ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY CONFRONTED WITH HIS TREACHERY
Rev. Ian Paisley, accompanied by Revs. James Beggs, Gordon Cook, and Messrs. Samson, McAuley and Burns, confronted the Archbishop of Canterbury during his visit to Northern Ireland.
The statement printed elsewhere in our pages was read by Dr. Paisley to the Archbishop and a faithful rebuke was administered in the name of Jesus Christ, the great King and Head of the Church.
The anger of the Archbishop was evident, especially when Dr. Paisley condemned Jesuits and Jesuitry and quoted Thomas Cranmer's famous statement concerning the antichristianity of the Roman Catholic system.
For the first time since his elevation the Archbishop was face to face with uncompromising evangelical Protestantism and he certainly did not relish the experience.
At the end of the confrontation when Dr. Paisley told him that it was sad that in this hour of the nation's crisis the Church of England was led by a man like him the Arch-
Continued on Page Twelve.
A Declaration of Our Protestant Faith and a Protest Against Any Union with Rome
Presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury at Culfeightrin Rectory, Ballycastle, North Antrim, on Wednesday, 2nd May, 1973, by the Member of Parliament for the Constituency in Westminster, Rev. Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley, M.P., and a Protestant Deputation.
BACKGROUND TO THE MEETING
Letter from Rev. Ian Paisley, M.P., to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
"25th April, 197 3.
"The Archbishop of Canterbury,
I see from the local press that you are coming to Northern Ireland and that you will be spending most of your time in my constituency of North Antrim.
"This being so, I must request that you receive a small deputation of Protestants from that constituency so that we can give you personally the reasons for our opposition to the ecumenical movement and the unity with Rome programme which you lead.
"It is essential that you hear the views of evangelical Ulster Protestants at this time.
(signed) Ian R. K. Paisley."
Telegram from the Archbishop in reply to above letter:
"27th April, 1973.
"The Rev. Ian Paisley,
356 Ravenhill Road,
"Thank you for letter 25th April. My programme had been arranged by Archbishop Armagh to whom I referred your request. Only possible time when programme can be re-arranged is Wednesday evening, 2nd May. I would therefore willingly meet your deputation at 6.15 p.m. for half an hour at a venue in your constituency which Archbishop Armagh is arranging providing you are agreeable to limiting deputation to half a dozen and to there being no prior notification whatever to the press. If this is acceptable could you please contact Alan Johnston, Telephone Belfast 613788 preferably before Sunday evening for exact venue.
Confirmation of Meeting by Church of Ireland Press Officer: 
"28th April, 1973,
"Rev. Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley,
423 Beersbridge Road,
"Dear Dr. Paisley,
I refer to our telephone conversation today and confirm on behalf of the Archbishop of Armagh, for whom I am arranging the programme for next week's visit to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the latter would be pleased to receive your deputation of about six people at 6.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 2nd May, at Culfeightrim Rectory, Ballycastle. This is the home of Archdeacon D. B. E. Perrin and it is located on the Ballyvoy Road on the left-hand side leaving Ballycastle, just beyond the golf-links. A letter-box set into the wall makes the house readily identifiable.
"I hope that our combined endeavours to avoid alerting the Press in advance will be successful.
"Should you need to contact me in connection with this meeting I am normally available at the above address, or my wife would know how to contact me.
(signed) Alan Johnston."
Before making our solemn protest against the Unity with Rome movement which you lead we would declare our unshaken and undivided allegiance to the Historic Christian Faith.
The Faith set forth in the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures.
The Faith, the glory of which is seen in the face of Jesus Christ.
The Faith once delivered to the Saints.
The Faith of the Reformers and Martyrs of the great Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century.
And the only Faith which can save men from their sins and fit them for the immediate presence of God in heaven.
Among other equally Biblical truths, we believe and maintain the following:
1. The plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and, as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.
2. The Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. The essential, absolute, eternal Deity, and the real and proper, but sinless, humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
4. His birth of the Virgin Mary.
5. His substitutionary, expiatory death, in that He gave His life "a ransom for many.,,
6. His resurrection from among the dead in the same body in which He was crucified and the second coming of this same Jesus in power and great glory.
7. The total depravity of man through the Fall.
8. Salvation, the effect of regeneration by the Spirit and the Word, not by works but by grace through faith.
9. The everlasting bliss of the saved, and the everlasting suffering of the lost.
10. The real spiritual unity in Christ of all redeemed by His precious blood.
11. The necessity of maintaining, according to the Word of God, the purity of the Church in doctrine and life; and still believing the Apostles' Creed to be a statement of Scriptural truth, we therefore incorporate it in this declaration of our Faith.
We believe that these truths as well as others equally Biblical are set forth in the 39 Articles of Religion of your own Church and in the Westminster Confession and Savoy Confession of the historical Presbyterian and Congregational Churches. 
While many in this modern age sneer and discredit these precious truths, we rigidly hold to them and seek to defend and maintain them whatever be the cost to personal liberty and reputation.
We know that the Church of Rome has corrupted these great revealed truths by a system of human additions which derogates from their divine purity and heavenly glory.
Rome adds to the Word of the Living God the traditions of men, making them equal in authority to the Divine Revelation.
Rome adds to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity by the elevation of Mary to a place not only equal to but above the throne of the Son of the living God. Rome adds to the Glory, Authority and Dignity of the Lord Jesus Christ by the exaltation of the Pope as the infallible Head of the Church, the Vicar of God on earth.
Rome adds to the precious truth of the Virgin Birth by decreeing that Mary herself was immaculately conceived.
Rome adds to the once and for all, never to be repeated, finished work of Christ on the Cross by masses which the 39 Articles rightfully declare to be "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits" (Article 31).
Rome adds to the Biblical doctrine of justification by Faith Alone, by a whole system of priestly rituals which destroys the spirituality of the Faith.
Rome adds to the Biblical doctrines of Heaven and Hell by her dogma of Purgatory.
These additions of Rome we utterly reject, believing that they constitute another gospel and we believe upon them falls the curse of Almighty God. "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. 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." Galatians 1: 8, 9. Now it is quite evident to any honest person that Rome has not changed her claims or altered her dogmas. The fervent declaration by many ecumenists that Rome has changed is simply not true.
In the Decree on Ecumenism Rome makes it absolutely clear and unmistakably plain that she is "God's only flock" and that those outside her bounds "do not enjoy that unity proclaimed in Scripture and tradition which Christ longs to give to all His followers. It is through the Catholic Church alone that the fullest means to salvation are reached."
In the same decree "ecumenism" is looked upon as that movement which will lead Protestants and others to return to the "one flock" that one flock being the Roman Church.
The decree also puts on record that "the faith" has always been professed by the Catholic Church and that Rome alone is that Catholic Church.
At the very heart of our controversy with Rome is her doctrine of the Mass and Transubstantiation. She teaches and proclaims, as is plainly seen in Vatican Council's pronouncement on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
"1. That the same Christ is contained in the Mass Who was offered on the Cross.
"2. That the Mass is an unbloody offering.
"3. Truly propitiatory.
"4. Offered for the dead who are not fully purged, as well as for the living." This doctrine is a blasphemy, as the Articles of Religion state.
The Word of God states that: "We  are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God." Hebrews 10: 10-12.
With the Mass we can have nothing to do and an organisation which blatantly flouts the clear commandment of God and declares itself to be by its own acts, apostate.
This is the Church which the Martyred Bishops of your own Church recognised to be the Church of the Antichrist. We would reiterate the words of the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury whom Rome burned: "And as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and antichrist with all his false doctrine."
In the field of Mixed Marriages alone, the arrogance and dictatorship of Rome has been witnessed over and over again in our unhappy land. As Protestants we have learned in our papers of your leadership in the field of the betrayal of the Historic Christian Faith and your efforts to lead the Church of England back to the Roman fold.
We have noted with distress, and then anger:
How you continually crossed yourself and kissed the ikon of Saint Elijah in Moscow.
How you have attributed to the Holy Spirit your efforts to have unity with Rome.
How you have embraced the Pope.
How you have stated "Heaven is not a place to which we humans go in our present bodily state, nor is it a place for Christians only. Those who have led a good life on earth but found themselves unable to believe in God will not be debarred from Heaven" ('Daily Mail,' 2-10-61).
How you have stated "It is possible to believe that Jesus is divine without believing in the virgin birth, though if you do believe Him divine, then the virgin birth becomes congruous. I believe it is quite in order for a person to stand up in church and recite the Creed, even if he has scruples about the virgin birth, provided he believes in the pattern of faith as a whole" ('Daily Mail,' 2-10-61).
We conclude our Protest with the words of the first Protestant Bishop of Liverpool, J. C. Ryle:
"Unity in the abstract is no doubt an excellent thing, but unity without truth is useless. Peace and uniformity are beautiful and valuable, but peace without the Gospel - peace based on a common Episcopacy, and not on a common faith - is a worthless peace, not deserving of the name. When Rome has repealed the decrees of Trent, and her additions to the Creed, when Rome has recanted her false and unscriptural doctrines, when Rome has formally renounced image worship, Mary worship, and transubstantiation, then, and not till then, it will be time to talk of re-union with her. Till then there is a gulf between us which cannot be honestly bridged. Till then I call on all Churchmen to resist to the death this idea of re-union with Rome. Till then let our watch words be 'No peace with Rome! No communion with idolaters'!"
Well says the admirable Bishop Jewell in his Apology, "We do not decline concord and peace with men; but we will not continue in a state of war with God that we might have peace with men! If the Pope does indeed desire we should be reconciled to him, he ought first to reconcile himself to God." This witness is true!
Well would it be for the Church of England if you Sir were like Jewell.
1873 CENTENARY YEAR 1973
DAVID LIVINGSTONE: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
LIVINGSTONE, David, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., F.R.G.S., missionary and explorer in Southern and Central Africa; born at Blantyre, seven miles from Glasgow, in Scotland, March 19, 1813; died April 30, 1873, in Ilala, Africa. His father and mother were of the working-class, but of the highest moral and Christian worth. The father was a great reader, and deeply interested in the cause of Christian missions, then just beginning to attract attention. After a very short time at school, David was sent, at the age of ten, to a cotton mill, where he spent the next twelve years of his life. The reading of Dick's 'Philosophy of a Future State' led to his conversion; and an appeal from Gutzlaff, for missionaries to China, determined him to be a medical missionary. After attending theological and medical classes for two sessions at Glasgow, he offered his services to the London Missionary Society; and, being provisionally approved, he spent a further period in study at Ongar in Essex, and at London. In 1840 he passed at Glasgow as Licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, and in November of the same year was ordained a missionary, under the London Missionary Society. His desire had been to go to China; but the opium war, in which, unhappily, England was then engaged, put a stop to that project. In London he had met with the Rev. Robert Moffat, who was then on furlough in England; and, having become greatly interested in what he told him of Africa, he received an appointment as a missionary there.
For a time he was occupied in work at Kuruman (Dr. Moffat's station) and in missionary tours to the north, undertaken to gain knowledge of the state of the people, and to find out a suitable locality for a new station. Already Livingstone had shown a fixed determination not to labour in the more accessible regions, but to strike out beyond. He early acquired a great liking for the plan of native agency; and his ambition was to scatter native agents far and near. He was remarkable for the influence he obtained from the very first, partly through medical practice, and partly by his tact, and the charm of his manner over both chiefs and people. He also, from the first, took a lively interest in the natural productions of the country and in its structure and scientific history. After a time he settled at Mabotsa (in 1843) among the Bakhatla. While there, he had a wonderful escape from being killed by a lion; and while there he married Mary
Continued on Page Thirteen
THE PREACHER AND BIBLE TEACHER
By IAN R. K. PAISLEY
The first five books of the Bible are known as the Pentateuch. When written these five books were one ; therefore before coming to a study of each book separately we consider them as they originally were - one literary unit.
THE APPELATION OF THE PENTATEUCH
The name is derived from the Greek, pente, five; and teuchos, originally meaning an implement, but properly denoting the box or chest in which the rolls were kept, hence Pentateuch signifies a work consisting of five books.
N.B. - The Ark of the Covenant was the first chest in which the book of the law was kept. See Deut. 31:26.
The Torah, the law, was the Jewish title for the Pentateuch. This is its scriptural title, for it is so called by both O.T. and N.T. writers.
Old Testament - Joshua 1 :7 ; I Kings 2:3; Joshua 8:34; Joshua 8:31 ; II Chron. 17:9. New Testament - Matt. 5:17; Luke 2:22-24; Luke 2:39; John 5:45-46; Gal. 3:10.
The Jews were also accustomed to indicate each book by a single Hebrew word occurring in the first verse of each book. These Jewish designations are as follows :-
Genesis - "Bereshith," i.e. "In the beginning" (Gen. 1:1).
Exodus - "shemoth," i.e. "Names" (Exodus 1:1).
Leviticus - "Wayyiqra," i.e. "And He called" (Lev. 1:1).
Numbers - "Bemidbar," i.e. "In the wilderness" (Numbers 1:1).
Deuteronomy - "Debarim," i.e. "Words" (Deut. 1:1).
The O.T. was translated in Egypt into Greek in the last centuries B.C. This translation was called the Septuagint (LXX), the Roman numerals for 70 because 70 in round figures was the number of Jewish elders who were traditionally believed to have produced it. This translation provided the books with the names by which we in our English version know them. These names give an indication of  the contents of each book. Genesis meaning birth or origin; Exodus meaning departure; Leviticus meaning levitical relating to the service of the Levite priests; Numbers in the Greek Arithmoi chosen on account of the two numberings of Israel recorded in the book. See chaps. I and 26. Deuteronomy from deuteros, second, and nemos, law, the second law. This book gives a repetition of the law to a new generation, the former having died through unbelief in the wilderness.
It is to be noted that the Greek name, Pentateuch, does not, like the Hebrew Torah, indicate the contents of the five books, but simply underlines the fact that these five separate books form a single literary unit.
THE ORIGINATION OF THE PENTATEUCH
The Pentateuch is not fable but fact, not legend but history, not tradition but truth, not invention but revelation, not mythology but theology.
That Moses was its author is clearly taught in its pages and emphatically confirmed throughout the Old and New Testaments. The Bible distinctly teaches that God gave the law to Moses, and Moses gave it to Israel. John wrote an impregnable declaration when he penned the statement "The law was given by Moses" (John 1:17).
The Bible's testimony to the Mosaic authorship can be summarised under three heads:
1. The Testimony of the Pentateuch itself.
2. The Testimony of the rest of the Old Testament.
3. The Testimony of the New Testament.
This threefold testimony forms a rock of concrete evidence which no potency can disintegrate. Let us examine it.
First, The Testimony of the Pentateuch itself.
There are three great books of law embodied in the writings of the Pentateuch. The first, known as the Book of the Covenant, embraces Exodus, chaps. 20-23. This Moses is expressly said to have written (Exodus 24:4).
The second body of laws knowN as the Priest Code is contained in the rest of Exodus, chaps. 25-40, with the exception of the three chapters 32-34, which deal with the sin of the golden calf, the whole of the book of Leviticus and the book of Numbers, which supplies the historical connecting links.
Prof. W. H. Green, of Princeton, declares :
"This Priest Code is expressly declared in all its parts to have been directly communicated by the Lord to Moses in part on the summit of Mount Sinai during his forty days abode there, in part while Israel lay encamped at the base of the mountain, and in part during their subsequent wanderings in the wilderness."
The third body of law is called the Deuteronomic Code and is contained in the legal portion of the book of Deuteronomy. This Moses is expressly said to have written and committed to the Levites. Deut. 31-9, 24:26. It can also be strongly argued from these verses in Deut. 31 that the law mentioned here embraces the former books of the Pentateuch.
The entire law, the Book of the Covenant, Priest Code and Deuteronomic Code, is seen then to be explicitly and positively Mosaic.
THE NARRATIVES OF THE PENTATEUCH
In regard to the narratives of the Pentateuch it is evident from Exodus 17:14 and  Numbers 33:2 that Moses also wrote the history of Israel for future use. As the history of Genesis and early Exodus is preparatory to the legislation of the following part of the Pentateuch and a necessary integral part of the complete work it is quite evident that the hand that shaped the legislation must of necessity have shaped the whole book. That all the succeeding ages of Israel held steadfast to this conviction confirms its truth.
So much for the testimony of the Pentateuch itself.
Second The Testimony of the Rest of the Old Testament.
From Joshua to Malachi the testimony to the Mosaic authorship is consistently and continually maintained. A study of the following scriptures amply demonstrates this - Joshua 1 :7 and 8; Judges 3:4; I Kings 2:3; II Kings 18:12; Ezra 6:18; and Malachi 4:4.
Third, The Testimony of the New Testament.
To the Mosaic authorship the New Testament bears the most abundant and convincing testimony. The following passages give conclusive evidence - Mark 12:26; II Cor. 3:15; Luke 16:29; Luke 24: 27; Matt. 8:4; John 17:19; Mark 10:5.
Without doubt the Pentateuch originated from the hands of Moses, who received its contents by the revelation from God, and wrote the same by the inspiration of God.
1. What were the Jewish names for the books of the Pentateuch?
2. How did they receive the names by which we know them?
3. State the threefold nature of the Bible's testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch ?
4. What three great bodies of law are embodied in the Pentateuch?
5. Where does the last reference to the law of Moses occur in the Old Testament?
6. Where does Christ state that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
7. Where was the book of the law first kept?
A STUDY OF THE TYPES
By HERMAN WITSIUS, D.D.
ISAAC AND MOSES
ISAAC A TYPE OF CHRIST
Omitting for the present the illustrious type of Melchizedek, which Paul has accurately explained, Heb. 7, we shall take a short view of the history of Isaac, who was a type of Christ, first in his person, secondly in his offering; thirdly in his deliverance and the glorious consequence thereof. 
IN HIS PERSON
As to his person. First, he is called Isaac from laughing, because he was a son of joy and exultation to his parents, Gen. 21 : 6. But Christ is the joy of the whole world, and at His birth the angels proclaimed to the shepherds good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, Luke 2:16. Secondly, Isaac was the "Son of the promise," being descended in a miraculous manner from Abraham, who was old, and from Sarah, who was barren and past bearing, by the alone efficacy of the Word of God, whereby "he calls things that are not, as they were," Rom. 4:17; so Christ, not according to the order of nature, nor by virtue of the general blessing, "Increase and multiply," but by the efficacy of a gracious promise, was born of a virgin mother by a strange and surprising miracle. Thirdly, Isaac was the only son of Abraham, Gen. 22:21 by a lawful and free wife, and in whom "his seed was to be called," Gen. 22:12, though he likewise had Ishmael, and afterwards begat sons of Keturah; so Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, John 3:16, though he also has brethren, but of a far more inferior order and condition, Rom. 8:29. Fourthly, Isaac was the head of Abraham's family, and, in his measure, that is, typically, the origin of the blessing. Christ is the head of God's family, "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named," Eph. 3:15; and "in him we are blessed with all spiritual blessings," Eph. 1 :3.
IN HIS OFFERING
In the offering of Isaac the analogy is in the following particulars:- First Abraham could not possibly have given a more illustrious instance of his love to God, than by offering to the death his son, his only son Isaac, whom he loved, in whom all his hopes were placed. Nor was it possible for God to give a more illustrious display of His love to men than by delivering up for them His beloved and only begotten Son to the most dreadful tortures of many deaths in one, John 3:16. Secondly, it was an extraordinary instance of Isaac's obedience, to submit to his father in such a dreadful case without a repining murmur. And who can, as it justly deserves, relate with what cheerfulness Christ obeyed His Father unto the death, even the death of the cross? Phil. 2:8. Thirdly, as Isaac went out of his father's house to the place which God had appointed; so Christ went out of Jerusalem in order to suffer without the gate, Heb. 13:1 1. Fourthly, Isaac carried the wood; and Christ carried His cross. Fifthly, Isaac's hands were tied; in like manner were Christ's. Sixthly, Isaac was laid on the wood; and Christ was nailed to the cross. Seventhly, Isaac was offered on Mount Moriah, which was either the same with or at least near to Calvary, where our Lord was crucified.
IN HIS DELIVERANCE
We are further to observe these coincidences in his deliverance. First, Isaac was already dead in his father's opinion, and Abraham received him from the dead in a figure, Heb. 11 :19. So Christ, being truly dead, was restored to life. Secondly, Isaac was dead in his father's intention, from the moment he received the command to offer him up, until the third day, on which he was forbid to lay hands on the lad. On the third day also Christ arose. Thirdly, when Isaac was restored to Abraham, he dwelt with his father, and became the parent of a numerous seed. So when Christ rose from the dead, He entered into His Father's house, and saw His seed, Isa. 53:10. 
HE IS ALSO THE TYPE OF THE CHURCH
When a ram was substituted for Isaac, who was otherwise to have been offered; by inverting the figure, Isaac represents the church, and the ram is a figure of Christ. First, Isaac was, by the command of God, brought to be offered, which was near put in execution by Abraham. Thus the severity of the divine judgment against sin was shadowed forth; whereby, unless the satisfaction of Christ had interposed, all mankind must have perished. Secondly, that ram was not of Abraham's fold, but was suddenly at hand, and got ready for that purpose, by a remarkable dispensation of divine providence. Thus also Christ was given by a peculiar gift of God to us, who could never have found, among anything belonging to us, a sacrifice fit for an expiation. Thirdly, that ram's being caught by the horns in the thicket, seems to be a representation of all those calamities in which Christ was involved through the whole course of His life; and why may we not here call to mind that crown of thorns which was put round His head? Fourthly, Abraham did not see the ram before he was called upon by God. None sees Christ by faith but by the efficacy of the Gospel call. Fifthly, After the ram was offered Isaac was set at liberty. Christ having died for the elect, they also shall live forever.
Under the Mosaic period, no persons were more illustrious than Moses himself, and Aaron his brother. But Moses sustains a two-fold character or relation. First, that of a law giver, whose office it was strictly to inculcate the law with its appendages. Secondly, of an interpreter and teacher of the promises made to the fathers concerning a Saviour and salvation. In the former respect he is opposed to Christ, and is a type of the law. In the latter, he remarkably represents Christ.
REPRESENTS THE LAW
To the former relation belong the following particulars - First, his slow speech and stammering tongue, Exod. 4:l0, signified, that the doctrine of the law is disagreeable and harsh to the sinful man (quite the reverse of the doctrine of grace, which Christ declares, whose mouth is therefore said to be "most sweet," Cant. v. 16), and can by no means justify him, but rather condemns him, that "every mouth may be stopped," Rom. 3:19. Secondly, that the people being forbidden to draw near to the holy mount, on pain of death, and their being secluded from familiar converse with God, while he himself alone was allowed a nearer approach to the Deity, represented, that his legal ministry could by no means unite sinners to God, but was rather an evidence of that separation which is between God and man. Thirdly, when, being actuated by a holy zeal, he broke the tables of the covenant, and stirred up the treacherous Israelites to mutual slaughter, he actually showed that his ministry was the "ministration of death and condemnation," II Cor. 3:7, 9. Fourthly, that his covering his face with a veil, when he was to speak to the children of Israel, was a figure that the glorious doctrine of grace was not a little obscured among a carnal people by the covering of his ceremonies; for being wholly intent on the veil, they did not penetrate into the glory that was concealed behind it. Fifthly, though among the many miracles he performed, a variety of judgments were indeed inflicted upon his enemies, by which they were destroyed, but not so much as one raised  from the dead. Is not this a confirmation (Joshua), the son of Nun. Is not this a plain proof that salvation is not of the law? It is only to be looked for from our Jesus, who is also the end of the law, which was published by Moses, and whom Moses recommended to the people to hear, preferably to Joshua.
AND CHRIST, BOTH IN HIS PERSON
But as in that respect Moses was opposed to Christ, so in another he clearly prefigured Him, both in his person and offices. As to his person: First, the birth both of Moses and of Christ was rendered famous by the tyrannical slaughter of infants. Secondly, both of them having undergone, immediately on their birth, a cruel persecution from their enemies, did not escape but by a miracle of the singular providence of God. Thirdly, Moses, when he might have enjoyed the pleasures of the Egyptian court, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to partake in the reproach of his brethren. In like manner, though Christ thought it no robbery to be equal with God, yet, veiling His majesty, He chose contempt and poverty, in order to honour and enrich His people. Fourthly, Moses had not his equal among men for meekness, Numb. 12:3. So Christ left an example of the most perfect meekness to His people, Matt. 11:29. Fifthly, when Moses came from conversing with God in the holy mount, he dazzled the eyes of the spectators with a kind of radiancy issuing from his face. Christ is the "brightness of the Father's glory," Heb. 1 :3, "and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father," John 1 :14. And when He was transfigured before His disciples, "his face did shine as the sun," Matt. 17:4.
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY CONFRONTED WITH HIS TREACHERY (Continued)
bishop hissed out the words "by an apostate." He was immediately told that if that is what he wanted to call himself it was quite alright with his opponents.
The protest delivered is an historical one and no doubt when the history of the ecumenical movement and its opponents is written the document will be seen to be of the utmost importance.
DAVID LIVINGSTONE (Continued)
Moffat, eldest daughter of Dr. Moffat of Kuruman. From Mabotsa, circumstances led him to remove to Chonuane, and from that again to Kolobeng, where he lived till 1852. His people were a tribe of Bakwains, whose chief Sechele became a convert to Christianity. In his desire to plant native missionaries, he had oftener than once made an excursion into the Transvaal Republic - a large territory that had been taken possession of by Boer emigrants from the Cape of Good Hope; but the Boers were no friends of missions, and, instead of encouraging him, did their utmost to thwart his plans.
Baffled in this direction, Livingstone determined to make explorations on the north; but a serious obstacle was the great Kalahari Desert, which at times could not be traversed for want of water. Three times Livingstone got to the north of it. On the first of these occasions he discovered Lake 'Ngami and the Rivers Zouga and Tamunak'le. His great desire was to find a suitable spot for a mission station in the territory of a great chief, Sebituane, who received him with great cordiality, but died a few days after his arrival. The locality was infested by an insect called the tsetse-fly, fatal to cattle, and was, moreover, unwholesome from the prevalence of fever. It seemed to Livingstone that it would be of great importance for Sebituane's people to have a way to the sea, by which means legitimate commerce and Christianity would both be greatly advanced.
Livingstone sent his wife and four children home to England, and prepared for a great journey in fulfilment of this object. Before he set out, his house at Kolobeng was attacked by the Boers, and, along with all his property, utterly destroyed. Livingstone set out from Linyanti towards the western coast, with twenty-seven attendants, and after incredible hardships, including twenty-seven attacks of fever, at length reached the abodes of civilization at Loanda. Instead of making for Britain, Livingstone resolved to go back with his attendants to Linyanti, and then cross to the opposite shore of the continent. After a long time of labour and difficulty, in which his tact, his patience, and his faith were exposed to the severest strain, he reached Quilimane on May 26, 1856; the whole time of his journey since he left the Cape, in 1852, being almost four years. Livingstone made many important discoveries during these years; the most important being the existence of a tableland in Central Africa, depressed in the centre, with two ridges flanking it, which were free from the unhealthy influences prevalent in the lower-lying localities.
BACK IN ENGLAND
Dr. Livingstone now visited his native land, and showers of honours were poured upon him. Everywhere he was received with enthusiasm; and an extraordinary interest began to prevail on Africa, hitherto an unpopular continent. He wrote and published his first book, 'Missionary Travels.' He saw it his duty to sever his connection with the London Missionary Society, believing that he could be more useful, alike for exploring, civilising and missionary purposes, in another capacity.  He accepted an appointment as commander of an expedition sent by government to explore the River Zambesi, and to report on the products and capabilities of the region.
EXPLORING THE ZAMBESI
This expedition was attended by extraordinary difficulties. The greatest of them lay in the conduct of the Portuguese traders, who had various settlements in the neighbourhood of the Zambesi. These traders carried on an iniquitous traffic in slaves, encouraging chiefs to seize slaves from rival tribes in order to send them to the coast for sale. This expedition was signalised by the discovery of the Lake Nyassa, and much important territory in its neighbourhood. Livingstone was very desirous to see missions and colonies planted in this neighbourhood, which he rightly deemed to be the key of Central Africa. A Universities' Mission, manned by missionaries from Oxford and Cambridge, was planted near Nyassa. But it was very unfortunate; the bishop who was its head, and several of the missionaries, being cut off very early. The death of Mrs. Livingstone was another great trial and discouragement. At last the expedition was recalled; but Livingstone, who had spent most of the profits of his book on a steamer of his own, remained for a time, trying to explore the country more fully. At last he too, saw it desirable to return. He wished to expose the atrocious proceedings of the Portuguese in the matter of the slave trade, and to find means of establishing a settlement at the head of the River Rovuma, beyond the Portuguese lines. Writing a short book might help both projects.
Home he accordingly went, via Bombay, in 1864; spending a great part of his time at Newstead Abbey, where he wrote 'The Zambesi and its Tributaries.' While in England it was suggested to him by an old friend, Sir Roderick Murchison, that it would be a great geographical feat to ascertain the watershed of Central Africa, and fix on the true sources of the Nile. Livingstone refused to make geography his chief object, but was willing to take up the inquiry as subordinate to his other aims which were making known Christ to the natives, and promoting lawful commerce in place of the atrocious slave trade. In the early years of this expedition, Livingstone was most unfortunate in the men he had for attendants. This added to the difficulties thrown in his way by natives, who would not believe that he was not connected with the slave trade, baffled and hindered him in every way. The loss of his medicine chest, starvation, poverty and very distressing attacks of sickness brought him to the lowest ebb. The discoveries he made were very important: Lakes Moero and Bangweolo were added to the list. But his revelations of the unparalleled horrors of the slave trade thrilled every humane heart. For a long time he was unheard of, and the utmost anxiety was felt concerning him.
MEETING WITH STANLEY AND HIS DEATH
At Ujiji, on Lake Tanganyika, Henry M. Stanley, of 'The New York Herald,' came upon him, in 1871, in a state of great destitution, caused by the rascality of the men who had been sent up with stores for his relief. As he was believed to be dead, the business was attended to very negligently, and the stores were actually stolen  by those in charge. Stanley amply relieved his wants. On parting, Livingstone determined to make a concluding effort to find out the water shed, and was encouraged to do this by the much better quality of the men whom Stanley had sent to attend him. But illness came on him, and at last, in Ilala, on the banks of Lake Bangweolo, overcame him. On the morning of May 1, 1873, he was found dead, kneeling at his bedside, in the attitude of prayer. His faithful and loving attendants, having buried the heart and other viscera, brought his remains to the seaside, at an incredible cost of danger and exertion. Borne to England, these remains were buried in Westminster Abbey, on April 18, 1874, amid the profound grief and reverence of the nation.
Amid all the vicissitudes of his career, Livingstone remained faithful to his missionary character. His warmth and purity of heart, his intense devotion to his Master and to the African people for his Master's Sake, his patience, endurance, trustfulness and prayerfulness, his love of science his wide humanity, his intense charity, have given to his name and memory an undying fragrance. After his death, church after church hastened to send missionaries to Africa; and it would take a long space, even to enumerate all the agencies that are now at work there. His death, that seemed the death blow to his plans, gave a new impulse to the cause of African evangelisation and civilisation, which bids fair, with God's help, to accomplish great results.
LIT. - David Livingstone, LL.D., D.C.L.: 'Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa;' 'The Zambesi and its Tributaries;' Rev. Horace Waller, F.R.G.S.: 'Last journals of Dr. Livingstone;' W. G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D., 'Personal Life of David Livingstone, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S.'