THE SOLA SCRIPTURA PRINCIPLE

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH IT?

Sola Scriptura can be defined as the Protestant principle that scripture alone is a sufficient
teacher to gain salvation, and it, scripture, is the one ruler or standard by which any doctrine of
the church should be judged. If a doctrine cannot be found within the covers of the 66 books of
the Protestant Bible, then it can be safely rejected, your salvation does not depend on it. Some
Catholic apologists will claim that this Sola Scriptura doctrine did not surface until the
reformation of the 16th century and Martin Luther. Note the following:

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient

first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles,
has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has
paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which
we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

So just who authored this affirmation of the principle of the sufficiency and paramount authority
of the scriptures known as Sola Scriptura? Was is Martin Luther? Perhaps another Johnny-come-
lately disgruntled 16th century reformer? No, the author is from the 5th century, 1100 years prior
to the Reformation! The author is none other than St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God,
book XI, Chapter 3, online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at Wheaton
College.

Here is the same passage with a slightly different translation:

This mediator [Jesus Christ], first through the Prophets, then by his own
lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered
necessary. He also inspired Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and
of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all those
truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn.

So scripture, according to St. Augustine, is the supreme authority and reveals all truths we
should know. That sounds about as good as any Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura. This
version bears the Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat, and Imprimi Potest of the Catholic Church and is
found in City of God published in 1958 by Image Books, Doubleday, Copyright 1958 by Fathers
of the Church, Inc., edited by Vernon J. Bourke, ISBN 0-385-02910-1, page 207.

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be
found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life ...
 Source: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book II, Chap. 9, online
at the University of Pennsylvania.

Could Augustine be more clear about the sufficiency of Scripture in matters of Christian faith?
Here are more quotes of Augustine on the authority of scripture (emphasis is mine):

Chapter1, #3 ... I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to
the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe
that the authors were completely free from error.

Chapter 3, #24 ... as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures

alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow
their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any
mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.

Source: Letter 82 From Augustine to Jerome.

2. Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct,

not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by
teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be
incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done;
what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy
Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not "be wise more
than it behoveth to be wise;" but be wise, as himself saith, "unto
soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith."
(Rom 12:3) Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to
expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord
shall have given to me.

Source: St. Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis (On the Good of

Widowhood), online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at
Wheaton College.

Here is another remarkable testimony from an early church father (emphasis is mine):

1. Introduction:--The purpose of the book a vindication of Christian

doctrine, and especially of the Cross, against the scoffing objection of
Gentiles. The effects of this doctrine its main vindication.
 1. The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is
independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for
almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter
than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to
hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few
points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the
divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3.
For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to
declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers
compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some
knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what
he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the
compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you
what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest
any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in
Christ unreasonable.

Source: Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen.), by St. Athanasius,

Bishop of Alexandria; and Doctor of the Church; about 318 A.D.

Here, another church father declares that the plan of salvation as taught in scripture to be the
ground and pillar of our faith:

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from
those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at
one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God,
handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our
faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed
"perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves
as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the
apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit
came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect
knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad
tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace
of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the
Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews
in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and
laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what
had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in
a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the
Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel
during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
 2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven
and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son
of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions
of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he
despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and
opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)

So the Protestant, and even St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, and St. Iranaeus, on occasion, proclaim
the Bible to be the sole supreme ruler of faith, sufficient to declare the truth, the pillar and
ground of truth with perfect knowledge.

The Catholic responds that the Catholic Church not only has the authority to preserve, define and
interpret scripture, but in addition, has the authority to define and declare what it calls Tradition,
which it claims is also the Word of God, and has the same validity as scripture:

Q. Has tradition any connection with the rule of faith?

A. Yes; because it is a part of God's revealed word, properly called the
unwritten word as the scripture is called the written word.

Q. What is Tradition? [pg. 87]

A. The doctrines which the Apostles taught by word of mouth, and which
have descended through every successive generation even to our times.

Q. Are we obliged to believe what tradition teaches, equally with what is

taught by Scripture?
A. Yes; we are obliged to believe the one as firmly as the other; because,
what the Apostles preached is as true as what they wrote: it was the same
holy Spirit who spoke by their mouths and by their pen.

Source: A Doctrinal Catechism, by Rev. Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur

by John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, pages 86, 87.

It is interesting to note that the Roman Catholic church does define and declare Tradition as a
prerequisite to a saving faith. Examples of this type of Catholic Tradition would be:

The Immaculate Conception of Mary

 Mary's preservation from sin, declared in the Apostolic Constitution
Defining the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, by Pope Pius IX,
INEFFABILIS DEUS, December 8, 1854:

Under the subtitle The Definition-

... "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that
the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a
singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the
merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free
from all stain of original sin, is the doctrine revealed by God and therefore
to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

"Hence, if anyone shall dare-which God forbid!-to think otherwise than as

has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned
by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he
has separated from the unity of the Church; and that; furthermore, by his
own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to
express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he
thinks in his heart."

The Assumption of Mary

Mary's assumption into heaven, declared in the Apostolic Constitution of

Pius XII, Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus
Deus, November 1, 1950, paragraph 44:

... by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter
and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it
to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the
ever virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was
assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

paragraph 45- Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully
to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that
he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith.

As should be obvious, this distinction between Catholics and Protestants is no small matter, since
Catholics claim that salvation depends on your belief in dogma that cannot be found in scripture,
the only ruler of faith the Protestants know. What hope then does the Protestant have?
The Catholic will quote the following verse to "prove" their point. I am going to use several
different Bibles for comparison, for those who might contest the validity of the King James.

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught,
either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

2 The 2:15 With all these things in mind, dear brothers, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the
truth that we taught you in our letters and during the time we were with you.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Th 2:14 Therefore, bretheren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned,
whether by word or by our epistle.

From the 1611 King James:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word, or our epistle.

From the 1602 Geneva New Testament:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and keep the instructions which ye have been taught,
either by word, or by our epistle.

From the 1534 Tyndale New Testament:

2 Th 2:15 Therefore brethren stand fast and keep the ordinances which ye have learned: whether
it were by our preaching, or by epistle.

And there are these similar statements by Paul:

1 Cor 11:1-2 (KJV)

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I
delivered them to you.

2 Tim 2:1-2 (KJV)

1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to
faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
The Catholic appeals to these passages to show that the apostles taught doctrine orally, without
benefit of the written New Testament to back them up, so therefore, by their thinking, it is really
no different when they teach Catholic Tradition that lacks any scriptural authority (See this page
for 2 Th 2:15). But the early pre-New Testament church DID have a written authority to refer to
and adhere to, as the following shows:

FIRST CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Acts 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon
arrival they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 These Jews were more fair-minded that those in Thessalonica, for they received the
word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things
were so.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Acts 17:10 That night the Christians hurried Paul and Silas to Beroea, and, as usual, they went to
the synagogue to preach.
Acts 17:11 But the people of Beroea were more open minded than those in Thessalonica, and
gladly listened to the message. They searched the scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and
Silas' statements to see if they were really so.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Acts 17:10 But the bretheren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. when
they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with
all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

From the King James:

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who
coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word
with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Please note that the word noble derives from the Greek word eugenes, which Strong's defines as
follows-
2104. eugenes, yoog-en'-ace; from G2095 and G1096; well born, i.e. (lit.) high in rank, or (fig.)
generous:--more noble, nobleman.

This is significant because it clearly is commending the Bereans over and above the
Thessalonicans, because while they listened to Paul and Silas with an open mind, they still
checked what they were told for accuracy by comparing it with the existing Old Testament
scriptures. They did not just accept what they were told by anyone. They used scripture as their
only ruler for truth. The principle of Sola Scriptura is very firmly and clearly established in this
text.

Catholics however, object that the New Testament did not exist in it's complete written form at
the time of this incident, so by their reasoning, it is excluded from this appeal to scriptural
authority. Just how, may I ask, does that change the principle established here? Scripture was
consulted by the Bereans as the final arbiter of the truth, and this is the exact and precise
definition of Sola Scriptura. Had Paul and Silas orally related Traditions (in the Catholic sense of
the word) that were not in harmony with, or could not be found in the Old Testament, then the
Bereans would have rightly rejected them!

The principle of Sola Scriptura is very clearly taught here and the Catholic should face the fact.
Their only recourse is to counter that this situation has somehow changed at some point with the
New Testament church and that Catholic Tradition must now also be considered in addition to
the written word. Please note that this proof of a change would have to occur after the events in
Berea, so this would automatically remove the four Gospels from consideration since they
precede Paul's ministry in Berea. In any case, the point is the Bereans were following precisely
the principle of Sola Scriptura and they were commended for it. That in itself shows Sola
Scriptura is indeed taught and applied in the Bible, despite Catholic claims to the contrary.

It is also worth noting, that when Paul preached in Thessalonica and Berea, he reasoned with the
people out of the scriptures. From the King James:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with
them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the
dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Paul used the written word of God to prove that Jesus was indeed the prophesied Messiah the
Jews were waiting for:

1 Cor 2:1-2 (KJV)

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom,
declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Rom 15:19 (KJV) Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that
from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Acts 20:27 (KJV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Paul in the New Testament never does teach or preach the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate
Conception of Mary, Mary Mediatrix of all grace, Advocate and Coredemptrix, and neither does
he teach Papal Infallibility or Purgatory. Scripture demonstrates he taught and preached exactly
what he claimed to teach, that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all the Messiah's requirements as set
out in written scripture. Scripture was the guide by which anyone could judge for themselves if
Jesus of Nazareth met the prophetic requirements completely.

So where do we see Paul teaching or preaching the sayings and Traditions of the Scribes,
Pharisees, or Sadducees? Where does Paul, or any Apostle for that matter, cite the oral law, the
Tradition of the elders, the Rabbis, as authoritative, as worthy as scripture for transmitting the
Word of God? No where. Jesus, in fact, strongly condemned these oral Traditions (Mat. 15:2-9,
Mark 7:3-13, Col. 2:8).

Because of the success Paul and Silas were having in converting Jew and Gentile alike to
Christianity (vs. 4,12), unbelieving Jews caused an uproar that drove them out of both
Thessalonica and Berea (vs. 5-10, 13-14). The unbelieving Jews apparently viewed these
conversions as a threat to Judaism as they knew it. But without scripture to use for validating the
Gospel of Jesus Christ as Messiah, Paul would not have been able to prove anything.

There is a rather striking parallel here that bears mentioning: that being the similarity of Paul's
scripture-based ministry in Thessalonica and Berea, and the Sola Scriptura advocates or
Protestant reformers. They also dared to preach directly from the scriptures, an act which has
historically stirred the wrath of the Catholic Church, and has generally resulted in persecution
down through the centuries, just like Paul stirred the wrath of the Jews in Thessalonica.

So can this principle of scriptural authority be found anywhere else in the bible? Indeed it can.

SECOND CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

2 Tim 3:15 And that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of
giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

2 Tim 3:15 You know how, when you were a small child, you were taught the holy Scriptures;
and it is these that make you wise to accept God's salvation by trusting in Jesus Christ.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Tim 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can
instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

From the King James:

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make
thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So according to Paul's second letter to Timothy, scripture is sufficient to make you wise unto
salvation. This directly contradicts Catholic claims that Scripture is insufficient, and dogma
defined in Tradition is also essential to salvation.

A Roman Catholic Cardinal Denies Bible Sufficiency To Salvation:

We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of
faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not
of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they
do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.

Source: The Faith Of Our Fathers, (The Church and the Bible), by James Cardinal Gibbons,
Archbishop of Baltimore, 111th printing, copyright 1980 by TAN books and Publishers, Inc.,
ISBN: 0-89555-158-6, page 73.

If Paul is to be believed in 2 Tim 3:15, what need is there then for the unbiblical doctrines and
teachings of Catholic Tradition? Who shall we believe, the Apostle Paul, or Cardinal Gibbons?

THIRD CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Isa 8:19 And when they say to you, "Inquire of mediums and fortune-tellers (who chirp and
mutter); should not a people inquire of their gods, apply to the dead on behalf of the living!"-
Isa 8:20 then this document will furnish its instruction. That kind of thing they will surely say.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Isa 8:19 So why are you trying to find out the future by consulting witches and mediums? Don't
listen to their whisperings and mutterings. Can the living find out the future from the dead? Why
not ask your God?
Isa 8:20 "Check these witches' words against the Word of God!" he says if their messages are
different than mine, it is because I have not sent them; for they have no light or truth in them.
From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Isa 8:19 And when they shall say to you: Seek of pythons, and of diviners, who mutter in their
enchantments; should not the people seek of their God, for the living of the dead?
Isa 8:20 To the law rather, and to the testimony. And if they speak not according to this word,
they shall not have the morning light.

From the King James:

Isa 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto
wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the
dead?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because
there is no light in them.

The words for law and testimony here mean the Word of God. The word law is torah, and
testimony is te'uwdah. Torah may mean either the Decalogue or the Pentateuch, and same can be
true of te'uwdah. Isaiah uses both words together previously in chapter 8-

From the King James:

Isa 8:16 Bind up the testimony (te'uwday), seal the law (torah) among my disciples.

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Isa 8:16 The record is to be folded and the sealed instruction kept among my disciples.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Isa 8:16 Write down all these things I am going to do, says the Lord, and seal it up for the future.
Entrust it to some godly man to pass on down to godly men of future generations.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Isa 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Clearly Isa 8:16 is speaking of the revealed Word of God written down and contained in the first
five books of the Bible, the Torah, which includes the tablets of testimony, the Ten
Commandments, but there is also a wider application evident from a number of references to the
"law" and the "prophets" (2 Ki 17:13, Neh 9:26, Lam 2:9, Zeph 3:4, Zech 7:12, Matt 5:17, Matt
7:12, Matt 11:13, Matt 22:40, Luke 16:16, John 1:45, Acts 13:15, Acts 24:14, Acts 28:23, Rom
3:21), meaning Scripture as a whole. There is another phrase with identical meaning in the New
Testament - "Moses and the prophets", found in Luke 16:29,31, Luke 24:27,44, John 1:45, Acts
26:22, and Acts 28:23.

Note this verse in Revelation that describes those whom Satan is angered with:
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant
of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:17 is speaking about the "law and the testimony", and Revelation 19 further
defines "testimony" for us:

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy
fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Testimony is equated with prophecy, therefore Revelation 12:17 is actually talking about "the
law and the prophets", the entire span of Scripture, which the people of God tenaciously adhere
to in the end times, to the great anger of Satan.

So now return to Isaiah 8:20-

To the law [Moses] and to the testimony [prophets]: if they speak not according to this word
[scripture], it is because there is no light in them.

This then is saying that anyone who does not speak according to the entire written Word of God,
the Scriptures, "the law and the prophets", or "Moses and the prophets", if they are not in
harmony with it, then there is no light in them. It again proclaims the authority of scripture and
only scripture, to discern truth and light.

FOURTH CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written
in this book.
John 20:31 But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the
Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

John 20:30, 31 Jesus' disciples saw him do many other miracles besides the ones told about in
this book, but these are recorded so that you will believe that he is the Messiah, the Son of God,
and that believing in him you will have life.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 21:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in
this book.
John 21:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:
and that believing, you may have life in his name.

From the King James:

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not
written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through his name.

There is a similar passage in John that is a favorite of Catholics to quote in support of Tradition-

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described
individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

John 21:25 And I suppose that if all the other events in Jesus' life were written, the whole world
could hardly contain the books!

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 21:25 But there are also may other thing which Jesus did; which, if they were written every
one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

From the King James:

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be
written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be
written. Amen.

John said in 20:30 that a sufficient number of the signs or miracles performed by Jesus ARE
included in scripture to validate that He was indeed the Messiah, so that you will have a saving
faith. Again, scripture includes whatever is necessary to bring you to a saving faith. Nothing that
is necessary for salvation is left out. John 21:25 in no way changes that, nor can it be cited for
proof of unwritten articles of faith (Tradition) required for salvation. It says essentially that not
every deed or action of Jesus is recorded, (Just as John had stated earlier) but he again does not
even hint at unrecorded doctrines.

FIFTH CITATION
From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Prov 30:6 Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver.

From the Catholic Living Bible:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God proves true. He defends all who come to him for protection.
Prov 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him.
Prov 30:6 Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:

From the King James:

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Prov 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

There is a clear warning here to those who would try and amend the word of God through
additions. Isn't this exactly what the ex-cathedra Roman Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate
Conception and Assumption of Mary are?

So by what standard do you know what the word of God is? What authority should be consulted
to assure yourself that you are not adding to His word? Just exactly what is the word of God?

SIXTH CITATION

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

John 10:35 If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, scripture cannot be set aside,

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scriptures
cannot be broken;

From the King James:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot
be broken;

In this verse Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6. (In context, the word for "gods" actually means
judges.) Here the word of God and scripture are linked as one and the same.

SEVENTH CITATION

From the King James:

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him
unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

From the New American Bible for Catholics:

Mat 7:24 Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man
who built his house on a rock.
Mat 7:25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did
not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.

From the 1602 Geneva New Testament:

Mat 7:24 Whosoever then heareth of me these words, and doeth the same, I will liken him to a
wise man, which hath builded his house on a rock.
Mat 7:25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house,
and it fell not; for it was grounded upon a rock.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Mat 7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a
wise man that built his house upon a rock.
Mat 7:25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that
house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

So, where can we turn to study and hear the words of Jesus, that we might do them and build our
house on His solid rock foundation? Surely this truth is indeed found in scripture, the word of
God.
 EIGHTH CITATION

From the King James:

2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Tim 2:15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Clearly Paul is saying here to study the scriptures, which he defines as the word of truth. But
then, what Catholic would deny that scripture is the word of God? None of course... but they
would reply that the written word is not the sole word of God. Catholic Tradition they would say,
as declared by the church, has equal authority, as shown by the new Vatican Catechism-

... two distinct modes of transmission

#81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the
Holy Spirit." And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been
entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors
of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound,
and spread it abroad by their preaching.

#82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is
entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone.
Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion
and reverence."

But just where does scripture make this declaration?

NINTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are
they that give testimony of me.
John 5:40 And you will not come to me that you may have life.
John 5:46 For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

From the King James:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which
testify of me.
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Here Jesus tells the Jews to study and search the scriptures, because they know that the way to
eternal life can indeed be found there. That way to eternal life is revealed in scripture as Jesus
Christ, the Messiah that the Jews had longed for. But the Jews did not even believe what Moses
had written, and as a result repeatedly fell into apostasy. Jesus makes the point that if the Jews
will not believe and obey what Moses had written in scripture, then how could they possibly
believe the words spoken directly to them by the Christ that the scriptures reveal? Had the Jews
properly understood and believed the scriptures, they would have recognized Jesus for who He
was, the very Son of God.

So this passage teaches that the written word of God is sufficient to reveal the way to eternal life,
which is none other than Jesus Christ. It is as true today as it was the day it was written.

TENTH CITATION

From the King James:

Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the
preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since
the world began,
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the
commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Rom 16:25 Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my gospel, and the preaching
of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret from eternity,
Rom 16:26 (Which now is made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the
precept of the eternal God, for the obedience of faith,) known among all nations;
What is to be made known among all nations? The gospel, the mystery of God.
How is it revealed (made manifest)? By the scriptures of the prophets, according to the
commandment of the everlasting God.

ELEVENTH CITATION

Apollos also, like Paul, taught the Gospel from the scriptures, not from Tradition:

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Acts 18:24 Now a certain Jew, named Apollo, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, came to
Ephesus, one mighty in the scriptures.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, spoke,
and taught diligently the things that are of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 18:26 This man therefore began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Priscilla
and Aquila had heard, they took him to them, and expounded to him the way of the Lord more
diligently.
Acts 18:27 And whereas he was desirous to go to Achaia, the brethren exhorting, wrote to the
disciples to receive him. Who, when he was come, helped them much who had believed.
Acts 18:28 For with much vigour he convinced the Jews openly, shewing by the scriptures, that
Jesus is the Christ.

From the King James:

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty
in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he
spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had
heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Acts 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the
disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed
through grace:
Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that
Jesus was Christ.

TWELFTH CITATION
From the King James:

1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for
your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one
of you be puffed up for one against another.

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

1 Cor 4:6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for
your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another,
above that which is written.

From the 1602 Geneva Bible's New Testament:

1 Cor 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied unto mine own self and
Apollos, for your sakes, that ye might learn by us, that no man presume above that which is
written, that one swell not against another for any mans cause.

From the 1534 Tyndale New Testament:

1 Cor 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have described in mine own person and Apollos, for your
sakes, that ye might learn by us, that no man count of himself beyond that which is above
written: that one swell not against another for any mans cause.

From the Amplified Bible:

1 Cor 4:6 Now I have applied all this [about parties and factions] to myself and Apollos for your
sakes, bretheren, so that from what I have said of us [as illustrations] you may learn [to think of
men in accordance with Scripture and] not to go beyond that which is written; that none of you
may be puffed up and inflated with pride and boast in favor of one [minister and teacher] against
another.

Paul in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians is speaking against the factions that had developed
in the Corinthian church. These factions were formed around various teachers, like Paul himself,
Apollos and Peter (1 Cor 1:12, 3:4). Each faction exalted itself in pride because of who their
favorite teacher was. Paul using himself as an example asks - "was Paul crucified for you? or
were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:13). Paul is making the point here that it is the
message of "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" that matters (1 Cor 2:2), but not who it was that
brought you that message. Paul himself taught the basics, or "milk" of the Gospel (1 Cor 3:2),
while Apollos built on what Paul had taught, at a higher level of understanding (1 Cor 3:6). In
both cases though, it was God who gave understanding (1 Cor 3:7), not Paul or Apollos. So Paul
says (1 Cor 3:21-22) "let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; whether Paul, or
Apollos, or Cephas (Peter) ... ." The point he is making is that scripture does not teach one to be
a disciple of Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, but rather a disciple of Jesus Christ, whom all the
prophets and apostles preached about.
So when Paul says "not to go beyond that which is written," he makes quite clear that the written
scriptures are the limiting factor. This is Sola Scriptura in verity. Paul is teaching unity in the
truths of the Gospel message as found in scripture, which teaches Jesus Christ as the Saviour and
foundation (1 Cor 3:11), but he is criticizing divisive factions in the church based on individual
disciples. The warning is not to build teachings, doctrines, or dogma that go beyond the teaching
of scriptures and exalt anyone other than Christ. The church that exalts one disciple over another,
and so divides the body of Christ, is described by Paul as being carnal rather than spiritual (1
Cor 3:4). Does this not then describe a church that calls Peter the preeminent apostle, and
presumes to trace itself all the way back to Peter via the Tradition of apostolic succession? This
is precisely what Paul is warning against.

THIRTEENTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to witness this day, that I am clear from the blood of all men;
Acts 20:27 For I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed
you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing
the flock.
Acts 20:30 And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not, with tears to
admonish every one of you night and day.

From the King James:

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood.
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn
every one night and day with tears.
 FOURTEENTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be
corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you
receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not
received; you might well bear with him.

From the King James:

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so
your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye
receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not
accepted, ye might well bear with him.

So here, up to this point, are no less than fourteen different passages found in both the Old
Testament and the New Testament that collectively establish the principle of Sola Scriptura, the
authority of scripture alone to discern truth and instruct one in a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
What then of Catholic Tradition? What of the dogmas of the apostolic succession, the
immaculate conception of Mary, her assumption into heaven, her role as mediatrix of God's
grace and the many other such unbiblical Catholic Traditions? What bearing do they really have
on salvation?

FIFTEENTH CITATION

From the 1899 revised Douay Rheims:

Gal 1:6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ,
unto another gospel.
Gal 1:7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel
of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we
have preached to you, let him be anathema.

From the King James:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ
unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of
Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The gospel message as preached by Paul, and as recorded faithfully in the scriptures, is pure and
remains sufficient to salvation. No doctrine or Tradition needs to be added to what Paul taught
the early Christians. In fact, Paul condemns anyone who would teach a gospel other that what he
had presented, which was the whole counsel of God..

Conclusion

Clearly Sola Scriptura stands as biblically taught truth. The decrees and pronouncements called
"Tradition" by the Roman Catholic Church, which cannot be found in scripture, are therefore
rightly defined as that "other gospel" that Paul spoke of.

So let those who teach that other gospel take solemn note of Paul's warning.

Sola Scriptura Tradition

The above old woodcut illustrates the differences in teaching.

The Protestants on the left, are deep in Bible study during the sermon.
Catholics on the right, with their rosary beads and no Bibles, are reciting their "Hail Marys".
 Paul's Gospel In Catholic Tradition?
Sola Scriptura and Bible Availability
Does Sola Scriptura Fail Because There Are Thousands of Protestant Denominations?
Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Did the Bereans reject Sola Scriptura? by James White.

http://biblelight.net

Paul's Gospel In Catholic Tradition?

The following email was sent to Daniel at A Biblical Case for the Catholic Faith on April 8,
2007:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ
unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel
of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (anathema).
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed (anathema).

That tells me to test what is taught by what Paul taught. Now, outside of scripture, where exactly
does Catholic Apostolic Tradition quote the unwritten words of any of Paul's teaching?

Where does Paul teach that Mary was immaculately conceived?

Where does Paul teach that Mary was assumed into heaven?
Where does Paul teach prayer to Mary or other supposed saints?
Where does Paul teach Mary is the mediatrix of all grace?
Where does Paul teach the veneration of images?
Where does Paul teach Sunday keeping has replaced the Sabbath?

Can you show me any of these doctrines in Paul's word-for-word teaching that is found only in
Catholic Apostolic Oral Tradition and not in the Bible? Yes or No? If no, then you would
automatically agree that all of Paul's gospel can only be found in inspired scripture, and Paul's
gospel in scripture is the ruler by which Catholic Tradition can be judged. Right? Would Paul
accept those Catholic doctrines or curse them?

Your reply, if any, will be considered as an open letter with your permission that I may post it on
my web site, unless you specifically withhold your permission.

Michael
http://biblelight.net

The following reply (in the boxes) was received on April 13, 2007:

Dear Michael,

I would love to be on your website. Please send me the link so I can read what both
of us wrote in their entirety. As for your questions above, they presuppose that the
everything is in the Holy Scriptures or that the Scriptures are a final or sole rule of
Faith as if this is some requirement written in the Holy Bible.

Paul is quite firm in his assertion that not even an angel from heaven can teach a gospel message
that differs from the one he preached. I am simply asking you where in Roman Catholic
Tradition is Paul's preaching of those particular doctrines to be found? The first two, the
immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary are considered infallible papal decrees that
all Catholics are bound to believe or they are shipwrecked and fallen completely away from the
faith. In other words, they are infallibly declared a part of the Catholic gospel, as a Catholic who
rejects those doctrines cannot be saved. Now where exactly does Paul teach this?

This idea is not only unbiblical it is also unworkable if one reads the verses
supporting Catholic theology not underlined in their personal Bibles.

Click here: A Biblical case for the Catholic Faith. 7 Reasons Christians go to church
and what it means to be a Bible Believing Christian

Paul's assertion in Galatians 1:6-9 is certainly biblical, and he said he did preach the entire
gospel:

Rom 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from
Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

So if I want to read Paul's inspired gospel teaching, what must I read?

Many quote 2 Tim 3:16 as teaching the idea of Sola Scriptura or Bible Alone, yet
fail to read 2 Tim 3:15 which tells us the Apostle Paul was speaking of the OLD
Testament not the unwritten NT in his quote. So is the OT all we need? Then let's
just shelf the NT. My friend, nowhere and I mean nowhere do the Holy Scriptures
teach the SOLA in Sola Scriptura or the ONLY in Bible Only. This renaissance era
 idea is unbiblical and unheard of in Apostolic Christianity. If I am wrong, please
send me the verse teaching this "SOLA or ONLY." Or send me just one Christian
in the first millennium who taught this idea, that one's personal interpretation of the
Holy Bible can countermand the teachings of Christ's Church, the Church the Holy
Bible calls: "The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth"
1 Tim 3:15. ( Either it is the pillar and foundation of truth or it's not, which is it to
you?)

See: THE SOLA SCRIPTURA PRINCIPLE - DOES THE BIBLE TEACH IT?
and The Pillar and Ground of Truth of 1 Timothy 3:15 - Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

As for your quote from Galatians, the Apostle speaks of Preaching the
Gospel. There are so many doctrines / ideas embraced by both our traditions that
are outside the Holy Bible.

This appears to be an admission that the Catholic doctrines I have listed are not taught by Paul in
scripture. So where do I find Paul teaching them as part of the gospel in Catholic Tradition?

Perhaps you could use the same litmus test you are pressing on me on yourself in
this endeavor. For example: Here are but the first 3 of 40 unbiblical ideas embraced
by the Protestant communities. From my article at: Bible Believing Christian? 40
Unbiblical Protestant Practices and Doctrines

40 examples of UnBiblical ideas/doctrines practiced by the Protestant

churches.

#1. Praying to Jesus i.e., the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Praying to Jesus is good, healthy and wise, but it’s not Biblical. In fact Jesus
himself tells us in Matt 6:9-15 that we should pray to his Father (the First
Person of the Blessed Trinity) and he tells us how. That is how we got the “Our
Father” or the "Lord’s Prayer."

Protestants pray to Jesus because that is what the Apostles taught Christ's
early Church to do. But it is UNBiblical. Is it then a "tradition of man"
because it is not in the Bible? No, it’s a Tradition/Teaching of the Apostles, or an
"Apostolic Tradition" with a Capitol T.

Verses a tradition of man with a lower case t. Apostolic Tradition (Capitol T),
along with the Holy Bible is God’s way of speaking to us. Together they give us
the Gospel of Christ or the Word of God. This is what the Apostles taught and
the Holy Bible tells us this in many places.
 Here are but two examples from the Holy Bible that Christ's Gospel is found in
both his written Word, and the oral teachings of his Apostles to his early
Church:

"Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form." 2
Thess 2:15

"The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must
hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others." (2 Tim, 2:2)

Praying to God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity IS Biblical and our
Lord Jesus Christ tells us how in Matt 6:9-15 and he again tells us in Luke 4:8
that it is God the Father alone that should be worshiped. "Jesus answered, It is
written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only'" Luke 4:8. We are
never commanded to pray or worship Jesus (the Second Person of the Trinity)
or even Pray to the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity). Both of these
ideas are UNBiblical. It is good and healthy and wise to pray to Jesus but the
origin of this idea comes from Apostolic Tradition or the Teachings of the
Apostles, (Capitol T) not the Holy Bible. Apostolic Tradition/Teachings
(Capitol T), along with the Holy Bible is God’s way of speaking to us, they both
give us the Word of God. Just as the Holy Bible tells us.

In the Old Testament the pre-incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, is referred to as Jehovah
(H3068). In the following verses, the LORD is the translation for the word Jehovah.

Num 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken
against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from
us. And Moses prayed for the people. [It was Jesus who met with Moses on mount Sinai.]

1 Sam 7:5 And Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the LORD.

Jer 42:4 Then Jeremiah the prophet said unto them, I have heard you; behold, I will pray unto the
LORD your God according to your words; and it shall come to pass, that whatsoever thing the
LORD shall answer you, I will declare it unto you; I will keep nothing back from you.

I conclude that it is biblical to pray to the Lord Jesus Christ, Jehovah, as well as to God the
Father, as Jesus did. However, you will not find anyone in scripture teaching or practicing prayer
to anyone but God. Prayer to Mary or other dead saints is not taught anywhere in scripture.

#2.
The definition of the Trinity. That the Holy Spirit is eternally coexistent with
the Father and the Son, that it is the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity and that it
proceeded from the Father and the Son as the Nicene Creed of the 4th century
states. In fact the very word "Trinity" is unbiblical. We know this definition
 and this term, not because it is in the Holy Bible, but because Christ's Church,
which embraced the only Christian Faith for the first 1000+ years of
Christianity taught us this. Just as the Holy "Hold fast to the traditions
whether they come in oral or written form." 2 Thess 2:15 It is a teaching of the
Apostles outside of Holy Writ.

For this see The Doctrine Of The Trinity and Blinded by Tradition at The Catholic Legate.

For the moment I will not respond to the remaining points, but they can be read here:
Bible Believing Christian? 40 Unbiblical Protestant Practices and Doctrines.

Excerpts from Daniel's email of 14 April, 2007:

Dear Michael, you seem to be confusing the oral "preaching" of the full Gospel
with the "Writing" of the full Gospel. Nowhere does the Apostle Paul say that the
"full" Gospel has been "recorded" in words or written down. In fact he says the
opposite. Therefore your premise is faulty and which renders your null.

"Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form." 2
Thess 2:15

"The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must
hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others." (2 Tim, 2:2)

See: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

The Catholic concept of apostolic oral Tradition does not confuse me.

In my original email I asked you to produce Paul's verbatim teaching of 6 specific doctrines from
this alleged repository of Catholic Tradition. Can you cite Paul teaching them or not?

Of course Catholics can't do any such thing. Paul did not teach them because he knew nothing of
these alleged Traditions. None of the Apostles knew or taught them. The apostolic oral Tradition
of the Catholic Church is an empty box, a myth, without the slightest bit of substance in it.

Paul simply did not teach the Catholic gospel, consequently Paul's condemnation [Gal 1:8-9]
applies to those who teach it. If I want to know precisely what the apostolic church taught, there
is only one trustworthy infallible source, and that is the Bible.
 I am very interested in your reply to the following logic arguments. They are very
straight forward. Will you please address them. For many Christians have embraced
belief systems they have not tested for apostolicity.

I am asking you for proof from Catholic Tradition that 6 doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church
were taught by the Apostle Paul. Where and when did Paul, or any of the apostles teach them?

I just want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, no matter
where it leads me and no matter what it costs me. Do you feel the same way?

And we would probably agree that the Bible is a reliable doctrinal teacher, that the New
Testament presents the pure apostolic gospel. The Catholic Church, however, teaches that the
fullness of the Catholic gospel is only available with the addition of apostolic Tradition, which
by its own definition is not found in scripture. So the question I am posing is this: please cite in
Catholic Tradition where Paul or the other Apostles taught those six doctrines? How can this be
totally absent, yet maintain the apostolic church of the first century believed and taught them?

The laws of deductive logic tell us:

If the premises of a valid argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true.
and
It is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false while its premises
are true.

A. All boys are human.

B. Billy is a boy.
C. Therefore Billy is human.

The premises in this case are true, therefore Billy is human.

(For a crash course in deductive logic and the laws thereof visit:
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm

And likewise:

A. In the first millennium, there was but one Christian Faith.

B. The apostles lived in the first millennium.
C. Therefore the faith of the first millennium, was the faith of the apostles (and
therefore that of the Holy Bible).

The Faith of the 1st millennium was the Catholic or Universal Faith (Catholic or
Katholikos in Greek) Faith. All Bible Believing Christians should "Test” premise A
as the Holy Bible commands:
 “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

Test premise A. If one cannot find any of the Protestant theologies predating the
renaissance era, nor even the 10th century, why would one erroneously assume the
Apostles taught these ideas in the 1st century? No Protestant idea was taught in the
first 1000+ years of Christianity. No Protestant idea was taught before the
renaissance era. For the invention of Protestantism and the Protestant belief system
was born in the middle if not the latter half of the second millennium. 1000+ years
after the Apostles wrote the Holy Bible. One can not find a single Christian who
taught Protestant ideas or embraced the Protestant belief system in any shape or
form.

The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the availability of the Bible in the vernacular, when
people could read what it had to say for themselves. In doing so they could see that much of what
they had been taught was not only not found in scripture, but was flatly contradicted by scripture.

The Protestant motto Sola Scriptura does not promote "new" doctrines, it proclaims a return to
the pure doctrinal teaching of the Apostles as found in the Bible, and rejects the novel unbiblical
Traditions of the Catholic Church, just as Jesus rejected the Traditions of the scribes and
Pharisees. To be sure, however, many Protestants still hold to and teach Catholic Traditions that
are contrary to the Sola Scriptura principle (like Sunday keeping replacing the Sabbath). For this
they can rightly be criticized as not really teaching or following the "Bible Only".

http://biblelight.net

Sola Scriptura and Bible Availability

When discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura (the Bible only for doctrine) with Catholics, you are
like to run into something similar to the following rational from the Experts Forum of EWTN to
discredit it:

Availability of the Bible in early history

Question from Brian on 12-05-1999:

I have three arguments, dealing with the history of the early Church,
against those who believe in the "Bible Alone" theory, and I'm wondering
about the validity of these statements:
 1) Isn't it true that written manuscripts, of any kind, were VERY rare to the
"common folk" and peasants back in the days of the early Church?

2) Isn't it true that a full-length Bible would be VERY expensive back

then, virtually putting it out of the reach of most of these common folk?

3) Isn't it true that most peasants and commoners simply couldn't read or
write back in the time of the early Church, so even if they did have a Bible,
it wouldn't do them much good without some oral teaching?

Based upon these 3 statements, it seems to me that its simply common

sense to say that oral tradition was necessary in early Church history, to
keep Christ's teachings alive. Are these fair statements to make?

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D on 12-06-1999:

These are all excellent arguments against Sola Scripture.

The above premise is that Sola Scriptura fails if you do not have access to or own a personal
copy of the Bible, but that is a total misconception of the Sola Scriptura principal. It is quite true
that the Protestants made every effort to put a vernacular Bible into the hands of the laity despite
strenuous efforts of the Catholic Church to prevent it. Protestants wanted everyone to be able to
read the Word of God in their own tongue, in a Bible they could call their own, but that is not the
meaning of Sola Scriptura. The term was coined by Martin Luther, who was trying to reform the
Church and return it to scriptural truths that Tradition had so effectively obscured. Sola Scriptura
is epitomized by Martin Luther's appearance at the Diet of Worms:

The Archbishop of Trier, John Eck asked Martin Luther:

I ask you, Martin - answer candidly and without horns - do you or do you not repudiate your
books and the errors which they contain?

To which Luther replied,

Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns
and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the
authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive
to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is
neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen. (Martin Luther, the
Diet of Worms - April 18, 1521)

Because the Bible was effectively locked away from the common people while in Latin, and very
scarce too, the reformers felt compelled to translate it into the common languages that people
could read, and make it cheaply, so that every church might have one. Even the average person
could then hope to eventually own and read his own copy of the Bible. But distribution of the
Bible among the laity was viewed as a dangerous threat to Catholic authority and Church
Tradition and stirred the anger of the Church, whose Traditions were exposed as apostasy. They
diligently went about banning and burning as many vernacular Bibles (and its owner or
translator) as they could get their hands on, until the task became unmanageable, and then
impossibly huge.

The Catholic mentality was that if the Bible could be kept scarce (in the custody of the Church)
and in Latin, the laity would remain ignorant of what it really contained, and Church Authority
and Tradition would be unchallenged. The Catholic Church also claimed sole authority to
interpret Scripture's meaning, and declared anyone who dared to depart from its definitions (like
Martin Luther) was a criminal, punishable under the law:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it [the Catholic Church] decrees

that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and
morals pertaining to the edification of Christian Doctrine, distorting the
Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conception, presume to
interpret them contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church, to whom
it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and
holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even
though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those
who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and
punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.

Source: Council of Trent, Fourth Session, April 8th, 1546, Decree

Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, Canons and Decrees
of the Council of Trent, English Translation by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P.,
copyright 1978 and published by Tan Books and publishers, ISBN:
0:89555-074-1, pages 18-19.

Martin Luther was standing firmly on Scripture as his only guide and counselor regarding
doctrine, and not the dictates of popes or Church councils which were contrary to the Word of
God and promoted their own unbiblical Traditions. This is the true meaning of Sola Scriptura,
and it is not dependent on the availability of the Bible to each and every person. Were there only
a single copy of the Bible in existence, Sola Scriptura would not be diminished in the slightest
degree. It would still contain the authentic Word of God and be the only sure ruler for faith and
doctrine, to the complete exclusion of Church Councils, Traditions, and Papal decrees. One need
not be able to read, or even have a Bible, for Sola Scriptura to be in effect.

Let the pulpits and churches echo with the doctrines of the Gospel found in God's Word, the
Holy Scriptures, and not with the Traditions and decrees of men, whether there be only one Bible
or as many as the leaves of Autumn - that is Sola Scriptura and the only safe ground on which to
stand!

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him
unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened
unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at
his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/

Does Sola Scriptura Fail

Because There Are Thousands of Protestant Denominations?

When discussing the Protestant slogan of Sola Scriptura, the Bible only for doctrine, Catholics
will commonly assert something like the following: Since there are literally thousands of
different Protestant sects and denominations, having quite different interpretations of scripture,
this proves that Sola Scriptura is obviously an unworkable failure, since God is not the author of
confusion. The assertion is that if Sola Scriptura were true, and working successfully, only one
interpretation or understanding of any given doctrine would be clearly evident to all, and that
interpretation would be universally taught and practiced, without any deviations.

Noah spent 120 years building the ark (Gen 6:3), and preached to a doomed and dying world as
he was building. Yet, after so many years of preaching, only 8 people entered into the ark (Gen
7:13, 1 Pet 3:20). Was Noah a failure at preaching the word of God because so few were saved
and uncounted thousands were lost?

Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him
return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly
pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and
my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but
watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and
bread to the eater:
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me
void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I
sent it.

Noah was a faithful servant and prophet of God, and so was speaking for God to his generation,
and as indicated in Isa 55:11, God's word does not fail to accomplish His purpose. Noah
successfully accomplished the task set before him by God, and all the righteous of the earth
entered into the completed ark, though it was only eight people, and all the wicked perished. The
measure of Noah's success was NOT how few were saved, and neither was the comparatively
large number of those lost an indication of failure on his part or on the part of God. The real
question is what percentage of the faithful and righteous were saved? Since God and His word do
not fail in His purpose, 100% of the righteous were saved and 100% of the wicked were lost, and
that is the measure of success: 100%. None of the truly righteous will be lost (John 17:12, 18:9),
and all of the wicked will surely perish, even though the righteous will be vastly outnumbered by
the wicked:

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to
destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there
be that find it.

During His ministry on earth, Jesus many times publicly taught by using parables (Matt 13:3) to
illustrate important spiritual truths, and sometimes even His disciples needed to ask Jesus to
explain a parable's meaning (John 10:6). At times, even when speaking clearly, without using
parables, Jesus was not immediately understood by His disciples:

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the
hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mark 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Luke 9:43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered
every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
Luke 9:44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into
the hands of men.
Luke 9:45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it
not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

Was Jesus a failure because His disciples did not immediately understand what he was saying?

Luke 24:6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in
Galilee,
Luke 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be
crucified, and the third day rise again.
Luke 24:8 And they remembered his words,
Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all
the rest.
John 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye
might believe.

There are times when it suits God's purpose that His words NOT be understood at the time they
are spoken, but rather at a later time. On one occasion, Jesus was even opposed in what He was
trying to teach by the apostle Peter:

Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto
Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and
be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this
shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence
unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

After telling the parable of the sower to a great multitude, Jesus was approached by His disciples
in private, who asked Him why He found it necessary to teach in parables, and the answer He
gave is quite revealing:

Mat 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but
whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they
hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear,
and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes
they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and
should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the
parable.
Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of
God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not
understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Luke 8:8 ... He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Luke 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to
others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Was the measure of Jesus' success at teaching, the number of people that understood perfectly
what He was saying, or was His failure measured by the number of people that walked away
without understanding? No, those who had "ears to hear" would understand. Those, who for
whatever reason did not want to hear, did not understand. The apostle Paul also explains why this
is so:

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him [Paul] into his
lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning
Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Acts 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
Acts 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had
spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
Acts 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand;
and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Acts 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and
their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Acts 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles,
and that they will hear it.

1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that
we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1 Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did
not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

The word of God is clearly not intended to be understood by everyone:

Dan 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly:
and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Scripture is, in fact, a method of separating the sheep from the goats, so to speak, a way of
separating those with "ears to hear" from those who do not want to hear. Scripture does not fail
in its purpose of instructing the "sheep" simply because there are so many goats that do not
understand, because the sheep will hear, and will understand, at the appointed time that suits
God's purpose. Sola Scriptura, the Bible only for doctrine, similarly cannot be labeled an
unworkable failure because so many Protestants disagree on points of doctrine, for the simple
reason that not all Protestants are sheep, though they may claim to be, and may even appear to
be sheep:

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are
ravening wolves.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and
in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him
unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened
unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Luke 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the
ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
Luke 15:5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
Luke 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying
unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth,
more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

The sheep will hear Jesus' voice through His word, and follow Him, and not one of the sheep will
be lost. Sola Scriptura is not an unworkable failure, because God's word simply cannot fail. So,
those that have ears to hear, let them hear and understand what inspired scripture says.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

John 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make
us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my
Father's name, they bear witness of me.
John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man
pluck them out of my hand.
John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them
out of my Father's hand.

http://biblelight.net
 Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith

Rome The Only Infallible Interpreter of Scripture:

10. ... God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate
meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern
matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which
springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is
active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire
Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an
unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and
defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is,[5] and
Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff,[6] living at all times in his successors and making
judgment,[7] providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it.[8] The divine words therefore
mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.

Source: QUI PLURIBUS, (On Faith And Religion), Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, November 9,
1846.

Catholic Doctrine (Not Scripture) Is The Supreme Law :

14. ... Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the
supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the
doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate
means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.
Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers
disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.

Source: PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope
Leo XIII dated November 18th, 1893.

Traditions, it will be seen, are placed before the Bible in this [Roman Catholic] epitome of
faith. Indeed, the Word of God, as a rule of belief and conduct is, in effect, done away; and the
interpretations of the church are put in its place. So that in every case, the inquiry of the faithful
Romanist must be — not what saith the scripture — but, what saith "Mother Church?" Not to
follow the church, however opposed she may be to the Bible, would be a violation of his oath.
The celebrated Council of Trent, which was called by a Bull of Pope Paul III, in the year 1542,
decreed that the Roman Catholic church received and venerated with equal affection of piety and
reverence, the Bible and traditions. "Omnes libros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti, — nec non
Traditiones — pari pietatis affectuac reverentia suscipit, et veneratur." When, however, tradition
was not in accordance with the Word of God, it would be manifestly impossible to conform to
this decree, unless a man could conscientiously receive and reverence a truth and its opposite
error at the same time. And therefore, to relieve the conscience of the Romanist, it was necessary
that the right of interpreting the Bible should be given exclusively to Mother Church, who is also
the keeper of Tradition. Hence the Papist has, in fact and strictly speaking, only one standard of
faith, and that is neither the Bible nor Tradition, but the Church. He professes, indeed, to
acknowledge both the scripture and tradition; but he is really bound to receive and obey
whatever Mother Church declares to be the truth as contained in the Bible and Tradition. She
must decide for him in every case, and from her judgment there can be no appeal. ...

Tradition is one of the most essential subjects of dispute between Protestants and Romanists.
The Romanists declare that the Scriptures alone are not sufficient for Salvation; but that there is
the word of God, by hearsay, which is superior to the word of God in writing. By this hearsay,
for tradition is nothing else, they assure the world that the Scripture must be explained; so that if
the Scripture says white, and tradition says black, a Roman Catholic is bound to say, that white
means black in God's written word.

Source: The Great Red Dragon; Or The Master-key To Popery, by Anthony Gavin, published in
1854 in Boston by Samuel Jones, 86 Washington Street, pages 250-251, 328-329.

Sola Ecclesia Romanus

as Taught in Catholic Catechisms
Catechism of the Catholic Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written
form [Scripture] or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of
the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This
means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by Liguori Publications, English

translation copyright 1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, page 27.

Deharbe's Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion

24. And why do we say that through the Catholic Church alone we infallibly know the true
meaning of the Scriptures and of tradition?
 Because the Catholic Church alone is 'the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim. iii. 15), and,
therefore, cannot err in the interpretation of the Word of God.
25. May no one, then, presume to explain the Scripture and Tradition contrary to the
interpretation of the Catholic Church?
No; for this would be as if ye understood the Scriptures and Tradition better than the Holy
Ghost, who inspires the Church with the true meaning of it.
26. But is the meaning of the Holy Scriptures not clear in itself, and easy to be understood by
every one?

[pg. 76]

No; for the Holy Scripture is a Divine and mysterious book, 'in which,' as St. Peter says,
speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul, 'are certain things hard to be understood, which the
unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction' (2 Peter iii. 16).

'What else gives rise to so many heresies, save that the Scripture, which is good in itself, is ill understood?' (St.
Augustine).

27. It is not, then, true that the Bible alone is the only Rule of Faith? Or, in other words; Is not
every private individual to search the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, until he finds out what he
has to believe?
No; for not the Bible alone, but the Bible and Tradition, both infallibly interpreted by the
Church, are the right Rule of Faith. ...
28. What has the Church decreed with regard to the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue?
1. That we should have the learning and piety requisite for it; and 2. That the translation
should be accompanied with explanations, and that both should be approved by the Church.

By this wise provision the Church by no means intends to withhold the Word of God from the faithful, since she
desires

[pg. 77]

nothing more than that all should know it and meditate upon it; she merely wishes to guard them against corrupted
Bibles, which are often designedly offered to ignorant people, and against erroneous interpretations, sects, and
schisms.

Application. In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to
the decisions of Holy Church; for when you believe what the Church teaches, you believe the
Word of God.

Source: Deharbe's Catechism, A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion, translated from the
German by the Rev. John Fander, fifth American edition, revised, enlarged, and edited by the
Right Rev. P. N. Lynch, D.D., Bishop of Charleston, copyright 1876 by L. Kehoe, published in
New York by Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss, 42 Barclay Street, pages 75-77.
 Keenan's Controversial Catechism

Q. What is the rule of faith adopted by Catholics?

A. All truly inspired Scripture, and all truly divine tradition, interpreted by the teaching body
of the Church, — that is, by the pastors to whom Christ said, "Go teach all nations." This
teaching body, when taken collectively with the chief Pastor at their head, all Catholics believe
to be infallible, — that is, they cannot teach any error against the faith or morals. Now, if this
great fundamental truth be clearly laid down in Scripture, then Catholics will be quite safe in
following the teaching of their pastors; then the teaching body will be, to the taught, an infallible
rule of faith. Mark well, we do not maintain that the pastors of the Church are, of themselves,
infallible, but that God has made them so, for the benefit of his people, and that Christ himself
teaches by their lips.

Source: Controversial Catechism, by the Rev. Stephen Keenan, Second Edition, published in
1851 in Edinburgh; by C. Dolman, 13 South Hanover Street, and 61, New Bond Street, London,
page 64.

St. Paul Family Catechism

152. What is Sacred Tradition?

Sacred or Apostolic Tradition is the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy
Spirit to the Apostles, and handed down by them to their successors in its full purity (Jn. 21:25; 2
Tm. 1:13-14; 2:2; 2 Thes. 2:15), so that, led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may, in
proclaiming it, preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.
Therefore, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are to be accepted and venerated with
the same loyalty and reverence.

153. What is the Magisterium?

The Magisterium is the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the
name of Jesus Christ. The Roman Pontiff and the Bishops teaching in communion with him,
have the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed down,
guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with
the help of the Holy Spirit

Source: St. Paul Family Catechism, Third Edition, copyright 1992 by the Daughters of St. Paul,
published by St Paul Books and Media, 50 St. Paul Ave., Boston, MA 02130, page 90.

tp://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/
 "Our ambition...is to be pleasing to Him" (2 Cor. 5:9)
Office Hours (MT) Dr. James White, Direct
Monday - Friday Richard Pierce, Preside
10:00AM - 5:00PM Sean Hahn, Vice Presid
(602) 973-4602

Roman Catholicism

A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected So
Scriptura.
"This Bereans passage has been commandeered by Fundamentalists for too long, and it is t
Catholics reclaim it." —Former Baptist Steve Ray, This Rock, March, 1997, p. 24.
by James White

Steve Ray is a nice guy. At least, we’ve had some civil discourse in the past via the Internet. He see
like an honest man who is convinced that the position he now embraces—Roman Catholicism—is th
true and proper position to take. I start by acknowledging this, for I don’t want anyone to think that I b
him any malice. I say this because beyond my recognizing his personal civility, I find little else in his
written works that is commendable.

Steve Ray is the first person to tell you he is not a scholar. He’s a layman who, as a Baptist, decided
needed to convert to the Roman Catholic faith. He has written a book, Crossing the Tiber, in which h
defends his choice. As soon as I obtained the book, I noted a number of glaring deficiencies in the w
numerous errors in representing Protestant theology, a complete failure to interact with any level of
Protestant apologetic response, etc. I informed Mr. Ray of this by e-mail.

In response, Mr. Ray indicated that his book simply developed out of a long letter to his parents
defending his choice to leave the Baptist faith and embrace the Roman. He asserted that it was not
intended as an in-depth analysis of Protestant theology. This did not exactly satisfy my concerns wit
how often it completely missed the point of the debate, but I certainly accepted that this is how Mr. R
views his book.

It was with some real consternation, therefore, that I read the March, 1997 issue of This Rock magaz
published by Catholic Answers. I have long criticized Catholic Answers for using a straw-man view o
sola scriptura in their publications—a practice that, despite my criticisms, they continue unabated. B
this issue we find an article titled, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura written by none other th
Steve Ray. Now, an article in This Rock cannot logically be considered an extension of a letter to Mr
Ray’s parents. This is "new" material. The article describes Mr. Ray as one who engages "in apologe
work in Michigan." This is a work specifically designed to be used to convince Protestants that their b
in sola scriptura is in error. Hence, I expected a little higher standard in something like this.

The Old Anti-Catholic Ploy

Unfortunately, though Mr. Ray does his best to avoid inflammatory speech in personal conversation,
same is not the case regarding his article in This Rock. While avoiding a lot of the "shots" that mark
normal Catholic Answers type material (see examples elsewhere on our web page, including our
response to a CA article on sola scriptura, as well as our rebuttal of a recent attack by James Akin),
Ray falls prey to the old "anti-Catholic" ploy. It’s a false form of argumentation that Catholic Answers
to use with regularity (they are hardly the only ones to do so, of course!). It’s an invalid attempt to cla
the "high ground" by calling anyone who disagrees with you and with your position an "anti-Catholic,
while referring to yourself merely as an "apologist." Hence, you make your opponent look like the
aggressor, while you are the defender, even when, in point of fact, you are attacking their position (w
failing to do a whole lot to actually define and defend your own).

Mr. Ray begins by identifying Dave Hunt’s organization as an "anti-Catholic" organization. Later he
makes the term "Fundamentalist" a synonym for "anti-Catholic," and uses the phrase "anti-Catholic"
more times, saying, "From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been mo
noble-minded" and later, "Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans. . . ." It is qu
honestly a shame to see Mr. Ray falling into the "us vs. them" mentality so soon after his conversion
(1994). I truly doubt he refers to himself as an "anti-Protestant," so why he would adopt such termino
of others is difficult to understand, outside, that is, of the polemics of Roman Catholic apologists. I w
like to call upon Mr. Ray (and all Roman Catholic apologists) to cease and desist in their use of such
ploy.

Sola Scriptura: Misrepresented AGAIN

The main criticism that can be lodged against Mr. Ray's work is quite simple: he does not accurately
portray (or possibly even understand) the Protestant position that he has abandoned, and is now inte
upon attacking. This is a common problem in Roman Catholic apologetics: and the fact that many
Protestants don't know their faith very well, and hence allow such misrepresentations to pass withou
comment or correction, only exacerbates the situation.

Now, immediately, someone may say, "Yes, well, both sides always say that about the other." That's
true. But there is a major difference: when we say someone has misrepresented the Protestant posi
we demonstrate this by documenting what the Protestant position is, and how, in context, the Roma
Catholic writer should have known better. We have explained what sola scriptura is over and over ag
in our apologetic writings and books. Mr. Ray owns my books on Roman Catholicism. He could have
he wished) availed himself of many sources that would have saved him from the error of
misrepresentation and straw-man argumentation. But he did not avail himself of those sources. Why
Only he can answer that question.

We begin with the following presentation:

Sola scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a Protestant doctrine invented in the fifteenth century. It declare
Bible is the sole source of revelation and the only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith.
Martin Luther developed it as a reaction to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church and of the
Fathers of the first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church and the apostolic tradition a
so was left with sola scriptura—the Bible alone.

It is hard to know where to begin. This is substantially the same kind of presentation made in his boo
Crossing the Tiber. However, in that book, he accurately identified the Reformation as taking place i
16th, not the 15th, century. Since he claims Luther developed the doctrine, and Luther did not even b
his theological work until (at the earliest) 1510, how Ray can speak of the "fifteenth century" is difficu
understand. But this is just the beginning of the errors. Martin Luther didn't invent the doctrine, of cou
Even if Ray disputes every single statement from the Fathers that I have provided in written sources
my chapter in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, 1995, Soli Deo Gloria Publishers
27-62), and rejects every Waldensian statement concerning the doctrine, he would still have to deal
the plain words of John Wyclif, who obviously believed in the doctrine and put it into practice. Such w
place the doctrine, even under such an artificial construction as being the invention of Wyclif, in the
fourteenth century, more than a century before Luther. If Mr. Ray encountered a Protestant who, in
discussing Roman Catholic dogmatic formulations, misidentified the source of such formulations, an
misplaced the dates by centuries, would he not have reason to question the validity of that person's
conclusions?
But far more damaging is the simple fact that Mr. Ray does not know what sola scriptura is. Sola
scriptura does not say the Bible is the "sole source of revelation." Such is a basic, fundamental mista
on the level of saying, "The Immaculate Conception means Mary didn't need a Savior." Such would
indicate that the person making the statement has never seriously interacted with any apologetic def
of the Immaculate Conception. In the same way, Mr. Ray's writings show a consistent pattern as we
has not interacted with any serious Protestant apologetics works, either. Or, if he has, he gives no
evidence of it.

Sola scriptura says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. It does not deny
existence of "general revelation" in nature (hence the error of saying the "sole source of revelation").
interesting to note, however, that Mr. Ray, in his zeal for the Roman position, ends up taking the mo
conservative, traditional partim-partim viewpoint of tradition and revelation, for while many modern
Roman Catholic theologians are moving toward abandoning the "two-source" view of revelation, Mr.
states his adherence to it plainly a number of times in his article (we shall note them in passing). Mr.
is a former Baptist. Hence, he might want to be familiar with what the Baptists in 1689 placed in their
Confession of Faith:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith
life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at an
time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we
acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understandin
such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the wor
of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be
ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, w
are always to be observed.

The sufficiency of Scripture is clearly asserted, but it is a sufficiency carefully defined. No one claims
Bible is an omnipedia of all knowledge. Nor does anyone claim the Bible can tell you, specifically, wh
color fabric to place upon the pews of your new church building. But all things that are "necessary" fo
God's "own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily containe
Holy Scripture." How like the words of Augustine:

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for o
doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else exc
to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (De bono viduitatis, 2)

Note well the words of Augustine: he says that the Scriptures fix "the rule for our doctrine." The Latin
the passage reads, "Scriptura nostr� doctrin� regulam figit." Protestants say the Scriptures are the
infallible regula fidei, the rule of faith. It seems Augustine believed the same.

Now before too many of our Roman Catholic readers blow a gasket, I well know that Augustine asse
the Church has a role in preserving the truth, and especially when Augustine had to struggle against
Donatism (and the influence of Cyprian), he appealed to "tradition." Yet, he did not appeal to traditio
Rome now teaches it, and did not deny sola scriptura so as to present a doctrine of sola ecclesia. No
his own words:

You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in
Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would
any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffic
Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the
would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read (In Episto
Johannis tractus, 2).
The issue is not, and never has been, the validity of "tradition" as a subordinate authority. I above cit
from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. It is a "subordinate standard," a "tradition" if you wish, tha
gives expression to certain aspects of divine truth. But it is not revelational, nor is it infallible. It is
subordinate to Scripture, and liable to correction on the basis thereof. The Lord Jesus gave us the
example in Matthew 15: we are to subordinate all traditions, even those that men claim are "divine" i
origin, to the ultimate authority of Scripture. In this we agree with Basil of Caesarea:

The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which ag
with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. (Moralia, 72:1)

And likewise with Cyril of Jerusalem:

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without th
Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell y
these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the th
which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from th
Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures 4:17)

I note in passing that such citations, likewise, refute Mr. Ray's assertion that Luther was rejecting the
"teachings of the Fathers of the first centuries." In reality, it is Mr. Ray who has abandoned them in h
embracing of doctrines such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception.

The main element of Mr. Ray's misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: the doctr
speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any
reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, "There has never been a time wh
God's Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally." You will never find anyone saying, "During time
enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational."
Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could
since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an
existing rule of faith to say it is "sufficient." It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, "See
scriptura doesn't work there!" Of course it doesn't. Who said it did?

But immediately the Roman Catholic apologist makes a fatal logical error: "Well, if there was a time w
God's Word was orally transmitted, why can't it be today?" Such assumes the very thing Rome won'
ever dare step out and prove: that her self-proclaimed "traditions" are in fact, inspired revelation that
existed since the days of the Apostles. Indeed, many Roman apologists deny that tradition is in fact
qeo,pneustoj: God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Some of "Tradition" may be inspired (i.e., Scripture), b
many are uncomfortable having to defend the idea that "oral tradition" is in fact revelation and is insp
If the Roman apologist wishes to say, "Well, there was a time when God-breathed revelation was or
transmitted prior to the enscripturization of that revelation," that's fine. But to go beyond this stateme
"And, that situation continues today, so that our traditions are equal with Scripture in authority" is to l
out of the realm of both scriptural teaching and historical reality. It is a self-evident fact that a doctrin
such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary has no historical connection to the Apostles themselves. To
make it an inspired "tradition" is to say revelation is still being given (a position even Rome denies).

Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not
normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God to
By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the
Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the
Church isn't that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she f
in Scripture, not in "traditions" that are uncertain. [For more information on this topic, see The Roma
Catholic Controversy, pp. 55-101.]
The Bereans and sola scriptura

Mr. Ray's article has a text block that reads as follows:

The Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the Apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addi
to, and as an "extension" of the Torah.

The article attempts to undermine the use of Acts 17:11 as a "proof-text" for sola scriptura by arguin
that in point of fact the Bereans did not operate on a basis consistent with Protestant claims regardin
the supremacy of Scripture. Mr. Ray states that the Catholic response to this passage has often bee
"mediocre." But, he claims, "Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but it is actually a
strong argument against sola scriptura and a convincing defense of the teaching of the Catholic Chu
Such is a pretty tall claim! Does Mr. Ray succeed in his task? Let's start by looking at the passage in
question.

(Acts 17:10-12) The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when the
arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. [11] Now these were more noble-minded than tho
in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to s
whether these things were so. [12] Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of promin
Greek women and men.

One of the key phrases is "these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica," so Ray goes
back and looks at what had happened there:

(Acts 17:1-9) Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to
Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. [2] And according to Paul's custom, he we
them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, [3] explaining and giving evid
that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am
proclaiming to you is the Christ." [4] And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, a
with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. [5] But the Jew
becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set
city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the peop
When they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authoriti
shouting, "These men who have upset the world have come here also; [7] and Jason has welcomed
them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus." [8
They stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things. [9] And when they had
received a pledge from Jason and the others, they released them.

Now, before we look at Mr. Ray's ingenious argument, let's examine the passage and see what Luke
to tell us. We see that Paul, as was his custom, went into the synagogue as the first missions "startin
point" upon arriving in Thessalonica. This was his custom everywhere he went, for he would find the
place where the Scriptures were known and hence a common ground could be established. For thre
weeks he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, using the Old Testament (as we call it today) to
demonstrate the truth about the Messiah. Paul met with some success, for some Jews, as well as "G
fearing Greeks" and a number of the leading women believed the message. The "God-fearing Greek
refers to those who, while not completing the proselytization process, attended the synagogue and
listened to the reading of the Scriptures. Nothing is said about the character of the dialogues outside
Paul's reliance upon the Scriptures as his source of teaching. We are told, however, that as soon as
people began to follow Paul's teachings, the Jews became jealous. We are not told that they were a
refute Paul, or anything else. Instead, jealousy was their motive. While they had not been able to ge
God-fearers to convert, Paul succeeded in convincing them of the truths of the gospel and eliciting fr
them their belief and obedience.
What follows is not overly relevant to our inquiry here, aside from the fact that an uproar ensues, and
Paul and Silas are forced out of town, leading them to Berea. In contrast with the jealous Jews who
stirred up trouble, Luke tells us that those in Berea were more "noble-minded." Rather than stirring u
trouble, they eagerly listened to the message of Paul and Silas. At this point, however, we need to lo
closely at the text. The term "noble minded" is euvgene,steroi, which is the adjectival comparative fo
Luke is making a contrast between the attitude of the Thessalonians and that of the Bereans. As F.F
Bruce points out in his commentary on Acts, the term originally referred to nobility, but eventually ca
to mean "open minded." How did they show their open-mindedness? They did so by eagerly receivin
the message of the Apostles, daily examining the Scriptures to see if what they were receiving was i
accordance with God's truth. The Greek text indicates that these were not two different activities: the
receiving of the message and the searching of the Scriptures on a daily basis are one action in Luke
description. The "daily examining the Scriptures" is a description of the means by which the Bereans
received the word of the Apostles. A.T. Robertson points out that the term "searching" as in "searchi
the Scriptures" (avnakri,nontej) means "to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in le
precesses as in Ac 4:9; 12:19, etc.).

Now, the reason this passage is relevant is quite clear: here you have individuals comparing the
Apostolic message against the Scriptures. What is the ultimate source of authority for the Bereans?
Plainly, it is the Scripture. And just as obviously, the Apostles have no problem at all with this proced
Hence the necessity of addressing this passage on the part of Mr. Ray.

Getting Around Acts 17:11

So how does Mr. Ray get around this passage? He begins by asserting that the Bereans actually
condemn the position of sola scriptura! How? Let's see. He begins by stating, upon citing Acts 17:1-
The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous
others believed." Yet, where does the text say this? The text says nothing about rejecting Paul's
message. Luke says, "But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the
market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar." The motivation of the Jew's action is plain
jealousy, nothing more. Of course they did not embrace the message: if they had, they would not ha
been jealous! Why make a point of this? Note Mr. Ray's own words:

Why? "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures in the synagogue, as was
custom." They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. B
ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul's message to the Old Testament a
decided that Paul was wrong.

Where does Luke speak of their comparing Paul's message with the Old Testament and concluding
was wrong? Luke gives only one reason for their rejection: jealousy. This was nothing new. This is n
the first time Paul encountered the jealousy of the Jews. I certainly don't get the idea that Paul was
defeated in public debate on the issue of the witness of the Old Testament to the Messiah, Jesus Ch
Why is Mr. Ray intent upon reading into the action of the Thessalonians this idea of comparing the
message of Paul to the Scriptures and finding it wanting? Because it is his position that the
Thessalonians were actually believers in sola scriptura, while the Bereans were not! How does he co
to this tremendously surprising conclusion? First, he attempts to draw a distinction between the
Thessalonians and the Bereans as to their make-up:

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should rea
that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola
scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred.

Everyone realizes that the Bereans were not Christians when Paul and Silas first arrived. Then again
neither were the Thessalonians. In fact, the make-up of the two communities was the same: Hellenis
Jews, with God-fearers also in the congregation in the synagogue. There is no meaningful difference
the ethnic make up of the synagogue in Thessalonica and the one in Berea. If there was no doctrine
sola scriptura in Berea, nor was there one in Thessalonica. He must be consistent in using the same
standards for both, for he certainly makes no attempt at substantiating his implicit assertion that ther
was some difference between the two groups.

Now, Mr. Ray goes on to expand upon his claim about the Jews:

Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong
tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represe
by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul's
teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that clai
to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Tora

Mr. Ray's understanding of Matthew 23 goes far beyond anything that particular passage can
substantiate. The seat of Moses was simply the seat upon which a person sat to read the Scriptures
the synagogue. But he is right that the Jews had a great body of tradition: and the Lord Jesus taught
to subjugate those traditions to the Scriptures in Matthew 15:1-9, including those that the Jews
themselves claimed were "divine" in origin. Which is exactly why the Bereans are commended: they
doing what they should have done when faced with a new message. They are testing that message
consistency against the ultimate rule of faith for God's people: the Scriptures. At this point, however,
Ray utterly departs from the text and says:

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the
Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the
Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teachin
deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul's word contradicted the Torah. Their decision wa
completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by
hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God?
What kind of king and Messiah would that he? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J.
Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

One's breath is taken away by the tremendous leap taken here. Where does Luke say a word about
Thessalonian Jews carefully examining Paul's teaching on the basis of sola scriptura and, as a resu
rejecting it? Of course, he says nothing of the sort. Instead, he says that Paul operated on the basis
the supremacy of Scripture in preaching to the Thessalonians, and as a result, he was successful in
convincing some of the truthfulness of his message. But others, acting out of jealousy, started a riot.
Nothing is said at all about their taking three weeks to deliberate and come to some kind of scriptura
conclusion! This is purely wishful thinking on Mr. Ray's part. Sadly, he then attempts to provide some
kind of basis for this tremendous leap by citing Kistemaker's work on Acts. Yet, if one reads the sour
cited, one finds the exact opposite of Ray's own assertions:

Paul follows the example set by Jesus, who opened the Scriptures for the two men on the way to
Emmaus and for the disciples in the upper room. Jesus showed them from the Law, the Prophets, a
the Psalms that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46). The term
exp1aining comes from the Greek verb meaning "to open." Paul opens the Word and sets the
explanation of the messianic prophecies before his listeners. By appealing to the Scriptures, he has
common basis to prove that the Messiah has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ of Nazare

Paul demonstrates that the Christ had to suffer, die, and rise from the grave. Luke, in his Gospel and
Acts, also clearly illustrates that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are governed by divine necessity
(refer, e.g., to Luke 2:49; 4:43; 13:33; 24:26; Acts 3:21). "It is Luke's underlying concern not to depic
Jesus' death as the tragic failure of a prophet but to present the death and resurrection of Jesus as
necessary saving acts of God."
In his presentations, Paul discusses three facts: the Christ had to suffer, he had to rise from the dead
and he is Jesus proclaimed by Paul. The Jews objected to the teaching that Christ died on a cross,
because to them a criminal hanging on a tree (cross) was under God's curse (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13
The doctrine of the resurrection is the recurring theme the apostles proclaim wherever they speak (s
2:24; 32; 13:30, 33, 34, 17:31). And identifying Jesus with the Messiah is Paul's personal objective e
since his conversion on the Damascus road (refer to 9:22). (Kistemaker, pp. 613-614).

There is certainly nothing supportive of Mr. Ray's thesis in these words from Kistemaker. In fact, just
opposite is true. Kistemaker is not even here speaking specifically of the Thessalonian Jews, but of
Jews Paul encountered in his ministry in general. The reason Mr. Ray does not provide a reference
commentary speaking of the Thessalonians coming to a reasoned, considered conclusion on the ba
an examination of the Scripture is simply this: the text doesn't even hint at such an idea. Yet, despite
Mr. Ray says,

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the
Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul's new teachin
was "unbiblical."

It is simply amazing that a person can go from the jealousy of the Jews to the idea that they were cry
Protestants practicing sola scriptura and therefore missing the truth of Paul's message! We are give
references to scholarly sources here, either, for the same reason: such a conclusion has no connect
with the text.

But remember that Mr. Ray says the Bereans actually denied sola scriptura. How is this? Let's listen

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept
Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:
The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refe
it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-mind
precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended prima
for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason the
are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and
commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treatin
Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howa
Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

Does a "perusal" of grammars and commentaries give us such an indication? Let's start with one tha
Ray has already cited, that being the commentary of Kistemaker:

Noble-mindedness. Luke compares the worshipers at the Berean synagogue with those at Thessalo
and praises the Bereans. Paul develops a close and loving relationship with the Thessalonians (see
Thess. 2:11); nevertheless, in respect to noble-mindedness the Bereans excel. They are more open
the truth of God's Word than the people of Thessalonica are.

The reason for the openness of the Bereans lies in their receptivity to and love for God's Word. For t
the Scriptures are much more than a written scroll or book that conveys a divine message. They use
Old Testament as the touchstone of truth, so that when Paul proclaims the gospel they immediately
God's written Word for verification. They do so, Luke adds, with great eagerness. Note well, the adje
great indicates that they treasure the Word of God. Luke ascribes the same diligence to the Bereans
Peter does to the Old Testament prophets, who intently and diligently searched the Word and inquire
into its meaning (I Peter 1:10). The Bereans open the Scriptures and with ready minds learn that Jes
has fulfilled the messianic prophecies.
Day by day, the Bereans examine the Scriptures to see whether the teachings of Paul and Silas acc
with God's written Word. They do so not from unbelief and doubt but from honest analysis and eage
to learn the message of God's revelation. Although Luke fails to mention that God opened the hearts
the Bereans (compare 16:14), in verse 12 he records that "many of the Jews" believe the gospel. Th
people believe because they know God's Word. The situation in Berea differs from that in Thessalon
where "some of the Jews were persuaded" (v.4).

How about Richard Longenecker in the Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1
p. 471?

Luke gave the Jews at Berea undying fame by characterizing them as being "more noble" (eugenes
than the Thessalonian Jews because they tested the truth of Paul's message by the touchstone of
Scripture rather than judging it by political and cultural considerations. So they examined the Scriptu
daily (kath hemeran) to see whether what Paul proclaimed was really true, and many believed.

And we note the words of Ivor Powell in The Amazing Acts (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 198
pp. 295-296:

When the same speaker ministered in the next synagogue, the listeners were not swept off their fee
eloquent oratory; they searched the Scriptures "ever day to see if what Paul said was true." (The Ne
International Version). Apparently, they had more faith in the Word of God than in the man who
expounded it. When Paul cited certain prophetical utterances, the listeners unrolled their scrolls to se
the prophets had indeed made such predictions. Luke said the people in Berea were "more noble" th
the Jews in Thessalonica, and that probably meant they were more educated. Farrar said, "Instead o
angrily rejecting this new Gospel, they daily and diligently searched the Scriptures to judge Paul's
arguments and references by the word and the testimony—they were more generous, more simple,
sincere and truth-loving."

And what of the very commentary Mr. Ray cites, that of I. Howard Marshall? On page 280 we read:

The account of Paul's reception at Beroea is the classical description of a more well-disposed and o
minded (RSV more noble) response by the Jews to the gospel. They were zealous to hear what Pau
to say, and so they met with him daily (and not merely on the sabbath). Nor did they accept what he
thoughtlessly and uncritically, but they themselves examined the Scriptures to see whether the case
which Paul developed from them (as in 17:2ff) was sound. Here was no mere emotional response to
gospel, but one based on intellectual conviction.

And A.T. Robertson commented:

Examining the Scriptures daily (kaqV h`meran anakrinontej taj grafaj). Paul expounded the Scripture
daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined
(anakrinw means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in A
4:9; 12:19, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preach
as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating. Whether these things were so (ei ecoi taut
o`utwj). Literally, "if these things had it thus." The present optative in the indirect question represents
original present indicative as in Lu 1:29 (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1043f.). This use of ei with the
optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of
determination) as in Ac 17:27; 20:16; 24:19; 27:12 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). The Beroeans w
eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. W
a noble attitude. Paul's preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is t
made plain (Hovey).

Why do all these commentators say the same thing? Because the text is plain beyond dispute, and M
Ray is simply desperate to avoid the plain meaning of the text. This error is then compounded by his
errant belief that sola scriptura is somehow contradicted by the acceptance of "new revelation," as if
scriptura is meant to be applied during times of revelation rather than being a normative rule for the
Church. He writes,

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept wor
God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law an
Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a "tradition," it is clear that the
Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jew
accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an
"extension" of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community's reception of Paul's
epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul's
writings as equal to the "other Scriptures," which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

In reality, the Bereans accepted the message of Christ because it was consistent with the Old Testa
revelation. Even introducing "canon" issues here is to continue the tremendous misuse of this passa
already begun in attempting to turn the Thessalonians into crypto-Protestants and the Bereans into
crypto-Catholics. And we note in passing (as Wayne Grudem notes in his Systematic Theology, pp.
85) that 2 Peter 3:16 refers to writings, not to vague and undefinable "oral traditions."

From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for
loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken o
written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews
determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned th
Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

Mr. Ray would do well to deal with the criticism of Jamnia found in Beckwith's fine work, The Old
Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1985). But in any case
have here yet another straw-man, an argument based upon either misrepresentation or ignorance o
issues at hand. The Thessalonians were not noble minded because they rejected the message prea
out of jealousy. The Bereans were noble minded because they listened to the message and tested it
Scripture. Any attempt to read into the passage some concept of "extra-biblical oral tradition" or to re
out of the passage the plain supremacy of Scripture, is yet another example of how Roman Catholic
apologists are at a real loss when it comes to engaging in serious exegesis of the Scriptures.

But in the midst of this misrepresentation, Mr. Ray stumbles upon a truth without, seemingly, knowin
Sensing that he has done nothing to escape the simple fact that the Bereans tested the claimed apo
message for consistency by Scripture and without an infallible magisterium, he attempts to explain th
action:

Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and
authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew-to confirm additional revelat
They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted th
credibility of Paul's teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recogniz
its binding authority.

Note the phrase, "to confirm additional revelation." Here you have individuals going directly to Script
and testing a message for consistency. Yet, when I do the very same thing with Roman theology, I'm
I'm engaging in "private interpretation" and that I am endangering my soul. For all his attempts, Mr. R
has utterly failed to overthrow the plain teaching of the passage: the Bereans did not seek for some
tradition" nor an "infallible magisterium." They allowed the Scriptures to function just as the Baptist
Confession of Faith says they should. Mr. Ray won't admit it, but one thing is plain as day: the Berea
did not believe in sola ecclesia as he does: they did not look for an infallible Church with an infallible
magisterium to tell them what was, and what was not, Scripture and truth. [Indeed, we note with som
 level of irony that from the Roman Catholic position, an infallible definition of the canon was still 1500
years in the future!]

Finally, Mr. Ray follows the old line of misusing 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the
Testament equally as God's word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16).

Paul nowhere speaks of "apostolic Tradition" in his writings. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul speaks of
preaching the gospel to the Thessalonians orally and by letter, nothing more. It is a tremendous stre
to assert that we have here a basis for some nebulous, ever-changing "oral tradition" that eventually
gives the basis for such doctrines as papal infallibility and the Bodily Assumption of Mary.

In Conclusion

After a decade of trying, I still await a serious interaction in writing from a Roman Catholic apologist
the doctrine of sola scriptura that does not engage in the most egregious forms of misrepresentation
argument-begging. After a while, one begins to wonder why it is that the doctrine cannot be discusse
openly and honestly. Why do we continuously have to point out basic error after basic error as we ha
above? If Rome's claims are so strong and so overwhelming (certainly a claim Rome's defenders ma
all the time), why the constant misrepresentation? If we had to continuously misrepresent Rome's
doctrines, would we not, by so doing, be demonstrating that we do not have solid answers to her cla

I do hope that Mr. Ray has misrepresented his former faith purely out of ignorance, not out of malice
And if that is the case, and I truly hope it is, I hope he will reconsider his pledge of allegiance to an
authoritarian system that has led him so far from the truths of the Scriptures.

Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries

How Many Books Are In The Old Testament?

How Can One Know For Sure?
(Popes and Councils Proved To Be In Error)

Examine the Old Testament listing of books in a Catholic, and a Protestant Bible, and you will
normally find a discrepancy. You will find several more books in the Catholic Old Testament
than in the Protestant Bible, the Protestant counting 39 and the Catholic counting some 46 or 47
books. The extra books in the Catholic Bible are referred to as the Apocryphal, or
Deuterocanonical books, by Protestants and Catholic respectively. Apocrypha means "hidden",
and Deuterocanonical means "second canon". This raises the obvious question, who has the
correct list of books in their Old Testaments, the Protestant or the Catholic? (The New Testament
is identical in the Protestant and Catholic Bibles.) For the disputed Old Testament there need not
be any doubt as to who's list of books is correct, Catholic or Protestant, because the New
Testament actually tells us not once, not twice, but three times. But first, let's begin with the
following passage:

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of
God.

Now in the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims translation that reads:

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them.

So the word of God was committed originally to the Jews. As the designated custodians of the
inspired word of God, they knew which books were canonical, and which were not, and they
knew this without the assistance of the yet to appear Catholic Church.

Now, on to our quotes defining the Old Testament canon.

Christ Declares The Hebrew Canon The Word of God.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet
with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Here in the above verse, Jesus divides the written word of God into three categories. The Hebrew
Bible, known by the acronym TaNaKh, has these three divisions, first the Torah, the first five
books of Moses, second the Nevi'im or Prophets, and third the Ketuvim or Writings. Christ was
appearing to the disciples shortly after His resurrection and He was expounding to His disciples
on the testimony of the scriptures about Himself, from one end of the Bible to the other. From
the beginning at Moses; next to the prophets; and then on to the last division that began with
Psalms; Christ explained from the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh, how it revealed Him to be the
Messiah.

Next, note this passage in which Jesus is chastising the scribes and Pharisees:

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the
prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers
with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which
killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of
them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and
persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood
of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the
temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Here the scribes and Pharisees are boldly proclaiming that had they lived in the times of their
forefathers, they would not have stoned the prophets of God, that they would have known better.
But Jesus says they have persecuted men of God just as their fathers had, and that they would
continue to do so (v. 34). Then note what is said in the next verse "... from the blood of
righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias"... . What could Jesus be referring to? Well, Abel
was murdered in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. And Zacharias? What book is
his murder related in? Well let's look at our third text, a parallel passage, first:

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the
altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered
not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Note that Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of taking away the key of knowledge. What
key is that? And what is God requiring of that generation? The answer is in the phrase "From
the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias ...". Well, again, Abel was slain in the first book
of the Bible (Gen 4:8). Now those Protestants who anticipate the answer might begin looking for
the murder of Zacharias in the book of Malachi. Why? Because Jesus is again referring to the full
breadth of the scriptures (the key of knowledge, the oracles of God), from the first book of the
Old Testament, to the last book of the Old Testament. A Protestant therefore, might well open
their Bible to search in the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, for the martyrdom of
Zacharias. However, Malachi is not the last book of the Hebrew TaNaKh! What? That is correct.
The Hebrew Bible, though identical in content to the Protestant Old Testament, is not in the same
order as Protestant or Catholic Bibles. In the Hebrew Bible the last book is the book of
Chronicles. That is where we find the murder of Zechariah between the altar and the temple:

2 Chr 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada* the priest, which
stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the
commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he
hath also forsaken you.
2 Chr 24:21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment
of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.
2 Chr 24:22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had
done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.

It is worth noting that while Abel was the first martyr, Zechariah is not the last in the Old
Testament, chronologically speaking. That was the prophet Urijah, killed by king Jehoiakim in
Jeremiah 26:20-23, more than a century after the martyrdom of Zechariah:
 • King Joash, who had Zechariah stoned within the temple's court (2 Chr 24:20-22),
was the 13th king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and he ruled from 798-782
B.C.
• King Jehoiakim, who slew Urijah with a sword (Jer 26:20-23), was the 18th ruler
of the southern kingdom of Judah, and he reigned from 609-598 B.C.

Had Jesus been speaking chronologically, (from the first martyr to the last) He would have said -
from the blood of Able unto the blood of Urijah, but that is not what He intended. He was clearly
saying from the first book of scripture, to the last book of scripture. Therefore, in Matthew 23:35
and Luke 11:51, and in Luke 24:44, Jesus was explicitly referring to the order and divisions of
the books in the Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture.

The following table shows the collective logical result of the quotes of Jesus. Note particularly
that the third division of scripture is defined as beginning at Psalms and ending with 2
Chronicles.

TaNaKh
(Hebrew Bible As Delineated By Christ)
The Law The Prophets The Writings
Genesis - Deuteronomy Joshua - Malachi Psalms - 2 Chronicles

Already in apostolic times, long before any Roman Catholic councils, this same Hebrew Bible,
the TaNaKh, was being referred to by the Christians as the Old Testament.

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away
in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

* Son of Barachias - Son of Jehoiada: Some Catholics may object that there is a discrepancy
between 2 Chr 24:20 and Matt. 23:35, that they refer to two different people because of the
seeming difference in fathers. So why the seeming discrepancy in lineage? The author of the
book of Zechariah (about 520 B.C.) was "the son of Berechiah, the [grand]son of Iddo the
prophet" (Zec 1:1,7), however, there is no record of his being martyred at the temple. It may be
that "son of Barachias" in Matt. 23:35 is the result of a scribal insertion, in a mistaken effort to
clarify the text. Because the parallel passages of Luke 11:51 and Matt. 23:35 both state that
Zechariah perished between the altar and the temple, it is clearly the same Zechariah mentioned
in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, which is also well documented in other Jewish literature.
 The Altered Grouping and Ordering of Books
in the Greek Septuagint

The Alexandrian canon

The Old Testament as it has come down in Greek translation from the Jews of Alexandria via the
Christian Church differs in many respects from the Hebrew Scriptures. The books of the second
and third divisions have been redistributed and arranged according to categories of literature --
history, poetry, wisdom, and prophecy.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

B. THE CANON AMONG THE ALEXANDRIAN JEWS (DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS)

It is a significant fact that in all these Alexandrian Bibles the traditional Hebrew order is broken
up by the interspersion of the additional literature among the other books, outside the law, thus
[in the opinion of the Catholic writer] asserting for the extra writings a substantial equality of
rank and privilege.

Canon of the Old Testament entry, Catholic Encyclopedia Online.

It is this striking change in grouping and sequencing of books in the Greek Septuagint that so
eloquently testifies to the fact that in the above quotes from Jesus Christ, He was referring not to
the Septuagint, which included apocryphal books not found in the Hebrew canon, but to the
original TaNaKh, the Hebrew Bible, which excludes the apocryphal books. Yet, Catholic
Tradition largely accepted the books of the Greek Septuagint as the canon of the Old Testament.
Note below the significant variations in content and ordering of books in the oldest existing
copies of the Septuagint, and that no two are exactly alike.

The Greek Septuagint Old Testament

Codex Vaticanus Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Alexandrinus
Forgery found in 1481 1836 Forgery by
Unknown prior to 1624
in Vatican Library Constantine Simonides
Pentateuch Pentateuch Pentateuch
1. Genesis 1. Genesis (fragments) 1. Genesis
2. Exodus 2. Exodus (missing) 2. Exodus
3. Leviticus 3. Leviticus (missing) 3. Leviticus
4. Numbers 4. Numbers (fragments) 4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy 5. Deuteronomy (missing) 5. Deuteronomy
 Historical Books Historical Books Historical Books
6. Joshua 6. Joshua (missing) 6. Joshua
7. Judges 7. Judges (missing) 7. Judges
8. Ruth 8. Ruth (missing) 8. Ruth
9. 1 Kings - (1 Samuel) 9. 1 Kings - (1 Samuel) (missing) 9. 1 Kings - (1 Samuel)
10. 2 Kings - (2 Samuel) 10. 2 Kings - (2 Samuel) (missing) 10. 2 Kings - (2 Samuel)
11. 3 Kings - (1 Kings) 11. 3 Kings - (1 Kings) (missing) 11. 3 Kings - (1 Kings)
12. 4 Kings - (2 Kings) 12. 4 Kings - (2 Kings) (missing) 12. 4 Kings - (2 Kings)
13. 1 Paraliponenon - (1 13. 1 Paraliponenon - 13. 1 Paraliponenon - (1 Chronicles)
Chronicles) (1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17)
14. 2 Paraliponenon - (2 Chronicles)
14. 2 Paraliponenon - (2 14. 2 Paraliponenon -
Chronicles) (2 Chronicles) (missing)
Prophetical Books
15. 1 Esdras*** 15. 1 Esdras*** (missing) 15. Hosea
16. 2 Esdras - (Ezra-Nehemiah) 16. 2 Esdras - (Ezra-Nehemiah) 16. Amos
Poetical Books 17. Esther - Chapter 10 beginning at 17. Micah
17. Psalms (with Psalm 151)* verse 4, thru Chapter 16. 18. Joel
18. Tobias (Tobit) 19. Obadiah
18. Proverbs
19. Judith 20. Jonah
19. Ecclesiastes
20. 1 Machabees 21. Nahum
20 Song of Songs
21. 4 Machabees* 22. Habakkuk
21. Job
Prophetical Books 23. Zephaniah
22. Wisdom (of Solomon)
23. Isaiah 24. Haggai
23. Ecclesiasticus
(Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach) 24. Jeremiah 25. Zechariah
Historical Books 25. Lamentations 26. Malachi
24. Esther - Chapter 10 beginning at 26. Ezekiel (missing) 27. Isaiah
verse 4, thru Chapter 16.
27. Daniel (missing) 28. Jeremiah
25. Tobit
28. Hosea (missing) 29. Baruch
26. Judith
29. Amos (missing) 30. Lamentations
Prophetical Books
30. Micah (missing) 31. Epistle of Jeremiah
27. Hosea
31. Joel 32. Ezekiel
28. Amos
32. Obadiah 33. Daniel - Chapter 3, verses 24-91,
29. Micah Chapters 13+14
33. Jonah
30. Joel Historical Books
34. Nahum
31. Obadiah 34. Esther - Chapter 10 beginning at
35. Habakkuk
32. Jonah verse 4, thru Chapter 16.
36. Zephaniah
33. Nahum 35. Tobit
37. Haggai
34. Habakkuk 36. Judith
38. Zechariah
35. Zephaniah 39. Malachi 37. 1 Esdras***
36. Haggai Poetical Books 38. 2 Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah)
37. Zechariah 40. Psalms (with Psalm 151)* 39. 1 Machabees
38. Malachi 41. Proverbs 40. 2 Machabees
39. Isaiah 42. Ecclesiastes 41. 3 Machabees*
40. Jeremiah 43. Song of Songs 42. 4 Machabees*
41. Baruch 44. Wisdom (of Solomon) Poetical Books
42. Lamentations 45. Ecclesiasticus 43. Psalms (with Psalm 151)*
(Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach)
43. Epistle of Jeremiah 44. Job
46. Job
44. Ezekiel 45. Proverbs
Note: Baruch omitted
45. Daniel - Chapter 3, verses 24-91, 46. Ecclesiastes
Chapters 13+14
47. Song of Songs
Note: 1 and 2 Machabees are omitted
48. Wisdom (of Solomon)
49. Ecclesiasticus
(Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach)
50. Psalms of Solomon**
* Orthodox Catholics only
** Pseudepigrapha
*** Not considered Canonical by Roman Catholics

While many have previously believed that Christ and the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint
because it was the common tongue of the day, the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at
Qumran proves conclusively that the Old Testament was available in Hebrew in Israel at the time
of Christ. Note the following verse:

Matt. 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass
of the law, till all be fulfilled.

A Catholic Bible commentary says the following about the above verse:

jot or tittle: "Jot" refers to yôd, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; "tittle" is a slight serif
on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another, similarly formed letter.
Source: The New Jerome Bible Commentary, copyright 1990, 1968, by Prentice Hall, Inc., ISBN
0-13-614934-0, page 641.

So it would seem, based on the above Catholic commentary, that Catholics do, in fact, accept
that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation!

The Greek Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) were unkown prior to the
printing of the 1611 King James Bible, and are all dubious in origin.
 What is the LXX?

No Jewish source versions of the Septuagint are known to exist today, fueling speculation that the
apocryphal books may never have been a part of the original Jewish produced Greek manuscript, but
were only included in subsequent Christian copies. The caves of Qumran, in which were found all of
the canonical books of the Old Testament except Esther, also contained fragments of chapter 6 of the
apocryphal Ecclesiasticus [Wisdom of Jesus the Son of (Ben) Sirach] in Hebrew, found in Cave 2, a
fragment of Tobit in Aramaic, found in Cave 4, and a fragment of the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch
Chapter 6) in cave 7.
See Inventory of the Qumran manuscripts.

Previous to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the two oldest known complete Hebrew (Masoretic)
texts of the Bible were the Aleppo Codex dated to the 10th century A.D. and the Leningrad Codex,
dated to the early 11th century A.D. Both these texts, attributed to Ben-Asher, placed Chronicles at the
beginning of the 3rd division, the Ketuvim (Writings). However, modern reprints of the Leningrad
Codex have moved the book of Chronicles back to its tradition place at the end of the Ketuvim.
See Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia

The King James Old Testament was translated from a Hebrew Bible printed in Venice in 1524-25 by
Daniel Bomberg. Known as the Second Rabbinic Bible, it was edited by Ben Chayyim (or Ben
Hayyim), and was compiled from many collected Hebrew texts. Considered the standard Masoretic text
for the next 400 years (well into the 20th Century), it placed Chronicles at the end of the Ketuvim.

Below is a comparative table of the Old Testament canon of the Hebrew, Protestant and Catholic
Bibles. Note that while the Hebrew Canon counts 24 books, and the Protestant Old Testament
counts 39 books, they are identical in actual content, the difference for the count being the
grouping of certain books into one scroll in the Hebrew canon. Also note the change in
arrangement and sequence of books between the Hebrew and Christian Old Testaments.

Latin Vulgate and

The Hebrew Canon (TaNaKh) Protestant Old Testament
Catholic Old Testament
24 books 39 books
46 books
Torah (Law) Pentateuch Pentateuch
1. Genesis 1. Genesis 1. Genesis
2. Exodus 2. Exodus 2. Exodus
3. Leviticus 3. Leviticus 3. Leviticus
4. Numbers 4. Numbers 4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy 5. Deuteronomy 5. Deuteronomy
Nevi'im (Prophets) Historical Books Historical Books
6. Joshua 6. Joshua 6. Joshua
7. Judges 7. Judges 7. Judges
8. Samuel (1st + 2nd) 8. Ruth 8. Ruth
9. Kings (1st + 2nd) 9. 1 Samuel 9. 1 Kings - (1 Samuel)
10. Isaiah 10. 2 Samuel 10. 2 Kings - (2 Samuel)
11. Jeremiah 11. 1 Kings 11. 3 Kings - (1 Kings)
12. Ezekiel 12. 2 Kings 12. 4 Kings - (2 Kings)
13. The 12 Minor Prophets 13. 1 Chronicles 13. 1 Paraliponenon - (1
Chronicles)
Hosea 14. 2 Chronicles
14. 2 Paraliponenon - (2
Joel 15. Ezra Chronicles)
Amos 16. Nehemiah 15. 1 Esdras* - (Ezra)
Obadiah 17. Esther 16. 2 Esdras* - (Nehemiah)
Jonah Poetical Books 17. Tobias (Tobit)
Micah 18. Job 18. Judith
Nahum 19. Psalms 19. Esther - Chapter 10 beginning
Habakkuk 20. Proverbs at verse 4, thru Chapter 16.
Zephaniah 21. Ecclesiastes Poetical Books
Haggai 22. Song of Solomon 20. Job
Zechariah Prophetical Books 21. Psalms
Malachi 23. Isaiah 22. Proverbs
Ketuvim -Writings 24. Jeremiah 23. Ecclesiastes
(Hagiographa) 25. Lamentations 24. Canticle of Canticles
14. Psalms 26. Ezekiel Wisdom Books
15. Proverbs 27. Daniel 25. Wisdom (of Solomon)
16. Job 28. Hosea 26. Ecclesiasticus
17. Song of (Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach)
29. Joel
Songs Prophetical Books
The 30. Amos
18. Ruth Five Scrolls 27. Isaiah
31. Obadiah
19. Lamentations (Hamesh 28. Jeremiah
32. Jonah
20. Ecclesiastes Megilloth) 29. Lamentations
33. Micah
21. Esther 30. Baruch
34. Nahum (Letter of Jeremiah = Baruch ch. 6)
22. Daniel
35. Habakkuk 31. Ezechiel
23. Ezra + Nehemiah
36. Zephaniah 32. Daniel - Chapter 3, verses 24-
24. Chronicles (1st + 2nd)
37. Haggai 91, Chapters 13+14
38. Zechariah 33. Osee - (Hosea)
39. Malachi 34. Joel
35. Amos
36. Abdias - (Obadiah)
 37. Jonas
38. Micheas - (Micah)
39. Nahum
40. Habacue
41. Sophonias- (Zephaniah)
42. Aggeus - (Haggai)
43. Zecharias
44. Malachias
45. 1 Machabees
46. 2 Machabees
Orthodox Catholics also include
3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees,
and Psalm 151.

* The four books called Esdras:

RSV, KJV (1611) Septuagint Latin Vulgate

Ezra 2 Esdras (Chap. 1-10) 1 Esdras
Nehemiah 2 Esdras (Chap. 11-25) 2 Esdras
1 Esdras 1 Esdras 3 Esdras
2 Esdras 4 Esdras

So the New Testament, recognized unanimously by Catholics and Protestants alike as the
inspired word of God, clearly indicates through the words of Jesus Christ that the Hebrew Bible,
the TaNaKh, contains all the inspired canonical books of the Old Testament. This excludes as
spurious, and non-canonical, the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books found in Catholic
Bibles, which are colored red in the above tables, and proves that Catholic definitions of the
canon by Popes and Councils, to include the "infallible" declaration of Trent, are in error.

Definitions of the Canon of Scripture Frequently Cited By Catholics

360 - Synod of Laodicea (Canon LX) [Omits most of the apocrypha]

382 - Synod of Rome (Pope Damasus / Decretal of Gelasius), Roman Code lists the canon
393 - Council of Hippo (Canon XXXVI)
397 to 419 - First / Second Council of Carthage (Canon XXIV - Greek xxvii.)
405 - Canon of Pope Innocent I (letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse)
787 - Second Council of Niceae (ratifies Council of Carthage/African code)
1442 - Council of Florence (Session 11)
1545 - Council of Trent (first ecumenical council to define the canon)

The Protestant Bible of 66 books, while it contains the same 39 Old Testament canonical books
as the Hebrew TaNaKh, does not retain the original grouping and order cited by Jesus Christ,
rather, it follows the order of the Latin Vulgate used by the Council of Trent in 1546, when it
allegedly declared the Roman Catholic Canon infallibly.

The Hebrew Bible (TaNaKh) Online

The TaNaKh (English Translation) is available at Amazon.com
Council of Trent Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures
The Hebrew Bible entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia Online.
Canon of the Old Testament entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia Online.
The Septuagint Version entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia Online.

A Rebuttal to Catholic Apologetics International

on the Old Testament Canon

CAI's Wibisono Hartono Responds

Revised 7 Sept 2002

A Challenge To The Scripture Expert At EWTN's Web Forum

On the Old Testament Canon

A Challenge To The History Expert At EWTN's Web Forum

On the Old Testament Canon (11-12 Nov 2001)
A screen capture from EWTN's site.

http://biblelight.net

A Rebuttal to Catholic Apologetics International

on the Old Testament Canon
Below is an extract of three paragraphs from Are Deuterocanonical books part of the Bible? by
Wibisono Hartono (formerly with Catholic Apologetics International, now with The Catholic
Legate), July 6, 2002, which addresses points made in my essay on the Hebrew Canon.

3. The New Testament refers to Jewish scripture as the Law and the
Prophets (Matthew 7:12, 22:40, Luke 16:16, John 1:45, Acts 13:15,
Romans 3:21). The Law and the Prophets are the first two division of the
Jewish scripture. Does it show that it approves the Jewish
scripture? Furthermore in Luke 24:44 Jesus approved the Jewish
scripture when He mentioned The Law, the Prophets and Psalms. The
phrase "the Law and the Prophets" indicates that the Jewish scripture was still
open-ended in Jesus time. Note that both the Septuagint and the Jewish
scripture have Law and Prophets. In Luke 24:44 Jesus said that He fulfilled
the prophecies in the books of Law, the Prophets and Psalms. Psalms is one
book of the Writings of the Jewish scripture, which also includes Daniel. Jesus
identified Himself to be the Son of Man mentioned in Daniel 7:13, so it is
strange that He did not include this book in Luke 24:44. Luke 24:44 may even
indicate that Jesus placed Daniel as one book of the Prophets, which means He
followed the Septuagint's grouping of books.

4. In Luke 11:50-51 Jesus mentioned the names Abel (Genesis 4:8) and
Zechariah who is identified to be the one in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Since
Genesis and Chronicles are the first and the last book in the present
Jewish scripture then the above verses prove that the Old Testament of the
Christians is the same with that of the Jews. However there are a number of
persons with the name Zechariah in the Bible. Parallel verse in Matthew 23:35
says that Zechariah was the son of Barachiah while Zechariah in 2 Chronicles
24:20-22 was the son of Jehoiada. More suitable candidate is the prophet
Zechariah son of Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1). Bear also in mind that in Jesus
time there were no books like we have today. All books of the Scripture in that
time were written in scrolls, each book in one scroll. Whilst grouping them
was possible, they had stack of scrolls, i.e. there was no clear order of the
books. Even after Codex (plural Codices) which resembled modern book was
later introduced to replace scrolls, the arrangement of the books of the Bible
might be different with that of today. Encyclopedia Judaica Volume 4 page
829-830 gives eight different ancient arrangements of the Writings with
Chronicles appears as the first or the last book. Leningrad Codex, the standard
Masoretic text of the Jewish scripture has Chronicles as the first book of the
Writings. Thus Chronicles is not always the last book of the Jewish scripture.

13. We should let the Jews determine the canon of the Old Testament (39
books) because they were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans
3:8). Catholics do not deny that God spoke in the past through Jewish prophets
(Hebrews 1:1) and their words were put in written form by the Jews; that is
what Paul meant in Romans 3:8. Bear in mind that deuterocanonical books
 were also written by Jews. During Jesus and His apostles' time the canon of
the Old Testament was still open-ended. They never gave us the list of
inspired books of both the Old and New Testaments. If the Church later
through the guidance of the Holy Spirit defined the canon of the New
Testament then why she could not define the canon of the Old Testament as
well?

Rebuttal to paragraph 3:
The phrase "the Law and the Prophets" indicates that the Jewish scripture was still open-ended
in Jesus time.

"The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms"

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet
with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

"The Law and the Prophets"

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is
preached, and every man presseth into it.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in
the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent
unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say
on.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by
the law and the prophets;

Upon reading the above verses, it is evident that "the law and the prophets" does not convey any
uncertainty in the canon of scripture at all, rather it is clearly an abbreviated or shorthand way of
referring to the entire span of scripture. The phrase "the law and the prophets" is not
exclusionary or indistinct, rather it includes all of the inspired word of God. There is another
similar phrase with exactly the same meaning:
"Moses and the Prophets"

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be
persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the
scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in
the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to
small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say
should come:

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging;
to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus,
both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Please take special note of Luke 24:27 above. Did the phrase "Moses and all the prophets"
exclude any of scripture? No, not when it says that Christ then proceeded to explain from all the
scriptures. If "Moses and all the prophets" covers all of scripture, then so does "the law and the
prophets".

"The Scriptures"

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the
builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is
marvellous in our eyes?

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the
power of God.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with
us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they
which testify of me.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with
them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word
with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty
in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of
God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make
thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The use of "the scriptures" in the above verses from the New Testament also indicate that the full
extent of scripture was known and understood by both the speaker and audience. And the
following verse testifies to an already defined and accepted Old Testament canon:

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away
in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

So as the above verses indicate, the Old Testament canon of scripture in apostolic times was
already fixed, understood and accepted by the Jews, and was anything but open-ended, vague, or
poorly defined.

Note that both the Septuagint and the Jewish scripture have Law and Prophets.

That statement appears to be intentionally ambiguous and obfuscatory. Let's clarify. Are the
same books of the Law and the Prophets of the Hebrew Canon also found in the Septuagint? Yes,
they most certainly are. However, the Septuagint has never had the identical division and
grouping of the Hebrew Canon into the Law and Prophets (and Writings), which is what the
above statement seeks to conceal from the reader. See the charts in my essay on the Hebrew
Canon. There is simply no way the remarks of Christ can be applied to the Septuagint.

In Luke 24:44 Jesus said that He fulfilled the prophecies in the books of Law, the Prophets and
Psalms. Psalms is one book of the Writings of the Jewish scripture, which also includes
Daniel. Jesus identified Himself to be the Son of Man mentioned in Daniel 7:13, so it is strange
that He did not include this book in Luke 24:44.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet
with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus is referring here to the three divisions of the Hebrew Canon, and by saying "in the law of
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" he means every book of the Old Testament,
including Daniel. So it is not at all "strange" that Daniel is not explicitly mentioned in Luke
24:44, because Daniel is obviously included implicitly in context.

Luke 24:44 may even indicate that Jesus placed Daniel as one book of the Prophets, which
means He followed the Septuagint's grouping of books.
That assertion is absolutely devoid of any common sense logic at all. There is absolutely nothing
in the cited verses that in any way indicate that Christ was endorsing the canon of any version of
the Septuagint (the three oldest versions of the Septuagint all differ in the books they include,
and their sequence!), much less indicating the placement of the book of Daniel in the Prophets
(rather than the third and last group, the Psalms / Writings). To suggest that Jesus was referring
to the Septuagint is to say that black may in fact really be white ─ it is utter nonsense. See the
TaNaKh and Septuagint charts in my essay on the Hebrew Canon.

Rebuttal to paragraph 4:
However there are a number of persons with the name Zechariah in the Bible. Parallel
verse in Matthew 23:35 says that Zechariah was the son of Barachiah while Zechariah in 2
Chronicles 24:20-22 was the son of Jehoiada. More suitable candidate is the prophet
Zechariah son of Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1).

The writer is totally ignoring the essential characteristic that identifies the Zechariah in question,
that he was martyred in the temple court:

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the
altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered
not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood
of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the
temple and the altar.

There is only one Zechariah that scripture tells us was martyred in the temple's court.

2 Chr 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which
stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the
commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he
hath also forsaken you.
2 Chr 24:21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment
of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.
2 Chr 24:22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had
done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.

King Joash, who had Zechariah stoned within the temple's court (2 Chr 24:20-22), was the 13th
king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and he ruled from 798-782 B.C. There can be no
reasonable doubt that this is precisely the Zechariah that Jesus was referring to, because of the
uniqueness of where he was martyred.

Now, the author of the Old Testament book of Zechariah lived during the reign of Darius I :
Zec 1:1 In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the LORD unto
Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,

The second year of the reign of Darius I (the great) is dated to 520 B.C., so this Zechariah, who
authored the book by the same name, lived some 250 years after the Zechariah that 2 Chr 24:20-
22 explicitly tells us was martyred in the temple court, and Chronicles is the last book of the
Hebrew canon, not Zechariah. Jesus was clearly naming two well known martyrs to indicate the
first and last books of the canonical scriptures. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that Mat 23:35
indicates the author of the Old Testament book of Zechariah, when there is absolutely no
evidence in scripture that he was martyred, much less martyred in the temple court.

That the author of Zechariah was the "son of Berechiah", and the earlier martyred Zechariah was
the "son of Barachias", may simply indicate that the two had a common ancestor, or it may be
that both men had an ancestor with a similar name.

The photo reprint of the 1899 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible that I have, interestingly enough,
acknowledges in the footnotes for both Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, that the Zechariah
martyred in 2 Chronicles is indicated. But a 1950 printing of the Douay-Rheims that I have has
no footnotes for those verses at all! What changed? I think it has finally dawned on Catholics
what the implications of referring to the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles means, and they now realize
they really do not want to go there, because it clearly and logically results in an endorsement of
the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament!

The 1970 New American Bible for Catholics I have, in the footnote for Matthew 23:35, wrongly
asserts that the author of the Old Testament book of Zechariah is indicated, while curiously it
also refers the reader to the footnote for Luke 11:51, which points rightly to the Zechariah
martyred in 2 Chronicles! So according to the more recent NAB, two different men are meant in
the parallel passages of Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51! Amazing!

Bear also in mind that in Jesus time there were no books like we have today. All books of
the Scripture in that time were written in scrolls, each book in one scroll. Whilst grouping
them was possible, they had stack of scrolls, i.e. there was no clear order of the
books. Even after Codex (plural Codices) which resembled modern book was later
introduced to replace scrolls, the arrangement of the books of the Bible might be different
with that of today.

Jesus said what He said, the way He said it, for a clear and distinct reason. As discussed in my
essay on the Hebrew Canon, it is quite clear that by saying from Able to Zacharias, Jesus was
referring to the entire span of of the Hebrew scriptures, i.e., from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. The
above is nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters, to obfuscate the truth and dissipate any
understanding of the clear intention of the words of Christ.

Encyclopedia Judaica Volume 4 page 829-830 gives eight different ancient arrangements of
the Writings with Chronicles appears as the first or the last book. Leningrad Codex, the
standard Masoretic text of the Jewish scripture has Chronicles as the first book of the
Writings. Thus Chronicles is not always the last book of the Jewish scripture.

As I say in my essay:
Previous to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the two oldest known complete Hebrew
(Masoretic) texts of the Bible were the Aleppo Codex dated to the 10th century A.D. and the
Leningrad Codex, dated to the early 11th century A.D. Both these texts, attributed to Ben-Asher,
placed Chronicles at the beginning of the 3rd division, the Ketuvim (Writings). However,
modern reprints of the Leningrad Codex have moved the book of Chronicles back to its tradition
place at the end of the Ketuvim. See Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia

That there have been a few variant orderings of the Ketuvim, placing Chronicles as the first book
of the third division, is not particularly significant, as that bit of trivia in no way impeaches the
very clear intent of the context of Christ's words in Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, and Luke 24:44.
Jesus was very clearly and explicitly referring to the order and divisions of the books in the
Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture in His day, and there is no possible way His
words can be taken to mean anything else. I think we have a deliberate trap set by Jesus Christ to
ensnare and expose those who He knew would attempt to corrupt the Old Testament Hebrew
canon by adding spurious apocryphal books, and the trap has worked marvelously.

Rebuttal to paragraph 13:

Catholics do not deny that God spoke in the past through Jewish prophets (Hebrews 1:1)
and their words were put in written form by the Jews; that is what Paul meant in Romans
3:8. Bear in mind that deuterocanonical books were also written by Jews. During Jesus
and His apostles' time the canon of the Old Testament was still open-ended. They never
gave us the list of inspired books of both the Old and New Testaments.

The assertion that the Old Testament canon was still open-ended in apostolic times is flatly
contradicted by the collective words of Christ in Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, and Luke 24:44,
which firmly and unequivocally endorse the content, ordering and divisions of only the Hebrew
canon. The deutero/apocryphal books, while written by Jews, were never universally accepted as
canonical by the majority of the Jewish community.

If the Church later through the guidance of the Holy Spirit defined the canon of the New
Testament then why she could not define the canon of the Old Testament as well?

It can be concluded with confidence, from the words of Christ cited, that every Roman Catholic
council that defined the canon, including the allegedly infallible declaration of the Council of
Trent, was in error, and every Catholic Bible printed contains non-canonical apocryphal books
that are not a part of the inspired Old Testament.

CAI's Wibisono Hartono Responds

(Revised 7 Sept 2002)

My Original Counterpoint To Wibisono Hartono

In the first section of his reply, Wibisono Hartono makes these assertions:

The closest reference to the three divisions of the Jewish scripture in the New Testament is from
Luke 24:44 that says "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms", of which Mr. Scheifler wrote
"he [Jesus] means every book of the Old Testament, including Daniel." The problem with his
argument is there is neither support in the New Testament nor from Jewish source that naming
one book means naming the rest.

and

Thus the term scripture and the phrase "all the scriptures" in Luke 24:27 (which Mr. Scheifler
asked me to take special note) refers only to those who were already accepted in that time.

Note the following excerpt from the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the Vatican web site (red
font emphasis is mine)

THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE

CHRISTIAN BIBLE
(May 24, 2001)
Online at the Vatican

I. THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE A

FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

B. The New Testament attests conformity to the Jewish Scriptures

6. A twofold conviction is apparent in other texts: on the one hand, what is written
in the Jewish Scriptures must of necessity be fulfilled because it reveals the plan of
God which cannot fail to be accomplished; on the other hand, the life, death and
resurrection of Christ are fully in accord with the Scriptures.

1. Necessity of fulfilling the Scriptures

The clearest expression of this is found in the words addressed by the risen
Christ to his disciples, in the Gospel of Luke: “These are my words that I spoke
to you while I was still with you — that everything written about me in the Law of
Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must (dei) be fulfilled” (Lk 24:44). This
assertion shows the basis of the necessity (dei, “must”) for the paschal mystery of
Jesus, affirmed in numerous passages in the Gospels: “The Son of Man must
undergo great suffering...and after three days rise again”;15 “But how then would the
Scriptures be fulfilled which say it must happen this way?” (Mt 26:54); “This
Scripture must be fulfilled in me” (Lk 22:37).
Because what is written in the Old Testament “must” be fulfilled, the events
take place “so that” it is fulfilled. This is what Matthew often expresses in the
infancy narrative, later on in Jesus' public life16 and for the whole passion (Mt
26:56). Mark has a parallel to the last mentioned passage in a powerfully elliptic
phrase: “But let the Scriptures be fulfilled” (Mk 14:49). Luke does not use this
expression but John has recourse to it almost as often as Matthew does.17 The
Gospels' insistence on the purpose of these events “so that the Scriptures be
fulfilled”18 attributes the utmost importance to the Jewish Scriptures. It is clearly
understood that these events would be meaningless if they did not correspond to
what the Scriptures say. It would not be a question there of the realisation of God's
plan.

...

2. Conformity to the Scriptures

7. ... In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus appropriates a saying of Isaiah (Lk 4:17-21; Is
61:1-2) to define his mission as he begins his ministry. The ending of the Gospel
expands this perspective when it speaks of fulfilling “all that is written” about
Jesus (Lk 24:44).

On that point, it is essential, according to Jesus, to “hear Moses and the prophets”,
the ending of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:29-31) drives home
the point: without a docile listening, even the greatest prodigies are of no avail.

II. FUNDAMENTAL THEMES IN THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES AND

THEIR RECEPTION INTO FAITH IN CHRIST

A. Christian Understanding of the relationships between the Old and New

Testaments

1. Affirmation of a reciprocal relationship

By “Old Testament” the Christian Church has no wish to suggest that the Jewish
Scriptures are outdated or surpassed.37 On the contrary, it has always affirmed that
the Old Testament and the New Testament are inseparable. Their first relationship is
precisely that. At the beginning of the second century, when Marcion wished to
discard the Old Testament, he met with vehement resistance from the post-apostolic
Church. Moreover, his rejection of the Old Testament led him to disregard a major
portion of the New — he retained only the Gospel of Luke and some Pauline Letters
— which clearly showed that his position was indefensible. It is in the light of the
 Old Testament that the New understands the life, death and glorification of
Jesus (cf. 1 Co 15:3-4).

This relationship is also reciprocal: on the one hand, the New Testament
demands to be read in the light of the Old [Testament], but it also invites a “re-
reading” of the Old [Testament] in the light of Jesus Christ (cf. Lk 24:45). How
is this “re-reading” to be done? It extends to “all the Scriptures” (Lk 24:27) to
“everything written in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (24:44),
but the New Testament only offers a limited number of examples, not a
methodology.

Now Mr. Hartono would have us believe that the reference to Psalms in Luke 24:47 is strictly
limited to that book alone, and that the rest of the books of the third division of the Hebrew
canon (Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles) are to be excluded. Were none of these books accepted as
canonical by the Jews in the time of Christ? The Pontifical Bible Commission, in context,
apparently considers Luke 24:44 to refer to the whole of the Hebrew Old Testament - “all the
Scriptures” (Lk 24:27), and does not specifically exclude any of the other books of the third
division that begins with Psalms. Perhaps Mr. Hartono should write the commission and inform
them of their misinterpretation.

Mr. Hartono also makes this assertion:

The translated phrase "old testament" [2 Cor. 3:14] does not refer to list of books known to us as
the Old Testament but to the old covenant of Law from Moses.

Again, continuing with quotes from the Pontifical Biblical Commission's document:

I. THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE A

FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

2. ...

A perennial manifestation of this link to their beginnings is the acceptance by

Christians of the Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people as the Word of God
addressed to themselves as well. Indeed, the Church has accepted as inspired by
God all the writings contained in the Hebrew Bible as well as those in the Greek
Bible. The title “Old Testament” given to this collection of writings is an expression
coined by the apostle Paul to designate the writings attributed to Moses (cf. 2 Co
3:14-15). Its scope has been extended, since the end of the second century, to
include other Jewish writings in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
 II. FUNDAMENTAL THEMES IN THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES AND
THEIR RECEPTION INTO FAITH IN CHRIST

A. Christian Understanding of the relationships between the Old and New

Testaments

2. Re-reading the Old Testament in the light of Christ

The examples given show that different methods were used, taken from their
cultural surroundings, as we have seen above.38 The texts speak of typology39 and of
reading in the light of the Spirit (2 Co 3:14-17). These suggest a twofold manner of
reading, in its original meaning at the time of writing, and a subsequent
interpretation in the light of Christ.

In Judaism, re-readings were commonplace. The Old Testament itself points

the way. For example, in the episode of the manna, while not denying the original
gift, the meaning is deepened to become a symbol of the Word through which God
continually nourishes his people (cf. Dt 8:2-3). The Books of Chronicles are a re-
reading of the Book of Genesis and the Books of Samuel and Kings. What is
specific to the Christian re-reading is that it is done, as we have said, in the light of
Christ.

This new interpretation does not negate the original meaning. Paul clearly states
that “the very words of God were entrusted” to the Israelites (Rm 3:2) and he
takes it for granted that these words of God could be read and understood
before the coming of Christ. Although he speaks of a blindness of the Jews with
regard to “the reading of the Old Testament” (2 Co 3:14), he does not mean a
total incapacity to read, only an inability to read it in the light of Christ.

In context, the Pontifical Biblical Commission is clearly interpreting 2 Cor. 3:14 to mean the
entire Old Testament of the Jews, and not just the Old Covenant Law from Moses. Again, it
seems that Mr. Hartono should inform Rome of their error.

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away
in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.
2 Cor 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

Paul's remarks are not intended to completely exclude of the rest of the Old Testament. This
same "veil" over the Old Testament is also evident in Luke:

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they
will repent.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they
be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

This blindness to the gospel of Jesus Christ for the Jew applied not only to the writings of Moses
(though they are clearly emphasized by Paul), but to the whole of the Hebrew Old Testament
(Moses and the prophets), the prophecies of which clearly pointed to, and were fulfilled by only
one man, Jesus of Nazareth. And this was just as true at the time Paul wrote that passage in
Corinthians as it is today, though the Pontifical Biblical Commission maintains it was not until
the second century that this wider understanding of the term was applied.

While I do not base what I believe on the opinions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, is not a
Roman Catholic subject to, and bound by, their Magisterial authority in such matters? Or, are
Roman Catholics free to give their own private interpretations regarding scripture, even if it
contradicts Magisterial teaching?

http://biblelight.net

A Challenge To The Scripture Expert At EWTN's Web

Forum

An Open letter to Fr. John Echert, S.S.L, (EWTN Scripture, Divine Revelation
Forum Expert), 13 July 2001:

I am publicly offering you my article at biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm as proof from

the New Testament, that quotes of Christ Himself show conclusively that the Hebrew
Canon was the only Old Testament canon recognized by Christ and the Apostles, and
consequently, all Catholic councils and papal decrees defining the canon have been in
error.

This open letter to you is appended to the above article, and your detailed response is
respectfully solicited. Your EWTN forum posted reply, if any, will also be added to the
article.

Michael Scheifler

• Go to the article on the Old Testament Canon

 • Fr. Echert's First Answer - 16 July 2001
• My First Reply - 18 July 2001
• Fr. Echert's Second Answer - 19 July 2001
• Email from EWTN's Vice President, Colin Donovan - 20 July 2001
• My reply to Colin Donovan - 20 July 2001
• Colin Donovan's Second Email - 20 July 2001
• My Second Reply to Colin Donovan - 20 July 2001
• My Third Email to Colin Donovan - 23 July 2001
• EWTN Capitulates and Removes All Related Forum Entries.
• Colin Donovan's Third Email - 31 July 2001
• My Fourth Email to Colin Donovan - 1 August 2001
• Colin Donovan's Fourth Email - 1 August 2001
• My Fifth Email to Colin Donovan - 1 August 2001
• Colin Donovan's Fifth Email - 2 August 2001
• My Sixth Email to Colin Donovan - 3 August 2001
• Colin Donovan's Sixth Email - 3 August 2001
• My Seventh Email to Colin Donovan - 4 August 2001
• Colin Donovan's Seventh Email - 6 August 2001
• My Eighth Email to Colin Donovan - 12 August 2001

When posted to his forum, Fr. Echert censored the web address from my open letter, so as to
prevent, or at least hinder, his Catholic readers from finding and reading the above article in its
entirety. Catholics, I have found, resort to this obviously unfair censorship tactic time and time
again when they realize they have a lost cause on their hands and cannot adequately defend
themselves against the truth.

Fr. John Echert's First Answer, Posted 16 July 2001

(Deleted at EWTN on 24 July)

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 07-16-2001:

I will respond to your major points as time allows me, with the possibility of subsequent
responses. You wrote:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

…first, let's begin with the following passage:

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of
circumcision? Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were
committed the oracles of God.
 Now in the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims translation that reads: Rom 3:1
What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Rom
3:2 Much in every way. First indeed, because the words of God were
committed to them.

So the word of God was committed originally to the Jews. As the designated
custodians of the inspired word of God, they knew which books were
canonical, and which were not, and they knew this without the assistance of
the yet to appear Catholic Church.

++++++++++++++++++++++

First I point out your inconsistency with regards to the manner in which the sacred canon
is known. For you accept that the Old Covenant Jews collectively “knew which books
were canonical” yet you reject that the New Covenant Israel which is the Church—often
referred to as the Catholic Church—is likewise guided by divine Providence to “know
which books are canonical.” Do you really imagine that God guided Israel of old to know
the canon but failed to do so with regards to the New Israel?

Secondly, you wrote the following:

++++++++++++++++++++++

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto
you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning
me. Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might
understand the scriptures, Here in the above verse, Jesus divides the written
word of God into three categories. The Hebrew Bible, known by the acronym
TaNaKh, has these three divisions, first the Torah, the first five books of
Moses, second the Nevi'im or Prophets, and third the Ketuvim or Writings.
Christ was appearing to the disciples shortly after His resurrection and He was
expounding to His disciples on the testimony of the scriptures about Himself,
from one end of the Bible to the other. From the beginning at Moses; next to
the prophets; and then on to the last division that began with Psalms; Christ
explained from the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh, how it revealed Him to be the
Messiah.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

It must be noted that simply by referring to three major categories of types of writings of
the Old Testament, this in no way precludes that there may be other writings or types of
writings. To use an analogy, if I were to say that my mother and my father and my sister
all testify that I am a Roman Catholic priest, such does not preclude other family members
or other sources from affirming that same truth. Furthermore, the deutero-canonical
writings—wrongly referred to as the Apocrypha by some—can be fit into these categories
as readily as the modern Jews fit other writings into them. For instance, Joshua and Judges
are historical works and yet Jews list them under the category of prophets. They are more
properly historical works and precede the prophetic period of Israel. What is your basis for
assuming that they belong under the category “prophets” apart from modern Jewish
preference? And the category of “the Writings” is so loose as to allow the inclusion of
such works as “Wisdom” and others.

Thirdly, a careful study of the texts of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New
Testament reveals much more affinity with the texts of the Greek Septuagint version of the
Old Testament than any known Hebrew text, most especially the Masoretic text which has
been the basis of biblical scholarship and translations for centuries, for Catholics and
Protestants. Unless you can produce a Hebrew text of the Old Testament which accounts
for such quotes in the New Testament (over 300) your assumption should favor the use of
the text of the Septuagint as the basis for the New Testament. And the Septuagint, of
course, contains the works referred to as deutero-canonical.

Finally, you cite the Dead Sea scrolls as important in establishing the presence of Hebrew
texts in Israel:

++++++++++++++

While many have previously believed that Christ and the Apostles used the
Greek Septuagint because it was the common tongue of the day, the recent
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran proves conclusively that the Old
Testament was available in Hebrew in Israel at the time of Christ.

++++++++++++++

Of course, the Essence community that made use of these texts comprised isolationists
who did not associate with mainstream Judaism; in fact, they did not regard Temple
worship as legitimate and cannot be regarded as normative with regards to their texts. But
more to the point, if you wish to use the Dead Sea Scrolls as important in establishing what
was used in Israel at the time of Christ, then by your own admission in your text you
should acknowledge and accept at least two of the deutero-canonical works which were
found in fragment parts at Qumran. As you wrote:

++++++++++++++++++

No Jewish source versions of the Septuagint are known to exist today, fueling
speculation that the apocryphal books may never have been a part of the
 original Jewish produced Greek manuscript, but were only included in
subsequent Christian copies. The caves of Qumran, in which were found all of
the canonical books of the Old Testament except Esther, also contained
fragments of chapter 6 of the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus [Wisdom of Jesus the
Son of (Ben) Sirach] in Hebrew, found in Cave 2, and a fragment of Tobit in
Aramaic, found in Cave 4.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The bottom line, Michael, is that without the Sacred Tradition of the Church, not only
would the canon of the Bible remain uncertain but it is likely that at least some of the
works would have been lost or mixed amidst so many other apocryphal writings from the
ancient Jewish and Christian world. To justify the elimination of the deutero-canonical
works you basically have to reject the councils and great Scriptural writers such as St.
Augustine from at least as early as the fourth century AD. I invite you to reconsider you
position. ©

Father Echert

For the convenience of the reader, my comments will continue in this normal font, with a blue
background, while the specific remarks of Fr. John Echert that I am responding to will be in the
indented yellow background in boldface. The entire text of his response can be read above. It has
been deleted at EWTN.

My 1st Reply of 18 July 2001

I find it very curious that you censored my article's web address for your Catholic readers,
while there is no similar censorship on my web site. What are you afraid of? Don't your
Catholic readers have the right to read my ENTIRE article for themselves on my web
page, and not just the small fraction of it you choose to cite?

If my article had no merit, and could be easily refuted by you, it is likely that you would
not have deleted the web address. That you have felt compelled to censor it has an obvious
implication, which I think both Catholic and Protestant readers will easily discern. If the
truth is clearly on your side, then you would simply have no need to censor or restrict
access to an opposing point of view. The effect of your censorship will serve only to peak
the interest of your readers, and perhaps motivate them enough to find the article via a web
search engine, in spite of your censorship.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
 First I point out your inconsistency with regards to the manner in which
the sacred canon is known. For you accept that the Old Covenant Jews
collectively “knew which books were canonical” yet you reject that the
New Covenant Israel which is the Church—often referred to as the
Catholic Church—is likewise guided by divine Providence to “know which
books are canonical.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is no inconsistency on my part at all. Up until the time of Christ the Hebrew canon
was known, though no church council had formally declared it. Consistency, if you
demand it, would not require a formal declaration of either the New or Old Testament
canon by any Catholic council.

It is clear from the 3 passages cited from the New Testament in my article that Christ
defined the Hebrew canon as the inspired scriptures of His time. This automatically
excludes the Apocryphal books from canonical consideration. The responsibility of the
Christian church was to collect and preserve the inspired doctrinal, historical and prophetic
writings of the apostolic era, and it could have done this just like the Jews, without a single
Catholic council or papal declaration.

Now the issue of who has the authority to define and declare the canon of scripture is
academic when both Protestant and Catholic agree on the content of the New Testament.
However, when it comes to the Old Testament canon, where there is a discrepancy, can
there be any higher authority than the words of Christ Himself?

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you really imagine that God guided Israel of old to know the canon but
failed to do so with regards to the New Israel?

++++++++++++++++++++++++

God has not failed. The same canon that Christ knew and referred to 3 times is
acknowledged by Protestantism today as the complete Old Testament. If anyone has failed,
it was the councils and popes of the Catholic Church who erred regarding the Old
Testament canon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

It must be noted that simply by referring to three major categories of

types of writings of the Old Testament, this in no way precludes that there
 may be other writings or types of writings. To use an analogy, if I were to
say that my mother and my father and my sister all testify that I am a
Roman Catholic priest, such does not preclude other family members or
other sources from affirming that same truth.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the contrary, when Luke 24:44-45, Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51 are studied together in
context, there can be only one conclusion, that being that Christ was undoubtedly referring
to the Hebrew canon as the entire span of inspired scripture of His day. This is so clear as
to be unimpeachable.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Furthermore, the deutero-canonical writings—wrongly referred to as the

Apocrypha by some—can be fit into these categories as readily as the
modern Jews fit other writings into them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Can you cite a single scholar that logically concludes that Christ was referring to the Old
Testament canon of the Greek Septuagint in Luke 24:44-45?

Has the Septuagint EVER been classified into three categories identical to the Hebrew
Bible?

Since the ordering of books in every Septuagint known is radically different than the
Hebrew Bible, I dare say the answer to these two questions is definitely NO.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

For instance, Joshua and Judges are historical works and yet Jews list
them under the category of prophets. They are more properly historical
works and precede the prophetic period of Israel. What is your basis for
assuming that they belong under the category “prophets” apart from
modern Jewish preference?

++++++++++++++++++++++++

The theoretical placement of Joshua or Judges in either the Prophets or Writings does have
any relevance to this discussion. What matters are the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible,
and the first and last books as referred to by Christ. These simply cannot be applied to the
Septuagint.

As additional evidence, I would suggest that the following verses all refer to the first two
divisions of the Hebrew Bible when they cite the Law and the Prophets. These 11 verses,
by the way, are quoted from the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims translation:

Mat 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfill.

Mat 7:12 All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you
also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.

Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John:

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John; from that time the kingdom of God
is preached, and every one useth violence towards it.

Luke 24:44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was
yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses,
and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses
in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue
sent to them, saying: Ye men, brethren, if you have any word of exhortation to make to the
people, speak.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess to thee, that according to the way, which they call a heresy,
so do I serve the Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the law and
the prophets:

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came very many to him unto his
lodgings; to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them
concerning Jesus, out of the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening.

Rom 3:21 But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed
by the law and the prophets.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
 And the category of “the Writings” is so loose as to allow the inclusion of
such works as “Wisdom” and others.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not true. Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51 both make clear that Christ was referring to 2nd
Chronicles as the very last book in the inspired Scriptures. This agrees with the current and
historical Hebrew Bible. But most notably, the cited verses can never be reconciled with
the altered ordering of the Septuagint. Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 with Luke 24:44 are
absolutely airtight, and do not allow the inclusion of the Apocryphal books of the
Septuagint.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thirdly, a careful study of the texts of the Old Testament which are
quoted in the New Testament reveals much more affinity with the texts of
the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament than any known
Hebrew text, most especially the Masoretic text which has been the basis
of biblical scholarship and translations for centuries, for Catholics and
Protestants. Unless you can produce a Hebrew text of the Old Testament
which accounts for such quotes in the New Testament (over 300) your
assumption should favor the use of the text of the Septuagint as the basis
for the New Testament. And the Septuagint, of course, contains the works
referred to as deutero-canonical.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is indeed recognized today that many of the New Testament quotes of Old Testament
verses are citations of the Greek Septuagint. This does not, however, lead to the conclusion
that the New Testament writers accepted the canon of the Septuagint, for the following
reasons:

As Greek was a common language of the day, I will concede that the Apostles likely
taught from scrolls of the Septuagint for their Greek speaking audiences.

However, were I a Jew or Gentile in the first century who spoke both Hebrew and Greek
fluently, and my audience likely knew Greek but maybe not Hebrew, I too would not
hesitate to teach and cite from a Greek translation of the Hebrew canon, like the
Septuagint, even if it may have collectively contained some extraneous non-canonical
works. I as a Protestant sometimes cite from the Catholic Douay Rheims (as I have done
above) or other Catholic editions of the Bible, because it suits my purpose to make a point
to a Catholic in their own translation. However, this does not in any way mean that I
endorse the Catholic canon, or presumed Catholic authority to declare the canon. In like
manner, apostolic era use of the Greek Septuagint in no way constitutes an endorsement of
the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books.

So the assumption that the New Testament writers accepted the Catholic canon, simply
because they quoted from the Septuagint, lacks any merit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

... if you wish to use the Dead Sea Scrolls as important in establishing what
was used in Israel at the time of Christ, then by your own admission in
your text you should acknowledge and accept at least two of the deutero-
canonical works which were found in fragment parts at Qumran.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I said the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran proves conclusively that the Old
Testament was available in Hebrew in Israel at the time of Christ. I did NOT say Qumran
made a case for canonicity. There were dozens of non-canonical works at Qumran, and the
presence, or absence, of a particular book in the Qumran collection does not provide one
iota of proof for, or against, canonicity. Even if all the Apocryphal books of the Septuagint
had been found at Qumran, this would NOT establish their acceptance as part of the canon.
Qumran was a LIBRARY, which likely collected every religious scroll it could get
possession of or duplicate. My own personal library contains many Catholic works, to
include Catholic catechisms and several Catholic Bibles, but this does not make me a
Catholic, nor does it indicate I accept the Catholic canon. This would quite obviously
apply to Qumran.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

The bottom line, Michael, is that without the Sacred Tradition of the
Church, not only would the canon of the Bible remain uncertain but it is
likely that at least some of the works would have been lost or mixed
amidst so many other apocryphal writings from the ancient Jewish and
Christian world.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I reject that premise, as it denies the power of God to preserve His inspired word. I
maintain that we would still have the same 66 books of the Protestant Bible today, even if
no Catholic council had EVER declared the canon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
 To justify the elimination of the deutero-canonical works you basically
have to reject the councils and great Scriptural writers such as St.
Augustine from at least as early as the fourth century AD.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

On this point you are 100% correct. I do most emphatically and completely reject all
Catholic councils, papal decrees, and Church fathers who endorsed the Apocryphal books.
My authority for this, as made clear from my article, is the quotations of Christ previously
cited in the New Testament. To the unbiased reader, the infallible magisterium of the
Catholic Church, and the whole of Catholic Tradition falls like a house of cards on this one
point.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I invite you to reconsider you position.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have not presented anything that refutes the words of Jesus Christ that I have cited.
You are asking me to turn my back on truth that I can see clearly in Holy Scripture, for
Catholic Tradition which plainly contradicts the teaching of Jesus Christ.

I invite you, and your Catholic readers to abandon the Traditions of men, and the allegedly
infallible Magisterium that clearly erred in declaring the Apocryphal books canonical, and
adopt in their stead the 66 books of the Protestant Bible as the sole ruler of faith.

Again, your reply, if any, will be appended to my article at biblelight.net/hebrew-

canon.htm

Michael Scheifler

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 07-19-2001

(Deleted at EWTN on 23 July 2001)

Michael:

Not only did I delete your web address in the previous post but I have deleted your
arguments in this post, which may mislead the Faithful who are in full communion
with the Church. In so doing I am guarding what has been entrusted to me, as the
Bible teaches:
 [1 Tim] 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless
chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, 6:21 for by professing
it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. Grace be with you.

[2 Tim] 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me,
in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 1:14 guard the truth that has been
entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Father Echert

In resorting to this tactic of censorship, it should be clear to even Catholic readers that Fr. Echert
has conceded that he is simply unable to deal with the truth, AND HE KNOWS IT. I could get
no stronger endorsement from him that my article at biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm is
absolutely true, and that it proves beyond any doubt that the Roman Catholic magisterium which
claims to be infallible in matters of faith is no such thing, having clearly erred fundamentally in
defining the canon of the Old Testament.

Heed this warning from Jesus Christ, Fr. Echert, for it applies to you!

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered
not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

An Email from EWTN's Vice President

(EWTN is not a happy camper!)

Subject: Your post of EWTN material at http://biblelight.net/hebrew-canon. htm

Date: 20 July 2001

Dear Sir,

While you are entitled to your freedom of opinion about the Catholic Faith, you are not
entitled legally or morally to violate the intellectual property rights of EWTN, as you have
done, by taking either in whole or in part material from our site for posting on your own.

Consider this a notice to desist. We thank you in advance for doing so.

God bless.
Colin B. Donovan
Vice President
Eternal Word Television Network

My reply to Colin Donovan - dated 20 July 2001

Mr. Donovan,

With all due respect, please note the following points:

1. Fr. Echert was clearly notified IN ADVANCE that his reply to my inquiry, if any,
would be published on my web site. Posting a response on EWTN's forum clearly
constituted acceptance of that condition on his part. If that was a condition unacceptable to
EWTN, then he was under no obligation to post my inquiry or his reply in the EWTN
forum.

2. The applicable U.S. copyright law on fair use reads as follows:

Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
 3. So, I am within the law in posting EWTN material on my web site so long as its for the
purposes of one of the following conditions: criticism, comment, news reporting, or
teaching. As anyone can plainly see, I have been well within my legal rights to repost my
discussion with Fr. Echert on my web site, since it easily fits ALL these requirements.

4. Also, since I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Mystery Babylon spoken of
by John in Revelation, I have a clear moral and religious obligation to preach this truth as
best I can, so that people will know the truth and come OUT of Mystery Babylon. So my
conscience is quite clear: I have NOT violated any sense of ethics or morality by
reposting material regarding my discussion with Fr. Echert from EWTN's Scripture forum
on my web site.

5. Consequently, I would maintain that you have no right, legally, ethically, or morally to
censor my web site. I am clearly engaged in criticism, comment, and teaching that Roman
Catholicism is a doctrinally apostate church. Since you, as Vice President of EWTN, have
in your official capacity attempted to further censor me, that is also validly NEWS, and
your email, and this response to you, have been appended to the article at
http://biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm

6. Now should you wish to pursue this matter further in a court of law, I will be happy to
call on the Religious Liberty legal resources of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to
represent me. I don't think you want the kind of public attention that would automatically
draw to this matter.

Michael Scheifler

When are Roman Catholics going to learn that the medieval tactic of censorship only serves to
spread even farther the information they want so desperately to repress?

Colin Donovan's Second Email - 20 July 2001

RE: Your post of EWTN material at http://biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm

Dated 20 July 2001

For the Glory of the Most Holy Trinity,

Mr. Scheifler,

Thank you for your quick response. Given the facts as you state them your belief that you
did not violate our copyright is understandable. However, Fr. Eckert does not have the
right to grant you copyright permission and you are hereby informed that any implied
permission is revoked.

As for fair use, publishing something in its entirety, even for criticism, on the Internet can
hardly constitute fair use, otherwise you could post a newly published novel, interspersed
with your comments.

Finally, as for censorship, we have no power to censor you, as we have no control over
your web site. We request that you apply the same standards of justice and charity that you
would expect to have applied to yourself. Justice is "do unto others as you would have
them do unto you." Charity is "to love your enemies."

I remain sincerely yours in Christ,

- Colin Donovan

My Second Reply to Colin Donovan - 20 July 2001

Mr. Donovan,

Under U.S. copyright law, fair use does not require your permission.

Also, please note point 4 [2] of the fair use clause:

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

Due to the nature of my inquiry of Fr. Echert, and his responses, which involves a
scholarly debate, it was patently unfair for him to censor the web address of my article,
since he chose to voluntarily post my inquiry and respond to it. That web address was the
only way some EWTN readers would be able to gain access to the article Fr. Echert was
responding to, in order to judge for themselves the merits of my position. I will not be
guilty of the same blatant unfairness on my web site. No true scholar interested in a free
exchange of opposing ideas would even contemplate it.

Fr. Echert and EWTN have an undeniable right, in fairness, to have his entire remarks
available in the same article as my comments in response to him. Any court would likely
agree fully in this specific case. I expected the same sense of fair play, justice, and charity
in the EWTN site that I rigidly follow on my web site, but I did not get it. That you are
now attempting to remove Fr. Echert's responses from my web site only reinforces that
fact.

Please heed the following counsel from the Apostle Paul:

1 Cor 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust,
and not before the saints?
1 Cor 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be
judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1 Cor 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to
this life?
1 Cor 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who
are least esteemed in the church.
1 Cor 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not
one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
1 Cor 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1 Cor 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with
another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be
defrauded?

If you still feel you have been wronged by me in this matter, then take this publicly before
the church, via the EWTN web site, and not before a secular court, which, I am confident,
would not support you in any case. Furthermore, If you can demonstrate to me clearly that
I have legally wronged EWTN, and infringed on your intellectual property rights, then I
assure you I will apologize and remove that infringing material from my web site.

Again, under that principle, I will post your 2nd email, as well as this response to my web
site.

Michael Scheifler

My Third Email to Colin Donovan - 23 July 2001

Mr. Donovan,

I would like to refer you to Fr. Echert's forum and the following email he has posted from
Anna on 07-20-2001:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum7&recnu=8&number=213779
[Deleted on 23 July at EWTN]

This is a most interesting development. Fr. Echert, who has been quite unable to logically
rebut my article on the Hebrew Canon, has sunk to posting ad hominem that characterizes
me as a demon possessed hate monger in need of psychiatric help. Is this the level of
debate you encourage and condone at EWTN as a Vice President?

Now I am not suggesting for a moment that this item be removed, since I would never try
to censor EWTN. PLEASE, let it remain, since it only helps me make my case against
Catholicism to the discerning reader, Protestant and Catholic alike. I am positively
 AMAZED that Fr. Echert is apparently unable to see this. It does make me wonder if he
will post any emails he may have received from Catholics that are critical of his
censorship. Would I be permitted to respond to this, and any similar email posted in his
forum?

Should you choose to reply, I will add it after this email on my web page at:
http://biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm

Michael Scheifler

EWTN Capitulates and Removes All Related Forum Entries.

As a result of the above email, EWTN on 23 July edited its Scripture Forum as follows:

1. The bulk of Anna's remarks, mentioned above, have been edited out, leaving just
two sentences. To anyone reading that item now, there is no hint at all that her
remarks have been edited in any way at all. I doubt that anyone will find this
practice acceptable. When remarks have been edited, it should be apparent to the
reader exactly when and where editing has occurred.
2. The title of Anna's post, as well two others, were changed from my name to
Sacred Scriptures.
3. Most significantly, Fr. Echert's second reply to me, that had been posted on 07-
19-2001, where he admitted to censoring my point by point responses in order to
protect his readers, has been deleted entirely by EWTN. Now it seems to the
Catholic visitor to the Scripture Forum that I have never responded to Fr. Echert's
initial posting on 7-16-2001 which, curiously, remains on EWTN's site,
apparently unchanged. This erroneously leaves the impression that Fr. Echert has
won the discussion by default. Could anything be more unfair than this?

On 24 July, Anna's post was totally deleted along with another that referred to my posts, as well
as Fr. Echert's initial reply to my inquiry. Now everything related to my inquiry to EWTN has
been expunged from the Scripture forum. The reason is obvious. Leaving anything at all in the
Scripture forum was simply unacceptable and would provoke further discussion, and questions
that EWTN would not be able to answer. There is only one way to view this, a complete
capitulation on the part of EWTN on the topic of the Hebrew Canon, that my article on the
Hebrew Canon is true, and totally beyond their capability to refute. This is so serious a threat to
Catholicism, in their view, that nothing could be allowed to remain on the EWTN forum
regarding it. It is as if it never happened, but many Catholics know it did, and they know why
EWTN felt compelled to remove it.

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, ...

Colin Donovan's Third Email - 31 July 2001

No, EWTN removed it because of the un-Christian polemics your efforts to proselytize on
our web site were creating. Having abused the good will of others, such as by posting the
private emails sent to you by myself in effort to address this matter, you have made a
cordial resolution impossible.

Your dissertation on the Canon ignores the fact that no Hebrew canon existed until the late
first century AD, when a council of Palestinian rabbis came up with one. This canon took
centuries to be widely accepted among Jews, and hardly constitutes an authoritative
position for the Church, to whom Christ gave a supernatural teaching charism. For
moderns, those with recently founded theologies, like yourself to rely on merely
rationalistic analysis, in a matter which historical science cannot definitively settle, is to
fall victim to the same trap which divided the schools of rabbis in Our Lord's day and
which His gift of apostolic authority to the Church was meant to prevent. Certainty in
some matters of the faith is necessary for the salvation of souls. Apostolic Tradition
guarantees the authenticity of those matters. Rationalistic arguments that go round and
round do not.

God bless.

My Fourth Email to Colin Donovan - 01 August 2001

Mr. Donovan,

In reply to your email of 31 July:

No, EWTN removed it because of the un-Christian polemics your efforts to

proselytize on our web site were creating.

I agree that the ad hominem from Anna that Fr. Echert posted in his forum was not in
keeping with a scholarly Christian debate. Unfortunately, my experience has been that it is
all too common for Catholics to react that way in such discussions.

Having abused the good will of others, such as by posting the private emails sent
to you by myself in effort to address this matter, you have made a cordial
resolution impossible.

I initiated the discussion with Fr. Echert, and from the very beginning EWTN was on
notice it was an open email invitation to a public discussion, and any reply would be
published on my web site. Now your "good will", as you put it, was nothing short of an
attempt to censor my web site after the discussion was going very badly for EWTN, on a
topic you recognize to be of immense consequence to Catholicism, and not one you could
afford to publicly lose.

You simply cannot allow Catholic readers access to the simple facts of this discussion
because you fully realize you have nothing that will stand up in comparison to Christ's
own very clear words. In effect, you have cut your losses through censorship on your own
site, bailing out of a discussion that you perceive as a lost cause.

You also want any evidence of EWTN participation removed from my site as well, in
order to conceal your inability to respond effectively. Your actions will be perceived by
everyone as an acknowledgment on EWTN's part that you cannot refute the point I have
raised, and know well the inevitable consequence: that the Catholic canon of the Old
Testament is in error, and magisterial "infallibility" of Popes and Church Councils is
nothing but a pious fraud.

Your dissertation on the Canon ignores the fact that no Hebrew canon existed until
the late first century AD, when a council of Palestinian rabbis came up with one.

On the contrary, Christ and the Apostles had no problem at all identifying the canon of
Scripture, as my essay shows quite clearly, long before the Council of Jamnia. That you
want to divert attention from the easily discerned meaning of the cited verses comes as no
real surprise.

In recent years Catholic apologists have made the claim that nowhere in scripture is the
canon defined, and that this in their opinion, was surely a fatal blow to Sola Scriptura. Just
in the last few hours I saw Fr. Levis and Fr. Trigilio make the same faulty argument on
EWTN. I think there is a certain poetic justice in having that proved so conclusively
wrong that all "infallible" Catholic Tradition falls inevitably after the simple truth
regarding the Old Testament canon is known.

Does this leave Catholics adrift without an anchor on which to rely? No. It just confirms
the absolute authority of Scripture as the sole ruler for doctrine, which has no peers in
Popes, or Councils, or the Traditions of men. Only Scripture is our inspired infallible
teacher.

This canon took centuries to be widely accepted among Jews, and hardly
constitutes an authoritative position for the Church, to whom Christ gave a
supernatural teaching charism.

Under the circumstances, I would never expect you to accept the Council of Jamnia as
authoritative, since the Roman Catholic Church reserves that authority to itself. In any
case, I do not rest my argument on the Council of Jamnia, but rather on the very sure
foundation of the words of Christ, cited in the New Testament. Those quotes have an
authority that exceeds any council, and are something you simply cannot refute.

For moderns, those with recently founded theologies, like yourself to rely on
merely rationalistic analysis, in a matter which historical science cannot
definitively settle, is to fall victim to the same trap which divided the schools of
rabbis in Our Lord's day and which His gift of apostolic authority to the Church
was meant to prevent. Certainty in some matters of the faith is necessary for the
salvation of souls. Apostolic Tradition guarantees the authenticity of those matters.
Rationalistic arguments that go round and round do not.

The whole point of my essay addresses certainty, absolutely ironclad certainty pertaining
to the Old Testament canon. I would respectfully submit that the words of Jesus Christ
Himself show, quite clearly and quite irrefutably, that the Hebrew canon was regarded by
Him to be the full extent of inspired scripture in His time. This excludes the Apocryphal
books from canonical consideration, and is proof positive that "infallible" Popes and
Church councils have erred in this regard.

Now if you still disagree, you are publicly, openly, and cordially invited to restore, and
resume the discussion in your EWTN scripture forum on an intelligent and scholarly level,
free of any ad hominem or repressive censorship of my remarks for your Catholic readers.
Failing that, we can continue this open discussion on my web site, as we have been, where
the comments of both sides are presented quite fairly, which is to say in full.

Again this is a public discussion, and this email and your reply, if any, will be posted on
my web site.

Michael Scheifler

Colin Donovan's Fourth Email - 1 August 2001

Your assertion that the Jewish Canon was clear in Christ's day, and proclaimed by the
Lord Himself, is just not historically accurate. For instance the reference in Lk. 24:44 to
the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms refers in the first place to places in Sacred Scripture
where prophecies of Christ are given. It is also a clear liturgical reference which every Jew
would recognize, since Torah and haftorah readings in the synagogue were, and still are,
taken from these books. He makes no mention of the Writings (except for Psalms). In
Christ's day the historical, moral and wisdom literature were widely considered inspired,
but not universally so. They were seldom used in the synagogue. Christ' reference is no
more a complete canon than His listing of commandments in Mt 19:18 is a complete Ten
Commandments.
As for Jamnia's canon, it was drawn up in contradistinction to the developing Christian
Scriptures and theology. It can hardly be considered authoritative, or even representative
of first century Judaism, to Christians. Why would Christians look to the People of the Old
Law for their canon, when the fallibility of their traditions was clearly identified but Jesus.
The Scriptures, correctly identified are not fallible, but the human judgment about what
constitutes them, and how they are to be interpreted, is. Post-Exilic Judaism and
Protestantism are sufficient proof of the error of private judgment. Only by means of a
supernatural charism committed to the Church (as represented in Peter), as opposed to the
leaven of the several Pharisee (and thousands of Protestant) theologies, can an
authoritative canon be identified and an authoritative judgment about Scripture's meaning
be proclaimed (Mt 16:5-18). Christ spoke with authority, and so does the Church.
Mankind is free to take them or leave them. But as Augustine said, "No one can have God
as His Father who does not also have the Church as His Mother" … "if he neglect to hear
the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Mt. 18:17)

God bless.

P.S. Spare your readership your condescending insights into what other people mean, or
the absolute certainty of your logical conclusions. Its poor scholarship. Unless you have a
charism of infallibility, yrou conclusions are far from self-evident. That they are to you is
simply human nature at work.

My Fifth Email to Colin Donovan - 1 August 2001

Mr. Donovan,

Regarding your email of 1 August:

Your assertion that the Jewish Canon was clear in Christ's day, and proclaimed by
the Lord Himself, is just not historically accurate.

The historical record having the foremost authority in this matter is Scripture itself, and
the words of Jesus Christ that testify to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon, and the
references to the first and last books of that same canon. Since He is God incarnate, I
expect He knows with unerring precision the extent of the canon.

It is also interesting that in all the discussion about Scripture in the New Testament, there
was never a dispute recorded between the Christians and Jews over the canon. One would
have to conclude that there was agreement in what comprised inspired Scripture, that
being the same canon the Jews recognize today and call the TaNaKh, which excludes the
Apocryphal books.
 For instance the reference in Lk. 24:44 to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms
refers in the first place to places in Sacred Scripture where prophecies of Christ are
given. It is also a clear liturgical reference which every Jew would recognize, since
Torah and haftorah readings in the synagogue were, and still are, taken from these
books. He makes no mention of the Writings (except for Psalms).

Psalms is the first and largest book in the third division of the Hebrew bible, and that last
division apparently did not have a settled title in the time of Christ, hence the reference to
only the first book of the division, which was obviously symbolic for what today is called
the Ketuvim (Writings) or Hagiographa. It is not unknown for the Writings to simply be
called Psalms, even historically by other writers.

In Christ's day the historical, moral and wisdom literature were widely considered
inspired, but not universally so. They were seldom used in the synagogue. Christ'
reference is no more a complete canon than His listing of commandments in Mt
19:18 is a complete Ten Commandments.

What Christ made reference to was the three Hebrew divisions of Scripture and the first
and last books that define the limits of the Old Testament. While not literally a complete
index of the inspired books, the Hebrew canon is obviously the one Christ recognized.

As for Jamnia's canon, it was drawn up in contradistinction to the developing

Christian Scriptures and theology. It can hardly be considered authoritative, or
even representative of first century Judaism, to Christians. Why would Christians
look to the People of the Old Law for their canon, when the fallibility of their
traditions was clearly identified but Jesus. The Scriptures, correctly identified are
not fallible, but the human judgment about what constitutes them, and how they
are to be interpreted, is. Post-Exilic Judaism and Protestantism are sufficient proof
of the error of private judgment.

Again, the foundation upon which my essay is built is not Jamnia, it is the testimony of
Christ recorded in the New Testament.

Only by means of a supernatural charism committed to the Church (as represented

in Peter), as opposed to the leaven of the several Pharisee (and thousands of
Protestant) theologies, can an authoritative canon be identified and an authoritative
judgment about Scripture's meaning be proclaimed (Mt 16:5-18).
On the contrary, I am quite secure in the belief that I do not need Catholics to tell me what
constitutes the canon, nor do I need Catholics to interpret the intended meaning of Holy
Scripture.

Christ spoke with authority, and so does the Church. Mankind is free to take them
or leave them. But as Augustine said, "No one can have God as His Father who
does not also have the Church as His Mother" … "if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Mt. 18:17)

Well then, it boils down to just who the true remnant church is. John the Revelator defines
the true church this way:

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of
Jesus Christ.

Now I would suggest that my essay on the Hebrew canon is based quite securely on the
testimony of Jesus Christ, while you are appealing instead to unbiblical Tradition. And as
to keeping the commandments of God, we Seventh-day Adventists observe the seventh
day of the week (Saturday) as a Sabbath day of rest, just as Exodus 20:8-11 declares. This
Catholics clearly don't do, since they pride themselves in their changing this precept of
God, making Sunday, the first day of the week, the day of worship and rest. This change
Catholics also admit, is not based on any command found in Scripture, but rather on the
Church's sense of its own power and authority, being rooted in nothing more than
Tradition. So, based on Holy Scripture, you are not lining up with the characteristics
delineating the true church.

P.S. Spare your readership your condescending insights into what other people
mean, or the absolute certainty of your logical conclusions. Its poor scholarship.
Unless you have a charism of infallibility, yrou conclusions are far from self-
evident. That they are to you is simply human nature at work.

I will let my readers be the judge in this matter. At least my readers have that opportunity.

Again this is a public discussion, and this email and your reply, if any, will be posted on
my web site.

Michael

Colin Donovan's Fifth Email - 2 August 2001

While Jesus knew with unerring accuracy the extent of the Canon you do not. A Canon is
a list of the books, not a dart throw - "well, there's this group and there's this group, and
there's that group." Either The Lord gave a list which is verifiable and complete or He did
not. He did not, any more than He gave anything more than a representative listing of the
Decalogue in Luke 24. Your assertion that the mention of a single book of the Writings at
that place constitutes proof of your position on the extent of the third part of the Tanach is
a logical non sequitur. This is especially true when the Jewish practice of the day clearly
recognized the Psalms but not the historical or wisdom books. That leaves the question of
the extent of inspiration with respect to the "Writings" to the Christian era, for which the
Jamnia rabbis are not MY authority. Christ and His Apostles are. And if He didn't provide
a Canon in the written Tradition (Scripture) then we must look to the oral Tradition (2
Thes. 2:15), as found in the ecclesiastical writings and decisions of the first centuries.

But lets be honest with your readers, as a Seventh day Adventist you can no more accept
that the early Church received the Canon orally from Christ and the Apostles than you can
accept that Sunday is the Day of the Lord in Acts 20:7 and Rev. 1:10. Your position is the
absolute private interpretation of a less than 200 year old theological tradition, at odds
with other Protestants on many points. Frankly, in many ways I find that a more honest
sola scriptura position than the pick and choose "traditions" of liberal Catholics and
Protestants. So, I think on the matter of whether there is an apostolic Tradition, distinct
from merely human traditions, we will continue to disagree, hopefully amicably.

God bless.

My Sixth Email to Colin Donovan - 3 August 2001

Mr. Donovan,

Regarding your email of 2 August:

While Jesus knew with unerring accuracy the extent of the Canon you do not. A
Canon is a list of the books, not a dart throw - "well, there's this group and there's
this group, and there's that group." Either The Lord gave a list which is verifiable
and complete or He did not. He did not, any more than He gave anything more
than a representative listing of the Decalogue in Luke 24. [he means Matt 19:18-
19]

In Matthew 19:18-19 Jesus mentions the last 6 Commandments of the second table of the
Decalogue regarding our duty to mankind, and those not mentioned cover our duty to
God. Now do you think it would have been necessary for Christ to list them all for His
audience to fully understand what He was talking about, or did His audience know exactly
and precisely what He meant? Without question they knew, since Jesus was referring to
something that was long standing and well known, the 10 Commandments given to Moses
at Sinai. The fact that He did not mention them all does not permit the possibility that He
could have been referring to some other nebulous list that included additional
commandments, beyond the ten, as your position would logically require.

In a similar manner, there is simply no way Luke 24:44-45, Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51
can be applied to anything but the Hebrew canon, which is precisely what Christ's
audience understood Him to be speaking about (explained in next paragraph).

Your assertion that the mention of a single book of the Writings at that place
constitutes proof of your position on the extent of the third part of the Tanach is a
logical non sequitur. This is especially true when the Jewish practice of the day
clearly recognized the Psalms but not the historical or wisdom books. That leaves
the question of the extent of inspiration with respect to the "Writings" to the
Christian era, for which the Jamnia rabbis are not MY authority. Christ and His
Apostles are. And if He didn't provide a Canon in the written Tradition (Scripture)
then we must look to the oral Tradition (2 Thes. 2:15), as found in the
ecclesiastical writings and decisions of the first centuries.

You seem to be overlooking a very important point. In Luke 24:44-45, Christ mentions
Psalms, obviously pertaining to a third division of Scripture, and Psalms is the first and
largest book of that division. Next, in Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51, the reference to
Zechariah is plainly referring to the last book of Scripture, which in the Hebrew Bible is 2
Chronicles. So when these three verses are considered together, Christ has defined the
third division of Old Testament Scripture as beginning at Psalms and ending with 2
Chronicles. Here is the logical result of what Christ said:

TaNaKh
(Hebrew Bible As Delineated By Christ)
The Law The Prophets The Writings
Genesis - Deuteronomy Joshua - Malachi Psalms - 2 Chronicles

Now this conclusion is plainly evident, and quite precise, and can only apply to the
Hebrew canon, not the grouping and order of the Greek Septuagint, which is radically
different [see article].

So if Christ is indeed your highest authority on this matter, then the inevitable result is
quite clear, the canon of the Catholic Church is in error, and it must be rejected, along
with "infallible" Popes and Councils who in error affirmed the Apocryphal books as
canonical. That argument is so simple and logical as to be quite irrefutable.
 But lets be honest with your readers, as a Seventh day Adventist you can no more
accept that the early Church received the Canon orally from Christ and the
Apostles than you can accept that Sunday is the Day of the Lord in Acts 20:7 and
Rev. 1:10.

If you are suggesting that the Apocrypha were passed on by Christ via oral Tradition, you
are correct, that is unacceptable, since it clearly contradicts the written record of Christ's
teaching in the New Testament.

Now, as to the phrase "day of the Lord", it appears 25 times in scripture, in 23 verses, but I
will cite just one passage:

Zep 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice
of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
Zep 1:15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and
desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

Now I would respectfully suggest that "day of the LORD" here, as elsewhere in scripture,
is clearly a reference to the day of the second coming of Jesus Christ, and not Sunday.

Regarding Acts 20:7, it will apparently surprise you to know that I concede that the first
day of the week is indeed Sunday. That is not in dispute by anyone that I know of. The
question is whether or not "breaking bread" on that day constituted a communion service,
and can be used as evidence that the disciples were keeping Sunday. On that issue, I will
quote a Catholic publication:

Let us call attention to the same Acts 2d chapter, 46th verse: "And they, continuing daily
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," etc. Who does not see at a glance
that the text produced [Acts 20:7] to prove the exclusive prerogative of Sunday, vanishes
into thin air — an ignis fatuus — when placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the
same chapter? What the Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone, the same
authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day of the week: "And they,
continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house."

So the fact that they were breaking bread on the first day of the week proves nothing,
since Acts 2:46 shows this was done daily. Sunday sacredness simply finds no support in
Acts 20:7, and Catholics have freely admitted this.

On Revelation 1:10, and the expression "Lord's day", I quote the same Catholic source as
above

Has St. John used the expression [Lord's day] previously in his Gospel or Epistles? —
Emphatically, NO. Has he had occasion to refer to Sunday hitherto? —Yes, twice. How
did he designate Sunday on these occasions? Easter Sunday was called by him (John 20:1)
"the first day of the week." Again, chapter twenty, nineteenth verse: "Now when it was
late that same day, being the first day of the week." Evidently, although inspired, both in
his Gospel and Epistles, he called Sunday "the first day of the week." On what grounds,
then, can it be assumed that he dropped that designation? Was he more inspired when he
wrote the Apocalypse, or did he adopt a new title for Sunday, because it was now in
vogue? A reply to these questions would be supererogatory especially to the latter, seeing
that the same expression had been used eight times already by St. Luke, St. Paul and St.
Peter, all under divine inspiration, and surely the Holy Spirit would not inspire St. John to
call Sunday the Lord's day, whilst He inspired Sts. Luke, Paul, and Peter, collectively, to
entitle the day of judgment "the Lord's day."

See: ROME'S CHALLENGE - Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?

Now the Catholic Mirror, quoted above, was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons and
the Papacy in the United States, and it eloquently makes the case that neither "day of the
LORD" or "Lord's day" ever refer to Sunday in scripture, but rather to the second coming
of Christ. It concludes that Sola Scriptura Protestants should either keep the seventh day
(Saturday) holy as the Bible plainly teaches, or abandon Protestantism and the Bible as
their only rule of faith to join the Catholic Church in its Tradition of Sunday keeping. I
could not agree more.

Your position is the absolute private interpretation of a less than 200 year old
theological tradition, at odds with other Protestants on many points. Frankly, in
many ways I find that a more honest sola scriptura position than the pick and
choose "traditions" of liberal Catholics and Protestants.

To their shame, there are indeed many so-called Protestants who nominally lay claim to
Sola Scriptura, yet on many points follow Catholic Tradition rather than what the Bible
teaches.

So, I think on the matter of whether there is an apostolic Tradition, distinct from
merely human traditions, we will continue to disagree, hopefully amicably.

I think it will be apparent to most everyone that you have still not provided anything
substantial in rebuttal, certainly nothing that would even come close to refuting the clear
words of Christ delineating the Hebrew canon. Therefore, I cordially extend an invitation
to you, and to all Catholic readers, to abandon the untrustworthy Traditions of men, and
the allegedly infallible Catholic Magisterium that clearly erred in declaring the
Apocryphal books canonical, and adopt in their stead the 66 books of the Protestant Bible
as the sole ruler of faith.
Again this is a public discussion, and this email and your reply, if any, will be posted on
my web site.

Michael

Colin Donovan's Sixth Email - 3 August 2001

And you have not given anything substantial in support of your position. By any definition
your position is an interpretation. To the listeners of His day the Scriptures did not
necessarily coincident to what you consider the extent of the Tanach. Jews differed on
these matters, and Palestinian and Diaspora Jews quite considerably. You cannot make a
case for an evident Canon based on Christ's words. If it requires interpolating, as you do,
then it is a poor standard. Christ does not give poor standards, He provided a Church,
which interpreted in His name and by His authority, as they did regarding whether the
Mosaic law extent (Acts 15). As for the Decalogue, to list the commandments regarding
man, (6 in Exodus, 7 in Deuteronomy), is still to give a partial list. The young man's
question was which commandments must he keep to enter eternal life – apparently not
those regarding God. Since that can't be true, Christ was giving a representative list. He
didn't need to spell everything out because He did not leave His people at the mercy of
their own private and incomplete interpretation of His words, but left them authoritative
interpreters in His apostles, and those whom they appointed to succeed them as
"overseers" (bishops) of the Church.

As for Saturday or Sunday, your position entails the absurd contention that all early
Christians, including the thousands of martyrs for Christ during the imperial persecutions,
were in error in celebrating Sunday, that the disciples of Christ turn a left turn as soon as
the apostles died, and everyone was in error until modern Sabbatarians came along. You
are entitled to your position. However, please admit that it has as its basis only your
church's 18 centuries after the fact interpretation of Scripture.

Again, your claims to the self-evident meaning of Scripture, when you can drive a
Volkswagen through the holes in your logic, begs the question of the correctness of your
interpretation. YOU must prove, logically, syllogistically, your position, without "deus ex
machina" filling I nof the meaning. Literal words, not interpolations, please. I need not.
Mine rests on the authority of the Apostolic Tradition. Scripture witnesses sufficiently to
Catholic claims; witnesses, not proves. The Church like Christ speaks with authority, it
doesn't proof-text. Peter, like Christ, is a stumbling stone (skandalon), upon which many
rise or fall.

God bless.

My Seventh Email to Colin Donovan - 4 August 2001

Mr. Donovan,

Regarding your email of 3 August:

And you have not given anything substantial in support of your position.

I think even the average reader will be able to see that is just not true.

By any definition your position is an interpretation.

It is a logical conclusion, deduced from the facts.

To the listeners of His day the Scriptures did not necessarily coincident to
what you consider the extent of the Tanach. Jews differed on these matters,
and Palestinian and Diaspora Jews quite considerably. You cannot make a
case for an evident Canon based on Christ's words.

On the contrary, I think the case has been made, and quite effectively, but I will let the
reader judge.

If it requires interpolating, as you do, then it is a poor standard. Christ does not
give poor standards, He provided a Church, which interpreted in His name and
by His authority, as they did regarding whether the Mosaic law extent (Acts
15).

Much of Christ's teaching was in the form of parables, which by their nature were not
immediately understood by many who heard them, and He was asked about this:

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in
parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance:
but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing
they hear not, neither do they understand.

So what you are calling a poor standard was the intentional teaching method of Christ,
used to divide sheep from goats.
 As for the Decalogue, to list the commandments regarding man, (6 in Exodus,
7 in Deuteronomy), is still to give a partial list. The young man's question was
which commandments must he keep to enter eternal life – apparently not those
regarding God. Since that can't be true, Christ was giving a representative list.
He didn't need to spell everything out because He did not leave His people at
the mercy of their own private and incomplete interpretation of His words, but
left them authoritative interpreters in His apostles, and those whom they
appointed to succeed them as "overseers" (bishops) of the Church.

You are suggesting that in order for anyone to understand what Christ was referring to in
Matt 19:18-19, it is necessary for everyone to consult with a priest simply because not
every commandment was mentioned. Is this what the man did? Was the man in doubt, and
in need of a priest to tell him what commandments were meant?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall
I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not
commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up:
what lack I yet?

Obviously the man knew exactly what commandments Christ was referring to. He did not
need the remaining commandments recited for clarity, so this passage actually speaks
against your position.

As for Saturday or Sunday, your position entails the absurd contention that all
early Christians, including the thousands of martyrs for Christ during the
imperial persecutions, were in error in celebrating Sunday, that the disciples of
Christ turn a left turn as soon as the apostles died, and everyone was in error
until modern Sabbatarians came along. You are entitled to your position.
However, please admit that it has as its basis only your church's 18 centuries
after the fact interpretation of Scripture.

I would maintain that history shows there have always been those who kept the seventh
day (Saturday) Sabbath, since the time of Christ, and that Sunday keeping only developed
gradually over time, but was completely unknown to the Apostolic church.
 Again, your claims to the self-evident meaning of Scripture, when you can
drive a Volkswagen through the holes in your logic, begs the question of the
correctness of your interpretation. YOU must prove, logically, syllogistically,
your position, without "deus ex machina" filling I nof the meaning. Literal
words, not interpolations, please. I need not. Mine rests on the authority of the
Apostolic Tradition. Scripture witnesses sufficiently to Catholic claims;
witnesses, not proves. The Church like Christ speaks with authority, it doesn't
proof-text. Peter, like Christ, is a stumbling stone (skandalon), upon which
many rise or fall.

The strongest evidence that I can offer that you don't really believe that, that you have
little confidence in your argument, is the censoring of my discussion from Fr. Echert's
Scripture forum. This action is clearly intended to prevent Catholics from reading my
essay on the Hebrew canon, because once they read and understand it, you will have a
major credibility problem on your hands. Fr. Echert implied as much, when he said in his
post of 19 July:

Not only did I delete your web address in the previous post but I have deleted
your arguments in this post, which may mislead the Faithful who are in full
communion with the Church.

So if my argument is full of holes, and this could be proved conclusively, you would
undoubtedly be quite willing to set me straight before your EWTN Scripture Forum
readers, so that what you believe to be the superior Traditions of the Roman Catholic
Church could be exhibited publicly, and a Bible believing, commandment keeping
Adventist, relying on the testimony of Jesus Christ, shown to be sadly misguided. Why
don't you do that? I think your censorship of EWTN speaks louder than your words, that
even in your own estimation people will clearly see that Jesus Christ endorsed the Hebrew
Canon of the Old Testament, to the automatic exclusion of the Apocryphal books, thus
proving the "infallible" Catholic Magisterium a myth, and that is why you cannot permit
this discussion, or even a link to it, to be available on EWTN's scripture forum.

Again this is a public discussion, and this email and your reply, if any, will be posted on
my web site.

Michael

Colin Donovan's Seventh Email - 6 August 2001

Its hard to fight categorical assertions based on the supplying of information where none
exist. You could use a course in Aristotle's Analytics. Christ either gave a list or He didn't.
He didn't. If He didn't then must He have intended an accepted Canon as He intended an
accepted Decalogue? There is no necessity there. The Decalogue was settled 1200 years
earlier with Moses and was contained within recognized Scripture, the Torah. The books
used in the synagogue, with which Jews would have been familiar, were the Torah, the
Prophets and Psalms. The recognizability of His reference was clear, to liturgical use, not
a settled canon. AND, among the various parties of Jews – Sadducces, Pharisees, Essenes
- there were different opinions, as well. The Sadducees limited their canon to the Torah.
Other books, not generally used in the synagogue, were later accepted by both Jews and
Christians as Scripture. Both Eastern and Western Christians, that is Orthodox and
Catholics, accepted a broader canon than rabbinical Jews, medieval descendants of the
Pharisee party, who naturally accepted the Pharisee opinion from Jamnia. To canonize that
post-Christian opinion as the mind of Christ, or even of Palestinian Jews of Christ's day,
has no basis.

In the situation of the uncertain 1st century Canon Christ either told His apostles what it
consisted in, or, He left it for the mission of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church, as
was done in many other things, such as the applicability of the Mosaic Law to Christians
(Acts 15). Clearly this is an unacceptable position for you, since it contradicts the
Adventist theory of history that the whole Church went astray in the first century until
Seventh Day Adventism came along. Well, that's a theory, and you are entitled to it. As
you say, let your readers judge.

Thank you for an engaging dialogue. Since we tend to be repeating ourselves, I consider
my part at an end. I'm sure you will turn that into a capitulation, instead of a recognition
that we have gone about as far as we can go with it. But, do as you must.

God bless.

My Eighth Email to Colin Donovan - 12 August 2001

Mr. Donovan,

Regarding your email of 6 August:

Its hard to fight categorical assertions based on the supplying of information

where none exist.

That you are having difficulty is apparent to everyone, but to the contrary, the information
provided in my article is conclusive, and this is easily seen by most everyone. The beauty
is its simplicity and clarity, and this is also what makes your attempts at rebuttal and
obfuscation quite ineffective.
 You could use a course in Aristotle's Analytics.

Presumably you have had such a course, and I would suggest that it has not helped you in
this case. I think my study of scripture has served me better.

Christ either gave a list or He didn't. He didn't. If He didn't then must He have
intended an accepted Canon as He intended an accepted Decalogue? There is
no necessity there. The Decalogue was settled 1200 years earlier with Moses
and was contained within recognized Scripture, the Torah. The books used in
the synagogue, with which Jews would have been familiar, were the Torah,
the Prophets and Psalms. The recognizability of His reference was clear, to
liturgical use, not a settled canon. AND, among the various parties of Jews –
Sadducces, Pharisees, Essenes - there were different opinions, as well. The
Sadducees limited their canon to the Torah. Other books, not generally used in
the synagogue, were later accepted by both Jews and Christians as Scripture.
Both Eastern and Western Christians, that is Orthodox and Catholics, accepted
a broader canon than rabbinical Jews, medieval descendants of the Pharisee
party, who naturally accepted the Pharisee opinion from Jamnia. To canonize
that post-Christian opinion as the mind of Christ, or even of Palestinian Jews
of Christ's day, has no basis.

In the situation of the uncertain 1st century Canon Christ either told His
apostles what it consisted in, or, He left it for the mission of the Holy Spirit in
and through the Church, as was done in many other things, such as the
applicability of the Mosaic Law to Christians (Acts 15).

Again, if you believed that argument a sufficient rebuttal, my discussion would never have
been censored from EWTN. Your absolute lack of confidence in that argument is self-
evident in your unwillingness to let EWTN readers have access to my essay and this
discussion.

Clearly this is an unacceptable position for you, since it contradicts the

Adventist theory of history that the whole Church went astray in the first
century until Seventh Day Adventism came along. Well, that's a theory, and
you are entitled to it. As you say, let your readers judge.

Scripture warns repeatedly of apostasy entering into the church, even in the apostolic era
of the church, and it is plain that this apostasy would soon overwhelm the church at large,
developing into the Antichrist power described as the little horn of Daniel, the beast from
the sea in Revelation 13, and persecuting harlot riding the beast in Revelation 17. The
following passages are warnings of the inevitable apostasy in the church:
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the
land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
Amos 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,
they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among
you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw
away disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to
warn every one night and day with tears.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of
Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the
gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto
you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there
come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
God.

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their
own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2 Tim 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto
fables.
2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false
teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord
that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Pet 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of
truth shall be evil spoken of.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it
was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for
the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to
this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and
denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first
works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his
place, except thou repent.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that
woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to
commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into
great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am
he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to
your works.

Now, contrary to these scriptures, the Catholic Church teaches that it has been protected
from apostasy, that it has never taught error, and never will teach error. This notion of an
infallible Catholic Magisterium is not taught anywhere in scripture, and as my essay
shows, it is proved a pious fraud on the point of the Hebrew canon being endorsed by
Jesus Christ.

Thank you for an engaging dialogue. Since we tend to be repeating ourselves,

I consider my part at an end. I'm sure you will turn that into a capitulation,
instead of a recognition that we have gone about as far as we can go with it.
But, do as you must.

I am quite confident that my essay stands unimpeached by your attempts at rebuttal. It is

your censorship at EWTN that most everyone will interpret as a capitulation on your part.
Truth has the courage to be public, because it will surely standup to any test. Error flees
from public examination, because it cannot standup under scrutiny. So your own actions
are your strongest critic and speak louder than your words.

Again this is a public discussion, and this email and your reply, if any, will be posted on
my web site.

Michael

http://biblelight.net
 http://www.c

AU
Jul Apr
G 15 captures
 29 Aug 2012 - 31 Dec 2016
29
201 201
2012
1 4

About this capture

HomeOur Apostolate
LegaTubeCL FacebookApologetics
Products
DonateContact Us
Site of the MonthSoCon Or BustBig Blue WaveViva CatholicArt of AttackFaith Working Thru
LoveCulture Wars
Links

his article will be imported to the new website format shortly. In the meantime, you
may view the archived file here:

Sometime ago, Mr. Scheifler wrote an article on the Hebrew Canon. I took the opportunity to
respond to three of his arguments in my piece Are Deuterocanonical books part of the Bible?. Recently,
Mr. Scheifler has offered his own rebuttal to my original response. The following piece therefore
represents my latest, revised response. Mr. Scheifler's comments will be in red.

Mr. Scheifler opposed my assertion that the canon of the Old Testament in Jesus' time was still open-
ended. In his rebuttal, he first tried by citing a series of verses to convince his readers that the phrase
"the Law and the Prophets" or "Moses and the Prophets" or "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and
Psalms" or "Scripture" refers to the 39 books in the Protestant Old Testament (or 24 books of the Jewish
Scripture.) However, the Jewish Scripture has three divisions: the Law (Torah), The Prophets (Nevim)
and the Writings (Ketuvim). Thus, the phrase "the Law (or Moses) and the Prophets" refers only to the
first two divisions, not the whole Jewish Scripture [1]. The New Testament never applies the complete
phrase "the Law, the Prophets and the Writings" to the Scripture in Jesus' time. The closest reference to
the three divisions of the Jewish Scripture in the New Testament comes from Luke 24:44 which says "the
Law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms", of which Mr. Scheifler wrote "he [Jesus] means every book of
the Old Testament." The problem with his argument is that there is support neither from the New
Testament nor from any Jewish source to suggest that naming one book means including the rest. The
whole Law is never represented by Genesis and all of the Prophets is never represented by
Joshua. Likewise, then, the Psalms does not represent all of the Writings! Thus, if anything, Luke
24:44 further supports my contention that only the first two divisions of the Jewish Scripture were closed
in Jesus' time, and certainly not the "Writings". (We will return to Luke 24:44 later to see what Jesus
really meant.) Moreover, the absence of any citation in the New Testament from a number of books of
the third division (Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Ezra and Nehemiah) gives further support that the
canon was still open-ended in that time. Even a neutral Jewish source states that it remained open-
ended until the second century after the birth of Our Lord:

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that the collection of the Ketuvim as a whole, as
well as some individual books within it, was not accepted as being finally closed until well into the
second century c.e.

As noted above, the practice of calling the entire Scriptures the "Torah and Prophets" presupposes
a considerable lapse of time between the canonization of the second and third parts of the
Bible. The fact that the last division had no fixed name points in the same direction. Even the
finally adopted designation "Ketuvim" is indeterminate, since it is also used in Rabbinic Hebrew in the two
senses of the Scriptures in general and in individual texts in particular.

Encyclopedia Judaica Vol. 4, page 824 (emphasis added)

On page 825 the same encyclopedia says that some still cited Sirach as Scripture and as part of Ketuvim
in the second century, even after the rabbis declared it uncanonical.

Does the term "Scripture" refer to all 39 books of a Protestant's Old Testament, as Mr. Scheifler
contends? The accepted books of the Law (or any book of the Prophets, for that matter) were certainly
not "shelved" just because all of the other inspired books were not yet written or canonized before Jesus
and others could refer to them as Scripture! For example, in the first year of the reign of Darius (Daniel
9:2), Daniel already read Jeremiah as the Word of the Lord. He did not need to wait until the prophets
Haggai and Zechariah who received the word of the Lord in the second year of Darius reign (Haggai 1:1,
Zechariah 1:1), wrote their books and/or until the Book of Daniel itself was written (some say it was
written in c. 170 BC) to be recognized as Scripture. Thus, the term Scripture and the phrase "all the
Scriptures" in Luke 24:27 refers only to those who were already accepted in that time. Later, Christians
extended the canon to include books of both Old and New Testaments, none of the latter were written in
Jesus' time.

Mr. Scheifler also referred to 2 Corinthians 3:14 as a proof that the Old Testament was already defined,
but he failed to acknowledge the impact of the very next verse. 2 Corinthians 3:14-15 of KJV, translates
the Greek word "diatheke" as "testament" (other translations prefer "covenant")

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of
the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart (2 Corinthians 3:14-15).

The translated phrase "old testament" does not refer to list of books known to us as the Old Testament
but to the old covenant of Law from Moses. If Mr. Scheifler insists that it does, then his "Old Testament"
should comprise five books of Moses, as verse 15 indicates. For further support that his interpretation of
2 Corinthians 3:14 is wrong, let's look at 2 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV, emphasis mine)

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the
letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Did Paul here equate "new testament" with 27 books of our New Testament? When Paul wrote 2
Corinthians, a number of the current canonical books were not even written yet! Note also the phrase
"not of the letter, but of the spirit": does it represent books of the New Testament? Thus, the Greek word
diatheke is to be understood as covenant, not as canonized list of inspired books.

In relation to my statement that the Septuagint also has "the Law and the Prophets", Mr. Scheifler wrote
"Are the same books of the Law and the Prophets of the Hebrew Canon also found in the Septuagint?
Yes, they most certainly are. However, the Septuagint has never had the identical division and grouping
of the Hebrew Canon into the Law and Prophets (and Writings), which is what the above statement seeks
to conceal from the reader." In my articles on the Bible and on the canon of the Old Testament, I
explained that the Septuagint (or LXX) has four divisions: the Law, Historical books, Poetical books and
the Prophets. Thus, the LXX does have the Law and the Prophets in its four divisions. The Law of LXX
has five books of Moses but its Prophets is longer and includes Daniel, which, in the Jewish Scripture,
belongs to the third division.
Now let's see whether there is a possibility that Jesus referred to the LXX in Luke 24:44. In Luke 24:44,
Jesus clearly stated that He fulfilled everything in "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms"
concerning Himself. Suppose Jesus followed the Jewish Scripture's three-fold division, other than
Psalms and Daniel, is there any reference to Jesus in the rest of the Writings (Proverbs, Job, Ruth,
Lamentations, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles)?[2].

Jesus said that He fulfilled everything written in the Law, Prophets and Psalms. Psalms is one book of the
third division of the Jewish scriptures. The third division or the Writings (Ketuvim) also includes Daniel. In
other places, Jesus quoted prophecies in Daniel to refer to Himself; so it is strange that He did not include
Daniel in Luke 24:44. Thus, while Mr. Scheifler says that Psalms represents all books of the Writings
including Daniel, in Luke 24:44 Jesus may be placing Daniel as one book of the Prophets. If He did so,
then He followed the LXX divisions, which thereby nullifes Mr. Scheifler's argument.

Obviously, Mr. Scheifler denies this fact since he says: "There is absolutely nothing in the cited verses
that in any way indicate that Christ was endorsing the canon of any version of the Septuagint (the three
oldest versions of the Septuagint all differ in the books they include, and their sequence!), much less
indicating the placement of the book of Daniel. To suggest that Jesus was referring to the Septuagint is to
say that black may in fact really be white." However, what I wrote is that "it may indicate that Christ
followed LXX grouping", not that He endorsed the LXX as a canon of the Old Testament. There is no
evidence that He or His apostles gave us the list of inspired books. Had they done so, then Christians
from the very beginning would agree which books were inspired, which was not the case. Mr. Scheifler is
right to say that the order and number of books in the LXX differ according to different manuscripts. As
for different sequence or order, even books of the Latter Prophets and Writings of the Jewish Scripture
had different ordering in the past [3]. All the three manuscripts of the LXX (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and
Alexandrinus) shown in his essay on the Hebrew Canon has Daniel as one book of the
Prophets. According to the first century AD testimony of Josephus, the Jewish Scripture had three
divisions: the Law (5 books), the Prophets (13 books) and Hymns & Moral Precepts (4 books). He did not
name the books but this three division (which differs from the present Jewish Scripture) it is likely he
placed Daniel as one of the Prophets.

Let's move to the next part of Mr. Scheifler's rebuttal where he tried to interpret the phrase "from Abel to
Zechariah, son of Barechiah" in Matthew 23:35 to mean "from Genesis to Chronicles". His interpretation
(the standard among Protestants) would be wrong if either one or both of the following is true: (1)
Zechariah, son of Jehoiada of 2 Chronicles was not the one Jesus meant; (2) Chronicles was not the last
book of the Jewish Scripture in Jesus' time. Granted, most commentaries (including The Catholic
Encyclopedia) favour the position that Zechariah of 2 Chronicles was the one Jesus meant. A few
scholars have proposed the prophet Zachariah, the son of Berachiah and who, together with Haggai and
Malachi, were the last Jewish prophets [4]. The Bible is silent in how and where he died [5]. Now let's
see whether in Jesus' time there is any evidence that Chronicles was the last book. When I pointed out
that the order of books could not be clearly defined, Mr. Scheifler became rather frustrated. He wrote:
"The above is nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters, to obfuscate the truth and dissipate any
understanding of the clear intention of the words of Christ." Mr. Scheifler cannot deny that Chronicles
was not always the last book of the Jewish Scripture. He tried to minimize the impact by writing "placing
Chronicles as the first book of the third division, is not particularly significant." But, as he well knows, it is
significant since it will jeopardize his interpretation of Matthew 23:35. If Chronicles was not always the
last book of the Jewish Scripture, then there is no guarantee that it was so in Jesus' time (provided the
order of scrolls could be defined). Mr. Scheifler went on to write: "modern reprints of the Leningrad
Codex have moved the book of Chronicles back to its traditional place at the end of the Ketuvim." The
fact that they did so does not change the location of Chronicles as the first book of the third division in the
original Leningrad Codex. Five out of eight ancient arrangement of books of the Writings have Chronicles
as the last book, including the earliest known, dated end of 2nd century AD [6]. Even earlier, however, is
the first century AD testimony of Josephus (in the preceding paragraph) where Chronicles cannot belong
to the third division (Hymns and Moral Precepts), let alone become its last book. In conclusion, therefore,
with respect to Matthew 23:35 or Luke 11:51, Jesus had no intention to tell us the limit of the Old
Testament canon.

Near the end of his rebuttal Mr. Scheifler wrote "The assertion that the Old Testament canon was still
open-ended in apostolic times is flatly contradicted by the collective words of Christ in Matthew 23:35,
Luke 11:51, and Luke 24:44, which firmly and unequivocally endorse the content, ordering and divisions
of only the Hebrew canon." If he still insists that the canon of the Old Testament was already closed in
apostolic times, then he should be able to explain why the New Testament still cites sources from outside
the 39 books of his Old Testament. Examples include Jude 9 and 14-16; 2 Peter 2:22 places Proverb
26:11 on par with a proverb from outside the Bible. The common reply is that they are not cited as
Scripture, but how do we draw a line between what is cited as Scripture and what is not cited as
Scripture? John 7:38 and James 4:5 have the phrase "Scripture says" but we cannot identify from
whence they come. Paul text in 1 Corinthians 2:9 is preceded with the phrase "it is written" but it only
resembles Isaiah 64:4.

About the deuterocanonical books, Mr. Scheifler wrote "The deutero/apocryphal books, while written by
Jews, were never universally accepted as canonical by the majority of the Jewish community." Yet, the
Jews also universally rejected Jesus as the Messiah, since there is no reason for them to accept the
decision of the Church on the canon of the Bible. In relation to Romans 3:2 in his essay on the Hebrew
canon, Mr. Scheifler wrote "As the designated custodians of the inspired word of God, they knew which
books were canonical, and which were not, and they knew this without the assistance of the yet to appear
Catholic Church." Whilst they did define their canon of 24 books (equal to 39 books of Protestant Bible),
it was done after the time of Christ (admitted even by a Jewish source like the Encyclopedia
Judaica). Christians are not obliged to follow a Jewish Council, especially considering what Jesus taught
through His parable of the vineyard's tenants in Matthew 21:33-41.

Finally, together with all Protestants, Mr. Scheifler rejects the authority of the Church in determining the
canon of the Bible. He wrote: "It can be concluded with confidence, from the words of Christ cited, that
every Roman Catholic council that defined the canon, including the allegedly infallible declaration of the
Council of Trent, was in error, and every Catholic Bible printed contains non-canonical apocryphal books
that are not a part of the inspired Old Testament." If Mr. Scheifler rejects the authority of the Church, then
how does he know that his New Testament has twenty-seven books? Did Jesus and/or any of His
apostles tell him that all of them are inspired?

Mr. Scheifler reply

(appended to his rebuttal at the bottom)
In his reply Mr. Scheifler attempted to make my statement contradict a statement of the Pontifical Bible
Commission in their work: The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.

According to Mr. Scheifler the Pontifical Bible Commission agrees with him that the phrase "the Law of
Moses, the Prophet and Psalms" or "the Law and the Prophets" means all 39 books of his Old Testament.
He wrote: "The Pontifical Bible Commission, in context, apparently considers Luke 24:44 to refer to the
whole of the Hebrew Old Testament - “all the Scriptures” (Lk 24:27), and does not specifically exclude
any of the other books of the third division that begins with Psalms. Perhaps Mr. Hartono should write the
commission and inform them of their misinterpretation." Let's see whether the Pontifical Bible
Commission believes so in the following (emphasis mine):

The Extension of the Canon of Scripture

1. In Judaism

........ It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the
Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The
collection of "Writings", on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the
Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the
first century A.D., it seems that 2422 [24/22] books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred, but it is
only much later that the list became exclusive. When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the
deuterocanonical books were not included.

Many of the books belonging to the third group of religious texts, not yet fixed, were regularly
read in Jewish communities during the first century A.D. They were translated into Greek and
circulated among Hellenistic Jews, both in Palestine and in the diaspora.

2. In the Early Church

Since the first Christians were for the most part Palestinian Jews, either “Hebrew” or “Hellenistic” (cf. Ac
6:1), their views on Scripture would have reflected those of their environment, but we are poorly informed
on the subject. Nevertheless, the writings of the New Testament suggest that a sacred literature
wider than the Hebrew canon circulated in Christian communities. Generally, the authors of the New
Testament manifest a knowledge of the deuterocanonical books and other non-canonical ones since the
number of books cited in the New Testament exceeds not only the Hebrew canon, but also the so-
called Alexandrian canon. .........

Thus, the substance of my comments about the canon of the Old Testament being open-ended (i.e. only
the Law and the Prophets were accepted and the limit of Writings was not defined) is in complete
harmony with what the Pontifical Bible Commission wrote. Their statement indicates that the Writings
also includes books that were later translated into Greek and circulated among Hellenistic Jews in
diaspora. They also state that the New Testament even cites sources from outside the (Catholic) Old
Testament. In the event that I am wrong in interpreting Luke 24:44, and Psalms indeed represent the
whole Writings, then the Scripture referred as "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms",
according to the Pontifical Bible Commission, is STILL not limited to the 24 books of the Jewish Scripture.

Did the Pontifical Bible Commission believe that the term "old testament" in 2 Corinthians 3:14 refer to 24
books of the Jewish Scripture? Mr. Scheifler thought so when he wrote "In context, the Pontifical Biblical
Commission is clearly interpreting 2 Cor. 3:14 to mean the entire Old Testament of the Jews, and not just
the Old Covenant Law from Moses. Again, it seems that Mr. Hartono should inform Rome of their
error." On the contrary, Mr. Scheifler did not pay attention on what the PBC wrote (emphasis mine),
which ironically he also quoted (and emphasized) in his reply.

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE
CHRISTIAN Bible

A perennial manifestation of this link to their beginnings is the acceptance by Christians of the Sacred
Scriptures of the Jewish people as the Word of God addressed to themselves as well. Indeed, the
Church has accepted as inspired by God all the writings contained in the Hebrew Bible as well as
those in the Greek Bible. The title "Old Testament" given to this collection of writings is an expression
coined by the apostle Paul to designate the writings attributed to Moses (cf. 2 Co 3:14-15). Its scope
has been extended, since the end of the second century, to include other Jewish writings in
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. ...........

Their statement indicates that when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, the term "old testament (covenant)" meant
only the five books of Moses. Since the end of second century (after the apostolic time) Christians, not
Paul, have extended the term "Old Testament" to include other books in Hebrew, Aramaic and
Greek. Mr. Scheifler apparently failed to see the phrase "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek books", which
includes not only the rest of protocanonical books but other books as well. Finally, Mr. Scheifler wrote
"Or, are Roman Catholics free to give their own private interpretations regarding Scripture, even if it
contradicts Magisterial teaching?" I would like to assure him that if what I wrote contradicts the
Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, I will humbly withdraw it. As any fair reader can ascertain,
however, it is Mr. Scheifler who is in error here.

In any case, if I were a Seventh Day Adventist like Mr. Scheifler, then I would not try to find support from
the Pontifical Bible Commission; he has simply wasted his time as they will never support his position that
the Old Testament comprises only the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament Canon.

[1] Melito, bishop of Sardis (in present day Turkey) in c. 170 AD referred the Old Testament as "the Law
and the Prophets". His list of Old Testament has only those two divisions. The Law (of Moses) has 19
books and comprises 5 books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kingdoms (Samuel and Kings), two
Chronicles, Psalms, Proverb, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Job. The Prophets has 6 books and
comprises Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, Ezekiel and Esdras (Ezra-
Nehemiah). Lamentations is traditionally combined with Jeremiah but Esther and deuterocanonical books
are not included. It may look strange that he attributed to Moses books like Psalms etc., however in John
10:34 Psalms was considered as part of the Law, but so was Isaiah 28:11-12 in 1 Corinthians 14:21. The
fact that Melito went to the east (i.e. Palestine) before he prepared his list shows that even in the end of
second century AD, there was still a diversity in the number of both division and books of the Old
Testament.

[2] In his book, "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (1999), Protestant apologist Josh McDowell
dedicated Chapter 8, pages 164 to 202 to list and to explain all reference to Jesus in the Jewish Scripture
(Protestant Old Testament). Other than Psalms and Daniel, the other references in Writings are 1
Chronicles 17:11-14, which has parallel in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (of the Prophets). For the rest, he has
references in the Law (Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy) and in the Prophets (Samuel, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Zechariah, Malachi).

[3] Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 4, pages 828-830.

[4] Other candidates are Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist and, following Josephus, Zechariah son
of Baruch or Baris who was murdered by the Zealots in the temple in c. 68 AD.

[5] The New American Commentary, Vol. 22, page 349 refers to a paper, Blank, S.H. (1937-8): The
Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 12-13, pages 327-
346. The author refers to a comment on Targum to Lamentations 2.20 saying that prophet Zechariah,
son of Iddo, the High Priest, was murdered in the sanctuary of the Lord on the day of Atonement.

[6] Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 4, pages 827. It is not a manuscript of the Jewish Scripture but a
quotation from baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Bathra 14b.

Our Rabbis taught: the order of the Prophets is Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Isaiah, and the Twelve ..........; The order of the Ketuvim is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.

Wibisono Hartono

September 7, 2002

1997-2012

https://histo

MA
Feb Apr
R
138 captures
13 8 Dec 1996 - 31 Dec 2016
201 201
2012
1 3

About this capture

The Council of Trent

The Fourth Session
The canons and decrees of the sacred
and oecumenical Council of Trent,
Trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 17-19.

Hanover Historical Texts Project

Scanned by Hanover College students in 1995.
The page numbers of Waterworth's translation appear in brackets.

[Page 17]
SESSION THE FOURTH

Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy
Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18]
always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the
Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be
preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral
discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and
the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or
from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us,
transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox
Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both
of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said
traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by
Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a
continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in
this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by
this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to
wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of
Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled
Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty
psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias,
Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos,
Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two
books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels,
according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by
Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to
the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the
apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the
Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said
books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as
they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the
traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in
what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will
proceed, and what testimonies and authorities (Praesidiis.] it will mainly use in confirming
dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

The Council of Trent

Hanover Historical Texts Project
Hanover College Department of History

Bringing Christian classic books to life

College

Computer Science

• HOME
• BROWSE
• COMMUNITY
• STORE
•

• LoginRegister

Advertisements
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils
Canon LX.

[N. B.—This Canon is of most questionable genuineness.]

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The
Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7,
Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth;
11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The
Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve
Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel;
22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of
Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the
Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one
to Philemon.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon LX.

But of the new, the four Gospels—of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John; Acts; Seven Catholic
epistles, viz. of James one, of Peter two, of John three, of Jude one; of Paul fourteen, viz.: to the
Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Phillipians
one, to the Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Hebrews one, to Timothy two, to
Titus one, and to Philemon one.

It will be noticed that while this canon has often been used for controversial purposes it really
has little or no value in this connexion, for the absence of the Revelation of St. John from the
New Testament to all orthodox Christians is, to say the least, as fatal to its reception as an
ecumenical definition of the canon of Holy Scripture, as the absence of the book of Wisdom,
etc., from the Old Testament is to its reception by those who accept the books of what we may
call for convenience the Greek canon, as distinguished from the Hebrew, as canonical.

We may therefore leave this question wholly out of account, and merely consider the matter from
the evidence we possess.
In 1777 Spittler published a special treatise199 to shew that the list of scriptural books was no part
of the original canon adopted by Laodicea. Hefele gives the following resume of his
argument:200

(a) That Dionysius Exiguus has not this canon in his translation of the Laodicean decrees. It
might, indeed, be said with Dallæus and Van Espen, that Dionysius omitted this list of the books
of Scripture because in Rome, where he composed his work, another by Innocent I. was in
general use.

(b) But, apart from the fact that Dionysius is always a most faithful translator, this sixtieth canon
is also omitted by John of Antioch, one of the most esteemed and oldest Greek collectors of
canons, who could have had no such reasons as Dionysius for his omission.

(c) Lastly, Bishop Martin of Braga in the sixth century, though he has the fifty-ninth, has also
not included in his collection the sixtieth canon so nearly related to it, nor does the Isidorian
translation appear at first to have 160had this canon.201 Herbst, in the Tübingen Review, also
accedes to these arguments of Spittler’s, as did Fuchs and others before him. Mr. Ffoulkes in his
article on the Council of Laodicea in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities
at length attempts to refute all objections, and affirms the genuineness of the list, but his
conclusions can hardly be accepted when the careful consideration and discussion of the matter
by Bishop Westcott is kept in mind. (History of the Canon of the New Testament, IIId. Period,
chapter ii. [p. 428 of the 4th Edition.])

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils

This book has been accessed more than 2825473 times since June 1, 2005
► Corrections disabled for this book
► Proofing disabled for this book
► Printer-friendly version

Advertisements

Store | Copyright | Privacy | Contact Us | Advertise with Us

 Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur 38.4 (1912)

THE 'DECRETUM GELASIANUM DE LIBRIS RECIPIENDIS ET NON

RECIPIENDIS'

(English translation - RP, part V checked against Hennecke-Schneemelcher I p.38-40.)

Ernst von Dobschütz

HERE BEGINS THE COUNCIL OF ROME UNDER POPE DAMASUS "ON EXPLAINING THE FAITH"

I. It was said:

1. Firstly the seven-fold Spirit which remains in Christ should be discussed:

the spirit of wisdom: 'Christ the power and wisdom of God'.

the spirit of understanding: 'I will give you understanding, and I will instruct you in the way you
will go'.
the spirit of counsel: 'And his name is called the messenger of great counsel'.
the spirit of virtues: as above, 'The power of God and the wisdom of God'.
the spirit of knowledge: 'Because of the eminence of the knowledge of the apostle of Christ
Jesus'.
the spirit of truth: 'I am the way the life and the truth'.
the spirit of the fear of God: 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'.

2. However the dispensation of Christ has a name of many forms:

God, who is spirit;

the word, who is God;
the Son, who is only-begotten of the Father;
the man, who was born of the virgin;
the priest, who offered himself as a sacrifice;
the shepherd, who is the guard;
the worm, who rose from the dead;
the mountain, which is strong;
the way, which is straight;
the harbour, which one may pass through into life;
the lamb, which was slain;
the stone, which is the cornerstone;
the master, who is the bringer of life;
the sun, which is the illuminator;
the true, which is of the Father;
the life, which is the creator;
the bread, which is dear;
the Samaritan, who is the guard and the merciful;
the Christ, who is the anointed one;
Jesus, who is the saviour;
God, who is from God;
the messenger, who was sent;
the bridegroom, who is the mediator;
the vine, by whose own blood we are redeemed;
the lion, who is king;
the rock, which is the foundation;
the flower, which is chosen;
the prophet, who revealed the future.

3. For the Holy Spirit is not of the Father only or of the Son only, but of the Father and the Son;
for it is written: 'He who delights in the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him'; again it is
written; 'However anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to him'. So the
Holy Spirit is understood to be called of the Father and the Son, [and] of whom the Son himself
in the gospel says that the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father' and 'he will receive from me
and he will make known to you'.

II. Likewise it was said:

Now indeed the issue of the divine scriptures must be discussed, which the universal Catholic
church receives or which it is required to avoid.

1. THIS IS THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:

Genesis one book

Exodus one book
Leviticus one book
Numbers one book
Deuteronomy one book
Joshua one book
Judges one book
Ruth one book
Kings four books
Chronicles two books
150 Psalms one book
Three books of Solomon
proverbs one book
ecclesiastes one book
song of songs one book
The same of Wisdom one book
ecclesiasticus one book

2. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE PROPHETS:

Isaiah one book

Jeremiah one book
with Cinoth i.e. his lamentations
Ezechiel one book
Daniel one book
Hosea one book
Amos one book
Micah one book
Joel one book
Obadiah one book
Jonah one book
Nahum one book
Habbakuk one book
Zephaniah one book
Haggai one book
Zechariah one book
Malachi one book

3. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES:

Job one book

Tobit one book
Esdras two books
Ester one book
Judith one book
Maccabees two books

4. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT which the holy and
catholic Roman church upholds and is venerated:

Four books of the Gospels

according to Mathew one book
according to Mark one book
according to Luke one book
according to John one book
Likewise the acts of the apostles one book
The letters of the apostle Paul in number
fourteen
to the Romans one letter
to the Corinthians two letters
to the Ephesians one letter
to the Thesalonians two letters
to the Galatians one letter
to the Philippians one letter
to the Colossians one letter
to Timothy two letters
to Titus one letter
to the Philemon one letter
to the Hebrews one letter
Likewise the apocalypse of John one book
Likewise the canonical [catholic] letters in
number seven
of the apostle Peter two letters
of the apostle James one letter
of the apostle John one letter
of the other John the elder two letters
of the apostle Judas the Zealot one letter

HERE ENDS THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

III. Likewise it was said:

The manuscripts of the shorter recension begin at this point, with the following heading:

HERE BEGINS THE DECRETAL 'ON BOOKS TO BE RECEIVED AND NOT TO BE RECEIVED' WHICH
WAS WRITTEN BY POPE GELASIUS AND SEVENTY MOST ERUDITE BISHOPS AT THE APOSTOLIC
SEAT IN THE CITY OF ROME
Both versions then continue as follows:

1. After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we
discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have
thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the
world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the
rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord
our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall
build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and
whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'.

2. In addition there is also the presence of the blessed apostle Paul, 'the chosen vessel', who not
in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in
glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they
made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in
their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world.

3. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter 'having no spot or wrinkle
or any other [defect]'.

However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and
gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the
apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom.

Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who
lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians
was heard.

IV. And although 'no other foundation can be established except that which has been established,
Christ Jesus', however for edification likewise the holy Roman church after the books of the Old
and New Testaments which we have enumerated above according to the canon also does not
prohibit the reception of these writings:

1. the holy synod of Nicaea of 318 fathers chaired by the Emperor Constantine the Great,

at which the heretic Arius was condemned; the holy synod of Constantinople chaired by
Theodosius the senior Augustus, at which the heretic Macedonius escaped his deserved
condemnation;

the holy synod of Ephesus, at which Nestorius was condemned with the consent of the blessed
pope Caelestinus chaired by Cyril of Alexandria in the magistrate's seat and by Arcadius the
bishop sent from Italy;
the holy synod of Chalcedon chaired by Marcian Augustus and by Anatolius Bishop of
Constantinople, at which the Nestorian et Eutychian heresies together with Dioscorus and his
sympathisers were condemned.

but also if there are councils hitherto held by the holy fathers of lesser authority than those four,
we have decreed [that] they must be both kept and received. Here added below is on the works of
the holy fathers, which are received in the catholic church.

Likewise the works of blessed Caecilius Cyprian the martyr and Bishop of Carthage;
likewise the works of blessed Gregory Nanzanensis the bishop;
likewise the works of blessed Basil Bishop of Cappadocia;
likewise the works of blessed John Bishop of Constantinople;
likewise the works of blessed Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria;
likewise the works of blessed Cyril Bishop of Alexandria;
likewise the works of blessed Bishop Hilary of Poitiers;
likewise the works of blessed Ambrosius Bishop of Milan;
likewise the works of blessed Augustine Bishop of Hippo;
likewise the works of blessed Jerome the priest;
likewise the works of blessed Prosper a most religious man;

3. likewise the letter of blessed pope Leo sent to Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, of which text
however if any portion is disputed and it is not that anciently received by all, let it be anathema;

likewise the works and every treatise of all the orthodox fathers, who deviated in nothing from
the common [teaching] of the holy Roman church, neither separated from its faith or worship but
remained in communion by the grace of God to the last day of their life, we decree are to be
read;

likewise the decretal/official letters, which blessed popes gave for the consideration of various
fathers at various times from the city of Rome, are to be upheld reverently;

4. likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs, who are glorious from the manifold tortures on the
rack and their wonderful triumphs of steadfastness. Who of the catholics doubts that most of
them would be enduring still in agonies with their full strength but would bear it by the grace of
God and the help of everyone? but according to old custom by the greatest caution they are not
read in the holy Roman church, because the names of those who wrote are not properly known
and separate from unbelievers and idiots or [the accounts] are thought less attached to the order
of events than they should have been; for instance the [accounts of] Cyricus and Julitta, like
Georgius and the sufferings of others like these which appear to have been composed by heretics.
On account of this, as it was said, so that no pretext for casual mockery can arise, they are not
read in the holy Roman church. However we venerate together with the aforesaid church all the
martyrs and their glorious sufferings, which are well known to God and men, with every
devotion;

likewise the lives of the fathers Paul, Antony and Hilarion which with all the hermits described
by that blessed man Jerome we receive with honour;
likewise the acts of blessed Silvester bishop of the apostolic seat, although the name of him who
wrote [them] is unknown, [but] we know to be read by many catholics however in the city of
Rome and because of the ancient use of the multitude this is imitated by the church;

likewise the writings on the finding of the cross and certain other novel writings on the finding of
the head of the blessed John the Baptist are romances and some of them are read by catholics;
but when these come into the hand of catholics, the saying of Paul the blessed apostle should be
<considered> first: 'prove all things, hold fast to what is good'.

likewise Rufinus, a most religious man, work many books of ecclesiastical works, also some
interpreting the scriptures; but since the venerable Jerome noted that he took arbitary liberties in
some of them, we think those [acceptable] which we know the aforesaid blessed Jerome thought
[acceptable]; and not only those of Rufinus, but also [those] of anyone whom that man often
remembered for his zeal for God and for the religion of faith criticised.

likewise some works of Origen, which the blessed man Jerome does not reject, we receive to be
read, but we say that the rest with their author must be refused.

likewise the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the books of his church history, however
much he fell flat in the first book of his narration and [although he also] afterwards wrote one
book in praise and to excuse Origen the schismatic, however on account of his narration of
remarkable things, which are useful for instruction, we do not say to anyone that it must be
refused.

likewise we praise Orosius a most erudite man, who wrote a very necessary history for us against
the calumnies of the pagans and and with marvellous brevity.

likewise the paschal work of that venerable man Sedulius, which was written in heroic verses
[hexameters], we give preference to with manifest praise.

likewise the laborious work of Iuvencus we nevertheless do not spurn but are amazed by.

V. The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or
schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we
have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be
avoided by catholics:

LIKEWISE A LIST OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

firstly we confess that the synod of Sirmium called together by Constantius Caesar the son of
Constantine through the Prefect Taurus is damned then and now and for ever.

the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the
apocryphal
holy Clement
the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Mathias apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Barnabas apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of James the younger apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use apocryphum
the Gospels in the name of Bartholomew apocrypha
the Gospels in the name of Andrew apocrypha
the Gospels which Lucianus forged apocrypha
the Gospels which Hesychius forged apocrypha
the book on the infancy of the saviour apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd apocryphus
all the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made apocryphi
the book which is called the Foundation apocryphus
the book which is called the Treasure apocryphus
the book of the daughters of Adam Leptogeneseos apocryphus
the cento on Christ put together in Virgilian verses apocryphum
the book which is called the Acts of Thecla and Paul apocryphus
the book which is called Nepos's apocryphus
the books of Proverbs written by heretics and prefixed with the name of holy
apocryphus
Sixtus
the Revelation which is called Paul's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Thomas's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Stephen's apocrypha
the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Adam apocryphus
the book about Og the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he
apocryphus
fought with the dragon
the book which is called the Testament of Job apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Origen apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of holy Cyprian apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Jamne and Mambre apocryphus
the book which is called the Lots of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the grave-plate (?) of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the canons of the apostles apocryphus
the book Physiologus written by heretics and prefixed with the name of blessed
apocryphus
Ambrose
the History of Eusebius Pamphilii apocrypha
the works of Tertullian apocrypha
the works of Lactantius also known as Firmianus apocrypha
the works of Africanus apocrypha
the works of Postumianus and Gallus apocrypha
the works of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla apocrypha
the works of Faustus the Manichaean apocrypha
the works of Commodian apocrypha
the works of the other Clement, of Alexandria apocrypha
the works of Thascius Cyprianus apocrypha
the works of Arnobius apocrypha
the works of Tichonius apocrypha
the works of Cassian the Gallic priest apocrypha
the works of Victorinus of Pettau apocrypha
the works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul apocrypha
the works of Frumentius Caecus apocrypha
the cento on Christ stitched together from verses of Virgil apocryphum
the Letter from Jesus to Abgar apocrypha
the Letter of Abgar to Jesus apocrypha
the Passion of Cyricus and Julitta apocrypha
the Passion of Georgius apocrypha
the writing which is called the Interdiction of Solomon apocrypha
all amulets which are compiled not in the name of the angels as they pretend but
apocrypha
are written in the names of great demons

These and those similar ones, which Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides,
Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus
with his obscene followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African,
Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius,
Jovianus, Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius
of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other
Peter, of whom one disgraced Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with
his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose
names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely
rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their
authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema
forever.

This page has been accessed by people since 2nd December 2000.
Bugs fixed 16th June 2007.

Return to the Tertullian Home

Original Traduction Français About these pages
Page

Church and the Canon

"For the blessed apostle Paul himself,following the rule of his

predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the
following order--to the Corinthians afirst...there is a second to the
Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as
being spread over the entire world...Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus
one, and to Timothy two were put in writing...to be in honour however
with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical
discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both
forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others,
which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting
that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the
couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic
Church...But of Arsinous,called also Valentinus,or of Militiades we
receive nothing at all."
The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177),in NE,124

" In his[ie. Origen] first book on Matthew's Gospel, maintaining the

Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels,
writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only
indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned
by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a
publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared
for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.
The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions
of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son,
saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you,
saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the
Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last
of all that by John."
Origen,Commentary on Matthew,fragment in Eusebius Church
History,6:25,3(A.D. 244),in NPNF2,I:273

"The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to

the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means,
and according to their usage--I mean the Gospels of John and
Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be
Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the
Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul."
Tertullian,Against Marcion,4:5(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:350

"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the
Old Testaments, and what those of the New."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,4:33(A.D. 350),in
NPNF2,VII:26

"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. In proceeding to make mention
of these things [ie. the canon] ,I shall adopt, to comment my
undertaking, the pattern of Luke...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...."
Athanasius,Festal Letters,39 (A.D. 367),in NPNF2,IV:551-552

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine
Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she
ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one
book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book,
Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth
one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one
book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book,
Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book,
Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one
book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations,
Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one
book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one
book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book,
Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the
histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther
one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order
of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy
and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew
one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book,
according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in
number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the
Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the
Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to
Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John,
one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the
canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles,
of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of
another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the
Apostle one epistle."
Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The
Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN,33

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church

under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the
four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job,
the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of
the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith,
Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books
of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two
Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James,
the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the
confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures
should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures.
But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings,
Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of
Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel,
Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the
Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul
the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of
John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John."
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

"The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by

agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles,
bishops, and councils, is against you."
Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,13:5 (c.A.D. 400),in
NPNF1,IV:201

"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides
those which the Catholic church has received, are to be esteemed of
authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema."
Council of Toledo,Canon 12 (A.D. 400),in FOC,1:445

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon.
These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally:
of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of
Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings
four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five
books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias
one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras
two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament: of the
Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, of John
three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the
Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John."
Pope Innocent(regn A.D. 401-417),Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of
Toulose,6:7,13(A.D. 405),in DEN,42

"Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the

church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical
Scriptures are as follows: Genesis....The Revelation of John...for these
are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in
the church."
Council of Carthage,African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419),in
NPNF2,XIV:453-454

"The book of the Apocalypse which John the wise wrote, and which
has been honoured by the approval of the fathers."
Cyril of Alexandria,Worship and Adoration in Spirit and in Truth,5
(A.D. 425),in FOC,I:445

"Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the

judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these,
of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought
worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly,
among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the
following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic
churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again,
which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction
of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held
by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall
find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and
others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very
likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the
two sides is to be looked upon as equal.Now the whole canon of
Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is
contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of
Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth,
which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four
books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one
another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same
ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a
connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events.
There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are
connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one
another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two
books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a
sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the
books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there
is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz.,
Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called
Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a
certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they
were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned
among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as
being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly
called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are
connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are
reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--
Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater
prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old
Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That
of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four
books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark,
according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle
Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians,
to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to
the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the
Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James;
one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of
John."
 Augustine,On Christian Doctrine,2:8,12(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:538-
539

This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This
text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically
or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.

Bringing Christian classic books to life

College

Computer Science

• HOME
• BROWSE
• COMMUNITY
• STORE
•

• LoginRegister

Advertisements

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils

Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine
Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.

Exodus.

Leviticus.

Numbers.

Deuteronomy.

Joshua the Son of Nun.

The Judges.

Ruth.

The Kings, iv. books.

454The Chronicles, ij. books.

Job.

The Psalter.

The Five books of Solomon.

The Twelve Books of the Prophets.

Isaiah.

Jeremiah.

Ezechiel.

Daniel.

Tobit.

Judith.

Esther.

Ezra, ij. books.

Macchabees, ij. books.

The New Testament.

The Gospels, iv. books.

The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.

The Epistles of Paul, xiv.

The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.

The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.

The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.

The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.

The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those
parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our
fathers to be read in church.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIV.

Let nothing besides the canonical Scriptures be read in church.

This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the “passions of the
Martyrs” on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.

Johnson.

These two books [i.e. the two Maccabees] are mentioned only in Dionysius Exiguus’s copy. See
Can. Ap. ult., Can. Laod. ult.

“Boniface,” i.e., Bishop of Rome.

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils

This book has been accessed more than 2825523 times since June 1, 2005
► Corrections disabled for this book
► Proofing disabled for this book
► Printer-friendly version
 Advertisements

Store | Copyright | Privacy | Contact Us | Advertise with Us

Home Encyclopedia Summa Fathers Bible Library

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > E > St. Exuperius

St. Exuperius
Help support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download.
Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only
$19.99...

(Also spelled Exsuperius).

Bishop of Toulouse in the beginning of the fifth century; place and date of birth unascertained;
died after 410. Succeeding St. Silvius as bishop, he completed the basilica of St. Saturninus,
begun by his predecessor. St. Jerome praises him for his munificence to the monks of Palestine,
Egypt, and Libya, and for his charity to the people of his own diocese, who were then suffering
from the depredations of the Vandals, Alans, and Suevi. Of great austerity and simplicity of life,
he sought not his own, but gave what he had to the poor. For their sake he even sold the altar
vessels and was compelled in consequence to carry the Sacred Host in an osier basket and the
Precious Blood in a vessel of glass. In esteem for his virtues and in gratitude for his gifts, St.
Jerome dedicated to him his "Commentary on Zacharias . Exuperius is best known in connection
with the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures. He had written to Innocent I for instructions concerning
the canon and several points of ecclesiastical discipline. In reply, the pope honoured him with the
letter Consulenti tibi, dated February, 405, which contained a list of the canonical scriptures as
we have them today, including the deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Canon, books of the
Catholic Canon. The assertion of non-Catholic writers that the Canon of Innocent I excluded the
Apocrypha is not true, if they mean to extend the term Apocrypha to the deuterocanonical books.

The opinion of Baronius, that the bishop Exuperius was identical with the rhetor of the same
name, is quite generally rejected, as the rhetor was a teacher of Hannibalianus and Dalmatius,
nephews of Constantine the Great, over a half a century before the period of the bishop. From
Jerome's letter to Furia of Rome, in 394, and from the epistle of St. Paulinus to Amandus of
Bordeaux, in 397, it seems probable that Exuperius was a priest at Rome, and later at Bordeaux,
before he was raised to the episcopate, though it is possible that in both of these letters reference
is made to a different person. Just when he became bishop is unknown. That he occupied the See
of Toulouse in February, 405, is evident from the letter of Innocent I mentioned above; and from
a statement of St. Jerome in a letter to Rusticus it is certain that he was still living in 411. It is
sometimes said that St. Jerome reproved him, in a letter to Riparius, a priest of Spain, for
tolerating the heretic Vigilantius; but as Vigilantius did not belong to the diocese of Toulouse, St.
Jerome was probably speaking of another bishop.

Exuperius was early venerated as a saint. Even in the time of St. Gregory of Tours he was held in
equal veneration with St. Saturninus. His feast occurs on 28 September. The first martyrologist
to assign it to this date was Usuard, who wrote towards the end of the ninth century.

Comments
About this page

APA citation. Kelly, L. (1909). St. Exuperius. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert
Appleton Company. Retrieved September 13, 2017 from New Advent:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05731a.htm

MLA citation. Kelly, Leo. "St. Exuperius." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York:
Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 13 Sept. 2017
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05731a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Michael C. Tinkler. In memory
of Professor Thomas Lyman.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur.
+John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is
webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate
your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2012 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)

Contents

Introduction
Sessions 1-4 (1438)
Sessions 5-8 (1439)
Sessions 9-10 (1440)
Session 11 (1442)
Session 12 (1443)
Session 13 (1444)
Session 14 (1445)
Council of Basel

Introduction

Basel had been designated as the place for this ecumenical council by the abortive
council of Pavia — Siena (1423-1424). It was opened on 25 July 1431 by the papal
legate, who had been appointed by Pope Martin V in two bulls dated 1 February
1431, Dum onus universalis gregis and Nuper siquidem cupientes shortly before the
pope's death on 20 February 1431. A great part of the council's work in the early
years was taken up with its quarrel with Pope Eugenius IV, who was accused of
wishing to dissolve or transfer the council. The prospect of re-union with the eastern
church provided an opportunity to transfer the council to another city. This move
was supported by the council fathers loyal to the pope, who however were in a
minority, and in the 25th session they voted for the city of Ferrara. There the council
was re-opened on 8 January 1438, Pope Eugenius IV later attending in person. Some
historians doubt the ecumenicity of the first 25 sessions at Basel. All agree that the
sessions held at Basel after the 25th session until the final one on 25 April 1449
cannot be regarded as sessions of an ecumenical council.

The Greek bishops and theologians attended the council of Ferrara from 9 April
1438. The council was transferred to Florence on 10 January 1439. There, in the
session on 6 July 1439, the decree of union with the Greek church was approved.
Subsequently decrees of union with the Armenian and Coptic churches were
approved. Finally the council was transferred to Rome on 24 February 1443. There
other decrees of union with the Bosnians, the Syrians and finally with the Chaldeans
and Maronites of Cyprus, were approved. The last session of the council was held on
7 August 1445.

The decisions taken at Basel have the form of conciliar decrees. Those taken at
Ferrara, Florence and Rome are almost always in the form of bulls, since the pope
was presiding in person; in these cases the decree mentions the council's approval
and contains the words "in a solemnly celebrated general session of the synod".

Almost all the decrees of re-union were of little effect. Nevertheless it is significant
that the church's unity was discussed in a council attended by some eastern bishops
and theologians, and that there was agreement on the principal dogmatic and
disciplinary questions which had divided the two churches for many centuries.

The acts of the council of Basel were first published by S. Brant in Basel in 1499,
with the title Decreta concilii Basileensis (= Dc). This collection was subsequently
published by Z. Ferreri at Milan in 1511, and by J. Petit at Paris in 1512. Almost all
later conciliar collections included the acts and decrees of the council of Basel, from
Merlin to Mansi's Amplissima collectio (= Msi). A brief history of these collections
was written in 1906 by H. Herre in his work entitled, Handschriften und Drucke
Baseler Konzilsakten, in Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Sigmund, Part IV/1,
1431-1432, 10/1, Goettingen 1957, XCVI-CI. Another edition of the decrees of
Basel is contained in John of Segovia's diary, which is to be found in Monumenta
conciliorum generalium saeculi XV (= Mxv), II Vienna 1873. Editio Romana,
however, omits the council of Basel (see Labbe-Cossart XIII, n. 7; S. Kuttner, L
'Edition romaine des conciles generaux, Rome 1940).

For Basel, we have followed the edition of Msi 29 (1788) 1-227. We have noted the
principal variants in Dc and Mxv. We have omitted some decrees pertaining to
internal matters of the council, to the quarrel with Eugenius IV and to
administration; we have always noted the titles of these decrees in footnotes. The
decrees of Ferrara, Florence and Rome were first published by P. Crabbe (1538, 2,
754V-826). H. Justinianus subsequently published a more careful edition, Acta sacri
oecumenici concilii Florentini, Rome 1638, which was followed by later collections
until Msi 31 supplement (1901) (see V. Laurent L'edition princeps des actes du
Concile de Florence, Orient. Christ. Per.21 (1955) 165-189, and J. Gill, ibid. 22
(1956) 223-225). The decrees are also to be found in Monumenta conc. gen. saec.
XV, III-IV Vienna 1886-1935. We have followed the critical edition published by
the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Concilium Florentinum. Documenta et Scriptores (=
CF), Rome 1940-, and we have included the principal variants noted in it.

As regards the English translation, the following points should be noted where the
original text is given in two languages, namely Latin and another. Where a Greek
text is given (pp. 520-528), this is of equal authority with the parallel Latin version,
and in the English translation the few significant discrepancies between the two texts
have been noted. In the cases of Armenian and Arabic texts (pp. 534-559 and 567-
583), these were translations from the Latin, which was the authoritative text, and
therefore the English translation is from the Latin alone (the differences from the
Latin in the Armenian and Arabic texts are numerous and complex). For these
points, see J. Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1959, pp. 290-296, 308 and
326.
(See Council of Basel)

Session 1—8 January 1438

[Declaration of cardinal Nicholas Albergati, president of the council]

We, Nicholas, legate of the apostolic see, announce that we preside on behalf of our
most holy lord pope Eugenius IV in this sacred synod which was translated from
Basel to the city of Ferrara and is already legitimately assembled, and that the
continuation of this translated synod has been effected today 8 January, and that the
synod is and ought to be continued from today onwards for all the purposes for
which the synod of Basel was convened, including being the ecumenical council at
which the union of the western and the eastern church is treated and with God's help
achieved.

Session 2—10 January 1438

[On the legitimate continuation of the council of Ferrara, against the assembly
at Basel]

For the praise of almighty God, the exaltation of the catholic faith and the peace,
tranquillity and unity of the whole Christian people. This holy universal synod,
through the grace of God authorized by the most blessed lord pope Eugenius IV,
legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit in this city of Ferrara, represents the
universal church. Its president, on behalf and in the name of the said most holy lord
Eugenius, is the most reverend father and lord in Christ lord Nicholas, cardinal-
priest of the holy Roman church of the title of holy Cross in Jerusalem, legate of the
apostolic see. It adheres to the firm foundation of him who said to the prince of the
apostles: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. It is eager to
preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, so that we might be one body
and one spirit, just as we were called in the one hope of our calling. It records that
much was done in days past both at the former council of Basel and after its
translation by some staying on there without any authority, and also by the said most
blessed pope lord Eugenius, especially in respect of the business of the most holy
union of the western and the eastern church, namely the following: the decree of the
nineteenth session of the former council of Basel beginning As a dutiful mother, to
which the most holy lord Eugenius gave his assent by his letter; also an agreed
proposal on the choice of a place to which the council of Basel should be translated
which was agreed upon and confirmed by all the fathers in common and which led
to the decree of the twenty-fifth session of the former council, which begins This
holy synod from its outset etc. and which the pope himself, urged on by the envoys
of the Greeks, accepted and confirmed by his letter given in a general consistory at
Bologna and published in the presence of these envoys, also the letter of the same
most blessed Eugenius dated 18 September last, issued in a general consistory at
Bologna and solemnly read out at the beginning of the continuation of this synod, by
which the pope with the counsel and consent of the most reverend cardinals of the
holy Roman church and with the approval of the prelates then in the curia,
transferred the council to this city of Ferrara; also the letter of the declaration of the
same, dated 30 December, immediately following the said translation; all of which
this holy synod has ordered to be registered verbatim in its acts as a permanent
record, as is contained in these same acts.

All these facts and many more have been duly pondered and maturely discussed in
various meetings. This holy synod declares that the aforesaid translation and
declaration were and are legitimate, just and reasonable, and were and are made
from urgent necessity so as to remove an obstacle to the most holy union of the
western and the eastern church, to prevent a schism already threatening in God's
church, and for the manifest benefit of the whole Christian commonwealth, and that
therefore this holy synod was legitimately assembled and established in the holy
Spirit in this city of Ferrara for all the purposes for which the said former council of
Basel was instituted at its beginning, and especially to be the future ecumenical
council for the aforesaid most holy union; and that it ought to continue and to
proceed to all the aforesaid matters. This holy synod therefore praises, accepts and
approves the translation and the consequent declaration, as mentioned above. It
exhorts in the Lord and requires of each and all of the present and future members of
the holy synod to apply themselves to the above things with earnest care and serious
study. By the generosity of him who has begun in us a good work, may everything
be directed and done for his glory and the salvation of the whole Christian people.

This holy synod further declares that, since the well known necessity of the above
reasons demanded and impelled the said most holy lord Eugenius to that translation,
the matter in no way falls within the decrees of the eighth, the eleventh or any other
session of the former council of Basel.

It decrees that the assembly at Basel, and every other assembly which may
perchance convene there or elsewhere under the name of a general council, rather is
and ought to be considered a spurious gathering and conventicle, and can in no way
exist with the authority of a general council.

It quashes, invalidates and annuls, and declares to be invalid, quashed, null and of no
force or moment, each and all of the things done in the city of Basel in the name of a
general council after the said translation, and whatever may be attempted there or
elsewhere in the future in the name of a general council.

But if in the matter of the Bohemians something useful has been achieved by the
said people assembled at Basel after the said translation, it intends to approve that
and supply for defects.
In order that each and all of the members of the holy synod may be kept safe from
every annoyance and may serve God in good works without anxiety, free from all
fear, harassment and injury, this holy synod absolves, frees and dispenses, and
declares to be absolved and freed, and the oaths to be dispensed from, each and all
of those who, under whatsoever plea or cause, bound themselves to the former
synod of Basel by oaths, with obligations and commitments, whereby their full and
free right to obey this present holy synod and to promote its honour and good might
be impeded and they might have scruples of some kind.

This holy synod also ordains and decrees that nobody of whatsoever rank or dignity,
by any ordinary or delegated jurisdiction for any cause or occasion, except by the
jurisdiction of the apostolic see, shall dare to disturb, harass or molest, in their
dignities, offices, administrations, privileges, honours, benefices and other goods,
each and all of those, both seculars and religious, including members of mendicant
orders, who are or shall be at this present synod, or who follow the Roman curia and
will soon be at this synod on account of the move of the most holy lord Eugenius
with his curia to this city, which has been announced by the posting up of notices in
accordance with the ancient custom of the curia.

But if, under any pretext, directly or indirectly, any should presume to molest any of
the said persons in their dignities, offices, administrations, honours, privileges,
benefices or other goods, or to prevent them from freely enjoying their jurisdiction,
fruits and emoluments as they did before, or to confer on others their dignities,
offices, administrations, honours and benefices, on the plea of some deprivation, this
holy synod intends that each and all of them, even if they are cardinals, patriarchs,
archbishops, bishops or persons with some other dignity, or chapters, colleges,
convents or universities, shall incur automatically and without the need for a
previous warning sentences of excommunication, suspension and interdict,
absolution from which is reserved to the Roman pontiff alone, except at the hour of
death.

Moreover the synod decrees that those who do not repent within three days after
making these conferrals or placing these obstacles, by fully restoring those whose
dignities, offices, administrations, honours and benefices they conferred, or whom
they impeded in other ways, as stated above, to all their churches and benefices as
they held them before, whether they held them by title, in commendam or in
administration; and also each and all of those who presume to accept collation to the
aforesaid dignities, offices, administrations, honours and benefices, even if they
were made motu proprio, or to take possession of them in person or through others,
or to hold such action as valid; all these persons are automatically deprived by law,
if they previously had any claim in them, of all their other benefices, whether they
held them by title, in commendam or in administration, and they are rendered
perpetually disqualified from them and all other benefices, and they can be restored
and habilitated only by the Roman pontiff.
This holy synod, moreover, warns and requires each and all of those who are obliged
by law or custom to take part in general councils, to come as soon as possible to this
present synod at Ferrara, which will continue, as noted above, for the speedy
attainment of the aforesaid purposes.

Session 3—15 February 1438

[Ecclesiastical penalties against members of the Basel synod]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. The
duties of the pastoral office over which we preside by divine mercy, despite our lack
of merit, demand that we repress by opportune remedies the nefarious excesses of
evil-minded persons, especially those who, unless prevented, strive to force the
peaceful state of the church into various dangerous storms and disturbances and who
endeavour to overturn the barque of Peter, and that we inflict due retribution for
their excesses, lest boasting of their malice they give occasion to others to commit
mischief. For it is a crime to be slack in punishing crimes that harm many people, as
canonical regulations state.

Thus, the former council of Basel debated the choice of a place for the future
ecumenical council. Those on whom the power of choosing the place devolved,
passed a decree which was accepted by the ambassadors of our most dear son in
Christ John, emperor of the Greeks, and of our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch
of Constantinople. Some persons chose Avignon or another place, but the said
ambassadors protested that most assuredly they did not want to go there, declaring
as certain that the said emperor and patriarch would by no means go to the said
sacred council unless we attended in person. Those who asked for Avignon, afraid
that the Greeks certainly would not come to them, dared to concoct a certain decree
or notorious pamphlet, which they call a monition, against us, even though it is null
and indeed leads to serious scandal and a split in the church, disrupting this holy
work of union with the Greeks.

In order to preserve the unity of the church and to promote the said union with the
Greeks, we, for just, necessary and pressing reasons, with the advice and assent of
our venerable brothers the cardinals of the holy Roman church, and with the advice
and approval of very many of our venerable brothers the archbishops, bishops,
beloved chosen sons and abbots who were present at the apostolic see, translated the
said council of Basel, by our apostolic authority and in a fixed manner and form, to
the city of Ferrara, which is suitable for the Greeks and for us, so that those at Basel
might duly recoil from their scandalous actions, as is contained at greater length in
the letter composed for the occasion' . But they, spurning every avenue of peace,
persevering in their obstinate purpose, scorning the letter of the said translation and
everything contained in it, and piling evil upon evil, not only rejected our reasonable
translation made for the said most just and urgent reasons, as stated above, but even
dared with renewed obstinacy to warn us to withdraw the said translation within a
fixed time and under pain of suspension. Yet this would have been nothing less than
to force us to abandon the prosecution of such a holy work so much desired by all
Christians.

When we realized this, with grief of heart, since we saw that everything tended to
the destruction of the holy task of union and to an open split in the church, as was
said above, we declared that the translation had been made by us from necessity, that
the conditions attached to it had been regularized, and that the council at Ferrara
ought to begin and legitimately continue, as is stated more fully in another letter of
ours .

To open this council at Ferrara we sent our beloved son Nicholas, cardinal-priest of
the holy Roman church of the title of holy Cross, legate of us and the apostolic see.

This council at Ferrara, legitimately assembled and with many prelates, solemnly
declared in a public session that the said translation and declaration were and are
legitimate, just and reasonable, and were made from urgent necessity so as to
remove an obstacle to the said most holy union between the western and the eastern
church and to avoid an impending split in God's church for the evident benefit of the
whole Christian commonwealth, as is crystal clear from the decree made about it.

Meanwhile, informed that the aforesaid emperor, patriarch and Greeks were
approaching the shores of Italy, under God's guidance we came to this council at
Ferrara with the firm intention and purpose of effectively pursuing, with God's help,
not only the work of holy union but also the objectives for which the council of
Basel had assembled.

In view of all this, our beloved son Julian, cardinal-priest of the title of St Sabina,
legate of the apostolic see, strongly urged the aforesaid people at Basel to withdraw
from such flagrant scandals. But because of their obstinacy of mind he was without
effect. Then, seeing them ready to precipitate still worse scandals in God's church,
he departed so as not to appear to approve their impiety. They, for their part, paid no
attention to this. Ignorant of how to direct their steps in the way of peace and justice,
although they were already aware that the Greeks were utterly unwilling to come to
them and were approaching the shores of Italy, they persevered in their hardness of
heart. Since they could in no other way prevent and disrupt the union with the
Greeks, for which they should have been labouring with us with all their strength
and mind and assisting us, they added bad to worse and went to such a pitch of
rashness and insolence that, even though many of the envoys of kings and princes
who were at Basel execrated so wicked a deed and protested against it, they dared to
declare with sacrilegious arrogance that we were suspended from the administration
of the papacy and to proceed to various other things, albeit everything was null.

So we, conscious that their excesses are so notorious that they cannot be hidden by
any subterfuge, and that error that is not resisted appears to be approved and throws
wide open to delinquents a door that no longer guards against their intrusions, and
unable without grave offence to our lord Jesus Christ and his holy church to tolerate
further so many grievous excesses which are seen especially to impede, disrupt and
utterly destroy the holy and most desired union with the Greeks, we decree against
the aforesaid remnant at Basel, in virtue of the most High and with the approval of
this holy council, the steps that should be taken with justice.

Hence we decree and declare, after mature deliberation with this holy synod and
with its approval, that each and all of those meeting in Basel, in spite of the
aforesaid translation and declaration, under the pretended name of a council which
more accurately should be called a conventicle, and daring to perpetrate such
scandalous and nefarious deeds, whether they are cardinals, patriarchs archbishops,
bishops or abbots or of some other ecclesiastical or secular dignity, have already
incurred the penalties instanced in our said letter of translation, namely
excommunication, privation of dignities and disqualification from benefices and
offices in the future.

We also decree and declare to be null and void and of no force or moment, whatever
has been attempted by them in the name of a council or otherwise since the day of
the translation made by us, or shall be attempted in the future, in respect of the
aforesaid matters or against those who follow our curia or are at this sacred council
at Ferrara.

We also command, with the approval of this council, under the same penalties and
censures and in virtue of their oath by which they are bound to the holy apostolic
see, each and all of the cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, elected persons,
abbots and all others of whatsoever condition, status or rank who are meeting in the
said city of Basel under the pretext of a council, really and effectively to leave the
said city within thirty days of the date of this decree. We also order the mayor of the
citizens, the councillors and the magistrates ruling the city of Basel and the
governors and other officials, whatever name they go under, to expel the aforesaid
persons who have not left the city within the said thirty days and really and
effectively to eject them.

If they fail to do this within the said thirty days, we decree that each and all of the
said rulers and officials automatically incur sentence of excommunication, and the
people and the city automatically incur sentence of ecclesiastical interdict; we
specially reserve to ourself absolution from the sentences of excommunication,
except at the hour of death, and the lifting of the interdict. We order and command,
in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication, each and all of
those to whom this notice shall come that, if the aforesaid persons meeting in Basel
and the citizens are obstinately disobedient towards us, nobody should approach the
city of Basel after the said thirty days and they should deny them all commerce and
all articles needed for human use.
Merchants of all kinds, who have gone to Basel on account of the former council,
shall depart under the same pain of excommunication. If there are some who ignore
these orders of ours, daring perhaps to convey goods after the time-limit to those at
Basel persisting in contumacy, since it is written that the righteous plundered the
ungodly, such persons may be despoiled without penalty by any of the faithful and
their goods shall be ceded to the first takers.

However, because the church never closes its bosom to returning sons, if the said
people meeting in Basel, or some of them, repent and depart from the said city
within the said interval of thirty days from the date of this present decree, then with
the approval of this sacred council we remit and fully cancel the aforesaid penalties
as for obedient sons and we wish, decree and order that they and their consequences
are to be regarded as without force from the date of their imposition, and we supply
with the council's approval for all defects, if perhaps there are any in respect of
solemnity of the law or of omission. Let nobody therefore ... If anyone however ...

Session 4—29 April 1438

[Eugenius IV and the fathers of the council at Ferrara declare the council at
Ferrara to be legitimate and ecumenical]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. It befits
us to render thanks to almighty God who, mindful of his past mercies, always
bestows on his church even richer growth and, although he allows her to be tossed
on occasions by the waves of trials and tribulations, yet never permits her to be
submerged but keeps her safe amid the mountainous waters, so that by his mercy she
emerges from the various vicissitudes even stronger than before. For behold, the
western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a
pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long
dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of
him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of
desire for holy union.

We are aware that it is our duty and the duty of the whole church to strain every
nerve to ensure that these happy initiatives make progress and have issue through
our common care, so that we may deserve to be and to be called co-operators with
God.

Finally, our most dear son John Palacologus, emperor of the Romans, together with
our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople, the apocrisiaries of the
other patriarchal sees and a great multitude of archbishops, ecclesiastics and nobles
arrived at their last port, Venice, on 8 February last. There, the said emperor
expressly declared, as he had often done before, that for good reasons he could not
go to Basel to celebrate the ecumenical or universal council, and he intimated this by
a letter to those assembled at Basel. He exhorted and required all of them to go to
Ferrara, which had been chosen for the council, to carry through the pious task of
this holy union.

We have always had this holy union close to our heart and have sought with all our
strength to bring it about. Therefore we intend to carry out with care, as is our duty,
the decree of the council of Basel, to which the Greeks agreed, as well as the choice
of a place for the ecumenical council, which was made at the council of Basel and
which was later confirmed by us at Bologna at the urging of the envoys of the said
emperor and patriarch, and any other things pertaining to this work of holy union.

Therefore we decree and declare, in every way and form as best we can, with the
assent of the said emperor and patriarch and of all those in the present synod, that
there exists a holy universal or ecumenical synod in this city of Ferrara, which is
free and safe for all; and therefore it should be deemed and called such a synod by
all, in which this holy business of union will be conducted without any quarrelsome
contention but with all charity and, as we hope, will be brought by divine favour to a
happy conclusion together with the other holy tasks for which the synod is known to
have been instituted.

Session 5—10 January 1439

[Decree translating the council of Ferrara to Florence]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. It is

fitting that the site of an ecumenical council, in which men chosen from the whole
Christian world meet together, should be such that in it, among other human
necessities, there should be the most important of all, namely healthy air. Otherwise,
because of the pest-laden contagion of infected air which all people naturally fear
and flee, those present at the council may be forced to depart with nothing
accomplished and the absent will refuse to attend. Assuredly it is right that those
who come together at synods to treat of difficult questions should be free from every
anxiety and fear, so that they may be able in greater peace and freedom to give their
attention to the matters of public concern.

We would, indeed, have preferred that the universal council which we initiated in
this city should continue here, and that the union of the eastern and western churches
should be brought to its happy and desired conclusion in this city, where we initiated
it. When the plague afflicted this city last autumn, pressure was exerted by some for
the transferal of the synod to a non-infected locality. Nothing was done, however,
because it was hoped that the plague would cease with the advent of winter, as it
usually does.
Since in fact the plague continues from day to day and it is feared that it will gain
strength when spring and summer come, all judge and advise that a move must be
made without delay to some non-infected place. For this and several other good
reasons, with the agreement of our dear son John Palaeologus, emperor of the
Romans, and of our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople, and with
the approval of the council:

In the name of the Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, with the full securities and
safe-conducts which we gave to all at the beginning of the sacred council, we
transfer and declare to be transferred as from now this ecumenical or universal
synod from this city of Ferrara to the city of Florence, which is manifestly free for
all, safe, peaceful and tranquil, and enjoying healthy air, and which, situated as it is
between the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic seas, is excellently situated for easy access for
both easterners and westerners. Let nobody therefore . .. If anyone however . . .

Session 6—6 July 1439

[Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. With the
agreement of our most dear son John Palaeologus, illustrious emperor of the

Romans, of the deputies of our venerable brothers the patriarchs and of other
representatives of the eastern church, to the following.

Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the
western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have
returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides
with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a
covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely
gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.

Let mother church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in
disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their
separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvellous
harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of
Christian, be glad with mother catholic church. For behold, western and eastern
fathers after a very long period of disagreement and discord, submitting themselves
to the perils of sea and land and having endured labours of all kinds, came together
in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their desire for this most holy
union and to restore intact the ancient love. In no way have they been frustrated in
their intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last by the clemency of
the holy Spirit they have achieved this greatly desired and most holy union. Who,
then, can adequately thank God for his gracious gifts?' Who would not stand amazed
at the riches of such great divine mercy? Would not even an iron breast be softened
by this immensity of heavenly condescension?

These truly are works of God, not devices of human frailty. Hence they are to be
accepted with extraordinary veneration and to be furthered with praises to God. To
you praise, to you glory, to you thanks, O Christ, source of mercies, who have
bestowed so much good on your spouse the catholic church and have manifested
your miracles of mercy in our generation, so that all should proclaim your wonders.
Great indeed and divine is the gift that God has bestowed on us. We have seen with
our eyes what many before greatly desired yet could not behold.

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that,
among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be
discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced
from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors,
some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the
procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning
in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it
seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying
that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that
they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention
of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the
Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the
Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two
principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a
single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one
and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented
to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the
approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith
shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the
holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his
subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both
eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy
doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the
Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to
the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the
subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the
Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by
whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from
the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly
and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from
imminent need.

Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat
bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest
according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent
people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and
omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by
cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief
from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of
devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others
of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism,
as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in
their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received
into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly
than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who
depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to
hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic
see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman
pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true
vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all
Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending,
ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical
councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the
canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman
pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch,
and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and
rights.

Session 7—4 September 1439

[Decree of the council of Florence against the synod at Basel]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. Moses,
the man of God, was zealous for the well-being of the people entrusted to him. He
feared that God's wrath would be roused against them if they followed Korah,
Dathan and Abiram in their seditious schism. Therefore he said to the whole people,
at the Lord's command: depart from the tents of these wicked men and touch nothing
of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins. For he had perceived, under the Lord's
inspiration, that those seditious and schismatic men would incur a grievous
retribution, as was demonstrated afterwards when even the earth could not bear with
them but by God's just judgment swallowed them up, so that they fell alive into hell.

Similarly we too to whom, though unworthy, the lord Jesus Christ has deigned to
entrust his people, as we hear of the abominable crime that certain wicked men
dwelling in Basel have plotted in these days so as to breach the unity of holy church,
and since we fear that they may seduce some of the unwary by their deceits and
inject them with their poisons, are forced to proclaim in like words to the people of
our lord Jesus Christ entrusted to us, depart from the tents of these wicked men,
particularly since the Christian people is far more numerous than the Jewish people
of those days, the church is holier than the synagogue, and the vicar of Christ is
superior in authority and status even to Moses.

This impiety of those at Basel we began to foresee long ago, when we observed the
council of Basel already lapsing into tyranny; when many, including those of lower
status, were forced to go to it and to stay at the whim of that faction of agitators;
when the votes and decisions of some of them were being extorted by various tricks
and others were being suborned by lies and deceits, as they abandoned almost
everything to conspiracies, cabals, monopolies and cliques, and from a long-
standing rivalry with the papacy sought to prolong the duration of the council; when,
finally, innumerable novelties, irregularities, deformities and ills were perpetrated,
to which there concurred even clerics in lower orders, the ignorant and
inexperienced, vagabonds, quarrelers, fugitives, apostates, condemned criminals,
escapees from prison, those in rebellion against us and their own superiors, and
other such human monsters, who brought with them every stain of corruption from
those teachers of evil-doing.

We directed our attention also to that most holy work of union with the eastern
church, which seemed to us to be greatly endangered by the deceit of certain
factious persons, and we wished to provide as best we could for so many evils. For
these and other just and necessary reasons which are stated in full in the decree of
translation, with the advice of our venerable brothers the cardinals of the holy
Roman church, and with the approval of very many venerable brothers and sons,
archbishops, bishops, elected persons, abbots and other prelates of churches, masters
and doctors, we transferred the aforesaid council of Basel to this city of Ferrara,
where we established with the Lord's help an ecumenical council of the western and
the eastern church.

Afterwards, when the plague came and continued unabated, under the inspiration of
grace and with the approval of the same holy council, we transferred the council to
this city of Florence. Here the most gracious and merciful God showed his wonders.
For, the most disastrous schism, which had endured in God's church for almost five
hundred years to the immense harm of the whole of Christianity, and for the
elimination of which very many of our predecessors as Roman pontiffs and many
kings and princes and other Christians in past times had laboured very hard, at last,
after public and private discussions in both places and many other labours, was
removed and the most holy union of the Greeks and the Latins was happily
achieved, as is described more fully in the decree about this which was drawn up
and solemnly promulgated.

Returning fervent thanks for this to the eternal God and sharing our joy with all the
faithful, we offered to God a sacrifice of jubilation and praise. For we saw that not
just one nation like the Hebrew people was being summoned to the promised land,
but peoples of many races, nations and tongues were hastening to the one utterance
and merit of the divine truth. Through this, great hope is forthcoming that the sun of
justice, rising in the east, will spread the beams of its light to pierce the darkness of
many other races, even of infidels, and the salvation of the Lord may reach to the
ends of the earth.

Already indeed, by God's providence, we have excellent pledges of this. For

almighty God has granted that, by our means, representatives of the Armenians with
full powers have recently come from most distant northern parts to us and the
apostolic see and to this holy council. They regard and venerate us as no other than
blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, they recognize the holy see as mother and
mistress of all the faithful, and they profess that they have come to the holy see and
to the aforesaid council for spiritual food and the truth of sound doctrine. For this
too we have given many thanks to our God.

But the mind recoils from recording what troubles, attacks and persecutions we have
suffered in the course of this divine undertaking until now, not indeed from Turks or
Saracens but from those who call themselves Christians. Blessed Jerome reports that
from the time of Hadrian until the reign of Constantine there was set up and
worshipped by the pagans at the place of the Lord's resurrection an image of Jupiter
and on the rock of the crucifixion a marble statue of Venus, since the authors of
persecution thought that they could take away from us our faith in the resurrection
and the cross if they polluted the holy places with their idols.

Much the same has happened in these days against us and the church of God, at the
hands of those desperate men at Basel, except that what was then done by pagans
ignorant of the true God is now the work of men who have known him and hated
him Their pride, then, according to the prophet, is ever rising, all the more
dangerously in that it is under the cloak of reform, which in truth they have always
abhorred, that they spread their poisons.

In the first place, those who were the authors of all the scandals in Basel have failed
in their promises to the Greeks. For they knew from the envoys of the Greeks and
the eastern church that our most dear son in Christ John Palaeologus, illustrious
emperor of the Romans, and Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople of happy memory,
and the other prelates and persons of the eastern church wished to proceed to the
place which had been legally chosen for the ecumenical council by our legates and
presidents and other notable persons present there, whose right it was to choose the
site in accordance with the agreement which had been approved by the common
consent of the council after serious disagreements among its members. Whereupon
we, for our part, confirmed the choice of place in a general consistory at Bologna
and we sent to Constantinople, at great labour and expense, the galleys and other
things necessary for this holy work of union.

When they learnt of this, they dared to decree against us and the aforesaid cardinals
a detestable admonition or citation, so as to block the holy work, [and to send it to
the aforesaid emperor and patriarch of Constantinople, so that they and all others]
might be deterred from coming. Yet they knew full well that there was no chance of
them going to any place other than the one which had been chosen for the site, as
stated above.

Then, when they realized that the aforesaid emperor and patriarch and others were
already on their way to us for this work of holy union, they tried to lay another
wicked snare to catch this divine project. That is, they produced against us a
sacrilegious sentence of suspension from the administration of the papacy. Finally,
those leaders of scandal, very few in number, most of them of the lowest rank and
reputation, in their intense hatred of true peace, piling iniquity on top of iniquity lest
they should enter into the justice of the Lord, when they saw that the grace of the
holy Spirit was working in us towards union with the Greeks, swerving away from
the straight line into paths of error, held a so-called session on 16 May last asserting
that they were obeying certain decrees, although these were passed at Constance by
only one of the three obediences after the flight of John XXIII, as he was called in
that one obedience, at a time of schism.

Alleging obedience to those decrees, they proclaimed three propositions which they
term truths of the faith, seemingly to make heretics of us and all princes and prelates
and other faithful and devout adherents of the apostolic see. The propositions are the
following.

"The truth about the authority of a general council, representing the universal
church, over a pope and anyone else whatsoever, declared by the general councils of
Constance and this one of Basel, is a truth of the catholic faith. The truth that a pope
cannot by any authority, without its consent, dissolve a general council representing
the universal church, legitimately assembled for the reasons given in the above-
mentioned truth or for any of them, or prorogue it to another time or transfer it from
place to place, is a truth of the catholic faith. Anyone who persists in opposing the
aforesaid truths is to be considered a heretic."

In this, those utterly pernicious men, masking their malice with the rosy colour of a
truth of the faith, gave to the council of Constance an evil and mischievous meaning
completely opposed to its true teaching, imitating in this the teaching of other
schismatics and heretics who always amass for their support fabricated errors and
impious dogmas drawn from their perverse interpretation of the divine scriptures
and the holy fathers.

Finally, completely perverting their mind and turning away their eyes from looking
to heaven or remembering righteous judgments, after the manner of Dioscorus and
the infamous synod of Ephesus, they proceeded to a declaratory sentence of
deprivation, as they claimed, from the dignity and office of the supreme apostolate, a
poisonous and execrable pronouncement involving an unforgivable crime. Here we
will take the tenor of that sentence, abhorrent to every pious mind, as sufficiently
expressed. They omitted nothing, as far as was in their power, that might overthrow
this incomparable good of union.

O miserable and degenerate sons! O wicked and adulterous generation! What could
be more cruel than this impiety and iniquity? Can anything more detestable, more
dreadful and more mad be imagined? Earlier on they were the ones who said that
nothing better, nothing more glorious and fruitful had ever been seen or heard of in
the Christian people, from the very birth of the church, than this most holy union,
and that to further it there should be no contention about the place, but rather to
achieve it the wealth of this world as well as body and soul should be hazarded,
proclaiming this aloud to the whole world and urging the Christian people to it, as
their decrees and letters fully state. But now they persecute exactly this as furiously
and as impiously as they can, so that the devils of the entire world seem to have
flocked together to that conventicle of brigands at Basel.

So far almighty God has not allowed their iniquity and its lying inconsistencies to
prevail. But seeing that they are striving with all their strength to bring it to success,
even to the point of setting up the abomination of desolation in God's church, we can
in no way pretend to ignore these things without most serious offence to God and
imminent danger of confusion and abomination in God's church. In keeping with our
pastoral office, at the urging of many who are fired with zeal for God, we wish to
put a stop to such evils and, as far as we can, to take appropriate and salutary
measures to eliminate from God's church this execrable impiety and most
destructive pestilence.

Following in the steps of our predecessors who, as Pope Nicholas of holy memory
writes, were accustomed to annul councils which had been conducted improperly,
even those of universal pontiffs, as occurred at the second universal synod at
Ephesus, inasmuch as the blessed pope Leo summoned it but later established the
council of Chalcedon.

We renew by our apostolic authority, with the approval of this holy council of
Florence, the solemn and salutary decree against those sacrilegious men, which was
issued by us in the sacred general council of Ferrara on 15 February. By that decree
we declared among other things, with the approval of the said sacred council of
Ferrara, that each and every person at Basel who, in the name of a pretended council
which we called more accurately a conventicle, dared to perpetrate those scandalous
and wicked deeds in contravention of our translation and declaration, whether they
are cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots or of some other ecclesiastical
or secular dignity, has incurred the penalties of excommunication, privation of
dignities, benefices and offices and disqualification for the future, which are
instanced in our letter of translation.

Now we decree and declare again that all the things done or attempted by those
impious men presently in Basel, which were mentioned in our said decree of
Ferrara, and each and all of the things done, performed or attempted by the same
men since then, especially in the two so-called sessions or rather conspiracies which
have just been mentioned, and whatever may have followed from these things or
from any of them, or may follow in the future, as coming from impious men who
have no authority and have been rejected and reprobated by God, were and are null,
quashed, invalid, presumptuous and of no effect, force or moment.

With the approval of the sacred council we condemn and reject, and we proclaim as
condemned and rejected, those propositions quoted above as understood in the
perverse sense of the men at Basel, which they demonstrate by their deeds, as
contrary to the sound sense of sacred scripture, the holy fathers and the council of
Constance itself; and likewise the aforesaid so-called sentence of declaration or
deprivation, with all its present and future consequences, as impious and scandalous
and tending to open schism in God's church and to the confusion of all ecclesiastical
order and Christian government. Also, we decree and declare that all of the aforesaid
persons have been and are schismatics and heretics, And that as such they are
assuredly to be punished with suitable penalties over and above the penalties
imposed at the aforesaid council of Ferrara, together with all their supporters and
abettors, of whatever ecclesiastical or secular status, condition or rank they may be,
even cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops or abbots or those of any other
dignity, so that they may receive their deserts with the aforesaid Korah, Dathan and
Abiram Let nobody therefore ... If anyone however ...

Session 8—22 November 1439

[Bull of union with the Armenians]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. All
people everywhere who go by the name of Christian: Exult in God our helper,
rejoice in the God of Jacob. Behold the Lord once again, mindful of his mercy had
deigned to remove from his church another stumbling block which has endured for
more than nine centuries. He who makes peace in the heavens and is peace on earth
for people of good will, has granted in his inexpressible mercy that most desired
union with the Armenians. Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ,
the father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation.
For the most merciful Lord, seeing his church buffeted about by strong whirlwinds,
some times at the hands of those who are outside, at other times at the hands of those
within, deigns in many ways every day to console and strengthen her so that she
may be able to breathe freely in the midst of her troubles and to rise more robust to
resist.

Some time ago God established that great union with the Greeks, who include many
races and tongues spread far and wide. Today God has confirmed in the same bond
of faith and charity with the apostolic see this union with the Armenians, who are a
very numerous people spread over the north and east. These indeed are such great
and wondrous benefactions of divine providence that the human mind cannot render
worthy thanks for either of them, still less for both together. Who would not be
overwhelmed with admiration at the achievement in this council, within so short a
time, of two such brilliant feats which have been longed for over centuries ? Truly
this is the Lord's doing and it is wonderful in our eyes. For how could human
prudence or diligence have brought to completion such great exploits as these are,
unless the favour of God had given them their beginning and end? Let us, then,
together and with all our hearts bless the Lord who alone does great wonders, let us
sing with the spirit, let us sing with our minds and our mouths and let us give thanks
in deeds, as far as human weakness allows, for such great gifts. Let us pray and
beseech that, as the Greeks and the Armenians have been made one with the Roman
church, so also may other nations be, especially those signed with the seal of Christ,
and that finally the whole Christian people, after all hatreds and wars have been
extinguished, may rest and rejoice together in mutual peace and brotherly love.
Rightly we hold that the Armenians deserve great praise. As soon as they were
invited by us to this synod, in their eagerness for ecclesiastical unity, at the cost of
many labours and much toil and perils at sea, they sent to us and this council from
very distant parts, their notable, dedicated and learned envoys with sufficient powers
to accept, namely whatever the holy Spirit should inspire this holy synod to achieve.

We, for our part, with all our attention as befits our pastoral office and desiring to
bring this holy work to a successful conclusion, frequently conversed with their
envoys about this holy union. To avoid even the slightest delay in this holy project,
we nominated from every rank of this sacred council experts in divine and human
law to treat of the matter with the envoys with all care, study and diligence, closely
inquiring of them about their faith in respect of the unity of the divine essence and
the Trinity of divine persons, also about the humanity of our lord Jesus Christ, the
seven sacraments of the church and other points concerning the orthodox faith and
the rites of the universal church.

So, after many debates, conferences and disputations, after a thorough examination
of the written authorities which were produced from fathers and doctors of the
church, and after discussion of the questions at issue, at length, so that in future there
could be no doubt about the truth of the faith of the Armenians and that they should
think in every way like the apostolic see and that the union should be stable and
lasting with no cause for hesitation whatsoever we judged it advantageous, with the
approval of this sacred council of Florence and the agreement of the said envoys, to
give in this decree a summary of the truth of the orthodox faith that the Roman
church professes about the above.

In the first place, then, we give them the holy creed issued by the hundred and fifty
bishops in the ecumenical council of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the
Son, which for the sake of declaring the truth and from urgent necessity was licitly
and reasonably added to that creed, which runs as follows: I believe . . . I We decree
that this holy creed should be sung or read within the mass at least on Sundays and
greater feasts, as is the Latin custom, in all Armenian churches.

In the second place, we give them the definition of the fourth council of Chalcedon
about two natures in the one person of Christ, which was later renewed in the fifth
and sixth universal councils. It runs as follows: This wise and saving creed ...
Thirdly, the definition about the two wills and two principles of action of Christ
promulgated in the above-mentioned sixth council, the tenor of which is This pious
and orthodox creed, and the rest which follows in the above-mentioned definition of
the council of Chalcedon until the end, after which it continues thus: And we
proclaim

Fourth, apart from the three synods of Nicaea, Constantinople and the first of
Ephesus, the Armenians have accepted no other later universal synods nor the most
blessed Leo, bishop of this holy see, by whose authority the council of Chalcedon
met. For they claim that it was proposed to them that both the synod of Chalcedon
and the said Leo had made the definition in accordance with the condemned heresy
of Nestorius. So we instructed them and declared that such a suggestion was false
and that the synod of Chalcedon and blessed Leo holily and rightly defined the truth
of two natures in the one person of Christ, described above, against the impious
tenets of Nestorius and Eutyches. We commanded that for the future they should
hold and venerate the most blessed Leo, who was a veritable pillar of the faith and
replete with all sanctity and doctrine, as a saint deservedly inscribed in the calendar
of the saints; and that they should reverence and respect, like the rest of the faithful,
not only the three above-mentioned synods but also all other universal synods
legitimately celebrated by the authority of the Roman pontiff.

Fifthly, for the easier instruction of the Armenians of today and in the future we
reduce the truth about the sacraments of the church to the following brief scheme.
There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, confirmation,
eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony, which differ greatly
from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only
prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former,
ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them. The first
five of these are directed to the spiritual perfection of each person in himself, the last
two to the regulation and increase of the whole church.
For, by baptism we are reborn spiritually; by confirmation we grow in grace and are
strengthened in faith. Once reborn and strengthened, we are nourished by the food of
the divine eucharist. But if through sin we incur an illness of the soul, we are cured
spiritually by penance. Spiritually also and bodily as suits the soul, by extreme
unction. By orders the church is governed and spiritually multiplied; by matrimony
it grows bodily.

All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter,
words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with
the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament
is not effected.

Three of the sacraments, namely baptism, confirmation and orders, imprint indelibly
on the soul a character, that is a kind of stamp which distinguishes it from the rest.
Hence they are not repeated in the same person. The other four, however, do not
imprint a character and can be repeated.

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the
spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the
church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born
again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven.
The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form
is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But
we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this
servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from
which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who
exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is
performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. The minister of
this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in
case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even
a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and
intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of
all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no
satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before
they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

The second sacrament is confirmation. Its matter is chrism made from oil and
balsam blessed by a bishop, the oil symbolizing the gleaming brightness of
conscience and balsam symbolizing the odour of a good reputation. The form is: I
sign you with the sign of the cross and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. The ordinary minister is
a bishop. Whereas a simple priest can use other unctions, only a bishop ought to
confer this one, because it is said only of the apostles, whose place is held by
bishops, that they gave the holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, as this text from
the Acts of the Apostles shows: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came
down and prayed for them that they might receive the holy Spirit; for it had not yet
come down upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the
lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the holy Spirit'. In
place of this imposition of hands confirmation is given in the church. We read that
sometimes for a reasonable and really urgent cause, by dispensation of the apostolic
see, a simple priest has conferred this sacrament of confirmation with chrism
prepared by a bishop. The effect of this sacrament is that a Christian should boldly
confess the name of Christ, since the holy Spirit is given in this sacrament for
strengthening just as he was given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost. Therefore
the candidate is enjoined on the forehead, which is the seat of shame, not to shrink
from confessing the name of Christ and especially his cross, which is a stumbling
block for Jews and a folly for gentiles, according to the Apostle, and for this reason
he is signed with the sign of the cross. The third is the sacrament of the eucharist. Its
matter is wheat bread and wine from the vine, to which a very little water is added
before the consecration. Water is added thus because it is believed, in accordance
with the testimony of holy fathers and doctors of the church manifested long ago in
disputation, that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament in wine mixed with
water, and because it befits the representation of the Lord's passion. For the blessed
pope Alexander, fifth after blessed Peter, says: "In the oblations of the sacraments
which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of masses, only bread and wine
mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. There should not be offered in the
chalice of the Lord either wine only or water only but both mixed together, because
both blood and water are said to have flowed from Christ's side'; also because it is
fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the Christian
people with Christ. For, water signifies the people according to those words of the
Apocalypse: many waters, many peoples. And Pope Julius, second after blessed
Silvester, said: The chalice of the Lord, by a precept of the canons, should be offered
mixed of wine and water, because we see that the people is understood in the water
and the blood of Christ is manifested in the wine; hence when wine and water are
mingled in the chalice, the people are made one with Christ and the mass of the
faithful are linked and joined together with him in whom they believe. Since,
therefore, both the holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and
Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity
and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning
of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region
should differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We decree, therefore,
that the Armenians should conform themselves with the whole Christian world and
that their priests shall mix a little water with the wine in the oblation of the chalice,
as has been said. The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with
which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects
this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into
the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however,
that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form
of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the
consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ. The effect of this sacrament, which is
produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of him or her with
Christ. Since by grace a person is incorporated in Christ and is united with his
members, the consequence is that grace is increased by this sacrament in those who
receive it worthily, and that every effect that material food and drink produce for
corporal life — sustaining, increasing, repairing and delighting — this sacrament
works for spiritual life. For in it, as Pope Urban said, we recall the gracious memory
of our Saviour, we are withdrawn from evil, we are strengthened in good and we
receive an increase of virtues and graces.

The fourth sacrament is penance. Its matter is the acts of the penitent, which are
threefold. The first is contrition of heart, which includes sorrow for sin committed,
with the resolve not to sin again. The second is oral confession, which implies
integral confession to the priest of all sins that are remembered. The third is
satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of the priest which is ordinarily
done by prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament are the words of
absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you. The minister of
this sacrament is a priest with authority to absolve, which is either ordinary or by
commission of a superior.

The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest.
This sacrament should not be given to the sick unless death is expected. The person
is to be anointed on the following places: on the eyes for sight, on the ears for
hearing, on the nostrils for smell, on the mouth for taste or speech, on the hands for
touch, on the feet for walking, on the loins for the pleasure that abides there. The
form of this sacrament is: Through this anointing and his most pious mercy may the
Lord pardon you whatever you have done wrong by sight, and similarly for the other
members. The minister of the sacrament is a priest. Its effect is to cure the mind and,
in so far as it helps the soul, also the body. Blessed James the apostle said of this
sacrament: Any one of you who is sick should send for the elders of the church, and
they shall pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer
of faith will save the sick person and the Lord will raise him up again: and if he is in
sins, they will be forgiven him.

The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over
the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a
chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of
the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty
paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their
ministry. The form for a priest is: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the
church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the holy Spirit. The forms for the other orders are contained in full in the Roman
pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an
increase of grace to make the person a suitable minister of Christ.
The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ
and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one,
but I speak in Christ and in the church. The efficient cause of matrimony is usually
mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed
to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the
worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each
other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible
union of Christ and the church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of
fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a
legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual.

Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most
blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic
faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall
perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity,
and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy
Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the
glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and
such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit
uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The
Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three
eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but
one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty
and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are
not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the
holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are
compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God
and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or
three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is
from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from
the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there
is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three
holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less;
but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all
things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be
worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the
Trinity.

It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord
Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord
Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father,
begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world.
Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the
Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity.
Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by
conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One
altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning
soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our
salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He
ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence
he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again
with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have
done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into
eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot
be saved.

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated
earlier in this sacred ecumenical council of Florence and which is as follows: Let the
heavens be glad . . . '

Eighthly, there was discussion with the Armenians about, among other things, the
days on which the following feasts should be kept: the annunciation of the blessed
virgin Mary, the birth of blessed John the Baptist and, in consequence, the birth and
the circumcision of our lord Jesus Christ and his presentation in the temple (or the
purification of the blessed virgin Mary). The truth was made quite clear by the
testimonies of fathers and by the custom of the Roman church and all other churches
among Latins and Greeks. Therefore, lest the rites of Christians be at variance in
such great celebrations, whence a threat to charity could arise, we decree that, as
something consonant with truth and reason, the Armenians too should solemnly
celebrate, according to the observance of the rest of the world, the following feasts
on the following days: the annunciation of the blessed virgin Mary on 25 March, the
birth of blessed John the Baptist on 24 June, the birth of our Saviour on 25
December, his circumcision on 1 January, the epiphany on 6 January, and the
presentation of our Lord in the temple (or the purification of the mother of God) on
2 February.

After all these matters had been explained, the aforesaid Armenians, in their own
name and in the name of their patriarch and of all Armenians, with all devotion and
obedience accept, admit and embrace this salutary synodal decree with all its
chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the
doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman
church holds and teaches. They also accept with reverence all those doctors and holy
fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed, they hold as reprobated and
condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and
condemns. They promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name as above, they
will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of the apostolic see.

When the aforesaid decree had been solemnly read out in our and the holy synod's
presence, straightaway our beloved son Narses, an Armenian, in the name of the said
envoys, publicly recited the following in Armenian and thereupon our beloved son
Basil of the order of friars Minor, the interpreter between us and the Armenians,
publicly read it out in Latin as follows.

Most blessed father and most holy synod. Recently the whole of this holy decree,
which has now been read out in Latin in your presence, was clearly explained and
interpreted to us word by word in our language. It was and is completely acceptable
to us. To disclose our understanding more fully, however, we repeat its contents in
summary.

The following is contained in it. First, you give to our people of the Armenians the
holy creed of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, to be sung or read
within the mass in our churches at least on Sundays and greater feasts. Secondly, the
definition of the fourth universal council of Chalcedon about two natures in the one
person of Christ. Thirdly, the definition about the two wills and principles of action
of Christ which was promulgated in the sixth universal council.

Fourthly, you declare that the synod of Chalcedon and most blessed pope Leo
rightly defined the truth about two natures in the one person of Christ against the
impious doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches. You order that we should venerate
most blessed Leo as holy and a pillar of the faith and that we should reverently
accept not only the synods of Nicaea, Constantinople and the first of Ephesus, but
also all other synods legitimately celebrated . . authority of the Roman pontiff.

Fifthly, a short scheme of the seven sacraments of the church, namely baptism,
confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony indicating
the matter, the form and the minister of each; and that while the chalice is being
offered in the sacrifice of the altar a little water should be mixed with the wine.

Sixthly, a compendious rule of the faith of most blessed Athanasius, which begins:
Whoever wills to be saved etc.

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated
earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from
the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably
added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in
leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of
purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the
dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ
to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees.
Eighthly, you decree that the following feasts should be kept on the following days,
in accordance with the custom of the universal church: the annunciation of the
blessed virgin Mary on 25 March, the birth of blessed John the Baptist on 24 June,
the birth of our Saviour on 25 December, his circumcision on I January, the
epiphany on 6 January, and the presentation of the Lord in the temple (or the
purification of blessed Mary) on 2 February.

Therefore we envoys, in our own name and in the name of our reverend patriarch
and of all Armenians, with all devotion and obedience accept, admit and embrace,
just as your holiness affirms in the decree, this most salutary synodal decree with all
its chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the
doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman
church holds and teaches. We accept with reverence all those doctors and holy
fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed we hold as reprobated and
condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and
condemns. We promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name of the above, we
will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of this apostolic see.

Session 9—23 March 1440

[Monition of the council of Florence against the antipope Felix V]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. Many
examples of holy fathers of the old and the new Testament warn us that we should
not pass over in silence or leave completely unpunished specially grave crimes
which lead to the scandal and public division of the people entrusted to us. For if we
delay to pursue and avenge what is grievously offensive to God, we thereby provoke
the divine patience to wrath. For, there are sins for which it is a sin to be slack about
their retribution. It is indeed right and eminently reasonable, in the opinion of holy
fathers, that those who despise divine commands and disobey paternal enactments
should be corrected with really severe penalties, so that others may fear to commit
the same faults and that all may rejoice in fraternal harmony and take note of the
example of severity and probity. For if — though may it never be — we are
negligent about ecclesiastical vigilance and activity, idleness ruins discipline and the
souls of the faithful will suffer great harm. Therefore, rotting flesh should be cut
away and mangy sheep driven out

He cannot have God as his father If he does not hold the unity of the church i he
who does not agree with the body of the church and the whole brotherhood, cannot
agree with anyone. Since Christ suffered for the church and since the church is the
body of Christ, without doubt the person who divides the church is convicted of
lacerating the body of Christ. Hence the avenging will of the Lord went forth against
schismatics like Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who were swallowed up together by an
opening in the ground for instigating schism against Moses, the man of God, and
others were consumed by fire from heaven; idolatry indeed was punished by the
sword; and the burning of the book was requited by the slaughter of war and
imprisonment in exile.

Finally, how indivisible is the sacrament of unity! How bereft of hope, and how
punished by God's indignation with the direst loss, are those who produce schism
and, abandoning the true spouse of the church, set up a pseudo-bishop! Divine
scripture declares this in the book of Kings, which says that when ten tribes had
separated themselves from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin and abandoned their
king, setting up for themselves another king: the Lord was indignant with all the
descendants of Israel and gave them over to destruction till he cast them away from
his face. It says that the Lord was indignant and gave over to destruction those who
split off from unity and set up for themselves another king. Indeed, so great was the
wrath of God against those who had brought about a schism that even when the man
of God had been sent to Jeroboam to reprove his sins and to predict a future
vengeance, the man of God was forbidden to eat bread with them or to drink water
and when he did not obey this order of the Lord and dined, straightaway the divine
retribution struck him and he was killed by a lion on his return journey. Hence, as
blessed Jerome declares, nobody should doubt that the crime of schism is very
wicked since it is avenged so severely.

In days gone by, in the holy general council of Constance, that chronic and
disastrous schism, which had cruelly and daily afflicted God's church and the
Christian religion with great loss of souls, not only of individual persons but also in
entire cities and provinces, was at last settled by the ineffable mercy of God and the
unbounded labours and hardships of many kings and princes, both ecclesiastical and
secular, many universities and others of Christ's faithful, and at great expense. With
the election of lord Martin of happy memory and, after his death, the undisputed,
genuine, unanimous and canonical elevation of your holiness to the summit of the
apostolate, the universal church seemed to be enjoying a greatly desired peace. But
behold! Again we are compelled with copious tears to say with Jeremiah the
prophet: we looked for peace, but behold disturbance. And again with Isaiah: we
looked for light, but behold darkness. Some sons of perdition and disciples of
iniquity, who were few in numbers and of little authority, tried at Basel with all their
strength, guile and cunning, even after the translation of the former council which
had been made canonically and legitimately by your holiness for just, evident,
urgent and necessary reasons, to prevent the most holy union with the Greeks and
the whole eastern church, which was ardently desired by the whole Christian people.

For after the said authors of the scandals who remained in Basel had failed to fulfil
their promise to the Greeks, when they learnt from the envoys of the Greeks and the
eastern church that the most serene prince lord John Palaeologus, emperor of the
Romans, and Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople of happy memory, with many
other prelates and men of the eastern church were about to come to the place chosen
for the ecumenical council, and that your holiness had despatched many prelates and
envoys with galleys at great expense and outlay, they dared to decree, with a view to
preventing the arrival of the said emperor and Greeks, a detestable monition against
your holiness and my most reverend lords, the lord cardinals of the holy Roman
church.

Afterwards, when they learnt that the said emperor and patriarch and other
easterners were coming, they issued against your holiness a kind of sacrilegious
decree of suspension from the administration of the papacy.

Despite these and other wicked attempts and sacrilegious acts, on account of the
constant solicitude displayed by you and this sacred council and after great labours
and many disputations, at last the divine mercy granted that the above-mentioned
schism of the Greeks and the eastern church, which had lasted for almost five
hundred years to the great harm of the whole Christian people, should be removed
from the midst of the church and that the most desired union of the western and the
eastern church, which was hardly thought possible, should follow with the utmost
harmony from your and this sacred council's holy work. This ought to be greatly
admired and venerated with the highest praise and the joy of exultation, as all the
rest of the Christian religion had done, and thanks should be returned to the most
High for so admirable a gift. But they became more hard-hearted and obstinate,
preferring even at the cost of ruining the whole Christian world to fan into flames
the conflagration, which they had already begun, of their aforesaid most wicked
monster. They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name
and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring
to rend the unity of the holy Roman and universal church and the seamless robe of
Christ', and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy
mother herself.

The leader and prince of these men and the architect of the whole nefarious deed
was that first-born son of Satan, the most unfortunate Amadeus, once duke and
prince of Savoy. He meditated this scheme for long. Several years ago, as is widely
said, he was seduced by the trickery, soothsayings and phantoms of certain
unfortunate men and women of low reputation (commonly called wizards or witches
or Waldensians and said to be very numerous in his country), who had forsaken their
Saviour to turn backwards to Satan and be deceived by demonic illusions, to have
himself raised up to be a monstrous head in God's church. He adopted the cloak of a
hermit, or rather of a most false hypocrite, so that in sheep's clothing, like a lamb he
might assume the ferocity of a wolf. Eventually he joined the people at Basel. By
force, fraud, bribery, promises and threats he prevailed on the majority of those at
Basel, who were subject to his sway and tyranny, to proclaim him as an idol and
Beelzebub, the prince of these new demons, in opposition to your holiness, the true
vicar of Christ and the undoubted successor of Peter in God's church.

Thus that most ill-starred Amadeus, a man of insatiable and unheard of greed, whom
avarice (which, according to the Apostle, is the service of idols) has always blinded,
was set up as an idol and like a statue of Nebuchadnezzar in God's church by that
most wicked synagogue, those offscourings of forsaken men, that shameful cesspool
of all Christianity, from among whom certain heinous men, or rather demons hiding
under the form of men, had been deputed as electors or rather as profaners. He
himself, agitated by the furies of his own crimes and sinking into the depth of all
evils, said after the manner of Lucifer: I will set my throne in the north and I shall be
like the most High. He grasped with avid and detestable greed at the above-
mentioned election, or rather profanation made of him, which he had earlier sought
with intense fever of mind and anguish of heart. He did not shrink from adopting
and wearing papal robes, ornaments and insignia, from behaving, holding himself
and acting as Roman and supreme pontiff, and from having himself venerated as
such by the people. Further, he was not afraid to write and despatch to many parts of
the world letters which were sealed with a leaden seal after the manner of the
Roman pontiffs. By these letters, in which he calls himself Felix even though he is
the most unhappy of mortals, he tries to spread the poisons of his faction among the
people of Christ.

What complaint or accusation am I to make first, most blessed father and most holy
synod? With what force of speech, grief of mind or outpouring of words am I to
deplore so great a crime? What rich discourse could suitably bewail or express this
most foul deed? Assuredly no account can equal the grossness of the act, for the
magnitude of so heinous a crime transcends the power of speech.

But, as I see it, most blessed father and most reverend and reverend fathers, now is
the hour not for lament but for remedy.

For behold, holy mother church was basking in true unity and peace, in the person of
your holiness her undoubted spouse, when the fountain of tears was opened. To you,
her spouse, and to you most reverend and reverend fathers, who share in solicitude
and have been summoned to this sacred and ecumenical council, she is forced to cry
and shout with many sighs and sobs: Have pity on me, have pity on me, at least you
my fiends'. For my bowels are full of bitterness. For the foxes destroy the vineyard
of the God of hosts, and the impious rend the seamless robe of Christ. Let God
therefore arise, let all his enemies be scattered. And you, most blessed father, since
all these things are so manifest, public and notorious that they cannot be hidden by
any evasion or defended by excuses, arise in the power of the most High, together
with this sacred council, and judge the cause of your spouse and be mindful of your
sons. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one. Set out, proceed prosperously
and reign, and say with the psalmist: I will pursue my enemies and crush them, and I
shall not return until I consume them. I shall consume and crush them and they will
not rise; they will fall at my feet. For it is wrong that so wicked a deed and so
detestable a precedent should be allowed to pass by disguised, lest perhaps
unpunished daring and malice find an imitator, but rather let the example of
punished transgressions deter others from offending.

Therefore your holiness and this sacred synod, following the example of Moses the
man of God, must say to the whole Christian people: Depart from the tents of these
impious men. Follow also the example of blessed pope Leo, your predecessor, who
moved the second council of Ephesus and Dioscorus with his supporters to
Chalcedon, where he instituted a synod which condemned them, and of your other
predecessors as supreme pontiff, who continuously rising up in God's church have
eliminated heresies and schisms, with their instigators, followers and supporters,
from the church of God and the communion of the faithful, which is the most sacred
body of Christ, and have afflicted them with many other condign penalties at the
demand of justice.

With the approval and help of this sacred ecumenical council, avenge with condign
penalties this new frenzy which has become inflamed to your injury and that of the
holy Roman church, your spouse, and to the notorious scandal of the whole
Christian people. By the authority of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter
and Paul and by your own authority, remove and separate from God's holy church,
by a perpetual anathema, the aforesaid wicked perpetrators of this prodigious crime
and their unfortunate heresiarch and veritable antichrist in God's church together
with all their supporters, adherents and followers and especially his execrable
electors or rather profaners.

May he and all the aforesaid be cast out like an antichrist and an invader and a
destroyer of the whole of Christianity. Let no appeal in this matter ever be allowed
to him or to them. Let them and their posterity and successors be deprived without
appeal of every ecclesiastical or secular rank and dignity whatsoever. Let all of them
be condemned by a perpetual anathema and excommunication and may they be
counted among the wicked who will not rise at the judgment. May they feel the
anger of God against them. May they feel the rage of saints Peter and Paul, whose
church they dare to throw into confusion, both in this life and in the next. May their
dwelling be a desolation, let no one dwell in their tents. May their children be
orphans and their wives be widows. May the world fight against them and all the
elements be opposed to them, so that they may be cast out, destroyed and eliminated
by all and so that, as they grovel in permanent penury, death may deservedly be their
refuge and life their punishment. May the merits of all the saints cast them into
confusion and display open vengeance on them in their lifetime. May they receive a
deserved fate with Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Finally, unless they repent from their
hearts, perform deeds worthy of repentance and make worthy satisfaction to your
holiness and the universal church for the enormity of their sins, may they be thrust
with the wicked into the everlasting darkness, doomed by the just judgment of God
to eternal torments.

May the grace of almighty God protect all of us and all Christ's faithful who
execrate with merited blasphemies the aforesaid heresiarchs and their abominable
idol and antichrist, who acknowledge you as Christ's vicar and spouse of his most
worthy church, and who venerate you with devout reverence and constant faith and
obedience. By the authority of blessed Peter and Paul and your authority, may we
and they be absolved from all bonds of sins, be filled with all blessings on our
pilgrimage and finally be led by his ineffable mercy to eternal joys. Amen.
For our part, as soon as we were aware from the reports of trustworthy people that
so great an impiety had been committed, we were afflicted with grief and sadness, as
was to be expected, both for the great scandal to the church and for the ruin of the
souls of its perpetrators, especially Amadeus that antichrist whom we used to
embrace in the depths of charity and whose prayers and wishes we always strove to
meet in so far as we could in God. Already for some time we had it in mind to
provide salutary remedies, in accordance with our pastoral office, against an
abomination of this sort. Now, however, challenged publicly before the church to
confront these evils, we propose to rise to the defence of the church and tackle this
great crime more quickly and more urgently. Therefore, in order that so enormous
and execrable a deed may, with the help of God whose cause is at stake, be
destroyed from its very roots, we are applying, in conjunction with this holy council
and with the least possible delay, a remedy in accordance with the holy canons.

We are aware that the above petition of the promoter and the procurator is just and
in conformity with both divine and human law, and although the aforesaid crimes
and excesses are so very public and notorious that nothing can conceal them and no
further information is required; Nevertheless, for greater precaution and certainly
about the above, we commissioned, with the approval of this sacred council, some
noteworthy persons from every rank in the council to seek information about the
above and to refer their findings to us and the sacred council. Those so
commissioned fulfilled their task of investigation with the care demanded by a
schismatical depravity of this kind and faithfully reported to us and the sacred
council in a synodal congregation what they had found out by the interrogation of
trustworthy persons. In such public, manifest and notorious matters, action could
have been taken against the said infamous and scandalous men without waiting
further, by means of severe penalties in accordance with canonical sanctions.
Nevertheless we and this holy synod, imitating the mercy of God who desires not
the death of the sinner but rather that he be converted and live, have decided to show
all possible mercy and to act, in so far as we can, in such a way that the proposed
mildness may recall them to heart and lead them to recoil from the above-mentioned
excesses, and so that when at last they return to the bosom of the church like the
prodigal son, we may receive them with kindness and embrace them with fatherly
love.

Therefore, through the tender mercy of our God and by the shedding of the precious
blood of our lord Jesus Christ, in whom and by whom the redemption of the human
race and the foundation of holy mother church were effected, from the depths of our
hearts we exhort, beg and beseech the antichrist Amadeus and the aforesaid electors,
or rather profaners, and whoever else believes in, adheres to, receives or in any way
supports him, straightaway to stop violating the church's unity for which the Saviour
prayed so earnestly to the Father, and to cease from rending and lacerating the
fraternal charity and peace which the same Redeemer, as he was about to leave this
world, repeatedly and so insistently commended to his disciples and without which
neither prayers nor fasts nor alms are acceptable to God, and utterly to desist as
quickly as possible from the aforesaid destructive and scandalous excesses, and so to
find with us and this sacred council, if they really obey as they are bound to do, the
affection of a father in respect of everything.

However, so that fear of penalties and harshness of discipline may force them if
perchance love of justice and virtue does not withdraw them from sin, with the
approval of this sacred council we demand and warn the antichrist Amadeus and the
aforesaid electors, or rather profaners, and believers, adherents, receivers and
supporters, and we strictly enjoin and order him and them in virtue of holy
obedience and under the penalties of anathema, heresy, schism and treason which
have been inflicted in any ways against such persons, whether by men or by the law:

That within fifty days immediately following the publication of this letter, the
antichrist Amadeus should cease from acting any more and designating himself as
the Roman pontiff and should not, in so far as he can, allow himself to be held and
called such by others, and should not dare hereafter in any way to use papal insignia
and other things belonging in any way to the Roman pontiff; And that the aforesaid
electors, or rather profaners, and adherents, receivers and supporters should no
longer, either in person or through others, directly or indirectly or under any pretext,
aid, believe in, adhere to or support the said Amadeus in this crime of schism.

Rather, both Amadeus himself and the aforesaid electors, believers, adherents and
supporters should hold, recognize and reverence us as the true Roman pontiff and
vicar of Christ and legitimate successor of Peter, and should reverently obey and
maintain us as father and pastor of their souls, and should take care legitimately to
notify us and this sacred council about these matters within the appointed interval of
time, so that no scruple of doubt may remain about their genuine obedience.

If Amadeus and the said electors, believers, adherents, receivers and supporters shall
act otherwise — though may it not be so — and do not effectively fulfil each and all
of the aforesaid points within the appointed time, we wish and decree that from then
as from now they automatically incur the stated penalties.

Moreover, on the fifteenth day after the aforesaid interval of time, if it is not a feast,
otherwise on the following non-feast day, the aforesaid supporters all together or
singly shall appear in person before us and the aforesaid council where we shall then
be, to be seen and heard individually and even by name. Thus we now cite them for
that day, to be declared schismatics, blasphemers and as heretics, to be punished as
traitors, and to have incurred the aforesaid censures and penalties, and others to be
inflicted, according as it shall seem good and justice shall persuade:

Notifying the same people and any of them individually, whether or not they come,
that if they shall not have shown that they have obeyed, we shall proceed with
justice to declaring the aforesaid penalties, notwithstanding their contumacy or
absence, with the intention of proceeding further to aggravation and re-aggravation,
as the rigour of justice shall demand and their merits require. In order that this
monition and citation of ours may be brought to the attention of the authors of their
monition and citation and of other interested persons, we shall have sheets of paper
or membranes of parchment containing it affixed to the doors or gates of the church
of St Mary Novella in Florence, of our palace situated near that church and of the
cathedral church of Florence. These will make known this monition as if by a
sonorous town-crying and a public notice, in order that after such notification these
people may not be able to pretend that it did not reach them or that they were
ignorant of it, since it is unlikely that what is made known so obviously to all should
remain unknown or hidden to them.

We wish and we decree by our apostolic authority that this our monition
promulgated on the said doors and gates shall have as much value and be as
immutable and as binding on the said warned people, notwithstanding any contrary
constitution, as if it had been intimated and disclosed to each and all of the warned
people in person and in their presence.

Finally, lest the aforesaid warned and cited persons allege as a cloak of excuse that
the council and the Roman curia, the common fatherland of all, is an unsafe place
for them and that, because of the above-mentioned things or other enmities or other
reasons, danger threatens them in their coming, staying and returning, we reassure
them by this present letter and we require and exhort by the same letter all
patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other prelates of churches and monasteries,
clerics and ecclesiastical persons as well as dukes, marquises, princes, rulers,
captains and any other officials and their lieutenants, as also the communities and
corporations of cities, castles, towns, vills and other places, and we strictly
command the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other prelates and our other
subjects that they are not to inflict any injury or harm on the aforesaid warned
persons and their goods and property nor, to the best of their power, to allow such to
be inflicted by others. Let nobody therefore . . . If anyone however . . .

Session 10—27 May 1440

[Eugenius IV exhorts the members of the synod at Basel to desist from their
opposition]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. In the
opinion of holy fathers, public sinners ought to be publicly censured so that others
may stand in fear. Accordingly, we and this sacred council of Florence recently
censured and denounced in public before the church, in synodal form, the authors
and abettors of the pestilential sin of schism against the holy apostolic see and the
holy Roman church, the mother and mistress of all Christians, which was
perpetrated by Amadeus, once duke of Savoy, and his accomplices. It would have
been in conformity with the sacred canons to have passed a sentence of due severity
straightaway on those notoriously sacrilegious persons. However, desiring their
conversion and salvation rather than their punishment, we begged, warned and
required of them, with all the charity and mildness we could, to reflect and to recoil
from such great iniquity, promising them pardon and favour and a father's affection.
But if they refused to heed these dutiful admonitions, we decreed that they should be
punished with penalties proportionate to so great an outrage, as is contained in the
monition promulgated against them, which is as follows.

Session 11—4 February 1442

[Bull of union with the Copts]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. Sing
praises to the Lord for he has done gloriously; let this be known in all the earth.
Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the holy one
of Israel. To sing and to exult in the Lord certainly befits the church of God for his
great magnificence and the glory of his name, which the most merciful God has
deigned to bring about on this very day. It is right, indeed, to praise and bless with
all our hearts our Saviour, who daily builds up his holy church with new additions.
His benefactions to his Christian people are at all times many and great and manifest
more clearly than the light of day his immense love for us. Yet if we look more
closely at the benefactions which the divine mercy has deigned to effect in most
recent times, we shall assuredly be able to judge that in these days of ours the gifts
of his love have been more in number and greater in kind than in many past ages.

For in less than three years our lord Jesus Christ by his indefatigable kindness, to the
common and lasting joy of the whole of Christianity, has generously effected in this
holy ecumenical synod the most salutary union of three great nations. Hence it has
come about that nearly the whole of the east that adores the glorious name of Christ
and no small part of the north, after prolonged discord with the holy Roman church,
have come together in the same bond of faith and love. For first the Greeks and
those subject to the four patriarchal sees, which cover many races and nations and
tongues, then the Armenians, who are a race of many peoples, and today indeed the
Jacobites, who are a great people in Egypt, have been united with the holy apostolic
see.

Nothing is more pleasing to our Saviour, the lord Jesus Christ, than mutual love
among people and nothing can give more glory to his name and advantage to the
church than that Christians, with all discord between them banished, should come
together in the same purity of faith. Deservedly all of us ought to sing for joy and to
exult in the Lord; we whom the divine clemency has made worthy to see in our days
such great splendour of the Christian faith. With the greatest readiness we therefore
announce these marvellous facts to the whole Christian world, so that just as we are
filled with unspeakable joy for the glory of God and the exaltation of the church, we
may make others participate in this great happiness. Thus all of us with one voice
may magnify and glorify God and may return abundant and daily thanks, as is
fitting, to his majesty for so many and so great marvellous benefits bestowed on his
holy church in this age. He who diligently does the work of God not only awaits
merit and reward in heaven but also deserves generous glory and praise among
people. Therefore we consider that our venerable brother John, patriarch of the
Jacobites, whose zeal for this holy union is immense, should deservedly be praised
and extolled by us and the whole church and deserves, together with his whole race,
the general approval of all Christians. Moved by us, through our envoy and our
letter, to send an embassy to us and this sacred synod and to unite himself and his
people in the same faith with the Roman church, he sent to us and this synod the
beloved son Andrew, an Egyptian, endowed in no mean degree with faith and
morals and abbot of the monastery of St Anthony in Egypt, in which St Anthony
himself is said to have lived and died. The patriarch, fired with great zeal, ordered
and commissioned him reverently to accept, in the name of the patriarch and his
Jacobites, the doctrine of the faith that the Roman church holds and preaches, and
afterwards to bring this doctrine to the patriarch and the Jacobites so that they might
acknowledge and formally approve it and preach it in their lands.

We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ's sheep', had abbot
Andrew carefully examined by some outstanding men of this sacred council on the
articles of the faith, the sacraments of the church and certain other matters pertaining
to salvation. At length, after an exposition of the catholic faith to the abbot, as far as
this seemed to be necessary, and his humble acceptance of it, we have delivered in
the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred
ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine.

First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour,
firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and
eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten
Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the
Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy
Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the
Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his
substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy
Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are
one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one
nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the
difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is
whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in
the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of
them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The
existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and
the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without
beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself
and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the
Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has
from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two
principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the
holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it
condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ,
which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns
Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It
condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the
Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It
also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.

Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son
and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when
he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal,
good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they
are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every
nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is
the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and
the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the
same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras,
Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song
of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the
twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees;
the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the
Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the
Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to
Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of
Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Hence it anathematizes the madness of the Manichees who posited two first
principles, one of visible things, the other of invisible things, and said that one was
the God of the new Testament, the other of the old Testament. It firmly believes,
professes and preaches that one person of the Trinity, true God, Son of God begotten
by the Father, consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, in the fullness of time
which the inscrutable depth of divine counsel determined, for the salvation of the
human race, took a real and complete human nature from the immaculate womb of
the virgin Mary, and joined it to himself in a personal union of such great unity that
whatever is of God there, is not separated from man, and whatever is human is not
divided from the Godhead, and he is one and the same undivided, each nature
perduring in its properties, God and man, Son of God and son of man, equal to the
Father according to his divinity, less than the Father according to his humanity,
immortal and eternal through the nature of the Godhead, passible and temporal from
the condition of assumed humanity. It firmly believes, professes and preaches that
the Son of God was truly born of the virgin in his assumed humanity, truly suffered,
truly died and was buried, truly rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at
the right hand of the Father and will come at the end of time to judge the living and
the dead. It anathematizes, execrates and condemns every heresy that is tainted with
the contrary. First it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Paul of Samosata,
Photinus and all similar blasphemers who, failing to see the personal union of the
humanity with the Word, denied that our lord Jesus Christ was true God and
professed him to be simply a man who by a greater participation in divine grace,
which he had received through the merit of his holier life, should be called a divine
man.

It anathematizes also Manes and his followers who, imagining that the Son of God
took to himself not a real body but a phantasmal one completely rejected the truth of
the humanity in Christ, Valentinus, who declared that the Son of God took nothing
from his virgin mother but that he assumed a heavenly body and passed through the
virgin's womb like water flowing down an aqueduct; Arius, who by his assertion
that the body taken from the virgin had no soul, wanted the Deity to take the place of
the soul; and Apollinarius who, realizing that if the soul informing the body were
denied there would be no true humanity in Christ, posited only a sensitive soul and
held that the deity of the Word took the place of the rational soul. It anathematizes
also Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, who asserted that the humanity was
united to the Son of God through grace, and hence that there are two persons in
Christ just as they profess there are two natures, since they could not understand that
the union of the humanity to the Word was hypostatic and therefore they denied that
he had received the subsistence of the Word. For according to this blasphemy the
Word was not made flesh but the Word dwelt in flesh through grace, that is, the Son
of God did not become man but rather the Son of God dwelt in a man. It also
anathematizes, execrates and condemns the archimandrite Eutyches who, when he
understood that the blasphemy of Nestorius excluded the truth of the incarnation,
and that it was therefore necessary for the humanity to be so united to the Word of
God that there should be one and the same person of the divinity and the humanity;
and also because, granted the plurality of natures, he could not grasp the unity of the
person, since he posited one person in Christ of divinity and humanity; so he
affirmed that there was one nature, suggesting that before the union there was a
duality of natures which passed into a single nature in the act of assumption, thereby
conceding a great blasphemy and impiety that either the humanity was converted
into the divinity or the divinity into the humanity. It also anathematizes, execrates
and condemns Macarius of Antioch and all others of similar views who, although
they are orthodox on the duality of natures and the unity of person, yet have gone
enormously wrong on Christ's principles of action by declaring that of the two
natures in Christ, there was only one principle of action and one will. The holy
Roman church anathematizes all of these and their heresies and affirms that in Christ
there are two wills and two principles of action.

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a
man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord
Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and humanity, who was conceived without
sin, was born and died. He alone by his death overthrew the enemy of the human
race, canceling our sins, and unlocked the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, which
the first man by his sin had locked against himself and all his posterity. All the holy
sacrifices sacraments and ceremonies of the old Testament had prefigured that he
would come at some time.

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old
Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and
sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although
they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who
was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new
Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the
legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if
faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from
Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained,
provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts
that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of
eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe
circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of
Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from
these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to
practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place
their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only
remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched
away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes
that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period
of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as
soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child
should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman
in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the
decree on the Armenians.

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and
nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the
word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the
difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial
practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the
gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been
sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time
when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with
different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some
observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming
together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be
removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to
Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial
food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such
an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly
practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean
all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its
effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and
nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals,
no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of
virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not
proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but
not all are helpful.

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic
church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in
eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and
his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives;
that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who
abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts,
almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce
eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has
persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

It embraces, approves and accepts the holy synod of 318 fathers at Nicaea, which
was convened in the time of our predecessor most blessed Silvester and the great
and most pious emperor Constantine. In it the impious Arian heresy and its author
was condemned and there was defined that the Son of God is consubstantial and
coeternal with the Father. It also embraces, approves and accepts the holy synod of
150 fathers at Constantinople, which was convoked in the time of our predecessor
most blessed Damasus and the elder Theodosius and which anathematized the
impious error of Macedonius, who asserted that the holy Spirit is not God but a
creature. Those whom they condemn, it condemns; what they approve, it approves;
and in every respect it wants what was defined there to remain unchanged and
inviolate.

It also embraces, approves and accepts the first holy synod of 200 fathers at
Ephesus, which is third in the order of universal synods and was convoked under our
predecessor most blessed Celestine and the younger Theodosius. In it the blasphemy
of the impious Nestorius was condemned, and there was defined that the person of
our lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is one and that the blessed ever-virgin
Mary should be preached by the whole church not only as Christ-bearer but also as
God-bearer, that is as mother of God as well as mother of the man.

But it condemns, anathematizes and rejects the impious second synod of Ephesus,
which was convened under our predecessor most blessed Leo and the aforesaid
emperor. In it Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, defender of the heresiarch Eutyches
and impious persecutor of holy Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, with cunning and
threat led the execrable synod to an approval of the Eutychian impiety.

It also embraces, approves and accepts the holy synod of 630 fathers at Chalcedon,
which is fourth in the order of universal synods and was held in the time of our
predecessor most blessed Leo and the emperor Marcian. In it the Eutychian heresy
and its author Eutyches and its defender Dioscorus were condemned, and there was
defined that our lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man and that in the one and
same person the divine and human natures remain entire, inviolate, incorrupt,
unconfused and distinct, the humanity doing what befits man, the divinity what
befits God. Those whom they condemn, it condemns; those whom they approve, it
approves.

It also embraces, approves and accepts the fifth holy synod, the second of
Constantinople, which was held in the time of our predecessor most blessed Vigilius
and the emperor Justinian. In it the definition of the sacred council of Chalcedon
about the two natures and the one person of Christ was renewed and many errors of
Origen and his followers, especially about the penitence and liberation of demons
and other condemned beings, were refuted and condemned.

It also embraces, approves and accepts the third holy synod of 150 fathers at
Constantinople, which is sixth in the order of universal synods and was convened in
the time of our predecessor most blessed Agatho and the emperor Constantine IV. In
it the heresy of Macarius of Antioch and his adherents was condemned, and there
was defined that in our lord Jesus Christ there are two perfect and complete natures
and two principles of action and also two wills, although there is one and the same
person to whom the actions of each of the two natures belong, the divinity doing
what is of God, the humanity doing what is human.

It also embraces, approves and accepts all other universal synods which were
legitimately summoned, celebrated and confirmed by the authority of a Roman
pontiff, and especially this holy synod of Florence, in which, among other things,
most holy unions with the Greeks and the Armenians have been achieved and many
most salutary definitions in respect of each of these unions have been issued, as is
contained in full in the decrees previously promulgated, which are as follows: Let
the heavens be glad . . . 1; Exult in God . 2

However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians
in respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, relying on the
teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in
the consecration of the Lord's body and blood, we concluded that it should be
inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the
Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my
blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many
unto the remission of sins .
Whether the wheat bread, in which the sacrament is confected, has been baked on
the same day or earlier is of no importance whatever. For, provided the substance of
bread remains, there should be no doubt at all that after the aforesaid words of
consecration of the body have been pronounced by a priest with the intention of
consecrating, immediately it is changed in substance into the true body of Christ.

It is asserted that some people reject fourth marriages as condemned. Lest sin is
attributed where it does not exist, since the apostle says that a wife on her husband's
death is free from his law and free in the Lord to marry whom she wishes, and since
no distinction is made between the deaths of the first, second and third husbands, we
declare that not only second and third marriages but also fourth and further ones
may lawfully be contracted, provided there is no canonical impediment. We say,
however, that they would be more commendable if thereafter they abstain from
marriage and persevere in chastity because we consider that, just as virginity is to be
preferred in praise and merit to widowhood, so chaste widowhood is preferable to
marriage.

After all these explanations the aforesaid abbot Andrew, in the name of the aforesaid
patriarch and of himself and of all the Jacobites, receives and accepts with all
devotion and reverence this most salutary synodal decree with all its chapters,
declarations, definitions traditions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine
contained therein, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church
holds and teaches. He also reverently accepts those doctors and holy fathers whom
the Roman church approves, and he holds as rejected and condemned whatever
persons and things the Roman church rejects and condemns, promising as a son of
true obedience, in the name of the above persons, faithfully and always to obey the
regulations and commands of the said apostolic see.

Session 12—14 October 1443

[Eugenius IV convokes the Lateran council, that is, the continuation of the
council of Florence]

Eugenius. Convocation of the Lateran council. For an everlasting record. By the

infinite clemency and pity of the redeemer of the human race, our God and lord
Jesus Christ, by whose ineffable providence the whole body of the church is
sanctified and ruled and through whose aid — which surpasses our merits and
exceeds what we recognise ourselves as worthy either to seek or to solicit — gifts
and favours of his mercy daily come to us, we have returned to bountiful Rome, the
see of most blessed Peter, to the holy of holies, the Lateran of the patriarchs. With
great trust we are embracing and earnestly pursuing the things which seem to be
promoted and revealed by divine rather than by human wisdom. Hence it is that
because of various just, reasonable and necessary causes which then moved our
mind, by apostolic authority and the plenitude of power and with the approval of the
council, we transferred the holy ecumenical council of Florence, over which we
were then presiding, to this bountiful city of Rome and the Lateran basilica, to be re-
established and continued on the first day following the fifteenth day after our
arrival, as is contained in more detail in the letter composed for that purpose, whose
text is word for word as follows:

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record The
compassionate and merciful Lord ordained that his only-begotten Son should
assume a human nature and should so join it to himself into a single person that not
only would fallen nature be repaired by virtue of that ineffable union, but also by his
embrace as spouse and by the kiss of his mouth his bride the holy church would be
brought forth, her members would be joined together by a solid bond of love, and
the Christian people would acquire peace in harmony, salvation in a unity of spirit,
and glory in the bond of charity.

In so far as it is granted to us by the mercy of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ,
whose place we though unworthy take on earth, we, following in his footsteps,
ardently desire and intensely pursue the salvation, unity and peace of the Christian
people. Therefore we are intent, with a deserved watchfulness, on the conservation
of this holy ecumenical council. In it, by the marvellous kindness and mercy of the
same Saviour, very many most noteworthy works have been achieved for his praise
and glory, the increase of the catholic faith, the unity of the Christian people and the
exaltation of the holy apostolic see and the Roman church. For in our own days we
have seen Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites and other almost innumerable peoples,
some of whom have been separated from the rite and the holy teaching of the
Roman church for almost five hundred or even seven hundred years, joined with us
in this sacred council, by God's mercy, under one divine law of truth and embracing
us with due reverence as the true vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter and the
shepherd of the universal church.

There are no limits to the kindness of our Saviour, who works for the unity of the
Christian people and his mystical body, for which he prayed: I wish, Father, that
they may be one even as we are one. Indeed we are experiencing his kindness
particularly in these times. For his infinite mercy has granted that we are now
awaiting the arrival of envoys, furnished with full power to accept in this holy
council the doctrine of the orthodox faith from which their peoples have gone astray
in many points, from our most dear son in Christ Zar'a Ya'qob, king of Ethiopia,
commonly called Prester John, to whom very many kings and almost innumerable
peoples are subject and who is impelled, as we trust, by divine inspiration. To foster
and hasten such a holy and divine proposal, which is so necessary for the whole of
Christianity, we have sent our own nuncios and envoys, who are full of zeal for this
holy task and have considerable influence with the said most powerful king.

Many more works have been proposed to us for the praise of God and the increase
of the faith and the Christian people. We wish to give careful attention to them.
Frightened by neither the heavy expenses nor the many labours, we put our trust in
the power of him whose inspiration motivates us. Let us hope, moreover, that in the
course of time many other desirable and salutary fruits will accrue to the catholic
faith and the church of Christ, especially if this holy synod is held in a place of
greater importance and in a royal and sacerdotal city. To the genial city of Rome,
which is particularly our city and which, as is right, we want to participate and help
in these salutary and divine tasks, we have turned our attention, a city which we
consider to be abounding in all spiritual and temporal goods and more holy and
outstanding than all other cities for carrying out these holy tasks and bringing them
to a religious and happy conclusion. For in it our Saviour in his eternal providence
settled the apostolic see in blessed Peter, prince of all the apostles, and on his right
in fellowship the wondrous foresight of the same Saviour added the blessed apostle
Paul. They are two bulwarks of the faith through whom the gospel shone in Rome;
they are true fathers and true pastors; they are those who suffered on one day for
merit, in one place for grace, under one persecutor for equal virtue, and made this
city sacerdotal and royal and the capital of the world, as being the holy seat of Peter,
and consecrated it to the lord Christ with the glorious blood of martyrdom. "For the
Roman church founded all, whether the eminence of a patriarch or the seats of
metropolitan primacy or of bishoprics or the dignities of churches of whatever rank;
he alone, who entrusted to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of eternal life, the rights of
the heavenly as well as of the earthly kingdom, founded the Roman church and
straightaway set it on the rock of nascent faith." Since, then, the city of Rome has
been ennobled and distinguished by so many and so great divine gifts and is
resplendent with so much authority and also draws the faithful to itself from all sides
by the relics and sanctity of apostles, martyrs and confessors; since Christian nations
and peoples even in the furthest parts of the world flock to the said city and are seen
to desire greatly that we return to our see, which has been divinely constituted for
Roman pontiffs, in order that a greater veneration and devotion may grow in the
Christian people towards both us, through the authority of the said see, and the said
see, through our presence and authority, and since we are informed that, on account
of our residence in Rome, subjects and faithful of ours and of the Roman church,
whose peace and tranquillity we are bound to procure and preserve with special zeal,
will enjoy much greater peace and unity and that in this way, with God's blessing,
we shall be more expeditious and effective in pursuing works of peace and harmony
and in arranging and confirming, as we ardently desire, peace and unity among other
catholic kings and princes and peoples; Therefore to Rome, which is a suitable and
safe place fulfilling all human needs as regards fertility of the soil and sea transport;
under the influence of the above-mentioned necessary causes and many other just
and reasonable ones which direct our mind to the praise and glory of almighty God,
the extirpation of heresies and errors, the reform of morals, the peace, salvation and
increase of the Christian people and the prosecution of other holy works, under the
Lord's leadership, for which the said council was originally convened;

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, with the
approval of the said general council given on 5 January last, in a general
congregation under our presidency, by apostolic authority and by this present letter,
we translate as from now this holy ecumenical council of Florence, and by the same
authority and the same letter we have decreed and declared it to be translated to the
Lateran basilica, which is the first and proper seat of the supreme pontiff and the
vicar of Jesus Christ, to be resumed, continued and prosecuted on the day following
the fifteenth day after our entry into bountiful Rome. In addition, by an inviolable
constitution and decree we ordain that each and all of the securities and safe-
conducts, which we granted at the beginning of this sacred council and which we are
extending anew and prolonging, are to be considered as included in this present
letter and as having the same force and effect as if they had been mentioned word
for word in this our synodal constitution and had been inserted and denoted in it. Let
nobody therefore . . . If anyone however . . .

Now that the appointed day has come and all the reasons for which it had then
seemed necessary to resume the council are recognised to be more than ever
necessary, with the said necessary reasons and many other just and reasonable ones
impelling us, for the praise and glory of almighty God, the extirpation of heresies
and errors, the reform of morals, the peace, salvation and increase of the Christian
people, and the completion of other holy works, under the Lord's leadership, for
which the aforesaid council was originally convened;

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, by the
same authority and power, with the same approval and by this present letter; We
resume, continue and carry forward the aforesaid ecumenical council of Florence,
which was translated as above, and we decree and declare by this present letter that
this continuation, resumption and prosecution is taking place in this council hall of
the sacred Lateran patriarchate. We warn and require each and all of those who are
bound by law or custom to take part in general councils that they should come as
quickly as possible to this present holy ecumenical Lateran council, as referred to
above, which is continuing for the attainment of the above-mentioned ends. In
addition, we ordain again by this constitution and decree that each and all of the
securities and safe-conducts, which we granted at the beginning of the sacred
ecumenical council of Ferrara and which we are extending anew and prolonging, are
to be considered as included in this present letter and as having the same force and
effect as if they had been mentioned word for word in this our synodal constitution
and had been inserted and denoted in

Let nobody therefore . . . if anyone however . . .

Session 13—30 November 1444

[Bull of union with the Syrians]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. In these
our days the ineffable clemency of divine mercy bestows on his holy church many
and marvellous gifts which are much greater than we could have asked for or
envisaged. Hence we see that the orthodox faith is expanded, new peoples daily
return to the obedience of the apostolic see and reasons for joy and exaltation are
daily being multiplied for us and all Christ's faithful, in such wise that we are
deservedly incited time and again to say in jubilation with the prophet to the faithful
peoples: Come, let us exult in the Lord, let us hail the God who saves us, for the
Lord is great and most worthy of praise in the city of our God, on his holy mountain.
It is true that in the catholic church, which is the city of God on the holy mountain
and is founded on the authority of the apostolic see and Peter, God, whose
omnipotence and wisdom knows no limits, has always worked great and inscrutable
deeds. But the singular and special gift which the ineffable providence of its founder
bestowed on it is that the orthodox faith, which alone gives life to and sanctifies the
human race, should abide for ever on that holy mountain in a unique and
unchangeable profession of faith and that dissents, which arise against the church
from the variety of earthly opinions and separate people off from the firmness of that
rock, should return to that mountain and be exterminated and eradicated. Whence it
comes about that the peoples and nations thronging to its bosom agree with it in one
truth of faith. Assuredly it is not from our merit that the immensity of divine
goodness has granted us to behold these great sublime and marvellous gifts of God.
His benevolence and condescension alone have granted that after the union of the
Greeks in the sacred ecumenical council of Florence, who were seen to differ from
the Roman church in some articles, and after the return of the Armenians and the
Jacobites, who were entangled in various opinions, they should at last, having
abandoned all dissent, come together into the one right way of truth. Behold now
again with the Lord's help other nations have gathered from afar, inhabitants of
Mesopotamia between the Tigris and the Euphrates, whose thinking about the
procession of the holy Spirit and some other articles had gone astray.

Great, then, for us and for all Christ's faithful is the reason for rejoicing. For with the
Lord's approval the most illustrious profession of the Roman church about the truth
of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error shines with new
beams also in the east beyond the bounds of the Euphrates inasmuch as it has drawn
our venerable brother Abdala, archbishop of Edessa and legate of our venerable
brother Ignatius, patriarch of the Syrians, and of his whole nation, to us here in
bountiful Rome and to this sacred ecumenical Lateran council and has bidden him
humbly and devoutly to petition that we give to them the rule of faith which the holy
Roman church professes. Among all the preoccupations of the holy apostolic see, we
hold, as we have always done, our first and chiefest care to be the defence of the
faith, the extermination of heresies and the propagation of the orthodox faith.
Therefore we selected some of our venerable brethren, cardinals of the holy Roman
church, who in turn co-opted from this sacred council some masters in holy
scripture, to confer with the aforesaid archbishop about the difficulties, doubts and
errors of that nation, to examine him in person and to open to him the rule of
catholic truth, and finally to instruct and inform him fully about the integrity of the
faith of the Roman church.
They found him orthodox on all points of faith and practice except three articles:
namely, the procession of the holy Spirit, the two natures in Jesus Christ our saviour,
the two wills and principles of action in him. They laid before him the truth of the
orthodox faith, opened up the meaning of the sacred scriptures, adduced the
testimonies of holy doctors and added telling and pertinent reasons.

When the archbishop had understood the doctrine on these points, he affirmed that
all his doubts had been completely answered. He professed that he thought he fully
understood the truth of the faith as regards both the procession of the holy Spirit and
the two natures, two wills and two principles of action in our lord Jesus Christ.
Moreover he declared that he would accept, in the name of the aforesaid patriarch
and of the whole nation and of himself, the whole faith and all the teaching which
we, with the approval of this sacred council, would propose to him.

For this reason we were filled with exultation in Christ and poured out immense
gratitude to our God, since we are seeing our desire for the salvation of that nation
fulfilled.

After careful discussion with our brethren and the sacred council, we decided, with
the approval of the same council, to propose and assign to the said archbishop, who
will accept it in the name of the above persons, the faith and doctrine which the holy
Roman mother church holds.

This, then, is the faith which the holy Roman mother church has always held,
preached and taught and which she now holds, preaches, professes and teaches. This
is the faith, as regards those three articles, which we decree that the said archbishop
Abdala, on behalf and in the name of the said patriarch of the Syrians and of all that
nation and of himself, shall accept and shall keep for ever. First, that the holy Spirit
is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being
from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one
principle and a single spiration.

Also it holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man,
our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and
true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his
divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except
for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born
according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of
God; one and the same Christ true only-begotten Son of God, acknowledged in two
natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no
point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but
rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single
person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but
is one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ.
Also it believes, professes and teaches in the one lord Jesus Christ two natural
principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no separation, no
confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers; and two natural wills
one divine, the other human, not in opposition, but his human will subject to his
divine and all powerful will. For in the same way that his most holy animate flesh
was made divine, not destroyed, but remained in its own limit and category, so his
human will was made divine, not destroyed, but rather was preserved and perfected.

We decree that the said archbishop Abdala ought, in the name of the above persons,
to accept this faith, to hold it in his heart and to profess it with his mouth. Further we
ordain and decree that he ought to receive and embrace, in the name of the above
persons, whatever has been defined and established at various times by the holy
Roman church, especially the decrees on the Greeks, the Armenians and the
Jacobites, which were issued in the sacred ecumenical council of Florence and
which, since Archbishop Abdala has carefully read them translated into Arabic and
praised them, we have given to him, in the name of the above persons, for a wider
and more complete instruction on everything; that whatever doctors and holy fathers
the holy Roman church approves and accepts, he should, in the name of the above
persons, approve and accept; and that whatever persons and other things she
condemns and rejects, he should, in the name of the above persons, hold as
condemned and rejected; promising on oath as a true son of obedience, in the name
of the above persons, always devoutly and faithfully to obey the regulations and
orders of the said apostolic see. If anyone however . . . Let nobody therefore . . .

Session 14—7 August 1445

[Bull of union with the Chaldeans and the Maronites of Cyprus]

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. Blessed
be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all
consolation, who daily promotes with many great favours, and accompanies with
happy results far beyond our deserts, our aims and pious desires, whereby in
fulfilment of our pastoral duties we long for and foster with many works, in so far as
this allowed us from on high, the salvation of the Christian people.

Indeed, after the union of the eastern church with the western church in the
ecumenical council of Florence, and after the return of the Armenians, the Jacobites
and the people of Mesopotamia, we despatched our venerable brother Andrew,
archbishop of Kalocsa, to eastern lands and the island of Cyprus. He was to confirm
in the faith which had been accepted the Greeks, Armenians and Jacobites living
there, by his sermons and his expositions and explanations of the decrees issued for
their union and return. He was also to try to bring back to the truth of the faith, using
our warnings and exhortations, whoever else he might find there to be strangers to
the truth of faith in other sects, whether they are followers of Nestorius or of
Macarius.

He pursued this task with vigour, thanks to the wisdom and other virtues with which
the Lord, the giver of graces, has enriched him. He finally eliminated from their
hearts, after many discussions, first all the impurity of Nestorius, who asserted that
Christ is only a man and that the blessed Virgin is the mother of Christ but not of
God, then that of the most impious Macarius of Antioch who, although he confessed
that Christ is true God and man, asserted that there is in him only the divine will and
principle of action, thereby diminishing his humanity.

With divine assistance he converted to the truth of the orthodox faith our venerable
brothers Timothy, metropolitan of the Chaldeans, who have been called Nestorians
in Cyprus until now because they used to follow Nestorius, and Elias, bishop of the
Maronites, who with his nation in the same realm was infected with the teachings of
Macarius, together with a whole multitude of peoples and clerics subject to him in
the island of Cyprus. To these prelates and all their subjects there, he delivered the
faith and doctrine that the holy church has always cherished and observed. The said
prelates, moreover, accepted this faith and doctrine with much veneration in a great
public assembly of different peoples living in that realm, which was held in the
metropolitan church of St Sophia.

After that, the Chaldeans sent to us the aforesaid metropolitan Timothy, and Bishop
Elias of the Maronites sent an envoy, to make to us a solemn profession of the faith
of the Roman church, which by the providence of the Lord and the aid of blessed
Peter and the apostle has always remained immaculate . Timothy, the metropolitan,
reverently and devoutly professed this faith and doctrine to us, in this sacred general
congregation of the ecumenical Lateran council, first in his own Chaldean tongue,
which was interpreted in Greek and then translated from Greek into Latin, as
follows: I, Timothy, archbishop of Tarsus and metropolitan of the Chaldeans who
are in Cyprus, on behalf of myself and all my peoples in Cyprus, profess, vow and
promise to almighty God, Father and Son and holy Spirit, and then to you, most holy
and blessed father pope Eugenius IV, to this holy apostolic see and to this holy and
venerable congregation, that henceforth I will always remain under the obedience of
you and your successors and of the holy Roman church as under the unique mother
and head of all other churches. Also, in future I will always hold and profess that the
holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as the holy Roman church teaches
and holds. Also, in future I will always hold and approve two natures, two wills, one
hypostasis and two principles of action in Christ.

Also, in future I will always confess and approve all seven sacraments of the Roman
church, just as she holds, teaches and preaches.

Also, in future I will never add oil in the sacred eucharist.

Also, in future I will always hold, confess, preach and teach whatever the holy
Roman church holds, confesses, teaches and preaches and I reject, anathematize and
condemn whatever she rejects, anathematizes and condemns; in future I will always
reject, anathematize and condemn especially the impieties and blasphemies of the
most wicked heresiarch Nestorius and every other heresy raising its head against this
holy catholic and apostolic church.

This is the faith, holy father, that I vow and promise to hold and observe and to see
that it is held and observed by all my subjects. I engage myself and solemnly
promise to deprive of all his goods and benefices, to excommunicate and to
denounce as heretical and condemned, whoever rejects it and raises himself up
against it and, if he is obstinate, to degrade him and to hand him over to the secular
arm.

Then our beloved son in Christ Isaac, envoy of our venerable brother Elias, bishop
of the Maronites, on his behalf and in his name, rejecting the heresy of Macarius
about one will in Christ, made with great veneration a profession that was similar in
all details.

For the devotion of these professions and for the salvation of so many souls we offer
immense thanks to God and our lord Jesus Christ, who is in our times so greatly
enlarging the faith and bestowing benefits on so many Christian peoples. We receive
and approve these professions; we receive into the bosom of holy mother church the
metropolitan and the bishop in Cyprus and their subjects; and while they remain in
the aforesaid faith, obedience and devotion, we honour them with the following
favours and privileges.

First, nobody shall in future dare to call the said metropolitan of the Chaldeans and
the said bishop of the Maronites, or their clerics and peoples or any individual
among them, heretics, or to call Chaldeans, Nestorians. If anyone despises this
ordinance, we order him to be excommunicated until such time as he offers a worthy
satisfaction or has been punished, in the judgment of the ordinary, by some other
temporal penalty.

Also, the said metropolitan and bishop and their successors are forthwith to be
preferred in each and every honour to bishops who are separated from the
communion of the holy Roman church.

Also, in future they can lay censures on their subjects, and those whom they rightly
excommunicate in future shall be held by all as excommunicated, and those whom
they absolve shall be held by all as absolved.

Also, the said prelates and priests and their clerics can freely celebrate divine
services in the churches of Catholics, and Catholics can freely celebrate them in
their churches.
Also, in future the said prelates and clerics and their lay men and women, who have
accepted this union and faith, can choose to be buried in the churches of Catholics,
to contract marriages with Catholics, but in the rite of Latin Catholics, and to enjoy
and utilize all benefits, immunities and liberties which other Catholics, both lay and
clerical, possess and enjoy in the said realm. Let nobody therefore . . . If anyone
however . . .

COUNCIL OF BASEL (1431-1445)

Contents

Session 1 (1431)
Sessions 2-11 (1432)
Sessions 12-15 (1433)
Sessions 16-19 (1434)
Sessions 20-22 (1435)
Sessions 23-24 (1436)
Session 25 (1437)

Session 1—14 December 1431

The holy synod of Basel, representing the universal church, legitimately assembled
in the holy Spirit under the presidency of the most reverend father in Christ lord
Julian, cardinal deacon of St Angelo of the holy Roman church, legate of the
apostolic see, for the glory of almighty God, the exaltation of the catholic faith and
the progress of the Christian religion, laying its foundation on the cornerstone Christ
Jesus, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple
in the Lord, calls to mind that the holy general synod of Constance, celebrated in the
holy Spirit, esteeming it salutary and beneficial that general councils should be
frequent in the holy church of God, established this by its decree as follows: The
frequent holding of general councils . . . 2 Hence for the execution of that decree, the
city of Pavia in Italy was chosen for the general council to be held at the end of the
five years immediately following. At the decreed time that council was indeed
inaugurated in the said city of Pavia and thence it was translated for certain reasons
to the city of Siena. In that general council which was begun in Pavia and was held
in the city of Siena, this city of Basel was chosen and duly assigned for the next
future general council to be held after the seven-year period from the end of the
council of Siena, as is stated in the public instrument then composed about this
succession.
[Establishment of the holy council of Basel]

The most reverend lord legate in his desire to fulfil the apostolic commission since
at the time when the beginning of the council was imminent he was immersed in the
expedition against the pestilential heresy of the Hussites for the sake of the faith, had
his vicegerents despatched to this city and thereafter with all possible speed came
himself to this city, in order that, with the help of God's grace, he might fulfil in this
general council the office of legate laid upon him, as our most holy lord Eugenius
IV, pope by divine providence, had by a series of letters of his holiness enjoined on
him. In this city, during more than three months, he held several congregations with
prelates and others who had arrived in the city for the said general council, and he
had discussions about the establishment and holding of the council. Finally it was
decreed that the present solemn session should be held, in which, firstly, since from
the above it is manifest that this city is the place deputed for the general council and
the date for it to be held is already past, and the authority of the most holy apostolic
see is not lacking, it decrees, defines and declares that in this city and place the
general council is canonically fixed and founded, and that all, both prelates and
others who by right or custom are obliged to attend general councils, are bound to
come to its celebration.

[Purpose of the council of Basel]

Seeing that all things direct their actions more immediately and intensely the more
knowledge they have of their destined purpose, so this holy synod, after intense
meditation and thought on the needs of the Christian religion and after mature and
ordered deliberation, decrees that, with the help of God from whom all good things
comet, it will pursue with all its zeal and attention these three ends. First that, with
the banishment of the darkness of all heresies from the bounds of the Christian
people, the light of catholic truth, by the generosity of Christ the true light, may be
resplendent. Secondly that, after due thought and with the help of the author of
peace, the Christian people, freed from the madness of wars by which — with the
sower of weeds doing his work — it is affected and divided in various parts of the
world, may be brought back to a peaceful and tranquil state. Thirdly, as the vine of
Christ has already almost run wild on account of the multitude of thistles and thorns
of vices crowding in upon it, to cut them back through the endeavour of necessary
cultivation, with the work from on high of the evangelical husbandman, so that it
may flourish again and produce with happy abundance the fruits of virtue and
esteem. Since such great benefits as these cannot be hoped for without a generous
flow of heavenly grace, it earnestly exhorts in the Lord all Christ's faithful that for
the happy achievement of the aforesaid they should urge the divine majesty with
devout prayers, fasts and almsgiving that the good and merciful God, placated by
such humble submission, may deign with his accustomed goodness to grant to this
sacred council the desired completion of all these things, imposing this on them unto
the remission of their sins.
Session 2—15 February 1432

The holy general synod of Basel, representing the church militant, for an everlasting
record. To the praise of almighty God and the glory and honour of the blessed and
undivided Trinity, for the extirpation of heresies and errors, for the reformation of
morals in head and members of the church of God, and for the pacification of kings
and kingdoms and other Christians in discord among themselves through the
instigation of the author of discords, the synod, legitimately assembled in the holy
Spirit, decrees, establishes, defines, declares and ordains as follows.

[Decree that the council of Basel is legitimately begun]

First, that the same sacred synod of Basel, by the decrees and ordinances of the
sacred general councils of Constance and of Siena, and by the action of apostolic
authority, was and is duly and legitimately begun and assembled in this place of
Basel. And lest anyone should doubt about the power of the same sacred synod of
Basel, this same synod in this present session ordains and decrees that two
declarations from the decrees of the synod of Constance are to be inserted among its
other decrees already issued or to be issued. The text of the first of these declarations
is as follows, First it declares . . . 1; that of the other is this, Next it declares . . . I
Therefore, presupposing also some other decrees of the council of Constance,
especially the one beginning The frequent, which were read out in a former session
of this sacred synod of Basel, the said synod of Basel decrees and declares that,
legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, for the extirpation of heresies and a
general reformation of morals in the church in head and members, and also for
procuring peace among Christians, as is stated above, no one of whatever authority,
even if he is distinguished by the dignity of the papacy, could or should have in the
past, or can or ought to now or in the future, dissolve or transfer the said synod of
Basel to another locality or prorogue it to another date without the deliberation and
consent of the same synod of Basel.

Session 3—29 April 1432

[Impossibility of the dissolution of the council is decreed]

This holy council, considering that the aforesaid dissolution of the council was
enacted contrary to the decrees of the council of Constance, and that it leads to a
serious danger of subversion of the faith as well as disturbance and harm for the
state of the church and scandal for the whole Christian people, decreed that the
dissolution could not be made. Since, therefore, the dissolution is no obstacle at all,
the prosecution of what has been praiseworthily set in motion for the stability of the
faith and the salvation of the Christian people should, with the grace of the holy
Spirit, be proceeded with. But since the aforesaid bishop of Lausanne and the dean
of Utrecht, on their return, did not bring back from the most holy lord pope the
desired reply, although the said most holy lord pope had been entreated, appealed to,
required, requested and with every insistence very often implored not only by the
aforesaid messengers in the name of the council but also by the most serene lord
Sigismund, king of the Romans and loyal supporter of the church, so this holy
synod, relying on the decrees of the sacred council of Constance, whose words are
these, That the holy synod . . . ' decreed in this solemn session to make its demands
to the most holy lord pope and also to the most reverend lord cardinals in the way
and style as follows.

This holy synod, therefore, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, beseeches the
aforesaid most blessed lord pope Eugenius with all reverence and insistence and
through the tender mercy of Jesus Christ entreats, requires implores and warns him
to revoke in fact the alleged dissolution as in fact it was issued, and in the same way
as he made the dissolution to send and publish over the different parts of the world
the revocation, and completely to desist from every obstacle against the said council:
indeed more, to favour and assist the council, as is his duty, and to offer it every
support and opportune help, and to come in person within three months — an
interval which it assigns and determines as a peremptory limit — if his physical state
so allows. But if it does not, in his place and stead he should nominate some person
or persons and send them with plenary power for each and every question in this
council up to its very end through each and all of its acts gradually and successively.
Otherwise, if his holiness should fail to do this, which is a thing that in no way is to
be expected of the vicar of Christ, the holy synod will see to it that provision is made
for the necessities of the church as shall seem just and as the holy Spirit shall dictate,
and will proceed in accordance with what befits both divine and human law.

In the same way it beseeches, requires, implores and warns the aforesaid most
reverend lord cardinals, who as the chief hinges of the church of God should apply
their minds with great fervour to these things, that they should bring earnest pressure
to bear on the lord pope about the aforesaid things, and should favour, aid and help
this sacred council in every opportune way. And since their presence, in view of
their authority, great prudence and practical experience, is highly expedient for this
sacred council, it requires and warns and cites the lord cardinals and each of them in
particular that, canonical impediment ceasing, they shall come to the said council
within three months from the notification by this present decree, which interval it
precisely and peremptorily assigns and determines for the triple canonical monition.
Otherwise, since failure to come to the sacred general council so as to aid the church
in its great necessities will without doubt be judged as contributing to the danger of
a serious challenge to the catholic faith and to the harm of the whole church, this
holy council at the expiry of the stated interval will take proceedings against those
who have failed to come, since their contumacy demands this, according as the order
of divine as well as human law shall dictate and allow, and will take steps, with the
help of the most High, to provide for the necessities of the church. In the aforesaid
however, the said synod has no intention of including the most reverend lord
cardinal of holy Cross as long as he is engaged in negotiations for peace between the
kingdoms of France and England; but in respect of the most reverend lord cardinals
of Plasencia and of Foix, as they are commonly called, and the cardinal of St
Eustathius, since they are in nearer localities, it limits the above-mentioned interval
to two months.

Further the holy synod orders all lord patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other
prelates of churches, and clerics, notaries and ecclesiastical personages, as also other
faithful of Christ, of every status, dignity, grade and condition, and it requires and
requests all princes and lords, even if they possess imperial, regal, ducal or any other
authority, who shall have been requested regarding the above, that in virtue of holy
obedience, under threat of the divine judgment and under pain of excommunication,
they should report, intimate and notify all and each of the aforesaid things to the said
most holy lord pope and to the most reverend lord cardinals, and should have them
reported, intimated and notified to these people in person, if they have safe and
convenient access to them. Where personal access is not possible, this is to be done
by affixing notices drawn up by a public notary, if this can be done safely, to their
residences and also on the door of the apostolic palace and on the churches of St
John Lateran, St Peter's and St Mary Maggiore; or failing that, on the chief churches
of the cities of Sutri Viterbo and Siena, or three other neighbouring cities, as it shall
seem better. This holy synod decrees that these places are suitable for the execution
of all the aforementioned.

Yet this holy synod, desiring to meeting future eventualities and to avoid all waste
of time, since delay in these matters is fraught with danger, ordains and decrees that
a decree of admonition and citation of this kind, after it has been read out in this
solemn session and published, shall be affixed to the doors of the cathedral church
of Basel so that, should it happen that its intimation cannot be effected in any of the
ways outlined above, in that case, as by a public edict, for four months to be
calculated from this day, the publication, monition and citation shall be considered
as performed in respect of all its effects, so that all its effects are obtained and it
binds those to whom it is directed as if it had been insinuated and presented in
person, the above peremptory force and threats being considered here as inserted.

Further, this holy council declares and insists that, despite the aforesaid delays, since
a legal summons has already been issued by the decrees of the council of Constance,
and since the urgency of the situation suggests the following, as does also the nature
of what is to be accomplished in the continuation of the council and of the things to
be done in it, it means to proceed in an orderly, due and mature manner, and for that
reason not to be remiss in any way in the process. Lastly, this holy synod decrees
citations for all prelates and others who are obliged to come to a general council, and
each and all generals of orders and also inquisitors of heresy, with the delay of a
fixed term or terms as it shall seem good to the deputies, with penalties and censures
and suitable conditions.
Session 4—20 June 1432

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church. By this decree we indicate to all that to each and
every priest, baron, noble, soldier and citizen and every other man of whatever
status, condition or rank from the kingdom of Bohemia and the marquisate of
Moravia, from Prague and the cities and other places of the same, and to all other
ecclesiastical and secular persons who, male or female, will be sent with them to the
general council of Basel and are about to set out, to all these persons under whatever
name they are listed or can be called, within however the number of two hundred
persons, by the force of this present decree we grant and give our fullest and perfect
safe-conduct and we bestow a most genuine security for their coming to this city of
Basel and their abiding, staying and resting here, and for their treating with us on
affairs suitably committed to them and their arranging, concluding and ending them.
We allow them to perform the divine offices in their lodgings without any obstacle
on our part; so that also, on account of their presence, neither on their journey nor in
any other place of their journey, in coming, remaining or returning, nor in the city
itself of Basel, will cessation from divine offices be imposed in any way in the form
of an interdict.

Further, they will be allowed freely to propose and explain in the general council or
synod of Basel, by word of mouth or in writing, the four articles on whose clarity
they insist; to prove, support and recommend them with quotations from the sacred
scriptures and the blessed doctors and, if need be, to reply to the objections of the
general synod or to argue about them with one or several from the council or to
discuss them in a charitable way without any impediment; with reproach, abuse and
taunt being totally excluded, observing the form and the ways specified and
mutually agreed between our envoys and the messengers of the aforesaid kingdom
and marquisate in the city of Eger; and specifically that in the case of the four
articles proposed by them, the divine law, the apostolic practice of Christ and of the
primitive church, and the councils and doctors truly founding themselves on the
same, will be accepted in the council of Basel as the most true and impartial judge.
Whether these discussions are or are not brought to a conclusion, whenever by the
order or permission of their superiors they, or any one of them, shall choose to
return home, then straightaway, without any refusal, condition or delay, they may
return freely and safely at their pleasure, with their goods, honour and persons intact,
but with the knowledge of the deputies of the council so that suitable provision may
be made, without guile or fraud, for their safety.

Moreover, in this safe-conduct of theirs we wish all clauses to be included and

contained, and to be held as included, which are necessary and opportune for full,
efficacious and sufficient safety in coming, staying and returning; we express these
things clearly in order to secure and keep the good of peace. If any one or several of
them, whether coming on their journey to us in Basel or while staying here or on
their return, shall commit (may it not be so) some heinous crime by which the
benefit of security conceded to them could be annulled and quashed, we wish, admit
and concede that those arrested in a deed of such sort shall straightaway be punished
only by their own people, not by others, by an adequate censure and a sufficient
penalty to be approved and praised by us, with the form, conditions and ways of
their security remaining completely unimpaired. Similarly if any of ours, whether on
their way to us in Basel or while staying here or returning, shall commit (may it not
be so) some heinous crime through which the benefit of the security conceded to
them could be annulled or quashed, we wish that those arrested in a crime of this
sort shall straightaway be punished only by us and our people, not by others, by an
adequate censure and a sufficient penalty to be approved and praised by the lord
ambassadors and envoys, with the present form, conditions and ways of the security
remaining completely unimpaired.

We wish also that it be allowed to each and every ambassador as often as it is

opportune or necessary, to leave the city of Basel in order to take the air and to
return to it, and freely to send and despatch their messengers to any place for the
arrangement of necessary affairs and to receive a messenger or messengers as often
as it suits them, in such a way that they are accompanied by the deputies of the
council who will provide for their safety. Further, neither in discussions, public
sermons or other conferences can or may our side, in prejudice, derogation or
depreciation of the case of the four articles, employ or procure in the locality of the
city of Basel any terms that tend to disorder. These safe-conducts and assurances are
to remain in force from the moment when, and for as long as, they are received into
the care of our protection, to be brought to Basel, and in all the period of their
staying here: and again on the conclusion of a sufficient hearing, an interval of
twenty days having been set in advance, when they shall request it, or after the
hearing the council shall decide, we shall, with God's help and without any guile or
fraud, let them return from Basel to Tuschkau, Tachov or Engelsberg, to whichever
of these places they prefer to go.

Also for all of Christ's faithful, especially for the most holy lord the Roman pontiff,
the most serene prince the lord Sigismund, king of the Romans etc. , the venerable
lord cardinals, archbishops and bishops and lord abbots, prelates and clerics as well
as for the most illustrious princes, kings, dukes, marquises, counts, barons and noble
soldiers, universities, and communities of cities, castles and towns, and their
councillors, magistrates, officials and others of whatever condition and status,
whether ecclesiastical or secular, under whatever name they go, and for the subjects
of all the aforesaid and every part of them, we promise in good faith and guarantee
that all of us and every one of the aforesaid persons will observe and guard the
prescribed security and the form of their safe-conduct in all its conditions, points and
clauses elaborated above, inviolably and unbroken in good faith and with pure heart.
Further, we promise that we neither wish nor ought on any alleged occasion,
covertly or overtly, to employ any authority, power, law, statute or privilege of laws
or canons or of any councils whatever, especially of Constance and Siena, in
whatever form of words they may be expressed, to any prejudice of the safe-conduct
or assurance and the public hearing which we have granted to them. But if we or
anyone of us, of whatever condition or status or pre-eminence, shall violate in any
detail or clause the form and way of the above assurance and safe-conduct (which,
however, may the Almighty deign to avert), and a suitable penalty shall not have
followed straightaway, to be fittingly approved and praised by their judgment, let
them hold us, as indeed they can, to have incurred all penalties which by divine and
human law or by custom violators of such safe-conducts incur, without any excuse
or any challenge from this side .

[If the apostolic see becomes vacant while the council is in progress, the election
may not be held outside the council]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, bears in mind that it pertains to the duty of
providence to foresee the future with clear-sighted consideration and to take
wholesome steps against what could bring harm to the common good. The synod is
intent upon the extirpation of heresies, peace among the people of Christ and the
reformation of morals, with the grace of the holy Spirit, as is really necessary in
view of the present situation. It has summoned the venerable fathers in Christ, the
cardinals of the holy Roman church, to this sacred council, convinced that their
presence at it is fruitful in many ways in view of their authority, wisdom and
knowledge of affairs. If, then, as obedient sons they are coming to the council when
the apostolic see falls vacant elsewhere, such a situation would redound to the
benefit of the church but the obedient cardinals would be serving the council to their
own disadvantage, whereas everyone knows that obedience should bring with it not
disadvantage but an increase of benefit and honour. Lest disobedience may seem to
be to the advantage of some who fail to come, this holy synod, with purposeful
anticipation and for the above and other reasons which can and should motivate a
prudent mind establishes, decrees and defines that, in the event of a vacancy of the
apostolic see while this sacred council is in progress, the election of the supreme
pontiff shall be held in the place of this sacred council, and it forbids it to be held
elsewhere. The synod also decrees that any attempt against this by any authority
whatsoever, be it even papal, notwithstanding any constitutions issued or to be
issued or anything else acting to the contrary, even if there should be special
mention in so many words or a confirmation on oath, which the synod rejects with
full knowledge, is null and void and of no force or importance by law; and that those
who attempt such things shall be disqualified in both active and passive voice with
respect to the election of a Roman pontiff and for every other dignity, and deprived
perpetually of all dignities which they hold, and shall automatically incur the mark
of infamy as well as sentence of excommunication. If any such pretended election
should be attempted, then both the one allegedly elected and his supporters as well
as those who treat him as elected incur in the same way the above-mentioned
penalties. The said synod reserves to itself, except at the moment of death,
absolution of everyone who in any way shall incur the said sentences or any one of
them. It declares that the present decree shall bind and come into force after forty
days following its publication.
Session 5—9 August 1432

[In this session there were approved rules about the organization of the council: On
cases and the procurator of the faith; Judges are deputed for the general examination
of cases; That members of the council may not be brought to trial outside the place
of this council; Officials are appointed. ]

Session 6—6 September 1432

[This session was devoted to reading: Petition of the promoters of the council
against the pope and the cardinals. ]

Session 7—6 November 1432

[Interval for a papal election]

The most holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Earlier this holy synod
issued a decree about the election of a Roman pontiff if a vacancy of the apostolic
see occurs during this sacred council. It is entitled, It pertains to the duty of
providence . . . , and is to be found in full in the fourth session. However, a doubt
about that decree has occurred to some, namely that the interval of ten days which
the constitution of the council of Lyons fixed for the cardinals of the holy Roman
church to enter the conclave, might elapse and be too restricted at least by the time
that notification of the vacancy reaches this council. For, the interval would seems to
be too rigid and too short for many of the cardinals who may be away in localities
distant from this council. Moreover this holy synod wishes to eliminate all grounds
for doubt and to provide carefully for what is conducive to the peace and unity of
God's holy church, and with all modesty and due maturity to proceed with what is
known in this matter, as in all things to promote the exaltation of the catholic faith
and the general reformation and peace of the Christian people, for which the council
is legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit. It therefore decrees that in the case of a
vacancy of the apostolic see in the lifetime of this present council, nothing shall be
done for the election of a Roman pontiff before the expiry of sixty days from the day
of the vacancy.
Session 8—18 December 1432

[Decree that there ought to be only one council]

The most holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Just as there is only one
holy catholic church, as Christ her spouse says, My dove, my perfect one, is only
one, and as an article of the faith declares, since unity does not tolerate division, so
there can be only one general council representing the holy catholic church. Since,
therefore, by decrees of the sacred general councils of Constance and of Siena and
by the approval of two Roman pontiffs, namely Martin V and Eugenius IV of happy
memory, a general council was instituted and established in this city of Basel and
assembled legitimately in the holy Spirit, it is clear that during this council another
general council cannot exist elsewhere. Whoever therefore, during the lifetime of
this sacred council shall presume to raise and hold another assembly with the title of
a general council, is convicted of raising and holding a conventicle of schismatics
and not a council of the catholic church. Therefore this holy council warns and
exhorts all Christ's faithful, of whatever status or rank they may be, even if papal,
imperial or regal, under the adjuration of the divine judgment which holy scripture
relates in the case of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, authors of schism, and it strictly
commands and forbids them in virtue of holy obedience and under the penalties laid
down by the law, not to hold or summon, during this sacred council, another
assembly with the title of a general council, which in reality would not be a council,
nor to go to or to take part in or in any way to have recourse to it as if it were a
general council, even under the pretext of any promise or oath, nor to hold or esteem
it to be or even to call it a general council, even if it claims to have been summoned
or shall try in the future to be summoned. If any ecclesiastical person, even a
cardinal of the holy Roman church, or anyone else of whatever status, rank or
condition he may be, shall dare to go to or stay in Bologna or any place with a
pretended general council, during this present council, he shall automatically incur
sentence of excommunication and deprivation of all benefices, dignities and offices
and disqualification from them; and the dignities, offices and benefices of such
persons may be freely disposed of by those to whom this pertains by law.

Session 9—22 January 1433

[This session was entirely taken up with the solemn reception of the emperor
Sigismund. ]
Session 10—19 February 1433

[This session was almost entirely taken up with reading: Accusation of contumacy
of the pope. ]

Session 11—27 April 1433

[For the permanent validity of the authority of general councils]

The holy general council of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Since the frequent
holding of general councils, as a principal means of cultivating the Lord's field
affects the universal church, every effort should be made that all obstacles that could
impede so holy an institution are removed with great care. Hence this holy synod,
obeying the decree of the council of Constance beginning The frequent, and anxious
that no scandals such as unhappily have occurred in our day should spring up again
in the future, to the detriment of the church, establishes and decrees that the Roman
pontiff, who ought to be the first in working in the Lord's vineyard and in drawing
others to work by his example, should take part in general councils in person or by a
legate or legates a latere who is or are to be chosen in consultation with and with the
consent — which is not to be just by word of mouth — of two-thirds of the
cardinals. Also, all ecclesiastical persons who by law or custom ought to attend
general councils are bound henceforward to come in person without further
summons to general councils, both by force of the constitution The frequent and by
the authority of this sacred council of Basel or of some other future council
legitimately assembled, unless they are prevented by a legitimate impediment, in
which case they are bound to send suitable persons with a sufficient mandate. If the
Roman pontiff or other above-mentioned persons fail to do this, or in any way take
means to impede change, prorogue or dissolve the council, and shall not have
repented with real satisfaction within four months, thereafter the pope will be
automatically suspended from the papal administration and the other persons from
the administration of their dignities; the papal administration will devolve by law
upon the sacred council. If they persist with hardened hearts under the aforesaid
penalties for a further two months after the said four months, then the general
council shall proceed against both the Roman pontiff and the above-mentioned
persons up to and including the penalty of deprivation.

[That everybody is free to come to the council]

This holy synod decrees that, notwithstanding any prohibition, even from the Roman
pontiff, there is freedom for absolutely all persons, of whatsoever status or condition
they may be, even if they are cardinals of the Roman church, to go to general
councils; and that the Roman pontiff is bound to grant permission to those who wish
to go to general councils, especially to the aforesaid cardinals, if they request it.

[The council explains the phrase about prorogation of the council, and annuls
attempts to the contrary, including future attempts]

This holy synod also declares that those words "it may never be prorogued",
contained in the said decree, are to be understood so prohibitively that it cannot be
prorogued even by a pope, and that a council actually assembled cannot be dissolved
or moved from place to place by a Roman pontiff without the express consent of the
council itself, and it quashes, voids and annuls anything that may be attempted in the
future against this or even in disparagement or obstruction of this general council or
of the persons, prelates and supporters of it, by deprivation, translation and
ecclesiastical censures or in any other way.

[That the council may not be dissolved or moved without the express consent of
two-thirds of each deputation, etc. ]

For certain reasonable causes it decrees that the present council of Basel cannot be
dissolved or moved from place to place by anybody, even by the pope, unless there
is obtained the express consent of two-thirds of each deputation, after a scrutiny of
the votes of individual members, and then the approval of two-thirds of the general
congregation, after a similar scrutiny of the votes of individual members, and finally
a declaration is to be made in a public session. It prays through the tender mercy of
Jesus Christ, and by the sprinkling of his precious blood it adjures all members of
this sacred council, both present and future, that in no way they give their consent to
a dissolution or allow a change of place, except for just and manifest reasons, before
the reform in head and members has been completed, in so far as this can reasonably
be achieved.

[That the place of the council should be chosen a month before the dissolution,
and the phrase "in ten years" is clarified]

In accordance with the ordinance of the council of Constance, it wishes that the
place of the future council should be chosen at least a month before the date of the
dissolution. It also declares, as a precaution, that the phrase "in ten years" which is
used in the said constitution should be understood in this way, namely that the ten
years should be completely finished, and when it is fully completed the
authorization to hold a general council begins. If it happens for any reason that those
who are obliged to attend general councils do not come at the beginning, it declares
that the said authorization to hold the council does not thereby cease, but that it
should be held as soon as it conveniently can. But so that it cannot be deferred for a
long time, this council decrees that for twenty days before the end of the said ten
years, or of some other interval if perhaps this should reasonably be determined by
the council, the Roman pontiff in person or through his legate or legates, and the
archbishop in whose province or diocese the council is to be held and all the prelates
who are within four days' journey of the place of the forthcoming council, provided
there is no canonical impediment, in person or, if that cannot be, through suitable
men constituted as proxies for this purpose, are obliged to present themselves so as
to negotiate about the disposition of the place and other preliminaries of the council.
On the day appointed for the opening of the council, those present shall celebrate a
solemn mass of the holy Spirit, and the council shall be considered constituted and
begun from that day. However, on account of the many necessities that can occur for
those coming to a council, this holy synod exhorts those who shall be present not to
bring difficult questions to a conclusion until after a reasonable wait for those absent
and a fitting interval of time, rather, with divine fear as a guide, let everything
proceed with due gravity, as the great mass of business of the universal church
demands and requires. In those cases in which, according to the decree of
Constance, the pope may, with the consent of the cardinals of the holy Roman
church, change the place of a future council, it determines that, should the pope fail
to do this, the college of cardinals may supply for the defect, on condition however
that two-thirds of the cardinals agree, keeping, , nevertheless to the procedure
contained in the said decree The frequent. The said cardinals shall swear by God and
their consciences that they are making the change of place, if indeed they decide
this, for the clear reasons that are mentioned in the decree The frequent.

[That the electors of a pope before entering the conclave shall swear that, if one
of them is elected, he will observe the said decrees]

So that the aforesaid may be put into execution the more easily, the holy synod
determines that the electors of a Roman pontiff are bound, before entering the
conclave, to swear to God and to promise the church that, should one of them be
chosen as pope, he will observe the above decrees, statutes and ordinances, and to
the best of his ability will endeavour to fulfil them really and effectively adding that
whoever in future years shall be chosen as Roman pontiff must swear, among the
other things which he must profess according to the decree of the council of
Constance beginning Since the Roman pontiff, effective observance of the present
decree. Later, in his first public consistory, he is bound to make again the same
profession and let him also profess that, if he violates what is contained in this
decree or commits a notorious crime which scandalizes the church, he will subject
himself to the judgment of a general council. Both he and the college of cardinals
shall insert this profession in the letters which they customarily send throughout the
world on the accession of a new pope.

[That this decree should be published in synods]

So that nobody may plead ignorance of this wholesome and necessary decree, the
holy synod orders, in virtue of holy obedience, all metropolitan bishops to have this
decree read and published in provincial and synodal councils, and superiors of
religious to have it read and published in their general chapters. 2
Session 12—13 July 1433

[Decree on elections and confirmations of bishops and prelates]

Just as in building a house the architect's chief concern is to lay such a foundation
that the edifice built on it will endure immovable, so in the general reformation of
the church the principal preoccupation of this holy synod is that the pastors set over
the church may be such that, like pillars and bases, they will firmly uphold the
church by the strength of their doctrine and merits. The office enjoined on prelates
manifestly shows how great care should be taken in their election, for they are
appointed for the government of souls for which our lord Jesus Christ died and shed
his precious blood. Therefore the sacred canons promulgated under the Spirit of
God, providentially established that each church and college or convent should elect
a prelate for itself. Adhering to these prescriptions this holy synod, assembled in the
same Spirit, establishes and defines that a general reservation of all metropolitan,
cathedral, collegiate and monastic churches and elective dignities ought not to be
made or used by the Roman pontiff in the future, always with the exception of
reservations contained in the body of law and those which may arise in territories
mediately or immediately subject to the Roman church by reason of direct or
beneficial dominion. Rather, provision should duly be made for the aforesaid
metropolitan, cathedral, monastic and collegiate churches and elective dignities,
when they are vacant, by canonical elections and confirmations in conformity with
the dispositions of the common law, without thereby derogating from statutes,
privileges and reasonably customs, all postulations in the disposition of the common
law remaining intact. This holy synod also decrees that it will be in conformity with
reason and beneficial for the common good that the Roman pontiff should attempt
nothing contrary to this salutary decree, except for an important, reasonable and
manifest cause, which is to be specified expressly in an apostolic letter. So that this
salutary decree may be more strictly adhered to, the same holy synod wishes that,
among other things that the Roman pontiff shall profess on assuming office, he shall
swear to observe inviolably this decree.

Since prelates should be such as is described above, those with the right of electing
them should be very careful that they make a worthy election in the presence of God
and of the people, and let them be most solicitous to elect such persons as can fill so
great an office. Let them remember that if they act in so important an affair either
fraudulently or carelessly or without regard for the fear of God, they will be the
authors and cause of evil pastors and will therefore share in the penalties which the
evil pastors themselves will suffer in the severe judgment of God. Since the
endeavour of human fragility can effect nothing without the help of almighty God,
from whom every good endowment and every perfect gift comes down, those in
whose hands lies the election of a pontiff or an abbot shall meet in church on the day
of the election in order to hear with great devotion a mass of the holy Spirit, whom
they will humbly petition to deign to inspire them to elect a worthy pastor. The more
devoutly they approach the act of election, the more readily they will merit that
grace, so let them confess and reverently receive the sacrament of the eucharist.
When they have entered the place of the election of any prelate who is to be chosen
through election, they shall swear in the hands of the president of the chapter, and
the president in the hands of his immediate subordinate, in these words: I, N. , swear
and promise to almighty God and to such and such a saint (according to the
dedication of the church) to elect the person who I believe will be the more useful to
the church in spiritual and temporal things, and not to give a vote to anyone who I
think is procuring the election for himself by the promise or gift of some temporal
thing, or by making a request in person or through another, or in any other way
directly or indirectly. He who appoints a procurator to elect a certain person shall
take the same oath and shall confess and communicate; so also shall a procurator
with a general mandate for election in matters in which by common law he can be
appointed a procurator in the business of such an election. The oath shall be taken
also by those who may have made an agreement about the election of a future
prelate, and they too are obliged to confess and to communicate. If they do not do
so, for that occasion they shall be deprived by law of the power of electing.
Thereupon let them elect to the said prelacy a man of lawful age, of serious
character and adequate education, already in sacred orders and suitable in other
respects in accordance with canonical regulations.

If the election is made in another way and of a different kind of person than the
above or by the wickedness of simony, the election shall be invalid and null by law.
Those electing simoniacally shall be automatically subject to perpetual deprivation
of the right of electing, besides other penalties. Others shall be subject to canonical
penalties. Those elected simoniacally and those who take part in such a simoniacal
election, as well as the electors and those confirmed shall automatically incur the
penalty of excommunication in horror of so great a crime. Moreover, those so
elected and confirmed cannot be absolved from such guilt and excommunication
unless they freely resign the churches and dignities which they had disgracefully
obtained, and they are rendered perpetually disqualified from acquiring them again.
In order to remove every root of ambition this holy synod implores through the
tender mercy of Jesus Christ and most earnestly exhorts kings and princes,
communities and others of whatever rank or dignity, ecclesiastical or secular, not to
write letters to electors or to provide petitions for someone who will get such
petitions or letters for himself or for another, and much less to resort to threats or
pressure or anything else whereby the process of election would be rendered less
free. Similarly, in virtue of holy obedience, it is enjoined on electors not to elect
anyone on the strength of such letters, petitions, threats or pressure.

When the election has been completed and presented to the person who has the right
of confirmation, if a co-elected person or an objector to the election shows himself,
he should be summoned by name to discuss the matter of the disputed election.
Usually a public announcement should be made in the church in which the election
was held, in accordance with the constitution of Boniface VIII of happy memory.
Whether or not a co-elected person or an objector appears, the confirmer should
proceed in virtue of his office, as is done in the business of the inquisition, using
diligence in the due examination and discussion of the form of the election, of the
merits of the one elected and of all the circumstances. The confirmation or the
annulment of the election should be done in a judicial manner. So that the whole
process may be clean and without blemish or even a suspicion of it, the confirmer
should altogether refrain, personally as well as through others, from presuming to
demand anything at all or even to receive free offerings in return for the
confirmation or under the pretext of homage, subvention, gratitude or any other
excuse of supposed custom or privilege. For notaries and scribes in such cases, let a
moderate fee be levied which is proportionate to the work of writing and not to the
value of the prelacy. If the said confirmers shall confirm elections in contravention
of the above regulations or in respect of unsuitable persons or involving simony,
such confirmations are automatically null. This is to be the case for the occasion, for
those who confirm persons other than as stated above: but for the stain of simony, if
they have incurred it, they automatically incur sentence of excommunication, from
which they cannot be absolved except by the Roman pontiff', except at the point of
death.

This holy synod exhorts the supreme pontiff, since he should be the mirror and
standard of all sanctity and purity, not to demand or accept anything at all for
confirming elections referred to him. Otherwise, if he scandalizes the church by
notorious and repeated contraventions, he will be delated to a future council.
However, for the burdens which he must carry for the government of the universal
church, and for the sustenance of the cardinals of the holy Roman church and of
other necessary officials, this holy council will make due and suitable provision
before its dissolution. If it does not make any provision in this way, then those
churches and benefices which hitherto paid a certain tax on the entry into office of a
new prelate, shall be obliged thenceforward to pay in parts half of this tax for the
year after their peaceful possession; this provision shall continue until the
sustenance of the said pope and cardinals is otherwise provided for. By these
ordinances the same synod does not intend any prejudice to the holy Roman and
universal church or to any other church.

Session 13—11 September 1433

[In this session there was read out, Accusation of contumacy of the pope made by
the promoters of the sacred council; the time-limit already intimated to Eugenius IV
for him to come to Basel and to abrogate his decree dissolving the council was
deferred; finally a new Decree for the protection of members was approved. ]

Session 14—7 November 1433

[In this session there was made, Another deferral, for ninety days, of the monition to
the pope, to which were added two proposals, one regarding the revoking of the
suspension of the council. the other regarding Eugenius IV's assent to the council. ]

Session 15—26 November 1433

[On provincial and synodal councils]

The holy general council of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Already this holy synod
has promulgated a most salutary decree on the stability and authority of general
councils, the frequent holding of which is a principal means of cultivating the Lord's
field. Indeed, since there is no doubt that episcopal synods and provincial councils
form part of this same cultivation, inasmuch as the ancient canons decreed that they
should be frequent, so this holy synod, desiring that ancient and praiseworthy
customs should be observed in our age, establishes and commands that an episcopal
synod should be held yearly in every diocese after the octave of Easter, or on
another day according to diocesan custom, at least once a year where custom does
not prescribe two, by the diocesan in person unless he is prevented by a canonical
impediment, in which case by a vicar who is fitted for the task. This synod should
last at least two or three days, or as the bishops deem to be necessary.

On the first day, when the diocesan and all those who are obliged to be present at the
synod have assembled, during or after the celebration of mass, the diocesan or
another in his name shall expound the word of God, exhorting all to strive after good
behaviour and refrain from vice, and to strive after what pertains to ecclesiastical
discipline and each one's duties, and especially that those who have the care of souls
should instruct the people subject to them in doctrine and with salutary exhortations
on Sundays and feast-days. Then there should be read out the provincial and synodal
statutes and, among other things, a comprehensive treatise on how the sacraments
should be administered and other useful points for the instruction of priests. Then
the diocesan himself should diligently inquire into the life and morals of his subjects
and check with suitable correction the evil of simony, usurious contracts,
concubinage, fornication and all other faults and excesses. He should revoke
alienations of ecclesiastical property forbidden by law, and he should correct and
reform abuses of clerics and other subjects who have failed in respect of the divine
office and the wearing of proper dress. Since many scandals often arise because
Pope Boniface VIII's constitution Periculoso on the enclosure of nuns is not
observed, the diocesan should insist that this enclosure be strictly observed in
accordance with that constitution; also that all religious subject to the diocesan
should inviolably observe the rules and constitutions of their orders, especially that
all ownership is renounced by them. Also let nothing be demanded simoniacally at
their reception into a religious order. A chief care of the bishop at the synod should
be to make inquiry and to apply proper remedies lest any teaching that is heretical,
erroneous, scandalous or offensive to pious ears, or fortune-telling, divinations
incantations, superstitions or any diabolic inventions, infiltrate into his diocese. Let
there be appointed synodal witnesses, who should be serious, prudent and honest
men, filled with zeal for God's law, in a number proportionate to the area of the
diocese, or others with their powers if none are appointed for this, who may be
removed by the diocesan if they seem to him to be unsuitable and he may appoint
others (as he thinks fit). They shall be obliged to take an oath in the hands of the
diocesan himself or of his vicar, as is stated in the canon Episcopus in synodo; they
shall travel round the diocese for a year and shall refer what they have seen to be in
need of correction and reform to those whose duty it is to correct and reform. If
these matters are not corrected and reformed, they shall refer them to a subsequent
synod, when proper remedies should be applied. Besides what the diocesan hears
from the synodal witnesses or others exercising their office, he should himself
inquire assiduously about the faults of his subjects and so confront the guilty with
the discipline of needed correction that it may serve as an example to others inclined
to do evil.

Also, in every province within two years of the end of a general council, and
thereafter at least once in every three years, a provincial council should be held in a
safe place. It should be attended by both the archbishop and all his suffragans and
others who are obliged to take part in such provincial councils, after a due summons
has been issued to them. If a bishop is prevented by a canonical impediment, he
should designate his procurator, not only to excuse and justify his absence, but also
to participate in the council in his name and to report back what the council decides.
Otherwise the bishop is automatically suspended from receiving half the fruits of his
church for one year: these should be effectively diverted to the fabric of his church
by someone deputed in the council itself. Others who fail to attend are to be
punished at the decision of the council and other penalties of the law are to remain in
force. Provincial councils are not to be held while a general council is sitting and for
six months beforehand. At the beginning of a provincial council the metropolitan or
someone in his name during the celebration of mass or afterwards, shall deliver an
exhortation calling to mind the things that pertain to the ecclesiastical state and
especially the episcopal office and warning all the participants that, as the prophet
says, if any soul is lost by their fault his blood will be required by the Lord at their
hands. In particular, there should be a strict warning that orders and benefices should
be conferred, without any simony, on worthy and deserving persons whose lives are
sufficiently well known. Above all, the greatest care and mature inquiry should be
used when entrusting the care of souls. Ecclesiastical property on no account should
be used for illegal purposes, but for the glory of God and the conservation of
churches and, following the holy canons, with a primary concern for the poor and
needy, mindful that at the tribunal of the eternal judge they will have to give an
account of all of it to the very last farthing. In these councils there should be,
according to the regulations of the law, a careful investigation into the correction of
faults, the reform of the morals of subjects and especially the conduct of bishops in
conferring benefices, confirming elections, administering orders, deputing
confessors, preaching to the people, punishing the faults of their subjects and
observing episcopal synods, and in any other points respecting the episcopal office
and the jurisdiction and administration of bishops in spiritual and temporal matters,
especially whether they keep their hands clean of the stain of simony, in order that
all those who are found to have transgressed in the aforesaid matters may be
corrected and punished by the council. A similar careful inquiry should be instituted
about the metropolitan himself in all these respects, and the council should explain
clearly to him his faults and defects, admonishing and imploring him that since he is
called and ought to be the father of others, he should altogether desist from such
failings. Even so, the council should send straightaway to the Roman pontiff, or to
another of his superiors if he has one, a written account of the investigation made
about him, so that he may receive punishment and fitting reform from the Roman
pontiff or other superior. Besides, if there are discords, quarrels and feuds among
some which could disturb the peace and tranquillity of the province, the holy council
should strive to pacify them and seek watchfully, as would a dutiful father, for peace
and agreement among its sons. If discords of this sort arise between kingdoms,
provinces and principalities, the holy bishops of God should straightaway arrange
the simultaneous convocation of provincial councils and, in combining their
respective counsel and help, strive to banish whatever promotes discord; they should
not cease from this out of love or hatred for anyone, but raising the eyes of their
minds to God alone and the salvation of their people and putting aside all half-
heartedness, they should be intent on the sacred work of peace.

Moreover, in a provincial synod that immediately precedes a forthcoming general

council, thought should be given to all that is likely to be dealt with in that general
council, to the glory of God and the good of the province and the salvation of the
Christian people. Let a suitable number of people be elected at it to go in the name
of the whole province to the next general council; let them be provided for by a
grant or in some other way, according to the law and the judgment of the provincial
council; in such a way, however, that those wishing to go to the council or their
clergy, in addition to those deputed as above, shall in no way be disadvantaged
thereby. Also, let there be read out in each provincial council those things which the
canonical regulations order to be read out in them, so that they may be observed
inviolably and transgressors may be duly punished. If metropolitans and diocesans
fail to celebrate provincial and episcopal synods at the aforesaid time, after the
cessation of any legal impediment, they shall lose half of all fruits and revenues
accruing to them by reason of their churches, and these shall be applied immediately
to the fabric of their churches. If they persist in such neglect for three consecutive
months, they shall automatically be suspended from their offices and benefices.
After these intervals of time have elapsed, with the aforesaid penalties, the senior
bishop in the province of the metropolitan, or the person in orders who is highest in
dignity below a bishop, unless by custom or privilege it pertains to another, is
obliged to supply for this failure to hold the said provincial and episcopal synods.
Moreover, this holy synod bids all superiors of religious communities and orders of
all kinds, who are responsible for holding chapters, to hold them at the appointed
times, under the aforesaid penalties, and to see that they are held; and let them aim
in them, in accordance with canonical sanctions and the constitutions of the orders,
at a true reform of the individual communities and orders, so that thereafter regular
observance may duly flourish in all monasteries in accordance with their rules and
constitutions, and in particular that the three fundamental vows of profession may be
strictly observed. By the aforesaid, however, the holy synod does not mean to
derogate in any way from anyone's rights.

Session 16—5 February 1434

[This session declares the adherence of Pope Eugenius to the council, with the usual
ceremonies; Eugenius's bull Dudum sacrum, and three other bulls abrogated by that
bull, are incorporated into the acts. ]

Session 17—26 April 1434

[On the admission of the presidents into the council in the name of the lord
pope Eugenius IV]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, admits the beloved sons of the church Nicholas,
priest of the title of holy Cross in Jerusalem, and Julian, deacon of St Angelo,
cardinals of the holy Roman church, the venerable John, archbishop of Taranto, and
Peter, bishop of Padua, and the beloved son of the church Louis, abbot of St Justina
of Padua, as presidents in this sacred council in the name, stead and place of the
most holy lord pope Eugenius IV, to have the fullest authority and effect throughout,
but only on the following conditions: they are to be without any coercive
jurisdiction, and the way of proceeding hitherto observed in this council is to remain
unchanged, especially what is contained in the ordinances of this sacred council
beginning, First, there shall be four deputations, as there are, among which all from
the council shall be distributed equally as far as is possible, etc. It also ordains that
apart from on a Friday, which is the ordinary day for a general congregation, another
general congregation cannot be called unless at least three of the deputations agree
to this beforehand. And then the presidents should be informed, or one of them, so
that they may announce the programme. If they do not, one of the promoters of the
council or someone from the deputations shall announce the programme. All from
the council shall come to the congregation. On the other occasions, if the three
deputations do not agree, nobody shall come to that congregation; and whatever is
done there shall be null and void. The same with regard to a session. When what has
been agreed upon by the deputations has been read out in the general congregation,
the first of the presidents there present, even if another or others of them are absent,
shall conclude the matter in accordance with the ordinances of the sacred council. If
he or another of the presidents then presiding refuses to do this, the next prelate in
the order of seating shall conclude the matter. If he is unwilling, let another in
succession do it. If it happens that none of the presidents comes to a congregation or
a session of the general council, then the first prelate, as indicated above, shall fulfil
the office of president for that day. Also, all the acts of this sacred council shall be
made and despatched under the name and seal of this council, as has been done until
now.

Session 18—26 June 1434

[On the renewal of the decree of the council of Constance about the authority
and power of general councils]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. It is well known that it
redounds to the great benefit of the catholic church that its authority, which was
earlier declared in the sacred council of Constance and to which all are obliged to
submit, should be manifested frequently and the attention of all should be drawn to
it. Just as councils of the past were accustomed to renew the salutary institutions and
declarations of previous synods, so this holy synod too renews that necessary
declaration on the authority of general councils, which was promulgated in the said
council of Constance in the words that follow: First it declares . . . and Next it
declares ,

Session 19—7 September 1434

[On the agreement between the council and the Greeks about union]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. As a dutiful mother is
ever anxious about the health of her children and is uneasy until any dissension
among them has been quietened, so and to a much greater extent holy mother
church, which regenerates its children to eternal life, is wont to strive with every
effort that all who go by the name of Christian may put aside all quarrelling and may
guard in fraternal charity the unity of the faith, without which there can be no
salvation. It has therefore been a primary care of this holy synod from the beginning
of its meeting to put an end to the recent discord of the Bohemians and the ancient
discord of the Greeks, and to bind them to us in the same permanent bond of faith
and charity. We invited in all charity to this sacred council, through our letters and
envoys, first the Bohemians, since they are nearer, and then the Greeks, so that the
holy union might be achieved. Although many from the beginning thought that the
Bohemian affair was not only difficult but almost impossible and judged our labours
to be a waste of time and useless, nevertheless our lord Jesus Christ, to whom
nothing is impossible, has so safely directed the business until now that the
invitation to the Bohemians has been of much greater benefit to holy church than the
many powerful armies which frequently invaded their country.

This fills us with greater hope to pursue the union with the Greeks with all
confidence and perseverance. We approach this task the more willingly because we
perceive the Greeks to be very inclined to this union. For as soon as the most serene
emperor of the Greeks and the patriarch of Constantinople were approached by our
envoys, straightaway they appointed to this holy synod three outstanding men from
those who seem to be of great authority among them — the first of whom was
indeed a blood-relative of the emperor — with a sufficient commission from the
emperor himself signed by his own hand and with a golden seal, and furnished with
letters of the patriarch. Both in a general congregation and in the presence of our
commissaries they expressed the most fervent desire of the emperor, the patriarch
and the whole eastern church for this union. They urge and daily stimulate us in a
wonderful way to pursue this holy work, strongly and persistently affirming two
things: that union is only possible in a universal synod in which both the western
church and the eastern church meet, and that union will assuredly follow if matters
proceed in that synod in the way that is agreed below. We were filled with joy and
gladness when we heard this. For what happier and more glorious thing could ever
happen to the catholic church than that so many eastern peoples, who seem to be
about equal in number to those of our faith, should be joined with us in the unity of
faith ? What could be more useful and fruitful to the Christian people, since the
beginning of the church, than for an inveterate and destructive schism to be
completely eradicated ? Moreover, we trust that with God's help another benefit will
accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is
established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will
be converted to the catholic faith. What, then, should not be attempted and done by
Christ's faithful for so holy and salutary an objective? What Catholic is not in duty
bound to risk not only the passing substance of this world but even his body and soul
for such an advance of the Christian name and the orthodox faith? Wherefore, we
venerable cardinals of the holy Roman church, presidents of the apostolic see,
casting all our thought on God, who alone does great wonders, deputed the patriarch
of Antioch and a suitable number of archbishops, bishops, abbots, masters and
doctors to treat of this question with the ambassadors of the Greeks and to look for a
way to reach a solution. After these men had frequently met and discussed among
themselves and with the envoys, they reached the conclusions given below. These
conclusions, in accordance with the custom of this council, were seriously debated
by the deputations and ratified by a general congregation. Their contents, together
with the chrysobull of the lord emperor, are as follows.

[Agreement of the deputies of the sacred council with the ambassadors of the
Greeks]

The ambassadors of the most serene lord emperor of the Greeks and of the lord
patriarch of Constantinople, namely the lord Demetrius protonostiarius Palaeologus
Metotides, the venerable Isidore abbot of the monastery of St Demetrius, and the
lord John Dissipatus of the household of the same emperor, meeting together with
the lord deputies of the sacred council, first declared that if the western church
would agree that this synod should be held in Constantinople, the eastern church
would meet there at its own expense and there would be no need for the western
church to pay any expenses to eastern prelates. Indeed, the lord emperor himself
would, within his limits, provide for Latin prelates on their way to Constantinople.
But if it was preferred that the prelates of the eastern church should come to Latin
territories for the said synod, then for legitimate reasons the western church would
have to meet the expenses of the eastern church. Since the said lord deputies for
many reasons believed that this union would be more conveniently arranged in the
city of Basel, where in fact the council was sitting, they frequently and urgently
pressed the lord envoys that this place should be chosen for the holy union and
offered to pay the necessary expenses for this. The envoys replied that since the
instructions given to them by the emperor and the patriarch contained limitations on
certain places, they would not choose the city of Basel because it was not mentioned
in the instructions. The deputies of the sacred council, aware of the holy and perfect
intention of the council not to spare any labour and expenditure for the honour of
God and the advance of the catholic faith, judged it inexpedient to miss so great a
good merely on a question of place. So they agreed, subject to the council's consent,
to one of the places named below with the condition, which is detailed later, that one
or more persons should be sent to the lord emperor, the patriarch and others to
persuade them by cogent reasons to agree to the city of Basel. The nominated places
are these: Calabria, Ancona or another maritime territory; Bologna, Milan or another
Italian city; and outside Italy, Buda in Hungary, Vienna in Austria or in the last
place, Savoy.

The lord deputies agreed with the lord ambassadors in what follows, subject to the
council's consent. First, the ambassadors promised that the emperor of the Greeks,
the patriarch of Constantinople, the other three patriarchs and the archbishops,
bishops and other ecclesiastics who can conveniently come, will come to the synod.
Likewise, representatives will come from all the kingdoms and territories subject to
the churches of the Greeks, with full power and authority which shall be confirmed
by oath and suitable documents by both the secular authorities and the prelates.
Also, the sacred council shall send one or more ambassadors with eight thousand
ducats for the holding of a congregation of the prelates of the eastern church in
Constantinople. The eight thousand ducats will be paid out by the ambassadors of
the sacred council, as it shall seem good to the lord emperor or to the ambassadors
themselves; but in such a way that, if the said prelates refuse to come to
Constantinople or, having come to Constantinople, refuse to go to the synod, then
the emperor shall be bound to restore to the said ambassadors whatever they may
have expended on this matter.

Also, that the western church shall pay the expenses of four large galleys, of which
two shall be from Constantinople and two from elsewhere, to convey to our port at
the appropriate time the emperor, the patriarchs and the prelates of the eastern
church with their suites, to the number of seven hundred persons, and to return them
to Constantinople. The western church shall pay the expenses for this in the
following way. For the expenses of the emperor and of seven hundred persons from
Constantinople to our last port, it will give the emperor fifteen thousand ducats.
From the said last port to the place of the said council, and thereafter as long as they
remain at the synod and until their return to Constantinople, it will give to the
emperor with the said seven hundred persons fair expenses. Also that within the ten
months after next November, the sacred council shall be obliged to send two large
galleys and two lighter ones to Constantinople with three hundred crossbowmen. On
these galleys shall travel the ambassadors of the sacred council and the lord
Demetrius protonostiarius Palaeologus, chief of the lord emperor's ambassadors.
These ambassadors of the sacred council will have with them fifteen thousand
ducats to be given to the lord emperor for the expenses that he and the patriarchs,
prelates and others who are coming, to the number of seven hundred persons, shall
incur between Constantinople and the last port at which they shall put in, as
mentioned above. Also, the said ambassadors of the sacred council who are to travel
on the galleys will arrange that ten thousand ducats are at hand to be expended, if
necessary, on the defence of the city of Constantinople against any danger that the
Turks might cause the city during the lord emperor's absence; this money will be
expended by someone deputed by the said ambassadors of the sacred council in
proportion to the necessity. Also, the said ambassadors of the sacred council will
pay the cost of two light galleys and three hundred crossbowmen for the defence of
the city of Constantinople in the lord emperor's absence, and shall ensure that the
crews of the said galleys and the crossbowmen take an oath in the hands of the
emperor that they will serve him faithfully. Their captains shall be appointed by the
emperor. Also, that the said ambassadors shall have for the expenses of the two large
galleys what is usually expended in arming such galleys.

Also, the ambassadors of the sacred council who are to go with the said galleys to
Constantinople, shall name to the lord emperor the port at which they should finally
land and the place, from among those listed above, where the said universal synod
shall be held. They will, however, strive with all their might that the city of Basel be
chosen, as is to be hoped. Also, this sacred council of Basel will remain meanwhile
at Basel, and shall not be dissolved as long as there is no legitimate impediment; but
if a legitimate impediment arises, which may God avert, it may transfer itself for its
continuation to another city, in accordance with the decree The frequent . If the lord
emperor is not satisfied with this place, then within one month after he has landed at
the said last port, the sacred council will transfer itself to one of the said places
nominated by the same council, as was said above.

Also that, in any event, all the above shall be fulfilled by both parties; and all the
above shall be effected in a really stable way and with the greatest force and security
that is possible for the sacred council, namely by a decree and under a seal. Also,
when all the aforesaid matters have been concluded and agreed and, as was said,
fully confirmed, the supreme pontiff should give his express consent by his patent
bulls. Everything above is to be understood in good faith, without fraud or deceit
and without legitimate or manifest impediment. If all the clauses are fulfilled, the
said ambassadors of the Greeks shall state and promise that assuredly the above
persons will come even if there should be war and threats to their city, and in
confirmation of all this they will deliver to the sacred council a chrysobull of the
said emperor, and on behalf of the said emperor they and the others shall take an
oath, in writing and signed, in pledge of their firm and true belief that the universal
holy synod ought to take place with God's help, unless there intervenes the death of
the emperor or some obvious and real obstacle that cannot be escaped or avoided.

Lastly, the ambassadors of the Greeks were requested to explain the meaning of
some terms contained in their instructions. First, what they understand by "universal
synod". They replied that the pope and the patriarchs ought to be present at the
synod either in person or through their procurators; similarly other prelates ought to
be present either in person or through representatives; and they promised, as is stated
above, that the lord emperor of the Greeks and the patriarch of Constantinople will
participate in person. "Free and inviolate", that is each may freely declare his
judgment without any obstacle or violence. "Without contention", that is without
quarrelsome and ill-tempered contention; but debates and discussions which are
necessary, peaceful, honest and charitable are not excluded. "Apostolic and
canonical", to explain how these words and the way of proceeding in the synod are
to be understood, they refer themselves to what the universal synod itself shall
declare and arrange. Also that the emperor of the Greeks and their church shall have
due honour, that is to say, what it had when the present schism began, always saving
the rights, honours, privileges and dignities of the supreme pontiff and the Roman
church and the emperor of the Romans. If any doubt arises, let it be referred to the
decision of the said universal council. There follows the text of the chrysobull of the
said emperor translated from Greek into Latin, Whereas there were sent . . . 1; and
the letter of the lord patriarch of Constantinople with a leaden seal translated from
Greek into Latin, which is as follows, Joseph by the grace of God archbishop of
Constantinople . . . we receive the letter of your reverence . . . 2

By the authority of the universal church, therefore, this holy synod by this present
decree approves, ratifies, confirms, determines and decrees the above clauses and
agreements, and it promises to observe each and all of them and to keep them intact,
as is said above. As they lead to an increase of the orthodox faith and the benefit of
the catholic church and the whole Christian people, they should be most welcome
and acceptable to all who love the faith of Christ. Since, as has been said above, the
Greeks for a variety of reasons request that the most holy lord pope Eugenius IV
should expressly consent to these clauses and agreements, lest on this account so
great a good should be let slip, this holy synod implores and begs Eugenius in all
charity, and through the tender mercy of Jesus Christ it requests and demands with
all possible insistence, that he expresses his assent, for the benefit of the faith and of
ecclesiastical unity, to the aforesaid clauses and agreements, which have already
been approved and ratified by a synodal decree, by his bulls in the customary style
of the Roman curia.
[Decree on Jews and neophytes]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. This holy synod
following in the footsteps of our saviour Jesus Christ, desires in deepest charity that
all may acknowledge the truth of the gospel and thereafter abide in it faithfully. By
these salutary instructions it desires to provide measures whereby Jews and other
infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly
in it. It therefore decrees that all diocesan bishops should depute persons well trained
in scripture, several times a year, in the places where Jews and other infidels live, to
preach and expound the truth of the catholic faith in such a way that the infidels who
hear it can recognise their errors. They should compel infidels of both sexes who
have reached the age of discretion, to attend these sermons under pain both of being
excluded from business dealings with the faithful and of other apposite penalties.
But the bishops and the preachers should behave towards them with such charity as
to gain them for Christ not only by the manifestation of the truth but also by other
kindnesses. The synod decrees that Christians of whatever rank or status who in any
way impede the attendance of Jews at these sermons, or who forbid it, automatically
incur the stigma of being supporters of unbelief.

Since this preaching will be more fruitful in proportion to the linguistic skill of the
preachers, we decree that there must be faithful observance of the constitution of the
council of Vienne, which ordered the provision in certain universities of teachers of
the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Chaldean languages. So that this may be more
adhered to, we wish that the rectors of these universities should add to what they
swear to on taking office, that they will endeavour to observe the said constitution. It
should be clearly laid down, at the councils of the provinces in which these
universities are situated, that the teachers of the said languages are to be adequately
recompensed.

Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and
secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having
Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their
children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or
baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of
marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be
given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have
on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy
ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of
the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the
money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear
some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to
prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities
and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as
possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare
to have their shops open or to work in public.

[About those who desire conversion to the faith]

If any of them wishes to be converted to the catholic faith, all his goods, both
movable and immovable, shall remain intact and unharmed in his possession. But if
his goods were acquired by usury or illicit dealings, and the persons to whom
restitution ought to be made are known, it is absolutely necessary that this restitution
be made, since the sin is not forgiven unless the illegal object is restored. However,
if these persons are no longer an issue because the church has turned the goods to
pious uses, this holy synod, acting for the universal church, grants in favour of the
baptism received that the goods should remain with the church as a pious use, and it
forbids both ecclesiastics and secular persons, under pain of divine anathema, to
cause or allow to be caused any vexation on this count under any pretext
whatsoever, but they should regard it as a great gain to have won such persons for
Christ. Moreover since, as it is written, if anyone has this world's goods and sees his
brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him
?, this holy synod through the tender mercy of God exhorts all, both ecclesiastics
and secular persons, to stretch out helping hands to such converts if they are poor or
in need at the time of their conversion. Bishops should exhort Christians to aid these
converts and should themselves support them from the income of churches, as far as
they can, and from what passes through their hands for the benefit of the poor, and
they should defend them with fatherly solicitude from detraction and invective.

Since by the grace of baptism converts have been made fellow citizens with the
saints and members of the household of God, and since regeneration in the spirit is
of far greater worth than birth in the flesh, we determine by this edict that they
should enjoy these privileges, liberties and immunities, of the cities and localities in
which they are regenerated by holy baptism, which others obtain merely by reason
of birth and origin. Let the priests who baptise them and those who receive them
from the sacred font carefully instruct them, both before and after their baptism, in
the articles of the faith and the precepts of the new law and the ceremonies of the
catholic church. Both they and the bishops should strive that, at least for a long time,
they do not mingle much with Jews or infidels lest, as occurs with convalescents
from illness, a small occasion may make them fall back into their former perdition.
Since experience shows that social communication between converts renders them
weaker in our faith, and has been found to damage much their salvation, this holy
synod exhorts local ordinaries to exercise care and zeal that they are married to
born-Christians, in so far as this seems to promote an increase of the faith. Converts
should be forbidden, under pain of severe penalties, to bury the dead according to
the Jewish custom or to observe in any way the sabbath and other solemnities and
rites of their old sect. Rather, they should frequent our churches and sermons, like
other Catholics, and conform themselves in everything to Christian customs. Those
who show contempt for the above should be delated to the diocesan bishops or
inquisitors of heresy by their parish priests, or by others who are entrusted by law or
ancient custom with inquiring into such matters, or by anyone else at all. Let them
be so punished, with the aid of the secular arm if need be, as to give an example to
others.

There should be careful inquiry into all these things in provincial councils and
synods, and an opportune remedy should be applied not only to negligent bishops
and priests but also to converts and infidels who scorn the above. If anyone, of
whatever rank or status, shall encourage or defend such converts against being
compelled to observe the Christian rite or anything else mentioned above, he shall
incur the penalties promulgated against abettors of heretics. If converts fail to
correct themselves after a canonical warning, and as Judaizers are found to have
returned to their vomit, let proceedings be taken against them as against perfidious
heretics in conformity with the enactments of the sacred canons. If there have been
granted to Jews or infidels, or perhaps shall be granted to them in the future, any
indults or privileges by any ecclesiastics or secular persons, of whatever status or
dignity, even papal or imperial, which tend in any way to the detriment of the
catholic faith, the Christian name or anything mentioned above, this holy synod
decrees them quashed and annulled; the apostolic and synodal decrees and
constitutions enacted about the above remaining in force. In order that the memory
of this holy constitution may be perpetually retained and that nobody may be able to
claim ignorance of it, the holy synod orders that it should be promulgated at least
once a year during divine service in all cathedral and college churches and other
holy places where the faithful gather in large numbers.

Session 20—22 January 1435

[Decree on concubinaries]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. We are inclined to grant
requests for authentic statutes and decrees in proportion to the likelihood that they
will be observed. For this reason we ordered to be extracted from our acts and
recorded in this present document, at the request of the beloved sons of the church
N. and N. , who assert that they need texts of this kind for judicial and extra-judicial
purposes, the texts of the constitutions transcribed below, which we issued some
time ago and promulgated in the cathedral church of Basel on 22 January 1435 and
incorporated into our acts. They are as follows.

Any cleric of whatsoever status, condition, religious order or dignity, even if it be

episcopal or some other pre-eminence, who, after receiving notice of this
constitution, as he may be presumed to have done, for two months after its
publication in cathedral churches, which bishops are bound to arrange, after the
constitution has come to his notice, still persists as a public concubinary, shall
automatically be suspended for three months from the fruits of all his benefices.
These fruits shall be consigned by his superior to the fabric or some other evident
need of the churches from which the fruits come. His superior is bound to admonish
him, as soon as he is aware that he is a public concubinary, to dismiss his concubine
within a very short time. If he does not dismiss her, or having dismissed her takes
her again or another woman, this holy synod orders his superior to deprive him of all
his benefices. These public concubinaries moreover, shall be disqualified from
receiving any goods, dignities, benefices or offices until such time as, after
dismissing their concubines and an evident emendation of their lives, they shall have
received a dispensation from their superiors. Those who receive a dispensation and
then return to public concubinage, as to their vomit, shall be totally debarred from
the above without any hope of another dispensation. If those who are responsible for
correcting such people fail to punish them, as stated above, their superiors shall
punish properly both them for their neglect and the others for their concubinage.
Severe measures must be taken also in provincial and synodal councils against both
those who neglect to punish and those who are reputed offenders, even by
suspension from the conferment of benefices or some other adequate penalty. Those
who are found by provincial councils or their superiors to deserve deprivation for
public concubinage, but who can be deprived only by the supreme pontiff, should be
referred immediately to the supreme pontiff together with the process of inquiry.
The same diligence and inquiry should be employed by general and provincial
chapters in respect of their subjects: and other penalties established against them and
other non-public concubinaries are to remain in force. By "public" is meant not only
someone whose concubinage is made notorious by a judicial sentence or a legal
confession or by a notoriety that no subterfuge can conceal, but also anyone who
keeps a woman suspected of incontinence and of ill repute and who, after being
admonished by his superior, does not dismiss her.

Because in some regions there are persons with ecclesiastical jurisdiction who are
not ashamed to accept bribes from concubinaries for allowing them to wallow in
their filth, this holy synod commands, under pain of eternal malediction, that
henceforth they shall not tolerate or dissemble such conduct in any way by
agreement, composition or promise; otherwise, in addition to the aforesaid penalty
for negligence, they shall be strictly obliged and compelled to give to pious causes
double what they have received in this way. Prelates should take every care to
segregate from their subjects concubines and women of doubtful repute, even by
recourse to the secular arm if need be, and they should not allow children born of
such concubinage to live with their fathers. This holy synod also orders that this
constitution is to be published in the aforesaid synods and chapters, and that stern
warning should be given to subjects to dismiss their concubines. It also enjoins on
all secular men, even if they are of royal rank, not to interpose any obstacle
whatever under any excuse to prelates who proceed, in virtue of their office, against
their subjects for concubinage. Moreover, since fornication of every kind is
forbidden by divine law and is to be avoided under pain of mortal sin, this holy
synod warns all lay people, both married and single, to abstain from concubinage.
That man is most blameworthy who has a wife but goes to another woman. If a
single man cannot abstain, let him marry, as the apostle advises. Let those
responsible strive with all their strength, by salutary advice and canonical sanctions,
for the observance of this divine precept.

[Excommunicates are not to be shunned unless specifically named]

To avoid scandals and many dangers and to relieve timorous consciences, this holy
synod decrees that henceforth nobody shall be obliged to abstain from communion
with anyone in the administration and reception of sacraments or in any other sacred
or profane matters, or to shun someone or to observe an ecclesiastical interdict, on
the ground of any ecclesiastical sentence, censure, suspension or prohibition that has
been promulgated in general by a person or by the law, unless the sentence,
prohibition, suspension or censure was specifically or expressly promulgated or
pronounced by a judge against a specified person, college, university, church or
place, or if it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with
such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law. For the
synod wishes such persons to be avoided in accordance with canonical sanctions. By
this, however, it does not intend any relief or favour to those so excommunicated,
suspended, interdicted or prohibited.

[Interdicts are not to be imposed lightly]

Since an undiscriminating promulgation of interdicts has led to many scandals, this

holy synod determines that no city, town, castle, vill or place may be laid under an
ecclesiastical interdict except by reason or through the fault of the places themselves
or of their lord, governors or officials. Such places cannot be laid under an interdict
by any ordinary or delegated authority by reason or through the fault of any other
private person, unless the person has been previously excommunicated and
denounced, or publicly named in a church, and the lords or governors or officials of
the places, though requested by the authority of a judge, have not effectively evicted
the excommunicated person within two days or made him give satisfaction. If he is
evicted after two days, or retires or gives satisfaction, divine services may be
resumed straightaway. This applies also to dependencies of the place.

So that lawsuits may be brought to a speedier end, a second appeal is hereby

forbidden if it is a question of the same complaint or if the appeal is made from the
same interlocutory sentence which does not have the force of a final judgment.
Anyone who makes a frivolous or unjust appeal before the final judgment shall be
condemned by the appeal judge to pay to the party appealed against the sum of
fifteen gold florins of the treasury, in addition to the expenses, damages and interest.

Session 21—9 June 1435

[On annates]
The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. In the name of the holy
Spirit the paraclete, this holy synod decrees that in future, both in the Roman curia
and elsewhere, for the confirmation of elections, admission of postulations and
provision of presentations and for collations, dispositions, elections, postulations,
presentations, even if made by layfolk, institutions, installations and investitures, in
respect of cathedral and metropolitan churches, monasteries, dignities, benefices and
any ecclesiastical offices whatsoever, and for sacred orders, blessings and pallia,
nothing whatsoever is to be exacted, either before or after, for sealing the bull of the
letters, or for common annates, minor services, first fruits or dues, or under any
other title or name, or on the pretext of any custom, privilege or statute, or for any
other reason or occasion, directly or indirectly. Only the writers abbreviators and
registrars of the letters or minutes shall receive a suitable salary for their work. If
anyone dares to contravene this sacred canon by demanding, giving or promising
anything, he shall incur the penalty inflicted on simoniacs and shall acquire no right
or title to the dignities or benefices thus obtained. Obligations, promises, censures
and mandates, and whatever is done to the prejudice of this most salutary decree, are
to be deemed null and void. Even if, which God forbid, the Roman pontiff, who
beyond all others should carry out and observe the canons of universal councils,
should scandalize the church by acting contrary to this sanction, he should be
delated to a general council. Others are to be punished by their own superiors with a
fitting penalty, proportionate to their offence, in accordance with canonical
sanctions.

[About those in peaceful possession]

Whoever has been in possession for the last three years, not through violence but
with a specious title, peacefully and without a lawsuit, of a prelacy, dignity, benefice
or office, or shall have possession of them in the future, cannot be disturbed
afterwards in his claim or possession by anyone, even by reason of a newly enacted
law, except in the case of warfare or some other legitimate impediment, which he
must protest and intimate in accordance with the council of Vienne. A lawsuit in this
case is to be understood as regards future controversies, if the proceedings have
reached the execution of the citation, the exhibition of his right in the judgment and
the observance of all the terms. Ordinaries, however, should make careful inquiry to
see that nobody possesses a benefice without a title. If they find such a person, they
shall declare that the right does not belong to him, and they shall give the right either
to him, if they think fit, unless he is an intruded person or violent or undeserving in
some other way, or to some other suitable person.

[How the divine office is to be celebrated in church]

A person who is about to make a request to a secular prince takes pains to compose
himself and his words by decent dress, becoming gesture, regulated speech and close
attention of mind. How much more careful ought he to be in all these things when he
is about to pray to almighty God in a sacred place! The holy synod therefore decrees
that in all cathedral and collegiate churches, at suitable times and at the sound of a
bell, the divine praises shall be reverently celebrated by everyone through all the
hours, not hurriedly but gravely and slowly and with reasonable pauses, especially in
the middle of each verse of the psalms, and with a suitable distinction between
solemn and ferial offices. Those who recite the canonical hours shall enter the
church wearing an ankle-length gown and a clean surplice reaching below the
middle of the shin-bone or a cloak, according to the different seasons and regions,
and covering their heads not with a cowl but with an amice or a biretta. Having
arrived in the choir, they shall behave with such gravity as the place and the duty
demand, not gossiping or talking among themselves or with others, nor reading
letters or other writings. They have gathered there to sing, so they should not keep
their mouths shut rather all of them, especially those with more important functions,
should sing to God eagerly in psalms, hymns and canticles. When "Glory be to the
Father and, to the Son and to the holy Spirit" is being recited, all shall rise.
Whenever mention is made of the glorious name of Jesus, at which every knee
should bow in heaven, on earth and under the earth, they shall bow their heads.
Nobody should read or say the office there privately during the public chanting of
the hours in common, for not only does this take away due honour from the choir
but also it distracts the singers. To ensure that these things and whatever else
concerns the performance of the divine office and the discipline of the choir are duly
observed, the dean, or the person whose duty it is, shall carefully keep watch,
looking round, to see if there is anything not in order. Transgressors shall be
punished with the penalty of that hour in which the offence was committed, or even
more severely, as the gravity of the fault demands.

[The times at which each one should be in choir]

Whoever is not present at matins before the end of the psalm Come let us exult at
the other hours before the end of the first psalm, and at mass before the last Lord
have mercy, until the end, except in cases of necessity and then only with the
permission of the president of the choir, is to be considered absent from that hour,
saving however any stricter regulations of churches in this regard. The same is to be
observed with regard to those who do not remain in processions from the start until
the finish. To ensure observance of this, someone, who shall be under oath to act
honestly and to spare none, should be deputed with the duty of noting individuals
who are absent at the appointed times. This holy synod also orders that in churches
in which stipends are not allotted for individual hours, a deduction should be made
from the gross revenues of delinquents so that their emoluments are more or less
proportionate to their labours, thus destroying the abuses whereby anybody present
at only one hour gets a full day's stipend and presidents or deans or other officials,
from the mere fact of being officials, receive the daily stipends even when absent for
purposes other than those of their church.

[How the canonical hours should be recited outside choir]

This holy synod admonishes all holders of benefices, or those in holy orders, since
they are bound to the canonical hours, if they wish their prayers to be acceptable to
God, to recite the day and night offices, not in a mumble or between their teeth, nor
swallowing or abbreviating their words, nor intermingling conversation and
laughter, but, whether they are alone or with others, reverently and distinctly and in
such a place as will not diminish devotion, for which they ought to dispose and
prepare themselves, as the scripture says: Before prayer prepare your soul, and do
not be like someone who tempts God.

[About those who wander about the church during services]

Any holder of a benefice in a church, especially of a major one, if he is seen

wandering around inside or outside the church during the divine services, strolling
or chatting with others, shall automatically forfeit his attendance not only for that
hour but also for the whole day. If after being corrected once he does not stop, let
him be deprived of his stipends for a month, or, if he is obstinate, let him be
subjected to a heavier penalty so that in the end he is forced to desist. Also, noisy
comings and goings in the church should not be allowed to impede or disturb the
divine service. Regulars who err in these matters in conventual churches should be
punished with a heavy penalty at the judgment of their superior.

[About a notice-board hanging in the choir]

So that everything may be well ordered in the house of God and that each person
may know what he has to do, let there be affixed a notice-board permanently
hanging in the choir, with information on it of the duties of each canon or other
benefice-holder as regards reading or singing at the individual hours during the week
or a longer time. Anyone who fails to do in person or by proxy what is prescribed
there, shall forfeit for each hour the stipend of one day.

[On those who at mass do not complete the creed, or sing songs, or say mass in
too low a voice or without a server]

There are abuses in some churches whereby the "I believe in one God", which is the
symbol and profession of our faith, is not sung to the end, or the preface or the
Lord's prayer is omitted, or secular songs are sung in the church, or masses
(including private ones) are said without a server, or the secret prayers are said in so
low a voice that they cannot be heard by the people nearby. These abuses are to stop
and we decree that any transgressors shall be duly punished by their superiors.

[About those who pledge divine worship]

We abolish also that abuse, so manifestly incompatible with divine worship,

whereby some canons of churches, having contracted debts, bind themselves to their
creditors in such a way that, if they do not pay their debts by a fixed time there will
be a cessation of divine services. We declare this obligation null even if it has been
confirmed by oath. We decree that those who make these illicit agreements shall
automatically lose for three months their revenues, which shall be applied to their
church They shall receive no emoluments from their church until they resume the
divine services.

[On holding chapters at the same time as the principal mass]

This holy synod forbids chapters and other meetings of canons to be held, or chapter
business to be transacted, at the same time as the principal mass, especially on
solemn feasts, unless an urgent and manifest necessity suddenly occurs. Whoever
summons the chapter for that time shall be suspended from receiving his daily
stipends for a week, and the canons shall forego their stipends for that hour.

[On not performing spectacles in churches]

In some churches, during certain celebrations of the year, there are carried on
various scandalous practices. Some people with mitre, crozier and pontifical
vestments give blessings after the manner of bishops. Others are robed like kings
and dukes; in some regions this is called the feast of fools or innocents, or of
children. Some put on masked and theatrical comedies, others organize dances for
men and women, attracting people to amusement and buffoonery. Others prepare
meals and banquets there. This holy synod detests these abuses. It forbids ordinaries
as well as deans and rectors of churches, under pain of being deprived of all
ecclesiastical revenues for three months, to allow these and similar frivolities, or
even markets and fairs, in churches, which ought to be houses of prayer, or even in
cemeteries. They are to punish transgressors by ecclesiastical censures and other
remedies of the law. The holy synod decrees that all customs, statutes and privileges
which do not accord with these decrees, unless they add greater penalties, are null.

Session 22—15 October 1435

[On the condemnation of the book of friar Augustine of Rome, archbishop of

Nazareth]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. The main reason, among
other pious aims, why this holy synod assembled was to preserve the truth of the
catholic faith and to eradicate errors and heresies. Therefore the chief goal of our
activity is, as soon as we learn of the spread of something that can harm the purity of
the Christian faith or in any way obscures the brilliance of the light in the minds of
the faithful, to eradicate it completely and carefully to clear the Lord's field of
noxious weeds and brambles. This holy synod therefore condemns and censures a
certain book by master Augustine, commonly called "of Rome", archbishop of
Nazareth. Its first treatise is entitled, "On the sacrament of the unity of Jesus Christ
and the church, or on the whole Christ"; the second, "On Christ the head and his
glorious sovereignty", another, "On the charity of Christ towards the elect and his
infinite love". The holy synod condemns and censures the book as containing
teaching that is unsound and erroneous in the faith, as well as its defenders.

The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which
is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful,
namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though
he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church,
but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one
Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the
synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of
Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of
Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members
of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable
foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called
according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to
be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the
following. The human nature in Christ is really Christ. The human nature in Christ is
the person of Christ. The intimate cause that determines the human nature in Christ
is not really distinguished from the nature that is determined. The human nature in
Christ is without doubt the person of the Word; and the Word in Christ, once the
nature has been assumed, is really the person who assumes. The human nature
assumed by the Word in a personal union is truly God, natural and proper. Christ
according to his created will loves the human nature united to the person of the
Word as much as he loves the divine nature. Just as two persons in God are equally
lovable, so the two natures in Christ, the human and the divine, are equally lovable
on account of the common person. The soul of Christ sees God as clearly and
intensely as God sees himself.

These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found
in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith.
Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such
teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the
teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured
propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be
punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. By these measures the
synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors
who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them
according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these
doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. Nor does the synod
intend by this judgment to prejudice the person of the said author since, though duly
summoned, he gave reasons for being absent, and in some of his writings and
elsewhere he has submitted his teaching to the church's judgment. Further, this holy
synod orders all archbishops, bishops, chancellors of universities and inquisitors of
heresy, who are responsible in this matter, to ensure that nobody has the said book
and supporting treatises or presumes to keep them with him, rather he shall consign
them to these authorities, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the
law: otherwise let such persons be proceeded against with canonical censures.

Session 23—26 March 1436

[On the election of the supreme pontiff]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Since a good shepherd
is the salvation of his flock, it is the duty of this sacred synod to strive, with all the
diligence that human law can contrive, that the Roman pontiff, who is first in the
Lord's flock and the supreme shepherd, should be and continue to be such as to
provide for the salvation of all souls and the benefit of the whole Christian world
and to fulfil worthily so great an office. Therefore it renews the constitutions about
the election of Roman pontiffs which sacred councils and supreme pontiffs have
issued and it adds to them some further salutary norms. It decrees that whenever the
apostolic see falls vacant, all the cardinals of the holy Roman church who are
present in the place where the election of the supreme pontiff is to be held, shall
meet together on the tenth day after the see becomes vacant in some chapel or place
near the conclave. From there they shall process behind a cross, two by two,
devoutly singing the Veni creator Spiritus, and enter the place of the conclave, each
taking with him not more than two necessary attendants. In view of the ceremonies,
two clerics may also be admitted, at least one of whom shall be a notary. The
chamberlain together with the deputies for the custody of the conclave shall ensure
that nobody, apart from the aforesaid persons, enters the conclave. After the
cardinals have entered and the doors have been closed, the chamberlain shall enter
with the deputies and carefully examine the cells of all the cardinals. He shall
remove any food and edibles found there, except medicines of the sick and infirm.
He shall ensure a careful guard whenever he leaves and closes the door, and each
day he shall closely inspect the food being brought in for the cardinals and allow
only what seems necessary for moderate refreshment, without prejudice to the
decrees passed in the fourth and seventh sessions of this sacred council.

On the next day all the cardinals, in the presence of all those in the conclave, shall
hear a mass of the holy Spirit and receive the eucharist. Before the voting begins,
they shall swear before the holy gospels in these words: I, N. , cardinal of . . . , swear
and promise to almighty God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, and to blessed Peter,
prince of the apostles, that I shall elect as pontiff the person who I think will be
beneficial to the universal church in both spiritual and temporal matters and suitable
for so great a dignity; I shall not give my vote to anyone who I have reason to think
is directly or indirectly aiming at getting himself elected, by his promising or giving
some temporal thing or by asking in person or through another or in any other way
whatsoever; and I shall not make obeisance to anyone elected as pontiff before he
takes the oath prescribed by this council of Basel; so help me God, to whom on the
day of tremendous judgment I shall have to give an account of this oath and all my
deeds After this each cardinal shall submit a ballot-card, on which he shall nominate
a maximum of three persons. If he nominates more than one person, the second and
third persons shall be from outside the college of cardinals. There shall not be more
than one ballot on any day and it shall be held immediately after the mass. When the
ballot-cards have been read, they shall be burnt straightaway unless two-thirds of the
votes are for the same person. No approach shall be made to anyone until six ballots
have been completed. During this time let the cardinals reflect and seriously ponder
how much merit or loss to themselves, how much fruit or damage to the Christian
people, how much good or evil, they will be causing by their choice of a pontiff.
There is nothing, indeed, by which they can more merit the grace or the wrath of our
lord Jesus Christ than when they are setting his vicar over his sheep, which he loved
so much as to suffer the torments of the cross and to die for them.

[On the profession of the supreme pontiff]

The holy synod decrees that the person elected as pope is obliged to express his
consent to the election in the manner stated below. It is fitting that this consent
should be made to the cardinals, if the person elected is present in the curia, or to
one of the cardinals or someone mandated by them if he is not present there, in the
presence of a notary and at least ten persons. After he has been informed of the
election, he is bound to act within a day of the demand. If he does not do so, his
election is annulled and the cardinals must proceed in the Lord's name to another
election. But if he expresses his consent, as stated above, the cardinals shall
straightaway make due obeisance to him as supreme pontiff. Once the obeisance has
been made by the cardinals, nobody has any right to challenge his pontificate.

[Form of consent]

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit. I, N. ,
elected pope, with both heart and mouth confess and profess to almighty God,
whose church I undertake with his assistance to govern, and to blessed Peter, prince
of the apostles, that as long as I am in this fragile life I will firmly believe and hold
the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and
of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the
first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at
Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh
at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at
the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel, and to preserve intact this faith
unchanged to the last dot, and to defend and preach it to the point of death and the
shedding of my blood, and likewise to follow and observe in every way the rite
handed down of the ecclesiastical sacraments of the church. I promise also to labour
faithfully for the defence of the catholic faith, the extirpation of heresies and errors,
the reform of morals and the peace of the Christian people. I swear also to continue
with the holding of general councils and the confirmation of elections in accordance
with the decrees of the holy council of Basel. I have signed this profession with my
own hand; I offer it on the altar with a sincere mind to you almighty God, to whom
on the day of tremendous judgment I shall have to give an account of this and all my
deeds; and I will repeat it at the first public consistory.

'So that this salutary institution may not fade from the supreme pontiff's memory
with the passage of time, every year on the anniversary of his election or of his
coronation, the first cardinal present shall, during mass, publicly and in a loud voice
address the supreme pontiff thus: Most holy father, may your holiness heed and
carefully ponder the promise which you made to God on the day of your election.
He shall then read out the promise and shall continue as follows: May your holiness,
therefore, for the honour of God, for the salvation of your soul and for the good of
the universal church, strive to observe to your utmost all these things in good faith
and without guile or fraud. Recall whose place it is that you hold on earth, namely of
him who laid down his life for his sheep, who thrice asked the blessed Peter if he
loved him, before he entrusted his sheep to him', and who, as the just judge whom
nothing secret escapes, will exact from you an account of everything to the very last
farthing. Remember what blessed Peter and his successors as pontiffs did: they
thought only of the honour of God, the spread of the faith, the public good of the
church and the salvation and benefit of the faithful; finally, imitating their master
and Lord they did not hesitate to lay down their lives for the sheep entrusted to
them. Do not lay up for yourself or your kinsfolk treasures on earth, where moth and
rust consume and where thieves and robbers break in, but lay up for yourself
treasure in heaven. Do not be an acceptor of persons or of blood-ties or of homeland
or of nation. All people are children of God and have been equally entrusted to your
care and safe-keeping. Say after the example of Christ: Whoever does the will of my
Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother. In distributing dignities
and benefices put before yourself neither the flesh nor gifts nor anything temporal at
all, but solely God and the virtues and merits of people. Exercise ecclesiastical
discipline in correcting faults, mindful of what grace Phinehas merited and what
punishment Eli, the one for avenging injuries to God, the other for pretending not to
know them. Defend, help and support the poor and needy. Show a fatherly charity to
all.

After the solemnities of his coronation, and each year after the anniversary of his
election, the supreme pontiff shall carefully discuss with his brethren, for at least
eight consecutive days, how he shall carry out his solemn promises to God. In the
first place, therefore, he should examine where in the world the Christian religion is
being persecuted by Turks, Saracens, Tartars and other infidels; where heresy or
schism or any form of superstition flourishes, in which provinces there has been a
decline in morals and observance of the divine precepts and in the right way of
living, in both ecclesiastical and secular matters, where ecclesiastical liberty is
infringed; among which kings, princes and peoples enmity, wars and fears of war
are rife; and like a dutiful father he should strive with his brethren carefully to
provide remedies.
When these affairs of an universal character have been settled, let him deal with
those nearer at hand. Let him begin by reforming and ordering in an exemplary way
his house, his household and the Roman curia, where and in so far as this is
necessary, so that from the visible reform of the church which is the head of all
others, lesser churches may draw purity of morals and no occasion may be given for
calumny and malicious talk. Making diligent inquiry in person and through others
about both important and lesser persons, he should allow no delay or pretence in
correcting whatever is found in need of reform, remembering that the sin is twofold,
the one being committed, the other and far more serious being its consequences. For
whatever is done there is easily made into an example. That is why, if the head is
sick, disease enters into the rest of the body. The papal household and court should
be a kind of clear mirror, so that all who look at it form themselves and live
according to its example. Thereafter let him banish and eradicate any traces of
simony, filthy concubinage or whatever may offend God or scandalize people. He
should take care that officials do not exercise their offices badly or oppress anybody
or extort anything by threats or illegal means, and that those in charge of the
officials do not let their excesses go unpunished. They should not tolerate clothes
and colours which are forbidden by the sacred canons. Let him instruct the Roman
clergy, who are chiefly and immediately subject to him, in all ecclesiastical
decorum, admonishing them that God's approval depends not on the parade and
splendour of clothes but on humility, docility, purity of mind, simplicity of heart,
holiness of behaviour and the other virtues which commend their possessor to God
and to people. Let him enact reforms especially so that the divine services may be
observed in the churches of Rome with all seemly devotion and discipline. He
should also instruct the people of Rome, which is his own parish, and direct them in
the way of salvation. He should bid the cardinals to visit and reform their titular
churches and parishes as befits their office. He should appoint some prelate of great
learning and of proven and exemplary life as his vicar in the city, to take his place in
the episcopal care of the clergy and people, and he should often inquire about
whether he is fulfilling his task.

Next, let him reflect carefully with the same brethren on the good and wholesome
administration of the temporalities of the Roman church and let him ensure that the
provinces, cities, towns, castles and lands subject to the Roman church are justly and
peacefully ruled with such moderation that the difference between government by
ecclesiastics and by secular princes is like that between a father and a master. He
should not aim at gain, but cherishing all with paternal charity he should esteem
them not as subjects but as sons and daughters. Since he has charge of their spiritual
and temporal well-being, he must watch to get rid of all factions and seditious
groups — especially of Guelphs and Ghibellines and other similar parties — which
breed destruction to both souls and bodies. He must strive, employing spiritual and
temporal penalties of all possible kinds, to remove all causes of dissension and to
keep people united for the defence of the church. To govern the provinces and chief
cities, he should appoint cardinals or prelates of untarnished reputation who will
seek not financial gain but justice and peace for their subjects. Their legation shall
last for two, or at most three, years. When their legation has ended, since it is right
that each one should give an account of his stewardship, one or more outstanding
men shall be appointed to review their administration and to hear the complaints and
petitions of the inhabitants and to render justice; these shall refer what they cannot
easily effect to the pope, and he shall strive to find out what the former have done
and to punish any illegal actions, so that their successors may learn from their
example to avoid illegalities. Officials should be allotted a suitable salary on which
they can live honestly, to prevent them turning their hand to what is illicit.

The supreme pontiff should often inquire how his legates, governors and
commissars, as well as deputies and feudatories of the Roman church, rule their
subjects and whether they oppress them with new taxes and exactions. He should not
tolerate any austere measure or unjust burden being laid on his subjects' necks. For it
would be wicked to allow those whom the pope should rule as a father to be treated
tyrannically by others. He should ensure that statutes and ancient constitutions by
which provinces and districts have been well governed in the past are kept intact.
But if any have subsequently been issued unreasonably or from envy or partiality,
they should be cancelled or altered when the reasons for doing so have been
understood. Within a year from the day of his election, the Roman pontiff shall
summon spokesmen and proctors of the provinces and chief cities of the Roman
church and shall question them closely, with fatherly affection, about the following:
the state and condition of their territories, how they were governed in the time of his
predecessor, whether they are being oppressed by any unjust burden, and what
should be done for their good government. Then let him apply to them as to sons
remedies which will provide for their benefit and security and for the common good.
He should not shrink from repeating this at least every two years. Among the other
things that feudatories, captains, governors, senators, castellans and other high
officials of Rome and of the lands of the church customarily swear to, there should
be added at the time of their installation an oath that, when the papacy is vacant,
they will hold their cities, lands, places, citadels, castles and peoples at the command
of the cardinals, in the name of the Roman church, and that they will freely and
without opposition hand them over to the same. Lest the supreme pontiff may seem
to be influenced by carnal affection rather than by right reason, and to avoid the
scandals that sad experience shows often arise, in future he shall not make or allow
to be made anyone related to him by blood or affinity to the third degree inclusive a
duke, marquis, count, feudatory, emphyteutic tenant, deputy, governor, official or
castellan of any province, city, town, castle, fortress or place of the Roman church,
nor give them any jurisdiction or power over them, nor appoint them captains or
leaders of men under arms. The cardinals must never agree with a supreme pontiff
attempting to act otherwise, and his successor as pontiff shall withdraw and revoke
anything done in this way.

In accordance with the constitution of Pope Nicholas IV, the holy synod decrees that
half of all fruits, revenues, proceeds, fines, penalties and taxes deriving from all the
lands and places subject to the Roman church belongs to the cardinals of the holy
Roman church, and that the institution and dismissal of all rulers and governors and
guardians, howsoever they may be called, who are in charge of the aforesaid lands
and places, and also of the collectors of the said fruits, should be made with the
advice and agreement of the cardinals. The holy synod therefore admonishes the
cardinals to protect the lands and subjects of the Roman church from harm and
oppression and, mindful of their peace, safety and good government, to recommend
them, if need be, to the supreme pontiff. While it is true that the supreme pontiff and
the cardinals should give careful attention to all the territories of the Roman church,
nevertheless the city of Rome should be at the centre of their concern. For there the
holy bodies of blessed Peter and Paul and of innumerable martyrs and saints of
Christ repose; there is the seat of the Roman pontiff, from which he and the Roman
empire take their name; thither all Christians flock for the sake of devotion. They
should feel for it a special love and affection, as being peculiarly their daughter and
principal parish, so that it should be governed in peace, tranquillity and justice and
should suffer no damage to its churches, walls and roads and the security of its
streets. Hence this holy synod decrees that from the sum total of the income and
proceeds of the city, an adequate portion shall be set aside for the preservation of the
churches, walls, roads and bridges and the security of the streets in the city itself and
the district; this money is to be administered by men of proven reputation who are to
be chosen on the advice of the cardinals.

The supreme pontiff calls himself the servant of the servants of God; let him prove it
in deeds. As long as people from all parts have recourse to him as to a common
father, he should give them all easy access. Let him set aside at least one day in the
week for a public audience, when he shall listen with patience and kindness to all,
especially the poor and oppressed, and shall grant their prayers as much as he can
with God's help, and shall assist all with kind advice and help as each one has need
and as a father does for his children. If he is prevented by some bodily need, he shall
entrust this task to some cardinal or other noteworthy person who will report
everything to him, and he shall order all officials of the curia, especially the vice-
chancellor, the penitentiary and the chamberlain, to expedite business for the poor
with speed and free of charge, bearing in mind the apostolic charity of Peter and
Paul, who pledged themselves to remember the poor . He should attend a public
mass on Sundays and feast-days, and after it for a while he should give audience to
the needy. He should hold a public consistory each week, or at least twice a month,
to treat of the business of cathedral churches, monasteries, princes and universities
and other important affairs. But he should refer lawsuits and lesser matters to the
vice-chancellor. He should keep himself free of lawsuits and lesser business as far as
he can, so as to be freer to attend to major issues. Since the cardinals of the holy
Roman church are considered to be part of the body of the Roman pontiff, it is
extremely expedient for the common good that, following ancient custom, serious
and difficult questions should hereafter be settled on their advice and direction after
mature deliberation, especially the following: decisions on matters of faith;
canonizations of saints, erections, suppressions, divisions, subjections or unions of
cathedral churches and monasteries; promotions of cardinals; confirmations and
provisions relating to cathedral churches and monasteries; deprivations and
translations of abbots, bishops and superiors; laws and constitutions; legations a
latere or commissions or envoys and nuncios functioning with the authority of
legates a latere; foundations of new religious orders; new exemptions for churches,
monasteries and chapels, or the revocation of those already granted without
prejudice to the decree of the holy council of Constance about not transferring
prelates against their will.

[On the number and qualities of cardinals]

Since the cardinals of the holy Roman church assist the supreme pontiff in directing
the Christian commonweal, it is essential that such persons be appointed as may be,
like their name, real hinges on which the doors of the universal church move and are
upheld. The sacred synod therefore decrees that henceforth their number shall be so
adjusted that it is not a burden to the church which now, owing to the malice of the
times, is afflicted by many serious inconveniences) or cheapened by being too large.
They should be chosen from all the regions of Christianity, as far as this is
convenient and possible, so that information on new things in the church may be
more easily available for mature consideration. They should not exceed twenty-four
in number, including the present cardinals. Not more than a third of them at any
given time shall be from one nation, not more than one from any city or diocese.
None shall be chosen from that nation which now has more than a third of them,
until its share has been reduced to a third. They should be men outstanding in
knowledge, good conduct and practical experience, at least thirty years old, and
masters, doctors or licentiates who have been examined in divine or human law. At
least a third or a quarter of them should be masters or licentiates in holy scripture. A
very few of them may be sons, brothers or nephews of kings or great princes; for
them an appropriate education will suffice, on account of their experience and
maturity of behaviour.

Nephews of the Roman pontiff, related to him through his brother or sister, or of any
living cardinal shall not be made cardinals; nor shall bastards or the physically
handicapped or those stained by a reputation of crime or infamy. There can,
however, be added to the aforesaid twenty-four cardinals, on account of some great
necessity or benefit for the church, two others who are outstanding in their sanctity
of life and excellence of virtues, even if they do not possess the above-mentioned
degrees, and some distinguished men from the Greeks, when they are united to the
Roman church. The election of cardinals shall not be made by oral votes alone,
rather only those shall be chosen who, after a genuine and publicized ballot, obtain
the collegial agreement, signed with their own hands, of the majority of the
cardinals. For this purpose let an apostolic letter be drawn up with the signatures of
the cardinals. The decree of this sacred council beginning Also since the
multiplication of cardinals, etc., which was published in the fourth session, is to
remain in force. When cardinals receive the insignia of their dignity, whose meaning
is readiness to shed their blood if necessary for the good of the church, they shall
take the following oath in a public consistory, if they are in the curia, or publicly in
the hands of some bishop commissioned for this purpose by an apostolic letter
containing the oath, if they are not in the curia.
I,N., recently chosen as a cardinal of the holy Roman church, from this hour
henceforward will be faithful to blessed Peter, to the universal and Roman church
and to the supreme pontiff and his canonically elected successors. I will labour
faithfully for the defence of the catholic faith, the eradication of heresies errors and
schisms, the reform of morals and the peace of the Christian people. I will not
consent to alienations of property or goods of the Roman church or of other
churches or of any benefices, except in cases allowed by law, and I will strive to the
best of my ability for the restoration of those alienated from the Roman church. I
will give neither advice nor my signature to the supreme pontiff except for what is
according to God and my conscience. I will faithfully carry out whatever I am
commissioned to do by the apostolic see. I will maintain divine worship in the
church of my title and will preserve its goods: so help me God.

For the preservation of the titular churches of the cardinals, some of which have
sadly deteriorated both in divine worship and in their buildings, to the shame of the
apostolic see and of the cardinals themselves, this holy synod decrees that from the
revenues and incomes of the territories of the Roman church — half of which
belongs to the cardinals in accordance with the constitution of Pope Nicholas, as was
said above — a tenth of what each cardinal receives shall be applied each year to his
titular church. Moreover, each cardinal shall leave to his titular church, either in his
lifetime or at his death, enough for the upkeep of one person. If he fails to do so,
regarding both this and the said tenth, all his goods shall be sequestrated until due
satisfaction has been made. We place the burden of carrying this out on the first
cardinal of the order in which he died. Each cardinal present in the curia should
make an annual visitation of his titular church in person; each one not present should
make it through a suitable deputy. He should also inquire carefully concerning the
clergy and the people of his dependent churches, and make useful provision with
regard to the divine worship and the goods of these churches as well as the life and
conduct of the clergy and parishioners, about whom, since they are his sheep, he will
have to render an account at the severe judgment of God. As regards the time of the
visitation and other things, let him observe what is laid down in our decree on
synodal councils.

Although both the dignity itself and the cardinal's own promise urge him to toil at
the holy tasks just mentioned, yet results will be greater if the tasks are spread
among individuals. Therefore cardinal-bishops shall inquire about what regions are
infected with new or old heresies, errors and superstitions; cardinal-priests shall
inquire about where conduct, observance of the divine commandments and
ecclesiastical discipline are lax; cardinal-deacons shall inquire about which kings,
princes and peoples are troubled by actual or possible wars. Like busy bees, both
with the supreme pontiff and among themselves, they should promote these holy
works with diligence and in detail, striving to provide a remedy where this is
needed. The supreme pontiff for his part, as the common father and pastor of all,
should have investigations made everywhere not only when requested to do so but
also on his own initiative and he should apply salutary medicines, as best he can, for
all the illnesses of his children. If the cardinals ever notice that a pope is negligent or
remiss or acting in a way unbefitting his state, though may this never happen, with
filial reverence and charity they shall beg him as their father to live up to his pastoral
office, his good name and his duty. First, let one or some of them warn him that if he
does not desist they will delate him to the next general council, and if he does not
amend they shall all do this as a college together with some notable prelates. For the
well-being of the supreme pontiff and the common good they should not fear the
hostility of the supreme pontiff himself or anything else, provided they act with
reverence and charity. Much more so, if it comes to the pope's notice that some
cardinal is acting wrongly and reprehensibly, he should correct him, always with
paternal charity and according to evangelical teaching. Thus, acting in charity
towards each other, one to another, a father to his sons and sons to their father, let
them direct the church with exemplary and salutary government.

Let the cardinals both publicly and privately treat with kindness and respect prelates
and all others, especially distinguished persons who come to the Roman curia, and
let them present their business to the supreme pontiff freely and graciously. Since
the cardinals assist him who is the common father of all, it is very unseemly for
them to become acceptors of persons or advocates. Hence this holy synod forbids
them to exercise any favouritism as collateral judges, even if they take their origin
from a favoured region. Neither should they be biased protectors or defenders of
princes or communities or others against anyone, whether paid or unpaid, but putting
aside all sentiment let them assist the pope in pacifying quarrels with harmony and
justice. The holy synod urges and commends them to promote the just business of
princes and anybody else, especially religious and the poor, without charge and
without seeking reward, as an act of charity. Let them preserve with readiness and
kindness the gravity and modesty that befits their dignity. Let them maintain
towards all people godliness which, according to the Apostle, is profitable in every
way. Although they should not neglect their kinsfolk, especially if they are
deserving and poor, they should not load them with a mass of goods and benefices to
the scandal of others. Let them beware of pouring out on flesh and blood, beyond
the bounds of necessity, goods coming from the churches. If the pontiff notices such
strutting among the great, he should reprimand and object, as is fitting, and he will
be blameworthy if he fails to correct, in keeping with his office, whatever needs
correction.

The household, table, furniture and horses of both pope and cardinals should not be
open to blame as regards quantity, state, display or any other excess. The house and
its contents should be on a moderate scale, a model of frugality and not a source of
scandal. Both the supreme pontiff and the cardinals, as well as other bishops, should
strive to observe the constitution of blessed Gregory which was published at a
general synod and which this holy synod now renews the sense of which is as
follows: Though the life of a pastor should be an example to disciples, the clergy for
the most part do not know the private life-style of their pontiff, even though secular
youths know it; we therefore declare by this present decree that certain clerics and
even monks should be selected to minister in the pontifical chamber, so that he who
is in the seat of government may have witnesses who will observe his true private
behaviour and will draw an example of progress from this regular sight.

Let them also pay attention to the words of Pope Paschal: "Let bishops spend their
time in reading and prayer and always have with them priests and deacons and other
clerics of good reputation, so that, following the Apostle and the instructions of holy
fathers, they may be found without blame."3 It does not profit the commonweal for
cases other than those concerning elections to cathedral churches or monasteries, or
princes or universities or similar matters, to be assigned by the pope or the chancery
to cardinals, since they should devote themselves to the greater problems of the
universal church. Lesser cases, therefore, should be sent to the court of the Rota,
which was instituted for this purpose. Neither the pope nor cardinals should in future
send their officials to prelates who have been confirmed or provided, as it were to
accept gifts, lest they allow others to do what is unfitting for themselves to do.
Something that has happened in the past — namely a sum of money or something
else is subtracted from the goods of a dead cardinal, as a charge for the ring given to
him on the assignment of his titular church — is not to occur in the future, since the
labours of cardinals for the commonweal merit rather obsequies from public funds,
if they are poor.

[On elections]

Already this holy synod, with its abolition of the general reservation of all elective
churches and dignities, has wisely decreed that provision should be made for them
by canonical elections and confirmations. It wishes also to forbid special and
particular reservations of elective churches and dignities, whereby free elections and
confirmations can be prevented; and to ensure that the Roman pontiff will attempt
nothing against this decree, except for an important, persuasive and clear reason,
which should be expressed in detail in an apostolic letter. However, much has been
done against the intention of this decree and without the required reason, resulting in
serious scandals already and the likelihood of even more serious ones in the future.
This holy synod wishes to prevent this and does not want the purpose of the decree,
which was to remove every obstacle to canonical elections and confirmations, to be
deprived of its effect. It therefore decrees that elections should assuredly be held in
the said churches without any impediment or obstacle and that, after they have been
examined in accordance with common law and the dispositions of our decree, they
shall be confirmed. However, if perhaps on occasion it should happen that an
election is made which in other respects is canonical but which, it is feared, will lead
to trouble for the church or the country or the common good, the supreme pontiff,
when the election is referred to him for confirmation, if he is convinced that there
exists such a most pressing reason, after mature discussion and then with the signed
votes of the cardinals of the Roman church or the majority of them declaring that the
reason is true and sufficient, may reject the election and refer it back to the chapter
or convent for them to institute another election, from which such consequences are
not to be feared, within the legal time or otherwise according to the distance of the
place.

[On reservations]

The numerous reservations of churches and benefices hitherto made by supreme

pontiffs have turned out to be burdensome to churches. Therefore this holy synod
abolishes all of them both general and special or particular — for all churches and
benefices whatsoever that were customarily provided for by an election or a
collation or some other disposition — which were introduced either by the
additional canons Ad regimen and Execrabilis or by rules of the chancery or by
other apostolic constitutions, and it decrees that never again shall they exist, with the
exception only of reservations expressly contained in the corpus of law and those
which occur in the lands mediately or immediately subject to the Roman church by
reason of direct or beneficial dominion.

[On Clementine "Letters"]3

Although apostolic and other letters may state that someone has renounced, or been
deprived of, a dignity, benefice or right, or has done something for which a right of
his has been taken away, nevertheless letters of this sort should not prejudice him,
even though they are based on the status or the intention of the person making the
statement, unless proof is forthcoming from witnesses or other legitimate
documents.

Session 24—14 April 1436

[About business with the Greeks and about indulgences, etc.]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Our ambassadors to the
most serene emperor of the Romans and the most reverend lord patriarch of
Constantinople, who were sent to Constantinople on behalf and in the name of this
holy synod, for various reasons promised to present the terms which were concluded
and signed by the two sides on another occasion in this holy synod regarding the
manner of holding a universal and ecumenical council of both churches, and to
exhibit them with effect, under the customary leaden seal of this holy synod, with
the present date and containing the following text word for word. This holy synod,
unwilling to omit anything that might help the union of Christ's churches, accepts,
approves, ratifies and confirms by this present decree the said promise of its
ambassadors and includes in this document the said terms word for word as was
promised by the said ambassadors, as follows.
The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Among the various
works necessary for the whole Christian people for which this holy council was
assembled, the union of the western and eastern churches of Christ is the chief and
greatest. Rightly, therefore, from the very start of its proceedings, this holy synod
has made every effort to achieve this. For, as quickly as possible it sent its
ambassadors with letters to the most serene emperor of the Greeks and the most
reverend patriarch of Constantinople, to exhort them with all charity and insistence
that they should send some persons with full authority to treat with us on the way to
achieve the said holy union. As soon as they were asked, they appointed to this holy
synod three outstanding men from those who seem to be of great authority among
them — the first of whom was indeed a blood-relative of the emperor — with a
sufficient commission from the emperor himself signed by his own hand and with a
golden seal, and furnished with letters of the patriarch. Both in a general
congregation and in the presence of our commissaries they expressed the most
fervent desire of the emperor, the patriarch and the whole eastern church for this
union. They urge and daily stimulate us in a wonderful way to pursue this holy
work, strongly and persistently affirming two things: that union is only possible in a
universal synod in which both the western church and the eastern church meet, and
that it is to be hoped that this union will follow if matters proceed in that synod in
the way that is agreed below. We were filled with joy and gladness when we heard
this. Therefore we venerable cardinals of the holy Roman church, presidents of the
apostolic see, casting all our thoughts on God, who alone does great wonders,
deputed the patriarch of Antioch and a suitable number of archbishops, bishops,
abbots, masters and doctors to treat of this question with the ambassadors of the
Greeks and to look for a way to reach a solution. After these men had frequently met
and discussed among themselves and with the ambassadors, they reached the
conclusions given below. These conclusions, in accordance with the custom of this
council, were seriously debated by the deputations and ratified by a general
congregation. Their contents, together with the chrysobull of the lord emperor, are
as follows: The ambassadors of the most serene lord emperor, etc., which is given at
length in the council's decree which is included above. But because the period of
time mentioned above, within which the aforesaid things should have been fulfilled,
has elapsed, not through the fault of either party but because of various intervening
negotiations, this holy synod therefore accepts the period of time agreed by the most
serene emperor of the Greeks and the most reverend patriarch of Constantinople on
the one side, and by the ambassadors of this sacred council on the other, namely the
year beginning this coming month of May, so that for the whole of this May until
the following year each of the two parties is prepared to carry out the aforesaid
points, and each accepts and promises that it will fulfil for its part, within the said
time, whatever is included in the above-mentioned terms.

[Safe-conduct for the Greeks given by the sacred council of Basel to the lord
emperor of the Greeks and the patriarch of Constantinople]
The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church. In our western region and the obedience of the
Roman church, a universal and ecumenical synod is to be held, under God's
inspiration, at which both the western church and the eastern church will meet in
accordance with the agreement reached at this holy synod and later ratified in
Constantinople. In order that the sincerity of our intention towards the eastern
church may be manifest to all, and that all possible suspicion as regards the security
and freedom of those coming to it may be removed, this holy synod of Basel by this
present decree, in the name and on behalf of the entire western church and of all in
that church of every status, including those of imperial, regal or pontifical rank or of
any lower spiritual or secular dignity, authority or office, decrees, gives and
concedes a full and free safe-conduct to the most serene emperor of the Greeks, the
most reverend patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and
others up to the number of seven hundred persons, whether of imperial, regal,
archiepiscopal or any other rank, dignity or condition, who are coming or shall come
to the aforesaid universal and ecumenical council in the west. This holy synod, by
this decree, receives and has received into its safe-keeping each and all of the said
people, as regards their persons, honours and everything else, in the kingdoms,
provinces, lordships, territories, communities, cities, castles, towns, vills and places
of our obedience of the western church in which they shall stay or through which
they shall pass. It promises and concedes to each and all of them, by this present
synodal edict, free and safe permission to approach and enter the city or place in
which the said holy universal council will be held; to stay, remain, reside and dwell
there with all the immunities, liberties and securities which those of the obedience of
the western church dwelling there will have; of debating, arguing and alleging rights
and authorities and of saying, doing and treating of, freely and without hindrance
from anyone, anything else that may seem to them useful and apt for the union of
the churches of Christ.

They may at will go out and return from the said town or place safely, freely and
without restraint, once or often or as many times as any of them may wish, singly or
together, with or without their goods and money, with every real or personal
obstacle ceasing and being put aside, even if the said union does not come about,
though may that not be so. In the latter case and in every other outcome, the most
serene emperor, the lord patriarchs and other aforesaid persons will be taken back to
Constantinople, at our expense and in our galleys, without any delay or obstacle,
with the same honours, good will and friendship with which they were brought to
the said universal council, whether or not union resulted from the council.

All this is notwithstanding any differences, disagreements or dissensions about the

aforesaid matters, or any of them in particular, which exist at present or could arise
in the future between the said western and eastern churches, that is, between the
Roman church and those subject and attached to it, and the aforesaid most serene
emperor and others attached to the church of Constantinople; notwithstanding any
judgments, decrees, condemnations, laws or decretals of any kind that have been or
shall be made or issued; notwithstanding any crimes, excesses, faults or sins that
may be committed by any of the aforesaid persons; and notwithstanding anything
else, even if it is something for which a special mention in this decree is necessary.
If one or some of ours should harm one or more of them, though may it not happen,
or should molest them in their persons, honour, property or anything else, the
miscreant shall be sentenced by us or ours to make adequate and reasonable
satisfaction to the injured party. And conversely, if any of them harms any of ours,
he shall be sentenced by them to make adequate and reasonable satisfaction to the
injured party, in accordance with the customs of both parties. As regards other
crimes, excesses and faults, each party will institute proceedings and pass judgment
on its own members.

This holy synod exhorts all Christ's faithful and furthermore commands, by the
authority of the universal church and in virtue of the holy Spirit and of holy
obedience, all prelates, kings, dukes, princes, officials, communities and other
individuals, of whatever status, condition or dignity, who are members of our
western church, to observe inviolably each and all of the above things and, far as
they can, to have them observed; and to honour and treat with favour and reverence,
and to have so honoured and treated, both individually and together, the most serene
emperor, the patriarch and each and all of the other aforesaid persons on their way to
and from the said council. If any doubt arises about the safe-conduct and its
contents, it shall be decided by a declaration of the universal synod which is to be
held. This holy synod, for its part, wishes the safe-conduct to remain in force until
the most serene emperor, the patriarch and other aforesaid persons with their nobles
and suites to the number of seven hundred persons, as was stated, and with their
goods and chattels, have returned to Constantinople. If anyone attempts to act in any
way contrary to the aforesaid or any part of it, let him know that he will incur the
indignation of almighty God and of the said holy synod.

Session 25—7 May 1437

[On the places for the future ecumenical council for the Greeks]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Recently this holy
synod among the various tasks for which the inscrutable providence of the divine
majesty has deigned, by the invocation of the holy Spirit the paraclete, to bring it
together and to employ it in the cultivation of the Lord's field, turning its mind like a
watchful farmer and clearly perceiving how deplorable and abiding has been the
division in God's church over the profession of the same faith by the eastern and
western churches, conceived high hope and confidence in the most merciful
goodness of him with whom nothing is impossible, and who generously and without
restraint gives to all who duly ask him, to bring about the unity of the catholic faith
between these churches. It decided, therefore, to apply the resources of its diligence
more fully, grudging no labour or expense, because it was convinced that thence
would follow the greater praise and glory of almighty God, a more fruitful salvation
of souls and a greater increase of the faith. Desirous of undertaking this most
salutary project of union, with the help of the grace of the holy Spirit it invited and
exhorted to come to the project, through various envoys and letters, the most serene
emperor of the Romans, the venerable patriarch of Constantinople, the other prelates
and the rest of the Greek people.

The emperor, the patriarch and others of the Greeks received these exhortations with
eagerness, their hearts inclined and influenced by the grace of the most High.
Sincerely zealous to embark on this project of union, they decided to send to this
holy synod their solemn envoys and spokesmen, who were furnished with an
adequate mandate with the golden seal and signature of the emperor and the leaden
seal of the patriarch, devoutly expressing their most fervent desire for this unity of
faith. This holy synod concluded with them, in various preliminary meetings and
deliberations about the execution of this salutary task of union, certain mutually
agreed decrees and terms highly useful and necessary for this purpose, which were
recorded above and were promulgated in a session of this holy synod in the
cathedral of Basel. Thereafter this holy synod wished to implement these decrees
and terms by all necessary and suitable means, and therefore to proceed to choosing
a place for the coming ecumenical council, to which the aforesaid emperor, the
patriarch and others of the Greeks could and should come. After many propositions
about these and other topics relevant to this holy matter had been considered by the
various deputations of this holy synod, and after the votes of their members on these
points had been counted, finally in a general congregation summoned for this
purpose in the said cathedral, as is customary, in which the votes of the individuals
were again counted, it was found that more than two-thirds of them had voted for
Basel, Avignon or Savoy. After they had invoked the grace of the holy Spirit and
celebrated a mass, they agreed that due and earnest pressure should be exerted on
the emperor, the patriarch and other aforesaid Greeks, with the many good reasons
being put before them, so that they might agree to Basel as the place for the
ecumenical council, and that if they rejected Basel, it should be held at Avignon. If
Avignon proved impossible, it should be held in Savoy.

Therefore, in order that each and all of the aforesaid points might be brought to
fruition, with all the solemnity normally employed in this sacred council of Basel in
expediting matters of importance, while the fathers are seated in the cathedral of
Basel after the mass, this holy synod decrees, wishes, ordains and declares that the
future ecumenical council ought to be held at the due and agreed time in the city of
Basel or, if that is rejected, in the city of Avignon or otherwise in Savoy, in
accordance with the above-mentioned agreement; and that the emperor, the patriarch
and other aforesaid Greeks, as detailed in the said terms and decrees, and all other
persons of whatever rank, status, dignity or pre-eminence who ought by right or
custom to take part in general councils, including those of episcopal rank, are bound
and obliged to come to and take part in that ecumenical council, especially so that
this salutary work might be completed. This holy synod wishes, declares and decrees
this nomination and choice to be firm, fixed and unchangeable. Any modification,
ordinance, disposition, nomination or choice to the contrary that may be made by
this holy council or by one or more other persons, whatever their authority, even if it
be papal, is utterly invalid; and this holy synod from its certain knowledge as from
now quashes, revokes and annuls any such measures, and denounces them as
quashed, null and of no effect, and it wishes them to be of no effect and holds them
so now, in so far as they impede or oppose in whole or in part the said choice. Also
this holy synod from its certain knowledge supplies for any defect that may exist in
the aforesaid things or in any of them in particular. Furthermore, since this very
difficult undertaking, which will bear great fruit in God's church, as well as the
transport and maintenance of the aforesaid Greeks, cannot be accomplished without
heavy expenses, it is right and fitting that all of Christ's faithful, especially
ecclesiastics, should contribute generously from the substance of the patrimony of
our lord Jesus Christ entrusted to them, for the conclusion of so happy a venture.
This holy synod therefore imposes on each and every ecclesiastical person, both
exempt and non-exempt under whatever form or words, even the order of St John of
Jerusalem, of whatever status, dignity, rank, order or condition, even if they are
cardinals or bishops, a tenth of all their ecclesiastical fruits and revenues — only
daily distributions being excepted — from their churches, monasteries, dignities,
offices and other ecclesiastical benefices. This tenth has already been imposed and
agreed upon in a general congregation of this holy synod, and this holy synod now
decrees and declares that it is to be imposed, and by this decree it imposes it.
Furthermore, the said holy synod decrees, wishes, ordains and declares that the
venerable bishops John of Luebeck, Luis of Viseu, Delfino of Parma and Louis of
Lausanne, envoys of this holy synod, have full power for bringing the Greeks to the
place of the ecumenical council, and for the majority of them then present to choose
and nominate the Latin port which is most suitable and nearest to the places chosen
and nominated above, and to which the said Greeks ought to direct themselves. The
synod concedes this power to them by this present decree in accordance with the
form of the other letters granted to them in this affair. Finally the same holy synod
wishes, ordains and decrees, for the due and desired execution of the aforesaid
points and what follows from them, and for the fuller security of the said envoys and
of the council, that, at the request of these envoys or of their agents, any other
suitable, useful and necessary letters shall be granted, drawn up and despatched in
due and correct form by the synod's chancery under the synod's seal.

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit,
representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. This holy synod from its
outset, in order that those things might be accomplished which general councils are
instituted to achieve with the assistance of the holy Spirit, devoted very great care to
promoting union between the western and eastern peoples so that, as the church of
God has suffered innumerable disasters from the long-standing dissension, the
greatest profit might ensue from fraternal union. Therefore it sent envoys to
Constantinople for the promotion of this holy work. They returned with the
ambassadors of the most serene emperor of the Romans and of the venerable
patriarch of Constantinople. After many meetings and mature deliberation on this
subject, certain terms were agreed between this sacred council and those
ambassadors and were confirmed by a decree in a public session. By these terms this
holy synod bound itself to send envoys with certain sums of money, two large and
two smaller galleys and three hundred crossbowmen within a fixed time, and to
nominate through these envoys one of the places mentioned in the decree for the
ecumenical council, where the emperor and the patriarch with seven hundred
persons would meet with us to bring about this holy union.

However, since the time-limit for accomplishing the above is imminent, this holy
synod, desirous of fulfilling its promises completely and of bringing to its desired
goal this holy endeavour which is the most salutary of all works in these times, came
to the following conclusion in its discussions and then in a general congregation:
namely, that Florence or Udine in Friuli should be put into the council's hands, or
else that there should be chosen for the ecumenical council some other safe place
which is mentioned in the decree and is convenient for the pope and the Greeks, that
is to say whichever of the aforesaid places shall be quickest to collect and send the
galleys, the sums of money and other requisites with the necessary securities. The
port would be Venice, Ravenna or Rimini; whichever of them the emperor and the
patriarch of Constantinople prefer. Also, so that the clergy are not burdened
uselessly, the tenth shall not be decreed or exacted until the Greeks have arrived at
one of the above-mentioned ports. Also, that the sacred council should remain in this
city during the whole time covered by the decree. Also, that the legates and
presidents of the apostolic see, after they have summoned such fathers as shall seem
good to them, shall choose the envoys for accompanying the Greeks and for carrying
out the aforesaid things; these envoys ought to urge forcibly the choice of this city of
Basel. Therefore, in order that each and all of the above may attain due effect, with
the assistance of divine grace, in this public and solemn session this holy synod
wishes, decrees and declares that the aforesaid decision is definite and valid, to be
adhered to and to be implemented. It quashes, voids and annuls, and declares to be
quashed, void and null, whatever has been or shall be done, or may be attempted, by
any person or persons contrary to the above or its consequences or whatever could in
any way impede their execution. And it wishes that the aforesaid apostolic legates
and presidents shall compose in due form and under the seal of the council suitable
letters for the execution of the above, and shall expedite whatever else may be
necessary and appropriate for this holy enterprise.

Introduction and translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed.
Norman P. Tanner

Provided Courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com
 HOME-EWTNews-FAITH-TELEVISION-RADIO-LIBRARY-GALLERY-CATALOGUE-
GENERAL
ESPAÑOL

The Apocryphal Books The Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch

Does the Bible quote them and does that prove Tradition?

The Apocryphal Book the Assumption of Moses

Jude 9- Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of
Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Catholics will refer to this verse and claim that it is quoting a non-canonical scripture called the
Assumption of Moses, in an attempt to disprove the principle of Sola Scriptura (The Bible only
for doctrine). The logic for this I assume to be the following:

If the Bible quotes from a non-canonical book, then the Bible is validating the authenticity of
that book, as inspired of God to the same level as the Bible itself. Consequently, any doctrinal
teaching in this book not taught by the Bible itself, must in any case be just as inspired as the
Bible, thus validating the authority of Catholic Tradition. By this logic, Sola Scriptura is
proposed to be disproved, since an extra-biblical book is then assumed to be the "inspired word
of God" on a par with the authority of Scripture.

So what of this logic, and what proof is there that the Jude 9 quotes this non-canonical book?
Well, it was claimed by early church writers- Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus that
Jude 9 is a quotation from the book of The Assumption of Moses, yet interestingly enough, there
is apparently no surviving portion of that "pseudepigraphical" book containing the passage, that
exists today from which to validate or even investigate that claim.

In spite of this, lets consider the matter some. Note the following verse from the Bible-

Zec 3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and
Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
Zec 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that
hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

I would propose first of all that Jude 9 is quoting from, or referring back to the similar passage in
Zechariah, since this is the only two places in the Bible that exact phrase *The Lord rebuke thee*
occurs and the general circumstances are similar in both cases; the words are spoken by the Lord
to Satan.

Now, let's assume for the moment that the "Assumption of Moses" did contain a very similar, if
not identical phrase as Jude 9. Is it not reasonable to assume that perhaps it was also a quote
from Zechariah? Zechariah is dated to about 500 B.C. Jude is dated to about 80 A.D. The
Assumption of Moses, written by a Pharisee, is estimated to also date to the 1st century A.D. Is it
just possible that both Jude and the Assumption of Moses were quoting from the exact same
source- Zechariah? I think it is at least a possibility, but at a minimum, there is apparently no
existing proof that Jude quotes the Assumption of Moses.

But let's go even one step farther, for the sake of argument, and assume that it could be proved
that Jude did in fact quote from the Assumption of Moses. That does not in and of itself
automatically make the Assumption of Moses canon, or even inspired, and from what I can
determine, only fragments of it still exist.

Virtually all the books considered over time to be apocryphal (by both Catholics and Protestants)
can be expected to contain at least some truth in them. And they may even have some accurate
historical accounts of Jesus or the disciples that did not make it into the canon. There are many
parallels and similarities between canon and the pseudepigraphical books, but these books were
generally rejected because of obvious flaws of one kind or another in doctrine or content that are
apparent to virtually all Christian readers who have studied them. They are worth reading and
studying, but they are not considered by the Christian community as a whole to be "the infallible
word of God".

So a quote in scripture of a deuterocanonical / apocryphal book, while it might be considered by

some to be weighty evidence for canonicity, it would clearly not be the only proof necessary. Of
note is the fact that not a single apocryphal book in existence today is quoted by name in any of
the accepted New Testament canon. Jesus Himself quotes from several Old Testament books
identified by name (Lk 4:17-20, Lk 20:42, Lk 24:44), to illustrate the point. That kind of
validation is lacking for the Assumption of Moses and every other apocryphal book. So, upon
examination, I fail to see how there is any proof to bolster Catholic Tradition here, or how this
case in any way undermines or disproves the principle of Sola Scriptura.

The Catholics, in this instance, are citing a nonexistent passage from an incomplete fragmentary
book and taking the word of early church fathers as proof. It appears to me that they are trying to
prove Tradition from tradition, which on the face of it appears to be absolutely no proof at all.

The Apocryphal Book of 1 Enoch-

Another case is Jude 14-15, which appears to be a quote from 1 Enoch, which is also known as
the Apocalypse of Enoch-

1 Enoch 1:9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment
upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly; and to convict all flesh of all the works of their
ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly
sinners have spoken against Him.

Jude 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord
cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jude 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all
their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which
ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

First it should be noted that Jude is quoting Enoch himself, not from a book of Enoch. Second,
there is apparently some question as to the exact dating of both Jude and 1 Enoch. Jude is by a
single author, and is estimated by scholars to have been written from the mid to later half of the
1st century, while 1 Enoch was apparently written by several authors over a time period from
about 200 B.C. to about the middle of the first century. This does seem to allow for at least the
possibility that 1 Enoch is actually quoting Jude.

While the two passages are clearly quite similar, this type of similarity is apparently not all that
uncommon between Canon and apocrypha. But this does not make the case for unbiblical
doctrines. This passage in Jude is not the only one to speak of the return of Jesus for the purpose
of judgment. The book of Revelation, for one, speaks to this event quite clearly, so neither Jude
nor 1 Enoch reveal anything new in this regard. To make their case, the Catholic must
authenticate unbiblical doctrines, which by definition neither have, nor require, the support of
any canonical scripture.

I think the point the Catholic tries to make is that Canon owes it's very existence to tradition and
that tradition predates the scriptures.

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word, or our epistle.

Paul here clearly states that tradition (small "t") can be passed on either orally or by the written
word. It is not uncommon for the Catholic to blur the differences in tradition and Tradition.
Every sermon ever given qualifies as tradition. The Bible itself is tradition. But is that the same
as Tradition (big "T" Catholic style unbiblical doctrine)? No it is not. The Roman Catholic
Church claims Tradition stands on its own, without any support from the Bible, as an inspired
source of the word of God equal to the Bible. There is a major distinction there that must not be
lost in any discussion.

I expect that much if not all of the Gospel message of the New Testament was oral tradition
before being reduced to writing. Both Jude and 1 Enoch could be quoting from this oral tradition,
rather than one from the other. In any case, this does not validate Roman Catholic Tradition,
since the topic of both passages introduces nothing new in doctrine. The only thing that may be
considered "new" is that the passage is attributed to Enoch. Since Jude recorded it, I believe it to
be true. That Jude may be quoting from 1 Enoch does not make the rest of 1 Enoch canonical or
even inspired. I am willing to accept that there may be true doctrines and historical accounts in
some of the apocryphal books, but scripture quoting from those portions (assuming it does) does
not in any way validate the completely unbiblical Roman Catholic doctrines of Tradition.

1 Enoch Online
 http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Faith Examined and

The Apocrypha
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added
to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable
for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal
(pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and
fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of
prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or
the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent
(1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain
Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and
poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore
were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the
Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical
Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is
made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and
sinless perfection.

And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were
slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found
under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law
forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all
blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so
betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed
might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from
sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those
that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to
Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously
concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again,
 it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered
that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a
holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2
Maccabees 12:39-46)

8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a

daughter is a loss.

9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where
there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there
should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no
prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)

And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high
priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)

11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the
time of Jesus

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been
deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact
succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us,
disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the
records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against
Apion 1:8)

12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and
never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The
books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted,
although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never
been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been
admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F.
F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
 14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a
canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does
the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but
was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period
contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many
medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively
those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired,
and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by
certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of
Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to
describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless
to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old
Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian
Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of
Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they
are not placed in the number of the canonical."

Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?

Let us consider while we are at this point, the subject of the Catholic apocrypha, for which they
make such great claims; and because of which they deny the Bible in common use by most
brethren. 2 Macc 12:38-46 seems to be the principal reason they cling to the apocrypha. There is
no other doctrine that depends so heavily upon support in the apocrypha. If I were not afraid of
absolute statements, I would say that their defense of the apocrypha is only because of the
passage and their claims about its teachings.

The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our Bibles. However,
they have added much more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles.
That material follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children,
The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel; Baruch; 1 and 2 Maccabees;
Tobias; Judith; Ecclesiasticus; and the Wisdom of Sirach.

The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version.
However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history,
poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of
this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.
There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New
Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal

The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of
Moses (51, The Early prophets 14; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ~, The Late Prophets (4;
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha (11; Psalms, Proverbs,
Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and
Chronicles i. These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.

Josephus spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and
Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books. which contain
the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;...It is true, our history
hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like
authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these
books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already
passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in
them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

Plainly Josephus distinguishes between those books written before and after Artaxerxes. This
eliminates most of the apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.

The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the
author makes these statements:

"...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to
abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the
narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those
indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of
abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat.
.. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to
the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in
order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to
pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that
maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).

"...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh
the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful
to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the
other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers..." 12
Maccabees 15: 39-40).

This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:

"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that speak. but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you"
(Matthew 10: 19-20).

"Now we have received. not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might
know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words
which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131.

Catholic arguments:
Catholics argue: This is refuted because:
Early Christians quote from the apocrypha Early Christians quoted from all kinds of
proves it belongs in the Bible uninspired writings other than the apocrypha.
Why do Catholics not include these in their
Bible's
They were included in the Septuagint. The Jews Never accepted the apocrypha as part
of the Old testament canon.
The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and False. The canon of the New Testament was set
Carthage (397, 419), listed the apocrypha as from the first century. It is Catholic myth that
Scripture. Since these same councils also Catholics gave the world the Bible!
finalized the 66 canonical books which all
Christians accept, they must accept them all.

The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 -
200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection"
are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as
uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament,
and we all accept them as inspired." The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and
"Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting
one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were
ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox
apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.

The apocrypha does not belong in the Bible because It IS not inspired.

Steve Rudd
 Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA

Fighting Back!
A Handy Reference For King James Bible Believers
Copyright © 1997 James L. Melton
Published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN

NOTE: This handy reference is available in a printed version. It is 38 pages and

measures only 4" X 7". It is an excellant King James "quick" and inexpensive resource
for distribution. It covers alot of material in a few pages. It is available from James L.
Melton. A twenty-five cent donation per booklet is appreciated, but not required. More
information on ordering tracts from Brother Melton is at the end of this tract.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved Word
3. Questions for the KJV Critics
4. Seventy-five Common Sayings in the KJV
5. The Italicized Words in the KJV
6. Antioch vs. Alexandria
7. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
 8. Facts about Westcott and Hort
9. Translating the King James Bible
10. Let's Compare Bibles
11. The New King James Version
12. The New Scofield Reference Bible
13. The Various Editions of the 1611 A.V.
14. Why the KJV Translators Did Not Accept the Apocrypha as
Scripture
15. "Errors" in the King James Bible
16. Fifty Stumbling Stones of the Laodicean Translations
17. Recommended Reading

Introduction
As Bible-believing Christians, we believe that the words of the King James Authorized Version
are the pure and preserved words of God for the English speaking people. This booklet has been
written to help fellow Bible-believers defend themselves against the fiery darts of the wicked
Laodiceans and Alexandrians who do not believe that any human being should have a printed
final authority to guide him through this wicked world of darkness and deceit.

I realize it is unusual to see such a brief booklet addressing so many subjects, but it is my
personal belief that this is what many people need in these last days. The Bible Believer's Helpful
Little Handbook has been well accepted by Christians because of it's variety, it's brevity, and it's
scriptural content. I've tried to stick to that same basic principle in this booklet. Since this is
mainly a reference guide, it isn't necessary for you to read the entire booklet in order to
appreciate many of the truths it contains. Each small section contains valuable truths that the
active Bible-believer will find helpful time after time. However, if you'll take the time to read the
entire booklet, you will learn many things that will increase your faith in God's preserved word.
You will also become more equipped to do battle with the Alexandrian apostates who work
endlessly in their efforts to replace your two-edged sword with a toothpick. These people take
great delight in ridiculing and intimidating people like you and I, and far too often they win
because we do not know the answers. With a good knowledge of the information in the
forthcoming pages, you CAN know the answers and you can win a few battles of your own.

I urge you to become familiar with this little booklet. Mark or highlight the special places that
will be most useful to you. Keep a copy close by and when the moment is right, USE IT!

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
(Psa. 12:6-7)

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved
Word
1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved
copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?

2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no
copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.

3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV
when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the
preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians
might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.

4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern
versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets
underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many
great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a
rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).

5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words,
largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference.
This is not the case with many new translations.

6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions
never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one
Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.

7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just
read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions.
Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators.
Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?

8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence,
ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on
the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are
only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch.
We'll deal with this later.)

9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered
innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.

10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John
5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In
numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the
Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will
TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Questions for the KJV Critics
1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and
give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice,
could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your
terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering
would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who
taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system
in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more
qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-
again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to
teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost
them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying,
since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was
published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of
millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being
saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or
Satan?

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Seventy-five Common Sayings

The King James Bible is supposedly written in an "old and archaic language" that people today
have trouble understanding, but please notice how so many of our modern sayings come from
between it's covers. Hundreds could be presented, but we'll limit ourselves to seventy-five:
1. Genesis 4:2-5: can't get blood from a turnip

2. Genesis 7: don't miss the boat

3. Genesis 11:7-9: babbling

4. Genesis 15:5: teller

5. Genesis 43:34: mess (of food)

6. Exodus 19:16-18: holy smoke

7. Exodus 28:42: britches

8. Exodus 32:8: holy cow

9. Leviticus 2:14: roast ears

10. Leviticus 13:10: the quick (raw flesh)

11. Leviticus 14:5-6: running water

12. Leviticus 16:8: scapegoat

13. Leviticus 25:10: Liberty Bell

14. Numbers 21:5: light bread

15. Numbers 35:2-5: suburb

16. Deuteronomy 2:14: wasted him

17. Deuteronomy 24:5: cheer up

18. Deuteronomy 32:10: apple of his eye

19. Judges 5:20: star wars

20. Judges 7:5-12: under dog

21. Judges 8:16: teach a lesson

22. Judges 17:10: calling a priest father

23. I Samuel 14:12: I'll show you a thing or two

24. I Samuel 20:40: artillery

25. I Samuel 25:37: petrified

26. II Samuel 19:18: ferry boat

27. I Kings 3:7: don't know if he's coming or going

28. I Kings 14:3: cracklins

29. I Kings 14:6: that's heavy

30. I Kings 21:19-23: she's gone to the dogs

31. II Chronicles 9:6: you haven't heard half of it

32. II Chronicles 30:6: postman

33. Nehemiah 13:11: set them in their place

34. Esther 7:9: he hung himself

35. Job 11:16: It's water under the bridge

36. Job 20:6: he has his head in the clouds

37. Psalm 4:8: lay me down to sleep

38. Psalm 19:3-4: he gave me a line

39. Psalm 37:13: his day is coming

40. Psalm 58:8: pass away (dying)

41. Psalm 64:3-4: shoot off your mouth

42. Psalm 78:25: angel's food cake

43. Psalm 141:10: give him enough rope and he'll hang himself

44. Proverbs 7:22: dumb as an ox

45. Proverbs 13:24: spare the rod, spoil the child

46. Proverbs 18:6: he is asking for it

47. Proverbs 24:16: can't keep a good man down

48. Proverbs 25:14: full of hot air

49. Proverbs 30:30: king of beasts

50. Ecclesiastes 10:19: money talks

51. Ecclesiastes 10:20: a little bird told me

52. Song Solomon 2:5: lovesick

53. Isaiah 52:8: see eye to eye

54. Jeremiah 23:25: I have a dream (MLK, Jr)

55. Ezekiel 26:9: engines

56. Ezekiel 38:9: desert storm or storm troopers

57. Daniel 3:21: hose (leg wear)

58. Daniel 8:25: foreign policy

59. Daniel 11:38: the force be with you (star wars)

60. Hosea 7:8: half-baked

61. Jonah 4:10-11: can't tell left from right

62. Zephaniah 3:8-9: United Nations Assembly

63. Matthew 25:1-10: burning the midnight oil

64. Matthew 25:33: right or left side of an issue

65. Matthew 27:46: for crying out loud

66. Mark 5:13: hog wild

67. Luke 11:46: won't lift a finger to help

68. Luke 15:17: he came to himself

69. Romans 2:23: breaking the law

70. Philippians 3:2: beware of dog

71. Colossians 2:14: they nailed him

72. I John 5:11-13: get a life

73. Revelation 6:8: hell on earth

74. Revelation 16:13: a frog in my throat

75. Revelation 20:15: go jump in the lake

If you've checked these references, then you can easily see how our all-wise God has played a
beautiful joke on the modern revisionists. People who do not even believe the KJV quote it every
day! Furthermore, if you'll grab yourself a NIV, a NCV, a TEV, or anything else, you'll find that
many of these modern sayings have been destroyed by the "better language" of the Laodiceans.

For example, I always thought that when I was a young boy my father and I crossed the
Mississippi on a ferry boat (II Sam. 19:18), but I guess we must have crossed at the ford instead
(NIV). Then there were times when I got out of line and dad would really set me in my place
(Neh. 13:11). Too bad he didn't have a NIV, for he could have stationed me at my post. I guess
there was nothing dad loved more than going out early on Saturday mornings and catching a
mess of fish (Gen. 43:34). It's a good thing we didn't have a NKJV in those days, for he would
have only caught a serving. We usually had hushpuppies with that fish dinner, but sometimes we
just had light bread (Num. 21:5). That is, until the neighbors came over with their New
American Bible. Then we had wretched food. Then dad would always say, "Cheer up, son, it'll
be better next time!" (Deu. 24:5) Too bad he didn't have a NKJV, for I'm sure he would have
said, "Come on, boy, bring happiness to yourself!"

So you get the point: the new versions don't stand a chance when competing with the KJV to use
the most "modern" speech! Go ahead, have yourself some fun. Learn to appreciate God's sense of
humor! Grab a new translation and see first hand how the modern versions are still stuck in the
Dark Ages when it comes to keeping up with modern speech.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Italicized Words

If we are to believe what we hear from the critics, then we must accept the notion that the
italicized words in the King James Bible do not belong. We are told that the words were added
by the translators and are not the words of God. If this is true, then please explain why Luke,
Paul, John, Peter, and even the Lord Jesus QUOTE them! The column on the right shows how
New Testament writers and speakers QUOTE the King James italics of the Old Testament:
 OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE

For David speaketh concerning him, I

I have set the LORD always before me:
foresaw the Lord always before my
because he is at my right hand, I shall
face, for he is on my right hand, that I
not be moved. (Psa. 16:8)
should not be moved: (Acts 2:25)

For it is written in the law of Moses,

Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he
ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God
treadeth out the corn. (Deu. 25:4)
take care for oxen? (I Cor. 9:9. Also see
I Tim. 5:18)

And he humbled thee, and suffered thee

to hunger, and fed thee with manna,
which thou knewest not, neither did thy But he answered and said, It is written,
fathers know; that he might make thee Man shall not live by bread alone, but
know that man doth not live by bread by every word that proceedeth out of
only, but by every word that proceedeth the mouth of God. (Mat. 4:4)
out of the mouth of the LORD doth man
live. (Deu. 8:3)

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you Jesus answered them, Is it not written in
are children of the most High. (Psa. your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John
82:6) 10:34)

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD,

Wherefore also it is contained in the
Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a
scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief
stone, a tried stone, a precious corner
corner stone, elect, precious: and he that
stone, a sure foundation: he that
believeth on him shall not be
believeth shall not make haste. (Isa.
confounded. (I Pet. 2:6)
28:16)

Did you notice that the New Testament writers QUOTE the words in italics? This means they
WERE actually in the originals! When Jesus said, "It is written..." (Mat. 4:4), he was saying that
the word "word" was also written--even if the King James translators didn't have it in the
Hebrew Old Testament! Like it or not, the Holy Spirit led them to use the word anyhow! If He
didn't, then why did Jesus quote it?

Also, we have the case of WHO killed Goliath? II Samuel 21:19 in the KJV says: "And there was
again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite,
slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." The
words "the brother of" are in italics. If these words were omitted, then the Bible would say that
Elhanan slew Goliath, instead of his brother, which would contradict the fact that David killed
Goliath. (In fact, this is exactly how the New World Translation reads!) If you'll check I
Chronicles 20:5, you'll see that the italics of II Samuel 21:19 are well justified. Moral: The
English sheds light on the English--WITHOUT "the Greek."

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Antioch vs. Alexandria

We hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts, but we aren't
hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are
only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria (known as the Syrian or Byzantine
type text), and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt (known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type
text). The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes,
and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come. (Never mind
Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.)

The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose
of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were
produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts
are corrupted with Greek philosophy (Col. 2:8), and allegorical foolishness (not believing God's
word literally). The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what
God's word says about these two places! Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria
in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:

Egypt and Alexandria

1. Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife
(Gen. 12:10-13).

2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave (Gen. 37:36).>

3. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25).

4. God killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exo. 12:12).

5. God calls Egypt "the house of bondage" (Exo. 20:4).

6. God calls Egypt an "iron furnace" (Deu. 4:20).

7. The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt (Deu. 17:16), so why should
we look there for a Bible?

8. The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help (Jer. 42:13-19).

9. God plans to punish Egypt (Jer. 46:25).

10. God calls His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1; Mat. 2:15).

11. Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom (Rev. 11:8).

12. The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers,
persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen (Acts 6:9; 7:54-60).

13. The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his
doctrine (Acts 18:24-26).

14. The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn
that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .

Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was
founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great (a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8). Located at the
Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the
Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive
library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical
school once headmastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen (185-254 A.D.).

QUESTION: In light of what God's word says about higher knowledge and philosophy (I Cor.
1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1), why would any serious Christian expect to find
the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?

Antioch
1. Upon it's first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon (Acts 6:3-5).
Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same
chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?

2. In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.

3. The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch (Acts
11:20-21).

4. Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year (Acts 11:26).

5. The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

6. The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).

7. The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).

8. Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church (Acts 14:19-26; 15:35).
9. The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch (Acts 15:19-23, 30),
because Antioch was the home base.

10. Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine (Gal. 2:11).

Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman
Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes
River, Antioch had it's on sea port and more than it's share of travelers and tradesmen. In His
infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a "home base". Antioch was far enough away
from the culture and traditions of the Jews (Jerusalem and Judaea) and the Gentiles (Rome,
Greece, Alexandria, etc) that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, it's
geographical location was ideal for taking God's word into all the world.

So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from
Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a
new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan's salesmen from Alexandria,
Egypt.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older
manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or
Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by
modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on
when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican
library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a
trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in
the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might
also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man,
possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to
ignore it.

4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy
through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at
Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.
5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament,
Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and
I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it
is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many
transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New
Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came,
they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying.
There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that
agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac
(400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant
copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome
was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for
Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200
extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are
clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Facts about Westcott and Hort

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two
English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their
dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the
corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several
points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in
Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions:

1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John
Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either
man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!

2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot
in common with Jesus worship.

3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.

4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.

5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.

6. Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected
the literal account of Creation.

7. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.

8. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in
purgatory.

9. Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.

10. Hort refused to believe in angels.

11. Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.

12. Hort confessed that he hated democracy in all it's forms.

13. Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised
Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.

14. While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision
Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company
with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in
occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and
Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club
in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as
communicating with the dead (necromancy).

15. The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee.

16. The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in
regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.

17. The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five
days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean
Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.

QUESTION: Does this sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the
Devil?

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Translating the King James Bible

Unlike Westcott, Hort, and the R.V. Committee, King James went through great efforts to guard
the 1611 translation from errors. Please note the following:

1. In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed
to translate a new Bible for English speaking people. The number was reduced to forty-seven by
the time the work formally began in 1607.

2. Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six separate
groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at Westminster, two at Oxford,
and two at Cambridge.

3. Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate.

4. Each scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each
member of his group.

5. The whole group then went over the book together.

6. Once a group had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five
groups.

7. All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted, and then it was returned
to the original group for consideration.

8. A special committee was formed by selecting one leader from each group. This committee
worked out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in
1611.

9. This means that the King James Bible had to pass at least FOURTEEN examinations before
going to press.

10. Throughout this entire process, any learned individuals of the land could be called upon for
their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.

QUESTION: Does THIS sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the
Devil?

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Let's Compare Bibles

In this section, we have reprinted our Let's Compare Bibles tract. Here you will see several good
examples of how modern Bible versions are attacking God's word. We have selected eight
modern translations for evaluation. The translations evaluated are as follows:
NIV....... New International Version

NASB... New American Standard Bible

NRSV... New Revised Standard Version

REB...... Revised English Bible

LB......... Living Bible

NWT..... New World Translation

NAB ..... New American Bible

NKJV.... New King James Version

Although we have limited this study to eight new translations, you will find many of these
attacks manifested in ANY new translation. You will find that some of the most important
doctrines of the Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a Living Bible, a
New Century Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of Scripture,
you are going to see the Devil hard at work on the revision committees of the new translations.
The King James reading will appear first, followed by a brief comment, and then the perverted
readings of the modern perversions.

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that God intends to preserve His WORDS
forever. Notice how the new versions destroy this promise by making you think the context is
God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:

NIV....... you will keep us safe

NASB... Thou wilt preserve him

NRSV... You, O Lord, will protect us

REB...... you are our protector

LB......... you will forever preserve your own

NAB...... You, O Lord, will keep us

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.

Notice how some new versions attack the Virgin Birth of Christ by robbing Mary of her
virginity. As anyone well knows, a young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin:

NRSV... young woman

REB...... young woman

NWT..... maiden

Luke 2:33

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Here the new versions attack the Virgin Birth by telling us that Joseph was Christ's father:

NIV....... The child's father

NASB... His father

NRSV... the child's father

REB...... The child's father

NWT..... its father

NAB...... the child's father

I Timothy 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

Notice how the King James is very clear in telling us WHO was manifest in the flesh: GOD was
manifest in the flesh. Now watch the new perversions throw God clear out of the verse:

NIV....... He appeared in a body

NASB... He who was revealed in the flesh

NRSV... He was revealed in flesh

REB...... He was manifested in the flesh

LB......... who came to earth as a man

NWT..... He was made manifest in the flesh

NAB...... He was manifested in the flesh

Micah 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of
thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from
of old, from everlasting.

This is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the verse tells us that He had no beginning. As
the Second Member of the Trinity, He is ETERNAL, or from everlasting, but not in most
modern translations:

NIV....... from ancient times

NRSV... from ancient days

REB..... in ancient times

NWT.... from the days of time indefinite

NAB..... from ancient times (vs. 1)

Isaiah 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the
ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the "Morning Star". The King James Bible never
gives this title to anyone else. However, in some new versions, Jesus Christ and Satan are the
same, because some versions have taken the liberty to call Satan the "morning star" in Isaiah
14:12. Although some versions do not go so far as to call Satan the "morning star," they still
throw out the name "Lucifer".

NIV....... morning star

NASB... star of the morning

NRSV... Day Star

REB...... Bright morning star

NWT..... you shining one

NAB...... morning star

Daniel 3:25

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have
no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

This is an excellent Old Testament verse which shows that Jesus Christ existed long before He
was born in Bethlehem. Naturally, the new versions will pervert it with pagan foolishness:

NIV....... a son of the gods

NASB... a son of the gods

NRSV... a god

REB..... a god

LB........ a god

NWT.... a son of the gods

NAB..... a son of God (vs. 92)

Colossians 1:14

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the
blood missing in modern translations:

NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

NRSV... redemption, the forgiveness of sins

REB..... our release is secured and our sins are forgiven

NWT.... we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins

NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins

Romans 14:10-12
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all
stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give
account of himself to God.

If you'll read the above verses carefully, you will notice how it magnifies Jesus Christ.
According to verse 10, we will stand before the Judgment Seat of CHRIST, and verse 12 says
that when we do we will give account to GOD. When we stand before Jesus Christ we will be
standing before God--an excellent text on the Deity of Christ. Now watch as the new versions
throw Jesus Christ clear out of the passage by replacing the word "Christ" in verse 10 with
"God:"

NIV....... God's judgment seat

NASB... Judgment seat of God

NRSV... judgment seat of God

REB...... God's tribunal

LB......... Judgment Seat of God

NWT..... judgment seat of God

NAB...... judgment seat of God

Acts 8:37

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must
first BELIEVE ON CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible:

NIV....... entire verse missing

NRSV... entire verse missing

REB...... entire verse missing

NWT..... entire verse missing

NAB...... omits entire verse, but re-numbers the verses so you won't miss it

II Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the
sight of God speak we in Christ.

You can imagine how this verse must be a thorn in the flesh to the modern translators who are
busy CORRUPTING the word of God day and night. So, do they repent of their sins and get
right with God? Of course not:

NIV....... peddle

NASB... peddling

NRSV... peddlers

REB...... adulterating the word of God for profit

LB......... hucksters

NWT..... peddlers

NAB...... trade on the word of God

NKJV.... peddling

II Timothy 2:15

Studyto shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.

This is the one command in the New Testament to "study" and "rightly divide" God's word, and
the Devil does NOT appreciate it:

NIV....... Do your best...correctly handles

NASB... Be diligent...handling accurately

NRSV... Do your best...rightly explaining

REB...... Try hard...keep strictly to the true gospel

LB......... Work hard...Know what his word says and means

NWT..... Do your utmost...handling the word of truth aright

NAB...... Try hard...following a straight course inpreaching the truth

NKJV.... Be diligent...rightly dividing

I Timothy 6:20

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and
oppositions of science falsely so called:

Many lies are being propagated today in the name of "science" (evolution for example), but I
Timothy 6:20 has been warning us about it all along - except in the new perversions:

NIV....... knowledge

NASB... knowledge

NRSV... knowledge

REB...... knowledge

LB......... knowledge

NWT..... knowledge

NAB...... knowledge

NKJV.... knowledge

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

The New King James Version

We will now give some special attention to one of the deadliest translations on the market--the
New King James Version, first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because it's editors have
succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points: (1) That it's a King James Bible
(which is a lie), and (2) that it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth). The
following information should be helpful when dealing with Christians who have been swindled
by the Laodicean lovers of filthy lucre:

1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no
copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a
copyright, but the text itself does not.

2. There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which
was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around
the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock
albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The
Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)
3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over
eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes
bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the
RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the
Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus
over 1,200 times.

5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of

"repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The
terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.

6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made
"by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word
"Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30.
The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.

7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with
"are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18
and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to
believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the
"difficult" way in the NKJV.

8. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads
"casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches
"imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

9. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV
tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have
justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

10. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just
"peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

11. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25
to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new
perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?

12. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

13. The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has
occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611! How say ye it's a King James Bible?

14. The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 (and according to Jesus Christ -
John 4:48), but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign. They didn't "request" one when signs
first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives
Israel signs when they haven't requested anything (Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34,
Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc). They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national
heritage.

15. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new
"creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in
the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."

16. As a final note, we'd like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to
update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the
KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are
taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language
of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS! Please note a few
examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":

SCRIPTURE KJV NKJV

little rivers rivulets

Ezra 31:4

Psalms 43:1 Judge Vindicate

Psalms 139:43 thoughts anxieties

Isaiah 28:1 fat verdant

Amos 5:21 smell savor

Matthew 26:7 box flask

Luke 8:31 the deep the abyss

John 10:41 did performed

Luke 19:11-
pounds minas
27

John 19:9 judgement hall Praetorium

Acts 1:8 bowels entrails

Acts 18:12 deputy proconsul

 Acts 21:38 uproar insurrection

Acts 27:30 boat skiff

Hebrews 12:8 bastard illegitimate

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

The New Scofield Reference Bible

Another counterfeit "KJV" is the New Scofield Reference Bible (NSRB). "King James Version"
is clearly printed on the cover, but since when has it been safe to judge a book by it's cover?
Please note the following:

1. Dr. C.I. Scofield had been dead many years when the NSRB was published in 1967. He would
have never approved of having his name on a "bible" that alters the text of the KJV. The 1909
and 1917 editions of the Scofield Reference Bible do NOT change the text. Therefore the NSRB
of 1967 is NOT a Scofield Bible and it is NOT a KJV.

2. Dr. Scofield would have never referred to baptism as a "sacrament," but the NSRB takes the
liberty to do so in an Acts 8 footnote.

3. The NSRB changes the KJV with "better readings" in over 6,500 places.

4. In the introduction to the NSRB, 1967 edition, E. Schuyler English tries to justify changing the
KJV text on the basis that Dr. Scofield saw the need to update his reference Bible after only eight
years. Yes, Dr. Scofield did update his Bible after only eight years, but HE NEVER CHANGED
THE TEXT!, and he never granted anyone else permission to do so. Only the NOTES were
revised! (The Judgment Seat of Christ is going to be very interesting to say the least!)

5. In many places the NSRB agrees with the readings of the new translations, rather than the
KJV, so it cannot possibly be a KJV. For example, "a son of the gods" appears in Daniel 3:25,
rather than "the Son of God" (KJV). In Genesis 1:28, Adam is told to "fill" the earth, instead of
"replenish" it, which isn't the same at all. A great reference to television and magazines is
destroyed when the NSRB replaces "pictures" with "stone idols" in Numbers 33:52. Then, of
course, the NSRB lines up right behind the ASV in places like I Timothy 6:20, Acts 4:27, and
Romans 1:25.

6. Dr. William Grady addresses the NSRB in his book, Final Authority. His research includes the
following on page 316: "A random survey of the NSRB margins in Philippians alone revealed a
total of 29 changes from the King James Bible. Of these, twenty-one (72%) were traced to either
the RSV or the NASV. The skeptic can ckeck it out for himself: Philippians 1:7, 8, 23, 27; 2:1, 15,
25, 27, 28; 3:1, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21; 4:3, 6, 14, 15, 21, and 22." The "New Scofield Reference
Bible" in the "King James Version" is NOT new, is NOT a Scofield Bible, and it is certainly
NOT a King James Version.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Various Editions of the 1611 A.V.

If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version", then they must also convince Christians
that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses
being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised
several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this
piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be
intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions". The many revisions that
have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior
to 1881. The modern revisors are just trying to justify their sins!

There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629,
1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they
really weren't even "revisions".

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King
James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses
overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638,
only 27 years after the first printing.

Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a
flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word
processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved
spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and
spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638,
1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors
and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being
deceitful or stupid--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in
1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the
printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901
(ASV). So if some punk walks up with a smirky grin on his face and asks you, "So which King
James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?", you can simply
state that you have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
Dr. David F. Reagan has an excellent pamphlet available on this subject. It can be ordered from:
Trinity Baptist Temple Bookstore, 5709 N. Broadway, Knoxville, TN, 37918. Telephone: 615-
688-0780.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Why the KJV Translators Did Not Accept the

Apocrypha as Scripture
Another favorite lie of the critics is that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which
no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan
writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent
(1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King
James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them
in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New
testament as a historical document, not as Scripture. Their reasons for not accepting the
Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by
Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and
therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the
Christian church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical
Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes
dies three times in three places!

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless
perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

"Errors" in the King James Bible

Critics of the KJV have a nasty habit of pointing out what they believe to be errors,
contradictions, and mistranslations in the Authorized Version. The sad fact is that they usually
point these things out to young men and women in Christian colleges who do not know any
better. Many young Christians, including young preachers, are having their faith in God's word
destroyed by the very people they look to for spiritual guidance!

These so-called "errors" that are presented by such infidels have been explained and written
about so many times that it's a shame to even have to mention it again. There isn't enough space
in a booklet of this size to embark upon a lengthy rebuttle of such claims. Besides, it has already
been done quite well by others. Nevertheless, for the sake of showing the reader the nature of the
so-called "errors" in the AV, we will take the time to briefly deal with just a few:

1. According to the critics, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation, because the Greek
word is"pascha," and it is translated "passover" twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and it
should be translated likewise in Acts 12:4.

This is what happens when a man is so hung up on "the Greek" that he can't read plain English. It
should NOT be translated "passover" because the Passover had already passed. The "days of
unleavened bread" had already begun (vs. 3), which means the Passover was over (Num. 28:16-
18; Exo. 12:13-18). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the
days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have
been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about
a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--
Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out
to the people.

2. I John 5:7 is also the subject of much debate. It is argued that the verse lacks manuscript
evidence and does not belong in the Bible. Being one of the greatest verses in the Bible on the
Trinity, we should be suspicious of any oppositions to it.

The verse should NOT be omitted from the Bible. It is found in Greek manuscript 61, which
probably forced Erasmus to include it in his third edition Greek text of 1522.

I John 5:7 is also found in Codex Ravianus, and in the margins of 88 and 629. It is also found in
Old Latin manuscripts r and Speculum. It was quoted by Cyprian around A.D. 250, and two
Spanish Bishops quoted it in the fourth century (Priscillkian and Idacius Clarus). Several African
writers quote it in the fifth century, and Cassiodorus quotes it in the sixth century in Italy.

The fact that Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not include the verse means nothing to a true Bible
believer. After all, Vaticanus omits the entire book of Revelation, while keeping the Apocrypha!

3. Many argue that the KJV is in error with it's use of the word "devils" instead of "demons".
Again, this is due to an over emphasis on "the Greek" as well as a lack of faith in God's ability to
preserve His words in English. While protesting that "daimon" should be translated "demon",
many have overlooked a great truth which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the King's English.
There is one true "Son of God", but many "sons of God". There is one true "Church", the Bride
of Christ, but many local "churches". Likewise, there is one "Devil", but many "devils" under his
control.
The word "demon" itself does not necessarily imply an evil spirit. Even Webster's 1828
dictionary states that "the ancients believed that there were good and evil demons...", and New
Agers of today believe likewise. Therefore, God led the KJV translators to translate "devils"
instead of "demons" because every "daimon" in the Bible IS an evil spirit. The word "devil"
makes that clear. Every "devil" in the Bible is under the authority of their father "the Devil".

4. Then we have "contradictions" like Exodus 24:10 and John 1:18. Exodus says the Israelites
SAW God, while Jesus said in John that "no man hath seen God at any time". Contradiction,
right? No, it's only a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth (which you may not be
practicing if II Tim. 2:15 has been altered in your "bible"). God is a Trinity, just like you and I.
We're a body, a soul, and a spirit (I Ths. 5:23). The Israelites saw a physical manifestation of
God, but not the SOUL of God, just as no one has ever seen your soul.

5. Numbers 25:9 says that 24,000 people died in a plague, but I Corinthians 10:8 says that only
23,000 died. Read I Corinthians 10:8 again and notice that 23,000 fell "in one day". The 24,000
died altogether in a few days.

You see, these are the kind of "errors" in the King James Bible. These are the reasons given for
you to throw away your Bible and buy a new one. Don't fall for it. I have learned to always give
God the benefit of a doubt, and to count the critics guilty until proven innocent. So far I've been
right. Anytime I see an "error" in the KJV I just assume that I'm not learned enough in the
Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I just pray about it and trust God. I NEVER
correct the Book that God has honored for so long. Thank God, I'm not that stupid.

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fifty Stumbling Stones of the Laodicean Translations

In this final section, I'd like to point out one of the best things about the new versions. What
might that be? It is the fact that we know where they're going to alter God's word before they do
it! We know how to "check'em out" without having to waste our God-given time reading the
whole translation. The following list includes fifty "check points" which anyone can use to
expose a new translation. No translation will be guilty on all fifty counts, but any translation
since 1881 will alter God's word enough to prove that the revisionists do not have God's best
interest in heart. For emphasis, I'll present these items from Satan's standpoint, briefly illustrating
his purpose for many of the changes:

1. Genesis 1:29. Omit the word "meat" since there is no real flesh in the verse, only plant life.
This will destroy the cross reference to the "meat offering" of Leviticus 2, which is really a
GRAIN offering with no flesh. The Bible has it's own built in dictionary, but let's not allow
people to know it.

2. Genesis 3:5. Alter the word "gods" and the cross references to Psalm 82, I Corinthians 8:5,
and II Corinthians 4:4 will be destroyed.
3. Genesis 22:1. The word "tempt" in the verse should be replaced with "try". Here's another case
of the "built-in dictionary". James 1:2-3 explains the kind of tempting that this was, but let's hide
it from as many Christians as possible.

4. Numbers 33:52. Someone might use the word "pictures" as a reference to television. Throw it
out!

5. Isaiah 7:14. Attack the virgin birth by omitting the word "virgin". After all, the Hebrew word
"almah" can mean a virgin, a damsel, or just a young woman. Laodicean Christians are too lazy
to check Matthew 1:23 to see how Matthew translated it.

6. Daniel 3:25. There's Jesus Christ in the Old Testament! Can't have that! Someone might get
the idea that He's eternal. Change "the Son of God" to "a son of the gods."

7. Micah 5:2. Another chance to attack the eternal existence of Christ. Throw out "everlasting".

8. Zechariah 9:9. We're not interested in anyone being SAVED, so omit the words "having
salvation".

9. Matthew 1:25. Omit "firstborn" because it shows the reader that Mary had other children after
Jesus and did NOT remain a perpetual virgin. They'll never think to check Psalm 69:8, Galatians
1:19, or John 7:5.

10. Matthew 5:22. Let's create a contradiction by omitting the words "without a cause". This will
make Jesus contradict Paul in Ephesians 4:26.

11. Matthew 6:13. Omit the "kingdom", the "power", and the "glory".

12. Matthew 27:54. Change "the Son of God" to "a son of God".

13. Mark 1:1. This is the only Gospel which refers to Christ as the "Son of God" in the very first
verse. Throw it out.

14. Mark 16:9-20. Either throw out the last twelve verses of Mark or raise doubt about them in
the margins and footnotes. The less we read of a resurrected Christ the better.

15. Luke 1:34. Change Mary's words "I know not a man" to "I have no husband". This will allow
for possible fornication between Mary and Joseph, which could make Joseph the father of Jesus.

16. Luke 2:33. Attack the virgin birth again by replacing "Joseph" with "father".

17. Luke 4:4. Omit "by every word of God". No one will think to check Deuteronomy 8:3.

18. Luke 23:42. Here's a sinner being saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord", which is in
perfect tune with Romans 10:13. Replace the divine title "Lord" with the human name "Jesus".
19. Luke 24:51. Raise doubt about the ascension of Christ by omitting the words "carried up into
heaven". Hopefully, no one will check Luke's later comments in Acts 1:1-2.

20. John 1:14. Omit the word "begotten", just like in John 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18.

21. Acts 1:3. Omit the word "infallible". Nothing is infallible.

22. Acts 4:27. Jesus wasn't God's "child". He was only His "servant".

23. Acts 8:37. Either omit the entire verse or raise doubt about it, because this verse states that
scriptural water baptism is conditional upon BELIEF.

24. Acts 12:4. Change "Easter" to "passover". No one will ever read Exodus and Numbers to find
the truth.

25. Acts 17:22. Change "superstitious" to "religious".

26. Romans 1:18. Let's change "hold the truth in unrighteousness" to "suppress the truth", which
is a much weaker reading.

27. Romans 1:25. Let's say they "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" instead of "changed the
truth of God into a lie".

28. Romans 1:29. Throw out "fornication".

29. Romans 10:17. Replace the word "God" with "Christ". This will teach that faith comes by
rallying around the person of Jesus alone and not by feeding on every word of God (Luke 4:4).

30. Romans 14:10. Change the word "Christ" to "God". This will prevent anyone from realizing
that Jesus Christ is God when they read verse twelve.

31. I Corinthians 1:22. Change "require" to "request", and destroy the great truth about signs
being for Israel.

32. II Corinthians 2:17. Since we are guilty of corrupting the word of God, replace the word
"corrupt" with "peddle".

33. II Corinthians 5:17. Replace the word "creature" with "creation", although Mark 16:15 says
"creature".

34. Ephesians 1:7. Throw out the "blood".

35. Philippians 3:21. People don't have "vile" bodies. They just have "lowly" bodies.

36. Colossians 1:14. Throw out the "blood".

37. I Thessalonians 5:22. Omit the word "appearance" so Christians will not be very concerned
about their testimony.

38. I Timothy 3:16. The verse says that "God was manifest in the flesh". Attack the Deity of
Christ and the Incarnation by throwing "God" clear out of the verse.

39. I Timothy 6:10. Change "all evil" to "all kinds of evil". 40. I Timothy 6:20. Since many
heresies are taught today in the name of "science", and this verse gives a strong warning against
"science falsely so-called", change the word "science" to "knowledge".

41. II Timothy 2:15. This is the only command in the Bible to "study" the word of God. Omit the
word "study".

42. James 5:16. Let's justify Roman Catholic confessionals by changing the word "faults" to
"sins".

43. I Peter 5:11. Omit "glory" and "dominion".

44. I John 1:7. Omit the word "Christ".

45. I John 4:3. Omit the words "Christ is come in the flesh".

46. I John 5:7. There's the Trinity! Throw out the whole verse or insert marginal notes to raise
doubt about it.

47. Revelation 1:5. Omit the word "blood".

48. Revelation 5:9. Omit the word "blood".

49. Revelation 11:15. Change the many "kingdoms" that Jesus Christ will receive to one singular
"kingdom".

50. Revelation 11:17. Attack the Second Coming of Christ by omitting the words "art to come".

Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS

Recommended Reading
Which Bible?, David Otis Fuller, Which Bible? Society, P.O. Box 7096, Grand Rapids, Michigan
49507.

An Understandable History of the Bible, Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Bible Believer's Baptist Bookstore,
1252 E. Aurora Road, Macedonia, Ohio 44056.

The Answer Book, Gipp.

Final Authority, Dr. William P. Grady, Grady Publications, Inc., P.O. Box 506, Schererville,
Indiana 46375.

The King James Version Defended, Dr. Edward F. Hills, The Christian Research Press, P.O. Box
2013, Des Moines, Iowa 50310.

Believing Bible Study, Hills.

Translators Revived, Alexander McClure, R. E. Publications, P.O. Box 66212, Mobile, Alabama
36606.

The Men Behind The King James Version, Gustavus Paine, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49516.

God Only Wrote One Bible, Jasper James Ray, Eye Opener Publishers, P.O. Box 7944, Eugene,
Orgeon 97401.

New Age Bible Versions, G. A. Riplinger, A.V. Publications, Box 388, Munroe Falls, Ohio
44262.

Which Bible Is God's Word?, Riplinger.

The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola Bible
Institute, P.O. Box 7135, Pensacola, FL 32504.

The Christian's Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, Ruckman.

Problem Texts, Ruckman.

The Bible Babel, Ruckman.

The following tracts and booklets are also available from Bible Baptist Church:
The Bible Believer's Helpful Little Handbook
Why Does God Allow People to Suffer?
Child Abuse: Something Every Parent Should Know
How I Know the KJV is God's Word
Let's Compare Bibles
Fables and Facts about the King James Bible
Seven Simple Things You Should Know About Salvation
The Second Coming of Jesus Christ
Signs of the Times
Why Should I Receive Jesus Christ as My Saviour?
The Bible vs. The Jehovah's Witnesses
How I Know I'm Going to Heaven
Evolution: Fact or Fiction
The Five Facts of Life

Sample packages are available upon request.

Mail orders to:

Bible Baptist Church
P.O. Box 383, Martin, TN 38237
James L. Melton, Pastor

Dial-the-Truth Ministries Home Page Other Publications Page