An Anglican from 1909 writes on Patristics

Edward Burton, DD, in The Apostolic Fathers:

Because the right use of the Fathers is a point of late much controverted ... I shall enter into the controversy more distinctly. ...

The first thing to be proved is that the most rational and safest method to understand the Holy Scriptures is to consult the general sense of the Catholic writers in the purest ages of the Church.

The Holy Scripture, then, I take here for granted to be a rule, the only perfect rule of faith and manners; and the perfection of it consists in containing fully and plainly all things necessary to salvation. It is not that it is so perfectly full, in mode of time and circumstance of worship, as to leave no room for any particular laws herein to succeeding governors, nor so perfectly perspicuous as to require nothing of ingenuity and application on the learner's side. For it is evident in fact that the Scriptures are not so absolutely perfect, from the aforementioned difference between two apostolic bishops about the observation of Easter. It is evident likewise from the original languages of the Bible, which require much pain to understand as well to honestly apply them. And St. Peter himself tells us that in St. Paul's epistles some things are hard to understand, things which those who are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. And as to matters of policy and discipline, which could not be easily misunderstood in the first ages of the Church, they are now confessedly much less plain from Scripture, as is evident from the unhappy divisions about them to this day.

Nor is it reasonable to expect that the Gospel should be full and plain in every particular, not only because such particulars would swell it to an incredible bulk, but because it is not fitting in this state of darkness and trial that men should have the intuition of angels, and see through the whole mystery of godliness at first sight. It was designed only for a touchstone, as it were, of honest and curable dispositions, and not to break in upon the understandings of wicked men in spite of their wills. Accordingly we find Novatianus interpreting the Word of God one way, Photinus another, Sabellius another, Donatus another; Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius another, etc.

Now in this maze and labyrinth of interpreters the question is: which is the most advisable way to take for the true interpretation of Scripture? For upon this hinge all our controversies turn. Some moderns have been of the opinion that Scripture itself is the law and judge, because the Word of God is said to be "living and active" in Hebrews; but these expositors must first prove the Bible to be literally alive and able to speak for itself before they can prove it to be a rule and interpreter both. Others are for setting up a human infallible judge of controversy, and if they could but tell us where we might infallibly find him, we should be very thankful for the discovery. ... Others are for setting the sun by their own dials, for making pure reason, exclusive of the primitive Fathers, the best interpreter or judge of Scripture. But I am apt to believe that the sense of a law is best understood by those who lived nearest the time of making it. ... Were the Christian religion indeed to be mended after it came out of the hands of Christ and His apostles, and the work expressly left to the reasoners of latter days, there might be something to say for our modern refiners.