Third edition
The Canon of the Holy Scriptures
From the Double Point of View of Science and of Faith
Louis Gaussen · 1863
London: James Nisbet and Co., 1863.
Overview
Gaussen combines a historical case for the canon with a theological account of the believer’s certainty. He deliberately distinguishes evidence that may address the unbeliever from the divine ground of faith by which the church receives Scripture. The book mobilizes patristic testimony, early ecclesiastical reception, and canonical argument in defense of the established Protestant canon.
The work is valuable as nineteenth-century Reformed apologetic and as an explicit refusal to make historical proof the constituting ground of faith. Its historical claims and citations should be checked with current editions and wider scholarship, but its governing distinction between ministerial historical evidence and God’s self-attesting Word remains constructively important.
Overview
Gaussen combines a historical case for the canon with a theological account of the believer’s certainty. He deliberately distinguishes evidence that may address the unbeliever from the divine ground of faith by which the church receives Scripture. The book mobilizes patristic testimony, early ecclesiastical reception, and canonical argument in defense of the established Protestant canon.
The work is valuable as nineteenth-century Reformed apologetic and as an explicit refusal to make historical proof the constituting ground of faith. Its historical claims and citations should be checked with current editions and wider scholarship, but its governing distinction between ministerial historical evidence and God’s self-attesting Word remains constructively important.
Editorial Evaluation
Purpose Fulfillment
Does the work accomplish what it claims to accomplish?
Brief assessment
Gaussen accomplishes his stated dual task of presenting historical testimony while locating faith’s final ground in divine revelation.
Full rationale and supporting references
Purpose Fulfillment: Gaussen accomplishes his stated dual task of presenting historical testimony while locating faith’s final ground in divine revelation. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Source Quality
Does it use the appropriate primary and secondary sources?
Brief assessment
The book draws extensively on patristic and canonical materials, though its nineteenth-century source base requires checking against modern critical editions.
Full rationale and supporting references
Source Quality: The book draws extensively on patristic and canonical materials, though its nineteenth-century source base requires checking against modern critical editions. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Citation Accuracy
Are quotations, references, and claims verifiable and in context?
Brief assessment
Its citations are substantial for the period but often need modern bibliographic normalization and contextual verification.
Full rationale and supporting references
Citation Accuracy: Its citations are substantial for the period but often need modern bibliographic normalization and contextual verification. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Evidence Coverage
Does it address the relevant evidence, including contrary evidence?
Brief assessment
It brings historical reception and theological argument into a coherent cumulative case, while some disputed canon questions receive less differentiated treatment than current scholarship requires.
Full rationale and supporting references
Evidence Coverage: It brings historical reception and theological argument into a coherent cumulative case, while some disputed canon questions receive less differentiated treatment than current scholarship requires. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Historical Accuracy
Are people, dates, editions, events, and settings handled correctly?
Brief assessment
The broad history is informative but must be read with care because later patristic and canonical research has refined many questions.
Full rationale and supporting references
Historical Accuracy: The broad history is informative but must be read with care because later patristic and canonical research has refined many questions. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Subject Competence
Does the author demonstrate competence in the relevant disciplines?
Brief assessment
Gaussen writes as a capable Reformed theologian with serious historical and canonical interests.
Full rationale and supporting references
Subject Competence: Gaussen writes as a capable Reformed theologian with serious historical and canonical interests. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Logical Coherence
Do the conclusions follow from the premises and evidence?
Brief assessment
The distinction between historical testimony and the divine ground of faith is conceptually coherent and central to the book’s value.
Full rationale and supporting references
Logical Coherence: The distinction between historical testimony and the divine ground of faith is conceptually coherent and central to the book’s value. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Methodological Transparency
Are the method and controlling assumptions identifiable and consistent?
Brief assessment
The preface expressly distinguishes the two modes of proof and thereby makes the authority order intelligible.
Full rationale and supporting references
Methodological Transparency: The preface expressly distinguishes the two modes of proof and thereby makes the authority order intelligible. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Strongest-Form Engagement
Does the work address the strongest opposing case rather than a caricature?
Brief assessment
The work addresses major skeptical objections but cannot engage many later reconstructions of canon formation.
Full rationale and supporting references
Strongest-Form Engagement: The work addresses major skeptical objections but cannot engage many later reconstructions of canon formation. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Editorial Evaluation
Clarity and Research Usefulness
Is it intelligible, navigable, and useful for further study?
Brief assessment
It remains a constructive historical-theological guide when paired with current patristic, canon, and bibliographic scholarship.
Full rationale and supporting references
Clarity and Research Usefulness: It remains a constructive historical-theological guide when paired with current patristic, canon, and bibliographic scholarship. This is a source-controlled preliminary editorial rating. It evaluates the supplied edition and the stated source loci, not the author’s motives and not every possible edition or response. Evidence reviewed: Supplied third edition, especially Preface pp. v–vii and the historical-canonical argument throughout the volume.
Scripture Passage Coverage
2 Peter 1:21
Substantial treatment · doctrinal argument
Defends the readingUsed in the account of prophetic inspiration.
2 Timothy 3:16
Substantial treatment · doctrinal argument
Defends the readingUsed in the account of Scripture’s divine authority.
John 10:35
Brief treatment · canonical argument
Defends the readingCited in the account of Scripture’s inviolability.