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

Twelfth Speeches - Yates then Potter


I am happy to be with you again in this discussion. I was forcibly reminded by the silent form lying in the coffin in this house a few moments ago of how earnest and conscientious we should be in discussing these great and momentous questions. Silent lips seem to speak to us more eloquently and forcibly than those of the living. If I know myself I want to conduct this discussion in such a way that I will not be afraid to meet my words and arguments in the judgment. So I conscientiously, from the very depths of my soul, affirm the proposition under discussion. [A funeral service had just been held, and the corpse of a wife and mother had been borne from the church. It is to this the speaker refers.]
In regard to my brother’s allusions to this tract of Brother Carpenter’s, I have not a great deal more to say. You heard the reading of the proposition. I am not here to defend the opinions of men; I am not here to defend the whims of my brethren; I am here to consider the great cause which we are discussing, and to show that it is authorized in the Scripture. If Brother Carpenter really slandered the apostles, I would be with my brother in condemning him, but I was giving my opinion from a charitable point of view. What Brother Carpenter said, or did not say, is of small value so far as the proposition is concerned. I will read the passage to which my Brother Carpenter refers. Acts xi. 19: “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.” Well, now, it does appear they did not seem to get the full import of the commission, as I said, for they preached to the Jews only. The commission was to all nations; but while God’s word is perfect, men are slow to learn. In regard to the scattered disciples preaching the word as they went abroad, the idea I presented to you was not that persecution prepared them for the work, but that God overruled it, as he does all things, to his honor and glory in the advancement of his cause. They were filled with the spirit of the gospel, and this was what caused them to preach it wherever they went. So much for Mr. Carpenter.
Missionaries do not arrogate to themselves, as my brother claims, the saving of the heathen. I think they are as far from that as any other class of people living. I will read further from the literature which my brother has been using. It is all right for me to introduce these witnesses. I will read from the Baptist Missionary Magazine, June, 1878, Vol. II., page 16. This is from a Christianized heathen, a heathen who professed to be regenerated, a native preacher, a Karen missionary from that Karen country where Mr. Carpenter was the leading worker, or the manager of the Bassein Mission. It was up in the mountains toward China. These people were wild and ferocious. Listen to the language of this man, and see if the language is identical with that of the Scripture: “The land is wide; I cannot occupy it alone. I have gone about, climbing mountain after mountain, until I am very weary, almost every day. If I had some companion, it would be easier, of course. Perhaps you will say that I praise myself, but it is not so. The Bassein Christians had confidence in me, and sent me this long distance. You are my relatives.” (He sends this back to influence his brethren in the Lord.) “Do not think I am leading an easy, luxurious life in the city of Bhamo, or on these mountains. Do not think that I am lazy or pottering over the Lord’s work. It is not so. Even though I am in the midst of the work, I am not fearful “—the tribes were fighting all around him there—” though I have the fever often, I am not discouraged. I work until I am tired out, and 1 will keep on working.” (Brother Potter’s doctrine is, sit still, and the Lord will save you anyhow. You are God’s sheep, and you do not even need to be fed. The Spirit will do that without the Word. That man would not have been up in the mountains if he had followed Brother Potter’s doctrine.) “Pray for me continually. Pray, too, that God will incline the hearts of many unmarried young men to come and share in this work of God.” It is legitimate for me to refer to this, because I am showing the fruits of the work, and my Brother Potter claims that he sticks to the Bible all the time, and then runs to Rice and Campbell’s Debate when I press him for a proof-text. If he does not quit this, I fear I will have to sprinkle him, as he is becoming such a Presbyterian. He has quoted through his green book time and again, but I do not object to it, for he has to fill up his time.
Is the work authorized in the Scriptures? I have demanded of him many times to show a hint or suggestion in any passage, from Genesis to Revelation, that the Word is not indispensable in the work of salvation. The Foreign Mission work, and the gospel as employed in that work, are authorized in the Scriptures. That is the Bible upon the subject. If it is not in accordance with this Book, I do not want it. My Brother Potter tells us that the ministry and the Book are not necessary in the work of salvation. I will have him to show that from the Book. And now I will take up the Scriptures again. We will go back to this Book and see how it is. Let us read Acts xviii. 6—10. his proof-text in parrying my interpretations of Corinthians: “And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed “—that is, the Jews—” he shook his raiment, and said unto them “—that is, Paul said this—” Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” Paul was led by the Spirit, but he made a mistake; he missed the sheep, didn’t he? They did not receive him at all. Now, if those people were not sheep, but were goats, how could their blood rest on their own heads, when they had not been elected from eternity? Next, we will go to the 10th verse. Paul was discouraged, and the Lord came to encourage him. He was being guided, wasn’t he? What was Paul doing? “For I am with thee,” the Lord says, “and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee, for I have much people in this city.” Now, does he say he has much sheep? I want to know if “sheep” is used in the Bible to represent a class, or particular individuals, regardless of character? We want to know the meaning of this passage. Why did Paul become discouraged? He was judging from appearances, but the Lord, who read the hearts of the people, knew there were many more interested in the message of salvation, and anxious to accept it, than appearances indicated. This is the reason why the Lord made this revelation to Paul. It was a prophecy unveiling to him the possible future, as well as the true state of his surroundings, to encourage him to continue preaching the Word to the Corinthians. Suppose I admit, for the sake of argument, this morning, that my brother’s position is correct. He would still lose his case. Why? It was indispensable for Paul to preach the gospel to them, and the Lord guided him to find the sheep, if Brother Potter’s position is correct. We claim it is a command enjoined upon us to send the Word to the heathen. And the Lord urged Paul to stay and preach; but Brother Potter says, No. Authorized in the Scripture, is it not? “Go preach the gospel.” Preach it. It says to go and take it to them. So my opponent will lose his case, even if his doctrine of election is time.
Well, he says there are two salvations—a spiritual and a temporal. That is a beautiful thing. Then, a man may be elected from eternity by God—and God always carries out his purposes, and never fails—and yet lose his temporal salvation. It would be incomplete, wouldn’t it? When I pressed him in regard to the language of Jesus in the twenty-third chapter of Matthew, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not,” he tried to explain it by saying that the Jews destroyed themselves nationally, but that the sheep were not destroyed. Then, there was something that God could not force them to do—he could not do it; and hence election, fixed from eternity, did not fix that. But it will not do. What destroyed them? It was the scribes and Pharisees, those leading religionists, who had rejected and crucified Jesus. Jesus said on a certain occasion, “Now they have no cloak for their sin.
Well, we will go back. Paul had to preach the Word to these heathen. We will go back to this passage. Keep in mind that Paul was to preach the Word to them, and God encouraged him to do it. That is what he was there for. Now I will quote m Corinthians, i. 21: “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” There comes in your preaching at Corinth. It pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe—of the world—of the heathen. I Corinthians vi. 9—11: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.” Now, Brother Potter says we cannot prove that Paul’s going there produced the result of bringing them out of that condition—that they might have been saved without it. Just let him give a passage of Scripture to show that—one single passage. We do not want him to go to his almanac, nor his Confession of Faith. I want the Book. Well, he says, how do you know but that they might have been saved if Paul had not gone there? I know, from the fact that it is not in accordance with the constitution of things, nor with God’s will revealed in the Word. It is not revealed in the Word, and I do not know any thing about it beyond that. God’s Word tells us how to work, and what has been provided for us. It reveals the things that indicate the fruits of those principles, and I cannot go to any other source than the Book. Suppose an individual is debating with Brother Potter, and that Brother Potter brings all the evidence in glowing terms which can be brought to prove the divine claims of Christianity from the Book; but suppose his opponent makes him lay down that book, and demands the evidences of the claims of Christianity from the results of its influence in society, in the transformation of character, and in giving birth to good governments, and its results in civilization. When Brother Potter brings his required proof, suppose his opponent says, “Show me that that would not have been done without Christianity.” Would he countenance such an argument as legitimate? No, sir—not for a moment. How absurd! It is only a place to run into. It does not shelter him—that is all. If this objection of my brother were accepted as legitimate, it would overturn all the evidences of the divine claims of Christianity. It would destroy all the principles of logic and completely incapacitate man as a finite being to prove any proposition by inductive reasoning; for in every attempt to prove a proposition thus he would have to assume to know as much as God. You see what was the state of morals among members of the Church at Corinth before Paul went there; you see the state they were in after they received the Word. That is my argument. There is the result. The wonderful Change wrought in the social and moral condition of the Corinthians is just the same as that wrought through the Foreign Mission work in the reception of the gospel by the inhabitants of the Fiji Islands. The same results are seen in the New Hebrides and all the islands of Oceania, in Southern Africa, in the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, in Australia and Madagascar, up yonder by the Black Sea (pointing to the map), along the coast of South Africa, in those valleys and mountains up in British America, and amid the ice and polar snows of Greenland.
I want to give you a case in point, and bring for a witness Mrs. A. K. Scott, who was a missionary to Assam. I know her. She was in my church four years, and I know that she is truthful. She is talking about the people of Tibet. She says: “They pray by machinery; they have a barrel arranged after the manner of a coffee-roaster, and put a thousand or more slips of paper, on which prayers are written, into this barrel; they hire a man to turn it for them, and thus offer a great many prayers, without the trouble of thinking about them.” Some of those who pray thus are Brother Potter’s sheep. They do not even have to pray. That is fixed up so that somebody else just turns the crank for them, and grinds out their prayers. It is an easy way, isn’t it? That is the substitution. Somebody is hired to grind it off for them. According to what Brother Potter says, there are a good many of us around here -who need grinding for. Brother Potter will fix that up for you.
Now, I want to show you something in the creed of our brethren. “Principles and Practices of the Regular Baptist Church,” page 75: “Our being saved is the result of God’s previous purpose.” If he would explain that, I think we would understand each other. What Brother Oliphant means by our salvation being the result of God’s previous purpose is that we are saved as individuals by absolute election from eternity. Just what Brother Potter advocates is that Jesus saved his sheep when he was here. They were already saved when he went back to heaven. Every thing was fixed, and it was not left dependent in any way upon these agencies and means to save the sheep. They were already saved. So the people up in Tibet that grind out the prayers are all saved, I think any one can see the absurdity of that thing. Understand me, we do not claim that the Word saves them alone. And right here I will read from our Confession of Faith on that point. Confession of Faith, page 27, Articles 38, 39: “God the Father, having sent forth his Son Jesus Christ as a propitiation for the sins of the world, does most graciously vouchsafe a manifestation of the Holy Spirit with the same intent to every man.” That is a wonderful hyper-Calvinism isn’t it? “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, of their lost estate, and of their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ.” I am not here particularly to defend Cumberland Presbyterians alone; but what we claim and embrace as a people is that the Holy Spirit does operate through the Word. It is God’s ordained means. God may have other means—and we dare not limit him, for we do not know—but there is one thing we do know—he does operate through the Word; the Holy Spirit enlightens and convinces through the Word. We believe as much as my brother in the work of the Holy Spirit.
Well, Brother Potter complained yesterday morning considerable about my hanging their doctrines on a peg without discussing the question. I have been wanting to stand right to the proposition, because it is plain to be seen, if all he said is true, that the only question to be settled between us is whether the results over in those islands, and in other Foreign Mission fields, are identical with the fruits described in the New Testament. If so, it indicates that God is at work there, even if God does it all. But in the afternoon he fell back on election again, so I shall have to meet him again on that. You noticed that I demanded of him yesterday morning to define the word “elect.” I demand it of him again. He has no right in this discussion to assume the meaning of a word, and base his argument upon it. I gave him the original. I want him to say whether my explanation is correct or not. That is all I ask; and I say again here, this morning, if he denies its correctness I will bring the authorities to establish what I have said.
Now, a word about his favorite—Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. When I had just read to him what this Commentary says about predestination, he of course put his own interpretation on it. I showed right from that passage that it indorses my position. If the Commentary clashes with the Word, then it is a bad witness. So much the worse for the Commentary. Let me read Romans ix. i, 2. in which Paul is writing to the Hebrews of Rome: “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.” Paul, what are you sorrowing about? The elect? No, he is sorrowing about the non-elect. “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”—those men that were the dishonored vessels, my brother. In this 9th chapter, who are the Israelites? I will commence with the 5th verse of the same chapter: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.” Look at that—“Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Why, Paul? “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh.”—i.e., Hebrews by natural birth—” these are not the children of God: but the children of The promise are counted for the seed.” That is, the real children of Abraham (and consequently of God) are his spiritual lineage, who become such by faith in the promised Messiah—by faith in Christ Jesus—the seed of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed. Brother Potter touched a very delicate point here; I hate to bring it before a congregation, but as he has quoted it I shall have to refer to it. I am going to let his people see it, and let him manage it. It is this, beginning with the 10th verse of this 9th chapter of Romans: “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil; that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth); it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” You noticed how I defined that word “elect.” “The purpose of election” is brought about by compliance with God’s law—that is, the results of it. When did he say that to her? In her state of conception. When she had conceived, and the children were in an embryonic state, the Lord simply revealed to her that from the very make-up of the nature of the two children the elder should serve the younger; that is, that the offspring of Jacob, in their social and civil prestige as a people, should be superior to the posterity of Esau. The posterity of Esau, as a nation, was to be subordinate to Jacob’s posterity. This was verified in the history of the two nations—Israel and Edom—of which Jacob and Esau were the respective progenitors.
By examining the marginal references of your Bibles you will find that when the apostle penned the words “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” he was quoting the language of the Prophet Malachi concerning Israel and Edom as nations. (See Malachi i.1- 3). Thus we see that this reference of Paul to God’s revelation to Rebecca, concerning the future of Jacob and Esau, does not teach the doctrine of absolute individual election to eternal life, from eternity, by the sovereign will of Jehovah, as it has been interpreted by my opponent in his argument. The apostle proceeds with his argument: “What shall we say then?”—that is, in reference to God’s dealings with the offspring of Jacob and Esau—“Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” The language of this sixteenth verse—” so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy “—is an explanation of the eleventh verse, where it is declared that Jehovah made this prediction to Rebecca before the children were born, when there was neither merit nor demerit on the part of either, “That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” It was the will of Isaac that Esau should have the birthright blessing; and Esau, at Isaac’s command, made every effort to obtain it, but failed. The Lord had given his word to Rebecca, and she, with her shrewd tact, operating upon faith in the promise of God, concerning her son Jacob, thwarted the will of Isaac and the efforts of Esau; she secured the blessings of the birthright to her favorite son, who in his very nature was fitted to move in the sphere these blessings required. This, in the end, proved a blessing to both Jacob and Esau in their posterity. Each nation was placed in the position for which it was best fitted, and led to move in the sphere to which it was peculiarly adapted. Thus, we see, in this election God has shown His mercy to both parties concerned, and hence in these events it is clearly revealed that the divine election is in accordance with the moral agency of man and the constitution of things—that is, God would not give the blessing of the birthright to Esau because it was Isaac’s choice, nor on account of Esau’s great endeavors to obtain it. Esau did not possess the natural fitness to carry out what its trusts required, and God was too merciful to impose it upon him by granting the request. So it was not of Isaac who willed, for of Esau who ran to secure the venison and obtain the gift, but of God who disposed according to his mercy. This explains also the fifteenth verse, concerning God’s sovereign mercy in dealing with men. God is not controlled in his dealings with men by their whims and preferences, when these preferences are not in accordance with the great principles and purposes of his divine government, nor for their highest individual welfare.
All of man’s desires and individual efforts cannot change God’s merciful and all-wise purpose. As we see in the history of Esau and Jacob, and their offspring, and in the history of the whole human family, and also in the trend of the entire teachings of the Bible, God deals with men in accordance with the make-up of their nature, and the relations and the attitude they sustain to him.
Of course there is no man that could devise the plan of salvation. We do not claim that; but we maintain that God has revealed it in his Word, and has given us this revelation of his will as a light to our feet and a lamp to our path. Hence it is of God that showeth mercy. “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” “For this same purpose “—does that really mean that God raised up Pharaoh to do all those bad things? Does it mean that he was elected to do this? There is just as strong proof for this as the other, according to the interpretation of my worthy opponent. Now, in the Bible sometimes the divine side of events and doctrines is spoken of, and sometimes the human side, and sometimes both together. We will make this Bible from beginning to end contradict itself if we aim to interpret its teachings from a one-sided view of things, whether from the human or the divine side. If this book is properly interpreted, there is no such thing as contradiction in it. If I should induce a person to tell a lie, I am just as criminal as he is. The Bible says in some places God repents, and in other places that he does not repent. How do we reconcile these statements? In this way: God, in the operations of his divine government, moves along the great trend of the highway of law. He has revealed to man the universe as a unit and as man is the embodiment and expression of the universe, being created in the image of God, he is the very embodiment of law, and is thereby found to every department of the divine government, and supremely bound to his Creator and Redeemer. God, in his Word and through his Spirit, reveals to man the great trusts committed to him, and his responsible relations to his Creator, showing how he can move in harmonious cooperation with the divine purpose, and the fearful results of violating the relation he sustains to God and the divine government by living a persistent life of sin. Such a life destroys man’s harmony with his own highest nature, and brings him into antagonism against God and against all the forces of the universe. Suppose he repents: that places him in a different position; the universe and God are no longer against him, or he against God. Hence God, in some places, is represented as taking different stands toward man. But God does not change; man changes his attitude toward God. Therefore when it is said that God repents, it does not mean that he changes in his nature, but in the manner of his treatment of his subjects, because of their changed attitude toward him. Thus it is in regard to God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. It means that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by violating the laws of his being, and neglecting the evidence, and abusing the privileges God extended to him. The different effects produced upon men by the influence of the gospel are conditioned entirely upon the different attitudes men sustain toward the gospel. I will quote this truth as expressed in Scripture language: “To some it is the savor of life unto life, to others the savor of death unto death.” It is like wax and clay in the sunshine—the wax will melt, but the clay will harden. So our hardening or our salvation is owing to our attitude toward God. It depends on how we comply with those principles, on our hearing and receiving the gospel. Now, I do not suppose there is a man here who will blame God as really hardening Pharaoh’s heart in an absolute sense. In the 19th verse is something that applies here: “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will?” Look at that! Paul is writing to the Hebrews. That is it. “Why doth he yet find fault?” He has resisted his will. “ Nay; but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” Somebody had resisted. So it was with Pharaoh; his heart was hardened by resisting God’s will. “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 longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” According to my brother’s interpretation, this Scripture would teach a fine theology, a repulsive doctrine indeed. “Endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” If God has fixed every thing from eternity, what is the use of his having trouble over it—over these very vessels of dishonor? Well, let us see. “And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” The dark background reveals the mercy and loving goodness of God. If a man does wrong, the penalty shows God’s law is correct; if a man complies with the law, the blessings show that the law is good. “And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” I will go now to the thirtieth verse of the chapter, which Brother Potter used at the close of his argument about the remnant that was left—those few Hebrews that had accepted the Lord. Now the clay will be fixed up. “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone”—that is, Christ Jesus. That is the part of the clay that did not make a good vessel—the part that stumbled at the stumbling stone. All this, I know, is irrelevant to the subject, but my brother has hinged his whole argument on election. The thing, according to his doctrine, is fixed, and it does not matter the elected sheep will all come out right in eternity, without any agency employed.
Now my position; you know what I claim; that Jesus Christ was perfect man, as well as God. Man was created in God’s image; that image was not effaced, but defaced—blurred. Man’s faculties, unmarred by sin, are the very transcripts of God’s nature. Therefore the work of salvation, as wrought by Christ, the perfect representative of the human, as well as the Divine —“the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”—was for every needy child of the human race. I am with his Commentary on that. I will give you Scripture for it; for the conditions of salvation are just the same now as when, in the old dispensation, the worshipers offered the lamb as a sacrifice in the temple. The lamb sacrificed did not, within itself, absolutely save. The suppliant had to put his hand on it, and claim it as his, acknowledging his sins. Then what that lamb represented became his. And that is the way it is now, under the new dispensation, in regard to salvation through the death of Christ. Christ’s sacrifice alone will not absolutely save any responsible being. It must be acknowledged, accepted, and appropriated by the sinner through faith. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Now, I want to read from i Timothy ii. 4—7, to sustain this position: “Who will have all men to be saved”—this is Paul speaking—“and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Does it say for the sheep? Brother Potter says God will save them anyhow, and that he does not use any instrumentality, unless he chooses to do so; lie could get along without any. But in the constitution of things as revealed in the Word, he “gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Paul, why did you not stay over in Tarsus? You would have saved yourself a good deal of trouble, and the sheep would have been taken care of anyhow. “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an apostle.” Ordained! I believe in that; set apart as a preacher. “I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not.” Where was Paul to preach—that grand old missionary, the colossus of the centuries? “A teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”
Luke xiv. 16—24. Put that down and look at that for me, my brother: “Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden”—they always sent out a general invitation when they were going to have a supper, in the Oriental countries, so that every one invited would be without excuse for failing to attend the supper when the preparations were completed; when all is consummated a second invitation is given the invited guests, and it is considered an unpardonable offense, in the country from which this figure is drawn, to refuse that invitation “and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse.” They were all invited, then. “The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. So that servant came, and shewed his Lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the Lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.” Now, that supper was made for them and the invitation extended to them. Why did they not come to it? Was it the master’s fault? It was their own fault, was it not? Now, about his compelling them to come in; it was just like this, “The love of Christ constraineth us.” The meaning is, those poor people would feel they were unworthy to go to that wealthy man’s house; it was the urging. 
I will turn again to Proverbs; I cannot get him to look at that book. Proverbs i. 24—31: “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:”—he called, they refused, and set at nought his counsel—” I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me.” “They shall call upon me, but I will not answer.” Was not there a time when they could have been answered, and also a time when they could not? “They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me”—why?—“for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord: they would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.”
Ezekiel iii. 18, 19. He just lets me quote this all the time, and says nothing about it. And yet he says my position is not authorized in the Word. I want him to show a passage of his which I have not grappled. If there is one, I have overlooked it. “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity.” Not give him warning? But
Brother Potter says that is wrong. Those men who have their prayers ground out in Tibet are elected, and will be saved anyhow. God does not say so, “But his blood will I require at thine hand.” Over here in Central Africa (pointing to the map), where hundreds of towns a few years ago were depopulated by the slave-stealers, and women and children bound and carried away in hopeless captivity, are now beautiful homes, where the missionaries have been at work. And yet my brother says it is not necessary. It is a pretty good thing, though, when they have it, he admits. These people will die and go to heaven, he says. What about those in this black land? Ezekiel says they will perish if they are not warned; and their blood will God “require at our hand.” “ Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.”
There are many other passages of the like nature that I might quote, but I have not much more time. But I will ask my brother, when he gets up to speak, to examine one text which I have quoted time and again. I will spend a moment here in reading the 11th verse of this 3d chapter of John, in connection with the 19th verse: “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen: and ye receive not our witness.” “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” The condemnation of men, or that which causes them to be eternally lost, is rejecting the witness of Christ. Christ witnesses to the world through his people. Christ says of the work, as he designed it to be prosecuted in the days of the apostles, and as it is now carried on in the Foreign Mission field: “Ye are my witnesses”; “Ye are the light of the world.” The Church is also represented as “holding forth the Word of life.” My worthy opponent says that Christ, in the prosecution of the work of salvation, is not dependent upon the gospel as a means, nor on human agency. Then, why did the Saviour commission human agency and appoint the gospel as a means to be used in the work of salvation? Paul was an ambassador authorized of Jesus.
Let me turn to 2 Corinthians v. 20. I want to see the identity. Now, look at this matter: “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us” (ambassadors, representatives of Christ with his message): we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” And my brother says that the minister, in carrying the Word, is not an indispensable agent. Get your proof-text, my brother.
Ephesians vi. 17: “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The Word ‘is the sword, the arm behind it is human agency, and the Divine force that guides and strengthens the arm in wielding the Word is the Holy Spirit. Hence, in the gospel work, divine and human agency are inseparably connected, and therefore are authorized in the Word of God. Thus we see that the argument of my opponent, that the Word of God is not indispensable in the gospel work, falls to the ground. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Well, he quotes from Isaiah liv. 13: “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.” I want now to show how they shall be taught of the Lord. Jesus said himself that those who came to him heard of the Father. How did they hear of him? How were they taught of the Lord? Turn to Hebrews i, 1,2: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he bath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” “Spoken unto us by his Son “—that is how he does it; through Jesus Christ, and he is the Word of God. That Word is the gospel. Christ speaks to us in his words. He says his words are spirit, and they are life, and I have read to you that the gospel is the Word.
John xvii. 17—21: “ Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Now, Brother Potter emphasizes the work of the Spirit; I emphasize both the Word and Spirit. “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.” He says as the Father sent him, so he sends his servants forth in the work of salvation. If my brother thinks Jesus will save them all from their lost state, without any agency on their part, then he is a Universalist, and rolls them all over into heaven by the wholesale. “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.”
Ephesians i. 13, 14: “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also, after that ye believed”—they believed after they heard the truth—“ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”
Acts xv. 7: “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them. Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” It seems as if that was the practice in the primitive Church. Now, I will read a few passages from Acts viii, beginning at the 5th verse: “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached”—just stop there a moment; Brother Potter would not have it done that way; we must not teach them to know the Lord; but Philip is dead and gone, and it is recorded— “and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” In verse 12 it said: “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Now, the 14th verse:
“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.” Well, now. Philip, after this great revival in preaching the word, was led by the Spirit to leave there. You know I have been preaching and teaching that the Spirit impresses us through the means and agencies. This is the 26th verse: “And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south, unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.”
Now, if the Spirit of the Lord does it all, in the ordained plan of salvation, why did the eunuch need Philip’s help? “Then the Spirit said unto Philip”~ that is, by impressing Philip—” Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.” The Spirit impressed this duty on Philip’s mind, just as the same Spirit impresses the minds of those who go to preach the gospel to the heathen. “And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, amid said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” Stop, Philip, Brother Potter says you are out of place; don’t you do that, sir; you are a missionary. Christ did not depend on means and agencies. “And he said. How can I, except some man should guide me?”—stop that, you have no need of the gospel.—” And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me”—that is it; go, and I will go with you, to guide them out of the darkness into the beautiful and blessed light of the Son of God—”guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the Scripture which he read was this”—you know that it was in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, in the prophecy in regard to the sacrificial offering of Christ; I continue with the thirty-fifth verse: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture”—and what did he do?—” and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philp said, If thou believest with all thine heart”—what? believing, sir? with what?—”If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And you all know the result—how he obeyed and went on rejoicing.
I would like to read more from the Word, if I had time, but I have given a sufficient number of proof-texts from the Bible to prove to any reasonable mind, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Protestant Foreign Mission work, as carried on in the heathen lands to-day, is authorized in the Scriptures, and in accordance with the entire trend of their teachings. Thus we know that the Foreign Mission work we advocate is of God, and that our missionaries are authorized and commanded by divine authority to preach the gospel to the heathen. We have shown that those men and women, who are sent to take the gospel to those heathen countries, were set apart to the work, in accordance with the Word of God, and that they were actuated and guided by the Holy Spirit, as were those who were sent forth in the beginning of the gospel work. I hold in my hand an authoritative and accurate work, entitled ‘The Great Commission,” written by Dr. John Harris, when he was president of Chestnut College, England. From this book I can show the historical connection and identity of the Foreign Mission work from the first century clear up to the eighteenth—to the time of the awakening and grand revival of the Protestant Church from its spiritual lethargy and inactivity to the realization of the great trust committed to it in the world’s evangelization, and which ushered in the present wonderful epoch of the Foreign Mission work. This I will not have time to quote now, as it is somewhat lengthy, but will do so the first opportunity offered in my future addresses. I will spend the remainder of the time allotted me in this speech on noticing the bare assertion of my opponent, “That the Foreign Mission work is a failure.”
Through the work of the Methodist Episcopal Church alone we have a clear demonstration of the success of Foreign Missionary work, for Methodism itself is a child of the revival movement which ushered in the recent great epoch of Foreign Mission work. In the great gospel work carried on by the Methodist Episcopal Church, in both the home and the foreign fields, we have a marvelous, living, and overwhelming testimony of the grand success and wonderful triumphs of the gospel work in Foreign Missions, arid of the marked approbation and blessing with which this work has been crowned of God. The grand total of the membership of the various branches of the great Methodist family is about 5,000,000. Through their thousands of preachers and congregations, by their Church enterprises, and educational, theological, and beneficent institutions, they have performed and are performing a wonderful gospel work in leading souls to Christ in both the home and the foreign field. They have missionaries, churches, and mission chapels, orphan homes and training schools, colleges and hospitals, publication houses and Bible depositories, in every land under the sun where heathenism. is to be found; and their labors are accomplishing wonders in the Lord. In the Christian lands they stand in the very front rank as successful Churches in prosecuting the gospel work.
And all these Churches are the fruits of the Foreign Mission spirit, as I have shown you. Presbyterianism, also, was the fruit of the same gospel spirit; in fact, this is true of all the Christian Churches of the Protestant world. This is a remarkable exhibit. Methodism is the growth of a little over one hundred years, for it extends no further back than 1739, when John Wesley founded the religious societies in which the first beginnings of Methodism are to be found. It was a missionary movement much needed at the time, and the missionary spirit out of which it was born has ever since distinguished the Methodist Church.
Now I wish to read some quotations from others. One is from David B. Sickles, late United States Consul at Bangkok, Siam, who has enjoyed special opportunities for observing the missionary work among mixed populations. It is better testimony in behalf of the Foreign Mission work than that given by the missionaries themselves, for it is by an impartial witness: “Our American missionaries, in carrying the Bible into foreign lands, have opened up new avenues for trade, established our flag in distant ports, formed new treaties of friendship and commerce where none existed before, given employment to our merchant marine, taught the English language, so as to facilitate commercial transactions and introduce American books and newspapers. In my opinion they have accomplished more for our government, in extending our influence in the East, than all the consuls in the service, and the country could afford to pay them a handsome bounty for their disinterested labors.”
I quote again a report from the Missionary Herald, headed, “Not a Heathen Left”: “That is a grand sentence to write—better than can be written of Hawaii, where there are still heathen left, and where iniquity abounds. The Missionary Herald contains the news that on the Island of Peru, in the Samoan group, heathenism is extirpated. The missionaries write: ‘There is not a heathen now left at Peru, and though only eleven years have elapsed since teachers were received, they have built good chapels and mission houses at their own expense, have already begun to support their pastors, and purpose to begin to contribute to the London Missionary Society the coming year. And so they and we thank God and take courage.” I will now quote a report of the Foreign Mission work in the Island of Madagascar during the last fourteen years: “During the past fourteen years about seven hundred Protestant churches have been built in Madagascar, and all free from debt. There are twelve hundred churches, and eighty thousand Protestant communicants. These churches are self-supporting, and last year gave $20,000 for missions.”


We are still here, and from the size of the audience it seems the interest in the debate is not entirely dying away; from some cause or other, either because the people are interested or from curiosity, they come.
MODERATOR: You are interesting speakers, and we like to listen to you.
MR. POTTER: Yes; that denotes intelligence on your part.
I am before you again to negative the proposition. We have been here now, this is the fifth day. The proposition reads: 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.” I thought I would read it, as you have been listening to about an hour’s speech, and I was afraid you have forgotten it by this time. Some people forget things in the course of an hour, if they do not hear them mentioned. Now, the rules of our discussion, that we have agreed to be governed by, require us in the start to have the terms of the proposition in the debate so clearly defined that there can be no misunderstanding respecting them. It took Brother Yates four days to define his proposition. We never got a definition of it from him until yesterday evening. He wanted the Brother Moderators to decide on Monday evening the meaning of blessed and owned of God.” I tried then for two days in succession to get him to say what he thought it meant. And yesterday evening he told us, and I rather gave the credit to Brother Darby but they exonerate Brother Yates that far, and say Brother Darby is not the cause of it. But that brought a definition; and there is a question I want this audience to think about. If it takes a man four days to define a proposition, how long will it take him to prove that proposition? Four days this people waited, and waited, and listened, and wondered what the proposition meant. No wonder Brother Yates wanted six days to debate this proposition in. I asked him once, in conversation, if he thought he could not prove it in one day, or if he thought it would take him six days to prove it? I did not think then about it taking him four days to define it. But it is defined; “blessed and owned of God,” means that those missionary laborers are means and instruments in the regeneration and eternal salvation of souls that would not have been saved without them. That is what it means. Now, for the four days up to this time, I want you to see the attitude in which Brother Yates has stood as a debater. He has demeaned himself this morning, in my judgment, better than he has at any time during the debate.
MR. YATES: Thank you.
MR. POTTER: You know it is a long lane that has no turning, and reformation is commendable. He said the - first day of the debate, that he believed that those heathen who do the best they can, with what light they have, will be saved. That is what he said on Monday. On Thursday he comes and challenges me to prove one instance of the salvation of the heathen that does not hear the truth. That is Brother Yates. He says he has driven me from one position to another, ever since the debate began. He is very fearful the people will not know it. He has said a great deal to us about that. He first told us that he had a Baptist almanac of ours that said we only number 40,000 members.
MR. YATES: You are mistaken; I said the Missionary Baptists.
MR. POTTER: No; you did not that day. He has said two or three things about it. Here is what you said about it. He next said he got it from Uncle Sam instead of a Baptist almanac. That makes two things he said. He then said he got it from a New School Magazine, copied from Uncle Sam. He then said it was from the Popular Educator, which gave us 40,000 members. But he does not question the authority that I produced yesterday, saying that our denomination in 1869 numbered 105,000; he leaves you to believe that since 1869, until now, our denomination, in addition to the accessions we have had to our Church, has lost 60,000 members. Of course you can believe that without any trouble. It has only been sixteen years. Now, is it not unreasonable to ask a people to believe that? He asks you to believe that Mr. West being correct, that we numbered 105,000 in 1869; and the Popular Educator being correct, that we only number 40,000 now; that we are dwindling away very fast. We have had some accessions during that time, but with all that we have dwindled down to 40,000, and lost 65,000 in about sixteen years. That is a grand loss. He claims that he has driven me from all my old authorities. So it seems there has been a considerable amount of driving done during this debate.
He says Paul was sent to open the eyes of the heathen, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God; but he says if I mean he was sent to give them experimental religion, I know he does not believe it. Then it was not Paul’s work to regenerate. Let Brother Yates tell us what he means. This audience understands him to mean that Paul was sent there to do that work, but not alone, not that the Lord would not he there with him. He says himself that if I mean teach the people experimental religion, that I know he does not believe it. Well, if he does not believe it, according to his own theory on the subject of experimental religion, when does a man receive remission of sins? When? where? and how? Is it not at some period in the history of his experience? That is what was in connection with Paul’s case there; in the Lord’s language, it was that they were to receive remission of sins. I want him to tell us what. Paul means, then, if it was not to teach them experimental religion. That is the very thing I deny—that one man can teach another.
He says the martyrs I referred to yesterday were Lutherans and Presbyterians, but he gave us no authority only his own word, as evidence of that fact. But of course Brother Yates is well known here, and his word ought to he taken, and perhaps would be, if it was not in a debate. But we are not here to take each other’s word. This audience has not come here to hear mere assertions. Let him prove what he says, if he does nor say quite so much. I think it would be more commendable not to say quite so much, but to prove some of it. He not only said that, but he said we are the fruits of the spirit of Foreign Missions. But he did not even try to tell us why he said so. We know why— because it is the best he can do for his proposition. If he were to debate here twenty years in the future— after Brother Hume, and Brother Strickland, and Brother Lampton and I are dead and gone, and he had our history—he would call us missionaries, actuated by the missionary spirit, because we traveled and preached. I am willing to compare notes with Brother Yates as to who travels the most, visits most families, etc. Now, he says those men preached there, and that is the spirit of Foreign Missionism. He has not proved it. He simply asks us to take his bare word. That is what he asks. I did not come here to do that. Did you? If I cannot get any thing better than that, I will take nothing. With all the good feeling and esteem I have for Brother Yates, when it comes to an assertion I want something better than his mere word. And another thing: in order to show that his position was wrong, that the salvation of the people was not limited to the Bible and the preacher, that the Bible and the preacher were not absolutely essential to the salvation of sinners, I referred you the other evening to a covenant made with Abraham, in which God told Abraham, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” This was God’s covenant; it was God’s promise. In connection with that promise I showed you that if any man is Christ’s that he is Abraham’s seed, and an heir according to that promise. Brother Yates replies to time whole of that by saying that all of those promises are conditional, without even undertaking to tell us why. We want to know why; we have come here to learn. If we are wrong we want to be righted. I made a proposition yesterday that if he would just give us one text, just one—we do not want a great volume of texts, we want one—that says that one man can teach another to know the Lord, in the New Testament, we will join the missionaries. Was not that fair? Now, Brother Yates said he wanted me when he challenged for the debate; now see if he will have me on that proposition. If he does not produce that text, I will think he does not want me. I will think he has changed his notion very materially since he has found me out a little better.
He says he admires Carpenter, the missionary author of this book. That is what he said yesterday; but he seemed disposed to go back on that this morning, saying he was not here to defend Carpenter. Ah! you have swallowed him too soon, Brother Yates. It will not do for you to go back on Brother Carpenter now. You said yesterday you admired him. That is what you said. Too late now to go back on him. Carpenter accused the apostles of staying at Jerusalem a thousand days, when they should not have staid more than about ten. He said they might have staid there until they died ingloriously, had not God sent the besom of persecution that drove them out. And Brother Yates said yesterday he admired him, but from some cause, perhaps, he has fallen out with him by this time. But that is right; if he wants to just give up his admiration for Carpenter, it is all right with me; we are getting along very well. I merely mentioned it to notice that we are progressive. Brother Yates told us in the introduction of this discussion that he was progressive, and I see he is, and I am glad he is, because he likes it. He has told us more than once that wise men change, and it seems to me, from the changes during this discussion, there must be considerable wisdom manifested in it.
Now, I want to pay some little attention to the position where we are now. Here is where we are now. Brother Yates comes with a cloud of Scripture quotations. That is the reason I admire the speech. I do not like the application of it at all, but I love to hear the Scripture, and he says he loves that old Book. I want to show the position Brother Yates stands in before this audience and these brethren now. Now w e have the revised Presbyterianism before us this morning. It is not the old one. We want to see how it and Brother Yates agree. Let us hear it. He has argued this morning, and he answered the question yesterday that I put to him, that the truth—and he means by that the preaching of the gospel—is indispensably necessary to the salvation of the heathen, and that by their labors in those mission fields, or foreign countries, the missionaries are the means and instruments in the conversion and salvation of souls that would have sunk down to hell without them. That is the way he has answered the question. No conversions, no regenerations, no salvation, without the preached gospel. Come up, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and let us hear what you say about that.
Divine Influence, page 27: “God the Father, having sent forth his Son Jesus Christ as a propitiation for the sins of the world, does most graciously vouchsafe a manifestation of the Holy Spirit with the same intent to every man.” Now, what is it to vouchsafe a thing to a man? Notice, it is agreed that the Father having sent his Son into the world as a propitiation for the sins of the world, that, as this is true, so something else is true. Well, what is that something else? Why, that he does most graciously vouchsafe a manifestation of the Holy Spirit with the same intent to every man. That is what he vouchsafes, according to Cumberland Presbyterianism. Well, if he does that, will he .not have to go farther than any of the missionaries have ever gone yet, if he vouchsafes to every man a manifestation of the Holy Spirit? That is what this says he will do. And that is not all. “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, of their lost estate, and of their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ.” What does the Lord do? What does he do without means? Just lay the means part of it aside, and admit for argument’s sake that the gospel is the ordinary means, as Brother Yates says. Then, after the ordinary means fails, then what? God, without the use of means, all according to this book, “so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin, of their lost estate, and of their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ.” That is what he does, according to Cumberland Presbyterianism without means. Brother Yates denies that. His question says it is never done without means. His question says those souls that are converted by the missionaries and brought to Christ would have gone to hell had not the missionaries got there.
I read of a railroad accident one day, over at Carmi, Ill. The locomotive got into a bad shape, and the paper stated that it was by undertaking to perform the difficult task at the “Y” of running on both tracks at once. It was a difficult task, and by so doing it was ditched. Here is Brother Yates trying to run both tracks at once, and if he is not ditched before long, some of us will have to watch him. Now, let me say to you, my friends, in all seriousness—this is a serious matter. Brother Yates says he wants to be willing to go to judgment, and face what he says in this debate; I have been laboring in the ministry, and I attribute all the honesty and candor to my brother that I claim for myself, and the ability, so far as that is concerned; all the ability, and opportunities, and learning, and every thing of that kind—I attribute it all to him. I do not think he is a hypocrite; I do not believe that; I think men can honestly be mistaken. Now have you ever considered, have you ever thought, have you ever noticed, what gave rise to this discussion? why a challenge was published in the Gibson County Leader. Why was it? The challenge said, for the sake of gospel truth, and for the honor of the blessed Saviour. That is why. Who had assailed truth? Why, Brother Thomas had said, making a passing remark up here at the General Baptist Church, concerning the heathen, that God would save his people in heathen lands. That was making an assault on foreign missionism. That gave rise to this debate. Don’t you think foreign missionism is tolerably, touchy, that you are not allowed even to say that much—give your own opinion about it, just in a passing discourse? It reminds me of the little boy who was in the habit of making unbecoming personal remarks concerning present company. It annoyed his mamma considerably for him to do that way, and one day she saw a gentleman coming in who had a very long nose, and she told him before the man came in that if he said one word about that man’s nose while he was there, she would whip him as soon as he left. Well, you know how little boys are; I do, for I was one myself, once. That called the little fellow’s attention to the man’s nose when he came in; hence, boy-like, he stood up and surveyed it from one side to the other, and finally remarked, said he, “Lord! what a nose! and yet I ain’t allowed to say one word about it! “Now, you must not say any thing about missionism—must not even give your opinion that God will save any of the heathen—without you are willing to get into a debate—unless you want to be challenged. That is the cause of this debate. Isn’t it an awful thing? and no one allowed to say any thing about it! What is it? It is the doctrine, according to their own published charts~ that we have already exhibited to you, that one hundred thousand heathen are dropping into eternity every day. Brother Yates’ position is that they all go to hell. That is it. Now, you must not say any thing against that, if you do not want to debate. What do they go to hell for? What for? Because they do not receive the gospel, as I read from a missionary tract here. I am not the author of those tracts. They were not gotten up in my interest. They were gotten up in the interest of the missionary cause; and as I have already read in your hearing since We have been here, as much as twice, this man says that we are today surrounded by eight hundred millions of brothers and sisters who must perish in their sins unless they receive the gospel. This gospel they have never yet heard. That is the doctrine. I do not love the doctrine. I do not believe one word of it. One reason I do not is because it contradicts the Word of God; and another reason I do not, is because it does not allow any efficacy in the blood of Christ in the atonement. It neutralizes all that. Let us see whether that is so. Jesus Christ came into the world to save the lost, as yesterday we read, and the author of that article describes the heathen as being that people. Whether anybody else is lost or not, the heathen are, says this man Carpenter. They are lost. Jesus came to save the lost. Carpenter says so. Jesus says so, and that is right. Jesus came into the world to save the lost; then he came into the world to save the heathen. Then, if he came to save the heathen, and died for them—if God had delivered up the most dignified offering that heaven and earth could produce, and made the most dignified sacrifice for the salvation of those lost people—does God put their salvation into the hands of the preacher and the church? That is where he has put it if that is true. And they must all he lost, if the preacher and the Church do not do their duty. Then, why are the heathen lost? Why? Because the Church and the preacher do not do their duty. That is why. That is what Brother Yates referred to the third chapter of Ezekiel so much for, to prove that they would be lost, and if we do not do our duty their blood would be required of us. Then we are all lost, are we not—church heathen and all, if we do not do our duty? All lost, according to his own text. That is the doctrine that I am here to oppose, and that I do not believe. What good does the death of Christ do? What good did all those groans and this anguish and death do, if, after it is done, the God of heaven, who knows all things, places these effects in the hands of the Church and the minister, and has so arranged it as not to allow himself to reach out any further than they go, in the salvation of those whom Jesus came to save. That is the doctrine. Did God know that we would not do our duty? Did he know that the gospel would never get all over the world? Did he know that nineteen hundred years after the commission was given to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, that there would be about twelve hundred million of people without the gospel, and that they must universally be damned? Did he know that? If he did know it, and yet made such a plan as that, does it look like he loved them very much? Is that the kind of love God has for his people? Is that a great exhibition of his love, and mercy, and grace to the people, and then to send them to hell? What for? Because we did not do our duty? Is that it? Yes, that is the doctrine. That is the doctrine Brother Yates is here to defend. He is worse than his Church is. Now, the Cumberland Church is very respectable; when it comes to their doctrinal sentiments, it will do very well. It is a great deal more liberal than Brother Yates is. It says God operates without means, by his Spirit, and so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove and convince them of sin, and their lost estate, and need of salvation. This Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Faith says the Spirit does that directly, without means. It does not say it does it in every case, but it says it does do that kind of work. Brother Yates denies it. When I was a little boy—and some of these older brethren remember it, perhaps—I was brought up in Southern Illinois, where we used to bring our corn in to shell; and we would all get around it, and I would shell until I got tired, and then I would see the little cobs lying around, and would make me a cob house, and build it as high as I could. After I got it built, I knew it was not much account, and if any of the other children undertook to come around within a foot of it I would squeal. I knew it was easily thrown down. And that reminds me of this grand missionary cause today, that preaches the doctrine of the universal and eternal destruction of one hundred thousand souls a day. You must not come near them, or they will squeal. They know it won’t do to rub close to that. 
Another thought. I want to notice some of the speech we have heard this morning. He says he is not here to defend brother Carpenter or anybody else; not to defend any man’s opinions. He refers me to the doctrine, and principles, and practice, of the Regular Baptists, and I do not know what he made the quotation for. He did not give us any comment on it, only he agreed to it, and he understood me at the beginning of this debate to deny it. Now, while I am right here, let me say this: When he referred to the Proverbs of Solomon, he introduced it to prove man’s responsibility. I admitted man’s responsibility; I stated that every time he introduced that text; that I always admitted and believed in the responsibility of man. I believe it is right for every man to do right, because the law requires it and forbids him to do wrong; and consequently, as he was undertaking to prove man’s responsibility by that text, and all the others he used, it would not be necessary for me to go over them. I expect the reporter has put it down there, and not only that text but Ezekiel, and most of the others he has quoted during this discussion. That is what he used that text for, or else I misunderstood him. If I admit the responsibility of man, what is the use of his trying to prove it to me by an argument? How many times does he want me to tell him? The people will know how it is.
Now, in regard to Brother Carpenter, and what he said about the apostles. Brother Yates himself says they were slow to learn, Now, that is not Brother Carpenter; that is Brother Yates. What does he say about the apostles? The commission was given to them: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” and he comes up here and says they were slow to learn. Now, he must defend that, or take it back, one or the other. He can do whichever he pleases. That is not Brother Carpenter; that is Brother Yates; and if he does not want to defend Carpenter, he must defend Yates, or take it back. If he feels like taking it back, then this is the last I have to say on it I do not want the apostles charged that way. They went to preach. The memorable sermon of Peter on the day of Pentecost, was the most noted sermon that has ever been delivered upon earth, except the Saviour upon the mount. When did he preach it? As soon as he was endued with power from on high. What does history say about the apostles from that on? They continued steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers That is what the writer says about them. They continued; they were not slow to learn. Brother Yates says they were.
Let us take it easy. I am generally ugly, and people must not think I am mad, because I am ugly. I get in earnest when I come to these points. When it comes to these points there is something serious about it. If we cannot trust the apostles, whom can we trust? If we could not trust the apostles, can we trust the missionaries? If the apostles could “go back” on the Lord at the start—the very first ones to whom the commission was given—what might we expect in the latter part of the nineteenth century? What could we expect?
Now, I tell you the apostles did not organize any missionary boards; they got up no Foreign Missionary Societies. This book Brother Yates introduced, and which he says was couched in language by which he can show a chain of missionism from the apostles until now, is a missionary work. I will venture that assertion now. If he proves it is not, I will take back what I have said about it. I venture the assertion it is a missionary work. He did not read any from it. Let me tell you what I know missionaries have done. Since Foreign Mission Societies have been established, they have claimed that men who traveled and preached prior to them were missionaries. Brother Yates has been guilty of that during this discussion. He said yesterday that these martyrs that were so cruelly butchered about the time of Luther were the fruits of missionary labors. Well, now, that kind of men might go to work and get up a chain of mission societies from the days of the apostles until now. Let him show some unbiased witness that will show a chain of organized mission hoards from the apostles until now, and these people will learn something. Let him produce an unbiased witness, a disinterested party, or let him produce one on the side of what he calls anti-mission, and we will take it. Now all the witnesses that he has given, he tells us, are good, and their authority dare not be questioned. I do question the authority of any man that would say that there has been a chain of missionary organizations and hoards from the apostles to the present time. Why does not Eusebius say something about it? and why does not Mosheim say something about it? Why does not Brother Yates bring him? Because those books were written before modern missionism was thought of. That is the reason. Hence they said nothing about it, because they knew nothing about it.
MR. YATES: May I ask you a question?
MR. POTTER: Yes, sir.
MR. YATES: Do I understand you to say that Mosheim says nothing about Foreign Missions?
MR. POTTER: No, sir.
MR. YATES: What do you say?
MR. POTTER: That he does not say any thing about a chain from the time of the apostles to the present time, of missionary organizations. Why does he not name them? Now, I will tell you, Brother Yates will not bring that authority. Let him bring it; we want to learn.
Do you know how many times he has threatened to do something during this debate? Don’t you be scared. I am not. Let him bring it.
Another thought: He said a missionary said, “Don’t think I’m lazy.” Somebody must have been accusing them of being lazy. I have not. I think they are energetic; and I will say this, so far as the work is concerned itself, there have been some changes for good, so far as education and civilization are concerned, among some of the heathen, and I admitted that at the start, in the very first speech I made in this debate. Now, I do not know of any one thing alone that caused those changes. I do not know whether it was powder and lead, in connection with something else, or whether it was the gospel alone. I do know that, there have been arms used. There were arms used in Madagascar; there were arms used in Japan. Brother Yates told us that until certain times they were not allowed to preach. When the apostles went out to preach the gospel, they did not have to take an army along to shoot the people into submission and civilization before they could preach to them. It seems to me that under the present dispensation the army and the gospel go together, and if they do not, the army goes first. That seems to be the way of it.
MR. YATES: What authority have you for that?
MR. POTTER: Appleton’s Encyclopedia concerning Madagascar. I have it here, and you can sec it if you want to. Now, 1 want to notice that while I admit there has been great good done, and while I admit that the Bible in its influence is a good thing anywhere, and that every people would be better off with it than without it, I do not admit that God has limited his salvation to that Book and its influence. That is the issue between us. I believe that educational interests are a good thing for society; schools are a good thing for society, and where the Bible has the greatest influence we have the best civilization—I admit all that. Brother Yates represents me here today as being opposed to Philip going to preach, and Apollos going to preach, and Peter going to preach. How many times must I tell these people that that is a misrepresentation of my position? It is not a question as to whether a minister should go and preach the gospel; I believe it is right for every minister to go. I believe when the Saviour said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” it is right for them to go. I believe that every Baptist believes it. If Brother Yates has any documentary evidence against us on that point, in our Confession of Faith, let him produce it. I am not here fighting my Confession of Faith, as he is. Whenever I get that way, then I am going to go home; I am going to yield the debate and go home whenever I get to that. He is here on one side, and his Confession on the other, and yet he is charging me all the time with being, and doing, and believing so and so, a thing that I, have never intimated. But while I admit that the gospel is a good thing, and education a good thing, and the gospel a greater incentive to civilization than any thing else in the world, I do not believe it is absolutely essential to the salvation of anybody, and the people know I have been very plain on that ever since this discussion commenced. Hence, what is the issue between us? He says it is essential to the eternal salvation of the people, not only to civilization and education, but that it is to the eternal salvation, and without it they will not be saved. Hence, when he refers to those glowing colors on the map, and talks about civilization, I have not denied it, only I think in all probability there is some exaggeration in those colors, as I am going to show before I get through.
Now, as to the text: He called on me to show a text saying that persons were converted and saved without the truth. He wants one. Well, I am going to let the Cumberland Presbyterians select it for me. They surely will not have any objections to that, if it is one of their own selection. John xii. 30—32: “Jesus answered and said, this voice came not because, of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” That is the Presbyterian selection to prove that point, and as it is their own selection it is not necessary for me to make any comment on it. It is the text referred to by their Confession of Faith to prove that very point. That is what Jesus said, and they say it means that the Spirit operates without means. That is on page 27, Article 39, of the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of Faith—“without means, so moves upon the i hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin,” etc.; and they say the text I have just given proves that. Then, if it does, they wanted one, and there it is. I have shown a text. I thank you, Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, for selecting it for us. Now, if that text does not prove it, you will have to get your brethren to explain why they put it there to prove it. If it does not prove it, then the Cumberlands are wrong, for they say it does, and they refer to it for that purpose. He thinks be will have to sprinkle me after awhile. Ah, I shall hate that. I should hate to have to be sprinkled. Do not you, brethren, receive immersion from an Old Baptist, or would I have to he sprinkled? I should hate to have to be sprinkled, for I do not believe in that mode of baptism at all. He does not say, though, that he would have to baptize inc. Perhaps he does not mean that sprinkling is baptism in his Association. Let me tell you where Brother Yates is. He is just where Alexander Campbell was in the debate between Campbell and Rice. Alexander Campbell made the same challenge in that debate that Brother Yates makes. I will read it to you, and you can see the unity between the two. On page 619 he says: “Our second argument is deduced from the fact that no living man has ever been heard of, and none can now be found, possessed of a single conception of Christianity of one thought, feeling, or emotion, where the Bible, or some tradition from it, has not been before him. Where the Bible has not been sent, or its traditions developed, there is not one single spiritual idea, word, or action. It is all a midnight, a gloomy profound utter darkness.” What does Brother Yates say? He challenges me here to show the very thing that Alexander Campbell says cannot be shown. He is your brother who believes in immersion, and you are like him. Perhaps we had better deliver you over to him and have him immerse you. He surely would immerse you if you were to go over and make the noble confession—immerse you into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and you have almost made it, and it will go out that way. Acts xviii. 10: “For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” The Lord was talking to the Apostle Paul; he asked him to stay at Corinth. You know the apostle was going to leave, as I showed yesterday. Now, the Lord appeared td him to tell him to remain there. Tarry here; I will see to it that no one shall set on thee to hurt thee, for I have much people in this city. Brother Yates says that is prophetic. We want to know why he said it. Brother Yates, what makes you think that is prophetic? Isn’t it more convenient for you to say it is in harmony with your theory than from any conclusion you draw from God’s word? God says, I have them. Brother Yates says it is prophetic. It means he will have them if the apostle stays there to preach. I would like to see a commentary gotten up by Brother Yates. I presume there is not a lady or gentleman in this house who ever thought of that being prophetic before—not one.
We are learning. Why do you want Paul to stay here? Because I have much people here. What does that mean? It means that I have not got them? Is that it? No. But Brother Yates says so. Does it mean it?
No. It means that he is going to have them, if Paul stays there and preaches. That is the way arguments are presented, and that is the way that modern missionism is supported in God’s Word. I presume that everybody here now is ready to say, “O yes, Foreign Missions are authorized in the Scriptures, and they are blessed and owned of God!” I suppose, from such arguments as that; and, by the way, he has accused me of not noticing his quotations. Very well. I have just now thought of one he quoted on Monday to prove that the Scripture authorized the missions. It is somewhere in Corinthians. 2 Corinthians viii.9: “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” Did that make you think of Foreign Missions when he read it? Remember, that is one text introduced by Brother Yates to prove that Foreign Missions are authorized in the Scripture, and my judgment is it is about as good as any other he has used, and it comes about as near proving it.
He says I spoke of two salvations—a spiritual and a temporal salvation. I did not call them by that name. He has given them the names himself. I do speak of two. I want you to think of them. In the first place, Brother Yates’ Confession of Faith teaches it, and so do I. Hence we agree that if a man is truly born of God, if he is a saint, if he is truly regenerated, that he will be preserved, and that heaven will finally be his home—that he is saved. Then there comes a salvation after that. What is it? To whom it is said, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” It is to those who have obeyed. “Beloved, as ye have obeyed not as in my presence only, but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Now, if we have once been saved, and yet have to work out our own salvation, is not that two? Do they have to work out the same salvation again after being once saved?. Brother Yates admits that when they are regenerated they have been saved, and the apostle tells them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. I refer you to the text in i Corinthians i., beginning at the 23d verse: “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Unto those who are called, those who are saved, the gospel is the power of God, according to this text. I refer you to his own text where the apostle says: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews’ a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” I showed you that this call here spoken of was a prerequisite to the gospel, being the power of God and the wisdom of God in that case, for the gospel was preached to all of them alike, and was not the power of God to all. What was the difference? Some were called, others were not. To those that were called it was Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God, and foolishness to the others. What does that “called” mean? it means saved, because the apostle uses that word, as unto us that are saved it is the power of God. That is the salvation; he can call it spiritual or temporal just as he pleases. But here are two salvations— one before the gospel is the power of God, and the other afterward. That is two. Let him notice that. They are his own texts. He brings them up himself and then says I do not answer his arguments, and not notice his texts. Then, he has been complaining because we have not stuck to the proposition. He left it first. I am not here to prove any thing. It is not my place to prove. Every person that is acquainted with debating knows it is the duty of the affirmative to prove his proposition; and it is the duty of the negative to follow him and see whether he does or not, to examine his arguments and proof-texts. Brother Yates has led from the proposition in his arguments. The people have seen that. He asked me questions concerning the heathen, and would have mc write them down, when my moderator and myself claimed that it was irrelevant to the subject, but his moderator, Brother Collins, thought that the questions I put to him were also irrelevant to the question. Brother Darby, since he heard it, admitted that it must be answered, as an admission that it was not irrelevant, while he also admits that those questions that were put to me were irrelevant.
MR. COLLINS: I was misunderstood yesterday morning; I said they were not either of them relevant to the question.
MR. POTTER: That is correct. I stand corrected.
MR. POTTER’S MODERATOR: I said that the question on one side was irrelevant; that the responsibility rested on Brother Yates, and that Brother Potter was under no obligation to answer any question; but Brother Collins said if it was relevant on one side, it was on the other, and I yielded the point.
MR COLLINS: I did not say it was relevant at all. I said if relevant to one side it was to the other. Mr. Lampton said it was relevant.
MR. LAMPTON: I said one was relevant.
MR. POTTER: That is the reason I left the proposition. We had nothing to talk about. Brother Yates would not define his proposition, much less affirm it, and much less undertake to prove it. He would not tell us what Foreign Missions were for. We asked him. The people wanted to know. What are they for? We entreated him for two days before he would tell us what he meant by “blessed and owned of God.” He means the eternal salvation of souls that would not have been saved without it. That is what he meant. He need not talk about civilization, or the elevation of men, or any thing of that kind, or the education of men, and bringing them into a better state in this world. Let him talk about bringing them into heaven—those that would not have got there without their labors. That is the proposition. I hope he will stick to it, and not complain if we wander after him away from it in the future.
I want to notice one thing more on the lump of clay. I do not know what he meant by it. He quoted a text of Scripture, and then made an illustration with the sunlight; that the gospel was the savor of life to some, and the savor of death to others. He said it was just like a lump of clay and a lump of wax in the sunshine—while one would melt the other would remain as it was. There is no wax in this, Brother Yates. It is all clay. Now we want to know what is the difference? “Hath not the potter power over clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” Not to make a vessel of honor out of wax, and of dishonor out of clay. No, sir; your illustration is not very apt in this direction. No, but to make the vessels of the same lump. Well, he referred to this occasion as though it were I who was going to make the vessel. I do not claim that it is applicable to this occasion. The apostle is talking about God’s authority. I notice that text, not so much to show the doctrine of election as to show God’s light to do as he pleased. Brother Yates seemed to want my authority for believing that God had a right to do as he pleased. ‘ I noticed that text to prove that men were all guilty, and that lie had a right to harden and punish them if he wished to; and he had a right to have mercy on them.
MR. YATES: I want to ask Brother Potter, if he will permit me, in regard to Madagascar. There are two classes of missionaries in Madagascar—Catholics and Protestants. I want to know whether my brother meant the Catholics or Protestants, when he said the missionary work was backed up by arms.
MR. POTTER: I will tell you this evening what I meant by that, if you will tell me of it this evening.
MODERATOR: Brother Potter is not obliged to answer that. These questions should he asked and answered through the speeches.
MR. YATES: I asked the privilege of asking the question, and left it with him. I am ready to answer a question when asked.
MR. POTTER: Brother Yates says he is ready to answer a question when a man asks him one. We know he is. He answered one in four days.