This is all the information respecting the Canon of the New Testament which he adduces from the great work of Irenæus. In a much later passage [46:1], however, he has occasion to name other works of this Father no longer extant; and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, adducing certain passages from them.'
From these examples, combined with his own prefatory statements, we feel justified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of Eusebius:--
(1) His main object was to give such information as might assist in forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture.
(2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or references which went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had never been disputed in the Church. Even when the quotation was direct and by name, it had no value for him.
(3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii) the thirteen Epistles of St Paul.
(4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes which he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they were written, _e.g._ the notices of St Matthew and St Mark in Papias, and of the Four Gospels in Irenæus.
(5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between the _Homologumena_ and the _Antilegomena_, between the universally acknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles of St John for instance, the First belonged to the one class, the Second and Third to the other. Of the Epistles of St Peter again, the First was acknowledged, the Second disputed. The Catholic Epistles in fact occupy an exceptional position.
Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit in his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent procedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the books belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he mentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias, Polycarp, and Irenæus), though in the Church no doubt was ever entertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John.