Jean Daille was a 16th century French protestant clergyman who wrote an important treatise on the right use of the Church Fathers.
 |
In essence Daille argued that the Fathers are no competent judges in the controversies facing the Church in the sixteenth century. Those controversies are:
...the doctrines of transubstantiation, and the adoration of the eucharist, or the monarchy of the Pope, or the necessity of auricular confession, or the worshipping of images, and similar points, which are those of the present controversies, and which none of the ancients have treated expressly and by design, or perhaps ever so much thought of? pg. 34
I am going to sum up each chapter of this book and supply a relevant passage or two to illustrate that summary.
BOOK ONE
Chapter 1: We have very little of the Father's writing from the first three centuries. These centuries are the most important because nearer to the time of the Apostles and thus purer.
The first Reason, therefore, which I shall lay down for the proving of this Difficulty, is, The little we have ex∣tant of the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, especially of the First, Second, and Third Centuries; which are those we are most especially to regard. For, seeing that one of the principal Reasons that moveth the Church of Rome to alledge the Writings of the Fathers, is to shew the Truth of their Tenets, by the Antiquity, which they reckon as a Mark of it; it is most evident, that the most Ancient ought to be the most taken notice of. And in∣deed, there is no question to be made, but that the Christian Religion was more pure, and without mixture, in its beginnings and Infancy, than it was afterwards, in its Growth and Progress: it being the ordinary course of Things, to contract Corruptions, more or less, according as they are more or less removed from their first Institu∣tion: As we see by experience in States, Laws, Arts, and Languages; the Natural Propriety of all which is con∣tinually declining, after they have once passed the Point of their Vigour, and, as it were, the Flower and Prime of their Strength and Perfection. pg. 26
Chapter 2: The writings of the Fathers from the first centuries treat of far different matters than those of the present controversies.
But suppose that neither the want of Books in the Three First Centuries, nor yet the abundance of them in the Three following, should bring along with it these inconveniences; it will however be very hard to discover out of them, what the Opinion of their Authors hath been, touching those Points of Christian Religion now controverted. For the Matters whereof They treat, are of a very different nature; these Authors, according as the necessity of their times required, employing them∣selves either in justifying the Christian Religion, and vindicating it from the aspersion of such Crimes wherewith it was most falsely and injuriously charged; or else in laying open to the World the Absurdity and Im∣piety of Paganism; or in convincing the hard-hearted Jews; or in confuting the prodigious Fooleries of the Hereticks of those times; or in exhortations to the Faithful to Patience and Martyrdom; or in expounding some certain Passages and Portions of the Holy Scripture: all which things have very little to do with the Controversies of these times, of which they never speak a Syllable, unless they accidentally or by chance let a Word drop from them, toward this side, or that side, yet without the least thought of us, or of our Controversies; although both the one and the other Party sometimes lights upon Passages, wherein they conceive they have discovered their own Opinions clearly delivered, though in vain for the most part, and without ground: just as he did, that hearing a Ring of Bells, thought they perfectly sounded out unto him, what he in his own thoughts had fancied. pg. 32-33
Chapter 3: The writings of the Fathers are filled with forgeries and it is too hard to them out. And being that that task is very difficult how much more difficult can it be to find out their opinions.
And thus we see what confusion there is in the Books of the Ancients, and what defect in the Means which is requisite for the distinguishing the False from the True: insomuch that, as it often falls out, it is much easier to judge what we ought to reject, than to resolve upon what we may safely receive. Let the Reader therefore now judge, whether or no these Writings having come down along through so many Ages, and passed through so many Hands, which are either known to have been notoriously guilty, or at least strongly suspected of Forgery, the Truth in the mean time having made on its part but very weak resistance against these Impostures; it be not a very hard matter to discover, amidst the infinite number of Books that are now extant, and go under the Names of the Fathers, which are those that truly belong to them; and which again are those that are falsely imposed upon them. And if it be so hard a matter to discover in gross only which are the Writings of the Fathers; how much more difficult a Business will it be to find out what their Opinions are touching the several Controversies now in agitation. pg. 59 -60
Chapter 4: The legitimate writings of the Fathers are filled with the errors of scribes some of which are malicious interpolations.
But, put the case now here, that you had by your long and judicious Endeavours severed the True and Genuine Writings of the Fathers, from the Spurious and Forged: there would yet lie upon you a second Task, whose event is like to prove much more doubtful, and fuller of difficulty than the former. For it would con∣cern you in the next place, in reading over those Authors which you acknowledge for Legitimate, to distinguish what is the Author's own, and what hath been foisted in by another Hand; and also to restore to your Author, whatsoever either by Time or Fraud hath been taken away; and to take out of him whatsoever hath been added by either of these two. Otherwise you will never be able to assure your self, that you have discovered out of these Books, what the true and proper meaning and sense of your Author hath been; considering the great Alterations that by several ways they may have suffered, in several Times. pg. 61
Chapter 5: The writings of the Fathers are difficult to understand because of their idioms, languages, and rhetorical flourishes.
Now I do not know, why a Man may not, with as much reason, say of the most of the Writings of the Fathers, as Jerome did of some certain Expositors of some parts of the Scriptures, That it was more trouble to understand Them well than those very things which they took upon them to expound: that is to say, That it is much harder rightly to understand Them, than the Scriptures themselves. For, that a Man may be able fully to understand them, it is in the first place necessary, that he have perfect and exact skill in those Languages wherein they wrote; that is to say, in the Greek,and Latin, which are the Tongues that most of them wrote in. pg. 102
Chapter 6 The Fathers frequently conceal their own opinions and say things do they not believe.
Let any rational Man therefore now judge, whether or no this course must not necessarily embroil, and inwrap in a world of almost inexplicable Difficulties, the Writings of the Fathers. For, how is it possible that we should be able to judge, when they speak as they thought, and when not? Whether they mean really what they say, or whether they make but a flourish only? Whether the Bread which they shew us, be to deceive, or to feed us? Whether the Problems they propose be solid, or slippery ones? Whether their Positions be Dogmatical, or Oeconomical? pg. 154
Chapter 7 The Fathers changed their opinions as they aged.
Amongst all the Ecclesiastical Writers, the Pen men of the Old and New Testament only have received the knowledge of Divine things by an extraordinary Inspiration: the rest have acquired their knowledge by the ordinary means of Instruction, Reading, and Meditation; in such sort, as that this Knowledge came not unto them in an instant, as it did to the others; but increased in them by degrees, ripening and growing up by little and little, in proportion as they grew in years: whence it is, that their Writings are not all of them of the same weight, nor of the same Value. pg. 156
And when all is done, who knoweth not, that there are some Trees that bear their Summer-fruit even in the very beginning of the Summer, when as the Spring-time is yet hardly past? And again, the Fruits which are gathe∣red at the end of the Later Season, are not always the ripest: for Time, in stead of ripening, many times rotteth them. In like manner is it also with Men, and consequent∣ly with the Fathers. Sometimes their Summer yieldeth much more, and better Fruit than their Autumn. For, as for the Winter, that is to say, the last part of our Age, it is evident that it usually brings forth nothing at all, or if it do chance to force it self beyond Nature, the Fruits it bringeth forth are yet worse, and more crude and imperfect, than those even of the Spring.
Seeing therefore it is for the most part impossible to give any certain judgment of these things, either by the History of these Authors, or by their Books themselves; and that again on the other side, without this we ought not to sit down upon any thing we find in their Writings, as reckoning we have made a discovery what their Opinions have been: we may safely conclude in this Point also, as we have done in the former, That it is a very hard matter to know truly and precisely what the Opinions and Sense of the Ancients have been, touching the Differences at this day debated amongst us. pg. 161- 162
Chapter 8 It is difficult to discern if the opinions of the Fathers were necessary and absolutely true or true yet only probably and contingently so.
Now according to this diversity of Degrees, the Belief or Ignorance of these two Propositions are also of very different importance. The first of them we may not be ignorant of, and much less deny, without renoun∣cing Christianity. The second we may be ignorant of, and even deny too, as supposing it false, yet without any great danger. To be able therefore to come to a clear and perfect understanding, what was the Sense of the Fathers touching the Points of Religion at this day controverted amongst Us, it is necessary that we should know, not only whether they believed, or not believed them; but also, how they believed, or not believed them: that is to say, whether they held them as Propositions Necessarily, or Probably, either True, or False; and besides, in what Degree either of Necessity, or Probability they placed them. pg. 163 - 164
The very hope of effecting so weighty a Matter can hardly be excused from the guilt of High Presumption. For, first of all, the Fathers tell us very seldom, in what Degree either of Necessity, or Probability, they held their Opinions: and even when they do tell us, their Expressions being such, as we have observed of them, we ought not presently to conclude any thing from them, without first examining them through∣ly. For, many times, when they would recommend unto us such things, as they accounted profitable for us; they would speak of them, as if they had been Necessary: and so again, to take off our Belief of, and to divert our affections from such things as they conceived either to be simply false, or otherwise unprofitable for us; they re∣presented them as the most detestable and pernicious things that could be. pg. 172 - 173
Chapter 9 We must know the opinions not only of one or two Fathers but the entire Church.
And now see how we are fallen again into new Difficul∣ties. For, whence, and by what means may we learn, whether the whole Church, in the time of Justin Martyr, or of S. Augustine, or of S. Hierome, maintained the same Opinions in every particular, that these Men several∣ly did, or not? pg. 177
As for example, when Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Augustine, and others, discourse touching the Son of God, they speak nothing but what is conformable to the Belief of the Church in General; because that the Belief of the Church had then been clearly and expressly delivered upon this Point: so that whatsoever they say, as to this Particular, may safely be received, as a Testimony of the Churches Belief. And the like may be done in all the other Points, which have either been positively determined in any of the General Councils, or delivered in any of the Creeds, or that any other way appeareth to have been the pub∣lick Belief of the Church.
If the Fathers had but contain∣ed themselves within these Bounds, and had not taken liberty to treat of any thing, save what the Church had clearly delivered its Judgment upon; this Rule might then have been received as a General one; and, what opinion soever we found in them, we might safely have concluded it to have been the Sense of the Church that was in their time. But the curiosity of Mans Nature, together with the Impudence of the Hereticks, and the Tenderness of Conscience, whether of their own or of others, and divers other Reasons perhaps, having partly made them willingly, and partly forced, and as it were constrained them to go on further, and to proceed to the search of the Truth of several Points, which had not as yet been established by the universal and publick Consent of all Christians, it could not be avoided, but that necessarily they must in these Inquiries make use of their own proper Light, and must deliver upon the same their own private Opinions; which the Church, which came after them, hath since either embraced, or rejected. pg. 178
Chapter 10 If the Fathers did discuss the present controversies it is difficult to tell if such was only their opinion or if it was received by the whole Church.
But suppose that a Father, relieving us in this difficult, or rather impossible business, should tell us in express terms, that what he proposeth, is the sense and opinion of the Church in his time; yet would not this quite deliver us out of the doubtful condition we are in. For, besides that their words are many times, in such cases as these, liable to exception, suppose that it were certainly and undoubtedly so; yet would it concern us then to examine, what that Church was, whereof he speaketh; whether it were the Church Universal, or only some Particular Church, and whether it were that of the whole World, or that of some City, Province, or Country only.
Now that this is a matter of no small importance is evident from hence; because that the opinions of the Church Universal in Points of Faith are accounted infallible, and necessarily true: whereas those of Particular Churches are not so, but are confessed to be subject to Errour. So that the Question being here touching the Faith, which ought not to be grounded upon any thing, save what is infallibly true; it will concern us to know, what the judgment of the Church universal hath been; seeing the opinion of no Particular Church can do us any service in this case. pg. 184 - 185
I could here produce divers other Examples; but these may suffice, to shew, that the Opinions and Customs, which have been received in one Part of the Church, have not always been entertained in all the rest. Whence it evidently follows, that all that is acknowledged, as the opinion, or observation of the Church, ought not therefore presently to pass for an Universal Law. pg, 189
I shall not here enter into an Examination, whether this Answer be well grounded, or not: it is sufficient for me, that I can safely then conclude from hence, that according to this account, before you can make use of any Opinion, or Testimony out of any of the Fathers, it is necessary, that you first make it appear, not only that it was the Opinion of the Church at that time; but you must further also clearly demonstrate unto us what Churches opinion it was; whether of the Church Universal, or else of some Particular Church only. pg. 189 - 190
Chapter 11 It is impossible to know the belief of the ancient Church whether universal our particular as to the points of controversy in these days.
Before we pass on to the Second Part of this Treatise, it seemeth not impertinent to give the Reader this Last Advertisement, and to let him know, that though all these Difficulties here before represented were removed, yet notwithstanding would it still be impossible for us to know certainly, out of the Fathers, what the Judgment of the whole Ancient Church, whether you mean the Church Universal, or but any considerable Part thereof, hath been, touching the Differences which are now on foot in Religion. pg. 192
Now the Fathers having written with a purpose of informing us, not what each particular Man believed in their time, but rather what they thought fit that all Men should have believed; we must needs con∣clude, That certainly they have not told us all that they knew touching this particular. And consequently there∣fore, partly their Charity, and partly also their Prudence, may have caused them to pass by in silence all such Opi∣nions, either of whole Companies, or of particular Per∣sons, as they conceived to be not so consonant to the Truth. But supposing that they had not any of these con∣siderations, and that they had taken upon them to give us a just Account, each Man of the Opinions of his particular Church wherein he lived; it is evident however, that they could never have been able to have attainēd to the end of this their Design. For, how is it possible that they should have been able to have learnt what the Opi∣nion of every single Person was, amongst so vast a Multitude, which consisted of so many several Persons, who were of so different both Capacities and Dispositions? pg. 194 - 195
CONCLUSION
WE have before shewed how hard a matter it is to discover what the Sense of the Fathers hath been touching the Points at this day controverted in Religion; both by reason of the small number of Books we have left us of the Fathers of the First Centuries; and those too which we have, treating of such things as are of a very different nature from our present Disputes; and which besides we cannot be very well assured of, by reason of the many Forgeries and monstrous Corruptions which they have for so long a time been subject to; as also by reason of their Obscurity, and Ambiguity in their Expressions; and their representing unto us many times the Opinions rather of others, than of their Authors: besides those many other Imperfections which are found in them, as namely, 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 only: 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 again, on the other side, that it 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, save what is sure and firm. Whosoever therefore would make use of any Pas∣sage out of a Father, he is bound first to make it appear, that the Author out of whom he citeth the said Passage, lived, and wrote in the first Ages of Christianity; and besides, that the said Person is certainly known to be the Author of that Book out of which the said Passage is quoted: and moreover, that the Passage cited is sincere, and no way corrupted, nor altered: and likewise, that the Sense which he gives of it, is the true genuine Sense of the Place; and also, that it was the Opinion of the Author, when he was now come to Ripness of Judgment, and which he changed not, or retracted after∣wards. He must also make it appear, in what degree he held it, and whether he maintained it as his own private Opinion onely, or as the Opinion of the Church: and, lastly, whether it were the Opinion of the Church Universal, or of some particular Church only: which Inquiry is a Business of so vast and almost infinite labour, that it makes me very much doubt whether or no we can be ever able to attain to a full and certain assurance what the Real Positive Sense of the Ancients hath been, touch∣ing the whole Body of Controversies now debated in this our Age. Hence therefore our principal Question seems to be decided; namely, Whether the alledging of the Fathers be a sufficient and proper Means for the demonstrating the Truth of all those Articles which are at this day maintained by the Church of Rome, and re∣jected by the Protestants, or not? For who doth 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? pg. 206 - 208
Chapter 1 The testimonies of the Fathers on the doctrines of the Church are not always true and certain.
Now, as concerning the Testimonies that they give, touching 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 this I am sure of, that though they should deserve to be received by us for such, yet nevertheless would they stand us in very little stead, as to the Business now in hand. The Reason which moveth 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 erre very little, or not at all, in matter of Right, yet nevertheless, they are often out, and have their failings in matter of Fact: because that Right is an Uni∣versal thing, which is every way Uniform, and all of one sort; 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 know∣ledge of, or at least be not so rightly understood by, the most clear and piercing Wits. Now, the condition of the Churches Belief, in every particular Age, is matter of Fact,and not of Right; and a Point of History, and not an Article of Faith: So that it followeth hence, that possibly the Fathers may have erred, in giving us an ac∣count 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 Falshood. For, how often do the ho∣nestest Persons that are, innocently testifie such things as they thought they had seen, which it afterwards appea∣reth 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 de∣sign of doing so.
But besides all this, it is very evident, that they have not been wholly free from Passion neither, and there is no Man but knows, that Passion very often disguiseth things, and maketh them appear, even to the honestest Men that may be, much otherwise than they are; insomuch that sometimes they are affectionately carried away with one Opinion, and do as much abhor another. Which secret Passion might easily make them believe, that the Church held that Opinion, which they themselves were most taken with, 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. pg. 208 -209
Chapter 2 The Fathers themselves testify that they are not to believed absolutely in what they declare about matters of religion.
And thus far have we S. Augustine testifying on our side, (as well here, as in many other places, which would be too long to be inserted here;) that those opinions which we find delivered by the Fathers in their Writings, are grounded, not upon their bare Authority, but upon their Reasons; and, that they bind not our belief otherwise, than so far forth as they are consonant either to the Scripture, or to Reason; and that they ought to be examined by the one, and the other, as proceeding from persons that are not infallible, but possibly may have erred. pg. 220
I might here produce very many the like Passages, but these few shall now serve as a Taste onely: For who seeth not by this time, that these Holy Men took not the Fathers who went before them, for the Judges, or Arbitrators, touching the Opi∣nions of the Church? and that they did not receive their Testimonies and Depositions, as Oracles, but reserved the Right, which S. Augustine alloweth to every Man, of examining them by the Rule of Reason, and of the Scripture. pg. 228
If therefore they would not have those who heard them speak vivâ voce, to believe them in any thing, unless they had demonstrated the Truth of it out of the Scriptures, how much less would they have us now receive, without this Demonstration, those Opinions which we meet with in their Books, which are not onely mute, but corrupted al∣so, and altered so much, and so many several ways, as we have formerly shewed? pg. 232
Chapter 3 The Fathers write in such a hasty and haphazard manner that it is clear thaey are no authorites in the matter of religion.
These Innocent Faults, these Mistakes, these Oversights, these Forgetfulnesses, and these Sportings of theirs, do sufficiently declare for their part, that we are to make our Addresses to some others; and, that they have not so sad∣ly delivered their Opinions, as if they had sate on the Seat of Judgment; but rather have spoken as in their Cham∣ber, venting their own private Opinions only; and not as our Judges. pg. 269
Chapter 4 The Fathers have erred in matter is religion both singly and together.
For, when they shall but see, that the Fathers have erred in divers very considerable Points; I hope they will at length confess, that they had very good Reason, gravely to advise us not to believe, or take upon Trust any of their Opinions, unless we find that they are grounded either upon the Scriptures, or else upon some other Truth. pg. 270
Besides, if these Men have been mistaken in matters of so great Importance; some of them, for Instance, in the Point touching the Nature of God; some, touching the Humanity of our Saviour Christ; others, touching the Quality of our Soul; and some, touching the State and Condition thereof after Death, and touching the Resurrection; why, for Gods sake, must they needs be Infallible, when they speak of the Points now debated amongst us? pg. 312
Forasmuch therefore, as we are not to build upon the Authority of any Author that may justly be accused of Error; it is most evident, that the Authority of the greatest part, and indeed in a manner of all the Fathers, may very well be called in Question: seeing that you will hardly find any one of them that is not liable to this Exception. pg. 317
As Dionysius Alexandrinus, St. Hierome, Gregory Nazian∣zene, and others, conceived not themselves bound to sub∣mit to the Authority of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Victorinus, Severus, and others; so neither are we any more bound to submit to theirs: For, their Posterity oweth them no more Respect, than they themselves owed to their Ancestors. It seemeth rather, that in Reason they should owe them less, because that look how far distant in time they are from the Apostles, who are as it were the Spring and Original of all Ecclesiastical Authority; so much doth the Credit and Authority of the Doctors of the Church lose and grow less. pg. 321
So that I conceive we may, without troubling our selves any further in making this envious Inquiry into the Errours of the Fathers, conclude from what hath been already produced, that seeing the Fathers have Erred in so many Particulars, not on singly, but also many of them together; Neither the private Opinion of each particular Father, nor yet the unanimous Consent of the Major part of them, is a sufficient Argument certainly to prove the Truth of those Points, which are at this day controverted amongst Us. pg. 326
Chapter 5 The Fathers contradict one another and maintain differing opinions.
Certainly he that shall but read the Fathers them∣selves, will easily and quickly perceive, that they clash and contradict each other, in most plain and irreconcilable Terms, and that there is no other way of bringing them honestly together, but by receiving every one of them, with his own private Opinions; imitating here∣in the marvellous Wisdom of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo; which receiveth and alloweth of all in gross, without distinction, both the Canons of the Apostles, and the whole Code of the Church Universal, together with those of Sardica, Carthage, and Laodicea; amongst which notwithstanding there are found strong Contradictions. pg. 336For as much therefore as we many times meet with Contrariety of Judgment, as well in their Expositions of the Scriptures, as in their Opinions, we may safely conclude, that they are not of sufficient Authority to be admitted as the Supreme Judges of our Controversies: that Contradiction, which is often found amongst them, evidently shewing, that they are not Infallible Judges, such as it is requisite that they should be, for the making good of all those Points, which are at this day maintained by the Church of Rome against the Protestants. pg. 340
As for our Protestants of France, whom their Adversaries would fain perswade, if they could, to receive the Fathers for Judges in Religion; and to whom consequently they ought not, according to the Laws of a legitimate Disputation, to alledge for the proof of any Point in debate, any other Principles, than what they do allow of; it is evident, that they attribute to the Fathers nothing less, than such an Authority. For, in the Confessing of Faith they declare, in the very beginning of it, That they hold the Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith and as for all other Ecclesiastical Writings, although they account them to be useful, yet nevertheless do they not conceive, that a man may safely build any Article of Faith upon them. pg. 342
We need not bring in here any more Examples: do but read their (Roman Catholic) Commentaries, their Disputations, and their other Discourses, and you will find them almost in every page, either rejecting, or correcting the Fathers. pg. 356
Conclusion what use are the Fathers?
And thus you see, that the Authority of the Fathers is of very great Use in the Church, and serveth as an Outwork to the Scriptures, for the repelling the Presumption of those, who would forge a New Faith. But forasmuch as those, who broach New Doctrines of their own Head, do Ordinarily slight the Holy Scriptures; as those very Hereticks did, whom Iraeneus confuted; who impudently accused Them of not being Right; and that they are of no Authority; and speak in very Ambiguous Terms; and that they are not able to inform a man of the Truth, unless they are acquainted with Tradition; the Truth having been delivered (as These men pretended) not in Writing, but by Word of Mouth: For this Reason, I say, and for other the like, are the Writings of the Fathers of very great Use in these Disputes; and I conceive This to be one of the Principal ends for which the Divine Providence hath, in despite of So many Confusions, and Changes, preserved so many of them safe, down to our times. pg. 410 - 411
My Opinion therefore is, That although the Authority of the Fathers be not sufficient to prove the Truth of those Articles which are now maintained by the Church of Rome against the Protestants, although the Ancients should perhaps have believed the same; it may notwithstanding serve to prove the Falseness of them, in case that we should find by the Fathers, that the Ancients were either wholly ignorant of them, or at least acknowledged them not for such, as they would now have us believe them to be: which is a Business that so nearly concerns the Protestants, as that to be able to bring about their Design, I conceive they ought to employ a good part of their time in reading over the Books of the Ancients. pg. 414
According to Daille the right use of the Fathers consists in using them to determine what is false and new. But if the Fathers don't have any authority to determine what is positive then why should be trust them to be able to tell us what is false?
Throughout the book Daille talks out of one side of his mouth denouncing the authority of the Fathers while out of the other side he praises their learning and brilliance. However, one of his arguments against the Fathers is their many errors. Reading this book one cannot escape the utter disdain Daille has for the Fathers. If we were to take his advise to heart then not only are the Fathers totally worthless but we can never even know exactly what they taught!
Daille appeals to Scripture as our final authority in all matters of religion but he does not discuss the problems that entails. Who has the authority to interpret Scripture? But that is a problem outside the narrow scope of this book. Volume 2 of Richard Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics should fill that gap.
