Of two other of the writings which for a time were not reckoned in this class, it may likewise be said that they deserve to be so on the evidence afforded at the period now under review, considered by itself—2 Jn and Ep. of Jude.
Ireneus twice cites words from the former as John’s (adv. Her. i. 9. 3; iii. 17. 8), though in one case he seems to confuse the 2nd with the Ist Ep. The Mur. Can. recognizes 2 Epps. of John, and Clem. Al. (Strom. ii. 66) speaks of John’s ‘ greater Ep.,’ plainly implying that he knows of at least one other. It may seem strange to us that if the 2nd Ep. was acknowledged, the 3rd, which bears marks of the same authorship, should not have been so with equal distinctness. But the address of the former to ‘the Elect Lady,’ which may have been understood as a symbolical name for the Church, May account for this. We may gather from the language of Mur. Can. respecting the number of the Churches to which St. Paul’s Epp. are written, etc., that ‘catholicity ’ of address was a considera- tion in determining the authority to be attributed to writings by the Church, as well as apostolicity of origin.
The Ep. of Jude is not quoted by Irenzus, but this may be accidental. It is included in Can. Mur., and Clement commented on it. Tertullian also quotes it as apostolic.
We turn now to the interesting subject of the light in which the Ep. to the Hebrews was regarded. The signs of its use in Clem. Rom. have been referred to ; but its position remained ambiguous owing to uncertainty as to its authorship. This is strikingly illustrated by Tertullian’s language (de
NEW TESTAMENT CANON
Pudicitia, 20). He attributes it to Barnabas, 8 companion of apostles, and one who had even borne in a certain sense the title of an apostle. Yet, evidently, even while Tertullian sets a high value upon the Epistle, he does not esteem it in the way that he would have done if he had believed it to be by St. Paul himself. Similar considera- tions, no doubt, influenced others. They read, and were willing to profit by, the Epistle, but shrank from claiming for it full apostolic authority. Irenzus nowhere appeals to it as Scripture in any writing of his which we possess, and it is not included in the Muratorian list. On the other hand, it would seem to have been very highly appreciated at Alexandria, and Clement of Alex- andria asserted its Pauline authorship, while he explained the differences between its style and that of his other Epp., and its similarity to that of the Acts, by conjecturing that Luke translated it (ap. Euseb. HE vi. 14).
Of use of the Ep. of James—it we are to put aside, as it appears we should (see Westcott, Canon, pp. 362, 363), a statement of Cassiodorus in regard to Clem. Alex.’s lost Hypotyposes—there is no sign till the next period, beyond those parallelisms in Hermas which haye been noticed. ‘There are also no clear traces of 2 Peter or 3 John.
(b) We pass to writings which were for a time candidates, so to speak, for admission, but which were ultimately rejected. With the Apocalpyse of John the Mur. Can. couples that of Peter, though it adds in respect to the latter that some Christians were against having it ‘read in church.’ In other quarters it would seem the Zp. of Clem. Rom., the Pastor of Hermas, and the Ep. of Barnabas were read as works of special authority, on the ground, which was true in the case of the first-named only, that they were by companions or personal disciples of the apostles. At some time, also, the 2nd Ep. of Clem. (so called) was joined with the 1st in the same honour.
But it is difficult to determine exactly the relation of these writings to the Canon, from our want of knowledge as to the principles on which the practice of public reading in the assemblies was regulated. Undoubtedly, the selection of the books which might be read publicly played a part in the formation of the Canon, and in impressing the idea of the sacredness and authority of the books so used upon the minds of Christians. But it is not to be supposed that the significance of the public reading was the same, or that the rules for it were conceived in the same spirit, everywhere and always (see art. CANON in vol. 1. p. 349%), From the mere fact, therefore, that a particular work appears to have been read in certain Churches, it is not safe to infer that even in these Churches it was regarded as possessing the fullest inspired authority.
B. SECOND PERIOD, 6. A.D. 220-823.—The most important fact of this period is the work and the influence of Origen. Their results cannot be measured with precision; but the effect of his labours—alike as a thinker bent on the compre- hensive ascertainment of Christian truth and as a textual critic of, and commentator and homilist upon, Holy Scripture, coupled as they were with a wide knowledge of the practice of different parts of the Church—must necessarily have been great in promoting the settlement of the Canon of NT. And his teaching was perpetuated and spread by many scholars, e.g. by his successors in the school of Alexandria, by Pamphilus, who preserved it at Cesarea, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, who carried it into the heart of Asia Minor.