The testimony of Origen confirms the evidence of the preceding period—within which, indeed, half his life fell (A.D. 186-253) —as to the writings about
NEW TESTAMENT CANON
which there was practically universal agreement in the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking Church. He accepts all that have been enumerated under this head, on the authority of the Church’s tradi- tion, and also the Apocalypse (Eus. IE vi. 25).
Passing to the remaining writings of NT, we may first note as of special significance his position, which resembles that of Clement, in regard to the Ep. to the Hebrews. He points out the difference of style between it and the unquestioned writ- ings of St. Paul, but adds that ‘the thoughts are wonderful and not second to the acknowledged apostolic writings’; and he gives it as his own opinion that ‘the thoughts are the apostle’s, but the diction and composition that of some one who recorded from memory the apostle’s teaching, and as it were illustrated with a brief commentary the sayings of his master’ (ap. Eus. ib.). The history of the reception of this great Epistle shows strikingly what were the conditions which—it was held—must be satisfied in the case of a book in- cluded among the NT Scriptures. ‘There must be apostolic authorship, or dependence upon apos- tolie teaching; and this was a point to be deter- mined by tradition, which did not necessarily involve the employment of tests difficult to apply, such as that of inspiration. Nevertheless a test of authenticity was also found, consciously or unconsciously, in the harmony between the spirit of the books received as apostolic and that of the apostolic doctrine preserved in the Church. Doubts as to the authorship of Ep. to Heb. stood in the way for some time of the recognition of its inspira- tion. And it may be that if it had not come to be more closely associated with the name of St. Paul than facts warranted, it would never have fully ranked as Scripture. But, on the other hand, those who seem to have done most to secure this result, notably Clement and Origen, were profoundly impressed with its spiritual power and general agreement with St. Paul’s teaching.
In Origen’s writings we have the earliest refer- ences by name to Ep. of James (Comm. in Joan. τ, xix. 6, etc.) ; he also quotes from Zp. of Jude (Comm. in Matt. x. 17, ete.) as if he himself received it, but alludes to the doubts existing in regard to both of them. It seems reasonable to sup- pose that the former of these Epp. was brought to the notice of Origen more particularly through his residence in Palestine. The conjecture that it had for long been treasured in Syria is confirmed by the fact that it was recognized as authentic and canonical at Antioch and in the Syriac-speaking Church, where 2 and 3 Jn and Jude, as well as the Apoc., were refused acknowledgment at the end of the 4th cent. Origen appears to have known the 2nd Ep. of Peter, but not to have regarded it or the two lesser Epp. of John as genuine.
The position of the Apocalypse in the 3rd cent. is illustrated by the attitude of one who belonged to the same school as Origen, and outlived him only by a few years, Dionysius, the eminent bishop of Alexandria (ἃ, 265), He discussed the question of its authenticity, and declared himself unable to believe that it was by the Apostle John, the author of the Gospel, on account of its style; yet the cautiousness and reverence of his tone in speaking of the work is an indication of the high regard in which it was commonly held (ap. Eus. JTF vii. 25).
Lastly, Husebius in his Ecclesiastical History, when he has arrived nearly at the end of the Apostolic Age, makes important statements as to his own views and the views and practice of his contemporaries in respect to the apostolic writings (HE ii. 38. 25; iii. 3 ; 24. 17,18; 25). These bring us to the close of our second period in the history of the Canon. For this work of Eusebius—which contains, indeed, most of the information that he
Ὁ4]
NEW TESTAMENT CANON
supplies on this subject, though he lived to A.D 340—terminates with, and seems to have been com- posed shortly after, the pacification of the empire under Constantine. In spite of some want of clear- hess in his language, he helps us greatly to realize the state of things prevailing. The uncertainty and disagreement which still continued concerning certain books perhaps impress us most. It is from Eusebius that we derive the familiar classification into ‘acknowledged ᾿ (ὁμολογούμενα) and ‘ disputed’ (ἀντιλεγόμενα) and ‘spurious’ (νόθα) books. Never- theless it was a step towards the final decision of the questions at issue, that they should be thus definitely posed. And the notices bearing on the Canon of NT, gleaned from writers of generations earlier than his own, which according to promise he gives in the course of his history, are intended to contribute to the attainment of this object.
Eusebius nowhere includes works which have ultimately been accounted apocryphal or unin- spired in his class of ‘disputed’ writings. These consist, according to his fullest passage on the subject (iii. 25), of the Epp. of James and Jude, 2 and 3 Jn, and 2 P, which, as we gather from ii. 23. 25, were already regarded in many Churches as forming together with 1 P and 1 Jn a collection of 7 Catholic Epistles. With the Apocalypse he deals somewhat curiously. He first enumerates it among the ‘acknowledged’ books, adding, ‘if that should appear to be the right view’ (εἰ daveln—ambiguous like the Eng. trans. given), and then again refers to it among the ‘spurious’ with a similar saving clause. The mode of treatment adopted by him in this case is to be accounted for by the fact that those who did not admit the Johannine authorship for the most part desired its definite rejection on doctrinal grounds ; whereas the claims of the Epp. above named to be regarded as apostolic were for the most part questioned simply on the ground of defect of evidence for their early and widespread use. On the other hand, Eusebius cannot bring himself to name the Ep. to Heb. anywhere except among the ‘ acknowledged’ books, and as one of 14 Epp. of Paul. In so doing, he reflects, no doubt, the belief of the greater part of the Greek-speaking Church, in which he was most at home. At the same time, he allows that ‘it is not fair to ignore the fact that some have rejected the Ep. to Heb., asserting that it is disputed by the Church of Rome as not being Paul's’ (iii. 3).