Audio Video Library
General Beliefs Site Search Time Line
E-Mail Us Web Links Home

Most of the articles on these WebPages have been written by godly men with a central belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. However as with most of us, they may have different beliefs concerning some particular doctrines. These articles have been made available for the purpose of “gleaning the good” where good can be found. I do not necessarily endorse all that is written by others, anymore than I expect others to endorse all that I write.

Joint Discussion On Foreign Missions

Elder Lemeul Potter -  Reverend Clay Yates

Fifteenth Speeches - Yates then Potter


Through the good providence of God I am permitted this morning to appear before you to continue the affirmative of the question that has been read in your hearing. I will in the first place take up the speech made by my worthy opponent on yesterday evening; and, as I said in the outset, I know that I will have your undivided attention, but I want your impartial hearing.
He says that I have said during this discussion that God’s promises are conditional. My brother is mistaken. So far as regards man they are conditional, but God is faithful in keeping his part. This is the trouble with my brother; he looks all the time at the divine side without taking the human side. Hence the truths in the book must seem to clash. He says: “I argue that the Word is not indispensable. Why? To say that it is indispensable makes the heathen go to hell because they have not the Bible.” Now, I do not think any man, woman, or child, ever hard me say that. I have said just what Paul said in the second chapter of Romans, that if they—those that were without the law—did the things that were in the law, they would be saved. That is the truth. That is what I say. I have explained it time and again. Well, I would answer him by saying, they were not elected. That would be enough for his doctrine. I want you clearly to understand the proposition before you this morning. Sly brother gets up and repeats it for you time and again, and tells you I have failed, and how many speeches I am behind him. You would never know it if he did not tell you, would you? Never. Well, let me quote that proposition: “Resolved, That the gospel work “—now had I held him strictly to the proposition, I could have required him to deny that the gospel work in the foreign lands is owned of God. He denies gospel work in that proposition, but I do not claim that as an argument. “Resolved. That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries is authorized in the Scriptures, and blessed and owned of God.” There is nothing about measures and means in this, and he may read all he pleases of Campbell and Rice, and these Confessions of Faith. But it will not do him any good. The question is whether this work carried on in the Foreign Mission field is authorized in the Bible, and whether the fruits, the results of that work indicate that it is blessed and owned of God, whether its fruits are identical with the fruits of the gospel work as recorded in the New Testament. Upon this the whole question hinges—right there. This proposition does not intimate that every heathen will be saved. Hence we have only to take the Word—to prove it in the Word. There is no intimation whatever in the proposition that all heathen will be lost or that all heathen will be saved. Brother Potter says that, according to what missionaries say, Christ died for the lost, and then placed their salvation in the hands of the Church and the ministry. He asks, “Did not God know that the Bible would never reach these people? Did not he know the means that would be employed were not sufficient? Therefore, his elect are saved.” I reply, Did not God know that the non-elect were non-elect? Did not God know all about Satan? Did not he know all about the land of the lost? Did not he know all about the wicked acts of man? Then, if knowing effects it, Brother Potter in his argument is beyond a doubt a Universalist, and takes the devil into his catalogue. That is his logic. I say, if logic is worth any thing, that is his logic. But he says he objects to the Foreign Mission work because it places the salvation of mankind in the hands of the Church. I want to know where else Jesus places it, instrumentally, when he says, “Ye are the light of the world; ye are the salt of the earth”; “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you;” “Go”; “Go preach the gospel to every creature”; “Go teach all nations.” That is the Book. Is Brother Potter’s theory accomplishing this end? Well, let us see. 2 Cor. v. 20: “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” Paul was a missionary, was he not? That he was has been thoroughly proven in this discussion, and my brother dare not deny I He has only tried to show that there is no identity between the Foreign Mission work and the gospel work, as recorded in the New Testament, in this particular—viz., in sending forth the laborers into the mission field; and he has failed to be successful in that. He talked yesterday about building cob-houses. He said our sensitiveness in regard to his brethren criticizing the Foreign Mission work was like the sensitiveness he used to feel in building cob-houses when he was a boy living over in Illinois. When any one touched his cob-house he would cry out. When a man comes up here before the people, and says you need not trouble yourselves about this great work here (pointing to the heathen lands on the map), what is that but saying that all these preachers and Christian workers do not know what they are talking about? that all the best Christians in the last century have been, deceived? That is saying a great deal. Although we are elected, God misleads us. And yet Brother Potter comes out and says that the best civilization is found where the Bible goes; and yet he does not aid in sending the Bible to the heathen. I will tell you what is the trouble—he has been building cob-houses religiously for several years, and he had better quit it. Before I drove him to notice this proof-text— Prov. i. 24—33—I had called on him in every speech for five days, until he could avoid noticing it no longer. Then he said, “I did not notice that, because I believe in human responsibility as much as Mr. Yates does.”
His closing speech last night did not touch the proposition, yet in that very sermon he taught that he was saved eighteen hundred years before he was born. Not only did he teach in that speech that repentance and faith are not conditions of salvation, but he said God’s elect were justified in the death of Christ. He emphasizes the past tense in the 5th chapter of Romans, saying Jesus Christ would save his own. But he says that those of us who believe in the Foreign Mission work think we must have another mediator. But he was saved eighteen hundred years before he was born, and yet he believes in personal responsibility! He says, “Brother Yates misunderstands our doctrine. He cannot understand it at all.” In one breath he declares that man reprobates himself, and in the next he argues that as the potter shapes the clay, so God as absolutely shapes the destinies of men, regardless of their agency. Yet he believes in personal responsibility. What does that imply? Trust. What does trust imply? It may be abused, or used improperly. He thinks the gospel is only to be preached to the sheep. Why will you do this, my brother? Why are you quoting all this? Is it because Jesus and the Bible are against Foreign Missions? Jesus says, in spite of all your arguing, “Go and preach the gospel to every creature.” Well, he says they are damned for not accepting Christ, though they have no part in the, atonement. They have never had the ability to trust, and yet, God has a perfect right to treat them thus. That was a beautiful illustration he gave yesterday evening, and I believe I have heard him give it before in his sermons. He said, as I understood him, that if two men each, gave him a note, and neither was able to pay him, those notes were his. He could release one man, cancel his note, and still hold the note against the other, Or he could destroy both notes. I answer, if those men who gave him their notes were honest and had a personal responsibility in the matter, they claimed they were able to comply with the promise on the face of the notes. Hence, Brother Potter, as a businessman, accepted them as able to meet the obligation. Now, when the notes come due, and the men have not the ability to meet their obligations, being bankrupts, they have either lost the means they possessed when they gave the notes, or they deceived my worthy brother by claiming to possess something they did not—that is, if they had any agency in this business transaction.
But the fact is, you claim that every sinner is dead. When I come to that you run clear back to Adam, six thousand years ago. Now, what about the notes? It was the Oriental custom in the days of Jesus to put a man in prison for debt when he did not have the ability to pay. What do you mean to teach in this illustration? That God gives men the ability to contract a debt of guilt that will damn them forever, and at the same time withhold from them the privileges and opportunities of having it cancelled? This illustration proves too much for you, my brother. Your aim is to place upon the sinner all the responsibility for his own condemnation; but you use this note illustration to prove that God has the sovereign right to save one and reject another of the very same class, and that this is his method, the Divine plan in saving men. But your note illustration will not sustain your doctrine. The two men against whom you held the two notes might, by their differing surroundings and relations to you, by their differing conduct, furnish you with justifiable reasons for favoring one in preference to the other—viz., the man whose note you cancelled may have lost his means by misfortunes over which he had no control, while the other man may have squandered his by vice and dissipation; or the man favored may have been deceived as to his real financial condition, while the other may have knowingly misrepresented his condition. “But you may say, “If they both occupied the same condition before me, have I not the right to cancel the note of one, and hold the note against the other?” You have the power, but not the right, for equity would demand that you treat them both alike, especially if failure in non-payment subjects them to punishment in prison. If you make provisions for the release of one and arbitrarily punish the other, you show yourself not only partial but unkind and unmerciful. And if you knew the man’s inability at the time he gave the note, your conduct in accepting it would be still more heinous. If you had also placed him under such circumstances as to force him to give this note, you would be a monster. That is just the light in which your doctrine places God in this illustration. You claim that God absolutely elected his people from eternity, as individuals, choosing them out of the millions of the human family, who, in his sight, were all equally lost and helpless. Therefore the sinner’s destiny was fixed before he was born. He was caused to enter life where circumstances forced him to give a note of indebtedness to God, without any provision for its payment or any possibility of ever having it canceled. He is finally to be imprisoned and to suffer eternally for its non-payment. That is Brother Potter’s doctrine; that is the reason he takes the negative side of this question. He believes God has fixed every thing; that I am bound from eternity, and that every single individual is.
He quotes from the eighteenth chapter of Acts, and. says that he does not suppose that any man, woman, or child, ever heard of such an interpretation as I gave of it. Let me turn to that chapter and notice it a moment, commencing with the 6th verse: “And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads.” They were not saved from eternity. What had that to do with that matter? “I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” Verse 9: “Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” He said when I used the word prophetic that he did not suppose anybody had ever heard any one say that before, and that I ought to write a new commentary. If I should, I would lead him out of a good many troubles he has gotten into during this discussion. What does prophetic mean?
It means that which unveils the future. What is that? Telling the future. How was prophecy brought about in the Scripture? Undoubtedly by God unveiling to his servant some future results, or the means and agencies to be employed to avoid or bring about such future results or events. Was not this what the Lord did for Paul on this occasion? So his argument goes to the ground. As I have said, that was simply a prophecy to encourage Paul, and I read to you about the condition of the people in Corinth, who Paul said were guilty of every vice. It was one of the most corrupt and wicked cities of that day. Paul said, “Such were some of you,” referring to the polluted state of some members of the Church in the city of Corinth, before he took the gospel to them. Then Paul, referring to his labors on that occasion, afterwards Wrote to the Corinthians and said they were saved through the foolishness of preaching. If they were saved through Paul’s preaching, they certainly were not saved before he preached the gospel to them. What were they’ saved from? There were evidences connected with the preaching of Paul at Corinth, and with the results following it, which prove that the Christians in the Corinthian Church were saved through this preaching.
Here (pointing to the map) is the gospel preached in benighted and corrupt heathen lands by God’s servants in the nineteenth century. Down there in Southern Africa, over in India, in the Islands of the Sea, over yonder in Asia, and up in British America— wherever those red and blue stripes are seen on this map—it is the Foreign Mission which you see here represented. The red lines represent the stations of the missionary societies of Europe, and these green stripes the stations of the missionary societies of America.
The men and Women who are sent away to consecrate their lives to work in heathen lands are called foreign missionaries. Those who labor in destitute places in our own country are called home missionaries, because they are sent out by the respective Churches to which they belong, and are supported by the general missionary fund of the same. You see these red stripes beside the blue in both North and South America. These blue marks represent the Home Mission stations of the American Missionary Societies, and these red marks represent the Foreign Mission stations of the Foreign Missionary Societies of Europe. These missionaries work side by side, on the very same principle and for the very same object. The principle of the Home and Foreign Mission work is the same. It is simply carrying the gospel to, and propagating it in, those countries which are destitute of it, whether it be in Christian countries or heathen lands. The missionary principle is the very heart of the gospel. The word mission means to send, and the meaning of Foreign Mission is to send, to preach, and teach the gospel to every creature. Then the gospel work carried on in heathen lands or foreign countries is authorized in the Book, is in accordance with the command of the Saviour. The very last words he ever uttered on earth were an assurance to his disciples they should be witnesses for him unto the ends of the earth, in carrying out this great commission. He says, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” The very same principles belong to both the Foreign Mission work and the gospel work of the New Testament, the very same conditions are present in both, the very same loving and almighty Christ is in both, the very same fruits are produced by both; hence they are identical.
Well, he spoke to us a little about the potter. I want to notice that a moment. He said it was the same lump. Now if, when you go home, you will take your Bible and just read the ninth chapter of Romans, you will see that Paul was addressing the Hebrews who had rejected Christ. He was talking to his Hebrew brethren in the Church at Rome about those Hebrews who had rejected Christ, not about the ones he was writing to, but their brethren who had rejected Christ: “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” And then he goes on to tell what a peculiar people they were to God, and in the sixth verse he says, “Not as though the word of God had taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Then we go down to where he speaks of the Hebrews replying, and says, “Who art thou that repliest against God?” The Hebrews asked the question, “Why doth he yet find fault?” Then Paul answers, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels fitted to destruction.” There was much long-suffering on account of the vessels of wrath, and yet, according to my brother’s doctrine, God made them vessels of wrath from eternity; they were non-elect. I must confess I do not understand it. “And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” I do not understand this as Brother Potter interprets it. The Book is plain in itself. “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Why does he speak of one piece of clay? Here are the two great classes of men represented. One part of that clay represents the vessels of wrath. Why? One part of that lump made vessels fitted to destruction. Why? Let us see why it was. The 31st verse: “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore?”—here is the reason—“Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at the stumblingstone”—which is Christ? Why, there never was a plainer thing. “As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
But he said I was like an Irishman who made a great leap to get on a boat. The Irishman thought he could jump on the boat, but missed it and fell, and got very badly hurt. That is the way Brother Potter described it, and he got up a laugh over it. That is all right. I indorse Brother Potter in his sharp touches. He can raise a laugh, there is no doubt about it. This Irishman, he said, fell and got hurt, and when he got up, seeing the boat about one hundred yards off, he said it was no wonder he fell, trying to jump that far. Why, the trouble with that man, my brother, was that he aimed to jump on the boat, but he was not elected to do it, and he fell and got hurt.
Well, Brother Potter compares me to a Universalist colt. I am glad he does not look at me as being very old. I thought when the week was ended I would be old, decrepit, and gray. And he said he would saddle me, and if anybody wanted to ride a Universalist colt away from here, that he could ride me this morning. I will let him get in the saddle first. Brother Potter said on yesterday evening that he did not want to serve a God that could not carry out what he desired. Now, I will refer him to a text, and I want him to explain it— Matthew xxiii. 37—39 again: Here is something that Jesus did not do, and his heart was nearly broken over it; his words were broken by sobs. Brother Potter said he would not serve such a God; he said he would apostatize if he did not believe God could do whatever he desired. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not”—I would, but ye would not—” Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Now, here was something in this verse that Jesus would have done, and yet they—the Jews who rejected him—would not. But, for fear my brother may not think this is enough on this point, I will read another verse: “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” O my brother, you ought to have quoted that in connection with the parable that you read in the 20th chapter of Matthew. They refused to go in themselves, and also kept others from entering the kingdom of heaven. Now, Brother Potter says Jesus will save all that he died for. I want to turn over here and see if Brother Potter and the Bible harmonize. I want everybody to listen to this language.
Romans iii. 22, 23: “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” The righteousness of God is by faith unto all men and upon all that believe. I will turn to 2 Corinthians v. 14, 15:
“For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” He died for all, and, according to Brother Potter, will save all he died for; hence, all will be saved. We will therefore have to put Brother Potter in the harness again with his Universalist brethren. I do not know what to call him; he called me a colt. What shall I say? A gray donkey from the mountains of eternity past?
Now as to Madagascar: You remember he told us in his speech on yesterday evening that he never spoke about gunpowder and armies backing the missionaries; that he was not talking about that; he was talking about civilization. Now, my brother is certainly mistaken. He was saying that Christianity gave the best civilization; he was arguing that the fact that Foreign Mission work, where it has been successful, has given the heathen countries a noble civilization is not an evidence that it is owned and blessed of God; saying, also, that I understood him, and did not present the matter right when I said he was placing the civilization of Greece and Egypt side by side with the civilization which the Bible gives. Then he went on to say he objected to Foreign Missions because they are backed by armies and bayonets. Then I asked him— and I want you to listen to this—I asked him if he would permit me to ask him a question. The Moderators said they would have to know what it was; and then I said, were these missionaries in Madagascar, who were trying to carry out their purpose by the thunder of cannon and force of arms, Protestants or Catholics? I was not permitted to ask the question, and I gave him to understand that he would have to meet that thing; that, if that was true, I knew I was ignorant of it. So he handed me Appleton’s Cyclopedia when I came down here, and it was as good a quotation for my side as I could wish, and I quoted it. Every thing was in my favor. The Cyclopedia showed that the missionaries had suffered martyrdom and persecution there for twenty-five years, and were expelled time and again; that the seed sown there grew, and, in spite of opposition to it, it become a great harvest. The armies went to protect the citizens, and were defeated by the natives of Madagascar, and the French and English colonies were expelled from the island. In order to return to their possessions they had to pay an indemnity to the queen. So the seed was sown that now makes Madagascar the crown of glory of the London Missionary Society. I am very much obliged to him for Appleton.
He said, “The Missionary Baptists once believed as we do.” Well, I am glad they have gotten out of that torpid state and are working for Jesus.
In trying to dodge the unanswerable testimony I have given from unquestionable authorities of the historical identity of the Foreign Mission work with gospel work, he seeks to make the impression that I am not competent to decide upon authoritative works, or valid testimony, in solving historical questions. He says that if my witnesses are honest they are valid. I answer that the Rev. John Harris, whom I quoted yesterday, was not only honest, but was one of the best informed and most reliable writers of his day—a mental and spiritual giant. His work from which I quoted is entitled “The Great Commission.” A committee which represented the talent and piety of the leading Churches of Europe decided upon the merits of this work for critical and accurate information and profound and forcible practical thoughts. This committee awarded him the first prize for this book, as a superior production on the subject of Foreign Missions in preference to the many other productions from the pens of the ablest writers of Europe with which it competed. My worthy opponent knows that the authority and accuracy of this work cannot be successfully denied or gainsaid—that Mr. Harris is not only honest, but one of the most competent witnesses on this subject.
In his confusion, Brother Potter seeks to disparage me in order to draw your attention from the argument. Mr. Harris was too honest and sincere when writing about facts in history to pervert them. Brother Potter was going to object to any authority I could give, because it was all missionary authority. I have never read any of the other kind of authors or historians. If any history has ever been written by an anti-missionary author, except infidels, I would like to see it. 11 am willing at any time to submit to facts when presented. My brother’s history in that respect is rather’ dim—in the fog—like his arguments, in negativing this proposition.
He has gone back to Isaiah liii. 10, and I must go there now. “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” Well, There is not a man of us who denies that Christ shall see his seed and shall prolong his days, but Brother Potter made his own interpretation of this passage, making it allude to the elect from eternity. He accuses me of not following him up. I will now do so.
Psalm XX11. 30. I will read that, and see what it says. We will put it all together. “A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.” Now, we will follow this seed spoken of through the Book. I will now turn to Gal. ii. 16, where this matter is explained. In studying any great doctrine of the Bible, the best way to get a true knowledge of it is to examine all the passages that bear upon it through the Old and New Testaments. There is a perfect unity running through this Book: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith .of Jesus Christ”—there is faith—“even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ.” Now, I will read Gal. iii. 8: “And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” Why, Abraham had the gospel. We will look now at the 16th verse of the same chapter: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” We will read the 24th verse: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Putting this with the language in Romans x. 4, we have: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Now, we will look at the 28th and 29th verses of this 3d chapter of Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye arc all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” They were united to Christ by faith. But Brother Potter says I amt responsible; I am glad of that; I take him by the hand. Every sane man is responsible. Every sane man has a trust committed to him. The Lord gives every man a work to do, a work according to his ability, he does not give him a work to do that he cannot do. Every man can do what God requires of him, or obtain help to enable him to do it. When Christ comes he will reckon with all according to the trust committed. Now, I am aware that a great deal of this talk has not been directly to the proposition. There has been some complaining about my fighting the doctrine of election, but Brother Potter goes right back to it. If he had stood to the proposition I would not have touched his doctrine of election. Suppose I admit that his elect sheep are scattered everywhere, still the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God. Jesus said, “Go preach the gospel to every creature.” The Master from his own lips gives the command. What is to be the result? “Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and whosoever believeth not shall be damned.” The proposition does not say that all heathen will go to hell. As I have said, if they live u to the best light they have, they will be saved. But I have shown that these heathen are devil-worshipers. That degrades and brutalizes them. Brother Potter depends on election instead of sending the gospel he stays here at home, waiting for God to do the work without any human agency. We obey the command of the Master; hence our work is authorized in the Scripture, guided, blessed, and owned of God. Both in the home and foreign fields we have the proofs that we are in accord with the principle of the primitive Church. The same results are produced from the operation of the very same principles. Hence our work shows more indications of the Divine favor than his. He himself has confessed that Christianity gives the very best civilization. He has acknowledged also in this discussion that our civilization is the result of Christianity. Then, if our civilization is the result of Christianity, it has been begotten by the Christian religion and comes to us through it. The civilization in the islands of the sea, in the heathen lands, has been brought about by gospel means and agencies, and hence it is gospel fruit. This is conclusive evidence—a monumental demonstration that the Foreign Mission work is blessed and owned of God.
Now, I have examined the 9th chapter of Romans, during this debate, several times, in answering the interpretation of its teachings by my opponent. But there is one little thing I have not noticed, and I will not have time to notice it now. I will pass it by for the present, and will give it attention in my next speech.
But I want to notice a further evidence that the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scripture and blessed and owned of God. I want, how ever, before I do this, to remind you that I showed on yesterday, as Brother Potter said, by a volume of passages, that we are employing the ordained means of God in carrying out the great gospel work. Jesus told his apostles to go, saying, “Lo, I am with you.” And my brother here is fighting it. He does not go to the remote parts of the earth. What else did we show? We showed that human agency was employed in all true gospel work. He denies that the Word of God is indispensable. I asked him to show a single case of salvation without the Word, and he cannot show one. He cannot point to an individual bringing forth the fruits of love where there is not some form of truth. We say in our Confession of Faith that the Word is the ordinary means employed. He would rather get hold of our Confession of Faith than the Bible. I am not afraid to face him on that, either. If I am contradicting the Confession of Faith, he is contradicting the Bible. “The Holy Spirit, operating through the word and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose, or directly without means, so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin and of their lost estate, and of their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ.” And there was a man sitting right here, one of the Moderators (Dr. W. J. Darby), that helped to word that. I asked him, What did you mean to teach in the expression “directly without means”? “We simply meant,” he said, “that God’s Spirit operates upon the hearts of, men wherever there is a ray of the light of the truth and thereby prepares them to receive it.” The Spirit operates through the truth and independent of it. We do not know what God can do, but we stand by the revelation he has made. There is where I stand. I am not here today to affirm what it is possible for God to do absolutely in saving men, without either agencies or means. If I were to ask the Moderators to permit me to discuss such an issue under this proposition, they
would rule it out of order. I am to defend the proposition that Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Word of God, and is blessed and owned of God.
Why, when Cornelius prayed and wanted to learn the way of salvation, an angel appeared to him. This angel told him about the results of his prayers and alms in heaven—that they had been accepted. But the angel could not proclaim to him the message of salvation. Why? Because God, in the economy of things, has given the angel his work on one side of the curtain and man his work on the other side. God has honored us by allowing us to labor with him in carrying this grand message of salvation to others. Man was lost; by disobeying God he brought ruin upon himself and upon the world. So God honors man by the grand revelation he has made to him of the way salvation. Such is the divine arrangement in the plan of redemption, that man can accept or reject salvation. He can open his mind to receive the message of salvation through the aid of God and the light of the Holy Spirit in the Word, and also independently of the Word. The Holy Spirit accompanies the Word into the heart, and prepares the heart for the reception of the truth, and thus through and by the Word purifies the soul and puts it in line with God, to move in harmony with God. No man is ever regenerated for himself alone, but for the well-being also of his fellow-men. When the angel spoke to Cornelius about the way of salvation, he showed him that one Simon Peter would tell him what to do. If Cornelius learns the way of salvation, not the angel but Peter must teach him.
The gospel, the ministry, and the Church are indispensable in the work of evangelization, as the divinely-ordained agencies and means in the prosecution of the work of salvation. I have proven this by scores of texts selected from different parts of the Bible, representing the entire trend of its teachings. You remember that I showed how Philip went down to Samaria to preach to them Jesus, and how they received the Word, and how he was guided by the Holy Spirit to join himself to the chariot and guide the eunuch in understanding the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and the results of Philip’s instructions. So it was in all the gospel work in those days. Paul preached the Word with wonderful success in all the countries and cities in which he labored as the great apostle to the Gentiles. In prosecuting the gospel work, the early Christian disciples preached the Word in Antioch, in Cyprus, in the Isles of the Sea, and in Cyrene in Africa, and over in Asia Minor, and in Macedonia and Greece. The Word was thus carried and propagated throughout the Gentile world, and God owned and blessed their labors, for they were carrying out the great commission, just as the foreign missionaries are doing today. My opponent speaks of the agencies and gospel means of the Church in the work of salvation. I want to know if the Church is not Christ’s bride. Jesus says to his Church, “Lo, I am with you alway.” Brother Potter says Christ alone is to prosecute the gospel work. This is not true in the sense in which my brother states it. Christ works through the Church, his representative. By whom has the gospel work been presented in the centuries of the past, if not by Christ through his Church? The teaching of the Bible and the history of Christianity show clearly that it is through the Church, with its gospel means and agencies, that Christ prosecutes his gospel work. It was by the voice of the Church, through the influence of the Holy Spirit, that the hands of ordination were placed upon Brother Potter’s head. This was the course pursued by the primitive Church, and this is the way the Church now sets apart and sends out laborers for the Master in the Foreign field.
I will now extend my affirmative line of argument. A further evidence that the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scripture is seen in the fact that it is fulfillment of prophecy—that its past and present triumphs are but an echo of prophecy. In proof of this I will first read Psalm ii. 8: “Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”
Psalm lxxii. 8—11: “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts; yea all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him.” Let me turn to Isaiah xl. 3—5: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall he made straight and the rough places plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”
Now, we will turn to Zechariah ix. 10: “And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea “—look there at that map, at those mission stations, girding clear around the earth—“ from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.”
Now, let us take Malachi 1. 11: “For, from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.”
Psalms xxii. 27: “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall Worship before thee.”
Now, I will turn to Daniel ii. 44. The Book is so full of this doctrine it would just take us days to get it out: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” It is represented in this chapter as a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. How solid it is, how irresistible, how every thing goes down before it! As I have shown, the Spirit of God energizes, guides, and blesses the Foreign Mission work through the ordained means and agencies. The work is “blessed and owned of God.” Now, I will go to the New Testament—Matthew iii. 2: “And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It was that stern wilderness preacher who said that.
Matthew viii. i i: “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” To the Master himself, when he beheld the marvelous faith of the centurion, it suggested the great incoming of the Gentile world. You will bear with me while I quote a few more passages. The kingdom of the Messiah is today gaining the patronage and the influence of the ruling powers of the kingdoms of the world. Through their patronage and influence shall the nations of less prestige and power be led to Christ, and thus flow into the house of the Lord, as foretold by the prophets. To prove that mission work is a fulfillment of prophecy, I will now turn back again to Isaiah ii. 2, 3: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.”
I will now turn to Micah iv. I: “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.”
Now, without taking farther time in quotation, I will just call your attention to Psalms lxviii: 31, 32, where the psalmist pictures Ethiopia and Egypt. You can see them on the map there (pointing to the map). “Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.” Look there on the map at those mission stations, the literal fulfillment of prophecy. With tearful eyes and tender hearts these poor, degraded people have embraced Christ, and the work is going on, and the gospel is lifting them up and transforming them into the image of God. O blessed truth! O grand and glorious work! My heart is touched whenever I read of the people in those mission fields, or think about them. I have said many things here in twitting my brother, but I have nothing against him. I love him. We may differ. We have said sharp things here, but I shall hold nothing against him when it is over. God knows I believe he could be useful in this work.
I have shown from this book, the Bible, that the Foreign Mission work is the fulfillment of prophecy. I have shown that in these lands of darkness are poor little children in the midst of degradation and vice, who never have heard the sweet songs of Zion, or the blessed Saviour’s name, who do not know what are the blessings of a Christian home, who never heard of the Christian’s heaven, nor learned that this mighty ‘God, who controls the universe, is a Father of infinite love. Jesus says, Go and tell them quickly. Wherever there is a sad heart, wherever there is a broken spirit, wherever there is a degraded soul, go and tell the good news of deliverance. A Saviour is born, a revelation is made, Gethsemane is passed, and the blood-stained cross; go and tell of the resurrection, the ascension, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The word of God is come; go and proclaim it to every creature. Foreign Mission work is a fulfillment of prophecy. Just to show that this work pays, I want to read a quotation from Bainbridge’s trip around the world. “Around the World: Tour of Christian Missions,” page 99. Leaving out a part of it, I will read from page 101: “For this mighty force of Protestant missions the field is the world.” I thank Jesus that I live in this age of utility and progress, when messengers are flying hither and thither over seas, islands, and continents; when Christianity has developed such a wonderful dispensation, and when the means for taking ‘the gospel to 800,000,000 in heathen countries are so abundant. The way, and the gates of entrance to them, are all open. Many are pleading with us, beseeching us to send them the Word of life. The missionaries are everywhere calling for workers; and why do they not go? Because we at home are too indifferent. I continue the reading: “Our Saviour’s parting command was, ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations’; ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’ The responsibility is nothing short of world-wide evangelization. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world as a witness unto all nations. We are to reckon all men as lost sinners because ‘there is no difference, for all have sinned.’ But we carry the glorious tidings of an all-sufficient salvation,” etc. Now, I want to read concerning the results of this work: “In this great world-field God has so blessed the labors of Protestant missionaries during the present century that the number of communicants, or full Church-members, has increased from 12,000 to 473,121” (the number, has now increased to 750,000; this book was written several years ago), “and the number of heathen converts or adherents brought under the care of our missionaries has multiplied from 50,000 to about two millions.” There are many who have accepted Christianity nominally and attend service, but have not accepted the truth in their hearts. “Of those latter, Prof. Christlieb reckons that 310,000 are in the West Indies, 400,000 to 500,000 in India and Farther India, 40,000 to 50,000 in West Africa, 180,000 in South Africa, over 240,000 in Madagascar, 90,000 in the Indian Archipelago, 45,000 to 50,000 in China, over 300,000 in the South Sea Islands.” Those South Sea Islands were inhabited by cannibals fifty years ago. Over three hundred thousand have professed to embrace Christ and are bringing forth the fruits of salvation. This I have proved to you by the best of witnesses. “Meanwhile Protestant schools have increased from seventy in number to over twelve thousand, with 393,000 pupils. Within the same time Bible work has advanced from 50 translations and a circulation of 5,000,000 to 303 translations in whole or in part, and a circulation of 148,000,000 copies.”
And my brother denies that any part of this great work has God’s approval or blessing. But we see from the book itself, and from the unmistakable evidences that have been adduced, that the Foreign Mission work as carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world is authorized in the Scriptures, and owned and blessed of God. I have shown here that the 
Protestant world itself is but an outgrowth of the great revival of the gospel life, which is the missionary spirit itself. I have shown that the Methodist Church was born of the Foreign Mission spirit, out of that grand revival that swept over England under the Wesleys, Whitefield, Romaine, and others, ushering in the present dispensation of Foreign Mission work. I have shown that the Presbyterian Churches, and the Church of England, and all Protestant Churches, have been successful in proportion as they have been actuated by this mission spirit. I have also shown that the wonderful triumphs of the Foreign Mission work in the past, both in the foreign field and in its reflex influence on the Christian Church at home, and in its wonderful prosperity today, and in the doors still opening to the heathen world, are unmistakable signs—yea, to the spiritual, discerning eye, clear and conclusive demonstrations—that the Foreign Mission work is approved and blessed of God. To see this, we have only to take a bird’s-eye view of what has been accomplished by the Foreign Mission work within eighty years. Eighty years ago there were only 7 missionary societies, today there are 150; then there were 170 missionaries in the whole foreign field, now there are 6,000 men and women, ordained and lay workers, from Christian lands, with about 29,000 native ordained and lay workers, making a working force of 35,000. There were then 50,000 converts from heathenism to Christianity, there are now about 2 ,000,000 such converts; the Church offerings for Foreign Missions then was $250,000, today it is nearly $12,000,000; then there were 70 Protestant schools on the foreign field, and now there are 12,000, with a half million of pupils. Within this period, through the Foreign Mission work, the translation of the Bible into different tongues has been increased from 50 to 308. The number of the copies of the Bible circulated eighty years ago was 5,000,000, today the number is 148,000,000. Then all the homes of the heathen women were closed against the gospel, and heathen women were inaccessible; today hundreds and thousands of homes are open to the gospel, and thousands of heathen women have already embraced Christ, and multitudes arc inquiring the way. The increase of Christian converts on the Foreign field is thirty-five fold greater than on the Home field. This, no doubt, is the greatest missionary era of the Church of Christ. During the apostolic age the new faith flashed through the Roman Empire. In the medieval age it here and there touched with its rays a rude and barbarous people; but in this age, the age of universal missions, the most distant and destitute are approached by the evangel, and no land or tribe is left to the shadow of death. Eighty years ago Oceania, the Indian Archipelago, all India, Japan, Africa, Madagascar, the Moslem and Papal lands were enshrouded in moral night and degradation. Today the numerous islands of Oceania are evangelized and have become radiating centers of light and salvation. The Indian Archipelago is rapidly coming under the gospel sway. The mission work is extending its influence and light. Its radiating and connecting lines reach out over British East India, Burmah, Siam, China, and Africa. All pagan lands are becoming dotted with mission stations; these gleaming centers of gospel light are bestudding benighted heathendom like the blazing stars that bedeck the firmament of night. “Evangelization is fast coming to be universal. With a rapidity unexampled in history, this golden network of missions expands and extends over the realms of paganism, from where the most refined followers of Brahma and Buddha dwell to where the lowest fetish-worshipers bow to their mud idols; over the lands of Islam, from the gates of the Golden Horn, west of the pillars of Hercules, and east to the heights of the Himalayas; and over the domains of the Pope, from Mexico to Cape Horn, and from the Volga to the Vatican.” Never was there a time in the history of Christian work when there were so many indications of the overthrow of heathenism. The whole heathen world seems to be ready to break loose from idolatry and superstition. Never in the history of the work of the Christian Church was the hand of God more vividly displayed, nor the voice of his providence more clearly proclaimed than in the mission work of today in the heathen lands or the foreign field. “Many of the nations and races of the world stand poised today upon a pivotal point of destiny, and their future weal or woe will be determined within the next twenty years. Japan, with eight hundred atheist students in her national university, and not one single Christian, is awaiting to choose between Herbert Spencer and Jesus Christ. China, with every avenue opening to the commerce and culture of the world, waits to decide between Mammon and God. India is listening with one ear to Deism and Chunder Sen, and with the other to the gospel of the Lord Jesus. France and Italy must either be Protestant or infidel. Germany and Austria must sink entirely into Ritualism, or rise to the only religion that can successfully and truthfully appeal to reason. Africa’s glorious interior will soon be one vast chain of commercial posts. Shall the infamous trader make them darker blots on that dark continent than even the shrines of Fetishism, or shall the Christian missionary convert then-i into beacon-lights for benighted races? God has at length answered the prayers of his people that have been going up for a century. Everywhere he has opened the door for the reception of his gospel, and opened it, too, under circumstances more favorable to its success than could have been imagined. The next ten or twenty years is to decide the fate of most of these nations and peoples. These years are to be the very pivot upon which their destiny will turn. Will the Church prove equal to the emergency? Can any Christian hesitate or hold back when such a glorious work is to be, and can be, done for the Master?”


We are again blessed with the privilege of meeting together and seeing each other's faces, and to conclude the discussion today that has been engaging the minds of the people of this community for a week - yes, longer than that, but in actual service for a week. I am glad to see that for some cause or other, either out of respect to the speakers, or in search of truth, or from curiosity, the people are led back here this morning. I hope that every individual will listen for himself and be his own judge. I never did like for other men to judge for me as to what the Bible teaches.
I want to notice a few things in the speech this morning. However, there are some things that I have noticed every day since we have been here. The first thing is personal responsibility. I want to do this for the sake of those that have not been here during this discussion, and to state that Brother Yates has charged me and my brethren of denying the obligation of man to do good. For our own sake, and for the sake of those who have not heard my denial of that charge during the 
week, I mention it now. I challenged Brother Yates to bring any production from Baptists, who understood themselves and stood identified with us or our Confession of Faith, that denied human 
responsibility. He has not done it. We do not deny human responsibility, but he does, and I am going to prove it now. He said in his speech, and repeatedly, that man was not responsible for what he could not do and could not help, and what God requires of man he is able to do. That is what he said. That has been his doctrine all the week, and he has said it so often that I am not mistaken about it - that if he was not able to do it, it was not required of him. Now, let me turn to Hebrews xi. 6. On the subject of faith the apostle says: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Brother Yates and everybody else recognizes the unregenerate sinner without faith; hence, it is impossible for the unregenerate sinner to please God, and Brother Yates says he is under no obligation to do it if he cannot. Where is human responsibility? Who denies human responsibility? I believe that men are under obligation sometimes to do things they cannot do. Brother Yates does not, and he is going to show that, and he has been trying to cover me all over with it. He does not believe it. Hence, if I owe Brother Yates $50, and cannot pay it, he would think it unjust for him to demand it of me. And yet it is a just debt, and contracted of my own will; yet I am unable to pay it, and he holds my note; and yet he thinks it would be unjust in him to make me pay it if I cannot. He ought to give up the note. That is his doctrine. According to that doctrine, what does the sinner need with the Redeemer in his salvation? He does not need him to pay his debt, because he is able to pay his own debt. If he is not able to pay it, he does not owe it, and in that case he does not need him to pay it. So turn that either way, and Brother Yates' theory is that there is no need of a Saviour at all. Christ came into this world to do that for the sinner that he could not do for himself. The sinner had got himself into trouble by his own works. He was under the law, and he was to blame for every thing he did there. Jesus came to remove that blame and lift him above the law and present him holy and unblamable before God. There would have been no need of the suffering of Jesus if man could have atoned for his own sins, and was not to blame for them if he could not. But Brother Yates says we teach that God made him to sin. That is a slander on me and my brethren. I have always denied that, and no person understands me to say that God made anybody to sin, or ever made a sinner. I have always denied that, both in my preaching and in this debate. Man made himself a sinner by his own sin, wickedness, and transgression of the law of God. It is not so much for Brother Yates' sake that I take this pains as it is for the sake of truth and for these people who are frequently wrongly impressed by Brother Yates and others as to what the Regular Baptists teach. We are here to speak for ourselves now. We have not called on Brother Yates to tell the people what we believe. We are able to do that ourselves. I do not know that I shall pay any more attention to that part of th speech today. I have something else to do.
I want now to know what the missionaries themselves think of their own prospects concerning the evangelizing of the world. He takes his pointer and points out the great and glorious results of foreign missionary labor in foreign fields. Do all the missionaries feel like Brother Yates does? He comes here endorsed to defend it, to set it forth, to hold it up, to prove it by the Bible, to prove his proposition, endorsed by the advocates of missionism. Does he know any more about missionism than other missionaries do? Does he know any more what they are doing than other missionaries do? He says it is not denominational - the whole Church works in it. This being true, when I introduce a missionary - it does not matter who it is, so it is a missionary - it is just as good evidence as Brother Yates; and if this missionary does not tell the truth, it may be that no missionary does. I am not here to say which one of the missionaries is the best or most honorable. I do not accept Brother Yates in preference to any other missionary in the world, so far as information or honesty are concerned. I accepted him in this discussion as a representative man of modern missionism, endorsed as that. Come up, Brother Carpenter; you are a missionary, and Brother Yates admires you. What do you say about the prospects in the future for the evangelization of the world? Beginning on the 9th page, we will read the following: "At a 
festival in Boston, recently, Irish Catholics drank this toast with exulting enthusiasm: 'Massachusetts - peopled by pilgrims from England in the 17th century, repeopled by pilgrims from Ireland in the 19th.' Some of these Romanists or their descendants may become infidels, but how many of them will become Protestants? How many Protestants believe that it is possible to convert them, or make any systematic efforts to benefit them religiously?
"Doing as little as we are, both for Foreign Missions and for the conversion of foreigners in our own land, what right have we to expect a successful result from the experiment which is even now beginning? The millions of idolatrous Asia and the priest-ridden and infidel millions of Europe will soon contend together for the political and religious supremacy of America. God's purposes concerning this continent for the next century or two do not yet appear. It is by no means certain that the present race of Christians has faith, and zeal, and love enough to mold these mixed multitudes into Christian ways. Is there not reason to fear, rather, that we have been so proud of our nation, so engrossed with our own affairs, have lived so long to ourselves religiously, and refused obedience to the explicit command of our ascending Lord to go disciple all nations in their own lands, that God is now forging the sword which shall humble us and scatter us abroad to do the work which we would not do voluntarily? While this consideration should lead every one to build the wall over against his own house diligently, it weighs more heavily still on the side of an earnest and vigorous prosecution of Foreign Missions. We have tarried in this our Jerusalem far too long. The idea that we may wait a little longer until there are so many heathen in our own land that we shall not need to send missionaries abroad is treason to our Lord. It comes from a selfish, Satanic source. Let us tempt our long-suffering Master no longer."
That does not look very encouraging, does it? or like they would evangelize the world very soon, or thought that they would? Brother Yates thinks they will. Perhaps Brother Carpenter has seen more of their failures, hesitancy, and weakness than Brother Yates has. He sees some reason to fear that instead of us Christianizing other nations, other nations may heathenize us after awhile - that seems to be the threat now. Now, I do not know which is right. I do not care. Let Brother Yates and Brother Carpenter settle that themselves. They are both on that side.
He says that I accuse him of saying that God's promises are conditional. I said that he referred to the quotations that I made concerning the promises of God to Abraham, and said that those promises were conditional. All those Scriptures that I read concerning the promises to Abraham, that "in thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed," are conditional. O yes, they are conditional. How do you know? Brother Yates said so. He gave us his word. He presents that idea, backed up by the word of Brother Yates, and thinks hard of me if I do not accept it, and he is going to think hard of you if you do not, and the result is he will inevitably have to think hard. I called on him for the proof. I will tell you another thing that I called for, and I told him yesterday. He wanted to introduce a missionary witness to prove the connection of the missionary work from the apostles to the present time. I asked him why he did not produce Eusebius or Mosheim. He said he would. I told you he would not. It was the best proof. What made me say that? Because I knew he could not go to them, because these books were written before these things were introduced. I knew he would not produce a witness of that kind. He relies on Mosheim himself, and does not object to Eusebius or any of those old historians. He said he would bring Mosheim. He said he would; I said he would not. He has not. It has turned out as I expected it would.
One more thought. He accuses me of charging missionism with this doctrine: that the heathen go to hell because they have not the Bible. That is just what I have read from one of them two or 
three times during this debate. "Christian friends, we have no fires of martyrdom now to test our fidelity to Jesus Christ; but we are not left without a test. God is testing us all continually; testing the measure of our faith, of our love, of our devotedness to his Son, by the presence of eight hundred million of heathen in the world. It is a tremendous test - so real, so practical. It is no trifle, no myth, no theory, no doubtful contingency, but a great, awful fact, that we Protestant Christians, who rejoice in our rich gospel blessings and claim to be followers of him who gave up heavenly glory and earthly ease, and life itself, to save those heathen, are actually surrounded by eight hundred million of brothers and sisters who must perish in their sins unless they receive the gospel. This gospel they have never yet heard." That is missionary doctrine, whether it is Brother Yates' doctrine or not. He is here to defend Foreign Missionism, and that is the doctrine of it, and that is what I object to. I do not believe they are sent to hell because they do not receive the gospel. He does. Missionaries do, and he is here to defend them. We say that God will save his people there, and, as I have said, that is the cause of this debate. Well, if Brother Yates is the best defender that missionism has, my brethren need not be afraid; they can say what they please about it from this on, and missionism had better not be too toucheous. You see how he defends it; he denies the doctrine that its advocates preach, and he preaches the doctrine, too, once in awhile. Brother Yates has been right during this debate, because he has been on both sides. He is first on one side and then on the other, and of course he has been right once in awhile. Missionaries say Christ died for the lost - not only that he died for the lost, but that the heathen are the lost that he died for. I 
asked the question yesterday, was he suited to the work of the salvation of the heathen? Now, notice, he knew the condition of the world. God sent him into the world to save the lost. He says himself that the Son of man is come into the world to seek and save that which was lost, and Brother Carpenter says the heathen are lost. They are the people, whether any one else is or not. They are lost. Well, then, Jesus came to save them. Now, will he save them? No; not unless they receive the gospel, so says Carpenter himself, the same man that Brother Yates says he admires.
But I must pass on. 2 Corinthians v. 20. That chapter has been referred to before, but it now comes up again. I remarked yesterday in my speech that Jesus Christ was the only mediator between God and man, that there was only one. It is not an affirmation of mine, it is the language of the apostle Paul in connection with the text Brother Yates introduced from the Epistle to Timothy. Now, remember there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, and if he is all the mediator there is between God and man, are all the ministers in this country the mediators between God and man? Has God committed his lost heathen to the ministers in this country, and then damns them if the ministers do not get the gospel there to save them? That being true, are not the ministers mediators, and does not God depend on such mediators for the salvation of the heathen? Christ is the only mediator. Brother Yates says if the Lord did not commit the salvation of the people into the hands of the Church, who did he commit it to. Why, to Jesus Christ.
Now, let us introduce a quotation in 2 Corinthians v. 17-19: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in the Church, reconciling the world unto himself."

MR. HUME (from the audience): Try that again, sir.

MR. POTTER: In the Church? In Christ. That is the way. God was not in the Church reconciling the world unto himself, and Christ is the only mediator between God and man. That is enough to say on that subject. It is hardly necessary to notice a quotation by Brother Yates for the purpose for which it was used: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us in Christ's stead; be ye reconciled to God." Pray whom? Brother Yates did not tell. Who is the apostle addressing? Is he addressing the heathen? Is he addressing the ungodly? Is he addressing the unconverted? Is he addressing the unregenerate sinner? No, sir; he is addressing the saved, and, that being true, all his argument upon that text falls to the ground, like all the balance that he has said upon that subject. He would have you understand that the apostle represented himself as standing between God and the sinner, in that case, and begging the ungodly sinner to be reconciled to God. Paul was not talking to the sinner; he was talking to his brethren. You were not thinking, perhaps, we would have a new Commentary here this morning. I intimated yesterday, when I heard that "I have much people in this city" was prophetic, that perhaps Brother Yates had better get up another Commentary, and perhaps he had better, for there are none that I know of that say that is prophetic.
Now, I want to go to the Commentary and see what it does say. And remember, it is not a Baptist work by any means. Brother Yates has not condemned it, and said he would not. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on the words, "I have much people in this city," say: "Whom, in virtue of their election to eternal life, he already designates as his." No wonder he wants to get up another Commentary. That is what they say. They are not Baptists at all, I presume. And while I am on that I will turn over again to the potter and clay. I thought I would not, but I will. I had never noticed this Commentary on the potter and the clay until this morning. I have had it in use for a number of years, but had never noticed it on that. I would not risk any man that is prejudiced against the Regular Baptist doctrine two feet in telling our position on the potter and the clay. Elder James undertook to tell it at the church yesterday evening, after hearing me tell it, and he missed it a mile. He said there were two answers, and he gave another, and that made three. Now, let us hear it. This is on the subject of an objection to the doctrine of divine sovereignty. That is why I introduced the text, if you remember, to show the doctrine of divine sovereignty. "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?" And he parenthesizes ("'Why then,' is the true reading,) 'for who hath resisted (or, who resisteth) His will?' This doctrine is incompatible with human responsibility." That is what the objection says. Notice, now, this is what this comment says the objection is: "If God chooses and rejects, pardons and punishes, whom he pleases, why are those blamed who, if rejected by him, cannot help sinning and perishing. This objection shows quite as conclusively as the former the real nature of the doctrine objected to - that it is election and non-election to eternal salvation prior to any difference of personal character. That is the only doctrine that could suggest the objection here stated, and to this doctrine the objection is plausible. What, now, is the apostle's answer? It is twofold." Why is that objection plausible? Why, because that is not the doctrine objected to. The apostle's answer is twofold: "First, it is irreverence and presumption in the creature to arraign the Creator." The objection is founded on ignorance and misapprehension of the relation between God and his sinful creatures. Now, remember that - sinful creatures, not poor creatures. "Supposing that he is under obligation to extend his grace to all, whereas he is under obligation to none." Now, this objection grows out of the fact, like Brother Yates says, that God is under obligation to extend grace to all. That is the ground of the objection, whereas this comment says he is under obligation to none. He agrees with me. Why is he under obligation to none? "All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to his mercy," for two reasons - because of the irreverence and presumption in the creature, and of the 
relation between God and his creatures, as he clearly intimates in the next verse. "It is therefore perfectly competent to God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not speak here of God's right over his creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures, as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against the Creator that he is answering, and he does so by showing that God is under no obligation to give his grace to any, but is as sovereign as in fashioning the clay.' But second: There is nothing unjust in such sovereignty. 'What if God, willing to show' (designing to manifest) 'his wrath' (his holy displeasure against sin), 'and to make his power' (to punish it) 'known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath' - i. e., 'destined to wrath;' just as 'vessels of mercy,' in the next verse, mean 'vessels destined to mercy.' Compare Eph. ii. 3, 'children of wrath.'"
That is the very thing I told you yesterday evening. Brother Yates thought we needed a new commentary on it. That is what that book says. They are as good scholars, perhaps, as any person that is capable of commenting or preaching in our community. That is what they say about it. That shows that I am correct, according to scholars, and orthodox in saying the potter represented God, and the clay represented the lump, which means Adam's fallen family, not Adam in his purity, but in his fallen state - in which state God was under no obligation to any one, but had a right to dispose of them as he saw fit. Brother Yates says this morning: "I have said that if the heathen live up to the best light they have, they will be saved." He says this morning he has said that. He said yesterday he did not. He called upon the reporter to read part of his speech from Thursday evening, and I stated that it was Monday that he should have said it. I thought he said it, and I find I was not mistaken when I said he said that if they lived up to the best light they had they would be saved. I thought I might be mistaken, but Brother Yates says he did say it, and so I find I am correct.

MR. YATES: Do you know, my brother, that you misrepresent me?

MR. POTTER: No; I have your very words for it.

MR. YATES: I have a point of order. The point of order is this: I got a statement from this lady reporter, and it was read here yesterday, stating the differences between us. You said that I damned all the heathen. That is what you said. It is upon record there, and she gave me the note I asked for. I said that, as it was read here from the notes. I do not care for him stating any thing. I say I am not out of humor at all. I said just that, and it is there in the notes, that those that were not 
under the law, who did the things that were in the law, would be saved, and Brother Potter said I just rolled them all over into the land of the lost to perish.

MODERATOR: The parties agreed to abide by the record.

MR. POTTER: O certainly we did. I would not have brought it up, but I understood this was the very thing he denied yesterday. He misunderstood me yesterday, that is all. Now he says that he 
said it. I do this to show that there is a possibility of mistake and misunderstanding, that is all. It is not a question of veracity nor of difference even on what we said. I did not accuse him of saying what was read there yesterday, and he denied it, nothing of the kind; but I accused him of saying just what he said here this morning that he said, and it was simply a misunderstanding on his part yesterday. That is all the reason I mentioned that.
Now, let us try it again - the Confession of Faith. The reason I accused Brother Yates of preaching universal damnation of the heathen is, because that is the doctrine of modern missionism, and he is here to defend it. He did not like it very well. I know he did not. I would not if I were he. It looks better, perhaps, in his hands than mine, but it is the doctrine of modern missionism, as I quoted from the Philadelphia circular, and which I will quote again by and by. Notice, that in the Philadelphia circular the writer goes on to state that some people undertake to extenuate the heathen as the untaught children of Nature, and to think that the Supreme Being would rather pity than to punish those people. But the writer goes on to say that that is contrary to God's Word, and he preaches the universal damnation of all of them; and as Brother Yates is here in defense of that doctrine, and belongs to that fraternity, he is responsible for what that Society teaches. That is why I accused him of preaching the universal damnation of the heathen. Another reason is, I tried for four days to get Brother Yates to define his proposition and say what the issue was between us, and I asked him the question, "Do you believe, in those Foreign Mission fields, missionaries will be instrumental in the eternal salvation of souls that would not have been saved without them?" And he finally answered, Yes, they will be the means of the salvation of souls that would have gone to hell had not the missionaries got there. Then, in addition to that answer, he undertakes to challenge me to find a solitary individual converted to God and saved, where there is no gospel. Upon that hypothesis I do charge him with preaching the universal damnation of the heathen. Why challenge me for a single conversion where there is no gospel, if he did not believe it? What does he mean by such a challenge as that, if he does not believe that those 100,000 souls a day slip down into hell? If he believes they are saved, why does he challenge me for proof of it? I want the people to see his position. If this question does not stand upon its own merits, I want it to fall. If it will stand up, I want to see it tested. That is what I came here for. Now, for a man to say that there is not a single conversion only where the gospel is, and yet preach the salvation of people where there is no gospel, is to say that they are saved without conversion, that is all. That is what it is. For a man to do that is to say they are saved without conversion. The Bible positively says, in the language of Jesus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The Apostle Paul expressly says, "If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Hence, if any man will show me a person that has the Spirit of Christ and that Spirit been given to them in some way; and if they have not heard the gospel preached, God has given it to them without the gospel; and that is why I deny that missionaries will be instrumental in the salvation of a solitary sinner that would not have been saved without them.
In pointing to this map, Brother Yates said he thought I would be useful in that work. I proposed the other evening that if he would show one single text in the New Testament that authorized the ministry to go about teaching sinners to know the Lord, that I would join him, and all my brethren would come with me - one single text. Now, if he wants me as bad as he lets on, 
why does he not produce it. That is the doctrine he teaches all over the country. That is the doctrine everybody teaches who teaches that the missionaries must not only be sent, but that they cannot be saved without the knowledge they give. That is what Carpenter says, that the apostles might have remained in Jerusalem until they died ingloriously, while their heathen brethren were perishing for lack of knowledge which they alone could give.
And the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association say, "They shall teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord." That is missionary doctrine. That is the doctrine of the mission workers today. I say to Brother Yates that if he will show me a text in the New Testament that authorizes the preacher to teach people to know the Lord, I will join him, and my brethren will; I will go their security. He has not produced it. There is proof that the Bible does not authorize them to do that, but positively says they shall not do it - that is, to teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. Now, remember that while I claim that, I claim that the commission says, "Go teach all nations, but remember, it does not say teach them to know the Lord. The Scripture says that the Lord when he ascended gave gifts unto 
men, and among those gifts were gifts of teaching, but not to teach them to know the Lord. There is not a syllable anywhere in the New Testament that authorizes preachers to go about teaching people to know the Lord, for the Bible does not contradict itself. I have studied that question closely, for this is not the first time I have had to meet it. I challenged him for one text, and Brother James or anybody else may help him.

MR. JAMES: You are not debating with me now.

MR. POTTER: Excuse me; I am not; that is so. Now, when that text is produced I am ready.

MODERATOR: I would say to the speakers not to make any personal allusions outside of the debaters.

MR. POTTER: I will not. Thank you. Pardon me, everybody.

He now refers us to the 2d Psalm to prove mission work: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Who was that? It was the Lord talking to Jesus Christ. That is David personifying Jesus, and representing the Father talking to him. It is the promise made, and part of the interpretation I spoke of yesterday. If there are any conditions between the Father and Son upon which this promise depends, Brother Yates did not quote it, only that the Son himself, that is, Jesus Christ, was to ask it. What does the text say, that I noticed here yesterday evening in speaking of that very thing, and in harmony with it, in the 53d chapter of Isaiah - he shall see his seed? Not upon the condition of the ministry getting there to preach; no, sir; but upon condition that God's word is true. That is all. He said it who cannot lie. What has he promised? That Jesus Christ, his Son, the only mediator between God and man, shall see his seed, shall see of the travail of his soul, and that he shall be satisfied. I asked, What will be required to satisfy Jesus, after his suffering, after all his agony in the garden of Gethsemane, after being surrounded by an infuriated mob upon the cross, after suffering for three dreadful hours in pain and agony? After all this, what was it for? To redeem the people. What will satisfy him? Nothing short of their salvation. Nothing short of that will satisfy him. Now, he says I proved that they were saved away back yonder, when the atonement was made, by the text in Romans. Let us notice it. Romans v. 8 says: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Now notice that the language here implies that when he died for us we were justified by his blood. "Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be" - not we were at that time, but shall be, in the future - "saved from wrath through him." Now, one is just as certain as the other. If we were justified by his blood, when his blood was shed, we shall just as surely be saved, or else there is no sense in that language. If Brother Yates thinks I am mistaken in that text, let him tell us himself. If I am not mistaken in that, then they shall all be saved. That text represents that Jesus Christ has justified; it was the blood of Christ that justified. Again, in the next verse: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Reconciled in the sense of satisfaction having been made for our sins. In the 53d chapter of Isaiah, that I quoted yesterday evening in connection with all this: "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." Why shall he justify them? He shall bear their iniquities. Did he bear their iniquities? Yes. What did that bring about? Their justification. That being true, they shall be saved. Where are they? Everywhere; all over the earth. I was a little amused at that pointer. That has been a pretty good thing. I presume this congregation is a pretty fair geography school by this time. Let me see whether I have learned any thing or not. Where those colors are, and those names over the country, is where the gospel is. What is here (pointing to South America)?

MR. YATES: The Home Mission work is there.

MR. POTTER: Is the Home Mission work here in South America?

MR. YATES: It is in America.

MR. POTTER: What is in British America?

MR. YATES: The Foreign Missions.

MR. POTTER: (Pointing to Africa) What is in here?

MR. YATES: Right above there; look at those islands.

MR. POTTER: And what is over in here?

MR. YATES: The Greek Church.

MR. POTTER: And we proved by missionary writers that the Greek Church, and the Catholics, and Lutherans, and Reformed Churches, of Europe, are just as much fields for Foreign Mission labor as the heathen. How much of the world is converted, according to this map? Now, let us see; here are the different nations. The country of Burmah, a part of which belongs to the British Government - the country of Burmah, with all the noise that has been made about it concerning Foreign Mission work, the whole country today is under the influence of the Buddhist religion. That the prevailing religion there today. What is it in Africa? Shintoism; they are devil-worshipers. And over here is where he says they barked like monkeys. In South America, strike a line across here, and it is represented by the color in Dobbin's work, "Error's Chains," as heathen lands. Alaska is represented on the map as heathen land. Asia and Greenland are also represented as heathen lands in that book; also Africa and Madagascar are so represented the same on the map. I have the book here, and the different colors show the different religions. Those are all represented as heathen lands in that book. Now, what are the numbers? I do not object to his telling that. I have something better than all that. I introduced it to you the other evening here. What is it? "And behold a great multitude which no man can number." Now, when he numbers all his converts, all his saved souls, by the means of this missionary labor, then we still outnumber him. Here is a great multitude no man can number. Where did they come from? Out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Not only from a few islands and borders of a few nations, and a few countries, but from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. There is where they come from, and no man 
can number them. He can number his converts; hence we have got him beaten on that.
Another thought. This was a fulfillment of prophecy made to Abraham, when it was said, "In thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." That is, the seed of Abraham was to be among all the families of the earth, among all the kindreds of the earth, among all the nations of the earth, among all the tribes of the earth.
Revelation v. 9, from the vision of John in heaven, he says: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Will the missionaries ever get there? Have they got there yet? Does it look much like they ever would, 
when you look at that map and see the broad fields that have never yet been touched by the missionaries? Let me tell you, when they fail, when all human effort fails, which never saves a 
soul at all, when all that fails, and all means and methods fail, in the salvation of sinners, God's grace reaches there; it reaches every state and condition of mankind; it is capable of going down to the very lowest specimen of humanity, and is well adapted to those benighted provinces we hear from. Where our money fails, and our efforts fail, it goes; it goes to the idiot, to the heathen, to the poor benighted soul, and to the infant, all upon the same terms; and if you can tell me how the infant is going to be saved, I can tell you how everybody else that ever will be, because the Saviour said, "Except ye become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." It is not saved because it repents, or because it gets the gospel, or on any conditional plan. How is it saved? By grace. How is the adult saved? Paul says, "By grace ye are saved through faith, and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." And this is the only system of salvation by which God will ever fulfill his promise to Abraham, that is, salvation without conditions, because Jesus is the only Saviour, and Jesus is just as well suited to the salvation of one nation as another, and one individual as another. His grace is as well suited, and as easily given, to the poor heathen as it is to the philosopher, as far as that is concerned. He is everywhere. He works when, and where, and how, he pleases, and when I say this it is not Regular Baptist doctrine alone, but I teach just what the whole orthodox world have always taught, until recently. Everybody has taught this all the time; the Confession of Faith of the Cumberlands teach it, and the Bible teaches it, and I teach it; this salvation is in Jesus Christ, and when the saved get up there they 
will sing, "Thou art worthy to take the book and to loose the seals thereof, for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us." They seem to have a knowledge of it, some way or other, that he was slain. That is the theory, then, that goes down lower and reaches further than any other. Talk about missionary doctrine reaching down. This takes in more than any other system in this country. Whom does it take in? It takes in all the seed of Abraham, all the elect of God, from the beginning to the end of the world. It takes in all the believers, without any possibility of falling from grace; it takes in all who love God; it takes in all who call upon his name, and desire to be saved upon the principle of Christ; it takes in all infants and idiots; it takes in people from every country, nation, and tongue, upon the face of the earth. Jesus Christ is the Saviour, suitable to just such work as that, and that work was committed to the hands of Jesus, and not to the hands of men, who are apt to be disobedient, and dilatory, and slow to learn, as we heard yesterday the apostles were. No, sir. Then, it looks like we have some reason to glorify Christ for the great work of salvation, and that is what we are to talk about. This mission work claims for itself that it is doing a work for God that he would never do without it. It claims for itself here that it is converting souls and bringing 
them in, that never would be converted without it.
Now, I will present some objections to the doctrine of modern missionism. I am not opposed to education. I have not uttered such a sentiment during this discussion as that the gospel was to be restricted to any class. He has represented me that way this morning. When a person accuses a Regular Baptist of opposing the preaching of the gospel to every creature, they either misunderstand or misrepresent us, and Brother Yates understands us, because I have told him enough this week. He was not mistaken when he said I believed in preaching exclusively to the sheep, because I have denied that all the time.
I object to it because it is of man. It cannot be traced farther back than during the 16th century. Now, I challenged him to bring a history, aside from a modern missionary, that said so. He offered us a modern missionary witness, and because I questioned them he thought I accused them of being dishonest. I do not accuse them of being dishonest, but men's prejudices may have such an influence upon their minds that they would not do justice. If speaking in his own favor, a man would tell all the good and leave the bad out, and if against somebody else, he would tell all the bad and leave all the good out. I will give you an example of that as an evidence that it is so even in the very best and strongest men. Yesterday, in the forenoon, Brother Yates called on me to introduce a text to prove the conversion of a sinner anywhere without truth. I did not have to select a text, but just turned to his Confession of Faith, and found they had selected one which they said was recorded in the 12th chapter of John, 32d verse, to prove the "Holy Spirit, operating through the written Word and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose, or directly without means, so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin and of their lost estate, and their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ." Now, to prove that proposition, the Cumberland Presbyterians refer us to John xii. 32. Hence I quoted that yesterday as my proof-text, the one he called on me for. By mistake, when he got up yesterday afternoon he accused me of quoting the wrong text, that that was not the 
one. He took mine, and it reads, "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me," and as he thought I had got hold of the wrong text, and it was my own text and not his, he undertook to saddle Universalism on me with that text. I did not take any advantage of that text, but laid the Bible before him, and he saw he was mistaken; but he had gone too far in making that text teach Universalism before he saw his mistake. When he saw his mistake, he fixed it up like a little man; but did it not show you that if he had known that was a Presbyterian text he would not have said it proved Universalism? Has he said it since? Does not that prove that a man may be prejudiced until he will not do justice to a subject? Well, I thought that if that text taught Universalism for a Regular Baptist, it would teach it as much for a Presbyterian. Hence I put the Universalist saddle on him, and told the people if they wanted to mount a Universalist colt, just mount and ride off. He said in his reply that he did not want to call me an old horse. I called him a colt; he would reverently call me a donkey - Rev. Donkey. He is a Universalist. I do not know what stock of donkeys I belong to; I cannot tell. O yes, I belong to election. I do preach the doctrine of unconditional election, and I believe I will say something about it. Brother Yates would have you think that I believe that if a man is elected that he is elected to do every thing he does in the world, let it be good or bad. Hence he keeps throwing up election, election, election, election, election! election!! election!!! ELECTION!!!! ELECTION!!!!! Now, isn't there intelligence in that? That is what Brother Yates has been doing for six days. I have repeatedly denied believing in the doctrine that every thing was absolutely predestined. I hope Brother Yates will not forget that before I get home. I don't want to have to come back up here to attend to him again. It is too small a job. I have been disappointed this time. One thing I have learned - that there are some men you cannot tell any thing to, because they are just going to think so and so anyway.
Now, what kind of theology has Brother Yates presented on the subject of election and human responsibility? He said once, and I told him of it a day or two ago, that if a man was a reprobate, God made him a reprobate, or else he let the devil do it, and if he let the devil do it, he was to blame for it. When I told him of it, he made no reply. Brother Yates ought to take that back, if he does not believe it, before this debate closes. That is what he said. Now, I showed you in the New Testament where people were reprobates: "Know ye not that ye your own selves, that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates?" Where did reprobates come from? Brother Yates says that God either made them or else the devil made them, and if the devil made them, God was to blame for letting him. I do not believe a word of that doctrine. It is not the doctrine of the Bible. It throws the blame upon God. He need not say "election" to me any more, without he takes that back. Just simply taking it back, and saying he don't believe it, and he did not aim to say it, or it was a slip of the tongue, will end it for me. I thought the reason he said it was because he was under excitement, and when I reminded him of it, and gave him a chance to take it back, he did not do it. I was so liberal to him as to say myself that I did not think Brother Yates believed that, and yet he said nothing about it, and I am going to come to the conclusion, unless he takes it back, that he does believe it. That is the reason I mention it now. Then, if he believes it, where is the blame for man being reprobated? Who are reprobates. Those that have not Christ, are they not, according to that text. Who made them reprobates? Well, it does not matter who. Either the devil of God made them. If God made them, he is to blame for it, and if the devil made them, God is to blame for letting him. That is all I am going to say about that, because I think Brother Yates 
will take it back. I do not think Brother Yates is so far gone that there is no doing any thing with him yet. I think in all probability there is a little hope for him. Yet he presumes to be the champion on the side of missionism, for the doctrine of modern missionism, and he could have answered all my objections to them when he was fifteen years old. Much smarter then than now, I think. You have heard him define it. Perhaps everybody that has heard this discussion thinks that modern foreign missionism is blessed and owned of God, and is authorized in the Holy Scriptures.
Another thing or two: Brother Yates, on the first day of this debate, when I wanted him to prove by the Scriptures that they were authorized by the Scriptures, appealed to me this way. he said: "If you will show the term Regular Baptists in the Scriptures, then I will show Foreign Mission in the next chapter." I asked him the question: "You don't believe I can show Regular Baptist in the Bible, do you?" "No," he said. Then I said, "If I will do an impossible thing, if I will do something that is impossible, then you will prove your proposition?" This was the first day of the debate. You will prove your proposition, provided I will do something that cannot be done. I have not obligated myself to prove that Regular Baptist is in the Bible; you have obligated yourself to prove that Foreign Mission is. Hence, it is your duty to prove it. It has been going that 
way from then until now. Whenever I show Regular Baptist in the Bible, he is going to show Foreign Missions, and not only that, but Foreign Mission doesn't come until the next chapter, and 
Regular Baptist is outside of the Bible entirely, and Foreign Mission is still further out. Then, is it in the Bible? Is it authorized in the Scriptures? For the Bible to teach or authorize a thing, there must be something said expressly, or implied, about it, if the Bible authorizes it.