coincides with the clearer view which is afterwards gained.
ii. The Proof of the Canon is rendered more difficultII. Here however we are again beset with peculiar difficulties. The proof of the Canon is embarrassed both by the general characteristics of the age in which it was fixed, and by the particular form of the evidence on which it first depends.
(i) by the uncritical character of the first two centuries,i. The spirit of the ancient world was essentially uncritical. It is unfair to speak as if Christian writers were in any way specially distinguished by a want of sagacity or research. The science of history is altogether of modern date ; and the Fathers do not seem to have been more or less credulous or uninformed than their pagan contemporaries[1]. Their testimony must be tried according to the standard of their age. We must be content to ground our conclusions on such evidence as the case admits, and to interpret it according to its proper laws.
shewn in the use of Apocryphal books,One important example will illustrate the application of these principles. As soon as the Christian Church had gained a firm footing in the Roman Empire it required what might be called an educational literature; and an attempt was made at an early period to supply the want by books which received in a certain degree the sanction of the Church. When this sanction was once granted, it became necessarily difficult to define its extent and duration. The ecclesiastical writings of the Old Testament furnished a precedent and an excuse for a similar appendix to the Christian Scriptures. Both classes seem to have been formed from the same motive : both found their readiest acceptance at Alexandria. 'Apocryphal'
