Olde Paths &
Ancient Lndmrks

Christian Issues

Book Room

Tape Corner

Contact us


Vol. 6, No. 12
Dec., 1997

The Devil's Advantage

by Glenn Conjurske

The devil has always a very great advantage over God in dealing with the souls of men. The devil may preach what men wish to hear, while God must preach what they ought to hear. The devil may pamper their pride, while God seeks to abase it. The devil may preach self-indulgence, while God preaches self-denial. The devil has used his advantage to the full, and has been pre-eminently successful in his bid for the souls of men. The way which leads to life is narrow, and few there be that find it. But “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.”

The advantage of the devil plainly appears in this. The way which leads to life is narrow because God has made it so. He has hedged it in with all of those prohibitions which are dictated by holiness. The way to destruction is wide because the devil has made it so. He has taken down the fences, removed all of the prohibitions which belong to holiness, and given to his adherents liberty to do as they please. The wide path is the path of self-indulgence. The narrow way is the way of self-denial. It is for this reason that “few there be that find it”----not that men do not wish to find eternal life, but they do not choose to tread the path of holiness, which alone leads to eternal life. Men do not wish to go to destruction, but they wish to tread the path that leads to destruction, and therefore “many there be which go in thereat.” The devil freely offers that broad way of self-indulgence, while Christ preaches, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself.” This gives to the devil the advantage which he possesses, and the success which he enjoys.

If any man wishes to understand the ways of the devil, let him study the temptation of Eve. The devil succeeded in his first temptation of man, and he has never altered his method from that day to this. He offered to give to Eve what God had denied her. He used the one thing which God had forbidden her, to move her to doubt the goodness of God, and by giving her that thing himself, he secured her belief in his own superior goodness. Her unbelief was not a mere intellectual mistake, but a moral defection. All unbelief toward God is essentially belief in the devil. Hence the heinous wickedness of unbelief. But this by the way. The point to be made here is that Eve, in accepting from the devil's hands that which God had withheld from her, actually gave the allegiance of her heart to the devil, and this is how the devil gains the allegiance of the whole world. He offers the very things which God forbids. He preaches that men may indulge their eyes and their hands in the gratification of every lust, while Christ preaches that they must cut off the right hand and pluck out the right eye. The devil allows men to do their own will----and promises them heaven too----while God forbids it. The devil forbids nothing. Meanwhile he invites the free indulgence in everything which God has forbidden, and thus gains the allegiance of the hearts of men.

For the same reason the world has a very great tactical advantage over the church. The church of God must preach the word of God. It must therefore be negative. It must preach “Thou shalt not”------yes, and “Thou shalt” also. The church must require men to deny themselves, while the world encourages them to indulge themselves. The church must require men to “abstain from fornication,” while the world winks at it or encourages it. The church must require women to clothe themselves modestly, while the devil permits them to wear anything or nothing. The church must preach that men forsake all that they have, and take up the cross, while the world preaches that they may forsake the cross and acquire all that they can. The world offers one constant round of pleasure, while the church must preach, “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” (I Tim. 5:6).

All of this gives the world a very great advantage over the church of God, in competing for the souls of men, and for this reason the world is ten thousand times more successful in its bid for the souls of men than ever the church of God has been. While the meetings of the churches are few and small, the football and baseball stadiums are thronged with multitudes----while vast multitudes more follow those games by means of radio or television. What can the church of God offer to compete with a Miss America Pageant? What can the church of God offer to compete with Bingo games and Casino gambling? The world freely offers “the pleasures of sin” and “the treasures of Egypt,” while the church can offer only “the reproach of Christ.” What competition is this?

The advantage which the world has over the church is so obvious that men cannot fail to perceive it, and those who care for the souls of men cannot fail to deeply feel it. Many therefore in the church, envying the world's success, and judging success more important than faithfulness, have set out to compete with the world at its own game. In order to succeed in their bid for souls, they have lowered the standards, and in fact brought the world into the church. This course has been taken especially by those who fancy themselves called of God to minister to young people. Spiritual activities have been largely abandoned in favor of recreation, games, sports, and pleasures----always, of course, with some spiritual activity or gospel sermonette tacked on. That solemn word of God, “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground,” has been totally forgotten, and all that is most sacred corrupted into some cheap form of pleasure. Even the knowledge of the word of God must be corrupted into a game, so that “sword drills” and “Bible quizzing” have widely replaced sober Bible study. Soul-winning endeavors must be conducted on the plan of a game or contest. The music of the church has been largely replaced with that of the world, under the name of “Contemporary Christian Music.” But nothing has been accomplished by this----beyond the thorough corruption of Christianity----for the plain fact is, the church cannot beat the world at its own game. In spite of all of this lowering of standards, in spite of bringing half of the world's pleasures into the church, the churches remain small and weak and few in comparison to the institutions of the world. The church must maintain some degree of conscience and restraint, and therefore cannot compete successfully with the world on its own ground.

The church, then, if she will be wise, will leave the devil's advantage to the devil. The only thing which she gains by grasping for that advantage is the thorough corruption of herself. Let it be well understood that the devil possesses that advantage solely because he is corrupt. The advantage which the devil had in his bid for the soul of Eve lay precisely in the fact that he was corrupt. He had no right to offer her what God had forbidden, yet offer it he did. Moreover, he could lie without scruple, and where God had spoken the stern “Thou shalt surely die,” he could preach the pleasant “Ye shall not surely die.” It was solely his corruption which gave him his advantage, and if the church seeks that same advantage, she must become corrupt in the process. She may not become as corrupt as the devil, but she will certainly lose some degree of her purity and her faithfulness.

And the fact is, the church has no need thus to lower herself. God has the advantage over the devil in another sphere, and it is a real and very decided advantage. Of that I shall speak shortly, but I must first note that in the sphere of the devil's advantage, as the world has the advantage over the church, so in mixed marriages, the ungodly parent has always the same advantage over the godly one. The ungodly parent may freely indulge the children in those things which the godly parent must forbid. And if the godly parent is lukewarm and languid besides, as is often the case in mixed marriages, there is but little hope for the salvation of the children.

The same advantage appears where one parent is spiritual, and the other unspiritual. The children will easily perceive the unspiritual parent as being “more fun.” While the spiritual parent labors to wean the hearts of the children from the things of earth, and set them on the inheritance incorruptible and undefiled which is reserved in heaven, the unspiritual parent leads them into the present enjoyment of everything which is pleasing, though unspiritual and unprofitable.

How is the spiritual parent to compete with this? Not, surely, by offering the children more and better pleasures. No, but by diligently inculcating the principles of faith, which forsakes the pleasures and treasures of this world, taking in their place the reproach of Christ, and having respect always to the future reward. The spiritual parent may also gain the respect of the children by superior character, and this will tell when the children choose to hearken to the claims of reason.

How can the church compete with the world? How can self-denial compete with self-indulgence? Let it be understood that the devil's advantage lies entirely in the realm of the emotions. God has all the advantage in the realms of reason and conscience. The devil's temptations appeal to the lusts and desires of men. God appeals to the reason and the conscience. The devil says, “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me,” while the Lord says, “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Here it plainly appears that in the realm of the desires, the devil has all the advantage, while in the realm of reason, all the advantage is God's.

But this much being understood, it yet appears that the preponderance of advantage lies heavily on the devil's side. How so? Let it be understood that the devil's advantage lies entirely in the realm of the soul. When we enter the realm of the spirit, God has all the advantage. The soul is the seat of emotions and desires, and of pleasures and enjoyments. These the devil offers without stint. The spirit is the seat of the conscience and the reason, and these, when allowed free and fair play, are always on the side of God.

But who allows free and fair play to the reason and the conscience? The human race is a race of fools, which acts every day and every hour against its “better judgement.” It allows its heart to over-rule its head. It follows its desires, regardless of the admonitions of the reason, or the chidings of the conscience. Its desires and emotions it cannot control, and it chooses to be controlled by its desires and emotions, for here is pleasure. It is the weakness of man to love pleasure, and in his fallen state that love of pleasure has become his lord and master, and he its slave. The Bible calls him a natural man. This is a poor translation, and I suppose necessarily poor, for this is one of those extremely rare places where the English language is poor. The Greek word, which is elsewhere translated “sensual,” is øõ÷éêüò, or “soul-ish.” The natural man is the man who has yielded himself to the lusts and pleasures and enjoyments which are craved by his soul,* and that in defiance or neglect of his spirit. The reason and the conscience are every day sacrificed in order to please the soul----or in other words, to please the self, for man is a soul.

Such are the men for whom God and the devil engage in conflict. Such are the men whom the devil tempts, and is it not plain that his advantage is a great one? If men would heed the chidings of their own conscience, if they would once yield to the monitions of their own reason, the devil would have no advantage at all, but this they do not choose to do. It is more pleasing to yield to our lusts, than to yield to our reason or our conscience. The race is in fact a race of fools. They exactly resemble a three-year-old child, who will always choose present pleasure over future advantage. Offer a three-year-old a candy bar today, or ten dollars next week, and he will take the candy bar today. Offer him a candy bar today, or a hundred dollars a day for the rest of his life, after he reaches the age of twenty-one, and still he will take the candy bar today. Offer a man the pleasures of this world now, or pleasures at God's right hand in eternity to come, and he will take the pleasures of this world now. He has little inclination to deny himself in the present in order to secure the future, and indeed little ability to do so. He would rather risk hell than give up his pleasures, and in this he proves himself to be a reckless, heedless, and inexcusable fool.

And what do we gain if we seek to win men to Christ by appealing to their love of pleasure----by turning the solemn things of God into games and contests, or by bringing the world's recreations and the world's music into the church? All such schemes present to men from the very outset a fundamentally false view of Christianity----a Christianity founded in self-indulgence instead of self-denial. By such schemes we leave men in fact just where they were, for we altogether fail to deal with the moral delinquency which sets them upon a course of self-pleasing at the expense of reason and conscience. The devil offers them pleasure, and the church offers the same. God commands self-denial, and the church gives him the lie. I have observed for many years that the gospel which is commonly preached today presents no moral issue to men, but only an intellectual issue. Those who are converted by that gospel are unchanged morally. Their conversion is an intellectual one. In short, they are deceived, and so much the deeper is the deception when the preaching of the gospel is based upon an appeal to the very essence of their moral delinquency, namely, their love of pleasure, and their self-pleasing self-indulgence.

The real gospel of God presents a moral issue to men. It requires them to repent----to mend their ways, to leave the broad way for the narrow one, to deny themselves, in the place of their former self-indulgence.

I know it will be said that such a gospel undermines the doctrine of salvation by faith. Not so at all. I am bold to affirm----and I affirm it advisedly----that this is the only gospel preaching which establishes the doctrine of salvation by faith. Most of those who talk so much of faith, faith, faith, have no notion in the world as to what saving faith is. Their faith is an intellectual assent to certain facts concerning God and Christ, which has no moral virtue in it. This is the faith of devils. The faith by which we know God, walk with God, and are saved, is the faith which purifies the heart. (Acts 15:9). It is that faith which apprehends God to be better than the devil, and reckons the ways of God to be in actual fact better than the ways of the devil----both intrinsically better, and more profitable to ourselves. It therefore renounces the devil and his ways, and embraces the Lord and his ways. Unbelief, which the devil first inspired in Eve in the garden, reckons just the reverse----reckons that it is better to adhere to the devil than to God. There is extreme moral delinquency in such reckoning. Its whole course declares that it believes the ways of the devil better than the ways of God. It relishes the devil's ways and his works. Part of that moral delinquency lies in the profane and Esau-like choice of present gratification over future good. While unbelief therefore chooses the devil and his ways, faith renounces them, and cleaves to the Lord and holiness. The faith of the gospel is that which renounces the present pleasure for the future advantage. It is that which renounces the pleasures of sin and the treasures of Egypt, and takes in their place the reproach of Christ, precisely because it has respect to the future, and its “recompense of the reward.”

The preachers of the gospel, then, have no business to compete with the devil for the advantage which he has in his bid for souls. If they could effectually compete with him (and they cannot), still it were wrong to do so. It rather confirms men in the root and essence of their sin, than saves them from it. The devil possesses his advantage solely because he is corrupt, and it is the corruption of the race which greatly augments that advantage. God's advantage lies in another sphere, and it is the church's place to take God's side in the matter. When the devil tempted Eve with the forbidden fruit, and God saw her about to yield, he did not step in and say, “Only remain loyal to me, and I will give you the forbidden fruit.” No such thing. He would not compete with the devil on his ground. He left the standard just where it was, and the church of God has no right whatsoever to do otherwise. It is the business of the church to enforce the claims of the conscience and the reason, and to insist upon self-denial, as the first condition of discipleship to Christ.

Not that God has nothing to offer of pleasure. He has indeed, and more than the devil could offer, but most of it is not present pleasure, but rather, “an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.” For the present he offers peace and joy, and indeed “an hundredfold now in this time,” but always “with persecutions” (Mark 10:30), with the reproach of Christ, with the offense of the cross, with the hatred of the world, and on condition of repentance and self-denial. The hundredfold which he promises is a recompense for that which has been forsaken. He promises nothing to those who do not forsake all that they have, and hate father and mother, brother and sister, and their own life also.

It is no business of a preacher of the gospel to imitate the devil in his ways, but to throw all of his weight behind the ways of God, the claims of Christ, the demands of conscience, and the mandates of reason. Not that he can ignore the needs of the heart. Not that he ought to. The gospel promises rest, peace that passes understanding, joy unspeakable and full of glory, eternal life, and an eternal weight of glory. But it also promises present suffering, present poverty, present persecution, and present reproach. It goes so far as to say, “If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable”----so far was the Christianity of Paul's day from that of the present.

Understand, I think it a very great mistake to preach exclusively, or even primarily, to the spirit, while the needs of the soul are ignored. I believe it a great mistake, in other words, to address the reason and the conscience, while the needs of the heart are ignored. God has an advantage in the realm of the soul also, but that advantage never appears while the claims of reason and conscience are ignored. God can say, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. 11:28). This is an appeal to the soul----an appeal to man's need for enjoyment and satisfaction. But understand, God offers this upon condition. The next verse says, “Take my yoke upon you, ... and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” That rest is conditioned upon submission to Christ's yoke, which is submission to his authority, and that submission implies repentance and self-denial.

And I wish to point out here that the very terms in which the gospel is preached in Scripture, and the very persons to whom it is preached, often assume the devil's advantage of which I speak. “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden.” Those who are not so have no interest in the rest which Christ offers, and with them, therefore, the devil has all the advantage. So likewise, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.” (Luke 4:18). Again, in Matthew 11:5, “the poor have the gospel preached to them,” and in James 2:5, “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world?” God takes up, as George Whitefield used to say, the devil's castaways. When sin has done its work in men, and left them miserable, they are then ready to hearken to God. Before that the devil has all the advantage with them. The devil has all the advantage with the prodigal while his pockets are full of money. When his pockets are empty, and his stomach also, he “comes to himself,” and listens to the claims of reason and of conscience. When he has done that, he may then have the fatted calf, the music and dancing, the ring on his finger, the shoes on his feet, and the best robe on his back.

All of the satisfaction which God offers to the soul is conditioned upon submission to the claims of the spirit. All of the pleasures and treasures which he offers are conditioned upon submission to the claims of reason and conscience. And most of the pleasures and treasures which he has to offer are not given as a present possession, but only promised as a future hope. The devil, on the contrary, offers numerous pleasures which God forbids, offers them as a present possession, and offers them without condition. Not that no condition exists. The devil's pleasures are in fact very costly. The true condition is allegiance to himself, and rejection by God, but the devil is a liar, and it is no trouble to him to say, “Ye shall not surely die.” He offers his pleasures without condition. All of this gives him a very great advantage over God.

The devil has many other advantages also, of which we cannot particularly speak. The world is his own domain, and the chief instrument by which he carries on his campaigns for the souls of men. By means of enforced (or expected) conformity to social customs, false ideologies to blind the mind, and false religions to salve the conscience, the world is used by the devil to strengthen his advantage at every point. Yet his principal advantage remains in the desires of the soul of man. He had nothing but this when he tempted Eve, and yet he was successful, though Eve had none of those rampant, uncontrolled, and uncontrollable desires which belong to fallen man. Her soul was doubtless under the regulation of her spirit. We are born with that link broken, and the soul in the ascendency, for we are øõ÷éêüò, or “soul-ish.” Whatever advantage the devil had with Eve----attacking her no doubt at her weakest point----he has a thousand fold with us.

It must be understood that God's messengers have always been at a great disadvantage in this world. His people are a little flock. He sends his servants forth as sheep among wolves. He sends them to preach an unpopular and hated message. He sends them forth in reproach, and sends them to the poor and the weak and the foolish and the base and the despised. Apparently God has no concern to compete with the devil on his ground, or to divest him of his advantages. It is Neo-evangelicalism which cannot bear the reproach and the weakness which God himself has borne for centuries, and which belongs to true Christianity. Neo-evangelicalism must therefore fight the devil on his own ground, and seek always the place of strength and advantage. This is a corruption of Christianity.

Yet God's advantage over the devil is real and commanding in the realm of the spirit, and where the light is allowed to shine. But “men love darkness rather than light,” and this “because their deeds are evil.” The light makes them uncomfortable----begets in them feelings of shame and remorse----demands of them amendment of their ways----threatens to rob them of their pleasures. They would rather yield their souls to their pleasures than submit them to the proper regulation of their spirits. Therefore the devil's advantage remains, in all its strength.

What then is a preacher of the gospel to do? Indulge the sinful disposition of men, and preach a gospel which consists of present pleasures, or preach it as an appendix to such pleasures? This is but to capitulate to the devil. The preacher's business is to preach the very light which men hate. It is his business to make men uncomfortable, to make them ashamed, and indeed, to rob them of their pleasures. He must, in other words, leave the devil's advantage to the devil. The more we vie with the devil for the advantage which he possesses over God, the more we corrupt the gospel and the church. What the church needs at the present day is preachers who have real faith in the real gospel of God, and who stand immovably upon that gospel, and bend all their energies to make men hear and consider it, and to move them to feel its force. Will they not find that old gospel to be “the power of God unto salvation”?

Book Review

by Glenn Conjurske


For the Love of the Bible, by David W. Cloud

Way of Life Literature, 1219 Harms Rd., Oak Harbor, Wash.

Third Printing, 1995, 461 pp.

In undertaking to review this book by David Cloud, I very much feel how difficult it is to deal publicly with the statements and performances of our brethren. I feel this every time I venture to do it. Of Mr. Cloud, I can only say that I esteem him as a good man----indeed, as the soundest, sanest, and most able man that I know of in the King James Only movement. I have made sincere overtures of friendship to him in private letters, and I would not purposely or knowingly say a word in this review to give any other impression, to himself or anyone else. Nevertheless, I am certain that he is wrong on these issues, and that he is leading others astray, and, as I have told him privately, I very much desire an open, frank, thorough, and friendly discussion of the principles involved.

I do not aim here to review everything in this book. That would require another book. I can only deal with a few of the principles which pervade this movement, and I have no doubt that this will be of interest and spiritual profit even to those who have little interest in the Bible version controversy.

I begin with the title of Mr. Cloud's book----For the Love of the Bible. In that title discerning men will find both the strength and the weakness of the entire King James Only movement. And I desire all of my readers to understand that in reviewing this book I review the movement----for the book is, and is obviously designed to be, an epitome and defense of the movement. And before I proceed I wish to commend Mr. Cloud for his honesty and good sense in using the term “King James Only,” and applying it to himself. There are many who are as much King James Only as David W. Cloud or David Otis Fuller, who yet disclaim it. This only breeds confusion, and it certainly has the appearance of dishonesty.

But to proceed. “The love of the Bible” is an emotion----an excellent and a spiritual emotion, I freely grant. I grant further that to love the Bible in our day very naturally means to love the particular version of the Bible which has so greatly blessed our own souls, and the whole church of God. I will go so far as to affirm that to love the Bible as we ought necessarily implies a love for the King James Version, woven as it is into the very foundation of the thought, the language, and the literature of the true church of God for nearly four centuries. All who love their spiritual heritage must love the King James Version. This is an excellent emotion also.

But emotion is not reason, and emotion divorced from reason will almost always lead us astray. The King James Only movement is based upon emotion divorced from reason----true and excellent emotion I freely grant, but in hopeless defiance of facts and reason.

Let us glance, then, at this excellent emotion, “the love of the Bible.” The fact is, the good and spiritual bishop Joseph Hall loved the Bible. Concerning his Contemplations on the Historical Passages of the Old and New Testaments, C. H. Spurgeon says in his Commenting and Commentaries, “This work can be readily procured; but if its price were raised in proportion to its real value, it would become one of the most costly books extant.” Spurgeon told his students, “He who has not Bishop Hall's Contemplations, let him sell his garment to buy it.”----Personal Reminiscences of Spurgeon, by W. Williams, pg. 146. And yet in these contemplations the good bishop almost never quotes the King James Version, but some earlier version, or more often his own rendition from the original. Those who follow his example today are reproached as correcting the Holy Ghost and tampering with the word of God.

Again, John Wycliffe loved THE BIBLE, and for that love was hated by Rome. He loved THE BIBLE, in the very same sense that Mr. Cloud does. But THE BIBLE which John Wycliffe loved was not the King James Version. Neither was it the Textus Receptus. The only Bible which he ever knew was the Latin Vulgate. Yet that BIBLE which Wycliffe loved was no Bible at all according to the repeated assertions of the King James Only movement. It contained the wrong text----a corrupt and perverted text----a text different from the Textus Receptus. That BIBLE which John Wycliffe loved (and which saved his soul) is hated and maligned by many in this movement----called “the devil's Bible,” “a rotten Bible,” etc. (I do not know that Cloud uses such language, but Van Kleek and others do.)

But to be short, it is unfair and unreasonable to identify the love of the Bible with an adherence to these new doctrines. Such a stroke leaves out most of the best men in the history of the church, including John Wesley, R. A. Torrey, Richard Baxter, and John W. Burgon.

But it is evidently Mr. Cloud's purpose to prove that these new doctrines are not new. He refers therefore to numerous men from 1800 to the present who supported the King James Version, opposed its rivals, opposed Westcott and Hort's Greek text, etc. But Cloud altogether fails of his purpose, for (with one possible exception) none of those men before the advent of Fuller and Ruckman agree with his position. They all agree with mine. They used the King James Version, believed in its excellence, and believed it the word of God in the same sense that I do, but none of them believed in its inerrancy, infallibility, or perfection. Mr. Cloud misuses these men. I do not say he intentionally misuses them, but it is at any rate certain that he misunderstands them. It is common with King James Only men, from David Otis Fuller down, to misapply all statements concerning the infallibility of the Bible, as though they were statements of the infallibility of the translation. This misapplication is probably the result of the prejudice and consequent mental fog which reigns in this movement, rather than of any intentional dishonesty, but still there is little excuse for it, for those same men who contended so strongly for the inerrancy of the Bible (referring to its factual, historical, and doctrinal content), freely corrected both the original text and the translation when they believed them in error. Further, numbers of them make explicit statements that they did not believe the translation perfect or without error. In the case of those men who did not make any such explicit statement, we may yet assume that this was their belief, for the simple reason that this was the universal belief before the advent of Fuller and Ruckman.

Take one example. On page 60 Mr. Cloud quotes L. W. Munhall as saying, “It is a very common saying ... that though there are numerous errors, discrepancies, and contradictions in the Bible, these in no sense imperil or jeopardize the doctrinal teachings of the book. Of course, to superficial thinkers this saying will appear specious; but to thoughtful, honest, and reverent souls fallacious and dangerous. If the Bible contains historic, scientific, and chronological errors, on what ground can it be consistently argued that it is infallible in its doctrinal deliverances? ... The fact is, men will not accept the doctrinal teachings of the book as infallible if they are led to believe that it is untrustworthy in other matters.”

With this we entirely agree, but we as entirely disagree with Cloud's application of it. Cloud says, “Thus we see that Modernists have long denied that their criticisms of the Bible result in destruction of faith, but any reasonable person can see that any criticism of the Bible will destroy people's faith therein. We are convinced that ANY criticism, whether it be called 'lower' or 'higher,' destroys faith in the Bible.” Cloud labors hard in this book to make out that higher criticism (modernism) is the natural consequence of lower criticism (textual criticism), that the two are but two steps on the same ladder. I cannot take the space to deal with that here, except to affirm categorically that the claim is false. But the strength of this movement lies in confusing or equating things which are essentially different------one true and the other false------and disallowing them both together, or establishing them both together.

As for Munhall, it is an absolute certainty that the alleged “errors, discrepancies, and contradictions in the Bible” of which he speaks are concerned with the factual and historical content of the book as given by God, and have nothing to do with the translation, or the present state of the text. In the same book from which Mr. Cloud quotes, (The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, pp. 20-21) Munhall very explicitly repudiates the ground occupied by Cloud and the whole King James Only movement. He says, “This class [the modernists], with as much care and evident satisfaction as an infidel, hunts out the apparent contradictions and errors in the authorized and revised versions of the Bible, and holding them up to the public gaze exultingly declare: 'Here is conclusive evidence that the Bible is not verbally inspired.' Many of these gentlemen are dishonest because, First, they know that most of these apparent errors and contradictions were long ago satisfactorily answered, even to the silencing of infidel scoffers; and, Second, they know that NO ONE BELIEVES that the transcribers, translators, and revisers were inspired. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is simply this: The original writings, ipsissima verba, came through the penmen direct from God; and these gentlemen are only throwing dust into the air when they rail against verbal inspiration and attempt to disprove it by pointing out the apparent errors and discrepancies of the authorized and revised texts.”

This of course proves that L. W. Munhall did not believe the doctrines for which Mr. Cloud contends, but it proves much more than that. Here is an explicit testimony that a century ago NO ONE believed those doctrines----not that we needed the testimony of Munhall on a matter so obvious and so well known. The orthodox then believed in the verbal inspiration of the originals, and NO ONE believed in the inerrancy or infallibility of the work of transcribers, printers, or translators. Mr. Cloud's array of testimony “from 1800 to present” is nothing to the purpose, if he thinks to establish his own position by it. There was no orthodox advocate of his position before David Otis Fuller. I challenge the whole King James Only movement to produce one example, before Fuller and Ruckman, of an explicit statement ascribing perfection or inerrancy to the translation. A friend tells me he believes it possible to gather quotations from a great host of men who contend there are no errors or mistakes in the King James Bible. But he believes this only because he has never attempted it. Let any advocate of these new doctrines now produce one such statement prior to Fuller and Ruckman. The plain fact is, those same men who have spoken most forcefully of the infallibility of the Bible, have spoken just as clearly of the faults in both text and translation, when they have had occasion to do so.

Munhall continues, “But some say, 'Since we do not have the original writings, what is the use of insisting upon the doctrine of verbal inspiration?' I answer, there are two sufficient reasons: First. If the original writings were not inspired of God verbally, then we have no Word of God. Second. Is there no difference between an inexact copy of an inerrable record and a faulty copy of an uncertain record? I think there is.” Munhall takes it for granted that the copies which we possess are faulty, and indeed asserts categorically that “no one believes” otherwise----and this while contending for the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Such statements might be multiplied, from the very men whom Cloud quotes in this book. This was the position of all the orthodox, “from 1800” to the advent of Fuller and Ruckman, including those whom Cloud lists (pp. 428-443) in support of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Whether true or not, the King James Only position is new, and it is a misuse of the evidence to imply otherwise.

Mr. Cloud does make some acknowledgement in that direction, but it is much too little, and not explicit enough. He says (pg. 137), “I am not claiming that all of these various witnesses believed exactly like I do or exactly like any other certain King James defender today believes. Some of these men believed almost precisely like I do; some did not.” This is actually an admission that none of the men whom he quotes prior to 1950 precisely agree with his position. He is indeed mistaken in thinking that any of them believed almost precisely as he does. He thinks so only because he confuses the issues. But be that as it may, the impression given by these numerous quotations “from 1800 to Present” can only be that all these men held a position essentially the same as Cloud's. Why else does he quote them? He says himself on page 207, “There were hundreds of independent Baptist churches in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas in those days [prior to 1950] which stood exclusively for the King James Bible and which opposed the modern versions. Those who believe that the 'King James Only' position is some kind of new invention are ignoring the facts of history.” Not so. It is Mr. Cloud who is ignoring history, and misusing it. The one grand fact of history which is pertinent to the question is that not one of those men “prior to 1950” held the King James Only position. The distinguishing tenet of the movement, namely the inerrancy of the King James translation, was never thought of or dreamed of prior to Fuller and Ruckman. If Mr. Cloud will insist on reducing the definition of “King James Only” to a mere adherence to the King James Bible, and opposition to modern versions, he must include me in the movement------and that I believe he would be as loth to do as I would be to have it done.

But I believe Cloud is sincere in his position. He does not shuffle and ignore the issues as many of the King James Only men do, but faces the issues honestly and states them frankly. He addresses the issue of who is to be accounted “King James Only” as follows (pp. 174-175): “We see that Miller, like Burgon, did not consider the Received Text, the text underlying the King James Bible, necessarily to be absolutely perfect. We believe they were wrong, but the fact is that this was their position. Some take hold of this and say it is unethical for today's 'King James Only'crowd to claim ancestry with these men. The fact is that Miller was 'King James Only' in the sense that he believed the King James Bible to be the only accurate English translation of the preserved text of Holy Scripture. Does someone protest that this is merely my own definition of 'King James Only'? Let me say that my definition is at least as authoritative as any other man's. I am not boasting when I say that few men know this present subject as well as this writer does. What I am doing is showing that there have been many men across the years who have stood against the critical text and for the King James Bible in a general sense. I do not have to agree perfectly with all of their conclusions to claim kinship with them in overall position.” (Bold type is mine, italics Cloud's.)

Mr. Cloud may be sincere in this, but he is mistaken. It cannot be legitimate at this hour to so define “King James Only” as to leave out its distinguishing characteristics. What Miller and Burgon held only “in a general sense,” the King James Only movement holds in a technical and absolute sense. This is what distinguishes and indeed what has created the movement. To omit this in the definition of it cannot be legitimate, regardless of Mr. Cloud's sincerity in the matter, and regardless of his extensive knowledge of the matters involved. Does he feel the same kinship with me that he feels with Burgon? If not, why not? What difference can he find between my position and Burgon's? Permit me to point out the actual difference between myself and Burgon. Burgon and I stand together for the King James Version and its Greek text “in a general sense,” and Burgon and I are also in perfect agreement in denying their perfection or absolute purity. So far, then, we are perfectly agreed. Where then do we differ? Only in this, that I speak forcefully and frequently against the absolute perfection of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version, whereas Burgon spoke so but occasionally and incidentally. But if Mr. Cloud will inquire into the reason for this difference between myself and Burgon, he will find the proof that the thesis of his book is false. The reason that Burgon spoke only occasionally and incidentally against the perfection of the Received Text and the Authorized Version is simply that there was no occasion to do otherwise. The doctrine of their absolute purity did not then exist------was not then so much as dreamed of. The plain fact is, these doctrines are new. They did not exist in Burgon's day.

But I turn to something else. I believe that one of the primary reasons for the existence of the King James Only movement is the craving which men have for certainty and security. Cloud writes (pg. 48), “The only position in the issue of Bible versions today which leaves one with a Bible preserved in its words and details is that which stands in defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible. All other positions leave one, to various degrees, with uncertainty and doubt.” If that is so, then be it so. It remains a fact that a desire for certainty and infallibility cannot be a legitimate motive for believing any doctrine whatever. That same desire has led many to Romanism. This desire for certainty may be legitimate, but it often proves a snare, by betraying men into an easy and carnal security, which is arrived at only by ignoring or denying the truth. It is a simple matter of “Ignorance is bliss.” This is the case with all forms of traditionalism. It requires no mental exercise, no wrestling with difficulties, no facing of issues, no dealing with stubborn facts, but only a sacrifice of the mind to a few pious assumptions, usually false. This gives a certainty and security which is very appealing, especially to the shallow and the lazy, and this is doubtless one of the main reasons for the widespread acceptance of the King James Only doctrines in our day. The certainty in which these men bask was never dreamed of by Baxter or Wesley or Darby or Torrey or Scrivener or Burgon, who believed the true text did not exist in any printed edition, but only as dispersed in all the manuscripts.

Mr. Cloud endorses this easy and carnal security, as follows: “Dr. Charles Turner, director of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute in Bowie, Texas, notes, 'Someone has wisely said, ”A man who owns only one watch knows what time it is, but a man who has two watches is never quite sure.“ In a similar way this is the problem with the many different translations of the N.T. ... The authority of God's Word in the English language is being eroded by these many translations. ... God's Word is no longer the authority over you. You have, by reason of the picking and choosing of translations, become the authority over God's Word.”' Cloud adds, “I agree with this assessment.” (pg. 59).

But all of this is full of fallacy. The fact is, the man who has only one watch always thinks he knows what time it is------provided, that is, that he never thinks at all. Does it never enter his head that his watch might be wrong? Would it destroy his certainty if he had a second watch with which to check the first? The plain fact is, to all who are willing to think, two watches, even if they do not perfectly agree, give much more certainty than one watch standing alone------unless we so crave certainty and security as to attribute some divine infallibility to the one watch. This is exactly what the King James Only men have done with the King James Bible, but they have done it against the explicit testimony of the makers of that version. They plainly profess that they did not have that certainty which the present generation has imputed to their work. They plainly profess their own uncertainty as to the sense of many of the words of the originals, and therefore defend the necessity of marginal readings. Every one of those marginal readings (and there are many of them in the original King James Version) is a testimony to the uncertainty of the translators as to the true sense. Their argument in favor of these variant readings is pithily summed up thus (and I modernize the spelling): “They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.” The man who would rather be captivated to one watch than lose his certainty of the time is certainly unwise, and he only increases his self-deception if he bolsters his certainty by attributing divine infallibility to that one watch. The man who has two watches may have less absolute certainty, but he has more solid certainty, and this is increased a hundred fold if he has a hundred watches. Hence the value of textual criticism. It does not destroy our certainty as these men contend, but increases our certainty a thousand fold. The only kind of certainty which it destroys is that presumptuous and carnal certainty which would rather be “captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

But more. Turner states, and Cloud agrees, that by the various translations the word of God has lost its authority over us, and we have become the authority over the word of God------a claim, like most others in this movement, which will not stand for a moment if men will but think. The King James translators, as we have seen, claim that it is wise to have our “judgements at liberty in differences of readings.” They had no such idea as that this made us the authority over the word of God. Yet there is not one whit of difference between “picking and choosing of translations” and “picking and choosing of different readings.” A man may do this in humble submission to the Spirit who leads us into all truth, using our own reason and judgement to do so, without the slightest taint of that arrogant presumption which makes him the authority over the word of God. Moreover, Mr. Cloud and all of his associates in this movement have been engaged throughout their lives in “picking and choosing” between various interpretations of numerous passages of their Bibles, and they never dreamed that this made them the authority over the word of God, though it is nothing different in principle from that to which they object.

But there is yet more. The King James Only men are just as guilty of “picking and choosing” texts and versions as any man on earth. There are hundreds of varying editions of the Greek Testament available, and many and various editions even of the Textus Receptus. Of these Cloud says (pg. 175), “But I also say that this same position of faith forces me to make a decision as to exactly which version of the Traditional Text is the precise word of God.” (Italics are Cloud's, bold type mine.) So then Cloud's faith has made him the authority over the word of God. Making that decision is precisely picking and choosing “which version” of the text he shall adopt. There is not one whit of difference between what he does himself and what he condemns in others------except only this, that he claims infallibility for the text which he has thus “picked and chosen,” though it sometimes disagrees with the King James Version.

But this movement exists only by the continual misunderstanding and misstating of every issue involved. Folks may be weary of hearing me say that if men would but think, this movement would cease to exist, but I verily believe it to be the truth. Here is one example. On page 390 Mr. Cloud approvingly quotes Stephen J. Scott-Pearson as follows: “What advantage could it be to God's people if the Almighty had once inspired a Word, of which we are assured, delivered that inspired Word to His Church, and yet not providentially preserved it entire and uncorrupted? We either do have in our possession the Word that God has revealed for us or we do not.” This statement embodies the blind absolutism which is the foundation of the King James Only movement, and the statement itself is simply foolish. Pause, reader, and think. If we have but 99% of the book, is it not the word of God? Suppose an extreme case. Suppose now that the last twelve verses of Mark were removed from the King James Bible. Would the book which remained therefore cease to be the word of God? Suppose the whole book of Revelation were torn away. Would the book which remained not be the word of God? Could we find no “advantage” in the sixty-five books which remained, if the whole book were not perfectly preserved? In short, must we have the word of God whole and perfect in order to have it at all? If so, then David never possessed the word of God. Neither did any other Old Testament saint. The apostle Paul never possessed the word of God, for the Revelation was not written during his lifetime. The Syrian church never possessed the word of God, for its Peshito did not contain the book of Revelation. The notion that any blemish or omission in the Bible makes it therefore not the word of God is simply foolishness. Yet this movement thrives upon such foolishness. It exists in the realm of a false and artificial absolutism, created by heated emotions which have put thought and reason to flight.

This artificial absolutism, which must have one version to be the word of God in perfection, while it debars all other versions from being the word of God at all, is directly against the historic position of all Protestants, including all Baptists, before the advent of Fuller and Ruckman. This absolutism is the distinguishing feature of the King James Only movement, and it is new.

Further, this absolutism is directly against the explicit statement of the makers of the King James Version, for they say, in their excellent preface (I modernize the spelling), “Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession [that is, by Protestants] (for we have seen none of theirs [Romanists'] of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm vbi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?” They explicitly deny the infallibility of their own version, and further deny that infallibility to all but the originals, set forth by the apostles, while at the same time they claim that the “very meanest translation of the Bible in English”------the very poorest, that is------is yet the word of God, in spite of its imperfections. This single paragraph from “The Translators To the Reader” is sufficient to overturn the entire King James Only movement, and it is certainly proof as to how far the absolutism of these new doctrines has departed from the sane and moderate position of former times.

And let it be understood that the makers of the King James Version had no more absolute certainty of the Greek Text than they had of the English Translation. To take one example only, at Luke 10:22 they say in their margin, “Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said.” “Many ancient copies”! This is the very language which the King James Only men call “faith destructive footnotes.” (Cloud's book, pg. 402). Not so, thought Gaussen, a strong advocate of verbal inspiration, and of the old and sane view of providential preservation. He shows the textual differences between the two French versions in common use, and says, “were one to tell us that, in all these verses, one or the other of the two is inspired of God, our faith would receive great aid from this.” (Theopneustia, 1859, pg. 178). Some of the advocates of the new doctrines of certainty attempt to slight the significance of such notes by telling us that there are few of them in the King James Version, but what is that to the purpose? The presence of one such note in its margin is sufficient to overturn these new doctrines, and to prove that the makers of the King James Version possessed no such certainty as is claimed today.

But to conclude. I have said some things in this review which will doubtless be regarded as hard. I wish it could be otherwise. I write in a calm and matter-of-fact way, but it is difficult to deal with such doctrines at all without seeming harsh. The fault is in the doctrines, not the reviewer. I bear no ill will towards Mr. Cloud. Quite the reverse. I not only esteem and love him, but delight to do so. I love the old Bible also, as my readers certainly know. These new doctrines, however, the editor of Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks must certainly oppose------though not because they are new, but because they are false. I must add, however, that there is very much that is most excellent in this book, particularly in the quotations from the old defenders of the King James Version, while much of that which is quoted from the adherents of the new doctrines is empty assertion and mindless fluff. Alas, that men cannot tell the difference.


More Gems of Wisdom from the

Meditations and Vows

of Bihop Hall

Two things make a man set by; Dignitie, and Desert. Amongst fooles, the first without the second is sufficient: amongst wise men, the second without the first. Let me deserue well, though I bee not aduanced. The conscience of my worth hall cheere me more in others contempt, than the approbation of others can comfort me, against the secret checke of my owne vnworthinesse. §

Griefe for things past that cannot be remedied, and care for things to come that cannot be preuented, may eaily hurt, can neuer benefit me. I will therefore commit my selfe to God in both, and enioy the present. §

The minde of man, though infinite in deire, yet is finite in capacitie. Since I cannot hope to know all things, I will labour first to know what I needs must, for their vse: next, what I best may, for their conuenience. §

Though time be precious to me (as all irreuocable good things deserue to be) and of all other things, I would not be lauih of it; yet I will account no time lost, that is either lent to, or bestowed vpon my friend. §

I see that he is more happy, that hath nothing to lose, than he that loseth that which he hath. I will therefore neither hope for riches, nor feare pouertie. §

I care not so much in any thing for multitude, as for choice. Bookes and friends I will not haue many: I had rather seriouly conuerse with a few, than wander amongst many. §

There is no earthly blesing so precious, as health of body: without which, all other worldly good things are but troublesome. Neither is there any thing more difficult, than to haue a good soule, in a strong and vigorous body (for, it is commonly seene, that the worse part drawes away the better:) But to haue an healthfull and sound soule, in a weake ickly body, is no nouelty; whiles the weaknesse of the body is an helpe to the soule; playing the part of a perpetuall monitor, to incite it to good, and checke it for euill. I will not be ouer-glad of health, nor ouer-fearefull of icknesse. I will more feare the spirituall hurt, that may follow vpon health, than the bodily paine, that accompanies icknesse. §

There is nothing more troublesome to a good minde, than to doe nothing. For, beides the furtherance of our estate, the minde doth both delight, and better it selfe with exercise. There is but this difference then betwixt labour and idlenesse; that labour is a profitable and pleasant trouble: idlenesse, a trouble both vnprofitable and comfortlesse. I will be euer doing something; that either God when he commeth, or Satan when he tempteth, may find me buied. And yet, ince (as the old prouerbe is) better it is to be idle than effec nothing; I will not more hate doing nothing, than doing something to no purpose. I hall doe good, but a while; let me striue to doe it; while I may. §

A man need not to care for more knowledge, than to know himselfe: he needs no more pleasure, than to content himselfe: no more vicory, than to ouercome himselfe: no more riches, than to enioy himselfe. What fooles are they that seeke to know all other things, and are strangers in themselues? that seeke altogether to satisfie other mens humours, with their owne displeasure: that seeke to vanquih Kingdomes and Countries, when they are not Masters of themselues; that haue no hold of their owne hearts, yet seeke to be possessed of all outward commodities. Goe home to thy selfe, first, vaine heart: and when thou hast made sure worke there, (in knowing, contenting, ouercomming, enioying thy selfe) spend all the superfluity of thy time and labour, vpon others. §

An inconstant and wauering minde, as it makes a man vnfit for society (for that there can be no assurance of his words, or purposes, neither can we build on them, without deceit:) so, beides that, it makes a man ridiculous, it hinders him from euer attaining any perfecion in himselfe, (for a rolling stone gathers no mosse; and the minde, while it would be euery thing, proues nothing. Oft changes cannot be without losse:) Yea, it keepes him from enioying that which he hath attained. For, it keepes him euer in worke; building, pulling downe, selling, changing, buying, commanding, forbidding. So, whiles he can be no other mans friend, he is the least his owne. It is the safest course for a mans profit, credit, and ease, to deliberate long, to resolue surely; hardly to alter, not to enter vpon that, whose end he fore-sees not answerable; and when he is once entered, not to surcease till he haue attained the end he fore-saw. So may he, to good purpose, begin a new worke, when he hath well finihed the old. §

There is nothing more eaie, than to say Diuinitie by rote; and to dis-course of spirituall matters from the tongue or pen of others: but to heare God speake it to the soule, and to feele the power of Religion in our selues, and to expresse it out of the truth of experience within, is both rare, and hard. All that we feele not in the matters of God, is but hypocriie: and therefore the more we professe, the more we in. It will neuer be well with me, till in these greatest things I be carelesse of others censures, fearefull onely of Gods, and my owne: till sound experience haue really catechised my heart, and made me know God, and my Sauiour, otherwise than by words; I will neuer be quiet till I can see, and feele, and taste God: my hearing I will account as onely seruing to effec this, and my speech onely to expresse it. §

It is no small commendation to manage a little well. He is a good Waggoner that can turne in a narrow roome. To liue well in abundance, is the praise of the estate, not of the person. I will studie more how to giue a good account of my little, than how to make it more. §

He that taketh his owne cares vpon himselfe, loads himselfe in vaine with an vneaie burden. The feare of what may come, expecation of what will come, deire of what will not come, and inabilitie of redresiing all these, must needs breed him continuall torment. I will cast my cares vpon God, he hath bidden me: they cannot hurt him; he can redresse them. §

The proud man hath no God; the enuious man hath no neighbour; the angry man hath not himselfe. What can that man haue that wants himselfe? What is a man better, if he haue himselfe, and want all others? What is he the neerer, if he haue himselfe, and others, and yet want God? What good is it then to be a man, if he be either wrathfull, proud, or enuious? §

The idle man is the Deuils cuhion, on which he taketh his free ease: who as he is vncapable of any good, so he is fitly disposed for all euill motions. The standing water soone stinketh; whereas the current euer keepes cleere and cleanly: conueying downe all noisome matter that might infec it, by the force of his streame. If I doe but little good to others by my endeuours, yet this is great good to me, that by my labour I keepe my selfe from hurt. §

He is wealthy enough, that wanteth not. He is great enough, that is his owne master. Hee is happy enough, that liues to die well. Other things I will not care for; nor too much for these, saue only for the last, which alone can admit of no immoderation. §

A man of extraordinary parts, makes himselfe by strange and ingular behauiour, more admired; which if a man of but common faculty doe imitate, he makes himselfe ridiculous: for that which is construed as natural to the one, is descried to be affeced in the other. And there is nothing forced by affecation can be comely. I will euer striue to goe in the common road: so while I am not notable, I hall not be notorious. §

Gold is the best metall, and for the purity not subiec to rust, as all others; and yet the best Gold hath some drosse. I esteeme not that man that hath no faults: I like him well that hath but a few, and those not great. §

A good name (if any earthly thing) is worth seeking, worth striuing for; yet to affec a bare name, when we deserue either ill or nothing, is but a proud hypocriie: and to be puffed vp with the wrongfull estimation of others mistaking our worth, is an idle and ridiculous pride. Thou art well spoken of vpon no desert: what then? Thou hast deceiued thy neighbours, they one another, and all of them haue deceiued thee: for thou madest them thinke of thee otherwise than thou art; and they haue made thee thinke of thy selfe as thou art accounted: the deceit came from thee, the hame will end in thee. I will account no wrong greater, than for a man to esteeme and report me aboue that I am: not reioycing in that I am wel thought of, but in that I am such as I am esteemed. §

The Testimony of Richard Baxter on

The Unity of All Sects in the Truth of the Gospel

[The Book of Hebrews tells us that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. This was once the common faith of all who professed to be Christians. Though there was some variation in detail, many of the great men of the church making holiness to stand in the emotions of the soul, over which we have no direct control, rather than in the choices of the spirit, which are entirely in our own hands, still they all held the main point, that without practical holiness no man could be saved. But the present century has witnessed a wholesale defection from this doctrine-----and not, surely, because the church in our day has more depth or spirituality than in former days, for just the contrary is the fact. The truth is, the church in our day, under the influence of a one-sided and unscriptural emphasis upon grace, has largely adopted a shallow, easy, and non-moral gospel which just suits its own lukewarm and unspiritual condition. In our October number we published a small tract by Brownlow North, which testified to the unity of the church of his time in preaching that men must give up sin or be damned-----that is, in preaching precisely what is commonly decried as heresy today. I received the other day a letter from an executive in a Christian organization, telling me that the immoderate drinking and passionate swearing of King James has no relevance to the question of his salvation. The whole church in Brownlow North's day believed that it did. Two centuries before Brownlow North, Richard Baxter bore the same testimony. The following is his account of conversion (I do not quote the whole, which is lengthy), followed by his testimony that this was agreed to by all sects.-----editor.]

Before his Carnal Self was his End; and his pleasure, and worldly Profits, and Credit were his Way: and now God and everlasting Glory is his End: and Christ, and the Spirit, and Word, and Ordinances, Holiness to God, and Righteousness and Mercy to men, these are his Way. Before Self was the chief Ruler, to which the matters of God and Conscience must stoop and give place: and now God in Christ, by the Spirit, Word, and Ministry is the chief Ruler, to whom both Self, and all the matters of Self must give place. So that this is not a change in one or two, or twenty points; but in the whole soul: and the very end and Bent of the Conversation. A man may step out of one path into another, and yet have his face the same way, and be still going towards the same place: but tis another matter to turn quite back again, and take his journey the clean contrary way to a contrary place. So it is here. A man may turn from drunkenness to thriftiness, and forsake his good fellowhip, and other gross disgraceful ins, and set upon some duties of Religion, and yet be going still to the same End as before, intending his carnal Self above all, and giving it still the Government of his soul. But when he is Converted, this Self is denyed and taken down, and God is set up, and his face is turned the contrary way: and he that before was addicted to himself, and lived to himself, is now by Sanctification devoted to God, and liveth unto God: before he asketh himself, what he hould do with his time, his parts, and his estate; and for himself he used them: but now he asketh God what he hall do with them, and he useth them for him. Before he would Please God so far as might stand with the Pleasure of his fleh, and Carnal Self, but not to any great displeasure of them. But now he will please God, let Fleh and Self be never so much displeasd. This is the great change that God will make upon all that hall be saved.

You can say, that the Holy-Ghost is your Sanctifier, but do you know what Sanctification is? Why this is it that I have now opened to you: and every man and woman in the world must have this, or be condemned to everlasting misery. They must Turn or Dye.

Do you believe all this Sirs, or do you not? Surely you dare not say you do not: For tis past doubt or denyal: These are not Controveries, where one learned pious man is of one mind, and another of another: where one party saith this, and the other saith that: Papists, and Anabaptists, and every Sect among us that deserve to be called Christians, are all agreed in this that I have said: and if you will not believe the God of Truth, and that in a case where every sect and party do believe him, you are utterly unexcusable.
----A Call to the Unconverted to Turn and Live, by Richard Baxter. London: Printed by R. W. for Nevil Simmons, 1658, pp. 50-53.

Love Never Faileth

by the Author of “The Old Rugged Cross”

[The hymn which follows I have culled from Heart and Life Songs, edited by Joseph H. Smith, George Bennard, and Iva Durham Vennard, published by the Chicago Evangelistic Institute Press, without date. I have never seen it in any modern hymn book. The words of the hymn are not deep----perhaps even trite in places----yet the music is excellent, and I have found the hymn's overall effect to be very moving. I have often been moved to tears while singing it. The copyright is expired, and the hymn may be freely copied.----editor.]

Index to Volume 6, 1997
Articles by the Editor
A Little Leaven 1
Abraham and Lot 145
Adam 112
All Gospel Tracts Alike? 237
Aorist Tense, Burgon & Darby on 65
Believe that Ye Receive Them 69
Bible Language 90, 135
“Book of Life” in Rev. 22:19 157

Book Reviews
For the Love of the Bible, Cloud 272
Radio, the New Missionary, Jones 179

Cave Men 175
Christian Work Ethic?? 149
Congruity of Judgements of God 217
Day of Salvation 241
Devil's Advantage 265
Dogs 86
Dolls 5
Editor's Bias for KJV 235
Evangelism of the Unchurched 48
Expensive Books 204
Faith and Evidence 49
Faith and Miracles 41
Faith and Sight 114
For Whom is the Bible to be Translated? 27
Forget Not 82
Fundamental Weakness of Fundamentalism 108
Inspiration of Originals, New Twist 191
It Takes A Village (Poem) 102
Luther Again on I John 5:7 72
Mark of an Awakening 103
Meat and Bones 162


Modern Curses 43, 79
Musical Instruments in Worship 255
Not a Man 221
Not Answering Again 260
Old-Time Fast Food Shop 193
Praying of Christ 120
Pride the Destruction of Young Piety 61
Province of Faith 6
Public School Tragedy 177
Purchasing Great Boldness 232
Short-Term Missions 97

Stray Notes on the English Bible
But and If 238
Shall Not Make Haste 202
Sporting 161
The Holy Ghost 143
“The Root” Again 18
The Single Eye 45
Whether There be any Holy Ghost 63

Sun, Moon, and Stars 121
Textus Receptus, Which Edition? 11
That Nothing Be Lost 169
The Truth and the Facts 210
The Two Revelators 32
Too Late to Alter Spurgeon
& Moody? 216
202 of the Best Biographies 124
Update on Modern Christianity 240
Wait Patiently 198
Weather Controlled by Prayer 20
Wisdom of Nathan 188
Woman's Need 230
“Worldview,” The Term 208
Wrestling with God 73

Articles by Others, Extracts, & Miscellaneous
Elegiac Poem on Death of Whitefield 39
Gems of Wisdom, Jos. Hall 257, 281
Girl and Gambler (Mason Long) 130
Healing of Bud Robinson 186
How God Set Church on Fire, Pierson 25
Hyperspirituality, Isaac Taylor 118
Love Never Faileth,
Hymn by George Bennard 285
Miserable End of Apostate 226
New Beatitude, A. C. Gaebelein 264

Old-Time Revival Scenes
59, 95, 117, 133, 167

Spurgeon on King James Version 20
Unhurried Life & Its Fruits 197
Unity of All Sects in Truth of the Gospel, Richard Baxter 284

Editorial Policies

OP&AL is a testimony, not a forum. Old articles are printed without alteration (except for correction of misprints) unless stated otherwise, and are inserted if the editor judges them profitable for instruction or historical information, without endorsing everything in them. The editor's own views are to be taken from his own writings.