With our present resources there must be many unoccupied spots in the history of the Church, which give room
for the erection of hypotheses, plausible though false. But this follows from the nature of the ground: and the hypotheses are tenable only so long as they are viewed without relation to the great lines of our defence. The strength of negative criticism lies in ignoring the existence of a Christian society from the Apostolic age, strong in discipline, clear in faith, and jealous of innovation.
But the formation and proof of the Canon must be referred to the judgment of the whole Christian body,It is then to the Church, as 'a witness and keeper of holy writ,' that we must look both for the formation and the proof of the Canon. The written Rule of Christendom must rest finally on the general confession of the Church, and not on the independent opinions of its members. Private testimony in itself is only of secondary importance: its chief value lies in the fact that it is a natural expression of the current opinion of the time.
It is impossible to insist on this too often or too earnestly. Isolated quotations may be in themselves unsatisfactory, but as embodying the tradition of the Church, generally known and acknowledged, they are of inestimable worth. shewn in the testimony of individuals,To make use of a book as authoritative, to assume that it is Apostolic, to quote it as inspired, without preface or comment, is not to hazard a new or independent opinion, but to follow an unquestioned judgment. It is unreasonable to treat our authorities as mere pieces or weights, which may be skilfully manœuvred or combined, and to forget that they are Christian men speaking to fellow Christians, as members of one body, and believers in one Creed[1]. The extent of the Canon, like the order of the Sacraments, was settled
- ↑ This is very well argued by Thiersch in his Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts für die Kritik der N. T. Schriften, ss. 305 ff.; and in his answer to Baur, Einige Worte über die Aechtheit der N. T. Schriften. Erlangen, 1846.
