(1) They are otherwise known to express _usages_ or _opinions_ of the
Ante-Nicene centuries. The simple question is, whether they had been
reflected on, recognized, converted into principles, enacted, obeyed;
whether they were the unconscious and unanimous result of the one
Christian spirit[374] in every place, or were formal determinations from
authority claiming obedience. This being the case, there is very little
worth disputing about; for (whether we regard them as being religious
practices or as religious antiquities) if uniform custom was in favour
of them, it does not matter whether they were enacted or not. If they
were not, their universal observance is a still greater evidence of
their extreme antiquity, which, in that case, can be hardly short of the
Apostolic age; and we shall refer to them in the existing Collection,
merely for the sake of convenience, as being brought together in a short
compass.

Nay, a still more serious conclusion will follow, from supposing them
not to be enactments--much more serious than any I am disposed to draw.
If it be maintained that these observances, though such, did not arise
from injunctions on the part of the Church, then, it might be argued,
the Church has no power over them. As not having imposed, she cannot
abrogate, suspend, or modify them. They must be referred to a higher
source, even to the inspired Apostles; and their authority is not
ecclesiastical, but divine. We are almost forced, then, to consider them
as enactments, even when they are not recognized by ancient writers as
such, lest we should increase the authority of some of them more than
seems consistent with their subject-matter.

Again, if such Canons as are not appealed to by ancient writers are
nevertheless allowed to have been really enacted, on the ground of our
finding historically that usage corresponds to them; it may so be that
others, about which the usage is not so clearly known, are real Canons
also. There is a _chance_ of their being genuine; for why, in drawing
the line, should we decide by the mere accident of the usage admitting
or not admitting of clear historical proof?

(2) Again, all these Canons, or at least the first fifty, are composed
in uniform style; there is no reason, as far as the internal evidence
goes, why one should be more primitive than another, and many, we know,
were certainly in force as Canons from the earliest times.

(3) This argument becomes much more cogent when