But  even  allowing  the  utmost  that  the  most  credulous  criticism
can  demand,  it  may  yet  be  said,  that  the  history  of  the  first
century  after  the  Apostolic  age  is  utterly  inadequate  to  afford
us  a  firm  basis  for  any  ecclesiastical  theory.  A  fact  here  and
there,  a  slight  notice  of  an  inconsiderable  church — an  anecdote
of  some  illustrious  individual — a  date,  a  hint — a  Bishop's  casual
letter,  or  the  story  of  a  Christian's  martyrdom — a  line  on  the
Roman  Tablets — an  edict  of  toleration,  an  act  of  persecution —
these  are  often  all  that  we  have  of  contemporary  annals  to
convey  to  us  the  ecclesiastical  image  of  an  age.  And  can
these  dry  bones  live  without  an  energetic  exercise  of  the  plastic
power  of  Imagination?  And  shall  it  be  wondered  at — shall  it
be  complained  of — if  these  scanty  relics  are  variously  collated
and  differently  combined  by  men  who  equally  sincerely  seek  for
some  definite  form  in  their  fragments  ?  It  needs  no  suspicion
of  unfairness,  no  presumption  of  ignorance,  to  account  for
variety  of  opinion.  The  materials  are  so  fragmentary  and  the
fragments  are  so  shapeless,  that  one  man  may  sincerely  believe
that  he  sees  in  them  the  enfolded  scheme  of  a  magnificent
modern  Cathedral,  while  another  may  as  equally  sincerely  be
sure  that  there  are  there  only  the  foundations  of  a  Temple,
indefinite  indeed  in  form  but  unequivocally  intended  to  be  open
to  the  heavens,  and  designed  for  the  simultaneous  worship  of  a
multitude  innumerable,  coming  equally  from  the  North  and  from
the  South,  from  the  East  and  from  the  West.
138


xlvii.
