Editorial: Pray! Pray!! and Pray!!!
Ulster is headed at the present time into uncharted waters. As I pen this Editorial we can truly say we do not know politically what a day will bring forth.
It has been announced through the Press that possibly on Armistice Day, the 11th November, Mrs. Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, will visit Dublin and sign there an Agreement or Treaty with the Irish Government which will for the first time give them a real say in the administration and legislation that governs Northern Ireland. A Joint Secretariat with offices in Belfast is proposed, and that, of course, is the beginning of the end. Lord Carson said that he lived to see all the safeguards given to the Protestants in the South of Ireland removed, and if this deal goes ahead it will be instalment number one of a movement to first of all give many safeguards to Ulster Unionists by word of mouth and oft-repeated catch phrases and then one by one dismantle them all and surrender Ulster into the control eventually of Dublin politicians.
This is a situation that Ulster Protestants cannot tolerate. It is a dilution of British sovereignty in this part of Ireland and sets the stage to take us and all that we possess under the domination into a situation in which an alien and enemy Government will tyrannise over us. It adds insult to injury to meet in Dublin on Armistice Day, remembering that in World War I the Republicans of the South, realising that England's extremity was their opportunity, stuck a knife into the back of the British Nation by the 1916 Rebellion. It also must be remembered that the Republic took no part in the fight against Nazi and Fascist tyranny, but rather adopted an attitude of benevolent neutrality, Mr. De Valera alone of the western nations officially condoling the death of the Nazi dictator Hitler.
Lord Carson, Ulster's great leader, warned that the Unionist Party of Britain was rightly called the Unionist Party for it betrayed the Unionists, and it is evident in recent years that the Conservative and Unionist Party of Britain has been intent in betraying the Loyalists of Northern Ireland.
I have found the greatest comfort in the reading of Psalm 107. There is delineated the various ways by which the people of God come: the days of Perplexity, the days of trial, the days of persecution and the days when they are at their wits end corner but on each and every occasion there is a way through because there is a way up, and we read those striking words, "Then they cried unto the LORD".
The people of God need to set themselves with all their heart and soul and
(Contd. on p. 25)
The Second Coming of Christ
by Bishop J. C. Ryle, First Protestant Bishop of Liverpool
Of all the doctrines of the Gospel, the one about which Christians have become most unlike the first Christians, in their sense of its true value, is the doctrine of Christ's second advent. I am obliged to say this of all denominations of Protestants. I know not of any exception. In our view of man's corruption, of justification by faith, of our need of the sanctifying work of the Spirit, of the sufficiency of Scripture - upon all these points I believe we should find the English believers were much of one mind with believers at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, or Rome, in former times. But in our view of the second advent of Christ, I fear we should find there was a mighty difference between us and them, if our experience could be compared. I am afraid we should find that we fall woefully short of them in our estimate of its importance: that in our system of doctrine it is a star of the fifteenth magnitude, while in theirs it was one of the first. In one word, we should discover, that compared with them in this matter, we slumber and sleep.
Risk of Offence
I must speak my mind on this subject, now that I am upon it. I do so most unwillingly. I do so at the risk of giving offence, and of rubbing against the prejudices of many whom I love. But it is a cross I feel it a duty to take up and speak I must.
I submit, then, that in the matter of Christ's second coming and kingdom, the Church of Christ has not dealt fairly with the prophecies of the Old Testament. We have gone on far too long refusing to see that there are two personal advents of Christ spoken of in those prophecies: an advent in humiliation, and an advent in glory - an advent to suffer, and an advent to reign; a personal advent to carry the cross, and a personal advent to wear the crown. We have been "slow of heart to believe all that prophets have written". (Luke 24: 25). The disciples went into one extreme: they stumbled at Christ's sufferings. We have gone into the other extreme: we have stumbled at Christ's glory. We have got into a confused habit of speaking of the kingdom of Christ as already set up amongst us, and have shut our eyes to the fact that the devil is still the god of this world, and served by the vast majority: and that our Lord, like David in Adullam, though anointed, is not yet set upon His throne. We have got into a vicious habit of taking all the  promises spiritually, and all the denunciations and threats literally. The denunciations against Babylon and Nineveh and Edom, we have been content to take literally, and hand over to our neighbours. The blessings and promises of glory to Zion, Jerusalem, Jacob and Israel, we have taken spiritually, and comfortably applied them to ourselves and the Church of Christ. To bring forward proofs of this would be waste of time. No man can hear many sermons, and read many commentaries, without being aware that it is a fact.
Now I believe this to have been an unfair system of interpreting Scripture. I hold that the first and primary sense of every Old Testament promise as well as threat is the literal one - and that Jacob means Jacob, Jerusalem means Jerusalem, Zion means Zion and Israel means Israel, as much as Egypt means Egypt and Babylon means Babylon. The primary sense, I believe, we have sadly lost sight of. We have adapted and accommodated to the Church of Christ the promises that were spoken by God to Israel and Zion. I do not mean to say that this accommodation is in no sense allowable. But I do mean to say that the primary sense of every prophecy was intended to have a literal fulfilment, and that this literal fulfilment has been far too much put aside and thrust into a corner. And by so doing I think we have exactly fulfilled our Lord's words in the parable of the ten virgins - we have proved that we are slumbering and sleeping about the second advent of Christ.
But I submit further, that in the interpretation of the New Testament, the Church of Christ has dealt almost as unfairly with our Lord's second advent, as she has done in the interpretation of the Old. Men have got into a habit of putting a strange sense upon many of those passages which speak of "the coming of the Son of Man", or of "the Lord's appearing". And this habit has been far too readily submitted to. Some tell us that the coming of the Son of Man often means death. No one can read the thousands of epitaphs in Churchyards in which some text about the coming of Christ is thrust in, and not perceive how widespread is this view. Some tell us that our Lord's coming means the destruction of Jerusalem. This is a very common way of interpreting the expression. Many find the literal Jerusalem everywhere in New Testament prophecies, though, oddly enough, they refuse to see it in the Old Testament prophecies. Some tell us that our Lord's coming means the general judgement, and the end of all things. This is their one answer to all enquiries about things to come.
Now I believe that all these interpretations are entirely beside the mark. I have not the least desire to underrate the importance of such subjects as death and judgment. I willingly concede that the destruction of Jerusalem is  typical of many things connected with our Lord's second advent, and is spoken of in chapters where that mighty event is foretold. But I must express my own firm belief that the coming of Christ is one distinct thing, and that death, judgment and the destruction of Jerusalem are three other distinct things. And the wide acceptance which these strange interpretations have met with, I hold to be one more proof that in the matter of Christ's second advent, the Church has long slumbered and slept.
The Truth of Scripture
The plain truth of Scripture I believe to be as follows: Christ will come again to this world with power and great glory. He will raise His saints, and gather them to Himself. He will punish with fearful judgments all who are found His enemies, and reward with glorious rewards all His believing people. He will take to Himself His great power, and reign, and establish a universal kingdom. He will gather the scattered tribes of Israel, and place them once more in their own land. As He came the first time in person, so He will come the second time in person. As He went away from earth visibly, so He will return visibly. As He literally rode upon an ass - was literally sold for thirty pieces of silver - had His hands and feet literally pierced - was numbered literally with the transgressors - and had lots literally cast upon His raiment - and all, that Scripture might be fulfilled - so also He will literally come, literally set up a kingdom, and literally reign over the earth, because the very same Scripture has said that it shall be so.
Plain and Unmistakable
The words of the angels, in the first of Acts, are plain and unmistakable: "This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven". (Acts 1 : 11). So also the words of the Apostle Peter: "The times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began". (Acts 3:19-21). So also the words of the Psalmist: "When the Lord shall build up Zion He shall appear in His glory". (Ps. 102:16). So also the words of Zechariah: "the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee" (Zech. 14:5). So also the words of Isaiah: "The Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously". (Isa. 24: 23). So also the words of Jeremiah: "I will bring again the captivity of My people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord, and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it". "I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwelling place; and the city shall be built on her own  heap". (Jer. 30: 3 and 18). So also the words of Daniel: "Behold, one like unto the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed". (Dan. 7: 13 and 14). All these texts are to my mind plain prophecies of Christ's second coming and kingdom. All are yet without their accomplishment, and all shall yet be literally and exactly fulfilled.
I say "literally and exactly fulfilled" and I say so advisedly. From the first day that I began to read the Bible with my heart, I have never been able to see these texts, and hundreds like them, in any other light. It always seemed to me that as we take literally the texts foretelling that the walls of Babylon shall be cast down, so we ought to take literally the texts foretelling that the walls of Zion shall be built up - that as according to prophecy the Jews were literally scattered, so according to prophecy the Jews will be literally gathered - and that as the least and minutest predictions were made good on the subject of our Lord's coming to suffer, so the minutest predictions shall be made good which describe our Lord's coming to reign. And I have long felt it is one of the greatest shortcomings of the Church of Christ that we ministers do not preach enough about this advent of Christ, and that private believers do not think enough about it. A few of us here and there receive the doctrine, and profess to love it but the number of such persons is comparatively very small. And, after all, we none of us live on it, feed on it, work from it, take comfort in it, as much as God intended us to do. In short, the Bridegroom tarries, and we all slumber and sleep.
It proves nothing against the doctrine of Christ's second coming and kingdom, that it has sometimes been fearfully abused. I should like to know what doctrine of the Gospel has not been abused. Salvation by grace has been made a pretext for licentiousness - election an excuse for all manner of unclean living - and justification by faith a warrant for Antinomianism. But if men will draw wrong conclusions, we are not therefore obliged to throw aside good principles. We do not give up the Gospel because of the outrageous conduct of the Anabaptists of Munster, or the extravagant assertions of Saltmarsh and William Huntingdon, or the strange proceedings of Jumpers and Shakers. And where is the fairness of telling us that we ought to reject the second advent of Christ because there were Fifth Monarchy Men in the days of the Commonwealth, and Irvingites and  Millerites in our own time. Alas, men must be hard pressed for an argument when they have no better reasons than this!
It proves nothing against the second advent of Christ, that those who hold the doctrine differ among themselves on many particular points in Prophecy. Such differences need never stumble anyone, who recollects that unity on great points. is perfectly consistent with disagreement on small ones. Luther and Zwinglius differed widely in their views of the Lord's Supper: yet who would think of saying that therefore Protestantism is all false? Fletcher and Toplady were both clergymen in the Church of England, but differed widely about Calvinism: yet where would be the sense of saying that all Evangelical religion was therefore untrue? In common fairness this ought to be remembered when people talk of the differences among those who study prophecy. It is possible for men to differ much as to meaning they place on the symbols in the book of Revelation, and yet on the matter of Christ's coming and kingdom they may be substantially agreed.
It proves nothing against the doctrine that it is encompassed with many difficulties. This I fully concede. The order of events connected with our Lord's coming, and the manner of His kingdom when it is set up, are both deep subjects, and hard to be understood. But I firmly believe that the difficulties connected with any other system of interpreting unfulfilled prophecy are just twice as many as those which are said to stand in our way. I believe too that the difficulties connected with our Lord's second coming are not half so many as those connected with His first, and that it was a far more improbable thing, "a priori", that the Son of God should come to suffer, than it is that He should come to reign. And, after all, what have we to do with the "how" and "in what manner" prophecies are to be fulfilled? Is our miserable understanding of what is possible, to be the measure and limit of God's dealings? The only question we have to do with is, "Has God said a thing?" If He has, we ought not to doubt it shall be done.
The Writer's Testimony
For myself, I can only give my own individual testimony; but the little I know experimentally of the doctrine of Christ's second coming makes me regard it as most practical and precious, and makes me long to see it more generally received.
I find it a powerful spring and stimulus to holy living - a motive for patience, for moderation, for spiritual-mindedness - a test for the employment of time - and a gauge for all my actions: "Should I like my Lord to find me in this place - should I like Him to find me so doing"?
I find it the strongest argument for missionary work. The time is short. The Lord is at hand. The gathering out from all nations will soon be accomplished. The heralds and forerunners of the King will soon have proclaimed the Gospel in every nation. The night is far spent. The King will soon be here. 
I find it the best answer to the infidel. He sneers at our churches and chapels, at our sermons and services, at our tracts and our SchooLs. He points to the millions who care nothing fo r Christianity after 1,900 years of preaching. He asks me how I can account for it, if Christianity be true. I answer, It was never said that all the world would believe and serve Christ under the present dispensation. I tell him the state of things he ridicules was actually foreseen and the number of true Christians, it was predicted, would be few. But I tell him Christ's kingdom is yet to come; and although we see not yet all things put under Him, they will be so one day.
I find it the best argument with the Jew. If I do not take all the prophecy of Isaiah literally, I know not how I can persuade him that the 53rd chapter is literally fulfilled. But if I do, I have a resting-place for my lever, which I know he cannot shake. How men can expect the Jews to see a Messiah coming to suffer in the Old Testament prophecies, if they do not themselves see in them a Messiah coming to reign, is past my understanding.
And now, is there one among the readers of this address who cannot receive the doctrine of Christ's second advent and kingdom? I invite that man to consider the subject calmly and dispassionately. Dismiss from your mind traditional interpretations. Separate the doctrine from the mistakes and blunders of many who hold it. Do not reject the foundation because of the wood, hay, and stubble which some have built upon it . Do not condemn it and cast it aside because of injudicious friends. Only examine the texts which speak of it, as calmly and fairly as you weigh texts in the Romish, Arian, or Socinian controversies, and I am hopeful as to the result on your mind. Alas, if texts of Scriptures were always treated as unceremoniously as I have known texts to be treated by those who dislike the doctrine of Christ's second advent, I should indeed tremble for the cause of truth.
Is there any one among the readers of this address who agrees with the principles I have tried to advocate? I beseech that man to endeavour to realise the second coming of Christ more and more. Truly we feel it but little compared with what we ought to do, at the very best. Be gentle in argument with those that differ from you. Remember that a man may be mistaken on this subject, and yet be a holy child of God. It is not the slumbering on this subject that ruins souls, but the want of grace! Above all, avoid dogmatism and positiveness, and specially about symbolic prophecy. It is a sad truth, but a truth never to be forgotten, that none have injured the doctrine of the second coming so much as its over-zealous friends.
[9-15 MEDITATIONS FOR THE MONTH]
Addressing God in Prayer and Worship by T. Ernest Wilson
(Eccles. Ch. 5, vs. 1&2. Matt. Ch. 6, vs. 9&10)
Conditions in the world usually have a way of manifesting themselves in the church. It is becoming increasingly common to hear God addressed with the familiar "you" instead of the reverential "thou". The argument is that the reverential form is archaic, it was used in Shakespeare's day, and was the common form of speech when the King James version of the Bible was translated in 1611. We no longer use it today in addressing each other, therefore let us drop it in addressing God! It is regarded as a mark of superior education and sophistication to avoid the old forms and use modern language in praying to the Deity. Those who do it, insist that it is not a lack of reverence, but using language that everyone understands. This is very plausible, but is it true?
We are told that the old form of the second person "thou" and its use in everyday speech has been dropped. Admittedly, when the King James Version was translated, "thou, thee" etc. were simply singular forms of the pronouns, while "you" was the plural form. The translators followed this rule whether God or man was being addressed. But today the plural-form of the second person and its reverential use, is a part of our language. We learn it in school in our verb conjugations: I am, thou art, he is, etc. In most languages, reverential forms of speech are used in addressing the Deity.
In Bantu languages used in Africa, and among so-called primitive people generally, God is addressed in majestic terms and titles. No African child would think of addressing his parent or an elder by the familiar form, and to speak to Almighty God in this way would be unthinkable!
In addressing a king or the president, or a Cabinet minister or a judge on the bench when a law court is in session, it is customary to use respectful  terms which we do not ordinarily use; your majesty, your honour, etc. The New Testament sanctions and gives examples of such usages. We read there of an honourable counsellor and of honourable women. Luke addresses his Gospel to the "Most Excellent Theophilus", and Paul addressing Festus the Governor, uses the term "Most Noble". It is a part of the present day decline in respect, to despise dignitaries and authority. But if one were to use the language of the street or the market place in addressing a judge while he is presiding in a law court, he would be held in contempt of court, how much more the need for reverence and respect in addressing the Creator and Redeemer of the universe!
Another important point is consideration for the feelings of others. From time immemorial it has been the custom to follow the examples in Scripture in addressing Almighty God.
But this is not just mere custom or tradition. God said to the wicked in Ps. 50:21, "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself". It is both the direct teaching and example of Holy Scripture. To hear anyone publicly address God in familiar language, calling Him "you" shocks the feelings of older and sensitive, spiritual people, who are characterised by the fear of God in their lives and speech. It is altogether wrong to hurt and shock the feelings of the saints in this way.
One would make a distinction between a young person recently saved, who is not familiar with the teaching and the language of Holy Scripture, and the mature person who uses this kind of language deliberately. There is a difference between ignorance and arrogance. The first needs teaching, the second, rebuke. A much used and abused word to day is "Communication". Some have the idea that in speaking to the young and immature, we have to use the language and vocabulary of the street corner or the high school. The only way to raise the level of respect and the dignity of personality, is to use simple but dignified language in speaking to them.
One very serious contributing factor, that has helped along this tendency of disrespect in addressing God, has been some of the modern revisions and paraphrases of Scripture. Two of the chief offenders in this respect are the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, authorised in 1951 by the National Council of Churches and the New English Bible, the New Testament of which was published in 1961. Some of the men on the committee for  translation of both of these versions are notorious liberals who do not believe in the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth and other fundamentals of the faith. This decided bias comes out in their translation of vital passages. Sometimes in the RSV, the formal address of "thee", "thou" and "thine" is used, while at other times the familiar "you" and "yours" is used. Dean Weigle, the chairman of the revision committee, on page 56 of "An Introduction to the RSV" explains their use in this way: "After two years of debate and experiment, it was decided to abandon these forms, and to follow the modern usage, except in language addressed to God". Note carefully the distinction; the formal address is used in addressing God, and the informal is used in speaking to man. Let us look at one or two examples which illustrate this rule of translation: The AV of Matt. 16:16 reads: "Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God". The RSV reads: "You are the Christ, the son of the living God". Does this mean that Christ is only a man and not God? According to Dean Weigie's explanation, this is the only conclusion we can reach. The AV of Acts 9:5 reads: "Who art thou, Lord?" The RSV reads: "Who are you, Lord?" Did Saul of Tarsus believe that the One who spoke to him from heaven was only a man?
The New English translation follows the same rule. In this version the reverential "thee" or "thou" is never used in the Gospels in addressing our Lord Jesus Christ. This distinction of pronouns has a subtle doctrinal implication, and gives the impression that the translators are trying to separate our Lord and Saviour from God and so undermine the doctrine of His Deity.
Unfortunately many of the teachers in academic theological circles have adopted the use of the familiar "you" in addressing both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. This has helped to popularise the trend. Young people take their cue from their teachers. They can do no wrong and it sounds educated to imitate them. Leaders and teachers today have a tremendous responsibility to show an example of reverence and becoming humility in speaking to a Holy God.
We would lovingly appeal to all who know and love, worship and serve our Lord Jesus Christ, and who confess Him, not only as the unique Son of God, but as God the Son manifest in flesh, to avoid any semblance of disrespectful or slang language, either in speaking to Him in prayer and praise, or speaking about Him in the preaching of the Gospel, or in the ministry of the Word.
"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." Amen. (Rev. 5:12). 
The Sunday School Teacher's Teacher
Subject: The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ
Lesson XXXVI - The Pharisee and the Penitent Woman
Lord's Day 3rd November 'Which of them will love Him most?'
Read - Luke vii. 36-50; Learn - 1 John i. 7-9; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.
SKETCH OF LESSON
Last Sunday we saw how some rejected Christ, and some came to Him. Today look at an example of each class - two portraits; and see what it was that made the difference between the two.
I. TWO WAYS OF TREATING CHRIST
1. The Pharisee's Way.
What did the Pharisees of Capernaum, etc., think of Jesus? Did not like Him objected to His ways, eg. eating with publicans - would not receive Him as Messiah (see last Lesson); but not yet His open enemies - shall see how they became so next Sunday.
One of them (his name? ver. 40) thinks he would like to do Jesus a kindness - and, perhaps, show off his own hospitality at same time; asks Him to dinner. See the guests coming in - Simon receiving them courteously - embracing them; servants ready to wash the dust from their feet, and anoint them with oil to soften the parched skin. Now see the tables spread - the guests (according to custom) on couches or 'ottomans' as high as the tables, reclining on their left arms, with their feet (unshod) outwards. And who are all these strangers in the room, looking on?
But see - one guest not looking like the rest - has neither been washed nor anointed - when He came in Simon gave Him no kiss: who is that? ver. 44-46. Why this? No need, thought Simon, to show Him any particular attention. Very willing to honour Him with an invitation, as so well-known and popular; more could not be expected - could not treat Nazarene carpenter like rich friends anything good enough for Him.
2. The Woman's Way
One of the strangers in the room weeping - a wicked woman - known in the city as openly bad. Why weeping? For her sins. Knew all along how bad she was; but now feels it, can think of nothing else. See what others have felt - Ps. xxxviii. 3, 4, xi. 12; Ezra ix. 6; Luke xviii. 13. Why has she come here? She knows Jesus to be the friend of sinners; very likely, when He said those words, 'Come unto Me,' etc. (see last Lesson), she had heard them - they went to her heart - she was 'heavy-laden' - she longed for 'rest' - and she believed Him who spoke - knew not much about Him - but felt sure God had sent Him to win sinners from their bad ways. She will sin no more now - will try and be like that pure and holy Saviour. She must do something for Him; but what? she so unworthy - what can she do?
She has a chance now; has seen how uncourteously Jesus treated - can make up for it. See her, trembling and weeping, coming behind Him; what does she do? ver. 37, 38. Simon would not spare common oil for His head; she devotes to His feet her precious ointment. Simon did not employ his slaves to  attend on Jesus; she is content to be the slave herself.
What a difference in these two ways of treating Jesus! Now ask -
II. WHY HE WAS TREATED SO DIFFERENTLY
Silence at table - all surprised at Jesus allowing this. See what Simon thinks, ver. 39 (comp. Ise. lxv. 5). Were his feelings unnatural? He was looked up to as a religious man. What 'good boy' likes to be seen in company with bad boys? But it is one thing to avoid sin - another to despise sinners, forgetting what we are ourselves. See Luke vi. 37; 1 Cor. xiii. 5. Yet Jesus has a rebuke to utter, but not to the woman. It is he, the scrupulous Pharisee who would shrink from such a sinner, that is to be rebuked. Jesus will show him just what we are asking about - the real difference between him and the woman. Will He do it severely, as one offended by the incivility? See how gently, ver. 40 - 47.
Now, what was the difference?
(a) See ver. 47 - 'Loveth much' - 'loveth little'. The woman loved Jesus 'much' thought nothing too good for Him, no trouble too great for Him. Simon loved Him 'little', scarcely at all; so neglected His comfort.
(b) But much more than this in the parable. Why was one debtor more grateful to the creditor than the otherl Simon could see that, ver. 43 ('forgave most'). Was the woman a great sinner? - well, she felt it, and therefore 'loved much' Him who had said to sinners, 'Come unto Me'. Was Simon so good? - so he thought - then of course he would not care so much for a Saviour. Yet Jesus, by the parable, reminds him that he is a debtor too, though he may think but a small one; that his good deeds of no avail before God ('nothing to pay'); but that he too may get pardon ('forgave them both').
(c) But more yet. Simon might say, 'Suppose the woman is penitent, why go to this Nazarene? and does he mean that He is the creditor - that my sins are debts to Him - He is to forgive them?' What other difference, then, between him and her? She believed Jesus had the right to forgive, and would forgive - did Simon believe that? She had faith; and her faith 'saved her', ver. 50.
Now we see the difference: -
The woman - (c) had faith in Jesus as the Saviour; (b) felt her sins, and so loved Him that forgave them; (a) loving Him, showed her love in her treatment of Him.
The Pharisee - (c) had no faith in Jesus; (b) had no feeling of his sin - so no special reason for loving Jesus; (a) showed his lack of love in his treatment of Jesus.
WHICH OF THESE TWO ARE WE LIKE?
1. Do we neglect Christ? Perhaps not openly bad - regular at church and school, etc. - outward respect for His name, His day, His book etc.; yet no trying to please Him - no sacrifice for His sake - care for self most. This like the Pharisee. But what the cause? [To illustrate 'cause and effect': - Roots and fruits: 'do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?' (Matt. vii. 16). Pleasant and unpleasant sounds and perfumes: can tell whence they come.] This the cause - no sense of sin - so no care for a Saviour. But if so, deceived - the sin is there - the debt is due - 'nothing to pay' - if not freely forgiven now, 'the uttermost farthing' demanded at the 'day of reckoning'.
2. But do we feel sin - feel our debt - feel how poor our goodness is - 'nothing to pay'? -
'Could my zeal no respite know, Could my tears forever flow,' etc.
Then, like the woman, shall come to Christ confess our sins - then what? And we know more of Him than she did: not only know His kindness, hear His 'Come unto Me' - know, also, that He died for those very sins, has paid the debt Himself. Can you think of this and not love Him? See what produced St. Paul's love. And if love Him, ready to be His slave, give up all bad things for His sake, all good things to His service.
'Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.'
Lesson XXXVII - Sabbath Controversies
Lord's Day 10th November 'The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.' 
Read - Mark ii. 23-28; iii. 1-6; (comp. Matt. xii. 1-14; Luke vi. 1-11); Learn - Matt. xv. 8, 9; Isa. lviii. 13.
How pleasant Saturday night is to those who work hard all the week! (refer to instances) why? Looking for Sunday rest.
Who was the first to rest on the seventh day, after six days' work? Gen. ii. 1-3. And God ordained that men also should have a weekly rest-day. What for? to take them from their pleasure, and make them gloomy? or to make them happier? Not a notice to trespassers, but a royal gift.
But men spoil whatever God gives them (illust. - ink blackens whatever put in it). So God gave the Fourth Commandment to guard His gift, to prevent men from robbing each other of the sacred rest. But men disobeyed the command, and still spoiled the gift. In two ways: - 1st, by making the Sabbath a day of work (see Isa. Ivi. 2, 6, Iviii. 13; Jer. xvii. 21-23; Neh. xiii. 15-22); the second we shall see presently. When Christ came, one thing He did was to make men think more of God's gifts, and not spoil them. Today see how He did this with the Sabbath.
I. HOW THE PHARISEES TREATED THE SABBATH
Pharisees were looked up to by people as 'very religious': no wonder, for their religion just what could be 'seen of men', all outside - boastful charity, long prayers in public, etc. (Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16, xxiii. 5,14, 23, 25); but what was it they had not got? (1st text for rep.; Matt. xxiii. 27, 28). So, while they took no pains to obey some of the Commandments (Fifth, Mark vii. 9-13; Tenth, Luke xvi. 14), took great pains about Fourth, because in keeping it could be 'seen of men'; made hard rules about it which God had not made - very harsh with poor people who could not remember them or always obey them (Matt. xxiii. 4). So the Sabbath a burden: people afraid to do this or that, for fear of Pharisees. Was this what God intended?
But the Pharisees' Sabbath-keeping like the rest of their religion - only outside. See this by - (read passage) -
(a) Their conduct in the cornfields. Why did the disciples pluck the ears? Matt. xii. 1. How came they to be hungry? Very likely the crowds so great that Jesus obliged to go on teaching many hours, and no time for meals (comp. Mark iii. 20, vi. 31). The Pharisees not hungry - Sabbath a feast-day with them (comp. Luke xiv. 1) - no doubt had had plenty. What should they have felt when they saw the poor hungry disciples eating the dry grains? glad they should get something? Gladness was the feeling; but why? Because now a chance of fault-finding. Was that keeping the Sabbath with holy and kind thoughts?
(b) Their conduct in the synagogue. 'Watched Him' (comp. Ps. xxxvii. 32, lvi. 5; Jer. xx. 10) - was that what they should come to the synagogue for? Why did they 'watch Him'? Out of love, or -? Was that obeying our second text for rep.? And while so particular about Jesus keeping Fourth Commandment, which were they breaking themselves by their malicious looks and thoughts? 1 John iii. 15.
II. HOW CHRIST TREATED THE SABBATH
Did He abolish it? (Illust. - An architect who repairs and improves a house does not pull it down.)
Did He say it was only meant for the Jews, and, now He had come, to be put away? 'Made for man' (chap. ii. 27) - for every man; a gift to all.
If a gift to all, did He say all might do as they like with it? No, because cannot be trusted to use it right; so God makes laws about it, which to be obeyed. But One is 'lord' of the Sabbath - not under laws can use it as He pleases - who? (chap. ii. 28). Why can He? Not only as God; as 'the Son of Man.' Because He is perfect man can be trusted. And whosoever is most like Him is most free to do as he likes with the Sabbath, because is sure to use it rightly.
But how use it rightly? See this by what Jesus said in reply to Pharisees: -
(a) How did Jesus justify the plucking and eating corn? What had David's taking the sacred bread to do with it? (ii. 25, 26). David and his men were hungry - unless fed, not strong enough to flee from Saul - so did what was against rules because necessary. And see Matt. xii. 5 - priests were commanded to work on Sabbath, because necessary. So (a) works of necessity to be done - Sabbath not to be a burden to ourselves.
(b) How did Jesus justify the healing? (ii. 4) - 'to save life or to kill?' (What a rebuke to them! which were they going to try and do? ver. 6.) How did this justify it? Nobody  thought of killing the poor man. But neglecting to do good may be doing harm. (Illust. - if wounded man in parable had died before Samaritan came, would not priest and Levite have been guilty?) So (b) works of mercy and kindness to be done - Sabbath not to be an injury to others.
III. HOW WE SHOULD TREAT THE SABBATH
God has given us seven days in the week; six for ourselves - our work, etc.; one to use for Him. Is it fair to take the one as well as the six for work or play? (illust. - Father gives boy seven pence, six for himself, one to be spent as directed, What think of boy if he kept the one too?)
How, then, use the Sabbath? The great thing is to have what the Pharisees had not - thankful and obedient hearts. Each Sunday, think, 'Today my Saviour rose from the grave into which He went for my sake - I must love Him; today the Holy Spirit came down to make our hearts holy - I must seek His aid.' Then, the Sabbath no burden. Works of necessity - will do them cheerfully, and make as little as can 'necessary', to get more time for God's service. Works of mercy - will do them, not because must, but because love to do them. Worship God learn more about Him - study His word will do all this because delight in it.
Boys and girls all want to 'go to heaven'. But what is heaven called? Heb. iv. 9 'Sabbath-keeping' (lit. transl. of 'rest'). Would you care for that? If to enjoy eternal Sabbath, must learn to enjoy earthly Sabbaths.
Lesson XXXVIII - The Twelve Apostles
Lord's Day 17th November 'Feed My sheep.'
Read - Mark iii. 6-19; (comp. Matt. ix. 35-38, x.; Mark vi. 7-13; Luke vi. 12-16, ix. 1 -6);
Learn - Luke vi. 13; 1 Pet. v. 2-4.
SKETCH OF LESSON
Jesus is now in danger. His enemies at Jerusalem have sent scribes into Galilee to stir up the Pharisees there against Him. What could they say of Him? Would tell of His Sabbath-breaking, and get men to watch His conduct - we saw how last Sunday. The chief men at Capernaum did not like Him before, but now they are roused - will not bear it - what shall they do to get rid of Him? Herod the ruler of Galilee - they must go to his 'noblemen' to help them; see strict Pharisees and gay courtiers plotting together against Jesus! (ver. 6).
What will He do? His 'hour' to suffer not yet come. Will go aside for a time, out of the city, down to the Lake (ver. 7) - can always there get a boat and cross over; up into the hills (ver. 13) - nooks and corners there.
While in retirement, Jesus did a very important thing - talk about it today.
Have you ever seen a flock of sheep without a shepherd - scattered, tired, timid, looking this way and that, afraid to move? This is what Jesus saw - we will see what He did.
I. THE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD
Does He get retirement by leaving the city? ver. 7, 8 - greater crowds than ever from distant parts; they don't want Him killed - Him who comforts, teaches, heals them. Such crowds that He has to escape from them to the boat, ver. 9. But they have not come in vain - see what He does, ver. 10, 11. And why does He heal them? to make Himself popular? to excite them against the Pharisees? ver. 12 - He wants to do as much good as He can, as quietly as He can. Just what Isaiah said Messiah should be like (comp. Isa. xiii. 1-4 with Matt. xii. 15-21).
But now see what Jesus thought and felt as He looked at these multitudes, Matt. ix. 36. He thought, not of what the Pharisees wanted to do to Him, but of what they had not done to all these people. They ought to have been like shepherds to them, leading them in right way, feeding them with good teaching, treating them gently. Had they? If  so, why such a new and strange thing when Jesus preached glad tidings to the poor (Matt. xi. 5) (see Lesson XXXV)? The scribes like the shepherds denounced by Ezekiel (xxxiv. 1 - 10); so the people are faint (for want of food for their souls) and scattered (not taken care of).
Jesus sees all this; what does He feel? Had He never felt compassion before? What brought the 'Good Shepherd' (John x. 11) down from heaven, but 'to seek and save the lost sheep'? see Matt. xviii. 11-13. And these He now looks on are but a few of them - there are 'other sheep' (John x. 16) scattered abroad - He has 'compassion' for them too - for all.
What will He do for them? Will appoint under-shepherds to take care of them. See who these were.
II. THE SHEPHERDS APPOINTED FOR THE SHEEP
Up among the hills Jesus now goes, away from the crowds, only His own followers with Him. All of them 'disciples' - ie. learners (under discipline); some He will choose to be more than that - 'apostles', men sent forth, missionaries. It is a solemn thing He is going to do - how does He set about it? Luke vi. 12, 13 - think of that long night of prayer! (How do we set about important things? do we need to pray about them less then He did?) Then, in the morning, all around Him, waiting His selection.
1. The men chosen, ver. 16-19 (comp. Matt. x. 2-4; Luke vi. 14-16). Seven of them we have seen already specially called the four fishermen (chap. i. 16-20) (see Lesson XXIII), the publican (Matt. ix. 9) (see Lesson XXXI), Philip and his friend (John i. 43-51). Now five more. Think what kind of men chosen to care for the 'faint and scattered sheep': no grave and learned scribes, but fishermen, a publican, etc. Peter the head-strong, Thomas the doubter, Simon the fierce zealot, James and John almost as fierce (see ver. 17; comp. Luke ix. 54). But all of them alike in one thing - they believed in Him - were ready to obey Him. They most fit to look after the sheep who obey Him to whom the sheep belong.
2. The work given them to do, ver. 14, 15. (a) To go and preach. What to say? see Matt. x. 7 - just what Jesus had been proclaiming. (b) To work miracles - just like those that Jesus had done. To whom were they to preach? whom to heal? The very people Jesus was pitying - 'lost sheep of house of Israel' (Matt. x. 6) - these first - by-and-bye the 'other sheep' too (John x. 16; see Matt. x. 18).
3. How they should be trained for the work. See ver. 14 again - 'that they might be with Him'. Peter and others already always with Him - henceforth all the Twelve. Thus they would be disciples (learners) still. Learning what? (a) How to preach: would hear Jesus in public, and He would teach them in private. (b) How to work miracles: what to learn about that? The power He gave them, but (illust. - a gun useless if cannot handle it rightly) they could not use it without faith (Matt. xvii. 16-20), ie. being sure that when He told them to heal, He meant that they should be able to heal and how get this faith but by being with Him, knowing Him, learning more of His love and power?
But while still disciples, now apostles too. Would go out on short journeys preaching, two and two (Mark vi. 7) - so would be practising what had learned. (illust. - Child learning to write - two things to do - look at copy, and practise. Senior scholar, in Bible class in morning, teaching in afternoon.) Thus prepare for larger work by-and-bye.
4. What should be the result of their work? See Matt. x. They must expect to be treated no better than their Master (ver. 24, 25); should be rejected (14), persecuted (17, 18), hated (22); yet not to fear - God would care for them (26-31); some would listen and believe - if one in a family did not, another would (34-36); and in the last day He would acknowledge them (32).
WE ALSO ARE LIKE SHEEP IN CHRIST'S SIGHT
'We are His flock: He doth us feed,
And for His sheep He doth us take.'
But are we 'lost sheep'? comp. Ps. cxix. 176; Isa. liii. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 25.
But Christ sends shepherds to look after and care for the sheep. What was Peter told to do? John xxi. 15-17. And when Peter wrote to other ministers, he told them the same, 1 Peter v. 1-4. God's ministers called 'pastors' - 'pastor' means shepherd. And we teachers are shepherds too - lesser ones - for the 'lambs'.
Should not a sheep follow and take food from the shepherd? How silly if it will not! What are you doing?
One thing more. The spiritual sheep can become shepherds themselves - disciples may become apostles - the taught become teachers. Who will say to Christ, 'Here am I, send me'? 
Lesson XXXIX - Opposition from Foes and from Friends
Lord's Day 24th October 'He hath a devil, and is mad.'
Read - Mark iii. 20-35; (comp. Matt. xii. 22-50; Luke xi. 14-26);
Learn - Matt. x. 24, 25, xii. 30.
SKETCH OF LESSON
How painful it is to be misunderstood, ridiculed, falsely accused! - especially after acting rightly and kindly; to have our best deeds made out to be bad, etc. (illust. - eg. gentle and truthful child ill-treated and slandered by schoolfellows.) How much David suffered in this way! Ps. xxxv. 11 - 15, 19-25, lvi. 5, 6, lix. 3, 4. Worst of all if it comes from family or friends, see Ps. xxxi. 11, xli. 9, Iv. 12 - 14, Ixix. 7, 8, 20.
But Jesus (of whom David was a type in suffering as well as in royalty) had more of this than any one. See some of it today.
I. THE OPPOSITION
1. From friends. What does the mother of Jesus think of all that is going on - of His teaching and miracles - the crowds following Him, etc.? Must she not be glad? remembering what the angel had told her, Luke i. 32 - He should have 'the throne of His father David.' But now she is perplexed - perhaps thinks, 'Strange! the leaders and teachers of the people, priests and scribes, are opposing instead of welcoming Him how can it be? is He going too far? - can it be right to offend the rulers and choose publicans, etc.?' (What would she feel if she knew of the plot (last Lesson)?) And some of the family do not believe in Him at all, John vii. 5 - they would add to her perplexity. 'One good thing - he has very wisely retired now (last Lesson) - perhaps may be going to act differently.'
One morning, news of His open return to Capernaum - twelve of His followers with a new office - 'then He will brave the Pharisees.' And another danger now - such crowds that, after night on mountain (last Lesson), He can get no food, ver. 20 - 'will not His strength fail?' See Mary and the others hurrying along the streets, ver. 21 'Surely He is mad - we must fetch Him away and take care of Him.' How could they think that of Him?
2. From foes. Now come into the house (perhaps Peter's) where Jesus is. Full of people, as when once before He returned from a circuit (Mark ii. 1, 2). Great excitement - He has wrought three miracles on one man! - see Matt. xii. 22, 23 - devil gone out, blind eyes seeing, dumb tongue speaking - 'Surely' (is the cry) 'He is Messiah!' What can the Pharisees do now? (comp. Luke xix. 47, 48). The wily men sent from Jerusalem hit on a plan. See them going among the people - 'Of course he can cast out devils - has one himself - the chief of them, Beelzebub, in him - nothing strange if even devils obey their own prince.' Fancy saying this of Jesus, of the 'Holy One' whom the devils hated and feared (Mark i. 24). Worse than what His relatives thought strange that any could think Him mad - but this! that He was one of Satan's allies, used by the enemy of men to deceive them! Worse even than the worst said of Him before (Matt. xi. 19). It was as if the cast-out devil had gone into them - blinded their eyes - made their tongues, not dumb, but blasphemous. Yet these the religious leaders, the shepherds who should have looked after the 'lost sheep' (last Lesson).
II. HOW HE MET THE OPPOSITION
1. The Opposition of Foes.
Might He not well be angry and denounce them loudly? But He has to undo the mischief done, to satisfy the people - will quietly reason about it. See how, ver. 23-30.
(a) He shews how unreasonable their words are, ver. 23-26. 'If what they said true, if Satan in Him, would He be likely to save men from Satan - casting out devils, curing diseases, delivering men from sin, making people happy? Then Satan would be fighting against himself - and what then? could a country torn by civil war resist the common foe? would a family always quarrelling be prosperous?' Satan not so foolish as to undo his own work.
(b) He makes them reflect who He must  really be, ver. 27 (comp. Luke xi. 20-22). 'Satan is strong; yet here you see his goods (what he had robbed God of, the man's mind, heart, etc.) taken from him; who could do that? - must be one stronger.' Who would that be? - what had Isaiah (xi. 10, xlix. 24, 25, liii. 12) and John the Baptist (Luke iii. 16 - 'one mightier') predicted of Messiah? What then? who must Jesus be? (Comp. Col. ii. 15; Heb. ii. 14; 1 John iii. 8.) Then, indeed, the 'kingdom' had come.
(c) He warns them of the danger of so blaspheming, ver. 28-30. How were they in danger? because such a sin to revile Jesus? yes; but even then they might turn, repent, be forgiven (like Saul of Tarsus, 1 Tim. i. 13). But could they turn and repent? Only if the Holy Ghost worked in their hearts (Rom. viii. 9, 14; 1 Cor. xii. 3; so in the Absolution 'Let us beseech Him to grant us true repentance and His Holy Spirit'). But how could He, if they 'always resisted' Him (Acts vii. 51)? And what shewed they were doing that? - they were sinning wilfully, saying about Jesus what they knew could not be true. Then what danger! their sin might be on them for ever! Pray, with David, 'Keep me from presumptuous sins' (Ps. xix. 13).
2. The Opposition from Friends.
While Jesus yet speaking, who come to the house? ver. 31. What for? ver. 21 (recapitulate). No getting in for the crowd send in message. Now see the reply of Jesus, ver. 33-35.
Think what He meant. He had an earthly mother and relatives; but also was the Son of God - all God's family related to Him more nearly even than His mother was naturally. Who were God's family? ver. 35 'do the will of God'; and who are they? See what He had said just before - those 'with Him'. All others 'against Him'. On which side were Mary and her family just then? so, were they doing God's will, acting as His children, as the spiritual relatives of Jesus? But who were? ver. 34 - His disciples not ashamed of Him, 'on His side'.
Was this a rebuke to Mary? Jesus too tender, too filial, to rebuke her openly; yet would she not feel how mistaken she was that to be one of His true family she must trust more in Him - take His side more boldly?
On which side are we? For Christ or against Him?
Are we His open enemies? - disliking His house, His book, His day, His people, His commands? Suppose a bad companion of yours suddenly changed, become true Christian, Satan 'cast out' - would you be pleased at it? or vexed, call Him names, laugh at Him, etc? This like the scribes, who were vexed at Christ's miracles, and spoke against them.
Are we His half-hearted friends? - having a regard for Him, wishing to belong to Him; but when He or his people attacked, getting afraid, and taking the wrong side? Are such 'against Him'? Would say, No; yet what does He say?
Are we His faithful disciples? If so, what are we to expect? - shall be disliked, reviled, called names, as He was. Not pleasant, yet to be borne cheerfully, see Man. v. 11, 12; Acts v. 41; Heb. x. 32-34; 1 Pet. iv. 12-16; -
'Though opposed by many a foe;
Christian soldiers onward go.'
And what a reward! to be Christ's brethren and sisters - and what does that bring? Rom. viii. 17.
For and against - see what the end of both will be, Matt. x. 32, 33.
'- May this my glory be -
That Christ is not ashamed of me.'
Pray! Pray!! and Pray!!! (Contd. from p. 2)
mind to seek God at this time. God is upon the Throne. Our fathers in days of stress and strain and under similar circumstances called upon God, God heard and God answered and God delivered.
We need at this time to give ourselves to the place and to the practise of real praying. If we do so then we will experience the deliverance that is set forth in this wonderful Psalm 107.
It will not only be said of us, "Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and He delivered them out of all their distresses," but it will be said of us, that we could exclaim, "O, that men would praise the LORD for His goodness and for His wo. iderful works to the children of men".
Let us pray! Pray!! pray!
INSIDE INSIGHT: a page of inspirational poetry presented each month by Rhonda Paisley.
These Are Not Lost
The look of sympathy, the gentle word,
Spoken so low that only angels heard;
The secret art of pure self-sacrifice,
Unseen by men, but marked by angels' eyes
These are not lost.
The sacred music of a tender strain,
Wrung from a poet's heart by grief and pain,
And chanted timidly, with doubt and fear,
To busy crowds, who scarcely pause to hear -
These are not lost.
The kindly plans devised for others' good,
So seldom guessed, so little understood;
The quiet, steadfast love that strove to win
Some weary wanderer from the ways of sin -
These are not lost.
Not lost, O Lord, for, in Thy city bright,
Our eyes shall see the past by clearer light,
And things long hidden from our gaze below,
Thou wilt reveal, and we shall surely know -
These are not lost.
As the path of duty is made plain,
May grace be given that I may walk therein,
Not like the hireling, for his selfish gain,
With backward glances and reluctant tread,
Making a merit of his coward dread -
But cheerful, in the light around me thrown,
Walking as one to pleasant service led;
Doing God's will as if it were my own,
Yet trusting not in mine, but in His strength alone!
John Greenleaf Whittier
Blessings and Battles in North America by Ian R. K. Paisley
It was my privilege to visit Canada and the United States of America in the latter part of September. I had the joy of attending and ministering at the Fundamentalist Regional Conference held in the Toronto Free Presbyterian Church. Over a period of some three days we had a great time of spiritual uplift and blessing. What a privilege it was to renew fellowship with Dr. Bob Jones and Dr. Bob Jones III; Dr. Rod Bell, Dr. Myron Guiler and Dr. Talmadge Spence, and also with our brethren in the Free Presbyterian Church and especially the minister of the Church, the Rev. Frank McClelland. There was evident blessing in the Church and a definite break on the Lord's Day evening when the Lord manifested His hand in saving power. The Evening Service was an overflow service with standing room only in the main auditorium.
Then on the Tuesday we made our way out to Alberta, to Calgary where I had the joy of declaring open the new Free Presbyterian Church building there, and preached afterwards in a schoolhouse to some 250 people. It was great to see the progress of the work; to renew fellowship with the people of God in that Church, and to meet many old Ulster friends.
The following day we flew on to Vancouver. God has opened here a great and effectual door but there are many adversaries. We had a time of real rich fellowship with our brother the Rev. Ian Goligher and his wife and family. The Rev. Frank McClelland accompanied me on my visit to the eastern seaboard of Canada and we had great fellowship together as we journeyed both there and back. The work goes steadily forward in Vancouver. We had the pleasure as a commission of Presbytery, along with Mr. McClelland, of installing the Rev. Ian Goligher as the minister of the Church there. A building has come their way and we rejoice in that fact, and know that the Lord will undertake and glorify His Name. We had a company of about 180 people at the Installation Service.
Then we flew back to Toronto and I addressed in the Scottish Free Presbyterian Church the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Protestant League. Once again we experienced God's blessing and God's help. I also had the opportunity for an hour on a local Radio Show in Vancouver to spell out the issues of the Free Presbyterian Church and the stand we take against apostasy and the ecumenical movement.
We then flew from Canada into the battle in Londonderry, New Hampshire.  The I.R.A. and all its supporters were enraged that we would dare to pitch our tent and preach the Gospel there. A Hall that we booked was closed against us. The first Lord's Day in the morning was the calm before the storm. We had a meeting of some 40 people, and blessing, including one Roman Catholic lady and her family. We then on Sunday night had a good gathering of people, I would reckon some 130, and a real outpouring of God's power. About 80 or so protesters gathered up and tried to shout us down but the Lord prevailed. One I.R.A. man, with great big I.R.A. initials embroidered upon his jersey, came in and crossed himself at the back of the tent. The local stewards and the local police kept order and I had the joy of preaching the Word of God.
Monday night our crowd swelled to around more than two hundred and we had to get fifty extra seats brought in, and we had a time of blessing with a definite break in the meetings, and a response when the appeal was made. The crowd of protesters had considerably decreased. Then on Tuesday night we shifted the tent up the field farther from the road where the protesters gathered and that of course stymied their protest, and that night the heavens opened and they were drenched and deluged. Some of them tried to get into the tent but they were ejected by the police and the stewards. Nevertheless the Gospel was preached, and again there was a response when the appeal was made.
The local Fundamentalist Baptist Church kindly lent us their building for the third night because of the state of the field, it was impossible to bring cars into it after the flood that we had on the Tuesday evening.
On Wednesday night the Church was packed, standing room only and a great time of blessing, and again there was a response when the appeal was made. The protesters were isolated on the road and they shouted into the air and were unheard as we conducted the services. Again they tried to come into the building, but were ejected. Altogether ten souls responded to the Gospel appeals that were made. We trust that a work of grace will be done in each and every heart.
Running parallel with the campaign was one of the most vicious Press campaigns that I have ever experienced in all my ministry. It reminded me of the very early days of the Free Presbyterian Church here. On the next page we have reproduced extracts from newspaper articles just to show the extent of the campaign that was launched against this infant church. God, however, encouraged the people and I believe a solid work has been commenced. Pray for our brother David Braine as he leads that work, and all the helpers that they may be strengthened and blessed of God. Pray especially for our good friend and brother Mr. Henry Paul who was the man responsible for initiating the work in Londonderry. He has come in for a tremendous barrage of attack but God has blessed him and strengthened him and he hopes to come and join us at our week of prayer along with his minister in January.
I thank God for the privilege of preaching the Gospel, contending for the faith and standing true to Jesus Christ.
May God help us ever to be faithful unto death and then we shall receive that coveted crown of life. 
EXTRACTS FROM NORTH AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS
Londonderry, N.H - A storm of controversy followed the Rev. Ian Paisley yesterday as protesters denounced the Irish Protestant minister for into town preaching "hatred and bigotry".
Michael Conway of Nashua and other members of Irish Northern Aid (NORAID) set up pickets last night while Paisley preached to a crowd from a pulpit in an outdoor tent.
"I personally think he's the cause of more innocent deaths in Ireland than anyone else. He agitates the Protestant working classes to go out and kill Catholics," said Conway, 52.
Boston Herald, Sept. 1985
"I am concerned that such a controversial figure would come here to represent the Christian faith," said Londonderry Presbyterian Church Minister Rev. Rowland Westervelt. "I would think his political reputation would get in the way of his preaching the word. "
"We are not associated with Paisley's group in the least, "he added.
Father Thomas Bresnahan of St. Marks Catholic Church is not concerned with Paisley's visit.
"I don't believe that his visit will hinder our working relationship with the local Presbyterian church at all. I think it has been made clear that the Free Presbyterian Church is not to be identified with the local church, " he said.
Sunday Eagle-Tribune, Sept. 1985
The Rev. Thomas Bresnahan, Pastor of Saint Mark the Evangelist Church in Londonderry, said he also hopes Paisley's presence will not hurt the relationships established between the two Catholic churches and other churches in town.
"There's been a very good relationship between St. Mark Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church in Londonderry," he said. "We hope that this will in no way hinder this relationship and I'm sure it won't."
The Union Leader, Sept. 1985
"Ian Paisley is the greatest bigot in the world," said Nashua resident Mike Conway.
"He spews hatred and is responsible for the continuing bloodshed in Northern Ireland, "said Conway, a native of Limerick, Ireland.
Paula Cunningham, who was raised in Belfast, shook with rage as she spoke of her loathing of Paisley. "Every Irishman and Irish-American disagrees with Ian Paisley and disapproves of America granting a visa to him. They have shaken hands with the devil."
On the opposite side of the street from the protesters, a Canadian pastor from the Bible Baptist Church in Nashua expressed disgust for the many pro-IRA sentiments. "I preach the same gospel. I've been beaten, burned and sent to prison for preaching the same gospel as Ian Paisley," the pastor said, adding, "These people don't know the truth."
Nashua Telegraph, Sept. 1985
The Anglo Irish Talks: Rev. Ivan Foster Speaks Out
The talks between London and Dublin, which are at the centre of the whole controversy are, because of the secrecy that surrounds them, very difficult to examine. In gauging the nature of the discussions one is forced to rely on the speculation of the press. Such speculation is usually based on the deliberate leaking of information by London and Dublin. The fears of the Ulster people are not just based on press speculation; we have the direct quotations of men like Dick Spring, the leader of the Labour Party. He indicated that if the Anglo/Irish talks were successful Northern Ireland politics would never be the same again.
Unionists are not reacting to the highly imaginative speculation of pressmen but to information coming directly from London and Dublin. They have been sifting through the information available and - very wisely I would have thought - come to the conclusion that something major is afoot in the talks.
Bearing in mind the refusal of London to give the Unionist people, whose future is being discussed, the slightest indication of what is being discussed, or any promise that they will be consulted on the acceptability of any agreement reached, it is surely little wonder that there is a great and growing concern in the Unionist community as to what the two Governments are about.
The Unionist people have long lived in the shadow of the territorial claim by Dublin over Northern Ireland. That claim, if nothing else, is an indication of the political ambitions of Dublin. Over the last few years of terrorism we have seen how Dublin's territorial ambitions have overtaken the decent and civilised behaviour that one expects from a neighbouring country claiming to be democratic. Not content with claiming jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, Dublin has indicated that it is quite prepared to allow its territory to be used as a haven for terrorists as they launch their attacks upon the Province. Dublin has not only permitted its territory to be used as a haven but has institutionalised that haven by refusing to extradite the terrorists that find a refuge there.
What we are asking for is reasonable. We merely ask to be consulted. If we are not consulted it is likewise reasonable for Unionists to take whatever steps are necessary to defeat any conspiracy which threatens our Protestant heritage.
We are often berated as only supporting the sovereignty of Parliament when it suits us. We are told we should submit to Parliament in all matters. Civilisation would not have advanced very far if that principle had been followed. In the contract that exists between a people and its Parliament it is no part of that contract that a people must submit to a decision by Parliament which will deprive the people of their constitutional rights. In resisting such tyranny they do not act unlawfully, rather they act with the highest regard for the law.
Foundation Stones Laid at New School Complex
On Saturday August 24th, Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley, Mrs. Ann Foster and Rev. Ivan Foster laid foundation stones at a new extension to Kilskeery Church. The stone-laying was part of a weekend of special meetings to mark the 11th anniversary of the opening of the present church building in 1974. The special Gift Day offerings amounted to £10,000 in gifts and loans. It is expected that the total cost of the new complex, the parking area and the school furnishings and equipment will be in the region of £75,000.
Dr. Paisley, in his message congratulated the school principal and her staff for the courageous lead they had given in the field of Christian education. The Moderator went on to preach on the subject of the need for schools like that which had been functioning in Kilskeery for six years. He reminded the congregation of the Reformers' views on church schools. "In a day in which ecumenism, modernism and evolution dominate the state school system it is essential that we all strive to provide a Christian education for our children." Dr. Paisley's text was Proverbs 22: 6, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
The official opening of the new school is planned for the new year. it must be emphasised that the Department of Education does not assist in any way with paying for the building or its equipment. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church we receive no aid whatsoever. We do not look to Governments for help. God shall supply all our needs. He has done so in the past and will continue to do so. Since 1979, when our school started over £100,000 has been prayed in. TO GOD BE THE GLORY.
Popery's True Face
Directory on Ecumenism in Ireland. (Veritas Publications, Dublin. 1976) Paragraph 11:
"It would not be a correct understanding of the principles of ecumenism if Catholics, with the aim of drawing closer to Christians, were to neglect any part of the truth and integral tradition of Catholic life and worship . . . It would be wrong to imagine that Catholics are acting in the true spirit of ecumenism if they minimise the importance of the Sacrifice of the Mass, or if they neglect such precious Catholic traditions as Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, devotion to our Blessed Lady and the Saints, reverence and loyalty towards the Vicar of Christ on Earth, prayer for the faithful departed, esteem for the religious life and priestly celibacy . . . To seek to promote the unity of Christians by attempts to weaken this Catholic witness, so far from accelerating the progress of ecumenism, would place grave obstacles in its path."