hem as a _code_," which should be something
complete and limited to itself. The true sanction of each was the
immemorial observance of each, not its place in the Collection, which
implied a competent framer. Moreover, in proportion as General Councils
were held, and enacted Canons, so did the vague title of mere usage,
without definite sanction, become less influential, and the ancient
Canons fell into disregard. And what made this still more natural was
the circumstance that the Nicene Council did re-enact a considerable
number of those which it found existing. It substituted then a definite
authority, which, in after ages, would be much more intelligible than
what would have by that time become a mere matter of obscure antiquity.
Nor did it tend to restore their authority, when their advocates,
feeling the difficulty of their case, referred the Collection to the
Apostles themselves: first, because this assertion could not be
maintained; next, because, if it could, it would have seemingly deprived
the Church of the privilege of making Canons. It would have made those
usages divine which had ever been accounted only ecclesiastical. It
would have raised the question whether, under such circumstances, the
Church had more right to add to the code of really Apostolic Canons than
to Scripture; discipline, as well as doctrine, would have been given by
direct revelation, and have been included in the fundamentals of
religion.

If, however, all this be so, it follows that we are not at liberty to
argue, from one part of this Collection having been received, that
therefore every other was also; as if it were one authoritative work. No
number of individual Canons being proved to be of the first age will
tend to prove that the remainder are of the same. It is true; and I do
not think it worth while to contest the point. For argument-sake I will
grant that the bond, which ties them into one, is not of the most
trustworthy and authoritative description, and will proceed to show that
even those Canons which are not formally quoted by early writers ought
to be received as the rules of the Ante-Nicene Church, independently of
their being found in one compilation.

7.

3. I have already said that nearly half of the Canons, as they stand in
the Collection, are quoted as Canons by early writers, and thus placed
beyond all question, as remains of the Ante-Nicene period: the following
arguments may be offered in behalf of the rest:--