We have seen that sound critical considerations did not regulate the formation of the three collections which made up the entire canon of the Old Testament. Had it been so, the Pentateuch would not have been attributed to Moses. Neither would a number of latter prophecies have been accepted as Isaiah’s and incorporated with the prophet’s authentic productions. All the Proverbs, the book of Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs would not have been assigned to Solomon; Jonah would have been separated from the prophets, and Daniel must have had a later position in the Hagiographa. We cannot, therefore, credit the collectors or editors of the books with great critical sagacity. But they did their best in the circumstances, preserving invaluable records of the Hebrew people. In like manner, it has appeared, that the ecclesiastics to whom we owe the New Testament collection were not sharp-sighted in the literature with which they had to do. It is true that well-founded doubts were entertained by the early Christians about several portions, such as the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c., but the Revelation was needlessly discredited. They accepted without hesitation the pastoral epistles as Pauline, but doubted some of the Catholic Epistles, which bear the impress of authenticity more strongly, such as James. It is therefore incorrect to say that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse “have been received into the canon on evidence less complete” than that belonging to the others. The very general admission of the fourth gospel as the apostle John’s, is a curious example of facile traditionalism. Biblical criticism, however, scarcely existed in the first three centuries. It is for us to set the subject in another light, because our means of judging are superior. If the resources of the early fathers were inadequate to the proper sifting of a copious literature, they should be mildly judged.