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

Sixteenth Speeches - Yates then Potter


I am again before you to continue the line of argument in support of the affirmative of this proposition. In the very opening I want to read from Mr. Carpenter. I happened to find that I, too, had this little tract, though I forgot it and left it at home. Out of this tract my brother has, during this debate, made the most of his speeches, or a considerable part of them, and he ought to be very thankful to Mr. Carpenter. It was published in 1877. I have at home a number of his writings. I did not know it until a few hours ago. My brother has been quoting the statements of this tract to you in such a way as to make Mr. Carpenter's language seem to refer to the foreign field. If this is not correct, I want him to say so. He has been referring to it throughout this debate. I want to read it, and I want you to listen to it, and see what Mr. Carpenter meant. This is all I ask. Page 9: "How many Protestants believe that it is possible to convert them" (referring to the heathen), "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?" He was talking about the neglect of the home field, and not the foreign field at all. Now, just look at that. I want you to see that. He pointed here to this map, designating the places where he said there were no missionaries, disparaging the Foreign Mission work all he could, and then turned around and said it was a good work. Immediately after this statement he held up Mr. Carpenter as witness (and he has been doing this now and then during all these six days) against the Foreign Mission work. Here is the language. I have listened to him three or four days, and thought he would correct it; I disliked to do it. The tract continues: "The millions of idolatrous Asia, and the priest-ridden infidels 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." That is, America. "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." Then he goes on to estimate how many men Christianity had in the field at that time, and says that, although there had been great results, there were no more missionaries than there had been several years before. The number of missionaries in America had not increased. So much for Mr. Carpenter. If that is not correct, my brother can correct me.
He says he demanded of me, time and again, to bring Mosheim, and I could not do it; that I knew better, because Mosheim says nothing about missions; he is too old a historian. Now, he will get up and say I misunderstood him. I hope he will not. Now, I will read in the history of the tenth century, from Mosheim, page 108: "But the efforts of these missionaries, who did not understand the language of the country, would have been altogether fruitless had not the commands, the laws, the menaces, the rewards, and the punishments of the duke overcome the 
reluctant minds of the Poles." This corresponds exactly with the language of the Harris' "Great Commission," where he speaks of the mission work being propagated in a ritualistic or nominal 
way; where part of it was nominal when it was propagated by force. I showed yesterday that, while a good deal of chaff was sowed, there was some good seed that fell here and there. The history continues: "The foundations being thus laid, two archbishops and seven bishops were created, and by their labors and efforts the whole nation was gradually brought to recede a little from their ancient customs and to make an outward profession of Christianity." Brother Potter does not object to this, for he read from Jones' history to prove that these very missionaries were Baptists. But they were all Catholics. "As to that internal and real change of mind which Christ requires of his followers, this barbarous age had no idea of it. The same knowledge of Christianity reached the Hungarians and Avars through the instrumentality of Charlemagne, but it became wholly extinct after his death. In this century Christianity obtained a more permanent existence among those warlike nations."
Now, it is understood that I do not claim that all the mission work that has been done since the time of the apostles was as spiritual as it should have been. I am not here to affirm that; but I say all that has been valuable to the world in Christian work has grown out of the mission spirit. That is one thing about Mosheim in which my brother is mistaken.
Now, I want to spend a little time on Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. He says the authors of this Commentary are not Regular Baptists. No; but they are hyper-Calvinist, and belong to the same school of theology to which my worthy opponent belongs. Brown is the principal of Andrew's College, in Scotland, and belongs to the Scotch Presbyterians. How Brother Potter does love us Presbyterians when he is trying to use us for his own purpose! His application of the meaning of the comments of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in support of his doctrine, would make them contradict themselves time and again, and this would make their testimony as Biblical expositors in behalf of the doctrine of my brother, of but little worth. It would make their theology contradict itself, as my opponent's does. But this apparent contradiction arises not out of any error of these commentators, but out of the error of my opponent in misapplying the meaning of the word predestinate as employed by them, giving to this word in his applications his meaning instead of theirs. These commentators claim that the predestination of the Bible is in harmony with man's free-will and moral agency. This my opponent denies. Hence this Commentary is a strong and positive witness against him. When he gets into a difficult place he talks altogether about God doing it all. I turn to the 10th chapter of John, a favorite chapter of my brother's, under which he has been sheltering himself. He was considerably exercised the other morning when I claimed he did not quote all of a certain comment on John x. 27, 28, in his favorite Commentary. This comment is the view of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown as to the meaning of predestination as taught in the Bible. Their view is the same is mind, but directly opposed to that of my brother. They could not harmoniously interpret the Bible from any other point of view, though their creed is different. This is what they say: "There is a predestination of the holy which is taught from one end of the Scriptures to the other, not indeed of such a nature that an 'irresistible grace' compels the opposing will of man" - my brother teaches that - "(of course not) but so that that will of man which receives and loves the commands of God is produced only by God's grace." Man uses his will freely. Now, let me go over to the place where he said yesterday that he would teach me something. He told me I did not know how this word "world" was used in the Scriptures when I quoted this passage: "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." He said emphatically that it does not mean the whole world, and wanted to interpret it as meaning God's people. Well, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, we will let you settle this question. What do you say? "Not of Israel only, for whom the typical victims were exclusively offered. Wherever there shall live a sinner throughout the whole wide world sinking under that burden too heavy for him to bear, he shall find in this 'Lamb of God' a shoulder equal to the weight. The right note was struck at the first - balm, doubtless, to Christ's own spirit, nor was ever after or ever will be a more glorious utterance." I really agree with this favorite Commentary of Brother Potter's, as to the sense in which the word world is employed in this passage. It is very cheering to me to have Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on my side of the question. We will farther consult their views on the meaning of this word "world," in other passages of Scripture, as employed in its relation to the sacrificial offering of Christ. We will now examine John iii. 16: "As the serpent was God's ordinance for the cure of every bitten Israelite, so is Christ for the salvation of every perishing sinner; the one, however, a purely arbitrary ordinance, the other divinely adapted to man's complicated maladies; in both cases the efficacy is the same. As one simple look at the serpent, however distant and however weak, brought instantaneous cure" - Brother Potter has been telling us and leaving the impression, quoting Hebrews xi. 1, that God alone gives us faith independent of any agency on man's part. Now God gives us the object and motive-power, and the illuminating 
influence of the Holy Spirit, but he does not believe for us; hence, in the Scriptures, where the salvation of the sinner is represented from God's side, it is sometimes said God gives faith, as in the passage, "Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." When the salvation of the sinner is presented from the human side the exercise of saving faith in Christ is represented as absolutely conditioned upon man's moral agency, as in the expressions, "Whosoever believeth in him," "As many as received him," "Except ye repent," etc. Thus we see that the sinner's salvation is conditioned upon acceptance of the deliverance offered. While my opponent says man is responsible, he will turn right around after making this concession and seek to prove that man is irresponsible, and can do nothing. Now, in support of the view I have just presented of man's moral agency in his personal salvation, I will continue with the comment of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on John iii. 16: "As one simple look at the serpent, however distant and however weak, brought an instantaneous cure, even so real faith in the Lord Jesus, however tremulous, however distant - be it but real faith - brings certain and instant healing to the perishing soul. In a word, the consequences of disobedience are the same in both." Now, in speaking of the perishing world, this commentary on John iii. 16 says: "The picture embraces several distinct compartments. 'The world,' in its widest sense ready to perish; the immense 'love of God' to that perishing world, measurable only and conceivable only by the gift which it drew forth from him; the gift of itself - 'He so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.'" Further down he goes on to say: "The fruit of this stupendous gift is not only deliverance from impending 'perdition,' but the bestowal of 
everlasting life, and the mode in which all takes effect is by 'believing' on the Son." On the 19th verse, the Commentary says: "Condemned already; rejecting the one way of deliverance from that condemnation which God gave his Son to remove, and so willfully remaining condemned." Now, my worthy opponent, I leave it with you and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown to reconcile your 
differences, for your favorite Commentary is squarely against you.
And now I shall pay farther attention to his note illustration, as he has brought it up again. He represented me as saying God would never require a man to do what he could not do within himself, or that which God would not extend to him ability to perform. This he emphatically denied, declaring, at the same time, that God requires of every sinner spiritually what he cannot do. To make this plain he brought forth his note illustration. He made much ado about my questioning God's right to treat the sinner as his doctrine represented him, and then he went on to say that all were in sin and bankrupt, but that did not release us from the obligations of our indebtedness to God. This he attempted to demonstrate by his favorite fifty-dollar-note business transaction.
Now, I think I have already explained that note business. How did we fail to pay the note? If we are all dead in Adam, I want to know how we are responsible only for tendencies in our nature. Now, if I am absolutely helpless, spiritually, and there is a brother in this audience who is exactly in the same condition, and when the message of salvation comes the Holy Spirit constrains him to receive it, and leaves me in my helpless state without divine aid to accept the deliverance offered, and this leaves me unavoidably to meet the doom of the eternally lost, I want to know where the equity is. When I bring the text, "I have called, and ye refused," he says he believes in personal responsibility. I have called his attention to passage after passage that he has never touched, and yet he turns around in the next minute and preaches that other doctrine - the saving of man without any agency on his part. Now I ask, which side of the question is he on? I claim that it is taught in the Word of God that, while my affections may be turned from God, and I am morally helpless so far as saving myself is concerned, that by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the Word illuminating the eye of the understanding, I can choose, accept, or reject, the offer of salvation, and that these privileges are extended to every human being wherever the gospel is preached. This I have conclusively shown from God's Word, and from the opinions of first-class Biblical expositors, in this discourse, without taking into consideration the many arguments I have adduced from the sources named in my preceding addresses. This note illustration proves too much for his doctrine, as I have already shown, in the fact that in the giving of a note there are 
conditions to be complied with that require the agency and choice of the party contracting the debt; and there is also, on the part of the party to whom the obligation is made in accepting the note, an acknowledgment of the ability of the one by whom the note is given to discharge the obligation therein contained. Therefore, his own illustration proves that God has so constituted and placed man as to make it his privilege to be saved, and that if he is lost it will be by bankrupting himself 
spiritually in the abuse of his opportunities and privileges, and in wasting and paralyzing his spiritual energies and faculties. I have so thoroughly exposed in my former speech the sophistry wrapped up in this note illustration that it is unnecessary for me to give a farther analysis. So, in this spiritual note business we have a personal responsibility. We are held accountable in these spiritual obligations that weigh down upon us for that part only that we have an agency in, and that part in which we had no agency Jesus absolutely blotted out in the atonement. That is the way the idiots and babies are saved. I have asked him, time and again, to tell us the meaning of the 
word "elect," and he won't do it. I have explained it. I have demanded him to show a passage where it was said Christ came to save the elect, and he has not done it. I have said emphatically 
that where the word "elect" is used it always implies a believer, and he has not denied it. But he said he put me down as - I do not know what, whether it was Universalist or not. The prodigal son came to my mind while he was talking about this. The prodigal was sorry he had sinned against heaven and in his father's sight. He remembered the home and its surroundings, and by viewing it in contrast with his impoverished and degraded state was led to say, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight; I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." Did he say that? No. He had fixed up that speech in his mind, but his father met him on the way, and, as soon as the son reached the point in his confession, "I am no more worthy to be called thy son," the father stopped him by crying out, "Bring forth the best robe," etc. This was 
enough. It was just what the father desired to see in him - sorrow for his course of conduct, because it was against him and the home government, and an acknowledgment of the same, and a return to seek his father's forgiveness. The father was waiting and anxious to receive him. The prodigal represented the Gentile world. So we see that the sinner's return to God is conditioned upon his own choice. I have quoted passage after passage of Scripture proving that all mankind are lost in sin, and that in the plan of salvation God, through his gospel, extends the offer of salvation to every sinner, and hence calls on men everywhere to repent. It is this universal call to me to be saved that, in the Bible, connects repentance with the judgment. I have shown conclusively that Jesus came to reveal God. I have given Scripture proofs of this time and again, and Brother Potter has not dared to meet them. How did he treat that passage in regard to the ambassadors of Christ, II. Corinthians v.? I will just notice it a moment. "Now then are we ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead: be ye reconciled to God." This is the language of the representatives of Jesus. And here my opponent accuses the missionary workers of taking the work out of the Lord's hands. Now, my brother knows better than that; he knows there never were more godly men and women than those who have crossed the seas and labored in these heathen lands. I challenge him before this intelligent audience to turn round and say they were not faithful Christians. I dare him to say that these men and women who are leading workers, and have periled their lives for the heathen, do not stand out as monuments of the power of the gospel of the Son of God. He is the man tht does the asserting. He says God never made the sinner a sinner, but men make themselves sinners. How is that, when the sinner was not non-elect from eternity? I showed the other day that that word "elect" implied character, and character is not inherited; it is something cut or carved - something wrought out - and he has not said a word in reply. Election implies conversion, conformity to the image of Christ. That comes by repentance and godly living; and when I charged him with preaching the doctrine that he was justified eighteen hundred years before he was born, in his reply he tried to get away from it, and then, in the very same speech, he turned around and indorsed it. He said that Jesus would save every one whom he came to die for, and that faith and repentance are not conditions in this plan of salvation. The brother seemed to be a little out of humor. I love him; I am going to visit him after this debate 
is over. I am getting acquainted with him. We must keep in a good humor. Listen to his language - through he likes Brother Yates. In speaking of his missionary witnesses he says, "They are just as good as Brother Yates." Well, I do not deny that. He went on to say that he did not debate with me - look at that; I hope he will explain that - he did not debate with me because I was more honest or better than any one else, but because I was indorsed as a representative minister by the advocates of Foreign Missions. This personal thrust is rather unbecoming for a man of his standing. But we will have to excuse him, for he is sour and out of humor. His cause is a bad one. He has been rowing up stream during these six days of discussion, and against wind and tide. I will say to my brethren in this audience, and to Brother Hume, I debated with Brother Potter because I looked upon him not only as a representative minister, but as a man of character; and I would not debate with him, or any other man, unless I considered him as possessing Christian character as well as 
intellectual ability and culture. The men that stand behind me I suppose will risk my character as well as my competency in this discussion. I can risk it. Then he told about a little correspondence we had, and what I said in a twitting way about answering him. Let me tell you how that was. I was working with Brother Potter to get him to sign some plain conditions of agreement by which we should be governed in the debate. This was after he had accepted the challenge. He worried along ten or twelve days, I trying to get him to sign the conditions and to fill up the blank. There were only two blanks to be filled up. A boy twelve years old could have done it in a very short time. I wrote to him several times to sign these conditions of agreement for the debate if he was still disposed to meet me in joint discussion, and he still found some excuse and put me off. Finally he said he did not know how to do it, or something to that effect, and there is a man sitting here (the Rev. Mr. Collins) who went down to his house with me, and we took a copy of the very same conditions of agreement that I had before furnished him, and which he said he did not know how to sign. When I confronted him face to face, in the presence of a witness, asking him to sign it or back out, he signed it like a little man, without any alteration or a word of objection. This is all I will say about this, and would not have said this much if he had not called it out.
A word in regard to that saddle business. He was speaking of the Saviour of sinners. Now, let me turn back and just read that passage, and I will not pay any more attention to it after this. Isaiah liii. 10, 11: "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. 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." By his knowledge he shall justify many. Did you put the emphasis there? No, sir; you put the emphasis on bearing their iniquities, to make it appear that God's elect were absolutely purchased as individuals in the death of Christ. But the idea presented by the Prophet Isaiah is that no one is saved by the sufferings of Christ alone, but through the revelation these sufferings give of God's nature and relation to mankind. Hence, it is said we are justified by his knowledge, because of his offering of himself as a sin-offering. The meaning is, that Christ through his suffering as a sacrifice for sin would give such a revelation of the dignity of man and the greatness of his destiny, of the fearful situation in which sin has placed him, of the heinousness of sin, of its terrible consequences, of God's resentment to sin, and of the mercy and love of God, and his anxiety to save man, and of the great salvation offered, as would cause many of the human family to be divorced from their sins and won to God, and lead them to be justified by the Lord through a loving confidence in Christ as their personal Saviour. So, my brother, your efforts to prove from the Scriptures just explained that God's elect are actually saved by the sin-offering of Christ absolutely, without any agency on their part, is a complete failure. These Scriptures teach just the opposite..
But he says there has been nothing done in Burmah. I have here Dobbins' "Error's Chains," and will read from page 773: "What a grand work has been done in Burmah!" - Burmah is the country up here on the map which he has made so much fun of. I suppose he could make a better one. There are nearly 2,750,000 Špeople in British Burmah, and 4,000,000 in Burmah proper. Now, 
hear what this man says: "What a grand work has been done in Burmah, where missionary labor has been so emphatically blessed, among Burmese, Karens, Shans, and Kay Keyennes!" O, he quotes it just as it is: "The young mission at Bahmo is in a precarious condition at present, owing to the relations of King Thebaw to England; yet the missionaries there stand by their posts." Here 
is the part about Buddha: "The Buddhism of Burmah seems as yet but little affected by the presence of Christianity; the work among the Karens has made more rapid progress than among the Burmese, because of the preparation for the gospel by their singular traditions and prophecies. There are 23,000 Christians, the nucleus of a Christian community of about 75,000." There are 103 missionaries in Burmah. That does pretty well, when we remember that Brother Potter's Church has now only 40,000 members, though he claims that it has existed ever since the days of the apostles, while the work has not been introduced in Burmah over eighty years. He talked about Africa. If my brother would read Christlieb's "Foreign Missions of Protestantism" he would not make such blunders. Right here in Africa (pointing to the map), and scattered in all those countries in which the Foreign Mission work is carried on; throughout Asia and Europe, and here in all these islands of the sea, from Patagonia to Greenland, there are today, under the direct influence of the Foreign Mission work alone, 1,600,000 people. A pretty good work. Carey started out from England in 1792 with only one faithful minister and a few friends to stand behind him, and now see the great army of Christian laborers today who engage in the work in the mission field. It is a grand work that extends around the world, and yet Brother Potter compares these missionaries to barking monkeys. Now, my friends, here is the testimony (pointing to the heathen countries on the map), here is the result of the work, the gospel fruits produced, that demonstrates that the Foreign Mission work is owned and blessed of God. I have given proof-text after proof-text from the Bible, showing that the Foreign Mission work is also authorized in the Scriptures, and he has utterly failed to disprove my interpretations and applications of them.
I will now proceed to give a summary of the line of argument which I have produced during this discussion in support of the affirmative of the proposition:
Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in 
the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God."
I based my line of argument on the identity of the Protestant Foreign Mission work of today, in every essential feature, with the gospel work as recorded in the New Testament; and I believe that a fair and careful examination of these arguments will reveal the fact that they have been clearly, conclusively, and unanswerably sustained, and that any one of them alone would have proved the affirmative of the question under discussion. I have shown that the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God, as evidenced in its identity with the gospel work of the New Testament in the following features:
1. In the great end it is designed to accomplish, and the end to be subserved. I based this argument upon the great commission, and also upon Acts xxvi. 17, 18, Paul's commission to the Gentiles; and I then showed that the entire trend of Scripture truth throughout the New Testament establishes this position.
2. In its principles and the great motive-power that actuates it. You remember I defined the objects of the Foreign Mission work in those benighted lands, to proclaim the glad tidings of the Saviour, to open the eyes of the blind, and break the power of Satan. That was the commission given to Paul. And Jesus himself said to his apostles, when he gave them the great commission, Go, preach to all the world, and "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." I showed that Paul and Barnabas were set apart by the Holy Spirit, through the Church by her representatives in the laying on of hands, and were sent out to the field in just the same way the foreign missionaries are sent out today. I showed that the principles of the mission work of today are identical with the principles of the gospel work of the New Testament, which are supreme love to Christ, compassionate love for mankind, loyalty to Jesus, obedience to the blessed Christ, deep sympathy with suffering humanity, seeking to cooperate with Jesus in carrying this great work into the remotest parts of the earth. "The world is the field," says the Master.
3. In the great spiritual agency that begets, energizes, and guides the Foreign Mission work. I spoke of Pentecost, and showed from the 1st chapter of Acts that these men and women were baptized with the Holy Spirit that they might witness for Jesus in all parts of the world. I showed that they tarried at Jerusalem in accordance with the command of Christ, after he said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," until they were "imbued with power from on high." And then I showed how that Spirit led and guided them, and how the Church at Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas under the direction of that Spirit. Then I went to the foreign field and showed that the great revival of the Foreign Mission work that is sweeping the world today all round the globe, was developed by the same spiritual agency, guided and energized by the same Spirit. I showed that before Carey went out as a missionary he had prayed for years, and his heart had been burdened for India. I showed how the Warwick Association set apart a Monday out of every month for prayer, and how at the same time Jonathan Edwards, from our own shores, sent the bugle-note across the seas, and asked for God's blessing to rest upon the Church at home and on the heathen world.
4. In the manner of selecting and sending forth the laborers into the foreign field. I showed that the missionaries today are sent out just as Paul and Barnabas were sent out.
5. In its fruits in heathen lands, in the transformation of individual character and of society. I took the Bible and read about the sins the Corinthians were guilty of - all those beastly sins that made Corinth such a wicked city before Paul went there to preach. I then showed what the Corinthian Church afterward were. Then I took the contrast in the foreign field, before and after the missionaries went to them, showing that the same principles were carried out with the same object, and that the fruits are the same.
Now, I have a few testimonials by unprejudiced men, which I want to introduce here in regard to the Foreign Mission work, on the fruits of the work. Now, these are men who are not working 
in the mission field. They are travelers and scholars, historians and governors. My time having expired, I will give these in my next speech.


The first thing that I wish to pay respects to concerning the speech is to the map. Brother Yates thinks I made fun of the map. I presume that is a correct map; I have never called it in question. I wanted to know what was here where there are no colors, or any thing of that kind. I wanted to know if that was not populated with people. There are no signs of any missionaries there. There are here, around the borders of some of these countries and islands, but what is where there are no marks? It is territory - part of the world - and people live there. I take that as a correct map. It shows that there is a large portion of th world where the gospel has not been. As far as my calling missionaries barking monkeys, that is a mistake. I did not call the missionaries barking monkeys at all.

MR. YATES: That is the way I understood you.

MR. POTTER: Yes, Brother Yates never understands me. He says he does not understand me. He became a little fired up about it. No, he says not; no, he wasn't. He is the man that introduced 
that about the barking the other day. I understood him to say the other evening, in pointing to some of these islands, that when the missionaries first went to them the inhabitants there barked like monkeys; had no language at all, and that the missionaries did such a work for them that it convinced Charles Darwin that he was right in his theory in thinking that man sprang from a monkey. He confessed he was wrong. That is what the barking originated from. That is all the use I have for the map at present. That is a nice map, and so far as its correctness is concerned I have nothing to say about it. Taking it as it is, we suppose the territory there that is not marked is in heathenism today. That is a Protestant missionary map, but I think it is correct, according to all the maps and accounts I have seen from the missionaries on that subject. So far as Carpenter is concerned, I will say this: Brother Yates did not read all the quotation I made from Carpenter this morning. I began my quotation with the toast that the Irish Catholics drank at a general festival in New England, that Carpenter speaks of, and the quotation itself shows that Carpenter had allusion to our 
work at home; and while we were doing a little at home, we were also doing so little abroad. He means both - that the heathen were likely to come in here and overflow this country, and he calls his brethren to look at the prospect. That is what I introduced that for. I am not going to take up time on it. But he did bring Mosheim. What was he going to bring that for? He proposed yesterday morning to show a succession of the missionary organizations from the days of the apostles until now - foreign missionary societies. He introduced a missionary witness, and I wanted to know why he did not introduce some other witness - as Mosheim, Eusebius, or Ruter's history, or some of those old histories. The missionaries that Mosheim referred to there are simply missionaries. If he called them foreign missionaries, I did not hear those words in the quotation read. Well, it is the Foreign Mission work we are here to talk about. Home mission work is not in it at all. However, I do not object to his discussing home missions if he wants to, if he will get up a proposition that embraces it correctly; but Foreign Mission work is the work we are talking about. He says that Jamieson, Fausset and Brown are hyper-Calvinists and Presbyterians. He says I love Presbyterians when they suit me. I do; that is true. I love them just as well as any other in the world when they suit me. I love Brother Yates when he suits me. He has suited me very little of the time during this week, so far as his positions are concerned. Now, he is not only against me when I am opposed to Presbyterians, but he is against me when I am in favor of them. He, so far as his doctrine is concerned, never suits me; so far as his positions are concerned, they never suit me. Once in awhile the Calvinists suit me on some points. He claims them, he is here to defend them. His own Confession of Faith suits me in some respects, but his positions never have suited me.
On the subject of the way we become sinners, I want just to make one more remark on that part of the subject. We have heard that all the week. All the week we have heard about how we become sinners, and it reminds me of a poor old darkey that was undertaking to blast some rock on his master's farm. He drilled a hole in the rock, put in a sufficiency of powder, gave it a touch, and it flashed off through the crevices, but did not blow off any rock; but all the air over the field seemed to be impregnated with the odor from the burnt powder. The master complained of his not blowing up any rock, and he said: "Massa, I will tell you - dis yer powder been shot off afore." That don't blow up any rock. When powder has been shot off once it don't do much good when you continue to shoot it.
I do not know what Brother Yates' position is as to hereditary sin. He does not take any position if he can help it, but in summing up his arguments of what has been done this week, I want you to remember in his summary that on the fourth day he got his proposition defined. He go through with that on the fourth day, in the evening.
Now, to show human responsibility and cooperation of human action, in order to become the children of God, he refers us to John i. 12: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power 
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." Now, they must receive him; that is their part of the work, that is the condition, and when they do it he will then give them power to become the sons of God. Who received him? Let us go to that text and learn the truth. The full quotation is about this: "In speaking of Jesus, the writer says: "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." Now, who were they? "Even to them that believe on his name." They were the ones that received him; nobody else. That is the reading of the text. You need not go to any other text. The Bible does not contradict itself. It teaches the same thing; but it is proper to let the speaker say his say out, when we introduce him. These, he says, were believers, and not only that, but he says, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Those 
are the ones that received Jesus when he was here, and the ones that receive him now - the ones that are born of God.
He says, on the subject of election and choice, "I believe I will give one text." He says that choice refers to character. God's choice means character, he chooses character. Let us see whether it does or not. I will call your attention to the lxv. psalm of David, 4th verse: "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest." Some people say election does not embrace a class. This is just one man, and man in the singular. I want it all fixed up as we go along. This is one man, singular number, specified man, the man. "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee." Now, remember that he was chosen of God before he came to Jesus, before he came to God. What was his character when he was chosen? If choice or election always means character, what was this man's character prior to the choice, or when the choice was made? He did not come to Christ. He did not come to God. The choice was first, and, in addition to that choice, he caused him to come to him. That is the man that David says is the blessed man. "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." That man was chosen first, caused to come to God second, enjoyed the goodness of the house, and dwelt in his courts third. That is the order according to that text. Now, if choice always means character, I want to know what the character of that man was when the choice was made? He was not in God's house, he had not come to God yet, but as a result of that choice, or as a consequence of it, God caused him to come to him, and that is the man that is blessed; and when God caused him to come, then the man dwells in the courts of the Lord. That is the blessing he enjoys. It is not necessary to dwell very long on choice. The Lord, as we heard last night, does not have to speak a half dozen times in order to tell the truth. One time is enough.
He accuses me of saying that I do not debate with him because he is more honest than any other man. Well, I suppose there are other men as honest as Brother Yates is. I suppose there are. I did not think about his being the purest man in the world - superlatively pure, so far as that word in its comparison will allow. I thought he was a man - just a man. But I did not come here simply to fight Brother Yates, as an individual, in his opinions. That is what I meant. I came here to oppose a principle, not to fight any man. Then he accuses me of not coming to debate with him. He is here to defend a principle, not Brother Yates. Is nobody else interested in the missionary cause but him? Is he all the advocate the Foreign Mission work has in the world? Now he is here to defend the Foreign Mission work as it is, as a principle, not as Brother Yates would set it up, but as it is already set up and advocated by those who believe in it. I came to fight that. That is what I came here for. I came to fight it as embraced in his proposition. His proposition says that it is authorized in the Holy Scripture. I object to it. I say it is not authorized in the Holy Scripture. I say there is not a syllable, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, that either expresses or implies Foreign Missionism, as it is advocated by Brother Yates and the Foreign Mission advocates of today. He is going to sum up all the texts and give you some of them. I want you to listen. If I am mistaken I want to be righted. I am here to learn. I confess I am not past 
learning yet; I have not learned it all. I am not perfect. I am short-sighted, willing to learn any thing, willing to sit down at the feet of Brother Yates , or any other man in the world, to receive lessons of instruction. I came here for that purpose. I was under the impression, before I ever heard of Brother Yates, that Foreign Missionism was defended by a great many people. They thought it was right, and that it was a good thing; but while I was under that impression, I did not believe there was a solitary syllable in God's Word that authorized it. And one reason I did not was because I had never found it. Still it might be there. Another reason why I did not believe it was 
because it charged the apostles and their successors, and all the Church, and all the ministry, of overlooking it for nearly seventeen hundred years. They had read the Bible, they had been praying men, they had been good and godly men; many of them, hundreds of them, had yielded their lives for the gospel in the flames, and they had never thought of foreign missionary societies until within the sixteenth or seventeenth century. That was the reason I did not believe it was in the Bible. I thought that if it was they would have found it there before so many years rolled around. That was one objection I had to it. I wanted them to find it if it was there; I wanted Brother Yates to show it to me if it was there; I wanted him to show it to the people if it was there; I wanted him to show it to my brethren if it was there.
Our position about this doctrine has called forth upon our heads the anathemas of most of our religious neighbors; because we opposed it, and would not take stock in it, we have been denominated anti-mission, anti-effort, and anti-almost every thing else. I thought this would be a good opportunity for us to get out of that, if we were wrong. We are not here as idle spectators; we are not here for nothing; and it will be remembered that the very first day of this discussion Brother Yates admitted that if I would find the term Regular Baptist in the Bible, that then, in the next chapter, he would find Foreign Missions. I did not call on him for the word Foreign Mission; I have not been calling on him for that. I want that word, though, or I want it implied. When the Bible authorizes a thing it must say something about it. When it has authority from heaven, it must say it in terms that ought to be understood. One argument introduced the first day of this discussion was that nine hundred and ninety-nine Christians out of a thousand believe in it, and because I said that public opinion was against Christ, then he said I compared them to Christ-killers. I said no such thing. Public opinion is not always right. Good men sometimes are on the side of public opinion, but public opinion is not always right. But I answered this way: that it ought to be a settled question if it is authorized in the Bible; if it is expressed or implied in God's Word, there ought not to be a dissenting Christian in the world; instead of being nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand that believe in it, if it is authorized in God's Word, especially when we think such importance attaches to it as our missionary brethren claim.
I objected to the Foreign Mission society, then, on the ground that Paul himself, as I showed you from a modern missionary writer that I had clipped from a Journal and Messenger, published by a Missionary Baptist in 1877, in which he describes Paul as a missionary; in which he said that Paul was not backed up by a wealthy missionary organization; that he went alone, and all he had to assist him was God's commission and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is the kind of a missionary Paul was, so says a Missionary Baptist himself. Now, I believe in that kind of missionism; I think that is sufficient. If a man has the authority from heaven and guidance of the Holy Spirit to go and preach, I say for him to go, and I say he is a rebel if he does not go.
I showed again, in addition to that, that there was only one thing that the apostles were commanded to tarry for, and that was not to get up a board and raise money, or to prepare for the 
trip, but to wait until they were endued with power from on high. I showed you from the missionary circular, that they report themselves, that the very best men stand waiting; only the money is wanting. They were not waiting for power from on high, but were waiting for the money to be ready. Those were two kinds of waiting, and it did not look like there was much identity in all that.
In addition to all that, I showed you that the gospel, with all the disadvantages and with all the opposition it had at the start, by the preaching of the apostles spread faster and more in a short time than it has done under the grand banner of Foreign Mission work in the latter days. The gospel was preached in Europe, Asia, and Africa, in most of the different parts of those countries, by the apostles, and I mentioned several of the disadvantages they labored under. One was, they had no post-office or mails; there was no such thing as mailing a letter here at Owensville and it running to Evansville in an hour. If I wanted to send a message, provided I had lived in that time, I must employ my messenger and send him; neither was there any such advantage for nearly fourteen hundred years after the apostles were dead. Then they could not spread news very fast; they did not have the opportunities. I showed not only that, but that they did not have the use of the telegraph and telephone by which to communicate with all the world in an hour, or a day. We get news today 
from all over the civilized world in a day. They could not do it, they did not have that advantage. I showed again, while they were destitute of that advantage, they did not have these locomotives and steam cars, nor the steamship. When they traveled by land they had to go on foot, or by camels, and when on the water they must go by the power of sails and oars. You remember when Christopher Columbus left Spain to discover America, he left Spain on the first day of August, and landed at San Salvador on the 12th day of October. Look at what a tedious trip that was. And perhaps there were grand improvements in the mode of travel then to what they had in the days of the apostles. Again, I showed you they did not have the use of the printing press by which to print tracts, papers, and Bibles, or any thing of the kind. The Bible itself was only in manuscript. Only a few people, comparatively, could afford to have it, and it was not compiled in its present form for several hundred years after the apostles were dead; and yet, with all these disadvantages, the gospel spread faster, and did more, and was more powerful than it is now under the banner of our modern missionaries. Why? Because they were sent of God. They relied on his authority and 
the guidance of his Spirit. What do they rely upon now? They rely upon the liberality of man. Before you go you must be ready to go. If a man starts to the Foreign Mission field today, he must be furnished with an outfit worth about $500. He must be furnished with money to pay his expenses, and must have a salary. I do not say this to reflect on his honesty at all, however. When they have the use of the steam, and the electric wire, and the printing-press, which is the grandest power we have in the world today, it looks like it ought to spread faster than it does. Another disadvantage - they had no Christian constituency to send them out. Right where they were, at Jerusalem,, the people were opposed to them; their own brethren and countrymen, according to the flesh, were ready to kill them, beat them with stripes, stone them to death, crucify them; and they had no place 
to start from, as the missionaries have now. Now, I do not introduce that to say we ought to travel like they did, that if they walked we ought to walk; no. I noticed that to show an evidence of God's blessing to them, and to compare them with the conveniences we have today.
Another objection I had, it was of man. I made that argument myself, and proved by missionary documents that Brother Yates admits himself were good, and has not even asked me to let him inspect them, and which have not been contradicted, either. I showed you, and it has not been contradicted, that a missionary said himself, in giving the grounds of modern Foreign Missions, that it was a circumstance very remarkable that in modern Foreign Missions papal Rome had led the way. Now, just think, if papal Rome led the way, what kind of an institution it was. It was this sect called the Society of Jesus, known in our history and everywhere else as Jesuits, who hated liberty, and were ready to do any work for the establishment of their own Church as a government religion everywhere. That is the institution that missionaries say led. I argue that if they led, Jesus Christ did not. They were men. Now, the missionaries say themselves that papal Rome led in this grand work. I argue that it is of man, and not of God, because of its recent introduction into the world. It never existed until in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. I had noted in my book the date of the origin of the most influential missionary organizations that are in existence today, from Appleton's Encyclopedia. I have not introduced it. He says that I have shot that all away. No, I have not. I did not have any thing in particular to shoot it at. But I do say that if it had been of God he would have introduced it sooner.
One more objection I have to it is the doctrine which it teaches, and I want to repeat that in their own language. I will quote it, and I want the people to look at it. Now, whether Brother Yates teaches that doctrine or not I do not know, nor do I care; missionaries do. It does not matter to me what Brother Yates' view about that matter is; he is here to defend missionism as it is. What is it? I object to the Foreign Mission work on the ground that it makes a misuse of the gospel, in that it makes the gospel an offer of salvation, and thereby essential to salvation. Brother Yates has argued that a great deal of the time while we have been here.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.