And in his controversy with the Donatists, he invariably appeals to Scripture as the sole Judge fit to decide which was the true Church.

"One who is weak inquires for the Church; one who is in error inquires for the Church. What do you say? The Church is on the side of Donatus. Read this to me from a Prophet, read it to me from a Psalm; recite it to me from the Law, recite it from the Gospel, recite it from an Apostle... I do not believe your declarations; I would not that you should believe mine. Let human writings be taken away: let the divine words be heard. Give me one word of Scripture in favour of Donatus."1

Again; "Whether we are schismatics or you, neither should I nor you be interrogated; but let Christ be asked, that he may show his own Church. Read therefore the Gospel, &c.""

Again; "Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear, Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. . . . Therefore let those testimonies which we mutually bring against each other, from any other quarter than the divine canonical books, be put out of sight... I would not have the holy Church demonstrated by human testimonies, but by the divine oracles. . . . . We adhere to this Church; against those divine declarations, we admit no human cavils.. Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God... All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is in all the canonical authorities.

Quærit infirmus Ecclesiam, quærit errans Ecclesiam. Tu quid dicis? Partis Donati est Ecclesia. Ego vocem Pastoris inquiro. Lege hoc mihi de Propheta, lege mihi de Psalmo, recita mihi de Lege, recita de Evangelio, recita de Apostolo ... Non credo tuis; noli credere meis. Auferantur chartæ humanæ, sonent voces divinæ. Ede mihi unam Scripturæ vocem pro parte Donati. Serm. de Pastor. serm. 46. c. 14. v. 242. A similar passage occurs in his Enarr. in Ps. 69. § 6. iv. 715. Si ergo quæris, &c.

2 Utrum autem schismatici nos simus an vos, nec ego nec tu, sed Christus interrogetur, ut indicet Ecclesiam suam. Lege ergo Evangelium, &c. ID. Contra litt. Petil. lib. 2. c. 8. ix. 271.

of the sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken, are first held by a firm faith....... We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the holy canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men.... Whether they [i. e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong; or because it is extolled by the councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world, in the holy places which those of our communion frequent, such wonderful answers to prayer or cures happen.. Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of, because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself, when he had risen from the dead

judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms... These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports of our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so. What Scriptures, but the canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John .... But if they do not choose to understand, it is sufficient for us that we adhere to that Church, which is demonstrated by such extremely clear testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures."1

1 Non audiamus, Hæc dicis, hæc dico; sed audiamus, Hæc dicit Dominus. Sunt certe libri Dominici, quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus, utrique cedimus, utrique servimus; ibi quæramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus caussam nostram . . . Auferantur ergo illa de medio, quæ adversus non invicem non ex divinis canonicis libris sed aliunde recitamus.... Nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. (c. 3) ..... Nos hanc Ecclesiam tenemus, contra istas divinas voces nullas humanas criminationes admittimus... Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus, O quid dixit Parmenianus, aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum. Quia nec catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei scripturas aliquid sentiant. (c. 11.) ... ..Remotis ergo omnibus talibus ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini præparati et cauti redditi sumus; sed in præscripto Le

323

Augustine did not dream of supposing that, because his adversaries might not be convinced by the testimonies brought, therefore Scripture was not a very sufficient Judge of the controversy, or that such testimonies must be doubtful and obscure. Notwithstanding their opposition, he holds those testimonies to be abundantly clear and demonstrative; as he says elsewhere, "The holy Scripture demonstrates the Church, without any ambiguity." Lastly, That he was altogether opposed to the notions of the Tractators, that consent of Fathers forms part of the rule of faith, we have already shown; but I will here add some further extracts in proof of it.

Thus, in the latter part of the Letter to Jerome, already quoted, he says, after alluding to the Fathers, " But instead of all these, nay, above all these, the Apostle Paul himself occurs to me. To him I betake myself; to him I appeal from all interpreters of his writings, who think differently," &c."

Again; "If it is established by the clear authority of the divine Scriptures, those I mean that are called canonical in the Church, it is to be believed without any doubt. But other witnesses or testimonies which are used to persuade you to believe anything, you may believe or not, just as you shall see that they have or have not any weight giving them a just claim to your confidence."s

Again, after having referred to the Fathers, and quoted Ambrose, Jerome, and Athanasius in favour of the view he was advocating, against a dissentient from it, he says that he refers to

gis, in Prophetarum prædictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum prædicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus canoni. cis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et commorent, quæ obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quæ quisque sicut voluerit interpreTalia enim recte intelligi exponique non possunt, tetur secundum sensum suum.

nisi prius ea quæ apertissime dicta sunt firma fide teneantur. (c. 18) Ecclesiam sicut ipsum Caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, ... Quod non in variis hominum rumoribus et opinionibus et factis et dictis et visis inquirere. . . Utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, &c. (as above, p. 97.). si nolunt intelligere, sufficit nobis quod eam tenemus Ecclesiam, quæ manifestissimis sanctarum et canonicarum Scripturarum testimoniis demonstratur. ID. Ep. ad Cathol. vulg. De unit. Eccles. cc. 3, 11, 18, 19, 22. ix. col. 340-380.

...

1 Ecclesiam sine ulla ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat. Contra Crescon. Donat. lib. 1. c. 33. ix. 407, 8.

2 Veruntamen ipse mihi pro his omnibus, immo supra hos omnes, Apostolus Paulus occurrit. Ad ipsum confugio; ad ipsum ab omnibus qui aliud sentiunt litterarum ejus tractatoribus provoco; ipsum interrogans interpello et requiro in eo quod scripsit ad Galatas, vidisse se Petrum, &c. Ep. ad Hieron. ep. 82. c. 3. ii. 199. 3 Si divinarum Scripturarum, earum scilicet quæ canonicæ in Ecclesia nominantur, perspicua firmatur auctoritate, sine ulla dubitatione credendum est. Aliis vero testibus vel testimoniis, quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum ea momenti ad faciendum fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis. Ad Paulin. ep. 147. Proem. ii. 475.

them, in order that his opponent may see that the question deserved a calm and serious discussion, adding,-" For we ought not to esteem the statements of any person, however catholic, and of whatever repute, as the canonical Scriptures, so that it may not be lawful for us, without infringing upon the honour due to those men, to blame and reject this or that in their writings, if perchance we shall have found that they have been of a different opinion to what truth requires; truth that, by divine aid, is understood by others, or by ourselves."1

Again, in his controversy with the Manichees, after observing in defence of his belonging to the Catholic Church, that the true wisdom was to be found in it, he says, that there were also many other inducements to him to remain in it, as "the consent of various people and nations, its authority, taking its rise from miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, established by antiquity, the succession of priests, up to the present episcopate, from the very chair of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord committed his sheep to be fed after his resurrection, the very name of Catholic" and that among the Manichees there were no inducements of this kind but only the promise of the truth; but, adds Augustine, "if the truth is so clearly manifested that it cannot be doubted of, it is to be preferred to all those inducements to remain in the Catholic Church."

Again, speaking of the ecclesiastical writers subsequent to the Apostles, he says,-"Which kind of literature is to be read, not with a necessity of believing, but with a liberty of judging of it..... the excellence of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testament is different to the books of later writers, which being established in the times of the Apostles has, through the succession of bishops and the propagation of churches, been placed as it were on high in a seat of authority, to which every faithful and pious mind ought to be in subjection. . . . . But in the works of later writers which are contained in innumera

....

1 Neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quamvis catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat salva honorificentia quæ illis debetur hominibus aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare atque respuere, si forte invenerimus quod aliter senserint quam veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta vel a nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores meorum. Ad Fortunat. ep. 148. c. 4. ii. 502. 2 Multa sunt alia quæ in ejus gremio me justissime teneant. Tenet consensio populorum atque gentium tenet auctoritas miraculis inchoata, spe nutrita, caritate aucta, vetustate firmata; tenet ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit usque ad præsentem episcopatum successio sacerdotum; tenet postremo ipsum Catholicæ nomen ....... ... Apud vos autem, ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat, sola personat veritatis pollicitatio; quæ quidem si tam manifesta monstratur ut in dubium venire non possit, præponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneor. epist. Manich. quam voc. Fundam. c. 4. viii. 153.

Contr.

ble books, but by no means are equal to that most sacred excellence of the canonical Scriptures, even in those of them in which the same truth is found, yet the authority is far different. Therefore in them if any matters should perchance be thought to be not agreeable to the truth from their being understood differently to the sense in which they are spoken, yet the reader or hearer has in such a case an unfettered right of judgment to approve what shall please him or disapprove what shall offend him; and therefore as to all things of this kind [i. e. that may be advanced by these writers,] unless they may be defended either by sure grounds of reason, or from that canonical authority, so that it may be demonstrated that what is there discussed or narrated either certainly is, or might be, as there represented, he who is not satisfied with what is said, or refuses to believe it, is not blamed. But in that canonical pre-eminence of the sacred Scriptures, although only one Prophet, or Apostle, or Evangelist, is declared to have laid down any point in his writings, supposing it to have in reality the testimony of the canon in its favour, we must not doubt of its truth; otherwise there will be no writing by which the infirmity of human ignorance may be ruled, if the salutary authority of the canonical books is either wholly destroyed through contempt, or confounded by being extended beyond its limits [i. e. when that authority is extended to other works.]"

I ask the impartial reader, Is it possible that Augustine could have spoken thus, if he had held that the consent of these writers formed part,-and through the obscurity of Scripture a necessary part,-of the rule of faith?

1 Quod genus litterarum non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate legendum. Cui tamen ne intercluderetur locus, et adimeretur posteris ad quæstiones difficiles tractandas atque versandas linguæ ac stili saluberrimus labor, distincta est a posteriorum libris excellentia canonicæ auctoritatis veteris et novi Testamenti, quæ Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones Episcoporum et propagationes Ecclesiarum tamquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et pius intellectus. . . . In opusculis autem posteriorum, quæ libris innumerabilibus continentur, sed nullo modo illæ sacratissimæ canonicarum Scripturarum excellentiæ coæquantur, etiam in quibuscumque eorum invenitur eadem veritas, longe tamen est impar auctoritas. Itaque in eis, si qua forte propterea dissonare putantur a vero, quia non ut dicta sunt intelliguntur, tamen liberum ibi habet lector auditorve judicium, quo vel approbet quod placuerit, vel improbet quod offenderit ; et ideo cuncta ejusmodi, nisi vel certa ratione vel ex illa canonica authoritate defendantur, ut demonstretur sive omnino ita esse, sive fieri potuisse quod vel disputatum ibi est, vel narratum, si cui displicuerit, aut credere noluerit, non reprehenditur. In illa vero canonica eminentia sacrarum litterarum etiamsi unus Propheta, seu Apostolus aut Evangelista aliquid in suis litteris posuisse ipsa canonis confirmatione declaratur, non licet dubitare quod verum sit: alioquin nulla erit pagina, qua humanæ imperitiæ regatur infirmitas, si librorum canonicorum saluberrima auctoritas aut contemta penitus aboletur aut interminata confunditur. Contr. Faust. lib. xi. c. 5. viii. 221, 2.

VOL. II.

EE