Modern Jenny Geddes Confronts Archbishop Ramsey
Another Romanising Archbishop of Canterbury by the name of Laud tried in 1637 to de-protestantise John Knox's Kirk of Scotland.
He introduced a new liturgy as the first step in the process. T. Ratcliffe Barnett tells the story of what happened in St. Giles Cathedral on that occasion.
"It was now on the stroke of ten. Through the crowd there ran an indescribable thrill of excitement, like the wind stirring the leafage of a tree. Dean Hannay was making for the desk, with a brown leather-bound folio in his hand.
"So innocent a thing is a leather-bound book!
"But the sight of it angered the whole congregation. A barbarous tumult arose. Women began to weep, the men shouted, and the serving-maids clapped their hands as the dean set himself to read Laud's Liturgy. His voice was soon drowned in the uproar, and the fat bishop waddled up the pulpit steps to quell the riot.
"'Traitors - bellygods - deceivers - a pope, a pope!"
These were some of the ugly words hurled at him for his pains.
"Who dare say mass in my lug?" yelled a serving-lass called  Jenny Geddes, as she hurled her folding stool straight at the head of the dean. It fell with a clatter on the steps, to be followed only by a shower of Bibles and other creepie stools. Then a rush was made for the pulpit, and the indignant bishop was hauled down without ceremony from his perch."
In St. Anne's Cathedral, Belfast, on Sunday, 21st April, the Romaniser of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, came to forward on his work of de-protestantising the Anglican Church. A modern Jenny Geddes was present in the person of Mrs. Evans. When the successor of Laud rose to preach she branded him as a Liar, Romaniser, Judas and Traitor. Then with the dignity which becomes a faithful servant of Christ she proceeded to join the Free Presbyterian ministers and members in their righteous protest.
The Irish Presbyterian leaders are both ashamed of their history and doctrine and are so intent on going to Rome that they are prepared to lie in order to defame those who are not ashamed of the Jenny Geddeses of this world.
Rev. Donald Fraser an import to Ulster who has been told in his presbytery more than once to return to where he belongs stated that the Rev. Austin Allan described himself as "Vicar of Whiteabbey Presbyterian Church." This is a blatant lie and typical of the popish propaganda issuing from the Irish Presbyterian Church House.
We rejoice in the anger of the Irish Presbyterian biggies for such spleen indicates the effectiveness of our protest.
Dr. Ramsey in a TV interview said it was nonsense to suggest that the Protestant Churches were seeking unity with Rome.
We reproduce below his joint statement with the Pope issued when he visited Rome. Out of his own mouth he stands condemned.
"COMMON DECLARATION given by His Holiness Pope Paul VI and His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 24, 1966.
"In this city of Rome, from which St. Augustine was sent by St. Gregory to England and there founded the cathedral see of Canterbury, towards which the eyes of all Anglicans now turn as the centre of their Christian Communion, His Holiness Pope Paul VI and His Grace Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, representing the Anglican Communion, have met to exchange fraternal greetings." (Dr. Ramsey represented the Church of Ireland, which is part and parcel of the Anglican Communion).
"At the conclusion of their meeting they give thanks to Almighty God Who by the action of the Holy Spirit has in these latter years created a new atmosphere of Christian fellowship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches of the Anglican Communion." (The new atmosphere is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but rather of the lying spirit of the Anglo-Catholic movement).
"This encounter of March 23, 1966, marks a new stage in the development of fraternal relations, based upon Christian charity, and of sincere efforts to remove the causes of conflict and to re-establish unity." (Not a mere courtesy visit, but a visit to re-establish unity). 
"In willing obedience to the command of Christ, Who bade His disciples love one another, they declared that, with His help, they wish to leave in the hands of the God of mercy all that in the past has been opposed to this precept of charity, and that they make their own mind the mind of the Apostle which He expressed in these words: 'Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.' (Phil. 3: 13-14)." (The martyrs, the reformers, the confessors all to be conveniently forgotten).
"They affirm their desire that all those Christians who belong to these two Communions may be animated by these same sentiments of respect, esteem and fraternal love, and in order to help these develop to the full, they intend to inaugurate between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion a serious dialogue which, founded on the Gospels and on the ancient common traditions, may lead to that unity in truth, for which Christ prayed." (First decisive step towards union with Rome).
"The dialogue should include not only theological matters such as Scripture, Tradition and Liturgy, but also matters of practical difficulty felt on either side His Holiness the Pope and His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury are, indeed, aware that serious obstacles stand in the way of a restoration of complete communion of faith and sacramental life; nevertheless, they are of one mind in their determination to promote responsible contacts between their Communions in all those spheres of Church life where collaboration is likely to lead to a greater understanding and a deeper charity, and to strive in common to find solutions for all the great problems that face those who believe in Christ in the world of today." (Ultimate union the goal).
"Through such collaboration, by the grace of God the Father and in the light of the Holy Spirit, may the prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ for unity among His disciples be brought nearer to fulfilment, and with progress towards unity may there be a strengthening of peace in the world, the peace that only He can grant Who gives 'the peace that passeth all understanding,' together with the blessing of Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that it may abide with all men for ever." (The Spirit of Antichrist now at work).
STATEMENT BY BISHOP RYLE
It is a broad fact that during the four last years of Queen Mary's reign no less than 283 persons were burnt at the stake for their adhesion to the Protestant faith.
In 1555 there were burnt 71
In 1556 there were burnt 89
In 1557 there were burnt 88
In,1558 there were burnt 40
Indeed the faggots never ceased to blaze whilst Mary was alive, and five martyrs were burnt in Canterbury only a week before her death. Out of these 288  sufferers, be it remembered, one was an archbishop, four were bishops, twenty-one were clergymen, fifty-five were women, and four were children.
It is a broad fact that these 288 sufferers were not put to death for any offence against property or person. They were not rebels against the Queen's authority, caught red-handed in arms. They were not thieves, or murderers, or drunkards, or unbelievers or men and women of immoral lives. On the contrary, they were, with barely an exception, some of the holiest, purest, and best Christians in England, and several of them the most learned men of their day.
I might say much about the gross injustice and unfairness with which they were treated at their various examinations. Their trials, if indeed they can be called trials, were a mere mockery of justice. I might say much about the abominable cruelty with which most of them were treated, both in prison and at the stake. But you must read "Fox's Martyrs" on these points - I make no coment on the stupid, impolity of the whole persecution. Never did Rome do herself such irreparable damage as she did in Mary's reign. Even unlearned people, who could not argue much, saw clearly that a Church which committed such horrible bloodshed could hardly be the one true Church of Christ! But I have no time for all this. I must conclude this general sketch of this part of my subject with two short remarks.
For one thing, I ask my readers never to forget that for the burning of our Reformers the Church of Rome is wholly and entirely responsible. The attempt to transfer the responsibility from the Church to the secular power is a miserable and dishonest subterfuge. The men of Judah did not slay Samson; but they delivered him bound into the hands of the Philistines! The Church of Rome did not slay the Reformers; but she condemned them, and the secular power executed the condemnation! The precise measure of responsibility which ought to be meted out to each of Rome's agents in the matter is a point that I do not-care to settle. Miss Strickland, in her "Lives of the Queens of England," has tried in vain to shift the blame from unhappy Mary. With all the zeal of a woman, she has laboured hard to whitewash her character. The reader of her biography will find little about martyrdoms. But it will not do. Mr. Froude's volume tells a very different tale. The Queen, and her Council, and the Parliament, and the Popish Bishops, and Cardinal Pole, must be content to share the responsibility among them. One thing alone is very certain. They will never succeed in shifting the responsibility off the shoulders of the Church of Rome. Like the Jews and Pontius Pilate, when our Lord was crucified, all parties must bear the blame. The Blood is upon them all. 
Tribute to Mr. James Nicholl
The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in general and the Martyrs Memorial Congregation in particular have suffered a severe loss in the call to Glory of Mr. James Nicholl.
Mr. Nicholl was a member of the committee of Ravenhill Presbyterian Church and when the day of separation come he was not found wanting.
He was a foundation member of the congregation which eventually become the Ravenhill congregation of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.
About twenty-two years ago Mr. Nicholl was elected to the Kirk Session of that congregation and ordained and installed to that office by the Presbytery of Ulster.
He was a faithful steward and the Free Presbyterian Church has lost one of the finest members and office bearers it will ever have.
One verse of Holy Scripture best sums up Mr. Nicholl's life and testimony:
"For he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord." Acts 11: 24.
I. HIS CHARACTER - "He was a good man."
The foundation secret of his character lay in the fact that he was born again. Often he spoke of that great day in which he closed with Christ freely offered to him in the gospel.
II. HIS CONSECRATION - "full of the Holy Ghost and of faith."'
Mr. Nicholl was a totally consecrated man. He lived for the House of God and the Word of God. When I commenced my ministry in 1946 he pledged himself to stand by me as the Lord's servant through thick or thin. That promise he more than faithfully kept.
III. HIS CORONATION - "much people was added unto the  Lord."
The salvation of souls was his crown. How he prayed with many tears for the conversion of sinners! How he rejoiced as sinners responded to the gospel invitation! May his passion ignite our souls with a similar flume. He has gone from us but his influence still lives on to bless and inspire us.
Brother Nicholl we praise God for you and soon we will praise God with you.
LUTHERAN-ROMAN CATHOLIC ACCORD VOTED By EDWARD B. FISKE
A joint commission of United States Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians issued a study declaring that papal primacy - a major issue in the Protestant Reformation of the16th Century - need no longer be a "barrier to reconciliation" of their churches.
In a 5,000 word "Common Statement" the scholars envisioned a time when the Lutheran and Roman Catholic Churches would be part of a single "larger communion" - autonomous but linked by common recognition of the Pope in Rome as a visible symbol of their underlying unity.
The statement, whose formal title is "Ministry and the Church Universal: Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy," was adopted by the 26 member Lutheran-Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States.
The commission, which comprises 13 Roman Catholics and 13 Lutherans, was appointed in 1965 by the National Committee of the Lutheran World Federation and the Committee for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Lutheran delegation includes representatives of all branches of Lutheranism in this country.
The document, the fruit of nine years of theological dialogue, represents the first time since the Lutheran Reformation of the 16th Century that an officially sanctioned group of Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars has expressed agreement on crucial aspects of papal authority.
It is likely to be regarded as a major ecumenical landmark because, while it is in no way binding on any of the churches involved, it would seem to eliminate -
Continued Page 14
The Preacher and Bible Teacher - GENESIS PART SEVEN
The fifth chapter of Genesis covers ten generations from Adam and spans the intervening period between the fall and the flood.
Ten speaks of testimony, and here we have the testimony of the godly set forth. When it was complete judgment overtook the whole world. Thus, when the Church's testimony is complete, judgment will overtake this world.
The great truths of this chapter are centred around contrasting personalities.
1. THE DEATH OF THE FIRST MAN ADAM, AND THE FIRST MAN NOT TO DIE - ENOCH.
"And the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years and he died" (Gen. 5: 5).
"And Enoch walked with God; and he was not for God took him" (Gen. 5: 24).
The death of the first man Adam teaches the inescapable curse of sin. The soul that sinneth it shall die. The Edenic curse "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" is here physically fulfilled.
"And he died." This is the eternal epitaph of the race.
"That all may die, every man will yield; but that he may live yet, a day longer at least, there is none but hopeth. We can see death in other men's brows but not in our own bosoms. Death is that mistress of the world that will not be courted nor yet cast off by any." - John Trapp.
In this chapter we have the contrast, Adam the first man dies, but Enoch is here presented the first man not to die. Adam's death, that is the gloomy hope of the natural man; Enoch's translation. That is the glorious hope of the spiritual man.
Enoch was a pious man - "he walked with God."
Enoch was a pure man - "he pleased God."
Enoch was a prophetic man - "he prophesied for God" (Jude 14: 15).
Enoch was a peculiar man - "he was translated to God."
"In every age there has been a solemn witness of the life beyond, the life with God, the life above. In the first age, Enoch. In the middle age, Elijah. In the last age, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself." - Monroe Gibson.
Adam lived to see eight generations of  his descendants. NB - Adam and could converse with Methuselah, 243 years.
2. THE MAN WHOSE MOTHER SPOKE AT HIS BIRTH - SETH, AND THE MAN WHOSE FATHER SPOKE AT HIS BIRTH - NOAH.
"And Adam knew his wife again: and she bear a son and called his name Seth, for she saith God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew" (Gen. 4:25).
"And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and two years and begat a son: and he called his name Noah saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed."
This chapter commences with "This is the book of the generations of Adam" and yet though Cain was generated from Adam his line is completely excluded here. Notice it was Eve who named Seth for this line is "the seed of the woman." Cain is of "the seed of the serpent" and therefore is excluded from this book of the generations of Adam. Seth means "appointed," so in Seth we have the first of the appointed seed. This is the commencement of the seed royal. Here is the dim twilight which eventually culminates in the zenith of the Son of Righteousness.
NB - Seth was contemporary with all the Antediluvians except Noah. Enoch's translation was 55 years before the death of Seth.
Contrasted with Seth and his mother's speech at his birth we have Noah and his Enoch father's speech at his birth.
Noah means "consolation." "Thus speaks the patriarch Lamech. Such is the voice of joy when he receives his firstborn Noah. He was tilling a soil hardened by the curse - fruitful only to thorns and thistles. But now a son is given to share the painfulness of his daily toil. Cheered by this hope he calls his name Noah, which has the meaning of Rest or Comfort." - Henry Law.
Lamech lived in an evil age and in an ending age, but with the birth of Noah there came a light amidst darkness. "So once in the end of the world has Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Christ, a greater than Noah is the believers eternal comfort and the saints everlasting rest. "This same shall comfort us."
3. THE THIRD AFTER THE FALL - ENOS, AND THE THIRD BEFORE THE FLOOD - LAMECH.
"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." (Genesis 4: 35).
"And Seth lived an hundred and five years and begat Enos." (Genesis 5: 6).
"And Methuselah lived an hundred and eighty and seven years and begat Lamech." (Genesis 5: 25).
"Enos" the first of Seth's seed means "weakness." Associated with Enos is the beginning of prayer. Weak man looks up to God for strength. In this the beginnings of Seth's seed we have a lesson in the beginning of spiritual life. For spiritual life  commences with a confession of our own weakness and an acknowledgement of the strength of God.
In contrast with Enos' "weakness" we have Lamech which means "powerful." The divine life makes the weak man strong. Walking with God brings omnipotence into co-operation and association with weakness and the strength of Deity is thus made perfect in the weakness of a trusting humanity.
What made Methuselah give to his son the name of power? To answer this question we must remember that Methuselah was the son of Enoch and knowing the God of his father he was enabled himself to do exploits. He therefore was confident that his own son having the same blessed knowledge could have the same blessed power. Hence he called his Lamech "powerful."
4. THE FATHER WHO LIVED THE LONGEST - METHUSELAH, AND THE FATHER WHO LIVED WHEN ALL OTHER FATHERS DIED.
"And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty and nine years and he died." (Gen. 5: 27).
"And spared not the world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." (II Peter 2: 5).
Enoch was 65 years old when he begat Methuselah. No reference is made to his spiritual life in these sixty-five years. Immediately after the birth of Methuselah, however, we read "he walked with God." Something happened to Enoch at the birth of Methuselah. Methuselah means when he is dead it shall be sent," and in the year of his death the flood came. So Enoch must have had at the birth of his firstborn a prophetic insight into the future. He foresaw the flood that was to come and received a divine revelation when it was to come. Hence he called his son by this peculiar name. Methuselah lived 969 years, but he did not attain to the 1,000 years.
NB - Methuselah was contemporary with Noah for 600 years.
In contrast to Methuselah we have Noah, the father who lived when all other fathers died. Noah lived and walked with six generations of his forefathers and outlived them all and all other fathers.
After the flood Noah lived contemporary with ten generations of his sons and would hold converse with Abraham for over 56 years.
NB - The length of human life in various periods:
Antediluvian times, average length, 900 years. Methuselah lived 969 years.
From the deluge to Babel, reduced by a half. Herber lived 464 years.
Babel to Moses was again shortened. Reu, the longest life, 239 years.
Moses to David, the average length of life was (Psalm 90: 10) 70 years.
The Lord Jesus was cut off in the midst of His days (Psalm 102: 24) at 33 years. 
A Study of the Types By HERMAN WITSIUS, DD
THE COVENANT OF GRACE UNDER ALL ECONOMIES NOT WITHOUT ITS SACRAMENTS
I. We have explained with what wisdom and condescension God saw it proper to confirm and seal the promises of his covenants by certain sacred symbols. As he did this under the covenant of works, so especially he was like wise pleased to do the same upon introducing the covenant of grace. To which, under whatever economy it stood, he appended, as it were, certain peculiar signs and seals, which the church has, now for many ages past, been accustomed to call sacraments. In some of the types, which we have already explained, and in others of the like nature, there was also, indeed, something sacramental; as they prefigured the Messiah and the spiritual benefits He was to procure for His people; yet more especially we call by the name of sacraments, those things which were given by God to man, to be seals of His covenant, or earnests and pledges of His favour.
AND THESE VARIOUSLY DIFFERING
II. And these things again were, indeed, very different; consisting either in things natural, on which God inscribed that character in order to be vouchers and seals of his testaments. To which Calvin refers Noah's ark, Instit. lib. iv. c. 14 § 18. Or in things miraculous, such as the manna which was rained down from heaven, and the water issuing out of the rock, which constituted the miraculous meat and drink of the Israelites in the wilderness; or in certain ceremonies and sacred rites instituted by God to represent spiritual things. Some were also extraordinary, in favour of some certain persons, and but of a short continuance. Others, ordinary, given for the use of the whole church, and not to cease but with that particular economy of the covenant. And hence it is, that in reckoning up the sacraments of the Old Testament, divines are not agreed; for some take the term in a larger extent, and others in a more restricted sense. We are not inclined to confine ourselves within too narrow bounds, but shall freely and calmly consider, according to our capacity, what has any relation to a sacrament, in every period of time.
THE EJECTION OUT OF PARADISE NOT TO BE RECKONED AMONG THEM
III. Some would have the first sacrament of the covenant of grace to be the ejection of man out of paradise, and blocking up his access to the tree of life, lest he should put forth his hand and eat of it, thinking that he should thereby obtain eternal life. For man, being deprived of this sacrament of works, was, at the same time, given to know, that righteousness  was to be sought for from another covenant; and thus he was led by the hand from the covenant of works to the covenant of grace. But we cannot be satisfied with these things. 1st, Because man's ejection out of paradise, and exclusion from the tree of life, were the effects of the divine wrath and vengeance against his sin, as appears from that truly holy, but stinging irony: "Behold the man is become as one of us." But the institution of a sacrament is an act of the highest goodness and mercy. We deny not, that man was already received into favour, and had the hope of eternal life: nevertheless, some things were inflicted upon him because of his transgression, that he might, by his loss, experience the direful nature of sin, and God's hatred of it. Among these was the ignominious ejection out of paradise. It was an instance of grace and favour, that God placed him in paradise immediately upon his creation, but of wrath that he turned him out when he had sinned. 2ndly, This ejection doubtless declared, that man could not now obtain salvation by the covenant of works, and that he who was deprived of the thing signified was unworthy to use and enjoy the sign; and that it was in vain, and to no purpose for him to please himself with the thoughts of it. But it by no means showed that there was another covenant by which righteousness could either be sought for or obtained. Adam was to know, and he did know this elsewhere. 3rdly Every thing upon the supposition of the promise of the covenant of grace, that, by convincing man of his own impotency, leads him to that covenant, is not to be esteemed a sacrament of it. For then every demonstration of God's wrath from heaven against sinners, and every sign which is proper to give us an intimation of the curse of the covenant of works; in a word, every chastisement, as all these are appointed to bring the elect to Christ, should be called sacraments of the covenant of grace.
THE COATS OF SKINS WHICH GOD GAVE TO MAN, ARE MUCH BETTER RECKONED AMONG THESE
IV. According to my judgment, the learned have much more probably ranged them in this manner: that God first of all dealt with fallen Adam about sacraments, that is, when the aprons of fig-leaves which man sewed together, were not at all sufficient to cover the shame of his nakedness, he himself clothed Adam and his wife with coats of skins, Gen. iii. 21. And it is very probable, these were the skins of those beasts which were slain for sacrifices. But it is a vain controversy, which some make about the matter of those garments; since the Hebrew word is never used in Scripture to signify any thing but the outward skin of animals. And as this is the most simple and plain, so it is the most ancient kind of clothing. See job xxxi. 20, Prov. xxvii. 26. Hence the ancient heroes among the Greeks were clothed with the skins of a wild boar, or a tiger, or a lion, or the skin of the Lybean bear, or the skin worn by the Bacchae, or female priests of Bacchus, which was that of a fox. And who now is ignorant that the progenitors of the Romans were clothed with skins, and were of a rude  disposition of mind. See Vossius de Idololatria, lib. iii. cop. 70. It is a curious observation of Mr. Cloppenburg Schola Sacrificorum, p. 12. Here we may see the original of that law in Lev. vii. 8, by which the skin of any man's burnt offering is appropriated to the priest who offers it. And who will deny, that God's clothing our first parents was a symbolical act? Do not Christ's own words very clearly allude to this, Rev. iii. 18, "I counsel thee, to buy of me white raiment, that thou mayst be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear." Compare Joh. Henrici Ursini Analecta. lib. vi. cap. 15.
THE MYSTERY OF THESE THINGS
V. The mystical similitude of these things is this: 1st, As that clothing, which man contrived for himself, could not cover him, so as to appear before the eyes of God, in like manner, nothing that a sinner can work or toil by his own industry, or wisdom falsely so called, can produce any thing that can procure him a just and well grounded confidence, by which he may appear before the tribunal of God. "Their webs, which are spiders' webs, shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works," Isa. lix. 5, 6. 2ndly, Proper garments for men were the gift of God's mercy, and so that righteousness, by which our sins are covered, is of God, Phil. iii. 9. contrived by God, perfected by Christ, Who is God and applied to us by the Spirit of God through faith. 3rdly, The bodies of our first parents were covered with the spoils of mortality and the skins of slain animals. The garment of grace, whereby the body of sin is covered, is owing to the very death of Christ, without which that righteousness, which makes us acceptable to God, could not have been performed. 4thly, That simple clothing of the first man was, in its appointed time, to be changed for one more convenient and fine. And this garment, which we have from God, while we are under the cross and partakers of the death of Christ, and which in external appearance is mean and despicable, shall afterwards be changed. For since we shall be partakers of Christ's resurrection, no longer in hope but in reality, so the garment, which now appears to be mean and contemptible, shall be then the most neat and beautiful, and worthy to be accounted the nuptial robe, See Peter Martyr and Musculus.
VI. The other sacraments of that first period were the Sacrifices, which were slain at God's command, after the very first promulgation of the covenant of grace, as appears, 1st, Because "Abel offered by faith," Heb. xi . 4. That is, he knew that himself and his sacrifice were acceptable to God, and in his offering he looked by faith to the future offering of the Messiah. But such a faith plainly presupposes the divine institution of sacrifices, and a revelation about their signification. 2ndly, Because God gave that testimony to the sacrifices of the ancient Patriarchs, whereby He declared that they were acceptable to him, ibid. But in the matters of religion, nothing pleases him but what Himself has commanded. All will worship is condemned, Col. ii. 23. 3rdly, Because there was a distinction  between clean and unclean animals before the deluge, which was not from nature, but from the mere good pleasure of God, and has a particular respect to sacrifices. And it is probable that this was the case with every kind of sacrifices, even with those that were of a propitiatory nature, by which the promises of the covenant of grace were more clearly and distinctly ratified than by all the others. For while Moses shows, that the Patriarchs offered such sacrifices as He Himself offered, that they were adapted to signify the same things, it is not for us to restrict what is said in general, to certain particular kinds, in exclusion of others. Certainly, Job offered burnt offerings, for the sins of his children and friends, Job i. 6, and xlii. 8, which doubtless were propitiatory.
VII. But these sacrifices were seals of God's covenant. For though there is a difference between sacrifices and sacraments formally considered, because sacraments are given by God to men, but sacrifices are offered by men to God: nevertheless, there is no reason why the consideration of a sacrament and sacrifice may not in different respects concur in one and the same thing. For even sacrifices are given by God to men, that is, are instituted by divine authority; that, by these ceremonies the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, and His bloody death, and the remission of sins thereby, might be signified and sealed. And believers, in the use of them, declared for that worship and veneration that is due to God. Augustine, de Civit. Dei, lib. x. c. 5, says, "The visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice." To make this more evident, let us distinctly consider, I. The Priest offering. II The animal offered. III The ceremony of offering. IV The empyrism or burning it by fire from heaven. V The expiation, which is the consequence of the sacrifice. VI The sacred feast, annexed to sacrifices.
Owing to circumstances beyond our control this issue covers April and May. 
ROMAN - LUTHERAN CATHOLIC - Continued
at least on the theological level - a major obstacle to Christian unity.
"It is now up to the churches to indicate how far they want to go in implementing it," said the Rev. George A. Lindbeck, a theologian at Yale University and one of the Lutheran members of the commission.
The document leaves for "Further study the relatively limited but controversial issue of papal infallibility. However, in the light of the consensus achieved thus far, the scholars involved are hopeful that agreement can be reached on this matter as well within two to three years.
The joint commission is one of numerous groups engaged in theological dialogue in this country and elsewhere. The American Roman Catholic hierarchy in the United States for instance, is now involved in separate dialogues with representatives of the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ and Orthodox churches.
Last December, in a similar ecumenical advance, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which represents Anglicans and Roman Catholics on a worldwide basis, released a report declaring that they had reached "basic agreement" on the nature of the Christian ministry.
The Lutheran-Roman Catholic discussions in this country headed by the Rev. Paul C. Empie, retired general secretary of the national committee, and the most Rev. T. Austin Murphy, Auxiliary Roman Catholic Bishop of Baltimore.
The commission has already produced. statements of consensus on the Nicene Creed, baptism, the ministry and the eucharist, and in 1970 it became the first of the dialogue groups to take up the question of papal primacy. This is generally regarded as perhaps the most difficult issue dividing Roman Catholics and Christians.
The scholars reported that, after seven semi-annual meetings and the production of 30 research papers, they were able to achieve "a convergence in the theological understanding of the papacy."
The basic elements of this consensus, they said, are that the visible unity of Christians is desirable, that all Christians have an obligation to seek this unity, and that "a special responsibility for this may be entrusted to one individual minister, under the Gospel."
They further agreed that the Bishop of Rome "can in the future function in ways which are better adapted to meet both the universal and regional needs of the church in the complex of modern times."
PETER'S ROLE CITED
The text of the document makes it clear that this "convergence" was possible because recent Biblical and historical scholarships by Catholics and Lutherans has shed new light on old controversies and made possible "a fresh approach to the structure and operations of the papacy."
In the past, for instance, the document declared, Roman Catholics taught that  Jesus conferred papal status on St. Peter and that, in effect, "the papacy has remained substantially the same through succeeding centuries." Lutherans on the other hand, it noted, "minimized Peter's role in the early church" and described the papacy as a later invention.
However, on the basis of historical and scriptural studies, the scholars concluded that neither of these positions was correct.
They declared that a "Petrine function" or ministry expressing the "oneness of the church" - is implicit in the New Testament, but also asserted that its form has evolved over the centuries and that continuing evolution and reform is possible.
"There is a growing awareness among Lutherans of the necessity of a specific ministry to serve the Churches' unity and universal mission, while Roman Catholics increasingly see the need for a more balanced understanding of the role of the papacy within the universal church," they said.
The report envisions a situation in which Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches would function as "sister churches" with close sacramental and other ties. It pictures the Roman Pontiff as an expression of the "Petrine function" for both Lutherans and Roman Catholics, would fulfil this role - whether symbolically, as a spokesman on moral and social issues, or with specific areas of authority.
"Perhaps this might involve a primacy in which the Pope's service to unity in relation to Lutheran churches would be more pastoral than juridical," it declared.
Hovever, the document does specify several forms of "renewal" that would have to take place within the papacy before it would be acceptable to Lutherans as well as Roman Catholics.
These are acceptance of diversity within the church, a "collegial," or consultative style of operation, and the principle of "subsidiarity," which means that decisions that can be made at a local or regional level "ought not to be referred to church leaders who have wider responsibilities." The renewed papacy, it said, must also be "committed to Christian freedom."
The scholars noted that several related issues, notably Roman Catholic teachings about papal infallibility, have yet to be discussed.
"Even given these disagreements and points yet to be examined," they continued, "it is now proper to ask, in the light of the agreement we have been able to reach, that our respective churches take specific actions towards reconciliation."
The document listed a number of specific questions from members of each tradition. Lutherans, for instance, it said should ask themselves whether they are prepared to affirm that "papal primacy, renewed in the light of the Gospel, need not be a barrier to reconciliation."
Likewise, they said, Roman Catholics should consider whether they are prepared to acknowledge Lutherans as "sister churches which are already entitled to some measures of ecclesiastical communion." 
Lutheran Conflict Resembles Old Presbyterian Battles
The report on the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue is reaching the predicted conclusion. Let it be remembered that the Anglicans, under the leadership of Archbishop Michael A. Ramsey have said virtually the same thing. Ramsey's famous quotation was that he could recognise the Pope as the first among equals, and Ramsey wears a ring which may be seen in his pictures that the Pope slipped on his finger - the ring of unity. 'It was given to him when he called at the Vatican in 1966.
It is now time for Dr. Eugene Carson Blake to speak up. He has had a great deal to do with these arrangements. The one-world church is in the making, and if Christ would only take out his true Bride, the remaining Babylon would be comfortable on the back of the Beast (Rev. 13 and 17).
The Lutheran convulsions in St. Louis follow the pattern and the temper of the break in the Presbyterian Church in 1936. The issues are identically the same. The Missouri Synod, however, when they did gain control of the assembly, proceeded to clean house of the so-called moderates but infidels. Had the Presbyterians done this in 1924 when Clarence Edward Macartney was named moderator and the fundamentalists had control there would never have been an Independent Board trial of the Bible Presbyterian Church.
SOLZHENITSYN A CHRISTIAN
The Western press has widely publicised the expulsion of the famous author Alexander Solzhenitsyn who has now settled in Norway. But very little has been said in the news that Mr. Solzhenitsyn has firmly denounced atheism in the strongest of terms and renounced his personal membership in the Communist Party to become a devout Christian.
The February issue of 'Orthodox Messenger,' published in Canada, reported that Mr. Solzhenitsyn, in a letter to them, expressed the most fervent hope that this coming Easter he can visit the Holy Land and see the places where his Saviour lived.
Perhaps many readers will remember how Solzhenitsyn sensationally exposed Metropolitan Nikodim and the Moscow Patriarchate as subservient agents of the Soviet Government.