem, born 315; bishop of Jerusalem 350; wrote catechetical discourses; died 386. Gregory of Nazianzus, born 328; ordained deacon 361; bishop of Suzima 372; bishop of Constantinople 381; wrote discourses, poems, and letters; died about 390. Gregory of Nyssa, born 351; bishop of Nyssa 372; wrote a Hexaemeron, life of Moses, on prayer, along with orations, panegyrics, tracts, and letters; died about 395. Ambrose, born 340; archbishop of Milan 374; published annotations on Scripture, discourses, and miscellaneous treatises; died about 397. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, born about 330; wrote a Pannarium, or a treatise on heresies, etc.; died 403. Chrysostom, born at Antioch about 344; ordained presbyter in that church 386; bishop of Constantinople 398; deprived and restored 403; banished 404; was a most eloquent preacher and voluminous writer;wrote many commentaries, homilies, orations, with several controversial pieces; died 407. Ruffinus, presbyter of Aquileia, engaged in controversy with Jerome 394; published a great many Latin translations, as well as original works; died 410. Jerome, born 331; in Rome 363; ordained presbyter about 378; translated or revised the Latin Vulgate; wrote commentaries on most of the books of Scripture, controversial tracts, an Onomasticon, and lives and works of preceding ecclesiastical writers; died 420.
Theodorus, bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, about 392; wrote commentaries, in which he expounded the grammatical sense; but only a few brief fragments remain; died about 428. Augustine, born 354; baptized 387; ordained presbyter at Hippo 391; coadjutor of Valerius, bishop of Hippo, 395; began his work, De Civitate Dei. 402; published Confessions; engaged in controversy with the Pelagians, Donatists, and Manichaeans; composed a great variety of tracts bearing on systematic theology and prevalent errors; wrote his Retractationes, or reviews of his own work, 426; died 430. Cyril of Alexandria, bishop of Alexandria 513; an ambitious and turbulent defender of orthodoxy; wrote on the Pentateuch, on adoration in spirit, some commentaries on portions of the Old and New Testaments, on the Trinity, against the emperor Julian, and against Nestorius; died 444.Vincent of Lerins (Vincentius Lirinensis) wrote his Commonitorium, or admonition against profane novelties of heretics, 434; died about 448. Isidore of Pelusium; wrote tracts on Scripture, on doctrines, on discipline, and on monachism; died 449. Sedulius, poet, and Scotsman by birth, wrote several hymns, and a Carmen Paschale, in verse; flourished about 449. Theodoret, born 386 (or 393); bishop of Cyrus, in Syria, 423; deprived 449; restored 451; wrote questions on Scripture, commentaries, and a Church history, extending from 325 to 429; a religious history, and an epitome of heretical fables; died 456. Petrus Chrysologus; wrote a letter to Eutyches and some sermons; died about 456. Leo I, surnamed the Great, to whom are ascribed letters and sermons; wrote on morals, on the pastorate, and left also homilies, dialogues and letters; died 461. Vigilius, bishop of Thapsus; wrote against the heresies of Arius, Nestorius, and on the Trinity; flourished about 480. Boethiuns, author of the Consolation of Philosophy; put to death 525. Procopius of Gaza, a commentator on Scripture; flour ished about 525. Aretas, a commentator on the Apocalypse; flourished about 549. Evagrius, wrote a Church History; died 594. Gregory, bishop of Tours; died 596. Gregory I, surnamed the Great, bishop of Rome 590; died 604. Joannes Moschus, monk, died 620. Isidore of Seville, died 636. Bede, the Venerable, died 735. John of Damascus, Dogmatic Theology, c. 775. See, each of the above names in its alphabetical place in this Cyclopaedia.
IV. Use and Authority of the Fathers in Theology. — On this subject there are three opinions:
(a.) The Roman and Puseyite view, which puts the "consent of the fathers" (embodying tradition) into the rule of faith, along with Scripture. SEE FAITH, RULE OF.
(b.) That of the High-Church writers, who, though they acknowledge the Scriptures as the only rule of faith, yet appeal to the fathers as the proper expositors of Scripture doctrine, and denounce as arrogant and presumptuous those who attempt to oppose modern opinions to what is held to be the sentiment of Christian antiquity.
(c.) The Protestant view, according to which the fathers are to be treated, like other theological writers, with the deference and respect to which their learning and their virtues may entitle them. "In reading the fathers we must always bear in mind that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith, and that we have no right to insist upon the reception, as an article of faith, of any doctrine which is not to be found clearly revealed in Scripture, or which is not deducible from Scripture. Still, the judgment of antiquity on disputed points may be useful; and while we should not put these writers into the position of judges, they may be regarded as competent witnesses. They are also the historians of the Church, and report its customs in successive ages; we must, therefore, have recourse to their writings for information on matters of ecclesiastical antiquity, just as we refer to the writings of heathen orators, historians, and poets for information with respect to Roman or Grecian antiquities" (Riddle, Christian Antiquities, page 56).
1. The scholastic theology (q.v.) began with comments upon citations from the fathers, considered as anthoritative (sentential). When the Reformation began, the Roman divines found themselves driven anew to the fathers for authority for the doctrines and practices which Luther and his coadjutors showed to be without foundation in Scripture. More loudly than even the scholastics did the controvertists of this period proclaim the authority of patristic tradition in settling questions of faith. We have here a clear polemical reason for the view taken of the fathers in Roman theology (see it stated in Alzog, Patrologie, § 3; and compare the articles FAITH, RULE OF SEE FAITH, RULE OF; TRADITION SEE TRADITION).
Not unnaturally, then, have the Roman theologians been the most diligent workers in this field of Christian literature. But, on the other hand, the Roman theory that questions of doctrine can only be settled by councils (or by pope and council), has not been without effect inm leading Roman writers to depreciate the early writers, or, at least, to see their defects clearly . So Petavius, whose Opus De Theologicis Dogmatibus (Paris, 1644-50; new edit. volume 1, Romae, 1857, fol.) is a store-house of patristical learning, points out the theological errors of Atheicagoras, Tertullian, and others, with great clearness. So also J.H. Newman, in the Introduction to his Essay on the Derelopment of Christian Doctrine (pages 12-15, N.Y. edit.), dwells upon the "incompleteness" and even of the "errors" of the ante-Nicene theology, even in the hands of such fathers as Irenseus, Gregory, and Cyprian. This whole Introduction may be considered as an argument against the so-called Tractarian view of the authority of the fathers, and especially against the validity and practicability of the much-vaunted dictum of Vincentins Liainetesis (q.v.), quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ornibus traditum est. All the recent Roman writers who adopt the theory of "development" (q.v.) write in the same vein.
2. The Protestant theologians have, until a late period at least, been divided into two wings on this question of the "right use of the fathers." One of these wings may be represented by Milton (t 1674) and by Daille (t 1670). Milton, in his tract on Prelatical Episcopacy, speaks, in his strong way, of those who, "not content with the plentiful and wholesome fountains of Scripture, seek to themselves teachers, and cannot think any doubt resolved until they run to that undigested heap and fry of authors which they call antiquity. Whatsoever time, or the heedless band of blind chance hath drawn down from of old to this present in her huge drag-net, whether fish or sea-weed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, those are the fathers." But yet, he adds, in another part of the same tract, "He that thinks it the part of a well-learned man to have read diligently the ancient stories of the Church, sand to be no stranger in the volumes of the fathers, shall have all judicious men consenting with him; not hereby to control and new- fangle the Scriptures, God forbid! but to mark how corruption and apostasy crept in by degrees, and to gather up, wherever we find the remaining sparks of original truth, wherewith to stop the mouths of our adversaries, and to bridle them with their own curb who willingly pass by that which is orthodoxal in them, and studiously cull out that which is commentitious and best for their turns; not weighing the fathers in the balance of Scripture, but Scripture in the balance of the fathers. If we, therefore, making first the Gospel our rule and oracle, shall take the good which we light on in the fathers, and set it to oppose the evil which other men seek from them, sin this way of skirmish we shall easily master all superstition and false doctrine; but if we turn this our discreet and wary usage of them into a blind devotion towards them, and whatsoever we find written by them, we both forsake our own grounds and reasons which led us at first to part from Rome, that is, to hold the Scriptures against all antiquity; we remove our cause into our adversaries' own court, and take up there those cast principles which will soon cause us to solder up with them again, inasmuch as, believing antiquity for itself in any one point we bring an engagement upon ourselves of assenting to all that it charges upon us." Milton, it is plain, was writing against the Anglican admirers of antiquity as much as against the Roman Catholics.
Daille wrote a treatise, De Vero Usu Patrum (1636; Am. ed. The Right Use of the Fathers, Philadel. 1842, 12mo), which formed an epoch in the history of opinion on this subject. Warburton, in his Introduction to Julian, speaks of the work, its occasion and issues,as follows: "'When the great defection was made from the Church of Rome back again to the Church of Christ, the Reformed, though they shook off the tyranny of the pope, could not disengage themselves from the unbounded authority of the fathers, but carried that prejudice with them, as they did some others of a worse complexion, into the Protestant religion. For in sacred matters, as novelty is suspicious and antiquity venerable, they thought it for their credit to have the fathers on their side. They seemed neither to consider antiquity in general as a thing relative, nor Christian antiquity as a thing positive; either of which would have shown them that the fathers themselves were modern compared to that authority on which the Reformation was founded, and that the Gospel was that true antiquity on which all its followers should repose themselves. The consequence of which unhappy error was that, in the long appeal to reason between Protestants and Papists, both of them going on a common principle of the decisive authority of the fathers, enabled the latter to support their credit against all the evidence of common sense and sacred Scripture. At length an excellent writer of the Reformed [Daille], observing that the controversy was likely to be endless; for, though the gross corruptions of Popery were certainly later than the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, to which the appeal was usually made, yet the seeds of them being sown, and beginning to pullulate, it was but too plain there was hold enough for a skillful debater to draw the fathers to his own side, and make them water the sprouts they had been planting: observing this, I say, he wisely projected to shift the ground, and force the disputants to vary their method both of attack and defense.
In order to this, he composed a discourse of the True Use of the Fathers, in which, with uncommon learning and strength of argument, he showed that the fathers were incompetent deciders of the controversies now on foot, since the points in question were not formed into articles till long after the ages in which they lived. This was bringing the fathers from the bench to the table, degrading them from the rank of judges into the class of simple evidence; in which, too, they were not to speak, like Irish evidence, in every cause where they were wanted, but only to such matters as were agreed to be within their knowledge. Had this learned critic stopped here, his book had been free from blame; but, at the same time, his purpose had in all likelihood proved very ineffectual, for the obliquity of old prejudices is not to be set straight by reducing it to that line of right which barely restores it to integrity. He went much farther; and by showing occasionally that they were absurd interpreters of Holy Writ, that they were bad reasoners in morals and very loose evidence in facts, he seemed willing to have his readers infer that, even though they had been masters of the subject, yet these other defects would have rendered them very unqualified deciders. However, the work of this famous foreigner had great consequences, and especially with us here at home. The more learned among the nobility (which at that time was of the republic of letters) were the first who emancipated themselves from the general prejudice. It brought the excellent lord Falkland to think moderately of the fathers, and to turn his theological inquiries into a more useful channel; and his great rival in arts, the famous lord Digby, found it of such use to him in his defense of the Reformation against his cousin Sir Kenelm that he has even epitomized it in his fine letter on that subject. But what it has chiefly to boast of is that it gave birth to the two best defenses ever written on the two best subjects, religion and liberty — I mean Mr. Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, and Dr. Jeremy Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying. In a word, it may be truly said to be the store-house from whence all who have since written popularly on the character of the fathers have derived their materials" (cited in Preface to the Philadelphia edition of Daille).
3. The other Protestant wing consists of the early writers after the Reformation who sought in the fathers to find weapons against Rome, and of their successors, especially in the Church of England, who have favored what are called High-Church views. Among Continental writers, Scultetus (Medullae Theologiae Patrum Syntagma, Frankfort, 1598; Heidelb. 1613; Frankfort, 1634) sought to show that the ante-Nicene fathers had been corrupted and misinterpreted by Roman writers, and that Protestant doctrines were nearer to the ancient than the Roman Catholic doctrines. The Anglican divines, from an early period of the Reformation, made great use of the fathers in the controversy with Rome. Moreover, they found, or believed that they found, the fathers very serviceable in their warfare for episcopacy. Patristic studies became fashionable in the Church; the great names of Bull, Waterland, Usher, Andrews, and many others, show a list of patristical scholars hardly excelled in the Roman schools. Usher set great store upon the study of the fathers, not simply on polemical, but also on scientific grounds.
Dr. Parr says of him: "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." Bull and Waterland made great use of the fathers in their discussions of the Trinity. Waterland writes against Daille's charges of obscurity in the fathers (Works, Oxford, 6 vols. 8vo); he also wrote on the use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity in general (3:601- 655), and made a reply to Barbeyrac's Morale des Peres de l'glise (Amst. 1728). The great dissenting scholar, Dr. Lardner, applied the fathers in an apologetical way, with rare learning and, skill, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (latest edition, in his Works, 10 volumes, 8vo, London, 1827). He gives brief but painstaking notices of the history and literature of each of the writers cited, and his work is to this day one of the most useful introductions to the study of the writings of antiquity.
There was much controversy in the 18th century about the fathers, generally polemical, and inspired rather by the controversial spirit than by the love of truth. So Priestley attacked the fathers in his Corruptions of Christianity (1782). Bishop Horsley replied to him; and a voluminous issue of tracts followed from both parties (see Horsley, Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley on the belief of the first Ages with regard to our Lord's divinity (3d ed. Dundee, 1812). Middleton's Free Inquiry into the miraculous Powers attributed to the Early Church ( Works, 1755, volume 1) also gave rise to a copious controversy. John Wesley, in reply to it, says that "Middleton seeks to prove that all the primitive fathers were fools or knaves, and most of them both one and the other." He vindicates the ante- Nicene fathers from Middleton's charge that they held to all the chief "corruptions of Popery." In his summing up he says of the early fathers, "I allow that some of these had not strong natural sense, that few of them had much learning, and none the assistances which our age enjoys in some respects above all that went before. Hence I doubt not but whoever will be at the pains of reading over their writings for that poor end will find many mistakes, many weak suppositions, and many ill-drawn conclusions. And yet I exceedingly reverence them, as well as their writings, and esteem them very highly in love. I reverence them because they were Christians; and I reverence their writings because they describe true genuine Christianity, and direct us to the strongest evidence of the Christian. doctrine" (Works, N.Y. ed., 5:705-761).
4. A new impulse was given to the study of the fathers in England by the so-called Catholic revival in that Church in the first half of the 19th century. The old reverence for their authority, and even more, a blind following of their guidance, seemed to take possession of the leaders of that movement. One of its best fruits was the publication of the Library of the Fathers (see below). The movement gave rise, as is well known, to a bitter controversy, reopening the whole question of the character of the fathers, their trustworthiness as witnesses, their authority as teachers, and the general utility of studying their writings. We cite a few specimens:
Coleridge, in his Notes on Hacket, especially on his Sermons, remarks: "Let any competent judge read Hacket's life of archbishop Williams, and then these sermons, qnd so measure the stultifying, nugifying effect of a blind and uncritical study of the fathers, and the exclusive prepossession in favor of their authority in the minds of many of our Church dignitaries in the reign of Charles I" (Works, Harpers' ed. N.Y., 5:128).
Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, who was a hearty hater of the Tractarian movement, writes on the authority of the fathers as follows: "In fact. it would greatly help to clear this question if we understand what we mean by allowing or denying the authority of the so-called fathers. The term authority is ambiguous, and, according to the sense in which I use it, I should either acknowledge it or deny it. The writers of the first four or of the first seven centuries have authority just as the scholiasts and ancient commentators have; some of them, and in some points, are of weight singly; the agreement of many of them has much weight; the agreement of almost all of them would have great weight. In this sense I acknowledge their authority, and it would be against all sound principles of criticism to deny it. But if by authority is meant a decisive authority, a judgment which may not be questioned, then the claim of authority in such a case, for any man or set of men, is either a folly or a revelation. Such an authority is not human, but divine: if any man pretends to possess it, let him show God's clear warrant for his pretension, or he must be regarded as a deceiver or a madman. But it may be said that an authority not to be questioned was conferred by the Roman law on the opinions of a certain number of great lawyers: if a judge believed that their interpretation of the law was erroneous, he yet was not at liberty to follow his own private judgment in departing from it. Why may not the same thing be allowed in the Church? or why may not the interpretations of Cyprian, or Athanasius, or Augustine, or Chrysostom be as decisive, with respect to the true sense of the Scriptures, as those of Gainus, Paulus, Modestinus, Ulpian, and Papinian were acknowledged to be with respect to the sense of the Roman law? The answer is that the emperor's edict could absolve the judge from following his own convictions about the sense of the case, because it gave to the authorized interpretation the force of law. The text, as the judge interpreted it, was a law repealed; the comment of the great lawyers was now a law in its room. As a mere literary composition, he might interpret it rightly, and Gaius or Papinian might be wrong; but if his interpretation was ever so right grammatically or critically, yet legally it was nothing to the purpose; Gaius's interpretation had superseded it, and was now the law which he was bound to obey. But in the Church, the only point to be aimed at is the discovery of the true meaning of the text of the divine law; no human power can invest the comment with equal authority. The emperor said, and might say to his judges, "You need not consider what was the meaning of the deceivers when they wrote the Twelve Tables, or of Aquillius when he drew up the Aquillian law. The law for you is not what the deceivers may have meant, but what their interpreters meant; the deceivers' meaning, if it was their meaning, is no longer the law of Rome.' But who dare say to a Christian, 'You need not consider what was the meaning of our Lord and his apostles; the law for you now is the meaning of Cyprian, or Ambrose, or Chrysostom; that meaning has superseded the meaning of Christ.' A Christian must find out Christ's meaning, and believe that he has found it, or else he must still seek for it. It is a matter, not of outward submission, but of inward faith; and if in our inward mind we are persuaded that the interpreter has mistaken our Lord's meaning, how can we by possibility adopt that interpretation in faith ?" (Miscellaneous Works, N.Y. 1845, page 274).
Archdeacon Hare (in his notes to the Mission of the Comforter) seeks to show that even the greatest of the fathers were inferior, in their understanding of Scripture, to the great divines of the Reformation. "There is much truth," he says, "though perhaps not without some exaggeration of phrase, in what Coleridge says (Remains, 3:276) with reference to Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin, that the least of them was not inferior to Augustine, and worth a brigade of the Cyprians, Firmilians, and the like.' Surely there is nothing surprising in this. The marvel, the contradiction to the whole course of history would be if this were not the case, unless we suppose that the special illumination which was granted to the apostles was bestowed on the chief teachers of Christianity down to the last of the fathers, was then withdrawn, and has been withheld ever since. But for such a limitation and restriction of the gifts of the Spirit no ground can be discovered, either in Scripture or in the nature of man; nor does the history of the Church present any facts to support it... It is next to a moral impossibility that men living in the decrepitude of the ancient world, under the relaxing and paralyzing influences of the Roman and Byzantine empires, when all intellectual and moral life was fast waning away, and the grand and stirring ideas and aims which had drawn forth the energies of the classical nations in their prime had been superseded by rhetorical tumor and allegorical and grammatical trifling, should have mounted to such a pitch of intellectual power as to be beyond the reach of the noblest minds in the age when all the faculties of the now world were bursting into life, and when one region of power after another was laid open to man, and called him to rise up and take possession of it... . There is no antecedent improbability that a theologian in the sixteenth century should be quite as wise and as sound an expounder of theological truth as one in the fourth or fifth. Though the earlier divines may have had certain special advantages, the advantages enjoyed by those is the later period were far greater and more important; and if they had peculiar temptations to lead them astray, so had the others.
The epoch at which a man lives does not afford us a criterion for judging of the truth of what he says, except so far as his testimony may be appealed to concerning facts; in other respects the value of his writings must be determined on different grounds by candid and intelligent criticism. Nor is such criticism less needful with regard to the fathers than to any other body of writers... . To those who study the fathers critically and discerningly they still yield grains of precious gold in abundance, as we see in the excellent exegetical writings of Mr. Trench. But the superstitious and idolatrous are ever fond of displaying their doting by picking out as the special objects of their complacency not that which is really valuable — other men might approve of that — but that which is itself is worthless, nay, mawkishly silly or wildly absurd... . And with what exactitude is the training of some of our patrolaters who are lapsing into Romsanism here described! The issue, indeed, so far as we are at present acquainted with it, has been mainly in one direction towards Rome. This is not because the fathers of the first four or five centuries are favorable to the errors and corruptions of Rome.
The contest on this point has been waged again and again, and the victory, in the main, has always been on our side. But the very habit of looking with prostrate minds to outward human authority, and that, too, authority so remote from the special wants and yearnings of our age, and incapable of speaking to us with that intelligent fellow-feeling which elicits the responsive activity of our own spirits-to authority, therefore, which can only speak imperatively, except to the few whose understandings are mature enough to consult it critically, and to distinguish the true from the erroneous, the relevant from the irrelevant tends to breed an imbecile tone of judgment which is incapable of standing alone, and will not be content with the helps wherewith God has supplied us, but craves restlessly for some absolute authority whereby it may be enabled to walk in leading- strings all its life long. Such minds, when one prop after another gives way under them, as they find out that no father can be appealed to as an absolute authority, least of all on the particular questions which agitate our times the most, will try to save themselves from falling into infidelity by catching desperately hold of infallibility. And how long will this bear them up?" (Hare, Vindication of Luther, p. 76-82).
5. But some of the opponents of an undue reverence for the fathers have not been wanting in just appreciation of their historical value. Dr. W. L. Alexander (Anglo-Catholicism not Apostolical, Edinb. 1843, 8vo) gives the following caution against under-estimating the importance and value of the fathers: "There has been among Protestants a great deal of foolish talking and much jesting that is anything but convenient upon this subject. Men who have never read a page of the fathers, and who could not read one were they to try, have deemed themselves at liberty to speak in terms of scoffing and supercilious contempt of these venerable luminaries of the early Church. Because Clement of Rome believed in the .existence of the phoenix, and because Justin Martyr thought the sons of God who are said in Genesis to have intermarried with the daughters of men were angels, who for the loves of earth were willing to forego the joys of heaven; and because legends and old wives' fables now are found in almost all the fathers, it has been deemed wise to reject, despise, and ridicule the whole body of their writings.
The least reflection will suffice to show the unsoundness of such an inference. What should we say of one who, because lord Bacon bald many opinions which modern science has proved to be false, should treat the Novum Organum With contempt? or of one who should deem himself entitled to scoff at Richard Baxter because in his Saints' Rest that able and excellent man tries to prove the existence of Satan by quoting instances of his apparitions, and of his power over witches? There is no man, however good or great, that can get quite beyond the errors and credulities of his age. It becomes us, therefore, in dealing with the writings of a former generation, to take care that, in rejecting the bad, we do not also despise the good; and especially that we be not found availing ourselves of advantages which have reached us through the medium of these writings, while we ignorantly and ungratefully dishonor the memory of those by whom these writings were penned." In the height of the so-called Tractarian controversy in England, Isaac Taylor wrote his Ancient Christianity and the Doctrines of the Oxford Tracts (Lend. 1839, 2 vols. 8vo; 2d ed. 1844; reprint of vol. i, Phila. 1840, 12mo) for the purpose of laying " pen the real condition, moral, spiritual, and ecclesiastical, of the ancient Church;" and the chief aim and tendency of the book is to lessen the authority of the fathers, especially of those of the ante-Nicene period. Yet even he devotes a chapter to show the dependence of the modern Church upon the ancient, and to deprecate a "setting at naught" of patristical learning. " It is not, we may be sure, those who possess much of this indispensable learning that in any such way set it at naught; and it is an acknowledged rule in all walks of science and literature that the scoffs and captious objections of the ignorant need not be seriously replied to know what you are speaking of, and then contemn it.' Now the mere fact of applying any comprehensive terms, either of admiration or contempt, to a body and series of writers, stretching through seven hundred or a thousand years, and these writers natives as they were of distant countries, some of them simple and rude, while others were erudite and accomplished, may be taken as a proof of heedlessness, regarding the matter in hand, sufficient to excuse a silent disregard of the objection it involves. These 'fathers,' thus grouped as a little band by the objectors, were some of them men of as brilliant genius as any age has produced; some commanding a flowing and vigorous eloquence, some an extensive erudition, some conversant with the great world, some whose meditations had been ripened by years of seclusion, some of them the only historians of the times in which they lived, some the chiefs of the philosophy of their age; and if we are to speak of the whole as a series or body of writers, they are the men who, during a long aera of deepening barbarism, still held the lamp of knowledge and learning, and, in fact, afford us almost all that we can now know, intimately, of the condition of the nations surrounding the Mediterranean, from the extinction of the classic fire to the time of its rekindling in the fourteenth century.
The Church was the ark of all things that had life during a deluge of seven hundred years. Such is the group which is often conveniently dismissed with a concise phrase of contempt by some! It may be suspected that very many of the delighted admirers of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire are little aware of the extent of Gibbon's obligations to the fathers. Were it possible to draw off from that seductive work the entire materials derived by the indefatigable author from the ecclesiastical compartment of his library, it is no small proportion of the splendor, the accuracy, the correct drawing, the vivid coloring, which are its charm and praise, that would be found wanting. Well would it have been if some of the professed champions and historians of Christianity had been as thoroughly conversant with the remains of Christian antiquity as was its most dangerous assailant. The ignorance of which we are here complaining has once endangered our faith as Christians, and it is now endangering our faith as Protestants. Nearly of the same quality, and usually advanced by the same parties, is the portentous insinuation, or the bold and appalling averment, that there was little or no genuine Christianity in the world from the times of Justin Martyr to those of Wickliffe, or of Luther! and the inference from this assumption is that we are far more likely to be led astray than edified by looking into the literature of this vast territory of religious darkness. I must leave it to those who entertain any such sombre belief as this to repel, in the best manner they are able, those fiery darts of infidelity which will not fail to be hurled at Christianity itself as often as the opinion is professed. Such persons, too, must expound as they can our Lord's parting promise to his servants. Notions of this sort, and there are many of like kind, all take their rise from some narrow and sectarian hypothesis concerning Christianity. We do not, perhaps, find, during certain cycles of the Church's history, that style or dialect which, by an intimate association of ideas, has combined itself with our religious sentiments, and therefore it is to us and our peculiar feelings as if Christianity itself had actually not been extant at such times.
If these are our feelings, it is well that we get rid of them with all speed. Christianity is absolute truth, bearing with various effect, from age to age, upon our distorted and discolored human nature, but never so powerfully pervading the foreign substance it enters as to undergo no deflections itself, or to take no stains; and as its influence varies, from age to age, in intensity, as well as in the particular direction it may take, so does it exhibit, from age to age, great variations of form and hue. But the men of any one age indulge too much the overweening temper that attaches always to human nature when they say to themselves, our Christianity is absolute Christianity, but that of such or such an age was a mere shadow of it. All mystification apart, as well as a superstitious and overweening deference to antiquity, nothing can be more simple than the facts on which rests the legitimate use and value of the ancient documents of Christianity, considered as the repositories of those practices and opinions which, obscurely or ambiguously alluded to in the canonical writings, are found, drawn forth, and illustrated in the records of the times immediately succeeding. These records contain at once a testimony in behalf of the capital articles of our faith and an exposition of minor sentiments and ecclesiastical usages, neither of which can be surrendered wit-bout some serious loss and damage" (Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 8vo ed. p. 66-71).
6. The more recent tendency among the theologians off Germany, England, and America is to study the fathers more thoroughly than ever, but to study them in a scientific way, for historical rather than polemical and dogmatical ends; or, where dogmatic interest-s are involved, to use thee fathers historically, and not as authorities. The terms Patristics and Patrology have come into use to designate the history and literature of the fathers on the one hand, SEE PATRISTICS, and their theology on the other, SEE PATROLOGY. These branches have not yet taken fully scientific shape, but they are on the way to it (see the references below).
IV. Collective Editions of the Fathers.
1. The first great collection was that of De la Bigne, who formed the idea of a collection of the fathers with a view of opposing the doctrines of the French Protestants. This scheme met with the approbation of his superiors in the Sorbonne, and the first eight volumes appeared at Paris in 1575, and the 9th in 1579. It is entitled Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latine, and it contained about 200 writers. The 2d edit.,- somewhat improved, was published at Paris in 1589, 9 vols. fol. The 3d edit. (Paris, 1609, 11 vols. fol.) has the addition of an Auctuarium. In these editions the writers are classed according to subjects. The 4th edit., or rather a new work by the professors of Cologne, has the writers arranged in chronological order. It was printed at Cologne in 1608, in 14 vols. fol., to which in 1622 a supplement in one vol. was added. The Sth edit. (or 4th of De la Bigne) was published at Paris in 1624, in 10 vols. fol., with the addition of an Auctuarium Graeco-Latinum compiled by Le Duc (the Jesuit Fronto Ducaeus), and in 1629 a Supplementum Latinusn- in two vols. was added. The 6th edit. (or 5th of De la Bigne), printed at Paris in 1634, in 17 vols. fol., contains the preceding, with the Auctuarium and Supplementum incorporated. The 7th edit. in 1654 is merely a reprint of the last. 2. In 1677 appeared at Lyons (27 vols. fol.) the Bibliotheca Patrum, which generally and deservedly bears the name of Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum Lugdunensis. It contains nearly all the writers found in the preceding works, together with many others (Latin only), chronologically arranged. 3. After this gigantic undertaking, no similar work appeared until that of Andre Galland was published, under the title of Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorensuque Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum postremam Lugdunensi multo locupletior atque accuratior, in 14 vols. fol. (Venice, 1766-1781). The Greek texts are given, with Latin versions. Galland omits many authors given in the Bibl. Max., but adds also 180 not given in it. 4. The most complete edition of both Greek and Latin fathers is that of Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, see Bibliotheca Universalis, integra, etc., Omnium SS. Patrum, Doctorum, Scriptorumque Ecclesiasticorum (Paris, 1844-1867). This immense collection includes all the Latin writers from the apostolical age down to the time of Innocent III (A.D. 1216), and the Greeks down to the time of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1439). In most cases the Benedictine texts are followed. Ample indexes are. given, both alphabetical and analytical, of the Latin fathers; those for the Greek, unfortunately, were not all finished when Migne's establishment was burned down in 1868. The Latin fathers fill, with the indexes, two hundred and twenty-two volumes imperial octavo. The Greek writers (with Latin versions) take up one hundred and sixty-seven volumes of the same size. - The Latin version of the Greek fathers is also published separately in eighty-four volumes. For purposes of reference, there can be no question that this is the most convenient series of the fathers and ecclesiastical writers ever published. Complaints are made of many of the volumes (and justly) that sufficient care has not been taken with the editing; and it is further charged that, in some cases, the old literary policy of the Church of Rome, of modifying, omitting, and even garbling, for polemical purposes, has been followed by Migne. For the study of special authors there are, certainly, editions to be had more accurate and trustworthy than Migne's; and no student who desires to be thorough in critical study would ever be satisfied without comparison of various editions. But with all drawbacks, the fact remains that the Cursus Coaspletus Patrologice is an indispensable necessity to every large theological or historical library.
Incomplete Collections and Translations. -Among these we cite, 1. A useful abridgment or analysis, in alphabetical order, viz. Bib. Max. Patrum in Epitomen redacta (Augsb. 1719, 2 vols. fol.); 2. Combefis, Graeco-Lat. Patrum Bibliothecae Novena Auctuarium (1648); also his Bibliothecae Graecorum Patrum Auctuarium Novissimum (2 parts, 1672); 3. Canisius, Antiquae Lectiones seu varia veter. monumenta (Ingolstadt, 1601), enlarged by Basnage (Amst. 1672, 4 vols. fol.); 4. Montfaucon, Collectio Nova Pats-nm et Script. Graecorum (Paris, 1706, 2 vols. fol.); 5. D'Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio vet. aliquot Scriptorusm (Paris, 1655- 77,13 vols.; Par. 1723, 3 vols. fol.); 6. Grabe, Spicilegium SS. Patruss ut et heeretic. seculi post Christ. I-III (2d edit. Oxon. 1714, 2 vols. 8vao); 7. Martehne et Durand, Amp/ais/ma collectio vet. script. et monument. hist. (Paris, 1724-33, 9 vols. fol.);.8. Routh, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorun Opuscula (2d edit. Oxford, 1840, 2 vols. 8vo); 9. Routh, Reliquicae Sacrae, sive auctorum ferejam deperditorum 2 et 3 sacuhi, accedunt synodi et epist. canosa. Nicaen. (Oxf. 1846-8, 5 vols. 8vo); 10. Angelo Mai, Script. vet. nova collectio (Romma, 1825-38, 10 vols. 4to); 11. Mai, Spicilegium Bomanum (Romie, 1839-44, 10 vols. 8vo); 12. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca (Rom. 1852,7 vols. 4to); 13. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesanse (Par. 1852 sq., 4 vols. 8vo); 14. (Oxford Selection), Bib. Patr. Eccl. Catholicae, qui ante orientis et occidentis schisma floruerunt; delecta Presbyterorusn quorundam Oxoniensiune (Oxf. 8vo, 1838, and following years- still issuing); 15. (Oxford translation), Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church anterior to the division of the East and West (translated by members of the English Church; edited by E. B. Pusey, J. Keble, C. Marriott, Oxford, 8vo, 1839, and following years; 40 vols. issued); 16. Bibliotheca Patrum concionatoria, hoc est, anni totius, evangelia,festa dominica, etc., homiliis atque sermonibus adornata SS. Patr. et script. eccles. qui tredecim prior. saec. flor., Opera,et studio F. Francisci Combefis; editio castigata, etc.; ed. A. Gonel et Ludovic. Pere (Paris, 1852 sq.; to form 30 vols. large 8vo); 17. (Hand Editions), Oberthur, Opera Patrum Graecorum, Greek et Lat. (Wirceb. 1777-92, 10 vols. 8vo); Ibid. Op. Patruim Latinorum (1780-91); Richter, Bibliotheca Selecta Patrnum Graecorum (Lips. 1826 et seq., Josephus, Philo, Clemens); Thilo, Patrnuns Graecorum Dogmatica (Leipz. 1853-4, 2 vols. 8vo, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen); Gersdorf, Patrum Eccles. Lat. selecta Bibliotheca (Lips. 1838,13 vols. 12mo, Clemens Rom., Cyprian, Tertullian, Ambrose, Lactantius, Arnobius, Minucius Felix; a very correct and convenient edition); Corpus Scriptor. Eccles. Latinorum (edited under the direction of the Academy of Vienna, 1866, and continuing); Corpus Apologetarum secundi sceculi (ed. Otto, Jena, 1847, 8 vols. issued); Corpus Hacresiologicum (ed. Oehler, Berlin, 1856-65, 5 vols. 8vo); 18. (German Translation), Siimmtl. Werke der Kirchenvater ins Deutsche iibersetzt. (edit. Ziegler and Waitzmann, Kempten, 1831- 1854; 39 vols. publ. up to 1854); 19. The Ante-Nicene Christian Library; translations of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Roberts and Donaldson, an admirably conceived and executed work. Up to this date (January, 1869) the following .have been issued: Vol. i, The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Rev. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Donaldson, and Rev. F. Crombie; vol. ii, The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, translated by Rev. Marcus Dods, A.M., Rev. George Reith, A.M., and Rev. B. P. Pratten; vol. iii, The Writings of Tatian and Theophilus, and the Clementine Recognitions, translated by B. P. Pratten, Rev. Marcus Dods, A.M., and Rev. T. Smith, D.D.; vol. 4:The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, translated by Rev. W.Wilson, M.A.; vol. v, The Writings of Irenceus, translated by Rev. A. Roberts and Rev. W. H. Rambaut; vol. 6:The Refutation of all Heresies by Hippolytus, translated by Rev. J. H. Macmahon, M.A.; With Fragments from his Commentaries on various Books of Scripture, translated by Rev. S. D. F. Salmond; vol. 7:The Five Books of Tertullian against Marcion, translated by Peter Holmes, D.D.; vol. 8:The Writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, vol. i, containing the Epistles and some of the Treatises, translated by Rev. E. Wallis, Ph. D.; vol. 9:Irenceus, vol. ii, translated by Rev. H. Roberts and Rev. W. H. Rambaut; vol. 10:The Writings of Origen, translated by Rev. F. Crombie, M.A. For editions of the fathers separately, see the individual names in their alphabetical places.
III. Works on the Fathers; their literary history, their use, authority, etc. 1. Jerome (t 420), De Viris Illustribus s. catalogus Scriptor. Eccles. (Migne, Patrol. Lat. 23:602 sq., many editions and recensions; the work is the basis of Fabricius, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, Hamburg, 1718, fol.);
2. Photius (t 890), Âéâëéïèήêç . Bibliotheca (Migne, Patrol. Graec. vols. ciii, civ), containing sketches of 280 pagan and Christian writers;
3. Bellarmine, Liber de Scriptor. Ecclesiasticis (Rom. 1613, and often);
4. Cave, Scriptorum Eccles. Historia Literaria, ad saec. xiv (2 parts, Lond. 1688-98; Genev. 1705, 1720; Basel, 1741; Oxford [continued by Wharton], 1740-43, 2 vols. fol.);
5. Dupin, Nouv. Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques (Paris, 1686- 1698, 47 vols. 8vo; Amst. 1693-1715, 19 vols. 4to; Latin version, Paris, 1692 sq., 3 vols. 4to [up to Augustine]; English version, including 17th century, Lond. 1693-1707, 17 vols. bound in 7 or 8; Dublin, 1722-24, 3 vols. fol. [without the 17th century]; SEE DUPIN );
6. Ceillier, Histoire Geinrale des Auteurs Sacrs et ecclesiastiques (Par. 172963, 23 vols. 4to; new edition, revised with additions, Paris, 1860- 1865,15 vols. imp. 8vo; SEE CEILLIER );7. Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire ecclesiastique (Par. 1693, 16 vols.);
8. Oudin, Commentarius de Scriptor. Eccles. antiquis, professing to fill up the gaps left by Cave, Dupin, etc. (Lips. 1722, 3 vols. fol.);
9. Le Nourry, Apparatus Criticus ad Bibl. Max. Patr. (Paris, 1703-15, 2 vols. fol.);
10. Tricalet, Bibliotheque portative des peres de lyglise (Paris, 1757-62, 9 vols. 8vo);
11. Sprenger, Thesaurus reipatristicce (Wirceb. 1782-94, 3 vols. 4to);
12. Lumper, Hist. theologico-Critica de vita scriptis, etc., SS. Patrum (Aug. Vind. 178399, 13 vols. 8vo) ;
13. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Greca, etc. (Hamb. 1708-28,14 vols.; ed. by Harless, 1790 to 1812, 12 vols. including Index); Fabricius, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica (mentioned above); Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina SEE FABRICIUS;
14. Walch, Bibliotheca Patristrica (Jena, 1770; new ed. by Danz, Jena, 1834, 8vo);
15. (Introductions to Patristics. and Patrology), Wilhelm (R. Cath.), Patrologia ad usus academ. (Freib. 1775); Engelhardt, Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen uib. die Patristik (Erlangen, 1823); Goldwitzer (R. C.), Bibliographie d. Kirchen-Vdter (Niirnberg, 1833-4, 2 vols. 8vo, not of much value); Locherer (R. C.), Lehrbuch der Patrologie (Mainz, 1837, 8vo); Permaneder (R. C.), Patrologia generalis, specialis (Landshut, 1841-43, 2 vols. 8vo); Mohler (R. C.), Patrologie, ed. by Reithmayr (Regensburg, 1840; only first vol. finished, covering first three centuries); Fessler (R. C.), Institutiones Patrol., up to Gregory the Great (1850-51, 2 vols. 8vo); Alzog (R. C.), Grundriss d. Patrologie (Freib. 1866, 8vo); Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature, etc. (mentioned above, Lond. 1864, 3 vols. 8vo); 16. (On the Use of the Fathers), Nat. Bonaventura (R. C.), Traite de la lecture des Peres (Paris, 1688-97); also in Latin, De opt. meth. legend. ecclesias. Patr. (August. Vind. 1756, 8vo) ; Daille (see above), Right Use