While a noble goal to search for it in the church fathers, Jean Daille wrote a book warning against relying on them too much. .
Agreed, I have a copy of his book in hardback and have read it thoroughly. Below is an example of how he cautions us against the early church writers...
John Daillé: Even in the very Scriptures themselves, which they [i.e., the fathers] were both better acquainted with, and which they also had in greater veneration than any other books whatever, they often mistake themselves in citing them. As, for example, when
Justin Martyr adduces a passage out of the prophet Zephaniah, which is not found anywhere but in Zechariah; and in another place where he names Jeremiah instead of Daniel. Thus likewise when
Hilary tells us that Paul, in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, adduces a certain passage out of the first Psalm, which yet is found only in the second; whereas Paul in that place speaks not one syllable of the first Psalm, but expressly names the second. So also when
Epiphanius says, out of the twenty-seventh chapter, verse thirty-seven, of the Acts of the Apostles, that the number of those who were in the ship with Paul, when he suffered shipwreck, was one while seventy, and by and by eighty souls; whereas the text says expressly, that they were in all two hundred and seventy-six. Thus likewise ‘when in another place he affirms, out of the Gospel, that our Saviour Christ said to his mother, “Touch me not;”— οὕτω καὶ ὁ κύριος διέταξεν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, ἀπὸ μιᾶς τὸ ὑπόδειγμα ἡμῖν κηρύττων, φήσας τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ «μή μου ἅπτου·» whereas it appears plainly out of the text, that these words were spoken only to Mary Magdalene. So where
Jerome takes great pains to reconcile a certain passage alleged by him out of Habakkuk, with the original, telling us that Paul had cited it in these words, “the just shall live by my faith:” whereas it is most evident that the Apostle, both in the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and in the epistle to the Galatians, has it only thus: “the just shall live by faith,” and not “the just shall live by my faith.”
Athanasius in his Synopsis, (or whoever else was the author of that piece) reckoning up the several books of Scriptures, evidently takes the third book of Esdras, which has been always accounted apocryphal by the consent of all Christendom, for the first, which is received by all Christians and Jews into the canon of the Scriptures. We might class in this number (if at least so foolish a piece deserves to have any place among the writings of the Fathers) that gross mistake which we meet with in an epistle of
Pope Gregory II., who rails fiercely against Uzziah for breaking the brazen serpent; calling him, for this act, “the brother of the Emperor Leo the Iconoclast:” which, as he thought, was the same as to reckon him among the most mischievous and wretched princes that ever had been; and yet all this while the Scripture tells us, that this was the act, not of Uzziah, but of the good king Hezekiah; and that he deserved to be rather commended for the same than blamed. John Daillé,
A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion, 2nd American ed., rev. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Education, 1856), pp. 260-261.
Below I offer the chapter headings for
Daillé's work...
Contents
BOOK I.
Chapter I. On the Difficulty of ascertaining the Opinions of the Fathers in reference to the present Controversies in Religion, deduced from the fact that there is very little of their Writings extant of the first three Centuries.
Chapter II. Those Writings which we have of the Fathers of the first Centuries, treat of matters far different from the present Controversies in Religion.
Chapter III. Those Writings which bear the names of the ancient fathers, are not all really such; but a great portion of them supposititious and forged, either long since or at later periods.
Chapter IV. The Writings of the Fathers, which are considered legitimate, have been in many places corrupted by time, ignorance and fraud, pious and malicious, both in the early and later Ages.
Chapter V. The Writings of the Fathers are difficult to be understood, on account of the Languages and Idioms in which they wrote, and the manner of their Writing, which is encumbered with rhetorical flourishes, and logical subtleties, and with terms used in a sense far different from what they now bear.
Chapter VI. The Fathers frequently conceal their own private Opinions, and say what they did not believe; either in reporting the Opinion of others, without naming them, as in their Commentaries; or disputing against an Adversary, where they make use of whatever they are able; or accommodating themselves to their Auditory, as may be observed in their Homilies.
Chapter VII. The Fathers have not always held the same doctrine; but have changed some of their Opinions, according to their judgment has become matured by study or age.
Chapter VIII. It is necessary, but nevertheless difficult, to discover how the Fathers held all their several Opinions; whether as necessary, or as probable only; and in what degree of necessity or probability.
Chapter IX. We ought to know what were the opinions, not of one or more of the Fathers, but of the whole ancient Church; which is a very difficult matter to discover.
Chapter X. It is very difficult to ascertain whether the Opinions of the Fathers, as to the Controversies of the present day, were received by the Church Universal, or only by some portion of it; this being necessary to be known, before their sentiments can be adopted.
Chapter XI. It is impossible to know exactly what was the belief of the ancient Church, either Universal or Particular, as to any of those points which are at this day controverted amongst us.
BOOK II.
The Fathers Are Not of Sufficient Authority for Deciding Controversies in Religion.
Chapter I. The Testimonies given by the Fathers, on the Doctrines of the Church, are not always true and certain.
Chapter II. The Fathers testify themselves, that they are not to be believed absolutely, and upon their own bare Assertion, in what they declare in matters of Religion.
Chapter III. The Fathers have written in such a manner, as to make it clear that when they wrote they had no intention of being our authorities in matters of Religion; as evinced by examples of their mistakes and oversights.
Chapter IV. The Fathers have erred in divers points of Religion; not only singly, but also many of them together.
Chapter V. The Fathers have strongly contradicted one another, and have maintained different Opinions in matters of very great importance.
Chapter VI. Neither the Church of Rome nor the Protestants acknowledge the Fathers for their Judges in points of Religion; both of them rejecting such of their Opinions and Practices as are not suited to their taste; being an answer to two Objections that may be made against what is delivered in this Discourse.
Seriously. I've only read excerpts and don't have the work but Thomas Oden wrote 