The Council of Laodicea.
The Council of Laodicea.
§ 76. We conclude that the churches in Asia Minor are apostolic from the Epistles of Paul to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, bishop of Ephesus; from the first Epistle of Peter to the inhabitants of Asia; and from the letters to the seven churches that John wrote in Revelation at Christ’s command (Revelation 2-3). Furthermore, it is evident from church history that the apostle John, who was the last to die among the apostles, ended his life in Asia. The bishops of this Asia gathered at Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana and decided during the Council of Laodicea,6 canon 59: “One ought not read in the Church those books that are outside the canon but only the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.” Then they add the list of canonical books from which they omit all those about which there is controversy. Furthermore, they list only those that our churches accept. Also, we must make much of the testimony of this Laodicean church because that church is expressly mentioned (Col. 4:16; Rev. 3:14). Thus Stapleton writes: “The Council of Laodicea made itself known before all the others” (De auctorit. Script., bk. 2, c. 3, § 2), though, according to him, it did not do this in good faith.
To weaken this testimony, our adversaries use various exceptions, the more important of which we shall examine. (1) Some make the exception: “The Council of Laodicea was a provincial council of only twenty-two bishops. It was not confirmed by the bishop of Rome. But the Council of Carthage, in which the controversial books were accepted into the canon, was a council of 217 bishops. Therefore we must prefer the latter to the former.” We respond. Provincial councils are those in which “the bishops of only one province gather,” as Bellarmine defines them (De concil., bk. 1, c. 4, § Provincialia). Yet in this council, bishops were gathered from diverse provinces, something that the words of the title of the synod teach: “The holy synod that is convened at Laodicea in Phrygia from diverse regions of Asia.” In the Greek it is 
[“provinces”]. Furthermore, in it were involved not twenty-two but thirty-two bishops, as is evident from Gratian ([Jus canonicum,] dist. 16, c. Prima): “Sixth, of Laodicea, in which the thirty-two fathers ….” The oldest versions read this way, even that which was published under the auspices of Gregory XIII. Binius makes the same claim (Notis, vol. 1, p. 292). Furthermore, the Council of Laodicea, held about the year 364, was prior to the one at Carthage, which was held around the year 400. The Council of Laodicea, therefore, is also of greater authority than that of Carthage. As the rule of canon law has it (dist. 50, c. Sancto Domino), according to Isidore: “Whenever a discordant opinion is discovered in the accounts of councils, we must give greater weight to the opinion of that council whose authority is older and earlier.” To be sure, this rule of Isidore, approved by canon law, seems to conflict with the rule of Augustine that “prior councils are corrected by later ones” (De baptismo, bk. 2; Contra Donatist., c. 3). Bellarmine, however, reconciles these in this way: “Augustine is speaking about questions of fact and commandments of behavior, but Isidore is speaking about the doctrine of faith” (De concil., bk. 2, c. 7). But now, the question of canon pertains to the doctrine of faith. Therefore we must observe this rule of Isidore by whose strength the decision of the Council of Laodicea must stand rather than that of the Council of Carthage, to say nothing of the fact that the opinion of the Council of Carthage does not conflict with the Council of Laodicea, as we shall point out in its own place. Finally, the Council of Laodicea was confirmed in canon law (dist. 16, c. Prima; c. dist. 16, Non oportet). In the same place, the Council of Laodicea was confirmed by Leo, by whom the Council of Carthage was also confirmed (dist. 20, c. De libellis). The popes, therefore, cannot make light of its authority.
(2) Some make the exception that “the Council of Laodicea enumerated those books about which the bishops were certain that they were canonical and divine. Meanwhile, the council did not deny that the rest were canonical but did not define the doubtful matter. However, the Council of Carthage discussed the matter better and did define what had been left doubtful at Laodicea.” We respond. On the contrary, with clear words they want only the canonical books to be read, and they exclude from the list of canonical books those about which there is controversy. Bellarmine himself draws the following conclusion (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 20): “Psalm 151, which Athanasius mentions in his Synopsis, is not canonical because the Council of Laodicea, along with the Council of Rome held under Gelasius and with the Council of Trent, places 150 psalms in the canon.” Therefore if this is true of Psalm 151, that from this it is correctly proved to be apocryphal because only 150 psalms are placed by name into the canon by councils, then in the same way we would have the consequence that those six controversial books are not canonical, because the Council of Laodicea places into the canon by name only twenty-two books. Moreover, not only the fathers of the Council of Laodicea, with their silence and omission, but also the other fathers of the Eastern Church, by naming them clearly, exclude the apocryphal books, as will become clear later.
(3) Costerus makes the following exception (Enchir., c. 1, p. 65):
Those fathers did not reject these books as if they were not sacred nor did they decree that they were not canonical. Instead, they did not count them among those that had to be read in the Church; and they did this because of the Jews who had been converted to the faith and were nearly judaizing, Jews with whom Phrygia abounded since apostolic times. Those holy fathers certainly did not wish to irritate them by reading in the Church those books that they did not have in the canon of the Hebrews.
We respond. They decreed that they are not to be read. Therefore they also decreed that they were not canonical, because the Laodiceans used interchangeably the expressions “books to be read in the Church” and “canonical books.” But it is quite false to say that they made such a decision for the favor of the Jews, for the canon of faith must not be bent to please men. But if they kept silent about these books for that reason, would they not rather have prohibited the reading of Paul’s Epistles as canonical, which were far more odious to the Jews than the books of the Maccabees or of Wisdom? In canon 2 of that council, they condemn the Tesseradecatitae, or Quartodecimani [“Fourteenthers”], who along with the Jews celebrated Easter [Pascha] on the fourteenth day after the full moon of the first month. (For according to Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 5, c. 21, and Socrates, bk. 1, c. 6, some of the Christians were following the custom of the Jews, but others would celebrate Easter on the next Sunday after the fourteenth day after the full moon.) Therefore it is far from the truth to say that those fathers wanted to indulge the Jews in setting the canon when they declared heretics those who persisted stubbornly in an adiaphoron, namely, in the Jewish custom of celebrating Easter. In canon 29 they state: “Christians must not judaize and do no work on the Sabbath. Rather, they should work on that day while putting the Lord’s Day ahead of that day.” If they were unwilling to indulge the Jews in this matter, who will allow himself to be persuaded that for the sake of the Jews they forbade certain truly canonical books to be read in the Church?
(4) “The Council of Laodicea also omitted the Gospel of Luke, which, nevertheless, is truly canonical.” We respond. It is also omitted in Carranza’s Epitome conciliorum, but all the others that for some reason published a list of canonical books number the Gospel of Luke in the canon. Therefore we must correct this error of the council from other councils and fathers. In the actual canon of the Council of Laodicea, however, it seems that the Gospel of Luke was omitted by the error of a copyist rather than by a fault of the fathers, for in the Cologne edition of Severinus Binius (Conc., vol. 1, p. 292), it is clearly listed among the canonical books of the New Testament. Also, in the version of Gentianus Hervetus, Baruch is connected to Jeremiah, and they are called the Epistles of Jeremiah, though there is only one letter in the Book of Baruch. This, however, is omitted in the version of Severinus Binius. All editions omit Revelation. What decision we must make about this will become clear in its own place.
Therefore because these exceptions that have been brought out publicly are of no weight and force, Ederus correctly confesses: “In the Council of Laodicea no mention is made of those controversial books” (Oeconom. biblic., bk. 1, p. 36, tab. 42).