The Huguenot Story

You must really get to know the Huguenots and their enthralling story.  Details of future publications of Huguenot stories will be given on this blog and you can click the relevant link that will take you to the website where you can buy your copy.  They are very reasonably priced - only a few pence really!

Dr Jacques Abbadie

I have written and published my new book on Smashwords, entitled, Huguenot Preacher - Jacques Abbadie's The Vindication of the truth.  It can be bought at the Smashwords website .

This is an integral aspect of my ministry, and you support will be very much appreciated.  In this book, your heart will be thrilled to the core ad you will learn how to understand our precious faith and be able to present the Gospel in an intelligible manner to the unbelieving world.

Please click here and buy your own copy which can be downloaded immediately to your PC or ebook reading device.

You will also see a free book by me at the top left hand side of the web page, which can also be downloaded.  It gives a very brief insight into the Huguenots who settled in London as a result of the persecution of Christians by Louis XIV, King of France.

The Gospel - Too Good To Be True?

The world tells us continually, and perhaps we have come to say the same because we too believe it, that if a thing is "too good to be true," have nothing to do with it. But is it true to say that a thing is "too good to be true"? Is this an irrevocable principle?  If it is, then we have no Gospel!  Is Jesus Christ "too good to be true"?

If it is "too good to be true" that when a sinner turns from his sin and trusts Christ alone as his Saviour, he is forgiven and saved, then the Gospel has been completely undermined.  If being saved eternally through faith in a crucified yet risen Saviour actually happens, then for many, it is "too good to be true." These are the people who have the need to work for everything they have - including their salvation; the only thing is that there is no salvation of any real kind that can be worked for.

If it is "too good to be true" that if a Christian seeks the Lord for the anointing of His Holy Spirit and is thereby empowered to do great things for Christ, then we have nothing real to offer the world. NOTHING!

The fact is that there is nothing quite like the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the best thing the world has ever known. There is no message that has the transforming power that the Gospel has because it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes in Christ.  And for a mere man to preach that Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit with corresponding results is a sheer miracle.  And this is something we ought to seek constantly.

The Gospel is 'good' and it is 'true.'  Believe it and see!

A Home for the Huguenots in London

Orange Street Congregational Church is located in the heart of London, between Leicester Square and Trafalgar Square, and west of St Martin’s in the Field, and stands on the site of a Huguenot chapel, established in 1693. This Huguenot-founded church was opened and dedicated on Easter Eve 1693 by its first minister Daniel Chamier. It was then known as the Temple Of Leicester Fields, the name by which the Huguenots called their meeting houses, as in those days the Leicester Square district was indeed a "district of fields." 

It was there, and at Spitalfields, that a large number of Huguenots settled after fleeing the terrible persecutions of Protestants in France. From the reign of Francis I to that of the opulent Louis XIV, these French Christians, mainly Calvinists, had endured tortures of every conceivable kind. Many escaped, as best they could, to such places as England, Holland, Prussia, Switzerland and the bright new world – the United States of America. 

France thus lost a host of fine men and women of piety, industry and ability, and England gained many. The refugee communities were composed of nobles, clergy, physicians, soldiers, manufacturers and artisans, the latter of whom taught their English brothers the arts and crafts they had learned in their forsaken France.

The records show that Jean Pierre Stehelin, minister of the Orange Street Church from 1736 to 1753, "made himself a perfect master of the seventeen languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, French, German, Italian, Danish, Dutch, Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Arabic, Chaldean Gothic, Old Tudesco or Druid, Anglo-Saxon, besides Spanish, Portuguese and Welsh." 

Charles de la Guiffardierre, an able minister, was a great favourite at court, and read French to the Princesses and to Queen Charlotte. 

It is believed that Jacques Saurin, the famous French Calvinist and scholar, preached in the church many times. Saurin was born in Nîmes, Jan. 6, 1677, died at the young age of almost 54 at the Hague on Dec. 30, 1730. His family went to Geneva after the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685. In 1694 he entered the English service as a cadet under Lord Galway, afterward served in Piedmont, and then returned to Geneva and studied theology. In 1701 he became pastor of the Walloon church in London. He remained there four years, and passed the rest of his life at the Hague, acquiring a great reputation as a preacher.  When hearing him preaching, Dean Jacques Abbadie asked, "Is it a man speaking or an angel?" "To tell the truth", said Weiss, "no preacher among the Catholics or the Protestants could be compared to this sublime genius, whose inspiration is equalled only by that of the ancient prophets, and of the most illustrious among the Fathers of the Church."  It was in all likelihood that it was during this time that he preached in Orange Street church.  What an accolade to be paid to any man.

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), the famous scientist whose house was adjacent to and possessed by, the church, where he settled in 1696, and attended the services and heard Saurin regularly. So did Newton's niece, Catherine Barton, a close acquaintance of Dean Swift. It has been said of the preacher, who was young and singularly handsome, that as he warmed to his subject the silence of the intent congregation was "almost painful." 

At the time of the revival under the John and Charles Wesley, the Orange Street Church passed from French to English Protestantism, when the friends of the Rev. Augustus M. Toplady secured the chapel for the evening services. The building was licensed by Dr. Terrick, Bishop of London, and a new era began. 

After preaching at various London churches, Toplady became minister at Orange Street. About this time, he published many hymns, the best known of which is Rock of Ages, first sung in Orange Street. 

In 1787, being badly in need of repair, Orange Street Church was closed and the congregation migrated elsewhere. Later the same year it passed from the Church of England into the hands of the Nonconformists, becoming a Congregational Church, with the Rev. John Townsend as its pastor. 

This enduring Huguenot foundation has had many well-loved ministers, including Samuel Luke, whose wife, Jemima, wrote that delightful children's hymn, I think when I read that sweet story of old. So at least two of our best-known hymns are associated with the church as well as the list of illustrious Huguenot preachers who donned the pulpit there.

Unhappy Muslims!

  The Muslims are not happy!

They're not happy in Gaza.

They're not happy in Egypt .
They're not happy in Libya .
They're not happy in Morocco .
They're not happy in Iran .
They're not happy in Iraq .
They're not happy in Yemen .
They're not happy in Afghanistan .
They're not happy in Pakistan .
They're not happy in Syria .
They're not happy in Lebanon .

So, where are they happy?
They're happy in Australia .
They're happy in England .
They're happy in France .
They're happy in Italy .
They're happy in Germany .
They're happy in Sweden .
They're happy in the USA .
They're happy in Norway .
They're happy in every country that is not Muslim.And who do they blame?

Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY.

Excuse me, but how stupid can you get?

The Church Our Mother?

Augustine was surely correct when he said that if God is our Father, the church must also be our Mother.  This view was also endorsed by John Calvin (1509-1564).  But when that ‘mother’ turns out to be an abusive one, uncaring, unloving; when she becomes unfaithful to her Husband and flirts with other gods, thus becoming unfaithful, when she becomes drunk with notions of her own self-importance, blinded by power and pounds, when she becomes the end of all things, she then has departed from her high calling – to be the Bride of Christ, and to submit to His will in all things. When that mother turns from and against the very children her Husband gave to her, and treats them in a most abusive manner, the entire scenario has changed drastically. The sad reality is that it is the blood-bought church of Christ that behaves in this despicable way!

Yet when preachers tell their congregations that it is their Christian duty to commit to ‘mother church,' regardless of her track record, then they have gone too far.  And some just that!  They have taken Augustine and Calvin totally out of context, and made what they say a Christian requirement.  That it is is not doubted; but whether Christians are required to submit to an abusive mother is another question altogether. 

 

In society at large, if anyone suggested that children commit to a mother who has proved to be abusive towards her children, they would be roundly turned upon, and let know what reasonable people think about such a suggestion.  Also, if it was even suggested that children have a duty to submit to what has proved to be an abusive mother, the full rigour of the law would be called into action.  But not in the church.  I have heard very senior churchmen say o radio that his church was a family centred church, meaning that looking after the family lay at the centre of its concerns.  But where is the proof, where's the evidence that this is the case?  Are ministers also entitled to be cared fr and looked after well by the church?  When ministers are subjected to indescribable abuse at the hands of the church and her authorities, then she forfeits any right to be regarded as a good mother.   In fact, in society and in the natural realm, her children would be taken from her - and rightly so!

Call in the Church Authorities for Jesus!

Our Lord Jesus Christ was the meekest and most loving Man Who ever walked this earth.  He went about doing good because He had a heart for God and for people.  He not only taught the people the ways of God, but actually showed God to them.  When they saw Him, they saw the Father. 

But the more His disciples stayed with Him and learned from Him, the more clearly they saw the implications of what He was saying for them.  The stage came when His followers said that he was saying “hard” things to them, and they just could not hack it. 

So what did they do?  They walked no longer with Him, (Jn.6:66).  They voted with their feet.  They cut their links with Him because He was saying things to them that they did not like!  Indeed, they were not prepared to have Christ to rule over them.  They were living rebellious lives, shown in their hearty rejection of the Son of God’s teaching and His legitimate demands on their lives. 

Now, let’s bring this into the 21^st century.  Here was the church gathered together to be taught the Word of God by none other than Christ Himself.  But what He was saying to them was not finding favour with the members or with the elders.   They had tried to get Him to change His teaching and the way he was preaching, but he refused.  And He refused because He saw that it was the refusal to submit themselves to His discipline that they were saying these false things.

So what do they do?  They set up a delegation to meet with the Presbytery to inform them that this Man is teaching things that they have not heard before, and they wanted Presbytery to persuade Him not to continue in this way, but to tone down His preaching.  Indeed, what He was preaching to them was wholly inappropriate for that particular group of people.  They were the most religious people around.  OK, they didn’t believe everything their faith taught them, but most of it.  Jesus taught about the need for the ‘new birth,’ but they didn’t believe that kind of thing; in fact, it was irrelevant so far as they were concerned. 

Now the Presbytery was in a pickle!  These men regarded themselves as the only people who were holding to the traditional faith, most others having departed from it years ago.  They were the true defenders of the faith, and they only.  They held to the traditions, unlike those who weakened under slight pressure.  They were the people!  Now this new preacher has come amongst them and He is preaching what they ought to have been preaching and weren’t (though they believed that they did preach the true faith faithfully).  Yes, there was some overlap between them, but what made His preaching stand out was that He was making clear what they were saying in riddles.  He was dividing the congregation, whereas they were assuming that because their hearers had professed their faith they were genuine Christians.  They had no place in their thinking for the false, or spurious, professor.

But Jesus believed in and taught that it was possible to make a false profession of faith.  Yes, He cautioned carefulness when dealing with this situation, and to give the benefit of the doubt to the weak Christian.  But He gave no place whatever to the religious professors who persisted in their unbelief.  And that’s where the ‘rubber hit the road.’  He drew the distinction; and the Presbytery could not handle it.  Their primary concern was for the church, their denomination, not the Gospel.  They had to maintain their church structures at all costs, and keep the members on board, irrespective of the consequences for the preacher.

How do Presbyteries ‘resolve’ situations like these?  Well, the truth is the first thing that is set at naught.  Let’s forget about the Gospel issue, and let us work on the assumption that all parties believe the Gospel – we’ll not even question that presupposition.  They are all Gospel people, so we will deal with what is essentially a breakdown in inter-personal relationships.   The congregation is committed to the biblical Gospel and so is this preacher. So to remove the troublesome preacher will maintain the gospel in the church and enable things to get back to where they were before his arrival.  Right?

Wrong, and a thousand times ‘wrong.’  What a false assumption it is that the church is infallible – a distinctly Roman doctrine which reformed churches have now embraced.  To remove the man who is teaching and preaching the Gospel may well be, in the providence of God, God’s way of removing His candlestick from that church!  Oh, church authorities need to be very, very careful.  To remove the herald of a clear Gospel message, and then replace him with a “good churchman,” is essentially an attack on the Gospel of Christ.  It is to say, in this practical and observable way, that the Gospel clearly preached and applied has no place in our church/denomination.  The peace and unity of the church is more important that the Gospel, even though church unity and congregational unity can only be on the basis of the Gospel.  But forget that.  Silence this clear preaching, and then the church will settle down.

How wrong church leaders can be in these matters!  Is it cowardice that drives them?  Or, the desire to be seen as ‘good churchmen’?  Or, are they, as Al. N. Martin, would describe them, “wicked pragmatists”?  Has the church become much more important to them than the Gospel?  Have they lost their concern for the souls of their members?  Has the Gospel of Christ been discounted to this extent?  It seems so.  But the lesson here is that no church can deal so shabbily with the Gospel without their being serious consequences to follow.  So beware!