Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Historical Introduction.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Historical
Introduction.
The Laodicea at which the Synod met is Laodicea in
Phrygia Pacatiana, also called Laodicea ad Lycum, and to be carefully
distinguished from the Laodicea in Syria. This much is certain,
but as to the exact date of the Synod there is much discussion.
Peter de Marca fixed it at the year 365, but Pagi in his Critica
on Baronius’s Annals172
| 172 Pagi: Crit.
in Annal. Baron., a.d. 314, n. xxv.
Baronius’s view that this synod was held before that of Nice
because the book of Judith is not mentioned among the books of the
O.T., and because its canons are sometimes identical with those of
Nice, is universally rejected. | seems to have
overthrown the arguments upon which de Marca rested, and agrees with
Gothofred in placing it circa 363. At first sight it would
seem that the Seventh Canon gave a clue which would settle the date,
inasmuch as the Photinians are mentioned, and Bishop Photinus began to
be prominent in the middle of the fourth century and was anathematized
by the Eusebians in a synod at Antioch in 344, and by the orthodox at
Milan in 345; and finally, after several other condemnations, he died
in banishment in 366. But it is not quite certain whether the
word “Photinians” is not an interpolation. Something
with regard to the date may perhaps be drawn from the word Πακατιανῆς
as descriptive of Phrygia, for it is probable that this division was
not yet made at the time of the Sardican Council in 343. Hefele
concludes that “Under such circumstances, it is best, with Remi
Ceillier, Tillemont, and others, to place the meeting of the synod of
Laodicea generally somewhere between the years 343 and 381, i.e.,
between the Sardican and the Second Ecumenical Council—and to
give up the attempt to discover a more exact date.”173
| 173 Hefele:
Hist. of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 298. |
But since the traditional position of the canons of this
Council is after those of Antioch and immediately before those of First
Constantinople, I have followed this order. Such is their
position in “very many old collections of the Councils which have
had their origin since the sixth or even in the fifth century,”
says Hefele. It is true that Matthew Blastares places these
canons after those of Sardica, but the Quinisext Synod in its Second
Canon and Pope Leo IV., according to the Corpus Juris
Canonici,174
| 174 Gratian:
Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xx., c. 1. It is from Leo’s
letter to the British Bishops. | give them the
position which they hold in this volume.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
