'A HAPPY AND HISTORIC DAY' as New Sunday School Complex Opens at Moneyslane

Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley, M.P., made the trip to Moneyslane Free Presbyterian Church to open officially the magnificent new Sunday School Complex recently erected there at a cost of approximately 45,000. The building of the new premises commenced in January of this year, and is now completed.

The service commenced with the singing of Psalm 100, "All people that on earth do dwell," Mr. Malcolm McLean presiding at the piano and Miss Alison Herron at the organ. Rev. John Douglas former minister of the Church led in prayer.

Introducing a well-known personality to the congregation, the Rev. Patrick asked Mr. Sam Houston to sing one of Dr. Paisley's favourite hymns: "Peace like a river.'


The Rev. Michael Patrick, minister of Moneyslane Free Presbyterian Church in his opening remarks welcomed each one in the large congregation, especially those from other congregations, and the visiting ministers, Rev. A. Chambers (Mullaglass); Rev. L McVeigh (Coleraine); Rev. T. Baxter (Newtownards); Rev. S. Barnes (Hillsborough) and Rev. F. Greenfield (Banbridge). He welcomed especially the Rev. John Douglas through whose labours the work commenced and was established, and Dr. Paisley, the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.

Accompanying Dr. Paisley at the opening was Dr. Bob Jones, of the Bob Jones University in South Carolina, U.S.A. A very special and warm welcome was extended to Dr. Jones by the Rev. Patrick.

He had, he told the congregation, spent some time in the Bob Jones [2] University this year, and the Southern hospitality shown to him there had made him feel very much at home. He hoped that Dr. Jones was made to feel the same way in Moneyslane.


Mr. Patrick said that this was a happy and historic day for Moneyslane Free Presbyterian Church. He pointed out that after taking up his new ministry in Moneyslane two things became increasingly evident, firstly, the need for Sunday School facilities. The Sunday School commenced with nine pupils on the first Sunday in October, 1966, thirteen years ago, and had now grown to over 100. Secondly he said it was impossible to accommodate the growing congregation in the existing pews of the Church, for example, on Sunday mornings up to 50 chairs had been placed around the pulpit and up the aisle.

The extension, of 2112 sq. ft, classrooms, a minor hall which opens out into the existing building for the overflow congregation, a session room, and two sets of cloakroom facilities. In addition a dual heating system has been installed in the minor hall in order that the building can be heated economically at various times.

"The work," Rev. Patrick continued, "had started in January, and in spite of all the delays due to conditions prevalent at that time, the building had gone ahead and was finished on time."

Mr. Patrick said he was thankful to the Lord for His guidance and for the help of the architect, Mr. Dickson McCrum, Banbridge who had drawn up the plans which utilised practically every square inch of the space available, meeting the two-fold need. Mr. Patrick said that they were happy to have been able to award the contract to a member of the Church Committee, Mr. John Dickson, and that credit was due to him for the speedy completion of the work. He went on [3] to say "that the work was not only finished, but well finished, and this was evident for all to see." "The thanks of the congregation went out to Mr. Dickson," he added.

While most of the work was carried out by the contractor, some voluntary labour was employed in the installation of the plumbing, and the painting of the walls of the existing building and the extension. Mr. Patrick thanked all who had helped with this work and also those who had assisted the caretaker in cleaning the building. The minister at this point paid special tribute to the caretaker for all her work. He also thanked the ladies for their work in catering for the large congregation. Mr. Malcolm McLean was also thanked for coming along to play the piano.


Rev. Patrick said that he felt today was the most suitable time to recognise the work of two members of session. Firstly, the Sunday School superintendent, Mr. Robert McIlroy, whose prayerful interest and concern for all the children of the Sunday School was evident. Secondly, Mr. Raymond Wright, leader of the Young People's Fellowship, "whose constant zeal," Mr. Patrick said, "was an inspiration to all." Dr. Paisley was called upon to present in turn to both a specially bound and inscribed three volume set of C. H. Spurgeon's famous "Treasury of David," a commentary on the Book of Psalms.

An offering, in aid of the Building Fund was taken up, and realised the fine sum of 6451.50.


Dr. Bob Jones was introduced to the congregation, and expressed his joy at coming to Ulster to see how God had blessed His people. Ulster folk, he remarked, were of an unusual combination. Amidst all the trouble and hatred and violence, they could still laugh and love the Lord. This, he thought, was one of the biggest gifts that God had given to them.

A passage of scripture from Isaiah 54:11-13, was read by Dr. Jones who gave a very enlightening exposition of the spiritual significance of the particular Bible stones mentioned in this portion. Following this Dr. Paisley took the pulpit and addressed the congregation.

"It seems to me," he smiled, "that I am given the very difficult task of having to preach after Dr. Jones, when I would much rather preach before him."

Basing his sermon on youth, Dr. Paisley began, "I spend a great deal of my time thinking about the young people who are going to be tomorrow's men and women. The day to go places for God is the day of youth. If you do not make your mark for God now, you will not make it when you are older. We are all growing older."


Dr. Paisley pointed out that three things were to be taken into consideration, these being: the duty of contemplation, the day of application and the dangers of procrastination.

"It is the duty of us all, and especially, the duty of our youth, to learn the Bible and spread the Word to those who do not believe."

He remarked that only a matter of weeks ago he had been in Brussels when a man came over and sat beside him. They discussed many topics among them the Bible.

"My companion asked me if I really believed in everything the Bible said and did 1 think there was any truth in the Word of God. I told him that if he believed Christ was God, he would have no difficulty with the miracles!

"Here in these rooms," concluded Dr. Paisley, "the children are going to learn the Bible. May God give us a vision of Christ's application for our young."

Following the address, a sumptuous tea prepared by the ladies of the congregation, was enjoyed by all. [4]

A Great Stalwart Protestant Contender Remembered - T. C. HAMMOND

In those days when all over Ireland great preachers of the world were in abundance and great contenders for the faith were much in evidence, one of the greatest of them all was T. C. Hammond of the Irish Church Missions, Dublin.

His Manual of Theology "The Hundred Texts" is a classic in the field of controversy with Rome. We print below a recent tribute to him which appeared in the Sydney Morning Post.

A memorial plaque to the late Archdeacon T. C. Hammond will be unveiled at St. Philip's Church, York Street on Sunday, November 12.

The plaque is a belated tribute to one of Australia's more colourful Anglican clerics - a man who was loved, hated, but never ignored.

TC, as he was generally known, was born in Cork in 1877. He became a Church of Ireland rector in Dublin, and was made superintendent of the Irish Church Missions, chiefly known for its proselytism among Roman Catholics.

He came to Sydney on a lecture tour in 1926, liked what he saw, and returned in 1936 to become principal of Moore Theological College.

At 60 - when many of his colleagues would have contemplated retirement - he carved out a new career in a fresh country. He held the Moore College Role until 1953, and was rector of St. Phillip's until his death in November, 1961.

He rose to become grand master of the NSW Loyal Orange Lodge.

TC lived in a period of bitter religious controversy, and was himself a major protagonist. Rome was his arch-enemy, followed by high church Anglicans and adherents of theological "liberalism".

In November, 1958, the Sydney Diocesan Synod met in special session to elect a new Archbishop of Sydney to succeed the late Archbishop Mowil. Among the names proposed was a certain Dr. Frederick Donald Coggan, then Bishop of Bradford.

TC rose from his seat, seized the microphone with both hands, and declared: "I have been reliably informed that the Bishop of Bradford no longer believes in the verbal inspiration of the Bible".

The reaction of the proposers - who included Dr. Felix Arnott, now Archbishop of Brisbane - is not recorded. The man the synod rejected is now Archbishop of Canterbury.

TC was best known to the public for his weekly Protestant Hour broadcasts on Radio 2CH. They were in reply to the Question Box broadcasts (on 2SM) by Dr. Leslie Rumble - a Catholic priest of similar mould.

So popular was the verbal jousting between the two men that program times were adjusted so that listeners could hear them both.

A minor episode in which TC was involved concerned allegations that a nun who had run away and sought refuge with a local family, had been forcibly returned, by police, to her convent.

A more important matter concerned [5] charges, akin to heresy, against the Right Rev. Arnold Lomas Wylde, Bishop of Bathurst from 1927 to 1942.

In Advent, 1942, the bishop issued a small book, The Holy Eucharist, which contained references to the sign of the cross, the ringing of a sanctus bell the other "Romish" practices. The consecration of communion bread and wine was described in language which TC and his friends considered identical to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Conduct of the case rested on whether or not public services should be in accordance with the strict form and order of the Book of Common Prayer. The court ruled that this was the case, and that the bishop's "Red Book", as it was called, constituted a departure.

The judge added that he thought the case should never have been brought before the civil process - thus ensuring a hollow victory for the relaters.

The "victory" proved embarrassing in other ways. It was argued that the chapter house of St. Andrew's Cathedral had similarly departed from Prayer Book rites in its services for national occasions, such as Anzac Day, special services and days of prayer for scouts, guides, nurses, and such like.

On the positive side, TC was a gifted communicator, popular with his students, a fine judge of character, and talented author. Royalties are still being paid to his sons in respect of his book, In Understanding be Men, based on St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians.

TC was the younger brother of the late Canon R. B. S. Hammond, temperance crusader, orator, rector for 25 years of St. Barnabas' Church, Broadway, and founder of the Hammondville Homes. Few brothers have made such an indelible mark on Sydney church life.

It is a pity that no books have been written about TC.

An excellent book, He That Doeth, was written about "RBS" by the Rev. Bernard Judd. References to TC in books and magazine articles are inevitably partisan and it is hard to make an objective assessment.

When TC died, at 85, the then Bishop-Coadjutor Marcus Loane, who conducted the funeral, described him as a "preacher, author, scholar and controversialist - a great man whose like we may not see again".

The Church of Scotland Insults the Memory of Thomas Chalmers

Next year is the 200th anniversary of Thomas Chalmers, the founding father of the Free Church of Scotland. Chalmers was undoubtedly the Church of Scotland's greatest son. He was a noble preacher, a brilliant scholar but most of all a zealous soul winner and church planter. He saw in his ministry, while still in the Church of Scotland, over two hundred new church buildings erected to serve as many new congregations. The following article is from "The Orange Torch" July/August 1979. It makes very sad reading.

It indicates the strange anomaly that exists in Christianity today and the great departure from the biblical exhortation of the Apostle [6] Paul to the Church. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. 1: 10). So far from unanimity is the Church of Scotland that here we have a commission of the Kirk acting against a majority decision of the Kirk! But surely it is incredible that over one third of the Assembly voted in favour of a Roman Catholic Professor occupying the Chair of Theology to train Presbyterian ministers!


On Monday 28th May, the Court of Edinburgh University appointed a Roman Catholic theologian to the top teaching position in New College - the University's Divinity Faculty, which trains students entering the ministry of the Church of Scotland. The Thomas Chalmers Chair of Theology is now to be occupied by Professor James Mackey, an Irish Roman Catholic priest, who is currently teaching at a Jesuit college in San Francisco.

In reaching their decision, the University Court (and more specifically the nomination committee) have chosen to completely disregard the furore in the previous week's General Assembly of the Kirk, when the ministers and elders voted, by a whopping majority, to voice their strong disapproval of the appointment of a Roman Catholic to this crucial teaching post.


Suspicions that the nomination committee was about to recommend Professor Mackey to the University Court began, innocently enough, through an early debate calling on the Assembly to "note with concern" the number of professors and lecturers responsible for training future ministers who had themselves no practical experience of parish work. Academic qualities were all very well, it was argued, but lecturers ought also to be able to train students in the practical problems that will face them once they move into the parish ministry.

Yet the divinity colleges were increasingly appointing professors and lecturers who were completely unable to provide practical advice, argued the Rev. D. W. Torrance, proposer of the motion: "In my student days", he told Assembly, "there was only one such teacher, but now I understand that in the two colleges there are 29".

This debate was followed hard by one which specifically referred to the Thomas Chalmers Chair. Mr. Herbert Kerrigan, an elder, asked Assembly to instruct its own representatives on the nomination committee, soon to recommend a new occupant for the Thomas Chalmers Chair, to "seek to attain" a Reformed theologian.

In swift moves, which were later to be described as "a conspiracy of silence", the Kirk's "establishment" (academics and former moderators) manoeuvred to kill the motion and calm the mounting suspicions. For the time being, the establishment succeeded in forcing a lid on the issue.


By this time, the Press had taken up the story. Professor Mackey was contacted in far off San Francisco and confirmed that he was indeed being considered for the Thomas Chalmers Chair. In Assembly, the early suspicion now kindled into a furious row, and a three hour emergency debate was forced, through the dogged determination of 33 faithful ministers and elders.

Once again the establishment attempted to sit on the issue, claiming that they couldn't discuss the appointment "in the interests of preserving confidentiality" and that it would be "better to wait" until the University made its official announcement the following [7] Monday (by which time, of course, the General Assembly would be ended).

But Assembly was in no mood for evasive tactics and, by 412 votes to 254, voted its disapproval over the suitability of a Roman Catholic to fill this key position in New College.


Despite this decision by the highest court of the Kirk, the nomination committee recommended the appointment of Professor Mackey, and the University Court confirmed it, petulantly blustering that the University must be seen to "preserve its integrity", and "resist pressure from whatever quarter " in the selection of its staff.

"Father" Anthony Ross, recently installed Rector of Edinburgh University, who chaired the meeting of the Court, confirmed that they had discussed the Assembly's feelings on the matter. But Professor John McIntyre, acting Principal of New College, indicated that the General Assembly was of no relevance on this issue: "We would not consider his denominational affiliation an impediment to his appointment".

And as it thumbed its nose at the Kirk, the University Court declared that the appointment of a Roman Catholic to this top job wouldn't detract from New College continuing to train ministers for the Church of Scotland in accordance with the Kirk's faith and doctrine!

What, then, are we to make of this bizarre situation?

The first thing that ought to be understood is that the University is entirely justified in defending its right to appoint its own staff New College is an integral part of the University, teaching theology to a broad spectrum of students. Of the 230 students currently studying there, only between 50 and 60 are candidates from the Church of Scotland. New College is not (despite the popular belief of many) owned and operated by the Kirk.

Nevertheless, New College has always maintained, and evidently wishes to continue, a commitment to train Church of Scotland ministers "in accordance with the Kirk's faith and doctrine" - a commitment which is hardly credible as a result of this recent appointment.

Despite the Kirk's own students being a minority within New College, the important nominations committee, which recommended the appointment of Professor Mackey, is composed of 6 Kirk nominees, and 6 University nominees. It could be argued that the Kirk is hardly entitled to such strong influence on the nominations committee. Yet, despite the Kirk wielding a 50% say in any nomination, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE KIRK'S OWN NOMINEES CHOSE TO DISREGARD THE DEMOCRATIC DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY! Only through their agreement was a Roman Catholic theologian appointed to the Thomas Chalmers Chair!

In short, the University is blameless.

The guilty ones are the 6 Kirk nominees on the nominations committee, who completely disregarded the wishes of the General Assembly, and the Kirk establishment who battled to suppress the whole issue even being discussed by the Assembly. Do we hear any resignations?


Professor James Mackey was born in southern Ireland in 1934. Educated at the Christian Brothers' School and St. Joseph's College, Roscrea, he went on to the National University of Ireland, then Maynooth Roman Catholic Seminary to train for the priesthood. He studied for his Ph.D. at Queen's University, Belfast, furthering his theological studies in Universities at Oxford, London, Strasbourg, Heidelberg and Vienna. He has been Professor of Systematic and [8] Philosophical theology at the Jesuit college, San Francisco, since 1969.

Professor Mackey is one of those oddities of the Roman priesthood who has been given permission by the Pope to marry. But the fact that he enjoys a happy married life, and has two children, does not detract from his official status as a Roman priest: "Once a priest always a priest," he declared to the press.

Opinions vary over his orthodoxy. Some claim that he is a conservative theologian, which led some press commentators to conclude that Presbyterian conservatives therefore had nothing to fear. (Presbyterian conservatism, grounded in the sufficiency and inspiration of the Scriptures, is the very opposite of Roman Catholic conservatism)! Others point to his book Jesus, the Man and the Myth, in which he declares that "the New Testament is myth to its very core". Even Roman Catholic conservative theologians wouldn't argue that one!

So much for the man.

The Chair he is to occupy is named after one of Scotland's giants of the Reformed Faith. The Rev. Thomas Chalmers was the tireless inspiration and driving force behind the famous Disruption of 1843, when the then Church of Scotland split in two over the rights of individual congregations to choose their own ministers. He became Moderator of the first General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland which, within a decade had erected new churches and manses the length and breadth of Scotland.

This Free Church BUILI NEW COLLEGE, which was officially opened and dedicated by the same Thomas Chalmers.

The present-day Church of Scotland inherits Thomas Chalmers fight for congregational rights, which it subsequently adopted, following which the United Free Church rejoined the then Church of Scotland, to form the Kirk as we know it today.

About 10 years ago, the Kirk made over its colleges to the Universities, thus relieving itself of a considerable financial burden, since which time the colleges have become more "ecumenical" and, we would certainly argue, to the great detriment of the Kirk.

The key teaching post is thus named after a powerful personality of Scotland's Presbyterian heritage and his memory has now been sullied with the appointment of a Roman Catholic theologian. Incidentally, the Church of Scotland contributes 900 per year to this Chair.

Kirk members will derive no great satisfaction from that.

Billy Graham and Rome

On Sunday August 5, 1979, the ABC programme "Encounter" featured a discussion on modern evangelism between Dr. Billy Graham in Sydney, Dr. D'Arcy Wood, a Uniting Church Minister in Adelaide, and Father John Scullion, SJ, a Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest from Melbourne. Dr. Wood and Father Scullion were both members of a recent ecumenical committee which prepared a statement on "Common Witness and Evaneglization". This statement which was issued during the 1979 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, was used as the basis for the discussion. In this programme Dr. Graham re-affirmed his policy of co-operation with the Roman Catholic Church and evidenced an attitude of full acceptance of the Roman Church as a viable part of the body of Christ. [9]


Dr. Graham was asked to express his views on the subject of ecumenical evangelism with Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and other churches joining together in a common effort. Dr. Graham replied:

"It varies, I think, from country to country and from place to place and it varies according to the attitudes of the various churches. For example, in Poland, where we toured in October holding evangelistic meetings throughout Poland, I preached mostly in Roman Catholic Cathedrals and gave our invitation to receive Christ just as I do everywhere. For example, on October 12th, Thursday night, I preached in Cracow at St. Ann's. It was packed with students and hundreds outside and I was to be presented that evening by Cardinal Wojtyla, but he was at the Conclave in Rome, and on the following Monday he was elected Pope. And I suppose that two-thirds of all of our meetings in Poland were in Roman Catholic Churches where Roman Catholic leaders participated but it was largely a Protestant service. As a matter of fact the man that conducted the service in each place was the head of the Baptist Union. I had been invited first by the Baptists, and then secondly by the Ecumenical Council and then supported by the Episcopate, and in the discussion in the Episcopate Cardinal Wojtyla had spoken in favour of this support that they were to give our trip in Poland".

Thus Dr. Graham condones the papacy and the priestcraft of the Roman Catholic Church and co-operates with her leaders (as brothers in Christ). Let it be noted that Cardinal Karol Wojtyla of Cracow was installed as Pope John-Paul II with the titles:

His Holiness the Pope Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Sovereign of the State of the City of the Vatican.

Protestant Reveille Let us also remind Dr. Graham's followers that the Roman Catholic Church still upholds all of her unbiblical and blasphemous doctrines concerning the papacy, Mariolatry, the Confessional, purgatory, indulgences and so on.

In "The Catholic religion, With Peter and Under Peter" by B. D. Steward, Bishop of Sandhurst, Voctiroa, and which had the approval of Pope Paul VI, it is stated categorically:

"The Deposit of Faith does not change. the Second Vatican Council certainly did not change it.

John XXIII at the opening of the Vatican council in 1962 solemnly affirmed that the Church had received intact the Deposit of Faith which had been handed down to it from foregoing generations, and, he added, 'what matters most to the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Faith be safeguarded and set forth in the most efficacious way possible'. At the close of the same Council in 1965, Pope Paul VI likewise affirmed that the Council had maintained, pure and whole, the Faith it had received and was now handing on to future generations.

The Faith of our fathers is to become the Faith of our children".

("The Catholic Religion, With Peter & Under Peter", p.3)

Vatican Council II only confirmed and reasserted the false doctrines of Romanism. Regarding the Virgin Mary, the Second Vatican Council declared:

"Placed by the grace of God, as the Mother of God, next to her divine Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary played her part in the mysteries of Christ. Rightly is she honoured by special worship. Indeed from the earliest times the Blessed Virgin has been honoured under the title of Mother of God. In all dangers and [10] necessities the Faithful have fled prayerfully to her protection". ("The Catholic Religion, With Peter & Under Peter", p.46)


Because of the Roman Catholic teaching that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the adoration of the Host, the Protestant Reformation declared the Mass to be unbiblical, blasphemous and idolatrous. The Westminster Confession of Faith declares ". . . that the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice . . ." Concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation it declares:

"That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries".

(Chapter 29, Section 6)

J. C. Ryle in "Five English Reformers" reminds us that the special reason that the Reformers in England were burnt at the stake by the church of Rome was their refusal to adhere to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Listen to their testimony as outlined by Ryle:

(1) Hear what Rogers said:

"I was asked whether I believed in the sacrament to be the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary, and hanged on the cross, really and substantially? I answered, 'I think it to be false. I cannot understand really and ,substantially to signify otherwise than corporally. But corporally Christ is only in heaven, and so Christ cannot be corporally in your sacrament'." - Foxe in loco, vol. iii. p. 101, edition, 1684.

And therefore he was condemned and burned.

(2) Hear what Bishop Hooper said:

"Tunstall asked him to say, 'whether he believed the corporal presence in the sacrament', and Master Hooper said plainly 'that there was none such, neither did he believe any such thing'. Whereupon they bade the notaries write that he was married and would not go from his wife, and that he believed not the corporal presence in the sacrament; wherefore he was worthy to be deprived of his bishopric". - Foxe in loco, vol. iii. p. 123.

And so he was condemned and burned.

(3) Hear what Rowland Taylor said:

"The second cause why I was condemned as a heretic was that I denied transubstantiation, and concomitation, two juggling words whereby the Papists believe that Christ's natural body is made of bread, and the Godhead by and by to be joined thereto, so that immediately after the words of consecration, there is no more bread and wine in the sacrament, but the substance only of the body and blood of Christ".

'Because I denied the aforesaid Papistical doctrine (yea, rather plain, wicked idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy) I am judged a heretic". - Foxe in loco, vol. iii. p. 141.

And therefore he was condemned and burned.

(4) Hear what was done with Bishop Ferrar.

He was summoned to "grant the natural presence of Christ in the sacrament under the form of bread and wine", and because he refused to subscribe this article as well as others, he was condemned. And in the sentence of condemnation it is finally charged against him that he maintained that "the sacrament of the altar ought not to be [11] ministered on an altar, or to be elevated, or to be adored in any way". - Foxe in loco, vol. iii. p. 178.

And so he was burned.

(5) Hear what holy John Bradford wrote to the men of Lancashire and Cheshire when he was in prison:

"The chief thing which I am condemned for as an heretic is because I deny in the sacrament of the altar (which is not Christ's Supper, but a plain perversion as the Papists now use it) to be a real, natural, and corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms and accidents of bread and wine: that is, because I deny transubstantiation, which is the darling of the devil, and daughter and heir to Antichrist's religion". - Foxe in loco, vol. iii. p. 260.

And so he was condemned and burned.

(6) Hear what were the words of the sentence of condemnation against Bishop Ridley:

"The said Nicholas Ridley affirms, maintains, and stubbornly defends certain opinions, assertions, and heresies, contrary to the Word of God and the received faith of the Church, as in denying the true and natural body and blood of Christ to be in the sacrament of the altar, and secondarily, in affirming the substance of bread and wine to remain after the words of consecration". Foxe in loco, vol. iii. p. 426.

And so he was condemned and burned.

("Five English Reformers", pp.27-29)


No! Pope Paul VI in "The Credo of the People of God" declared that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary and re-affirmed the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Vatican II declared that the Mass, before all else is a sacrifice and upheld transubstantiation. "The Catholic Religion, With Peter and Under Peter" pp.35-39).

Pope Paul VI declared concerning this:

"Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine (36), as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body (37).

The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in Heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the Sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated.

And this existence remains present, after the Sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches.

And it is our very sweet duty to honour and adore in the Blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word Whom they cannot see, and Who, without leaving Heaven, is made present before us". ("The Catholic Religion, With Peter & Under Peter, P.15)

The Reformers saw that this teaching was an utter perversion of Christ's words of institution of the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:26-28), and that it contradicted the biblical teaching that Christ was bodily present in heaven. It contradicted the clear teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews that Christ did not need to offer a daily sacrifice (Heb. 9:25-26). They saw that it was blasphemous to teach that the host "became" Christ by the words of the priest, and that it was idolatrous to adore and worship the "Blessed Host". [12]


Now, where does Dr. Billy graham stand on this issue of this unbiblical, Christ dishonouring doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?

John Scullion, the Jesuit priest, asked Dr. Graham his views on the relationship between Word and Sacrament and preaching. Dr. Graham replied:

"Well, this would be a very difficult task for me in a very short time because I think that should go to perhaps a Professor of theology at one of the Theological Colleges. I have my own views, but my own background would lead me to have some differences, of course, with the more sacramental churches. But I have made my peace along that line many years ago preaching in Roman Catholic countries and in Lutheran dominated countries and Anglican countries and so forth and some of my first work very fortunately, took place just at the end of the war, in England in the Anglican Churches and I got to know something of the theology of the Anglican Church, both High-Church and the so-called Low-Church, or the medium, middle, church and so forth. And I began to realize that I had to bridge that gap and I made a study of that and that is in my article that was written in "The Ecumenical Review". How does a person who is a pastor or who is a priest; how does he overcome that particular problem with me and the type of evangelism that I am proclaiming"?

Thus Dr. Billy Graham has made his peace with the idolatrous doctrines of the Church of Rome. He has repudiated the stand of the English Reformers and betrayed those who were "slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held". (Rev. 6:9) Dr. Graham has made his peace with doctrines that our forefathers resisted with their lives. He has made his peace with the darkness of popish ignorance and superstition! He has made his peace with the harlot which is "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus"! (Rev. 17:6).

Is this too strong? No! a thousand times no! If the Church of Rome is not apostate, if she is not guilty of burning the Martyrs and murdering thousands of the saints of God then words have lost their meaning and facts are no longer facts!

The Scripture condemns co-operation with apostasy and warns us that we partake of the guilt and pollution of such if we fellowship with her. The Apostle John testifies, "And I heard another voice from heaven saying, come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities". (Rev. 18:4-5).

Some of Dr. Graham's supporters say that we should be rejoicing that the Gospel is being preached in Roman Catholic Churches by Dr. Graham, that it is a wonderful Opportunity to reach people who are under me darkness of Romanism. There may be some merit in this if Dr. Graham was warning Roman Catholics against the false doctrines of Romanism and for their soul's sake exhorting them to separation. But no, Dr. Graham freely co-operates with Roman Catholic leaders and encourages Roman Catholics to continue in an antichristian system. This cannot be excused or justified.

Our Lord's words recorded in Matthew 7 should awaken every evangelical who is dabbling in apostasy and pragmatism whose policy is: it doesn't matter what we do or with whom we co-operate, just so long as souls are being reached. Note the emphasis:

"Not EVERY ONE that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, BUT HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. MANY will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in [13] thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name DONE MANY WONDERFUL WORKS? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY". - Matthew 7:21-23.

The Protestant Review, August 1979 The official organ of the Presbyterian Reformed Church of Australia.


The first move has been made to reconcile Britain politically with Rome. The following statements in Roman Catholic newspapers are of momentous significance.

A handful of brutal dictatorships, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and the Holy See have one thing in common: they are the only countries in the world from which Her Majesty's Government withholds diplomatic recognition, in defiance of the ancient principle which accords recognition to the Government in control of its own territory.

The justification for the inclusion of the Holy See in this sad collection may now be re-examined in the light of shifting public attitudes, recent ecclesiastical developments and, most importantly, the arrival of a Conservative Government at Westminster.

These have undoubtedly emphasised the advantages and increased the possibility of change.

The present position is anomalous in the extreme. Britain has been officially represented at the Holy See since 1914 by a Minister Plenipotentiary, who now leads the only Legation she has left in the world.

Every other country with whom the Holy See has diplomatic relations is represented by an Ambassador with the exception of Monaco and San Marino. But the Holy See is not diplomatically represented in Britain at all: the Pope has been represented in London since 1938 by an Apostolic Delegate, who provides a link with the local hierarchy but has no diplomatic status.

Britain is thus the only country in the world to flout the principle of reciprocity by refusing to accredit another power's envoys while accrediting her own diplomats to that very power.

A strong objection to recognition in the past was the official representative of the Holy See always had to be a Nuncio, automatically taking precedence as Dean of the Diplomatic Corps.

The Pope therefore created a new rank of Pro-Nuncio without claim to precedence in 1965, with the result that the Holy See now [14] has relations with 88 countries, most of which are not Christian, let alone Catholic. Only 31 of these have a Nuncio.

It is here that Britain stands to gain most. According to Anthony Rhodes, the Anglican historian who specialises in Vatican affairs, the Holy See is "better informed on world affairs than most lay states."

This is mainly on account of the ,information obtained through its uniquely close access to the true state and variation of public opinion in all corners of the globe, which is reported back to the Holy See by Catholic priests and missionaries living and working amongst people of all classes.

It is doubtful whether even the CIA or the KGB, let alone an official diplomatic network, could ever be as well informed in this respect. Since Britain shares with the Holy See a profound objective in the promotion of liberal democracies and natural rights such as religious freedom which Communist and other forms of totalitarian states almost invariably attempt to suppress, closer diplomatic ties would considerably enhance their common interest.

The attitudes of other Christian churches to recognition of the Holy See are generally encouraging, which is a reflection of improved relations and the ecumenical climate. Correspondence on the subject in The Times at the end of 1977 included support from a Methodist minister and the Bishop of Southwark.

There was opposition on ecclesiastical grounds from only one source, the Warden of Latimer House, his reason being that Pope Pius VI excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I and claimed to depose her subjects from their allegiance in the bull Regnans in Excelsis (1570).

The argument seems somewhat frivolous. As the editor of Law and Justice pointed out in reply, it is of no more contemporary significance than the bull Unam Sanctam (1305), in which Pope Boniface VIII declared that temporal rulers held their power "at the nod and sufferance of the priest".

The policy of the Church of England is that, while there are no official objections to recognition, it would require consultation with other denominations and a formal approach from the Foreign Office before any sort of public pronouncement could be issued.

So no progress can be made for as long as the Foreign Office continues to reply, as it has done for many years, with the bland assurance that the question is "under review".

So the decision is ultimately a political one.

In The Times correspondence, Lord Houghton of Sowerby revealed that there had been strong opposition, including his own, when the Labour Cabinet had considered the matter in 1965.

However, he declined to specify on what grounds the opposition was based, apart from "the need to avoid giving any encouragement to . . . the organised conscience of the Catholic Church or its front organisations. "

This sort of argument - if it can be called an argument - is unlikely to appeal to the majority of MPs, especially Conservative MPs, who are far more responsive to Catholic notions of morality than Lord Houghton.

Although the Speaker of the House of Commons, George Thomas - himself a firm Methodist - pleaded in vain for recognition with the last Labour Government, the new Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, is privately in sympathy with the case in favour. Rumours of impending action are widespread.

Nonetheless, in the best diplomatic tradition, Lord Carrington takes a sternly realistic view of the balance of advantage of each particular decision, and the possible reactions in Northern Ireland may weight the heaviest. [15]

One hopes that these reactions will be based on fact rather than the fiction which has bedevilled Northern Irish affairs for so long. It is not often remembered, for example, that Pope Benedict XV's instructions to the Irish Clergy contributed significantly to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1920.

There was unfortunately little publicity when Pope Paul expressed his approval of British policy on Northern Ireland to the Prime Minister in 1977.

But Protestant extremists are well used to extracting maximum campaigning propaganda at even the mildest provocation and, since renewed controversy has recently broken out in the Province, their response could well be crucial.

Few people would dispute that there is no reason in principle why the Holy See should not now be recognised. The advantages of recognition are likewise clear. It now rests with the Conservative Government to initiate the appropriate consultations.

If, with the assistance of the established Church and the free Churches, it can reassure people in Northern Ireland that their interests are in no sense in jeopardy, it may yet earn the gratitude of the vast majority of Christians throughout these Islands.

St. James looks on St. Peter's

Speculations that the Holy See is soon to have an ambassador to the Court of St. James's have been scotched by the Foreign Office.

The religious correspondent of The Times wrote on Tuesday that Archbishop Heim, the Apostolic Delegate, was being given "diplomatic immunity, as the first step to establishing full diplomatic relations. But a Foreign Office Spokesman said: "He's wrong. It could be the first step, but it need not be."

Archbishop Heim and his assistant have been made diplomatic agents and given personal "diplomatic immunity". From now on their persons, residences, offices and communications will in inviolable.

Such immunity has been granted to former kings and leaders of foreign associations in Britain. Britain has a minister representing it in Rome. Before a Papal ambassador was introduced, the Government would have to be convinced it was an advantage over the present arrangement.

The granting of immunity was a governmental decision, but official sources would not reveal who made it.

Britain recognises the Holy See as a State and the Pope as its head. A government spokesman said no changes in the law would be needed to allow an ambassador, but there were certain historical barriers to overcome. The Holy See had been pursuing this end for some time but not too actively.

The appointment of a papal ambassador would have even more opponents than the present step. An associate of Dr. Ian Paisley, the Reverend James McClelland said "I personally believe that his is a further step in the manifestation of the Pope as antichrist . . .

"It's inevitable that the antichrist will come in the last days. I just see this latest move to resume diplomatic relations as a sign of the times."

These moves fly in the face of the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement.

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom, to be governed by a popish prince, or by any King or Queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be, reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy, the Crown and Government of this Realm . . .