What the books were which they thus rever enced, may be gathered partly from the quotations made by the Christian writers of that age, partly from their formal statements. The result is, that the Four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen of Paul's Epistles, t 7ohn, and r Peter, were generally recognized in all the churches ; the Revelation was received by the most, though not by all (in the Syriac version it is wanting, which would seem to shcw that it was unknown to, or not held canonical in the churches for which that version was made) ; the Epistle to the Hebrews was generally received as Pauline in the Greek churches, was received, but not as Pauline, nor apparently as directed to any church in parti cular, but as catholic, by the Syrian churches, and was apparently unknown to the churches of the west ; the Epistle of 2anzes was received by the Syrian churches, but it is not mentioned as known elsewhere ; the Epistle of was received in the Western churches, but is not in the Syriac Canon, nor is it mentioned by any belonging to the Greek churches ; 2 .7ohn, and probably 3 7ohn also, were known to the western and eastern churches, but not to the Syrian ; no certain trace of acquaintance with 2 Peter is found in the writings of this age. The Muratori Fragment formally rejects, as spu rious and heretical, the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, and another, now lost, to the Alexan drians.
Third centwy. The witnesses here are Origen, Einnilian of Cappadocia, Apollonius, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Victorinus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and blethodius. Of these the chief is Origen, whose judgment on the Canon is preserved by Eusebius (Hest. Eccl. vi. 25). He recognises our four Gos pels as a complete whole, and admits no others to the same rank ; the Acts he names as the work of Luke, and places it between the Gospels and the Epistles as of equal authority with them (In Yuan. t. i. c. 5) ; of the writers of the Epistles he refers only to Paul, Peter, and John, though, from his other writings, it would appear that the Epistles of James and Jude were also known to him ; of the Epistles of John he mentions the First as of more undoubted authority than the other two ; he ascribes the Reve lation to John ; the Epistle to the Hebrews he reckons as Pauline, in the sense of containing the sentiments (vo'huara) of that Apostle ; the Second Epistle of Peter he is the first to name expressly, but he names it as doubtful. Origen cites some of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as if he at tached canonical authority to them, but he does not class them with the Gospels, the Acts, and the Apostolical Epistles, to which he refers as a collec tive whole under the title of b1 icatei; or 7rEicra 77 icatvi? 5ta07)Kn. Other testimonies shew, that in the Eastern church the 2d and 3d 7ohn were, at a date a little after the time of Origen, generally received, also the Epistle to the Hebrews.
This also was accepted in the Syrian churches, but not in those of the West, especially Rome. Re specting the Revelation, serious doubts were enter tained by many in the Alexandrian church, and by some it was utterly rejected, though only on inter nal grounds.
Fourth century. Here the witnesses are Euse bins, Athanasius, Cyrill of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, the author of the iambic lines to Seleucus, preserved by Gregory, and by some ascribed to him, by others to Amphilochius of Ico Mum, Canon 59 of the Laodicean Council, the Canones Apostolici, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Jerome. Eusebius made the Canon the object of anxious inquiry, and he gives us not only his own judgment, but that of others who lived before his time. He divides the books into three classes, 1. The ti.40X0-04.Epa, or those universally received as apostolical ; 2. The or those re ceived by some as apostolical, but not by all, along with those which were spurious tabda), that is, either a forgery, such as the Acts of Paul, or a work that was genuine but not apostolical, such as the Shep herd of Hermas ; and 3. heretical, or such as were to be at once set aside as `monstrous and impious.' The result of his researches is, that the books generally acknowledged in the churches as canoni cal, were the Four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epis tles of Paul, t 7ohn, and i Peter. Of the other seven writings, he himself seems to have recognized the canonical authority, though he admits that by some they were doubted ; but he appears to have remained in uncertainty regarding the Revelation. ` The testimony of Eusebius,' it has been justly remarked, marks a definite step in the history of the Canon, and exactly that which it was reason able to expect from his position. The books of the New Testament were formed into distinct collec tions—` a quaternion of Gospels,' fourteen Epis tles of St. Paul,' seven Catholic Epistles" (Wcstcott, History of the Canon, etc., p. 49o). From this time the Canon of the New Testament may be regarded as fixed, and as embracing all the books now contained in it. It was some time be fore the Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews were accepted by all the Eastern churches ; but, by the end of the fourth century, these writings, as well as all the catholic epistles, seem to have been universally received. In the churches of the West we find the same concord prevailing at this date ; all the books now received as canonical were recognized by them ; and the Canon was announced as determinately fixed by decrees of councils and rescripts of the bishops of Rome. In the Syrian churches the Canon of the Peshito still prevailed ; they seem never to have accepted 7ude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 7ohn, and Revelation ; though, in his writings, which are preserved in Greek, Eplmem Syrus uses these as canonical.