ORIGEN is very cautious in his classification, which is far from original, into authentic, intermediate, and unauthentic; the Apocalypse has won its way into the first class, Hebrews not so certainly; James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John are still in the second class, with the Shepherd on the edge; Barnabas, the Preach ing of Peter, the Acts of Paul, and the Gospel according to Hebrews and Egyptians have settled down into the third division. His standard professed but not maintained, is apostolic origin according to the tradition of the Church,— an honest but futile attempt to escape to Reason, since the final appeal is still to the authority of tradition.
Fourth Centnry.—Eusebius seems to• have completed his Church History in the year 324, and the first nine books perhaps before but we know Mot when he began. There seeing indeed to have occurred a perceptible change between the 3d and the 25th chapters of' Book III: the Shepherd, treated very tenderly in the third, is summarily rejected in the 25th; also the Acts and Gospel and Preaching and Apocalypse of Peter "we know have not been universally accepted" (in 3), but in 25 his Apocalypse is "among the spurious,' while still worse, his Gospel and Acts are "all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious," "the fictions of heretics," unworthy of place °even among the spurious." This is progress, surely. In his later discussion the historian uses a puzzling cross-division: First, the four Gospels; then Acts; "after this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul"; next 1 John and "likewise the Epistle of Peter must be maintained)); °after them is to be placed the Apocalypse, if it really seem proper)); these are among the Confessed (Homologoumena). Among the Contradicted (Antilegomena), but "nevertheless recognized by many" are "the so-called epistle of James, and that of Jude,' also 2 Peter, and the so-called 1 and 3 John. Among the Spurious (Nothoi) are the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Teachings of the Apostles, and besides "the Apocalypse of John, if it seems proper," and "the Gospel ac cording to the Hebrews," "and all these rnay be reckoned of the Contradicted." Lastly, "those cited by heretics under the name of Apostles," "Gospels," and "Acts" which are "fictions of heretics . . . absurd and im
pious.' It seems worth while to note the standard applied by Eusebius: it is °church tradition" alone that decides what are "true and genuine and commonly received." Some were uni versally received, some by most but not hy all, some by only a minority, some °by no one of the succession of Church writers deemed worthy of mention." Clearly there was still much ground for debate.
As general result, we find the notion of a body of authoritative Christian documents rapidly forming in the usage of Irenwus, dis tinctly formed in that of Tertullian, and actually formulated in the Muratorian Frag ment. But this notion of the Canon is not yet canonical. There is agreement as to central and even medial portions but the widest dis agreement as to the peripheral, a difference of judgment that it will require long centuries to adjust.
Still Earlier.—If now we ask, Had ,Ire nmus no forerunners in his idea of a Canon? the answer must be: Assuredly he had; the law of continuity was not broken. Beyond doubt the composition of the "proof-documents" was gradual and their collection into smaller and then into larger groups was also•by degrees. Backward from Ireneeus, through two or even three generations, lies indeed a dark abysm of time, yet not wholly unlit of stars. To be sure, we find no certain conception of authoritative Christian writing. Scripture is the Old Testa ment only, in wider or narrower sense. True, the famous church letter of "the servants of Christ residing at Vienne and Lyons" to their Asiatic-Phrygian brethren, respecting the persecution in the year 177, does in fact say "that the Scripture might be fulfilled. He that is lawless, let him bc lawless still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still" (Eus. 'Hist. Eccl.' V, ii, 58). But in spite of the just praise accorded this letter we really know nothing of its authorship, authenticity, or date; Moreover, the citation sits loose and even jars in its context, without sufficient attachment either side; nothing suffers from its removal; it makes the impression of a pious observation of a copyist, which has crept from the margin into the text. Besides, it is quoted as a stock phrase, none knows whence, for in Rev. xxii, 11, it is also most probably not original but a quotation.