exists in fragments
in the testimony of later literature. For the same reason, if the
Canons before us can be shown to have existed as one book in
Athanasius's time, it is natural to conceive that they are the very book
to which he and others refer. All depends on this. If the Collection was
made after his time, of course he referred to some other; but if it
existed in his time, it is more natural to suppose that there was one
Collection than two distinct ones, so similar, especially since history
is silent about there being two.

However, I conceive it is not worth while to insist upon so early a
formation of the existing Collection. Whether it existed in Athanasius's
time, or was formed afterwards, and formed by friend or foe, heretic or
Catholic, seems to me immaterial, as I shall by-and-by show. First,
however, I will state, as candidly as I can, the arguments for and
against its antiquity _as_ a Collection.

Now there can be no doubt that the early Canons were formed into one
body; moreover, certain early writers speak of them under the name of
"the Apostles' Canons," and "Apostolical Canons." So far I have already
said. Now, certain collectors of Canons, of A.D. (more or less) 550, and
they no common authorities, also speak of "the Apostolical Canons," and
incorporate them into their own larger collections; and these which they
speak of are the very body of Canons which we now possess under the
name. We know it, for the digest of these collectors is preserved. No
reason can be assigned why they should not be speaking of the _same_
Collection which Gregory Nyssen and Amphilochius speak of, who lived a
century and a half before them; no reason, again, why Nyssen and
Amphilochius should not mean the same as Athanasius and Julius, who
lived fifty to seventy years earlier than themselves. The writers of
A.D. 550 might be just as certain that they and St. Athanasius quoted
the same work, as we, at this day, that our copy of it is the same as
Beveridge's, Pearson's, or Ussher's.

The authorities at the specified date (A.D. 550) are three--Dionysius
Exiguus, John of Antioch, patriarch of Constantinople, and the Emperor
Justinian. The learning of Justinian is well known, not to mention that
he speaks the opinion of the ecclesiastical lawyers of his age. As to
John of Antioch and Dionysius, since their names are not so familiar to
most of us, it may be advisable to say thus much--that John had been a
lawyer, and was well