[1]
The Myth of God Incarnate Versus The Mystery of God Incarnate

A blasphemous attack on the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ has just been launched by a number of so called Protestant theologicians of Churches in the World Council of Churches in England. This attack is a book published this week by the Students' Christian Movement (SCM) entitled, "The Myth of God Incarnate" and containing a series of essays from seven academics, mostly members of the apostate Church of England, is edited by Prof. John Hick of Birmingham. Prof. Hick is a member of the United Reformed Church, the ecumenical amalgam of the Presbyterian Church of England and the Congregational Churches of England.

The book totally rejects the Lord Jesus Christ as "God manifest in flesh."

It rakes up from the past the ancient attacks on the glorious Person of our Lord and produces from the minds of these filthy dreamers "another Jesus." Jude v. 8 and 2 Cor. 11:4.

This "Jesus" is a Jesus without Deity whom they admit might possibly be the most wonderful human being who ever lived." The great fundamental truth that our Lord Jesus Christ is the One and Only revelation of God and that only through Him alone can men come to God is utterly rejected.

Continued on Page 16

[2]
Books which have Greatly Influenced my Life and Ministry
By IAN R. K. PAISLEY

The apostle Paul in his charge to young Timothy the preacher said, "Give attendance to reading", I Timothy 4:13.

THE BOOK OF BOOKS

The Bible is the tool of the minister and the reading and careful study of every other book should be subservient to the reading and understanding of God's Holy Word. The Bible is the Book, the only Book, the unique volume. Other publications are merely books and should always be placed in that category. As the Word of God is the revelation of God embalmed in human language, everything which helps us to understand that language should be our concern. So as preachers we should seek the acquaintance of such books as will help us in the study of the Word, and not only in its study but in its propagation.

Further, Paul said to Timothy, "Preach the Word," 2 Timothy 4:2.

One cannot preach the Word to the edification of one's hearers except one has a knowledge of that Word. We are all, as preachers, under the bounden duty to know the Book, and where there is accessibility to helps to obtain knowledge, we should diligently employ such helps. Of course, the Bible is a spiritual Book and is spiritually discerned. "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life" 2 Corinthians 3:6. Letter knowledge and letter preaching will have a deadening effect, but Spirit knowledge and Spirit preaching will have a mighty quickening effect. Hence the necessity of a spiritual approach to the great repository of spiritual truth. It is only by prayer that our souls, and hearts and minds can be quickened into that most necessary spiritual state, in which we can spiritually understand and assimilate the Eternal Truth of God.

"HOW TO PRAY" by R. A. TORREY.

The first book that is necessary is therefore a book on prayer. In this field in which there are many volumes Dr. R.A. Torrey's book "How to Pray" in my opinion takes the palm. I know of no book which in this field has meant more to me than Torrey's spiritual classic. I have read many volumes, such as "Power through Prayer" and "Purpose in Prayer," by E. M. Bounds, Ralph Erskine's famous "14 Sermons on Prayer" and the writings of Gordon Watt on the same subject, but for [3] simplicity and rules of a most practical nature Dr. Torrey is streets ahead of them all. Every preacher should make himself acquainted with this publication, and especially with chapter nine, "Hindrances to prayer." Get the book and read it and then make its rules the rules which govern your prayer life. If you do so, your heart, and mind and soul will always be in that spiritual frame, so necessary to a proper understanding of the Scriptures of Truth.

"INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION" by DR. JOHN W. BURGON.

The next book I would recommend is "Inspiration and Interpretation" by Dr. John W. Burgon. Dr. Burgon was one of the greatest New Testament scholars which the Church has ever produced. He was a Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and the select preacher of the University from 1860-1861. He was afterwards the Gresham lecturer in Divinity and eventually become Dean of Chichester. He has been called "the incomparable Burgon" in the field of New Testament studies. His book on the last verses of Mark chapter sixteen and his other volume on the "Revision Revised" hold a unique place for all those who cherish the unity, integrity and infallibility of God's Word. His volume "Inspiration and Interpretation" consists of seven sermons preached at Oxford before the ministerial students of that ancient University. They were reissued by one of Burgon's disciples, Dr. C. H. Waller. In his preface Dr. Waller points out that Burgon covers the whole ground of modern unbelief, and that, in his opinion, the Devil has not added a single weapon to the arsenal of unbelieving criticism since Burgon delivered his unanswerable defence of the Word. The first sermon which has the title "The study of the Bible recommended and a method of studying it described" is a masterpiece. I have a note in my copy which I wrote on my first reading of that sermon, it consists of three words, "Simple, sound, sublime." This could be said of each of these great pulpit utterances. Let me give just one extract:

"The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the Eternal; - as much God's Word, as if high heaven were open and we heard God speaking to us with human voice. Every book of it is inspired alike, and is inspired entirely. Inspiration is not a difference of degree, but of kind. The apocryphal books are not one atom more inspired than Bacon's essays, but the Bible, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to over flowing with the Holy Spirit of God: The books of it and the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the syllables of it, - Aye, the very letters of it."

The book is scarce. Look for it. It is worth its weight in gold. As Spurgeon said of Matthew Henry's volumes, so I would say of it, "Sell your shirt to buy it, if that is the only way you can procure it."

"INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES" By ARTHUR PINK

The next volume which is essential to every preacher is Arthur Pink's masterly "Interpretation of the Scriptures." This volume which is easily procurable is a must for every preacher. Arthur Pink's writings need no recommendation from my pen or anyone else's. They are [4] peculiarly in a class by themselves. In this invaluable volume, Mr. Pink sets forth in thirty-one important rules the way in which he himself studied the Word of God. His books, especially on the Gospel of John, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Life of David, and Hebrews, demonstrate the glorious and edifying results of the application of these rules.

I notice in my own copy a note which I made after I read the volume, "A great book - if every young preacher mastered the principles set out therein he would be on his way to becoming a true Alexander, mighty in the Scriptures."

There are some books which must ever be on the preacher's desk. I have in my study a group of books which are ever before me. The first of these is, of course, a Concordance, and next to that I have placed my working copy of Pink's "Interpretation of the Scriptures." This is not a book to be read and laid aside, but is a working tool, ever to be found at hand in mining the precious ore from the rich mines of the Holy Word. Ignorance of the rules of interpretation will lead to ignorance of the true meaning of Holy Scripture. It is essential that you master these rules, and then by practice master their application in your study of the Bible. The rules themselves should be memorised in the same way as a child memorises his arithmetic tables for if each rule is not before you when you are studying the Book, then you're liable to bring forth an erroneous interpretation. Remember for you, as a preacher, the error does not end there, but through your ministry has an ever widening and leavening process of destruction. It is our duty to see to it that neither we ourselves nor our people fall into error. The only preventative to this is a proper interpretation (by the application of these rules) of the Word which liveth and abideth forever. That Word hidden in our hearts will prevent the sin of error taking root there. Purchase this book and make it ever your companion in your Bible study, and you too, will ever be in the pink!

CRUDEN'S CONCORDANCE

Another essential volume which every preacher must have is a full copy of Cruden's Concordance. I say a full copy because many of the abridged concordances on the market are practically useless and not a proper tool for the minister's work. Cruden was a half-crazy man, but Spurgeon rightly said when he wrote a note on his own volume of Cruden's Concordance - "This half-crazy Cruden did more for the Church than all the DDs and LLDs who ever existed." Spurgeon called Cruden's Concordance, the book which always sat on his left hand as his Bible sat on his right. That is the best way we could underscore its importance. The full Cruden's Concordance not only gives every reference, in the Scriptures to a particular word but it also gives a very important definition at the head of the most important words of the Bible, eg, take the word "anoint" Cruden states under the word:

(1) To pour oil upon with the idea of consecrating, the person or thing to God, or to set him apart for an office (Genesis 31:l3, Exodus 28:41). Since kings and priests were the persons most frequently anointed on taking office they were frequently spoken of as God's anointed, (2 Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1). In like manner Jesus Christ as King and Priest was so termed (Acts 10:38).

(2) Anointing with various preparations was one of the principal methods of healing in the small [5] knowledge of medicine in Palestine in Bible times (James 5:14). The word is so used of Jesus in anointing the eyes of the blind for healing (John 9:6, 11).

It will be seen from this word taken at random in the Concordance how scripturally and excellently Cruden supplies a valuable digest of the meaning of the word.

In studying the Scriptures the digests supplied by Cruden are invaluable and to a great extent largely unknown and unused by most preachers and Bible scholars. Cruden, of course, deals with the A.V. and not with the words of the original Hebrew and Greek. In any study of the Word of God it is essential to go back to the original languages, and there are two concordances which offer to the preacher helps in acquiring the meaning of the word in the original.

"YOUNG'S ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE"

There are Strong's "Exhaustive Concordance" and Young"s "Analytical Concordance." Both are useful volumes but my choice is Young's. In his volume under a particular word he lists the several ways in which that particular word is translated in our Authorised Version, and also the words in the original which are translated by the same English word.

E.G., Let us take the same word "anoint" in the Old Testament. Young's lists the following original Hebrew and Greek words which, in our AV are translated simply by the word "anoint."

1. Hebrew word "to fatten" used once in the Old Testament in Psalm 23: "Thou anointest my head with oil really meaning "Thou fattenest . . ."

2. "To smear"

3. "To pour out"

and then some Greek words,

4. "To anoint"

5. "To rub in"

6. "To rub on"

7. "To anoint with spice"

8. "To rub."

So at a glance we discover that there are three Hebrew words translated "anoint" and four Greek words translated "anoint" but each of these words have a peculiar and special meaning of their own. When one turns to the back of Young's Concordance one is given a most interesting key to the number of times a Hebrew or Greek word occurs in the Bible, and the number of times it is translated in a particular way. E.G., Hebrew word "dashan" which only once as I have already said is translated, "anointed," "anointest" or "anoint" (Psalm 23:5) occurs altogether eleven times in the Old Testament. It is translated "to wax fat," once. It is translated to "accept," "anoint," "make fat" once, "receive ashes" once, "take away ashes from" once, "be made fat" five times. A casual look at the occurrence of any particular 'Hebrew or Greek word gives an insight into the full meaning of that word and to the spiritual alerted series of mind can easily start (3 thoughts which will lead to the basis of many a great spiritual sermon). Every preacher should examine his text with Young's Concordance before him. It is essential that we give to our people the real cream and essence, pith and marrow of what has been called by James Hamilton - Bibline or the Essence of the Bible.

Continued next issue

[6]
Evolution Blasted By DR. HARTE-DAVIES

HIGHER THAN THE APES OR A LITTLE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS?

The Biblical view of man's origin and nature conflicts sharply with the rationalistic view which is today so widespread. The question at issue may be quite simply stated. Was man made in the image of God by a special act of creative power, or is he merely the offspring of some ape-like stock which has gradually improved by a natural automatic process of evolution? According to the former there is an unbridgeable gulf fixed between the highest beast and the lowest man; their natures are radically distinct.

Now the revelation contained in the book of Genesis was undoubtedly accepted by our Divine Lord and the inspired apostles. According to St. Paul we are, "the offspring of God." (Acts 17:28). But according to Darwin, "Man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World." The ascent of man, according to the Darwinian hypothesis, has been gradual, progressive, over-leaping the bounds of species, due to the operation of causes such as natural and sexual selection, and the survival of the fittest. Any intervention such as a special creation of man by the handiwork and inspiration of the Almighty is arbitrarily ruled out as "unthinkable." Man is thus to be conceived of only as higher than the apes, originating with them from a common parent stock.

Before we test the alleged truth of this theory, let us pause to consider some of the pernicious consequences which must inevitably attend its widespread adoption. Accordant with such a belief the bestial law has been publicly taught, especially by Nietzche, that "might is right and is the sole force in the path of progress." It is generally admitted that the ruthlessness in many dire features which characterised First World War, was a direct product of this philosophy. Its most conspicuous fruits today are to be seen in Russia in contempt for God and religion; in State schemes to reduce the moral conceptions of the people to a non-Christian level, to inculcate class warfare, and to prepare on a gigantic scale machinery designed to accomplish the Communist enslavement of mankind. And if we are only superior beasts, we must be content to put up with the ferocity of the jungle.

A still more serious consideration ensues. The fairest flower of human kind, Jesus of Nazareth, was, after all, only the product of the evolutionary process; and consequently, it is possible that we may yet behold a higher than He! Some are so obsessed by the theory that they even assent to this proposition. To pursue this path is perilous. It may quickly lead to rankest blasphemy.

A further inference, which will be more seriously considered, is that the evolutionary hypothesis undermines the foundation of the scheme of redemption which is adumbrated in the Old Testament and portrayed in the New. Vital personal religion rests upon historic, [7] redemptive fact. Evolution aims to undermine the basis of the Christian salvation and to destroy the blessed hope of the Life Eternal.

But is the theory true? Can it be substantiated? Is there evidence available to demonstrate its accuracy? The plain answer is, there is not; and scientists are aware of the fact. The evolutionary theory of the origin of man by emergence from a beast-like stock locks scientific verification. It is a theory which cannot be proved, but one which may be shown to be demonstrably false in many of its cardinal features.

The argument can only be given here in barest outline. According to Genesis, man is a creature "sui generis." "After its kind" is a phrase which continually recurs, implying a distinction of species in the creative process. But, according to evolution, as generally propounded, there is no absolute distinction of species; one species has gradually evolved into another, with man as the apex of the process. But is there any substantial evidence of transmutation of species to support such belief? There is not. It is common knowledge that from the horse and the ass you can breed a mule; but the mule is sterile. You can improve a breed of pigeons, and you can obtain many varieties of sweet pea; but left to a state of nature, both peas and pigeons revert to the original stock. Nature seems to have erected a boundary and fixed a fence to safeguard the distinction of species. As to man there is not a shadow of proof available to indicate that the gulf which we know exists today has ever been crossed. Pitiable attempts have been made from time to time to scrape together some remains that might possibly serve to substantiate the theory of man's ape-like ancestry. The high-sounding names like Pitheconthropus, Eoanthropus, Hesperopithecus, are more the products of fancy than the proofs of verity. A piece of a skull is found in a cove; it is carefully measured; an elaborate, fanciful reconstruction of the creature follows; the finder proceeds to report to the world that he has made a great discovery. Here, he announces, is undoubtedly a portion of the cranium of a creature which was a man-like ape or an ape-like man!

But the identity of such remains, experience proves, is extremely precarious. Professor Virchow was strongly of the opinion that Pitheconthropus, of whose anatomy only the roof of a skull, two teeth, and a diseased thigh bone, have been collected, was a gibbon; Moreover, the thigh bone was found fifty: feet away from the other remains, and very probably did riot belong to the same creature. Such is the kind of evidence which is adduced to demonstrate our brutish origin. It has been truly said that the whole of it comprises about as many relics of human bone as "a child could carry together in a basket."

The following glaring example of speculation posing as science should be a salutary warning to the devotees of the evolutionary theory of man's ape-like ancestry. Mr. Harold J. Cook found in Nebraska, USA, an imperfect molar tooth. Straight away 'Prof. H. F. Osborn decided that the tooth belonged to a missing link between Man and the Simian stock - a specimen of the creature which existed just when the ape or pithecoid type was evolving into the human. Accordingly, he gave it the name of Hesperopithecus, which means, I suppose, "The Ape-man of the West" or "The Ape at Eventide." Dr. Smith [8] Woodward, Keeper of Geology in the British Natural History Museum, however, contributed an article to "Nature" in which he gave it as his opinion that the Nebraska molar was only the tooth of a Pliocene bear! Dr. Osborn's claim was rejected by Sir Arthur Keith also. But in the meantime, Professor Eliot Smith of the University of London, believing Dr. Osborn to be right in his assumption, produced, through the kind offices of the editor of the "Illustrated London News," an article on this "ancestor" of the human race, accompanied by two pictures, each occupying a full page of the magazine, representing on the one side the "reconstruction" of 'Hesperopithetus ' and on the other that of the female of the species, or Mrs. Hesperopithecus. All this imaginary stuff, in the form of pen-and-ink portraits, was foisted upon the numerous readers of the journal as a scientific discovery, and the only basis of the elaborate structure was the tooth of a Pliocene bear! The protest of Wassmann, a distinguished biologist, is surely not uncalled for: "It is nothing short of an outrage upon truth to represent scanty remains, the origin of which is so uncertain as that of the Pitheconthropus, as absolute proof of the descent of man from the beasts, in order thus to deceive the general public."

The argument of the plain man who is unversed in scientific technology is a weighty one. He says, in effect, that if the theory be true there ought to be an abundance of geological remains to demonstrate it; and further, if this gradual development has been proceeding down the ages there ought to be alive on the earth today some thousands of creatures neither pure ape nor pure man - but a sort of link betwixt and between. Haeckel admitted the force of this argument. He tried to meet it by suggesting that there was a lost continent submerged under the Indian Ocean. He called this imaginary lost continent "Lemuria;" and said that if we could only get down to it we should probably find the Missing Link buried there! The absence of all substantial evidence can no longer be disregarded. In this connection, the statement of Professor Virchow, as recorded in the transactions of the Anthropological Society of Vienna, is of great weight: "Twenty years ago it was hoped that the idea of Descent in its extreme form would be victorious. There was a great expectation that man's descent from the ape or some other animal would be demonstrated. In vain have the links which would bind man with the apes been sought. Not a single one has been recorded."

The pertinent question remains: What is man? Is he only a bony skeleton covered with flesh? Is the elevation of his intellectual, his moral, and his spiritual stature to be determined by the number of inches in the height and circumference of his cranium? What about the inspiration of the Almighty which giveth him understanding? Can this be estimated by a tape measure? All who have experienced the tremendous reality of the New Birth through the operation of God's Holy Spirit upon the soul, who can set their seal to the Pauline statement, "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature," will realise the force of the argument that there may be a world of difference between two beings who yet are exactly alike in skeleton structure. The mind is the measure of the man, especially the mind which has been illuminated by [9] God the Holy Ghost. The conclusion of the whole matter is that the Biblical representation of man's origin is more capable of being demonstrated scientifically true, than the modern hypothesis of evolution, which has become so large an obsession in the mind of a multitude.

The question which supremely matters, however, does not concern what we may have been in the remote past, but what we are to become in the eternal future. The story is told that Michaelangelo, looking one day upon a block of marble in the quarry, said, "I can see an angel in that marble, and I am the artist who is going to set it free." The Scriptural revelation concerning man is that he is but a little lower than the angels by nature, and that he is destined to become higher than the angels by grace. In the light of that surpassing truth the supreme question in life may be thus stated: Are you willing to let the Christ the Divine Artist, enable you to become the highest and the best that man can attain to? We are the clay; He is the Potter. If we are willing to surrender ourselves to His workmanship, God, Who inbreathed into man's nostrils the breath of life at the beginning, will breathe within us a second time, and recreate in us a new life after the pattern of the Perfect Man. For, as the Master said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born anew he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." What a gracious and glorious possibility! Child of a peer, child of a peasant, or child of a pauper? What matters it in comparison with this: Am I a child of God? Happy are they who can say, out of hearts grateful for the renewing grace of the Divine Spirit, "Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when Christ shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." I John 3:2.

Constitution of the 42nd Congregation in Kilskeery

The visit of Dr. Paisley to Kilskeery for the constituting of our latest congregation brought a capacity crowd to the Free Presbyterian Hall which has housed the extension work of Bethel Free Presbyterian Church since 1973. Rev. Ivan Foster who has been placed in charge of this work led the meeting. [10] After welcoming visitors from Bethel, Clogher Valley and Omagh congregations which included the ministers of these respective churches, Rev. Foster gave a short history of the work in Kilskeery. He said that controversy seemed to be one of the marks of the Apostle Paul's ministry and of New Testament Christianity and that being so, Free Presbyterianism in Kilskeery had at least one mark of genuineness.

From the beginning of the work in 1970, when a parade end open-air meeting had been organised, there had been fierce opposition, in the vanguard of which had been the Church of Ireland. The first major obstacle Rev. Foster said had been the obtaining of planning approval for the present building. Opposition had reached such proportions that the District Council actually convened a meeting on the site in order to inspect it for themselves. Local Church of Ireland people had put in a petition objecting on the grounds that the entrance to the Hall would be a traffic hazard. The police however denied that this would be so.

On the morning of the special on-the-site Council Meeting, the Church of Ireland petitioners tried to give the impression of heavy traffic by getting out as many vehicles as possible on the road past the site. We lost count of how many times the former rector of the Parish Church drove past. Someone said that he had gone down to the shop to buy a pound of sugar and was bringing it home a lump at a time!

After a delay of almost eighteen months, permission was finally given.

But when that Arch-Apostate, Dr. Richard Hanson, the former Bishop of Clogher, who has since fled the country, visited Kilskeery Parish Church to install the present Rector a protest was organised by Orangemen to voice their objections to the Bishop's attack on Protestantism. At the Protest I was bodily attacked twice by the Rector of Colebrooke Parish Church, Rev. Victor Forster. Despite the attacks taking place in the plain view of two policemen no action was taken against the rowdy rector. One can well guess the police reaction if it had been the FOSTER with one R who had struck the Forster with two Rs.

"Despite the continual campaign of slander which some ecumenists in the Kilskeery area seem to delight in, the work has gone on steadily and we are delighted that tonight we have the Moderator here to preach at our constitution service." Rev. Foster concluded.

Dr. Paisley preached upon the text, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith" II Cor. 13:5. The Moderator spoke with great freedom and the many incidents which he recalled from post controversies in which the enemies of the gospel were confounded, greatly heartened the congregation as well as giving them many a hearty laugh. It was a memorable evening and the offering which was for the Manse Fund realised 120. The ladies provided tea and so pleasant was the evening that Dr. Paisley was able to dine outside at a table prepared in the presence of his many friends in Kilskeery. [12]

Who are the Persecuted? By C. H. SPURGEON

In these silken days men seem able to do anything without troubling their consciences in the least. Bigotry has become so unpopular, that multitudes of religious professors have abandoned all care about principle, lest they should be suspected of intolerance. Nobody now can be accused of straining at gnats; but the swallowing of camels, humps and all, is performed both in public and private as a common affair; and he who raises any objection is denounced as strait-laced. People look at you with amazement if you suggest that there is such a thing as fixed truth; and they eye you with supreme contempt if you dare to hint that the opposite of truth must be a lie. You must be some old fogey, or antediluvian, or you would never make such an observation. The sooner you are back in Noah's ark the better.

UNFASHIONABLE BACKBONE

There can be no doubt that, in years gone by, some brethren have drawn the line too tightly, and have provoked men to license by refusing them liberty. We are willing to admit that there may have been too ready a condemnation of brethren who were sound at heart, because they did not exactly correspond in opinion with the dominant section. No doubt true Israelites have been smitten because they could not pronounce "Shibboleth," and bring out the sh distinctly. We do not for a moment defend ungenerous censures of good men; neither would we willingly utter them ourselves. But, after all, the evil of bigotry has been cast out at too great an expense, if firm adherence to principle has been thrown out with it. There was no need that it should be so; for a man can surely be at the same time liberal in his judgment of others and firm in his own convictions: but that the grip of principle has been relaxed in favour of the grasp of confederacy is clear to the most casual observer. Where are now the men who would sooner die than betray a grain of the divine treasure of the gospel? Where are the sturdy believers who earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints? A compositor had to set up a text concerning Daniel, of whom we read in the Scriptures that "an excellent spirit was in him;" but the worthy workman misread his copy, and the proof appeared thus - "an excellent spine was in him" - by no means a mischievous mistake when it described one so fearless in following the Lord his God. Could more of such excellent spines be inserted into certain brethren, it would be well; but backbone would render them unfashionable, and lead them into the wars.

THE INTOLERANCE OF LIBERALITY

Meanwhile, it is worthy of notice that latitudinarian opinions have not increased the amount of brotherly love in the religious world; on the contrary, they have simply changed the course of rancour, and increased its power. We have escaped from the whips of [13] orthodox bigotry to be chastised with the scorpions of heterodox contempt. We have, indeed, leaped from the frying-pan into the fire. Compared with the rule of the Liberal Rationalist, the domination of the Rigid Doctrinalist was gentleness itself. Well may we pray to be saved from the intolerance of liberality, the contemptuous hate which is the outcome of pretended breadth. Modern liberalism has reached the conclusion that the mere existence of evangelical opinions is an accusation of itself, and an infringement of its own prerogatives. All who hold orthodox views are dolts, dunces, persons devoid of culture, and utterly unacquainted with science. What right have these simpletons to form churches or to choose ministers? They ought to contribute to colleges for the education of those who would oppose them, to elect pastors who would abuse them, and to support associations where novel views are ostentatiously paraded. These rights they may have, but none beyond. If they will not exercise these blessed privileges they are bigoted persecutors. This is the best that liberalism has to say of them.

AN EXCUSE FOR ROBBERY

Liberalism is more bitter than the old bigotry, more intolerant than the old sectarianism. It will not allow orthodoxy to call anything its own; it would filch from it every house it has built, every pulpit it has raised. It is trying to do this and if it be hindered in its game, it calls a trust-deed "the dead hand," and whimpers "intolerance." Let it whimper! What would the complainants themselves say if their own private inheritances were taken from them because they came to them by the will of a dead man, and were held by deeds to which only departed men were parties? This cant is nothing but an excuse for robbery.

THE WHINE OF THE HYPOCRITE

The other day we heard of a person who whined that he was persecuted, because he could not remain in a church whose doctrines he altogether denied: the "cultured" creature could not see that he was the persecutor. What right had he to be there? For our part, we were only too happy to find that there remained yet on the earth a bond of religionists who believed something, and could not hold equal fellowship with the truth and its opposite. Of course, the anythingarians echoed the whine of their brother, and soon there followed a general howling that freedom had been violated! Nothing can be more illogical and deceptive than the complaint which is thus raised. It is the old tale of the wolf and the lamb. According to this theory, it is intolerance for men to associate for the maintenance of any doctrines unless they are prepared to admit into their number those who deny those doctrines. This appears to be the case if those teachings happen to be the verities of God; it would be different if they were the opinions of a political party. Clubs of Conservatives are not considered to be persecuting if they exclude Radicals from their membership; but churches of the Lord Jesus Christ are bitterly accused of intolerance if they reject men who deny the fundamentals of the faith.

Continued in next issue

[14]
QUEEN'S HISTORIAN SAYS: Free Presbyterian Church Bound to Increase

Dr. A. T. Q. Stewart, Reader in Modern History in the Queen's University of Belfast, and author of "The Ulster Crisis" has just published a new book called "The Narrow Ground."

This very important volume deals with Aspects of Ulster, 1609-1969. It should be in every Free Presbyterian home for it sets forth the real nature of what is glibly called "The Ulster Problem." I know of no other book which really gets down to the core of the matter. Of course there are a few things in the book with which I would not agree but these are few indeed.

Those who have read Dr. Stewart's "The Ulster Crises," a masterly volume on the fight of Ulster under Lord Carson to maintain its heritage, will not be at all surprised at the ability of the writer to make history live and become as thrilling and exciting as any fantasy novel.

There are some paragraphs in the book which will be of special interest to Free Presbyterians and these we reproduce below.

In each generation Presbyterianism has shown an almost Manichean duty of outlook, Old Light and New Light, fundamentalist and intellectual, extremist and moderate. During the second half of the eighteenth century the balance seemed to be moving slowly in favour of New Light opinions, and to a large extent this was a reflection of general attitudes to religion in the age of the Enlightenment. In the early nineteenth century, however, the balance moved sharply in the other direction. Evangelical religion triumphed, and after an epic nine-year controversy over subscription, the New Light and Unitarian ministers withdrew from the Synod in 1830.

In this great battle the respective parties had been led by two ministers of outstanding ability and strong personality, giants of religious disputation. At the head of the New Lighters was the Rev. Henry Montgomery, while the orthodox and conservative Presbyterians were led by Dr. Henry Cooke. When Montgomery and the Remonstrants (as they were called) withdrew from the Synod, the way was open for a union between it and the Seceders. This occurred in 1840, since when the governing body has been known as the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

The Church is likely to produce Cookes and Montgomerys in every age. On the whole there are more Cookes, for evangelical Presbyterianism will always have a broad popular support, while New Light views must of necessity be confined to a minority. The [15] alternation between Old Light and New Light theology readily coincided with an even older pulse in the Presbyterian mind, that of revival and religious torpor. And New Light principles have generally been correlated with liberal politics, Old Light was conservative. It was Cooke indeed, who proclaimed the banns of marriage between the Presbyterians and the traditionally conservative Anglicans in 1834, a move of great significance for the future of Irish politics. (This correlation was not absolute since the orthodox were often critical of government - a few of the United Irishmen, for example, were Old Light ministers). There is thus a duality of political outlook among the Presbyterians, with the tide tending to run in favour of the Old Light men, who may be, as in the recent Northern Ireland crisis, the breakaway Presbyterians.

This dual outlook is often unsuspected by the outside observer, who may even mistake one group for the other. Thus many people outside Ulster since 1969 assumed that the Rev. Ian. Paisley, and not the Moderator of the General Assembly, is the head of the Presbyterian Church. Dr. Paisley is, of course, the founder and leader of a rapidly growing schismatic body, the Free Presbyterian Church. By immutable laws, this Church was bound to increase its strength enormously as Ulster Protestants become more and more threatened, either by Catholic nationalism or by the British Government. This is the factor which makes it difficult to force the Ulsterman to adopt certain desirable political attitudes, in particular to see the virtue of compromise. Reason and instinct may pull in opposite directions, and instinct, which he will call conscience, will generally win.

Reid's account of the subscription controversies is itself an example of the way in which the Ulster mind works. Though he gives an accurate summary of the views of both sides, he makes no effort to be impartial. He indicates that the non-subscribers, though sincere, were misguided, and that their theological errors were to lead them into the politics of rebellion, and to involve both them and Ireland in great and needless suffering. To be objective on such a matter as this would not be, in Reid's view, a scholarly virtue but a sin against conscience. In his treatment of the Synod's attitude in 1720, he displays that desire for moral certainty which is so characteristic of the Ulster outlook on both politics and religion. He says, in effect, that the fathers of the Synod should have adopted almost any course rather than temporize or try to comprehend the suspected brethren. 'Better for would it have been for the interests of truth, the peace of the Church, and her future prosperity had either of the other two expedients been preferred (ie exclusion or the enjoining of subscription on new entrants). It ought to be remembered, however, that the brethren whose counsels were followed by the synod had not had the experience which we know have of the fruitless results of all such temporizing experience which we now have of the unity, where important doctrinal differences exist.'

These words have a familiar ring today. The some criticism is levelled by Ulstermen, Protestant and Catholic, against the kind of temporizing policies pursued by British governments in dealing with Northern lreland's problems. Whereas the English believe that compromise is the answer to all disputes, Ulstermen believe the opposite. The resulting mesentente leads Ulstermen and Englishmen to despair of one another.

Dr. Stewart's book "The Narrow Ground. Aspects of Ulster 1609-1969" is published by Faber & Faber, price 5-95 net. We heartily recommend it - The Editor.

THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE VERSUS THE MYSTERY OF GOD INCARNATE (Continued)

The book itself stands as a monument to the truth of the Prophetic Word that in the lost days men shall deny, "the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ" Jude v. 4.

The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in this dark age of apostasy unashamedly and unapologetically declares its unshaken belief in the teaching of Holy Scripture and declares to these "doctrine of devils" I Tim. 4:1, promoters:-

"GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH" I Tim. 3:16.

We dogmatically affirm that our subordinate standard sets forth:

The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature (k), with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin (l) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance (m). So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition or confusion (n). Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. (o)

(k) John 1:1 & 14, 1 John 5:20, Phil. 2: 16, Gal. 4:4.

(l) Heb. 2:14, 16, 17. Heb. 4:15.

(m) Luke 1 :27 & 31, Gal. 4:4.

(n) Col. 2:9, Rom. 9:5, 1 Pet. 3:18, 1 Tim. 3:16.

(o) Rom. 1:3 & 4, 1 Tim. 2:5.

We would ask our readers to secure a copy of our book "Christian Foundations" with its chapter on "Seven Reasons Why I believe in the Full, Deity of Christ."