And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me? holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers."

"She knew that God saved her from sin in a particular way."
   
"She knew that God had done great things for her, and that this special gift she had been given by God, she may have not understood the full extent of it, but I think she certainly understood to some extent that she had a special grace otherwise these statements she's making I think wouldn't have, they would not have as much meaning otherwise."

"Mary speaks of God as her savior. Are we really to imagine that she said these words with an understanding of a dogma that would not be defined for another 1,800 or more years? She would have had to have had a personal understanding of her own experiential sinlessness and the preemptive application of the merits of Christ to her in order to say these words in the way Roman Catholic theologians would have us understand them. Given that it is obvious that she did not fully understand the work of her Son at the Cross, how could she possibly view herself in such light?" [Mary: Another Redeemer? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), pp. 151-152].

"Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation 'full of grace,' opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises 'endowed with grace; dearly loved.' The MNT task force translates it as 'graciously favored by God,' while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, 'full of grace,' is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, 'O highly favored daughter'; JB, 'So highly favored') [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129].

The Ultimatum
   Part of conveying the message properly is to make sure that the dialogue concludes without any ambiguity. In this vein, there are two ayaat in particular that lay out the ultimate choice for the People of the Book.
   They are reminded with censure of their previous transgression while at the same time being given hope of a good reward should they accept the message,

And if only the people of the Scripture had believed (in Muhammad and warded off evil and had become pious, We would indeed have blotted out their sins and admitted them to Gardens of pleasure (in Paradise).[33]

   It is up to them to choose the path of success,

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So those who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.[34]

   If they still reject the message though, then the blame lies on their shoulders in the Hereafter,

Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture and the polytheists will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.[35]

Final Advice to the Believers and the People of the Book

And to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And verily, We have recommended to the people of the Scripture before you, and to you (O Muslims) that you (all) fear Allah, and keep your duty to Him, But if you disbelieve, then unto Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Ever Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of all praise.[36]

33 Ma’idah:65 34 A’raaf:157 35 Bayyinah:6 36 Nisaa:131

"A firestorm has broken out in Jerusalem following the conclusion of the [Symposium]. Most negative assessments of archaeologists and other scientists and scholars who attended have been excluded from the final press reports. Instead the media have presented the views of Simcha Jacobovici, who produced the controversial film and book The Lost Tomb of Jesus with Hollywood director James Cameron, and who claims that his identification has been vindicated by the conference papers. Nothing further from the truth can be deduced from the discussion and presentations that took place on January 13-17, 2008."

   I have been reading, for the past few days, the debate between Dr. White and Dave Hunt. I confess that it has been vexing, as both men seem too interested in attacking each other personally than in sticking strictly to the issues. Mr. Hunt, in my opinion, stuck more with the issues and answered James's points more consistently than James did with Mr. Hunt's points.
   James seemed to think that, instead of presenting air-tight arguments favoring his own traditions, he could simply say that Dave Hunt was depending upon "the traditions of man" (a term White gratuitously used about a zillion times---per page!), and that, instead of answering Mr. Hunt's strongest scriptural points, he could simply accuse his opponent of not using (what Dr. White regards as) "exegesis."
   If Dr. White cannot do better than this in debate, I may have to deprive myself of sleep for two or three days before our debate, just to make it fair (I am not suggesting that I am smarter than Dr. White. I am sure that I am not! However, no matter how smart you are, when you argue against the truth, you place yourself at a disadvantage).

   Then I realized that Dr. White holds to a rather narrow definition of the word exegesis. When I use the term, I am speaking of rendering an explanation of a text, based upon:

1) the meanings of words (vocabulary),
2) the relationships of the words to each other (grammar), and
3) the relationship of a sentence to other sentences in the flow of thought (context).

   By contrast, it would appear that, to Dr. White, the chief feature of exegesis is a painstaking analysis of Greek syntax (a feature of #2, above). This is a convenient (though truncated) definition for him to adopt, since he has special training in such matters of the Greek language, whereas few in his audience can understand his arcane explanations, giving the following false impressions:

1) that he knows more than they do about the Bible,
2) that his interpretation (something different from translation) must be correct, and
3) that even if his interpretation is not correct, the problems involved in understanding the text are so complex as to render it impossible for the common man to know if he is right or wrong.

So he wins his point by default---unless his opponent knows Greek as well as he does, and can clearly explain why his point is not established by his intricate arguments.

"I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes!"

Matthew 11:25-27 5 ¶ At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

   In hearing his comments and reactions to my lectures, I got the impression that he is not going to be a very formidable opponent. He seems to neglect most of the important considerations in exegesis, and then distracts his audience from this fact by accusing his opponent of "eisegesis," "following tradition," and other canards. My assumption is that intelligent audiences will notice what he is doing, and it will weaken his case in their eyes.
   I am now much more familiar with James White's writings and debate methods, and I am more convinced than ever that my first impressions were correct. Whether he is debating Tim Warner, Dave Hunt or Norm Geisler (or me), he always resorts to the same tactics and the same name-calling. Some people have asked me whether it makes me nervous about being on the receiving end of that kind of treatment in a public forum. I don't know why it should. Only if I succumb to the temptation to respond in the same manner will I or my case look bad. I should think that Dr. White would himself be nervous every time he debates—not that his opponent will make him look bad, but that he will make himself look foolish.

حسورة الإخلاص - سورة ١١٢
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ١
اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ ٢
لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ ٣
وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ ٤
1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.
Surah Al-Ikhlas (112)

سورة المائدة - سورة ٥
َّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَآلُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللّهِ شَيْئًا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ وَمَن فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا وَلِلّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاء وَاللّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ١٧
   In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every-one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."
Surah Al-Maida (5), Ayah 17

13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 ¶ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Colossians 1:13-18

"But their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith!" [LW 32:96]

Preface to the Second Book of Maccabees (1534)
   
This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees; another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well. It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14[:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16]. To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures,* so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.[LW 35:352-353]

“What’s the difference between a propagandist and an apologist? A propagandist is mainly concerned with mocking and ridiculing his opponents for the entertainment of his co-religionists using whatever information he or she finds to be damaging. An apologist, however, takes his opponents seriously and recognizes that the opponents do have a rationale for what they believe. A good apologist feels the strength of his opponent’s position before critiquing it.”

This topic was brillantly debated by Gary Michuta. Gary proved every point and Mr. White was stuck with restating his platitudes. BTW, Steve Ray and Dave Armstrong were in the audience. Instead of there being a debate, why doesn't Mr. White just stop misrepresenting the truth to suit his beliefs? -- EveRachel44
Steve Ray always backs up his research, talks and videos with tons of facts. The attack on his credibility was hateful. Thank you for verifying in complete detail the truth and facts of Steve Ray's comments. -- EveRachel44
WOW! I love how you not only stated your point, but, you back it up with hard facts. Outstanding. It just proves that it is so important not to just believe what someone says, but, to actually do research and see what the real truth is. Thank you! -- dmaxmattie
No, what is pure garbage is how people like you can be presented with hard facts, names, places, and dates, and still refuse to believe what the Church teaches. James White? is a lying bigot and is leading people astray from our Lord's Church. I am a convert and people like White make me sick because I was deceived by them into hating our Lord's Church for years and years. -- IrishEddieOHara
Where is it pure garbage? Without it you fall into the Protestant Jack Chick style of criticism, the very thing you are accusing the video of! Stop parroting James White and come up with some arguments of your own. -- timothyprescott
This is a great video! I don't doubt Ray's scholarship. He has proven himself over and over again. -- cmic566

   But the writers of the Eastern church were more aware of the shorter scriptural canon drawn up by the Jews. Melito of Sardis (ca. 170) gives us our earliest Christian list of OT booksa list much like the one that eventually became the standard Hebr list (Est is omitted). Origen mentions that the Hebrews have 22 books; Athanasius, who had Jewish teachers, insists that the Christians should have 22 books just as the Hebrews have; and, of course, Jerome did his best to propagate the Hebr canon in the Western church. Some writers who favor the short canon nevertheless cite the deuterocanonical books.A distinction between canonical and ecclesiasticalwas proposed in order to classify the books, with the latter to be understood as works serving the Church for edification. Doubts about the deuterocanonical books keep recurring in the history of the Church among those who are aware of the Jewish canon. Those who prefer the shorter canon or express some doubt about the full canonical status of the deuterocanonicals include Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Rufinus, Gregory the Great, John Damascene, Hugh of St. Victor, Nicholas of Lyra, and Cardinal Cajetan. (See A. C. Sundberg, CBQ 30 [1968] 143-55.) [Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1996, c1968). The Jerome Biblical commentary(2:523). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.]

   Even at Trent, however, the Council Fathers did not specifically attempt to press the detail of Church usage back beyond the period of Jerome, for they used the Vg as the norm for Church usage, condemning anyone who does not accept these books in their entirety, with all their parts, according to the text usually read in the Catholic Church and as they are in the ancient Latin Vulgate (DS 1504). There are many difficulties here that demand investigation. First, in the period before the Vg therewas no consistent Church usage, as we have seen. Ironically, Jerome, the translator of the Vg, was very clear in his preference for the same short canon that Trent rejected in the name of the Vg. The Vg was introduced into the West over many protests (including that of Augustine) asserting that Jeromes translation from the Hebrew was an innovation against the Churchs usage of translating from the LXX. [Ibid., emph. added]

1. They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians , some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other books--those called apocryphal--led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.
3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: Forasmuch as some have taken in hand , to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And He reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me .
7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings (των αποκρυφων μνημη). But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

   Church was way cool today. James White from Alpha and Omega Ministries was teaching in one of the fellowship groups this morning. I ditched my normal routine and crashed this older-couples-only sunday school to hear the big man himself. Finding a seat 45 minutes into the shin-dig was no cakewalk, thanks to choir commitments, but regardless I got to hear the majority of the message: Islam.
   James White kicks major apologetic-argue/debate anything that is against the Bible and leave you on the floor in a fetal position sucking your thumb, butt. His presence alone is intimidating, causing the very walls in the room to vibrate. He's def. not the dude you'd want to meet alone in an alley somewhere, only if it were indeed the great White, you'd be getting the smack down on radical Biblical theology, calling you to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. You'd cry like a baby begging that he doesn't squish you between his fingers. Faithful man. If you haven't heard the dude lay it down, go to his webaschnizzle and watch/read some of his junk yourself. Men like this are so rad, and I love to just sit under their feet listening to their scholarly wit proceed from their mouth like sweet honey dripping over warm stones... music to my ears.

"The same thing happens with Protestants, in their internal squabbles. This is one of the ongoing tragedies of Protestantism. Protestants can scream "sola Scriptura" and perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture till kingdom come, but they can't agree on its teaching, and so they need authoritative interpretation and a guide: the Church, tradition, councils, popes, and apostolic succession."

"The mission of the Jesuit order, as understood by most of its members, has changed radically in recent decades. As recently as the mid-20th century, the Jesuits were known as stalwart defenders of the Pope, who trained loyal young Catholics to defend Church doctrines. Today they are inveterate critics of the Vatican, who train young Catholics to question their faith. Is there any discussion among Jesuit leaders of a return to the defense of Catholic orthodoxy? Evidently not.
   
Perhaps not coincidentally, as the Jesuits have maneuvered to establish what amounts to a "loyal opposition" within the Catholic Church, the order has suffered heavily from defections and lost its ability to attract young recruits. In 1965 when Father Arrupe became superior general, there were about 36,000 Jesuits in the world. Today that figure has been cut nearly in half, with about 19,000 Jesuits remaining in a rapidly aging society. . . . "

“Surely, anyone who argues so vehemently against the legitimacy of Protestantism by pointing out variations of belief among Protestant denominations would first want to ensure that his own system was not also excluded on those same grounds. It is important to note that the argument is not one of degree of difference- it is that there are differences, period. One cannot, for instance, argue that his religious system is more legitimate on the basis that there is less disagreement within it than within other systems of belief. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. Either disagreements nullify a system, or they do not. Otherwise, the best one can argue is that his religious system more nearly conforms to a set standard of unity, but does not actually meet that standard. It is also important to keep in mind that the ‘diversity of belief’ argument is one that was invented by Roman Catholic Apologists. We as Evangelicals do not agree with its premise. But any system that argues for an arbitrary criterion for being the ‘true’ church must itself conform to that criterion.” [Upon This Slippery Rock, 23].

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

"Swan is also correct that the citation in question is indeed from Luther's 1527 treatise: That These Word of Christ, "This Is My Body," etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (found in LW, vol. 37)."

"In a source helpfully provided by our esteemed friend James Swan, it is noted that the Latin version was entitled contra Fanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus. This would account for the widely differing source names, according to whether one was citing a Latin or German version. Of course, the main "fanatical Sacramentarians" Luther is responding to were Zwingli and Oecolampadius; thus in common usage we can see how it could become known as simply Contra Zwingli and Oecolampadius or variation thereof."

"The citation will be proved (in the near future) to be a solid one, that has been used by many important people: themselves highly intelligent and scholarly. If anyone has been acting like a condescending fool, in over his head, in this current dispute, it is James Swan, not Steve Ray or myself."

Since September 11, 2001, Americans have discovered that we can no longer ignore Islam as a political force or as a religion. The confusion of those two realms is inherent in Islam, and, sadly, is found with some Christians as well. For Christians, the danger in the confusion is to consider Muslims our enemies, when we should be seeking their salvation. Some Muslims are indeed our political enemies whom we have a duty to defend ourselves against as citizens; but, as the church, all Muslims should be the objects of our evangelistic concern. Only when we carefully distinguish between the spiritual and temporal kingdoms is such concern really possible. As enemies of God, Muslims must be told of the reconciling love of God in Jesus Christ.

"Just when I thought that James Swan has forgotten me, my book, and the issue of the Old Testament canon, he reappears on the Alpha & Omega website with a canon article.I really respect James Swan even though I have never had the pleasure of meeting him. He seems to try to base his position on research and I’m glad that he is looking into the question of the canon more thoroughly. "

1) I am more than happy to learn new things from folks like James Swan and others who post on his blog as well. For example, I did not know that the "yes" vote for the canon comprised barely 40% of the small group gathered at Trent. That's a real confidence booster....
   
2) The quote I gave in the debate was undoubtedly speaking of world-renowned scholars, those known for generations in the future. Given that almost nobody can even dig up the names of anyone at Trent (99.999999% of all Catholics couldn't do it), the two quotes contrasted by Michuta obviously have different contexts. Even the continuation of Westcott's quote [given below] bears this out. If this is the best our Roman Catholic critics can come up with to assert disunity, well...they should check out some of the stuff on the web about all of those who used to stand side by side in defense of Rome (check out how united are Matatics, Sungenis, Madrid, Keating, and Shea!).
   
3) But even then, it is great to see Gary bringing up this point, since it takes us back to the real issue here: the folks who knew the most about the history of the canon did not vote for the canon Michuta wants to enforce upon all believers today.

"On the first point there was a general agreement. It was allowed that tradition was a coordinate source of doctrine with Scripture. On the second there was a great variety of opinion. Some proposed to follow the judgment of Cardinal Caietan and distinguish two classes of books, as, it was argued, had been the intention of Augustine. Others wished to draw the line of distinction yet more exactly, and form three classes, (1) the Acknowledged Books, (2) the Disputed Books of the New Testament, as having been afterwards generally received, (3) the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. A third party wished to give a bare list, as that of Carthage, without any further definition of the authority of the books included in it, so as to leave the subject yet open. A fourth party, influenced by a false interpretation of the earlier papal decrees, and necessarily ignorant of the grave doubts which affect their authenticity, urged the ratification of all the books of the enlarged Canon as equally of Divine authority. The first view was afterwards merged in the second, and on March 8 three minutes were drawn up embodying the three remaining opinions. These were considered privately, and on the 15th the third was carried by a majority of voices. The decree in which it was finally expressed was published on the 8th of April, and for the first time the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an Anathema. 'The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent,' so the decree runs, '...following the examples of the orthodox fathers receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testaments...and also traditions pertaining to faith and conduct...with an equal feeling of devotion and reverence" [B.F. Westcott, The Bible In The Church, p. 256].