by common usage, and thus the testimony of Christians
becomes the testimony of the Church.
and popular language and rites.There is however still another way in which we may discern from the earliest time the general belief of Christians respecting the Canon. The practical convictions of great masses find their peculiar expression in popular language and customs. Words and rites thus possess a weight and authority quite distinct from the casual references or deliberate judgments of individuals, so far as they convey the judgment of the many. If then it can be shewn that the earliest forms of Christian doctrine and phraseology exactly correspond with the different elements preserved in the Canonical writings, and that tradition preserves no trace of opinions not recognised in the Scriptures, and that the Scriptures consecrate no belief which is not seen embodied in Christian life; it will be reasonable to conclude that the coincidence implies a common source: that the written books and the traditional words equally represent the general sum of essential Apostolic teaching: and in proportion as the correspondences are more subtle and intricate, this proof of the authenticity of our books will be more convincing[1].
Recapitulation.Such appear to be the characteristics and conditions of the evidence by which the Canon must be determined. When these are clearly seen and impartially taken into account, it will be possible, and possible only then, to arrive at a fair conclusion upon it. It is equally unreasonable to prejudge the question either way, for it ought
- ↑ This will explain how much truth there is in the common statement that doctrine was the test of Canonicity. It is just as incorrect to say that the doctrine of the Church was originally drawn from Scripture, as to say that Scripture was limited by Apostolic tradition. The Canon of Scripture and the 'Canon of Truth' were alike independent, but necessarily coincided in their contents as long as they both retained their original purity.
