Original - The Coptic Orthodox Church

XXII INTRODUCTION.
agree with what is known as to the regulations
in Egypt in the year 350. J
Again, a strong argument for the high antiquity
of the cloister
of the
work is offered by the fact that the authority of earlier
canonical writings is nowhere cited. Neither the Apostolic
Canons nor those of Nicaea or of any other synod are ever
mentioned. It is indeed said, in 5 (f. 97^),
that the minister
of the altar must walk in the canons of the Apostles, and
in $ (j,
weights
that it is not of the church s canons to use false
and measures. Yet neither of these ordinances is
supported by quotations
from the so-called Canons of the
Apostles or from those of a synod, but rather by biblical
texts - - the second by I Pet. V. 2, the first by
a reference
to the Pastoral Epistles. Athanasius too employs the terms
ty.y./. /!7tz77iy.o} xzvc sf: (Migne, PG. 25, 224 D), Apostolic
tradition (Larsow, p. 69), canon of monasticism (PG. 28,
268 C) in this sense. 2 The sole quotation from a work of
ecclesiastical law which our canons show relates to an im
perial edict (f. 104^, v. p. XI above).
But beyond this, resemblances may be found, in the first
place, with the canons of Laodicea (c. g. f. 102 ^), which
date from the 2d half of the fourth century. Should it be
sought to demonstrate a dependence
other -
a
here of one from the
condition which I hold to be unlikely - - it is
in our canons that the elder form would have to be recog
nized; and thus the view of Boudinhon, that the Laodicean
canons are a compilation from canons of the 4th century, 3
would receive support. Further, attention has been drawn
in the notes to the frequent resemblances to the copto-
arabic canons of Basil, while, on the other hand, we observe
a slight divergence from those of Nicaea. The latter ordain
1 V. CJriitzmacher in PRE.* XIII. 217 221.
2 Cf. Crcdncr, Zttr Gesch. d. Canons 3; Bickell, Gesch. d. Kirchcnr. I. 5 ff.
3 Cf. Lauchcrt, K anones XXII.