JOINT DISCUSSION ON FOREIGN MISSIONS
Between
The Rev. H. Clay Yates,
of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church,
and Elder Lemuel Potter, of the Regular Baptist Church,
Held in Owensville, Indiana,
Commencing Dec. 14 and ending Dec. 19, 1885.
PREFACE.
At a meeting of an Association of Regular Baptists, held in the town of Owensville, Ind., September 14, 1885, one of the ministers of said Association stated publicly, Christian people need not trouble themselves about Foreign Missions; when the Lord gets ready, in his own good time, he will attend to them. This induced the publication of the following in the Gibson County Leader, October 14, 1885:
IS THE FOREIGN MISSION WORK OF GOD OR OF MAN?
Even today, in the light of the wonderful triumphs of the gospel work in the Foreign field, among the many thousands of gospel ministers there are a few here and there that oppose this work as unscriptural, and hence of man and not of God. Therefore, in view of these facts, for the sake of gospel truth and gospel work, and the honor of the blessed Saviour, I make the following challenge: That I will meet, in joint discussion, any ordained minister of the gospel, indorsed by the denomination to which he belongs as a representative man and of good character, in Owensville, Ind., upon the following proposition: Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Holy Scriptures and is blessed and owned of God.
H. CLAY YATES.
OWENSVILLE, IND., October 9, 1885.
This was answered by the Rev. Lemuel Potter, of Cynthiana, Ind., a minister in the Regular Baptist Church. Subsequent negotiations led to arrangements for a joint discussion, as embodied in the following regulations:
1. The debate shall commence December 14, 1885, and continue six days.
2. It shall be held in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Owensville, Ind.
3. Rev. W. J. Darby, of Evansville, Ind., shall be Moderator for Rev. H. Clay Yates, and Rev. Benjamin Lampton, of Kentucky, shall be Moderator for Rev. Lemuel Potter.
4. In discussing the question at issue, Rev. H. Clay Yates will assume the affirmative, and Rev. Lemuel Potter the negative.
5. The debate shall occur four hours each day, viz., from 10 AM. to 12 M., and from 2 P.M. to 4 P.M. In the forenoon each debater shall make one speech, an hour in length, and in the afternoon each shall have two speeches, thirty minutes in length.
6. The speeches shall be published in book form as taken down by a stenographer. As Rev. H. Clay Yates bears the expense of publication, he shall have the ownership of the book and receive all the proceeds from sale of the same.
7. Each debater shall select one person, and the two jointly shall constitute an Auditing Committee, who shall see that in revising the manuscript the debaters do not make any verbal or grammatical changes in the stenographers report that shall alter the state of the argument or change any fact.
H. CLAY YATES, LEMUEL POTTER.
Much interest was manifested in the approaching discussion, and at the appointed time a very large congregation was present. The exercises were opened with prayer, after which the Moderators read the endorsements of the debaters, as follows:
The undersigned ministers and members of Indiana Presbytery of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, hereby indorse Rev. H. Clay Yates as a minister in good standing in said Presbytery, and as a man competent to defend the doctrines and usages of said Church. We especially commend him as worthy to represent the ministry of said Church in defense of its policy in the work of Foreign Missions, as also the cause of Foreign Missions in general.
W. J. DARBY, M. L. GALLOWAY,
J. E. JENKINS, M. E. CHAPPELL,
W. B. CRAWFORD, THOMAS WALKER.
We, the undersigned ministers, members of the Southern Indiana Christian Conference, consider Rev. H. Clay Yates in every respect highly qualified and able to establish the common Christian doctrine that sending the gospel to the heathen is Scriptural and ordained of God.
M. G. COLLINS,
D. M. SHOEMAKER.
OWENSVLLE, IND., Dec. 14, 1885.
We, the undersigned elders of the Regular Baptist Church, do certify that we indorse Elder Lemuel Potter as a Christian minister of the gospel, and that in the pending debate, to begin today, between him and Rev. H. Clay Yates, of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, we indorse him as a representative man, in whose hands we are willing to risk our cause.
JOSIAH HUME, BENJ. LAMPTON,
SIMON REEDER, ARCHIE BROWN,
JAMES STRICKLAND.
Endorsements of Rev. H. Clay Yates by the officers of Bethel and Fort Branch congregations, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and New Liberty Christian Church, were read; also, endorsements of Rev. Lemuel Potter by the Salem and Big Creek Regular Baptist Churches.
It was agreed that the debaters should be governed by the rules laid down in Hedges Logic, as follows:
1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the point at issue, should be clearly defined, that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them.
2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge and a desire for truth with himself, and that, it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.
3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided.
4. Personal reflections on an adversary should, in no instance, be indulged.
5. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.
6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced on either side should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to answer an adversary by arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.
In perfect keeping with the spirit of these regulations the debate proceeded from day today, the audiences augmenting until the close. As the debaters maintained the most cordial and agreeable relations with each other, so did their friends on either side. Not only did no root of bitterness spring up in consequence, but the members of the respective denominations seemed to be drawn closer together in feeling and spirit. Another gratifying result of the discussion is the earnest investigation that has been given to the subject throughout the entire community, and wherever its influence has extended.
What was said on this occasion now goes forth to a larger audience, accompanied with the earnest prayer that its publication may be for the glory of God, and that he would honor it among the means which he employs for the advancement of his kingdom on the earth.
MR. YATES FIRST SPEECH.
GENTLEMEN, MODERATORS, AND RESPECTED AUDITORS:
Through the good providence of God I appear before you this morning, to open the joint discussion which has been arranged to begin at this hour, upon the proposition just read in your hearing. For this privilege I am indeed profoundly grateful. It also affords me great pleasure to be greeted by so many earnest and pleasant faces. I hope that Elder Potter and myself will be so guided by the Spirit of God, that we will be so earnest and cautious in this discussion, and that it will be conducted in such a manly spirit, that all the predictions that have been made in regard to evil results may be proven to be false, and the cause of Christ in this locality receive a great impetus. Some good people on both sides of the question under consideration, I have no doubt, have looked forward to this discussion with great misgivings, fearing that it may engender ill feelings among the Christian people of this community. There is nothing in the language of the proposition before us to justify such misgivings. If we discuss this subject in accordance with its strict meaning, and in the spirit, which its importance demands, the very opposite results will be produced.
There is no theme, to my mind, in the whole range of the divine economy that is better calculated deeply to impress and powerfully to draw out all the nobler feelings and principles of a mans spiritual nature, both heavenward and earthward, and thereby cause the hearts of Christians to become more perfectly blended and their hands more firmly plighted in gospel work, than this. This is not a discussion of the minor points of Christianity, upon which Christians differ, such as Church organization, Church polity, and Church ordinances, or the discussion of theological dogmas which have for centuries torn the seamless robe of Christ asunder, and divided the Christian world into many factions, and filled it with fearful dissensions. No; the subject-matter in this discussion is the primary principle of the Christian religion; the great heart and essence of the gospel; the great principle that should guide, and the purpose that should actuate the people of God in carrying out the great work committed to them by the Divine Master in proclaiming and propagating the gospel throughout the inhabited globe, and especially in those parts of the earth where mankind are sunk in ignorance, corruption, misery, and crime. This is to Church organization, Church polity, and the ordinances of the Church what the kernel is to the outer covering of the grain. Remove the kernel, and the grain is but an empty shell, without life or value. So remove the principle under discussion from the doctrines and the outward organic expression of the Christian religion, and you have nothing left in these forms. They are without life and without force. Hence the principle of Christian missions. to which your attention will be called during the present discussion, gives these doctrines that I have named all their potency and value.
How ephemeral and insignificant they appear when viewed in contrast with the great question of the worlds evangelization by the Christian Church. In this question is involved the temporal and eternal destiny of millions of the human race now living, and no doubt countless numbers of unborn generations. There are questions to which you and I have given much more thought in science and education, in political economy and theology. But, my friends, the very things that we put so much stress upon will pass away with the wreck and ruin of temporal things. Yea, Church polity and Church ordinances and Church symbols will pass away with the things of time; but this grand theme, the conquest of the world for Jesus, will loom up in isolated grandeur and glory when time shall cease to be, and the cycles of eternity shall be rolling on. Ah, I have no doubt this theme will grow with increasing interest in the days to come.
When Foreign Missions are viewed in their true light, the work will be seen to be a work of preeminent importance, and thrilling interest. The gravity of this question, so fraught with human destiny, both in this and the world to come, requires of us, in entering upon this discussion, a devout and earnest state of heart and mind if we would reap the profit which it is our privilege to reap. This will enable us to investigate this subject for the sake of truth alone, and not for victory. This will enable us to examine this subject with that preparation of mind and soul that will cause the speakers to present it in its proper spirit, and the auditors to listen to it in a way that will be profitable to them. It will enable them to see the arguments when presented in their true light. The results of this discussion, and its benefits, will depend much upon the spirit in which we shall present the theme. I am not one that believes that joint discussion necessarily result in evil; but while I do not so believe, I must confess that a great many of these controversies have resulted in evil. But those who are acquainted with the history of the past will also have to concede that many truths that are dear to us in science, in education, in political economy, and religious doctrine, have been brought to light, unveiled, and firmly established through controversy.
He who has truth on his side need not fear the results of investigation. Hence, Jesus Christ himself, and his apostles, advanced the gospel cause through controversy. As I have already said, the evil effects flowing out of these joint discussions are the results of the spirit that is manifested by the disputants. So we see the state of heart and mind that we must possess in this discussion, and the spirit in which each party must present his arguments, if we would have this debate prove profitable.
Now, my dear friends, I will not ask you for your undivided attention; I know I will have that; but I ask of you an impartial hearing. Especially I ask it of you who differ from me. It is a very difficult thing for persons who have been taught, and have for years embraced, views which are the opposite of those embraced and advanced by an opponent to listen to him in an unprejudiced manner, and to receive his arguments in their true light; therefore I ask of you today to give me an impartial hearing; and I ask my brethren and sisters to give the very same to my worthy opponent. I want to say that I am not waging war upon our Regular Baptist brethren. It is not my desire to hurt the feelings of any one; but while this is true, I do not as a man, feel like sacrificing my manhood or my convictions to win any mans friendship. If men are willing to accord me their friendship and allow me my convictions, they have my hand and heart in truth and honesty.
Today I come before you as the advocate of a cause which I believe to be the grandest in heaven or on earth. Before taking up my affirmative line of argument I shall briefly explain the causes that led to this discussion. It grew out of a challenge published by me in the Gibson County Leader of October 14, 1885. The circumstances that gave rise to this challenge were these: Eider Thomas, a minister of the Regular Baptist Church, at the close of their Association, which had convened with the Owensville Regular Baptist Church the Friday before, said, in a sermon preached in the General Baptist Church, of this place, on the 14th of September, at 10:30 oclock, that Christian people need not trouble themselves about Foreign Missions; that when the Lord got ready, in his own good time, he would attend to theminferring that nothing as yet had been done in Foreign Mission work by the Lord. When this fact was brought to my attention, I thought he certainly must have been misunderstood, if he possessed the natural ability and the information for which he is reputed. I had on several occasions conversed with different ministers of the Regular Baptist Church in regard to their attitude toward Foreign Missions, and every one of them claimed that there was no difference between them and me as to the work, but there was some difference as to the methods employed. As to the work, they said they believed in it as strongly as I did. So between the statements of Elder Thomas and his ministerial brethren I was confused as to the real position occupied by the Regular Baptist Church of today in regard to Foreign Missions. In order to test the matter, and thereby have, my own views righted in regard to their real position, I published the challenge, and in connection with it an explanation of my purpose in so doing. This challenge was not made against the Regular Baptist Church as a denomination, for I was not positive as to its position. The challenge was not made in the special interest of any sect, or specially against any sect, but in behalf, as I have said, of the great cause. I intentionally put the proposition in its present format that it would present the Foreign Mission work alone, and not directly the means and measures employed. I knew if the challenge was accepted by a representative minister, who was indorsed by his Church, this would reveal the position of the minister and those who should indorse him, as opposed to the Foreign Mission work. If any minister took issue with me upon the proposition, and could not secure the official endorsement of his Church, it would show it was only his own view as an individual, and not that of his denomination. I must confess that when I put the challenge in the paper I could not induce myself to believe it would be accepted; for I have never known any minister of the gospel, among the hundreds with whom I have associated, who dared, in the light of the wonderful triumphs of the foreign missionary work, to come out and boldly oppose this great cause as unscriptural and unfavored of God. For any minister, as a representative man, to put himself and his brethren in that attitude, at this advanced stage of the Foreign Mission work, was to my mind a thing unreasonabletoo unreasonable to be expected. I thought there might be the slightest possibility bf such a thing, but scarcely a probability. If my challenge had remained unnoticed, I should have decided that Elder Thomas was misunderstood, and that the Regular Baptist Church was not opposed to the Foreign Mission work. But, to my surprise, my worthy opponent, Elder Potter, indorsed by his brethren, accepted the challenge, taking the negative of the proposition, thus placing his Church squarely in opposition to the Foreign Mission work, as carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands, denying that this work is authorized in the Scriptures, and owned and blessed of God. This challenge was not against any individual or any Church until it was accepted. Hence, it was not against my brother and his Church until he made it such by accepting the challenge. It was not for any minister particularly as an individual, or Church as a denomination. It was for any minister or Church, of whatever name or order, that opposed the Foreign Mission work as unscriptural and not blessed by the Divine favor.
Now, my friends, this is enough in regard to this matter. If, in bringing the gospel authority and the Divine approval of the Foreign Mission work into public controversy, I appear to this Christian public to concede that it is an undecided question, I owe this Christian community a public apology. No, this question has been settled years ago. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand of the Protestant world that espouse the cause of Foreign Missions. There is no great doctrine of the gospel that the Christian world so universally agreed upon as this.
Neither am I ready to admit that those opposed to Foreign Mission work have good reasons for withholding their endorsement of it and their cooperation in its advancement. So plainly is Gods approbation and blessing seen in the marvelous results of the work that he who runs may read; and such are the opportunities for obtaining information concerning the progress and development of the Foreign Mission work, that there is no excuse for not being well informed on this subject. From pulpit and platform, in the secular papers, in the writings of the learned, and in the last few years from the vast and varied productions of the Foreign Mission literature itself, every one may learn the wonderful facts in regard to this great work.
I believe, my friends, to obtain a correct knowledge of this work is to become interested in it and to be an advocate of it. Of course my worthy opponent is an exception. The fact that the gospel authorizes Foreign Mission work, and that the Divine favor rests upon it, is well established. The question we are to discuss is already settled: but the discussion of it affords me a golden opportunity to present the claims of this great cause, and the arguments in its favor, to men and women to whom I would not have had the privilege of presenting them under any other circumstances. The celebrity of my brother, and the confidence his brethren have in his ability to defend the anti-mission position, have drawn you here today, and you will have an opportunity to weigh both sides of the arguments that will he presented.
The proposition that has been read in your hearing is:
Resolved. That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God.
In order that you may understand the arguments I have to put forth to sustain the affirmative of the proposition, and that my brothers arguments to disprove it may be understood, the real issue between Brother Potter and myself needs to be clearly stated. That we may plainly see what I affirm in this proposition, and what my brother denies, we have but to ask the following question: What is it that is carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, and which they believe to be authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God? It is the Foreign Mission work. You can see, then, it is the work itself, absolutely, which is the subject of controversythe work itself.
I will read here a proposition that Brother Potter proposed to me. This is his language in a letter to Father Hume, dated October 19, 1885:
CYNTHIANA, IND., Oct. 19, 1885.
DEAR BROTHER HUME:I received your letter, and I had seen Yates challenge before. I will meet him and debate the question of Foreign Missions, and if it suits all round, I would suggest that the debate begin on Tuesday after the third Sunday in November. I do not know how long it ought to last, but I suppose one, two, or three days will be long enough. Ask him. I want you to see if he would admit a change in the wording of the proposition. You will find enclosed the one I would like for him to affirm. You can see him and find out. If he will not allow the change, I will meet him anyway, but I would rather have the change.
The enclosure is as follows:
Will Brother Yates affirm the following proposition:
Resolved, That the work known as the Foreign Mission Work, as it is, and all the means and measures used in its support for evangelizing the world, are authorized by the Holy Scriptures.
I refused to make this change. My brother had accepted the challenge, and I was going to stand to the challenge that I had made. Now, suppose my brother in his criticisms could show that the measures and means employed in the Foreign Mission work are defective; he still has not touched the proposition. He has not touched it, from the fact that the measures and means employed in any work may be defective, and the work itself be good. Two generals who are equally interested in a campaign may differ as to the measures and means employed in carrying on that campaign, and both be equally enlisted in the cause for which the campaign is carried on. The criticisms of my brother on the measures and means cannot touch my position, unless he can show that the methods and instrumentalities employed by all the Protestant denominations engaged in this work antagonize the principles of the gospel, and that the results of their work are not the fruits of the gospel. Here is the issue that we meet on this today. It is the Foreign Mission work itself. If he could succeed in showing that all the mission stations that girdle the globe, as they are represented here on the map, are failures, and that every denomination and every society that sends out these missionary workers are mistaken in their methods, yet if he could not show that the principles the missionaries themselves advocate are contrary to the principles of the gospel, he would still lose his case; and if but one mission station out of the many thousands complied with the principles of the gospel, and brought forth gospel fruit, Elder Potter would have to yield the proposition; for then there would be Foreign Mission work authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God.
I will proceed now, since you see what I have to affirm, and what my brother has to deny, to give you my definite line of argument in support of the proposition under discussion. My whole line of argument will rest upon this basal positionthis granite and immovable foundation: THAT THERE IS, IN EVERY ESSENTIAL FEATURE, A PERFECT IDENTITY BETWEEN THE FOREIGN MISSION WORK, AS CARRIED ON IN THE FOREIGN FIELD TODAY BY THE PROTESTANT WORLD, AND THE GOSPEL WORK RECORDED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I. This identity is seen first in the grand object to be accomplished, and the end to be subserved. This will appear if we carefully examine the great Magna Charta of the Church of Christ, in which its mission is enjoined by its Master himself, and its nature and object clearly defined. In Matthew xxviii. 19 the commission is given in this language: Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In Mark xvi. 15 it is given: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
In the commission as given by Matthew, the Saviour by express and imperative command enjoins upon the Church, through its representatives, the apostles, to go and teach the gospel to all nations; as given by Mark, to go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. The Saviour by Matthew simply declares Christianity to be a universal religion, adapted to all nations, and equally addressed to all nations. Mark is definite and explanatory. He says it is equally suited to every child of Adam; hence, go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. We are not, then, to wait for a direct call from heaven to go and teach the gospel to the heathen, and proclaim the glad tidings of salvation; for the Master enjoined this upon his Church more than eighteen centuries ago. This is truly the object of the Foreign Mission work, as carried on by the Protestant world today. It is to take the gospel to all benighted portions of the earth, and to teach and preach it to every creature. The advocates of the Foreign Mission work believe in the doctrine of the great commission that Christ has given; that this religion is needed everywhere, and adapted to every member of the human family. Hence, under the leadership and aid of the loving Master, they are laboring to spread it abroad. Thus, the work that has been enjoined upon us is especially to preach and teach the gospel to every creature. This command lies at the very foundation of mission effort. It says that the heathen world is perishing; that they must have the gospel or be lost. If we say the heathen are saved without the gospel, we make the command of the Saviour meaningless. Mr. Potter, or the most intellectual man on earth, may say that the heathen would be saved without the gospel, but he is not so competent a witness in the matter as the Lord Jesus, who knows all things in heaven and in earth. There is nothing clearer in this commission than the guilt of the heathen world, their need of the gospel, and our duty to carry it to them. This is not one of the hidden things that belong to God, but it is revealed to us. This enterprise is not a needless task, but one of imperative necessityone to which God has set his seal, and shown favor with conspicuous distinction. Nothing is more plainly taught in the New Testament than that the heathen need the gospel for salvation, and that it is our duty to carry it to them. This is the need to which the missionary work is subservient. Did not the Redeemer emphasize this when he opened the heavens after his ascension, and called Saul of Tarsus as a missionary to carry the gospel to the Gentile world? Listen to Him as he speaks to Saul on that great occasion (Acts xxvi. 1518): And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyesthey were blind, were they not?to open their eyes notice that; not some trivial matter to open their eyes, and to turn them from what?from darkness to light, and from what? I want my brother to notice thatthe power of Satan unto Godthe Gentile world was under the power of Satan, and the heathen world is under the power of Satan today that they may receive what?forgiveness of sinsdont they need it, need the gospel, that they may receive the forgiveness of sins?an inheritance among thembe savedan inheritance among them which are sanctified by what?faithwhat faith?that is in me. So you see this gives it a new emphasis; and that is just exactly what we believe; that is my position today; I stand on that basis.
II. The second feature of identity will be seen in the principles and the great motive-power that actuates the Foreign Mission work. I will name a few of these principles: Faith in the promises of God; faith in Jesus as the only Saviour of man, and in the gospel, the chosen means of God to bring men to Christ; obedience in performing the Christian work in the field of the Masterthe world is the field; belief in the doctrine of the brotherhood of mankind and the Fatherhood of God; that all nations are of one blood, and that all men who are saved must be saved by one faith, one Bible, one Saviour, and one gospel. Another phase of this feature of identity with the gospel work of the New Testament is the self-sacrificing spirit and motive-power of the Foreign Mission work. 2 Cor. 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. Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Rom. viii. 9). This self-sacrificing, compassionate spirit of Christ the Foreign Mission work possesses in a very eminent degree. Matthew ix. 36: But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them. That is, his feelings were stirred to their profoundest depths in sympathy with the need of the multitudes; and that is the spirit of the Foreign Mission work. This is the great power that moves these men and women who labor in the foreign fields. This causes them to leave their homes and go among the jungles of India, in the midst of its malignant diseases, or to face the other dangers found in other heathen lands, and meet that life of self-denial and sacrifice that the missionary who goes forth to labor for Christ has to meet and suffer. It is because their hearts are moved with compassion for these poor, degraded, deluded, and suffering people. As this compassionate love is the very heart of Christianity, so it is the very essence of the Foreign Mission work of today. Therefore, the missionary idea is the basal idea of the gospel. When Jesus said to his disciples, Go preach the gospel to every creature, the command meant to send the good tidings into all parts of the world, to bear this gospel of light to benighted and suffering humanity everywhere.
III. The third feature of identity between the Foreign Mission work of today and the gospel work of the New Testament is seen in the fact that The great spiritual agency that now begets, energizes, and guides the Foreign Mission work is identical with the agency that begat, energized, and guided the gospel work in the days of the apostles. In proof of this we will read from John xvi. 713: Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. Acts i. 48; also 13, 14: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, arid in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Now we will read Acts ii. 14: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
So we here learn that when the Primitive Church commenced its work, though its members had the truth, they tarried at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. The Holy Spirit, this Vice Regent of Jesus, was to beget, energize, and guide the work.
Now we will turn to Acts xiii. i, 2: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
So it is in the Foreign Mission work of today. Its laborers are begotten, energized, and guided by the Holy Spirit that gave spiritual life, power, and success to the primitive disciples. It was the revival of the Church-life by the Holy Spirit, through prayer, that gave birth to the wonderful epoch of the Foreign Mission work of the present day, and which is carrying its great victories in every land of the world.
We are told by Isaac Taylor that in the first half of the eighteenth century England herself was in virtual heathenism; that it was filled with a lascivious literature, a worldly Church, and an atheistical theology. Black-stone, during this particular period, heard every clergyman of note in London, and he said there was not a discourse that had enough of Christ in it to tell whether the preacher was a disciple of Christ, Confucius, or Mohammed, or that had any more Christ in it than a lecture upon science or literature. In America, Samuel Baine declared that Religion lay dying. Voltaire and Rousseau led society in France. In Germany, the court of Frederick the Great was the Olympus of infidels. Morality and spirituality in Europe were trampled under foot. I am glad that such a worldly, corrupt religion as that possessed by the Church the first half of the eighteenth century has no propagating powers.
In order for the Church of Christ to be revived, it needed a deep and wide spiritual work. This was brought about by that wonderful constellation of evangelists, viz.: by such men of God as Whitefield, the Wesleys, Grimshaw, Romaine, Rowland, Beveridge, Penn, Walker, Hervey, Toplady. and Fletcher. Bishop Pyle speaks of them as the twelve apostles of the new Reformation. These men rose in the name of the Lord and the strength of his might, and preached the gospel of individual Salvation and experimental religion.
This great series of Church revival work extended through the years between 1735 and 1785. It awoke not only the Church in England, but the whole Protestant world from its awful apostasy, irreligion and infidelity. At first the Church resisted all efforts to revive its dying life. The ministers of Scotland shut their churches against Whitefield and the Wesleys, and set apart days of prayer and fasting in opposition to their work; but this was Divinely overruled in preparing the way for open-air preaching, which in the hands of God has been greatly blessed in reaching the masses. Through the godly and earnest labors of the illustrious constellation of evangelists before named, all Protestant Christendom was thrilled with a revived evangelical faith. An evangelical zeal is always sure to follow. Out of these Pentecostal outpourings came the flaming tongues of witnessing. The Church, from its silver trumpets, pealed forth its summons to prayer for the affusion of the Holy Spirit upon the Christian Church and upon all the benighted lands of the globe. Praying bands in all parts of Britain answered the trumpet-call. From Americas shores came the echo of Jonathan Edwards bugle-call of the Christian world to concerted prayer for the same purpose. The tidal wave of revival rose higher and moved with greater momentum under the Haldanes, Andrew Fuller, Sutcliffe, Rowland Hill, and others, which resulted in the Warwick Association, in 1792, formally setting apart the first Monday of each month as a monthly Concert of prayer for the worlds evangelization, and also in the formation of the first Foreign Missionary Society in England in the same year. 1792. The next year, 1793, this society sent to India its first missionary, William Carey, that wonderful man of Godthat colossus of the centuries whose name has more influence in England today than that of any other man.
Look at those red and blue spots on the map today. They represent how much has been done through the foreign work. So we see the Foreign Mission work of today is identical with the gospel work, as it was begotten, endued with power, and guided by the same Holy Spirit. Why, this enthusiasm, and this witnessing for Jesus in the enthusiastic prosecution of the Foreign Mission work is just as natural and as necessary a consequence of this baptism of the Holy Spirit as was the witnessing of the apostles on the day of Pentecost. To show that the Holy Spirit was the great Agent that gave life, force, and guidance to the gospel work in the day of the apostles, I will quote from i Cor. ii. 35: And I was with you in weakness and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. So the Holy Spirit, in the same sense, is the great spiritual Agent of the Foreign Mission work of today, as we have shown from its history.
IV. I will now go to the next feature of identity. We have seen that the Holy Spirit has given life to the Foreign Mission work, and has energized and guided it, just as he did the primitive Church in the gospel work. The fourth feature of identity is seen in the selecting and sending forth laborers into the field.
Let us now read from Acts xiii. i3: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord notice, there were prophets in the Church there and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Said for the work whereunto I have called them they fasted and prayed, of course. And when they had fasted and prayed that is what they did in those days and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Now we will turn to Acts xiv. 26, 27: And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God that is, Paul and Barnabasfor the work which they fulfilled. And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. The Church sent them out, and they came back and rehearsed the story of their work to the Church. I think that is plain. Paul, you know, was told by the Lord that he was to be a chosen vessel to the gentiles, and he had labored considerably among the brethren before he was sent out on this missionary journey. During his first visit to Jerusalem, after his conversion, he was drawn into a controversy with the enemies of Christ; but perhaps his opponents were not as smooth with him as we will be with each other, and the brethren felt it was better for him to go over home, to Tarsus. Some time after this event a great revival took place at Antioch, and up to this time the disciples had been preaching the gospel to the Jews only. Some Cyreneans came to Antioch and preached the Lord Jesus unto the Grecians, and they accepted the message of salvation, and a great number turned unto the Lord. When tidings of these things came unto the ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem they sent forth Barnabas to Antioch to see if the work was blessed and owned of God. Barnabas saw that it was scriptural, and he went over and brought Paul from Tarsus to Antioch, and they preached a year there; and the brethren learned thereby what workers they were, and thought the work ought to be extended into the other provinces; and the prophets came down and assembled the Church together, and the holy Spirit said, separate mc Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. The Church prayed over it, and that was the decision finally reached; and they put their hands on them and sent them away. That is the way the laborers are selected and sent forth in the Foreign Mission work today.
A great many people have a misconception of this matter, and I want to make a few plain statements, and if I am not right the Moderators will correct me. Those of us who believe in the Foreign Mission work know that whenever one comes before the Board as a candidate to become a missionary in the foreign field, he is examined upon his Christian experience by earnest Christian men and women. These applicants give their testimony and make known the convictions by which they are led, and we compare that with the Word. Then they are examined as to their knowledge of the field, for fear their call to the foreign field may be merely imaginary, from wrought-up feelings, without thorough intelligence or deep conviction concerning the matter. They are required to study the field to which they think of going. They see the dangers and self-denials they have to meet, and the obstacles they have to overcome, and what sacrifices the work will demand. It takes the Spirit of the Master to make these sacrifices, yet even young women have done this; leaving their homes, and their parents who have always counseled and cared for them, leaving all their friends, and the precious opportunities of a Christian land, with all its privileges and blessings, to go to the benighted and degraded countries of heathendom. O it takes the grace of God, my brethren! It is brought about by much prayer.
MR. POTTER: Can you give an instance of this?
Yes, I will name a man to you, and he is only a sample of the real workers. It is Alexander Duff. He graduated in Aberdeen University, Scotland, in 1824. Thomas Chalmers, that wonderful minister of God, gathered together the young men who had embraced the religion of Jesus Christ, and who were studying under him in that college. These young men he induced to organize themselves into a Missionary Prayer-meeting. The chief object of this prayer-meeting was to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as to their work in the future. Three missionaries came out of that movement. One of these was Alexander Duff: one of the grandest men that ever trod the soil of India, and whose discipline and work are only one example of what is seen in every consecrated and faithful man or woman who has ever gone to the Foreign Mission field.
V. My friends, I call your attention to the fifth feature of identity between the Protestant Foreign Mission work and the gospel work of the New Testament in the fruits of the work. I will only have time in this speech, merely to touch upon this feature. I invite your attention to 2 Cor.v. 17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all thing are become new. I will now turn to Gal v 1921 : NOW the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these. Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulationtions, heresies, envying, wrath, strife, seditions, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell von before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Now, my friends, that is an exact picture of heathenism throughout the world, in all the islands of the sea and the continents of earth. as represented here on this mapin the islands of the Indian Archipelago, in part of the islands of Oceania, here on the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, and America. That is the exact description of it.
Now let us read to you the fruits of the Spirit: Gal. v. 22, 23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Now in the conclusion of my address, I want to bring before you a statement that will show some of the gospel fruits of the Foreign Mission work in heathen lands. In the Missionary Herald, Nov. 13, 1885, page 437, is a statistical table showing the number of communicants of the different evangelical Churches that are planted in heathen lands. These have been won for Jesus from an imbruted state. They were slaves of the very lowest passionsmany of them feeding upon human beings, many guilty of infanticide. Before their conversion they engaged in exterminating wars, and were often guilty of crimes almost incredible. Yet, as a result of eighty years labor in the Foreign Mission work, there are today 752,152 communicants of the different evangelical Churches in the various countries of the heathen world.
The light gleams out in those islands (pointing to the map) of Oceania. They extend from south to north about five thousand miles and the majority of them are captured for Jesus. In them the church and the schoolhouse are going up side by side. In those very islands, where these men destroyed each other before the gospel was sent to them, and where no civilized man dared to put his foot, the children are singing the sweet songs of Zion, church-spires gleam in the sunlight, and every blessing of civilization flourishes. So here are 752,152 communicants, whose character has been transformed by the gospel of God. How do they live faithful lives? How do they bring forth this fruit, if God has not blessed and owned the Foreign Mission work in regenerating their degraded natures by the Holy Spirit, through the teaching and preaching of the foreign missionaries? All the men and women who manage this work belong to the home Churches here. It is the same thing exactly the ministers who work in these islands are subject to the denominations to which they belong, just as they would if they were in the home field, and they examine the converts from heathenism who apply as candidates for Church-membership much more particularly than candidates who apply for membership here in the Church at home. I have a vast amount of evidence to present, showing that the fruits of the Foreign Mission work are identically the fruits the gospel.
Now, my brother has to meet this; He has to account for this. Let me explain this map, that you may understand it. The red marks represent all the mission stations of the different Foreign Missionary Societies of Europe. The blue lines represent-the stations of the missionaries sent out by the different Foreign Missionary Societies of America. O what a host we have! One hundred and seventy societies, hundreds of thousands of workers, and 752,152 members of the gospel Churches in heathen lands! The Church members are not the only ones that are blessed by Christianity in these heathen countries. Besides those who are professed Christians, there are over two million who are nominally Christian today, who have given up idolatry, assented to Christianity, but have not personally appropriated and realized its saving power. In 1795 there were not fifty thousand in heathen lands that sustained Church relations. In 1878 there were sixty thousand taken into The Churchten thousand more than the whole number who had been brought to Jesus in the heathen world eighty years ago. Hence, my friends, I take every one of those converts, with all the blessings that have grown out of the Foreign Mission work, as a monumental demonstration of the truthfulness of the proposition that I affirm: that the gospel work carried on in the heathen lands, or foreign countries, by the different denominations of the Protestant world is authorized by the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God.
Now, my friends, this being true, I want to read a selection that I have here from Japan, a paper from the native Japanese pastors to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, which was presented at the annual meeting of the Board in Boston last Octoberits seventy-fifth anniversary. It is found in The Missionary Herald, page 465:
The Christians of the Associated Japanese Churches to the American Brethren and Sisters constituting the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions send Greeting:
May God the Father of all people, and Jesus Christ the Saviour of all nations multiply unto you grace and peace. We have been informed of the diamond anniversary of your venerable Board which you are going to celebrate this year at this its seventy-fifth anniversary. We heartily share in your hopes and joys for this great meeting, and gladly take up this opportunity to offer you most respectfully a few words of gratitude for your Christian love and precious gifts which you have so bountifully bestowed upon us. Thus do millions today send back their thanksgiving over the seas to those earnest, consecrated men and women who have sent to them the blessed gospel of the Son of God. If we look upon our past history twenty years ago, we had been sunk in the corruption of the world, passing our days in sins and transgressions, without hope and without God, and in utter ignorance of the salvation of Christ. But now, through the precious knowledge of Christ our Saviour, and of the blessed communion of the Holy Spirit, we are reconciled to, and made sons of our great Father in heaven, no more to be wanderers in this world, but with the saints made partakers of the same glorious inheritance in the kingdom of God. No doubt we are all in all indebted to the sovereign grace of our Almighty Father in these blessings; still at the same time we heartily acknowledge our indebtedness to the pains-taking efforts and patience of the missionaries of your venerable Board. We look out on the wide surface of the earth; many are the countries as yet enshrouded in the darkness of sin and ignorance. Dont you see how their hearts run out for the salvation of those countries which have not the gospel, after they have received this rich boon and blessing? And the people to whom the gospel is unknown are not limited to this land of Japan. Nevertheless you have early selected our beloved country as a field of missionary labor; and the missionaries you sent over have admirably manifested their self-sacrificing spirit and ardent zeal in their constant efforts for the salvation of our country. Notwithstanding the inconveniences arising from the difference of climate and language and manners in a strange country, and in spite of the most insolent oppositions from the obstinate people. O the depths of gratitude we feel toward you! It is more than we can express in words.
MR. POTTERS FIRST SPEECH.
BRETHREN, MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
In all probability there is not a person here who feels more pleasantly, under all the circumstances, than I do. That may seem surprising to quite a number, after listening to the eloquent speech we have heard this morning. So far as pubic discussion and investigation are concerned, as an individual, I feel favorable to them when they are carried oh in the right spirit; and I am under the same impression as my brother, that troth has nothing to lose in investigation. I hope you will not forget what he has said. He has given us an able speech in defense of his proposition, as he claims, and it is my duty to reply to it. I wish to state that about two months ago, in looking over a paper called the Gibson County Leader. I read the following:
Is the Foreign Mission work of God or of man? Even today, in the light of the wonderful triumphs of the gospel work in the foreign field, among the many thousands of gospel ministers there are a few here and there that oppose this work as unscriptural, and hence of man, and not of God. Therefore, in view of these facts, for the sake of gospel truth and gospel work, and the honor of the blessed Saviour, I make the following challenge: That I will meet in joint discussion any ordained minister of the gospel, indorsed by the denomination to which he belongs, as a representative man, and of good character in Owensville, Indiana, upon the following proposition: Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Holy Scriptures and is blessed and owned of God.
H. CLAY YATES.
Owensville, Ind., Oct. 9, 1885
When I saw this challenge, so far as I was individually concerned, I did not intend to pay any particular attention to it, from the fact that I never accept challenges from any man for debate. I might be debating every day if I would. But if my brethren think that a debate is necessary to do justice to our people in the community where the challenge is made, and ask me to work, then I, undertake to do the best I can.
I want the people to remember today what the issue is. We want to understand that fairly. According to the caption of the article, the issue is not whether there have been any good results in the way of education- or civilization by the Foreign Mission work, but the issue is, agreeable to the published challenge, Is the Foreign Mission work of God or of man? That is Brother Yates own explanation of it. I want the people to understand the issue. We are not here to say there has not been any good done by them, but we are here to discuss the authority for them? My opponent is here to state they are of God, and makes his challenge on the ground that some men say they are of man and not of God. That is his own statement in his challenge. That cannot be misunderstood. Is it authorized in the Scriptures? Is it? I want all this people to think. This discussion rests upon that part of the proposition. Brother Yates has read to us quite a number of texts of Scripture today. Did you hear Foreign Mission work in any text he read, or any thing that sounded like it? If the Scriptures do authorize a thing, they must speak about it in some way or another. They must give it in the exact language, or in something equivalent to it. And I want all these examined carefully during this discussion, for in the course of six days he will have plenty of time to mention one text that mentions or implies Foreign Mission work in the Bible.
I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that it is not authorized in the Bible. The Scriptures authorize no such thing. I want you to notice his arguments. I want my brethren to do so. I want you to weigh every argument he introduces, and let us discuss this subject, in the spirit of Christianity, for we profess to be Christians. I am glad we are talking about Christian moderation. I never allow a man to excel me in being friendly. Brother Yates is hardly large enough to be more friendly than I, unless he has more sense than I have. Let us have no wry faces or frowns here during this discussion, but investigate this proposition for the truths there are in it, and in a Christian spirit.
One reason I am glad I am here on this occasion is this: The position occupied by myself and my brethren is misunderstood by the people generally. We are accused wrongfully. I do not know of one Regular Baptist minister in the world who thinks it is wrong to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That is not the issue before us. That is not the point to be discussed here. That is not it. If there were ten thousand such texts as that, that is not the issue between us. I do not know of a Regular Baptist minister anywhere, or a brother anywhere, who thinks it is wrong. Go everywhere, and preach the gospel to everybody where you go. We are not here to deny that. I want this audience to understand that part of it at the beginning. The issue is with the work known as the Foreign Mission work. Do you know what that work is? Brother Yates ought to define it. He speaks of the work known as the Foreign Mission work. He ought to tell us what that is. It is his place to do it. The rules require it. I hope he will make us understand just what he means by it.
I want to say that so far as education, civilization, politeness, and refinement are concerned, I know of no people who oppose them in all civilization. They seem to have been intuitive among the people from the first origin of nations. We read from history the following:
Egypt, however, continued to pour forth her colonies into distant nations. That was away back fifteen hundred years before Christ. The kingdom of Egypt, that is known today as a child of darkness, was the most enlightened kingdom there was at that time in the world, the first organized kingdom there was in the world, whose king was Nimrod, and history says they placed such importance on education and civilization that they sent their colonies to other lands to educate the people.
Let us read: Egypt, however, continued to pour forth her colonies into distant nations. Athens, that seat of learning and politeness, that school for all who aspired to wisdom, owed its foundation to Cecrops, who, 1556 B.C., landed in Greece with an Egyptian colony, and endeavored to civilize the rough manners of the original inhabitants. From the institutions which Cecrops established among the Athenians it is easy to infer in what a condition they must have lived before his arrival. The laws of marriage, which few nations are so barbarous as to be unacquainted with, were not known in Greece. Mankind, like the beasts of the field, were propagated by accidental connection, with little knowledge of those to whom they owed their birth. (Guthries Geography, Vol. I., page 32.) Now this was a good workwe are not here to oppose that workbut it did not depend on the commission that says, Go preach the gospel to every creature, for it was nearly sixteen hundred years before that commission was given. It is the duty of men to do the best they can for one another, so far as that is concerned; and this work, if it had been today, perhaps would have been connected with the Foreign Mission work. It was a good work. It was benevolent.
As an evidence, again, that people, even where there is no gospel, and where there are no Bibles nor preachers, where they are enlightened at all do have an eye to education, let us refer to the country of Japan, to which my opponent so eloquently referred us in his closing remarks. And here I wish to say, because a work is good that is no evidence it is authorized by the Bible. This system of free schools, as we have it in Indiana, is no doubt a good thing, but it is of man, and is not authorized in the Holy Scriptures. Because a thing is good is not a reason for believing that the Bible authorizes it, or that it is owned of God. The proposition says nothing about the educational work of the missionaries. It is the gospel work that we are discussing. Let us take Japan. Japan is one of the best educated nations in the world today. The missionaries say this. There are fewer people in Japan who cannot read than among any other people in the world. Education is general. All classes are taught, and yet missionaries say, as I shall show before the close of this discussion, that the people of Japan, while they are ready to receive Western ideas, and read the Bible and Christian books with avidity, yet read them chiefly from curiosity. I have testimony of that fact, and will produce it at the proper time. There are not ten thousand Christian communicants in the whole country of Japan today, not ten thousand from the missionaries own statistics, and it is a country whose population is two-thirds that of the United States. There are not ten thousand communicants, as we shall show as this discussion progresses.
Now I want to notice the speech. I say, to begin with, and challenge any contradiction on that, that foreign missionary societies were not necessary, and never were considered necessary, to the propagation of the gospel in all lands. But we will see whether they were or not. As a reason why I say they were not there was no such thing thought of until 1792, when, in England, the first Protestant Missionary Society was organized. That is Brother Yates own statement of it, and that is correct. In 1792 the Church stood, and the gospel was preached in different nations over the world for nearly eighteen hundred years before the first foreign missionary society was organized.
MR. YATES: I said the first missionary society in England.
MR. POTTER: Yes, in England.
Another thought: My opponent says in this question is involved the temporal and eternal destiny of millions of the human race now living, and no doubt, countless numbers of unborn generations. Now, that is one objection I have always had to this plea for Foreign Missions, that its advocates preach the universal damnation of all the people where there is no Bible. I object to that doctrine. It is contrary to Gods word. It is the plea that gets your half-dollar from your pocket in mission work, that the heathen are going to hell unless they get the Bible. More than that, Brother Yates has trampled upon Presbyterianism, as I will show you. His own proposition now lies in the dust under his feet. What will our brethren do? Will they dismiss Brother Yates, or throw away their Confession of Faith? I call your attention to the Confession of Faith of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Article 3 On page 10, where they say: All infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are others who have never had the exercise of reason, and who (and that adds still more) are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word. That is what Cumberland Presbyterianism says in its Confession of Faith. We have three classes here who are saved without the ministry of the word, according to their doctrines. I indorse that, and perhaps it is a fine thing I am here to defend it, as Brother Yates has turned against it. There are three classes called by the Spirit of God, and regenerated and saved by Christ idiots, infants, and those who cannot be called by the ministry of the word. Who are they? I want Brother Yates to tell us in his next speech, for it will never do in the world for him to throw his Confession away. He was ordained to the work of the ministry upon the sincere acknowledgment and acceptance of that Confession of Faith, as embracing and adopting the true system of the doctrine of the Scriptures. It will not do for him to throw it away now; he is too young, and has not been preaching long enough. As an evidence that those mentioned in this article are not only infants or idiots, I will read the proof-texts they give in support of the latter part of the article, which is Acts ii. 38, 39: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. That is their proof-text to show that a class of people aside from idiots and infants are called, and. regenerated, and saved by the Spirit of Christ, who cannot be outwardly called by the ministry of the gospel. That is Presbyterian doctrine, and Brother Yates trampled that in the dust this morning. I do not want him to do that any more. It is Cumberland Presbyterianism that I quote. I want to give you another article of it. Chapter 25, Articles 1 and 2:
The catholic, or universal, Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof, and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
The visible Church, which is also catholic. universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God.
Now here we have two Churches presented in this Confession of Faithone called the visible Church, and that visible Church consists of all the people everywhere throughout the world that profess the true religion. Here are Brother Yates, Brother Strickland, Brother Hume, and others, who preach the gospel. We see them. They make public confession of the faith. They indicate the Christ of God that is in their hearts by their lives, and we can see them. That is the visible Church. So says the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of Faith. But there is an invisible Church that embraces more than that. How much more? How many more than all those that profess the true religion throughout all the world? None of the heathen, Brother Yates says in his speech this morning. Who are they? We want to know. We want some explanation of that matter. It is evident from this article that there is a universal Church that is invisible, which consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof, and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. As an evidence that this embraces Gentiles, and heathen even where there is no gospel, I want to give you their own proof-text of this article: Ephesians 1. 10 and 22, 23:
That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head, over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Also Colossians i. i8: And he is the head of the body, the Church. These passages of Scripture arc said by Cumberland Presbyterianism to embrace the children of God, who are, have been, or ever shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof; and they extend further than the visible Church of Christ, that embraces all that profess the Christian religion.
If that is not so, I want Brother Yates to tell us the difference between the two articles. If it is true, what is his speech worth today, that damns all the heathen universally, without any salvation at all where there is no gospel? I want everybody to think of that. But that is not all, it is not only the belief of Cumberland Presbyterianism. There was an argument had at one time between a man by the name of Alexander Campbell everybody knows his name and a gentleman by the name of Rice, who was a Presbyterian; and on this question of the influence of the Holy Spirit I thought Mr. Rice was about right, and I was rather under the impression that he rather flaxed Mr. Campbell in that debate. I will tell you what Mr. Campbell said, and see how it harmonizes with Brother Yates. We want to see whether he is fighting for Campbell or his Church:
Our second argument is adduced from the fact that no living man has ever been heard of, and no one can now be found, possessed of a single conception of Christianity, or one spiritual 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 gloom profound, utter darkness. What stronger evidence can be adduced than this most evident and indisputable fact? It weighs more than a thousand volumes of metaphysical speculations.
That looks like it was tolerable strong. That is what Mr. Campbell says. Mr. Rice, what do you say about that? Mr. Rice says on page 638, in reply: We whom does he mean by we? we Presbyterians; wont we be astonished if Presbyterianism begins to droop and die for the sake of the Foreign Mission work, in order to defend that? we believe and teach that in conversion and sanctification there is an influence of the Spirit in addition to that of the Word, and distinct from it; an influence without which the arguments and motives of the gospel would never convert and sanctify one of Adams ruined race. We further believe that, although the Word of God is employed as an instrument of conversion and sanctification, where it can be used, God has never confined himself to means and instrumentalities where they cannot be employed.
That is what Presbyterianism is. Brother Yates is not a Presbyterian. He is fighting them. He is ruining that doctrine. He says to us that the eternal salvation, or the eternal destiny, of the people hangs upon the following of the commission of the gospel, which is to make it depend upon the missionaries. That is the reason I object to that system known as Foreign Mission work, because it so flatly contradicts, not only the Bible, but also religious tenets. It says that hell is the home of all that unfortunate people who are never blessed with the Bible. Again Mr. Rice continues:
Mr. Campbell objects again, that if in one case regeneration takes place without the Word, it must be so in all cases; and then of what use is the Word? He has often told us that it is far easier to assert than to prove. It is admitted that regeneration is the same in all cases, but it is not admitted that the means employed in all cases are the same. He asserts that the same means must always be employed, but he cannot prove the truth of the assertion, either scripturally or philosophically. I know of no part of Gods Word that teaches that if God should sanctify a soul in one instance without the truth, because it cannot be employed, he must of course sanctify all others without the truth. God is a sovereign, and he works by means or without means, as his infinite wisdom directs. When his people were journeying in the wilderness, and their supplies of water gave out, it was miraculously replenished. So does he feed the soul with the bread of life, through means and instrumentalities when they are accessible, and without them when they are not.
That is what Presbyterianism teaches. Does that sound like brother Yates speech? I want all of you to think. One more on that subject; I am not done with Brother Rice yet; he is such a good man I want to follow him up a little further: But let it be remarked, that while we believe in an influence of the Spirit in addition to the Word, and distinct from it, we do not believe that in conversion new faculties are created (Mr. Campbell was charging that on those who believe in experimental religion). The mind, both before and after conversion, possesses understanding, will, and affections. There is no creation of new faculties, but a change of the moral nature, a spiritual change, a change from sin to holiness, a change from the love and practice of sin to love and service of God.
That is what is done in regeneration and sanctification, according to Presbyterianism, and that is what I think is good. I indorse that, and try to preach that doctrine.
Nor do we maintain that in conversion and sanctification the Holy Spirit reveals new truths not found in the Scriptures; for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The design of regeneration is not to reveal new truths, but to enable the sinner, who is blinded by his depravity, to see the truths of revelation in their beauty and excellency, and to incline him to embrace them and live accordingly. The difficulty is not that Gods revelation is not perfect, presenting every truth which is necessary to life and godliness; nor is it true that it is obscurely taught, but that the hearts of men are fully set in them to do evil; that they love darkness rather than light; that they are proud and rebellious, and averse to the service of God and the plan of salvation which he has devised.
Again: This statement of the doctrine of Divine influence is a complete answer to the argument of Mr. Campbell, that those who profess to have been regenerated by the special influence of the Spirit have received new ideas which are not contained in the Scriptures. Regeneration consists not in giving a new revelation, but a new heart.
Now, I want to show you that what I have read from Mr. Rice was intended as an answer to Mr. Campbell when he said there could not be a man found, or heard of, who was in possession of a new idea or emotion without the Bible. This was Mr. Rices intention. He said so himself, in his speech recorded on page 647. He says: his second argument was, that there are among pagans, who have not the Bible, no spiritual ideas. This was answered by showing that, according to our views, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is not designed to communicate new ideas, but to enlighten the mind by removing sin, the cause of its blindness, that it may see in their true light the truths contained in the Scriptures. The gentleman could not hear my reply.
It seems Mr. Rice did hold the idea that there were spiritual ideas among the pagans. He did not indorse Mr. Campbells idea; but we have heard it preached very eloquently today; and I think if Mr. Campbell were here, he would think he had a new disciple.
I will tell you another thing Mr. Rice thought Mr. Campbell did in taking that position; and he was a good logician. He was a debater; I am not, but he was. On page 650 he says: He admits their native depravity. He denies that they can be sanctified without the truth. We know that they cannot receive the truth; consequently they cannot but die in their depravity; and wherever they may go, certain it is that they cannot go to heaven. He may express the opinion that they may be saved, but his opinion contradicts his doctrine. There is no way of escaping the difficulty but by abandoning the doctrine. He cannot answer the argument. It admits of no answer.
I want to say this: that the doctrine of Presbyterianism is not the doctrine of infant damnation. The doctrine of no people is the doctrine of infant damnation. Yet I say Mr. Rice was logical and consistent when he said that if the gospel is Gods chosen and only medium of communication to mankind, that it does leave the infant out, it does leave the idiot out, it does leave the heathen out. If the Spirit ever operates without it, if it does it in one case it may in every case. If the Spirit of God reaches down and saves an infant without preaching to him, or his having knowledge of the Bible or gospel, it can reach to the idiot and save him in the same way; and I believe it will. If it does that, it reaches to the heathen in the same way; and I say it will; and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church says it will, and they have always taught that it would.
Brother Yates, I want you to harmonize your own doctrine with your arguments.
This further from Mr. Rice, and I will dismiss him: Mr. Campbell objects again that if in one case regeneration takes place without the Word, it must be so in all cases. And then of what use is the Word? I suspect that Baptist preachers have had that hurled at them as often as any other. If that be true, what is the use of the Word? I appeal to any lady, gentleman, or child in this country. Let Mr. Rice tell. He is a good man, and able to answer that question, in my judgment. He says:
He has often told us that it is far easier to assert than to prove. It is admitted that regeneration is the same in all cases; but it is not admitted that the means are in all cases the same. He asserts that the same means must always be employed; but he cannot prove the truth of the assertion, either scripturally or philosophically. I know of no part of Gods Word that teaches that if God should sanctify a soul in one instance without the truth, he must of course sanctify all others without the truth. God is a sovereign, and he works by means or without means, as his infinite wisdom directs. Notice, that is the doctrine of Presbyterianism.
Now, I wish to follow up my brothers speech a little farther. I have a good many notes, but there are so many of them just alike. He refers to the evil and good results of investigation. That is all right. So far as investigation is concerned we agree. Truth has nothing to lose by investigation. The evil and good results, then, of investigation depend on the evil and good spirit exhibited during the discussion. If we intend to fight and conduct this discussion in a bad spirit, we had better let it alone; and if I thought that was the intention of Brother Yates in coming here and making the challenge, I never would have met him, for I will not fight if I can keep out of the way. And neither do I ever make apologies for what I preach. I am aware I am on the unpopular side of the question that we are now debating. I am aware the denomination with which I stand identified is perhaps the only denomination that opposes what is commonly known as the work of the Foreign Missions. I am aware of that fact, and when I saw this challenge I believed that Brother Yates had his mind upon the Regular Baptist denomination. He said in his speech that he did not make this challenge against any particular denomination. However, when he was at my house, in company with Mr. Collins, I drew out of him the fact that he was thinking of the Regular Baptists when he made the challenge, because they were the only people that opposed the Foreign Mission work. This being true, we feel we are challenged. We are here in self-defense; we are not here challenging other peoples views and to trample them under foot. But it is perhaps not surprising, with the idea that Mr. Rice was defending in his debate, that all of the world could be saved, in introducing that feature of the doctrine, that we need not be uneasy about that; the Lord will not let his work go undone, that we should be here represented. But I say, is it true we are not allowed to present that doctrine in the manner in which all Christendom have ever understood it, without laying ourselves liable to frowns and challenges from our religious neighbors? Brother Yates understood we were opposed to Foreign Missions. He was not mistaken about that. He knew where we stood on that question. I am satisfied he did.
He said that as it is a debated question, it is of course an unsettled question. That is true. There has been very little said about it, however, in this country lately. It is a free country, and all people who wish to work for or defend Foreign Mission work are at liberty to do so. We are not hindering them; and I do not know that I have heard one of my brethren say a solitary word against Foreign Missions in a year or two. I am in the pulpit about as often as any man in this country, and I never heard any one lift a voice against it that I know of. I do not say Brother Thomas did not do it, for I did not hear him that day. There has been nothing to provoke a challenge. However, I am glad that it is here, from the fact that I want you to know what the Foreign Mission work is. You do not know. There is hardly one man in ninety that knows. You only hear one side of it. You see this map in its glowing colors, and you do not know just what it means. You do not know whether there are ten million Christians there or one thousand. If you hear Brother Yates speak of it, he will tell you there are a great many. We want to present the truth, the history; let us have both sides presented. Let us have it from the missionaries themselves, and perhaps during this discussion we shall show you they are not doing half they claim they are; and we will show it from missionary evidence at that.
He wants it known and distinctly understood what he is here to prove. I can tell you what it is: That the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures, and blessed and owned of God. He may get the sanction of every man in this house that it is a good work. That does not prove his proposition. He may get the sanction of every denomination in all Christendom that it is a good work. That does not prove it is authorized in the Scriptures. He may get the sanction of every minister he ever strikes hands with throughout this land that the Foreign Mission work is a good work. That does not prove that it is authorized in the Scriptures. He may quote the commission that says, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, and the words Foreign Mission are not in that commission at all. Not a word of it. He has quoted several texts, and if any man heard the words Foreign Mission in any text he quoted, either expressed or implied, let him tell me which one it was, and I will notice it and reply to it or give up the debate, one or the other. What text in all the catalogue referred to by my brother today mentions or implies Foreign Missions?
He speaks of an identity. We will soon show the differences where he says there is an identity.
There is one mistake on the subject of Foreign Missions on which I want to correct Brother Yates. He made the assertion and it is an assertion which is generally made that the Saviour, when he addressed the disciples, and said, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, gave that commission to the Church Brother Yates said to the Church through the apostles. Brother Yates, I want to know where is your authority for that. Is it not an invention gotten up about the time Foreign Mission work was? Let us go to that commission, and see to whom it is addressed. We do not want any thing but what the Bible gives to prove a Bible point by. I propose to see to whom the commission was given. I will show you a gospel commission if you will listen now to me.
I object to the Foreign Mission work, because, in order to show even a shadow of authority for it in the Scriptures, its advocates say the great commission was given to the Church instead of to the apostles and their successors. That is what they say. Brother Yates said that this morning. It is just as common, to say that as it is for them to defend Foreign Mission work. To prove that, I will give you another witness on his side. I quote from a book I have here in my valise, called The Great Commission and its Fulfillment by the Church, in which the writer says:
All forms of evangelical work and enterprise are based upon these words (the writer means the words of the great commission). Not ministers only, but all Christians, ordained and unordained, male and female, old and young, are bound by them. Some can go farther than others, but all are to go on this errand of mercy.
Some are to give more than others, but all are to give according to their ability the means requisite for saving the lost. Some are to preach officially and more regularly than others, but all are to preach in the sense of communicating saving truth to those in spiritual darkness; and all are to contribute to that great, unceasing volume of earnest prayer which has only to become general and tenderly importunate to secure the salvation of a great multitude of Gods elect who are now wandering unsaved on the mountains of sin in every land.
This is a missionary who agrees with my brother. He says the commission was given to the Church, not only to the ministry, but given to every man, every individual ordained and unordained, male and female, old and young; that all are addressed in the commission that says, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Let us see whether they were or not. I call your attention to Matthew xxviii. 1620 inclusive: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and. of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Who were present? To whom did the Saviour speak? What does the pronoun ye in this text have for its antecedent? I ask Brother Yates. Go ye. Go who? The eleven disciples that is it. The eleven were the ones spoken to, and not the Church. There is no intimation that it was the Church it was the eleven. As a matter of course no person denies that I know of that it is to their successors as well.
First to the ministry the commission is given. It is the duty of a man who is called of God to preach, to go. It is the duty of every man whom God calls to preach. The Saviour said, Go; he did not say, Send. I want you to notice there is quite a difference between a man going into all the world and preaching the gospel, and the Church sending. He said, Go, and as you go, preach. He did not say, Send. If the commission had been to the Church, and the missionaries were correct in their application of it, the commission would have read, Send into all the world. But it was to the ministry, and they are called on to go.
I will read again Mark xvi. 1416: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Now, the eleven were the people addressed there, not the Churchnot every one; not male and female, old and young, ordained and unordained, rich and poor; but the eleven, the ministrythey are the people whose duty it is to preach. Now let us see how the apostles and early ministers of the gospel obeyed this heavenly mandate, and how they succeeded. I want to show you a gospel missionthe mission I believe inand all want to say to you there is not a Regular Baptist on the earth, who understands himself, who will oppose such a mission: One writer says, in speaking of himself in obedience to this commission: Despised as Christianity has been by many, yet it has had an extensive progress through the world, and still remains to be professed by great numbers of mankind, though it is to be lamented many are unacquainted with its genuine influence. It was early and rapidly propagated through the whole Roman Empire, which then contained almost the whole known world; and herein we cannot but admire both the wisdom and the power of God. That is the way the ancients talk about the commission that was given. They went; they did not send; they went to preachthat is the difference.
Another good writer says: Destitute of all human advantages, protected by no authority, assisted by no art, not recommended by the reputation of its author, not enforced by eloquence in its advocates, the word of God grew mightily and prevailed. Twelve men, poor, artless, and illiterate, were beheld triumphing over the fiercest and most determined opposition, over the tyranny of the magistrates and subtleties of the philosophers, over the prejudices of the Gentile and the bigotry of the Jew. They established a religion which held forth high and venerable mysteries, such as the pride of man would induce him to suspect, because he could not perfectly comprehend them, which preached doctrines pure and spiritual, and such as corrupt nature was prone to oppose, because it shrunk from the severity of their discipline, etc. This was the severity of their commission.
Again: In the apostolic mission we have presented to our view a small company of plain and pious men leaving Judea and traveling over the, empire to exalt their crucified Master and the Lord and Saviour of the world. They had little subsistence from the Churches of their own country, but when exigency required they did not disdain to labor with their own hands.
Hear what they say. I want to see what these missionaries said. These apostles, I believe, were missionaries. I am a missionary. Do not call me an anti-missionary. But I am opposed to this language you have in this proposition. I want Brother Yates, before I quote from this book that I believe in, to tells us, and note particularly where he is, of one missionary that pursued the course that the Apostle Paul did.
I will now quote from 1 Cor. iv. 1113: Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labor, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
That is the course the apostles pursued when they started out in obedience to the commission of Christ. Where is the missionary today that will stoop to work with his own hands to provide for his necessity and that of those with him, who goes out as the apostles did, under the instructions and auspices of the Foreign Mission societies of today? If you have his name, Brother Yates, we want it.
Again, Brother Paul, what do you say? Acts XX. 33, 34: I have coveted no mans silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities and to them that were with me.
Again, 1 Thess. 2:9: For ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail: for laboring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.
Here were the early missionaries; here is what they say: This being true, in humble obedience to the heavenly commission, the apostles began their holy work at Jerusalem and distributed themselves throughout all the provinces of the Roman empire, which, on account of its extent, was called the world, both by sacred and profane writers. Some traveled to Rome, to Gaul, to Spain, and to the islands of Britain. Others pursued their route to Egypt, and preached in all the cities on the north of Africa as far as Carthage. Paul and Barnabas, with their colleagues, extended their labors to all the cities and islands of Greece, and to the Grecian colonies of Asia. Some penetrated among the Scythians and other barbarians of the North. In almost every city these preachers had some fruit, and evangelical men were raised up in all the Churches, who imitated the apostles in their life and ministry. The gospel preached by the apostles made such rapid progress that it attracted the wonder and admiration of the ancient fathers.
Eusebius says: The gospel, like the sun, enlightened the world at once. Great multitudes of people were brought into the Church, both in cities and villages by the ministry of the apostles, like corn stored up in a granary. One Celsus maliciously objected to the novelty of Christianity; Origen replied: Here is the mystery: that a new doctrine in so short a time should so surprisingly prevail over all the world, over the Greeks and the barbarians, over the learned and the illiterate, over every order and profession, and persuaded them with so firm a belief of its divine authority that they are ready to seal their faith with their blood.
Clemens Alexandrinus said: The philosophers pleased the Greeks only, nor did every one please all. Plato followed Socrates; Theophrastus, Aristotle, Cleanthus, Zeno, every master had his own school and his own scholars, but our great Masters philosophy was not confined to Egypt as theirs is to Greece. It diffused its luster over the world at large. It was embraced by whole cities and nations, and no man can resist its force who will leisurely contemplate its wisdom.
Philosophers themselves have been captivated by its charms. If the Grecian philosophy were suppressed at any place by the magistrates, it presently disappeared. On the contrary, our religion has been persecuted by kings, by emperors, by governors; generals, and by the populace, who were more ferocious than all the others. They have combined the whole of their power and ingenious malice to exterminate Christianity, and yet it flourishes the more, and does not droop and die, as it certainly must have done had it been of mere human invention.
Arnobius, in his Defense of Christianity, says: You should not, I think, be a little surprised to see this despised name everywhere prevail, and in so short a time. There is no nation in the empire, however barbarous and uncivilized, whose manners have not been softened and improved by this philanthropic institution; and what is yet more surprising, it has subdued the brightest geniuses; orators, critics, lawyers, physicians, and philosophers have yielded to its force. Its disciples are so sincere and pious in their profession as to forego the enjoyments of life, and life itself, rather than renounce the cross. Hence, notwithstanding all your edicts and precautions, all your menaces and massacres, all your hangmen and ingenious tortures, they not only become more numerous but more vigorous in their resolutions. Can you suppose all this is brought about by chance? That men will die for a religion, of whose divine authority they are not assured, or that there is a general conspiracy of fools and madmen who mean to throw away their lives for a phantom?
Now, I say all this was done without a solitary thought of the Foreign Mission Society. I want Brother Yates to tell us the name of the Foreign Mission Society that Brother Paul belonged to. I want to know whether it was the American Board of Missions, the American Baptist Union, or what it was? I want to know what society he belonged to. He must belong to some Foreign Mission society, or else he was not a foreign missionary of the type of the present time; and yet the gospel spread, as we have already shown you in the language of several witnesses who were acquainted with this matter. I say all this was done without any foreign mission board. There was no such thing as an organization of a board anywhere at that time for the propagation of the gospel. Whenever the apostles started, they started at the command of Jesus Christ. And that is not all. I will now give you a witness, who is a modern missionary by the way, on the subject of Paul as a Missionary. That is the heading he gives his article. It is as follows:
Paul, who was a man of ability, faith, consecration, and energy, was the great missionary of Christ to the Gentiles. He commenced, comparatively speaking, on a small scale and ended with great results. He was mighty in word and abundant in labors. He traveled much, visited many cities, preached often, endured trials, and persevered manfully. He had nothing specially to encourage him in his work but the presence of God and the guidance of the Spirit. That is enough for any minister. He broke ground and did pioneer work. He had no advance guard to open the way and prepare the field. He had no newspaper or telegraph agency to herald his coming, no Christian constituency to give him a cheering welcome, no structure erected in the form of a grand tabernacle or magnificent church edifice to accommodate the multitudes that might assemble to hear him, no wealthy missionary organization at his back to encourage and support him. No; none of these. All he had was the Lords commission and the Lords promise of help and direction. He went at the call of the Lord, in the name and strength of his Master, to encompass the great missionary field, and to proclaim Jesus and the resurrection to those in sin and error. Many heard the word and believed. The work extended, believers were multiplied, Churches were established, heathenism quailed, and the Cross triumphed. The world was improved by the life and labors of Paul, and the blessed results of his mission have been the means of blessing thousands through the centuries past, and will doubtless continue to do so to those who shall live in the ages to come.From the Journal and Messenger, a paper published by the Missionary Baptists, at Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1, 1877.
That is missionary testimony of what Paul was. He was a missionary, so it says. I believe he was. And this man is careful to say that he had nothing only Gods commission, and Gods promise, and the guidance of the Spirit, and was not backed up by a wealthy missionary organization to support him.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. YATES SECOND SPEECH.
GENTLEMEN, MODERATORS, AND CHRISTIAN FRIENDS:
I am happy to greet you again in Gods sanctuary, to continue the discussion of the grand theme we have before us, practically narrowed down to this: Are Foreign Missions of man or of God?
If I understood my brother correctlyand if I did not I want him to say sohe said today in his speech that if I could find missionary workers who were blessed and owned of God, in the foreign field, who were not backed up by a Board, but who depended on the Lord for support, without any rich society behind them, he would own that the proposition is true.
MR. POTTER: No, that is not exactly it. I asked you just please to name one of that kind.
MR. YATES: Well, you see that clinches the argument. How kind! He has done away with it in the first stroke. I am glad my good brother has handled it in such a good spirit, but it reminds me of the way in which a schoolboy disposes of his difficulties. Now let me read you from the Homiletic Monthly, December, I885, published by Funk & Wagnalls, one of the grandest publishing houses on the continent. Neither my opponent nor any other man dares to deny the authority of the work I hold in my hand. This work is indorsed by all leading workers and ministers, both in Europe and the United States. Hence the testimony of such a witness in a discussion like this, carries with it the greatest force. The Homiletic Monthly, page 534, speaking of the China Inland Mission, says: Rev. J. Hudson Taylor is its founder and director. Thirty-one years ago he went to China as the first English missionary of the Chinese Evangelization Society in London. He soon cast himself on the Lord for support, for his conscience would not allow him longer to receive aid from a society that frequently ran into debtmy brother believes in it; he will be a foreign missionary, carrying the papers away under his arm, before we get through. In this year failing health obliged him to return to England, where he remained seven years, until his health permitted his return. While at home he aided in translating and printing the New Testament in the Ningpo dialect, and visited Churches to present the Chinese needs and claims. He urged missionary societies to enlarge the work in China, and send laborers to the inland provinces. Failing to get a satisfactory response, such was his anxiety he could neither eat nor sleep. At last, committing his burden to the Lord that is what I have been telling you all the time he resolved to undertake the work he could not get others to do. He asked of God a band of devoted disciples inspired with a passion for souls, who would cast themselves in faith entirely on God for support. In 1865 the mission was formed, and more than twenty laborers came to China the next year. Fifteen years later there were about one hundred. Some three years since Mr. Taylor and a band of missionaries, in a city six hundred miles from the sea-coast, spent an evening in prayer that God would in three years send them seventy other consecrated and competent workmen, and supply the means for their outfit and passage. It was also proposed that at the end of three years another meeting should be held of praise and thanksgiving, so confident were they that their prayers would be answered; but, as it might be impracticable for them to meet together after being so widely scattered, they decided to hold a praise-meeting then and there, which was done in accordance with i John v. 5. They convened together to pray daily for this object. The prayer has been richly answered. More than seventy have sailed for China within the time, and others are waiting to go. Now listen to the results:
This mission has a native membership of about 1,500, converted to Jesus, standing up as a monument to the truth of the proposition under discussion, and more than 180 native preachers.
My brother has a terribly up-stream business. He has to deny that any of these souls were regenerated. He has to deny that these men were competent to judge on questions of the heart and experience. Suppose I would do that to you, my brethren; it would be an injustice to every man of you. I have too much confidence in the knowledge and ability of those consecrated people, those earnest men who are working in the foreign field, and too much love and respect for those men who have trusted in the Lord, and come out and had their sins forgiven, and are leading the new life as it is in Christ Jesus.
Brother Potter has asked me to define Foreign Missions. I am very glad he has, though I thought I had done that this morning. Well, that word mission, what does it mean? It is to perform the gospel work as committed to us by the Saviour, in accordance with its true spirit and the object it is designed to subserve. When we put the word foreign before this, we have a true definition of Foreign Missions. It means the propagation of the gospel in lands beyond the seas, with faith in the promises of God, and in obedience to the Masters command. It is the holding forth of the word of life to the heathen, by proclaiming the good tidings to them that their Saviour has come, and lived, and died, and ascended into heaven, and has given the grand and glorious commission we quoted today, Go preach the gospel to every creature, and that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved.
And he wants to know if Paul belonged to a Missionary Board. He wants me to show him a passage where Foreign Missions are named. Well, when my brother shows me the name, Regular Baptist Church in Gods Word, I will show him the words Foreign Missions, and I will show it in the very next verse. Then further, right over in the next chapter, if you will show me the office of clerk and treasurer of the Church, right following that you will find Foreign Mission Board. I want to say further, I do not give this as an argument in support of the proposition, but as a retort in answer to the absurd argument of my opponent, in which he inferred that in order to prove that the Foreign Mission work is taught in the New Testament, the name must be found there. No, I have only to show that the principles of the Foreign Mission work are taught in the gospel.
My friends, did you notice that my brother did not touch one of the features of identity that I mentioned this morning? I want to repeat it. The Foreign Mission work is identical with the gospel work. They are one in object, as I showed you; and I went on to show that the principles and motives that actuated the Foreign Mission work actuated the gospel work. I want to call your attention to a little passage in Acts xxvi.18, which I read you this morning, about what Paul was sent to the Gentiles for. It was to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. It was to open the eyes of the blind, to deliver the Gentiles from the power of Satan.
Well, about this Church Board. My brother knows just as well as I do that the Boards are only representative bodies of the Church; that every denomination controls its own interest. And just here I will say, too, if my opponent will, find the Baptist Association in the Bible, or his Committees, I will show him the Board. Do you find the Baptist Association in the Bible, Brother Potter? You say it is scriptural, that it is in the Book. It is not there according to your interpretation of it. I say it is all right for you to have your Associations. I believe in that. I am only showing the absurdity of your position in demanding that the name shall be in the Book. Further than that, these Boards are controlled by the Church. They are commissioned by the denominations which they represent to look after this matter; to have charge of the whole field, and supply its needs. My brother, according to his argument, would never have progressed any. He would be wearing today the untanned hide, as worn by his barbarian fathers many centuries ago.
He makes a play on the word send. Now he said, if I understood him right, and I want him to correct me if I did not, that his brethren were really Foreign Mission men. (To Mr. Potter): How many missionaries have you? Suppose all had pursued your course, (pointing to the map), these stations would not have dotted Africa, Oceania, Japan, and all the heathen world, as shown on this map. You strike at us in regard to being unscriptural. Why, my brother, the Presbyterians and Episcopalians gave you your Bible. You would not have had it otherwise, for they translated it from the Greek and the Hebrew. So the work would be rather slim, wouldnt it, if your plan, my brother, had been carried out?
But he said his brethren were Foreign Mission men. He did not like that name, anti-mission. I dont blame him; I would not either, for that is rather an uncouth name. He said the commission was to go, not send; and every preacher should go. What a wonderful interpretation that was about ministers being the only ones that were sent! He forgot what Paul said in his letter to the Philippians, fourth chapter and third verse, Help those women which labored with me in the gospel, and how Aquila and Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly. A woman as a preacher! He does not believe in the women preaching. He said if I could show that the disciples on any occasion were sent out to the work, it would prove that the New Testament teaches that the Foreign Mission work of today is authorized in the Scriptures. In proof that the New Testament does teach this, let me call your attention again to that chapter he flees from, Acts xiii. i8: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
They sent them away, my brother; they sent them away. We can see, then, that they were sent away by the Church, filled with the Holy Spirit. Now, there is some Bible for you. Still I must follow him up. I was a little diverted, I must confess, at his idea of conversion. I hope he will stand to that. He said nobody would deny that there were good results coming from the Foreign Mission work. Why do you fight it then, my brother? Why dont you go into it? You have not a man in the field, and I do not suppose you have spent a dollar in itnot one.
But my brother said that away back yonder in Egypt, they enjoyed this civilization, and he read us a beautiful essay about how they went over and found the Greeks, and what a wonderful civilization they produced there. I want to propose a question to him, and I will risk this discussion upon it: Is our present civilization the result of Christianity, or not? I affirm it is. Whenever my brother denies it, I put him right down by the side of Ingersollright there. The Egyptian civilization and the Greek and Roman civilizations are just as opposite to our civilization as their religious systems are opposite to Christianity. I am surprised that a man who has preached as long as my brother, and who has studied as he has, should take such a position before this intelligent audience today,comparing the Foreign Mission work to Egyptian civilization! What was the Egyptian civilization? He dares not deny what I am saying here. That civilization was like the character of the gods they served. They worshiped every thing visible in the heavens above, on the land, and in the waters. Theirs was a material civilization, a civilization of material force. What were the Greek and Roman civilizations? They put all the stress upon government, and nothing upon the individual. The Greek believed he was born superior to others, and a Roman that he was born to rule others, and that he thereby had a right to wrest the power from the hands of those who rivaled him in progress. When Jesus came, in Greece and Rome there was no such thing known as home in the meaning the word has to us today. Mothers were unnatural. Children were taken care of by nurses, and men had as many wives as there were Senators in Rome. The civilization we have today, my friends, is the result of the gospel. The central idea of this Christian civilization Jesus gave to us. What was it? The dignity of man; his position in the universe, the grandeur of his origin, the greatness of his destiny. Man is created in the image of God. The brotherhood of mankind and the Fatherhood of God that is the central idea of it. Christianity, as he quoted to you today, transformed the nature, and consequently the lives, of these cruel and savage tribes, and also won the great philosophers of the first century. It was every thing that was good out of the art of the Greek world, and out of the Greek mythology, and unified it with the grand system of the facts and principles which it unveiled and extended to mankind. In their civilization they brought their gods down, and made them in the image of men; but Christianity lifted men up, and transformed them into the image of God. I wonder if he will attempt to defend the position he took in his forenoon speech, that the civilization produced by heathen culture was equal to the civilization produced today by the principles of the gospel?
I am going to make another statement, and it is this: that we today, with all we have, are the result of the Foreign Mission work. Maybe he will deny that. We are the result of this very missionary spirit. I will ask my brother this question: How were the Anglo-Saxons converted? He said today the apostles took the gospel to Britain. The gospel was taken to Britain from one hundred to two hundred years after the death of the apostles my brother. I want to say the Anglo-Saxons, our forefathers, were the greatest idolaters in history. They offered human sacrifices. What was it won the Scandinavian race to Christ? It was the missionary spirit. It was that spirit that was carried over the ocean by our pilgrim fathers in the Mayflower to Plymouth Rock, which caused the church and the schoolhouse to go up side by side in New England, the Attica of our great Republic. Thank God, it has also given us our true conception of womanhood and manhood. There was no such thing known as benevolent institutions until Christianity came. No such words as college and home were known. There was no such change in the character of society in the production of the civilizations of Egypt and Greece, to which my worthy opponent has referred, as that wrought by the gospel in Christianized countries, and by the Foreign Mission work in heathen lands today, radically changing man morally and spiritually by mere culture. The position my brother has taken, in placing these heathen civilizations on a par with the civilization of Christianity, is the very doctrine he preaches against in all of his teaching in regard to mans conduct in life. There is no changing mans life except by the regenerating power of the Spirit of God. I want to read you, right here, the result of the mission work in the Fiji Islands, as given in The Christian, in the department called The Armory, of March 1884, entitled Are Missions a Failure? Let those who hesitate about giving their hearty support to missionary work read and ponder upon the following from the pen of Gordon Cumming, in writing of the islands of the South Seas: Think of the sick buried alive (that is what they did before the gospel was taken there); the array of widows who were deliberately strangled on the death of any great man; the living victims who were buried beside every post of a chiefs new house, and must needs stand clasping it while the earth was gradually heaped over their devoted heads, or those who were bound hand and foot and laid on the ground to act as rollers when a chief launched a new canoe, and thus doomed to a death of excruciating agony; a time when there was no security for life or property, and no man knew how quickly his own hour or doom might come, when whole villages were depopulated simply to supply their neighbors with fresh meat. Think of all this, and of the change that has been wrought, and then imagine white men who can sneer at missionary work the way they do. Now you may pass from isle to isle, certain everywhere to find the same cordial reception by kindly men and women. Every village on the eighty inhabited isles has built for itself a tidy church and a house for its teacher or native minister, for whom the village also provides food and clothing. Can you realize that there are nine hundred Wesleyan churches in Fiji, at each one of which the frequent services are crowded with devoted congregations? that the schools are well attended? and the first sound which greets your ear at dawn and the last at night is that of hymn-singing and the most fervent worship rising from each dwelling at the hour of family prayer?
And yet, my brother says there is nothing in it. Is this human progression? It is a progression, as these South Sea Islanders showwho were barbarians, brutes, and cannibals; but the gospel in a few brief months has wrought this mighty change, by which it is proved that these men in Christ are new creatures, and that old things are passed away, and behold all things are become new.
A little touch on Japan. My brother told us when the missionaries went to Japan they found them an educated people. I will say to him that Japan got that wonderful school system he talks about since 1864, and that she took it from the school system of the United Slates. I will quote from the Homiletic Monthly for 1884, page 639, in order to show how the ports of Japan were opened, and how our Republic, in 1853, led the way:
Our Republic leads the way. In 1853 Commodore Perry sails into the Bay of Yeddo, spreads the star-spangled banner over the capstan and the open Bible upon the flag, and, without firing a gun or shedding a drop of blood, peaceably opens the ports of Japan to the world.
My opponent tells us there are only ten thousand native Christians in Japan. He is mistaken: but that is a great many to be saved. One soul is worth more than ten thousand such worlds as this. He admits that. He says we have no way to know about the mission-work in this wonderful Japan. We have no way to know; yet we get good reports from this country. I want to read you from Christlieb on Foreign Missions, who is a Professor of Bonn University: In 1859 and 1860 Japan was first entered by Protestant missionaries from America. (It has not been very long, has it? I will venture that during this time they have had more additions than my brother has had in his whole denomination). There was one ordained missionary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, three of the Presbyterian Board, and three of the Reformed Church of America. The work began with instruction in government and private, school-work, however; permission to give systematic religious teaching was not at that time granted; nor from 1859 to 1872 was the preaching of the gospel permitted in public., but only privately in houses. Still, from the schools the Christian leaven began to work. Then the Scottish and American Bible Societies began to send out agents. Chinese texts and tracts speedily found a wide circulation, large chests of them being sold within a few days.
Now, I wish you to see what has been done since the work began in 1872. During that year a week of prayer was held by missionaries of that country. They only had ten members, as well as I remember up to that time; but they had a week of prayer, and two or three Japanese students attended it, and they began to pray; and, as the sea captain said, they drew the very heart out of them as they prayed. The ministers had read to them about Pentecost, what power God had given to believers; and they prayed and prayed, and God heard and answered their prayers in the marvelous conversion of their countrymen. And now that grand empire of the rising sun is being lifted by the power of God up into the sweet presence of Jesus. Ten thousand, my brothera grand work in so short time in those heathen islands, meeting those deep-rooted prejudices and old religious beliefs of centuries growth. So much for Japan.
My brother took me to task on Cumberland Presbyterianism. I did not know but that the brethren had preferred charges against me. Here is our Confession of Faith of 1883, revised, my brother. That one you had looked pretty old. I will read you what it says in reference to the three classes saved without the gospelpage 34, section 54: All infants dying in infancy, and all persons who have never had the faculty of reason, are regenerated and saved.
I believe the heathen have the faculty of reason. About the heathen, he said I just scooped them right off, piled them into hell by the wholesale; and I seemed to see myself just running behind them and tumbling them over a precipice into the land of the lost. Now, suppose I talk about a town being degraded, I do not mean by that that every man, woman, and child in that town is degraded, but the great majority are. I have never taught in my life that every man, woman, and child in heathen lands will be lost. O no. Those that live up to the best light they have will be saved. But no idolater can be saved. My brother cannot deny that. God has to be first. I will read Romans i. 20 in proof of this: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. And in the 21st verse: Because that, when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Paul goes on in that same chapter and speaks of the wrath of God resting upon them. Also in the next chapter he speaks of their being a law unto themselves; Romans 2:12-14 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Now, you can see at once that those people that were degraded and bowed down were lost by the bulk. One more quotation from Romans. I will read from Romans x., commencing at the 14th verse: How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Now, I want to know if the apostle was not writing about taking the gospel to the very heathen world we are talking about at this time. And how shall they preach except they be sent? Sent, my brother; there comes the sending out again. How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace and bring glad tidings of good things! How beautiful it is! and whosoever believes upon the Lord shall be saved; there is the point; and he cannot call unless he knows what to call to.
MR. POTTERS SECOND SPEECH.
BRETHREN, MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
The first thing I want to notice is the mention of a missionary in foreign lands not supported by a mission board. I expect he was a Regular Baptist; we do not believe much in being supported by mission boards. Paul was that kind of a missionary, and I told you this morning I believed in that kind of a missionary. This man must have been a man of God; he gave good evidence that his heart was in the work. That is the kind of a missionary that I believe is sincere and has great reason to believe that God will bless him because God sends him. I wanted to get the name. The Rev. J. Hudson Taylor is its founder and director. Thirty-one years ago he went to China as the first noted Chinese missionary in London. He soon cast himself on the Lord for support. He got tired of the Foreign Mission board; did not support him well enough, and he cast himself upon the Lord. I am in favor of that kind of missionaries. Send a missionary out that will cast himself on the Lord, and the Lord will bless him. That is the kind Paul was. For his conscience would not allow him longer to receive aid from a society which frequently ran into debt. He had a better conscience than a great many modern missionaries. I am much obliged to you. Brother Yates. Perhaps the Lord is still calling men, like he did Paul; but there is no evidence of a call from the Lord in a man who goes out for a salary, and makes no sacrifices whatever.
I now wish to call your attention to one or two important things that Brother Yates mentioned this morning. In the first place, he refers to the success of the missionary work as an evidence that it is owned and blessed of God; I want to show you that if that is true, there are some people not embraced in the proposition that are abundantly owned and blessed of God. You remember the proposition says the denominations of the Protestant world; it does not embrace the Catholic world. I did not suppose that my opponent would own them, because they do not teach the truth; they teach Catholicism. I have a missionary paper called The Gospel in All Lands, published in the interests of a missionary organization in New York. On page 488 of this paper, published in the interest of the missionary Work, I have the following:
The Jesuits are mainly engaged in promoting the interests of the Church of Rome, especially in heathen lands. According to a review of the missionary work of the Society of Jesus, given in the Katholischen Missionem, the statistics are as follows:
1,174 members of that Order (673 priests, 174 scholastics, and 327 lay brethren) were laboring last year in 22 missions, in which are 1,275,881 Roman Catholics. These laborers were distributed over 2,500 stations. They held Divine service in 2,386 churches and chapels; conducted 2,271 schools, among which were 52 institutions for higher instruction, with 78,598 pupils, and maintained 72 orphan houses, with 10,426 children, and 19 hospitals. The number of children baptized was 61,480, of whom 35,398 were heathen children, and the number of conversions of adult heathen was 8,942. This statement does not include baptisms and. conversions in Armenia. Madagascar, Zambesi, and Egypt, of which no records have been received. To those should also be added 1,652 heretics converted in India, Jamaica, British Guiana, etc. It would swell the number of reported adult conversions to 10,594. Besides the missionaries enumerated above, there labored in the different mission fields, not as missionaries to the heathen, but as spiritual advisers or teachers, 980 priests, 758 scholastics, and 680 lay brethren, making in all 3,592 Jesuits engaged in missionary work of one kind or another.
That is what one denomination has done. It beats any thing I have ever heard yet from any three or four, or perhaps half a dozen, Protestant denominations. If success is to be taken as an evidence that God blesses the work, then the Roman. Catholics stand ahead of any other denomination on earth. They were the inventors of the Foreign Mission work in the start, and, if there is any credit to be given anybody for Foreign Mission work. The Catholic Church is entitled to it. The great mother of harlotswhore of Babylon invented the first Foreign Missionary Society that was ever invented. Is their success an evidence that God owns and blesses their work? Let Brother Yates tell; for he refers to success as an evidence that God owns and blesses the missionaries labors.
I drop that part of it now, until I hear from him on that subject. We want to know whether we are to take results as an evidence for or against the missionaries. The Catholics have done as much to educate, elevate, and lift up, and they have been as beneficial to the downtrodden, and ignorant, and benighted, as any other. Look at the orphans they are caring for and educating. Of course I believe their religion is all wrong; I have no use for it at all, and do not take it as an evidence that God is with them. Brother Yates does.
He then again stated this morningand I want to call attention to that, because I want every thing straight as we go along, and Brother Yates says he talks to me kindly, and I would not talk to him any other way, because you know I always claim to he very friendly, and I do not intend to try to wound his feelings or harrow them up. Perhaps I might do so, but I do not think it would be honorable or kind for me to do it. I am glad he feels kindly, and hope he will continue to do so until Saturday evening, he said the Foreign Mission work was not a denominational thing. Perhaps in one sense it may not be so. Perhaps all denominations on earth, except the true Church of Christ, are in it. The Catholics are in it, and all Protestant denominations are in it; and he thinks that is a proof that it is right, and that the question is settled. Although he said nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand are in favor of it, it is an unsettled question today. The argument that many believe in it does not make it right. Many people thought Jesus Christ was wrong when he was here; nearly everybody didnine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand. It was almost universally thought he was an impostor, a grand deceiver, when he was in the world; and according to that idea, those who opposed Christ were right because they were in the majority. The Foreign Missionary work is rightly named; it is foreign to the Scriptures. Public opinion may indorse it, but public opinion is not always right. The question itself is biblical. Do the Scriptures teach it? Do the Scriptures authorize it? What is the Bible worth more than last years almanac, only for what is in it? If the Scripture has authorized this Foreign Mission work, we ought all to believe in it; it ought to be settled; not only nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand ought to believe in it, but a thousand out of every thousand. I want to give you some missionary evidence on this point, from a paper published by the Missionary Baptists, one Protestant denomination embraced in Brother Yates proposition, the Baptist Missionary Magazine of September, 1885, on page 357. On European missions, the writer says:
The scope and aim of the missions in Europe are often misapprehended. It is sometimes thought that the only result of sustaining Baptist missions on the continent of Europe is to add another evangelizing agency among peoples who already have the gospel. This is only a partial representation of the case. Although the nations of continental Europe are nominally Christian, the established Churches are everywhere either sunken in superstition and bigotry or a dead formalism. That the Roman and Greek Churches are incapable of affording a saving gospel is too well known to admit of question; and we are building belief on the most trustworthy testimony, that the pulpits of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches arc occupied very generally by those who are themselves strangers to saving grace, and therefore cannot bring salvation to others. If the people of these nations are to be saved, it must be largely through outside means; and those countries are therefore as proper fields for the soul-saying work of missions as any lands in the world.
That is what the Missionary Baptists say. The Lutheran and Reformed Churches in Europe are as foreign from salvation as the heathen, they say. The Lutherans may have missionaries there, and God authorized them and sent them. The Reformed Churches and they are of the Presbyterian familyhave missionaries there, and God sends them and authorizes them. And then he authorizes the Missionary Baptists to send their missionaries there to convert again those Lutherans, and Congregationalists, and Reformed Churches. So one goes to reform another, and that in its turn must be reformed, and so on. Is that the work of the Lord? That is what the missionaries themselves say. I do not know much about it, only what they say, for the Bible never mentions it.
To show you that this is not an exception, I will read again from another work. I hold in my hand a little book entitled, The Great Commission and its Fulfillment by the Church. The great commission means: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations. Here is a missionary writing on that question and its fulfillment by the Church. On page 13 he starts out under the head of Denominational Propagandism: In how many towns in the Northern States are we striving to maintain feeble Baptist Churches, at great cost of money and more valuable ministerial labor, where the ground is more than fully occupied by strong Churches of other names! The object must bewell, denominational propagandism. In a recent number of the Home Mission Herald, a zealous Baptist home missionary frankly writes from Colorado: Our hardest field now is Pueblo, and simply because we are about two years behind the other denominations in occupying it. To raise the question in direct opposition to the general practice and the unchallenged policy of all denominations may seem foolish presumption, and yet I make bold to ask, What right has any steward of the gospel to devote his life or his money to proselytism in Christian communities, in the interest of his particular sect, While four-fifths of the whole race are absolutely unable to learn the first elements of saving truth for want of a teacher?
This writer says this propagandism; proselytism from one denomination to another is the general practice and unchallenged policy of all denominations. That is what a missionary says. Brother Yates, you can have those books, if you wish them. They are open for your inspection. I suppose since it is a missionary says so, Brother Yates will not call in question the evidence of a missionary.
We will take these denominations; of course, the Missionary Baptists think the doctrine of the Presbyterians is wrong, and they think the doctrine of the Congregationalists is wrong, and that of the Lutherans is wrong. Hence the Lord gets up a missionary society among the Presbyterians, and they go and convert the people; and after awhile the Lutherans come along, and they convert somebody; then the Congregationalists come along, and they convert somebody; and then the Lord sends a missionary in to convert them all over again, and there is a general round of converting going on, and the people paying for them. That is what the missionaries are doing. The majority of the missionaries of today are in the United States and Europe, where they admit themselves that the people are nominal Christians.
I now want to notice his proposition. He undertook to say what he would do, by making a proposition to me. I called on him, not for the words Foreign Mission, but for that or its implication. Do you know what he said? He said if I would shew him Regular Baptist, or Church Clerk, or Associations in the New Testament, he would find Foreign Mission. You do not believe I can do that, do you, Brother Yates? No, he dont. He says he dont. Neither does he believe he can find Foreign Mission there. Now, he can find one just as easily as the other, and proposes that if I will find one, then he will find the other. Is not that good? The proposition is given up. The proposition given up, we might go home. I have not challenged Brother Yates to prove that Regular Baptist occurs in the Bible, or that Associations were authorized by the Bible, nor Church Clerks, nor any thing of that kind. Neither are our brethren going to make a challenge. He has challenged to prove that the Scriptures authorize something that is as foreign to the Bible as Regular Baptist, or Church Association, and those things which he himself says he dont believe are there. See what a light he stands in before this people. The thing is given up. What is the use of talking about it any more? He admits himself it is not authorized in the Scriptures. I did not think I would get an admission out of him so soon. I had fixed for a weeks work, and it is done in less than a day. Not authorized in the Scriptures. That is all the issue there is between him and me on that question. That is what we are here for. God is not the author of it. That is what we are here for; he says it is not there. Ladies and gentlemen, you can just set down forever as a settled axiom that the Foreign Mission work is not authorized in the Scriptures, or else Brother Yates would not have yielded the point so soon. It is not there.
He then refers to Sauls case about opening the eyes of the blind. The question with us is not whether the gospel should be preached or not, nor whether it is right to go and preach; that is not the question with us. We have been preaching all our lives. Let me say more than that. He is not here to fight an opposition to the propagation of the gospel everywhere. There is no Regular Baptist that understands himself as a Baptist and opposes the spread of the gospel and education. None of us do that. We oppose the thing he has got in his proposition. That is what we oppose. And he has given us an evidence that God still calls men without it. We oppose it because it never was necessary. It was not necessary in the days of the apostles. We showed you from a missionary Writer this morning, who eloquently said, Paul the Apostle had no wealthy missionary organization at his back to support him. Now, that is the kind of a man he introduces. He must be a brother to Paul, but he is not a brother of these missionary workers that are backed up for wealthy missionary organizations.
Brother Yates says I am not progressive. Well, in worship, perhaps I am not. The God I am serving is an old-fashioned God, who never changes with the styles and customs. The Bible is very old, compared with myself and Brother Yates. It does not change. It has been written a long time. If it could be changed and swerved about, it might have had modern missions in it now, but it has not; it does not change.
He says, Is our present civilization the result of Christianity? I say yes; but it is not the result of the Foreign Mission work, as I intend to show before I am through. He says it is. I deny it, and it falls on him to prove it. We are not here to take each others word. This is a debate. We are men, and when we say any thing we ought to prove it.
I have a history that testifies that the gospel was preached in England by the apostles themselves. It is an ancient work; it is a little like that Confession of Faith that looks a little old. It is an old geography, that is published by a man by the name of Guthrie, and I expect that my father-in-law carried it to school with him when he was a little boy. It gives an account of the countries; and he was unbiased, because he was simply giving the histories of those countries.
No person denies the condition of the heathen, so far as that is concerned. It is bad enough; and the most eloquent and sympathetic part of his speech was to picture out the heathen, and draw a very deplorable picture of them. That is true; it is bad enough, as I showed you this morning from this same history I referred to. The Greeks anciently were so low down in the scale of civilization that the institution of marriage was long unknown to them. Their race was propagated by accidental connection, and the children had no way of knowing to whom they owed their birth. CecropsI suppose we might call him a kind of missionarywho was king of Egypt, went over and began to plant schools among these Greeks; and to him, and his institutions and colleges, all the wisdom, and all the philosophy, and all the oratory that the Greeks ever knew, were indebted. Did this missionary do them any good? Did it elevate them any? Plato, Aristotle, and all those great fellows, were the results of that institution that started upwards of fifteen hundred years, before Christ. He opposes that now. Did God authorize it? Is our free-school system in Indiana authorized in the Scriptures, because it has been productive of grand and glorious results? Certainly not. Is education in any country, authorized in the Scriptures, simply because it is a good thing?
He brings out their Confession of Faith. He says that my book that I had here this morning looks rather old. It is old. He brings up a new one of 1883revised? It does not read like it used to. Presbyterianism is not what it once was. It is revised. It was right, though, before, and right now. O what a thought! It was gospel; it was true; it was good; it was taught in the Scriptures, a few years ago. Now they have revised it, and it does not read like it did then. He is progressive. That is progression. The article he read did not read as the one I read this morning. What I read was Presbyterianism; what he read is the revision of it. That is the difference. I expect he will want to revise the Bible before he discusses Missionism again.
Then he says he dont mean to say that every man in the heathen lands is lost. He doesnt mean to say that. A great many of them are saved. Very well. Then the eternal destiny of millions does not hang on the gospel getting among them, as he said it did this morning. He said this morning the temporal and eternal destiny of millions hung upon the gospel getting there. Now he says a great many heathen will he saved. He is right one time or the other, no question about that, because he is getting upon both sides. A man getting on both sides has to be right; and Brother Yates will be right some time or otherthere is no question about that.
Referring to Romans i. 20, where it speaks of the heathen being without excuse, why were they? It says they had knowledge of God: The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. That should teach there is a God. Ought not the same thing teach to the heathen now that there is a God? Do they not have the sun, and moon and stars, to look at, and do they not have all nature to look at, just the same as the people anciently? And if it answered the purpose then, should it not answer the same purpose today with the people that are without the Bible or gospel? If it teaches them there is a God, it ought to teach them at the same time to have respect for that God. My idea is that where people think there is a God, and have an idea of his divine character, they ought to have some respect for him; and it is my idea that this is so; that nature unfolds a volume to the people wherever they live, that reads in more intelligent characters perhaps than the tongue of mortal could ever tell, that there is a God. David walked out, and he would look up and say: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. And Paul said the people that had that were without excuse; they had some way to know. Then the Bible and the ministry are not absolutely essential for the heathen to know there is a God.
Then in regard to Paul and Barnabas: you know they laid hands on them and sent them away. Did you think that Paul never took a trip before that, Brother Yates? He had been out on a missionary tour before that. I will read to you to show you that Paul had been out on a missionary tour before the time he speaks of Gal 1: 15-17: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his glace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathenthere is a preacher for the heathen immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. That is Bible missionism. He did not wait for any Missionary Board to send him, but immediately he went. He waited not to confer with flesh and blood; he went before any missionaries sent him. There was a missionary tour taken by the Apostle Paul before the hands were laid on him, as Brother Yates reads.
I was reading to you this morning about this apostle, from a modern missionary writer, that all he had to depend upon was the Commission and guidance of the Spirit of God. There was no telegraph agency, nor newspaper agency, to herald his coming; no Christian constituency to receive him, or church to accommodate those who might assemble to hear him; but he went alone; and when occasion required it he would work with his own hands, just like the missionary brother Yates has introduced. That missionary is more like Paul than any missionary I have heard of for a long time. He worked with his hands, and did not wait, but started immediately after the Lord called him. He did not wait for some Missionary Board to send him. He says: Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood did not even go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles, but went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. YATES: There is just one little question that I wish to have settled, that the people may understand the position. When Brother Potter concedes that there are conversions on the foreign field, he has lost the case. I have not indorsed the means as absolutely used, but the work itself on the foreign field. And he does not deny that the Rev. J. Hudson Taylor is a Protestant. That is the, point I want people to understand; and he has admitted that the Foreign Mission work performed by him and his co-laborers, and the fruits of The work that I presented this afternoon, were scriptural, according to his own theory. The question under discussion is not the means and measures, but the work itselfnot about Foreign Mission Boards, but the work itselfon the foreign field. It does not matter whether it is done by God himself altogether, or by the co-operation of human agency. He said in the first speech that we did not know as to conversions on the foreign field. He said the Rev. J. Hudson Taylor was a missionary after his own heart. Then I showed the gospel fruits of hi work. I brought the fruitnot the results as to num hersbut the fruit, in the transformation of character. Is it the question of the work itself? or is it the Board measures? If it is the work itself then let us discuss the work; if not then we should discuss whatever it is.
MR. POTTER: So far as the conversion is concerned, the term conversion does not occur in the proposition at all.
MR. YATES: Blessed and owned of God. That means the conversion or regeneration of the heathen through the Foreign Mission work, as evidenced in the lives of the native converts.
MR. POTTER: I do not know whether it does or not; you did not say so.
MR. YATES: If I speak of a Christian worker and minister being blessed and owned of God, do you not understand that to be the fruits of his labors, as seen in the lives of those who have been led to God, through his efforts, to accept Christ in the salvation of their souls?
MR. POTTER: A man may be blessed and owned of God in a great many ways.
MR. YATES: Brother Potter understands that clearly, as the meaning of blessed and owned of God. I want to ask him if he did not understand when he looked at the propositionif he did not understand me to say that it was the work of regeneration done among the heathen?
MR. POTTER: I did not, honestly; it never entered my mind. The word convert was not in it, nor regenerate; but he headed the challenge himself, Is the Foreign Mission work of God or of man? That is the issue. That is what I came, here to debate. Now he affirms the proposition that it is owned and blessed of God. Perhaps it would be as hard for him to prove that there has been a case of regeneration, as to prove any other question; and honestly, that did not enter in my mind in reading that proposition. There may be many ways in which the labors of man may be blessed, and doubtless are many ways in which it may be indicated that the Lord owns and blesses mans efforts.
MODERATOR: I will simply read the proposition, and each will put his own interpretation on it.
And the proposition was re-read by the Moderator.
MR. YATES THIRD SPEECH.
[Dr. Darby having been called away unavoidably the Rev. J. E. Jenkins acted as Moderator in his place for the day.]
MODERATORS AND CHRISTIAN FRIENDS:
I am glad to meet you this beautiful morning in the house of God, and to continue the discussion of the great subject stated in the proposition which has been read in your hearing:
Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign counties, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Scripture and blessed and owned of God.
I believe it as much as I believe in my existence; I believe it and affirm it with as much confidence and enthusiasm as I believe and affirm that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only Saviour of men, or that the Bible is the blessed word of God.
In his beautiful speech yesterday evening, in which he laughed over the points in which he was caught, my brother demanded certain things of me, which I will attend to this morning. I ask you to notice when he comes before you again, and see if he does not resort again to the laugh. He will tell you a little anecdote; I will commend him for that, but when you get cool and read these things, many of you will feel badly for him. I do not care how much you laugh, but I want to give you facts. We have to meet these things in the judgment. We are going to grapple closely this morning; we only did a little picket-firing yesterday.
My brother asks me to show a text speaking of Foreign Missions. O, he says, the Mission work is a good work; we are not here to oppose that work. It is, my brother? Where do the good things come from? There are only two sources. God is author of all good things; then, all good things are blessed and owned of God; therefore the Foreign Mission work being a good work, as admitted by my opponent, is authorized, and blessed, and owned of God. Every good and perfect gift comes from above. The others are of Satan. Now look at the logic of my brother! When he asked me to find Foreign Missions named in the Bible, I told him I would find it on the next page after the one on which he would find Regular Baptist. Then he said, He owns he cannot find it, and has lost the proposition. He almost frightened me yesterday morning when he said, Remember, you have got six days before you. I will remember it. He well knew his denomination was gone when he took the position that Foreign Missions are of man and not of God on any fair interpretation of the Scriptures; therefore he asked me to give him a text speaking of Foreign Missions. This is only a quibble; but when he goes farther, and says he wants me to give him a text where the approval of Foreign Mission work is implied, I will gratify him with several; and I want him to look at these texts, this morning. I will turn to that one he touches so lightly Acts xxvi. 1718: Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send theeis not that the rest of the word? To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to lightmy brother said yesterday evening that they did not need to have their eyes opened, that the Lord was revealed to them in nature and from the power of Satan unto God; that they may receive forgiveness of sins. Sins! and yet my brother teaches a doctrine that man has no agency in salvation. I want him to come out today and tell us about that. And inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. That is the way the heathen are saved; they are sanctified by faith that is in me. Rather a good mission text, my brother.
Matthew xxviii. 19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Go ye into all the world and teach the gospel; that is it. To all nationsthat is, to all people. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Is not that mission work?
Romans i. 1315. We will stick to the Book. When I catch him in the Book, he runs out and says God saves without the Book; then he says I do not stick to the Book; and I go back to the Book again, and he is out of the Book. I go with him into nature, and he goes back to the Book again. It reminds me of an advertisement I read once over the door of a place of business, which said: There are all kinds of turning and twisting done here. That was their business; it seems to be the main business of my worthy opponent in this discussion. Now I will read the reference I gave: Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (but was let hitherto), that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbariansmy brother does believe as Paul did, that he is a debtor to the heathen world; he has no mission in the Foreign Field both to the wise and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. He was a debtor; he was under obligation to preach this gospel wherever there were benighted minds; wherever there were sad hearts; wherever there were people that had not this wonderful revelation of Jesus; to preach the gospel, the glad tidings of salvation. He was under obligation to use all the means within his power to take, the gospel to them. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation but my brother does not believe it is in every case to every one that behieveth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. I will turn back now to the lxxii. Psalm, 16th verse: There shall be a hand full of corn in the earth upon the top of, the mountains: the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon: and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. Mountains, when employed symbolically in the Scriptures, usually represent kingdoms. Hence the mountains, in the prophecy quoted, represent the kingdoms of the world in all future generations. That this prophecy is descriptive of the planting, propagation, and the grand results of the gospel, is clearly taught by the Saviour himself; for he employs the planting of wheat in the earth to picture the planting of the Word of God in the souls of men. This will be apparent if we examine the Saviours teachings in Matthew xiii. 39: And he spake many things unto them in parables, spying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; and when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up; some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was up they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them; but other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty-fold, some thirty-fold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. In the 18th to the 23rd verses, inclusive, the meaning of this parable is explained by the Master. Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the wayside. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for awhile: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that receiveth seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
Thus we see that the Saviours teaching in this parable corroborates my interpretation of the passage quoted from the 72d Psalmthat the handful of corn planted in the earth on the top of the mountains is a prophetic description of the planting and propagation of the gospel, and hence it is an exact description of the Foreign Mission work of today, both in its object and its fruitfulness. Is not the object of the Foreign Mission work the planting and propagation of the gospel in all the kingdoms and among all the people of the earth? Do not the fruits of this work today shake like the mighty cedars of Lebanon in all the kingdoms and countries of the world? He was telling us yesterday that we damned all the heathen, that we cast them wholesale into the land of the lost. He said, I object to this doctrine because it is contrary to Gods Word. That they are all going to hell unless they get the Bible, is the plea that gets your half-dollar from your pocket for the Mission Work. Now, he said I was on both sides of the question. How sweetly he said it! And he got a laugh. You noticed one thinghow nicely he kept away from that proof-text that I gave him. I want to quote it again this morning, and let him take hold of it. Romans 1. 20. And there is anotherRomans ii, commencing with the 11th verse:
For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.---that is, those who have sinned in the Hebrew theocracy shall be judged by its code. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Then he says: For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. He teaches that the Gentiles who did not have a formal revelation of the divine law, like that of the Hebrews would be judged by the light they had. Though unlike in form, the light they had was the same in essence as the principles of the Hebrew revelation. For truth is a unity. Hence they must obey the light they had to be saved. That would be doing the things contained in the law. So it is in the heathen lands today, where the gospel has not been proclaimed. What is the Bible in its facts and principles? It is the counterpart of mans nature, a revelation of God to manthe one in whose image he was created, and of the principles, of his nature, and how he can learn and obey them, and thereby become godlike. In the constitution of things man cannot be savedI speak it reverentlywithout he is saved in accordance with Gods spiritual and moral government as revealed and recorded in his Word, having not the law, having not the ritual when they comply with these principles, then they are saved.
They [the heathen] are without excuse (Rom. i. 20). I want you to, listen to his fine comment. Why? asks Brother Potter, were they without excuse? They had Nature that should teach there is a God. Does not the same thing teach the heathen now? If it answered the purpose then, why not now? My idea is, that when people think there is a God, and have an idea of his character, they ought to have some respect for him. Ought to treat him kindly, you knownot use his name in vain. And it is my idea that it is so, he said; that Nature unfolds a volume to the people wherever they live. Paul said the people that had that were without excuse, as they had some way, to know. Then the Bible and the ministry are not absolutely essential for the heathen to know that there is a God. Brother Potter and Paul are squarely at issue. Why did Paul say they were without excuse? Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God. But Brother Potter says it is his opinion that if the heathen know God they will respect him. I want him and Paul to fix that up. Neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Now my brother, I call your attention to that. I want you to answer that argument. So much for that.
I will give you another proof-text for Foreign Missions. The Book is full of them; I would have to take up all my time in quoting them if I quoted all. Revelation xiv. 6. This book of Revelation is a perfect prophetic description of the grand history of the Churchher triumphs, her agencies, and her means. The quotation reads as follows: And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the, everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.
Now I want to read you one of his objections to Foreign Missions. I desire him to answer a few questions this morning. He says: There is one objection I have always had to this plea for Foreign Missions that they preach the universal damnation of all the people where there is no Bible. Now, I say we do not preach that. I have given you frankly my views in regard to the salvation of the heathen. If they live up to the best light they have, they will be saved. If so, few of the great multitude in gospel lands comply with the principles of salvation, how fearfully less will be the number in heathen lands who will live up to the light they have, with the terrible pressure of the darkness of sin and corruption around them, when the light they have is no more in contrast with the light of the gospel lands than the light of the glow-worm is in comparison with the light of the noonday sun in his dazzling splendor. I will say this to you that no man who is an idolater is saved; no being is saved who worships something else instead of God. I want my worthy opponent to affirm that persons are saved who pay homage to some object or creature instead of the Lord, if he believes it. I defy any minister to show in Gods word any idolater who was saved. In the Mosaic Law the penalty of idolatry was death.
I object, says he, to that doctrine because it is contrary to Gods Word. Where does he get it in Gods Word that the heathen are saved without some truth at least? Truth is a unity in God. It is the plea, he says, that gets your half-dollar from your pocket. He tells us that these schools and colleges lifting up the people out of that bad state are a good thing, but that the plea that gets your half-dollar from your pocket for mission-work is that the heathen are going to hell unless they get the Bible. Where would we have had any of these good results if we had taken your position? (pointing to the map). There would not have been a mission in all those heathen lands. You said Mr. Taylor was a Regular Baptist. You would not take him into your Church today. He is a Protestant, and he is not a Regular Baptist in the sense you use it at all, my brother. I can take every Regular Baptist by the hand that takes the position of Taylor, of the Chinese Inland Mission. You would not take him into your Church. You would not receive any missionary unless he would submit to be rebaptized. The real fact is, Brother Potter does not believe I am called to preach. He does not believe any man is called to preach unless he belongs to the Regular Baptist Church. For my worthy opponent to accept a minister of the gospel as scripturally ordained and set apart to the work he must be dipped backward, ordained by the voice of his Church, which, he claims, has an unbroken line of ordained ministers clear back to the Pentecostal revival at Jerusalem.
You remember when he challenged me yesterday to show a missionary on the foreign field that supported himself by his own hands, as he claimed Paul did, and when I produced the Rev. J. Hudson Taylor and his co-laborers of the China Inland Mission, with the wonderful fruits of their work as missionaries of this class, he saw he was caught, and undertook the ridiculous dodge of claiming the Rev. J. Hudson Taylor as a Regular Baptist. How absurd for a man occupying the position he does on this occasion toward the Foreign Mission work to claim such an enthusiastic worker for the mission cause as Mr. Taylor! But he was completely nonplussed, and this was the best he could do to relieve himself of the embarrassment of the terrible dilemma into which he was thrown.
I want to say another thinghe has not argued to the questions he knows that. I read you yesterday morning the change he wanted to make in the proposition. He wanted me to affirm that all the measures and means employed in Foreign Mission work are prescribed in the Scriptures, and I would not do it. It is the Foreign Mission work itself we are to discuss. I asked him last night, before this congregation, if the wording of the proposition did not mean; and if he did not understand the expression blessed and owned of God to mean, the work of spiritual regeneration among the heathen, as evidenced in the fruits of the Foreign Mission work. He said, No; man might be blessed in other ways. And when I pressed him to know in what other ways, he said; It is not of God, for the free-school system of Indiana is a good thing, but it is of man; and not of God. Did he suppose when I wrote that proposition I wrote it in view of only of the temporal blessings of man? This supposition seems not to have entered his mind until he saw where he would be caught. He has to say now that very one of these men who are laboring, or have labored, in foreign fields, are self-deceived or hypocrites. He has to say this of men who are acknowledged by all who are conversant with their lives to be the grandest men on earth. He has to say it of Judson, who did so noble a work for India, who stood at the head of Christian civilization in that land, who acted as mediating ambassador in the war between the English Government and the Burmese, writing the treaty, while suffering in a prison in Burma, that brought about peace, thus opening the way for missionary operations, and securing protection to the missionaries throughout India. He has to say that Duff and Moffatt, and all those grand men and womenand some whose bones bleach today on the foreign fieldswere either self-deceived or hypocrites, and he cannot do it. Outside of that he has to show that these men and women are not competent judges; they are liars, so to speak! They are giving figures, and are not competent to judge whether men are truly converted or not. They are not competent to judge the tree by the fruit it bears. Ah, my friends, he has something on his hands in this business, and it is a serious business. I will leave it with him to fix that.
I want to know of him today if as many heathen will be saved without the Bible as with it? Put that down, if you please, my brother. I want to know if Brother Potter does not believe that as many heathen will be saved in all these islands (pointing to the map), before the gospel reaches them as there will be when it does reach them? Will any man or woman be lost because the word of God has not been taken to them? I may be mistaken, but I think Brother Potter saves them all before they were born, away back in eternity. I believe Brother Potter teaches the doctrineif I am wrong he will correct methat God chose before the foundation of the world all of his elect, and the number is so definite that it can not be increased or decreased. It does not matter who or what you are, in Gods own time he will save you. You are dead; you cannot do any thing; God has to do it all, and no man can be saved without he is elected. This is his idea of heathenism. Of course their condition would not touch his heart.
Well, he says, you have the glowing colors on the map, but you do not know whether there are ten million or one thousand Christians there. We will see, by and by. Brother Potter spoke of the Roman Catholics, and said, Brother Yates is arguing from results. Now he said, If numbers are to be taken the Roman Catholics have greater evidence that God blesses and, owns their mission work than the Protestants. That is what he said. I did not put numbers, absolutely, as evidence that the Foreign Mission work was owned and blessed of God. I showed that these men and women working in the cause of Foreign Missions are equal to others in piety, in earnestness, in consecration, and in intelligence, and certainly equal to my brother and myself. He says, Brother Yates tells us what they have done and how much they have done, and if numbers prove any thing, they would prove the Catholics are more greatly, blessed and owned of God in their mission work than the Protestants. Now, I am deflecting from the subject, because we are not discussing catholic mission work, but Protestant missions. Brother Potter has to go outside, because it will give him some material. But by your permission I will answer this further on in my speech. There are some good Catholics. He called them the mother of harlots, and all that. I am not a Catholic. I think I am as far from that as he is.
To get out of the dilemma I put him in on the nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand believing in Foreign Missions, he compared us to Christ-killers, and said Jesus belonged to the small party. He loves us, though. We are elected; born of the Lord; are converted; we are elected; and yet we are Christ-killers all of us that are Foreign Mission men. He takes the Baptist Missionary Magazine, published by one of his Baptist brethren who went off when Judson turned to be a Baptist missionary; he distorts its language, and aims to array it against the cause it advocates. He ought to be thankful to the Missionary Baptist Church, for it has furnished him with all of his material to fill up his time here. But the Regular Baptists do not believe in working for money; no sir; it is against their doctrine of election. They do not believe in sending missionaries to save the heathen, and they do not do it either. I do not believe that this mission man that wrote in that magazine was ever in the Foreign Mission field at all. He may have been, but if he was he was a bad missionary. If he denies it, I have Vameters statementa Missionary Baptist preacher and a missionary to Rome. He said in regard to advancing the Christian religion there, I believe in saving souls first for Christ, and then if they wont come and go with us, let them go where they will. And then when he left for the United States, ministers of the Pedo-Baptist denominations that were working there in Rome, filled his pulpit in his absence. And Brother Potter said, Why do the missionaries go among the Protestants of other denominations? Here one missionary will go and work, and they will get to hair-pulling, and another missionary will go there to fix it. I would like for him to prove that.
He spoke of the Reformed Churches of Europe, whose religion was empty and Christless, and said they were Presbyterians; but he is mistaken. They are a certain kind of Lutherans. Maybe he will deny that. Now about the Roman Catholics: I want to ask you, my brother, do you put these Methodists, and all the Baptists, and the Presbyterians, and the Church of England, on the same basis with the Catholics? Do we receive members the same way they do? Do not Catholics merely sprinkle holy water upon them in receiving them as converts, and have them do penance for their sins? Do we believe such a doctrine? Dont we believe just as much in the new birth and conversion as you? Are not these converts from heathenism examined under as strong a test as any candidate for church-membership in your Church, or any other? And yet Brother Potter stood up in the face of these men and women here, and compared us in our work with the Catholics. Now I will leave that for you to decide. We are both ministers. I want him to explain that.
I want to ask him further in regard to his objections to the way the Foreign Mission work is carried on. He speaks of men being sent out by a rich Board. He said that was no sign, no evidence, of their being called of God. Did I claim that? Did I not show yesterday morning, in carrying out the features of identity, how they were called by the Spirit of God? how they prayed? how they were examined? how this Foreign Mission work was begotten by the Spirit of the Living God? Did I not tell you how the Warwick Association, in 1792, gathered its churches together, and set apart a day out of each month for a monthly concert of prayer; and how the bugle-note of Jonathan Edwards sounded over the seas; how on both sides of the seas the Christian Church on their knees besought God to baptize the Christian world with the missionary spirit, and open up the way of entrance to the heathen world? Brother Potter has never noticed it. And I showed how Carey went out from England, after praying and laboring some eight or ten years, and how the great field of labor was opened up to him in India, and the indications of the Divine guidance and favor given him in the glorious results that crowned his efforts. My opponent is not interested in these items.
Now, about the Roman Catholics. There is a quotation I will give you from Professor Christlieb, of Bonn University, in Germany. Here is what he says about the Catholic and Protestant Foreign Mission work:
Eighty years ago the total sum contributed for Protestant missions hardly amounted to 50,000. Now the amount raised for this object is from 1,2000,000 to 1,250,000; about five times as much as that of the whole Roman Propaganda. The Foreign Missions of Protestantism, page 18. Five times as much as that of the Roman Catholics, whose numbers are more than double ours. They number two hundred and five millions! and you must remember that every one of their members have to contribute liberally of their means for this as well as for any other Catholic enterprise. This Protestant world contributes for Foreign Missions about five times as much as this Roman Catholic Propaganda, or the annual amount contributed by the Catholic world for missions. That is the fund to which all money for missionary purposes in the Roman Catholic Church is contributed. Though the Protestants use their own liberty in contributing to the mission cause, and not more than one-tenth contribute to it, yet they give five times as much as the Roman Catholics. So much for your Roman Catholic work.
But I must attend to Paul; we have been talking about Paul, and I do not know of any better worker than Paul to talk about. We will turn to that proof text.
Brother Potter said, Brother Yates, you did not know that Paul engaged in a missionary tour before he was sent out. This chapter xiii. of Acts is troubling him, and he went to Galatians, and I will read the same. I love to read that. I and going to stand with you, my brother, on Gal. 1:15-17: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Brother Potter said he was preaching there. Where did he get that in the Scripture? Brother Potter, where did you find that passage, if you please? You are going to the Book; where did you get the idea that he preached in Arabia? I could not find it. If you can find it, my brother, you will do me a great service. I want it. I say emphatically it is not there. I am with the Book with you today, my brother. We are on the Book. Called from his mothers womb; set apart. I suppose we all understand that. Paul, like the prophet, in his inborn constitution was fitted to be an apostle, and the grace accepted by him only set him apart and prepared him for the sphere of service to which he was adapted.
We will turn now to an author who is a pretty good man. Let us refer to Canon Farrars Life and Epistles of St. Paul, page i m6, and see what he, one of the most scholarly of men, has said. My brother will call up one man and not name him: he will take the Missionary Magazine, and read from it, and say, Here it isI have it; and when I take up a book to read to you, he says, No sir; you have to go to the Book the Bible. But you have commenced the business of referring to other books, my brother, and I am going to help you. Now I will read the quotation I spoke of:
No one, I think, who reads this passage attentively can deny that it gives the impression of an intentional retirement from human intercourse. A multitude of writers have assumed that St. Paul first preached at Damascus, then retired to Arabia, and then returned with increased zeal and power to preach in Damascus once more. Not only is St. Pauls, own language unfavorable to such a view, but it seems to exclude it. What would all psychological constructions lead us to think likely in the case of one circumstanced as Saul of Tarsus was after his sudden and strange conversion? The least likely coursethe one which would place him at the greatest distance from all deep and earnest spirits who have passed through a similar crisiswould be for him to have plunged at once into the arena of controversy, and to have passed without pause or breathing space, from the position of a leading persecutor to that of a prominent champion. In the case of men of shallow nature or superficial convictions, such a proceeding is possible, but we cannot imagine it of St. Paul.
Now this which i have quoted is a mere matter of opinion; but my brother gave his opinion as a fact of Scriptureas a scriptural fact. If he had said it was his opinion, I would have let it go, but I did not want him to quote a thing as Scripture for which he had not a thus saith the Lord. But suppose my brothers position is correctwhat does he mean? It would injure his denomination. Does he claim that a minister is authorized to preach in his Church without being ordained? Do you accept the ordinances from such hands? None of us deny that Paul was called from heaven, and that was what he meant. He need not consult with flesh and blood. None of us deny that he was conscious of his call; and so is every man who is called. The Church is the temple of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit. And why should he be sent forth? What is the Divine design in it? It is that the Church may stand behind him, and that he may be a workera representative worker.
Now let me read again what I have already quoted, and I must hasten. Acts xiii. 13: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. There is where they were sent to the Foreign Mission workright there. He will tell you, though, when he gets up.
But we have got another little matter. He said if foreign missionaries were all like Paulif they would go out and labor with their own hands, and look after their own self-supportthey would be the Foreign Mission men for him. He and Paul get into conflict again. I will read now i Cor. iv. ii, 12: Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and labor, working with our own hands; being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it. He says he was buffeted, and had no certain dwelling-place, and labored with his own hands. Turn now to Acts xx. 33, 34: I have coveted no mans silver, or gold, or apparel I do not suppose any Christian minister does: I read this to show where Paul was when he did this work with his own hands. To continue: Yea, ye yourselves knowspeaking to the elders and ministers from Ephesus at Miletus that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. He supported others while he was at Ephesus. We will now turn to 2 Cor. xi. 79, and see what Paul says about the Foreign Mission, work. I want you to listen to this now: Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? He said he had abased himself. Have I. committed an offense in doing it? he asks. I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. He was sent and paid for it, wasnt he? He speaks of wages. And when I was present with you and wanted, I was chargeable to no man. The gospel was first with him. He was chargeable to no man. That is the reason he worked with his hands, so that his acts might not be misinterpreted. Paul, how were you supported? This brother does not believe in supporting a man that way. But Brother Potter says you are his man. Let us see how that is. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man, for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied; and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. That is pretty good Foreign Mission doctrine. I am ready with him on that. Now 2 Cor. xii. 13: For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? They were inferior in not supporting their minister, and other churches had it to do; and Paul adds, Forgive me this wrong.
I must spend a few moments on the question why the gospel should be sent to the heathen. I want you to listen to it, brethren. Let me state the object of Foreign Missions again. The object of the Foreign Mission work is to get the knowledge of God through Christ to the heathen. That is it. Take the gospel, and go with it, and preach it to every creature. And my brother says that revelation is not absolutely necessary; but the Lord said it was. You see they differ. Jesus said preach it, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. My brother, what are they saved from? If they are saved before the gospel is sent to them, what is salvation? What are they saved from and saved to? The Lord said it was important, and hence he commanded that the gospel be preached to every creature.
We will go the Book again. 2 Cor. iv. 6: For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It is God presenting to them this Saviourbringing him before them. How can he preach unless he be sent? and how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard? We are giving them the Biblethis blessed book.
Now, I want to show you what has been done. In 1883 it was estimated that the number of mission schools exceeded 12,000 in these countries you see here on this map, and that the Biblethis Book my brother is such a stickler for, though he will not do any thing to send it to the heathenthat this Bible had been translated into 308 languages and dialects, while its circulation during the eighty years preceding had reached an aggregate of 148,000,000 copies, and within the time designated the annual contributions for missions increased from $250,000 to $6,000,000. In the beginning of this century there were but 50 languages into which the Bible had made its way in 3,300 years. Since 1800 it has created 70 languages in which to carry its inspirationthis missionary work hasand has enriched in all nearly 300 languages with 15,000,000 copies of the Bible. O this blessed Book! This precious Book!
A little touch on his civilization. As my time is going, I will just notice one point in that. He has been telling us about Cecrops, the founder of Greece. That was very pretty; but that was legendary, my brother. The trouble with Brother Potter is, he has been quoting from Guthries Geography. He made a mistake on that. I think I will bring him over an almanac this afternoon. Though Solon was not the founder of Athens, yet was he the great legislator and statesman who laid the stable foundations of the glory and prosperity of Athens. It was he who gave Athens her great institutions and her culture. There it is in that book (referring to Johnsons Encyclopedia lying on the table, Vol. II. page 313). Then he described how they went up from that beastly state. I will not use his language.
Here is Peabodys Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity, entitled Christianity and Science. He dare not reject him. He is one of the most learned men in Christendom. On page 197, speaking of Greece; we have the following: The primitive power of life and death over the child, though not legally repealed, had fallen into disuse (that was in the days of Jesus), in consequence less of growing refinement than of the massing powers that had been distributed into the more and more autocratic sway of the emperor; yet still there seems to have been not a little of tolerated, not legalized, infanticide in the case of feeble or sickly children, and of those whom it was inconvenient to bring upa license claimed by Plato, sanctioned by Aristotle, and, so far as I know, accepted without contradiction in all classic antiquity. They killed their children, then, in this beautiful civilization he speaks of being developed by culture. A beautiful civilization that, is without the gospel! So much for our civilization.
Now in regard to the fruits of the work, I will go to McKenzie, the great historian. I quote from his History of the Nineteenth Century, page 210. This writer was not a preacher, my brother, but he is one of the greatest historians of today. Well, says my brother, you cannot read that, you have got to keep to the Book. Upon what testimony do you take a member into the Church, my brother? Is not the evidence you demand the fruits of his inner life? We have it in the Book here:
You shall know them by their fruits you shall know them by the quality of their renewed life in Christ Jesus. Paul tells us how it was with the Ephesians. I will quote what he says before I read from McKenzie. Somehow I cannot keep out of this Book. Ephesians ii. 25: Wherein in the time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together. and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Paul was here contrasting the former state of the Ephesians with their latter statecontrasting their state in sin before they embraced the gospel with their condition after they had become Christians. That is just why he went into the heathen lands; it was that this wonderful change in character and society might be brought about. Suppose an individual is arguing with me that Christianity is a failure, because it does not produce the fruits in the hearts and lives of men which it claims to produce when properly received; suppose I can point to a bad community that has been given up to vice and crime, and all manner of sin; suppose a minister has gone down there and held a meeting, and good results have followed. They have built a church; a church-spire now gleams there in the sunlight; men have become decent and respectable, devoted fathers, husbands and brothers; the women have become loving and faithful wives, womanly women. Those lately given up to vice have become Christian men and women; they love the Lord Jesus with all their hearts, and love Gods work; the voice of prayer is heard in the family; they love to speak and sing for Jesus. Would not that be an evidence that God had done work there? That is just the way it is in the heathen land. These are precisely the results that have followed the teaching and preaching of the gospel to the heathen by the missionaries. Now I will read the quotation from McKenzie:
During the first quarter of the century all the great missionary societies of Europe and America were formed, and missionary work was organized into a system. The Churches fairly committed themselves to an undertaking from which they cannot desist until heathenism is extirpated. Colleges were established for the training of missionaries. A vast network of auxiliaries for the collection of funds overspread Protestant Christendom. The Bible was translated into many languages hitherto unwritten. Grammars and dictionaries presented to the learner the simple structure of these rude tongues. Teachers of the gospel were to be found here and there in heathen lands, facing with heroic courage the dangers of the Christian pioneer, hearing with heroic fortitude his inevitable and often fatal hardships. Among the snows of Labrador, under the fierce heat of the tropics, in our Indian dominions, among the Hottentots at the Cape, in the islands of the Pacific, among our own negroes in the West Indies, men had begun in simple faith, with means conspicuously inadequate, the gigantic work of driving out heathenism and replacing it with Christianity. A little later China was entered by the door, which England opened in her determination to force the use of opium on that empire. A few missionaries found their way into Japan. Dotted along the western shores of Africa, and seeking their way into the interior, are numerous mission stations, each the center of a benign influence, which is steadily extending its power, and preparing the restoration of that lost continent to civilization and progress. The sum of these efforts, viewed in relation to the vast proportions of the undertaking, is still inconsiderable. Great Britain sends out one thousand missionaries, and expends annually six hundred thousand pounds. The Continental Churches employ four hundred missionaries at a cost of a hundred and twenty thousand pounds. America contributes five hundred and fifty men and three hundred thousand pounds. In all, there are now at work in heathen countries two thousand Protestant missionaries, and the Churches sustain the work by an annual contribution of about one million sterling.
These attempts to Christianize the world have been progress for upward of half a century. There is yet no more than time to open an enterprise so vast; but already there are materials from which it is possible to estimate the prospects of the missionary enterprise, and the grandeur of the results which its success must yield the gains which have been in some instances secured may be trusted to guide us in forming our expectations for the future.
This man says they faced with heroic courage the dangers of the Christian pioneer, bearing with heroic fortitude his inevitable and often fatal hardships; and my brother wants to know if there were any martyrs among the missionaries. I will just read on, for this is as good as any thing I can give you. Commencing on the next page, 211, I will read a few minutes on this, and then mix in a little from the Bible:
In the Southern Pacific, not far from the equator, he the Sandwich Islands, members of a vast insular family which stretches five thousand miles from north to south. The existence of these islands was made known to Europe by Captain Cook, who himself perished here, murdered by the natives. This was in 1778. Now look at the change. This is not a Cumberland Presbyterian preacher saying this. Every advantage of soil and climate has been bestowed upon them. (There is your Natures God). The grove of bread-fruit trees around the village is itself a sufficient maintenance for the population. The cocoanut tree yields food and drink. Its bark can be converted into clothing; from its leaves the natives manufacture baskets and fishing-lines, and obtain thatch for their houses. The sugar cane, the cotton and the coffee-plants grow almost without human care. Many trees yield valuable dyes and gums. Fish swarm on the coasts. Nature in her most bounteous mood has profusely endowed these lovely islands with the elements of material welfare. But the inhabitants had sunk to the lowest depth of degradation. They fed on raw fish and the flesh of dogs. They had found among the products of their soil a narcotic root which readily produced intoxication, and they used it to excess. Human sacrifices were frequent. The family relation was unknown. Lasciviousness was without limit or restraint of shame. Two-thirds of the children born were strangled or buried alive by their parents. So given to stealing were the natives that expert divers endangered Captain Cooks ship by carrying off nails which fastened the sheathing to the timbers. The population was rapidly diminishing under the wasting influence of the vice which prevailed. Then he goes on to tell the result. He says that missionaries went there, and their influence steadily increased. In a few years the observance of the Sabhath was enjoined by law, applications for baptism were received, and one of the great chiefs, an old man who had spent his days in war, died professing Christianity. Gradually, as the missionaries were reinforced from home, churches and schools were built, and the whole population was under the influence of Christian teaching. In the course of years the Christian marriage was adopted, a temperance society was formed, and one-third of the people were attending school.
Christianity made its way steadily until, in twenty years, it had become the accepted faith of the nation. The deeply ingrained vices of the old days were hard to conquer, and many disappointing falls grieved the missionaries. But upon the whole the progress in virtue kept pace with the progress in faith. The people became quiet, orderly, and industrious. From among themselves an adequate number of young men were trained for the ministry. It was deemed that the Sandwich Islands had ceased to be a field for missionary operations. The nation was Christianized. The native Church afforded men enough for her service, and means enough for their support. Fifty years from its opening the mission was closed. Those islands today are baptized in the sunlight of heaven.
MR. POTTERS THIRD SPEECH.
BRETHREN, MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
It becomes necessary for me to notice some things in the speech that has just been delivered. The Bible says in one place that, the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and I was just thinking that if Brother Yates had a good speech written off by somebody else besides himself, he would be a splendid hand to deliver it. However, I do not want to incur a laugh on Brother Yates, for he does not relish that very much.
MR. YATES: I enjoy it if it does you good.
MR. POTTER: I never call on people to laugh. They will have to laugh of themselves, or refrain, as they see fit.
MR. YATES: That is right.
MR. POTTER: If Brother Yates, as a debater, causes people to laugh, I cannot help it; I am not responsible for it. I want to notice a few items in the speech we have just heard.
To begin with he refers again to Acts xxvi. 17, where the apostle was addressed by our Saviour and called to preach to the heathen; and, if you will remember, his own quotation represents the Lord as talking to Saul of Tarsus; it does not represent the Church as talking to him or any one else, but the God of Heaven. He points out a field where he intends him to preach: Into that country where I [the Lord] now send thee. Remember that Brother Yates said yesterday, and I call on him to know why he said ithe has forgotten it, I presumethat the commission was given to the Church through the apostles. The only text he noticed in proof of that question was that the ministry was called and separated unto the Lordseparate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them they sent them away. I admit that the commission is given to the ministry; the ministry was the men that laid hands on Saul and Barnabas. The Lord had called them to work. I do not object to any thing of that kind. I am not here to oppose the spread of the gospel. That is not the issue between Brother Yates and myself. I am not here to say that Peter, Saul, or Barnabas, or any other man, then or now, is doing wrong to go forth and preach the gospel in obedience to the commission. The work known today as the Foreign Mission is the work we are discussing. We have come here to discuss that.
He then says he will give a text, and gives the commission again, the very thing he gave yesterday: I referred to the commission yesterday and showed that it was given to the eleven. He has not referred to that; he has not disputed or questioned that. It stands today just as I left it the other morning in my first speech. I called on him to tell us, if the commission is delivered to the Church through the apostles, what the pronoun ye has for its antecedent in this commission, he has forgotten about that. Well, that is best for him. When one gets into a hard place it is best to get away from it as soon as possible. That is the safest. Then he goes to Romans i. 14. However, he quotes more, but here is the part he lays stress upon: I am debtor both to the Greeks and the Barbarians, both to the wise and the unwise. Brother Yates considers that to mean that Brother Paul owed something to the Greek and Barbarian, that bound him to take the gospel to them. The brother does not tell you how the contract was made, or how Paul became indebted to them. He does not explain that. But he infers from the language that Paul thought that he, was indebted to them, and that he must take the gospel to them because he owed it to them in the form of a debt. Brother Yates did not tell us why he said that; let us tell why. He goes on and finishes the 16th verse, which says: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. There is no one here to deny that; but he says that I say that it is not the power in even case. Of course he has allusion to the eternal salvation of the sinner; he has allusion to the regeneration of the ungodly; he has allusion to the conversion of an ungodly man to the Lord, and he makes the proclamation of the gospel, the publication of it, to the people necessary. He charges me with believing that the publication of that to a man is not necessary to the salvation of a man in every case. Does Brother Yates believe it is? What do you understand by that? Does he think or believe that the gospel must be preached to every person, or else that person not be regenerated? That is the thing he is talking about. Is not that your understanding of him? I want him to tell. I am going to charge it on him, that this is just precisely what he means, and he fights me for not believing the same thing, that in order to the regeneration and eternal salvation of a sinner, either here or among the heathen, the gospel must be preached. Brother Yates, when you preach, do you ever preach to little babies? Now if the gospel is essential in every case of regeneration and salvation, you had better go to preaching to little babies. Do you preach to idiots? If the preaching of the gospel to a person is necessary to regeneration and salvation, you had better go to preaching to idiots here at home. There is no man in this country, who has common sense enough to preach to a congregation like this, who ever preaches a word to little babies, or idiots, or lunatics. Now if the gospel is Gods only medium of communication to man, of communicating his Spirit, then they are left out of the scrape. Because I say that it is done sometimes without this, Brother Yates blames me. He says, and charges that I say, that the gospel is not in every case the power of God unto salvation, according to his version of it. Not only that, but I again charge on him what I did in the first instance yesterday morning, the universal damnation of all the heathen; and he said yesterday evening he believed if the heathen did the best they could according to the light they had, they were saved. Did they have the gospel? If they do they are not heathen; they are enlightened if they have the gospel light.
He then refers us to Psalm lxxii. 16, in connection with the parable of the sower recorded in Matthew xiii.; and of course, as he explains those two quotations together, if I notice one it will be an answer to both. Let us quote this Matthew xiii. which explains the test in Psalm lxxii. 16. The Saviour said, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; and when he sowed some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up: some fell upon stony places where they had not much earth; and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up and choked them; but other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred-fold, some sixty-fold, some thirty-fold. Here is the parable. According to the Saviours own explanation there are four different descriptions of ground, and he compares it to the human heart. That ground by the wayside is the human heart. That ground that is stony is the human heart. That ground that is thorny is the human heart. That ground that is good is the human heart. Now, Brother Yates would have us believe that the object of sowing the seed in the human heart was to convert it and change it, or make it good, or turn it to God. That is not the object, is it? I ask you farmers, is that what you sow seed for, to change the condition of the ground? Is that the object? No, that is not your object in sowing the seed. If it was the Lords object it did not do it. That seed that was sown by the wayside left the ground in the very same condition it was in before. I want Brother Yates to notice that. That is his own text. That seed that fell in stony places did not remove the stones, but left it in the very same condition in which it found it. That seed that fell among the thorns did not choke the thorns out, but the thorns choked the seed out; and in all three of these cases there was a failure to bring forth any fruit to perfection. Other fell into good ground. What do we understand by that? The ground was necessarily good, or else the seed could not have fallen into good ground. It was good at first, the seed did not make it good; there may be ever so much of that good ground among all the nations of the earth for aught I know. We do not see any fruit, for perhaps the seed is necessary to be sown in order to receive the fruit; but it is not necessary to sow the seed in order to make the ground good. It is not necessary for the regenerate, because he is the man that has the good heart; and I will prove that by Luke vi. 43. I connect that with the heart. The Saviour says: For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble-bush gather they grapes, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good. (It is not conversion there). And an evil man that is, the man that needs converting out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil. Those are the only classes of men written of in the Word, and one of them is regenerate, and has a good heart.
He has a good deal to say about what I said about the book of Nature. That was his own proof-text yesterday to prove that the heathen were without my excusethat they did not have the law, but simply have the book of Nature, the invisible things which are seen from the creation of the world, and that ought to show them as being a revelation to the people of the character of God, and that he is the author of these things, and that ought to have convinced them that there was a God, and therefore they were without excuse. I said if that left them without excuse anciently, why not now? I did not say it didbut why not? I say there is a book of Nature for men to read; the apostle teaches that in that case.
Another thought: He says that I am at issue with Paul in connection with that case. Then he quotes another text that cuts his throat, whether it does mine or not; and maybe we will both be down here in a pile. He says they did know there was a God, and quotes a text to prove it. I had reference to that in this waythat if they did know him they would surely respect him in the sense in which it is used in Christianity, where, if they do know God, they are born of him, and in that sense they would love him. Then he refers us to the angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to them that are on the earth, as proof of the Foreign Mission work. I will not notice all his texts; they are all about the same; none of them have Foreign Mission in them. He did not tell us particularly what part of that text referred to Foreign Missions, and I believe I will wait until he tells us what word, or what part of that text, made him think of Foreign Missions. My judgment is that no part of that text made him think of Foreign Missions, but that it was the pressure of the work today that made him think of that text. He accused me yesterday of getting up and laughing here. I am not a great laugher, but I laugh when I feel like it. I never put on a laugh, but if any thing tickles me, look out; I will laugh then.
Now I want to show you what made that laugh. There is a difference between the attitudes in which he and I stand here on these expressions. I do not stand in the same attitude on the subject of Regular Baptists that he does on the subject of Foreign Missions. I am not standing in the same position on Associations that he is on Foreign Missions before this audience. I am not standing here in a position relative to church clerks that he is relative to Foreign Missions. Do you know the difference? While we have Associations, while we denominate ourselves the Regular Baptist Church while we have clerks in our churches, we do not publish a challenge in the Gibson County Leader, or in any other paper, challenging the world that opposes the Regular Baptist Church, clerks, or Associations, that we will meet any respectable man, who comes with the endorsement of his Church, and affirm that Regular Baptist is authorized, so far as the Word is concerned, in the Holy Scriptures. He has done that relative to Foreign Missions. Had he not done that, he would not have been in this trouble. He has obligated himself to prove it. He has got himself here. Whenever I challenge a man to meet, me on any question, and affirm the proposition myself, and select the wording and forming of the proposition, I am not going to say to my brother that if he will prove something else that I certainly believe it will be impossible for him to do, then I will prove my proposition. That is the very thing he did yesterday. He comes up the first day of this debate, and says if I will show Regular Baptist Church in the Scriptures, or Associations in the Scriptures, or church clerks in the Scriptures, in the very next chapter he will show Foreign Missions. That is an admission, at least, that Foreign Missions are further from the Scriptures than Regular Baptist, or Associations or church clerks, for it comes in the next chapter afterwardsnot before. So it is further from the Bible than I thought he would admit, for he says that Regular Baptist, and all those things, are entirely out of the Bible, and Foreign Missions does not come until the next chapter. That is what we are here to discuss Foreign Missionwhether the Bible authorizes it or not.
Another thought: he says, in talking about the salvation of the heathen, that I believe in a doctrinethat is, he is not surebut that I believe the doctrine that God saved all the heathen before the world was. However, he should know what I believe before he undertakes to tell the people. I believe that God had a purpose, and entered into a covenant with his Son before the world was, to save a certain people; and I believe they will he saved, in every nation, arid kindred, and tongue, and people, of every age, down to the end of time. I believe just exactly what the Cumberland Presbyterian Church used to believe, and do yet, if they have not revised it. I will bring Brother Yates Confession of Faith over here after dinner, and show it to him; the old one of course. I will not trust to the new one, because it is revised; I will show that it is just exactly what we believe on that subject. I do not know but what they borrowed it from us. Calvin is said to be an inheritor of the doctrine of the Waldenses, and we claim the Waldenses to be our people, originally. So says some ancient writer in Jones history. That is Cumberland Presbyterianism, as published in their Confession of Faith. They use language that is strong enough for me and my brethren when they speak of a covenant God made with his Son, unto whom he promised a seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called by his Word and Spirit, justified by his grace sanctified and glorified. That is old Baptist doctrine. That is what I believe. Brother Yates, will you fight that doctrine? It may be that he will. You see Presbyterianism undergoes revision. I believe I will not join the Cumberland Church; but I do not say any thing against them, because I believe they are Christians. I believe they are as good Christians as I. But I do not believe I will join the Church, because they may revise tomorrow if I were to join today, and it will not be what I joined. While I believe in progression in some things, I do not believe in progression in religion. A truth that was a truth yesterday will be a truth at the judgment day. In religion, a truth yesterday, or when the Cumberland Church was organized, will be a truth when Gabriel sounds his horn. So let us not revise religiously. Let us not be so progressive as all that.
On the denominational work I want to talk a moment. He accuses me of teaching something that I do not teach, by the use of the Roman Catholic quotation I made yesterday evening. He has told us all the time of the grand results of the Foreign Mission work. He brings them forth as evidence of the blessing and owning of God. That is the best he can do. Just bring it on, Brother Yates. Is success an evidence? That is the question. What do you think about it? Does Brother Yates think that the success of the Foreign Mission work is an evidence that they are owned and blessed of God? What do you think after hearing his speech this morning? What do you think after hearing his eloquent quotations and headings from these historians? Does it not sound as though he thought we were to judge the tree by its fruits? Has he not said so much here this morning? Now just for the sake of showing him an institution that has done as much as any other denomination, I referred to the Roman Catholic Church. I did not undertake to equalize him with the Roman Catholicsnothing of the kind. I believe our Presbyterian brethren believe as much in experimental religion as we do, and as much in regeneration, and that it is as essential to eternal salvation as we believe it is, so far as that is concerned; but while we believe that, if the result of mission work is to be taken as an evidence that God is with them, then the Roman Catholics have the best evidence of any denomination in the mission field today that God is with them. That is what I used that quotation for. Brother Yates must not miss my arguments that way. He misses the proposition, and misses my arguments, and sometimes misses his own. Again, on the denominational work, Brother Yates said I said the Baptists went over there among the Presbyterians. I said Lutherans; that it was the Lutheran and Reformed Churches of Europe that the Missionary Baptists say, as I read you from their own works yesterday, were as much a mission field for soul-saving work as any other lands in the world. Who said that? A Missionary Baptist. That they ought to send missionaries to Europe to work among Lutherans and Reformed Churches, because their pulpits are filled with men who are unsaved themselves, and therefore incapable of affording saving grace to others. I do not think it necessary to send missionaries to the Lutheran Churches in Europe. If it is, why not send one to the Lutheran Church over in Evansville? Brother Yates ought not to speak of the Missionary Baptists as my brethren. They seceded and went into tile Foreign Mission work.
He infers, again, that my witnesses are not reliable. They are not reliable. He quotes reliable missionaries. I wish I could have seen Brother Yates beforehand, and found out what one or ones of the missionaries among the religions of the Protestant world were reliable, and what ones were unreliable, so I could have known from whom to quote. Whether they are reliable or not, Brother Yates hugs them in his arms in the proposition, for he embraces all the Protestant denominations in the world, and the Missionary Baptists are among them. It may be that missionaries are not reliable; I do not know. They get things mixed up terribly. I know what they say; it is not my business to find out whether it is true or not. They are Brother Yates subjects, and it is his business to find out whether they are true. He is talking about them, and says they are all good, and their labors are owned and blessed of God, as well as his own. I do class Brother Yates with the Missionary Baptists in the Foreign Mission work. He said himself that this work was not denominational. I quoted from one man yesterdayand, by the way he was in the field once, or else he is not reliable, sure enough. The title of the book is The Great Commission, and is Fulfillment by the Church. It is written by Mr. Carpenter, who was a missionary, and perhaps is now, to the Karens of Burmah. He says he was a missionary, but I do not know whether he was or not; and I do not know whether Brother Yates can tell or not. In fact I do not know lust how to tell to a certainty who are missionaries. Brother Yates thinks they are not, all reliable. I am sorry that is so. Then he refers to the Apostle Paul robbing other churches, and receiving wages from them to do you service, and so on. The apostle was serving the churches at that time. He was a preachera pastor of a church. Brother Yates does not claim to be a Foreign Missionary, I presume; yet he serves churches in this country. Paul served churches in that country.
Again, Brother Yates accuses me of saying something about Paul that I did not say exactly. About his going to Arabia, Brother Yates said that I said he preached there. I asked Brother Yates if he did not know that Paul took a missionary tour before the apostles laid their hands upon him, and then I quoted the text where Paul himself says, But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Brother Yates says the Bible does not say he preached there. I do not say it does; but I do not know what he went for unless it was to preach. He quotes from a man who says he probably went there to be by himself for meditation. It was a long trip to go for meditation. The Saviour said go into your closet to pray secretly. He did not say go into Arabia, or some other foreign country to pray and meditate.
Romans X. 14: How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom. they have not .heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? That is a Foreign Mission text. How shall they preach except they be sent? I do not believe they preach at all successfully unless they are sent. There is no difference between Brother Yates and me on that text, unless we differ about who it is that is to send them. That is the only difference that can arise. I do not believe they can preach successfully unless they are sent. If a man would come to me and say he was going to preach, and yet did not claim to be sent, I would not take much trouble to hear him. It is a necessary qualification for a minister that he must be sent. If he has no commission he has no authority, for that is what the commission is. Whoever has the right to command others is the one that sends. I call attention to Matthew ix. 37, 38, as an explanation to that word send. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest. That is the way they must be sent; the Lord must send them. You are not to get up a Missionary Board to send them. That is not the instruction of the Saviour; it was foreign to that. The disciples did not happen to think of that; nobody else ever thought of getting up a Foreign Mission Board, to send missionaries abroad, until the seventeenth century. The Church stood 1720 or 1730 years before anybody thought of getting up a Foreign Missionary Society. The gospel had been preached further and more successfully by the apostles before that time than since, with all the many institutions and expediencies of the foreign missionary operations; That is what we propose to showthat the Lord was in the work.
I want to correct a little mistake concerning Japan not of my own, but of my brothers. I do not admit that missionary operations have been the means of regenerating a solitary soul. I did not admit that. I asked him if it had. I will tell you what I believe. I do not believe the Foreign Mission work, as carried on by the Protestant world today, is now, ever has been, or ever will be, the means of adding a solitary, single one to the number that shall be finally saved. Now you have it. I want you to understand it. I have not admitted that they have been the means of converting a single soul that would not have been converted without them, for I do not believe they have. There is where I stand. It is not a hard matter to understand a Regular Baptist, if you will take their own word for it.
We are not here to be explained by others; we are here to speak for ourselves. Just as sure as Brother Yates takes the position that the Foreign Missionary Societies save a solitary soul that would not have been saved without them, just that sure he makes Jesus Christ a failure. He charges Jesus with leaving out a very important institution, that was never thought of for nearly seventeen hundred years, that was necessary to the salvation of souls that never would have been saved without it. Let him take that position if he wants to if that will be his manner of preaching Jesus.
Now I will prove what I have said. I want to show you this gospel revelation that I do believe in. I want first to refer to Japan a little while. I said, according to the statements of the missionaries themselves, that they did not have ten thousand Church communicants in Japan today. You know there has been a good deal of noise about Japan. I gave that from missionary figures themselves. I did not make them. I have them in their own publications. Whether they are reliable or not, I leave Brother Yates to show. I will read you the following from a missionary paper, the Baptist Missionary Magazine, August 1885: There are now 120 Protestant churches in Japan, with 7,791 members. Who said that? A missionary. A man that my brothers is fighting for. How many? 7,791 members, a gain of 2,200 during the year. I take that from page 374 of the paper I named. Now I presume these Baptist missionaries know about as much about Japan as Brother Yates does, and that is what they say it is. I want to read you a little more about Japan. I do not know whether those 7,000 are converted or not; they are in the Church. It is not an evidence that a man is converted whenever you get him into the Church. It is not so in this country, I know. We often get people into the Church in this country, that prove very demonstratively afterwards that they never knew any thing about grace, and it may be so where it is so easy to capture souls for Jesus Christ in heathen lands. It may be so there. Let us see what they say about Japan:
Japan, the Sunrise Kingdom, is said to comprise 3,850 islands, large and small, and with an area of 155, 520 square miles. The population in 1876 was 34,338,404. It is the most progressive nation in Asia, and the people are called the Yankees of the East. Education is general, and a larger proportion of the people of Japan can read than of any other country in the world. They are ready to receive Western ideas, and buy and read the Bible and Christian books with avidity, but as yet chiefly from curiosity. The religions of the country are Shintoism and Buddhism, and by recent decree all religions are placed on an equality as to privilege in the empire. Missionary work in Japan is very encouraging. I quote that from The Missionary Handbook, published by the American Baptist Missionary Union. Very encouraging they say missionary labor is in Japan. Nearly three-fourths as many people there as there are in our United States, and 7,791 members of Protestant Churches in Japan. They buy and read the Bible and Christian books with avidity. That is encouraging. But chiefly from curiosity. That is what missionaries say. O how encouraging! What grand things they are doing in Japan! Now if that is not reliable, it is one of Brother Yates men. It is a man that belongs to the Protestant world. He says it; I do not make it.
I want to speak again in regard to Pauls trip to Arabia. I want to show you the difference between Paul and others. He did not stand and wait. He went immediately Now let us see. That is Bible missionism, and we will contrast it with modern missionism, and let you be the judges yourselves. I now take a quotation from the Baptist Circular, published at St. Louis, Missouri, as quoted by Coffey in his history: The best of men stand waiting; only the money is wanted. What is it? The best of men stand waiting. Paul did not wait. What are they waiting for? Waiting to be imbued with power from on high? No; that is not it. What are they waiting for? For the money. Brother Paul was not in that crowd. Brother Yates may have been, but Paul was not. What does this look like? Pray for the Lord of the harvest to send forth missionaries. Somebody must have been praying, and they must have been praying very successfully, for they have a large number of men, and the best men. Pray for what? To get them into the field? A large number of men are ready now. They will never go until the money is ready. They are waiting for the money. That is what they say themselves.
I will now take a look at one of our modern missions to the heathen, and learn the difference between them and Paul the apostle. I will give a report of a mission to Japanjust one denomination to one nation for one yeargiving the expenses of the mission:
For the salary of the Rev. N. A. Brown, D.D 1,200.00
His mission work, rent, and Bible work 3,037.66
Salary of T. P. Poate 1,200.00
His mission work 1,069.58
Salary of the Rev. A. A. Bennett 1,200.00
Amount carried forward $7,707.24
Amount brought forward $7,707.24
His mission work and rent 957.13
Salary of Miss C. A. Sands 500.00
Her mission work 1,240.00
Salary of the Rev. F. 1-I. Jones, ten months 833.33
His personal teacher and mission work 280.37
His outfit 500.00
His passage 726.26
Salary of Miss A. H. Kidder 500.00
Her mission work and rent 1,198.60
Salary of the Rev. C. D. Fisher 1,000.00
His mission work 373.83
Salary of Miss M. A. Whitman 500.00
Her personal teacher 111.05
Salary of the Rev. H. H. Rhees 200.00
His mission work,including $132.22 collected in the field 5,200.00
Salary of the Rev. G. H. Appleton, is months 916.67
His personal teacher, rent, and mission work 600.00
Special grant 500.00
Total amount of Japan Baptist Mission, for one year $20,844.48
That is modern missionism I have the book here from which the report is takentheir own report of their expenditures. That is one mission to Japan by one denomination among all the Protestants of the worlda mission to Japan amounting to over $20,000. This looks to me considerably like a matter of dollars arid cents. And let me state again, this mission society is over $5o,000 in debt. And yet my brother gets up and tells us that the eternal interests of the heathen are dependent upon this work. Let him dare to say that money is not necessary to run it. I dare him to say that it can be run without money. He will not do it. Now, money is essential to the salvation of the people, according to the modern mission work. Now, after all this, how far have they got in Japan? I do not know how many other denominations are working there, but today, according to the same authority, they have 7,791 members. That is all the Protestants together in Japan. What would that be in the United States? What would that be among the people of the United States from the Mississippi River east? and Japan has about as many people as that, if not more. That is what they are doing in Japan.
Now I want to show you what they did anciently. And I want to say first that the apostles and their successors did not have the advantages that people have today. They labored under great disadvantages. In the first place, there were no such things as mails and post offices in their day nor for about 1,400 years after the apostles began their work. Notice how inconvenient, how much difficulty there was in communicating from one man to another, in different localities. No mail, no post-office, nothing of the kind; and if I wanted to send a message or letter to Brother Yates from Cynthiana, I must employ my own messenger or carry it myself. No such thing as sending letters or messages by mail for two, or three, or even twenty-five cents, at that time, nor for a long period afterwards. Second, They had no telegraphs or telephones by which to send news from one city or locality to another. Third, Their means of transportation and travel was not like ours. Instead of going by rail or by steamship, whey they traveled by land they traveled on foot or with camels, and when they went by sea it was by sails and oars.
Fourth, They did not have the use of the printing press, by which to print tracts, books, and papers, or even the Bible. The Bible was only in manuscript, and a copy could only be afforded by few.
Fifth, The Scriptures they did have were not compiled in their present form for some time after the days of the apostles.
Sixth, They had no Christian country to start from. The Jews, their brethren, had crucified their Lord, and were ready to kill and crucify them for the testimony which they bore for Jesus. And, with all these disadvantages, I want to see what they did. God was with them. We want to sec how it compares with our present modern system of missions. With all these facts before us, does it not seem a Mission Board was as badly needed at that time as at any time since? Is it not strange that our Saviour did not tell them to tarry at Jerusalem until proper arrangements could be made by the organization of a Board, and a sufficient amount of funds could be raised, instead of telling them to tarry at Jerusalem until they were imbued with power from on high?
We will now see where Paul and those other missionaries went, before Missionary Boards were ever thought of: The Christian religion was introduced into Sweden and Norway in the ninth century. The gospel was preached in Lapland, by ministers from Denmark and Norway, before the inauguration of Foreign Missions. Christianity was introduced into Russia in the tenth century. The gospel was preached in England by the apostles and their disciples. Christianity was first introduced into Scotland by some of the disciples of St. John the apostle. The Christian religion was introduced into France long before Foreign Missions were introduced.
The gospel was preached in Belgium long before modern missionism. Long before the Reformation the gospel was preached in Germany. In the Austrian dominions the Bible was known by the people before the Reformation. The Protestants worshipped in bohemia and Moravia prior to the Reformation. The Christian religion was taught in Prussia without the aid of Foreign Missions. In Italy the Waldenses suffered more bitter persecution from papal Rome during the dark ages than in any other part of the world. In the support of the gospel, under Christs plan, in all these countries, the servants of God, in humble obedience to the great commission, were self-sacrificing, God-fearing men; and instead of being supported by appropriations from the State, or wealthy Mission Boards, or Church endowments, they were only clothed with the authority of the commission from the Lord; and from their undertakings to fulfill it they exposed themselves to the most violent persecutions, and suffered the most cruel punishments that the merciless hand of paganism could invent for nearly three hundred years, and then were ground under the iron heel of papalism for about twelve hundred years. Driven from one country to another, their property often confiscated, many of them burned at the stake, many of them imprisoned, banished from their homes, often their Bibles taken from them and burned, they still persevered in the goodly work, and the gospel of our blessed Saviour spread in the midst of flames, and the streaming of innocent blood of men, women, and children, who were hunted and butchered like the wild beasts of the forests, women drowned, their daughters sewed up in sacks and cast out for beasts of prey to devour. In addition to all other aggravations, to put an end to this glorious work of publishing the name of the blessed Jesus as the only Saviour of the lost, and defending his Word as the only standard of Christian faith and practice among a bigoted priesthood and Church dignitaries, the Inquisition was invented, and became one of the devils instruments to put a stop to the devotedness of these godly people. They were determined that Christs banner should not continue to be unfurled and wave in the light of the gospel. Yet in the face of this opposition the gospel spread, and the God of heaven blessed their labors, until we and our children today are reaping the rich harvest that has come of the gospel seed sown by them. There is where we have got it from, instead of from the Foreign Mission work. It came from them. This missionism was, and is, authorized by the Holy Scriptures, and it has always been owned and blessed of God. It is as foreign from the present Foreign Mission work of today, as Aarons golden calf was from being the God of Israel. It is an insult to those holy martyrs of old to talk about there being an identity between their missions and the modern Missionary Societies. God was with them. They did not have to take an army of men to conquer the people, and let the apostles preach to them. They did not have to get a decree from the Governor, to allow the apostles to preach. But they went, and you and I owe what gospel we have today to the Lord, through them. The blessed privileges that we today have, reading the Bible, hearing the gospel, and from it understanding Gods will, we owe to them, and not to the Foreign Mission work. Hence, I want to show you they were not backed up by money; not only that, but that they were opposed to it. I refer you to Jones History of the Christian Church, page 356:
MR. YATES: Is he a Baptist?
MR. POTTER: No, sir, not that I know of.
MR. YATES: I guess he is.
MR. POTTER: All right. Mr. Yates says Mr. Jones was a Baptist. He will be against him if he was a Baptist. However, I will quote him anyhow. Baptists have a right to show what they believe.
MR. YATES: he was dishonest. I will show he was dishonest, this afternoon.
MR. POTTER: This is not Jones, but a quotation Jones gives in his history from another man. We will see whether that man was honest or not.
Hence these most ancient Reformed Churches of the Waldenses, if they rather continued not pure since the apostles days, denied that tithes were to be given, or that they were ever given in the primitive Church, as appears by an ancient tractate inserted in the Bohemian history. The pastors of the poor Waldenses, the ancient stock of our Reformation, without the help of tithes, brought up themselves in trades, and especially in physic and surgery, as well as in the study of the Scripture, which is the only true theology, that they might be no burden to the Church, and, after, the example of Christ, might cure both soul and body, through industries adding that to their ministry which he joined to his by the gift of the Holy spirit. Again: The Waldenses, our first reformers, both in the Scriptures and primitive example, maintained those among them who bore the office of ministers by alms alone. Take their words: Our food and clothing are sufficient, and administered and given to us by way of gratuity and alms by the good people whom we teach.
That is the way it was spread. No man that is acquainted with the history of the Church will dare say the Waldenses did nothing and made no effort to support the gospel. They dare not say the Waldenses made no sacrifices for the propagation of the gospel, the dissemination of the divine truththis divine ray of lightand were ready at all times to expose themselves to the most bitter treatment for the sake of the gospel at that time, and the bones of those holy martyrs bleach upon the mountains of Italy who had been burned at the stake for the sake of that gospel. They taught, and argued that the primitive Church taught, that some one must support those who worked. God blessed the work.
Again, on the subject of the fulfillment of the commission, Brother Yates would make you misunderstand me. I recognize the brethren and sisters of Brother Yates Church as just as good people as I dare be. I recognize the fact also that there are hundreds and thousands of men and women among those missionary laborers that are good Christians, and born of God. Good men may sometimes be mistaken. He called upon me this morning to prove that. He said I must necessarily say these men were self-deceived or hypocrites. I do not know why I must necessarily say any thing of that kind. I do not see the point. I do not think it is necessary for me to say that Brother Jenkins is self-deceived or a hypocrite because he is not a Regular Baptist. I have no right to say it. I believe he is a Christian. I differ from him, and believe he defends something as being right, or in the Bible, that is not taught there, but is differently interpreted by myself and others. That does not say he is dishonest or self deceived, or that he is insincere in his pretensions.
On motion of Mr. Potter, the debate was removed to the church of the Regular Baptists.
MR. YATES FOURTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I am glad this afternoon to he greeted by this great sea of smiling faces. It shows that there are a great many false prophets in this world. I will give my Brother Hume credit for standing with me in the prediction that the people would hear this discussion. I believe that my brother and myself are only laboring for what we think to be for the greatest good, and we are glad to have the people come out whether they agree with us in every particular or not, for we believe it will lead them to investigate the truth. You have heard the proposition read. I will commence again with the heathens as referred to in Romans i. 20. I want to read you my brothers exact language. You see we are sometimes a little short in memory. It is just as reported. I do not want to misrepresent him. It is just what he said about the heathen yesterday when referring to that quotation in Romans i. 20: The heathen were without excuse. Why were they? They had Nature, which ought to teach there is a God. Ought not the same thing teach the heathen now? If it answered the purpose then, why not now? My idea is that when people think there is a God, and have an idea of his character, they ought to have some respect for him; and it is my idea that it is so. That is his language. It is my idea that it is so. That is very different from the interpretation he gave in his speech. I will give him credit for his memory being short. And he says farther Nature unfolds a volume to the people wherever they live. Paul said the people who had that were without excuse, as they had some way to know. Then the Bible and the ministry are not absolutely essential for the heathen to know that there is a God. He slips out of it by saying what he meant. He does not allow me to say what I mean. He says he meant a saving knowledge; but that ruins his election business, as he has come out on it so boldly, because they knew it and then degraded God. When they degraded God it was by their own hands. God left them to themselves, and then they were degraded. So much for that point. Now I am going to take him up just as he spoke. If I should happen to forget any thing, I hope he will tell me.
My brother says that the, commission was given to the apostles, and asks if it was not so given, to tell the meaning of that pronoun ye. That is a wonderful, thing in philology. Ye is the plural. It might be addressed to two or to a crowd. But he said the commission was given to the apostlesthat is the idea. But those apostles represented the Church. I am afraid my brother will have to be dealt with by my Regular Baptist brethren. I am fearful it will not end in this. I believe our Baptist brethren are close communionists, and they believe that God gave a visible, tangible, local organizationan ironbound plan of Church polity. That is what I call it. If it is the Lords, it is all right. Where did he get his authority for close, communion, if the apostles did not represent the church? I want him to answer that. He will not receive the communion except from the hands of a successor of the apostles. On the night of the Lords Supper there was no one present but the apostles. If he believes in apostolic succession, that puts him down as a Roman Catholic priest; and, to be consistent, he should take the stand of the Catholic priesthoodthat no one has the right to partake .of the bread and wine but the preachers; and, like the Romanists, he should give the deacons and membership the wafer in place of the bread and wine. If the commission was not given to the Church, neither was the Lords Supper. Of course he will give us some light on that. We will now notice that Arabia question. He says he did not mean to say Paul preached there at all. He did not mean to say that it was scriptural, but it was his idea that he did. He did not exactly explain it that way until he got into a place he could not get out of. He did not mean to say it was Scripture. I do not suppose he did, by any means.
He said God called his preachers. We admit that I gave that in showing the identity of the Foreign Mission work with the gospel work, as recorded in the New Testament. He says there is no identity. Let him take up my line of argument as I gave it yesterday the object and end to be subserved in the Foreign Mission work, the principles of it, the motive that actuates it, the call and preparation of the workers, and the fruits of the work. I want him to deny, and I dared him to deny, in my opening speech, that the principles I laid down there have been manifested by the grand workers in this Foreign Mission work. He knows that in my affirmation of the proposition under discussion I do not affirm the measures and means, but he dodges around in them like a partridge in the prairie, trying by means of them to keep from being struck.
I want to give him a little piece of explanation. He said he did not know what I meant by Pauls obligation in Romans i. 15. I will try and make my meaning plain to him. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. That is the 15th verse. Going back to the 14th verse: I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise. Now couple that with this: The love of Christ constraineth me. Why was he a debtor? Jesus told us we must love our neighbors as ourselves. This very Apostle Paul said without love he was nothingcompassionate love, the very love that constrained Jesus to come from the bosom of the Father into this world to seek and to save the lost; that was the very love that burned and glowed in the apostles heart. This was the debt he was under. He had good news and glad tidings. There were men and women in the wide world who did not know the good news, and he was a debtor to all nations and all people, so far as in him lay, to give them these glad tidings. Compassionate love made him a debtor to give them this message of salvation. I wonder if my brother will deny that debt. I will turn back to show you that that was the Saviours way of doing things. The heart is moved. Christianity makes us humane, and tender, and compassionate. Let us go back and look at Matthew ix. 36 for just a moment: And when he saw the multitudes he was moved with compassion on them. That word compassion is from two words: com, together, and passus, to bearthat is, to bear or suffer togetherto take anothers condition upon one s heart. That is the way Jesus did, and that is the way Paul did, and that is the way the Foreign Mission workers do today.
Then, my brother said the Mission Work was a money business. I will make him sick of that money part of it before Saturday night. Jesus heart was moved with compassion; he put himself in their place. All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them. If you were in the condition of the heathen, and were degraded as they, and had never heard of Jesus, and you could only learn by personal instruction, and had seen a few fruits of Christianity and its advantages, would you not desire to have it brought to you? That will lead me to explain the curiosity of the Japanese when they read the Bible. When Jesus saw the multitude he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherdhelpless, exposed to danger and ruin. It would be folly for a man or any individual to he touched with compassion for one not in need, and not in danger. That is the way it is with the heathen work. That is what made me call Paul a debtor, my brother.
Well, he made a very logical argument on the explanation I made about the word heathen. Hardly in place, my brother. Let us see how that is. He says I quoted, it is the power of God unto salvation; but I said, as it is, to every one that believeth. He said, speaking of the publication of the gospel to the ungodly man, that it was the circulation of it, and asked if it was necessary to publish salvation here to the people; and he went on to ask me if I would preach to babies and idiots. Was not that an argument about the heathen? The commission was to those that were capable of believing. He and I agree about that. It does not refer to idiots and children. But what is he going to do about his election when a man is not an idiot, those who have the faculty of reasoning? I want him to explain that to us. I do not understand it. Then he says I teach the universal damnation of the heathen, and asks what am I going to do with that. I will leave them to Jesus, just where he will have to, because God never commands us to do what we cannot, nor that which he will not give us ability to do; therefore he will deal with the heathen as with us, in accordance with the light they have. The baby is not developed; the idiot has not the faculty of reason or of becoming a religious being. That is very different. I am talking about those men and women who are capable of receiving the message when presented to them in the spirit of the Lord, and of cooperating with God in the work. And I want him to meet that squarely. I do not know what he is aiming to do about his commission, but he will fix that for you. If, according to the position of my worthy opponent, nature is a sufficient revelation of God to the heathen to bring out and save all Gods elect, as set apart from eternity, then the Saviour made a mistake in enjoining upon the Church through the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature; and the Apostle Paul also, in claiming that the heathen, even with the light they had from nature, had no excuse for their degrading practices of idolatry, and that Christ, if they would only accept him, was now revealed to them in the gospel to save them from their degraded state, brought about by abused privileges. So much for his absurd position that as many heathen will be saved through the light of nature without the gospel as with it. He made a nice explanation for you on the seed, employed to represent the Word in the parable. I think he will have a little trouble on that word againMatthew xiii. 3-19. In regard to the seed sown, he said it was sown in the human heart. The heart sometimes in the Bible is used to represent the whole inner man, because of the controlling passions. It simply means the receptive nature, for the Devil sowed tares there, too. He said the seed did not prepare the heart. What does? It says we are begotten of the gospel; that is the language of the Bible. He makes it literal; you must take it figuratively. It is figurative. What did Jesus design to teach when he pictured these four classes of hearers? Will God command a, person to do a thing, and not give him ability to do it? God gives me an eye to see, but he does not see for me; God gives me an ear to hear, but he does not hear for me. What does Jesus mean to teach in this parable? Why, the preparation of the ground and the sowing of the seed represent our part in receiving and propagating the gospel. God creates the grain. God gives us the revelation, God gives us the sunshine and the rain; that is it, isnt it? He spoke of the farmer. What is the farmers part? It is to prepare the ground and sow the seed; but the seed will not sprout without the rain and sunshine. Paul spoke of one planting and another watering, but God giveth the increase. We are laborers together with God, my brethren. We open the heart to receive that seed. While we have an understanding and reasoning powers, we cannot transform our nature. By the preparation of the ground we mean the earnest attitude we can assume toward God, and which prepares us to receive the word. The case in which the seed fell by the wayside, where the travelers passed over it, applies to those who let worldly thoughts fill their minds about worldly things. The seed which sprung up and was withered because there was rock beneath it represents that class who hear the word but do not take it down into their consciences; the rod is not broken. Those in whom the thorns choke out the seed, are those who listen partially, with other thoughts mixed inwho do not go into deep spiritual self-examination, asking God to help root out the weeds. The good ground represents those who earnestly listen, and ask God to help them and give them life. We can do that, that is our part, and God will do his. But what if the Word does not yield fruit, and the heart was prepared before the Word was put in? What is the value of the Word, my brother, in regeneration? What is the value of it? Well, I will tell you the point my brother makes. He quoted Luke about the good man who, out of the good treasure of his heart, brings out hood results, and the evil man who brings out bad results; the good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the bad tree bad fruit. He denies that we are to keep the heart with all diligence. Keep the heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life. In the passages he quoted about the fruit of the good and bad tree, Jesus was arguing that the life was like the inner nature, and was saying nothing about the point that Brother Potter quoted it to sustainviz., the preparation of heart. Not a word. It had nothing whatever to do with it. Then he says the preparation of the heart is froth God. It is a cooperative business; when we open the understanding and let the word of God in, the Holy Spirit energizes the word and also accompanies it. We can open our heart to it as we open our eyes to the sunlight. We open the heart to the influence of the Holy Spirit, and with the Word of God the Holy Spirit flashes in and energizes the soul to receive it. I want him to give me a little testimony. Will he tell us where souls have been converted in heathen lands without the Word? He always demands that I shall give him the proof. And I do not claim they are all lost. I explained to you that all those that lived up to the beet light they had would be saved. My brother knows that all idolatry is but a perversion of mans original worship of one true God. That is the inference of Paul in the first chapter of Romans. The Hebrew theocracy was the gospel in symbolism.
He is a little troubled on the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of Faith. I had forgotten that. I will talk a little about that. He says the Regular Baptists do not revise. I would like to have him show how far back they got their articles of faith. Let me ask him if he can show his articles where he quoted this morning? He quoted a man this morning that has been acknowledged to be a dishonest historian. My brother certainly knows that Jones has been proved to be a falsifier in that book (pointing to Campbell and Rices debate). I will bring it down and show where he garbled and mistranslated the original language of the old historians of those Waldenses he was talking about today. He has been exposed as a perverter of the facts of history, and I am not willing to take him as a witness. I want to go further, and show you about this revision. He says the Bible remains the samethat, principles do not change. That is true: but men in their understanding of the truth do not remain the same. The Word is represented as the seed sown, from which results come. Nature is the same, but our knowledge of it is not the same. Wise men, they say, change sometimes, but the other kind do not. There is a great amount of truth to he studied and understood. Why, he says he just dares me to say I do not indorse election, with Calvin. I dare to do it, and I dare to say to you here this afternoon that the Cumberland Presbyterian Church does not embrace Calvinism. I defy him to show that we embrace that doctrine. That was the very thing that caused us to take our stand and become a separate denomination.
I want to read one little thing in regard to his missions and missionaries in the early centuries, propagating the gospel in Northern Europe. My worthy opponent, and his honorable historian, Jones, from whom he gave a long quotation concerning them, both inferred that they were Baptists, and brother Potter particularly emphasized that they were his brethren Anti-mission Baptistsand he wonderfully eulogized their work as being of God, and owned and blessed of him. But the brother did not know, when he was quoting from Mr. Jones, that these people were not Baptists; that I could follow him up with the very best authorities and prove to the contrary. I will now quote from Harris Great Commission in regard to these missions and missionaries of Brother Potters. Mr. Harris shows conclusively that the missionary work performed in the countries and at the time Brother Potter speaks of was not performed by Baptists, but by the very ecclesiastical body that Brother Potter claims the Catholics sprung from. There was a division in the Church under Decius, who ascended the throne of the Roman Empire in 249 A.D. This division occurred in 251 A.D. A small faction withdrew from the main body of the Church. It was the main bodythe great national Church of the Empirethat did this mission work. At that day, according to my brothers views, the Christian Church, in every nation might be called Catholic. Let me read on page 151: It was not until the eighteenth century that the era of Protestant missions can be said to have commenced. Not indeed that the missionary spirit had slumbered in the Church from the apostolic age until then. Every intermediate century had witnessed the diffusion of- at least nominal Christianity. Although as early as the third century the original impulse given to the progress of the gospel had evidently declined, in the fourth we find Christianity existing in Persia. It became general in Armenia, where it had been introduced as early, probably, as the second century; it was carried from Armenia into Iberia, rapidly spreading throughout Ethiopia, whither it had been conveyed by Trumentius; and published about the year 359 by Theophilus, at the instance of Constantine, in the South of Arabia.
I want to know if Constantine, in his influence, was over the Regular Baptist Church? It was the State Church of the Roman Empire at that time; and all of his quotation from Jones history this morning fails to help his case. The missionaries of the third and fourth centuries, whom Jones claimed as Baptists, and whom my opponent claims not only as Baptists, but as members of his own Churchthe Anti-mission Baptists of todaywere the missionaries of the State Church of Rome. Though this was true, they were instrumental in bringing forth some excellent gospel fruit, notwithstanding their many errors in the work. They had no real piety or religious success, only in so far as they complied with the principles of the, Foreign Mission work. But I want to turn over here and read a little further. I knew he would bite at that yesterday. He says in 1791 the first Foreign Missionary Society was organized. I will read on page 154 of Harris Great Commission:
The seventeenth-century was an age of missionary preparation and promise. The close of the preceding century, indeed, had witnessed the first attempt on the part of Protestant Christians to make a descent on heathenism. The distinguished honor of making it belongs to the Swiss this is squarely against your Baptist doctrine; I hate to read it to you, but we are friends for in 1556 fourteen missionaries were sent by the Church of Geneva to plant the Christian faith in the newly-discovered regions of South America. In 1559 a missionary was sent into Lapland by the celebrated Gustavus Vasa, king of Sweden. Early in the seventeenth century the Dutch, having obtained possession of Ceylon, attempted to convert the natives to the Christian faith. About the same time many of the Nonconformists, who had settled in New England, began to attempt the conversion of the aborigines. Mayhew, in 1643, and the laborious Eliot in 1646, devoted themselves to the apostolic service. In 1649, during the Protectorate of Cromwell, was incorporated by act of Parliament the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England. In 1660 the Society was dissolved, but on urgent application was soon restored, and the celebrated Robert Boyle was appointed its first governor. The zeal of this distinguished individual for the diffusion of the gospel in India and America, and among the native Irish and Welsh, his munificent donations for translations of the sacred Scriptures into Malay and Arabic, Welsh and Irish, and of Eliots Bible into the Massachusetts Indian language, as well as for the distribution of Grotius De Veritate Christiane Religiouis, and, lastly, his legacy of 5,400 for the propagation of Christianity among the heathen, entitled him to distinct attention.
I have not time to read all. I would like to. I will now speak on Japan for a short time. I have not at hand the book I had expected to quote from, having left it in my hurry; but I will say this, and make my statement good: In 1859 the Protestant Episcopal Church sent an ordained minister into Japan. That man, by the laws of Japan, was not allowed to preach publicly. Then the work was begun by the Presbyterian Board, Baptists, and. others, during the time from 1860 to 1870. The Japanese saw our civilization after Commodore Perry had been there. They wanted the civilization, but were prejudiced against the Christian religion. But these men were anxious for the cause of Jesus. The Spirit of God makes them that way. They went there in the spirit of the Master, and would not be employed for teachers only as they could perform their work. So at last they were allowed to preach in the houses. The people became anxious to read the Bible. Why? They had seen the fruits of this wonderful civilization produced by Christianity, and they began to want it. That was because Commodore Perry opened the Bible right on the flag, thereby acknowledging that the great Republic he represented owed all its prestige and glory to the Bible. But my brother says, Only 7,791 converts in Japan! How much this little handful of men and women are doing! In 1872 they only had ten members, and they observed the week of prayers and two or three Japanese students went to the meeting. They heard about Pentecost, and believed, and these young men prayed so to God that the wicked sea captains who witnessed the scene said their hearts trembled within them. And they have added to them 7,791 members in these few years. Pretty good work, with all this heathenism against them. Look at the membership of my brothers Church in 1851, as reported by the Baptist Almanac. They were 60,000 strong; in 1861 they were 40,000 strong, There, I will say to you in all kindness, my brother, you have lost 20,000. I got it from the Baptist Years bookAlmanac. That is pretty good authority; you quote from it. O how he is growing! That is the result of his wonderful biblical doctrine. The Mission work in Japan, he tells us, is doing badly. How about your own Church, my brother?
Here is another little book from which I will read concerning the Foreign Mission work in Africa. There it is on the mapthose gleaming centers of light. This is by McKenzie, from his History of the Nineteenth Century, page 214:
Southern Africa was the home of the Bechuanas, a fierce, warlike racecruel, treacherous, delighting in blood. No traveler could go among them in safety; they refused even to trade with strangers; they bad no trace of a religion, no belief in any being greater than themselves, no idea of a future life. In the early days of missionary efforts Dr. Moffatt, with some companions, went among these discouraging savages. For years he toiled under manifold difficulty. For money, my brother? No man regarded his words. The people would not even come to church until they were bribed by a gift of tobacco; and their deportment, when they came, was unbecoming in a high degree. They stole the missionarys vegetables, his tools, and the very water which irrigated his fields. They destroyed his sheep, or chased them in utter mischief into dangerous places. But Moffatt, a heroic Christian man, labored patiently on, and in time a vast success crowned his noble toils. Almost suddenly (in 1828) the people began to attend church in large numbers, and to evince deep interest in the instruction of the missionaries. Dr. Moffatt translated the Bible into the native tongue, and there arose an eager desire to be able to read. Many persons professed Christianity and applied for baptism. Soon they manifested a disposition to clothe themselves, and to keep clean their persons, which heretofore were filthy. They began to improve their dwellings, and in a simple way to furnish them. (The Bible was at the bottom of that). They wanted plows wagons, and other agricultural implements. They entered readily into commercial relations with foreigners, and, in a few years their imports of foreign manufactures amounted to two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, paid for in the produce of the soil. Christianity is now almost universal among the Bechuanas. Education is rapidly extending, the natives are being trained in adequate numbers for teachers and preachers, and Christianity is spreading out among the neighboring tribes. The Bechuanas have been changed by Christian missions into an orderly, industrious people, who cultivate their fields in peace, and maintain with foreigners a mutually beneficial traffic.
MR. POTTERS FOURTH SPEECH.
BROTHER MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
We have been interested in another happy and eloquent speech. Brother Yates seems to be in as fine humor as ever. He believes in final perseverance. That is good doctrine. I believe in that too. By patience and perseverance the rat ate in two the cable. I want to pay some respect to the speech, because it is a good speech; but if any of the terms of the proposition were mentioned in the whole speech, they have slipped my mind. However, let us accept the speech as good, able, eloquent, and all that, and interesting. The subject of the commission I mention first.
He asserted yesterday morning, in the introduction of this discussion, the very thing that all modern or foreign missionaries assertthat is, that the commission, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, was delivered to the Church. I want to know of him why he said so, what Bible authority he had for saying any thing of the kind, when it was addressed to the eleven, as the text in both cases; Matthew and Mark, plainly and clearly state. Now be gets up and undertakes to give the reason by saying the Communion was instituted in the presence of the apostles only. If he is satisfied with that kind of proof, all right. I leave this audience to judge whether that establishes the fact, whether the gospel commission was delivered to the Church, ordained and unordained, male and female, old and young, rich and poor, weak and strong, instead of being delivered to the apostles and their successors. I leave that with you.
He made an improvement in representing my position on the subject of Romans i. 20, he referred to the report, found out what I did say; that is what I claimed this morning, that if Nature taught the Gentiles anciently that there was a God, why does not Nature teach the heathen the same? They were without excuse then; why are they not now, under the same circumstances?
Then he refers us to Matthew ix. 36, where Jesus, seeing the multitude, had compassion on them because they fainted, and were scattered abroad as sheep going astray, and intimates that this sympathy of Jesus was, the same sympathy or compassion that the missionaries have for the heathen that takes them into the great mission work. That is his effort, I suppose, to prove the identity of the love of the Saviour and the love of the missionary to the sinner. I dont know but according to their own language they love the heathen better than Jesus did. He failed to get us this institution called the Foreign Missionary Board for the salvation of the heathen, as well as he loved them. He said nothing about it, left no such instruction. Our missionary brethren say the heathen could not be saved without it. Hence they love the heathen so well that they have got up this expediency that they say is so essential to the salvation of the heathen I believe they love the heathen best, according to their own language.
I said that the seed did not prepare the heart. He does not say it does, but he asks what does. Perhaps I do not differ from Brother Yates as to what the seed was.
He said it was the word of God, and I believe it is the gospel preached. Perhaps we do not differ on that. If the seed does not prepare the heart, did it do it in the parable? The parable said that some fell by the wayside, and the fowls of the air caught it up. Did that change the heart? Did it not leave it just as it was? The seed that fell in stony places and that that fell among thornsdid it change the heart? Brother Yates did not say yes. He would not come out and say yes. But he says, if it does not, what does? That is plain.
That is the ScriptureMatthew xiii. Read it for yourself. I shall not spend much time on it.
But as he asked me one question, I must answer it. I am going to answer it in the language of Mr. Rice, a Presbyterian, in the Campbell and Rice Debate, page 628. Mr. Rice says: We believe and teach that in conversion and sanctification there is an influence of the Spirit in addition to that of the Word (notice that), and distinct from itan influence without which the arguments and motives of the gospel would never convert and sanctify one of Adams ruined race. Now, whether Brother Yates will accept Brother Rice or not, I will adopt that as my language in answer to his question. I adopt it as my own. If he wants to reply to it, he can reply to Brother Rice through me. We further believe, although the Word is employed as an instrument of conversion and sanctification where it can be used, God has never confined himself to means and instrumentalities where they cannot be employed. The latter part of that clause I acceptthat he has never confined himself to means and instrumentalities where they cannot be employed. Can they be employed among the heathen where the gospel never was, and there never was any Bible, and never was any preacher? Then the Lord does not confine himself to means and instrumentalities in these places, Mr. Rice says, and I dont believe he does.
One thing more I want to notice; that is, Brother Yates says wise men change. We have been talking about the revision of the Presbyterian doctrine. He says himself it has been revised! I dont know any thing about it. I have not seen his new revision of the Confession of Faith, but I produced one that he says looks old. It looks old because it is old. He says wise men change; and I presume from that, our Presbyterian brethren are wise enough to change, and Brother Yates belongs to that class. I want to know whether, before the change, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church stood upon the truth, and if they did, did they stand upon it after the change? Now, as Brother Yates is one of these wise men that change, perhaps he is wise enough to give us some light on that subject, and tell us whether the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was founded at the start upon the truth, and if it was, and has changed its doctrines since then, is it founded upon the truth today? Brother Yates, answer that question in your next speech. It would be a great accommodation to us who are under the impression that principles never change. Gods truth is as unchangeable as himself.
On the subject of election I will tell you what the Cumberland Presbyterians once believed. I dont know whether they do now or not. If Brother Yates holds them to it, I dont hold them to it. Reformation is commendable if the man finds he is wrong. It is the very noblest trait of the human character to retract when they find out they are wrong. Here is what they said, as contained in their Confession of Faith-Chapter VIII. Article I: it has pleased God to choose the Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, to be the mediator between God and man, a Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of his Church, and heir of all things, and Judge of the world, unto whom he promised a seed remember, it was God who promised the Son a seed and to be by him redeemed, called by his Word and Spirit, justified by his grace, sanctified and glorified. That is what the Cumberland Presbyterians used to believe. I dont know whether they do now or not.
Now, if God promised Jesus Christ a seed before the world began, he knew Where they were, and knew where they would be, and he is going to make good his promise. He made every provision necessary for the accomplishment of the work, and our Presbyterian brethren say that he did make the promise. The prophet says, God is not a man that he should he; neither the son of man that he should repent. Hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath, he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Having promised his Son a seed, then, to be by him in time redeemed, and not only redeemed, but glorified, will the Father fulfill that promise? I answer, Yes, sir, he will fulfill it.
Again, he tells us that missionism did not commence as recently as 1792. It originated anterior to that date. It was in the seventeenth century. Very well. If it originated in the seventeenth century, it did not originate before Pentecost, nor very shortly afterward; it was nearly seventeen hundred years afterward, according to his own futuresat least sixteen hundred years afterward, according to the earliest figures he has given us. Then it did not originate with the Saviour nor the apostles, according to Brother Yates own showing. If it did not, it is not authorized in the Scriptures and owned of God. We have no right to believe any thing is authorized of God that is not given any account of in his Word. If it is not of God, it is of man, and that is the issue between us, according to Brother Yates own heading of his article, Is the Foreign Mission work of God or man. Now I propose to present an objection to this, and give you some Bible reasons for my objection. I believe in the salvation of more people than some people do. The platform of salvation on which I stand is broader than the platform on which some others stand. I want to say now that I present an objection that has already been hinted at. I object to the Foreign Mission work on the ground that it makes a misuse of the gospel, in that it makes the gospel an offer of salvation, and therefore essential to salvation. The mission work makes the publication of the gospel, or the proclamation of it to the people, an offer of salvation, and not only so, but essential to salvation; and that is the reason we hear Brother Yates and other missionaries talk about capturing souls in heathen lands for Jesus, and working for Jesus. Let us see if I am correct in charging that on the missionaries. For proof of this objection I quote from a tract published by the American Baptist Missionary Union.
Pardon me; I want to notice right here one more thing that I had forgotten. I want Brother Yates to bring us that Baptist almanac he talks about. We want to know the author of it. We want to know something about that Baptist almanac. He tells us what our strength was a few years ago by that almanac, and what it is today. If any of our brethren ever published any Baptist almanac, or any thing of that kind, I dont know any thing about it. The missionaries do once in awhile, I think, publish an almanac, yearly. The Mission Baptists, I think, some of them, do so, and perhaps other denominations. We divorced the Mission Baptists long ago, and we have no communication or communion with them, and have not had for a long time. We would not receive their immersion any quicker than we would Brother Yates sprinkling or pouring. The people already know that. We are not accountable for what the Baptist missionaries say Benedict, and other historians, stigmatize us as Hard. Shells, and every thing ugly; and he said before his type-plates would be circulated over this country, the Hard-Shells would be numbered among the things of the past. He was a false prophet. Perhaps people who have that kind of a feeling toward us have been getting up this almanac.
I want to show you that the missionaries do hang the salvation of the heathen upon their hearing of the gospel. Let us hear what they say. And when I quote from Missionary Baptist authority, it is just as good as Presbyterian authority; from the very fact that the proposition embraces all Protestant denominations who are engaged in the Foreign Mission workjust as good. This proposition is not denominational, and these Missionary Baptists are not my brethren. They are Brother Yates in this discussion. This congregation understands that. Now what do they say? In a tract published by the American Baptist Missionary Union, entitled The True Test, we read the following:
Christian friends, we have no fires of martyrdom now to test our fidelity to Jesus Christ, but we are not left without a test. God is testing us all continually; testing the measure of our faith, of our love, of our devotedness to his Son, by the presence of eight hundred million of the heathen world. It is a tremendous test so real, so practical. It is no trifle, no myth, no theory, no doubtful contingency but an awful fact, that we Protestant Christians, who rejoice in our rich gospel blessings, and claim to be followers of him who gave up heavenly glory, and earthly ease, and life itself, to save these heathen, are actually 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 heard. This is a fact that too many forget, but a fact that none can deny, a fact which we dare not pretend to be ignorant of, a fact that ought to influence our whole Christian course from the moment of conversion.
That is easily understood. I also quote from the CampbellRice debate, which teaches the same doctrine. Mr Campbell 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 spiritual thought, feeling, or emotion, where the Bible, or some traditions 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 midnight; a gloom profound; utter darkness. What stronger evidence can be adduced than this most evident and indisputable fact? It weighs more than a thousand volumes of metaphysical speculations.
That is what Mr. Campbell says. We will not stop at him further. I remember today, when I made the assertion that I did not believe the foreign missionaries, with all their operations, and zeal, and love, had been the means of converting a solitary heathen to God that would not have been converted without it, there was a snicker all over the house. It pleased our missionary friends to hear me take that position. That is where I stand. Brother Yates did not tell us they were the means of doing that. Let him do so if he wants to. Here is the issue: Are the foreign missionaries the means of adding to the number that shall be saved? Are they the means of increasing the number of that seed that God promised to the Son before the world began? Are they necessary in order to save that seed that God promised to the Son before the world began? I want some explanation on that. Let us hear what another missionary has to say. I now refer you to the circular letter of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, of 1806, page 426. They say:
The following principles have given rise to Christian missions, and swayed the conduct of faithful missionaries. First, a deep conviction of the fallen state of the human race. Once, indeed, man was made in honor, but now he is in disgrace. Woe unto us that we have sinned. In our common father we have all sunk in the abyss of original defection, and are all actual offenders against the righteous God. Many have endeavored to extenuate the offenses of the heathen world. Idolaters have been represented as the untaught children of nature, whom the Supreme Being would rather pity than punish. But such are not the representations of the Holy Scriptures, the oracles of divine truth. That they who have sinned without the law will be judged without the law is admitted; but it is expressly declared that The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men; that such as change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image are without excuse, and that the judgment of God is that they who commit such things are worthy of death. Who will dare to oppose his judgment to the judgment of infinite wisdom and righteousness? or who can be negative when he hears the Bible proclaim indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
That is missionary doctrine. Now, notice these texts of Scripture are used to prove the damnation of the heathen. They would not accept the idea that God would rather pity the poor heathen than punish them. They say that is wrong, and quote these texts to prove it. I say that is the missionary doctrine. I want to say that it limits the salvation of God; it binds him up; it shuts him out from that portion of his elect that he said should bless all nations of the earth where the Bible is not. If none are to be saved in heathen lands only on the condition that they hear, believe, and obey the gospel, then about three-fourths of the sons and daughters of Adam are sent to hell, to suffer eternal vengeance for what they are no more to be blamed for than I am because I was not born in England two hundred years ago. It shuts salvation out from a large majority of this world. I want to show you that God has made a covenant. I want to call attention now to some Scripture proofs; and I want Brother Yates .to tell us what they mean. Genesis xviii. 17, 18: And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? How many nations of the earth art to be blessed in him? Brother Yates, tell us what nation is left out. Again, Genesis xxii. 18: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Now here is Gods Word, it must be taken.
Whether missionary witnesses are sufficient or not, here is one that is. God said it. he that cannot he says to Abraham, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Again, Genesis xii. 3, And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Again, Genesis xxvi. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and I will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.
Here was Gods covenant with Abraham long ago. That covenant embraced a seed, a people, who were not all literally Jews, fleshly descendants of Abraham. We will go to the New Testament now, and read Acts iii. 25, 26, and see what it does mean: Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth he blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Gal. iii 7, 8: Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Now we begin to see that this seed, the children of Abraham, are the people of God, not only the Jews but they were also among the Gentiles. Gal. iii. i6: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Then Christ, being the seed, is to bless all kindreds of the earth, which also are the seed of Abraham, Gal. iii. 29:I will quote to prove thatAnd if ye be Christs that applies to Brother Yates and me, and all Christians within the sound of my voice today, all that live, all that ever will live, and all that ever have lived If ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise. According to what are ye heirs? According to the promise. What promise? The promise of God made to Abraham. I want Brother Yates to tell us if that is not so. I challenge him to point out an heir of God under the canopy of heaven that is not an heir according to the promise made to Abraham. Go to your heathen fields, go the dark nooks and corners of the earth, and find a man that is Christs, that God did not promise him in his covenant that he should be his, and who is not his according to that promise. If it is according to that promise, it is not according to something else. It is not according to the energy of man, or zeal of missionaries. It does not depend upon human institutions to fulfill that promise. If God had depended upon such influences to perform that promise, which he promised at the start, they would have been embraced in the great economy of the gospel when Jesus Christ was here. Our forefathers in the primitive church would have had the benefit of all that, and when they went to preach the gospel in almost all the divisions of Asia, Europe, and Africa, they would have had the benefit of modern missionary institutions that my brother is here to defend, and to say are authorized in the Scriptures. But no; according to his own testimony, and I am a witness with Brother Yates on that, the Church had stood for over sixteen hundred years without it, and if it had, surely it was not authorized in the Scriptures.
MR. YATES FIFTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
My brother has gotten into the old channel at last. When he was harping on the covenant I knew he would be at home. I give him credit for being plucky, for it takes a wonderful man to face such a doctrine as he has to handle.
He brings up the Foreign Mission Boards again. Let me state the question once more. If my brothers argument has touched the question under discussion, I cannot see it. Listen to the proposition:
Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Holy Scriptures, and blessed and owned of God.
Now, it does not matter whether a man is a hyper Calvinist or an Arminian, the question is the Foreign Mission work itself. It is the fruits of that work. Brother Potter does not know Gods secret roll of the elect. He acknowledges that the ordinary course of the divine economy in the salvation of men is through preaching and teaching the gospel. This is expressed in the Saviours command, and demonstrated in the practice of the apostles. Is not this the object and work of Foreign Missions? Now, if in those mission fields in heathen lands there can be shown one convert from heathenism to Christ, whose life brings forth the fruits of the Spirit, it will be tangible testimony that the missionaries in their efforts had been divinely sent, and their labors blessed and owned of God. Thousands of such cases can be produced in the foreign field in the past and present history of the Foreign Mission work. There are thousands of heathen whose natures were degraded and imbruted before the missionaries went to them with the gospel, whose characters are now transformed into the glorious image of Christ, which the spiritual fruitfulness of their lives unmistakably evidence. This was brought about by receiving the gospel message from the earnest missionary laborers. Though my opponent differs from me in regard to mans agency in his own salvation, he does not in regard to the gospel fruits in the Christians life which evidence his salvation. Now, my brother, what about the gospel fruits brought forth in the lives of those converted from heathendom to Christianity in the foreign fields? Dos it not prove beyond a doubt that the Foreign Mission work is in the trend of divine providence in carrying out the divine plan of salvation, that it is divinely commissioned, directed, owned, and blessed of God? He seemed a little wrought up in referring to what I said today about his virtually making every missionary in the foreign fields a man who has no conception of his work, or a self-deceived hypocrite. That is just what he does. This is the logical predicament in which he places himself when he says there are evidences given that the fruits are not sufficient to show that these heathen converts to Christianity have been born of the Spirit. I have read from the very best authorsauthors thoroughly informed and of undoubted integrityand from earnest, intelligent, and impartial persons who have visited those countries embraced in the foreign fields. I have quoted those who have seen how degraded and wretched those people were before they received the gospel, and what a wonderful moral and spiritual reformation had been wrought in their character and their lives after their reception of the gospel. But he will not touch this argument which I have adduced in some form or other in every speech I have made during this discussion. This argument, drawn from the fruits of the work itself in heathen lands on the foreign field, he knows is unanswerable, and dares not touch it. He is aware that the testimony of these consecrated men and women on the foreign field in regard to the Christian lives of the converts from heathenism, cannot be gainsaid. He does not come up and boldly say that these missionaries are self-deceived or dishonest; but his language implies it. Yet when I expos his inferences, he is fearfully wrought up. Why? Because he knows our language is going down in the report and will be read by some of these very men and women. I have forced him to acknowledge that many of these missionaries are earnest Christians, children of God, elected from eternity. But my opponents attitude, taken in connection with this concession, makes God trifle with them in their prayers. According to his doctrine, God lets them be deceived, allows their bones to bleach on those distant shores to no purpose. There is your covenant God. Yours is a beautiful God. There is not a father in this town who would be guilty of such injustice and cruelty in the treatment of his children. Your God is a God that is all will and no heart. I will tell you, the power to do a thing and the right to do it are two different things, my brother.
We will pass on, He says, Where was the Cumberland Presbyterian Church during the past centuries of missionary work, as claimed by you? O that Church question with him is a great question! It was like the Regular Baptist, as you call it, my brotherat that time it did not have a tangible denominational existence; but it was unlike your Church in several particulars, and especially in reference to the Foreign Mission work. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church in all of its leading doctrines, and in mission work in particular, has in principle existed through all the centuries of Christian history, back to the very incipiency of the Church of Christ. Brother Potter says Jesus Christ never established a mission board. When did the Saviour, during his ministry on earth, establish the Regular Baptist Church? I want that passage. Notice how be tried to get out of that Church business by saying that Christ gave the commission to the apostles instead of the Church. I can throw the logical consequences of his doctrine on him from his position, just as be can on me, and I will take all he throws on me. He says Brother Yates never named the proposition in his speech. It was not necessary. The arguments I produced were so clear and plain in its support as to make the proposition so vivid that to name it would not be necessary. He said, when I alluded to the Communion, that I thought I had proved the proposition by what I said. Why did I allude to the subject? Because in their belief in the Lords Supper and their practice in regard to it, they have confessed that the apostles did represent the Church. Certainly, be said, this commission was given to the apostles and their successors. Are you a successor of the apostles, my brother? I did not know that the Regular Baptists were Episcopalians and had an apostolic succession. What a revelation. Bishops and priests all in this great line of regular order! Did you notice how quickly he left Pauls missionary tour to Arabia? I want him to go back and try that mission business again, which he referred to this morning. Those books the Bible and Canon Farrars Life of St. Paulsettled you, my brother.
He was going to give us great trouble today, and also this week. You remember how he spoke of the invisible Church. We all belong to that. The Cumberland Presbyterians belong to that. I am elected from eternity, and I cannot help myself. God has fixed it. That is it. If I am to be a Cumberland Presbyterian, I have to be. God made it so from all eternity, and I have nothing to do with it. That is the logical conclusion of the argument my brother is giving. God fixed it that we as a Church should sprout out about seventy-five or seventy-six years ago. He says if we are in error we are all convertedall Gods dear, elected children from eternity. I will read you a passage of Scripture that I stand on. Maybe he will tell you that this Word does not mean what it says: I hope he will take hold of it. This Scripture is excellent. Hebrews xii. 22: But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect. Angels belong to this invisible Church, do they not? There is where the Cumberland Church was born. All these visible, local, tangible Church organizations are only different expressions of the various phases of Christianity through methods of Christian usages and works peculiar to each. I asked him about the Church clerk. Why, his Church would not have an existence without this officer, or at least would be defective without it. He said I could not prove my proposition in that way; but I can at least show the absurdity of his position. He talks about the Cumberland Presbyterians believing in election. We do not, as he interprets it. I want to stay with him in this Bible for a short time. Did you notice how he dwelt upon that quotation, that in Abrahams seed all nations should be blessed? But he was very careful not to name the conditions by which we become Abrahams seed. He says he does not know about the Foreign Mission work. I am afraid that is so. I know if he had studied it as he should, he would have seen Gods fingers guiding this work. But he says it is not authorized in the Bible. I think I have given enough proof-texts to convince any unprejudiced, thinking mind that the doctrine of missions is in harmony with the entire trend of the teachings of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. He speaks of our Confession of Faith teaching his view of the doctrine of election. Let me read you sections 3436, found on the 25th page of our Confession of Faith: God, in creating man in his own like ness, endued him with intelligence, sensibility, and will, which form the basis of moral character, and render man capable of moral government. The freedom of the will is a fact of human consciousness, and is the sole ground of human accountability. Man, in his state of innocence, was both free and able to keep the divine law, also to violate it. Without any constraint from either physical or moral causes, he did violate it. Man by his disobedience lost his innocence, forfeited the favor of God, became corrupt in heart, and inclines to evil. In this state of spiritual death and condemnation, man is still free and responsible; yet, without the illuminating influences of the Holy Spirit, he is unable either to keep the law or lay hold upon the hope set before him in the gospel. That is our position.
I want to refer to the seed that my brother has been talking about. He went on to say that he and I disagree on a certain point, and then he quoted from Campbell and Rice, as if I did not believe in the operation of the Holy Spirit. I believe in it as much as he does. I compared it to the sunlight and the rain. You know the seed is sown after the ground is made ready to receive it, and the sun and rain are sent to nourish it. But he said it did not change the ground. But the fruit came out of the grain in .the ground, did it not?out of the Word? Here are some questions for my brother. If a man has no agency in the reception of the gospel in his heart, and God alone inclines and prepares him to profitably receive the Word, then who is to blame? Man, who does not hear and receive the Word into his heart profitably? or God, for not inclining and preparing his heart profitably to receive the Word? I want you to understand me. If God does it all, as you claim, then man has not the ability to receive it, and who is to blame? You say God does it. I say if God does it all, who is to blame? Now, if God does it all, I want to know where mans agency is. If a many s mind is absolutely controlled by God, and he has no will of his own in the exercise of choice, he is not accountable for his acts. If he is left free, he is accountable. Paul blames the heathen for their benighted and degraded state on the ground of their abuse of the light and privileges that had been extended to them; but Brother Potter disagrees with Paul.
Brother Potter says they are not to blame for their condition. Poor, unfortunate people! they are no more to blame for their ignorant and degraded state than they are for their natural color. His teaching in regard to the heathen not only contradicts Paul, but the Saviour and the tenor of the entire teachings of the New Testament. My worthy opponent said in one of his speeches that we held the heathen accountable for rejecting the gospel where they could not be reached with it. We do not. We claim they are held accountable for the light they have. But just name one country on all the face of that map of the world that we have not access to with the gospel todayjust one country. We have access to all these countries, have we not? and who is criminal if we do not take the gospel there? He says we hold the heathen accountable where they cannot have the gospel. We can see where Gods providences point, and the doors are open, and who is to blame now? But if God has fixed it all from eternity, and every thing is iron-bound, then I cannot help myself.
Here is a passage I want to call your attention to, which has caused my brother a great amount of trouble in defending his theory. I will read it to you. He (Potter) said the Lord does with men in salvation just what he desires. But this does not accord with the Lords own teaching. This Scripture (Matthew xxiii. 37), which is descriptive of Christs lamentation over Jerusalem, confounds my opponent and destroys his theory. In it Christ proclaims to us that whatever he is to man depends entirely upon mans own free choice in accepting or rejecting him. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killeth the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! It was Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of men, the seed of Abraham, who said this. I would have saved youthou wicked, ungrateful, rebellious Jerusalem time and again I have offered you the opportunities of salvation, but ye would not. How greatly I desired to save you, but you would not permit me! O Jerusalem, how anxious I am to save you, and how it pains me to be thus rejected by you! In regard to Gods power, I cannot tell what God can do, nor how much he cannot do. I do not fully know about Gods omnipotence, because he is infinite. I accept it as a fact. I am finite. I know one thingon this side of the line God in his infinite wisdom has so constituted every thing that I am responsible, I am accountable; and I will say farther, that my mind is too limited to reach up to the exact point where moral agency and Infinite Sovereignty unite; but here we see their harmonious cooperation in the history of the experience of the human race. This is also implied in the commands of Gods Word. God in the divine plan of life has given to every man a mission to be performed, and in the life of Christ he has presented a model to which every life should be conformed. Mans destiny, both in this world and the world to come, turns upon his conformity or non-conformity to this model. Every thing in creation follows a model. The tree and flowers grow after a model, and the model of manhood and womanhood is Christ Jesus. Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed. We are blessed in Christ. How do we get into Christ? The Bible says Christ is our righteousness. In Romans x. the apostle says, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. In the Greek it is into righteousness. Hence we get into Christ by a loving trust, and are thereby blessed. This is by the exercise of our own individual powers. God does not love for us, nor believe for us.
My brother said he objected to the Foreign Mission work because it hinged the salvation of the heathen on the proclamation of the gospel. What does Jesus mean, my brother, when he says, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned? What did Jesus mean when he told Paul to go and open the eyes of the blind and break the power of Satan? That does not mean that man does the worknot man alone but that he cooperates with God. Suppose a man is lost, he can look God in the face, and say, You did not elect me from eternity. The idea of a man being arrested and condemned for something in this country that he is forced to do by the Government! That is the real logic of your doctrine. That God decrees that the helpless sinner shall be lost by not extending to him divine aid, and then punishes him for being lost when he had no agency in the matter! Brother Potter said, when I showed the absurdity of his money objection to the Foreign Mission work, that he liked it just as well as I do. There is no difference between us, then, on that point. When I got him fast in regard to Paul receiving wages, he said that Paul was not a missionary, and was, at the time he spoke of, receiving wages as a missionary. Brother Potter said Paul was a pastor of a church. What an argument. I did not see how we could stand it. Have not we churches, Brother Jenkins, out in the Foreign Mission field? And not only that, we have the Boards he hates so badly there, among the heathen in the Fiji Islands. Our missionaries there have died crowned as glorious martyrs to bring these souls to Jesus. He says we must not use the term capture them. It was Jesus who authorized me to say it. Holding forth the word of life. Ye are the salt of the earth. Ye are the light of the world; That is the Bible. There is one passage I forgot to name for him. He wanted me to explain it for him. It is Rev. xiv. 6:
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. That is simply a sketch of the prophetic Church, and it shows that the gospel is to be carried to every country. And that is what is being done in the Foreign Mission work.
Now in regard to the apostles carrying the gospel into England, I will quote Mosheims Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I., page 99. I also have Knights History of England, one of the best histories to establish my position. Mosheim says, under the division of the Second Century:
From Gaul it would seem the Christian religion must have spread into Germany, on the left of the Rhine, which was subject to the Romans, and also into Britain, over against Gaul. Yet certain Churches in Germany have been accustomed to deduce their origin from the companions and disciples of St. Peter and other apostles; and the Britons, following the account given by Beda, would fain believe that their king Lucius (who reigned there in A.D. 180) sought and obtained Christian teachers from Eleutherus, the Roman Pontiff, in this second century, and during the reign of Marcus Antonius. But these ancient accounts are exposed to much doubt, and are rejected by the best informed persons.
In connection with this I will quote from Knights History of England, Vol. I., page 16: But if the statements of the ancient British writers as to the adoption of Christianity by Lucius, A.D. 180, are deficient in that precision which constitutes historical authenticity, there is ample evidence that a Christian Church of some importance was established in Britain at the beginning of the fourth century.
So over against the statement of his old geography, by Guthrie, that the gospel was introduced into England by the apostles, we place the testimony of these two great historians, Mosheim and Knight, both of whom, in their peculiar spheres as historians, occupy the front rank as first-class authorities. They agree in assigning the time of the introduction of the gospel into England about two hundred years after the death of the last of the apostles. I am surprised that a minister of the gospel, in this enlightened day, with the experience and notoriety of my opponent, and with the great trusts which are committed to him on this occasion, should be so misled as to bring up as an authority in this discussion that old, defective geography, out of date, cast aside as worthless even for the study of the twelve-year-old school-boy in our common schools. I can only explain my brothers blunder on the ground that desperate causes sometimes induce their advocates to employ absurd and desperate means. The point that my opponent aimed to make by attempting to prove that the gospel was carried into England by the apostles was that all the Christian privileges and blessings enjoyed by us today are the result of the labors of the ministry alone who went forth at their own option in the work of evangelization, without consulting the voice of the Church, or being sent forth by its decisions. To do this he assumes that the apostles did not represent the Church, and that all the work of evangelization was performed by them. As the gospel, according to this assumption, was planted by them in Europe, and especially in England, and the ministers being the real successors of the apostles, and our great Christian civilization being the result of the early planting of the gospel in Europe, he holds that it was produced by the informal labors of the ministry who went forth in the mission work without consulting the Churches, or seeking their approbation. If Brother Potter had been able to prove that the apostles carried the gospel into England, it would not have sustained the point he attempted to make; for we have already shown from the New Testament that the apostles represented the Church. This is seen in the ordinances committed to themviz., Baptism and the Lords Supper. These were given through them to the Church. The apostle exhorts a certain Church to keep the ordinances as I [Paul] have delivered them to you. I have also shown that the first celebration of the Lords Supper was by Christ and his apostles alone, and afterwards that the apostles, simply as members of the Church, and with the Church as a congregation, celebrated the ordinance. I have further shown from the New Testament that the Holy Spirit, through the Church, chose, ordained, and sent forth her laborers apostles as well as othersinto the mission work of the foreign field. I have also further shown from the New Testament that the gospel Church, in its offices, from the highest to the lowest rank, and in its lay-members, enthusiastically engaged in the propagation of the gospel on both the home and foreign field. This completely blots out the point my brother aims to make, and proves beyond doubt that the Foreign Mission work of today, in every essential feature, is the same gospel work that has given to us all that we possess and enjoy in our present Christian civilization. He says I do not understand the meaning of the term used in the proposition under discussion, that Foreign Missions are owned and blessed of God. I have told you what I mean by owned and blessed of God that the fruits of- the Foreign Mission work show that God owns and blesses the labors of the missionaries. I will here repeat the line of argument showing the perfect identity of the Foreign Mission work of today with that of the gospel work of the New Testament First, in the objects and end to be subserved in proclaiming the gospel to the heathen, announcing to them the glad tidings that the Saviour has come, and providing the wonderful plan of salvation for mankind which is adapted to meet the needs of all ages, classes, and ranks, and thereby to be a joy to all nations. You remember that I showed that the principles of the Foreign Mission work consisted in love to Jesus, in loyalty to him, in obedience to his will, in belief in the promises of God, and that foreign missionaries are actuated by that mighty love of Christ, that great motive-power in the gospel work. You remember I showed you that the missionary workers were called and set apart by the Holy Spirit, like the workers in the New Testamenthow they prayed; how the Foreign Mission work was born of the Holy Spirit through prayer; how the bugle-note rang from England to America for a world-wide concert of prayer for a revival of the Church at home, and to open up the way to reach the heathen world, and to prepare them for the reception of the gospel. I showed how Christians went down on their knees, how that missionary organization was formed that sent out Carey to India; and I showed also that the fruits of the missionary labors were the genuine fruits of the gospel. And when I brought out in my arguments the unanswerable proofs that the fruits of the civilization produced by the Foreign Mission work in the heathen lands was identical with the Christian fruits of our Protestant civilization in Europe and America, and hence identical with the gospel fruits of the apostolic period, my worthy opponent never at tempted to answer them, and did not deign even to notice them. To prove that the Foreign Mission work moves in the trend of Divine providence, under the supervision, guidance, and blessing of God, I will quote from the Homiletic Monthly, 1883, page 638:
Facts are the fingers of God. Although indifference is not always born of ignorance, there will be little zeal without knowledge. To awaken a deep passion for the universal and immediate spread of the gospel tidings, believers must be brought face to face with those grand facts, which make the march of modern missions the miracle of these later days. Not to go back farther, for four hundred years we can trace signal providences casting up this broad, level highway between the centers of Christendom and Pagandom. Near the close of the sixteenth century a new route to the Golden Indies, by way of the Cape of Good Hope, led to the chartering of the East India Company a few years later; and so while the pilgrims were sowing the seeds of this grand republic beneath the setting sun, Protestant England planted an empire toward the sunrise, and in the very heart of the pagan Orient. Unconsciously the leading nation of the Protestant Christian world was reaching out one hand eastward and the other westward to lay the foundations of a world-wide Church. Yes, the providence of God is seen in it; my brother dare not say he knows God s methods and work. Results tell that. Subsequent conflicts in America and India settled the question that in both hemispheres the cross was to displace both the crescent and the crucifix. By the middle of the eighteenth century America and Asia are respectively held by the two foremost Protestant powers of the world. England has a firm foot-hold in the critical center of Oriental missions, and in her hands holds the keys of the kingdoms of the east. This makes necessary, as a line of communication, an open highway for travel and traffic between the mother country and her Eastern possessions. If Britain had any right in India, she had a right to a safe and peaceful road thither; and this political necessity was used of God ultimately to shape the attitude of every nation along that highway had England not held that highway to the Indies, the destinies of Europe and India might have been changed Turkey would probably have been devoured by Russia or divided between Russia and France; the Greek and Roman Churches, crossing the mountains, might have swayed all Asia and kept out Protestant missions. Behold the hand of God using English arms and diplomacy to hold popes, czars, and sultans in check; to shield converts from persecution by Turkish Armenians, Persian Nestorians, Syrian Moslems, or Indian Brahmans,, and giving Britain a casting-vote in the affairs of the Sublime Porte. What means this providential establishment of British empire in India? It is an entering wedge driven into the heart of Asiaa wedge, the direction of whose cleavage is still eastward, splitting in twain these gnarled and knotty trunks of moss-grown empires. Meanwhile, from seed sown at Plymouth develops another mighty evangelizing power. The Protestant Republic of America strides from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and planting foot on the western shores, moves toward the eastern coasts of Asia as though there were no more sea. Here is Gods counter force moving from the opposite direction to meet England and oppose her entering wedge with the resistance of cooperation, as anvil opposes sledge-hammer. In other words, another irrepressible conflict has come. Commerce will have her highway round the world, and knocks imperatively at the sealed ports and barred gates of exclusive Oriental empires.
My friends, wherever there is a door open to commerce in the world, there goes the Bible. The missionary follows up this opportunity at once, to proclaim the gospel to his benighted fellow-men, in compliance with the Saviours command. When the ignorant and degraded heathen sees the beautiful and majestic steamer, with its nerves of steel and its throbbing heart of fire, moving as the very embodiment of life and force, laden with a cargo of the valuable products of our Christian civilization, it fills him with both surprise and delight, and makes his heart swell with intense anxiety to learn of the civilization that produces these things, and how that civilization was brought about. He is told that it was brought about by receiving and obeying the teachings of a book called the Bible; that this book contains the directions of the true God of heaven and earth to man, showing him how to spend this life to the greatest advantage to himself and to his fellowbeings, and to the supreme glory of God; and that in obeying these directions man becomes godlike in mind and character, and hence becomes the producer of these precious and much desired fruits of Christian civilization. This makes him anxious to hear and receive the gospel. So God uses the nations of the earth today in opening these ports and thereby opening doors of entrance to the heathen countries for the blessed work of Foreign Missions, as he has ever done in opening up the highways of communication and the doors of entrance for the gospel in the unevangelized portions of the East through all the centuries of Christian history. Go preach the gospel to every creature spans the world (pointing to the map of the Protestant Mission stations of the world, spanned with this motto). Thank God, the glad tidings of salvation are ringing around the world today, as seen by the blue and red marks on that map, representing the numerous mission stations that girdle the globe! This is one of the grandest days for the mission work that has ever come in all the centuries. Then the opening up of China, India, Japan, Africa, and the Isles of the Sea to the reception of the gospel, as has been already presented before your minds in the eloquent and forcible quotation just read, is certainly an unmistakable indication that Gods finger is directing, and Gods presence guiding, the Foreign Mission work. We are informed by unquestionable authorities that the first missionaries in the numerous islands of the great archipelago of Oceania began this work under peculiar circumstances, under visible evidences of the guidance of Divine Providence. When these missionaries left Europe their destination was not any of these islands, but one of those great continents of heathendom. When they attempted to land and enter the work, they were refused and expelled by the people. They were sad at their failure, but felt that they could not give up their mission of love, as bearers of the message of salvation to the benighted heathen, and return home. So they prayed in their vessel: O Lord guide us; thou knowest that we have entered this work with hearts enlisted to carry the banner of Jesus around the world. They went to a certain island and found to their surprise that it was open to them, and the people ready to receive their message. In this instance, which is only one out of many, we have clear and unmistakable evidence of Gods leadings and guidance in the Foreign Mission work, and of the divine favor and blessing, as manifested in the great results that grew out of these missionaries entering and establishing the gospel work on the islands referred toviz., the evangelization of nearly all of the many islands composing this great archipelago. Didnt you say, my brother you did not believe there had been a person regenerated through the Foreign Mission work on these islands?
MR. POTTER: No, sir.
MR. YATES: I so understood you. Well, then, it is blessed and owned of God if souls are regenerated through the labors of the missionaries. You will have to give it up now.
When those missionaries entered this island they found that wicked men, who had fled from justice in civilized lands to these benighted regions as a refuge, had been led to feel that they were not safe there among those degraded human beings. A sense of their own need of protection induced them to talk to the heathen on such parts of the Bible as they could remember, and about the mercy and kindness it enjoins upon man in his treatment of his fellow-men. Thus, we see, in the gospel work Gods enemies as well as his friends are often made to praise him.
These missionaries found one man from another island, and that opened a way to reach that island. They talked with him, teaching him the Bible, and they labored for months and years, and were richly rewarded. It was so in other places. Just like the apostles, in some places they found friends and in some places they were beaten back, but finally the way would open. That was the way it was with those mission fields.
Thus we see that the Foreign Mission laborers are following the leadings of Divine Providence in the work of the evangelization of the world, as did Gods servants in the apostolic age. As the Lord did then so he does now, in going with them and directing them to their fields of labor. When they enter these fields they find them in some measure prepared for their work by the Lord, who has preceded them. When the first, missionaries landed on that island in Oceania, how different was the condition of the inhabitants of all the islands which dot the ocean for hundreds and even thousands of miles, in contrast with their state today. Then they were all enshrouded in the black, impenetrable pall of heathen darkness. A dreary waste, indeed, under the reign of Sin in its most degraded and brutal form, lay before these pioneer missionaries. Mighty were the obstacles that had to be overcome before the light of the gospel could be spread over those regions of Satans dark domain. These missionaries adopted the principle laid down by the illustrious Carey, and acted on itAttempt great things for God, and expect great things from God. God honored their confidence and granted their desire to an extent that surprised both the Church and the world, and that calls for the devoutest gratitude on the part of Christendom. The great majority of the many islands of Oceania today gleam out with gospel light, in the dazzling clusters of the blazing worlds in the glorious galaxies of the heavens.
MR. POTTERS FIFTH SPEECH.
BROTHER MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I want to ask Brother Yates one question, and I will ask him to write it down in my words; it is this: Do you believe that souls have been regenerated and born of God, and will be saved in heaven, through the instrumentality of those foreign missionaries, that would have been lost had these missionaries never gone there? Now I want you to answer that tomorrow morning, if you do not say one word about any thing else.
MR. YATES: I will attend to that for you.
MR. POTTER: I want you to say yes, or no, just as I do.
MR. YATES: You will let me answer in my own way, wont you?
MR. POTTER: I want you to answer it. It dont take me long to answer. I said this morning that I did not believe it, and Brother Yates has not disputed my position yet. I want him to say if he means it. I want to know the use of this mission work.
Now I want to notice a few things that he said. In the first place, he charges me with having never noticed the results of the missionary labor as an evidence of Gods blessing. I noticed the labors of others that he does not believe are of Godthe Roman Catholics. I showed that they have been successful, and if we are to take the success of an enterprise in accomplishing its purpose as an evidence that God blesses it, then the Roman Catholics stand ahead of any Protestant denomination today. Because I said that, Brother Yates has charged me with classing him and the Catholics and all the Protestants together in one class. I dont mean any thing of the kind, Brother Yates. I simply mean that we have as abundant proof of Gods hand in their work as you have. Is success on their part an evidence of Gods blessing? Brother Yates never has answered that, but comes up in his third speech today, and says I have not noticed the evidence that he has given.
The people know whether he has noticed mine or not. Brother Yates is in a fine humor, and I am glad of it. I would hate to see him spunky, because I am a little cowardly, and a little lame too, and he is a young man; but we are going to stay in a good humor. It is not hard to keep in a good humor. He says. Your covenant with God! Whose? That was the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession I read from. Now he comes up and asks about my covenant with God. Why, Brother Yates, are you going to give your Confession up to me? I expect I will have to take. it, and fight for it.
MR. YATES: You may have the old one.
MR. POTTER: Brother Yates does not explain to us the question I asked him in my speech before this. Brother Yates says wise men change. Of course he is among the wise. I want to know of him if the Cumberland Church was founded upon the truth in the start, and if it is founded upon the truth today. That is what I want to know. Brother Yates, you may note that down. I want an answer to that question. I stated that I thought, under the circumstances, I would not unite with the Cumberland Church yet. I want them to get done changing first; because, if I were to join them on the Cumberland Confession now, they might change, and then they might leave me.
MR. YATES: You might change with it.
MR. POTTER: I am not smart enough to change that often. Then he asks the question: Where did Jesus Christ establish the Regular Baptist Church? I want to state, relative to that matter, this: Brother Yates seems to have a kind of antipathy against the Regular Baptist Church.
MR. YATES: No, we have nothing against them.
MR. POTTER: We will see. As circumstances show, he seems to have a kind of antipathy toward us. He frequently refers to us, and wants to know where we will find our name in the Bible. Of course he knows his name is not there either. Now I want to say this: On Monday, after the close of our Association in the town of Owensville, I received a letter by the hands of Elder James H. Oliphant, challenging me to affirm that our Church was the only authorized Church in the Scriptures. Somebody must have wanted to debate. I was accused of virtually saying that in this pulpit, on Friday night of the Association. I do not remember saying any thing about that. A few days after, at Fort Branch, I met Brother Yates, and we had a talk. Some person present wanted to know what we were going to discuss, and he said, The whole grounds.
That is considerable to debate; infant baptism, Church polity, the communion, and the covenant, we would have to debate now, since the Cumberland Church is revised, and a great many other things. Not long after he wanted to debate the whole grounds he came out with his challenge on Foreign Missions, though I had not heard a Regular Baptist mention it in years that I know of. Why is this? I want to know. My judgment is that there is a kind of jealousy against the Regular Baptists in this community. The thought has been, among some, We want to fight the Regular Baptists, but we want to know what to fight about. If we fight them on the communion question, or on the infant baptism question, or on the sprinkling and pouring question, other denominations will be divided, for some are against us; but on the Foreign Mission question I judge that from the circumstancesthe rest of the world will unite with us on that; we will challenge them on that. If do not say that is so. I was giving that as my opinion. Circumstances have driven me to that conclusion; and that is my humble opinion. That is the reason that the Foreign Mission question was the subject of the challenge, the subject under discussion here. I have not challenged anybody for a debateam not under any necessity to show where Jesus Christ established the Baptist Church. Has not my brother claimed that the work of the Foreign Missions is authorized by the Scriptures? and by such a challenge has he not obligated himself to prove it by the Scriptures? If he has, am I under any obligation to prove every thing else, when I have made no challenge? He obligates himself to prove that the work of Foreign Missions is authorized by the Scriptures. I showed him that the Foreign Missions were inaugurated in the seventeenth century. We do not court the sympathy of anybody. Regular Baptists never did do that unless they were cowards. We have some cowards among us; but as a general rule we have none. We ask no favors, as far as that is concerned. And I repeat itI do not believe it, that all these Foreign Missionary operations have ever been, or ever will be, the means of regenerating a soul, and saving him in heaven, who would not have been saved without it. And that is what I want to debate with Brother Yates about. Let us come to the work. I have come to it. Now let Brother Yates come to it as squarely as I have done.
Again, he says I say I know nothing about the missionaries. He says he is afraid that is so. I said I know nothing about the missionaries, only what they say themselves. The Bible says nothing about them, how else am I to know? My witnesses are your missionariesyour brethren. Where was I to go to learn about the missionaries, unless to their own schools? They published their periodicals and books. If I pay my money for them, have I not a right to read and quote them? How else am I to tell about the missionaries? It may be my weakness, but I have seen nothing in any text of Scripture that he has quoted about Foreign Missions.
One more question, upon which the whole thing hangs. He undertakes to argue the doctrine of election, and run into the consequences of it, and talks about responsibility. The Cumberland Presbyterians used to teach that man, by his fallen estate of sin, has wholly lost all ability to do any good works accompanying salvation. That is what we teach yet. He wants to know who is criminal, then, if man cannot do any thing, but God can, and wont? Who is to blame? He asks in what country the gospel cannot be preached? And if it cannot be preached in every country, and is not preached, who is criminal? The missionaries say, the heathen themselves. They say the heathen are to be damned because the missionaries do not get there with the gospel. He says we can do it. Every country is open to it at this time. And now he wants to know who is criminal if we do not take it? The Missionary Union says the heathen are to blame, and they must go to hell if they do not get it there. That is the reason I object to his doctrine. I object to the whole thing.
Now I shall pay no more attention to that. I know all about these results as evidence. If Brother Yates believes that those missionaries, by their labors and efforts, will be the means of saving a solitary soul that would not be saved without them, let him say so; and if he says so it will fall upon him to prove it. Remember, you shoulder a heavy load whenever you say it, and if I were you I dont believe I would say it unless I had studied it. Study it thoroughly, and advise with your brethren. You are young. Try the strength of your plank, and see if it will bear you up before you walk out on it very far.
However, he says the gospel was preached in Britain and Germany in the second century. Well, that is immaterial to me. It may be that some historian was mistaken. Perhaps it was the one I quoted. If it was in the second century it was at least thirteen or fourteen hundred years before Foreign Missions were commenced; so my point stands as good as ever.
On the subject of Abraham and his seedwhat does that mean? What does Gods promise amount to when he said, In thee and thy seed shall all the kindreds of earth be blessed? I call attention to that covenant; that is a covenant that God made. He swore to that covenant by his own holiness, and he promised Abraham that In thee and thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. The last quotation I made in my other speech was, If ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs of the promise. So God did fulfill the promise after awhile, by bringing them in and adopting them into the family of God. As far as means are concerned, I want to say, every thing necessary to the accomplishing of that work was in Jesus Christ, treasured up in him before the foundation of the world. God knew just what would be necessary in that great work, and he declared the end from the beginning, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. Romans iv. 1316: For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might he sure to all the seed;where is the seed? All over the earth, in every tongue and kindred under heaven, not only those living today, but all that ever have lived, or ever will live, from Abraham to the end of time not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all. Now I shall quote a few passages of Scripture to prove that God will fulfill that promise. I do not say he can do it. I say he will do it, and does do it, intends to do it; and I want you to notice these passages. Rev. v. 9:
And they sung a new song, saying. Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.
Here is what John saw in heaven a multitude singing a song and praising God. What was that song? Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. So no one is left out. Let us not pick out a large majority of our race as universally dying for the want of teaching on that subject. Brother Yates does not understand the commission if that doctrine be true. He does not understand what it is for. The gospel is not an offer of salvation to any one, and never was. It is not an offer of salvation. It is not a proposition of salvation. If he thinks it is, let him show the texts that say so. The gospel is simply the publication of salvation, the announcement of it, the advertisement of it, telling where it is, and how it is, and what characters shall be saved. That is what the gospel is. It is not a proposition of salvation. God did not come into the world, in the person of Jesus Christ, and offer to save the race. That is a mistake. He did not come into the world, in the person of Jesus Christ, to propose salvation to everybody. That is a mistake. He did not come into the world, in the person of Jesus Christ, to give everybody a chance to be saved. That is a mistake. He did not. He came to save; and as he did come to save, this gospel advertises that redemption of Jesus Christ, and instead of offering salvation to the people, it simply preaches Jesus as the Saviour, and publishes the character and evidences of that salvation, and of the gracious state. Now we will read Revelations vii. 914. Notice, this Scripture is to prove that the promise to Abraham is to be fulfilled. After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number,how many? A great multitude which no man could number. Why, the missionaries are numbering their converts in all their statistical reports. Brother Yates has before us here a map, as an exhibition of the great work of the missionaries. On this map we have the number of Protestant Christian converts all over the world. There will be more people saved than that. We can number a great deal larger number than that. We could number many more people than those. Yet John saw a great multitude which no man can number. No man can number them. Well, what did they do? I want you all to think about that. When Brother Yates, with all his assistance, gets their numbers together, and computes them all, and gets the number all made up, and tells us what the number is, then we have a salvation told of in this Book that reaches still further, for John says no man can number them. Rev. vii. 914: After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshiped God, saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, and might, be unto our God forever and ever. Amen. And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, what are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said unto me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Here is a multitude that are to he saved. I do not know how many there are. Brother Yates admits himself he does not know what God will do, or any thing of the kind. I know what his Word says he will do. Let us not ignore his Word. He does not intend to allow the promise to Abraham to be made void. He intends to save a people out of every kindred, tongue, and nation. While we do not know just how he will do it, it is evident that he will do it, because his Word says so. Let us remember that. While we have never been enabled to get into the secret of God and find out his hidden mysteries, let us remember what an ancient writer says: That secret things belong to God, and revealed things belong to us. Let us discuss revealed things, and not secret things. It is revealed in his Word that a great many shall be saved, so many that no man can number them, and they shall be from every kindred, tongue, nation, and people. Just the same as the promise to Abrahamthat in him and his seed should be blest all nations, and kindreds, and peoples of the world. Now, I want to quote another text upon the same subject to prove that God will fulfill this promise. Matthew xxv. 3134: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. I argue from that text that all nations are to be together before the Saviour; and no one nation, according to the wording of that text, will universally be set on either side. And they will be divided as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats. Then shall the king say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. He does not say this kingdom was prepared for some one else, and they would not have it. No, it was prepared for you. Was he mistaken? Did his infinite wisdom know? Would it be the very same people that Jesus said it would be? Who are to be invited into that kingdom? Those for whom it was prepared, according to the language of Jesus: Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. They are going to be, Jesus says, from all nations. Again, I will quote Matthew xxiv. 30, 31:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. His elect, they belong to Christ. Where are they? All over the world. He is going to gather them from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Suppose he were to come today. We do not know when it will be. Whenever he does come it will be true that the promise to Abraham will be fulfilled. It is true, let him come when he may, that he is going to gather his elect from everywhere.
Has he his elect everywhere? Yes. A great many missionaries think his elect are scattered upon the mountains of sin and error, and are liable to perish unless the missionaries get there and convert them; but Jesus will not have it that way, because he says when he comes he is going to gather them from the four winds, and from one end of heaven to the other. Now let me sayand I expect this is about the substance of what Brother Thomas statedthat I have no fear that the Lord will not carry out his purpose in the salvation of his people without my assistance. I am not afraid of that. I am not uneasy about that. God is going to do that. He calls upon me to do my duty, and tells me what it is. He never called upon me to carry salvation or eternal life to anybody, that I know of. If he said so in the commission, I do not remember it. Did he say, Go ye into all the world, and carry eternal life? Did he say, Go ye into all the world, and carry the Saviour? Did he say, Go ye into all the world, and carry the Spirit? Did he say, Go ye into all the world, and carry the God of heaven? What is the God of heaven? He fills the immensity of space. The earth is his footstool, heaven is his throne. As the sun shines in the valleys and upon the mountains, both at the same time, so God is everywhere. He does not have to move about from one location to another, like a crow or a swallow. Nothing of that kind. And by his Spirit he can, and I will say he will, and does, quicken the benighted soul of the heathen and prepare him for heaven and glory. If that is not true, what mean all the Scriptures I have quoted here to you?
Now, I want to make an argument upon the sheep. John x. 1416 is the language of Jesus: I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Now notice, he says other sheep I have. Hence when he speaks of the sheep, he does not mean his people among the Jews exclusively, but he speaks of those among the Gentilesamong the heathen. He says, I have them, they are mine, I must bring themthat is what I am here for, that is my mission in the world, and I must bring them. According to the covenant, I am under obligation to bring them; they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold. Isaiah lvi. 8: The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him. It is evident from these passages that the Lord has sheep among the heathen. See what he says about his sheep being everywhere. John x. 2729:
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand. That is what Jesus said concerning his sheep, at the same time claiming that he had sheep among the heathen To prove the orthodoxy of my position, I now notice the Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, which I have here with me. On the words, Other sheep I have, not of this fold, them also I must bring, they say he means the perishing Gentiles, or his sheep in the love of his heart and the purpose of his grace to bring them in due time. On the words they shall hear my voice, they say, this is not the language of mere foresight that they would believe, but the expression of a purpose to draw them to himself by an inward and efficacious call which would infallibly issue in their spontaneous accession to him. That is what these commentators say. They are not Baptists. I accept that idea, and I understand the Saviour to be teaching that.
MR. YATES SIXTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
We are gathered together, by the good providence of God this morning, to continue the investigation of this grand themeviz., the principle of the evangelization of the worldand I am still spared and have material to continue the argument for the affirmative. I was requested by my brother to answer a question on last evening. I will read it to you. Do you believe that in those Foreign Mission fields souls have been regenerated and born of God, and will be saved in heaven, through the instrumentality of the Foreign Mission work? My answer: If the brother means in this question that those people in the foreign field who were once heathen, but are now saved Christians, would have been saved without Gods ordained agency and the means employed in the divine economy in carrying out the plan of salvation, I say, No.
MR. POTTER: Brother Moderators, that was not the question I put to him at all. In addition to that; were the words, that would have been lost had not the missionaries gone there.
MR. YATES: Well, just let it be that way, then.
MODERATORS: Such questions are not relevant to the question at issue, and, should be left out. I think the question before the people has been stated several times. According to the proposition it is, Is the Foreign Mission work of God or of man? That is the question boiled down.
MR. YATES: Moderators, I want to ask of you the privilege, as he has asked me the question, to answer it. I know it is not according to the proposition, but my brother has not discussed the proposition. I want to answer it for the good of the peoplethat is all, if you will allow me.
MR. POTTER: Brother Moderators, here is the question in substance that I put to him: Do you believe those foreign missionaries have been the means of the regeneration and salvation of souls in heathen lands that would have been lost without their missionary labor. That is the question I want answered. I claim that I have a right to ask that question, and want to assign my reasons. The reason I ask this question is this:
He said on Monday evening, at the close of the debate, that the question to settle was as to the meaning of the words blessed and owned of God. He asked me if, when I read the proposition, I did not understand blessed and owned of God to mean that they had been instrumental in the work of regeneration, and I said I did not. In addition to that, he said if I admit that there are any converts in those mission fields, I have given up the proposition. I can admit regeneration there, and not admit of the truth of his proposition, from the fact that I hold that God will save his people from all nations, tongues, kindreds and peoples, and that even if there are persons regenerated and saved in these mission fields, there are none that would not have been saved without the missionaries. That is the reason I put the question. Now it is with the Moderators to say, under the circumstances, whether the question shall be answered in order to get at his meaning of blessed and owned of God. I am willing for him to define that, in any way he chooses, but that the question is relevant to the proposition I claim. If he is under no obligation to answer that question after drawing it out, I do not understand the principles of debating.
MR. YATES: If I can be allowed by the Moderators I will answer that question, I will read it: Do you believe these foreign missionaries have been the means of the regeneration and salvation of souls in heathen lands that would have been lost without their labors? If the brother means in this question that these people in the foreign field, who were once heathen but are now saved Christians, would have been saved without Gods ordained agency and the means employed in the divine economy for carrying out the divine plan of salvation, I say, No. If he means that God saves some persons who are idolaters, without Christian character, I say, No. I want to give him a few questions, and I want him to write them down. That is fair. You will permit me to do that, I suppose. I want the people to see just what he teaches, and I will put him today just where he will have to do some talking. Write this, my brother, every word: Who is to blame for the condition of the people in heathen lands today who are in darkness religiouslyman or God? I want you to be sure and answer that.
MR. POTTER: If the Moderators decide that these questions have any thing to do with the proposition, and if Brother Yates can assign any reasonable reason for asking these questions in respect to the terms of the proposition, he can ask them, and have all day for it. His own remarks relative to the proposition, and his own language as to what he means by blessed and owned of God, brought forth my question.
MR. YATES: I answered your question, and I want you to answer mine.
MR. POTTER: Are those questions relative to the debate?
MR. YATES: They are relative to the proposition, yes.
MODERATOR: The point is whether the questions have any thing to do with the discussion.
MR. POTTER: The Moderators must decide that.
MODERATOR: One question has as much to do with the proposition as the other had.
MR. YATES: I want to say that I do not think these questions are directly on the proposition, but I said I would answer his question, and I want him to answer mine.
MODERATOR: I have only this to say in connection with the matter. Yesterday evening Brother Potter took some time in asking his question, and we regarded it as a part of the discussion, as connected with his argument, and we set it down to his account. I think if this is connected with the discussion, and has any thing to do with it, it may go in as part of his speech. The same as the other.
MR. YATES: Here is another question, my brother. These are good things; write them down. If the heathen are in an unfortunate condition, as you claimed in your speech, how can this be consistent with that part of them who are Gods elect from eternity? One more, and we are through. I will give yon one now that will clinch all the rest. If all that are to be saved are elected as individuals from eternity, and not upon principle as a class, why is the impenitent sinner banished to the land of the lost when be is a non-elect? I will give my brother until Saturday evening to get through these questions satisfactorily. Now let me repeat my answers again. He told me to be very careful about the plank I walked on, and I took his advice. That is one thing I have taken his advice on. I will not say that to you; you are older than I am. If you mean in this question that in those foreign missionary fields the souls that are regenerated and born again, and will be saved in heaven through the instrumentality of this Foreign Mission work, who were once heathen and are now saved Christians, would have been saved without the divine economy in carrying out the plan of salvation, I say, No. If you mean that God saves some persons who are idolaters, without Christian character, I say, No.
I want Brother Potter, when he comes to reply, to tell us the meaning of that word elect. That word is from the Latin language, and I will show its meaning clearly. I want him to tell us the real, radical meaning of that word. We are here in discussion, and I demand it of him, when he comes here and uses the word in his proof-text, to tell us the meaning of that word elect.
We will commence on that word. I am prepared to say that the word elect when used in the Bible, always has reference in some way or other to believerswhen employed either prophetically as to results or as to individualsto Christians. That leaves out the babies that he was talking so much about. Now he tells you that in Gods election the idea is those heathen would be saved, whether the Bible was carried to them or not; that the Spirit of God alone does the work. Now we judge the tree by the fruit it bears. I demand of him to show a single country where these fruits are evidenced, or have been evidenced, in the history of nineteen centuries, where the gospel has not been, or where the rays of light gotten from it or from Judaism have not fallen. When I attacked him on the second chapter of Romans, which speaks of these people being saved without the law who do the things that are in the law, he spoke of me as saying they had the gospel. I never said any such thing. I said that if, in all that darkness and corruption from this perverted religion, they lived up to the light they hadI was with Paul on thatthey would be saved. This is Bible doctrine. I want to say, I defy my brother to show me a simple passage in this Book, from Genesis to Revelation, which says that Gods Spirit saves alone without the truthjust one. That is the point he has been talking about.
Now I am going to turn to 1 Peter i. i, 2. We will go back to the old Book again. Here comes in his election: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. That is how Jesus Christ comes in. How does the Spirit sanctify? O that plank I am walking on! How does the Spirit sanctify? We will see. John xvii.17:Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth. The Book is against the brother. We are not near through yet. 1 Peter ii. 69. This is off the proposition, no doubt, but we will spend a little time on it: Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also, they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Now let us spend a little time in explaining thatand I am going to bring the Bible to explain it. It is said in the eighth chapter of Romans, To be conformed to the image of Christ. If any man rejects Jesus, the result is he will stumble and fall, and that stone will crush him; and any man that will accept him is conformed to his image. Why are they to blame for the stumbling, if that is not so? I am not going to have the Lord blamed with this, for there is altogether too much laid to Gods charge in this way. But my brother says that I am wrongthat man cannot do any thing in itbut he must take the Book as a whole. I want you to notice one passage which I shall quote from the first chapter of Proverbs. I believe in talking the Book together as a whole. I love this old Book: Because I have called and ye refusedwhat? refused! This directly contradicts his doctrine of election, that the Lord, by his sovereign will, selects a part of the human family to eternal salvation, regardless of human agency, or grounds of merit on their part, and the necessary logical conclusion that the non-elect are damned from eternity, without regard to moral agency or evil on their part. I know my opponent stoutly denies teaching the reprobation of the finally lost from eternity; but it is the logical conclusion of his doctrine, and he cannot escape it. If God saves all of his people unconditionally, then all the finally lost are eternally rejected and banished by God unconditionally; and were so rejected from eternity, and therefore damned before they were born. It does not matter how much he denies believing or teaching this doctrine, it is the necessary consequences of his doctrine of electionit forms a prominent part of his theology.
If, as my brother teaches, God, by his sovereign choice, selected a part to eternal salvation out of the human family, who as a whole were equally helpless and unmeritorious, when he could have saved the whole as easily as the part, thereby willfully leaving, by his own choice, the non-elect helpless and lost before they were borngiving their destiny completely into the hands of the devilit was equivalent to foreordaining their damnation. God does not directly destroy them himself according to my brothers position. He permits the devil to do it, and therefore is as much to blame as if he did it himself. What a horrible, God-dishonoring and soul-destroying doctrine! Your belief in this doctrine is the basis of your opposition to the Foreign Mission work. But, thanks be to God, it is not the doctrine of Gods Word. The Bible does not teach that the sinner is lost because God rejected him from eternity, but because the sinner willfully and persistently rejects Gods offers of salvation. Listen to the language of the Lord concerning this subject: Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded. What is the result? But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comethwhy was this? Because ye have set at nought all my counselthat is it; and yet my brother tells me that God does what he pleaseth with man, as if he were a stick or an axwhen your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish come upon you. Then shall ye call upon me,when the time of probation is ended but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find mewhy? for that they hated knowledge, and did not chooseO that is wrong. O no; Brother Potter tells us that people are elected from eternity, and cannot choose. Why, Solomon, you ought not to have put that there. My brother, you ought not to have this in your book. You ought to get it out. What is it? Mans choice. It is squarely antagonistic to my brothers position. 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.That is as strong as I have given it.Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. Why? Because they rejected God. This is a terrible plank for my brother to walk, as he will find before he makes it bridge his doctrine.
Matthew xx. 16: So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be called, but few chosen. They rejected the message of salvation, and therefore were not chosen. Is that not it? When they accept it they are chosen, my brothera chosen generation. That puts the Book together for my brother. When he gets a new theology he will be all right. Brother Potter says, in speaking of his brethren, We never change no, sir; we have all the Bible in our headsall that Jesus revealedwe have no errors in our wonderfully wise embodiment. But we (as advocates of Foreign Missions) claim we are wise in the other way. We claim that we can learn a little. Let us go on to this beautiful proof-text, John i. 29. I hope my opponents brethren will not be troubled any more about me not using the Book in this discussion. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the-world! What! Taketh away the sin of the elect? No, the sin of the world. John iii. 1417: And as. Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so-must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever Christ says whosoever, not the elect alonewhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. But my brother would say it is the elect. But I am here with him today; he is not preaching now by himself; I am along with him to look after this business. Look at the figure here employed. It was when these people were bitten by the fiery serpents on account of their sins. They called on Moses in their agony, and he prayed to God, who commanded him to lift up the serpent of brass, and whoever looked on it was healed. Moses did not say any thing about only--those being saved whom God had elected. No, sir. But they are elected, my brother says. God fixed that from eternity. Now I will read the 16th and 17th verses of the third chapter of John: 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. But my brother said there were good men and women on the Foreign Mission field. O yes, they were converted, but they loved the heathen better than Jesus did. Did you not say that, my brother?
MR. POTTER: No, sir, you did not understand me.
MR. YATES: Honestly, I thought you did.
MR. POTTER: I said, from your talk and the missionaries talk, they must love the heathen better than Jesus.
MR. YATES: Well then, Brother Potter says, froth the talk of the missionaries, they must love the heathen better than Jesus did. Yet he says they are good Christian men; if not, then they are outrageous hypocrites; and vet he says they are pretending to be something they are not. In discussing that money question yesterday, if my brother is as well informed as he claims to heand I do not say that he is nothe should have explained the matter about the missionary getting twelve hundred dollars. He could not live in Japan as cheaply as in America. Those missionaries have to learn the Japanese language, and to pay a considerable sum for teachers, having to study the language so long in order to master it sufficiently to speak and write it correctly and fluently. This must be done before they can attempt to prosecute the mission workand then they cannot get employment there, and make those little economical turns that laborers for Christ can in this country. He did not tell you of all of those Bibles and papers a missionary has to buy, and that there are helpers to co-operate with him in the work who have to be supported out of the same salary. No, sir, be would not put that in, and yet he is pure, he is honest. I will leave it to you to say how that is. I will now proceed farther with my proof-texts from this third chapter of John, in support of mans agency in his own salvation. In the 17th verse the Saviour says that God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved; and he says in verses 18-20: He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation what is the condemnation?that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Where is the condemnation here? It is because, as said in the 19th verse, men loved darkness rather than light; the light is come into the world, and they rejected it. That is the way Jesus puts it. That brings in your personal responsibility. Now, I will turn over to 1 Timothy ii. 37: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, 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. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and he not,) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. He will have all men saved. Luke xiv. 1624 in this passage the atonement that Jesus made for the world is represented as a supper: 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, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. 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 I want my brother to tell us who that master of the house is 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. I want him to say that that is any thing but moral or spiritual force, persuading these poor, wretched beggars that they were not trifled with. The invitation was great and honorable something far beyond any favor they had ever before enjoyed, beyond even their expectationsyet it was real; the privileges and honors were extended to them. If my opponent should take the position that they were compelled to come, the conclusion of the parable would blot that out, for when the servant reported to his master, who had gotten up the supper, the rejection of the invitation by Pus invited guests, he said (and he represented the Lord): For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. They rejected it, having had the opportunity to accept according to the invitation. And in connection with this I will read Acts xvii. 3o: And the times of this ignorance God winked at [overlooked]; but now commandeth all men what! all men ?everywhere to repent. This repentance is connected with the doctrine of the judgment. Why have a judgment, if man is not responsible? How can he be accountable? What kind of a principle of equity is this? I will also read the 31st verse: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Here is another textEzekiel iii. 18: 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; but his blood will I require at thine hand. What about the heathen, my brother?
I will now turn to Luke xix. 41. Father Hume will not blame me for what I have to say about it and for quoting it. And when he was come near, he beheld the city and wept over it. I do not blame Brother Hume for what he said on the subject, because he was in a hard place. He and I are good friends. I also want to read to you Matthew xxiii 37, 38, before quoting from Brother Humes debate on the atonement. I will give you both of these texts. I would not put Brother Hume in an unfair place if I could help it.
MR. HUME: Do your best at it, sir.
MODERATOR: Brother Yates it is not fair to make any personal allusions, for Brother Hume is not in the debate. If you want to refer to any of his writings you can do so; but you should not be personal in your remarks.
MR. HUME: It makes no kind of difference to me.
MR. YATES: I only want to refer to his book. We have talked about this many a time. But I was just going to make a quotation, that is all. There is no man in this country I think more of than my Brother Hume He knows that.
Matthew xxiii. 37, 38. I will now quote: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that thou killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a her gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Now let us see. Brother Hume, in his debate with Mr. Stinson on the atonement, on page 170 says: The meaning of it is that the hen gathers those that are outside under her wing. Consequently it has no reference to the gathering together of the people of God. We learn from it that if the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the land of Judea had submitted to the government that God had ordained over them, by which they were to be governed, then their laws and government would have protected them, shielded them from the oppression of their enemies. But inasmuch as ye would not, behold your house is left unto you desolate!
MR. HUME: I believe just that, yet.
MR. YATES: You have that privilege. Now, let us see how much that interpretation is worth. He was talking in the temple to the scribes and the Pharisees. They were the two great religious parties of the Jewish people. They were the controlling elements in Jerusalem and in Judea, and they were the men that he would have saved, but they would not. The idea of those chickens being on the outside! This is a beautiful, homely figurethat she gathers them under her wings to protect them from danger, and warn them, and comfort them. Why was the nation destroyed? Because they rejected Christ. Righteousness is a blessing to any people, and Jesus is the heart, the all in all, of righteousness. Luke xix. 41: And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it. Yet my brother claims to say salvation was only for the elect, that it was fixed from all eternity, and that Jesus came to save no one else. Yet Jesus was sorrowful because the others could not be saved, and he wept over them, Saying, if thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace but now they are hid from thine eyes. You have had the opportunity, but it is past.
I have not time to notice all the proof-texts he gave yesterday evening, but I will say to you that every one that he read has the condition of faith in itevery single one. Galatians iii. 16, 17, is one I will notice. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.Hence that quotation he gave from Genesis, saying that in Abrahams seed all nations should be blessed, meant that it was in Christ, who came from his loins.And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. He is speaking about the law. The Hebrew ritual, though it was given hundreds of years after Abraham, did not take the place of the promised Messiah of Abrahams seed. In Christ was treasured the salvation of men, with all its blessings. This salvation of men, Paul taught the Galatians, was in the promised Saviour, and was not transferable to the forms and ceremonies of the Hebrew theocracy. These were only types and symbols, that shadowed forth and pointed to the Christ to comethe Savior of manand that salvation was realized alone by trusting in Christ instead of the law.
Romans iv.35: For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. You can see at once, what this passage means. They were not to trust in the Hebrew ritual for salvation, but in Christ. They were not to presume that their salvation was secured because as a nation they were of the fleshly lineage of Abraham, and therefore children of the covenanted inheritance, with all of its temporal and spiritual blessings. They were not to think that they were elected as Hebrews, individually and nationally, to all the benefits of eternal salvationthat all they had to do was to pay their tithes, and go up to the temple, and engage in the service. O no, says Paul, it is faith in Christ, the Messiah, who is the center and supreme object of all the grand ritual forms of the temple service. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. So much for his proof-texts.
Romans v.9: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Says Brother Potter, That means the heathen, who are absolutely saved by the death of Christ, who have never heard the gospel, or embraced any other form of truth. Stop, my brother. Paul says, in the first verse of this chapter, we are justified by faith, and in Romans iii. 25, through faith iii his blood. We are told in the tenth chapter of Romans that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, and that the Word had to be proclaimed by a sent messenger. So we see the persons the apostle had in mind as justified by the blood of Christ, when he penned Romans v. 9, were those who had accepted Christ through the gospel. The expression we in this passage, with the connection, proves this interpretation to be correct. Wethe writer and those addressedthe Apostle Paul and the Christians at Romewould be saved from wrath, being justified by the blood of Christ, by accepting Jesus in his life and death, through the gospel message, as their personal Saviour. Therefore this proof-text does not teach what my opponent would have you believethat all who will be saved were absolutely saved by the death of Christ alonethat all the heathen world that were purchased by Christs death will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or embrace any form of truth or not. Thus we see there is no reference whatever to the heathen world in this Scripture, in the sense in which he employed it.
Brother Potter said yesterday evening, after quoting and commenting upon Rev. vii. 914, There is where we get the proof-text that the heathen are all to be saved in heaven without the gospel! Let us examine this Scripture, and see how much heathen salvation by absolute election from eternity, without a knowledge of the gospel, or some portion of truth, there is in it: After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues. All nations, and kindreds, and people, and tonguesthat is the result exactly, my friends, of the Foreign Mission work. These stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. They were-saved by the sacrificial offering of Christ, through the gospel. Do you not see? And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshiped God, saying, Amen: Blessing and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor and power, and might, be unto our God forever and ever. Amen. And one of the elders answered, saying unto mehere come the heathen, Brother PotterWhat are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said unto me, These are they which came out of great tribulation. Now my brother knows that word is from the Latin word tribulum. The threshing machine that threshed out the wheat in those days was called in the Latin tongue a tribulum, and as the word tribulation was suggested by the work performed by this instrument, it has reference, as here employed, to the great trials, sorrows, and struggles this company of the saved passed through, for the Christian faith. They were a company of Christian martyrs.
Perhaps some of the very men about whom we have been talkingscores of whom sacrificed their lives in their efforts to propagate the gospel for Christs sake and the salvation of soulswill be in that great company. Some such martyrs have gone from that mission work in the land of Germany, the work you have spoken so disparagingly of, where Christian men, because of their loyalty to the Word of God and their consecrated and earnest efforts to disseminate gospel truth, even since our recent war, have been buried alive in the bogs. All these great numbers that have gone out to aid in advancing and propagating the gospel will be among those that have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lambtherefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. I want to call your attention to Matthew xxv. 3134, for I want to make the people understand it: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Who made those goats? Did they make themselves by rejecting the Lord? or did the Lord make them? They were not elected, were they? It is a nice thing to be a sheep, but you cannot help yourself if you are not. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. What is the kingdom? It is the reign of God in mans inner nature. Jesus prayed: Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. The same law that runs through heaven runs through the universe, and therefore through earth. This universe is a unity. Man is created in the image of God. He is the figure of I-Jim that was to come. The first Adam was the figure, and the second Adam (the Lord Jesus) the grand antitype. The first Adam represents the human race. Why did the Lord ask man to do a thing he could not do, my brother? What a God you have! Mans nature has to be tested, in order to reveal or develop character. Why will you not confide in a man until you have tried him? You want to see first whether he is worthy of your confidence. Gods test is to develop man as well as to reveal a godlike character. This test consists in enjoined conformity to the life of Christ as a model of character. What was Christs mission in the world? To unveil God. Sin was already known, but Christ came to reveal its heinousness more fully, and to unveil to all the perfections of God that man might see God in this blessed gospel as revealed in Christ Jesus, and be won to him and reconciled to him. As the tree grows after a model, so mans character is to be molded and developed after the divine model as given in Christ. The law of sacrifice with which Christ complied runs through the universe, and man, does not amount to any thing as a man unless he complies with it in his sphere. But you said Christs mission to earth was to reveal Gods love also. Yes, that is true. Jesus, in the greatness of his nature, could take mankind in his heart as a mother takes her child. Christs compassionate feelings were equal to his knowledge, while suffering as a sacrifice for sin on the cross. He could really take upon his heart the sorrows and anguish of the human family caused by sin and from sin in every age of time, and also the loneliness, horror, and woe of the banished in the land of the lost throughout eternity. It was these sufferings that forced him to cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? In this offering he unveiled the heinousness of sin, Gods resentment to sin, and the terrible requirements of equity in connection with it, and also Gods great love for a lost world and his infinite anxiety to save it. This love was so great that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever behieveth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Blessed gospel! and precious Christ! I will never dishonor thee by throwing the blame upon thee of any mans eternally disgraceful and calamitous destiny. But what about those that go to hell? Give me Universalism, my brother, rather than that doctrine which sends men to hell without their agencyby Gods sovereign choice. As my brother said, it is possible for one to be in error and yet be a Christian; but our errors may destroy others. And to my mind this doctrine of men sitting still and waiting for God to come in some mysterious way not revealed in the gospel to save them, without any effort on their part to seek the Lord, is a soul-destroying doctrine.
I want to notice briefly what he said in regard to the human will. We are told by my worthy opponent that man has the use of his will in natural thinks in this world, but not in spiritual things. I want my brother to tell me what the will is, if he pleases. In natural things is where the value of religion comes in. If we live here amid the walks of men as God would have us, we will die right. There will he no trouble about that. There is not a relation we sustain in which these principles of equity do not operate. Our nature is tested and tried in every relation of life. God extends to us the offer of salvation, and we have the power to accept or reject it. God gives me the sunlight, and he gives rue eyes, but I have to use the eyes. God does not see for me. God gives me ears and the atmosphere adapted to them, but he does not hear for me. If my eyes were out God might give me sunlight, but it would be of no useI could not see. If my ears were deaf I could not hear, though all the other conditions were present. So it is in regard to mans salvation. God may extend to man salvation in all its provisions, but if man does not open his heart to receive it, it is of no avail. God does not believe for him. Now, you remember the brother said here he wanted me to affirm the measures and means of the Foreign Mission work, and I would not do it. Let me read you what he wanted me to affirm, and he has debated that all the time, and not the proposition of the challenge he accepted. He and I have gotten along very pleasantly just a little misunderstanding this morning. I have nothing against him, but I want to stand tip for the truth. He wanted the debate to be on this question:
Resolved, That the mission work as it is, and all the means and measures used in its support for evangelizing the world, are authorized in the Scriptures.
He has been arguing that all the time, but he has not met one argument I have made on the real proposition under discussion. I have driven him from every argument he has usedfrom Guthries Geography and from Nimrod as the founder of Egypt. I drove him from Cecrops as the founder of Grecian civilization. I drove him from his position in regard to the apostles carrying the gospel into England; and when he made that wonderful quotation from Jones, I offered to expose that author as a rascal, and he has never touched Jones since. Jones perverted the translation of the old books, and Brother Potter knows I know it. Besides that, in regard to what he was quoting from Jones, claiming as Baptists all that worked without salaries to support them, I want to say they were of that ecclesiastical body from which Brother Potter claims the Catholics sprung. And yet he said my disproving his assertions in all these matters did not amount to any thingthat it does not prove that Mission Boards were organized in the days of the apostles. It did prove that his information is so limited you cannot trust his statements in regard to the facts of Church history. Let me go farther. I showed you the other day that the primitive Church was a mission society. I showed you that the board was only established, like your committees, to be operated through the Church, just as my brothers Church does through its business committees. I showed that Paul and Barnabas were sent out like our laborers in the foreign fields, and in this I proved the perfect identity of the mission work with the gospel. He said yesterday evening that we are not authorized to proclaim the gospel as a means of salvation. In Acts xxvi, Paul was sent to help the people by the foolishness of preaching, to open the eyes of the blind. My brother said he did not say Paul preached in Arabia, when I caught him on that; but that he went there on a missionary tour. What did he do when he was on his mission tour, as you said he was? Write that down. You were in a hard place, and could not get out. Now I want to give you a little question on the community of goods. You are in favor of going with the apostles and employing just the means and methods and pursuing the exact course they did in the work. If not, your line is broken on the apostolic succession. When I spoke about the apostolic succession he said I wanted to fight him on the Church. He says he never challenges anybody at all. No, sir, he does not do that; but he stands up in his sermons and says, This is the Bible, we take the Bible. That is it. That is a challenge; yes, sir, you thereby simply say that you are right and everybody else is wrong. I have nothing to take back in this matter. What I am doing is for the truththat is all. I did not decide to debate with you on the challenge that was sent you in regard to the Regular Baptist Church being the true and only Church authorized in the Bible; but some of the ministerial brethren talked to me about it, and as I have nothing to keep back, I said if it was the decision of the ministers in this place I would do it. That is the way it was.
Now, let us take this fourth chapter of Acts, verses 3133, and also verses 34, 35: And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitudes of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. They laid it all down for the Lord then. O those ministers waiting for the money! Paul went right away to Arabia on a missionary journey, and he did not wait. My brother, get your proof text; get that, will you not? Can you tell me how long Barnabas and Paul waited before they were sent out? Paul was supported by wages. But you do not teach that. However, you said he was a pastor of a church. That is what you saidAnd the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Pretty good missionary spirit, my brother. Thus we see that these primitive Christians, being filled with the Holy Spirit and completely under the divine guidance, contributed of their means in accordance with the needs of the Church and the demands of the work in hand. This is the very principle of the Foreign Mission work itself. But in accordance with the literal interpretation of the gospel work of the New Testament by my worthy opponent, this would force the Christian Church of today to employ the same measures and means, and would also force them to practice this doctrine of the community of goods. Now, for my worthy opponent and his brethren to be consistent in the reasons they give for their opposition to the Foreign Mission workviz., the modern measures and means employed in the propagation of this workthey must follow the example of the primitive Christians, and sell all their possessions, and place the proceeds in a common Church fund for the general interest of the Regular Baptist Church.
Now, I want to make this point. I never claimed that Mission Boards were further back than 1556, but I proved that. And what of that? I demanded of my brother to show where his Church was organized. I did this simply to prove the fact that the missionary societies, and missionary boards, and this wonderful missionary enterprise are organizations and means employed in accordance with the Divine plan, as evidenced in the past history of Christianity. For neither Christ nor his apostles gave any fixed form of Church organization, or prescribed any special methods and measures of operation for the Church in its work in evangelizing the world. The Church was left under the guidance of the. Holy Spirit and the indications of Divine providence to assume such organizations and employ such measures and means in the gospel work as would be best adapted to the circumstances of the time in which the work should be performed. This is just what the Church is doing today iii the measures and means it employs in the Foreign Mission work. Gods ordained plan in the old dispensation was to tax the Hebrew people one-tenth of their living for the support of the Church in carrying on its work; and while the tithe system is done away with in the gospel dispensation, the apostle teaches us that the gospel plan is to lay up our contributions on the first day of the week for the work of evangelization, or the general mission work, as the Lord has prospered us. Does your Church, my brother, comply with the gospel plan? Do your people lay up means on the first day of the week for the general mission work, as the Lord prospers them? Have you even one mission station on the foreign field? What colleges have you, as a Church, ever built? You said you were in favor of colleges. And I want you to tell me of a single publication society you have. Into what language have you ever translated the Bible? I will here rehearse the line of argument I have given in support of the proposition: That Foreign Missions are authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God.
I have shown the perfect identity between the Foreign Mission work of today and the gospel work of the New Testament, in the great object designed to be accomplished, in the end to be subserved, and in the principles and motive-power which actuate it. This identity is seen also in the great spiritual agency which begets, energizes, and guides the Foreign Mission work, and in the method of selecting and sending forth laborers into the foreign fields. Through these great principles, and the aid of the Divine Spirit, the Foreign Mission work has extended evangelization over nearly every portion of the world. I will now advance my affirmative line by adducing another argument in support of the propositionviz., the blessings of Protestantism itself. For Protestantism, with all of its institutions and enterprises, is the growth of the missionary spirit; hence, if the missionary work is not blessed and owned of God, Protestantism is not blessed and owned of God.
MR. POTTERS SIXTH SPEECH.
BROTHER MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
We have again had our minds refreshed this morning with an elegant speech, and it becomes our duty to pay some respect to it. I want to notice the speech, or some of it at least, before I proceed to introduce any more arguments
In the first place, I was thinking, while Brother Yates was blowing, that discussions office in awhile are good things, and the reason they are is because men who know no more about the Regular Baptist doctrine than he does frequently undertake to tell the people what it is. Now, we are here to tell it ourselves. He has set tip a terrible monster here this morning, and tell& you it is my doctrine and the doctrine of my Church. I presume if he were to undertake to represent us in his congregation at home, he would do the same thing, and as a victor he runs away with the spoils. There is a great deal of ingenuity in such a doctrine as that.
I came here Monday morning to stay all the week, and I feel well, and am in almost as fine a humor as if I could have seen Lydia this morning.
Now, I want to notice the speech. In the first place, because I propounded a question to him that I have answered three or four different times, upon which the whole gist of this discussion hangs, he has propounded two or three questions to me. I stated yesterday morning that I did not believe the foreign missionaries, with all their efforts and all their labors, had ever been the means or instrumentality of the conversion, or regeneration, or salvation of a solitary soul that would not have been saved without them. When I did that, some of Brother Yates friends seemed to think I was terrible, and some of his brethren hastened to note it down. I expect they were surprised that I would say it, and thought I would not. I say it now. Will Brother Yates take his position on that? He wanted the Board of Moderators on Monday evening to settle the question as to the meaning of his own proposition, blessed and owned of God. And he asked me, myself, if I did not understand, when I read that proposition, that he meant that they were instrumental in the regeneration and salvation of the heathen. Yesterday he brought it out in a kind of a ridiculous manner, and presented my answer to it, as though he questioned my sincerity in my answer. I do not know that he did, but it sounded that way to me. I was not insincere. I wanted to find out if that was what he meant; that is the reason I put the question to him. When he took his pointer and pointed up there at the map, he accused me of saying there were no converts there. I corrected him, and he said I admitted the point; that is the reason I wanted him to answer the question. You have heard his answer. Do you know whether he believes it or not? How many in this vast audience know whether Brother Yates believes that foreign missionaries in heathen lands, by all their labor, energy, sacrifice, and every thing they have done for the benefit of-the heathen, have been instrumental in the salvation of a solitary soul or not, that would not have been saved without them? How many of you know what Brother Yates thinks about that from his answer? You cannot tell. I heard of an Irishman once who was out in the woods with his men, and saw what he thought was a deer, and fired away and missed it. His companions who were with him walked up and found it was a calf, and they rather chided him for being such a poor marksman for missing at that distance. Faith, said he, I shot so as I should hit it if it was a deer, and miss it if it was a calf. Brother Yates shoots so as to miss it if it is a deer, and hit it if it is a calf. I would love to impress upon you the idea of how willing this congregation would be, provided the hat was passed for mission money, to contribute to it when you do not know whether they intend to save souls that would not be saved without it. I do not know that you would be ready to contribute then. Brother Yates says they have to have money. I do not deny that. I do not doubt but they have to have it if they go there; hence, that is one of the means necessary for the propagation and the existence of these Foreign Missions. That is what I meant by the proposition I submitted to him, as to the means and measures used in carrying it on, and he might as well go out to the depot and get into a car that had no wheels, and was off the track, and had no locomotive to it, and undertake to go to New York in it, as to keep up one of the Foreign Mission Boards without money.
Now, we will read the questions that he put to me. I am one of those out-spoken fellows. Some people accuse me of twisting my mouth around and talking out of the corner of it, but I intend, in what I have to say now, to talk straight out of my mouth.
Who is to blame for the condition of the people in heathen lands today, who are in darkness religiously man or God? He wants me to answer that. I say, Mans. You are welcome to my answer. I have no secrets religiously. I am here to defend my position. Man is to blame. It does not take me long to answer. The people can understand me.
Here is question two: If the heathen are in an unfortunate condition, as you claim in your speech, how can this be consistent with that part of them who are Gods elect from eternity? Now, as far as my speech yesterday was concerned, I quoted from missionary authors to show their plea for missions. I quoted from the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association and Circular Letter, in which they tell us the very grounds for the Christian Missions. In that letter they go on tell us of the deplorable condition of the heathen, and preach their universal damnation. I quoted from another tract, published by the Missionary Society, in which they call our attention to the fact that we are surrounded today by 800,000,000 of brothers and sisters who are perishing, and that they must perish if they do not receive the gospel, and this gospel, the author says, they have never yet heard. That is the doctrine of the missionaries. Whether Brother Yates is going to defend it as they do or not, that is the doctrine of the missionaries. I said from that stand-point, and according to their doctrine that salvation was conditional, that the heathen were sent to hell for what they are no more to be blamed than I am to he blamed for not having been born in England two hundred years ago. That is what I said, and he accuses me of charging the consequence on him in violation of the rules. Now, I suppose he wants to charge on me the doctrine that sin is a misfortune. I believe no such thing. Sin is a crime. It is wrong in any man to sin. I will notice that question a little further by and by.
Question Three: If all that are to be saved are elected as individuals from eternity, and not upon principle as a class, why is the impenitent sinner banished to the land of the lost when he is a non-elect. Let me say right now, that so far as charging my people with denying the responsibility of man, Brother Yates knows we preach the responsibility of manthe obligation of man. He has heard us enough to know that. We do not deny the responsibility of man at all. We say that man, by the law of God, is required to do every thing that is right, and forbidden to do any thing that is wrong, no matter what. The law of God requires that; and while the law of God requires that, it requires nothing unreasonable. God is the moral ruler of man. His law is perfect, just, and equitable. It punishes no person but the guiltythose who violate his law. He makes his law known to them. He did, intelligently, to the people of Israel, and they violated it, as spoken of in some quotations, which we have heard this morning; and for such violation of the law God punished them as a nation of people. God gave man the law at the start, and required every thing that was right; arid it still exists, so far as his moral nature and requirements are concerned; and we still believe the Bible, and the things taught in it, as we always have done, and that is that man violated that law; by that violation he contracted every evil that befalls him. Man did that. God did not predestinate that he should transgress. He did that himself. That is the Regular Baptist doctrine. Hence, what is all this noise about in regard to denying the responsibility of man, making him, in the hands of God, as passive as a stick or an ax, as has been represented to us this morning. I do not know of any person who believes such a doctrine as that, and if Brother Yates can point out the people who do, he can get me into a debate with those people. I would nearly as soon debate with those fellows as with Brother Yates. He says he took my advice yesterday. That is a good thing. If he had been under my advice a great deal sooner than he was, it might have been a great deal better for him, for then he might be sure to represent what I preach and believe correctly; for he would know what it is before he undertakes to advance it to a large audience like this, who have been under our preaching.
We do not deny mans obligation. I will tell you what we believe. We believe that while God is perfect, pure, holy, just, and equitable in all his ways, that he is the moral ruler of the people; that he gave the people a law; they violated that law, and have through violation of that law brought upon themselves a penalty; and every individual must suffer for his sins, or another must suffer for him. The Lord is too just to let sin go unpunishedtoo just and equitable, and thinks too much of his law, to allow the sin to go unpunished. Hence, the sinner being guilty for his sin, he must be punished for his sin, or else another must suffer for it, to meet the demands of the law the sinner has violated. The sinner is unable to meet the obligation of the law. God is under no obligation to save himnot at all. God owes him no obligation. He could just as well, at one fell swoop, send every one of us to hell, and none of us have the right to complain; but it is by the exhibition of grace and mercy that he saves any. That is the Regular Baptist doctrine.
There are two covenants, and I will give them to you now. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The law was given by Moses; that is the first covenantconditional all the way through, requiring us to do right, and condemning and punishing us if we do not. Jesus Christ is the second covenantthe new covenant. He comes full of grace and truth; and when a man is saved by grace, he is saved by that which he cannot have by law. It is by the covenant of grace that men are saved; and yet God was under no obligation to save anybody; but being just, and the ruler of the universe, He had the right to save whomsoever he pleased. He was under no obligation to save anybody. He has that right. In this covenant of grace he determined, before the foundation of the world, the salvation of the people; and not only did he determine the salvation of that people, but he determined and arranged, in his eternal purpose, all things necessary to bring that thing about. To prove that I call your attention to the eighth chapter of Romans, beginning with the 28th verse, and reading a few verses: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. If he did not foreknow any one then he did not predestinate any one to be conformed to the image of his Son. If he did foreknow some one, the very ones he foreknew he did predestinate to be like Jesus. What for? That he, Jesus, might be the first-born among many brethren. That is what for. That is the great end that God intended to reach from all eternity; and to make sure that he would reach it he knew just how, and made provisions and arrangements necessary to reach that end; and that is why the apostle says, and the reason he assigns for saying, that all things shall work together for good to them that love God, to them which are called according to his purpose. That is the predestination and election that I believe in, and that my brethren here believe in.
Then away with all those Scriptures that he has noticed this morning to prove that man is responsible. Who denies that? What man denies that? O well, but he says, God requires the sinner to do something, according to that doctrine, that he cannot do. If he requires him to do right all the time, and yet he cannot, why that presents a sweet God. Is that so? Let us see. How came man so disabled? It is a contract of his own. Let me give you one quotation from the 52nd chapter of the Prophecy of Isaiah, and third verse: Ye have sold yourselves for naught. That is what you have done. That is what man has done. You have sold yourselves for naught. That is what the man did. Is he able to buy himself back again after selling himself for naught. That was a cheap sale, was it not? If a man should sell every thing he has in the world, and himself besides, and sign it away as a contract of his owna man capable of transacting business for himselfand get nothing for it, do you think he could turn right around and buy it back again? Who is to blame for his poverty, then? He is. Who is to blame for his condition? He is. Who is under obligation to bring him out of there? No one. Let him abide the consequences, whatever they are. He has no right to complain.
Is there a provision of grace to reach such a case as that? There is. What is it? And ye shall be redeemed, without money. You know that text means nothing meritorious on your part as a consideration of that redemption; for if any thing on your part was required in order to your redemption, you could not be redeemed, it, when you sold out, you got nothing. Now, these are the two covenants. I take the position that man can bring himself into a state from which he cannot extricate himself he is to blame for being there, and for every thing he does while there. It is not very far from here to Princeton, the county seat of Gibson County, and perhaps some of you citizens know whether there is anybody in jail there or not. If there are persons there in jail as prisoners, they are locked up. Perhaps some are in cells, closely confined. How did they get there? They got there by their own work. Are they to blame for being in jail? Yes, and they cannot get out; they are locked up. Perhaps every one of them would get out and run away if they could from the penalty of the law, but they are locked up. They are to blame. Why? Because they got there by their own wicked works, and as they have got in there they cannot get out. Are the authorities of this State under any obligations to give them a chance to get out before they can justly hold them there? Surely not. They are under no obligation to go and give them a chance to get out before they can justly hold them there. Now, that is the reason that we say, so far as the non-elect are concerned, God never reprobated any man, never made any man a sinner, never forced or caused him to be a sinner. Man has become a sinner by his own sin, and he is exposed to the Divine vengeance of Gods law for his sins; and it is mans work that ruins him, while it is Gods grace that saves the ruined, it is grace that saves the ruined, not works. The apostle says, By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Not of worksour works have ruined us.
Had there never been any thing done for any of us, only what we did for ourselves, we would have had no hope of heavenwe would be under the condemnatory sentence of the law. I hope that that will not hurt any such a speech as we have heard this morning about the responsibility of man, and his being passive in the hand of God, and all this.
Now, when it comes to election, the doctrine of personal election, unconditional election, and all that, why I believe it. I thought, perhaps, from Brother Yates answer to my query, that he did not understand it. He says if so and so, he says no; if I mean so and so, he says no. I mean just the question I asked him, without any thing else with it. Is Brother Yates willing to tell us whether he believes the missionary people are doing any good, so far as the salvation of the sinner is concerned? Will he tell us whether he believes they have been instrumental in saving a single, solitary sinner that would not have been saved without them? These people want to know. What have these people assembled here today for? They want instruction. Brother Yates proposed to tell them something, and they want to hear it. He is under obligation, he obligated himself in his challenge, to prove his proposition authorized by the Holy Scriptures, and blessed and owned of God. His own interpretation of that proposition on Monday evening wasand he wanted the Moderators to decidewhether by the words, blessed and owned of God, he meant they were regenerated or not. We want to know whether he will accept it that way or not. That is the reason I put the query to him. He must not get away from the proposition.
I want to notice one or two things on the subject of election. i Peter i. 23: Elect according, to the foreknowledge of God. What was according to the foreknowledge of God? Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which (according to what? Our obedience, our works, our acceptance of Christ? No; that is one of Brother Yates texts. Well, what is it? Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus. Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in, heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. That is the full quotation. Here it says we are begotten again to a lively hope according to something. According to what? According to Gods abundant mercy, the text says. Here are people who are elected according to something. According to what? According to Gods foreknowledge, the text says. O well, he says, it is through the sanctification of the Spirit. I say the predestination of the people of God and their election is necessary to bring the whole work about and consummate it, and God is at the head of that operation.
On the subject of the word world. John i. 29: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! Here is a text I want you to notice on the term world. I know very well that the terms world, and all men, and every man are used to prove the Universalist doctrine. They say it means all the race when it says all men. They say it means all the race when it says every man. They say it means all the race when it says all the world. They say it means all the race when it says every creature. They say it means all the race when it says the whole world. Let us see whether it does or not. I do not want to dwell long on that, and do not want Brother Yates to notice any text on that subject until he explains this, and shows that they actually mean all the world and all the race, according to his own text this morning. Revelation v. ii: And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts, and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Notice here, according to Brother Yates own argument this morning, is universal salvation. Why? From the very fact that every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Now, if every creature in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that are in them, do not embrace all the race of Adam, I challenge, not only Brother Yates, but any one else, to show a text in Gods Word that does, that has the term every man, or all men. Brother Yates says that is what it means, and be is a Universalist. I am ready to deliver him over to them if they will have him.
MR. YATES: I would rather they would have me than that you should have me.
MR. POTTER: I do not want you until you can do better than you did this morning in representing Baptist doctrine. Rev. vi. 1417: And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free manhow many more men are there than every bond man and every free man? Brother Yates would tell us that means the race; his argument on the term world, this morning, says that means the race; it destroys the doctrine of election, it confutes the doctrine of discriminating grace, because it means all the race; this also means all the race And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains: and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Do both these texts mean all the race? There is as much universality in their expression, perhaps, as in any we can find. Do they mean all the race? I want Brother Yates to notice that, because these expressions are as universal as any that can be found in the Bible, that I know of. And when he comes to this great result of the mission work, about the people going up there and singing to the Lord, Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof why, he says that is the result of the mission work. Here is a map of the world; I presume it is correct. All Christianity is indicated by these colors where we see them on the map, according to the reports of the missionaries. These dots, and letters, etc., represent where the Bible is according to that map. Brother Yates says the red spots represent the different mission stations where the workers are sent out by the different societies of Europe, and the green spots represent different mission stations where workers are sent by the United States. And all these are Protestant missions. His Catholic friends are not there. You can see from that map about what proportion of the world our Protestant missionaries occupy today. You can see that from the map, and it does not look to me as though they will come, if they depend on the missionaries, from every kindred, tongue, and people, for awhile yet, to say, Blessed and holy art thou, and worthy to take the book, and loose the seals thereof, and look thereon, for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. Where are the heathen lands? Where are they? They tell us themselves that today we are surrounded by eight hundred million of heathen. Let them go up there. Are there no tongues, and kindred, and people, and nations, among those eight hundred millions?
The different missionaries vary a little in giving the number of the Protestant Christians in the work. There are about 160,000,000 to 185,000,000 of Protestant Christians today in the world. They are the people that are to be saved. While that is true, here are the Roman Catholics, Mohammedans, Greeks, Mormons, the Jews, and the heathen; they are all to be evangelized by these foreign missionaries yet, or else this saying will never come true that John says he saw in the heaven.
Now I want to follow the subject of Foreign Missions a little. I have an objection to present, and remember I am two speeches ahead of Brother Yates now. He noticed no speech of mine yesterday, except to say there was a condition connected with all the proof-texts I gave. We are not here to take each others word. These people have not come here to take our word. I wish he would follow tip those texts, and tell us what conditions they are based upon, and if based upon the contingency of the gospel being taken there by the missionaries, let us have that. I am not going to join the missionaries until I find out what their work is for. Brother Yates said they wanted me. I am not going to join them until I find out something more favorable than that, and that I can be of some service some way or other. I want to say that I object to the proposition. The proposition, as explained by Brother Yates himself, in the caption of his article in the Gibson County Leader, Is the Foreign Mission work of God or of man? I say it is of man, and now I propose to prove it. Brother Yates cannot say that this is not a correct explanation of his challenge, for it is in his own language. He accuses brethren through this country of saying that it is of man, and that is the reason he made the challenge; his challenge so states. Now, I am not going to notice any kind of authority but the Bible and missionaries themselves. My objection to it is that it is of man, and not of God. A missionary writer says: It is, however, a very remarkable circumstance that in modern missions Papal Rome has led the way. I have a book here, and Brother Yates shall have it and inspect it if he wants to. It was taken from the Minutes of the Philadelphia Missionary Baptist Association; page 429. They belong to the gang he has in his propositionthe Protestant world. They are good witnesses. The people will judge of that. Brother Yates will have to get rid of some of his Protestant world in this talk. The people will be the judge of that. That is what they say in their Circular Letter in 1806, in giving the grounds of the modern mission work. Listen to the language. I want to begin it again. He says: It is, however, a very remarkable circumstance that in modern missions, Papal Rome has led the way. Now you begin to see how it is of God. Papal Rome led out in it, the missionaries themselves being the witnesses of that fact. If Papal Rome led the way, Jesus Christ did not. If Papal Rome led in the mission work, she must have had followers in the work. If the Protestant missionaries are followers of Rome in the mission work, then they are not followers of Jesus Christ in that work. They cannot be led by Papal Rome and by Jesus Christ both, unless Papal Rome is led by Jesus Christ. This the Protestants deny; so they are not led by Jesus Christ, but by Papal Rome, according to their own publications. How many people here to-day are willing to say that Papal Rome led in the mission work, and that it is of God? That it was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church is a historical fact that does not admit of question or doubt. Brother Yates has never denied that since the commencement of this discussion, and if he thought to do so, historians would contradict him, for we have already given one of the witnesses. on that subject, and it his own. He must accept missionary witnesses that are embraced in his proposition. Of course he had a little more in that proposition than he wanted. Now, are not all Missionary Baptists as much of God in the Foreign Mission work as are the Cumberland Presbyterians? I want him to give us his claim, and make the distinction, from the very fact that on Monday morning, in the introduction of this discussion, he said that this mission work was not denominational, that all could work in it alike for the same end. I want him to tell us how much better claim he has to it than the Missionary Baptists have. To say that he has or has not does not make any difference in this discussion, because the Missionary Baptists are in it, and he has got them there himself. They say, There is not one syllable about it in the word of God, and it was not invented until after the Reformation. Not invented until after the Reformation! Brother Yates himself admits that it is to be found in the next chapter after we find the term Regular Baptist in the Bible, and he says Regular Baptist is entirely out of the Bible. Then we know that it must be at least the second chapter from the Bible out of it. The same missionary says: One of the Roman Pontiffs, says Mosheim, saw their ambition checked by the progress of the Reformation, which deprived them of a great part of their spiritual dominion in Europe. They turned their lordly views to the other part of the globe. The society which in 1540 took the denomination of Jesuits, the company of Jesus, were by the Pope chiefly employed in India, Japan, and China, after which they spared no pains in propagating their erroneous sentiments in the West Indies and on the continent of America. (Minutes of the Philadelphia Missionary Baptist Association, page 429.) Again, This societywhich Brother Yates will agree with me, is not of God, but of man has been more successful in its operations than any other, as we have before observed. Then, I repeat again, if success is an evidence of Gods blessing, the Roman Catholics have it, for they have done more than any other one denomination in propagating their views everywhere; and they are stronger today in their denomination than all the Protestants together. According to the account given by S. F. Dobbins, there are 152,000,000 Roman Catholics in the world. Of course this has been two, three, or four years ago.
MR. YATES: There are 205,000,000 now.
MR. POTTER: And about 100,000,000 other Christians besides Greeks and Catholics, who have 750,000,000. The missionaries vary in their reports as to numbers, but we get it from headquarters when Brother Yates tells us.
In the Foreign Mission work to convert the heathen, according to the account given by S. P. Dobbins, there are 152,000,000 Roman Catholics in the world, and about 100,000,000 other Christians besides Greeks and Catholics, who have 750,000,000. It is as needful that all these Catholics be converted by the Protestants as any others; but as the Roman Catholics led the way in the great work, and are still in the lead, there are no hopes that the Protestants will get them converted soon. Papal Rome has done more to educate and civilize than all others, through her missionaries; and I want Brother Yates to tell us why he says the Foreign Mission work of the Roman Catholics is not of God, but of man, while, he says the Foreign Mission work of the Protestants is of God, and not of man. I claim they are all of man, and not of God. I want to know if the mission work of the Catholics does not bear as much evidence of Gods power as that of any organization or institution? If one does not have as much right, from the Word of God, to get it up as another? As Catholics led in the great work, and their first organization was in 1540, all other Foreign Missionary Societies have had their origin since then, and it seems quite strange that the God of heaven had authorized Foreign Missionary Societies for the purpose of publishing the gospel among the heathen, and the people of God would not find it out for nearly 1,600 years, and then it was discovered through Papal Rome, which was denominated the whore of Babylon by all the Protestants. The people of God had preached, taught, and lived 1,600 years, before any of them thought about it, and Papal Rome discovered it, and now the Protestants follow in the procession, and say it is authorized in Gods Word, and owned and blessed of him. Here is where it is fromPapal Rome.
I deny that the Foreign Mission work is of God, because its language is not the language of God. Let us hear what its language is. It is always talking about bringing souls to Jesus. We have heard of missionaries capturing souls for Jesus during this debate. God never spoke that way. Do you know what Jesus said about bringing souls to him? He says in John vi. 44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. God is the one that draws. In harmony with that idea, turn to Isaiah lvi. 68: Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall he called a house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him. Notice, in the first of this quotation the Lord is talking about his people that are among the Jewsthat are under the Jewish ceremoniesbut in the last verse he speaks of others, not among the Jews. The text seems to connect with the language of Jesus, when he said, Other sheep have I, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring. That is what the Lord says about bringing his people in, and not one word about one man, or set of men, bringing souls to the Saviour. One missionary writer says: We will mention but one more missionary principlenamely, that the means by which, instrumentally, the great work is to be effected is the ministration of the Divine Word. We would not be understood as supposing this is the only means, but whenever salvation comes forth like a lamp that burneth, it will be in answer to the prayers of Zion, and as it extends private Christians will, in their several circles, be instructors too. Every man shall teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord. (Minutes of the Philadelphia Association, page 428.) Notice, the language of modern missionism is, Every man shall teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord. What does the Lord say about that? In the eighth chapter of Hebrews, in the new covenant, the Lord says: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. Now you can see how much they are like the Bible, or how harmonious with Gods Word. Missionaries say they shall teach; the Bible says they shall not teach, upon the very same subject, and no man can deny it. So there is a difference between them. Their language is not the same. Any book that I quote from is open to Brother Yates inspection, if he wants to see it. Hebrews viii. 11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. It seems to me an easy matter for a child to tell that the missionary was not of God, when he will so unscrupulously contradict Gods Word. This is not the mere phantom of some irresponsible fanatic, but it is the language of a large, respectable body of Missionary Baptists, called the Philadelphia Association, in her Circular Letter of 1806. This is not one individual, be it remembered. It is not as though I were to sit down and write a letter on my own responsibility; but this Circular Letter was brought in by this great intelligent body of Baptists, called the Philadelphia Association, and read, I expect, by thousands, and published and sent out by their own Publishing House today, for the promotion of the welfare of the people of God, and the work of the salvation of souls.
Another writer says: All are to contribute to that great, unceasing volume of earnest prayer, which has only to become general and tenderly importunate to secure the salvation of a great multitude of Gods elect, who are now wandering unsaved on the mountains of sin in every land. (Great Commission, page 3.) This sounds like the Lord will not reach out and save his elect, only through the missionaries, who must go and teach them. Let us see what the Prophet Isaiah says in the fifty-fourth chapter, 13th verse: And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children. This is what the Lord says through Isaiah; they shall be taught of God. According to the missionaries, it depends a great deal on whether the missionaries get to them or not, whether they are taught. Has God left the eternal destiny of nations and of his elect, whom he has chosen, upon the contingency of men about getting to them and taking salvation there? That is the reason I wanted Brother Yates to answer that question yesterday: does he believe all the missionary efforts have been the power of saving one that would not have been saved without it? Missionaries generally say they would not have been saved without it, but as he says a great many of them are unreliable, I want him to say. He seems to be so unreliable himself that he wont say, and therefore we are left with Gods Word, and that is enough. But the proposition is, Are they authorized in the Scripture? are they of God or man? That is what we are here to discuss. Let us hear again John vi. 37. Jesus says: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. Now this text teaches us that the Father has given a people to Jesus, and not only that, but that that people shall come. Show me a man anywhere, in any country, that the Father gave to Jesus, and I will show you a man that will come, or else Jesus did not tell the truth. I should suppose the Father gave to Jesus all the elect; and he says that all that the Father gave him shall come to him, and as a reason for saying so he quotes the same text from the Prophet Isaiah that I have quoted. John vi. 45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Jesus quotes that from that very prophet, and then adds, Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father, corn eth unto me. Now if they are all to he taught of the Father, then they are all going to come, and Jesus own assertion, that all that the Father giveth me shall come to me, is based upon the fact that the Lord said they should all be taught of him, and he said, It is written in the prophets that they are all to be taught of the Lord.
I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. YATES SEVENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I appear before you again on this great question:
Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Bible, and blessed and owned of God.
I gave proof to you that the heathen are saved through the gospel, or at least that they are not saved without truth made known to them in some way. I have asked my brother to give one passage of Scripture that supports his position. He runs to the Missionary Baptist brethren, and quotes from the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association. They have been of great service to him in this discussion. I will give him plenty of that book before we get through. He compliments me. He says I am an eloquent speaker. I do not know how many times he has said, He has given us an eloquent speech. Well, it is some consolation to know that he appreciates my discourses that much. He said that if I would take his advice I would not be here. I suppose that is so; but he is going to stay until Saturday night, and we are neighbors, and I want to stay with him.
He says I do not believe that the Foreign Mission work is blessed and owned of God, that Brother Yates does not understand his own proposition, and wants the Moderators to define it; and that for that reason he gave me that question to answer, so that the words blessed and owned of God in the proposition might be explained. How kind and thoughtful! Now, in my first speech I showed clearly just what was before us, and he dare not deny it. It is there upon record. Now he says I do not understand it. Do you know why he quibbled around as he did when I was driving him? When he got up that evening at the close of the first days discussion, he knew that he had nothing whatever to say on the negative of the proposition, and could only fill up his time by quibbling over the measures and means of the Foreign Mission work. He well knew that the Foreign Mission work itself is what we are here to discusswhether its authority and fruits are biblical. That the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures, and that the fruits it brings forth are gospel fruits, I have proved from abundant testimony, and that, too, of the most conclusive character; but my opponent has not attempted to meet it.
To fill up his time he went on to tell about an Irishman that shot at a deer. He wanted to get up another laugh, you see. I enjoyed it with him, and he really did not like it because I joined with him in the laugh; but I may be mistaken in that. He said the Irishman saw a deer. That was wonderful, was it not? That was against Foreign Missions. The Irishman raised up, and shot and killed a calf. The trouble with that man was that he was elected to kill the calf, and he thought it was a deer, and shot and killed a calfthat is all. My brother feels he is elected to fight the Foreign Mission cause, but it is like that Irishman shooting at the deer. My brother, just get the scales off your eyes, and you will always see the proper animal. Of course that was to the point, that Foreign Mission work is not owned and blessed of God. That is to the point. But he says he does not believe there have been any conversions in the foreign field through the instrumentality of the mission workers. I know he claims God does it all. I want to put a direct question to him here, and I want him to answer it. I want to ask him this question: Does he believe that he has ever been instrumental in the hands of God in bringing souls to Jesus? Do you believe any minister, or any laborer, has been instrumental in the regenerations of any person? To get out of your tight place you said you believed all the means were good in Gods ordained plan; but you leave out the means when you get in a tight place about the heathen lands. I, too, believe the means are good. But this is not a question between my brother and myself in regard to the measures and means used in carrying on that work, but whether there were converts therewhether the results of this Foreign Mission work that he has been talking about are fixed facts, and indicate the pointing of the Divine Finger that is guiding and blessing the workers.
But he tells us there is no such thing as a man being instrumental in saving souls. God does that. Well, I want to talk a little about that. i Corinthians iv. 15. Now I will see what Paul says about it: For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Philemon i. 10: I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds. i Peter i. i, 2: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. You see the mercy he has been speaking about employed there. There is the Spirit, and the Word, and the Blood. You remember I quoted John xvii. 17: Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth. Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Again, i Corinthians iii. 69: I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. This corresponds to the argument I gave concerning the seed, which he failed to meet, and which he has never dared name again. I want you to try that, my brother. I showed that God gives the sunlight, the seed, and the rain, and man prepares the ground. Man controls his attitude toward the word, to understand and receive it. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are laborers together with God: ye are Gods husbandry, ye are-Gods building That is the idea; you are laborers together with God.
Acts xxvi. 1618. Take that down, and I want you to explain it for us. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee: delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes.he went there for that, did he not? and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. And yet Brother Potter tells us not to teach them at all. He first quoted a passage saying we should teach him, and then quoted a passage claiming they are not to be taught, saying that the Lord would teach every one; every man shall not teach his neighbor. He knew that was a picture of the grand results after the gospel had conquered the world.
Then he asks, How are we to know what Brother Yates meant by being blessed and owned of God by his answer to the question? It was a little troublesome to him, I know. How much would you be willing to give to the Foreign Mission work, if the hat was passed around? says he. Well, I do not suppose he has any hats passed around in his church. All he has to do is just to say, Brethren, do your duty, That would end it. Now my friends, on that point, you know what I told him about the Scriptures speaking of laying up contributions for the mission work on the first day of the week. He could not deny that, and he said the Foreign Mission work was dependent on money as a condition. O how that troubles him! I wonder if he is supported. He says the Foreign Mission work could no more be run without money than a locomotive could be run on a railroad without wheels.
I will ask him another question: You are a minister of the gospel, and elected from eternity; can you run without money? What about your living and opportunity to work? What about your clothing, and support of your family? The earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof. God has a definite cause to be advanced, but you have to employ all the agencies and means. Why do you not take up that text I gave you in Acts, in regard to the community of goods, showing you that when those people were guided by the Holy Spirit they laid down every thing that the circumstances demanded for the needs of their brethren in the work. And it is just that way in the Foreign Mission work. Why do you not fight Paul for accepting wages? I call your attention again to your statement that Paul was not a missionary, but a pastor, at the time this was spoken. Do you receive wages?
He gave us a beautiful theological exposition. He simply made the absurd assertion that Paul was a pastor at the time he claimed to receive wages, and not a missionary, in order to get away from my proof-text. And the fact is Paul received these wages from other churches for his support as a missionary at Corinth, while he was making his second missionary journey. He can never face that. I dare him to do it.
He says, in regard to the proof-text I quoted from the Old Testament, something about two laws that God gave to the Jewish nation. As I understood him he spoke of two lawsone moral and the other spiritual. I want to call his attention to Proverbs, and see whether or not that is actually the case. Proverbs i. 2430: 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: I also will laugh at your calamity these are the Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, and they are for menbut ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 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 will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: 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. Well, about this moral law, he says that God was pure and holy, and he gave a perfect law. He says he believes in the responsibility of man, and also believes in a predestination that fixes mans destiny eternally, without any agency on mans part. What a monstrous position for any minister or Church to occupy! How can he ride the two horsesabsolute election from eternity, and individual responsibilityat the same time? He says God gave the moral law, and man could not keep that law; he broke it: Now he says when man broke that law God was under no obligation to save him. Brother Potter said that Moses gave this law, and that the law of grace came by Jesus Christ. Now, I want to know if Jesus did not himself declare that he came to fulfill all righteousness? and I want to know if righteousness did not refer to the ritual of the Hebrew theocracy? If that is not true, then the types and symbols of the law were not fulfilled in Christ Jesus, as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Now, what is the gentleman to do? He is in a tight place. He says God had a right, from all eternity, to do as he pleased in saving men, regardless of their merit or demerit. God is the moral governor of the universe, and he had a right to decide from eternity, when the whole human family were equally helpless and unworthy before him, whom he would save and whom he would not save. Does he not put it in that way at least? What am I to do about Adam? He lived a good way back. But Brother Potter says man violated the law, and is under it, and ought to be arrested. He preaches that men as sinners are dead today.
They are dead; they cannot do any thing; God does it all. Who is the man he speaks of, going to jail? I want to know when a man is tried and condemned according to the law of equity, if it does not imply that that man had the power to comply with the law? You do not take a baby of five years to jail for any thing it has done. He knows be cannot get out of that. He asks us how we will get them out of jail. Brother Potter says there is no authority to do it. No: if the man is a criminal, there is not. But I say, if the man us a criminal, it implies that he has the ability to choose; that God gave him this ability, and he abused it, as Paul said in Romans i. 21.
What about the Judgment? As God has revealed himself in his WordI speak reverentlyhe has not the right my brother claims. Man is created in the image of God; and for God to force man, by his absolute power, to do a thing, without consulting his consent or choice personally, would he to do violence to his own image; for man us a creature bearing the Divine image. What would you think of a man if he should see two children lying on a railroad track and the train coming, and if he should go and take up one of those children and leave the other? The train runs over the one left. Some one asks. Where is the other? And the man says, Oh I just wanted to show what I could do and I left one and took the other! You would say, You fiend! Is God less than man? There is a difference between power and right. I have the power to be partial in the treatment of my children, but the one thus treated, though it is in capable of defining right, by its tearful eye and quivering lip would say, I am wronged, for the principle of equity in its very nature would resent it. Why, equity is a principle that runs through the universe, and this universe is an expression of God. What a burlesque for my worthy opponent, from his doctrinal point of view, to talk about judgment and responsibility!
My brother runs from one thing to another. I have given him proof-text after proof-text, and he dares not touch them. Now I want him to come out and tell us, if man is responsible, how it is that God has absolutely selected, as individuals, from eternity, those who shall be saved? For those who are not selected must as necessarily and certainly be eternally lost. What equity, justice, mercy, or goodness is there in punishing a being for something he has had no agency insomething that was fixed before he was born? Our government has just as much right to arrest the negro and cruelly imprison him because he is black.
When I propounded to him the question, who was at fault for the present state of the heathen worldman or God? he answered emphatically that man was at fault. He said that sin was not a misfortune, but a crime. If Brother Potters view of mans relation to God is correct, according to the principle of equity, man us not a responsible being; not having the freedom of will, he cannot sin against God, for the power of moral choice is the very basis of character.
From the fifty-second chapter of Isaiah and third verse he quotes what Isaiah says about the Hebrews selling themselves for nought, and about their being redeemed without money. He says that man bankrupts himself. Then, before he was bankrupted he had the privilege to avoid it, did he not? A man is not under obligation to bankrupt himself in buying and trading. Let us go further. He said that had reference to the redemption of the human family. Indirectly, I would say. The deliverance of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity occupies the foreground of this prophetic picture of the evangelical Prophet Isaiah. Of course it indirectly implied and prefigured the Divine method of redemption through the gospel. For thus saith the Lord, ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. In the meaning of the two words sold and redeemed, as here employed by the prophet, is a key to the true interpretation of the passage. I suppose there is but very little difference between my opponent and myself as to the meaning of the first part of this passage. The prophet in speaking of the Hebrews selling themselves, simply means that they exchanged the worship and service of Jehovah for the worship and service of the different idolatrous systems by which they were surrounded. They exchanged Gods worship for what they conceived to be gain in social, commercial and national prestige, and Isaiah says that instead of gaining by it, they had lost every thing, and hence had sold themselves for nought. So their wretched and disastrous captivity was the result of their own moral agency. It is upon the meaning of this part of the passage Ye shall be redeemed without money that my brother and myself so widely disagree. He says it means that as Israel sold herself in sin for nought, that she should be redeemed without any agency on her part; that this had direct reference to the redemption of all of Gods spiritual Israel; that every saved soul was purchased by God in the price paid by Christ in his death, just like a man would pay a price in the purchase of a piece of property, and that all the Lord thus absolutely purchased would be saved. My friends, this interpretation does violence to the primary meaning of this passage, as the deliverance of the Hebrews from the Babylonian captivity clearly demonstrates. That this passage has reference to their deliverance by Cyrus is plainly stated in the forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah and thirteenth verse. In the first verse of this chapter Cyrus is mentioned by name. In the thirteenth verse the prophet declares upon what terms Cyrus should release the Hebrew captives. He says, He shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts. So the manner in which Cyrus delivered the Hebrew captives furnishes a clear elucidation of the phrase, Ye shall be redeemed without money. Israels subsequent history reveals the meaning of this expression of the prophet to be this: As ye have sold yourselves for noughtthat is, as ye have become your foes servants without them paying any price for youso shall they release you without demanding any price or reward. In those days it often occurred in that part of the world that when a king, by the prowess of his armies, was not able to liberate his subjects who were held captives by his enemies, he purchased their liberty with money or its equivalent, at so much per head, according to the demand of their captors. But the prophet said this was not to be the case in the liberation of the Hebrew captives by Cyrus. They were to be liberated from their captivity, and reinstated in the position from which they had been dragged down, without any demand of price or reward. Hence the idea presented by my opponent, that the word redeemed, employed in this passage, means that a certain amount was paid in the scheme of redemption for the purchase of Gods elect alone, is not in this Scripture. No sir; this commercial idea of atonement is not in the Bible. If you will examine the 1st to 4th verses inclusive of the first chapter of Ezra, you will see how Cyrus redeemed the Hebrews without money. After overcoming their captors, the Chaldeans, and taking possession of the Chaldean empire, Cyrus issued an edict and had it posted up in writing, so it could be read by the populace, and proclaimed it by herald throughout his empire, so that in every part of his kingdom full permission was granted to these Jewish exiles to return to their own country if they chose to so do. At the same time he recommended those of their countrymen who might decide to remain to aid the poor and feeble who accepted the proffered redemption, on their way, and to contribute liberally toward the rebuilding of the temple. Now, in this redemption of the Hebrews by Cyrus we have an exact picture of the redemption wrought by Christ for a sin-cursed world. Like Cyrus in his redemption of the Jews, Christ, as the ordained and God-sent Saviour of the world, in his life and death wrought a work that removed every legal barrier that prevented the sinners return to God, and reinstatement in his favor. Like Cyrus in his imperial edict, Christ in his gospel, both written and proclaimed, offers redemptionthat is, deliverance from the captivity and bondage of sin, and reinstatement into the communion and fellowship of Godto every sinner of the human family upon his own choice. Salvation is offered as a gift, not to be purchased by man, but to be accepted and appropriated by him individually, in order to realize its benefits and blessings. The responsibility of its acceptance or rejection is thrown upon the choice of the sinner, just as Cyrus proclamation threw the responsibility upon the exiled Jews of accepting or rejecting his imperial offer of redemption. This offer of temporal redemption to the Hebrew captives was much more extensive than its acceptance. So also is the offer of redemption to the human race by Christ. As a further proof of this I will read the Saviour s own language, as recorded in the third chapter of John, sixteenth verse: 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. I will also read to you the eighteenth and nineteenth verses: lie that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light. Now you can see the condemnation is because they rejected light. Why judge men for something they cannot do, and which God does not give them grace to do after they have fallen and are helpless? But the heathen world, Paul said, were without excuse. And you say, my brother, they are unfortunatethat is, that they were unlucky to get into their present deplorable condition.
MR. POTTER: I did not say that. I said sin was not a misfortune, but it was a crime.
MR. YATES: But you said the condition of the heathen was unfortunate.
MR. POTTER: No, sir.
MR. YATES: So much the worse. And God is going to save them in their sin and idolatry; and yet it is said that no idolater can pass through the gates of heaven. You and the Lord for it. And he brings up the Roman Catholics. He said that the Roman Catholics led in this Foreign Mission work. Now, I want to ask my brother this one questionI want to ask him if this was not the meaning of what he read from the Missionary Baptist Magazinethat in the very opening of any place for possible Christian work the Catholics had their workers there first? Does not my brother know that the Catholic Foreign Mission work is just as opposite to our work as it is opposite to him? They do not teach the Bible to the people. They teach that the priests have all the power, and Brother Potter teaches that God does all in saving man, and man cannot do any thing. We take the middle ground between my worthy opponent and the Catholicsthat the provisions of redemption and the offers of salvation to man is Gods part, and its acceptance or rejection is mans. Now, he told us that the Foreign Mission work was originated by the mother of harlotsthe Roman Catholics. If he was debating against me on the Church question he would declare that every Pedo-Baptist came from the Roman Catholics. And he goes on to argue, that being true, the Foreign Mission work is of man, and not of God. This objection of my worthy opponent proves too much for him. It could be urged from his doctrinal point of view with just as much force against Protestantism entire. He claims that his Church has a clear, unbroken historical line of succession back to the very days of the apostles, and that therefore they did not come out of the Catholics, for they never belonged to them. Hence he looks upon all Churches which came into existence through reformations out of Catholicism as being originated by the Catholics, and therefore of man, and not of God. This makes the Protestant worldwith all of its grand institutions, and the great blessings with which it has blessed mankind ever since its existence, as manifest in its great spiritual fruitfulness in the character and lives of menof man, and not of God. The objection he urges against the Foreign Mission work to prove that it is of man, and not of God, strikes with equal force against the Bible itself. It was practically brought into existence by the Protestant Church translating it from the dead languages into the English tongue; and its smooth and beautiful English gave it a world-wide circulation. Hence, as the English Bible is a work of Protestantism, so also is the Foreign Mission work; and if the Foreign Mission work is of man, and not of God, because it is of the Catholics, as viewed by my opponent, so also is Protestantism and our English Bible. How absurd this objection! The Foreign Mission work was not originated by the Catholics, but by the Holy Spirit. Its birth, nature, and mission are Divine. He dared me to say that any of the Catholic missions or missionaries are of God. Brother Potter is very severe upon the Catholics all at once. When he read this morning about their glorious mission work in the early centuries he tried to claim all their missionaries as Regular Baptists, and their mission work as the work of Regular Baptist ministers. But I brought unanswerable proof from the very best authorities that they were not Baptists, but what my brother would call Catholics, in their incipiency as a denomination. He gave them up at once, and fled from his position. I want to say this: that the Church of God consists of those who have obeyed the gospel call and accepted Jesus as their Saviour. I believe there are some men saved in every denomination, Catholics included. I am against their ritual, but there is such a thing as their having a mission work, and he knows I believe that it is a mission work advancing a nominal or ritualistic Christianity. Well, he said here today that this Protestant mission work is a ritualistic Christianity, that there is no spirit of Christianity in it, that these men and women arc not earnest, consecrated, God-fearing men and women. This he implied today in speaking-of the Foreign Mission work in Europe. Dare he say that the converts in those fields that we have been talking about are not biblical converts? He went on to say, Just look how many heathen there are! we do not know the real figures. And yet he says he is well informed, and is opposed to the work. But let me go farther: When is he going to conquer the world with his forty thousand Regular Baptists? I forgot to bring that book down. I got that account of Uncle Samfrom the United States statistics. Your forty thousand will soon conquer the millions, will they not? We have one hundred and five million of Protestants in sympathy with, and laboring for, this great work. Thousands have gone to the foreign field. Through the Spirit of God has human agency been engaged and guided in the work; and fields of operations have been opened and indicated by special providences, and thus pointed out by the finger of God.
There have been grander triumphs, and more has been achieved for Jesusthere have been more convertsin the first century of this wonderful epoch of the Foreign Mission work than you could possibly show from the history of the first century of the Christian Church. And yet you tell us we have no evidence that God is guiding and blessing the work. He told us that our civilization is the result of Christianity. Now, sir, you cannot prove you did not come out of the Catholics yourself. I know you talk about the Waldenses, but touch them while I am here, and tell me these Waldenses did not come from the Catholics
If your views of what constitutes the gospel Church and work are correctviz., that every thing which comes out of the Catholics, even though in reformation, is of man, and not of Godyou end the authority of the Protestant ministry as a whole. It also does away with our civilization as a result of Christianity. These Protestant Churches have been the great agents in building up and developing the grand lines of our civilizationviz., they have built a majority of the colleges and a large proportion of the hospitals, and have done much to lift womanhood from a degraded state up into her proper sphere. Through their influence homes have been made where there were none, hovels of crime and wretchedness have been transformed into pure and happy homes, like unto our home on high. Society has been regenerated, the pagan world itself is being uplifted from its benighted, degraded, and imbruted condition, and changed into the glorious character of the Christian religion. Art has been given new life and beauty, the institutions of systematic beneficence have been greatly enlarged and wonderfully increased in numbers. All the leading nations of the Christian civilization of to-day are Protestant nations. Go to your Catholic civilization, and contrast it with Protestant civilization. All the lines of commerce, and all sciences, and, as I have said, all the colleges, all legal jurisprudencein fact, every thing that goes to make up civilization, has been brought out by this great Protestant line of work.
I wish to make a quotation from Butlers Bible Work on the New Testament, which comprises selections of gems from three hundred of the most scholarly men of Europe and of the United States, some of whose opinions are contained in this book. I wish to make this quotation in support of an argument I produced todaythat Protestantism itself was born of the mission spirit, and that the home work and the work on the foreign fields are twin children, born from this spirit of the Church. The following is from Vol. II., page 825, of Butlers Bible Work: The European nations are now the most enlightened, powerful, and highly civilized portion of the globe. And what has civilized them? The gospel of Jesus Christ. By what instrumentality were they converted to Christ? By the preaching of the cross, by missions to the heathen. They were once all heathen of the darkest, fiercest, and most vindictive character. When Christianity first encountered them they were as ignorant, as barbarous, as much without hope and without God in the world as any of the pagan tribes and nations to which the gospel is now sent. But during the long progress of ages the gospel was preached, and Scriptures were translated, the generations were taught and trained, and the foundations of the Church were laid; a native ministry was raised up, and the mighty change was wrought. For centuries all Europe was a missionary field, and at last the whole country was converted from idolatry to Christ. The rude Goth, the roving Vandal, the treacherous Frank, the warlike Norman, the daring Saxon, the ferocious Hun, the sturdy German, the impetuous Celt, the hardy Scot, the fur-clad Scandinavian, became Christian. Let it never be forgotten that all the nations of modern Europe were evangelized and civilized by Christianity. This was its second great missionary triumph, not less decisive and important than the first. This is the work which it was doing through all the middle ages. And though its power was greatly impaired by the corruption and despotism of the Papacy, yet its progress was onward and upward; and it prepared the material out of which sprang the memorable reformation of the sixteenth century. And now behold the result of missions to the heathen: Christian Europe and Christian America, two continents conquered and given to Christ. Shall we, then, whose own ancestors were once savage idolaters doubt the power of the gospel to convert the heathen and to win its final and universal victory?
MR. POTTERS SEVENTH SPEECH.
BROTHER MODERATORS, LADIES. AND GENTLEMEN:
Again we have been listening to another interesting speech. I will congratulate Brother Yates, even if he does not want me to. He holds out very well, talks loud and with a great deal of zeal and energy, and we can, I presume, all hear him all over the house, almost every thing he says.
I want to notice some of the things he has said. In the first place, I want to ask the question that I propounded to Brother Yates yesterday evening. It is unanswered yet. What are we to think that modern missionism is for? What are we to think from what he tells us is the object of the Foreign Mission work? Is it to save souls that would be lost without it? That is what I want him to answer the question for. Is it to save souls and take them to heaven that will sink clown to hell without it? We want to know what it is doing, what its object is. Now, it would only take one little monosyllable. of either two or three letters, to answer that question so that we could all understand it, and he must answer it, or else we will all be in ignorance, so far as his speech is concerned, as to what the object of the Foreign Mission work is. The question I put to him is this: Does he believe that out among those heathen, where the foreign missionaries are at work, that they have been the means, or the instrumentalities, in the regeneration and salvation of souls that would have been lost without them? Do you know what he believes on that question? You may guess, but he will not tell you. He has not done it. He says if I mean by that question so and so, why then he says no. No matter what I mean, I want him to tell us whether there are people saved through the instrumentality of these foreign missionaries that would not have been saved without them. That is the question I want him to answer. I say, No. The people know where I stand on it. I do not believe a solitary convert has ever been made by them that would not have been saved without them. Everybody can understand me. Why cannot he come up and talk that way? Brother Yates has not heard the last of that question yet. These people will go away wanting to know his position on that. He tells us the Foreign Missions are a good thing; says they are authorized in the Scriptures; he says they are of God; he thinks it terrible for me not to admit they are of God, when he cannot tell us what they are for refuses to tell us what they are for. He talks about civilization. I told you at the start; so far as the influence of the Bible and education are concerned. I believe they are good things. My position is that the Bible is a blessing, and its influence is a blessing everywhere. I believe that it is. And so far as this Foreign Mission work is concerned, an institution that was gotten tip in the seventeenth century, after the gospel had been preached for seventeen hundred years, nearly, one generation passing away after another into eternity all the timeis this new institution of modern date essential to the eternal destiny of man? Brother Yates has not said, and if be does not say he will hear from that again. He has not told us whether it is or not. We want to know what it is for. We want to know what it is doing. We want to know what the missionaries themselves claim for it. He stands here indorsed by two different denominations to represent them. Now you see how lie does it. He is in the affirmative. It is not necessary for me to affirm any thing in this discussion, so far as that is concerned. It is my place to see whether he preserves his position or not. You are to be the judges as to whether he does or not. He told us yesterday evening he had quoted our statistics from a Baptist almanac. He says today that he quoted from Uncle Sam.
MR. YATES: No, you misunderstand me. I quoted it from the Baptist missionaries paper, and compared it with the statistics of Uncle Sam, and they are the same.
MR. POTTER: So it is a missionary production at last. He says the Missionary Baptists are not very reliable. I referred him to the fact yesterday, that Benedict and other historians held us to be in as ugly a position as it is possible for him to do. He was not only a historian, but he assumed the position of a prophet. However, he turned out to be a false prophet; for he stated in his history that before his stereotype plates were scattered abroad over this country the Hard-Shell Baptists would be among the things that are past. That prediction has been made for years and years. My judgment is that as we are not all dead yet, it is no fault of theirs. It is not their fault that we are still here.
Perhaps Brother Yates will be willing to answer a question or two. However, I will put them. From the days of Jesus Christ until the inauguration of Foreign Mission Societies, according to the best accounts that Brother Yates has given us, was nearly seventeen hundred years. Heathen nations were dying all that time. What became of them? What became of the people where they had no Bibleno gospel? I would like for Brother Yates to tell us about that. We want him to tell us in a manner that we will understand, so that the people will not have to conjecture or infer, so we will know just exactly what he believes about it.
On the money question I want to say this: he admitted himself, this morning, that money was essential to the carrying on of the work. I have no objection to money being used properly. I have no objection to it at all. Men have a right to use their own money as they please. It is their own. But he says it is the Lords moneythat the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof. Of course if it is, he has a right to make such a disposition as he pleases of it. I have no objection to proper use of money; but I do oppose the idea that the eternal salvation of millions of souls depends upon my will to contribute the money to carry the gospel to them. It makes the salvation of one man depend upon another, and then sends the heathen to hell because Christians here who are blessed with the Bible will not do their duty in contributing money. I object to that.
I have something here I want to show you. He thinks that I miss the figures when I quote a book. I have a chart here, published by the missionaries themselves, that gives the statistics of all religions. It says there are 160,000,000 Protestants, 85,000,000 Greeks, 195,000,000 of Roman Catholics, 8,000,000 of Jews, 172,000,000 of Mohammedans, 856,000,000 of heathen. Those different religions are designated by different colors on the lower part of the chart. This brightest orange color here, represents the Protestant Christians; this blue represents the Greeks; the green represents the Mohammedans; the black represents the heathenall this black space; this purple represents the Jews. Now there is the proportion, according to the missionary showing. It is all Protestantism compared with all other religions in the world. It is checked off in squares, and each one of these squares represents one million of people. The white square in the center, that you see there, represents the amount of Protestant converts under missionary work. That shows you how much they have done in evangelizing the world. Here is a statement above it that the heathen are dying at the rate of one hundred thousand a day. Missionaries themselves say that. Brother Yates can have that to look at.
MR. YATES: I do not want it.
MR. POTTER: Now the missionaries say that the heathen are dying at the rate of one hundred thousand per day. And this chart says the Christians are contributing money to save them at the rate of one-tenth of a cent per day. Now just imagineone hundred thousand souls sinking down into endless hell every day that you and I live, and Christians who believe that their eternal destiny depends upon sending the gospel to them are giving one-tenth of a cent per day to save them. That is missionary evidence itself. What do you think of that? That is what the missionaries say. Do you not think that instead of building fine churches and great, magnificent temples in our cities and towns, that we had better spend the money in sending missionaries to the heathen? Do you not think that, instead of preaching here at home on a salary of twenty thousand dollars a year, we had better send a part of that money to the heathen if that doctrine is true? Missionaries say it is.
Let us judge the sincerity of our modern missionary advocates by their works. The Bible says, By their fruits ye shall know them. They come to us with a pitiful story of the destruction of one hundred thousand souls per day, while they live, like the rich man of old, on sumptuous fare every day. My judgment is that I question sometimes their sincerity in their doctrine. Who would not, if he thought what earthly possessions he had would save a few heathen souls, that would otherwise be damned if they did not get it who would not part with them? Is there a Christian brother or sister here if von believe that your contribution to the missionary fund would be the means of saving some poor soul from eternal hell, who would not be willing to work awhile for twenty-five cents a day, and live upon bread and water, for the salvation of such a soul as that? Yet the most extravagant religious people we have in this country are those that teach us that millions of souls are sinking down into hell for want of the gospel. That is the reason I want Brother Yates to answer my question. I want him to tell us. These people want to know whether the eternal salvation of the heathen depends upon it or not. We all want to know, and, as I said this morning, I am not going to join the missionaries until I do know. I want to know what kind of work they want me to do. Brother Yates refuses to tell us. His brethren, and all these missionary friends here, so far as his speech is concerned, do not know whether this missionary labor is essential to the salvation of the heathen or not. They cannot tell. However, we will give him time. We will give him the opportunity. Perhaps he will tell us. If he tells us that it is essential to the salvation of the heathen, then we tell him that there is an essential that Jesus Christ did not provide, until he shows us in the Scriptures that he did provide it. If he does, he will have to go farther back than during the seventeenth century. Revelation was closed nearly seventeen hundred years anterior to the origin of foreign-missionary societies. Now, I will tell you what I believe, and Brother Yates can note it down if he wants to, and everybody else. I believe that the Bible teaches us all we ought to know, all we ought to do, and all that we ought to believe, religiously. I believe that if all Christians everywhere would limit their knowledge, their faith, and their works to that Book, wherever they are, all the good results that God intended to accomplish by them would be accomplished. That is where I stand. If that is not so, what is the Bible worth? If we get out of that, where is the limit, and who is our guide, then? Brother Yates has virtually admitted more than once that he could not find Foreign Mission in the Bible because he cannot he wants me to affirm and show Regular Baptist in the Bible. I have not pledged to do that. He has pledged himself publicly all over this country to prove that Foreign Missions were authorized by the Bible. That is the difference between us. I care nothing about the money, so far as that is concerned, only it makes the salvation of eight hundred and fifty-six million of people depend upon our liberality in giving that money. It makes the salvation of man depend upon the action and liberality of another. That is the reason I mentioned the money; and I may say more about the money relative to this matter before we are through. Brother Yates guessed it when he said he expected I loved money. I do. I do love money. I do love it just a little too well to give it to the Foreign Mission cause until I know what it is for, and that would be my advice to every one else. If Brother Yates can convince me that the Foreign Mission work is necessary to the salvation of the heathen, I will give to it. But he will not even tell us what he thinks about it, much less prove what it is. Because I asked him a question relative to the proposition, he claimed a right this morning to put two or three questions to me. He represents me this eveninghowever, I corrected himas saying that sin is a misfortune. He must listen a little better than that. I claim that sin is an evil, sin is a crime. Sin is not a misfortune, and man is to blame for every thing wrong he does. Brother Yates accuses me of running from one thing to another on the subject of responsibility. I challenge him to show where I have ever denied the responsibility of man. If I have not, when did I run from it? Why is such an accusation as that put upon me? He represented me as denying the responsibility of man and the obligation of man. That does not make it true. I believe that man is responsible for his acts. But he says if a man sold himself for nought, he need not have done that. That is just what I say. He says if a man is in jail in Princeton, he need not have been there. That is just what I say. He says if a man is a sinner, he has violated a law; he has become a sinner himself. That is just what I say. He says that the man is guilty. That is just what I say. He says that he is to blame for that guilt and nobody else. That is just what I say. Hence he is answerable to God for the law that he has violated, for that guilt, and if God does inflict the penalty of that law upon him, God is not to blame, but the sinner is. Hence the salvation of the sinner is an exhibition of Gods mercy and grace to reach down to this man that is ruined and lift him up out of that state, and justify him and qualify him for heaven. That is what Gods grace is. Our works ruin us, Gods grace saves us.
Now, it is in this guilty and condemned state that we find ourselves. Brother Yates thinks that if God does come, and by a chance chooses some out of this guilty race and saves them, and punishes others for their sins, he is just like a man who sees two children on a railroad track, and seeing a train coming, jerks one of them off, but leaves the other there. In that wisdom is he not a logician? Why, I believe I will indulge in another little anecdote, and he need not apply it to Foreign Missions if he does not want to. One time there was a lawsuit going on, and there was one witness whose honesty was called in questionnot that Brother Yates honesty is questionedand so they called in another witness, a colored man, to impeach his oath. When he was put on the stand he was asked this question: Do you know this witness? Yes, sah. What kind of a man is he? Well, sah, ples yer honnah, he is kind of obstrobalous. What do you mean by that? I mean this, sahhe knows jest a little too much for one niggah, but not quite enough for two.
I have been thinking, from what we have been hearing in this discussion, that that was Brother Yates afflictionhe knows almost too much for one preacher, but not enough for two. I cannot give a quotation but he is in advance of it, and says it is wrong, unreliable, dishonest, or something of that kind. This is his own missionary witness; he has found it out. I leave this audience to judge as to whether the Missionary Baptists are competent witnesses in this case. To whom do they belong? Are they on the missionary side in this discussion, or on my side? He calls the Missionary Baptists my brethren, but he does not seem to want to admit they are honest. They have a Foreign Mission Board; they send out missionaries; they belong to the Protestant world; so, he says, they are as much of God as his missionaries are, and if not, as I asked him this morning, I want him to tell us why not. That is what I want you to notice. And they are the men who said, not I, that it is a very remarkable circumstance that in modern missions Papal Rome has led the way. That is not my say-so. It was one of Brother Yates men that said that; not only that: in speaking of that matter he refers to my quotation from Hebrews, where the apostle says: They shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. And he says that I know that means the time after the gospel has conquered the world. Well, I did not know that, and I do not know it yet. We have Brother Yates word for it. I am not quite as smart as he thought I was. If he is smart enough to know that, I want him to tell us how he found it outthat this new covenant had allusion to the time after the gospel had conquered the world instead of now in this dispensation.
Another thought: How did his missionary brother understand it when he said, Thou shall teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord? Did he understand that the thing spoken of in the quotation in Hebrews was not to take place until after the gospel had conquered the world? No, sir; he does not believe that was true at all. That was the way he understood it, and I am afraid that is the way brother Yates understood it, from his conduct. Let me tell him there is not a single syllable of authority in the gospel to any minister, from Jesus Christ, to tell him to teach men to know the Lord. If any man claims to be teaching men to know the Lord, I want him to show me his authority for it. The commission does not say any thing about teaching men to know the Lord. Aquila and Priscilla taught the way of the Lord more perfectly to Apollos, but they did not teach him to know the Lord. The New Testament says, Thou shalt not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, to know the Lord for all shall know him, from the least unto the greatest, and it has never contradicted it, and as it says that, and not one syllable of authority to any man to go about teaching sinners to know the Lord, I want to know why that does not look like it belongs to the new dispensationthe new covenant. I would as soon a brother would say he could impart eternal life as to say he could teach men to know the Lord. John xvii. 3, Jesus says, And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Then that is life eternal, that they might know thee, or else Jesus Christ has made a mistake. Show me a man who is destitute of eternal life, and I will show you a man who does not know the Lord here, without going to heathen lands to find him. i John iv. 7-8, refers to the same point: Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. Have we not that kind of people in Owensville? Have you not people in Owensville who do not love God? -If you have, John says they do not know him. If they -do love him, they are born of him. Hence it is equivalent to saying, if they know him they are born of him. There are just as many people born of God as there are that love him; there are just as many that love him as there are that know him, in the sense of that text. Hence I would just as soon a man would say he was going about regenerating men as to say he was teaching them to know God. And that is giving the doctrine of the New Testament and the new covenant, when it says: Thou shalt not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. I would not send a missionary to heathen lands to give the heathen eternal life, because I do not believe they can do it; if they can, they had better go at it here. There is plenty of room to work here yet. I would not spend much money to send a man to do a job of work that did not believe he could do. But somebody says, I think a man can teach one to know the Lord. We are not taking I think. I want him to understand that the Bible is the book we are to be governed by.
MR. YATES EIGHTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADLES, AND GENTLEMEN:
You see the situation in which my brother is placed. If I did not meet another word of his denials, you see what is his condition right now. He said no man can teach that the Lord has to do it all, and yet that man is responsible. If I had nothing else to say, he has ended it right here. I want to know if we do not have to teach the gospel? In Matthew, Jesus commanded them to teach the gospel to all nationsto preach it. My brother, if what you say is so, I want to know, since you are so ready to ask questions, what is the use of teaching and preaching? What good will it do? The Lord alone does all in mans salvation. If that is so there is no use for you to preach in this country. Why do you ever teach in this country if it is not necessary to teach the gospel? Listen: The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. Jesus speaks of giving them his word. To as many as received himcan they receive him?to as many as received him, to them gave he lower to become the sons of God. They can receive him, cant they? Let me give you another passage. O what a profound theologian he is! He says I am a little too smart for one man, and not quite smart enough for two. I knew you were in trouble, my brother; but you will think I am three before Saturday. I am going to go down and stay with my brother after this debate is over. I am getting in love with him.
He says I did not answer his question. It is a pity I cannot please my brother. He compares me to a negro. I did not know I was getting so black in the face. When I left home I did not look so, but sitting in the shadow here, he thinks I am black. He thinks Brother Yates is a pretty nice fellow, though. Well, I am glad I can do something. He says I make an eloquent speech. I am ordained; I cannot help it, my brother; God has fixed it so, and you have to meet those eloquent speeches.
Now, as to the heathen: he loves them, doesnt he? He says it is a splendid thing to give them the Bible. What Fine logic! He says it is a good thing to send the Bible to the heathen, and confesses that the people did not give ten cents on the dollar for missions. But just look at what has been done. Look at that mapat its mission stations there! He thinks so little of the Protestants that he would not take the statistics of the map. That map is Coltons. It is from one of the most responsible publishing houses in the United States. In this country and in Europe it is probably indorsed by one hundred and fifty of these Boards my brother hates so badly. When William Carey landed at Serampore, in 1792, there was not a missionary there. There were a half dozen men behind him in Europe, as I told you in the outset. And I told you how the people of Scotland shut their churches against Whitefield and Wesley those men of God, whose hearts glowed with the burning missionary zeal and spirit. What about it today, my brother? Look on that map, will you? There are hundreds and thousands of miles represented there. You see the world is large, and there are mission stations girding round the world, and those people who live there are all transformed by the glorious gospel. Has my brother dared tell you, my friends, that man can transform his own character? He is defeated by his own speech. What did that wonderful work for the heathen? If God did it, he is with those men by his guiding hand. Why does not my brother talk about this map? Why, here, from Oceania, girdling clear around the globe, we see these stations of light. In 1798 all this was darkness (pointing to Oceania on the map) for 5,000 miles from south to north, and now it is gleaming in light.
He tells you that I will not take the Missionary Baptists as witnesses. Where did he learn that? Some of the grandest men upon this continent belong to the Missionary Baptist Church. What I am objecting to is his perversion of the meaning of the Baptist author he has been quoting, and his picking out those quibbles, instead of coming here as a Christian man and showing the good things they have done, and what the leading men have said.
He says I have not answered the question. I will answer it for him again. The question is, Do you believe that in those Foreign Mission fields souls have been regenerated and born of God, and will be saved in heaven through the instrumentality of the Foreign Mission work, who would have been lost had those missionaries never gone there? My answer is, if the brother means in this question that those people in the Foreign Mission fields who were once heathen, but are now saved Christians, would have been saved without Gods ordained agency, and the means employed in the Divine economy in carrying out the plan of salvation, I say nothat is what I said before. If he means that God saves some persons who are idolaters without character, I say no. He says if the people would take the Bible and believe it, and do what it says to do, all the necessary work would be accomplished. Is all the work accomplished that is necessary? I want him to answer that. Why is any work necessary, if I am predestinated and am Gods elect? Those people that are Gods elect are his children, and are guided by him, as I said yesterday. I showed you that if your theory is true, God is lower than any human father. No natural father would trifle with his children, and have them die on those foreign fields for nothing. He says those missionaries are good men and women. Now, he turns around in his last speech and says they are dishonest. Which time am I to believe him? He says that he is almost led to believe that they are hypocrites. What a consistent speaker!
He says he wants me to answer a great many things. He says there was no Foreign Mission Board in the days of Jesus, and that there was none until the seventeenth century. Didnt I give him proof that there was a Foreign Mission Board in 1556? Didnt I show that the primitive Church itself was a Foreign Mission Society? Didnt I show that it sent Paul and Barnabas to the mission field? Brother Potter could not meet these facts, but he tried to slip out of his position by saying Paul went on a missionary trip to Arabia. He did not give one proof-text on that. He said that if missionaries were like Paul, he would believe in the Foreign Mission work; and when I showed him that Paul received wages he tried to slip out of it by saying Paul was the pastor of a church. He says that Foreign Missions cannot be found in the Bible, and that I virtually gave up the question by admitting that the name of Foreign Missions could not be found in the Bible, and by asking him where the name Regular Baptist could be found. But I want to say to my brother that the principles of Foreign Missions are there, and that is just the same.
I asked him about church clerks, and he fled from that, and also from the communion. I asked him about these things, but he says I ought not to have mentioned themthat in doing so I was not sustaining the proposition. It was a bad thing for him, I know, because he was arguing that the apostles did not represent the Church. That does away with his communion. He might just as well put his books in his pocket. I gave him that question on the community of goods and he has not named it. I wish my brother would take that up.
He says that Christians do not give ten per cent of their incomes to the mission work today. How much does he give for missions? He says it does good to send abroad the Biblethat schools and churches do goodand he speaks as though he sympathized with the suffering heathen in their degraded condition. He admits that the condition of the heathen is unfortunate. Then, if he believes what he argues, why does he not work for it? and why do not his brethren who sustain him in the argument help in this great work? What would have been done in the work had it depended upon him and his brethren? He talks about millions perishing, and says we ought not to build fine churches here if we believe they are perishing. Paul says they are degraded, and they have no excuse, and the wrath of God rests upon them; but my brother says that is not so.
He goes on to say that there was no Foreign Mission Society up to the sixteenth century. I proved to you (turning to Potter), and you dare not deny, that these Mission Boards are wielded by the Church just as your Association is wielded by your churches. When you appoint a committee it is the instrument of the church, and the church operates through it. You know that. The trouble with my brother is he is trying to fill up time.
He tells us he believes the Bible, and will stick to the Bible, and says to me that he wants me to show where Christ has made known to any man that he should go out and teach men to know the Lord. Priscilla and Aquila taught the way of the Lord. What is it to teach the way of the Lord more thoroughly but to teach people to know the Lord? Then, they are to take the gospel, the good news, the good tidings. What are the tidings? A Saviour is born that shall be a joy to all nations; and you tell me that is not teaching about the Lord? You had better look up your Book, my brother.
He says that Hebrews, eighth chapter, eleventh verse, has no reference to the time when the world shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lordthe time when every man shall not teach his neighbor. But he says teaching does not do any good. Does he know that? Every man shall teach his neighbor. How is man going to be taught something he does not know? Does God put the meaning of that Book into a man without the use of the Book?
I want to look a little at my brothers conclusions. He is in such sympathy with the heathen! He says he is nearly led to believe that the Foreign Mission advocates are hypocritical, since they are building fine churches while the heathen are all perishing. Who perishes? Now, if they are elected from eternity they cannot help themselves. You have owned that they have violated the law. You said you believed just as much as I did that a man is responsible for his acts, and will have to suffer the penalty. I want to know, if a man is capable of violating the law, if he is not capable of keeping it? If my children make mistakes and do wrong, I want to know if I am not willing to use the means of bringing them back? Will I not give them a chance? But he says God has a right to do as he pleases. He does not show that. He alluded to the children I spoke of as an illustration; but he did not fix it up by any means. Suppose that at the day of judgment, when the sheep and the goats are standing there, as the Book describes, one man comes up and is condemned, and Jesus says: Depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels; but the man says, Lord, I was not elected from eternity; I was a non-elect; you elected my neighbor, instead of me; I was born under the dispensation of Christ, but there was my neighbor to whom the Spirit came, but it did not come to me; now, Lord, what am I to go to hell for?What is such a man accountable for? The gospel was brought to him, but he was not elected. But among the heathen they are all saved, I suppose; all elected, even all the idolaters, and the degraded; and my brother thinks he is willing to stay over there at home, and let them go up into heaven. Who, according to Brother Potters doctrine, are to be saved? Those that had the light but could not receive it? Those of us who are elected will be saved, but those who are not are just driven into everlasting darkness.
He says that the babies are all saved. That does not modify his horrible doctrine. Is it any more repulsive to damn babies than to foreordain unalterably that a certain part of the human family shall be lost? According to Brother Potters interpretation of the Scriptures, he shuts all the babies out of heaven. He says the elect, as spoken of in the Bible, are those alone whom Jesus died to save. We have shown that wherever election is spoken of in the Bible, in reference to eternal salvation, it always implies faithalways has reference to believers in Christ Jesus. Then if the elect represents those alone whom Jesus died to save, according to Brother Potters doctrine, the babies are left out; not being capable of believing, they cannot be numbered among the elect. But suppose, for the sake of argument, we admit that his theory saves the babies. Would it not be less cruel to damn a soul by reprobation in infancy than to let one of the non-elect grow up into mature years and see all of the privileges and opportunities extended in this life, and then to send that soul to hell, with a developed conscience to be filled with remorse and regret, caused by the thought that perhaps if the opportunities and privileges of salvation offered in this world had been properly improved, he might have been saved? But it is probable that the babe entering the land of the lost, with an undeveloped mind and conscience, would not suffer from remorse or regret. Having no knowledge of what it had apparently lost in this world, it would not be so pained, perhaps, by its surroundings. God damns no one save those who by their lives of willful disobedience bring condemnation upon their own souls. I wish Brother Potter would take that first chapter of Proverbs, and explain it for me.
I want to read to you again Ezekiel iii. 18, 19: When I say to 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; but his blood will I require at thy hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked ways, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. In the words of the prophet just quoted the responsible relation the professed servant of God sustains to those who are not his servants is forcibly set forth; and especially is the state of the heathen world in sin, and the responsible relation the Christian Church sustains to their salvation, vividly pictured. The condition of the heathen world, and the relation the Christian Church sustains to them, is something like this: A number of persons, by a bad choice, board an unsafe and unseaworthy ship for a voyage. The ship is caught in a storm, crushed and torn by the angry winds and waves, and is going to pieces. On the shore in sight is a body of men organized and equipped as a life-saving company. They are in plain view of the ships signals of distress, and could reach and save those who are on the wrecked and sinking vessel. The members of the life-saving company are indifferent, and the ship goes down in the storm. The blood of those people in that lost vessel rests upon those mens souls, because they did not make the effort and use the means that their profession, position, and opportunities demanded in attempting to rescue the perishing. Suppose, on the other hand, this life-saving company did all within their power, and many of the persons on the wreck were lost because they refused to accept or properly use the offered aid. In this case the life-saving company would be exonerated, and the responsibility of the results would be thrown upon those who refused the offers of salvation. So the heathen world, by a bad choice spiritually, have thrown themselves into this helpless and dying state in sin, and the Christian Church, organized and equipped, is the professed Life-saving Company of Jesus. They are in sight of the signals of distress in the heathen lands, and have the opportunities of reaching them with the blessed message of salvation, and of being instrumental in saving them. If we, as Christian Churches, fail to do our duty in this respect, many of the heathen who might have been saved will be finally and eternally lost, and their blood will rest upon us. If we do our duty, and they reject the message, we will be clear, but they will die in their sins: It is in accordance with this biblical principle that the great Foreign Mission work is prosecuted today.
Brother Potter says he objects to the Foreign Mission work because it depends upon money. He dares not stand up here today and say that the Foreign Mission work makes money a preeminently essential condition, because support is furnished the laborers on the foreign field. We make money an essential means, just as you and your brethren do. Are you not supported, my brother? Money is just as essential to the running of the work of the Regular Baptist Church as it is to the Foreign Mission work. He criticized me when I quoted, The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof. It is, and God holds us responsible for its use. We are responsible. What is that man in the parable of the talents put in prison for? For the improper use of his Lords moneybecause he abused the trust that was put in his hands.
I want to give you a quotation from Errors Chains, by S. F. Dobbins, page 770. This book is one of the most reliable authorities on the subject of Foreign Missions. The title of the article is The Story of the Mission Work. It began eighteen hundred and fifty years ago. A Christian man named Paul went among the heathen of Asia Minor and Southern Europe, among the worshipers of the gods of Greece and Rome, to tell them of Christ. He (Paul) says God called upon men everywhere to repent. He was accompanied by other Christians. They met with considerable success, though they were made to suffer for it. In later years, from Rome, that had then become the center of Christianity, other Christians went to Western Europe. From Greenland, of the arctic zone, to the West Indies of the tropics, Christianity was extended. Nation after nation gave up its idols; cruel customs were abolished, and purer life and worship was begun; but it was left for the last one hundred years to witness the development of this work to its greatest extent.
Now let us read Matthew xxiii. 37, 38. I want to call Brother Potters attention to that again: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not.I would, but ye would notBehold, your house is left unto you desolate. Let us see what this man, Butler, says about this in his Bible Work, Vol. I, page 437: Was ever imagery so homely invested with such grace and sublimity as this, at our Lords touch? And yet how exquisite the figure itselfof protection, rest, warmth, and all manner of conscious well-being, in. these defenseless, dependent, little creatures, as they creep under and feel themselves overshadowed by the capacious and kindly wing of the mother-bird. How significant all this to what Jesus is, and does, for men!
Under his great mediatorial wing would he have gathered Israel. In all the superhuman beauty of the character of Jesus, nothing is more affecting and impressive than the profound melancholy with which he foretells the future desolation of the city, which, before two days were passed, was to reek with his own blood. In fact, there was an intimate moral connection between the murder of Jesus and the doom of the Jewish city. It was the characteristic disposition of the people that now morally disqualified them from knowing the things which belonged to their peace, which forty years afterward committed them in their deadly, ruinous struggle with the masters of the world. Christianity alone could have subdued or mitigated that stubborn fanaticism which drove them at length to their desperate collisions with the arms of Rome. As Christians the Jewish people might have subsided into peaceful subjects of the universal empire. They might have lived as the Christians did, with the high and inalienable consolations of faith and hope under the heaviest oppressions, and calmly awaited the time when their holier and more beneficent ambition might be gratified by the submission of their rulers to the religious dominion founded by Christ and his apostles. They would have slowly won that victory by the patient heroism of martyrdom, and the steady perseverance in the dissemination of their faith, which it was madness to hope that they could ever obtain by force of arms.
This led Jesus to weep, as he looked upon the city on the Sabbath evening immediately preceding his crucifixion, and this caused his exclamations to be broken with sobs. My brother has told us that Gods elect are all saved from eternity, and that man can do nothing; and yet Jesus wept over obstinate Jerusalem: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how can I pass through that gate to enter your streets? I have offered you salvation; you have rejected me: how can I go through that gate? I am a patriot as well a Saviour; I know in passing that gate your cup will be full. It was not Jesus fault, my brother, not a word of it, sir. God extends the opportunities and privileges. We would not have the power if God did not give us the Word and the Spirit, but he extends these, and thus makes us responsible. There are two forces which bear upon us one is the evil, the other the good. Satan tempts both directly and indirectly, with tangible objects. Have we not proofs of that? It is said he put the lying words into the hearts of Ananias and Sapphira; and the Spirit of God through the Word, and independent of the Word, and yet associated with the Word, operates upon mans heart, and counterbalances the force of both the direct and indirect temptations of the Evil One, and thereby enables men to exercise the power of choice, to decide between the right and the wrong. That makes man responsible; so, my friends, there are great obligations resting upon us.
I now advance in the line of my argument, in support of the affirmative of the proposition. That the Protestant Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures is evidenced in the fact of its absolute conformity with the universal principle of the brotherhood of mankind, as taught in the Bible. Man is created in the image of Jesus; that image is defaced by sin. I am so bound by the ties of humanity that I may die arid pass away, but my word and my influence live. Infidels are today sending their books and their papers into every open port of the world. Now, I ask my brother, since the devil is at that work misleading those heathen, does it not look reasonable that God will also be at work moving us to send them the Bible? Now, remember the things I have spoken concerning the propagation of infidelity in heathen lands are occurring in China, India, Japan, and the Islands of the Sea. Even the apostles of Ingersoll and Herbert Spencer are scattering their books among those peopleamong the same people that are learning about the Lordamong the Japanese students of the Government school in Japan. There are even infidel professors in that school. And those foreign missionaries, in the strength of the Lord, are grappling with them over these questions. They are achieving all the grand success that has been pictured to you. Go preach it. Not that any of us expect to save souls by the Word alone, but by thus moving with God and for God.
I want to ask my brother here this question, since he says we never saw any one saved by the gospel. What does Paul mean, when he says, It is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth? Gods word gives life if Gods Spirit accompanies it. It is Gods grand instrumentality. Jesus is the burden of his own message, and in his word he is revealed. Then, are not the fruits of the Foreign Mission work enough to convince us that God is in it? What evidence has my brother that God was in the work of Christianity during the centuries that are passed, except in the fruits of the work? What evidence has Brother Potter that God is with him in his work, only in the fruits of his labors? If I have time I will read a quotation right here from a speech by a heathen convert to Christianity, a Brahman of India. It is found on page 10 of the Report of the Evangelical Alliance of the great Protestant world, held in 1873, in New York.
My brother says that he does not believe people are saved among the heathen by missionaries going there. Then, those that are saved would have been saved if there had been no Bible sent there. I do not believe a word of it.
MR. POTTERS EIGHTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
In about thirty minutes the discussion will come to a close for today. The first thing I want to call attention to is the expression of my brother, casting a reflection upon me, in speaking of my perversion of those authors. This audience knows very well that I have always offered him the inspection of every book I have read from. The audience knows very well that such an expression as that is unbecomingthat be should accuse me of perverting those works. Here are the books and I do not want that kind of language used. If my brother thinks I have perverted these works, they are open to him.
MR. YATES: I said the work of the Missionary Baptists.
MR. POTTER: That is what I mean. I am not here to pervert. I want the truth. I do not want to be accused of perverting the works of any author, when I have them, and offer them to him to read, and to see that I have not perverted them. The Missionary Baptists said just what I told you they said. If they did not, if I offer him the book he can show that they did nor. That is the way for him to do, instead of coming up here and accusing me of perversion of their works. He refuses to look, refuses to examine, refuses to notice any thing that we introduce as evidence, and then accuses me of perverting.
Again, he says that I said that if all the Christian people would read the Bible, and believe it, and do every thing it required, that every thing would be accomplished that is necessary. He missed me just a little. He then turns to me and asks me if all things are not accomplished that are necessary. He missed my language. I said, all that God intended by it. Just find the peoplethe preachers and Christian people in the worldreading the Bible, believing it, and doing what it teaches, and my affirmation was, that all the good results that God intended to accomplish by such means would be reached. I did not say, every thing that was necessary so far as the eternal salvation of Gods people is concerned. I believe that depends upon the work of Jesus Christ, and not upon the work of any human being in the world, that is now, or ever was, or ever will be. Jesus Christ came to do the will of his Father in the salvation of sinners, and he says he did it. Then he speaks of me as saying God has a right to do as he pleases, and he wants to know where we will find that. We will turn to the ninth chapter of Romans, and I will give one or two quotations from that chapter beginning with the tenth verse, where we find the following language: And not only this; but when Rebecca 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 bated. Here was a distinction, made known to the mother, concerning which of these two brothers should rule, and the apostle introduces it here to represent the principle upon which God elects his people to salvation. He applies it there, saving, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, that the purpose of God according to election might stand. He applies it to election. My brother says God has no right to elect. Again: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What then shall we say? Is there unrighteousness with God? Brother Yates says yes, if that is so. That is what he has been crying here all the time; if God does thatmakes such distinctions as thathe is unjust. The apostle Paul seemed to anticipate just that kind of an objection, and he prepared for it here by saying: What shall we say then? 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. That is what it is of. That is what election is of. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might he declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. That is what the Lord said, whether it is his right or not. It will be for Brother Yates and the Lord to fix the matter up. I did not make this Book. I have it here, and brother Yates thinks it is a good book, and so do I; and this being true, that is what it says. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault ?that is the very inquiry that Brother Yates has been hurling at me all the timefor who hath resisted his will? The argument was, if God made such a distinction, man would be doing his will. The apostle anticipated an objection to that doctrine. He says, Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? I have not seen a man in all my life that this is more applicable to than Brother Yates. He is replying to God and does not allow him to do as he pleases with guilty men. Let us read again. Shall the thing formed say to 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? The law condemns the human race. They are not in a state of innocence, but guilty. God knew from eternity what the condition of the race would be today. He knew this audience here then as well as today. This being true, he compares them to a lump of clay, all of them guilty, none of them worthy of the approbation of God. Has he a right now to take that lump, and make just such a disposition of it as he pleases? The apostle says he has. He has the power, the right, the authority, and the privilege, over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. That is the argument of the apostle. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory? There it is. There is one Scripture that I rely upon to prove that God had a right to do as he pleased in the matter. Mankind were all guilty, had incurred his just wrath and indignation upon them by their works. If the governor of the State of Indiana pardons one prisoner in the penitentiary, is he under obligations to pardon all the other convicts there? They are all guilty; none of them have a right to pardon; but the governor does pardon one. Does that necessarily involve upon him the obligation to pardon all that are there? Let us represent mankind as in the prison of sin for their wickedness and for their works. Has the Lord a right to pardon one without pardoning all? That is the question. Brother Yates rather questions that right in the Lord. That is all I will say about that for the present.
On the question of O Jerusalem, Jerusalem: he read a lengthy comment upon that text. As far as I understood it, I accept the whole commentary. It does not interfere with any thing I have said today. The term salvation does not appear in it at all, nor in the text. It applies to the destruction of Jerusalem, a national calamity of the Jews for their wickedness. That commentary is his own witness, and of course he will accept it. If he read any thing in that commentary connected with that matter, that had any allusion to eternal life, eternal salvation, justification, or any thing of that kind, I did not happen to hear it. That is all. But he did speak of a national blessing that the Jews might have enjoyed had they not been so wicked, and also of the national calamity that was to befall them for their wickedness. And that is the reason the Saviour wept over them; not because he could not take them to heaven. This commentary says Jesus was a patriot; he thought of the cities of that country, and in sympathy with them, as being in the flesh, he made the lamentation that has been referred to today.
MR. YATES: I say he was a patriot.
MR. POTTER: Well. I accept it, whether he or the commentary says it. One good thing he says, anyway, and he was about not to get credit for it.
Then he accuses me of saying that people are never saved by the gospel. He is a very bad hand to remember or to note. The apostle speaks of being saved by the gospel, and of being saved by grace, and so on, but there is more than one salvation spoken of in the gospel. Let us turn to Philippians ii. 12, and its connection and we will see. The apostle says: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The people addressed in this text are Christians, saints of the church of God. My brother will not deny that, of course, and he and I agree that there is no such thing as the possibility of apostasy. That being true, I want to know what salvation they have to work out. The salvation of the saints is already worked out. If there is a saint today, he is just as sure of Heaven as there is one. We do not differ upon that. What salvation is it that they work out? It must be some other salvation; hence it must be some other salvation that the gospel speaks of. The proclamation of the gospel is not Gods only means of the eternal salvation of the sinner. He says that I argue that we are not required, and that it is not necessary, to teach people about the Lord. I do not argue any thing of the kindnothing of the sort. I will make the people understand me whether Brother Yates does or not. I said there was not a solitary syllable in the New Testament of authority for any man going about teaching sinners to know the Lord. Remember, to know the Lord. I admitted the commission said, teach, but it did not say teach them to know the Lord. I admit that Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollos the way of the Lord more perfectly, but they did not teach him to know the Lord. The people will understand me. Now, there are many things we might teach the people about the Lord if they already knew him. There are some things we might teach the people concerning the Lord, even if they did not know him in the sense of the new covenant; but for a man to say he could teach a man to know the Lord is equivalent to saying he could give him eternal life. John xvii. 3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Hence let us do those things which the Lord has told us to do and the things which he has not told us to do, it seems to me Christians might feel a clear conscience to let alone. I do, at least.
Now, I want these people to think of one question: Take all the people in and around Owensville, where we have had the Bible, preaching, and every facility of learning all that is common to any people in the world to know the Lorddo they all know him? I would love to have Brother Yates answer that question. I do not believe he will do it, but I would love for him to. Do all the people of adult years, sound mind, and common intelligence, in and around Owensville, Gibson County, Ind., who have had the Bible, and preaching, and all the facilities of learning and religious culture that is common to any people in the world, know the Lord? If he says they do, I prove from the Saviour that they all have eternal life. If he says they do not, then it proves this: that it is necessary for them to be taught by another agency and that agrees with the quotation I made from Mr. Rice yesterday in regard to an influence of the Spirit, distinct from the gospel, without which the gospel itself never would regenerate a ruined son or daughter of Adamin addition to and distinct from, the proclamation of the gospeland Regular Baptists are not alone in believing that.
I want to tell you something more that I called his attention to this morning, and upon which I made an argument. I present this argument again to show you that God would fulfill .his promise to Abraham. Brother Yates said this morning that all those promises to Abraham, and all those Scriptures I quoted relative to the covenant with Abraham, were dependent upon conditions. I called upon him to prove it. What has he said about it? We are not here to take each others word, and the people are not here to hear me assert, or to hear me give my opinion. That is not worth any thing, but the Bible is worth something, and as Brother Yates said those things depended upon conditions, I asked him for the proof, and they stand just as they did until he gives it. I told you this morning that I was two speeches ahead of him.
Now, I want to call your attention to the argument of Jesus concerning the sheep, first giving the promise to Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. John x. 1416: I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. I want to advance an additional argument upon that expression.
Brother Yates has been talking a great deal during this debate about the missionaries capturing souls for Jesus. I want to say Jesus has already done, the work; they are already his. He says so in this text, Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold. And I do not know of any Commentary that does not say he has allusion to his people among the Gentiles. They are already his. He does not need to go out there and capture them, and bring them in; he already owns them, and speaks of them as his. He says, Other sheep I have not that I will have them when the missionaries go and capture them for me. Them also I must bring. They are mine, and I must bring them. They are not his as a result of having been brought, for they have not been brought yet: but Jesus himself said, I must bring them, and they shall hear my voice. That is the positive language of Jesus. And there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Again, in speaking of the same sheep, the sheep of Jesus both among the Jews and Gentiles; speaking of all his sheep, he says, in John X. 2729: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand. Now, he already has them. He says so himself. He does not only have them now, but he says they shall never perish. Who gave them to him? Did the missionaries? No, sir. Who did? The Father. That is what he says. That is the language of Jesus and we have his own words for itthat they shall never perish. If they never perish, then they will all he saved. That is the argument. Now, the people can understand my position. As an evidence that this position is orthodox, and not peculiar to the Regular Baptist Church. I call attention to this Commentary of Jamieson Fausset, and Brown. Let us hear them on this same text. On the words, other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also must I bring, they say: he means the perishing Gentiles, already his sheep in the love of his heart, and the purpose of his grace to bring them in due time. On the words, they shall hear my voice, they say: This is not the language of mere foresight that they would believe, but the expression of a purpose to draw them to himself by an inward and efficacious call which would infallibly issue in their spontaneous accession to him. That is the argument I take, and he contradicts it all. He says the missionaries are necessary to bring them in. He does not admit that Christ has sheep among the Gentiles any further than the missionaries have gone. He is against not only the Bible, but also the ablest commentaries upon that text. Remember, this Commentary does not say, but even denies, the foresight that they would believe, and says they are already his in the love of his heart, and in his purpose to bring them all in, in time, by his grace. That is the doctrine I preach, and I am not isolated from all the religious world upon that subject. Then they will be brought in. None of them shall ever perish. I want these people to understand me in that. I believe they will he brought in, from the very fact that the Father has given them to him. He says so himself; and in John vi. 37, which I quoted this morning, he says: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me. They have not come yet, but shall come. Notice, he had given those that were among the Gentiles as well as those that were among the Jews: he had given those that had not come yet as well as those already here; he had given them all to him, and Jesus says they shall all come. He does not say some of them shall come, does not say a few of them shall come, does not say any of them may come; it does not hang upon their hearing and believing the gospel, but he says, All the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. Why? Is it because they hear the gospel and believe? No, sir. What, then? For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Fathers will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. If he loses any of the sheep his Father hath given him, he fails to do his Fathers will. He says they shall all come, and assigns the reason that he came to do his Fathers will. And if he does this, their coming and their eternal happiness depend alone upon Jesus Christ doing his Fathers will, instead of upon the missionary labors of an institution that has been originated during the sixteenth century. That is the reason I take the bold position today to tell you Gods promise to Abraham will be fulfilled. He said, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, and I believe it. And I do not believe that God has hung this upon the human will, the depraved and covetous heart of man, who may withhold the gospel. I do not believe he has hung the eternal destiny of man upon their will and voluntary service to bring them in. He has all these means treasured up in Jesus Christ. He knew what would be necessary to bring these people in, and he is going to do it. Hence, when the last trump shall sound, and the people are gathered up yonder, they will be a great multitude that no man can number. I called Brother Yates attention to that text yesterday, and I told him when he got all his figures together and all his statistics together, and computed them, and was able to give us the aggregate of the number of converts made through missionary labor, still there would be more saved than that, because it was a company no man could number. He does not say any thing about it. He tells us nothing about it. We go away from here without knowing any thing about it, so far as his side of the question is concerned. Remember, it is an innumerable company. Where do they come from? Out of every nation, every kindred, every tongue, and every people that is where they come from. That is just what God said to Abraham And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Now, do you believe, my Christian friends, that God is as good as his word? Do you believe that Jesus Christ did the will of the Father? It he did, they are to come in, and the reason he assigns as to why they shall come is because he came to do his Fathers will. And this is the Fathers will that hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. I believe they will come, and I do not believe that this work depends upon human agencies. I believe that Jesus himself is able to do the will of his Father. He came with power to do it. I will give the text to prove that. John xvii. i, 2: These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said: Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. Notice, the Father had given Jesus the power, not over one, but over all flesh. What for? Why, in order that Jesus should give eternal life to as many as the Father had given him. That is what it was for.
I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. YATES NINTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I am glad to face so large an audience this beautiful morning. Some who thought the debate would continue only two days may be a little disappointed, but if the brethren have come away from home with that expectation, I want to say to them that we will stay here until Saturday evening.
The first point I wish to take up is this: my brother has said during this discussion that the Invisible Church is universal, embracing all the centuries, evidencing itself, of course, in the different denominations of the Christian world, and that it embraces the heathen also. But he believes in mans responsibility. He said so when I drove him to the wall yesterday morning, and had him answer the question that I am going to read over again. He gave me that question yesterday, comparing it to a plank to be walked upon with care, saying, Young man, be careful; consult with your brethren before you walk on that plank. But there was another plank he was walking on yesterday, and has to walk on this morning. Now, he said: Do you believe that in those Foreign Mission fields souls has been regenerated and born of God, and will be saved in heaven through the instrumentality of the Foreign Mission workthrough those missionaries that have been therethat would have been lost if they had not gone there? Here is what I answered himI knew his purpose; it was this: he thought I would say, Yes; and then he would come out and say to you: Brother Yates knows that the foreign missionaries depend upon themselves or upon man to do the work; but I saw his purpose. If the brother means in this question that these people in the Foreign Mission field, who were once heathen but are now saved Christians, would have been saved without Gods ordained agency and the means employed in the divine economy in carrying out the plan of salvation, I say, No. If he means that God saves some persons who are idolaters, without character, I say, No. Let me tell you, this is a Bible question. Some of the brethren were a little afraid I would not use the Bible. I will give you plenty of the Bible. I have pressed him to show me one passage in the Word where it is revealed that an individual was ever saved without some truth. I have driven him from that text in Romans, and from proof-text after proof-text, and I am here this morning to expose him on that wonderful book from which he has been quoting Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. I have the book. I have been letting him use it for the last day or two. He felt a little offended yesterday evening when I said he perverted, or misinterpreted and misapplied, the testimony which he quoted from the Missionary Magazine, and I rather apologized to him privately. I knew I had him on some points, and when I took the book and saw that he had quoted only a part of the comment and left out the part that was against him, I must say, with all due regard, that I thought his prejudices very strong, to say the least. I put the question pointedly to him: Who is to blame for the condition of the heathen in heathen lands who are now in religious darknessman or God? he said, Man, and still had them all saved in heaven without the Book, yet he knew 100,000 of them were devil-worshipers, and he saved every one of those devil-worshipers without the gospel or any truth. He saved them. When he came to the difficult place in Romans i. 20, he got up and said: They were without excuse; God was revealed to them in nature; and it is my opinion that wherever God is revealed to men they will respect him. That is just my opinion now concerning the heathen lands And when I caught him up on the 21st verse, and showed that the wrath of God rested upon them because they had degraded God, changing his incorruptible glory into the form of sticks and stones, then Brother Potter said that was only my opinion from my point of view. Now, I ask him this morning, if man is to blame for being in this condition, what obligation is God under to save him, in his degraded state as a heathen, without any gospel repentance and reformation on his part as one of the elect from eternity? I ask that upon the very principle he stated last night. Again, if the heathen are unfortunate, as you claimed in your speech yesterday, how can that be consistent with the happy condition of that part of them who are elected from eternity? After asking that question I showed that there was not a father in this country who would treat his children as Brother Potter says God treats mankind. And I know from Gods revelation in his Word that he is not below weak humanity. When I brought up those men in the Foreign Mission fieldconverted men, consecrated to the work, and whose bones bleach on those distant shoresand showed that according to Brother Potters position God had deceived those menhis own childrenwho, my opponent confesses were good Christiansdid he answer it? No, sir; he never touched a single line of my argumentnot one. Then I asked the question, If all are to be saved as individuals from eternity, and not upon principles as a class, why is the impenitent sinner banished to the land of the lost when he is a non-elect? But he said: We do not believe a word in reprobation. I believe as much in personal responsibility as Mr. Yates. He says he and I believe alike in the final perseverance of the saints. I believe in that doctrine, it is true, but it is only an opinion of my own and of my brethren; of course other Christian men who differ from us are just as good in their religion and their practice as we are. But the basis of my belief in that doctrine is radically different front that of yours. You base your belief of the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints on the absolute election of certain individuals from eternity; but I base my belief in this doctrine on the Christians union with Christ by faith. When I met Brother Potter on the doctrine that God by his sovereign choice, regardless of merit or demerit, had a right to choose a part and reject others of the same class, and he found I had his hands tied, then he said, I believe as much in personal responsibility as Mr. Yates. Then Brother Potter undertook to advocate both sides of the question. I saw the impression he was trying to make, and hence pressed and forced him to take and define his position. Then, by many proof-texts selected from Gods Word, as arrows drawn from a well-filled quiver, I pinned him to the wall. He said God had a right to do as be pleased. He had a right to deliver a certain part and leave another part of the same class to be damned when they were all condemned under the law. He cannot show the passage where God saves except as it is in accordance with the principles of compassionate mercy. That is no abuse of his Churchnone at all. So much for his arguments. He says he will not notice the majority of my proof-texts from the Old Testament, because most of them apply to Israel as a nation Not one of my proof-texts from the Old Testament are designed to be employed in the sense he speaks of, but apply directly to individuals, as such, in their spiritual relations to God, both in this and the world to come. I will now call his attention again to Prov. i., commencing with the 24th verse. He said God gave Israel two lawsa moral and spiritual. That is a revelation to me. I do not know where he finds that. He tells us in the two covenants. I dont see how that is, for the new covenant was embodied in the old in symbol, and the old covenant pointed to Christ, the very heart of the new covenant. These things were enjoined until the time of reformation or reshaping. In the full unveiling of the principles of the old economy by Christ in his mission to earth, and in bringing also on the foreground of revelation new principles in this grand and complete unfolding of Gods nature to mankind, a new tangible form of expression was required. Hence the old covenant and the new are virtually one and the same. The old covenant hears the same relation to the new as the flower does to the fruit. Farewell to Brother Potters two distinct codes of law, giving to Israel two distinct salvationsa temporal and spiritual. The temporal and spiritual salvation of Israel was inseparable. Brother Potter presents this absurd argument to try to explain Christs sorrow over impenitent and lost Jerusalem, because of their misspent opportunities of salvation. For Jesus would have saved them, but they would not. But my worthy opponent says the Hebrews only lost their nationality by rejecting Christ. Yes, my brother, but the same sin that destroys the character of the nation will destroy the character of the individual, for the nation is composed of individuals, and that which will destroy a mans character and well-being in this life will destroy him in eternity. Thus you see the force of his logic. He says man can sin against God, but when he gets down there is no opportunity extended to him at all to get righted. He has to stay there. None but those whom God picks out as his elect can escape. That is the reason he opposes the Foreign Mission work. He says he teaches that man violates Gods laws, but is not predestinated to do it. Then, if he was not predestinated to sin, he was not designed to sin, was he? If he was not, and God does every thing, and fixed it from eternity, why did he allow man to get ahead of him and fall into sin? God does not take very good care of his children, does he? We believe God is just. He says that men violate the law, and every one must suffer for his own sins, or some one must suffer for him. Yes, that is so. They all go down, but God has no right to select a few of them, and upon sovereign choice save them to the neglect of the rest. Brother Potter does not believe in reprobation; but how do men get to the land of the lost? Because they were not elected. He says God is under no obligation to save anybody; he had a right to save whom he would. I have already answered that.
I will now go to the Book. Acts x. 34, 35: Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. Stop, Peter, you belong to Brother Potters Church; you must not preach that. Brother Potter belongs to the apostolic succession. Peter, do not preach that. Brother Potter would not take Brother Peter into his Church. God is no respecter of persons. But Brother Potter says he is, and no one has a right to deny it. His convictions are squarely against Peters convictions. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. But, then, Brother Potter says you cannot work any; no, sir; God does it all. When I showed yesterday that Jesus was the antitype of man, and that as a perfect man he represented the human race in the highest possibilities of development, and was also the highest revelation of God to man, Brother Potter did not notice it. I showed that man was created in the image of God, and defaced that image by sin, but did not efface it, and hence God in the fullness of time spoke to us through his Son. Man, being created in the image of God, is a spiritual being, and his faculties stand right over against every perfection of God. He is so constituted that his faculties are suited to respond to every message of truth. But Brother Potter says a part of mankind are not thus constituted because God did not elect them from eternity. Man became disabled by his own transgressions. He did it, says Brother Potter, like a man in a business transaction; he sold himself for nought; he bankrupted himself; he once had plenty, but forfeited it. I want to know whether Brother Potter really means that we are to hold a boy responsible for all his ancestors did through the centuries past? Do you believe that? It is not in the Book. All these evils have come upon men; it is true, through the effects of sin. They have been inherited and transmitted down the centuries. But God has made a wonderful provision in the atonement for salvation from sin. This salvation is presented freely to all, and those that believe are saved, and those rejecting it reject the light. But my opponent gives us an illustrationhe says I am a little too smart for one man, and not smart enough for two. Perhaps you can fix me out, my brother, for the second man this morning. He says he is not personal at all. He can say all he pleases. I enjoy it. Really, I have not enjoyed myself so well for a long time as in the last few days.
Now as to the penitentiary convict. He says, Has not the governor a right to pardon whom he pleases? You are well informed, my brother! You understand the commonwealths of your country, and the construction of your government! Has the governor a perfect right to pardon any one, and reject the rest? No, sir; he has no such right in any civilized country upon the earth. I defy him to show it. Why has he not? The governor is the head of a commonwealth, and the good of society is in his hands. Let me give you an example: Prof. Webster killed a man in Massachusetts, several years ago. He burned the body of his victim in a furnace. He was arrested and put into jail, tried, convicted, and condemned to be executed on a certain day. Now, the authorities could not set him free; the officers could not. But Brother Potter says the governor could pardon him. Prof. Websters wife, with her little children, went and pleaded with the governor of Massachusetts, and the neighbors and citizens went. The wife got down at the governors feet, and pleaded with him but he said, Madam, I would be glad to do this to favor you; but the crime is so aggravated, and, owing to my position, with the interests of the commonwealth of Massachusetts placed in my hands, and the good of its citizens, I cannot pardon him. What do you think of that, Brother Potter? No, sir, he had not the right to do that. He is under obligations to the State that he represents. What are the conditions on which convicts are released in any case? It must be shown that the circumstances were aggravated that induced the man to commit the crime, or that he did not have either the ability or the opportunities that the average man has in life to learn the evil nature and the fearful consequences of the crime for which he was sentenced. Citizens of the community in which the crime was committed, and those who prosecuted him, with the jurors who tried him, must sign and present a petition to the governor, praying his clemency and the pardon of the convict therein mentioned, on the grounds before named, and with the additional declaration that they are convinced that the crime was an extreme exception of his life, and that if liberated they believe he will walk worthily as a citizen of the commonwealth, and in keeping with its general interest. Upon these conditions, and these only, has the governor of any well-ordered government under Christian civilization, authority to release a penitentiary convict. Just so with God in his dealings with man. The welfare of the Divine government demands that adequate grounds must exist before God grants pardon to the sinner. There must be that on the part of the sinner which will fit him to become a worthy subject of the spiritual commonwealth. God in his goodness has revealed to man the conditions of pardon. These are repentance toward God on the sinners part for his course in sin, and a voluntary acceptance of Gods offer of salvation in Christ Jesus. So much for your prison illustration, my brother.
He runs to the eighth and ninth chapters of Romans as a shelter and defense of his doctrinal position. I will, for his comfort, give that letter some attention. Did you hear me demand of him yesterday to define election? He would not do it. I dare him to do it today. He has said fifty times during this discussion that Christ came to save his elect. I defy him to show one single passage, from Genesis to Revelation, where the Bible says Christ came to save his elect. Where the word elect occurs it always has reference to his believing people prophetically, or those who have accepted the gospel call, and are living in obedience to its requirements. Christ came into the world to reveal God. God was in Christ Jesus reconciling the world unto himself. O what a theologian my brother is! I want to tell him a little about that word elect. I want to turn to this eighth chapter of Romans, beginning at the twenty-eighth verse, and examine it for him: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Now, what is implied? All things work together for evil to those who do not love God. Then, the universe is a unity; man belongs to this universe; he is the apex of it. He is the golden link that connects the great empire of creation with God. He is created in the image of God, and when he transgresses a moral laws when he rejects God, and refuses to follow Gods guidance in this life, he turns himself round about, and reverses his nature, and brings the universe against him. A little further: For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might he the first-born among many brethren. Did God know any thing about the devil? That is pressing a good deal on his foreknowledge. Did he know any thing about the fallen angels? If omniscience saves a man, I want to know why the devil was not saved. If my brother would remember when this Epistle was written, and the state of the church to whom it was written, he would never attempt again to give such an interpretation to the eighth chapter of Romans as he has given. The first question to be asked, in order properly to interpret this chapter is, what gave rise to this letter? To whom was it written? What were the circumstances surrounding the writer and the people to whom it was addressed? Now let us see. We learn in Acts that there were many Jews at Rome. He was writing to the Hebrews in this part of the letter. What was the great temptation of the Hebrew converts to Christianly at that time? What was hardest for them to understand? It was the Messiahship of Christ. Over this they had their sorest temptations and greatest struggles. It was at this point they were the most vulnerable, and were the hardest pressed by their unbelieving Hebrew brethren. In the eighth and ninth chapters of Romans Paul assures these Christian Hebrews that Jesus of Nazareth, who died upon the Roman cross, was the real Messiahthe God-sent Saviour of the world. He seeks to impress them with the fact that Christ was in the mind of God as a Lamb slain before the beginning of the world that he was set apart as such in the very constitution of the universe. He showed that the sacrificial principle of compassionate love runs through the universe entire, and constitutes the central force of the great ruling power by which it is governed, and that Christ in his nature embodied this sacrificial principle in its highest and greatest degree, and in his life and death gave it its full and perfect expression. Because God has ordained, in the very nature of the divine economy, that this sacrificial principle must be complied with by every responsible individual of the human family in. order to obtain eternal salvation with all of its blessings, and because Jesus, in the offering, of himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin, complied with every phase of this sacrificial principle, both toward God and man, therefore, one accepting Christ as his Saviour, and yielding his nature to be conformed to his image through life, would be complying with this sacrificial principle through Christ; and hence would be saved, justified and glorified of God. Now, says St. Paul, as you Christians at Rome have accepted Jesus as the Saviour of your souls, and yielded your lives to his service, you are therefore Gods accepted or chosen ones. You are justified and glorified of God. You are his elect. As I have said, the Messiahship of Christ, and not election, is the theme of this chapter, and also the ninth. Election is only brought in incidentally. But as my opponent bases all his objections to the Foreign Mission work upon what he claims to be the Bible doctrine of election, I will proceed to give a brief biblical exposition of this doctrine, and to do this understandingly we must first get at the primary meaning of the word elect, which occurs in Romans viii. 33. It is from the Greek word eklektos.
I do not want to bring any more books here than I have already, but if my brother denies my explanation of the original meaning and usage of this word elect, I will bring Greek authors here and show that its classical usage, before it was selected by the Holy Spirit to be employed in the Scriptures, sustains my explanation. The word elect, of the 33rd verse, in the Greek is eklekion, and should be translated chosen ones. It is from the word eklekios, which is derived from the verb eklego, which is defined by Liddell and Scott to be chosen out. Eklektikos, choosing, picking out, selecting; eklektos, picked, chosen, or culled out, selected. (This is the word for the elect of the New Testament). This same lexicographer says this word eklektos was employed to describe the eclectics, philosophers who selected such doctrines as pleased them in every school, who did not originate any new school or system of philosophy, but selected the facts and principles from the different stems of philosophy that existed, and put them in a system they called true. That was choosing, wasnt it? Those philosophers were selectors or cullers of the principles and facts that, they believed were genuine and real, from those that were not. It was the peculiar character that these philosophers conceived these professed facts and principles to possess that led them to select them: So the primary meaning and usage of this word elect reveals Gods procedure in choosing his people to be the selecting of those who possess a godlike character. If you notice, men in sin differ in character, but Christians belong to one class. They are molded after one model. Hence God selects those that possess that character, and saves them. This class are the elect of Godthose who are conformed to the image of Christ. Young and Groves definition of the word is substantially the same as that given by Liddell and Scott. We do not inherit character. My brother cannot give character to me. Man must act in compliance with Gods conditions, and that is based upon choice between right and wrong, good and bad. That word character means to cut or carve. Now, substitute the meaning of the word elect for the word itself in these verses, and that will furnish us with the true key of interpretation that will unlock the doctrine the apostle designed to present in this chapter to the Church at Rome. It will also furnish us with the true key for the interpretation of all other passages of Scripture in which the word occurs. The Greek for he foreknew, in the 29th verse, is proegno, from the verb proginosko, which is defined by the great linguist; Young, in his Hebrew and Greek Concordance to mean, to begin to know first, or beforehand. He also predestinated, in the Greek, is kai pro-orise. Pro-orise is from the verb pro-orizo, which is defined also by the same Greek lexicographer to mean to mark off first, or beforehand; to see from afar. With these definitions also agree those of the Greek lexicographers, Liddel and Scott, and Grove, and in fact every other linguist or lexicographer of note. The word predestinate, as we have before said, is from pro-orizo, which means to mark out like a plan. And whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. That is, the plan of redemption was no afterthought of God when man had fallen and brought woe and ruin upon himself and his posterity. So we see God clearly marked out in his mind the plan of salvation before ever the creative fiat went forth that called the universe into existence. That is, in the very origin and constitution of things it occupied the central and pre-eminently important place in the divine economy.
God designed, in the very make-up of mans nature, in the very structure of the moral and spiritual universe in which he placed him, that the principles revealed and developed in the perfect character of Christ, as manifested in his life and death, should be the ideal model to which all those who would be accepted and favored of him as his servants must mold their character and conform their lives. As the word elect. as employed by the Holy Spirit and in its classical usage means picked out, culled out, chosen from, selected, and as the word eklektos was employed to describe the eclectics, a certain class of philosophers who selected doctrines from every school of philosophy that pleased them, rejecting those that did not, this word clearly reveals who the persons are that are called in the Holy Scriptures the elect of God. They are those who possess a character molded after the image of Christ. These God selects from among various classes of worldly characters. Hence, as character is the basis of a responsible persons acceptance with God, election takes place in time instead of eternity. Then God, from away back in eternity past, at the beginning had the plan of the government for his universe marked out. That plan embraced the material and spiritual universe, with Jesus the Saviour of sinners as its central and controlling object. So there are laws in the material world, and there are mental, spiritual laws.
God extends to man the ability to comply with the conditions of the physical and mental laws to which he is subject. We can also comply with the conditions of the spiritual law. We are moral agents, and through the wonderful means and direct aid which God extends to us we can conform to his will. As character is not inherited, but formed by moral choice and godly living, election must be the result of some agency on the paint of man in accepting divine aid and in co-operating with God in bringing about his own salvation. So you see it is not a selecting of a few, or the putting predestination in the phenomena of events, but in principle. I might go to Princeton a dozen different ways and maintain my manhood, or I might go a dozen different ways and violate it. It would not be my traveling to Princeton, but the way I conducted myself, that either built up or violated my manhood. Brother Potter said salvation was all treasured up in Jesus. I believe with my brother in that. All that belongs to manhood God has revealed through this mighty Christ. That is where your election is.
MODERATOR: I think it would be better to address the audience instead of Brother Potter, and use the third person instead of the second. I would make a second suggestionthat you hold a little closer to the question, as your time is half out, and show the relation of this question of election to the subject directly before us.
MR. YATES: I am very thankful for your suggestion. I have gotten into the habit of speaking directly to Brother Potter because he has so often addressed me as Brother Yates during the debate. The Moderator has been absent. I am following my notes in reply to the closing speech of yesterday evening by my worthy opponent. Having been absent two days, the Moderator does not understand what the trend of the discussion has been. I know all of this quibbling of my opponent, in filing objections to the Foreign Mission work upon his view of the doctrine of election, has been out of order, and is foreign to the subject under discussion. I appealed to the Moderators in regard to this matter on the afternoon of the first days discussion, in my second speech, but they gave no response; so I decided, as they permitted him to wander from the proposition, and take shelter under his doctrine of election, that I would give him enough of it. Now, as he has cried enough, I shall proceed directly to the discussion of the preposition. When I was stopped by the Moderator I was just at the point of answering a false representation made by my opponent in regard to what we claim for the Foreign Mission work. He says we claim that the heathen are saved by Foreign Missionssaved by the missionaries alone.
MR. POTTER: If he can prove that the missionaries have been instrumental in saving a soul that would not have been saved without them, I will admit it is of God. He says the Foreign Mission work is of God, and not of man. That is the issue of this discussion, if I understand his proposition. I have asked him for two days to tell us whether he believes these Foreign Mission workers were instrumental in the salvation of souls that would not have been saved without them. He has refused to give me an answer. I have not accused him during this discussion of saying they were saved by the missionary effort. He is mistaken about that.
MR. YATES: What did you say?
MR. POTTER: I did not say any thing about it. I wanted you to say.
MR. YATES: I want to notice this: he denies either saying or implying that according to our view of the Foreign Mission work the heathen are saved by the missionaries alone. Listen to his language; he says: We hear of capturing souls for Jesus. The Scripture speaks of the Father drawing them. There it is, just as plain as language can make it, by inference. He places the Foreign Missionaries on one side, laboring in their own strength to save the heathen, and the Bible on the opposite, teaching that God alone saves men from sin, without any agency on their part or the part of others. I have quoted his own language. Now he has come out here and flatly denied it in the presence of this great audience.
MR. POTTER: I have questioned that capturing souls for Jesus being a Bible expression.
MR. YATES: You were arguing on an objection you urged against the Foreign Mission work, that it was of man and not of God, because its language was not the language of the Bible. Your language is right here on record, and you have denied it.
Now we will turn to John vi. 44 and look at the language there, giving the comment of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on it. He uses that as his proof-text: No man can come to me, unless the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Here is the comment: No manbe not either startled or stumbled at these sayings, for it needs Divine teaching to understand them, Divine drawing to submit to themcan come to me in the sense of verse 35 except the Father which hath sent methat is, the Father is the sender of me, and to carry out the design of my commissiondraw himby an internal and efficacious operation, though by all the means of rational conviction, and in a way altogether consonant to their moral nature. Raise him up, etc.see on verse 54. Written in the prophetsin Isaiah liv. 13; Jeremiah xxxi. 33, 34, and other similar passages may also have been in view. Our Lord thus falls back upon Scripture authority for this seemingly hard saying. All taught of Godnot by external revelation merely, but by internal illumination, corresponding to the drawing of verse 45. Every man therefore, etc.i. e. who hath been thus efficaciously taught of himcometh unto mewith absolute certainty; yet in the sense above given of drawing (q. v.), as no one can come to me but as divinely drawn, so no one thus drawn shall fail to come. How is man taught of God? Through the moral convictions, in accordance with moral agency. That is his own proof-text.
So we will turn to Isaiah lvi. 7, 8, a passage that he quoted yesterday to prove that God saves without consulting the choice or agency of the one saved: Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him. Reading those verses together in this way, it does look as if God did it all but Brother Potter did not read the verse next to itthe 6th: Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant. There came in the human agency in connection with it. It was those who joined themselves to the Lord to serve him, those who took hold upon his covenant. It was this class he would bring to his holy mountain. Not those whom God joined to himself and forced to take hold of his covenant, but those who joined themselves to God, and who of themselves took hold of his covenant.
John x, 29. I will notice these proof-texts, not that they directly hear on the proposition at all. The Moderators will pardon me in this, because we have not been held to the question. It does not matter whether God does all the work, or whether man is an agent with him. The only question before us is this: Is the Foreign Mission work, in the principle and spirit of it, and in its fruits, authorized in the Bible. Here are the fruits where he speaks of predestination. Those sheep are elected, and there is no need of sending foreign missionaries to them. Says Brother Potter: The Lord will gather them in his own good time.
John x.I quote from Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, the Commentary he has been quoting from for two or three days: My Father which gave them me, is greater than allwith whom no adverse power can contend. It is a general expression of an admitted truth, and what follows shows for what purpose it was uttered. And none is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand.The impossibility of true believers being lost in the midst of all the temptations which they may encounter, does not consist in their fidelity and decision, but is founded upon the power of God. Here the doctrine of predestination is presented in its sublime and sacred aspect. There is a predestination of the holy, which is taught from one end of the Scriptures to the other. Now, Brother Potter read that far; but here is the other part of it: Not indeed of such a nature that an irresistible grace, compels the opposing will of man of course notbut so that that will of man which receives and loves the commands of God is produced only by Gods grace. There comes in moral agency with divine sovereignty in salvation, which you positively deny; and yet you try to make this congregation believe that these commentators agree with you.
Now we will turn to John i. 29, on that word world. I will use the same Commentary: The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of .the world. In arguing on this, Brother Potter said that the phrase, taketh away the sin of the world, does not mean the human race, but the people who should be saved. The Commentary says: Of the worldnot of Israel only, for whom the typical victims were exclusively offered. Wherever there shall live a sinner throughout the wide. world, sinking under that burden too heavy for him to bear, he shall find in this Lamb of God a shoulder equal to the weight. The right note was struck at the firstbalm, doubtless to Christs own spirit; nor was ever after, or ever will be, a more glorious utterance. Wherever there is a sinner this sufficient Saviour is ready to deliver him.
I turn now to John iii. 1416, quoting from the same CommentaryJamieson, Fausset and Brown: As the serpent was Gods ordinance for the cure of every bitten Israelite, so is Christ for the salvation of every perishing sinner; the one, however, a purely arbitrary ordinance, the other divinely adapted to mans complicated maladies. In both cases the efficacy is the same. As one simple look at the serpent, however distant and however weak, brought an instantaneous cure, even so real faith in the Lord Jesus, however tremulous, however distant, be it but real faith, brings certain and instant healing to the perishing soul. In a word, the consequences of disobedience are the same in both. Doubtless many bitten Israelites, galling as their case was, would reason rather than obey; would speculate on the absurdity of expecting the bite of a living serpent to be cured by looking at a piece of dead metal in the shape of onespeculate thus until they died. Alas, is not salvation by a crucified Redeemer subjected to a like treatment? Has the offense of the cross yet ceased For God so loved the world, etc.The picture embraces several distinct compartmentsthe world, in its wide sense, ready to perish, the immense love of God to that perishing world, measurable only and conceivable only by the gift which it drew forth from him; the gift itself. He so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, or, in the language of Paul, spared not his own Son (Romans viii. 32), or in that addressed to Abraham when ready to offer Isaac on the altar, withheld not his son, his only son whom he loved. The fruit of this stupendous gift is not only deliverance from impending perdition, but the bestowal of everlasting life; and the blessing is received by believing on the Son. How would Nicodemus narrow Judaism become invisible in the blaze of this Sun of righteousness, seen rising on the world with healing in his wings.
Here is what the commentary says about the 18th verse, which I quoted yesterday: Condemned alreadyRejecting the one way of deliverance from that condemnation which God gave his Son to remove, and so willfully remaining condemned. Rejecting our deliverancethat is what is done on the part of impenitent man. Now, I have answered already as to what is the object of Foreign Missions. It is to take the gospel to the heathen, to teach and to preach it to them. This is taught in the commissionMatthew xxviii. Mark xvi. i; Acts xxvi. 17, 18to which attention has been called through all this discussion. Its great object, the end it is designed to subserve, is there proclaimed. The plan for breaking the power of Satan and leading the heathen into light, to obtain the forgiveness of sins, is also pointed out.
The same number of souls will be saved, whether they are preached to or not, my brother says. That is not the Bible doctrine; it is antagonistic to it. The question has been asked, Is this new institution essential to the eternal salvation of the heathen? I have already shown that this is not a new institution. I have shown that the primitive Church was a missionary society. I have shown that the very basal idea of the New Testament is the missionary principle. The gospel is based upon it. I have shown that the Boards are under the control of the churches. I have shown that the very same principles that are embraced in the Foreign Mission work, and actuate it and its motive-power, are identical with those of the gospel work of the New Testament. I have shown that the call of the workers, their preparation and sending to the foreign field, are identical with the call, preparation, and sending forth of the gospel workers of the primitive Church to the Foreign Mission field among the heathen Gentiles. I have shown that the language of the Foreign Mission work and that of the New Testament are the same.
My brother says there is no such thing positively stated or implied in the Word of God as capturing souls for Jesus. What about the expression, the kingdom of God? Does not this expression imply an empire, with its organized armies to defend and advance its interests? Does it not picture Christians as soldiers laboring with and for Jesus in capturing their fellow-men from the thralldom of Satan? What about the wonderful battle described in Revelation between Michael, the leader of the heavenly armies, and Satan, the leader of the evil forces? What about the kingdoms of the world becoming kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ? I have shown further, from many unquestionable testimonies, that the opening of the ports of the world and the marvelous reception of the gospel. by the heathen are unmistakable evidences that the Foreign Mission work is in the trend of Divine providence. I have shown that the transformation of character in these countries, in the uplifting of those degraded people, in the transformation of society is an evidence beyond a doubt that God is in the missionary work, blessing and owning it. I have shown also that the fruits of the Foreign Mission work are evidence that God is in it, and blessing and guiding it. I have shown furtherand my opponent has not denied itthat the gospel is the very heart of the power and greatness of the civilization of Europe and America; that these Christian nations, in all their greatness, are the result of Protestantism; and as Protestantism is the result of the Foreign Mission spirit, therefore our civilization, which he acknowledges has been produced by the gospel, is the result of Foreign Missions. And I have shown that the missionary spirit was the result of the revival of the Church life. I have shown that every Church which has embraced these principles has grown and increased in life. I have also shown that the Home and Foreign Mission work are twin children of this missionary spirit.
Now, I want to read you from a Baptist work. My brother has read you a great deal from the Baptist Missionary Magazine, and I thought I also would read something from it. The line of argument I have presented during this discussion, as just rehearsed, has never been touched; and before I read the quotation from the magazine referred to I want to call your attention to the fact that my brother affirmed, on the first day of this discussion, that if such a missionary as Paul could he shown, who supported himself and went out to labor for the salvation of the heathen at Gods call, without being sent by the Mission Boards, that he would indorse such a missionary. I showed that Pauls sending and Pauls spirit were identical with our missionary spirit, and I showed that the Church sent him and Barnabas. To get out of this difficulty he said Paul went on a missionary tour from Damascus to Arabia, and next morning I asked him what he preached on, and he has never told me. I showed that Paul went there, as it was supposed by the very best of scholars, to meditate. But this is mere conjecture. We have no positive information from the Bible as to the object of his journey to Arabia. Brother Potter says he went there on a missionary tour; but the New Testament says nothing about what he went there for. He said Jones was a good Baptist historian. I told him that Jones was a dishonest historian, and that if he used him in the discussion here as a witness, I would expose him. I showed that he had been exposed as a falsifier by various authors and critical scholars; but Brother Potter quoted from him to prove that missionaries went up into Northern Europe without money, and suffered there, and produced great results. Jones in his writing, and my worthy opponent in his reading, left the-impression that those missionaries were Baptists.
Jones was exposed as a perverter of historical facts for sectarian interests, by Rice in the Campbell and Rice debate, and my brother has that book. He speaks of the Foreign Mission work being new; but I have shown that the Church has always carried on her work in accordance with the circumstances and surroundings of the time in which the work has been done. Though the principles that have guided and actuated the Church in the work of the worlds evangelization have ever been the same, yet the methods and means employed in every century of the past were not, the same. Methods are suited to the time and the circumstances of the work. Then I showed that there were organized Mission Boards as far back as 1556. My opponent undertook to prove that the Foreign Mission work of today is not owned and blessed of God, by drawing a disparaging contrast between the results of Foreign Mission work and the triumphs of the gospel laborers of the first century. My brother would make us believe that the results of the last century of the work of Foreign Missions are insignificant when compared with the fruits of the labors of the first century of gospel work. But this is an overdrawn picture. The fact is, all things taken into consideration, the last century of the Foreign Mission work, in genuine gospel prosperity and fruitfulness, will compare favorably with the gospel work of the first century. But this objection, urged by him, does not touch the question under discussion. We are not called on to decide whether the Foreign Mission work of today, in its success, does or does not equal the gospel work of the first century, but whether there is any gospel fruit found as a result of the labors of the missionaries in the foreign field; and we have shown from unimpeachable testimony that there is such blessed fruit in great abundance.
I will now quote from the Baptist Missionary magazine, of July 1879, from a paper published in that number entitled The New Missionary Epoch. This paper was read by the Rev. I. N. Murdock, D.D., Corresponding Secretary of the Missionary Baptist Union, before that august body, at its great annual national gathering at Saratoga, N. Y., May 28, 1879. My purpose in making this quotation is to call attention to the indications of Divine providence in the preparation of the way of access to the heathen lands, and in their wonderful readiness to receive the gospel. Our Missionary Baptist brethren are not surpassed by any de nomination engaged in the Foreign Mission work either in piety, intelligence; or well-directed effort. Among the most intellectual, thorough, and consecrated sons of this Church is the Rev. J. N. Murdock, whose words I now quote:
The triumphs of the Roman arms, and the diffusion of literature and art, of old prepared the way of the Lord, and made straight in the desert a highway for our God. The military roads of Rome were trodden by the messengers of the Prince of Peace, and the best culture of the ancient world became subsidiary to the spread of the gospel of salvation. And so in these latter days; war and revolution, diplomacy and commerce, discovery and invention, have contributed to open the way for the heralds of salvation, and to facilitate their labors among the pagan nations. The traffic and the conquests of Christian powers have only led to the diffusion of the true riches and the establishment of the liberty wherewith Christ makes men free. In this way the Divine power has been accomplishing the Divine promise, Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain shall be made low; the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it. It ought to increase our faith in the God of missions, and multiply our exertions, to consider briefly what the Lord has done and is doing toward bringing the pagan world to the knowledge of the true God, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. The progress of Christianity, like the succession of the seasons, has always been marked by sudden changes from waste and barrenness to renewal and growth. The Lord turns again the captivity of his people, like the streams of the south, and it is said among the heathen, The Lord has done great things for them. And, without question, the present generation has witnessed changes affecting the religious condition of mankind which have had no parallel since the first Christian ages.
Now I want to read you a selection from the Homiletic Monthly, 1884, page 702, in regard to the evidences we have in the foreign field that God owns and blesses the Foreign Mission workthat it is under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit:
The Divine hand has been conspicuous in the missionary work in the direct transformation of character, both individual and national. The fiercest, hardest, rudest of heathen have been subdued, softened, refined by the gospel. Africaner, that monster of cruelty, who would kill an innocent man to make a drinking-cup of his skull and a drum-head of his skin, was, at the touch of that gospel, turned from a lion into a lamb. Guergis, the ferocious Koord, who would have killed his own daughter as she prayed for him, was struck by it into penitence as bitter as Peters, and as potent. He laid aside gun and dagger for Testament and hymnbook, and made the mountains echo with the story of his great sins and great Saviour, shouting with dying breath, Free grace! Even Fidelia Fiske could scarcely believe she saw the miracle of such a conversion. San Quala, the Karen, was by the same gospel changed into an apostolic worker. He aided the missionaries in the translating of the Word, guided them for fifteen years through the jungles, then himself began to preach and plant churches; within three years gathering nearly twenty-five hundred converts into more than thirty congregations, and refusing a tempting government position, rather than mix up God work with secular labor, though his poverty forces him to leave his lovely wife in loneliness.
A few words in regard to the transformation of society. Character is the basis of society. The character of a society is the result of the character of the individuals composing it. So also is national character determined by the character of the people composing the nation. Hence individual character is the basis of society and government, and this must be transformed by the gospel, if the character of society and government be of the highest and best type. The following is quoted from the same author:
The story of the gospel in the South Seas should be written in starlight. John Williams, the black smiths boy, and the apostle of Polynesia, found idolatry of the most degraded type and savages of the lowest grade, yet his progress was one rapid career of conquest. Churches and schools grew, he knew not how. A lawless people adopted a code of laws and trial by jury. Printing presses scatter their leaves like the tree of life, and even a Missionary Society is formed with King Pomare as its president, and twenty five hundred dollars as its first years contribution. Within a year after he landed at Saratoga, the whole Heney group, with a population of 7,000, have thrown away their idols, and a church-building is going up 600 feet long. He turns to the Samoa group, and shortly has the whole people, 60,000 in Christian schools.
And yet my brother tells us we have no evidences that God blesses and owns the Foreign Mission work. And there are nine hundred churches in the Fiji Islands. How are we to know whether Christianity is being blessed here or not, except by the fruits? In the character of these individual men, in these homes and these communities, are the fruits that furnish the unanswerable proofs that the Foreign Mission work is blessed and owned of God. This is the proof I am presenting to my brother today. I continue the article:
The tale of Fiji is not less wonderful. These cannibals built the very huts of their chiefs upon the bodies of living human beings buried alive, and they launched their canoes upon living bodies as rollers. They slew infants and strangled widows. Human language has no terms to describe the abasement of these people or their atrocious customs. Such deeds of darkness should be written in blood and recorded in hell. The Fijians are now a Christian people. In 1835 missionary labor began among them; seven years later the island of Ono had not one heathen left on it, and became the center of gospel light to the whole group. Today every village has its churches and its Christian homes and schools. And there are nine hundred churches on these islands.
So it is with the New Hebrides. It was written as Dr. Geddies epitaph that when he came to Anietyum there were no Christians, and when he left there were no heathen. These are but a few representative cases. I will read further:
Madagascar was so hopeless a field that the French governor of the island of Bourbon told the pioneer missionaries that they might as well try to convert cattle as the Malagasy. Yet the gospel barely got foothold there when it took such root that twenty-five years of fire and blood failed to force out or blot out its impression. And now a Christian church stands on the court-grounds, and on the coronation table lie together the laws of the realm and the Bible, the latter as the higher law of Madagascar, that crown of the London Missionary Society.
This word of God is full of this Foreign Mission proofof testimony that Foreign Missions are in character and spirit the outgrowth of the New Testament. This work of saving the heathen is inspired by the same truth that lived when the gods were driven from the heathen temples in Rome, when the great Roman and Greek mythology Went down, and the priesthood and orders went down because the nations that supported this great idolatrous system were subdued. But Christianity survived all this wreck and ruin in the social, political, and religious world. It was, and is, the child of the skies. It was heaven-horn and Heaven-sent, and through all these centuries of wasting it has lived; and this is the very same evangelit is the very same work. Gods servants are now carrying on the work, just as the great apostles and the workers of the first century did. The call from heathen lands is stronger and greater than the call Paul had when he went over from Troas on the Aegean Sea to Philippi in Macedonia and planted the first mission work in Europe. That was a Foreign Mission work when that Church was planted at Philippi, and out of that has grown our great civilization of today. We owe all this to that servant of God who, as an instrument in the hands of God, heeded the vision and went over the sea and gave to Europe the gospel of salvation.
I want to read one more quotation that I started to read yesterday evening. I was going to read in regard to one of the leading native ministers from India. He met with the great Evangelical Alliance in New York in 1873. He was one of the leading men who sat on the platform with the celebrated ministers of Europe and the United States. I have his brief address here and I wish to read it to you. He offered his brief talk about what was spoken of as an impossibilityviz., the breaking up of the system of heathen caste. He showed how the gospel was breaking caste in India and transforming homes. He himself was a monument of that gospel. No man there had a sweeter Christian spirit than this Brahman of India; no man could talk more eloquently for Jesus; no man had a better knowledge of the Bible or more devotion to the Saviour than this wonderful Brahman, who had been transformed by the power of the gospel of the Son of God. This converted high-caste Brahinan, Narayan Sheshadri, of Bombay, India, and a missionary of the Free Church of Scotland, said that his appearance at the conference gave the lie to the assertion sometimes made that the missionary enterprise had been a failure. India had indeed been dead, but her resurrection was, now taking place, and he hoped that it would soon be felt through the whole length and breadth of the land. He had come to the conference with the greatest expectations, not merely because he believed in the power of sympathy, but because he believed in the eternal verities of the Bible. His countrymen were unfortunately divided by casteoriginally four, there were now some four hundred castesbut he hoped to see them eventually united, and this would be effected by carrying out the objects that the Evangelical Alliance had in view. He had been told before leaving home that he would find castes in Christian lands, but on his return he should tell his countrymen that the differences among Christians were slight, and their unity was substantialthat they were one in the grand, essential, eternal truths of salvation. If we could all go forth from these meetings determined to present Christ to the world, the effect would be so great that neither skeptics nor heathen could resist it. (Evangelical Alliance, 1873 p. 10)
Now, my friends, with all this evidence before us; having 750,000 Christian communicants in the different heathen lands and 2,000,000 that are nominally Christian under Church influencewith all these wonderful results, I ask you today if we have not evidence that God has blessed and owned the Christian work in foreign lands?
I now advance again in my affirmative line of argument: That Foreign Missions are owned and blessed of God is evidenced in the blessings realized by the different denominations which engage in the work. The Apostle Paul said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. In Proverbs we have this language: There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty. In these scriptures we have the expression of the great law of beneficent ministration which rum through the universe. It is the law of life, health, and growth in every department of creation. This great principle proclaims that no creature or part of the urn-verse is created for itself alone, but for the interest of the whole to which it belongs. The flow of the cur rent of life in both the material and spiritual realms is controlled by the principle of beneficent activity, in receiving and imparting in accordance with the relation sustained. For the flowers on the banks of the brook, in the field, in the woodland, or in the skillfully cultivated garden to grow and bloom, and be tinted with all the beautiful and variegated colors of the botanic world; or for the trees to put forth leaves and grow and bring forth fruit, they must comply with that law of beneficent ministration, by giving out along the lines they sustain in the natural economy to which they belong in proportion to the nutriment they draw from the earth and air to meet their demands. The selfish pool that refuses to enter into this beneficent ministration becomes stagnant and at last dries up, losing its place of existence because it fails to give out as it receives. That sluggish stream that zigzags around here and there in the immediate locality of its source, refusing to enter into the great circulatory system that refreshes the thirsty land and helps to give fertility to entire globe, will yield but small blessings. It may spread out over the country forming ponds, but if these furnish moisture for the growth of some trees and flowers, the miasma they generate will counterbalance all the benefits they produce. It is different with the little stream that gushes from the base of the mountain and leaps away in its full energy and strength, with laughter and song, through the fields and woodlands, around the hills and through the valleys, hastening onward to the sea, giving out its waters according to the full measure of its ability. The grateful flowers adorn its banks and give it their sweet fragrance; the trees grow on either side and lock their giant arms over it to protect it from the hot and wasting beams of the summer sun; the birds from the boughs of the trees sing to it their sweetest lays; men adorn its banks with beautiful homes and well-tilled farms; the incense which it sends up to the sun in the form of vapor, is kissed by the king of day and turned into the cloud that sends back a shower of blessings upon it. This beneficent principle that thus operates in the material world operates the same way in the moral and spiritual.
The inflow of the spiritual life of the Church of Christ, which is the heart of its power, growth, and prosperity, is in proportion to its beneficent activity for the welfare of mankind in general. And just in proportion as a Church fails in this will it lose its vitality, and its growth and influence will be proportionately limited. This is the real measure of the Churchs vital force. The Church that lets its doctrines and creeds shut out suffering and degraded humanity from its vision, like the selfish pond, will become stagnant and finally pass away. And the Church that looks merely on the home field, without regard to the benighted portions of the earth, will be like the stream of the marsh, and will produce as much moral miasma as spiritual flowers and fruits. But the Church that cheerfully uses all of its energy in efforts to send out the riches of the gospel committed to it to mankind in general, regardless of race, nationality, or condition, according to the measure of its ability, that streams of salvation may flow amid the arid deserts of sin, will be greatly blessed. Like the active, beneficent, pure, joyful mountain stream, which all nature joined in honoring and blessing, such a Church will be repaid a thousand-fold in every thing that contributes to real spiritual growth and prosperity. To hoard up the riches of the gospel is to have them perish and lose them, but properly to scatter and use them is to increase them in our own lands many fold. But the Church that ekes out these gospel riches locally, limits its growth and usefulness in the same proportion. We have a vivid illustration of this in the Churches which engage in the Foreign Mission work and those which oppose it. This is clearly demonstrated in the growth of the Missionary Baptist Church as compared with the denomination represented by my opponentthe Regular Baptist. According to the statistics in the census of the United States, the Church of my opponent from 1851 to 1881, thirty years, has decreased 20,000. I do not make this comparison to disparage my brother or his denomination, or through any disrespect to those who oppose me in my views on this occasion, but to illustrate a great principle in the work of evangelization. Our Regular Baptist brethren withdrew from the Missionary Baptist Church some fifty or sixty years ago upon the very question which we are discussing. As a proof that the Foreign Mission work is owned and blessed of God, as evidenced in the prosperity of the Churches which are engaged in this work, we have a monumental demonstration in the wonderful growth of the Missionary Baptist denomination. This Church is today 2,000,000 strong in the United States, while our anti-mission Baptist brethren decreased 20,000 in thirty years. During this same period the membership of the Missionary Baptist Church increased 1,200,000. Their missionaries today are found in Burmah, and Africa, and India, and in the Islands of the Sea. They are in China, in the lands of Moslem, in the dominions of the pope, in North America and South America. Ah! their camp-fires are gleaming out everywhere; their printing-presses are sending the Bible and tracts into every part of the world. How God has blessed them in every respect! Take the Methodist brethren, will you? The Methodist Church was born in the great revival near the close of the last century, which ushered in this grand missionary epoch. Look at the wonderful proportions this Church has attained to, and the great work it in doing for the Master today. Look at its strength it is millions strong today. Presbyterianism has had its growth on the verb same principle. My friends, when we come to look at the Foreign Mission work, and see the blessings it has dispensed abroad and at home, we sec that the Churches at home are just as much blessed by it as the heathen countries abroad.
MR. POTTERS NINTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADLES, AND GENTLEMEN:
The first thing I want to call your attention to is the Commentary. Brother Yates accused me yesterday morning of a perversion of the words I read. He rather apologized for it yesterday evening, after the close of the debate, and I was perfectly satisfied. He said when he went borne and looked at the Commentary, and found that I bad read just a little, and left out what was against me, then he thought I was guilty, and brought his book here. Do YOU know from his speech what part I left out that was against me? I am glad he has the hook here, but I am sorry to see -a man take so much trouble for nothing. I want him to show that part of the comment on the text I was reading that I left out. He said he would. Here is the comment I read. I was quoting the text, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall he one fold and one shepherd. I was arguing that the other sheep the Saviour spoke of were among the Gentiles among the heathen. That was my argument. He says himself, I must bring themnot that they will be his when they are brought, but are already his, though not yet brought. In speaking on these sheep, Jesus says, They shall never perish. When he said, My sheep hear my voice, he included those other sheep among the Gentiles, as well as those present, as he said, They shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. Then he undertook to show that I was not orthodox-on that text. I read him the Commentary, and I will read it again, the very same I read yesterday evening, on the words, Other sheep I have, not of this fold: them also I must bring. They say:
He means the perishing Gentiles of his sheep, in the love of his heart, to the purpose of his grace to bring them in due time. On the words They shall hear my voice, they say: This is not the language of mere foresight that they would believe, but the expression of a purpose to draw them to himself by an inward and efficacious call, which would infallibly issue in their spontaneous accession to him. That is the comment I read. He said I left out what was against me on that text. This is all there is of it. There is nothing against me on that text. Now, he took so much pains to bring that book down here, I want him to do what he says he will do, or admit he cannot. That is the way I pervert. That is all I want to say on that.
While I have the Commentary on hand, I believe I will notice the eighth chapter of Romans, as he said he thought I gave such an able lecture on that text:
Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate, and then the Commentary here parenthesizes (foreordain.) The comment is as follows: In what sense are we to take the word foreknow here? Those who he foreknew would repent and believe, say Pelagians of every age and hue. That is what some folks say. Then the Commentary says: But this is to thrust into the text what is contrary to the whole spirit, and even letter of the apostles teaching (see ch. ix. ii; 2 Timothy, i. 9). In ch. xi. 2, and Psalm i. 6, Gods knowledge of his people cannot be restricted to a mere foresight of future events, or acquaintance with what is passing here below. Does whom he did foreknow, then, mean whom he foreordained? Scarcely, because both foreknowledge and foreordination are here mentioned, and one as the cause of the other. It is difficult indeed for our limited minds to distinguish them as states of the Divine Mind toward men; especially since in Acts ii. 23, the counsel is put before the foreknowledge of God, while in i Peter i. 2, election is said to be according to the foreknowledge of God. But probably Gods foreknowledge of his own people means his peculiar, gracious complacency in them, while his predestinated or foreordained them, signifies his fixed purpose, flowing from this, to save them and call them with an holy calling (2 Timothy i. 9). To be conformed to the image of his Soni. e., to be his sons after the pattern, model, and image of his Sonship in our nature. That he might be the First-born among many brethren. The First-born, the Son by nature; his many brethren, sons by adoption. He, in the humanity of the only-begotten of the Father, bearing our sins on the accursed tree; they in that of mere men, ready to perish by reason of sin, but redeemed by his blood from condemnation and wrath, and transformed into his likeness: He the first-born from the dead; they that sleep in Jesus to be in due time brought with him: The First-born, now crowned with glory and honor; his many brethren, when he shall appear, to be like him, for they shall see him as he is. Moreover And or Now; explanatory of the foregoing verseq. d., In predestinating us to be conformed to the image of his Son in final glory, he settled all the successive steps of it. Thuswhom he did predestinate, them he also called. The word called, (as Hodge and others truly observe) is never in the Epistles of the New Testament applied to those who have only the outward invitation of the gospel (as in Matthew xx. i6: xxii. ii). It always means internally effectually, savingly called. It denotes the first great step in personal salvation, and answers to conversion. Only the word conversion expresses the change of character which then take place, whereas this calling expresses the Divine authorship of the change and the sovereign power by which we are summoned, Matthew-like, Zaccheus-like, out of our old wretched, perishing, condition, into a new, saved, blessed life? Now, I just referred to that as a reply to what Brother Yates said. I suppose Jameson, Fausset and Brown are about as able as he is on that.
One more matter I wish to present. The people will remember that I put the question to Brother Yates day before yesterday evening; he has read in your hearing his answer to itif. The question I put was, Are those missionaries the means or instrumentalities of the regeneration and eternal salvation of souls that would not have been saved without them? Brother Yates seems to think I have a catch in that. My humble judgment is, if I understand anything about the controversy, and from the reading of his own proposition, this debate hangs on that question. So far as civilization is concerned, and education all who have heard me will remember that I am in favor of it; and not only that, but the preaching of the gospel, so far as that part of it is concerned. One objection that myself and my brethren have always had to the work of Foreign Missions has been this: that we have understood them to claim that they have been instrumental in the hands of God in saving souls that would not have been saved without them. Hence I have urged Brother Yates to say yes, or no, to that question. He gave his word on evening before last that he would do so, so we could understand it, and Brother Darby goes his security now, and of course we will get it. The people want to hear it. They respect Brother Yates and me, and they want to hear something that will he instructive to them about our positions. The reason I asked that question was because he wished particularly to decide the meaning of the question, the first evening of the discussion, on the words, blessed and owned of God. I want to know what he means by that; be has not been telling us what he means by that. No Regular Baptist that I know of, in the world, opposes the spread of the gospel, or education, or civilization, or the ennobling of man. None of us do that.
But as we have failed to get an answer to that question, I want to put another question in connection with it, as I am going to show before I sit down, if I stand my hour. There were quite a number of centuries since the apostles in which there were no missionary workers. The gospel was confined to a very small portion of the world comparatively, especially from the argument of Brother Yates. The balance of mankind was in total darkness. My question is this: I want to know if our Foreign Mission advocates believe that all those heathen were universally sinking down to hell during that time for want of the gospel? I want Brother Yates to answer that question. I will tell you what the Bible says about the heathen, and that is worth more than any thing Brother Yates or I could say about it.
I call attention to the forty-seventh Psalm of David, verses 8,9: God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. The princes of the People are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.
I have not been taking many notes during Brother Yates speech, for I am three or four speeches ahead of him now. I have studied over his case yesterday and this morning, and I thought yesterday that he was excited and rather frantic over the debate, he talked so loud and so fast. That was not the strongest evidence of excitement, however, and some things he said I suspect he has forgotten. I propose after a few moments to remind him of them. However, I have one thing to speak of first. In his last speech, in his closing remarks, he referred to it., saying that we have lost twenty thousand members in a certain time. Not only that, but that those people that have given us civilization have been either modern missionaries or Roman Catholics. He says our numbers are on the decrease because we do nothing. He promised to bring a Baptist almanac here, evening before last, to prove that we had lost twenty thousand members in a certain length of time. How many we have lost in twenty or in ten years, or any thing of that kind, I do not know. I am going to discuss that part of it now. He did not bring the almanac. I have before me today the complete analysis of the Holy Bible, according to the interpretation of Nathaniel West. D.D. He is not a Regular Baptist, and not a friend to us, I presume. We have no D.D.s. A missionary once said to a minister of our Church, You have no Doctors of Divinity. No, he said, our Divinity never gets sick. We do not want a Doctor of Divinity unless we have some use for him. But D.D.Doctor of Divinitydenotes ability.
Our opponents call us anti-mission. Brother Yates started out with that at the first of this discussion Monday morning. Well, I presume this man West must be an opponent of ours, as he terms us anti-mission, tooAnti-mission Baptist. I presume no persons in the United States claim that name but us. I do not love to claim it, but they gave it to us. United States Churches: In 1869 there were one hundred and five thousand Anti-mission Baptists in the United States. How does that sound? Does it sound like his Baptist almanac? What do you think of it? I will tell you that his Baptist almanac is like. It is like all these earnest predictions, ever since the Missionary Baptists have been started until now, which are, perhaps, owing to others wanting us to die. People usually prophesy that which they wish to come to pass. That is common. As a general thing people will predict that which they desire. That seems to be a human trait. People wish that we were dead, I sometimes think, from their predictions. And they come to the conclusion that we are going to die, from very weak causes. Benedict said we would die before his history became circulated over the country. He termed us Hard-Shells, and every other name that could be thought of; and the people have been endeavoring to put us up in an unfavorable light before the community, and I presume have.
How is your Church getting along, Brother Yates? Brother Yates Church must be strong. It is about as old as the Missionary Baptists, and he says they are strong; but he takes particular pains not to tell us how strong they are. Now let me quote again: Cumberland Presbyterian Churchplace, western and central United States97 Presbyteries, 1,250 churches, 103,000 communicants. Two thousand less than we have. If we are doing a poor business, what is Brother Yates Church doing? Let the people be their own judges as to figures and results. This charge against anti-mission is not new. It is the voice of modern missionism. The Regular Baptists of the present century are not the first ones that have been implicated in this charge. I am going to prove from one of these men, a missionary to the Karens of Burmah, in his book, called The Great Commission, and its Fulfillment by the Church. I am going to prove that he even accused the apostles themselves, and not only the apostles, but all the Churches as a body, for nearly fifteen hundred years. Brother Yates. I will pass that book over to you, and tell you the page so that you can see whether I pervert or not. I want to give you their views on the Commission, and its fulfillment by the Churchtheir own views. Let me state, however, that a missionary witness against them is worth something. Suppose I had a case in court, and brought in witnesses to prove my claim, and brother Yates should take the same witnesses. He as the defendant or plaintiff, whichever it might be; and he should take my witnesses and prove I had no claim at all. If he could prove it by me or my witnesses, it would be better than if he could prove it by himself or his own witnesses. Whatever I can prove by their own witnesses, the missionaries them selves, and not by my own brethren, as I propose now to do, just exactly what they understood missionism to be, and what it is doing must be correct. In the first place I call attention, then, to the fifth page of that book. Brother Yates. however, staggered on that in his speech the golden rule: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, applies preeminently to church and gospel in heathen lands. How do you think of that for an interpretation on the Scriptures? Applies preeminently to the preaching of the gospel in heathen lands. What! this the golden rule? Well, I declare! What language does not apply there, then? Who could not prove Foreign Missions by such a witness as that? The gospel is not meant in that. The gospel is not talked about. It is not, on that subject. And yet, a missionary himself says that it applies preeminently to the preaching of the gospel to the heathen. Let me give another quotation on pages seven and eight of the same book. The phrase, beginning at Jerusalem, is often quoted from Luke xxiv. 47 in the interest of the Christian work at home. The book shows that it is altogether in favor of Foreign Missions. That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in all nations, beginning at, or from, Jerusalem. (The preposition is ape, and involves the idea of departure). Verse 49:
Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you i. e. the holy Spiritand tarry you in the city of Jerusalemhow long?until ye be endued with power from on high. From Acts i. 48, we learn more definitely that they were to wait in Jerusalem, not so much for the purpose of preaching there, as for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which they would receive not many days hence. Jerusalem was to be their base of operation upon the whole outer world; if the words were spoken on the day of the Ascension, they were hidden to tarry there just ten days, and no longer. At furthest, a few days after the Commission was given the Spirit was poured out. Many of the brethren received the gift of tongues and miracles, just the gift which they needed for the work of Foreign Missions.
Now, then, he goes on to the example of the Apostolic Church and tells us how they did. We want to see what that example was from this missionary himself.
The set time for a careful movement, which should only cease with the universal conquest so fully accomplished. The apostles must have understood that their field of labor was co-extensive with the world. Still the Church at Jerusalem dallied. A thousand days elapsed instead of ten. They might have lingered on until they had died ingloriously had not God sent the besom of persecution to sweep them forth into the wide world, which was perishing for lack of the knowledge which they alone could give. Thus it has ever been. Persecution drove the Pilgrim Fathers from merry England to find on savage shores the first fair home of religious liberty.
I have taken this quotation from page 8 on Carpenters Great Commission. Now, what do you gather from that? That is a missionary who censures the apostles themselves, and says they might have remained there until they died ingloriously, while the people were perishing for want of knowledge that they alone could give, had it not been for the besom of persecution that God swept them away with. How do you like that? That is what missionaries say about the apostles. Is not that an insult? God himself gave the commission, and they personally heard Jesus speak. After they had seen the nail-holes in his bands and the spear-holes in his side, and knew he was risen from the dead, they had heard him tell with what authority he was clothedAll power both in heaven and earth is given unto me. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and then they would not go until he forced them to go by sending persecution among them? Now, that is what they say of the Churchthe same thing they say of us. How identical! Talk about that being identical with the present missionary operations!
Now, I want to give you another quotation. I am not through yet. Let us notice. We are to understand from this one of two things: either that the apostles did not understand the commission, or else they were willfully disobedient of it, and that they did not obey it until they were driven to do so by persecution. In this case we have the Lord represented as giving them a command to go into all the world, and then making them go by sending persecution upon them. It seems to me that one of these should have been enough. If they were willing to obey, the command should have been sufficient, but if the besom of persecution was necessary, it might have answered without the command; This man says, however, that Foreign Missionism was taught in the commission, and the apostles might have died ingloriously had not God sent the besom of persecution to sweep them forth into the wide world. Then the apostles deserve no credit for their labor of preaching the gospel to all the world. But our author continues:
Thus it has ever been. Persecution drove the Pilgrim Fathers from merry England to find on savage shores the first fair home of religious liberty, but we are prone to forget the fact that a host of Christians whose names are unrecorded on earth participated in that grand missionary movement.
Indications of this abound in the Acts, which, after all, is but a fragment of the history of that period. In chapter viii. 14 it is written that all except the apostles were scattered abroad by the persecution, and that they went everywhere preaching the Word. These people were scattered abroad by persecution. This missionary says so himself, and every Bible reader knows it to be true. They were not sent by the Foreign Missionary Societythey were driven by persecution. Not only that, but this missionary himself admits it and seems to censure the apostles for allowing it to be that way. He continues: The eunuch was baptized and went on his way rejoicing, and published the glad tidings in Ethiopia. (Page 10.) Where did the eunuch live? He was a resident of Ethiopia, was he not? Was he a foreign missionary when he preached the gospel among his own people? Remember, this is missionary evidence. I presume it is true, because it seems to be historical that he did preach the gospel among his people at home. On page 10 Mr. Carpenter continues: Churches of zealous converts were soon founded in Samaria, Lydda, Saron, Joppa, Cesarea, and Damascus. Those who were scattered abroad traveled as far as Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the Lord Jesus. In chapter xi. 27 we read of the prophets, among whom was Agabus, going from Jerusalem to Antioch. In the account of one of Pauls journeys the names of seven faithful preachers who accompanied him are given. In the last chapter of Romans the names of thirty-five persons are specified, almost all of whom undoubtedly labored with Paul in the gospel. We continue to read from the same page: James alone of the apostles seems to have remained permanently at Jerusalem. Nearly all of the Epistles were addressed to Churches or Christian laborers in foreign lands, and most of them to Gentile Christians. Churches were plenty everywhere in the world, even then. By what was this done according to these witnesses? By the commission? No, sir; not by the commission. The commission was given, but they refused to obey it. How, then, was it done? God sent them out, and sent them all over this country, by persecution. So says this missionary. What do you think of that for an identity of the present missionary operations? I quote again from page 10 of the same book: To this glorious result, probably, tribulations consequent upon the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and other Jewish cities largely contributed. It is only when the disciples of Christ sink all selfish regard for home and country in a broader, diviner sympathy for the world, demeaning themselves practically as pilgrims and strangers upon the earth, giving up all for the Saviours use, going whithersoever and doing whatsoever the Lord would have them, that their blessed mission can be accomplished. Thus was the great mission first fulfilled and its true scope accepted by the Apostolic Church. That is a sample of the Apostolic Church. Now, what about the modern Church? He gives us what we want you to see, the identity of the two. We have heard a great deal said during this discussion about the identity of the apostolic mission and our present Foreign Mission work. We want you to see how we are alike. On page 11 Mr. Carpenter says: From the beginning, then, Gods plan has been that the gospel of salvation should be offered by his servants to all the people of the world alike. How could this idea, so grand and simple, so worthy of the divine character, have escaped detection? For fifteen centuries the spirit of missions was well nigh lost. Through forty or fifty generations the Church as a body slept or stood with arms folded in lazy lock. How long? Forty or fifty generations!
Christians died, generation after generation, and went to meet the heathen and their Judge in judgment. A hint of the Masters will and plan ought to have been sufficient. How God-honoring that is! What do you think about it, dear Christian friends, today, for a man to rise up here in the nineteenth century and thrust out such insults as those upon the Christian Church from the apostles down to the present time?
Having detected the Divine idea in a scale or bone of extinct species, with what patience and enthusiasm the naturalist goes on to reproduce the entire fish or bird! With what scrupulous care he endeavors to be true, exactly true, to the original which he never saw, and to the thought of the Creator, which he has seen! But the Church of Christ has never been shut up to hints. She has had the glorious prophecies sounding in her ears all down the centuries. Now, perhaps we will get some missionary evidence. I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. That is more than a hint for Foreign Mission work. He was to be that gift. Jesus Christ was to be that gift; yet he says that it is more than a hint for Foreign Mission work. Look unto me and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself that unto me every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. That is more than a hint for Foreign Mission work. He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. His name shall endure for ever. Men shall be blessed in him; all nations shall call him blessed. Ah, there are more than hints for the Foreign Mission work, but these men did not see it. This man says that a hint from their Master ought to have been sufficient, but he intimates that it was not; but instead of that, while the Church had more than mere hints, they disobeyed for forty or fifty generations.
Again, on the same page: The Church has had the example of her blessed Lord. He left heaven to seek and save that which was lost. Who are more truly lost than the heathen? He gave to the disciples of John, as the highest proof of his Messiahship, the fact that he preached the gospel to the poor. The heathen are the poorest of the poor, in every sense of the word, and this work which marked Jesus as the Christ must ever be the distinguishing mark of any individual or organization which would be called Christian. Preaching to the poor, this man says, should be an example. He says that the heathen are the poorest of the poor. And this is a missionary proof. I continue, on the same page:
The Church had also the supplication and command of her Lord to go unto all the world and preach to every creature, and this command is enforced by the teaching and example of the apostles. As generations have rolled by since the apostolic age her numbers and wealth have increased continually, so that she has undoubtedly had the ability in every age to make known the gospel to all the people of the age. But how slow of heart has she been to believe! How slow of foot to obey! The era of modern missions has dawned at last. A few have caught the spirit, but alas, how few! Is not that grand? It is done at last. The Church led in wicked rebellion against the commission until lately, forty or fifty generations passing away. Let me tell you that that is an insult to some men. It is a grand insult to ministers. Where is John Wycliffe, who lived nearly one hundred and fifty years before Luther, who went from England to Germany, and went farther in opposing the real errors of popery than Luther ever did? In contempt of the doctrine he preached, forty years after he was buried his bones were dug up and burned, and his ashes scattered over a running brook. What does that say for such a man as he? What does it say of Jerome of Prague, or John Huss, who yielded their lives in the flames for the gospel? What does it say for thousands, and tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands, in Holland, in the Low Countries, in France and England, and in other countries that suffered before the Reformation? Men, women, and children have been witnesses of the truth. What does it say for them? I want to read it to you. He says that we owe it to modern missionaries, or else to the Catholics, one or the other. I call your attention to Bucks Theological Dictionary. It is an old one.
MR. YATES: It is a good one.
MR. POTTER: On page 439 it is said: in Holland and in the other Low Countries, for many years the most amazing cruelties were exercised under the merciless and unrelenting hands of the Spaniards, to whom the inhabitants of that part of the world were then in subjection. Father Paul observes that these Belgic martyrs were fifty thousand, but Grotius and others observe that there were one hundred thousand who suffered by the hand of the executioners. Herein, however, Satan and his agents failed of their purpose; for in the issue a great part of the Netherlands shook off the Spanish yoke, erected themselves into a separate and independent State, which has ever since been considered as one-of the principal Protestant countries of the universe. The article begins a little farther back, but I wanted to read about Holland. Remember that this persecution commenced before the Reformation was effected, and it was not only commenced, but it was prosecuted vigorously from that time. No country, perhaps, has ever produced more martyrs than France. After many cruelties had been exercised against the Protestants, there was a most violent persecution of them in the year 1572 in the reign of Charles IX. Many of the principal Protestants were invited to Paris, and under a solemn oath of safety, upon the occasion of the marriage of the King of Navarre with the French kings sister. The Queen Dowager of Navarre, a zealous Protestant, however, was poisoned by a pair of gloves before the marriage was solemnized. Coligny, Admiral of France, was basely murdered in his own house, and then thrown out of the window to gratify the malice of the Duke of Guise. His head was afterward cut off and sent to the king and queen-mother; and his body, after a thousand indignities offered it, hung by the feet on a gibbet. Afterward, these murderers ravaged the whole city of Paris, and butchered in three days above ten thousand lords, gentlemen, presidents, and people of all ranksa horrible scene of things, says Thuanas, when the very streets and passages resounded with the noise of those who met together for murder and plunder. The groans of those who were dying, and the shrieks of such as were just going to be butchered, were everywhere heard; the bodies of the slain thrown out of the windows; the courts and chambers of the houses filled with them; the dead bodies of others dragged through the streets, their blood running through channels in such plenty that torrents seemed to empty themselves in the neighboring river. In a word, an innumerable multitude of men, women with child, maidens and children, were all involved in one common destruction; and the gates and entrances of the kings palace were besmeared with their blood. From the city of Paris the massacre spread throughout the whole kingdom. In the city of Maux they threw over two hundred into jail; and after they had ravished and killed a great number of women, and plundered the houses of the Protestants, they executed their fury on those they had imprisoned, and killed them one by one. They were killed, as Thuanas expresses, like sheep in a market. In Orleans they murdered above five hundred men, women, and children, and enriched themselves with the spoil. The same cruelties were practiced at Angers, Troyes, Bruges, La Charite, and especially at Lyons, where they inhumanly destroyed above eight hundred Protestantschildren hanging on their parents necks, parents embracing their children, putting ropes about the necks of some, dragging them through the streets and throwing them, mangled, torn, and half dead, into the river. According to Thuanas, above thirty thousand Protestants were destroyed in this massacre, or, as others affirm, above one hundred thousand. Notice, here are two assertions, that over one hundred thousand were butchered, murdered by the cruelties of the pope at that time. Where did they come from? Under whose ministry were those people gathered together? This was before the Reformation. This was at the commencement of Luthers labors, and prior to it. It was the Work of the Inquisition, that was invented to be the devils instrument in extinguishing the good from the earth. Were they the Roman Catholics, or results of Protestant missionism? No, sir. They were not Roman Catholics, for they would not treat their brethren that way. They were not the result of Protestant missionism, because it was prior to that time. Has not a missionary told us that the Church slept with arms folded in lazy lock for forty or fifty generations? told us that the Church refused to obey the command to preach the gospel? told us that they did nothing? Compare them with the Regular Baptists of today. We take the comparison. They are our people, that is true. Let it be remembered, they had all the opposition against them. The Christian was against them, the soldiers were against them, the army was against them, one proclamation after another was issued against them, and yet with all these persecutions, one hundred thousand of them were butchered, as one writer says, as sheep in the market. Now, what do you think of that? What do you think of it, compared to the glorious results and sufferings of our modem missions today? with the charges and epithets thrown in our faces that we have done nothing, coming here with figures saying that we are dwindling away and losing thousands. It is all good enough for me. I am willing to take it. Now, show the identity. He says that he has the identity. Why, we have it, according to Brother Yates own argument, and according to that missionary witness I have quoted. We are more like the apostles. The missionary charges us with not obeying the command, and they charge the apostles with not obeying the command. There is an identity for you. I want you all to think of it.
Now, among those people who suffered such martyrdom as has been described, there were perhaps different sects and denominations. They were denommated differently. There were quite a number of them, perhaps not as many of them as there is today that are called Protestants. But let them be who they may, let them be what they may; they are what the missionaries now term anti-mission. That is what they were, whether they were Regular Baptists or not. They were the kind that was liable to die, like the old pond that we heard so eloquently spoken of awhile ago. Just think of Smithfield in England. The blood of our brethren is there to day. Think of the burning of Latimer, Ridley, Philpot, and others. Think of Cooper and others, who were burned with a slow fire. Think of the many that were cast upon red-hot grates to be roasted alive. Think of the many who were laid upon their backs, and funnels placed in their mouths, and water poured into them to strangle them to death; thousands of them hanging by their feet, with a slow fire smoking and strangling them to death. I quote the following from Eusebius: They were hung by their feet with heads downward, and strangled to death by the smoke of the slow fire. Think of all this; and then here come the modern missionaries, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and are charging men in the Church all that timelet the Church be whoever she maywith being disobedient to the command, after having the plain command of Jesus, and not simply a hint. Think now of the Christians who died and went to meet the heathen and their Judge for forty or fifty generations. There it is. Now, there is only one way to get out of this that I can see. There is an example that is the fulfillment of the commission of the Church, according to the missionary evidences. Brother Yates says these Missionary Baptists are good men. Now, this being true, what do you think of the modern missionaries? They get up here and tell us the very same things. They want to know of us where are our foreign missionaries. They want to know of us where are our schools, where are our institutions of learning, and every thing of that kind. They have them there doing wonders. They charge us with the very same things that Mr. Carpenter in his book charges the Church with for forty or fifty generations. This being true, let me ask the question, Where does Brother Yates statement go to that missionaries have existed all that time, and that our civilization is the result of their work? Where does it fall to? He and his brethren differ very materially, and we do not know which is right. We do not care. He must fix that himself. It is immaterial which one is right. They are both on the same side of the question, both working for missions, both protecting the doctrine of Foreign Mission societies, both telling us the heathen will be lost. He embraces all of them in his proposition. It does not matter to me whether Brother Yates is right or whether that man is right. They may both be wrong. My judgment is that they are both wrong. They differ, and it is impossible for them both to be correct. Which one of those missionaries, let me ask you today, my friends, are you going to accept as correct? Which one? Will you wait until Brother Yates tells you? I know the people are not here to take my word for any thing, nor Brother Yates either. Any lady or gentlemen in this house, any one who has been here or will be here during this discussion, is welcome to read any book or paper I have that I have introduced in this discussion, and inspect it until they are satisfied that I have represented it correctly.
Now, I will, close my speech by introducing or noticing one or two things Brother Yates said yesterday.
Yesterday morning there were two or three questions put to me. I contended it was contrary to the rules of the debate, and I contend so yet, but the moderators allowed it, and I was obliged to answer them. They were not relative to the question. Let me tell the people today that no sentiment of the Regular Baptist doctrine is hung upon the rack of this debate. Not one particle of our sentiments is embraced in that proposition. We are here in the negative. Brother Yates is the one to prove. His doctrine is the one on the rack here for investigation. I am under obligation to prove nothing; he has proved nothing, and so we are about even on that. The burden of proof rests upon him. He is here to prove what? He is here to prove that the gospel work of the different denominations of the Protestant world in carrying the gospel to the heathen, and so forth, is authorized in the Scriptures and is blessed and owned of God. There are two things that he has obligated himself to prove: First, that in itself the work itselfForeign Missions, that that thing is authorized in the Scriptures. He is under obligation to prove that. Second, that very thingnot something elseis blessed and owned of God. We want to see the apple from that very tree, and not another tree. We want to see that apple more than any other apple. We want to see that fruit more than the fruit of any other tree, and until he shows that his proposition falls. You are to be the judges, and I am satisfied that this intelligent audience knows whether he has done it or not.
Where is the text that he has introduced that says that Foreign Missions are authorized in the Scriptures, either expressed or implied? For the Scriptures to authorize a thing they must say something about it; and they must say something about it that we can understand, and they must say something about it that we can know when we come to it. And I will say again, How is it that the Church for forty or fifty generations failed to know that it was there, if it was so plain and so tangible as missionaries claim it is? Now, in his tangent yesterday, in going for me on the subject of election and reprobation, I will tell you what he said. He said if God did not reprobate them the devil did, and he is to blame for letting the devil do it. That is what Brother Yates said yesterday about making reprobates-that if God did not reprobate them the devil did, and he is to blame for letting the devil do it. He accused me of throwing the blame upon God Almighty. Turn to 2 Cor. xiii. 5: Examine yourselves, whether ye he in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves; how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? Man reprobates himself that is my position. That is not Brother Yatess position. That is enough for me to say on that. I do not intend to say any more. I wanted to remind him of it. He has cooled down this morning, and I want him to think about it.
Another thing. 2 Tim. iii. 8: Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. Who made them reprobates? Brother Yates said that if the devil did God was to blame for letting him. That is what he said if they are reprobates. He said if they are reprobates God made them so. I say that they made themselves so. He has been trying to get me to say that God made them reprobates, but he could not do it. That is what troubles him. He is here to fight something that nobody believes; and he is here to make me do it, but he cannot. He said we believe God makes men sin and makes us to do wicked action. We believe no such thing. Brother Yates is barking up the wrong sapling; he is not fighting Regular Baptists when he talks that way.
MR. YATES TENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I am glad to come before you again upon this momentous theme: Is the Foreign Mission work authorized in the Scripture, and blessed and owned of God? I affirm with all my heart that it is, and believe I have given eleven unanswerable arguments in support of the affirmative of this proposition. I have shown, from the teaching of Gods Word, from the Churches and the great moral enterprises that have been born of the Foreign Mission spirit, and from the fruits of the Foreign Mission field, that this work is of God. My worthy opponent is trying to make capital by claiming that I did not answer his question Wednesday morning in regard to the work of the missionaries in the salvation of the heathen. His question was put in such a form as to make his meaning very indefinite. It appeared to mc that it might be interpreted to mean one of two things: First, Would the gospel have been carried to the heathen, and as successfully propagated among them, if the present system of Foreign Mission work had not come into existence? or, Second, Would as many of the heathen have been saved without the gospel as with it? I answered his question directly, according to both, of these interpretations. I answered him thus that my words might not be misconstrued, or my position misunderstood. The report will show that I answered his question directly, in the manner before named, and that the answer was the same in substance as the direct answer I am going to give him now. I have learned from his speech this morning, more definitely what his design was. If his design is to know whether my position is that there would be fewer heathen saved if the gospel was not sent to them, I say: Yes. Those people would not be saved unless the gospel was sent to them, and preached to them. They would not be saved without the Foreign Mission work, I answer this question from the Word. i Corinthians vi. 9: 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. Here Paul speaks of their condition before he went to Corinth, and he says that was their condition. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Also in i Corinthians ii. 1-3. Now we will see how this was brought about. We see what was the ordained means of God in this matter: And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Godhe declared the testimony of God, he saysfor I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your, faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Also i 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. Now, if that was true in the days of the apostles; it certainly is true today. If that was true in the gospel work of the first century, it is equally true today in the Foreign Mission work. Paul says they were saved through his preaching. He declared that they were begotten through the gospel. He claims them as his children. In all his writings to this very church he represents the laborers for Christ as co-laborers with God. We are laborers together with him. Jesus says, Go preach the gospel to every creature, and Lo, I am with YOU alway, even unto the end of the world. Going, teaching and preaching, with loving confidence in God, with loyalty in carrying out that grand commission of the Head of the Church, in bearing the news of salvation to the lost and dying world, is Christs mission. This is our part in his service, and the results are his.
I will now go to Acts xxvi. 17, 18, and call the attention of my brother to that text: Delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith which is in me. I think you understand my position in this discussionthat the heathen are lost and perishing without the Word. I never have made the impression intentionally that any individual will be saved in the heathen world without character, or without living up to the best light he has, doing the things contained in the law, as spoken of in the second chapter of Romans.
My brother has asked what will become of them who do not know the gospel. I answer, that is with God. God tells us to go and preach and teach, and he will be with us; and he that believeth the gospel taught shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. He tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. I have asked Brother Potter to give a proof-text if he dare, in Gods Word, from Genesis to Revelation, that even remotely implies that God saves through, his Spirit, without truth as a means. I challenge him to point out but one such text, from the first chapter of Genesis to the last of Revelation. Now, he read a quotation to you here, and I asked him if he really meant, in that reading to us about the martyrs, that that occurred before the Reformation. He said part of it did. You know that my brother was leaving an impression that these martyrs were Baptists; that those who died the terrible deaths described here, of which he read to you from this old book, Bucks Theological Dictionary, on page 439, were Baptists. But they were Lutherans and PresbyteriansForeign Mission menall of them, I might say, or nearly so; but that does not matter. He claims that, as these were Baptists, therefore they have the identity. How could they have it, only in their belief in Church succession? That is all. The Protestants were killed. What for? This man tells us. I will read a little from the same book, beginning before that which Brother Potter read, on page 438: Numerous were the persecutions of different sects from Constantines time to the Reformation; but when the famous Martin Luther arose and opposed the errors and ambitions of the Church of Rome, and the sentiments of this good man began to spreadthat was the mission work, and in opposing the corruptions of Papal Rome it caused this terrible persecutionthe pope and his clergy joined all their forces to hinder their progress. That was a mission spirit my brother; these martyrs are on our side. A general council of clergy was called, the famous Council of Trent, etc. I read this, although it does not properly belong to the discussion, to show you that if he means that those persecutions were against the Regular Baptists alone, he is mistakenthat is all. The Regular Baptists, as a denomination, had no existence at that time. I have no charge to bring against my good Baptist brethren. All this man says in this old dictionary is in favor of the very principles I am talking about this afternoonthat is, the mission principles. It advocates the cause of this blessed Christ, and the giving of the pure, unadulterated gospel to the world, making the light to shine on the hearts of men.
Now, I want to pay a little attention to Mr. Carpenter. I rather admire Mr. Carpenter. When my brother read from this Tract the other day I thought if the whole thing read that way, that man could not be a missionary man. But there is a part of it which Brother Potter did not read. He said he did not mean to pervert it. I do not say that he does intentionally, but he picks out the little selections from this tract of Mr. Carpenter to suit his purpose, and does not read their connection. Here is something in Mr. Carpenters Great Commission that pleases me: The principle that God is no respecter of persons necessitates this view of the commission. His gospel is for one man as truly as another, for one nation as much as another. As the Word says, God so loved the world, etc.; Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; the field is the world; ye are the light of the world; the gospel shall be preached in all the world My brother denies that the word world represents the perishing world. But all the authorities are against him. I proved this to him this morning from his favorite Commentary, Jameson, Fausset and Brown. Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. The field is the world. Jesus says: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Brother Potter refers to Carpenter, speaking of the Golden Rule, and says he disagrees with him when he says that the Golden Rule, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, applies preeminently to the preaching of the gospel in heathen lands. I am with Mr. Carpenter on that. We are reaping the blessings of Christianity in the nineteenth century. It gives us our precious homes, our grand society, our Churches with all their privileges, our tender ties in all their beautiful relations, all our sunlight in home and in government in every department of civilized life.
The gospel in the early centuries was carried by the missionaries from Rome up into the northern nations of Europe, and also into Gaul, and from Gaul into Britain. This resulted in the development of those grand men and women who came over the sea and settled in this country, and whose devotion to their principles caused the churches and school-houses to go up side by side. It was the great indebtedness our Pilgrim Fathers felt to those who gave them the gospel that induced them to do so much in this respect for future generations and the world at large in their day. Our Anglo-Saxon forefathers were as bad as any of the idolaters in history. They offered human sacrifices. We are reaping the fruits of what the early missionaries sacrificed for them. Shall we be ungrateful? Shall we not say, If I cannot go to carry the same good news to others, I will send the means to enable others to carry on the work? There is one thing more I wish to notice in Brother Potters speech. It is what he said the missionaries teach when they claim that those who were scattered from Jerusalem by persecution, and went everywhere preaching the Word, did missionary work. The idea of those men not obeying the commission, he says, is a slander against the apostles. I say that the commission was given by a perfect being, the Lord Jesus. If the apostles were perfect, and comprehended the commission in its full import as embracing the Gentiles as well as the Jews, then why did the disciples of Christ, in the commencement of the gospel work, preach to the Jews only up to the time of the revival at Antioch? Why did Peter need that vision on the house-top at Joppa to induce him to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius, the Roman centurion? If he was without national prejudices, and ready cheerfully to obey the gospel commission in its full extent, why did evidence have to be given him, from both the human and divine side, that it was the Lords will for him to preach the gospel to this Gentile? The fact is, that this incident, taken in connection with the strife between, Paul and Barnabas about John Mark accompanying them on their mission tour, and also Pauls rebuke to Peter, when, on a certain occasion, the latter rather sided with the Christian Hebrews in pressing Jewish usages on the Gentile converts, and thereby trammeling their liberties, prove beyond doubt that the apostles, as men, were defective, and influenced by their national prejudices. They were comparatively slow in learning the beneficence and the universal extent of the gospel message.
We will now proceed to notice the objection my opponent finds to the identity of the Foreign Mission work of today with the gospel work of the New Testament. He refers to the statements of Mr. Carpenter concerning the missionary work performed by the disciples. They were scattered abroad by the persecution at Jerusalem, and went everywhere preaching the Word. He urges his objection on the ground that the doctrine taught in these statements, and indorsed by the leading advocates of missions, is that persecution sent forth these laborers to this mission work, and that this idea is in direct conflict with the teaching that the Lord sends forth his laborers in the work. We claim that the Lord sent them by overruling persecution to that end. Owing to the wonderful triumphs of the gospel in Jerusalem, the disciples had become so absorbed in the local work that they had lost sight of the general work for which they had been baptized by the Holy Ghostto witness unto the uttermost parts of the earth. This was not from willful neglect on their part, but thoughtlessness, and, in part, ignorance in regard to that phase of the work. The formidable and concentrated effort of the whole body of believers drew the attention and aroused the animosity of Christs enemies in Jerusalem, and such was the persecution that it dispersed the disciples and forced them to flee; and as they were scattered through the land in every direction, their hearts being filled with the love of Christ for the salvation of souls, they went everywhere preaching the Word, and the Lord blessed their labors. Now, my opponent, in his interpretation of this providence of God in the propagation of the gospel, relinquishes the doctrine of the Bible and the doctrine he claims to believe, that all things work together for good to them that love God. The Old Testament tells us how Israel was carried away into captivity on account of their sins, and also how the Lord overruled it to the good of his people and the advancement of his cause. The difference between the dispersion of the principal disciples on this occasion and the captivity of Israel was this: Israels overthrow was caused by willful sin, while this trouble and dispersion came to the early Christians by reason of their imperfect comprehension of the great work entrusted to them, and because they were a little too much absorbed in the local to the neglect of the general work. As the word mission means to send, the labors of these fleeing disciples may be properly called mission work. Mission work means to preach and spread the gospel everywhere. So as they went in every direction, preaching and teaching the Word, they were missionaries in spreading and propagating the gospel. When Paul went beyond the seas to preach the gospel, that was not only mission work, but Foreign Mission work, for it was mission work performed in foreign lands. We do not claim that the name Foreign Mission can be found in the New Testament, but the principles of the Foreign Mission work are found there. This worthy opponent denies. He says these principles are not in the Bible. This is the issue between us.
I want to call your attention to some passages of Scripture to which I have already called the attention of my brother time and again. I want him to look at them and consider them. I asked him yesterday in regard to some passages of Scripture, and I want to call his attention to them again. Ezek. iii. i8, 19:
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; but his blood will I require at thine 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. That, my friends, is the principle of Gods divine government. Here is the responsibility on both sides pictured to you. Here is a statement of the responsibility which rests upon Gods servants and the results which will come to the finally impenitent. Then I gave him Prov. i. 2431. I have heard nothing from this. There are also John i. 29; John iii. 1417; and John iii. 18, 19.
Now, I have answered his question, and I have shown that the apostle called for fruits as an evidence of faith. He says that he wants to see the fruit. My brother wants to see the fruit. He wants to see the real apple. Now, look at the identity I have shown. I want to repeat that, in the first place. I took the position that there is a perfect identity in every essential feature between the Foreign Mission work and the gospel work as recorded in the New Testament. I showed the first feature of this identity to be in the object and end to be subserved. I quoted Acts xxvi. 17, 18 to prove this. In connection with the treat commission, I showed that the principle of Foreign Missions and the spirit that actuates the missionaries are the same as the principles and spirit of the first disciples. I gave passage of Scripture after passage to prove it. I went on to show that the motive-power was the same. It was compassionate lovelove for Jesus and humanity. I showed that the love of Christ constrained those men in the work, and that we are restricted to Gods wordto the teaching and command of Jesus in carrying out this commission. I showed the call and preparation of the missionary workers and of the first gospel workers were the same. I showed that in every single instance where a missionary worker has proved to be a success in the foreign field, the call has been brought about by prayer. In prayer it was made known; and in some cases even the very fields were designated through prayer. To prove this, I referred to Duff and others. I referred to the birth of this last great dispensation of the Foreign Mission work, showing how it was brought about by prayer; how the Warwick Association in 1791 set apart a week in each month for prayer, and how the bugle-note of Jonathan Edwards sounded over the seas, calling for a universal concert of prayer by the Church to bring down Gods blessing upon the heathen lands and on the Church. I showed how Carey was sent forth and went to India, and I told you of his work and the results. I have given case after case, and Brother Potter has never noticed them. I showed how they prayed at Pentecost, and that the very same spirit of prayer that guided and energized the gospel work guided and energized the Foreign Mission work. I showed that the laborers in the two cases were sent forth in the same way; the Church prayed over them and sent them forth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Is not the Church called the temple of the Spirit? I showed that those men in the foreign field were sent, after the hands of the Church, through its representatives, were laid upon them, sent out to represent the Church, just as the missionaries of the New Testament were sent out. Did I not show that? Have I not appealed to the fruits of the work, showing that the great transformation of character in those heathen lands is an evidence that the Foreign Mission work is God?
Now, suppose I had admitted all that my brother says and claims about election. Suppose I admit it for the sake of the argument. Would that touch the question under consideration? There are many of the Protestant denominations which believe just as strongly in the special call as he does, and yet this belief inspires them to labor in the Foreign Mission work, and leave the results in Gods hands. You see, even if I were to admit his doctrine of electionthat would not affect the case. It does not matter whether God does it all, or man is a co-operator in the work. The question is; is mission work authorized in the Bible? By the activity of the primitive Church the gospel was carried into Corinth, and into Ephesus, and Philippi, and Thessalonica, and all these regions. Now, if that was the movement of the Spirit of the living God, why should it be changed? I will ask if it is not as necessary today to go and preach the gospel to every creature as it was then?
I this morning showed that the great spiritual prosperity with which the Churches engaged in the Foreign Mission work are blessed proves that God owns and blesses this work. When I referred to my Baptist brethren, my brother seemed to think that I was misrepresenting them. I want to quote now from Peels Popular Educator, a good work on the statistics of the different religious denominations; and these statistics are taken from the census of the United States of 1880: Anti-mission Baptists, 40,000. I got the other statistics I gave on the subject from the Baptist Missionary Magazine. Now, I only brought this up for the sake of the argument, to show that where Churches do not possess the Foreign Mission spirit, it limits them in their usefulness, and decreases their vital power and growth. The book I quoted from this morning, in regard to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, gave the statistics for 1869. We number now about 125,000, but we have been existing as a distinct denomination for only about seventy-five years. But this brothers Church, he says, has been existing since the days of the apostles, and has 40,000. Now, my friends, I want you to look at the matter. We claim that in the seventy-five years we have not done our whole duty. It is true that we, as a Church, attempted to plant a mission in Africa just before our recent war. The war came on before our mission was firmly established, and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church being mostly in the South, the work had to be relinquished. When, through the working of Divine Providence, in 1872, the way was seen to be open for the propagation of the gospel in Japan, the attention of our Church was turned in that direction. In 1877 we planted our present mission in the city of Osaka, the population of which is about 370,000. Although our mission is young, the work is meeting with marked success. Four missionaries have been sent out by the Mission Board of the General Assemblyviz., the Rev. A. D. Hail and the Rev. J. B. Hail, and their wives. The Womans Missionary Board of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church has also sent out four ladies to labor as missionaries in Japan. Our Womans Missionary Board was organized in Dr. Darbys church, Evansville, Ind., in May, 1880. They sent out their first two missionaries in September 1881.
As I have intimated, these missionaries have already been instrumental in leading many souls to Christ. We have established in Japan an Orphanage and a Training-School, as well as a church. The ladies of the Womans Missionary Society have succeeded in raising sufficient funds to purchase the grounds and erect the building for the Orphanage and Training School. I am informed that the building is in process of erection. The continual call of our missionaries over there is for more laborers to aid in the work. The demands for gospel instruction are greater than they can meet. They are continually thronged with starving souls, hungering for the salvation revealed by the loving Christ. Mrs. Drennan, the lady who is at the head of our Training School, says: One of the most interesting features of our school now is the fine spiritual feeling and growth in grace among the girls. Every one of our girls over ten years old, except one of that age who came in a short time since, has been happily converted. Our two male missionaries, the Rev. A. D. Hail, and his brother, the Rev. J. B. Hail, make regular preaching and teaching tours to inland districts. On nearly every trip, converts from heathenism to Christ, from sin to holiness, anxiously await their coming, to be examined upon their religious experience, in view of being received into the communion of the Church.
Miss Orr, the first missionary accepted by the Womans Board, makes many missionary tours alone into the interior for scores of miles. The Lord is opening to her many doors of usefulness in this work. Many educated men of the Japanese, among them officers of the government, come to inquire of her about the religion of the Bible. Buddhist priests are seeking the Christian religion for their children, because they think it teaches a purer morality. Miss Julia Leavitt, of Bloomfield, Ind., one of the first two missionaries sent out by our Womans Mission Board, is having excellent success in teaching the gospel to the Japanese women in their homes, and also in our chapel in the city of Osaka. In a letter to the Secretary of the Womans Board of Missions, after describing her efforts, by the help of the Lord, to get the gospel truths into the heart of an inquiring, earnest, educated Japanese lady, and her joy at beholding the change wrought in the womans soul by the Spirit of God, as reflected in her countenance, she says: Now, my dear friends, it is for some one to answer the questions of inquiring minds like these, and to awake in those still dead in sin a thirst for the truth, that we ask again and again, Is there no one coming to help us? We need workers filled with the Spirit, and ready to follow humbly the Master, who loved not his own life. O may the Lord call such as he will, and send them to this harvest field. This Miss Leavitt is an only child of a widowed mother. One year after this young lady went to Japan, while in the train on my way to Synod, I had a very satisfactory conversation with the mother concerning the history of Miss Leavitts Christian experience, and her call to the foreign field. She said her daughter professed to find peace in Jesus when quite a child, and that she had lived a consistent Christian life up to the time of her departure, and that she had received a good, fair, common-school education, and had started out to teach school, seeking to help support he; widowed mother. Her mother said she noticed her daughter had been thoughtful for several weeks, and seemed to be growing in devotion. She did not ask her the cause, but at last the daughter said: Mother, I have noticed in the papers the call which is ringing over the sea from the Sunrise Empire. They say they want more workers, and I am thinking about going. And she answered: Daughter, put off that matter. Weigh it and pray over it. How will I get along without you? What would your poor, widowed, mother do? She said: If the Lord is in it, it will be all right. That is true. I believe that doctrine with all my heart. What was the result? That girl prayed, and consulted over the matter both with her friends and her Lord, and became deeply convinced that it was her duty to go. At Evansville, in 1881, she and her associate, Miss Orr, had the hands of ordination placed upon their heads by Dr. Bell, the president of the General Assemblys Board of Missions, as the representative of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. That was an hour long to be remembered, on account of the outpouring of Gods Spirit. Prayers went up from many hearts for them, and for Gods blessing on their efforts in the work. As the Christian friends of that great congregation took them by the hand to bid them farewell they heard uttered many times, May God bless you! from many earnest and tender hearts. This girl writes back thus to her mother: Mother, I cannot be lonely, though you are nearer to me than you have ever been. I love Indiana, but I love the Japanese, and delight to tell the love of Jesus to these people. My hands are full, my heart is full.
Now, my friends, we see in the case of this young lady a clear demonstration of the call of God to the work of the foreign field, and she is only a sample of the rest of our earnest workers there, and of all missionary laborers who have consulted the Lord, in regard to their work on the foreign field, through the Holy Spirit by prayer. Thank the Lord for so wonderfully guiding and blessing our missionary laborers in propagating the gospel among the Japanese, in connection with the numerous missionaries of the different Christian denominations. My worthy opponent, in his attempt to show that Foreign Missions are a failure, spoke disparagingly of the mission work in Japan. My brother made light of 9,971 converts in Japan, yet he knows that the missionaries were not permitted to preach publicly until 1872. That is a good work. In 1878 there were 60,000 professed converts in the heathen lands brought in to Jesus. Did I say brought in? I will say drawn. I will use Brother Potters word; that is gooddrawn by the blessed Spirit of God, through the Word, to Jesus, and saved from their sins, washed and cleansed in the blood of the Lamb. As to the success of the Foreign Mission work, I will quote from the pen of the Rev. William M. Taylor, the editor of the Christian at Work. A more competent, earnest witness could not be adduced, or one whose opinion has more weight. In the Christian at Work, in November, 1878, he says:
Notwithstanding the splendid achievements of missions, the poor skeptic, with closed eyes and shut ears against the truth, still propounds his silly inquiry as to what valuable results have been accomplished. But in the clear light of today, scattered abroad by lightning presses, his foolish sneer and silly insinuation have no longer power to disquiet timid minds or mislead any. The world, as well as the Church, has learned to estimate the self-sacrifice and labors of the missionary at something like their true value. Take but a single item:
Since the beginning of modern missions the Bible has been translated into two hundred and fourteen languages, spoken by 850,000,000 of human beings, and distributed at the rate of nearly twelve every minute. All this has been done by missionaries. Nearly fifty of the languages referred to never had a written form until the missionaries created it; and through these written forms access may now be had to all the learning of the world. As against an increase of eight and a half per cent in Hindoo population, and five per cent. in Mohammedan, the present increase of the Christian population throughout the world equals sixty-six per cent.
There has never been a time in the history of missions when they were in such a prosperous condition as now. The Church has reason to rejoice as she looks out over her great mission fields. The good seed sown in the past is everywhere ripening into precious fruit. The labors and sufferings of missionaries during the past century, aided by the prayers of Gods people everywhere, laid the foundation for the grand work now going on, and which is so full of glorious promise for the future. Not only are the tribes of India renouncing idolatry and uniting themselves with us; not only is Japan rapidly embracing the truths of Christianity, almost realizing the birth of a nation in a day; but the fields of mission work everywhere are being stimulated through these triumphs to more vigorous zeal and enlarged liberality in their own home mission fields.
MR. POTTERS TENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I am truly glad Brother Darby put in an appearance, for it seems that he has considerable influence over Brother Yates. I do not have much. He has answered the question. Now we understand what the issue is. I do not like to see a debater cowardly about his position. Brother Yates admitted this morning he was afraid of it, and that I had a catch in it. Now he tells us that by the labors of these Foreign Mission workers souls are saved in heaven that would not have been saved without them. Now we understand it. This is what he means. That is what mission operations are for. Now the people understand it, and so do I. I objected very materially to not knowing what the missionary labors were for when we had to discuss it. We have it now. Now, as Brother Yates says there will be souls saved by their labor that would not have been saved without it, let him prove it. I have nothing to say. It is his place to prove it. Now he has something to do, and we can go on debating. Until he proves that they are the means and instruments of converting, regenerating, and eternally saving souls that would not have been saved without them, his proposition falls. Now we have something to do. Now you understand the position. When I read the challenge when it first came out, I did not intend to pay any attention to it myself, but Brother Hume thought it ought to he met, and we felt like it was made at us, because we said it was of man, and not of God. We thought Brother Yates felt he could defend it, and for the sake of truth, he says, and in honor of the blessed Saviour, he made the challenge. Now, Brother Yates, prove it. Prove your proposition. The best authority he can bring is Scripture. There is not a man in the house but would be satisfied with one text that says so. And we will all join the missionaries when he introduces the text. The text must say, or imply, that here is a soul saved that would not have been saved had it not been for Foreign Missions. That is what it must say. Now, we might have had this all over with by this time if Brother Darby had been here. However, he claims he has introduced a few. I will notice some of them. He says I never do notice his proof-texts. 1 Cor. VI. 9-12:
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.
Now, we do not have to go to heathen lands to find all these kinds of people; remember that. Now, of course the Bible is plain. We know the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. None of us doubt that. Now let us see: And such were some of you. Brother Yates stops, and says when? Why, before I came to preach to you. I want to know his authority, for the Apostle Paul never said any such thing. Brother Yates interpretation of that is, that they were unclean, unrighteous, unfit for the kingdom of God, prior to Pauls visit to them, and his visit was the means of their change. I want him to prove it. It is his own text. That is his own language. Let us see what the text does say, then. No person here claims that the unrighteous shall be saved. There are idolaters in this country, where the gospel is, as well as where it is not. Covetousness is idolatry, the Bible says. I do not want to hit any Church-member here, or any denomination. But I am afraid we need not go outside the Church to find themthe covetous. Let us see what the text says, now: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, hut ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Now, Paul says nothing about preaching being the cause of that in his text, not a word. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Now, if that text proves Foreign Missions, and those souls that have been saved there that would not have been without them, what might not one prove by the Bible? For, to prove any thing by a witness, the witness must say something about the question to be proved. Now, if that is the best you haveand I presume it is among the bestit is easily met. Again, i Cor. 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. I will read a little farther. We want to know what the context is: For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness. Remember, we preach Christ to them, and it is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks, but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Now, if the preaching is a calling, I want Brother Yates to explain it to us, as this is in connection with his own text. The difference between the Jews and the Greeks, Paul says, is that to some it is a stumbling block and to some it is foolishness. Now, if all are called, if they are all called alike, there must be a distinct call there. Every person must see from the reading of the text that there is a call there distinct from, and in addition to, the proclamation of the gospel, because the gospel is preached to all alike. If they do not all receive it, it is not the power of God to them alike. Some of them were called, and unto them was the gospel the power of God. Now, so far as calling was concerned, this call was necessary to qualify all the people to be benefited by this gospel when it is preached. My judgment is that salvation, as spoken of in that text has, no allusion to the salvation from eternal death. And to prove that, I refer to the followingPhilippians ii. 12,13: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Now, there is a salvation for the saints to work out. Saints, if they are really saints, never apostatize and sink down to perdition. If they are regenerated and saved, heaven is theirs. Yet there is a salvation for us to work out, and if Brother Yates can tell what that salvation is, he has the salvation right here in his own text. He then turns to Acts xxvi. 17, 18: Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. I want to notice this text just a minute in connection with Paul as a missionary. On yesterday evening Paul was introduced here by Mr. Dobbins, author of Errors Chains, a missionary, and a missionary of the modern type. Now, I have already noticed the modern missionary on the first day of this discussion, and told what kind of a missionary Paul was, and that he began on a small scale, that he had no Christian constituency to receive him where he went. He had no wealthy missionary organization at his back to support him; that all he had was the Lords commission and the guidance of the Spirit. And Brother Yates has had a great deal to say about my remarking that he took a missionary trip to Arabia. Now, let us notice that text. Galatians i. 15 17: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood. He went to Arabia. What for? Now, from the text itself, without any other text, what is the inference? God had called him to preach among the heathen. What is the conclusion? What does every person gather from that text from the apostles own language in that text, without the assistance of any other? What could have been his object in going to Arabia? Brother Yates noticed some Commentaries to prove that he went to meditate. The Lord did not call him to meditate. The Lord called him to preach, and without any hesitancy he went to Arabia, and returned to Damascus. What is the inference there only that he went there to preach? The Lord sent him. Another word on the subject of Paul: Brother Yates said the missionaries, many of them, believed as earnestly in Gods call to the work of the ministry as my brethren or I do. I have never questioned that at all. He has accused me of calling them self-deceived or hypocrites. Is it possible a man cannot be in error, and honest? If that is so, how am I to understand the case of Brother Yates and myself? How are we all to understand Brother Yates in this case? I attribute no dishonesty to men unless their works and affairs expose their dishonesty. I believe there are good men among the missionaries. Brother Yates himself says he believes there are good Christians among the Catholics, but he does not think they are right. I believe there are too, and I believe there are many that do not belong to any Christian denomination; and I believe there are many that will be saved among the heathen that the missionaries never saw, and never will in this world, That is what I believe. I do not question any mans honesty. Now, on the text, To open their eyes, and to turn them from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. (Acts xxvi. 18). Let us notice that a moment, and admit even Brother Yates interpretation of that text, that the apostle himself was sent by the Lord to open their blinded eyes, in the sense of regenerating, and in the sense of quickening them into divine life, in the sense of turning them from the power of darkness unto God. Admit that, and it fails to prove that this was absolutely necessary to their regeneration. Admit the whole thing, and it fails to prove that this was absolutely essential to the remission of their sins.
Now, I will tell you, I objected to this theory a day or two ago, on this ground, and I introduce the argument now in connection with my answer to this text.
I objected to it on the ground that it pretended to be going about teaching people to know the Lord. I quoted from the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association a Circular Letter of 1806, giving their principles on the rise of modern mission work. They said: And they shall teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, until all shall know the Lord. Now the Bible says they shall not; and that is the difference between the missionaries and Gods Word. The missionaries say they shall, and Gods Word says they shall not. I say, then, the argument has not been answered; that there was not a syllable in Gods Word, anywhere in the New Testament, to any man, from Jesus Christ nor any of his apostles; authorizing men to go about teaching sinners to know the Lord; not one word. Now I challenge any man to find it. Brother Yates said I got up and said there was no authority to teach them about the Lord. I said no such thing. There may be many things in which we are required to teach, and it is our duty to teach.
The people are getting to understand me, whether Brother Yates does or not. There is just one particular thing I deny mans ability to do, and that is to teach men to know the Lord. There is just one particular thing I deny mans ability to teach, and that is to know the Lord. There is just one lesson that he is unable to teach his fellow man, and that is to know the Lord. Now, I want the people to understand the thing that neither brother Yates nor any other man can donone of them can do it. The reason I say that is, there is no authority for any such work. Gods ministers are not clothed with any such authority. The Saviour said, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, but he did not say, teach them to know the Lord. He said, Go preach the gospel to every creature, but he did not tell them to teach men to know the Lord. Aquila and Priscilla taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. They taught the way of the Lord, but did not teach Apollos to know the Lord. He already knew him, and they could only teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly. That is what teaching is for. That is all the way man, as a teacher, can teach his fellow man. Man must, in the first place, have the capacity to learn, and in order that he can receive instruction to know the Lord more perfectly, he must be qualified for that. And how that is done I will quote from Hebrews viii. 811, where the Apostle Paul quotes the Prophet Jeremiah xxxi. 31 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. That is the way it is done; and the missionaries say they shall teach. That is the difference. Now, if Brother Yates introduces this text as one of his proof-texts, to show the necessity of the ministry to teach a man to know the Lord, and the absolute necessity of such an agency as that, I deny his interpretation of it. The gospel is the power of God to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks. Until we hear from him further about the meaning of that text, and what he intends it for, we shall leave it for the present.
Now, I want to call your attention to just one thing more concerning those martyrs. He says he loves Carpenter. I do not love him very well, but I am going to use him. Brother Yates said (and of course we know it is true, because he said so, though he did not offer to prove it; he asks us to take his word; Brother Yates is pretty well known here, and I would hate to dispute his word, but he may as well say his proposition is true, in the same way) The people I read about this morning were the product of the missionary labors, and were Lutherans, Presbyterians, and not Baptists. I said this morning it did not matter what they were. I said there were a variety of denominations among them. I do not claim they were all Baptists. But he does claim they were Lutherans and Presbyterians. What was Wycliffe, what was John Huss, what was Jerome, what was Rogers, and Hooper, and Ridley, and Latimer, and Philpot, who were burned in England, at Smithfield? What were they? Lutherans and Presbyterians? Mr. Yates says the product of missionism. I will tell you why I introduce this history. I was talking about the martyrs during those forty or fifty generations that Mr. Carpenter speaks of. Now Brother Yates wants to tell us that these were the fruits of missionism, and were Lutherans and Presbyterians. Let us see from the reading itself. I will begin a little further back in the article I read this morning from Bucks Theological Dictionary: Persecutions of Christians by those of the same name. Numerous were the persecutions of different sects, from Constantine to the Reformation, and when the famous Martin Luther rose, and opposed the errors and ambition of the Church of Rome, and the sentiments of this good man began to spread, the pope and clergy joined all their forces to hinder their progress. A general council of the clergy was called. This was the famous Council of Trent, which was held for nearly eighteen successive years, for the purpose of establishing Popery in greater splendor, and preventing the Reformation. The authors of the Reformation were anathematized, excommunicated, and the life of Luther was often in danger, though at last he died on a bed of peace. This was after the beginning of Luthers labors. Luther must have been quite a preacher just before his reformation, or before it was effected, to have had over a hundred thousand converts in France, and some in Holland, and those Low Countries. I ask the question on the ground that. Mr. Carpenter has said that the Church slept for nearly fifteen hundred years. Under whose ministry were all those martyrs gathered up? Under whose ministry was it done? Was it under the ministry of Luther and Calvin, the very ones I mentioned this morning? Now, I want to notice Mr. Carpenter a little further. Brother Yates does not tell you I read Carpenter wrong, but he says I left out spine. Of course I did not undertake to read through the whole book. Did he tell you I read any thing that was not there? Did he tell you I left a part of a sentence out, or skipped a word where I did read? No, sir. Well, then, if I did not, have I done him any injusticeif I finished every sentence, but let him say his full piece on the topic on which I quoted him? Let us see if I did him any injustice. Now, let us see what was the example of the Apostolic Church. I say it is a slander upon the apostles, the way this man talks. And Brother Yates says he admires him. Brother Yates, what do you admire? He says: The set time for an aggressive movement, which should only cease when the universal conquest was fully accomplished. The apostles must have understood that their field of labor was coextensive with the world. Still the Church at Jerusalem dallied. A thousand days elapsed instead of ten. This man says, at the farthest, they were not to remain at Jerusalem but a few days, and if the commission was given at a certain time, ten days was their time to stay there. He says, instead of ten days, a thousand days elapsed. That is the charge he makes upon the apostles of Jesus Christ. Brother Yates admires him. They might have lingered on until they died ingloriously, had not God sent the besom of persecution to sweep them forth into the wide world, which was perishing for lack of the knowledge which they alone could give. What made them go forth? Was it the missionary spirit? Was it their love for the heathen, according to that? Was it their love for perishing souls, according to that? Brother Yates himself says that is what makes missionaries work. What does Mr. Carpenter say makes them work? He says persecution makes them work; that if it had not opened their eyes, they might have lingered on at Jerusalem until, they died ingloriously, had not God sent the besom of persecution to sweep them forth into the wide world, which was perishing for lack of the knowledge which they alone could give. That is a modern, missionary talking about the apostles.
MR. YATES ELEVENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I appear before you again to speak upon this theme. My brother congratulates you upon Brother Darbys presence. I am glad with him. On that subject we have learned exactly his position, and I am really glad with him that we have at last been able to agree about one thing. Now, he has been telling you that man is a moral agent. He commenced with me on election, and I think he got sick of it. Just as he said in his other speech, I want to stand to the proposition all the time. All this talk about persecution has nothing to do with the Foreign Mission work of today, because, even according to his own doctrine, the Spirit of God will take possession of a man and convert him anywhere, whether he has the Bible or not. So all that history which Brother Potter read about Latimer and Ridley and those other men who suffered in those terrible persecutions, does not prove any thing. I do not know what this has to do with Foreign Missions. He talked about the martyrs being Baptists, but I do not know that there were any Baptists among themthere may have been some; but that has nothing to do with the proposition under discussion.
I want to speak in regard to the Church sleeping. Did you not notice what Mr. Carpenter said? Mr. Carpenter speaks of the spirit being well-nigh gone. Was not that true? Well-nigh gone, he says. We all admit that in the ritualistic age, after Constantine, a great deal of the spiritual life of the Church ebbed away. There was the same lack of spiritual life through the dark ages. There was some life, but not enough to send out missionaries. It is so in some Churches still. There was only just life enough to keep alive at home; but when the life of the Church began to increase, then the Reformation dawned. That is just the way it was in the time of John Wycliffe. I thank God for such a man. He had the spirit which impelled him to go out with the blessed word of God, and tell it for Jesus, carrying the gospel of salvation to his needy fellow-men. It was a genuine mission spirit; certainly it was. Now, I want to go to those proof-texts. We will look at them. Brother Potter says we have no proof in i Cor. vi. ii, that the members of that Church were changed by preaching. I think I understand you to say that the Apostle Paul had no reference to that change having been brought about by the preaching of the word. I will quote again; 1 Cor. vi. 9Il: 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 mankindthat covers the case of the heathennor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed now, how are they washed? ye are sanctified how are they sanctified? Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. I want to know if this language of Jesus is true. But ye are justified how? in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. What is the gospel? Jesus is the embodiment of that gospel; he is the Word. The revelation of this word is the revelation of the mighty Christ. Hence, what is it to reach the gospel and to teach it? What is the gospel? Good news; the glad tidings that a Saviour is born, and has come, and died, and risen gloriously to heaven in victory over death and the grave. And when he was about to ascend to heaven, with his hands uplifted over the heads of his disciplesthose hands with the nail-prints in themhe said: Go preach the gospel to all nations; go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That is, Go and tell and teach the good news. The Saviour has come, and is offered in the gospel for salvation to every man. Why, my brother said the other day there was no such thing in the teachings of the Bible. He said: The gospel is not a proposition of salvation to all, but a proclamation of salvation. What is the meaning of come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest? What is the meaning of that parable? I have called his attention to so many times, about the kingdom of heaven being like unto a feast given by a certain nobleman who sent out his servants and invited certain guests, and they refused? He said emphatically in his last speech that the called did not refuse, but only those who were not called. This is the way he explains Corinthians. I told him that he did not believe in character as a condition of salvation. Character means something cut or carved, and yet Brother Potter makes God do it all. A man, he says, has no choice in it, and yet choice is at the basis of character. Now, what is he going to do with this passage to which I called his attention? I am not through with him yet. I am glad we have come together at last. i Cor. 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. I want him to explain that. But he says for me to go on and explain. I will, my brother. I now quote the 22d and 23d verses of the same chapter: For the Jews require a sign, and the Geeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness. Let me stop right there. Why was he, the crucified Christ a stumbling block to the Jews? Because the Jews believed that when the Messiah came he would not die. I can prove by the Book that they did not believe in a suffering Christ, but thought he would come in some mysterious way, and in great glory establish the kingdom of God; and that when his mission was accomplished he would be caught away to heaven, untouched by death. It caused the apostles themselves a great struggle to break away from this very belief of the Jews. The minds of the Jews had been molded by this doctrine ever since the Babylonian captivity. Therefore a suffering Christ was repugnant to them. The death which Jesus died by crucifixion was an ignominious death. To accept such a leader was a stumbling block to the Jews. To the Greeks, with their philosophical minds, the crucified Christ as a personal Saviour was foolishness. They did not see any connection between a bleeding man on the ignominious cross and the salvation of a human soul. I will read the 24th verse: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Now, he is writing to Christian men and women. The word called is never applied except to those who are illuminated, or to those who have accepted the gospel, and thereby become Gods chosen Or approved ones. To those who have opened their hearts and received him, Christ becomes the power and wisdom of God.
I will now call his attention again to the Book Proverbs. I cannot get him to notice that book, I have called his attention to it several times. Proverbs i. 2431: Because I have called and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 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; 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. Now, I want him to face all this, and to come out and show me from the teaching of this proof-text that character is not necessary in order for man to be saved. In this passage it is plain and unmistakably declared that mans salvation is conditioned upon his choice, and moral choice is the very basis of character. Therefore mans salvation is conditioned upon character. It is the rejection of Gods invitation that destroys the soul, and the acceptance of it that saves the soul. It is not absolute election from eternity. Now, I will refer to his proof-text Phil. ii. 12; that is a wonderful exposition he gave of itWherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling Now, as I told you before, he is trying to explain away the argument about Jerusalem, but he will never do it. I have his favorite Commentary on that. I would, but ye would not. Brother Potter said that referred to the nation. But I explained that this morning, and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown are against him on that. I will quote from Butlers Bible Work on this text: Work out ought to be carry out; we do not workout our own salvation, for we are saved by grace; but we do carry out our own salvation. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. Here are joined together, in the compass of one practical exhortation, faith in a finished salvation, and yet work . . . So people are bound to work likewise, perfecting that which converts them, making their salvation certain and sure; working with fear and trembling lest they should come short of the grace of God, because sin is repulsive. It must-not be forgotten that the Epistles were written not to make converts, but to edify the converts already made. In the Book of Acts we have examples of addresses made to unbelievers. . . . But this Epistle is addressed to the beloved who have always obeyed, and the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi. Paul has no idea of giving his disciples a lesson in abstract theology or laying for them a foundation of a philosophy of free-will and divine sovereignty. He is not merely communicating to these Philippians truths for their creed, but precepts for their deeds. In a word, this working out our own salvation is following out in our daily walk of that deliverance from evil and from all its consequences which is brought nigh to us in the gospel. It is only manifesting in life the love that we have in us. How is that? Let me read you a passage in the seventeenth chapter of John, as to how we get this life, and it will suggest at least the value of the Foreign Mission work. It says, commencing at the second verse: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Now let us see how they get that life. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they havewhat?received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. He gave the word, and they received it, and as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God. Now, I want to turn to Acts xiii. 42, 43: And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. The gospel, then, has much to do with the work of salvation. Acts xv. 36: And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. Paul wanted to go over the field where he and Barnabas had been sowing the Word of God in mens hearts, and see what fruit the Word of the Lord was bringing forth. The Word is compared in the Scriptures to a grain of wheat; for the fruit of the gospel is wrapped up in the Word, as the fruit of the grain is wrapped up in the seed, God does not prepare the ground for the farmer. The farmer does that.
The farmer cannot control the rain and the sunlight. Nor can he make the wheat. That is Gods part; but he can sow, and God will water it and cause it to grow. God, in the present constitution of things, cannot believe for me. He has given me an eye to see, but he does not see for me; he has given me an ear to hear, but he does not hear for me; he has given me a heart to love, but he does not love for me. He asks me for my heart, but he gives me a lovable object to love, trust, and servethe mighty and compassionate Christ, revealed in the gospel. Hence, my friends, you can see the value of preaching and teaching the glad tidings of salvation to the dying, sin-cursed race of mankind everywhere, and especially in the benighted lands of heathendom. Did God ordain the gospel us the great means in the plan of salvation, and own and bless it as such, in the gospel work of the first century of the Christian Church? This has to be answered in the affirmative by every Christian man. Now, the Scriptures being our only revelation and guide, it is clearly evident that the gospel is still the great means in the Divine plan of salvation. God has ever blessed the gospel as the great instrument of salvation; he is so blessing it today in both the home and the foreign field, and he will ever so bless it. No man is saved without the truththat is, the truth of the Holy Spirit; even if it is not the same in name, it must be in the essence.
Brother Potter has quoted Hebrews viii. in order to prove that the gospel is not indispensable in the work of salvation. I want to notice that briefly, and I am going to read Jamieson, Faussett and Brown; that will be good authority for him. And they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know him from the least to the greatest. This is the Commentary on Zechariah xii. 8, on the words he that is feeble among them shall be as David: Under the old covenant, the priests lips were to keep knowledge, and at his mouth the people were to seek the lawunder the new covenant the Holy Spirit teaches every believer. Not that the mutual teaching of brethren is excluded whilst the covenant is being promulgated; but when once the Holy Spirit shall have fully taught all the remission of their sins and inward sanctification, then there shall be no farther need of man teaching his fellow-man. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 9; v. 1, an earnest of that perfect state to come. On the way to that perfect state every man should teach his neighbor. The teaching is not hard and forced, because grace renders all teachable; for it is not the ministry of the letter, but of the spirit. (2 Cor. iii. 6). The believers firmness does not depend on the authority of human teachers. God himself teaches. The New Testament is shorter than the Old Testament, because, instead of the details of an outward letter law, it gives the all-embracing principles of the spiritual law written on the conscience, leading one to spontaneous, instinctive obedience in outward details. None save the Lord can teach effectually, know the Lord. Now, you see, we agree with him about teaching, but we differ as to the means. This very commentator takes my position exactly, that when they have been instructed and received the Word, then one need not teach his neighbor, because he will know by his inner experiences, after appropriating Jesus as presented in the gospel. So much for that. But he tells us that the object of the missionaries is to teach the people to know the Lord. Well, it is owing to what he means by that. If he means experimental religion, there is not a man of us who claims that. Why, my brother knows that my quotations show that I do not believe that. I simply claim that man is a responsible being, that he has an understanding, and is constituted with faculties to respond to truth. Jesus was a perfect man as well as God, and in his wonderful work there is provision for every man in the human race. God gives the sunlight which enables us to see, but we have to open our eyes to receive it. Hence in the Word it is said that the Holy Spirit, through the gospel, illuminates the eye of the understanding. Therefore, the individual must open the understanding to receive the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit through the Word. We can teach others to know Jesus intellectually in the Word, but experimentally he has to be personally appropriated and tested by each individual. The supreme desire of the soul must go out to ask God for aid to accomplish this, and when the soul yields itself to Christ the Holy Spirit imparts his life giving and transforming influence. Now, Brother Potter says they are not all saved around Owensville. And they were not all saved around Jerusalem, nor at Antioch, when Paul and Barnabas went out on their mission tours. So that is no argument whatever. So much for his proof-text.
Now, about Mr. Carpenter, in regard to the persecution. Does not my brother know better than to say that we teach that persecution caused the disciples who were dispersed from Jerusalem to prosecute the mission work? It caused them to leave Jerusalem, but they had the Spirit of God working in them, and were thereby induced to teach the gospel wherever they went. Some went into Africa, others went to Cyprus, and others went to Antioch, sowing the good seed, as Gods laborers are sowing it today all around the globe, and thereby lifting up the world into the sunlight of Gods favor. A handful of wheat was to be planted on the mountain-top that would shake like Lebanon. Now, Brother Potter has taken the position squarely that the preaching of the gospel is not necessary as a means, because they were called before they were preached to.
Now, I want to continue in my line of argument. I will proceed to develop one of the arguments which I have already adduced in support of the affirmative of the proposition. It is this: The fruits of the Foreign Mission work are an evidence that this work is owned and blessed of God. But before I discuss this I want to say something about Wycliffe and the quotations from Bucks Theological Dictionary referred to in the remarks of Brother Potter. I do not want to do my brother injustice, but Wycliffe was not named in the quotation he gave concerning the terrible massacre of St. Bartholomew. I have that grand old book, and other authorities concerning this event. He knows I asked, before I got up here to speak, whom he meant by those martyrs alluded to in Bucks Theological Dictionary. He need not say that this martyrdom took place at the beginning of the Reformation. Luther was dead when that took place under Charles IX. He told you how the conflict was brought about, and that it was not mission work. Why, my friends, it was the pressing out of the lines of Protestantism. Is not that the mission workadvancing the cause? That is the fruit of it, that is the spirit of itpressing out. It had the Life in it, and I will say that neither the Baptists nor any other denomination would have been today what they are if it had not been for the spirit of the Reformation. This is apparent from the past history of Christianity.
I will now proceed further to develop the argument drawn from the unmistakably good fruits of the Foreign Mission work. These prove that this work is owned and blessed of God. My opponent says, Show me the fruit. Why, look here at this map. I have called his attention to it day after dayto the transformation of the character of those people in all these heathen lands. I call his attention to it now. He says he wants the fruithe wants to see the apple. Now I am going to show him the apple, and I want this congregation to witness. Have I not quoted from the very best authorities, showing the wonderful progress of the work, and the transformation of all these degraded heathen people by the gospel? It has given a written language to many savage or barbarous tribes. It has transformed men from worse than brutes to civilized, Christian human beings. Have I not shown that today many are singing the sweet songs of Zion who were once idolaters and cannibals? There are in Oceania fathers and mothers, now happy Christians, who thirty years ago buried their children alive. They weep when their hearts are stirred by the blessed gospel of Christ, and as they look back and see what their former lives were. Not long ago they had a grand Sunday-school celebration for the children in one of those islands. That is a mission workdeveloping gospel knowledge and activity among the children in the Sunday school, teaching them the blessed Bible. They had a Sunday-school meeting, and the children were singing the sweet gospel songs, singing of Jesus love, of his work, and of the future world. And as they sang, an old man who was sitting there was seen to be weeping. The minister asked him what was the matter. O that you had come here years ago! then I would have had my children! I would not have been without them, as I am now. He, in his imbruted state, had buried them alive, to get rid of them, as had many of his neighbors. After Captain Cook was killed, in 1779, no man dared to visit these islands. The people were cannibals. The missionaries went there with the Word of God, and we see the fruits today. Why did they go there and to the Fiji Islands? Americansmen of our own nation went. When the news came to our shores, about 1819, that the people of the Sandwich Islands had, all of a sudden, rejected their priests and idolatrous services, and by a mighty uprising had thrown away their idols, Christian men offered themselves to go there to preach the gospel to them, if God in his providence would indicate the way. They waited only for proper equipment for the work, and transportation to the fields. The hearts of the people in Boston were touched, and opened to the call, and the adequate means were provided, and a small missionary party was equipped for the work. They set sail in a very few months after the reception of the news.
There has not been enough money spent in those islands to build three iron-clad vessels of war; and yet they are today filled with Christian churches, and illuminated by the light of heaven, and filled with good, sweet, kind, Christian men and Christian women. And it was there, as I read to you, that they rolled their boats over living beings, and buried them beneath their tents, before those missionaries went there. What made that transformation, I ask you? He said a man cannot do any thing except a call come, and we accept it. The work brought the fruit, and by their fruit ye shall know them. I have the proof right there in the Bible. What is it? A good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and an evil tree evil fruit. There is the good fruit the fruit of Gods Spirit. It is brought forth abundantly in all the heathen lands which you see here on the map. This is true in British America, in Greenland amid the gleaming icebergs, in Labrador, in Patagonia, among the Bechuanas in Africa, in India, in the Chinese Empire. But here is my brother, in the light of these facts, in the year 1885, fighting this wonderful work. Look at these islands herethe New Hebrides, New Zealand, and Australiathe degraded people by whom they were inhabited, scarcely looked like human beings before the missionaries went there. There was but very little similarity between their vocal utterances and the articulate sound of the human voice. Their cries sounded more like the barking of a dog than human speech. There, said infidelity, a people is found to whom the gospel is not adapted, and whom it cannot teach; hence we have a living demonstration that it is not perfectly in accord with the fitness of things; therefore it is not divine. Mr. Darwin and other infidel scientists said that these degraded people could never be taught a vocal language, and therefore could never be rescued from their low, degraded state. But the missionaries entered these islands, and in a few years, by the blessing of God, proved all these assertions to be false. They not only taught these wretched specimens of humanity language, but induced them to accept Christ and become Christians. They became decent, moral, and spiritual. When Mr. Darwin and other infidel scientists saw what the missionaries had done for these people, they were so thoroughly convinced that they confessed that they were wrong, and contributed to the work. I can produce the document to prove that it was something they could not account for.
Theodore Christlieb, a man possessing one of the most giant intellects, and of the broadest culture, and of the most extensive information, in his late broad survey of Protestant missions, after a score of years spent in the study of this theme, speaking of the success of the Foreign Mission work in uplifting and saving the most degraded of heathen nations, says on page 23: We thus have the comforting assurance that no race is spiritually so dead that, by the good news, if cannot arise to newness of life; no tongue so barbarian that it will not admit of the translation of the Bible; no heathen soul so sunk that he cannot become a new creature in Christ Jesus; and that therefore our Lord and Master, coming to us as the Way, the Truth and the Life, in the widest acceptation of the words, issued no impossible command when embracing, without any exception, all and every human misery, he said: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Evangelical Christendom had long been accustomed simply to believe its possibility. Today we have living proofs of its actual accomplishment in thousands of converted South Sea cannibals, of Esquimaux and American Indians, of Bush Negroes, and Pesherehs of Terra del Fuegoyes, even of Papuans in Australia and New Guinea.
MR. POTTERS ELEVENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I want to notice Brother Yates proof-text first. I will say, however, to begin with, that it may be Possible that I can do the work of my own brethren and prove my position correct. We have seen here since this discussion commenced that missionary evidences disagreed. They vary a great deal in their reports about the condition of the very places he points to with the pointer on that map.
MR. YATES: Will you show that variation?
MR. POTTER: I will, tomorrow or some other time. I stated in the outset of this discussion that I was in favor of any kind of enterprise that elevates humanity education, civilization, the ennobling of man, no matter whatand I believe the Bible and Christianity are a blessing. That is not the issue between Brother Yates and myself. A great many institutions that have a tendency to elevate man in the world, the Bible says nothing about. These institutions never claimed religion in themselves at all. However, in addition to that I go farther, and say I know no Baptist of our denomination, who understands himself, that is opposed to the spread of the gospel. Now, remember that. That is not the issue. You see Brother Yates pointing up there at the map? Suppose there are as many converts as he claims there are. The thing for him to settle here is to answer the question we have been putting to him for several days: Are there any of those people converted that would not have been, or any of them entitled to heaven, that would have gone to hell without the missionaries? Not are they raised up to a state of civilization in which they would not have been without that? It all hangs on that. He has obligated himself to prove that, and not only that, but that they have lifted up man and educated him. I am not here to deny that they have done good work. He says that without these missionaries the heathen would sink down to hell, while with them they are saved. That is what we want him to prove. Now, if he can prove that there is a solitary convert there entitled to heaven that would not have gone to heaven without those missionaries, then his proposition stands, and he need not go to missionary labors to prove thatwe want the Bible.
Now, I propose to notice some of his Scripture passages relative to the Corinthian letter. He referred us to i Cor. vi. ii: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. He introduced an argument from that text, that the ministry of the Apostle Paul was the cause of that sanctification. He does not put the emphasis on sanctification by the Spirit as he does on sanctification by the Word. Notice, he runs off to another text to show where the Saviour prayed to the Lord, Sanctify them through thy Word. Here this text says they are sanctified and justified by thy Spirit, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
I call attention to Acts xviii. 6-10: And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence, and entered into a certain mans house, named Justus, one that worshiped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace remember, the apostle was going to leave there on account of the opposition to his preaching there for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. For whose sake did the Lord request Paul to remain there and preach, according to the text? What reason did the Lord assign for telling Paul to remain there, according to that language? Give that question to any unprejudiced child of ten years of age, let him read that text, and ask him what was the reason for the Lord wanting Paul to remain at Corinth, and the answer would be, every time, For the sake of Gods people that he already had there. Notice that. Then, that explains his text. He already had them there. I know the apostle says in one place perhaps in the same letter to the Corinthiansin speaking of what good the gospel is, he says, unto them that want to be saved? No. That have an opportunity of being saved? No. But it is unto them that are saved, it is the power of God. I will find the text. It is the power of God unto them that are saved. Unto some it seems to be foolishness; the gospel is hidden to all those that are lost; but unto us that are saved it is the power of God. i Cor. i. 2124: 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. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified. unto the Jews a stumbling block, 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. The called there must be equivalent to saved in other texts. Already called, already saved, unto them that are called it is Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Then, the gospel does not save anybody until they are already called, already saved, in that sense. Hence there are two salvations presented there. Brother Yates has not told us what that salvation means in Philippians ii. If they are already saved, already saints, which they arefor he will not question itthen, as there is no such thing as final apostasy of the saints, they are as sure of heaven as there is a heaven. They never will apostatize and lose heaven. Yet they are to work out their salvation.
Then he undertakes from Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, to give the comment on the new covenant, on Hebrews. After reading at considerable length, his Commentary says: No one save the Lord can teach men to know the Lord effectually. That is what I am arguing. That is the reason the Lord said in the new covenant. They shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. You see, it is right to teach, but to teach them to know the Lord is a lesson no man is able to teach. I believe he admitted that finally.
He asked me a question, for the answer to which I am going to turn him over to his Brother Carpenter. He wants to know if I did not know that persecution was not the means of starting the apostles out. He would like to stigmatize somebody with ignorance. As far as that is concerned, I confess it. There have been: several such insinuations. I have nothing to boast of so far as learning is concerned. Who was it that said it was persecution that drove them out? Was it myself? Am I the only one that said it? Does not Mr Carpenter say, in the Great Commission and its Fulfillment, that they might have remained there until they died ingloriously had not God sent the besom of persecution and started them out into this work? Does that indicate ignorance? Well, I am not the author of that language. It is one of his missionary brethren that he admires, and he says that it was persecution that drove them out. I hope I am not to blame for what missionaries say. I would hate to be accountable for every thing they say. Let us notice what he says. He says: The set time for an aggressive movement which should only cease when universal conquest was fully accomplished. The apostles must have understood that their field of labor was coextensive with the world. They must have understood that. Then, what is it he accuses them of doing? Still the Church at Jerusalem dallied. They must have understood what was their duty, Mr. Carpenter says; but they did not go. What did they do? A thousand days elapsed instead of ten. They might have lingered on until they died ingloriously had not God sent the besom of persecution to sweep them forth into the wide world, which; was perishing for lack of the knowledge which they alone could give. That man says it was the persecution that sent them. Brother Yates seems to differ with him. They must settle it themselves. I told you this morning that the missionaries were not all right; somebody is wrong among the missionaries, and I do not care who. I think about as much of Brother Yates as I do of Mr. CarpenterI mean their positions, their doctrine. But I am satisfied that one or the other of them is wrong, and not only that, but I believe they are both wrong. That is I where I stand. Now, as none save the Lord can teach effectually, I want to add an argument or two why I oppose this doctrine. I object to it. I say that the Foreign Mission work is of man, and I want to tell you some reasons why I say it. We are not to make assertions in debating, taking positions boldly and publicly, without any serious reasons for such things, without having studied the matter. Let us see. One missionary writer says: We will mention hut one missionary principle morenamely, that the means by which instrumentally the great work is to be effected is the ministration, of the Divine Word. We would not be understood as supposing that this is the only means. Whenever salvation goes forth as a lamp that burneth, it will be in answer to the prayers of Zion; as it extends, private Christians will, in their several circles, be instructors too. Every man shall teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord. (Minutes of the Philadelphia Association, page 428). I have the work here, and if anybody wishes to examine it they shall have the opportunity to do so. This is what they say themselves in their Circular Letter of 1806. This letter before this Association is not the production of a fanatic; it was not produced in excitement; it was the deliberation of that grand and intelligent body of Christians called the Philadelphia Association of Baptists. That letter came before their scrutiny; it was passed and adopted by that intelligent body, and they sayas giving the ground for modern missionsthey shall teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. That is giving grounds of missionism. That is the reason I say it is not of God. It contradicts his Word, and I do not believe that any thing that contradicts Gods Word is of God. I want Brother Yates to reconcile this assertion that the missionary makes. He says they are as good men as there are in the world. I do not doubt there are good men among the Missionary Baptists, and among all other missionary bodies. But those good men are wrong, they are teaching that the Bible is wrong by putting forth in their books and publications such assertions as I have here mentioned.
Now, as a contrast between their language and the language of God, I wish to refer to Hebrews viii. 11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. It seems to me that it is an easy matter for a child to tell that the missionary is not of God, when he will so unscrupulously contradict Gods Word. This is not the mere phantom of some irresponsible fanatic, but it is the language of a large, intelligent councilthe Missionary Baptist Association of 1806. Another writer says: All are to contribute to that great, unceasing volume of earnest prayer, which has only to become general and tenderly importunate to secure the salvation of the great multitude of Gods elect, who are now wandering unsaved on the mountains of sin in their own lands. (Great Commission, page 3). Here is an assertion by a missionary that God has an elect wandering on the mountains of sin in every land, and that they are unsavedGods elect in an unsaved state! And in order to save a people who are already Gods elect, this missionary says it is necessary to send the gospel to them. God elected them, he intended their salvation, he predestinated it, and he sent Jesus into the world to save them; yet with all this they never will be saved, according to that missionary, unless the gospel is carried to them. Let us see what God says about that. Isaiah liv. 13: And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord. Now, here is a positive declaration. It is true. This missionary I last quoted admits that God has a people everywhere. Well, if he has, God says, All thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children. What does Jesus say? All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (John vi. 37). I should suppose God gave to Jesus all the elect, and he says, all that the Father giveth me shall come to me. As a reason for saying so, he quotes the text from the prophet that I have quoted. What is that? That they shall all be taught of God. Jesus says, Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Here is the argument: If all that are taught of God come to him, and all that the Father giveth him are to be taught of God, then the conclusion is that all that God gave him are to come to him. Jesus told the truth when he said they shall all come. It is evident they have been given, but they have not all come yet, but they shall come. If he told the truth, then they will come; then, their coming is not suspended on the contingency of the action of men. This doctrine that says they would have been lost without the labors of the missionaries is not the doctrine taught here. The doctrine taught here is positively as stated that they shall come, they shall be taught of God. Now, in addition to that, I regard it as of man, and not of God, because it presumes to teach men to know the Lord. I have already noticed that. However, I wanted to state that it is Gods work, but he has never commanded, and Brother Yates has not introduced a. text yet that authorizes men to go about teaching men to know the Lord. He says himself, so far as experience is concernedand that is what takes place in the conversion and regeneration of a soulso far as that is concerned, the ministers cannot bring it about. Of course they cannot; nobody accuses him of believing that. The question between us is whether the ministry is an indispensable agent in bringing it about. Mr Rice said, as I have already quoted time and again in the presence of this audience, that God works by means and without means, as his infinite wisdom directs. That is Presbyterianism. Brother Rice also says that there is an influence of the Holy Spirit in the human heart, in addition to the gospel, and distinct from it without which the gospel, or the Word, would never regenerate one of Adams ruined sons or daughters.
I regard it as of man and not of God, because its doctrine is that God has bound himself up so in his ministers, and the doctrine that all his creatures that are deprived of the Bible are also deprived of salvation. This hangs the eternal destiny of 856,000,000 of people upon the contingency of man taking the gospel to them.
You remember I showed you yesterday, from the missionary chart published by the Baptist Missionary Union, in colors and figures, that one hundred thousand heathen are dying there every day, and underneath those figures stated that the Christians are giving one tenth of a cent per day to save them. We hear today that after death those one hundred thousand heathen are sinking down into ruinperishing without the gospel. What did they go to hell for? Because they did not receive the gospel? Yes; and I am going to show it to you from a missionary author right here. One missionary says that, in the tract called The True Test: Christian friends, we have no fires of martyrdom now to test our fidelity to Jesus Christ; but we are not left without a test. God is testing us all continually; testing the measure of our faith, of our love, of our devotedness to his Son, by the presence of eight hundred million of heathen in the world. It is a tremendous test, so real, so practical. It is no phantom, no myth, no theory, no doubtful contingency, but a great, awful fact, that we Protestant Christians, who rejoice in our rich gospel blessings, and claim to be followers of Him who gave up heavenly glory, and earthly ease, and life itself to save those heathen, are actually surrounded by eight hundred million of brothers and sisters who must perish in their sins unless they receive the gospel. This gospel they have never yet heard. This is a fact too many forget, but a fact none can deny; a fact of which we dare not pretend to be ignorant; a fact that ought to influence our whole Christian course from the moment of conversion. Now, notice, then, these heathen sink down to hell because they do not receive the gospel. Why have they not had the gospel? If God wanted to save them, and intended to save them, has he hung the eternal destiny of the majority of our race upon the contingency of human effects and labors? When he desires to save them, has he done that? No, sir; the Bible teaches different from that, as I quoted yesterday evening, and I come back to it new; Jesus came into the world to save the lost, and the heathen are lost in every sense of the word. Who are more truly lost than the heathen? Was Jesus capable of doing the work, and was he adapted to that work when he came? When Jesus left the glory he had with his Father before the world was, and entered into this sin-ruined world, did he come fully adapted to the work of saving the lost? Was he suited to the work? He says himself, The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Was he ready for the work? Did it depend upon any thing extraneous to himself? This writer says the heathen are lostthe heathen he came to save. Did he save them? Are one hundred thousand of them sinking down into eternal perdition every day? If so, was not Jesus Christ a failure? Let us see what the Bible says in John x. 16. He says, in speaking of his sheep: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. It has already been admitted that the other sheep are among the Gentiles, and it is the work of Jesus to bring them. He is not going to undertake to do a work of such importance as that by the use of means and instrumentalities that never will accomplish the work. It is an evident fact, according to history and evidence given by the missionaries themselves, that they have failed in a great measure. Today, in the latter part of the nineteenth century according to their own reports, there are about eight hundred and fifty-six million of heathen, besides Mohammedans, Roman Catholics, Jews and Greeks. They are all in an unsaved state, and Jesus Christ came into the world to save them. Did he want them saved? Did he desire their salvation? Was he able to do the work? Did he appoint means by which they should be saved, that he knew would not do it? Did he know his gospel never would reach these landsthat there would be such carelessness on the part of Christians that Brother Carpenter charges them with for forty or fifty generations, or such indifference on the part of governors of their own land that the gospel could not be preached there, yet hang the eternal destiny of these millions of souls upon such a condition as could not be? Is this Gods plan of salvation? Has he devised a plan that he must have known would fail?
I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. YATES TWELFTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS AND CHRISTIAN FRIENDS:
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 brothers allusions to this tract of Brother Carpenters, 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 Gods 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 Lords 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 Potters doctrine is, sit still, and the Lord will save you anyhow. You are Gods 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 Potters 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 Campbells 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. 610. 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, didnt 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, wasnt 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 brothers 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 Potters 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 salvationsa spiritual and a temporal. That is a beautiful thing. Then, a man may be elected from eternity by Godand God always carries out his purposes, and never failsand yet lose his temporal salvation. It would be incomplete, wouldnt 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 dohe 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 believeof the worldof the heathen. I Corinthians vi. 911: 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 Pauls going there produced the result of bringing them out of that conditionthat they might have been saved without it. Just let him give a passage of Scripture to show thatone 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 Gods will revealed in the Word. It is not revealed in the Word, and I do not know any thing about it beyond that. Gods 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, sirnot for a moment. How absurd! It is only a place to run into. It does not shelter himthat 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 Potters 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, isnt 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 isnt 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 Gods ordained means. God may have other meansand we dare not limit him, for we do not knowbut there is one thing we do knowhe 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 favoriteJamieson, 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 fleshthose 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 thatNot 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 Messiahby faith in Christ Jesusthe 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 Gods lawthat 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 Jacobs posterity. This was verified in the history of the two nationsIsrael and Edomof 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 Gods 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 Gods dealings with the offspring of Jacob and EsauIs 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 Isaacs 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 thingsthat is, God would not give the blessing of the birthright to Esau because it was Isaacs choice, nor on account of Esaus 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 Gods 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 mans desires and individual efforts cannot change Gods 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 mans 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 Pharaohs heart. It means that Pharaohs 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 sunshinethe 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 Pharaohs 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 Gods 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 brothers 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 itover 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 Gods 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 leftthose 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 stonethat is, Christ Jesus. That is the part of the clay that did not make a good vesselthe 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 Gods image; that image was not effaced, but defacedblurred. Mans faculties, unmarred by sin, are the very transcripts of Gods 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 worldwas 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. Christs 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. 47, to sustain this position: Who will have all men to be savedthis is Paul speakingand 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 preachthat grand old missionary, the colossus of the centuries? A teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Luke xiv. 1624. 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 biddenthey 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 masters 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 mans house; it was the urging.
I will turn again to Proverbs; I cannot get him to look at that book. Proverbs i. 2431: 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 mewhy?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 Christs 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. 1721: 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 believedthey believed after they heard the truthye 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 preachedjust 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 Philips 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 Philips 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; dont 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 methat 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 Godguide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the Scripture which he read was thisyou 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 Scriptureand 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 heartwhat? 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 resulthow 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 eighteenthto 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 worlds 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 writebetter 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.
MR. POTTERS TWELFTH SPEECH
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
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 hours 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 Pauls 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 Pauls case there; in the Lords 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 denythat 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 others 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 historyhe 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 Gods covenant; it was Gods promise. In connection with that promise I showed you that if any man is Christs that he is Abrahams 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 onewe do not want a great volume of texts, we want onethat 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 truthand he means by that the preaching of the gospelis 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 arguments 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 seriousnessthis 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 kindI 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. Dont you think foreign missionism is tolerably, touchy, that you are not allowed even to say that muchgive 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 mans 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 fellows attention to the mans 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 aint allowed to say one word about it! Now, you must not say any thing about missionismmust not even give your opinion that God will save any of the heathenwithout you are willing to get into a debateunless you want to be challenged. That is the cause of this debate. Isnt 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 themif 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 peopledoes 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 notchurch 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 boyand some of these older brethren remember it, perhapsI 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 wont 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 mans 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 mans responsibility. I admitted mans 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 mans 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 startthe very first ones to whom the commission was givenwhat 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? Dont you be scared. I am not. Let him bring it.
Another thought: He said a missionary said, Dont think Im 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: Appletons 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 civilizationI 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. 3032: 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 Faithwithout 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 confessionimmerse 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? Isnt it more convenient for you to say it is in harmony with your theory than from any conclusion you draw from Gods 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 beforenot 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 Gods 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 salvationsa 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 homethat 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. POTTERS 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 heaventhose 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 sunshinewhile 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 Gods authority. I notice that text, not so much to show the doctrine of election as to show Gods 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 MadagascarCatholics 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.
MR. YATES THIRTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I appear before you again on the affirmative side of this question. In the first place, before we proceed further, there is a question of veracity at stake as to what I said during this discussion concerning the heathen. I want to state to you what I said in substance. I have stated it time and again. I drove Brother Potter, and he knows it, from the second chapter of Romans. I told him what I believed about the heathenthat those whop are without the law, but do the things that are in the law, are saved; and therefore there are very few of them saved, with the light they have. Gods Spirit operates upon the mind everywhere through the means employed; and when the revelation comes, that influence is upon all alike. He gives the opportunity to all. I will ask the reporter to read what I said upon that subject.
REPORTER READS: Thursday afternoon I never have made the impression intentionally that any would be saved in the heathen world without character or without living up to the law they hadthe best light they haddoing the things that were contained in the law, though they were without the law, as spoken of in the second chapter of Romans.
MR. YATES: Now you hear it.
Mr. POTTER: You say that was Thursday evening. My impression is that a note I took was on Monday.
Mr. YATES: I will risk the book when it comes out, and I will say to the short-hand writer not to change thatthat I never made any such statement in it.
Mr. POTTER: I have a note here, and I think it was on Monday I took it.
Mr. YATES: We will risk the short-hand writer about that; if you can bear it I can. I have stated that as my position time and again. My brother is aware of that, and he says I am honest and he loves me. He says I never drove him from any authority. I am going to talk a little about that. He came here before this people, and in order to balance my argument that civilization is the result of Christianity he set up the Greek civilization side by side with it, and told us about Cecrops being its founder. Then I told him he knew nothing about it, and that Solon was really the founder of the civilization that gave to Greece her glory and greatness. Then he came before these people as an intelligent man, and talked about Nimrod as the founder of Egypt. Any man that knows any thing about the history of the civilization of the past knows the origin of Egypts civilization is lost in the antiquity of the past. He quoted a certain historian, leaving the impression upon this people that for several centuries those who had carried the gospel, and taught the gospel, and suffered persecution were Baptists. That was the inference of his historian, Jones, who has been exposed as a falsifier, in his statements about the Waldenses. And I exposed his statements in regard to the missionaries who performed the great gospel work in Northern Europe in the early centuries being Baptists, from a better work than Jones has ever written. So we will see how much his authorities are worth. I wish to spend a moment or two on what he told you about my saying there were no Baptists who suffered as martyrs in the massacres of the Protestants during the reign of Charles IX. In commenting upon these terrible scenes he made the impression that all these martyrs were Regular Baptists, and triumphantly exclaimed: We, as Regular Baptists, have the identity of the gospel line of work; for our people here, like the saints of old, were martyred for their devotion to the gospel. I spoke to my brother while he was speaking, in order to keep from talking so much in this debate about his Church, and I asked him if these martyrs were all Baptists. And he reluctantly said perhaps there may have been some other sects who suffered. Here is Bucks Theological Dictionary; I want to read a few words from it. On page 438 he says: Numerous were the persecutions of the different sects from Constantines time to the Reformation, and when the famous Martin Luther arose and opposed the errors and ambitions of the Church of RomeI never have said there were no Baptists among them; I have said the Baptists were good people, and I love themand the sentiments of this good manLutherbegan to spread, the pope and his clergy joined all their forces to hinder their progress.
The other quotation he gave: A general council of the clergy was called. This was the famous Council of Trent, which was held for nearly eighteen consecutive years, for the purpose of establishing Popery in greater splendor, and preventing reform. The authors of the reform were anathematized and excommunicated, and the life of Luther was even in danger, but at last he died on a bed of peace. So much for his point on that. Now we will dispense with that much of it.
He said Brother Darby set me right. He has got to take Brother Darbys word for that, and Brother Darby says that he did not. I will tell him, just to be candid with him, that I believe my brethren thought me competent, or they would not have signed the documents endorsing me. I believe they are honest. I may not be so nicely situated as Brother Potter is, so as not to need any aid. I take all the aid I can get for the advancement of my cause. He says he is one man that does not progress. He says I said it would take six days to prove my proposition. I think he should have had a short-hand writer present. I thought I told him that I wanted the subject thoroughly sifted, and wanted the great facts brought before the people.
Now, about the heathen. He gave us another lengthy talk about how many died per day, and that there was no justice in condemning these men who are without the gospel; yet he has been arguing for the last five days that God has a right to damn whom he pleases, or to save whom he pleases. How much better is it when a man who is not one of the Lords sheep is damned here in Owensville, under the sound of the gospel, because he was not put in the election list? And yet Brother Potter says God does not reprobate souls. But when he ran from the proof-texts I gave him he said, Brother Yates has been giving me these proof-texts on the responsibility of man, and I believe it. You do? What is responsibility? God has given me a law, and I cannot keep it, and he will not help me to do so. If he helps my neighbor, that is no advantage to me. He just sends me to the dark place, and that is the last of it. Brother Potter says that is the reason he does not believe in Foreign Missions. He does not damn many of the babies, but he puts in a great many of the big folks.
Now, about that potter; was not that a beautiful thing? I am glad he took that position. He said that I was mistaken. Look at his logic. He said I put the clay over on one side and the wax on the other; but he said there was no wax there. He thinks it would have been a good thing for me if there had been. I will give attention first to the potter and the clay, after which I am going to give him some quotations. He handed me a book; I knew he did not understand Madagascar when he said he did. I will read that after awhile, for fear, as well as he loves me, he might misread it. Now let me quote from the ninth chapter of Romans: Hath not the potter power over the clayin some instances he has, and in some he has notof the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? He says that the potter is God. So do I. According to his doctrine God has to make of this lump damned sinners as well as redeemed souls. O what a God that is! I did not claim that there was wax in this passage that speaks of the potter and the clay. I simply alluded to it in connection with the clay to show the different effects of the same sunlight upon each, to illustrate the different effects produced upon men by the very same divine influence. I thereby demonstrated that it is the state of mens hearts, or their attitude toward God, that causes the softening or hardening of their hearts, or the divine shaping of their natures to- honor or dishonor; that the cause is not absolutely Gods sovereign, arbitrary choice.
The idea of the apostle in this figure of the potter and the clay was to present the fact that God, in dealing with men as moral subjects of his divine government, whether as individuals or nations, requires conformity to his divine ideal of character upon moral choice in order that they may realize the blessings and honors of the molding and shaping of his divine providences. To live in violation of this requirement is to he shaped in dishonor and to be rejected and destroyed as unworthy for the Masters service. This the apostle was picturing as the case of the Hebrews as a people. They had become vessels of dishonor by rejecting the true Messiah, Christ, the God-sent Saviour of the world. This is clearly taught at the close of the chapter, in the 31st and 32nd verses. This lump of clay represents both the Jewish and Gentile worlds, in this representation the fulfillment of two prophecies, concerning the Hebrew and Gentile worlds, meet. If the lump of clay, as my opponent claims, represents the whole human family, from the beginning to the end of time, and if the vessels of honor shaped from it represent Gods elect, thus made by his absolute choice from eternity, then, since the dishonored vessels are also represented as being absolutely shaped by him, without their choice, would not these latter- have a right, according to the principle of equity, to demand of God, Why hast thou made me thus? The apostle rebukes the questioning, by these dishonored vessels, of Gods right to shape them. But he does riot do this on the grounds that my brother claimsthat God had an absolute right thus to make dishonorable vessels of men, regardless of merit or demerit on their part. The potter must have respect to the condition of the clay, in order successfully to shape a vessel according to the designed ideal. So the apostle would teach us that God, in the moral and spiritual order of things, in shaping either men or nations into honorable or dishonorable vessels, has respect to the attitude they sustain to him; and whether or not men or nations are made honorable vessels depends upon their moral choice, in conformity to the requirements of Gods ideal of character. Then the Jews, as a people who rejected Christ, the Divine ideal and actual Saviour of men, had no right to question the equity of Gods dealings with them in depriving them of their honored trusts and blessings as his peculiar people. Paul, in Romans ix. 22, 23, pictures Gods long forbearance with these vessels of wrath, made up for destruction, in order to show Gods anxiety to have the Hebrews, these vessels of dishonor by unbelief, to repent and become vessels of honor. This same idea is presented by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy ii. 20, 21,where he speaks of it being possible for one who is a dishonored vessel to he purged and cleansed, and thereby changed to an honored vessel. The same view is presented in Jeremiah xviii. 48, inclusive. The prophet here represents Israel as a lump of clay, shaped into a vessel by the hands of the Lord as a potter, but marred on account of sins, thus becoming a vessel of dishonor. Jeremiah, by the authority of the Lord, declares unto Israel that if they will repent God will reshape them from a dishonored into an honored vessel. This completely blots out Brother Potters doctrine of absolute election from eternity, and knocks the props from under him in regard to his sheep being saved from eternity, without regard to any agency on their part. It everlastingly destroys his objection to the Foreign Mission work as wholly unnecessary in propagating the gospel for the salvation of souls. It proves on the contrary that foreign missionaries are operating according to the very principles of the divine economy of salvation viz., individual responsibility in salvation, and combined cooperation of the divine and human agency in prosecuting the work of the worlds evangelization.
Brother Potter says of the advocates of Foreign Missions that his objection to their doctrine is, they damn all the heathen, roll them up by the wholesale, and just turn them over to eternal death. We do not teach it. If we did, it is a better doctrine than yours, which makes God damn men without their choice in order to manifest his power. That is your teaching. Now, if we had that big-nosed man here, and that boy to look at him we might raise a laugh! I have heard all those anecdotes all my life, but I am willing to listen to them if it will keep Brother Potter in a good humor. I am in sympathy with men in hard places.
He said if 1 should live fifty years from today, and hear of him or Brother Hume preaching, I would be calling them missionaries. I wonder if he was ever over in Africa or Madagascar. I love Brother Hume and Brother Potter, as far as that is concerned, but do not think he ought to put a quotation into our Confession that is not there. Let me see if he did that. John xii. 32 is the text. The Confession of Faith says: And when he is come he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. The text: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
MR. POTTER: Is not that the proof-text of that section?
MR. YATES: Yes, but that is not the text you quoted. John xii. 33 is the verse you quoted. His memory was short. Jesus is going to draw all men unto him. Brother Potter is a Universalist. That is their main text. That is one of the strongest Universalist texts. And I, if be lifted up, will draw all men unto me. He says I am mistaken on that. Well, I will take the mistake, and I will say yet his theology is the same. And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me. Now, let us go farther. I want to look at those contradictions of the Confession of Faith, page 2.7. I will read: 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, the Holy Spirit operating through the written word, and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose. I want you to note that. First, it is through the written word the Holy Spirit operates, and then through such other means as God may choose, or directly without means. I do not suppose the brethren meant that there was no means at all. We believe the Holy Spirit operates independently of the Word, and yet in the Word. And we believe farther, just what Paul taught in that second chapter of Romans, yet it may be so interpreted or looked at as to leave this other part of Gods dealings with the human family where the gospel is not, with God, and we are not willing to take an stand that we have not a thus saith the Lord for. So moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin and of their lost estate, and incline them to come to Christ. Paul helps us out on that in Romans i. 20, and we stand with Paul right there: I do, and I believe the denomination does. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse They have had the light. And further than that, Paul tells us in the 2d chapter, 12th verse, For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. That is it. As many as sinned without law shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. Then he goes on to say, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. That is, those that act up to the best light they have. But very few of them do that. If men in this enlightened land do not, what about the heathen in that benighted land? So you can see my position in regard to the heathen.
Now, I want to say this: that the gospel is the common ordained means in the work. I am not here to defend any particular individual as air individual, or any particular creed, hut only the proposition under discussionResolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Scripture and blessed. and owned of God. I have asked him time and again to show us a passage in accordance with his teaching. Now, he knows that we believe in the operation of the Holy Spirit just as strongly as he does, and that the uplifted Christ is a crucified Christ, and the crucified Christ an uplifted Jesus. Now, I think I have explained myself far enough not to be misunderstood upon this heathen question. I am far from throwing all heathen into hell, but I believe thousands of them are lost without the gospel. Look at the results. And yet Brother Potter says God has a right to do as he pleases. He says that he does not believe in Foreign Mission worka work that has to be backed by an army. He has given me his own book, Appletons Cyclopedia, and I want to read it to you and see how much there is against Foreign Missions. Perhaps he will say to you, after I read it, that Paul did not have the backing of civil government. He did not. He did not have the civil government behind him. What gave to us our civil government? It was Christianity. The United States is under obligations to protect their citizens anywhere. There is not a word said in this article claiming that religion was forced upon the people with the bayonet. This is an account given of that star of light, Madagascar, where many suffered martyrdom that they might propagate the gospel there. Appletons Cyclopedia, page 814, Madagascar: In 1818 the London Missionary Society sent a number of missionaries, accompanied by artisans, to instruct the people. The native language was reduced to writing, a grammar prepared, and the Bible translated and printed. In the course of ten years about 15,000 of the natives had learned to read, and a large number were converted to Christianity. Mr. Hastie, an Irishman sent by the British Government as its agent, resided several years at the capital, where he had great influence. His counsels, which all tended to promote civilization, had so much weight with Radamna, who was strongly imbued with the love of truth and justice, and was humane and gentle in character. The king gave all the encouragement in his power to the missionaries, and great advances were made in civilizing the kingdom. Infanticide and other cruel customs were abolished. and rapid progress was made in the useful arts and in education. The premature death of Radama. in 1828, put a stop to the advance of Madagascar. He was succeeded by his widow, Ranavalona, who exerted herself to undo his work. The schools were closed amid the missionaries driven from the island in 1835. The influence of the idol-keepers and of the supporters of divination and other superstitions was restored to its former supremacy. The profession of Christianity by any of the natives was prohibited and violent persecution of the native Christians commenced, in which many suffered martyrdom with heroic fortitude. The French were expelled from their settlements on the east coast by Radama in 1825, and again by the queens troops in 1831. In 1845 the English and French cruisers in those seas undertook to humble the Hovas, and, after fruitless conferences and attempts at negotiation, bombarded and burned Tamatave and landed to attack the fort, but were repulsed with considerable loss. From this period all amicable intercourse between the French and English and the Madagascans ceased for eight years, till in 1853 commercial relations were renewed by the payment of an indemnity to the queen of the island. In 1846 the queens son, then seventeen years of age, embraced Christianity, and through his influence Christian doctrines were more widely spread than ever; but in 1849 a fresh persecution broke out, and more than two thousand persons were arrested and punished for their faith, some of them with death. In 1857 a conspiracy organized by French emissaries for the overthrow of the queens government led to another persecution of the Christians, in which two thousand persons were put to death. In 1861 Ranavalona died, and was succeeded by her son, Radama II., who proclaimed liberty to all religions, released the Christian captives, and forbade sorcery and the ordeal by poison. The English missionaries returned, and Christianity made rapid progress. On May 12, 1863, he was murdered, and his widow, Rasoherina, made sovereign. She was a heathen, and the patron of the idols, but preserved liberty of worship. In 1867 a large church was erected in memory of the Christian martyrs. Rasoherina died April i, i868, and was succeeded by her sister, who took the name of Rasoherina II. She publicly professed Christianity on February 20, 1869, and has exerted her influence for the advancement of education. Three printing-presses are established at her capital, and during 1869, 36,243 books were issued, and in the first six months in 1870, 81,000 tracts, Bibles, Testaments and other books. So there was no force at all, only in the attempt to protect the subjects, just as the United. States would do for any man or woman as a citizen that was imposed on, or as any Christian nation would do for its missionaries. And even the effort of the French and British Governments in this direction was a failure, and neither gave force nor security to the Foreign Mission work in Madagascar, but aggravated its surroundings and increased its obstacles. So in spite of the cruel persecutions of the Malagasy, the missionary work has accomplished its grand achievements among the Hovas, by its own agencies and means, and the Divine aid by which it has been guided and blessed. So says Mr. Appleton, whose work my opponent intended to draw upon me as a witness against the Foreign Mission work; but this authority proved to be a very strong witness in favor of missions, and as authority it must be first-class, or my worthy opponent would not have selected it.
Now, I want to notice this claim that I have failed to show that there is an identity between the Foreign Mission work of today and the primitive Church. Now, I have shown you, if you remember, that the very same spirit that actuated the Christian workers in the primitive Church actuate the missionary workers of today and that they comply with the very same principles in the mission work. I have also shown you that as the foreign missionaries of the first century suffered martyrdom in the advancement of the gospel, so also the missionaries of the Foreign Mission work of today have laid down their lives in like manner in prosecuting the gospel work in heathen lands. I have also shown the identity of the energizing and guiding power of the Holy Spirit, and of its design as manifest in the gospel work of the New Testament, with that of the Foreign Mission work of today as exhibited by its laborers both in the home and foreign field. The design of the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church is to enable its members to witness for Christ to the world. Let me read that to you in regard to the Holy Spirit: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. By the baptism of the Holy Spirit they were to be prepared to become witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth; that was their mission. Jesus said, Go preach the gospel to every creature go take the gospel. I have given proof-text after proof-text. I have shown you that the object of the mission work today and the mission work then are the sameto preach the gospel to every creature. I have shown that the end to be sub-served is the same exactly; I have shown further, that they were sent forth of God. The members of the primitive Church, in their preparation to carry out the great commission given by Christ, assembled together and prayed until they were baptized by the Holy Spirit and endued with power for the work. Then the Church went forth to witness for Jesus unto the uttermost parts of the earth, and God blessed the work. So it was with the Church in the seventeenth century. When its members went to God for the baptism of power by the Holy Spirit to fit them for the work, their spiritual life was wonderfully revived. The Church was so revived that it sent forth witnesses for Jesus to the remotest parts of the earthto the heathen lands. The laborers and witnesses have since been wonderfully blessed by God in their labors. That the apostles were slow to learn is seen in the fact that they did not at first comprehend the full meaning of the commission, for up to the revival at Antioch they directed their labors to the Jews only. When Peter went down to Joppa, in order to induce him to go from thence to Caesarea to preach the gospel to Cornelius, the Gentile, he had to have testimony from both the human and divine side, as I have shown in my former speeches. True, it is said of the Church at Jerusalem that they continued in the fellowship and doctrine of the apostlesthat is, they entertained the same doctrinal views and had sympathies in common with the apostles in the work. This does not conflict with the statement I made, that the apostles in the beginning of the work did not realize the full extent of the commission. Peter certainly did not, as I have already said, for the Lord had to give him a vision removing his national prejudices, to prepare him to preach the gospel to Cornelius, the Roman Centurion. That was as great an undertaking for Peter, with his Jewish prejudices, and as grand a sacrifice, as for one today to give up his native land to go to the foreign field to preach the gospel of Christ to the heathen. The disciples at Jerusalem, who were scattered abroad by persecution, had gone everywhere preaching the Word. Some of them went to Antioch and had a great revival. The apostles at Jerusalem sent Barnabas to examine the nature of the work. He reported that the work was blessed and owned of God, though it was a Foreign Mission work among the Gentiles. You see the fire was spreading everywhere. Those burning hearts, filled with life, working for Jesus, constrained by the love of Christ, went everywhere, laboring for the salvation of souls. What was the result? The Gentiles were coming in; the brethren who where sent to see whether the evidence justified the report that came to them reported that the work was of God. What was a farther result? We find Paul and Barnabas sent out by the Church through the Holy Spirit. Gods church is his temple; he dwells in it. They were sent out into Asia Minor to preach the gospel, to tell the glad tidings of salvation. What more or farther? Now, we will read concerning it. We will take this very city we were talking about this morning, and see the results. Why, Corinth was one of the most corrupt cities of that day. It was a city noted for licentiousness as well as for glory and greatnessin fact, it was noted for every sin that the heathen are guilty of today. You remember this morning what I read to you in 1 Cor. vi. 9the description of what they were before Paul went there: 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 such were, it is in the past but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Then in 1 Corinthians 1. 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. Now, here (pointing to the map) I have quoted to you from the very best authors in regard to the fruits in these islands in Oceania, and have shown you how wicked and depraved these men and women were, They were cannibals, they often feasted upon their enemies, they buried their children and enemies alive, they engaged in every thing that was brutal and low. We do not need to show, the Scripture connection between the gospel and Foreign Mission work in the-heathen lands, except to show the identity in spirit and in fruit. History shows that the Church has success just in proportion as it possesses the missionary spirit and manifests it in the work. And in the same proportion as it loses this spirit does it lose power and decrease in growth. When the Church succeeds it shows the missionary spirit. Here (pointing to the Foreign Mission fields on the map) we see the results of the gospel work. They are just the same as the results of the gospel preached by Paul and others at Philippi and Corinth and in all those cities where the gospel secured a hearing in the first century. Hence the fruits are identical. Now, I would like to read a quotation from Harris in his Great Commission, pages 151154. I have not time to read it now, but I will just say, and make it good in my next speech, that in this apostolic period, when the Church depended too much upon worldly things and did not heed spiritual things, as guided by the Holy Spirit, it lost power and became only nominally Christian. But just in the proportion that: the missionary spirit prevailed did the Church prosper.
The gospel was sent to the nations of Northern Europe, and though in this the Church was not as spiritual as we would desire, yet amid all the chaff there were grains of wheat which fell here and there all over that country. The early Church did a good work also in preserving the manuscripts of the New Testament. Then there came the age of darkness, when there were only a few fruitful souls here and there. The life of the Church was not sufficient to carry out the work in sending the word abroad, for it was all that it could do to keep itself alive at home. Then came another great revival. The first impulse of revival life came through Wycliffe, who lived and labored from 100 to 200 years before the Reformation. During these intervening centuries there lived here and there such earnest, active gospel teachers and workers as John Huss, who further developed the already partially revived spiritual life of the Church. But the Roman Catholics crushed out Wycliffe and Huss, and all other leading evangelical spirits in the revival work. Yet the fire was burning and smoldering, until at last it burst out into the glorious Reformation, out of which came our great civilization, which my brother confesses is the fruit of Christianity. Following the Reformation came a season of great apostasy to the Protestant Church. Following this came the great revival of the general religious work of the seventeenth century. Out of this grew the revival of the Church life which gave birth to our present marvelous epoch of the Foreign Mission work. Now, my friends, Brother Potter says he believes in civilization. He believes there are better homes and better society where the Bible is sent than where it is not. Now, if Christianity has given us our civilization, is not the civilization produced among the heathen by the gospel like it? Then they must be identical. Can a man live a pure and beautiful life, the reverse of the corrupt and debased life of the Corinthians, or the reverse of the debased and brutal lives of the heathen in the lands I have called your attention to on the map, without that transformation of character wrought by the influence of the Holy Spirit?
MR. POTTERS THIRTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
The first thing I want to call your attention to is Brother Yates manner of making a wholesale sweep of any thing by an assertion. Now, he is a big man. He insinuates that I do not know much about the history of civilization, and I do the best I can. I would like to know something about it. Why does he not present an author besides himself? Can any of you account for it? Do you know why he made that stroke in telling us the origin of Greek civilization, about my mistake, and that I did not know any better when I took that position? How much better do we know it now? Why, we have Brother Yates word for it, and of course we all believe it. He did not tell us what historian to read. Does he think we can progress very fast? Again, he accuses me of something that I am not guilty of, in comparing the Grecian civilization to the civilization of Christianity, in putting it on a level with it. That is a mistake. I did not do thatbut to show that people were intuitively in favor of education and the elevation of the people, where those people who had the best civilization were willing to give it to others. The history that I read, or that I have read and I do not know what other one to quote; Brother Yates does not tell me what oneinforms us that Egypt continued to pour forth her colonies into Greece to educate them, and to lift them up from a low state of barbarity into a state in which they were; that Athens that great city of learning, the fruits of which are such men as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and others of the great philosopherswas the product of that great colonization. Now, I do not pretend to say that was half as good as the civilization caused by Christianity. but it certainly bettered the situation of the Greeks. Brother Yates will not say that it did not. They were better off after they received that instruction than they were before they received it. He has not questioned that at Mr. Hence it is not education that I am here to oppose, and I must repeat that in every speech. It is not the preaching of the gospel that I am here to oppose, it is not civilization that I am here to oppose, it is not the ennobling of man that I am here to oppose; I am here to oppose that doctrine which says that the preaching of the gospel and a knowledge of the Bible are absolutely essential to salvation. Now, if Brother Yates says it is, there is an issue between us; but if he says it is not, he contradicts the majority of the missionary advocates of today, and goes back on what he has already stated. That is the issue, and what is the use of talking about any thing else? The people understand it, and I would like for him to understand it.
Another thing he said about those martyrs yesterday. He said I said they were Baptists. That is a mistake. I said there was a number of different denominations among them, without him asking me to say it. I admitted all the time that there was a number of different sects pr denominations among them, but that the ministry of the Church, whatever it was, under which, during all the years these martyrs were gathered together, worked anterior to the institution known now as the Foreign Missionary Society. That is what I said. He admits that there were some Baptists among them and I did not ask him to do that. He admits it. I did not say there were none besides Baptists. He said yesterday there were Lutherans and Presbyterians; that is what he said they were. I wanted him to prove it. I do not see how there could be so many Lutherans and Presbyterians so early in the Reformation, because this persecution took place at the beginning of the Reformationso says the book we have both read, and which we agree is good. He said it was the fruit of the Foreign Mission spirit. I want him to prove that. I presume we are to take his word for it. That is the best we have, and we will have to do just the best we can, and that is all. He says again that I told him this morning that he said it would take him six days to prove this proposition. I asked him if he could prove it in a day, and he did not say whether he could or not. I asked him if he tho tight it would take him six days, and he did not say. He wanted to debate it six days. That is what I said this morning. I asked him; I do not say he answered it, and he did not at all. He accused me of saying that he said it would take him six days to prove it. I wanted to know, when it took him four days to define it, how long it would take him to prove it. That is all there is of that. These are merely mistakes. I do not feel disposed to charge them as any thing else but mistakes. I know I am able to make errors. I am not perfect. If any of my brethren think that I am not liable to errors they are mistaken; hut I think they, the Old Baptists, are as far from being mistaken as any others. I may be mistaken in saying on Monday he said the heathen that did the best they could, with the light they had, would be saved. My honest impression is that he said it. I took the note that way at the time, and thought that it was on Monday instead of Thursday. I would not contend a moment for it. He can take it back if he wishes, if he did say so. It is not a question of veracity, or at least I did not understand it so. Now, let us debate. Let us talk about the thing we differ on.
I have another note here. He said the potter spoken of in the 9th chapter of Romans was not God. I want to read a little in the 9th chapter of Romans. Let us read a little from that. Potter and clay are both men, and of course we do not object to reading a little about that. Brother Yates does not object to hearing his name, and I do not. I want to read it also because if he and I are there, then I have the advantage; if not, I can have the advantage of what it teaches, so that in either case the potter has the power over the clay in that text. Sometimes clay needs controlling, needs to know somebody has power over it. We all need that. I am clay as well as potter. Let us notice the 9th chapter of Romans just a moment to see if we can learn any thing from it. Brother Yates and I, if we live to be as old as some men, will have to live a good while, and both of us can learn, perhaps. I could, I think. Now, let us see what this text says, beginning with the 14th verse: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moseswho says to Moses? God. I want a close examination of this textIwho? Godwill have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Now, if those pronouns do not have God for their antecedent, I want Brother Yates to tell us so. I want him to notice that. He is a scholar. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee upIwho? Brother Yates, I want you to be particular on thisthat I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Who is that but God? Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom heGodwill he hardeneth. If that is not right, let Brother Yates tell it. We want to know. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth heGodyet find fault? For who bath resisted hisGodswill? Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Then he brings in the figure of the potter and the clay. The potter represents somebody, and so does the clay. I said that God was represented by the potter in that text. I did not say the potter was God; but I said God was represented by the potter in that figure. Now, if that is not true, then I get the wrong understanding in that connection, and I would love for Brother Yates to tell me how it is. I never heard it contradicted in my life, although I have heard a great many old persons of different denominations, but I never heard it otherwise explained until today. And it is constantly spoken of in that way. I am learning. Perhaps if I were to stay with Brother Yates, I would progress a little. Hath not the potter power over clay of the same lumpnot a lump of clay and a lump of wax, as he illustrated this morning; the same lump of what? of clayto make one vesselwho makes the vessel? Why, the potter does; that is his tradeto make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? Now, has the potter that power? I quoted this text to show his authority; and I stated, when I introduced this text the other evening, that the lump of clay was Adams fallen and ruined race, already sinful, already condemned, already undone; having already forfeited every claim they had upon the Divine Being, by their own wicked actions, they had incurred the divine vengeance of Gods just and holy law, and were exposed to his divine vengeance. That lump of guilty clay God has the right to do as he pleases with. If that is not it, I fail to understand the apostle here. I introduced that to prove that God had a right to do as he pleased.
Now, I want to notice another text to prove that he does have that right with guilty man; has a right to do as he pleases with his own. I call your attention to Matthew xx., beginning at the first of the chapter, and I will read fifteen or sixteen verses: For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and give them their hire, beginning with the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good?
Here the Saviour taught the doctrine that God had a right to do just as he pleased with his own; yet he represents the case here as though the lord of that vineyard had made a distinction between men. He had had some of them work all day for a penny, and some only an hour; and yet he claimed the right to give them all the same wages. Now, if that is not what Brother Yates is complaining about, because God treats man just as he pleases, and condemns the one and saves the other, I do not understand him.
I want to make this illustration: Suppose that each of these two brothers sitting here owed me $50. This man owes me $50, and so does that one. The debts are not connected with each other at all; each man owes his own individual debt, and I have each mans note for $50. They are just debts, contracts of their own; they are men capable of transacting their own affairs. I ask every person in this house, whose property are those notes? Every man says they are mine. Then, I have a right to do as I please with them, if they belong to me. They are my property. Very well, if I see fit I can stick them in the fire and burn them up, or I can take them and give them up to the persons who executed the notes. I can do as I please with them. Is not that true? Yes. Well, if I can do as I please with them, cannot I go to this brother and give him his note, and say, Here, I forgive you the whole debt? Have not I that right? Everybody says, Yes. What difference does that make to this man? He still owes me $50, and I still have his note. Have I a right to do as I please with it now? It does not make his debt any harder to pay because I forgave that one. It does not make him any deeper in debt, and it does not make his debt any the less just. Hence I have a right to go to him and demand that he pay it, so far as right is concerned. Then, I have a right to make a distinction if I want to. It is nobodys business in the world, not even his business, why I forgave that man his debt. But as we are on that subject, and the justice of the matter has been brought up, I want to notice Brother Yates illustration about this that he gave the other day. He illustrated it in this way: That a man sees a couple a children on a railroad track and a train coming, and the man has the power to take them off the track, and takes one away and leaves the other, in order to show his power. At the same time he had the power to save both of them. Brother Yates says that man is a fiend. That is what he says; he is a fiend. If that is true, has God the power to save everybody? Will Brother Yates tell us that God has not the power to save every sinner that lives in the world? Does he save all of them? He must save some of them and leave the others, when he has the power to save all, or else he must save all of them, or else he saves none. Do you see where his illustration goes to? He says if he saves some and not the others, he compares him to a fiend, if he has the power to save all. Does he save any? Does he save all? Has he the power?
I want to notice Brother Yates beautiful arguments against the doctrine of election and predestination; his idea about justice, his idea about right, his idea about the character of the Divine Being. He does not believe that God saves all the race. No, sir. But be believes that he saves some of them. Yes. Did he not have the power to save all of them? Yes. Then, what is he like? Why, he is like Brother Yates man, according to his own doctrine. He had the power. Let us not get in a hurry. I do not know but what Brother Yates is a Universalist, and he cannot get out of it in that way. He had me accused of having an article in his Confession of Faith that was not there, and he acknowledged that he was mistaken, and that it was there.
MR. YATES: It was a quotation.
MR. POTTER: Yes, a quotation. I showed him his mistake, and that was all right; he acknowledged it, and before I showed it to him he was in such a hurry that he committed himself on it. First, he said if it was there the brethren in getting tip the Confession, he presumed, had made a mistake in getting that textit was not the text they aimed to get. Next, he said on that text that it proved Universalism. That is what he said. Why? Because the Saviour said, And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me. That is the text our Cumberland brethren have selected to prove the work of the Holy Spirit in teaching men their need of salvation and their lost estate, and inclining them to come to Christ. Hence I selected that as the one that he called on me for. Remember, now, that he had called on me just to produce one text to prove the salvation of anybody without the gospel, without truth, and I did not have it to do, because his brethren had already selected it, and I simply cited him to it, and that was it; and he said it proved Universalism. Now he admits it was a Presbyterian text, selected for that purpose. Now, what have we? A Universalist? That is better than the doctrine he was preaching this morning; infinitely better than the damning of all the heathen where the gospel does not go. That is the biggest jump I have seen a man take for a long time. It reminds me of an Irishman who was going to get on a steamboat. It was shoving off just as he was coming to it, and he ran and attempted to jump on, but it had moved out, so he made a big jump and fell. He scratched around awhile and then got up, rubbed his head, and looked at the boat, which was then a hundred yards from the bank, and said, No wonder I fell, jumping that far. A long jump. Now, a man making such jumps as that is likely to meet with some misfortunes, but Brother Yates did it. He said it was Universalism. It was the text that I introduced to prove that people were saved where there was no gospel. I introduced that text especially because the Cumberlands had cited it in their Confession of Faith to prove that people would be saved where there was no gospelthat is, without means directly, and without means. Now, if I had made a mistake, had cited the wrong verse, Universalism would have been saddled on me by Brother Yates: but as I did not make the mistake, and it was his, the saddle fits him the best, and as he has put it on I propose to help him buckle the girth, and he must wear it, and any man that wants to ride a Universalist colt from here can just ride him. Does that text teach Universalist doctrine? Brother Yates says it does. It is selected by him and his brethren to prove their doctrine. Now, he had better just simply take all that back. There is one honorable way to get out of difficulties, but human pride will not allow men to take that way every time. That way is just simply to back out. Everybody does not like to do that. He had better.
He says I accused the Confession of contradicting itself. Well, he is mistaken. The Confession does not contradict itself that I know of, but Brother Yates contradicts the Confession. That is what I was arguing. Let us see whether it does or not. I do not want people to take my word for it, but I want them to be their own judges. I am here to talk to intelligent people who are as capable as I am of judging matters, and many of them more so. I put the question to Brother Yates for two days, in every speech almost, in this house, asking him if he believed that the missionaries in the foreign fields would be the means and instrumentalities of the salvation of souls that would not he saved without them. He finally, yesterday evening, said, Yes; they are the means and instrumentalities in the salvation of souls that must sink down to hell if the missionaries do not get there. And in addition to that he turned to me and challenged me to prove the salvation of a solitary individual without the truth. Now, put the two together, and he does not only say that souls have been saved by missionaries that would not have been saved without them, but he positively says that no person is saved without them, challenging me to find a case. There he and the Confession differ. The contradiction is between Brother Yates and the Confession, not in the Confession at all. Now, let us see again how this Confession does read. I do not want to read any thing only what is here; but what is here I want to read. It was published for that; was it not, brethren? These books were published for good, to teach and instruct, and if the people do not know what is in them, they are published for them to learn: 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. Brother Yates has been arguing the whole week that every man means the whole race. Take this definition of every man, and we have a manifestation of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed to all the race by the God of heaven, not on conditions, but unconditionally, and just as truly as Jesus died for them. That is what the Confession says. I did not make this. It is a tolerably respectable document, and I have nothing to say against it. Now, I will read the next section: The Holy Spirit, operating through the written wordand you will remember that I admitted this morning, for the present, that that may be the present means. I admitted that. That is all Brother Yates claimsthat the preaching or reading of the Bible is Gods ordinary means through which to operate with his Holy Spirit. That is all out Presbyterian brethren claim. But in addition to that, this teaches and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose, or directly without means. Without means, without the Bible, without the gospel, or any other means, for it says, without means. Well, what does it do, then, without means? So moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin and of their lost estate, and their need of salvation, and by so doing incline them to come to Christ. That is good, that is wholesome.
MR. YATES FOURTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I am glad my Brother Potter keeps in such good humor. It does me good when he gets up a laugh, but he is like a gentleman I have heard ofhe can make more lather with a small piece of soap than any man I ever saw. I will give him credit for that. And out of that little mistake of mine he made great capital! If that proves the only mistake I shall make in life it will be a small one. If he had made no worse mistakes than that during this discussion, it would be a happy thing for him. I am glad he is so sympathetic. He says he admits that the gospel is the ordinary means in the work of salvation. I do not suppose he has ever read our Confession of Faith in his life before. I will give him a copy; I will, honestly, if he will read it after this thing is over. He has admitted all I asked him. Let us quote the proposition again: Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in the Scriptures, and blessed and owned of Godauthorized in the Scriptures, not in the Confession of Faith, nor Campbell & Rices Debate, but in the Scriptures. He has read, time and again, that we accept the use of ordinary means, and I have asked him over and over to show me a single place where there were any converts to this religion in nineteen centuries where the gospel was not preached.
Brother James, as I understood him, said this: I do not think Brother Potter ought to call me a Campbellite, for he has the loan of my double-barreled shotgun and silver-mounted revolver to fight his opponent with. in this he referred to some of the books Brother Potter has been using.
And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me. He says that is Universalism. He knows how we teach on that. In regard to the 9th chapter of Romans, the potter spoken of there, he says, is God. I do not deny that interpretation. I deny what he claims is there taught in regard to Gods shaping the destiny of men. As I showed in my last speech, this figure of the potter and day was employed by the apostle to represent Gods dealings with the Gentiles who had accepted Christ, and the Hebrews as a people who had rejected him. I showed that God in his divine government requires of man, as his moral subject, to conform to his ideal of character, in order to be an honored and favored vessel of his. I showed that the dishonored vessels, formed of the lump of clay, represented the Jews as a body who rejected Christ, Gods ideal of character actualized. I showed that as the potter must have respect to the condition of the clay, in order to shape the vessel according to the ideal designedas the vessel would be marred in the hands of the potter, and hence be unfitted for the service intended, if the clay was not in a proper stateso God, in shaping human character by the forces of his divine providence as a moral Sovereign, must have respect to the attitude of men toward him as moral agents.
I showed from the prophecy of Jeremiah that the Jews, as individuals and as a nation, marred their own character and destiny in the hands of the Divine Potter by their own willful course in sin. I showed also, from both the prophecy of Jeremiah and Pauls second letter to Timothy, that it was the privilege of those who had already become dishonored vessels to repent and be changed to honored vessels of the Lord. This proves that the election, which makes individuals spiritual vessels of honor or dishonor, depends not upon the absolute choice from eternity by the sovereign will of God alone, but also upon the moral choice of the individual. This honors the dignity of the human will, and emphasizes the greatness of individual responsibility and the great trust committed to the Christian Church in the worlds evangelization.
He says I ought not to quote Proverbs against him, for he believes in human responsibility. It seems so from that beautiful illustration about the debt. What have I got to do with the debt when I am dead in Adam and cannot do any thingwhen the sheep are all elected from eternity? Talk about rue making a debt! I cannot make a debt; God has made it for me. How sympathetic he is! He says I am in a hard place. I am so dull I cannot see it. That is the only trouble. Jesus said, Go; Brother Potter says, Stay. How many men of his Church have gone to the foreign field? Has he gone? He says he will measure miles with any man. Are we talking about measuring miles? We are talking about going to the heathen. Jesus, just before his ascension, with uplifted handsin which were still the prints of the spikes that fastened them to the crosssaid to the apostles, Go, preach the gospel to every creature. I have given proof-text after proof-text. Brother Potter said he did not want a volume, but I thought I would give him text upon text like hot shot from a Gatling gun. I have shown the gospel fruits of missionary efforts in the work of evangelizing the world? What has he shown? I have shown a perfect identity between the gospel work of the primitive Church and the Foreign Mission work of today. But he says they had no Boards then. That was an argument, wasnt it? He said I would have to prove they would not have been saved without the missionaries. What evidence has he that God blesses the Regular Baptist Church? What evidence has he that anybody was ever brought in by the Lord? Suppose I were to demand that he should prove that this could have been done without the gospel, what evidence, according to such logic as that, has any Church that it ever did any good? He says there were no Boards behind the laborers of the primitive Church. This objection is groundless. The Church in the apostolic age sent forth its laborers into the Gentile countries. So the Church today sends forth its laborers into the foreign field. The Church of the first century employed such measures and means as were best adapted to advance its work in that day among the Gentiles. So the Church today, through its mission hoards, is employing the best means and methods for the propagation of the gospel in heathen lands.
A word in regard to what my brother says about Grecian civilization. If he will get Appletons or Johnsons Cyclopedia he will find that Cecrops, whom he talks about, was a legendary character of Greece, and that Nimrod was never regarded as the founder of the civilization of Egypt. I do not want to hurt his feelings, but I do claimthough I do not claim to be a great manthat when I quote books I do know what they mean. Did I not show that Foreign Mission work is the very basal idea of the gospel? You know how Brother Potter treated the passages which I quoted as proof-texts in favor of mission work. I repeat some of them: 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. It is more blessed to give than to receive. If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. Will that do for a missionary text? What was Christs mind but to seek and save the lost? As the Father sent him, so Jesus sends us. His command is, Go, and I will go with you. Ah! my brother cannot get out of his dilemma. The passages of Scripture which I have just quoted place Jesus he-fore you as a model missionary. I have given the testimony here of authority after authority proving the abundant gospel fruits of the Foreign Mission work on the foreign field. I have presented passage after passage from the Word of God showing the object of the Foreign Mission work and the end it is designed to subserve. I quoted Acts xxvi. 17, is, the commission given to Paul, and showed that that was Foreign Mission work. I quoted the words of the intercessory prayer, in which Jesus says to the Father, As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. I showed you that in the gospel Church, guided by the Spirit of the living God, Paul and Barnabas were set apart to the missionary work. That is just the way our missionaries are set apart. Paul and Barnabas were selected by the Holy Spirit; they felt the call; the Church was impressed to send them. They preached the gospel to the needy and degraded heathen, just as our men are doing today. The work was just the same, my friends, and it produced the same fruits. The early gospel work and Foreign Mission work are identical.
I want to notice his proof-text, that excellent proof-text that he has given usMatthew xx. Now, he says God has a right to do just as he pleases about saving men. I am going right to the Scripture, he says that God can do as he pleases, and has a right to save his own, and will do just as he pleases in the salvation of souls. We will turn to this 20th chapter of Matthew and see what it means. I have another passage to put right over against it. If the doctrine is taught in this. Scripture that my worthy opponent claimed in his exposition and application of it, it will harmonize with the teaching of the other parts of the Bible: For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. A gain he went out about the sixth hour and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the clay idle? They say unto him, because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall he receive. So when the even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his reward, Call the laborers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, saying. These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for, a penny? Is that a parallel to the atonement? Those were servants of the Lord. If you did not keep telling these people, time and again, that I have failed they would never notice it. He says he is three speeches ahead of me, but he has not noticed one-half of my proof-texts. These laborers represent the servants of Christ, both the Jews and Gentiles. The Saviour in this parable is teaching his prerogative in rewarding his servants for their work, not in pardoning and justifying souls. In rewarding the labors of his servants he does as he pleases, but he does not save or damn men arbitrarily. Hear the Masters own language in regard to this, Matthew xxiii. 13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men,he said man could not do thatfor ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. They stood back themselves, and kept others out. Now what about this Scripture? If my brother can explain this, I want him to do it. He finds fault about my defining the proposition. I just want to say a word here. I think these moderators will remember that I asked him if he did not understand the words owned and blessed of God to mean the regeneration of the heathen by God, through the Foreign Mission work? And he said he did not.
I tried to get him to take a stand in personal conversation with me, and he would not do it. He knows that. That is the reason I wanted it defined. He tells you here that I would not define it, and he did not understand my proposition for four days.
But we will go on with the argument. I want to notice some things here that are of importance to us. I have presented you a line of argument which I want to call your attention to. I have shown that the gospel work of the New Testament and the work of Foreign Missions are founded on the same principles, and that they are therefore identical. These principles arc faith and love and loyalty. The great motive-power that moved Christ was the compassionate love for suffering humanity, and I have shown that this is the very heart of the Foreign Mission work. This work is based upon the principle of the unity of the human race, and that is the reason why all men everywhere are called upon to repent. Brother Potter did not offer to answer these proof-texts, and yet he comes out boldly and advocates election. He has acknowledged that the word is the ordinary means through which men are saved. So then he has given up the question.
He says he believes in civilization. Then, why does he not con tribute to it ? Why does he not do something for it? If Gods elect are being brought out in heathen lands by the gospel, why has he not a hand in the work? Did not he acknowledge to me that the Bible gives a better civilization than any other? Then the civilization he enjoys today is the result of Foreign Missions. When Paul crossed the Aegean Sea, heeding the voice which said, Come over and help us, that was Foreign Mission work. The Holy Spirit said to the youthful Church, send laborers to the foreign field; and the Church obeyed. So the Church today is heeding the dictates of the Holy Spirit in sending laborers to - the heathen lands to preach the gospel. I have shown, time and again, that Boards are only instrumentalities of the Church. But we are not discussing Boards now. I have shown further that this grand work has always been adapted to the circumstances of the times when the work was done. According to Brother Potters logic there is not a Presbyterian who has any fruit in gospel work. He believes every denomination but his own is in error. To establish what he claims for his Church, he must prove a Church succession clear back to the apostles. There are evidences showing that God owns and blesses the Foreign Mission work, and that it is of Godthat God has been with us. This is proved by the fact that we have been prospered, and that there are more converts to Christ in the foreign field today, in proportion to the laborers engaged, than we have in our home work. The last nineteen centuriesthe unfolding years from the origin of Christianity to the present timeare but one grand, gleaming chain of evidence demonstrating the fact that Foreign Mission work is blessed and owned of God. I will read now a quotation from Harris Great Commission, page 151, in support of this fact: It was not until the eighteenth century that the era of Protestant missions can be said to have commenced. Not, indeed, that the missionary spirit had slumbered in the Church from the apostolic age until then. Every intermediate century had witnessed the diffusion of at least nominal Christianity, although as early as the third century the original impulse given to the progress of the gospel had evidently declined; in the fourth we find Christianity existing in Persia, become general in Armenia, where it had been introduced as early, probably, as the second century; carried from Armenia into Iberia; rapidly spreading throughout Ethiopia, whither it had been conveyed by Frumentius; and published about the year 350 by Theophilus, at the instance of Constantine, in the south of Arabia. In 314 we find bishops from Britain present at the Synod of Aries. How much earlier the gospel had entered Britain it is impossible to state. Probably, as Gretser suggests, it was brought from Gaul early in the second century. Through the instrumentality of Ulphilas the Visigoths now embraced Christianity, and to him they were indebted also for an alphabet and a translation of the Bible. The Goths had probably received the gospel in the century preceding, for in the early part of this century we find a Gothic bishop at the Council of Nice. Now you can see how this gospel is spreading. The word mission means to send; it does not matter about the means if God is with it. The fifth century was signalized by the nominal conversion of several of the German nations. In 432 Patricius, a Scotsman, induced the Irish to embrace Christianity, and in 496 the Francks assumed the Christian name and induced the Alemanni to follow their example. In the sixth century Christianity was professedly embraced by many of the barbarous nations bordering on the Euxine Sea, and was more widely diffused among the Gauls. From about the year 565 to 599 the Irish monk Columba labored with considerable success among the Picts, and in 596 Augustin succeeded in converting Ethelhert to the profession of the Christian faith, whose example was immediately followed by his Anglo-Saxon subjects in Kent and soon after by the other Anglo-Saxon kings of England. Ecclesiastical missionaries from England, Scotland and Ireland carried the gospel, in the seventh century, to Bavaria, Belgium, and several of the German nations. Traces of its extensive propagation by the Nestorian Christians of Syria, Persia and India, are also to be found, at this period, in the remotest regions of Asia; and, if the Monumentum Syro-Syriacum is genuine, it obtained a footing in China about the year 636. Tartary, parts of Germany, Friesland, and Saxony, were the principal additions to the domains of Christendom in the eighth century. In the ninth, Denmark and Sweden, Bulgaria and Moravia, professed subjection to the faith, as well as parts of Slavonia and Russia. From Moravia the gospel was carried into Bohemia. In the tenth century the rays of Christian light began to enter Poland. In Hungary Christianity was made a national religion by a royal decree; and in Norway, where it had been first introduced from England, it was imposed by the severest measures. From Norway it was carried into Iceland, the Faroe and Shetland Islands, and even to Greenland.
As I said, I do not claim that in this propagation of the gospel, the work was all as spiritual as it should have been. A great deal of it is nominal, and means were used that I would not endorse, but that was just as true of Israel in the Old Dispensation. Some very bad men presided over Israel under the Theocracy. They used means that we would not endorse. When such means were used they injured Gods people. The same was true in the propagation of the gospel by the Church in some of the centuries past. If Christianity was ritualistic the spirit would be ritualistic, and if it was spiritual, it was where the work was carried out according to the missionary principles of today, and it was only where the gospel laborers were pious and de voted that the Church dispensed its greatest blessings
The eleventh century saw a Christianity established as the national religion of Russia, and records its wider diffusion in the East. Conquest and conversion had now come to mean nearly the same thing just what I have been speaking of and hence, in the twelfth century, the political subjugation of Pomerania was followed by its nominal subjection to the Christian faith; the Island of Rugen, long the stronghold of heathenism, was subdued and its inhabitants baptized; and the conquered Fins were compelled to submit to the same rite. You see those were means that we do not endorse today. The nominal Church was still further enlarged in the thirteenth century by the forced sub mission of Prussia, Livonia, and many of the northern provinces, as well as by the recovery of portions of the Saracenic Territories in Spain. The fourteenth century was marked by the professed conversion of the Lithuanians, one of the last of the heathen nations of Europe which embraced Christianity; while the fifteenth was indelibly stained by the forced subjection of parts of the newly-discovered hemisphere.
Here is what Mr. Harris himself says: It is historically true, indeed, that many of the agents employed from century to century in this wide diffusion of the gospel, were men whose wisdom, piety, and zeal would have adorned the apostolic age; but it is notoriously known that its principal instrumentality consisted of worldly policy and martial power, and consequently that its immediate results were only territorial aggrandizement and nominal submission. Accordingly, as many of these conquests had been made by the sword, by the sword many of them were subsequently lost. Civilization itself, at one period, suffered a decline. Ages of darkness rolled over the Church, until Christendom, so far from being in a capacity to convert the world, stood itself in the most urgent need of substantial conversion. That glorious change, of which the signs and means had long been gathering, was the great event of the century of which we are now speaking. Then he goes on to say, in speaking of the revival of Christian missions, in language which I have quoted in a former speech, that this revival commenced in its spiritual form in the 16th century, coming out in its great work in 1792. I do not want to be misunderstood upon this point. You understand what I say, that the work was missionary in the sense I have described it, and wherever the Church has violated the principles and spirit that were manifested in the first century of the Christian work, which I have shown are the same as the principles and spirit of the Foreign Mission work of today, it has failed. Christian workers who have failed to depend upon the energizing, quickening, and guiding power of the Holy Spirit, have always failed. But there was a reaction in the Reformation, and the Roman Catholics were pressing their work forward and throwing their influence out upon the world, and the leaders of the Protestant Church saw that they had to depend upon something else instead of statesmen for strength. Protestants went down on their knees to the Lord, and then came the great baptism of the Holy Spirit that swept like a great tidal wave over Ireland, Scotland, Germany, England, and France. Then came the bugle note that echoed and re-echoed from our own land, and then went forth the great army to the foreign field. The Church has always prospered in proportion as it has taken upon its heart suffering humanity for the sake of Jesus and the brotherhood of mankind.
Now, just a word or two as evidence in the further advancement of my argument. I call attention to the argument that every Church that has the Foreign Mission spirit and takes up the work prospers. That is an evidence that this work is blessed and owned of God. You know it is said that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and the idea in Proverbs on that is, that it impoverishes us to withhold, and blesses and energizes us to give. That is the way it is in nature and in the Christian work. I do not belong to the Methodist Church, but I say, without fear of successful contradiction, that that Church was born of the Foreign Mission spirit. Take the Missionary Baptists; they were few in number until sixty years -ago. They are now over two millions strong in the United States. Theirs is one of the foremost denominations in missionary work. They stand in the front rank. Their institutions flourish in every State from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the results of their work are seen in the Islands of the Sea and everywhere on the globe. My brother says I bring up missionary authority. I want to say that the man I quoted got a prize on his book and Brother Potter dares not say he is not honest. These facts are just as the Rev. John Harris tells them. Where can Brother Potter show a first-class author who is opposed to missions? There may be such authors, but I do not know of one. Look at the growth of the Missionary Baptist Church, and of the Presbyterian Church, and of all Churches engaged in this mission work! I do not say this to reflect on my brethren that differ from me, nor to please those who agree with me. I say a man or a woman may possess the spirit of Christ and not enthusiastically engage in the Foreign Mission cause; but it dwarfs their souls and limits their usefulness. He acknowledges mans responsibility and that he may blunder. This I believe to be true of our anti-mission brethren in their attitude to the Foreign Mission work. Put an acorn in a flower-pot, and water it until it begins to grow, and put a glass over it sufficiently strong to keep it from sending out its branches, and it will make a little dwarfed oak, with diminutive, acorns. But if you drop an acorn into the black soil, where the sunshine of heaven can flood it without an invitation, and where the rain can freely pour down upon it, and where it can have free access to draw its nutriment from the earth beneath and the heavens above, it will grow up and spread, and will become a grand oak that waves its giant form in the breeze. This is a true picture of the contrast between the growth and progressive development of the Churches which engage in the Foreign Mission work and those which do not.
Brother Potter has admitted that it is one of the grandest works he knows of, though he has not admitted that it is blessed and owned of God. He admits it is grand. Then, if it is, why does he not do something for it? I have shown beyond a doubt that it is authorized in the New Testament, and blessed and owned of God. The home Church needs the blessing as well as the foreign field. Let me make an illustration: Suppose you could see those poor mothers up in India and in the land of Islam, and those other countries where women are shut up and excluded from all privileges. A woman is not allowed to speak to any man except her lord and master. Mothers are looked down upon by their own boys, who insult them. In India and China a woman never has a kind word spoken to her, and as a wife or mother she has to eat last, sitting down on a mat of corded felt. She can have no communication with the outside world. She is kept in ignorance, and is subject to the passions of her degraded lord. And think of those child marriages. A little girl is taken from her mother and sold to the parents of a boy over yonder, and taken home, there to become a slave. She knows nothing of the man she has to marry until a certain time, and then is put into his hands. Then think of the gospel going there and reaching thousands of those women. Think of the gospel of the Son of God breaking up those castes and transforming those homes. Let me tell you how the women are reached. The heathen are very much prejudiced against women. They think, especially in India, that when a woman dies she goes into a cow or some other animal. She has no soul. A man wont speak about his wife, and if you name the name of his wife or daughter it is an insult. The missionaries went there, but could not get into their homes. One day a missionarys wife was embroidering a shoe, and one of the rich Brahmans came by, and looking at her work, it struck his fancy, and he said, Teach me that. She said, I will, if you will permit me to show your wives how to do it. He said he would not do that, and went off. But she knew he would come back again. He came back, and consented to let her teach his wives how to embroider. She was a long time teaching them, and while doing so she was all the time dropping the words of the gospel into their hearts. These women may have all been elected from eternity. I do not know; but I believe they at least became members of Gods elect family, When the man saw the change he asked what it meant, and the women tremblingly told him that this woman had taught them these things, and that they had begun to love Jesus and trust in him. The missionary woman trembled for them, but at last he came, and said, Tell me about Christ. This has not been over twenty-five or thirty years ago. The result was he found the Saviour and trusted in him, and so the work spread, and now the result is that there are twelve thousand such homes as this open today to receive the gospel. The women are crying, Come over and help us.
I thank you.
MR. POTTERS FOURTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES AND KIND GENTLEMEN:
There are one or two notes that I took down in Brother Yates first speech this evening that I did not get to while I was up before, that I wish to notice. He tells us this evening that he is very far from believing that all the heathen are rolled into hell, or else I misunderstood him. That is what he tells us this evening very far from believing that all heathen are lost. That is all I want to say about that at present.
Then he accused me of speaking about the gospel being shot into the people. I was talking about civilization being shot into them. What was it that civilized them? The gospel? What was the agentthe gospel or the army?powder and lead? And I took his own words that he has repeated here several times during the discussion, that in some places, when the missionaries went there, they were expelled from the country and not allowed to preach. The account that he read concerning Madagascar seems to give the idea that there were eight years during which there was a suspension of missionary labor, until the army from England and France had come, and war occurred. Then, after that, the missionary operations went on. That seems to he the account given that I spoke of. That is all I want to say about it.
Then he says I have admitted all that he has said.
And he does not seem to notice the difference between an admission for the present, for arguments sake, and making a final admission. I said, admit for arguments sakefor a moment, for the presentthat the Word was the original means, and that did not reach the point at issue between us. Admit that it is so, and it does not reach the point at issue between us, from the very fact that he has been challenging me to show one instance of the conversion and salvation of a soul without the truth, without this medium. That is what he has been challenging me to show. He comes up, however, this evening, and admits that there are such cases, and perhaps he could show them about as easily as I could. To pick out the name of the man, and tell where he lives in the world, I am not able to do; but I know from the teaching of the Cumberland Confession of Faith that there is bound to be such cases. I am not falling out with Presbyterians on that account. There are a great many things in this world that are called religion that I do not think there is any religion in, and which ought not to be called religion. I do not think every thing that is good ought to have the name of Jesus to it, and I not think that every thing that has the name of Jesus in it should be upheld.
I am able to prove that the Missionary Baptists stood just where I stand now. I am able to prove they held the doctrine of election, predestination, limited atonement, and that all that Christ died for would he saved, and that they denied and fought universal atonement and conditional salvation, and not only that, but that they denied that the gospel contained any conditional offers of salvation at all. The book that I have to prove that is open to Brother Yates inspection. If he wants me to prove by that book that there is where they stood, I will do it to-morrow. It is there. They blame us for not going with them into missionary labor. Why, what is the difference? It was not because we did not think the gospel was a good thing. It was not because we did not think influence of the Bible was good. It was not because we opposed civilization. It was not because we were opposed to education. It was not because we took pride in the thought of the condition of those superstitious heathen. That was not it; but they put something into that word we could not endorse. They limited the salvation of God to their labors, just like Brother Yates has. They made the eternal destiny of those nations to hang upon their getting there with the gospel, and therefore we could not endorse it. That is the reason we do not contribute to it. It would be a sin for us to do that. I do not believe they are the means of the salvation of a single one that would not have been saved without it. Brother Yates says himself, in speaking of that convert over there, he might have been an elect. Yes, he may, and I am satisfied that he was; if regenerated and saved, he was. Brother Yates did not know whether he was or not, and says himself he may have been.
Now about Brother James. Brother James and I are acquainted; we do not live more than about three or four miles apart. I will tell you, I am going to pay Brother James for the use of his book. I am very much obliged to him for it, and when I get Brother Yates thoroughly converted to your belief, in the operation of the Spirit, I will give him to you for the use of the book.
MR. YATES: I am elected; that is all right.
MR. POTTER: I presume Brother James and I understand each other. The proposition defined. I just want to state that it is the affirmants place, himself, to define his own proposition. He writes it out and agrees to affirm it; he ought to know what it means himself, ought to be ready to define it just exactly as he means it. If it did not read just as he wanted it, he ought to get it just as he wants it. When a man sets down coolly; and I suppose Brother Yates did thatbut I thought when I read the challenge that he might not be as cool as a cucumber. However, the challenge has never been revised since its publication in the Gibson County Leader, and of course he ought to have known what Brother Yates meant, in Brother Yates own language, so that Brother Yates could define it when we met. The rule requires that. It was not my place to define it at all. It was nobodys but his. He did not do it till yesterday. That is the reason we have not been debating. We had no proposition that we understood.
He thinks that if his witnesses are honest they are good authority. That is not true every time. It is not true every time that if a witness is honest he is good authority, from the very fact that prejudice is one of the most blinding things we have to contend with prejudice for or against a thing. It occurs to rue that I have seen men in whom I have had such implicit confidence that I would have been willing to risk my life in their care, so far as honesty and integrity were concerned, but when you touch the point in which they were biased, I would not have risked them very far, for their prejudice controlled them. So that is the objection I have to all of his witnesses being missionary witnesses. A man, when giving his own case, sometimes is liable to exaggeration. He is liable to make it better than it really is. If testifying, for or against a party, he is liable to leave out the worst or best. A cross-examination is necessary in a case of that kind, so much so that when you want to get the deposition of a witness to take off into another country or send into court, both the attorneys must be present when that deposition is takenthe attorneys of both sides. Why? Because of prejudice, not because the witness is not honest. That is not the reason, but because of prejudice. I do not attribute dishonesty to any of these missionaries, or anybody else, unless they prove themselves to be dishonest.
Now I propose to notice a few scriptural reasons why I do not believe the proposition. It is not my business to do that, but I have a right to do it. I happen to be on the unpopular side of the mission question. That makes no difference to me, for I have the Bible on my side. When a man goes to teach any thing to me that contradicts the Bible, or is contradictory to the understanding of a large majority of Christendom, from the introduction of the Bible until now, even if it is on the popular side, that is no reason why I should get on that side. I know that popular opinion was quoted here the first day, and because I argued that popular opinion was not always right, Brother Yates accused me of accusing them of being Christ-killers. Popular opinion is not always right, but the Bible is right if they are all wrong. Will anybody be saved? What does God say about it? I call your attention to Isaiah liii. 1012: Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he bath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall he satisfied by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Here is the prophet talking of Jesus, and he speaks of two or three things that I wish to notice. One is that Jesus Christ shall see his seed. He shall see them. I give this quotation in harmony with those I gave the other evening, where the Lord said, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. I give it also in harmony with the text in Psalm xxii: A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. Notice, here is a positive, unconditional promise of God. A seed shall henot may beprovided; not, shall have an opportunity, but A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. Now, talking about that seed; the God of heaven, by the Prophet Isaiah, speaking some seven hundred years and upward before the coining of Christ into the world, of the suffering of Christ, says: It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief. Why? Is it much pleasure to the Lord to send his Son into the world and put him to grief for the accomplishment of a purpose, when the purpose is certain not to be accomplished? And God knew it. Would that be much pleasure to him? Well, then, why did it please him to bruise him? For this reason: When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed; he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. That is why. That is why it pleased the Lord to bruise him, because there were glorious results going to be brought about; he was going to see his seed. Where are they? They are scattered over the earth, among all the inhabitants of the earth, and he is going to bring them in, and he shall see them, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand that is, in the hand of Jesus, not in the hands of ministers or of any other mediator. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. The doctrine that my brother presents here today makes it necessary for there to be another one. Everybody can see thatthat it makes it absolutely necessary for the salvation of men for there to he another mediator. God says there is only one; Jesus Christ is that one, and not only is he the only one, but God says in this text, The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. No failure. I do not worship a God that tries to do things and cannot. I do not worship a God that does not know what he is about. I do not serve a God that has any purposes or plans the results of which he does not know. I do not serve a God that, when he does know the results of his plans for which he made them will never be brought about, will trust in them. I do not serve a God who will invent a plan for the salvation of his people that he knows will fail and never save them. Hence, salvation is in Christ, and not only that, but this text says, and I want to impress it upon the mind of every person here, The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. What is the pleasure of the Lord? He is talking about the salvation of his people; talking about the salvation of his seed, talking about the gathering of them in. Does he tell the truth when he says the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand? Not according to the position that has been taken by my brother in this discussion, or else God does not please to save very manyone or the other.
Another point is, He shall see of the travail of his soul. He shall see the fruits, the result of the travail of his soul. That is what Jesus shall see. He shall see that for which he died. He shall see that glorious result brought about. His blood is not shed for nothing. His blood cleanses from sin; it does away with sin; it removes guilt, and the obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to that man whose sins he atoned for, and he becomes justified. Docs not the text say, By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many. Will these justified people go to hell? What for? Turn to Romans v. 8: But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Now, that is just as true in the case of one he died for as another. It is just as true in the case of those heathen he died for as it is in the case of those here. It is just as true in the case of the most unfavored of earth as it is in the case of the highly favored, that he loved us, and that God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. What is the result of that death? The apostle says in the next verse: Much more then, being now justified by his bloodjustified how? By his blood. By whose blood? Christswe shall be saved from wrath through him. Justified by his blood; then, after being justified by his blood, sent to hell? What do you think about it? Sent to hell unless the preacher comes and preaches to you after you are justified! Remember, that justification has already taken place. Then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved. Not, are saved, but shall be. That text is just as positive that those people shall be saved as that they have been justified by the blood of Christ. Who has a right to say it does not reach anywhere only where the gospel is? Let us go back to the text here, He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. What will it take to satisfy Jesus? What is required to give that satisfaction to Jesus Christ? That hundreds, and thousands, and millions of those that he has redeemed sink down to hell? No, sir; if one of them goes there he is not satisfied. In that case he does not sec of the travail of his soul. What will satisfy him? The eternal happiness and housing in heaven of all of his ransomed.
Now, I want to give you another textIsaiah xxxv. 10. Christ redeemed somebody. Everybody admits that. Well, Isaiah, what do you say about it? The Lord, by the Prophet Isaiah, says: And the ransomed of the Lord shall returnI say so too, whoever they are, and wherever they may beand come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. They are out yonder in that strayed condition into which they have gone, as the prophet says in Isaiah liii. 6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. And in the 52d chapter of the same prophecy, he says: And the redeemed of the Lord shall return. He does not hang this upon the contingency of the human will or action of individual men in the world. He has not given this important work into the hands of the minister; he has not given it into the hands of the Church; he has not given it into the hands of another man. It is in the hands of Jesus Christ. He came to do the will of the Father, and in speaking of him one of the prophets says, He shall fulfill all my will, Who shall? Jesus Christ. How does that sound by the side of this doctrine that challenges me or any other man to show a single soul saved without he be preached to? What is the Bible worth more than last years almanac, only for what is in it? I love that Book. Now, because we believe those things. that the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and we arc not uneasy about it and say so, and that it does not depend upon Foreign Mission work, this .debate had to take place. I do not object to this debate. I have been glad all the time, ever since the arrangements were made, that it was coming off.
Then one of the objections I have to the doctrine of Foreign Missions for the salvation of the heathen is because it contradicts the Bible: it contradicts what God says. God says they shall be. brought in, and the mission work says they shall not unless we send the gospel to them. Brother Yates said in a letter to me during our correspondence that he was able, when fifteen years of age, to have successfully answered every objection I could have had to the Foreign Mission work in fifteen minutes. I have thought since this work commenced that Brother Yates was smarter when fifteen than he is now. He was a very smart boy, and a smart enough man.
I want to give you another text or two. I have not got them all noted down, but if I can think and locate them, I want to give them to you. Notice this text, and all in connection with this text, says, He shall see his seed. Now there is another thing couched in this text, and I want to give it to von. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many. Why? Why shall he? I want everybody to notice. Why shall he justify anybody? For he shall bear their iniquities. What is the cause of their justification? Jesus hearing their iniquities. Did he hear their iniquities? Yes. Well, then, if that is the cause of their justification, tell me how those justified people are going to sink down to hell? Upon what principle? What do they lack of being ready to come before God in a justified and unblamable state? Now, Brother Yates intimates that I am in good hands and have help and assistance. It may be that I have. If it is true, it must be because I have a great deal the smartest, because he has the most of it. That is giving Brother Lampton good credit; I am sure his presence here does me a great deal of good. So far as God is concerned, and his ways are concerned, and so far as his plan of salvation is concerned, there are no failures in it. Brother Yates represented me yesterday as saying God had made two laws and given them to Israel, and he denied it. His own Confession of Faith speaks of two covenants. I speak of two covenants and they are in his Confession of Faith. What was the first covenant? It was the covenant of works, conditional covenant. That is what the Presbyterians teach, and that is what I said. What was the second covenant? Of works? No, sir; of grace. These two covenants\are frequently embraced in one text in such cases as this: For the wages of sin is death, that is the covenant of works. But the gift of God,not wages, not compensation for service rendered or performed; it is a gift the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Then, I say that all faults, and ills, and debts, and temptations that we are liable to are contracted by our own wicked works, while that which entitles us to heaven is grace. It comes in the new covenant. It comes in the covenant of grace.
Let us notice one more text in which these two covenants are both embodied: The law was given by Mosesthat was the covenant of worksbut grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. That is the covenant of grace. Jesus Christ himself is that covenant, for he said, in the language of the prophet, and I will find it if it is challenged, I will make thee for a covenant to the people, speaking of Jesus Christ, in the language of Isaiah.
I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. YATES FIFTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS AND CHRISTIAN FRIENDS:
Through the good providence of God I am permitted this morning to appear before you to continue the affirmative of the question that has been read in your hearing. I will in the first place take up the speech made by my worthy opponent on yesterday evening; and, as I said in the outset, I know that I will have your undivided attention, but I want your impartial hearing.
He says that I have said during this discussion that Gods promises are conditional. My brother is mistaken. So far as regards man they are conditional, but God is faithful in keeping his part. This is the trouble with my brother; he looks all the time at the divine side without taking the human side. Hence the truths in the book must seem to clash. He says: I argue that the Word is not indispensable. Why? To say that it is indispensable makes the heathen go to hell because they have not the Bible. Now, I do not think any man, woman, or child, ever hard me say that. I have said just what Paul said in the second chapter of Romans, that if theythose that were without the lawdid the things that were in the law, they would be saved. That is the truth. That is what I say. I have explained it time and again. Well, I would answer him by saying, they were not elected. That would be enough for his doctrine. I want you clearly to understand the proposition before you this morning. Sly brother gets up and repeats it for you time and again, and tells you I have failed, and how many speeches I am behind him. You would never know it if he did not tell you, would you? Never. Well, let me quote that proposition: Resolved, That the gospel work now had I held him strictly to the proposition, I could have required him to deny that the gospel work in the foreign lands is owned of God. He denies gospel work in that proposition, but I do not claim that as an argument. Resolved. That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries is authorized in the Scriptures, and blessed and owned of God. There is nothing about measures and means in this, and he may read all he pleases of Campbell and Rice, and these Confessions of Faith. But it will not do him any good. The question is whether this work carried on in the Foreign Mission field is authorized in the Bible, and whether the fruits, the results of that work indicate that it is blessed and owned of God, whether its fruits are identical with the fruits of the gospel work as recorded in the New Testament. Upon this the whole question hingesright there. This proposition does not intimate that every heathen will be saved. Hence we have only to take the Wordto prove it in the Word. There is no intimation whatever in the proposition that all heathen will be lost or that all heathen will be saved. Brother Potter says that, according to what missionaries say, Christ died for the lost, and then placed their salvation in the hands of the Church and the ministry. He asks, Did not God know that the Bible would never reach these people? Did not he know the means that would be employed were not sufficient? Therefore, his elect are saved. I reply, Did not God know that the non-elect were non-elect? Did not God know all about Satan? Did not he know all about the land of the lost? Did not he know all about the wicked acts of man? Then, if knowing effects it, Brother Potter in his argument is beyond a doubt a Universalist, and takes the devil into his catalogue. That is his logic. I say, if logic is worth any thing, that is his logic. But he says he objects to the Foreign Mission work because it places the salvation of mankind in the hands of the Church. I want to know where else Jesus places it, instrumentally, when he says, Ye are the light of the world; ye are the salt of the earth; As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you; Go; Go preach the gospel to every creature; Go teach all nations. That is the Book. Is Brother Potters theory accomplishing this end? Well, let us see. 2 Cor. v. 20: Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christs stead, be ye reconciled to God. Paul was a missionary, was he not? That he was has been thoroughly proven in this discussion, and my brother dare not deny I He has only tried to show that there is no identity between the Foreign Mission work and the gospel work, as recorded in the New Testament, in this particularviz., in sending forth the laborers into the mission field; and he has failed to be successful in that. He talked yesterday about building cob-houses. He said our sensitiveness in regard to his brethren criticizing the Foreign Mission work was like the sensitiveness he used to feel in building cob-houses when he was a boy living over in Illinois. When any one touched his cob-house he would cry out. When a man comes up here before the people, and says you need not trouble yourselves about this great work here (pointing to the heathen lands on the map), what is that but saying that all these preachers and Christian workers do not know what they are talking about? that all the best Christians in the last century have been, deceived? That is saying a great deal. Although we are elected, God misleads us. And yet Brother Potter comes out and says that the best civilization is found where the Bible goes; and yet he does not aid in sending the Bible to the heathen. I will tell you what is the troublehe has been building cob-houses religiously for several years, and he had better quit it. Before I drove him to notice this proof-text Prov. i. 2433I had called on him in every speech for five days, until he could avoid noticing it no longer. Then he said, I did not notice that, because I believe in human responsibility as much as Mr. Yates does.
His closing speech last night did not touch the proposition, yet in that very sermon he taught that he was saved eighteen hundred years before he was born. Not only did he teach in that speech that repentance and faith are not conditions of salvation, but he said Gods elect were justified in the death of Christ. He emphasizes the past tense in the 5th chapter of Romans, saying Jesus Christ would save his own. But he says that those of us who believe in the Foreign Mission work think we must have another mediator. But he was saved eighteen hundred years before he was born, and yet he believes in personal responsibility! He says, Brother Yates misunderstands our doctrine. He cannot understand it at all. In one breath he declares that man reprobates himself, and in the next he argues that as the potter shapes the clay, so God as absolutely shapes the destinies of men, regardless of their agency. Yet he believes in personal responsibility. What does that imply? Trust. What does trust imply? It may be abused, or used improperly. He thinks the gospel is only to be preached to the sheep. Why will you do this, my brother? Why are you quoting all this? Is it because Jesus and the Bible are against Foreign Missions? Jesus says, in spite of all your arguing, Go and preach the gospel to every creature. Well, he says they are damned for not accepting Christ, though they have no part in the, atonement. They have never had the ability to trust, and yet, God has a perfect right to treat them thus. That was a beautiful illustration he gave yesterday evening, and I believe I have heard him give it before in his sermons. He said, as I understood him, that if two men each, gave him a note, and neither was able to pay him, those notes were his. He could release one man, cancel his note, and still hold the note against the other, Or he could destroy both notes. I answer, if those men who gave him their notes were honest and had a personal responsibility in the matter, they claimed they were able to comply with the promise on the face of the notes. Hence, Brother Potter, as a businessman, accepted them as able to meet the obligation. Now, when the notes come due, and the men have not the ability to meet their obligations, being bankrupts, they have either lost the means they possessed when they gave the notes, or they deceived my worthy brother by claiming to possess something they did notthat is, if they had any agency in this business transaction.
But the fact is, you claim that every sinner is dead. When I come to that you run clear back to Adam, six thousand years ago. Now, what about the notes? It was the Oriental custom in the days of Jesus to put a man in prison for debt when he did not have the ability to pay. What do you mean to teach in this illustration? That God gives men the ability to contract a debt of guilt that will damn them forever, and at the same time withhold from them the privileges and opportunities of having it cancelled? This illustration proves too much for you, my brother. Your aim is to place upon the sinner all the responsibility for his own condemnation; but you use this note illustration to prove that God has the sovereign right to save one and reject another of the very same class, and that this is his method, the Divine plan in saving men. But your note illustration will not sustain your doctrine. The two men against whom you held the two notes might, by their differing surroundings and relations to you, by their differing conduct, furnish you with justifiable reasons for favoring one in preference to the otherviz., the man whose note you cancelled may have lost his means by misfortunes over which he had no control, while the other man may have squandered his by vice and dissipation; or the man favored may have been deceived as to his real financial condition, while the other may have knowingly misrepresented his condition. But you may say, If they both occupied the same condition before me, have I not the right to cancel the note of one, and hold the note against the other? You have the power, but not the right, for equity would demand that you treat them both alike, especially if failure in non-payment subjects them to punishment in prison. If you make provisions for the release of one and arbitrarily punish the other, you show yourself not only partial but unkind and unmerciful. And if you knew the mans inability at the time he gave the note, your conduct in accepting it would be still more heinous. If you had also placed him under such circumstances as to force him to give this note, you would be a monster. That is just the light in which your doctrine places God in this illustration. You claim that God absolutely elected his people from eternity, as individuals, choosing them out of the millions of the human family, who, in his sight, were all equally lost and helpless. Therefore the sinners destiny was fixed before he was born. He was caused to enter life where circumstances forced him to give a note of indebtedness to God, without any provision for its payment or any possibility of ever having it canceled. He is finally to be imprisoned and to suffer eternally for its non-payment. That is Brother Potters doctrine; that is the reason he takes the negative side of this question. He believes God has fixed every thing; that I am bound from eternity, and that every single individual is.
He quotes from the eighteenth chapter of Acts, and. says that he does not suppose that any man, woman, or child, ever heard of such an interpretation as I gave of it. Let me turn to that chapter and notice it a moment, commencing with the 6th verse: And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads. They were not saved from eternity. What had that to do with that matter? I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. Verse 9: Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. He said when I used the word prophetic that he did not suppose anybody had ever heard any one say that before, and that I ought to write a new commentary. If I should, I would lead him out of a good many troubles he has gotten into during this discussion. What does prophetic mean?
It means that which unveils the future. What is that? Telling the future. How was prophecy brought about in the Scripture? Undoubtedly by God unveiling to his servant some future results, or the means and agencies to be employed to avoid or bring about such future results or events. Was not this what the Lord did for Paul on this occasion? So his argument goes to the ground. As I have said, that was simply a prophecy to encourage Paul, and I read to you about the condition of the people in Corinth, who Paul said were guilty of every vice. It was one of the most corrupt and wicked cities of that day. Paul said, Such were some of you, referring to the polluted state of some members of the Church in the city of Corinth, before he took the gospel to them. Then Paul, referring to his labors on that occasion, afterwards Wrote to the Corinthians and said they were saved through the foolishness of preaching. If they were saved through Pauls preaching, they certainly were not saved before he preached the gospel to them. What were they saved from? There were evidences connected with the preaching of Paul at Corinth, and with the results following it, which prove that the Christians in the Corinthian Church were saved through this preaching.
Here (pointing to the map) is the gospel preached in benighted and corrupt heathen lands by Gods servants in the nineteenth century. Down there in Southern Africa, over in India, in the Islands of the Sea, over yonder in Asia, and up in British America wherever those red and blue stripes are seen on this mapit is the Foreign Mission which you see here represented. The red lines represent the stations of the missionary societies of Europe, and these green stripes the stations of the missionary societies of America.
The men and Women who are sent away to consecrate their lives to work in heathen lands are called foreign missionaries. Those who labor in destitute places in our own country are called home missionaries, because they are sent out by the respective Churches to which they belong, and are supported by the general missionary fund of the same. You see these red stripes beside the blue in both North and South America. These blue marks represent the Home Mission stations of the American Missionary Societies, and these red marks represent the Foreign Mission stations of the Foreign Missionary Societies of Europe. These missionaries work side by side, on the very same principle and for the very same object. The principle of the Home and Foreign Mission work is the same. It is simply carrying the gospel to, and propagating it in, those countries which are destitute of it, whether it be in Christian countries or heathen lands. The missionary principle is the very heart of the gospel. The word mission means to send, and the meaning of Foreign Mission is to send, to preach, and teach the gospel to every creature. Then the gospel work carried on in heathen lands or foreign countries is authorized in the Book, is in accordance with the command of the Saviour. The very last words he ever uttered on earth were an assurance to his disciples they should be witnesses for him unto the ends of the earth, in carrying out this great commission. He says, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. The very same principles belong to both the Foreign Mission work and the gospel work of the New Testament, the very same conditions are present in both, the very same loving and almighty Christ is in both, the very same fruits are produced by both; hence they are identical.
Well, he spoke to us a little about the potter. I want to notice that a moment. He said it was the same lump. Now if, when you go home, you will take your Bible and just read the ninth chapter of Romans, you will see that Paul was addressing the Hebrews who had rejected Christ. He was talking to his Hebrew brethren in the Church at Rome about those Hebrews who had rejected Christ, not about the ones he was writing to, but their brethren who had rejected Christ: I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. And then he goes on to tell what a peculiar people they were to God, and in the sixth verse he says, Not as though the word of God had taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Then we go down to where he speaks of the Hebrews replying, and says, Who art thou that repliest against God? The Hebrews asked the question, Why doth he yet find fault? Then Paul answers, Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels fitted to destruction. There was much long-suffering on account of the vessels of wrath, and yet, according to my brothers doctrine, God made them vessels of wrath from eternity; they were non-elect. I must confess I do not understand it. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. I do not understand this as Brother Potter interprets it. The Book is plain in itself. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Why does he speak of one piece of clay? Here are the two great classes of men represented. One part of that clay represents the vessels of wrath. Why? One part of that lump made vessels fitted to destruction. Why? Let us see why it was. The 31st verse: But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore?here is the reasonBecause they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at the stumblingstonewhich is Christ? Why, there never was a plainer thing. As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
But he said I was like an Irishman who made a great leap to get on a boat. The Irishman thought he could jump on the boat, but missed it and fell, and got very badly hurt. That is the way Brother Potter described it, and he got up a laugh over it. That is all right. I indorse Brother Potter in his sharp touches. He can raise a laugh, there is no doubt about it. This Irishman, he said, fell and got hurt, and when he got up, seeing the boat about one hundred yards off, he said it was no wonder he fell, trying to jump that far. Why, the trouble with that man, my brother, was that he aimed to jump on the boat, but he was not elected to do it, and he fell and got hurt.
Well, Brother Potter compares me to a Universalist colt. I am glad he does not look at me as being very old. I thought when the week was ended I would be old, decrepit, and gray. And he said he would saddle me, and if anybody wanted to ride a Universalist colt away from here, that he could ride me this morning. I will let him get in the saddle first. Brother Potter said on yesterday evening that he did not want to serve a God that could not carry out what he desired. Now, I will refer him to a text, and I want him to explain it Matthew xxiii. 3739 again: Here is something that Jesus did not do, and his heart was nearly broken over it; his words were broken by sobs. Brother Potter said he would not serve such a God; he said he would apostatize if he did not believe God could do whatever he desired. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would notI would, but ye would not Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Now, here was something in this verse that Jesus would have done, and yet theythe Jews who rejected himwould not. But, for fear my brother may not think this is enough on this point, I will read another verse: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. O my brother, you ought to have quoted that in connection with the parable that you read in the 20th chapter of Matthew. They refused to go in themselves, and also kept others from entering the kingdom of heaven. Now, Brother Potter says Jesus will save all that he died for. I want to turn over here and see if Brother Potter and the Bible harmonize. I want everybody to listen to this language.
Romans iii. 22, 23: Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. The righteousness of God is by faith unto all men and upon all that believe. I will turn to 2 Corinthians v. 14, 15:
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. He died for all, and, according to Brother Potter, will save all he died for; hence, all will be saved. We will therefore have to put Brother Potter in the harness again with his Universalist brethren. I do not know what to call him; he called me a colt. What shall I say? A gray donkey from the mountains of eternity past?
Now as to Madagascar: You remember he told us in his speech on yesterday evening that he never spoke about gunpowder and armies backing the missionaries; that he was not talking about that; he was talking about civilization. Now, my brother is certainly mistaken. He was saying that Christianity gave the best civilization; he was arguing that the fact that Foreign Mission work, where it has been successful, has given the heathen countries a noble civilization is not an evidence that it is owned and blessed of God; saying, also, that I understood him, and did not present the matter right when I said he was placing the civilization of Greece and Egypt side by side with the civilization which the Bible gives. Then he went on to say he objected to Foreign Missions because they are backed by armies and bayonets. Then I asked him and I want you to listen to thisI asked him if he would permit me to ask him a question. The Moderators said they would have to know what it was; and then I said, were these missionaries in Madagascar, who were trying to carry out their purpose by the thunder of cannon and force of arms, Protestants or Catholics? I was not permitted to ask the question, and I gave him to understand that he would have to meet that thing; that, if that was true, I knew I was ignorant of it. So he handed me Appletons Cyclopedia when I came down here, and it was as good a quotation for my side as I could wish, and I quoted it. Every thing was in my favor. The Cyclopedia showed that the missionaries had suffered martyrdom and persecution there for twenty-five years, and were expelled time and again; that the seed sown there grew, and, in spite of opposition to it, it become a great harvest. The armies went to protect the citizens, and were defeated by the natives of Madagascar, and the French and English colonies were expelled from the island. In order to return to their possessions they had to pay an indemnity to the queen. So the seed was sown that now makes Madagascar the crown of glory of the London Missionary Society. I am very much obliged to him for Appleton.
He said, The Missionary Baptists once believed as we do. Well, I am glad they have gotten out of that torpid state and are working for Jesus.
In trying to dodge the unanswerable testimony I have given from unquestionable authorities of the historical identity of the Foreign Mission work with gospel work, he seeks to make the impression that I am not competent to decide upon authoritative works, or valid testimony, in solving historical questions. He says that if my witnesses are honest they are valid. I answer that the Rev. John Harris, whom I quoted yesterday, was not only honest, but was one of the best informed and most reliable writers of his daya mental and spiritual giant. His work from which I quoted is entitled The Great Commission. A committee which represented the talent and piety of the leading Churches of Europe decided upon the merits of this work for critical and accurate information and profound and forcible practical thoughts. This committee awarded him the first prize for this book, as a superior production on the subject of Foreign Missions in preference to the many other productions from the pens of the ablest writers of Europe with which it competed. My worthy opponent knows that the authority and accuracy of this work cannot be successfully denied or gainsaidthat Mr. Harris is not only honest, but one of the most competent witnesses on this subject.
In his confusion, Brother Potter seeks to disparage me in order to draw your attention from the argument. Mr. Harris was too honest and sincere when writing about facts in history to pervert them. Brother Potter was going to object to any authority I could give, because it was all missionary authority. I have never read any of the other kind of authors or historians. If any history has ever been written by an anti-missionary author, except infidels, I would like to see it. 11 am willing at any time to submit to facts when presented. My brothers history in that respect is rather dimin the foglike his arguments, in negativing this proposition.
He has gone back to Isaiah liii. 10, and I must go there now. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Well, There is not a man of us who denies that Christ shall see his seed and shall prolong his days, but Brother Potter made his own interpretation of this passage, making it allude to the elect from eternity. He accuses me of not following him up. I will now do so.
Psalm XX11. 30. I will read that, and see what it says. We will put it all together. A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. Now, we will follow this seed spoken of through the Book. I will now turn to Gal. ii. 16, where this matter is explained. In studying any great doctrine of the Bible, the best way to get a true knowledge of it is to examine all the passages that bear upon it through the Old and New Testaments. There is a perfect unity running through this Book: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith .of Jesus Christthere is faitheven we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. Now, I will read Gal. iii. 8: And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Why, Abraham had the gospel. We will look now at the 16th verse of the same chapter: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. We will read the 24th verse: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Putting this with the language in Romans x. 4, we have: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Now, we will look at the 28th and 29th verses of this 3d chapter of Galatians: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye arc all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. They were united to Christ by faith. But Brother Potter says I amt responsible; I am glad of that; I take him by the hand. Every sane man is responsible. Every sane man has a trust committed to him. The Lord gives every man a work to do, a work according to his ability, he does not give him a work to do that he cannot do. Every man can do what God requires of him, or obtain help to enable him to do it. When Christ comes he will reckon with all according to the trust committed. Now, I am aware that a great deal of this talk has not been directly to the proposition. There has been some complaining about my fighting the doctrine of election, but Brother Potter goes right back to it. If he had stood to the proposition I would not have touched his doctrine of election. Suppose I admit that his elect sheep are scattered everywhere, still the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God. Jesus said, Go preach the gospel to every creature. The Master from his own lips gives the command. What is to be the result? Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and whosoever believeth not shall be damned. The proposition does not say that all heathen will go to hell. As I have said, if they live u to the best light they have, they will be saved. But I have shown that these heathen are devil-worshipers. That degrades and brutalizes them. Brother Potter depends on election instead of sending the gospel he stays here at home, waiting for God to do the work without any human agency. We obey the command of the Master; hence our work is authorized in the Scripture, guided, blessed, and owned of God. Both in the home and foreign fields we have the proofs that we are in accord with the principle of the primitive Church. The same results are produced from the operation of the very same principles. Hence our work shows more indications of the Divine favor than his. He himself has confessed that Christianity gives the very best civilization. He has acknowledged also in this discussion that our civilization is the result of Christianity. Then, if our civilization is the result of Christianity, it has been begotten by the Christian religion and comes to us through it. The civilization in the islands of the sea, in the heathen lands, has been brought about by gospel means and agencies, and hence it is gospel fruit. This is conclusive evidencea monumental demonstration that the Foreign Mission work is blessed and owned of God.
Now, I have examined the 9th chapter of Romans, during this debate, several times, in answering the interpretation of its teachings by my opponent. But there is one little thing I have not noticed, and I will not have time to notice it now. I will pass it by for the present, and will give it attention in my next speech.
But I want to notice a further evidence that the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scripture and blessed and owned of God. I want, how ever, before I do this, to remind you that I showed on yesterday, as Brother Potter said, by a volume of passages, that we are employing the ordained means of God in carrying out the great gospel work. Jesus told his apostles to go, saying, Lo, I am with you. And my brother here is fighting it. He does not go to the remote parts of the earth. What else did we show? We showed that human agency was employed in all true gospel work. He denies that the Word of God is indispensable. I asked him to show a single case of salvation without the Word, and he cannot show one. He cannot point to an individual bringing forth the fruits of love where there is not some form of truth. We say in our Confession of Faith that the Word is the ordinary means employed. He would rather get hold of our Confession of Faith than the Bible. I am not afraid to face him on that, either. If I am contradicting the Confession of Faith, he is contradicting the Bible. The Holy Spirit, operating through the word and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose, or directly without means, so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin and of their lost estate, and of their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ. And there was a man sitting right here, one of the Moderators (Dr. W. J. Darby), that helped to word that. I asked him, What did you mean to teach in the expression directly without means? We simply meant, he said, that Gods Spirit operates upon the hearts of, men wherever there is a ray of the light of the truth and thereby prepares them to receive it. The Spirit operates through the truth and independent of it. We do not know what God can do, but we stand by the revelation he has made. There is where I stand. I am not here today to affirm what it is possible for God to do absolutely in saving men, without either agencies or means. If I were to ask the Moderators to permit me to discuss such an issue under this proposition, they
would rule it out of order. I am to defend the proposition that Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Word of God, and is blessed and owned of God.
Why, when Cornelius prayed and wanted to learn the way of salvation, an angel appeared to him. This angel told him about the results of his prayers and alms in heaventhat they had been accepted. But the angel could not proclaim to him the message of salvation. Why? Because God, in the economy of things, has given the angel his work on one side of the curtain and man his work on the other side. God has honored us by allowing us to labor with him in carrying this grand message of salvation to others. Man was lost; by disobeying God he brought ruin upon himself and upon the world. So God honors man by the grand revelation he has made to him of the way salvation. Such is the divine arrangement in the plan of redemption, that man can accept or reject salvation. He can open his mind to receive the message of salvation through the aid of God and the light of the Holy Spirit in the Word, and also independently of the Word. The Holy Spirit accompanies the Word into the heart, and prepares the heart for the reception of the truth, and thus through and by the Word purifies the soul and puts it in line with God, to move in harmony with God. No man is ever regenerated for himself alone, but for the well-being also of his fellow-men. When the angel spoke to Cornelius about the way of salvation, he showed him that one Simon Peter would tell him what to do. If Cornelius learns the way of salvation, not the angel but Peter must teach him.
The gospel, the ministry, and the Church are indispensable in the work of evangelization, as the divinely-ordained agencies and means in the prosecution of the work of salvation. I have proven this by scores of texts selected from different parts of the Bible, representing the entire trend of its teachings. You remember that I showed how Philip went down to Samaria to preach to them Jesus, and how they received the Word, and how he was guided by the Holy Spirit to join himself to the chariot and guide the eunuch in understanding the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and the results of Philips instructions. So it was in all the gospel work in those days. Paul preached the Word with wonderful success in all the countries and cities in which he labored as the great apostle to the Gentiles. In prosecuting the gospel work, the early Christian disciples preached the Word in Antioch, in Cyprus, in the Isles of the Sea, and in Cyrene in Africa, and over in Asia Minor, and in Macedonia and Greece. The Word was thus carried and propagated throughout the Gentile world, and God owned and blessed their labors, for they were carrying out the great commission, just as the foreign missionaries are doing today. My opponent speaks of the agencies and gospel means of the Church in the work of salvation. I want to know if the Church is not Christs bride. Jesus says to his Church, Lo, I am with you alway. Brother Potter says Christ alone is to prosecute the gospel work. This is not true in the sense in which my brother states it. Christ works through the Church, his representative. By whom has the gospel work been presented in the centuries of the past, if not by Christ through his Church? The teaching of the Bible and the history of Christianity show clearly that it is through the Church, with its gospel means and agencies, that Christ prosecutes his gospel work. It was by the voice of the Church, through the influence of the Holy Spirit, that the hands of ordination were placed upon Brother Potters head. This was the course pursued by the primitive Church, and this is the way the Church now sets apart and sends out laborers for the Master in the Foreign field.
I will now extend my affirmative line of argument. A further evidence that the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scripture is seen in the fact that it is fulfillment of prophecythat its past and present triumphs are but an echo of prophecy. In proof of this I will first read Psalm ii. 8: Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psalm lxxii. 811: He shall have dominion also from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts; yea all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him. Let me turn to Isaiah xl. 35: The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall he made straight and the rough places plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
Now, we will turn to Zechariah ix. 10: And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea look there at that map, at those mission stations, girding clear around the earth from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
Now, let us take Malachi 1. 11: For, from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.
Psalms xxii. 27: All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall Worship before thee.
Now, I will turn to Daniel ii. 44. The Book is so full of this doctrine it would just take us days to get it out: And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. It is represented in this chapter as a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. How solid it is, how irresistible, how every thing goes down before it! As I have shown, the Spirit of God energizes, guides, and blesses the Foreign Mission work through the ordained means and agencies. The work is blessed and owned of God. Now, I will go to the New TestamentMatthew iii. 2: And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. It was that stern wilderness preacher who said that.
Matthew viii. i i: And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. To the Master himself, when he beheld the marvelous faith of the centurion, it suggested the great incoming of the Gentile world. You will bear with me while I quote a few more passages. The kingdom of the Messiah is today gaining the patronage and the influence of the ruling powers of the kingdoms of the world. Through their patronage and influence shall the nations of less prestige and power be led to Christ, and thus flow into the house of the Lord, as foretold by the prophets. To prove that mission work is a fulfillment of prophecy, I will now turn back again to Isaiah ii. 2, 3: And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
I will now turn to Micah iv. I: But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
Now, without taking farther time in quotation, I will just call your attention to Psalms lxviii: 31, 32, where the psalmist pictures Ethiopia and Egypt. You can see them on the map there (pointing to the map). Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. Look there on the map at those mission stations, the literal fulfillment of prophecy. With tearful eyes and tender hearts these poor, degraded people have embraced Christ, and the work is going on, and the gospel is lifting them up and transforming them into the image of God. O blessed truth! O grand and glorious work! My heart is touched whenever I read of the people in those mission fields, or think about them. I have said many things here in twitting my brother, but I have nothing against him. I love him. We may differ. We have said sharp things here, but I shall hold nothing against him when it is over. God knows I believe he could be useful in this work.
I have shown from this book, the Bible, that the Foreign Mission work is the fulfillment of prophecy. I have shown that in these lands of darkness are poor little children in the midst of degradation and vice, who never have heard the sweet songs of Zion, or the blessed Saviours name, who do not know what are the blessings of a Christian home, who never heard of the Christians heaven, nor learned that this mighty God, who controls the universe, is a Father of infinite love. Jesus says, Go and tell them quickly. Wherever there is a sad heart, wherever there is a broken spirit, wherever there is a degraded soul, go and tell the good news of deliverance. A Saviour is born, a revelation is made, Gethsemane is passed, and the blood-stained cross; go and tell of the resurrection, the ascension, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The word of God is come; go and proclaim it to every creature. Foreign Mission work is a fulfillment of prophecy. Just to show that this work pays, I want to read a quotation from Bainbridges trip around the world. Around the World: Tour of Christian Missions, page 99. Leaving out a part of it, I will read from page 101: For this mighty force of Protestant missions the field is the world. I thank Jesus that I live in this age of utility and progress, when messengers are flying hither and thither over seas, islands, and continents; when Christianity has developed such a wonderful dispensation, and when the means for taking the gospel to 800,000,000 in heathen countries are so abundant. The way, and the gates of entrance to them, are all open. Many are pleading with us, beseeching us to send them the Word of life. The missionaries are everywhere calling for workers; and why do they not go? Because we at home are too indifferent. I continue the reading: Our Saviours parting command was, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations; Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. The responsibility is nothing short of world-wide evangelization. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world as a witness unto all nations. We are to reckon all men as lost sinners because there is no difference, for all have sinned. But we carry the glorious tidings of an all-sufficient salvation, etc. Now, I want to read concerning the results of this work: In this great world-field God has so blessed the labors of Protestant missionaries during the present century that the number of communicants, or full Church-members, has increased from 12,000 to 473,121 (the number, has now increased to 750,000; this book was written several years ago), and the number of heathen converts or adherents brought under the care of our missionaries has multiplied from 50,000 to about two millions. There are many who have accepted Christianity nominally and attend service, but have not accepted the truth in their hearts. Of those latter, Prof. Christlieb reckons that 310,000 are in the West Indies, 400,000 to 500,000 in India and Farther India, 40,000 to 50,000 in West Africa, 180,000 in South Africa, over 240,000 in Madagascar, 90,000 in the Indian Archipelago, 45,000 to 50,000 in China, over 300,000 in the South Sea Islands. Those South Sea Islands were inhabited by cannibals fifty years ago. Over three hundred thousand have professed to embrace Christ and are bringing forth the fruits of salvation. This I have proved to you by the best of witnesses. Meanwhile Protestant schools have increased from seventy in number to over twelve thousand, with 393,000 pupils. Within the same time Bible work has advanced from 50 translations and a circulation of 5,000,000 to 303 translations in whole or in part, and a circulation of 148,000,000 copies.
And my brother denies that any part of this great work has Gods approval or blessing. But we see from the book itself, and from the unmistakable evidences that have been adduced, that the Foreign Mission work as carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world is authorized in the Scriptures, and owned and blessed of God. I have shown here that the
Protestant world itself is but an outgrowth of the great revival of the gospel life, which is the missionary spirit itself. I have shown that the Methodist Church was born of the Foreign Mission spirit, out of that grand revival that swept over England under the Wesleys, Whitefield, Romaine, and others, ushering in the present dispensation of Foreign Mission work. I have shown that the Presbyterian Churches, and the Church of England, and all Protestant Churches, have been successful in proportion as they have been actuated by this mission spirit. I have also shown that the wonderful triumphs of the Foreign Mission work in the past, both in the foreign field and in its reflex influence on the Christian Church at home, and in its wonderful prosperity today, and in the doors still opening to the heathen world, are unmistakable signsyea, to the spiritual, discerning eye, clear and conclusive demonstrationsthat the Foreign Mission work is approved and blessed of God. To see this, we have only to take a birds-eye view of what has been accomplished by the Foreign Mission work within eighty years. Eighty years ago there were only 7 missionary societies, today there are 150; then there were 170 missionaries in the whole foreign field, now there are 6,000 men and women, ordained and lay workers, from Christian lands, with about 29,000 native ordained and lay workers, making a working force of 35,000. There were then 50,000 converts from heathenism to Christianity, there are now about 2 ,000,000 such converts; the Church offerings for Foreign Missions then was $250,000, today it is nearly $12,000,000; then there were 70 Protestant schools on the foreign field, and now there are 12,000, with a half million of pupils. Within this period, through the Foreign Mission work, the translation of the Bible into different tongues has been increased from 50 to 308. The number of the copies of the Bible circulated eighty years ago was 5,000,000, today the number is 148,000,000. Then all the homes of the heathen women were closed against the gospel, and heathen women were inaccessible; today hundreds and thousands of homes are open to the gospel, and thousands of heathen women have already embraced Christ, and multitudes arc inquiring the way. The increase of Christian converts on the Foreign field is thirty-five fold greater than on the Home field. This, no doubt, is the greatest missionary era of the Church of Christ. During the apostolic age the new faith flashed through the Roman Empire. In the medieval age it here and there touched with its rays a rude and barbarous people; but in this age, the age of universal missions, the most distant and destitute are approached by the evangel, and no land or tribe is left to the shadow of death. Eighty years ago Oceania, the Indian Archipelago, all India, Japan, Africa, Madagascar, the Moslem and Papal lands were enshrouded in moral night and degradation. Today the numerous islands of Oceania are evangelized and have become radiating centers of light and salvation. The Indian Archipelago is rapidly coming under the gospel sway. The mission work is extending its influence and light. Its radiating and connecting lines reach out over British East India, Burmah, Siam, China, and Africa. All pagan lands are becoming dotted with mission stations; these gleaming centers of gospel light are bestudding benighted heathendom like the blazing stars that bedeck the firmament of night. Evangelization is fast coming to be universal. With a rapidity unexampled in history, this golden network of missions expands and extends over the realms of paganism, from where the most refined followers of Brahma and Buddha dwell to where the lowest fetish-worshipers bow to their mud idols; over the lands of Islam, from the gates of the Golden Horn, west of the pillars of Hercules, and east to the heights of the Himalayas; and over the domains of the Pope, from Mexico to Cape Horn, and from the Volga to the Vatican. Never was there a time in the history of Christian work when there were so many indications of the overthrow of heathenism. The whole heathen world seems to be ready to break loose from idolatry and superstition. Never in the history of the work of the Christian Church was the hand of God more vividly displayed, nor the voice of his providence more clearly proclaimed than in the mission work of today in the heathen lands or the foreign field. Many of the nations and races of the world stand poised today upon a pivotal point of destiny, and their future weal or woe will be determined within the next twenty years. Japan, with eight hundred atheist students in her national university, and not one single Christian, is awaiting to choose between Herbert Spencer and Jesus Christ. China, with every avenue opening to the commerce and culture of the world, waits to decide between Mammon and God. India is listening with one ear to Deism and Chunder Sen, and with the other to the gospel of the Lord Jesus. France and Italy must either be Protestant or infidel. Germany and Austria must sink entirely into Ritualism, or rise to the only religion that can successfully and truthfully appeal to reason. Africas glorious interior will soon be one vast chain of commercial posts. Shall the infamous trader make them darker blots on that dark continent than even the shrines of Fetishism, or shall the Christian missionary convert then-i into beacon-lights for benighted races? God has at length answered the prayers of his people that have been going up for a century. Everywhere he has opened the door for the reception of his gospel, and opened it, too, under circumstances more favorable to its success than could have been imagined. The next ten or twenty years is to decide the fate of most of these nations and peoples. These years are to be the very pivot upon which their destiny will turn. Will the Church prove equal to the emergency? Can any Christian hesitate or hold back when such a glorious work is to be, and can be, done for the Master?
MR. POTTER'S FIFTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
We are again blessed with the privilege of meeting together and seeing each other's faces, and to conclude the discussion today that has been engaging the minds of the people of this community for a week - yes, longer than that, but in actual service for a week. I am glad to see that for some cause or other, either out of respect to the speakers, or in search of truth, or from curiosity, the people are led back here this morning. I hope that every individual will listen for himself and be his own judge. I never did like for other men to judge for me as to what the Bible teaches.
I want to notice a few things in the speech this morning. However, there are some things that I have noticed every day since we have been here. The first thing is personal responsibility. I want to do this for the sake of those that have not been here during this discussion, and to state that Brother Yates has charged me and my brethren of denying the obligation of man to do good. For our own sake, and for the sake of those who have not heard my denial of that charge during the
week, I mention it now. I challenged Brother Yates to bring any production from Baptists, who understood themselves and stood identified with us or our Confession of Faith, that denied human
responsibility. He has not done it. We do not deny human responsibility, but he does, and I am going to prove it now. He said in his speech, and repeatedly, that man was not responsible for what he could not do and could not help, and what God requires of man he is able to do. That is what he said. That has been his doctrine all the week, and he has said it so often that I am not mistaken about it - that if he was not able to do it, it was not required of him. Now, let me turn to Hebrews xi. 6. On the subject of faith the apostle says: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Brother Yates and everybody else recognizes the unregenerate sinner without faith; hence, it is impossible for the unregenerate sinner to please God, and Brother Yates says he is under no obligation to do it if he cannot. Where is human responsibility? Who denies human responsibility? I believe that men are under obligation sometimes to do things they cannot do. Brother Yates does not, and he is going to show that, and he has been trying to cover me all over with it. He does not believe it. Hence, if I owe Brother Yates $50, and cannot pay it, he would think it unjust for him to demand it of me. And yet it is a just debt, and contracted of my own will; yet I am unable to pay it, and he holds my note; and yet he thinks it would be unjust in him to make me pay it if I cannot. He ought to give up the note. That is his doctrine. According to that doctrine, what does the sinner need with the Redeemer in his salvation? He does not need him to pay his debt, because he is able to pay his own debt. If he is not able to pay it, he does not owe it, and in that case he does not need him to pay it. So turn that either way, and Brother Yates' theory is that there is no need of a Saviour at all. Christ came into this world to do that for the sinner that he could not do for himself. The sinner had got himself into trouble by his own works. He was under the law, and he was to blame for every thing he did there. Jesus came to remove that blame and lift him above the law and present him holy and unblamable before God. There would have been no need of the suffering of Jesus if man could have atoned for his own sins, and was not to blame for them if he could not. But Brother Yates says we teach that God made him to sin. That is a slander on me and my brethren. I have always denied that, and no person understands me to say that God made anybody to sin, or ever made a sinner. I have always denied that, both in my preaching and in this debate. Man made himself a sinner by his own sin, wickedness, and transgression of the law of God. It is not so much for Brother Yates' sake that I take this pains as it is for the sake of truth and for these people who are frequently wrongly impressed by Brother Yates and others as to what the Regular Baptists teach. We are here to speak for ourselves now. We have not called on Brother Yates to tell the people what we believe. We are able to do that ourselves. I do not know that I shall pay any more attention to that part of th speech today. I have something else to do.
I want now to know what the missionaries themselves think of their own prospects concerning the evangelizing of the world. He takes his pointer and points out the great and glorious results of foreign missionary labor in foreign fields. Do all the missionaries feel like Brother Yates does? He comes here endorsed to defend it, to set it forth, to hold it up, to prove it by the Bible, to prove his proposition, endorsed by the advocates of missionism. Does he know any more about missionism than other missionaries do? Does he know any more what they are doing than other missionaries do? He says it is not denominational - the whole Church works in it. This being true, when I introduce a missionary - it does not matter who it is, so it is a missionary - it is just as good evidence as Brother Yates; and if this missionary does not tell the truth, it may be that no missionary does. I am not here to say which one of the missionaries is the best or most honorable. I do not accept Brother Yates in preference to any other missionary in the world, so far as information or honesty are concerned. I accepted him in this discussion as a representative man of modern missionism, endorsed as that. Come up, Brother Carpenter; you are a missionary, and Brother Yates admires you. What do you say about the prospects in the future for the evangelization of the world? Beginning on the 9th page, we will read the following: "At a
festival in Boston, recently, Irish Catholics drank this toast with exulting enthusiasm: 'Massachusetts - peopled by pilgrims from England in the 17th century, repeopled by pilgrims from Ireland in the 19th.' Some of these Romanists or their descendants may become infidels, but how many of them will become Protestants? How many Protestants believe that it is possible to convert them, or make any systematic efforts to benefit them religiously?
"Doing as little as we are, both for Foreign Missions and for the conversion of foreigners in our own land, what right have we to expect a successful result from the experiment which is even now beginning? The millions of idolatrous Asia and the priest-ridden and infidel millions of Europe will soon contend together for the political and religious supremacy of America. God's purposes concerning this continent for the next century or two do not yet appear. It is by no means certain that the present race of Christians has faith, and zeal, and love enough to mold these mixed multitudes into Christian ways. Is there not reason to fear, rather, that we have been so proud of our nation, so engrossed with our own affairs, have lived so long to ourselves religiously, and refused obedience to the explicit command of our ascending Lord to go disciple all nations in their own lands, that God is now forging the sword which shall humble us and scatter us abroad to do the work which we would not do voluntarily? While this consideration should lead every one to build the wall over against his own house diligently, it weighs more heavily still on the side of an earnest and vigorous prosecution of Foreign Missions. We have tarried in this our Jerusalem far too long. The idea that we may wait a little longer until there are so many heathen in our own land that we shall not need to send missionaries abroad is treason to our Lord. It comes from a selfish, Satanic source. Let us tempt our long-suffering Master no longer."
That does not look very encouraging, does it? or like they would evangelize the world very soon, or thought that they would? Brother Yates thinks they will. Perhaps Brother Carpenter has seen more of their failures, hesitancy, and weakness than Brother Yates has. He sees some reason to fear that instead of us Christianizing other nations, other nations may heathenize us after awhile - that seems to be the threat now. Now, I do not know which is right. I do not care. Let Brother Yates and Brother Carpenter settle that themselves. They are both on that side.
He says that I accuse him of saying that God's promises are conditional. I said that he referred to the quotations that I made concerning the promises of God to Abraham, and said that those promises were conditional. All those Scriptures that I read concerning the promises to Abraham, that "in thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed," are conditional. O yes, they are conditional. How do you know? Brother Yates said so. He gave us his word. He presents that idea, backed up by the word of Brother Yates, and thinks hard of me if I do not accept it, and he is going to think hard of you if you do not, and the result is he will inevitably have to think hard. I called on him for the proof. I will tell you another thing that I called for, and I told him yesterday. He wanted to introduce a missionary witness to prove the connection of the missionary work from the apostles to the present time. I asked him why he did not produce Eusebius or Mosheim. He said he would. I told you he would not. It was the best proof. What made me say that? Because I knew he could not go to them, because these books were written before these things were introduced. I knew he would not produce a witness of that kind. He relies on Mosheim himself, and does not object to Eusebius or any of those old historians. He said he would bring Mosheim. He said he would; I said he would not. He has not. It has turned out as I expected it would.
One more thought. He accuses me of charging missionism with this doctrine: that the heathen go to hell because they have not the Bible. That is just what I have read from one of them two or
three times during this debate. "Christian friends, we have no fires of martyrdom now to test our fidelity to Jesus Christ; but we are not left without a test. God is testing us all continually; testing the measure of our faith, of our love, of our devotedness to his Son, by the presence of eight hundred million of heathen in the world. It is a tremendous test - so real, so practical. It is no trifle, no myth, no theory, no doubtful contingency, but a great, awful fact, that we Protestant Christians, who rejoice in our rich gospel blessings and claim to be followers of him who gave up heavenly glory and earthly ease, and life itself, to save those heathen, are actually surrounded by eight hundred million of brothers and sisters who must perish in their sins unless they receive the gospel. This gospel they have never yet heard." That is missionary doctrine, whether it is Brother Yates' doctrine or not. He is here to defend Foreign Missionism, and that is the doctrine of it, and that is what I object to. I do not believe they are sent to hell because they do not receive the gospel. He does. Missionaries do, and he is here to defend them. We say that God will save his people there, and, as I have said, that is the cause of this debate. Well, if Brother Yates is the best defender that missionism has, my brethren need not be afraid; they can say what they please about it from this on, and missionism had better not be too toucheous. You see how he defends it; he denies the doctrine that its advocates preach, and he preaches the doctrine, too, once in awhile. Brother Yates has been right during this debate, because he has been on both sides. He is first on one side and then on the other, and of course he has been right once in awhile. Missionaries say Christ died for the lost - not only that he died for the lost, but that the heathen are the lost that he died for. I
asked the question yesterday, was he suited to the work of the salvation of the heathen? Now, notice, he knew the condition of the world. God sent him into the world to save the lost. He says himself that the Son of man is come into the world to seek and save that which was lost, and Brother Carpenter says the heathen are lost. They are the people, whether any one else is or not. They are lost. Well, then, Jesus came to save them. Now, will he save them? No; not unless they receive the gospel, so says Carpenter himself, the same man that Brother Yates says he admires.
But I must pass on. 2 Corinthians v. 20. That chapter has been referred to before, but it now comes up again. I remarked yesterday in my speech that Jesus Christ was the only mediator between God and man, that there was only one. It is not an affirmation of mine, it is the language of the apostle Paul in connection with the text Brother Yates introduced from the Epistle to Timothy. Now, remember there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, and if he is all the mediator there is between God and man, are all the ministers in this country the mediators between God and man? Has God committed his lost heathen to the ministers in this country, and then damns them if the ministers do not get the gospel there to save them? That being true, are not the ministers mediators, and does not God depend on such mediators for the salvation of the heathen? Christ is the only mediator. Brother Yates says if the Lord did not commit the salvation of the people into the hands of the Church, who did he commit it to. Why, to Jesus Christ.
Now, let us introduce a quotation in 2 Corinthians v. 17-19: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in the Church, reconciling the world unto himself."
MR. HUME (from the audience): Try that again, sir.
MR. POTTER: In the Church? In Christ. That is the way. God was not in the Church reconciling the world unto himself, and Christ is the only mediator between God and man. That is enough to say on that subject. It is hardly necessary to notice a quotation by Brother Yates for the purpose for which it was used: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us in Christ's stead; be ye reconciled to God." Pray whom? Brother Yates did not tell. Who is the apostle addressing? Is he addressing the heathen? Is he addressing the ungodly? Is he addressing the unconverted? Is he addressing the unregenerate sinner? No, sir; he is addressing the saved, and, that being true, all his argument upon that text falls to the ground, like all the balance that he has said upon that subject. He would have you understand that the apostle represented himself as standing between God and the sinner, in that case, and begging the ungodly sinner to be reconciled to God. Paul was not talking to the sinner; he was talking to his brethren. You were not thinking, perhaps, we would have a new Commentary here this morning. I intimated yesterday, when I heard that "I have much people in this city" was prophetic, that perhaps Brother Yates had better get up another Commentary, and perhaps he had better, for there are none that I know of that say that is prophetic.
Now, I want to go to the Commentary and see what it does say. And remember, it is not a Baptist work by any means. Brother Yates has not condemned it, and said he would not. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on the words, "I have much people in this city," say: "Whom, in virtue of their election to eternal life, he already designates as his." No wonder he wants to get up another Commentary. That is what they say. They are not Baptists at all, I presume. And while I am on that I will turn over again to the potter and clay. I thought I would not, but I will. I had never noticed this Commentary on the potter and the clay until this morning. I have had it in use for a number of years, but had never noticed it on that. I would not risk any man that is prejudiced against the Regular Baptist doctrine two feet in telling our position on the potter and the clay. Elder James undertook to tell it at the church yesterday evening, after hearing me tell it, and he missed it a mile. He said there were two answers, and he gave another, and that made three. Now, let us hear it. This is on the subject of an objection to the doctrine of divine sovereignty. That is why I introduced the text, if you remember, to show the doctrine of divine sovereignty. "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?" And he parenthesizes ("'Why then,' is the true reading,) 'for who hath resisted (or, who resisteth) His will?' This doctrine is incompatible with human responsibility." That is what the objection says. Notice, now, this is what this comment says the objection is: "If God chooses and rejects, pardons and punishes, whom he pleases, why are those blamed who, if rejected by him, cannot help sinning and perishing. This objection shows quite as conclusively as the former the real nature of the doctrine objected to - that it is election and non-election to eternal salvation prior to any difference of personal character. That is the only doctrine that could suggest the objection here stated, and to this doctrine the objection is plausible. What, now, is the apostle's answer? It is twofold." Why is that objection plausible? Why, because that is not the doctrine objected to. The apostle's answer is twofold: "First, it is irreverence and presumption in the creature to arraign the Creator." The objection is founded on ignorance and misapprehension of the relation between God and his sinful creatures. Now, remember that - sinful creatures, not poor creatures. "Supposing that he is under obligation to extend his grace to all, whereas he is under obligation to none." Now, this objection grows out of the fact, like Brother Yates says, that God is under obligation to extend grace to all. That is the ground of the objection, whereas this comment says he is under obligation to none. He agrees with me. Why is he under obligation to none? "All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to his mercy," for two reasons - because of the irreverence and presumption in the creature, and of the
relation between God and his creatures, as he clearly intimates in the next verse. "It is therefore perfectly competent to God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not speak here of God's right over his creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures, as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against the Creator that he is answering, and he does so by showing that God is under no obligation to give his grace to any, but is as sovereign as in fashioning the clay.' But second: There is nothing unjust in such sovereignty. 'What if God, willing to show' (designing to manifest) 'his wrath' (his holy displeasure against sin), 'and to make his power' (to punish it) 'known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath' - i. e., 'destined to wrath;' just as 'vessels of mercy,' in the next verse, mean 'vessels destined to mercy.' Compare Eph. ii. 3, 'children of wrath.'"
That is the very thing I told you yesterday evening. Brother Yates thought we needed a new commentary on it. That is what that book says. They are as good scholars, perhaps, as any person that is capable of commenting or preaching in our community. That is what they say about it. That shows that I am correct, according to scholars, and orthodox in saying the potter represented God, and the clay represented the lump, which means Adam's fallen family, not Adam in his purity, but in his fallen state - in which state God was under no obligation to any one, but had a right to dispose of them as he saw fit. Brother Yates says this morning: "I have said that if the heathen live up to the best light they have, they will be saved." He says this morning he has said that. He said yesterday he did not. He called upon the reporter to read part of his speech from Thursday evening, and I stated that it was Monday that he should have said it. I thought he said it, and I find I was not mistaken when I said he said that if they lived up to the best light they had they would be saved. I thought I might be mistaken, but Brother Yates says he did say it, and so I find I am correct.
MR. YATES: Do you know, my brother, that you misrepresent me?
MR. POTTER: No; I have your very words for it.
MR. YATES: I have a point of order. The point of order is this: I got a statement from this lady reporter, and it was read here yesterday, stating the differences between us. You said that I damned all the heathen. That is what you said. It is upon record there, and she gave me the note I asked for. I said that, as it was read here from the notes. I do not care for him stating any thing. I say I am not out of humor at all. I said just that, and it is there in the notes, that those that were not
under the law, who did the things that were in the law, would be saved, and Brother Potter said I just rolled them all over into the land of the lost to perish.
MODERATOR: The parties agreed to abide by the record.
MR. POTTER: O certainly we did. I would not have brought it up, but I understood this was the very thing he denied yesterday. He misunderstood me yesterday, that is all. Now he says that he
said it. I do this to show that there is a possibility of mistake and misunderstanding, that is all. It is not a question of veracity nor of difference even on what we said. I did not accuse him of saying what was read there yesterday, and he denied it, nothing of the kind; but I accused him of saying just what he said here this morning that he said, and it was simply a misunderstanding on his part yesterday. That is all the reason I mentioned that.
Now, let us try it again - the Confession of Faith. The reason I accused Brother Yates of preaching universal damnation of the heathen is, because that is the doctrine of modern missionism, and he is here to defend it. He did not like it very well. I know he did not. I would not if I were he. It looks better, perhaps, in his hands than mine, but it is the doctrine of modern missionism, as I quoted from the Philadelphia circular, and which I will quote again by and by. Notice, that in the Philadelphia circular the writer goes on to state that some people undertake to extenuate the heathen as the untaught children of Nature, and to think that the Supreme Being would rather pity than to punish those people. But the writer goes on to say that that is contrary to God's Word, and he preaches the universal damnation of all of them; and as Brother Yates is here in defense of that doctrine, and belongs to that fraternity, he is responsible for what that Society teaches. That is why I accused him of preaching the universal damnation of the heathen. Another reason is, I tried for four days to get Brother Yates to define his proposition and say what the issue was between us, and I asked him the question, "Do you believe, in those Foreign Mission fields, missionaries will be instrumental in the eternal salvation of souls that would not have been saved without them?" And he finally answered, Yes, they will be the means of the salvation of souls that would have gone to hell had not the missionaries got there. Then, in addition to that answer, he undertakes to challenge me to find a solitary individual converted to God and saved, where there is no gospel. Upon that hypothesis I do charge him with preaching the universal damnation of the heathen. Why challenge me for a single conversion where there is no gospel, if he did not believe it? What does he mean by such a challenge as that, if he does not believe that those 100,000 souls a day slip down into hell? If he believes they are saved, why does he challenge me for proof of it? I want the people to see his position. If this question does not stand upon its own merits, I want it to fall. If it will stand up, I want to see it tested. That is what I came here for. Now, for a man to say that there is not a single conversion only where the gospel is, and yet preach the salvation of people where there is no gospel, is to say that they are saved without conversion, that is all. That is what it is. For a man to do that is to say they are saved without conversion. The Bible positively says, in the language of Jesus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The Apostle Paul expressly says, "If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Hence, if any man will show me a person that has the Spirit of Christ and that Spirit been given to them in some way; and if they have not heard the gospel preached, God has given it to them without the gospel; and that is why I deny that missionaries will be instrumental in the salvation of a solitary sinner that would not have been saved without them.
In pointing to this map, Brother Yates said he thought I would be useful in that work. I proposed the other evening that if he would show one single text in the New Testament that authorized the ministry to go about teaching sinners to know the Lord, that I would join him, and all my brethren would come with me - one single text. Now, if he wants me as bad as he lets on,
why does he not produce it. That is the doctrine he teaches all over the country. That is the doctrine everybody teaches who teaches that the missionaries must not only be sent, but that they cannot be saved without the knowledge they give. That is what Carpenter says, that the apostles might have remained in Jerusalem until they died ingloriously, while their heathen brethren were perishing for lack of knowledge which they alone could give.
And the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association say, "They shall teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord." That is missionary doctrine. That is the doctrine of the mission workers today. I say to Brother Yates that if he will show me a text in the New Testament that authorizes the preacher to teach people to know the Lord, I will join him, and my brethren will; I will go their security. He has not produced it. There is proof that the Bible does not authorize them to do that, but positively says they shall not do it - that is, to teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. Now, remember that while I claim that, I claim that the commission says, "Go teach all nations, but remember, it does not say teach them to know the Lord. The Scripture says that the Lord when he ascended gave gifts unto
men, and among those gifts were gifts of teaching, but not to teach them to know the Lord. There is not a syllable anywhere in the New Testament that authorizes preachers to go about teaching people to know the Lord, for the Bible does not contradict itself. I have studied that question closely, for this is not the first time I have had to meet it. I challenged him for one text, and Brother James or anybody else may help him.
MR. JAMES: You are not debating with me now.
MR. POTTER: Excuse me; I am not; that is so. Now, when that text is produced I am ready.
MODERATOR: I would say to the speakers not to make any personal allusions outside of the debaters.
MR. POTTER: I will not. Thank you. Pardon me, everybody.
He now refers us to the 2d Psalm to prove mission work: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Who was that? It was the Lord talking to Jesus Christ. That is David personifying Jesus, and representing the Father talking to him. It is the promise made, and part of the interpretation I spoke of yesterday. If there are any conditions between the Father and Son upon which this promise depends, Brother Yates did not quote it, only that the Son himself, that is, Jesus Christ, was to ask it. What does the text say, that I noticed here yesterday evening in speaking of that very thing, and in harmony with it, in the 53d chapter of Isaiah - he shall see his seed? Not upon the condition of the ministry getting there to preach; no, sir; but upon condition that God's word is true. That is all. He said it who cannot lie. What has he promised? That Jesus Christ, his Son, the only mediator between God and man, shall see his seed, shall see of the travail of his soul, and that he shall be satisfied. I asked, What will be required to satisfy Jesus, after his suffering, after all his agony in the garden of Gethsemane, after being surrounded by an infuriated mob upon the cross, after suffering for three dreadful hours in pain and agony? After all this, what was it for? To redeem the people. What will satisfy him? Nothing short of their salvation. Nothing short of that will satisfy him. Now, he says I proved that they were saved away back yonder, when the atonement was made, by the text in Romans. Let us notice it. Romans v. 8 says: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Now notice that the language here implies that when he died for us we were justified by his blood. "Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be" - not we were at that time, but shall be, in the future - "saved from wrath through him." Now, one is just as certain as the other. If we were justified by his blood, when his blood was shed, we shall just as surely be saved, or else there is no sense in that language. If Brother Yates thinks I am mistaken in that text, let him tell us himself. If I am not mistaken in that, then they shall all be saved. That text represents that Jesus Christ has justified; it was the blood of Christ that justified. Again, in the next verse: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Reconciled in the sense of satisfaction having been made for our sins. In the 53d chapter of Isaiah, that I quoted yesterday evening in connection with all this: "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." Why shall he justify them? He shall bear their iniquities. Did he bear their iniquities? Yes. What did that bring about? Their justification. That being true, they shall be saved. Where are they? Everywhere; all over the earth. I was a little amused at that pointer. That has been a pretty good thing. I presume this congregation is a pretty fair geography school by this time. Let me see whether I have learned any thing or not. Where those colors are, and those names over the country, is where the gospel is. What is here (pointing to South America)?
MR. YATES: The Home Mission work is there.
MR. POTTER: Is the Home Mission work here in South America?
MR. YATES: It is in America.
MR. POTTER: What is in British America?
MR. YATES: The Foreign Missions.
MR. POTTER: (Pointing to Africa) What is in here?
MR. YATES: Right above there; look at those islands.
MR. POTTER: And what is over in here?
MR. YATES: The Greek Church.
MR. POTTER: And we proved by missionary writers that the Greek Church, and the Catholics, and Lutherans, and Reformed Churches, of Europe, are just as much fields for Foreign Mission labor as the heathen. How much of the world is converted, according to this map? Now, let us see; here are the different nations. The country of Burmah, a part of which belongs to the British Government - the country of Burmah, with all the noise that has been made about it concerning Foreign Mission work, the whole country today is under the influence of the Buddhist religion. That the prevailing religion there today. What is it in Africa? Shintoism; they are devil-worshipers. And over here is where he says they barked like monkeys. In South America, strike a line across here, and it is represented by the color in Dobbin's work, "Error's Chains," as heathen lands. Alaska is represented on the map as heathen land. Asia and Greenland are also represented as heathen lands in that book; also Africa and Madagascar are so represented the same on the map. I have the book here, and the different colors show the different religions. Those are all represented as heathen lands in that book. Now, what are the numbers? I do not object to his telling that. I have something better than all that. I introduced it to you the other evening here. What is it? "And behold a great multitude which no man can number." Now, when he numbers all his converts, all his saved souls, by the means of this missionary labor, then we still outnumber him. Here is a great multitude no man can number. Where did they come from? Out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Not only from a few islands and borders of a few nations, and a few countries, but from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. There is where they come from, and no man
can number them. He can number his converts; hence we have got him beaten on that.
Another thought. This was a fulfillment of prophecy made to Abraham, when it was said, "In thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." That is, the seed of Abraham was to be among all the families of the earth, among all the kindreds of the earth, among all the nations of the earth, among all the tribes of the earth.
Revelation v. 9, from the vision of John in heaven, he says: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Will the missionaries ever get there? Have they got there yet? Does it look much like they ever would,
when you look at that map and see the broad fields that have never yet been touched by the missionaries? Let me tell you, when they fail, when all human effort fails, which never saves a
soul at all, when all that fails, and all means and methods fail, in the salvation of sinners, God's grace reaches there; it reaches every state and condition of mankind; it is capable of going down to the very lowest specimen of humanity, and is well adapted to those benighted provinces we hear from. Where our money fails, and our efforts fail, it goes; it goes to the idiot, to the heathen, to the poor benighted soul, and to the infant, all upon the same terms; and if you can tell me how the infant is going to be saved, I can tell you how everybody else that ever will be, because the Saviour said, "Except ye become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." It is not saved because it repents, or because it gets the gospel, or on any conditional plan. How is it saved? By grace. How is the adult saved? Paul says, "By grace ye are saved through faith, and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." And this is the only system of salvation by which God will ever fulfill his promise to Abraham, that is, salvation without conditions, because Jesus is the only Saviour, and Jesus is just as well suited to the salvation of one nation as another, and one individual as another. His grace is as well suited, and as easily given, to the poor heathen as it is to the philosopher, as far as that is concerned. He is everywhere. He works when, and where, and how, he pleases, and when I say this it is not Regular Baptist doctrine alone, but I teach just what the whole orthodox world have always taught, until recently. Everybody has taught this all the time; the Confession of Faith of the Cumberlands teach it, and the Bible teaches it, and I teach it; this salvation is in Jesus Christ, and when the saved get up there they
will sing, "Thou art worthy to take the book and to loose the seals thereof, for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us." They seem to have a knowledge of it, some way or other, that he was slain. That is the theory, then, that goes down lower and reaches further than any other. Talk about missionary doctrine reaching down. This takes in more than any other system in this country. Whom does it take in? It takes in all the seed of Abraham, all the elect of God, from the beginning to the end of the world. It takes in all the believers, without any possibility of falling from grace; it takes in all who love God; it takes in all who call upon his name, and desire to be saved upon the principle of Christ; it takes in all infants and idiots; it takes in people from every country, nation, and tongue, upon the face of the earth. Jesus Christ is the Saviour, suitable to just such work as that, and that work was committed to the hands of Jesus, and not to the hands of men, who are apt to be disobedient, and dilatory, and slow to learn, as we heard yesterday the apostles were. No, sir. Then, it looks like we have some reason to glorify Christ for the great work of salvation, and that is what we are to talk about. This mission work claims for itself that it is doing a work for God that he would never do without it. It claims for itself here that it is converting souls and bringing
them in, that never would be converted without it.
Now, I will present some objections to the doctrine of modern missionism. I am not opposed to education. I have not uttered such a sentiment during this discussion as that the gospel was to be restricted to any class. He has represented me that way this morning. When a person accuses a Regular Baptist of opposing the preaching of the gospel to every creature, they either misunderstand or misrepresent us, and Brother Yates understands us, because I have told him enough this week. He was not mistaken when he said I believed in preaching exclusively to the sheep, because I have denied that all the time.
I object to it because it is of man. It cannot be traced farther back than during the 16th century. Now, I challenged him to bring a history, aside from a modern missionary, that said so. He offered us a modern missionary witness, and because I questioned them he thought I accused them of being dishonest. I do not accuse them of being dishonest, but men's prejudices may have such an influence upon their minds that they would not do justice. If speaking in his own favor, a man would tell all the good and leave the bad out, and if against somebody else, he would tell all the bad and leave all the good out. I will give you an example of that as an evidence that it is so even in the very best and strongest men. Yesterday, in the forenoon, Brother Yates called on me to introduce a text to prove the conversion of a sinner anywhere without truth. I did not have to select a text, but just turned to his Confession of Faith, and found they had selected one which they said was recorded in the 12th chapter of John, 32d verse, to prove the "Holy Spirit, operating through the written Word and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose, or directly without means, so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin and of their lost estate, and their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ." Now, to prove that proposition, the Cumberland Presbyterians refer us to John xii. 32. Hence I quoted that yesterday as my proof-text, the one he called on me for. By mistake, when he got up yesterday afternoon he accused me of quoting the wrong text, that that was not the
one. He took mine, and it reads, "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me," and as he thought I had got hold of the wrong text, and it was my own text and not his, he undertook to saddle Universalism on me with that text. I did not take any advantage of that text, but laid the Bible before him, and he saw he was mistaken; but he had gone too far in making that text teach Universalism before he saw his mistake. When he saw his mistake, he fixed it up like a little man; but did it not show you that if he had known that was a Presbyterian text he would not have said it proved Universalism? Has he said it since? Does not that prove that a man may be prejudiced until he will not do justice to a subject? Well, I thought that if that text taught Universalism for a Regular Baptist, it would teach it as much for a Presbyterian. Hence I put the Universalist saddle on him, and told the people if they wanted to mount a Universalist colt, just mount and ride off. He said in his reply that he did not want to call me an old horse. I called him a colt; he would reverently call me a donkey - Rev. Donkey. He is a Universalist. I do not know what stock of donkeys I belong to; I cannot tell. O yes, I belong to election. I do preach the doctrine of unconditional election, and I believe I will say something about it. Brother Yates would have you think that I believe that if a man is elected that he is elected to do every thing he does in the world, let it be good or bad. Hence he keeps throwing up election, election, election, election, election! election!! election!!! ELECTION!!!! ELECTION!!!!! Now, isn't there intelligence in that? That is what Brother Yates has been doing for six days. I have repeatedly denied believing in the doctrine that every thing was absolutely predestined. I hope Brother Yates will not forget that before I get home. I don't want to have to come back up here to attend to him again. It is too small a job. I have been disappointed this time. One thing I have learned - that there are some men you cannot tell any thing to, because they are just going to think so and so anyway.
Now, what kind of theology has Brother Yates presented on the subject of election and human responsibility? He said once, and I told him of it a day or two ago, that if a man was a reprobate, God made him a reprobate, or else he let the devil do it, and if he let the devil do it, he was to blame for it. When I told him of it, he made no reply. Brother Yates ought to take that back, if he does not believe it, before this debate closes. That is what he said. Now, I showed you in the New Testament where people were reprobates: "Know ye not that ye your own selves, that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates?" Where did reprobates come from? Brother Yates says that God either made them or else the devil made them, and if the devil made them, God was to blame for letting him. I do not believe a word of that doctrine. It is not the doctrine of the Bible. It throws the blame upon God. He need not say "election" to me any more, without he takes that back. Just simply taking it back, and saying he don't believe it, and he did not aim to say it, or it was a slip of the tongue, will end it for me. I thought the reason he said it was because he was under excitement, and when I reminded him of it, and gave him a chance to take it back, he did not do it. I was so liberal to him as to say myself that I did not think Brother Yates believed that, and yet he said nothing about it, and I am going to come to the conclusion, unless he takes it back, that he does believe it. That is the reason I mention it now. Then, if he believes it, where is the blame for man being reprobated? Who are reprobates. Those that have not Christ, are they not, according to that text. Who made them reprobates? Well, it does not matter who. Either the devil of God made them. If God made them, he is to blame for it, and if the devil made them, God is to blame for letting him. That is all I am going to say about that, because I think Brother Yates
will take it back. I do not think Brother Yates is so far gone that there is no doing any thing with him yet. I think in all probability there is a little hope for him. Yet he presumes to be the champion on the side of missionism, for the doctrine of modern missionism, and he could have answered all my objections to them when he was fifteen years old. Much smarter then than now, I think. You have heard him define it. Perhaps everybody that has heard this discussion thinks that modern foreign missionism is blessed and owned of God, and is authorized in the Holy Scriptures.
Another thing or two: Brother Yates, on the first day of this debate, when I wanted him to prove by the Scriptures that they were authorized by the Scriptures, appealed to me this way. he said: "If you will show the term Regular Baptists in the Scriptures, then I will show Foreign Mission in the next chapter." I asked him the question: "You don't believe I can show Regular Baptist in the Bible, do you?" "No," he said. Then I said, "If I will do an impossible thing, if I will do something that is impossible, then you will prove your proposition?" This was the first day of the debate. You will prove your proposition, provided I will do something that cannot be done. I have not obligated myself to prove that Regular Baptist is in the Bible; you have obligated yourself to prove that Foreign Mission is. Hence, it is your duty to prove it. It has been going that
way from then until now. Whenever I show Regular Baptist in the Bible, he is going to show Foreign Missions, and not only that, but Foreign Mission doesn't come until the next chapter, and
Regular Baptist is outside of the Bible entirely, and Foreign Mission is still further out. Then, is it in the Bible? Is it authorized in the Scriptures? For the Bible to teach or authorize a thing, there must be something said expressly, or implied, about it, if the Bible authorizes it.
MR. YATES' SIXTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
I am again before you to continue the line of argument in support of the affirmative of this proposition. In the very opening I want to read from Mr. Carpenter. I happened to find that I, too, had this little tract, though I forgot it and left it at home. Out of this tract my brother has, during this debate, made the most of his speeches, or a considerable part of them, and he ought to be very thankful to Mr. Carpenter. It was published in 1877. I have at home a number of his writings. I did not know it until a few hours ago. My brother has been quoting the statements of this tract to you in such a way as to make Mr. Carpenter's language seem to refer to the foreign field. If this is not correct, I want him to say so. He has been referring to it throughout this debate. I want to read it, and I want you to listen to it, and see what Mr. Carpenter meant. This is all I ask. Page 9: "How many Protestants believe that it is possible to convert them" (referring to the heathen), "or make any systematic efforts to benefit them religiously? Doing as little as we are, both for Foreign Missions and for the conversion of foreigners in our own land, what right have we to expect a successful result from the experiment, which is even now beginning?" He was talking about the neglect of the home field, and not the foreign field at all. Now, just look at that. I want you to see that. He pointed here to this map, designating the places where he said there were no missionaries, disparaging the Foreign Mission work all he could, and then turned around and said it was a good work. Immediately after this statement he held up Mr. Carpenter as witness (and he has been doing this now and then during all these six days) against the Foreign Mission work. Here is the language. I have listened to him three or four days, and thought he would correct it; I disliked to do it. The tract continues: "The millions of idolatrous Asia, and the priest-ridden infidels of Europe, will soon contend together for the political and religious supremacy of America. God's purposes concerning this continent for the next century or two do not yet appear." That is, America. "It is by no means certain that the present race of Christians has faith, and zeal, and love enough to mold these mixed multitudes into Christian ways." Then he goes on to estimate how many men Christianity had in the field at that time, and says that, although there had been great results, there were no more missionaries than there had been several years before. The number of missionaries in America had not increased. So much for Mr. Carpenter. If that is not correct, my brother can correct me.
He says he demanded of me, time and again, to bring Mosheim, and I could not do it; that I knew better, because Mosheim says nothing about missions; he is too old a historian. Now, he will get up and say I misunderstood him. I hope he will not. Now, I will read in the history of the tenth century, from Mosheim, page 108: "But the efforts of these missionaries, who did not understand the language of the country, would have been altogether fruitless had not the commands, the laws, the menaces, the rewards, and the punishments of the duke overcome the
reluctant minds of the Poles." This corresponds exactly with the language of the Harris' "Great Commission," where he speaks of the mission work being propagated in a ritualistic or nominal
way; where part of it was nominal when it was propagated by force. I showed yesterday that, while a good deal of chaff was sowed, there was some good seed that fell here and there. The history continues: "The foundations being thus laid, two archbishops and seven bishops were created, and by their labors and efforts the whole nation was gradually brought to recede a little from their ancient customs and to make an outward profession of Christianity." Brother Potter does not object to this, for he read from Jones' history to prove that these very missionaries were Baptists. But they were all Catholics. "As to that internal and real change of mind which Christ requires of his followers, this barbarous age had no idea of it. The same knowledge of Christianity reached the Hungarians and Avars through the instrumentality of Charlemagne, but it became wholly extinct after his death. In this century Christianity obtained a more permanent existence among those warlike nations."
Now, it is understood that I do not claim that all the mission work that has been done since the time of the apostles was as spiritual as it should have been. I am not here to affirm that; but I say all that has been valuable to the world in Christian work has grown out of the mission spirit. That is one thing about Mosheim in which my brother is mistaken.
Now, I want to spend a little time on Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. He says the authors of this Commentary are not Regular Baptists. No; but they are hyper-Calvinist, and belong to the same school of theology to which my worthy opponent belongs. Brown is the principal of Andrew's College, in Scotland, and belongs to the Scotch Presbyterians. How Brother Potter does love us Presbyterians when he is trying to use us for his own purpose! His application of the meaning of the comments of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, in support of his doctrine, would make them contradict themselves time and again, and this would make their testimony as Biblical expositors in behalf of the doctrine of my brother, of but little worth. It would make their theology contradict itself, as my opponent's does. But this apparent contradiction arises not out of any error of these commentators, but out of the error of my opponent in misapplying the meaning of the word predestinate as employed by them, giving to this word in his applications his meaning instead of theirs. These commentators claim that the predestination of the Bible is in harmony with man's free-will and moral agency. This my opponent denies. Hence this Commentary is a strong and positive witness against him. When he gets into a difficult place he talks altogether about God doing it all. I turn to the 10th chapter of John, a favorite chapter of my brother's, under which he has been sheltering himself. He was considerably exercised the other morning when I claimed he did not quote all of a certain comment on John x. 27, 28, in his favorite Commentary. This comment is the view of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown as to the meaning of predestination as taught in the Bible. Their view is the same is mind, but directly opposed to that of my brother. They could not harmoniously interpret the Bible from any other point of view, though their creed is different. This is what they say: "There is a predestination of the holy which is taught from one end of the Scriptures to the other, not indeed of such a nature that an 'irresistible grace' compels the opposing will of man" - my brother teaches that - "(of course not) but so that that will of man which receives and loves the commands of God is produced only by God's grace." Man uses his will freely. Now, let me go over to the place where he said yesterday that he would teach me something. He told me I did not know how this word "world" was used in the Scriptures when I quoted this passage: "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." He said emphatically that it does not mean the whole world, and wanted to interpret it as meaning God's people. Well, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, we will let you settle this question. What do you say? "Not of Israel only, for whom the typical victims were exclusively offered. Wherever there shall live a sinner throughout the whole wide world sinking under that burden too heavy for him to bear, he shall find in this 'Lamb of God' a shoulder equal to the weight. The right note was struck at the first - balm, doubtless, to Christ's own spirit, nor was ever after or ever will be a more glorious utterance." I really agree with this favorite Commentary of Brother Potter's, as to the sense in which the word world is employed in this passage. It is very cheering to me to have Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on my side of the question. We will farther consult their views on the meaning of this word "world," in other passages of Scripture, as employed in its relation to the sacrificial offering of Christ. We will now examine John iii. 16: "As the serpent was God's ordinance for the cure of every bitten Israelite, so is Christ for the salvation of every perishing sinner; the one, however, a purely arbitrary ordinance, the other divinely adapted to man's complicated maladies; in both cases the efficacy is the same. As one simple look at the serpent, however distant and however weak, brought instantaneous cure" - Brother Potter has been telling us and leaving the impression, quoting Hebrews xi. 1, that God alone gives us faith independent of any agency on man's part. Now God gives us the object and motive-power, and the illuminating
influence of the Holy Spirit, but he does not believe for us; hence, in the Scriptures, where the salvation of the sinner is represented from God's side, it is sometimes said God gives faith, as in the passage, "Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." When the salvation of the sinner is presented from the human side the exercise of saving faith in Christ is represented as absolutely conditioned upon man's moral agency, as in the expressions, "Whosoever believeth in him," "As many as received him," "Except ye repent," etc. Thus we see that the sinner's salvation is conditioned upon acceptance of the deliverance offered. While my opponent says man is responsible, he will turn right around after making this concession and seek to prove that man is irresponsible, and can do nothing. Now, in support of the view I have just presented of man's moral agency in his personal salvation, I will continue with the comment of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on John iii. 16: "As one simple look at the serpent, however distant and however weak, brought an instantaneous cure, even so real faith in the Lord Jesus, however tremulous, however distant - be it but real faith - brings certain and instant healing to the perishing soul. In a word, the consequences of disobedience are the same in both." Now, in speaking of the perishing world, this commentary on John iii. 16 says: "The picture embraces several distinct compartments. 'The world,' in its widest sense ready to perish; the immense 'love of God' to that perishing world, measurable only and conceivable only by the gift which it drew forth from him; the gift of itself - 'He so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.'" Further down he goes on to say: "The fruit of this stupendous gift is not only deliverance from impending 'perdition,' but the bestowal of
everlasting life, and the mode in which all takes effect is by 'believing' on the Son." On the 19th verse, the Commentary says: "Condemned already; rejecting the one way of deliverance from that condemnation which God gave his Son to remove, and so willfully remaining condemned." Now, my worthy opponent, I leave it with you and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown to reconcile your
differences, for your favorite Commentary is squarely against you.
And now I shall pay farther attention to his note illustration, as he has brought it up again. He represented me as saying God would never require a man to do what he could not do within himself, or that which God would not extend to him ability to perform. This he emphatically denied, declaring, at the same time, that God requires of every sinner spiritually what he cannot do. To make this plain he brought forth his note illustration. He made much ado about my questioning God's right to treat the sinner as his doctrine represented him, and then he went on to say that all were in sin and bankrupt, but that did not release us from the obligations of our indebtedness to God. This he attempted to demonstrate by his favorite fifty-dollar-note business transaction.
Now, I think I have already explained that note business. How did we fail to pay the note? If we are all dead in Adam, I want to know how we are responsible only for tendencies in our nature. Now, if I am absolutely helpless, spiritually, and there is a brother in this audience who is exactly in the same condition, and when the message of salvation comes the Holy Spirit constrains him to receive it, and leaves me in my helpless state without divine aid to accept the deliverance offered, and this leaves me unavoidably to meet the doom of the eternally lost, I want to know where the equity is. When I bring the text, "I have called, and ye refused," he says he believes in personal responsibility. I have called his attention to passage after passage that he has never touched, and yet he turns around in the next minute and preaches that other doctrine - the saving of man without any agency on his part. Now I ask, which side of the question is he on? I claim that it is taught in the Word of God that, while my affections may be turned from God, and I am morally helpless so far as saving myself is concerned, that by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the Word illuminating the eye of the understanding, I can choose, accept, or reject, the offer of salvation, and that these privileges are extended to every human being wherever the gospel is preached. This I have conclusively shown from God's Word, and from the opinions of first-class Biblical expositors, in this discourse, without taking into consideration the many arguments I have adduced from the sources named in my preceding addresses. This note illustration proves too much for his doctrine, as I have already shown, in the fact that in the giving of a note there are
conditions to be complied with that require the agency and choice of the party contracting the debt; and there is also, on the part of the party to whom the obligation is made in accepting the note, an acknowledgment of the ability of the one by whom the note is given to discharge the obligation therein contained. Therefore, his own illustration proves that God has so constituted and placed man as to make it his privilege to be saved, and that if he is lost it will be by bankrupting himself
spiritually in the abuse of his opportunities and privileges, and in wasting and paralyzing his spiritual energies and faculties. I have so thoroughly exposed in my former speech the sophistry wrapped up in this note illustration that it is unnecessary for me to give a farther analysis. So, in this spiritual note business we have a personal responsibility. We are held accountable in these spiritual obligations that weigh down upon us for that part only that we have an agency in, and that part in which we had no agency Jesus absolutely blotted out in the atonement. That is the way the idiots and babies are saved. I have asked him, time and again, to tell us the meaning of the
word "elect," and he won't do it. I have explained it. I have demanded him to show a passage where it was said Christ came to save the elect, and he has not done it. I have said emphatically
that where the word "elect" is used it always implies a believer, and he has not denied it. But he said he put me down as - I do not know what, whether it was Universalist or not. The prodigal son came to my mind while he was talking about this. The prodigal was sorry he had sinned against heaven and in his father's sight. He remembered the home and its surroundings, and by viewing it in contrast with his impoverished and degraded state was led to say, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight; I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." Did he say that? No. He had fixed up that speech in his mind, but his father met him on the way, and, as soon as the son reached the point in his confession, "I am no more worthy to be called thy son," the father stopped him by crying out, "Bring forth the best robe," etc. This was
enough. It was just what the father desired to see in him - sorrow for his course of conduct, because it was against him and the home government, and an acknowledgment of the same, and a return to seek his father's forgiveness. The father was waiting and anxious to receive him. The prodigal represented the Gentile world. So we see that the sinner's return to God is conditioned upon his own choice. I have quoted passage after passage of Scripture proving that all mankind are lost in sin, and that in the plan of salvation God, through his gospel, extends the offer of salvation to every sinner, and hence calls on men everywhere to repent. It is this universal call to me to be saved that, in the Bible, connects repentance with the judgment. I have shown conclusively that Jesus came to reveal God. I have given Scripture proofs of this time and again, and Brother Potter has not dared to meet them. How did he treat that passage in regard to the ambassadors of Christ, II. Corinthians v.? I will just notice it a moment. "Now then are we ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead: be ye reconciled to God." This is the language of the representatives of Jesus. And here my opponent accuses the missionary workers of taking the work out of the Lord's hands. Now, my brother knows better than that; he knows there never were more godly men and women than those who have crossed the seas and labored in these heathen lands. I challenge him before this intelligent audience to turn round and say they were not faithful Christians. I dare him to say that these men and women who are leading workers, and have periled their lives for the heathen, do not stand out as monuments of the power of the gospel of the Son of God. He is the man tht does the asserting. He says God never made the sinner a sinner, but men make themselves sinners. How is that, when the sinner was not non-elect from eternity? I showed the other day that that word "elect" implied character, and character is not inherited; it is something cut or carved - something wrought out - and he has not said a word in reply. Election implies conversion, conformity to the image of Christ. That comes by repentance and godly living; and when I charged him with preaching the doctrine that he was justified eighteen hundred years before he was born, in his reply he tried to get away from it, and then, in the very same speech, he turned around and indorsed it. He said that Jesus would save every one whom he came to die for, and that faith and repentance are not conditions in this plan of salvation. The brother seemed to be a little out of humor. I love him; I am going to visit him after this debate
is over. I am getting acquainted with him. We must keep in a good humor. Listen to his language - through he likes Brother Yates. In speaking of his missionary witnesses he says, "They are just as good as Brother Yates." Well, I do not deny that. He went on to say that he did not debate with me - look at that; I hope he will explain that - he did not debate with me because I was more honest or better than any one else, but because I was indorsed as a representative minister by the advocates of Foreign Missions. This personal thrust is rather unbecoming for a man of his standing. But we will have to excuse him, for he is sour and out of humor. His cause is a bad one. He has been rowing up stream during these six days of discussion, and against wind and tide. I will say to my brethren in this audience, and to Brother Hume, I debated with Brother Potter because I looked upon him not only as a representative minister, but as a man of character; and I would not debate with him, or any other man, unless I considered him as possessing Christian character as well as
intellectual ability and culture. The men that stand behind me I suppose will risk my character as well as my competency in this discussion. I can risk it. Then he told about a little correspondence we had, and what I said in a twitting way about answering him. Let me tell you how that was. I was working with Brother Potter to get him to sign some plain conditions of agreement by which we should be governed in the debate. This was after he had accepted the challenge. He worried along ten or twelve days, I trying to get him to sign the conditions and to fill up the blank. There were only two blanks to be filled up. A boy twelve years old could have done it in a very short time. I wrote to him several times to sign these conditions of agreement for the debate if he was still disposed to meet me in joint discussion, and he still found some excuse and put me off. Finally he said he did not know how to do it, or something to that effect, and there is a man sitting here (the Rev. Mr. Collins) who went down to his house with me, and we took a copy of the very same conditions of agreement that I had before furnished him, and which he said he did not know how to sign. When I confronted him face to face, in the presence of a witness, asking him to sign it or back out, he signed it like a little man, without any alteration or a word of objection. This is all I will say about this, and would not have said this much if he had not called it out.
A word in regard to that saddle business. He was speaking of the Saviour of sinners. Now, let me turn back and just read that passage, and I will not pay any more attention to it after this. Isaiah liii. 10, 11: "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by
his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." By his knowledge he shall justify many. Did you put the emphasis there? No, sir; you put the emphasis on bearing their iniquities, to make it appear that God's elect were absolutely purchased as individuals in the death of Christ. But the idea presented by the Prophet Isaiah is that no one is saved by the sufferings of Christ alone, but through the revelation these sufferings give of God's nature and relation to mankind. Hence, it is said we are justified by his knowledge, because of his offering of himself as a sin-offering. The meaning is, that Christ through his suffering as a sacrifice for sin would give such a revelation of the dignity of man and the greatness of his destiny, of the fearful situation in which sin has placed him, of the heinousness of sin, of its terrible consequences, of God's resentment to sin, and of the mercy and love of God, and his anxiety to save man, and of the great salvation offered, as would cause many of the human family to be divorced from their sins and won to God, and lead them to be justified by the Lord through a loving confidence in Christ as their personal Saviour. So, my brother, your efforts to prove from the Scriptures just explained that God's elect are actually saved by the sin-offering of Christ absolutely, without any agency on their part, is a complete failure. These Scriptures teach just the opposite..
But he says there has been nothing done in Burmah. I have here Dobbins' "Error's Chains," and will read from page 773: "What a grand work has been done in Burmah!" - Burmah is the country up here on the map which he has made so much fun of. I suppose he could make a better one. There are nearly 2,750,000 people in British Burmah, and 4,000,000 in Burmah proper. Now,
hear what this man says: "What a grand work has been done in Burmah, where missionary labor has been so emphatically blessed, among Burmese, Karens, Shans, and Kay Keyennes!" O, he quotes it just as it is: "The young mission at Bahmo is in a precarious condition at present, owing to the relations of King Thebaw to England; yet the missionaries there stand by their posts." Here
is the part about Buddha: "The Buddhism of Burmah seems as yet but little affected by the presence of Christianity; the work among the Karens has made more rapid progress than among the Burmese, because of the preparation for the gospel by their singular traditions and prophecies. There are 23,000 Christians, the nucleus of a Christian community of about 75,000." There are 103 missionaries in Burmah. That does pretty well, when we remember that Brother Potter's Church has now only 40,000 members, though he claims that it has existed ever since the days of the apostles, while the work has not been introduced in Burmah over eighty years. He talked about Africa. If my brother would read Christlieb's "Foreign Missions of Protestantism" he would not make such blunders. Right here in Africa (pointing to the map), and scattered in all those countries in which the Foreign Mission work is carried on; throughout Asia and Europe, and here in all these islands of the sea, from Patagonia to Greenland, there are today, under the direct influence of the Foreign Mission work alone, 1,600,000 people. A pretty good work. Carey started out from England in 1792 with only one faithful minister and a few friends to stand behind him, and now see the great army of Christian laborers today who engage in the work in the mission field. It is a grand work that extends around the world, and yet Brother Potter compares these missionaries to barking monkeys. Now, my friends, here is the testimony (pointing to the heathen countries on the map), here is the result of the work, the gospel fruits produced, that demonstrates that the Foreign Mission work is owned and blessed of God. I have given proof-text after proof-text from the Bible, showing that the Foreign Mission work is also authorized in the Scriptures, and he has utterly failed to disprove my interpretations and applications of them.
I will now proceed to give a summary of the line of argument which I have produced during this discussion in support of the affirmative of the proposition:
Resolved, That the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Protestant world in heathen lands or foreign countries, known as the Foreign Mission work, is authorized in
the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God."
I based my line of argument on the identity of the Protestant Foreign Mission work of today, in every essential feature, with the gospel work as recorded in the New Testament; and I believe that a fair and careful examination of these arguments will reveal the fact that they have been clearly, conclusively, and unanswerably sustained, and that any one of them alone would have proved the affirmative of the question under discussion. I have shown that the Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God, as evidenced in its identity with the gospel work of the New Testament in the following features:
1. In the great end it is designed to accomplish, and the end to be subserved. I based this argument upon the great commission, and also upon Acts xxvi. 17, 18, Paul's commission to the Gentiles; and I then showed that the entire trend of Scripture truth throughout the New Testament establishes this position.
2. In its principles and the great motive-power that actuates it. You remember I defined the objects of the Foreign Mission work in those benighted lands, to proclaim the glad tidings of the Saviour, to open the eyes of the blind, and break the power of Satan. That was the commission given to Paul. And Jesus himself said to his apostles, when he gave them the great commission, Go, preach to all the world, and "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." I showed that Paul and Barnabas were set apart by the Holy Spirit, through the Church by her representatives in the laying on of hands, and were sent out to the field in just the same way the foreign missionaries are sent out today. I showed that the principles of the mission work of today are identical with the principles of the gospel work of the New Testament, which are supreme love to Christ, compassionate love for mankind, loyalty to Jesus, obedience to the blessed Christ, deep sympathy with suffering humanity, seeking to cooperate with Jesus in carrying this great work into the remotest parts of the earth. "The world is the field," says the Master.
3. In the great spiritual agency that begets, energizes, and guides the Foreign Mission work. I spoke of Pentecost, and showed from the 1st chapter of Acts that these men and women were baptized with the Holy Spirit that they might witness for Jesus in all parts of the world. I showed that they tarried at Jerusalem in accordance with the command of Christ, after he said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," until they were "imbued with power from on high." And then I showed how that Spirit led and guided them, and how the Church at Antioch sent out Paul and Barnabas under the direction of that Spirit. Then I went to the foreign field and showed that the great revival of the Foreign Mission work that is sweeping the world today all round the globe, was developed by the same spiritual agency, guided and energized by the same Spirit. I showed that before Carey went out as a missionary he had prayed for years, and his heart had been burdened for India. I showed how the Warwick Association set apart a Monday out of every month for prayer, and how at the same time Jonathan Edwards, from our own shores, sent the bugle-note across the seas, and asked for God's blessing to rest upon the Church at home and on the heathen world.
4. In the manner of selecting and sending forth the laborers into the foreign field. I showed that the missionaries today are sent out just as Paul and Barnabas were sent out.
5. In its fruits in heathen lands, in the transformation of individual character and of society. I took the Bible and read about the sins the Corinthians were guilty of - all those beastly sins that made Corinth such a wicked city before Paul went there to preach. I then showed what the Corinthian Church afterward were. Then I took the contrast in the foreign field, before and after the missionaries went to them, showing that the same principles were carried out with the same object, and that the fruits are the same.
Now, I have a few testimonials by unprejudiced men, which I want to introduce here in regard to the Foreign Mission work, on the fruits of the work. Now, these are men who are not working
in the mission field. They are travelers and scholars, historians and governors. My time having expired, I will give these in my next speech.
MR. POTTER'S SIXTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
The first thing that I wish to pay respects to concerning the speech is to the map. Brother Yates thinks I made fun of the map. I presume that is a correct map; I have never called it in question. I wanted to know what was here where there are no colors, or any thing of that kind. I wanted to know if that was not populated with people. There are no signs of any missionaries there. There are here, around the borders of some of these countries and islands, but what is where there are no marks? It is territory - part of the world - and people live there. I take that as a correct map. It shows that there is a large portion of th world where the gospel has not been. As far as my calling missionaries barking monkeys, that is a mistake. I did not call the missionaries barking monkeys at all.
MR. YATES: That is the way I understood you.
MR. POTTER: Yes, Brother Yates never understands me. He says he does not understand me. He became a little fired up about it. No, he says not; no, he wasn't. He is the man that introduced
that about the barking the other day. I understood him to say the other evening, in pointing to some of these islands, that when the missionaries first went to them the inhabitants there barked like monkeys; had no language at all, and that the missionaries did such a work for them that it convinced Charles Darwin that he was right in his theory in thinking that man sprang from a monkey. He confessed he was wrong. That is what the barking originated from. That is all the use I have for the map at present. That is a nice map, and so far as its correctness is concerned I have nothing to say about it. Taking it as it is, we suppose the territory there that is not marked is in heathenism today. That is a Protestant missionary map, but I think it is correct, according to all the maps and accounts I have seen from the missionaries on that subject. So far as Carpenter is concerned, I will say this: Brother Yates did not read all the quotation I made from Carpenter this morning. I began my quotation with the toast that the Irish Catholics drank at a general festival in New England, that Carpenter speaks of, and the quotation itself shows that Carpenter had allusion to our
work at home; and while we were doing a little at home, we were also doing so little abroad. He means both - that the heathen were likely to come in here and overflow this country, and he calls his brethren to look at the prospect. That is what I introduced that for. I am not going to take up time on it. But he did bring Mosheim. What was he going to bring that for? He proposed yesterday morning to show a succession of the missionary organizations from the days of the apostles until now - foreign missionary societies. He introduced a missionary witness, and I wanted to know why he did not introduce some other witness - as Mosheim, Eusebius, or Ruter's history, or some of those old histories. The missionaries that Mosheim referred to there are simply missionaries. If he called them foreign missionaries, I did not hear those words in the quotation read. Well, it is the Foreign Mission work we are here to talk about. Home mission work is not in it at all. However, I do not object to his discussing home missions if he wants to, if he will get up a proposition that embraces it correctly; but Foreign Mission work is the work we are talking about. He says that Jamieson, Fausset and Brown are hyper-Calvinists and Presbyterians. He says I love Presbyterians when they suit me. I do; that is true. I love them just as well as any other in the world when they suit me. I love Brother Yates when he suits me. He has suited me very little of the time during this week, so far as his positions are concerned. Now, he is not only against me when I am opposed to Presbyterians, but he is against me when I am in favor of them. He, so far as his doctrine is concerned, never suits me; so far as his positions are concerned, they never suit me. Once in awhile the Calvinists suit me on some points. He claims them, he is here to defend them. His own Confession of Faith suits me in some respects, but his positions never have suited me.
On the subject of the way we become sinners, I want just to make one more remark on that part of the subject. We have heard that all the week. All the week we have heard about how we become sinners, and it reminds me of a poor old darkey that was undertaking to blast some rock on his master's farm. He drilled a hole in the rock, put in a sufficiency of powder, gave it a touch, and it flashed off through the crevices, but did not blow off any rock; but all the air over the field seemed to be impregnated with the odor from the burnt powder. The master complained of his not blowing up any rock, and he said: "Massa, I will tell you - dis yer powder been shot off afore." That don't blow up any rock. When powder has been shot off once it don't do much good when you continue to shoot it.
I do not know what Brother Yates' position is as to hereditary sin. He does not take any position if he can help it, but in summing up his arguments of what has been done this week, I want you to remember in his summary that on the fourth day he got his proposition defined. He go through with that on the fourth day, in the evening.
Now, to show human responsibility and cooperation of human action, in order to become the children of God, he refers us to John i. 12: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." Now, they must receive him; that is their part of the work, that is the condition, and when they do it he will then give them power to become the sons of God. Who received him? Let us go to that text and learn the truth. The full quotation is about this: "In speaking of Jesus, the writer says: "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." Now, who were they? "Even to them that believe on his name." They were the ones that received him; nobody else. That is the reading of the text. You need not go to any other text. The Bible does not contradict itself. It teaches the same thing; but it is proper to let the speaker say his say out, when we introduce him. These, he says, were believers, and not only that, but he says, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Those
are the ones that received Jesus when he was here, and the ones that receive him now - the ones that are born of God.
He says, on the subject of election and choice, "I believe I will give one text." He says that choice refers to character. God's choice means character, he chooses character. Let us see whether it does or not. I will call your attention to the lxv. psalm of David, 4th verse: "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest." Some people say election does not embrace a class. This is just one man, and man in the singular. I want it all fixed up as we go along. This is one man, singular number, specified man, the man. "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee." Now, remember that he was chosen of God before he came to Jesus, before he came to God. What was his character when he was chosen? If choice or election always means character, what was this man's character prior to the choice, or when the choice was made? He did not come to Christ. He did not come to God. The choice was first, and, in addition to that choice, he caused him to come to him. That is the man that David says is the blessed man. "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." That man was chosen first, caused to come to God second, enjoyed the goodness of the house, and dwelt in his courts third. That is the order according to that text. Now, if choice always means character, I want to know what the character of that man was when the choice was made? He was not in God's house, he had not come to God yet, but as a result of that choice, or as a consequence of it, God caused him to come to him, and that is the man that is blessed; and when God caused him to come, then the man dwells in the courts of the Lord. That is the blessing he enjoys. It is not necessary to dwell very long on choice. The Lord, as we heard last night, does not have to speak a half dozen times in order to tell the truth. One time is enough.
He accuses me of saying that I do not debate with him because he is more honest than any other man. Well, I suppose there are other men as honest as Brother Yates is. I suppose there are. I did not think about his being the purest man in the world - superlatively pure, so far as that word in its comparison will allow. I thought he was a man - just a man. But I did not come here simply to fight Brother Yates, as an individual, in his opinions. That is what I meant. I came here to oppose a principle, not to fight any man. Then he accuses me of not coming to debate with him. He is here to defend a principle, not Brother Yates. Is nobody else interested in the missionary cause but him? Is he all the advocate the Foreign Mission work has in the world? Now he is here to defend the Foreign Mission work as it is, as a principle, not as Brother Yates would set it up, but as it is already set up and advocated by those who believe in it. I came to fight that. That is what I came here for. I came to fight it as embraced in his proposition. His proposition says that it is authorized in the Holy Scripture. I object to it. I say it is not authorized in the Holy Scripture. I say there is not a syllable, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, that either expresses or implies Foreign Missionism, as it is advocated by Brother Yates and the Foreign Mission advocates of today. He is going to sum up all the texts and give you some of them. I want you to listen. If I am mistaken I want to be righted. I am here to learn. I confess I am not past
learning yet; I have not learned it all. I am not perfect. I am short-sighted, willing to learn any thing, willing to sit down at the feet of Brother Yates , or any other man in the world, to receive lessons of instruction. I came here for that purpose. I was under the impression, before I ever heard of Brother Yates, that Foreign Missionism was defended by a great many people. They thought it was right, and that it was a good thing; but while I was under that impression, I did not believe there was a solitary syllable in God's Word that authorized it. And one reason I did not was because I had never found it. Still it might be there. Another reason why I did not believe it was
because it charged the apostles and their successors, and all the Church, and all the ministry, of overlooking it for nearly seventeen hundred years. They had read the Bible, they had been praying men, they had been good and godly men; many of them, hundreds of them, had yielded their lives for the gospel in the flames, and they had never thought of foreign missionary societies until within the sixteenth or seventeenth century. That was the reason I did not believe it was in the Bible. I thought that if it was they would have found it there before so many years rolled around. That was one objection I had to it. I wanted them to find it if it was there; I wanted Brother Yates to show it to me if it was there; I wanted him to show it to the people if it was there; I wanted him to show it to my brethren if it was there.
Our position about this doctrine has called forth upon our heads the anathemas of most of our religious neighbors; because we opposed it, and would not take stock in it, we have been denominated anti-mission, anti-effort, and anti-almost every thing else. I thought this would be a good opportunity for us to get out of that, if we were wrong. We are not here as idle spectators; we are not here for nothing; and it will be remembered that the very first day of this discussion Brother Yates admitted that if I would find the term Regular Baptist in the Bible, that then, in the next chapter, he would find Foreign Missions. I did not call on him for the word Foreign Mission; I have not been calling on him for that. I want that word, though, or I want it implied. When the Bible authorizes a thing it must say something about it. When it has authority from heaven, it must say it in terms that ought to be understood. One argument introduced the first day of this discussion was that nine hundred and ninety-nine Christians out of a thousand believe in it, and because I said that public opinion was against Christ, then he said I compared them to Christ-killers. I said no such thing. Public opinion is not always right. Good men sometimes are on the side of public opinion, but public opinion is not always right. But I answered this way: that it ought to be a settled question if it is authorized in the Bible; if it is expressed or implied in God's Word, there ought not to be a dissenting Christian in the world; instead of being nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand that believe in it, if it is authorized in God's Word, especially when we think such importance attaches to it as our missionary brethren claim.
I objected to the Foreign Mission society, then, on the ground that Paul himself, as I showed you from a modern missionary writer that I had clipped from a Journal and Messenger, published by a Missionary Baptist in 1877, in which he describes Paul as a missionary; in which he said that Paul was not backed up by a wealthy missionary organization; that he went alone, and all he had to assist him was God's commission and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is the kind of a missionary Paul was, so says a Missionary Baptist himself. Now, I believe in that kind of missionism; I think that is sufficient. If a man has the authority from heaven and guidance of the Holy Spirit to go and preach, I say for him to go, and I say he is a rebel if he does not go.
I showed again, in addition to that, that there was only one thing that the apostles were commanded to tarry for, and that was not to get up a board and raise money, or to prepare for the
trip, but to wait until they were endued with power from on high. I showed you from the missionary circular, that they report themselves, that the very best men stand waiting; only the money is wanting. They were not waiting for power from on high, but were waiting for the money to be ready. Those were two kinds of waiting, and it did not look like there was much identity in all that.
In addition to all that, I showed you that the gospel, with all the disadvantages and with all the opposition it had at the start, by the preaching of the apostles spread faster and more in a short time than it has done under the grand banner of Foreign Mission work in the latter days. The gospel was preached in Europe, Asia, and Africa, in most of the different parts of those countries, by the apostles, and I mentioned several of the disadvantages they labored under. One was, they had no post-office or mails; there was no such thing as mailing a letter here at Owensville and it running to Evansville in an hour. If I wanted to send a message, provided I had lived in that time, I must employ my messenger and send him; neither was there any such advantage for nearly fourteen hundred years after the apostles were dead. Then they could not spread news very fast; they did not have the opportunities. I showed not only that, but that they did not have the use of the telegraph and telephone by which to communicate with all the world in an hour, or a day. We get news today
from all over the civilized world in a day. They could not do it, they did not have that advantage. I showed again, while they were destitute of that advantage, they did not have these locomotives and steam cars, nor the steamship. When they traveled by land they had to go on foot, or by camels, and when on the water they must go by the power of sails and oars. You remember when Christopher Columbus left Spain to discover America, he left Spain on the first day of August, and landed at San Salvador on the 12th day of October. Look at what a tedious trip that was. And perhaps there were grand improvements in the mode of travel then to what they had in the days of the apostles. Again, I showed you they did not have the use of the printing press by which to print tracts, papers, and Bibles, or any thing of the kind. The Bible itself was only in manuscript. Only a few people, comparatively, could afford to have it, and it was not compiled in its present form for several hundred years after the apostles were dead; and yet, with all these disadvantages, the gospel spread faster, and did more, and was more powerful than it is now under the banner of our modern missionaries. Why? Because they were sent of God. They relied on his authority and
the guidance of his Spirit. What do they rely upon now? They rely upon the liberality of man. Before you go you must be ready to go. If a man starts to the Foreign Mission field today, he must be furnished with an outfit worth about $500. He must be furnished with money to pay his expenses, and must have a salary. I do not say this to reflect on his honesty at all, however. When they have the use of the steam, and the electric wire, and the printing-press, which is the grandest power we have in the world today, it looks like it ought to spread faster than it does. Another disadvantage - they had no Christian constituency to send them out. Right where they were, at Jerusalem,, the people were opposed to them; their own brethren and countrymen, according to the flesh, were ready to kill them, beat them with stripes, stone them to death, crucify them; and they had no place
to start from, as the missionaries have now. Now, I do not introduce that to say we ought to travel like they did, that if they walked we ought to walk; no. I noticed that to show an evidence of God's blessing to them, and to compare them with the conveniences we have today.
Another objection I had, it was of man. I made that argument myself, and proved by missionary documents that Brother Yates admits himself were good, and has not even asked me to let him inspect them, and which have not been contradicted, either. I showed you, and it has not been contradicted, that a missionary said himself, in giving the grounds of modern Foreign Missions, that it was a circumstance very remarkable that in modern Foreign Missions papal Rome had led the way. Now, just think, if papal Rome led the way, what kind of an institution it was. It was this sect called the Society of Jesus, known in our history and everywhere else as Jesuits, who hated liberty, and were ready to do any work for the establishment of their own Church as a government religion everywhere. That is the institution that missionaries say led. I argue that if they led, Jesus Christ did not. They were men. Now, the missionaries say themselves that papal Rome led in this grand work. I argue that it is of man, and not of God, because of its recent introduction into the world. It never existed until in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. I had noted in my book the date of the origin of the most influential missionary organizations that are in existence today, from Appleton's Encyclopedia. I have not introduced it. He says that I have shot that all away. No, I have not. I did not have any thing in particular to shoot it at. But I do say that if it had been of God he would have introduced it sooner.
One more objection I have to it is the doctrine which it teaches, and I want to repeat that in their own language. I will quote it, and I want the people to look at it. Now, whether Brother Yates teaches that doctrine or not I do not know, nor do I care; missionaries do. It does not matter to me what Brother Yates' view about that matter is; he is here to defend missionism as it is. What is it? I object to the Foreign Mission work on the ground that it makes a misuse of the gospel, in that it makes the gospel an offer of salvation, and thereby essential to salvation. Brother Yates has argued that a great deal of the time while we have been here.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. YATES' SEVENTEENTH SPEECH.
MODERATORS AND RESPECTED AUDIENCE:
I want to call your attention to one thing. Brother Potter has told you of a great many things he has proved to me. This book will show, when it comes out, how much he has proved. He said that I did not notice his argument about the Roman Catholics inspiring or encouraging the Protestants to engage in the Foreign Mission work. Now, I have answered that; that is all down. I showed you how that was. I did it from the good authority of Mosheim himself. It is all there, my brother. Mosheim tells how men were brought down on their knees by the Roman Catholics, who forced their nominal religion on them. I have proved during this discussion that the Protestant Foreign Mission work of today is employing the ordained agencies and means of God, as revealed in the New Testament, in the prosecution of the gospel work. I have proved also from first-class authority - viz., Harris' "Great Commission," the statements of which are corroborated by Mosheim's Church History and every other ecclesiastical history of note - that the Foreign Mission work, in its very principles, design, and object, has been carried on through all the centuries of the past, from the days of the apostles up to the present time. In trying to evade the force of Harris' statements in his "Great Commission," which I have brought as testimony in support of the unbroken historical identity of the Foreign Mission work, my opponent said I ought to have read it from Mosheim. He knows this would have taken too much time and labor, for this work is in several volumes. Mr. Harris took time and pains not only to cull the facts from Mosheim's Church History concerning the mission work of the Church through the past centuries of Christian history, but has given a digest of all the authoritative works upon this subject, thus making this work a better witness than Mosheim, or any other single authority, in support of this point. It gives the harmonized and condensed
statements of all the reliable writers on the subject, and its pre-eminent merit in this respect has been acknowledged by the representative talent and piety of the Church in Europe. Brother Potter knows that it would have taken too much of my time to have quoted Mosheim's extended accounts of the Church-work of each century. His objection, therefore, in this particular, is a mere quibble. On the first day of the discussion he said if I could show him a missionary like Paul, who, he claimed, supported himself in the work by the labor of his own hands, he would indorse him and his work as authorized in the Scriptures. So I referrd him to the case of the Rev. J. Hudson Taylor, of the China Inland Mission, showing how he and all his collaborators - 180 in number - supported themselves with their own hands, or by voluntary and direct contributions by friends, without the assured aid of any organized missionary board with the great resources of a Church behind it, and how God had blessed and owned the work. And the poor dodge he made to keep his dear brethren from seeing his shameful and overwhelming defeat was to raise a laugh by saying, "He must be a Regular Baptist." He was so completely caught, and his defeat was so terrific, that this
reply, absurd as it was, was the best he could make. J. Hudson Taylor is not a Baptist at all, and his mission work is carried on by laborers from all denominations. It is a Christian union work - a work very different indeed, in both belief and practice, from that of my worthy opponent and his brethren. I showed from Brother Potter's own admission that the fruits of the China Inland Mission alone were sufficient to demonstrate the fact that the Protestant Foreign Mission work is authorized in the Scriptures and owned and blessed of God. He knows I had several times disproved his assertion in regard to the Roman Catholic mission work surpassing the Protestant work of missions. I have sent for a book, my brother. I have you right there. I showed you here, time and again, from the very best authors in the world, and these people know it, that the Protestants pay annually to the Foreign Mission work five times as much as the Catholics; and here is a minister of the gospel after we have debated six days, who has the face to get up before these people
and argue, as my opponent does, with all the proof against him, and it is upon record. I exposed him in his books. He read from Jones, a Baptist historian. I whispered to him at the time that Jones was a liar, and told him he had better not read from his book, because this author had been exposed. Brother Potter does not deny it. If he denies it, I will publish it. He read from Jones in regard to the missionaries of the early centuries, as though those men who did that work in those centuries were Regular Baptists. I took Harris and disproved this, and showed again that Jones told a falsehood, as he had done about the Waldenses. In the first day's speech my dear brother said the
apostles carried the gospel into England. I tried to handle him kindly in regard to this, but he persisted, and then I took the books and disproved his statements. This I did from Mosheim, and
Knight's History of England.
He told us about the civilization in Egypt and Greece, and how Nimrod originated it in Egypt. He now denies that he has ever, during this discussion, placed the civilization produced by heathen culture on a level with the civilization produced in heathen lands by the gospel. Why, then, was he talking about that civilization, if he was not putting it side by side on equal grounds of merit with the Christian work on the foreign field? When he said he would prove that the missionary work in Madagascar was backed and prosecuted by the protection and force of balls and bayonets, I took the work which he brought to prove his assertion, reading his own marked quotation, not only disproving his assertion thereby, but also proving from the same authority that there never had been an attempt to protect the missionaries by the force of arms, and that the war waged against the Hovas by the British and French on account of the massacre of their colonists, was detrimental to the Foreign Mission work on that island. The grand triumphs of the work were brought about by missionary efforts alone, as approved and blessed by Divine favor. When my opponent found himself driven to the wall in regard to this, he declared that he was not talking about the Foreign Mission work of that island at all, but civilization; he was talking about the Foreign Mission work. In either case he is in the same dilemma, for the Christian civilization of Madagascar was produced by the Foreign Mission work. Now, when I was driving him from point to point in the discussion of the missionary work, he claimed that Paul, when he visited Antioch, went as a missionary. He said that in making this trip the apostle set an example, showing how a missionary should do when called. Missionaries, he said, should go immediately - as Paul went to Arabia - without conferring with flesh and blood; that is, without waiting for the consent of the Church, or the
provision of means for support, as missionaries do today. I defied him to show a word, or hint, in Paul's statement in Galatians, or in any other passage of the Word, justifying the assertion that the apostle's object in going to Arabia was to perform missionary work. This he has failed to do. I showed that the Scriptures give no light as to the object of Paul's visit to Arabia, and that the opinions of the most eminent Biblical scholars are against my opponent's interpretation. This statement I quoted from page 116 of the "Life and Epistles of St. Paul," by Canon Farrar, who is acknowledged to be one of the best scholars and profoundest theologians of Europe or America. Farrar says that it is the opinion of most Bible students that Paul went to Arabia for meditation. This does away with Brother Potter's objection, which he based upon this groundless interpretation of the object of Paul's visit to Arabia. We showed from Acts xiii. that all laborers, the apostles not excepted, were sent out to the foreign field by the Holy Spirit, through the voice of the Church, and that there is nothing said in the Word of God as to how much time should be spent after the call of the workers before they start on their journey to the mission field. I showed, also, from the Apostle Paul's second letter to the Church at Corinth, that the primitive Church supported its missionaries by contributions, and paid them regular salaries, just as the Protestant Church pays its missionaries today.
I do not want to spend much time in considering Brother Potter's reference to Psalms, but I will turn to Psalm lxv. 4, the passage he quoted.
My brother is a fine philologist; he makes a great deal out of the personal pronoun. Look what a scholarly philolgist he is. He says that the word "man" in this passage, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest," has reference to one man, and not a class. No, my brother; the word "man" used here represents a class. Let us see if that is not so. In the third verse, the verse immediately preceding the one we are considering, it is said, "Iniquities prevail against me; as for our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away." He was speaking of the nation. Hence, "the man" here chosen by the Lord represents that class or part of the nation whose service is approved of the Lord. It refers to those who accept God's offers of pardon and cleansing, and who are obedient in his service. Therefore, God is said to cause this class to approach unto him. Brother Potter claims to believe in personal responsibility, and has resented my statements that he believes the opposite; yet he attempts to prove by this passage that man has first to be absolutely chosen by God before he can approach unto God; that is, a man must be absolutely saved before he can make any movement toward salvation.
If men have to be saved before they can accept the message of salvation, what is the meaning of those expressions in the Bible about the blood of those who reject the gospel resting upon their own heads? I will turn again to the passage in Proverbs. Brother Potter has fled from that passage. He had to own that he could not answer it. Proverbs i. 24-29: "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: 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: for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord." They rejected him, did they not? Why, if they had been chosen before, they could not have done that.
I have here in my hand a book of which Professor Christlieb, of Bohn University, Berlin, Prussia, is the author. Now, Brother Potter will tell you that Professor Christlieb is a missionary, and therefore not good authority. I hope, if he feels like it, that he will say that to this audience; it is going into a book. I want the people to see how it is, and weigh the testimony. Listen to Professor Christlieb's testimony: "Eighty years ago the total sum contributed for Protestant missions hardly amounted to L50,000. Now the amount raised for this object is from L1,200,000 to L1,250,000 - about five times as much as that of the whole Romish propaganda." The Propaganda is the society charged with the management of Roman Catholic missions, and the sum expended by it shows how much Roman Catholics contribute yearly to advance their mission cause. Professor Christlieb goes on to give us an estimate of the number of converts who today belong, in the heathen countries, to the different Churches of the Protestant world. Listen, will you? Brother Potter says there has been nothing done. I will quote from Christlieb a part of what I have quoted already from Bainbridge, who gave Christlieb's estimate: "There are 310,000 in the West Indies" - that don't amount to any thing; O no! my opponent does not believe it; it is all of man. I want you to see his nice arguments and views about this being of man, and how much it will take to convince him - "400,000 to 500,000 in India and Farther India" - pretty good, is it not? - "40,000 to 50,000 in West Africa." Brother Potter says that is little. He seems to look at it just as if Africa was not much bigger than its representation on that map. Why, we are representing the world with that map - "130,000 in South Africa, over 240,000 in Madagascar" - and my opponent said they were heathen. Look how long his Church has been existing, and it has but 40,000 members today, and he is arguing here for numbers as an evidence to show that God blesses and owns a gospel work. He has been arguing during all this debate that numbers are no evidence at all of God's approval and blessing. He has referred to the Catholics, time and again, to show that numbers prove nothing, and now, at the close of this discussion, he comes out and cries, "Numbers." He is the very last man in the world that ought to do it. I want the people to know it, and see it just as it is. 45,000 to 50,000 in China; over 300,000 in the South Sea Islands." Then the Moravian sect, up in Greenland, are about 16,000. Pretty good progress, my brother, since 1792. These statistics of the foreign work by Prof. Christlieb reach no farther than 1877;
consequently eight years of mission work have passed by, with their wonderful triumphs, since these reports were made up. During this time from 600,000 to 800,000 heathens have given up their idolatry and adopted Christianity as their religion, and from 300,000 to 400,000 during this period have professed a saving faith in Christ. In the heathen world 125,000 have professed a saving faith in Christ during the last twelve months. Brother Potter told you that in the first century more people professed conversion and were brought into the Church, than the whole number of the converts in heathen lands since the revival of Foreign Mission work. My brother certainly ought to know better than that. Sharon Turner, a high authority on statistics, prepared an approximate estimate of the number of professed believers in Christianity at the end of each century since the beginning of the Christian era, embracing the eighteenth century. He estimated the number of professed believers in Christianity at the end of the first century to be 500,000. Eighty years ago there were 50,000 heathen natives who had professed to give up their idols and believe in Christianity. According to the latest statistics there are now 2,600,000 nominal Christians in heathen countries, and nearly 800,000 communicants in the different evangelical Churches planted in the foreign field. Thus within eighty years the number of converts to Christianity, brought in by the Foreign Mission effort, has been five times as great as the whole number of converts during the first century, and the triumphs in every other department of gospel work have equaled this, if not surpassed it. That is the way my brother has been giving his arguments for the last six days.
He told us Paul supported himself, and that was the kind of a missionary that he believed in. I turned his attention to II. Corinthians xi., where Paul said to them: "Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." You ought to have seen how he looked when that came out. Chapter xii. 13: "For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you?" How do you suppose Brother Potter tried to escape the force of this passage? You cannot keep him any where. If he has taken one position during this debate, he has taken a dozen. How do you suppose he tried to get out of this dilemma? He said Paul was not a missionary, he was a pastor. That is the way he tried to prove his point. He will explain it for you some way, if not by argument by assertion. He finds no trouble in explaining things. But I am here now to help him. I have but a brief time to continue this review of his speech. He says they (the missionary workers) have much better opportunities in prosecuting its work in these days than the Church had during the first century. What do opportunities amount to with him, when men are elected and God is pushing them through by the wholesale without any agencies or means? And what do railroads amount to? According to his theory, how can the telegraph contribute to the success of the gospel work? I want the people to look at this calmly. If everybody had believed as my brother has been teaching, not one
of us would have had these blessings of Christian civilization. But then all God's people are elected and every thing was fixed from eternity, and only 40,000 are absolutely right; all the rest
of us are in error.
Now, I wish to continue to follow out my line of argument. First, I will take up the quotations I commenced to give in my last speech, on the fruits of the work. The following is from The Gospel in All Lands, page 187, written by Prof. Williams, of Oxford: "It (the Foreign Mission work) substitutes for the celebrated saints of Pantheism a basis of living rock, which may be afterward thankfully occupied by evangelizing missionaries as a common stand-point when the gospel is confronted in argument by the Veda and the Koran."
I will now read an extract from Lord Napier's speech at Tanjore, in 1871, taken from the same paper: "The advance of Christianity has at all times been marked by occasional fitful and spasmodic movements in India. The present period is one of moderate progression, but it does not exclude the expectation of rapid and contagious expansion."
Another extract from Sir Herbert Edwards, in Exeter Hall, in 1866: "Amidst a dense population of two hundred millions of heathen, the little flock of native Christians may seem like a speck, but truly it is that little cloud out of the sea like a man's hand which tells them there is to be a great rain. Every other faith in India is decaying. Christianity is beginning to run its course. It has taken long to plant it, but it has now taken root, and by God's grace will never be uprooted. The Christian converts were tested by persecution and martyrdom in1857, and they stood the test without apostasy; and I believe that if the English were driven out of India tomorrow, Christianity would remain and triumph." But my brother does not believe it. It is of man, and not of God, he says. I now quote
from Max Muller's lecture in Westminster Abbey. He is the great linguist of Oxford - one of the grandest of living scholars and thinkers: "If we think of the future of India and of the influence which that country has always exercised in the East, the movement of religious reform which is now going on appears to my mind the most momentous in this momentous century. The foreign missionaries feel constrained to repudiate it as their own work; history will be more just to them than they are to themselves. And if not as the work of Christian missionaries, it will be recognized hereafter as the work of those missionary Christians who have lived in India as examples of a true Christian life, who have approached the natives in a truly missionary spirit, in the spirit of truth and in the spirit of love, whose bright presence has thawed the ice and brought out beneath it the old soil ready to blossom into new life."
Now, I have not time to go further, though I have many more valuable witnesses here to quote in regard to the success and gospel fruits of the Foreign Mission work. I have showed the fruits of this work in the transformation of character. These men in those heathen countries were brutes and cannibals, who fed upon their enemies, but they have been transformed by the gospel into Christian men and women. I have shown that the gospel, through the labors of these earnest missionaries, has given these people Christian homes and Christian governments; hence the Foreign Mission work itself conclusively evidences that it is owned and blessed of God. In my last speech, in summing up the arguments which I have given in support of the affirmative of the
proposition, I had time to name only five particulars in which there is a perfect identity of the Foreign Mission work of today with the gospel work of the New Testament. I will now resume the
summing up of the points I have made:
6. My sixth argument is that the identity of the Foreign Mission work with the gospel work of the New Testament is seen in the identity of the civilization produced through the missionary effort in heathen lands with the civilization of Europe and America, which is the product of the divine transformation of character through the gospel.
7. The identity of the process by which the work of the world's evangelization is prosecuted by the different Churches of Christ who engage in the Foreign Mission work of today with that employed by the gospel Church of the first century.
8. The spiritual prosperity with which the Churches that are engaged in the Foreign Mission work are blessed. When we love missionary work, and engage in it, we are blessed in the act. I showed how these faithful and active Churches have grown, how their influence has spread, while they have been lifting up the heathen into the sunlight of heaven.
9. The identity of the Divine preparation and enlistment of Protestant Christendom for the evangelization of the heathen world with the preparation and enlistment of the gospel Church
for the evangelization of the ancient Gentile world. Divine providence has in this century opened up the way of access to the heathen by social and political revolutions, just as the same Providence prepared the way for the triumphs of the Christians of the first century among the Gentiles. I showed that the boards and measures employed in the Foreign Mission work are only methods and means used by the Church in the work. I showed also that, as the Christian Church in the first century propagated the gospel in both the home and the foreign field at the same time, so today the Churches which engage in the Foreign Mission work are also doing most at home.
10. The great blessings which Protestantism has conferred upon the world. The Foreign Mission spirit give birth to Protestantism. Protestantism is but the outflow of the increased spiritual life of the Church; so also are Foreign Missions. Therefore Protestantism itself is a mammoth demonstration that Foreign Missions are authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God. I have shown that the first Church was a Missionary Society. The word "mission" means to send. A missionary is one sent. Hence this word, when applied to our life-work, means a trust committed, a work to be performed. Is not that what the Protestant Christian world is doing in carrying the gospel to the heathen nations of earth? I have showed that the Foreign Mission work is a godlike work. It is the carrying out the very spirit and object of the Church's great commission given by the Lord. Foreign Mission work has not only bestowed civilization upon the heathen, but it has given them the Bible translated into more than three hundred languages. It has built colleges, hospitals, and churches. Under its influence the school-house and the church go up side by side, and poor, degraded heathens are lifted up and transformed into the image of God.
11. The history of Christianity, from its very origin up to the present time, forms one grand and unbroken chain of conclusive testimony that the Foreign Mission work of today is authorized in the Scriptures and blessed and owned of God. I showed that in all the work of the Christian Church, in all its victories, it has but carried out the Foreign Mission spirit in pressing the work into the most remote regions of the world. As civilization is the result of Christianity in this nineteenth
century, I proved the identity of the gospel work of the New Testament and the Foreign Mission work of today in heathen lands by showing that the civilization produced by the mission work in
those benighted lands is the same as the civilization produced by the pure gospel in every century of Christian history in the past.
12. The identity of the Foreign Mission work with the work of the gospel is also evidenced in the fact of its absolute conformity to the principle of the universal brotherhood of mankind as taught in the Bible, its leading principle being supreme love of Christ, the perfect Man and representative Man of the human race, and universal love for mankind for Christ's sake. This is the great inspiration and motive-power of the mission work.
13. In my thirteenth argument I showed that the universal call for the gospel, and the great opportunities now extended to the Church to enter the unevangelized portions of the earth, prove that those who labor to convert the heathen are following the Divine guidance, and that this work is owned of God. These things are Divine indications that God is calling the whole Church to enter and take possession of the heathen world as its promised inheritance. This I illustrated from God's manner of guiding the Apostle Paul in his work among the Gentiles, indicating to him where he would be received.
14. In my fourteenth argument, as an evidence that the Foreign Mission work is owned and blessed of God, I called attention to the rapid progress Christianity is making against heathenism in all its degraded forms in the foreign field, inducing its votaries by the thousands to cast away their idols and come to Jesus and be saved. We saw that the ratio of increase in the foreign field, in proportion to the laborers and means employed, far exceeds the ratio of progress in the home field. The following statistics, showing the ratio of the increase of Christianity in India, were published by that great Missionary Conference which met at Calcutta in the spring of 1883. In that remarkable gathering were representatives from all the provinces between the Himalayas and the seas. They met to offer devout thanks to Almighty God for the progress of Christianity in India. Since the time of the apostles the rapidity of this progress has never been equaled any where on the
earth. In India proper, and in Burmah and Ceylon, in 1851, there were 102,951 native Christians, or those who had given up idolatry and accepted Christianity as the only true religion, but had not realized an experimental knowledge of it. Of this class there were, in 1881, 528,590. In thirty years their number had increased more than five fold. In the countries named (India proper, Burmah, and Ceylon), the number from among the heathen who professed to be born again, and were communicants of the different evangelical Churches in 1851, was 17,306. In 1881 the number was 145,097. Thus the number of heathen who professed to be regenerated by the power of God through the gospel had increased more than eightfold in thirty years. From 1851 to 1861 the ratio of increase was 53 per cent; from 1861 to 1871, 61 per cent; from 1871 to 1881, 86 per cent.
15. In my fifteenth argument I showed the Foreign Mission work to be authorized in the Scriptures, and blessed and owned of God, by proving from God's Word that the wonderful progress and triumphs of this work today in the Isles of the Sea, in superstitious India, in benighted and degraded Africa, in the Sunrise Empire of Japan, in Australia and New Zealand, in the dominions of Islam and the pope, is the fulfillment of prophecy. I went clear through the Book, and showed how God has marked it out from beginning to end, and how the history of the Foreign
Mission work is but an echo of prophecy.
16. I showed that God's approval of the work is evidenced in woman's work for woman. Woman's heart has been touched. God has opened the way for woman to work for Jesus. I told you of those poor, unfortunate women in heathen countries. Men could not reach them, and God opened a way, as I have before described. Not over twenty-five or thirty years have passed away since God, through the work of the embroidering of a slipper, opened the first home of the high-caste heathen in India to woman's work for woman; today there are in India, China, and the Moslem countries, thousands of such homes accessible to female missionaries. The Christian women of the Protestant world operate through fifty-one missionary societies of their own, cooperating with all other missionary societies. Their object is to teach and save their sisters in all of earth's benighted lands. They have established training schools, colleges, and seminaries, orphan homes, and zenana missions - that is, missions for woman's work for woman in the heathen homes alone. As a sample of what the Christian women are doing in unevangelized lands, I call attention to one
institution out of many which they have built in great centers - viz., the large seminary for the education of native girls, erected at a cost of $50,000 by the Christian women of America on the heights of Scutari, on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, overlooking mosque of St. Sophia and the sultan's seraglio and palaces, in Constantinople. "It is fitting that this institution should stand there in sight of the leaders of the whole Turkish and Moslem world as a rebuke to their degradation of women, and a warning that she shall receive a social and religious elevation, despite their cruel tyranny and beastly lusts." And this same class of institutions, built by Christian women, gives the same voice of warning at every other point where they are established. Before woman entered the field for woman, attention had been directed to general preaching, teaching, and translation. There
has been little done in searching out the degraded, ignorant, and secluded women of heathendom; but how much has been done since woman entered into the Foreign Mission work! and how much is being done today! While there are many thousands, and even millions, at home, doing all within their power to advance this work, there are thousands of Christian women in heathen lands telling the story of Jesus and his love, and light is dawning around them. Infant marriage is passing away, caste is passing away, crime, and degradation, and heartache, are passing away. India, and China, and Japan, as well as the lands of the sultan, are being lifted up into the light through the influence of these Christian women. The doors of opportunity for the missionary work of Christian women in heathen lands are opening more rapidly than they can be entered. The zenanas in India and the harems in Moslem countries are rapidly being unbarred to the women
missionaries. What an opportunity is now being opened up before the women of Christian lands to honor their blessed Lord in becoming the instruments in the overthrow of heathenism and the
salvation of the heathen people. There are perhaps 80,000,000 women in Moslem harems, unloved, uncared for, except as tools of lust, whose harts are breaking. There are 90,000,000 more in the most abject slavery in body and soul to Hindoo lords; and 300,000,000 more are living under the sway of Buddhism, with no hope beyond this world except the dim possibility of being born again a man. Thus the great multitude of women in the degraded and wretched state of heathenism numbers 471,000,000. They are crying out for the gospel, and it is the great object of the Foreign Mission work to meet this demand. And when we, in this Christian land, contrast our condition to theirs, does not gratitude to God call upon every Christian woman to respond to this call? Is it not the voice of God in the wail that is borne across the seas to us, telling us in this many-voiced call to move at once to convey to these perishing souls the Bread of Life? In the heathen lands the fields are white and ready for the harvest, and the laborers are few in proportion to the pressing need. O how the voices ring over the waters all around the world, "Come over and help us!" Today the heathen are begging the missionaries to tell them of Jesus and his love, and are taxing them beyond their strength, and making it impossible for them to meet the demand. Think of those Christian homes of the Bechuanas over here in Africa, men who were bloodthirsty and cruel when Moffat went there, but are now Christians. Think how the sunlight shines there. Now, think of that one dying up there (pointing to Africa on the map), a degraded wretch, a slave, who never heard of Christ! Contrast these wretched heathen with the Christian Bechuanas. Does not this picture to us the great importance of sending the gospel to them? Does it not say that the Foreign Mission work is owned and blessed of God? But my brother says "it makes no difference, for God, in his own good time, will do it." Why, my brother, what more unmistakable indications will God give you that he is doing this work than he has already in opening the ports of heathen countries, and the wonderful fruits that have been developed by missionary effort?
17. The attitude of the Church of Christ toward the evangelization of the heathen one hundred years ago in contrast with its attitude today. Then, not one in ten thousand countenanced Foreign Mission work; now, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand of the most intelligent and pious people of the Church of Christ heartily indorse it and warmly support it. I proved from the history of this work that its fruits in heathen lands and its blessings to the workers in the
field at home have been such as to furnish a monumental demonstration that Foreign Missions are blessed and owned of God. The most incredulous of those who have studied these results have
been forced to confess that they are of God. Hence nearly the entire Christian world has become enlisted in this cause. My friends, if you take this matter and study it with the Bible open in your hand, if you rightly read the words of Jesus, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," God will teach your heart, and then you will know what a blessing it will be to your home. It will give you a new knowledge and deeper sympathy with suffering humanity. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." How the Churches which have done this have been blessed! They have grown at home and have grown abroad. As a demonstration that God approves and blesses the Foreign Mission work I will close this, my last speech, with an incident which was told me by missionaries who witnessed it personally. The missionary who had the experience which I am going to relate was the Rev. E. P. Scott. His wife, Mrs. Anna Scott, to whom I have referred before in this discussion, was sent, with her husband, as a missionary to India, from the church of which I was at one time pastor. This was some years before I had charge of the church. Mr. Scott died in Assam, and she returned with her children to her native land, and united again with the congregation among whom she had spent that part of her life preceding her missionary work in India. So I received this incident from her lips. One day, while Mr. Scott was on the street of a village, during one of his inland missionary tours, he met a very strange-looking native, who proved to be from an interior tribe of murderous mountaineers, to whom the gospel had never been preached, and who came down once a year to trade with the more civilized tribes of Assam. It was so hazardous to go among them that no missionary hitherto had dared to venture into their country. As Mr. Scott beheld this cruel-looking human being, he was stirred with an earnest desire to break unto him and to his tribe the bread of life. He went to his lodging, fell down on his knees, and sought Divine direction. Arising, he packed his valise, took his violin (for he was a sweet performer on the violin), and started on a journey to the home of these savages. His fellow missionaries urged that he was exposing himself to needless peril, and said, "If you go, we shall never see you again; it is madness for you to go." But he said, "I must preach Jesus to them." After two days' travel he found himself in the mountains, suddenly confronted by the members of the tribe which he sought. They pointed their spears at his heart. He was expecting that any moment might be his last. He knew that these Oriental people loved music, and instantly drew forth his violin, shut his eyes, and, while in his heart he prayed for Divine protection, played and sung in the native language,
Am I a soldier of the cross,
A follower of the Lamb?
At the close of the hymn he ventured to open his eyes, and found a very different state of affairs. Their spears had been dropped, and tears were in their eyes, and the chief asked him to do that again. Then he played and sung in their own language,
All hail the power of Jesus' name!
Let angels prostrate fall.
When he reached the stanza, "Let every kindred, every tribe," the tears fell freely from the eyes of the savages. At the conclusion of the hymn they invited him to their homes. It was the commencement of two years and a half of labor among them, and the results were great. His labors were so richly blessed of God that when he was compelled to leave them and return to America,
on account of fast-declining health, they followed him with weeping eyes and tender hearts, saying, "O missionary, come back to us again!" He could not resist their entreaties. He went back and labored until he sank into the grave among them. He lived to see them change their spears into pruninghooks. He introduced the Bible into their houses. Their cruel, murderous natures were transformed by the gospel, and they became a civilized Christian people. And today, from many homes and from many Churches in that distant land, grand hallelujah's go up to
God, and thousands of voices sweetly sing from consecrated hearts, "All hail the power of Jesus' name!"
MR. POTTER'S SEVENTEENTH SPEECH.
BRETHREN, MODERATORS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:
Brother Yates says, What is up in here? referring to the map. He says that I argue that it does not make any difference about the people up there, God will convert them. How do you understand me on that? I do not want this forgotten. This is the most serious objection I have to the whole thing - that is, that those people here, where there are no missionaries, where you see none of these colors, all over these countries, are lost; they are going to hell; and he speaks of me as saying, and speaks of it in a manner to make you know he does not believe it, that I say it is all right; God will convert those people, and calls on me for the evidence. Now, then, I introduced a chart here the
other day, with glowing figures on it, that said 100,000 heathen are dying daily. I have it here yet, and will show it, if any body wants to see it. It is a missionary chart. One hundred thousand people in these vacant places, where there are no marks of the missionaries, are dying daily. Now, then, if God does not convert any of them, where do you say they go to? If he does not take charge of them, and does nothing for them, simply because the minister has not gotten there, don't they go to hell? That is the doctrine I oppose. That is the doctrine I am here to oppose. That is the reason I oppose it. I oppose it on account of its doctrine; it limits the salvation of God to where the preacher and the Bible get to, and denies that God saves anybody anywhere else. And today a large percentage of the human race are in heathenism; and missionaries say 100,000 of them are dying daily. I object to the idea that God is sending that many people to hell every day, simply because missionaries do not get to preach to them. I said in the outset of this debate, and some of
Brother Yates' friends snickered when I said it, I knew they did not understand my position; and one reason is, there has never been but one side of missionism presented to this community. You
have always heard the missionaries talk about missionism, and they have always spoken favorably of it. The people seemed surprised that a man would get up in the latter part of the nineteenth century and say that he did not believe that the missionaries had ever been, or ever would be, instrumental in the salvation of a solitary soul that would not have been saved without them. And yet, while they snickered at me for saying it, it took Brother Yates until the fourth day of this debate to differ from it. It took him until the fourth day in the evening to oppose that. He did not tell you that in his summary. I told him to tell it, but he did not do it. Notice, while it seemed to surprise others that I would take that position, Brother Yates was appealed to time and again before he would take a position against it, and it was then on th fourth day of this discussion; and when he did do it, he said that the missionaries were the means and instruments in saving souls that would be lost without them. That is the reason I object to this missionism, because of its doctrine. I do not object to preaching the gospel every where, neither do I believe that doctrine. I do not believe it is absolutely essential to their salvation. Not only that, Brother Yates is not all the one. In addition to saying that he believed they had been instrumental in the conversion and salvation of some that would have been lost without them, he challenged me to show a solitary conversion without the gospel. That settles it down into the doctrine that salvation is limited to the places where the gospel is preached. These vast places are thickly populated, and I do not think they are a small portion of the world. It is the map of the world that Brother Yates has here. These people can see where the gospel is, and where it is not, and the proportion. The missionaries say we are surrounded by eight hundred millions of people who are heathen, and that a hundred thousand of them are dying daily. The missionaries say they are lost; when I ask, What becomes of them? they go to hell. What for? Because they do not get the gospel. That is why. That is the only reason assigned. Let us see if that is it. I have the American Baptist Missionary Union as proof of this, which I have already quoted from a tract called "The True Test." It says:
"Christian friends, we have no fires of martyrdom now to test our fidelity to Jesus Christ; but we are not left without a test. God is testing us all continually - testing the measure of our faith, of our love, of our devotedness to his Son, by the presence of eight hundred millions of heathen in the world. It is a tremendous test, so real, so practical. It is no trifle, no myth, no theory, no doubtful contingency, but a great, awful fact, that we Protestant Christians, who rejoice in our rich gospel blessings, and claim to be followers of Him who gave up heavenly glory, and earthly ease, and life itself, to save these heathen, are actually 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. This is a fact that too many forget; a fact none can deny; a fact of which we dare not pretend to be ignorant; a fact that ought to influence our whole Christian course from the moment of our conversion." That is the doctrine of missionism. That is the principle upon which it was invented at the start - that it was necessary to the salvation of the heathen, and none of them could be saved without it. Now, I object to it because it contradicts God's Word.
I am now going to sum up a few things that I have referred to as a reason I do not believe that. I do not believe it from the fact that God said to Abraham, "In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Now, notice - all the families, all the kindreds. I quoted Scripture to show that; and, in addition, I quoted Scripture to show, in Revelation v. 9: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Now, they came from all those nations. John saw this. The missionary doctrine is they do not come from those nations, and kindreds, and people, unless the Bible gets there. The Bible says they do. That is the reason I object. Again, Revelation vii. 9: "After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number." I have appealed to Brother Yates twice, showing him that when he gets the aggregate of all his conversions, then we have a text of Scripture that outstrips them all, and says, "a great multitude that no man can number." He can number his converts. He has been numbering them here during this discussion; the statistics are shown every
year, and almost every month, in the periodicals. It is no hard matter to tell how many there are in the world. Brother Yates has never come to this but once, and he said that would be when the world was conquered by the gospel. If that is so, it looks to me like it is going to be a long while. Let me tell you this - what John said would absolutely be, not dependent upon the contingency that people would be willing to divide their goods and send missionaries there, for the missionaries seem to have a hard time to get a sufficient amount. I said that the Missionary Baptists, sending one million to Japan for one year, cost them over $20,000, and that their institution was in debt today about $50,000. Does the salvation of men depend on an institution that cannot pay its debts as it goes along? Does the eternal salvation of the heathen depend on that? I quote again from the language of the Saviour concerning his sheep on that point. He says, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have." Now, notice - those other sheep are sheep among the Gentiles, among the heathen, exclusive of the Jews. He claimed to own them when he was here. "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." Again, in the same text, Jesus, in speaking of his sheep, as well those that are abroad as those in this fold, speaking of all of them,
he says: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish." Where are they? They are out yonder, all over the earth, and we have the word of Jesus that they shall never perish. Why? "My Father which gave them me is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Now, if Jesus had a people that he called his sheep in all heathendom, and they had not yet heard of him - and we have his word they are coming to him, and they shall never perish - and as I showed from this Commentary that this was what he meant, that this was not a prediction that they would hear the gospel and be brought that way. No, sir; but that it meant an inward calling of grace, by which they would be infallibly drawn to Jesus. That is what the text means, and I have shown it, and it has never been contradicted. There has been a nibble at it a time or two, but there it stands. We have the Saviour's word for it. Instead of damning about six out of eight as they pass, we have them all saved from every country, tongue, nation, kindred, and people, in heaven, singing songs. Well, you say that is not applicable to the proposition. I say it is not either; but it shows it to be false that there is any Scripture applicable to his proposition, because the Scripture says nothing about the proposition. We say, then, that Jesus saves his people out of every kindred, tongue, nation and people, and that they shall never perish, and no one shall pluck them out of his hand. He does not depend on the will or voluntary action of men to do that great work.
Then I argued yesterday - and that argument has not been noticed - that Jesus Christ was the only mediator between God and man. I said, in that argument, that the work of the salvation of the people was committed to God's Son, and he was the only mediator between God and man, and that this missionary doctrine infers that all the ministers are operating between God and man, and that they are essential to the salvation of man. Jesus Christ is the only one. Brother Yates' answer to that was that if God did not commit the salvation of the people to his Church, to whom did he commit it? I showed you, in connection with one of his texts this morning, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself - not in the Church, but in Christ. He is the mediator, the only one. That argument has never been met.
Another argument. I have an objection to the eternal damnation of all those that fail to hear the gospel. I say, as far as that part of it is concerned, that if they must go to hell just because they do not hear the gospel, that they go there for what they are no more to be blamed than I am to be blamed because I was not born in England, and for what they are no more to be blamed for than a man is to be blamed because he is not six feet high. Now, we see that this doctrine limits the salvation of God. We have been arguing it all the week; we argue it yet; it stands yet; it is the missionary doctrine. They want everybody to subscribe to it; but they will have to take away the Bible, or else quit preaching that doctrine. Jesus came to save.
I argue also that they contradict God's word, upon which I proposed, if Brother Yates would show me a text in the Old or New Testament, I, and my brethren with me, would join them in a
minute. They profess to be teaching the people to know the Lord; and I said that man is not to teach man to know the Lord, and I said, if he would show one text that said he was to do it, I would join them. He cannot do it. If there is such a text as that, why has it not been produced? There is no excuse, except that it is not there. You would have seen it stuck up in almost every Sabbath school room over this country. But we do not see it; instead of that we hear the language of the new covenant say, "And they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know him, from the least to the greatest." And when we come to hear who that teacher is, the Bible says it is God. I referred to th 54th chapter of Isaiah, where it says, "The people shall be taught of God," and not that they may be, upon any contingency. Jesus said, "All the Father giveth me shall come to me." Show me the man that does not come, and I will show you one that was not given, for those that are given shall come. Why? Jesus says, "I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of him that sent me, and this is the Father's will that hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." That is the reason they come. Let us not say that Jesus came into the world to save everybody from love to them, and after he had done all his work, which was grand, and noble, and well-pleasing to the Lord, that he then delivered up the application of the work and the balance of it to man. Let us not say that. He is still at the head of the operation, and holds the reins. What I mean by delivering it up to man is depending upon their will and cooperation in taking the gospel to the heathen, as we have been having it presented to us during the week just past.
Another text I referred to - and based such an argument as this upon it: that as Jesus died for them, so they should be saved - is in the 53d chapter of Isaiah, where it is said that it pleased the Lord to bruise him. Why did it please God to bruise him? Because it says, "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul" - that is, he shall see the fruits of the travail of his soul - "he shall see his seed, and shall be satisfied." What is necessary to satisfy Jesus? Nothing short of the salvation of the objects of his redemption. Hence he shall see that; God said so. Shall we, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, after our fathers have stood by, and lived and died by this doctrine taught in God's word, shall we contradict it now, and say it is not so? Shall we say we have made a new discovery at so recent a date, and that God has left out for so many centuries one thing that is so essential to salvation? No; I have opposed that during this discussion, and do now. He has not left out any thing that is essential. He did not inaugurate Foreign Mission Boards in order to carry on his work; he told the apostles to go and preach, not to offer salvation. It contains no conditional offers of salvation at all; it publishes it. He did not tell them it was essential to eternal salvation, and as I have shown you on Brother Yates' own text, where he undertook to prove we were saved by the gospel, that the people who were saved by the gospel were first saved, before they were saved by the gospel, this way: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God." Now, notice, it is foolishness to all that are not saved. I made the argument then, after that, that it is the salvation of something else instead of eternal salvation. They are saved from that first, before the gospel is the power of God. Then, in addition to that, I argued that Jesus will see his
seed, will see of the travail of his soul, will be satisfied. Why? Because God promised that he should; he would be satisfied, and the pleasure of the Lord "will prosper in his hands" - not in the hands of the ministers, but in the hands of Jesus. He has given his work to Jesus, and he is the one to do the work. Jesus is exalted at the right hand of God to give repentance to Israel, and it comes through him, and there is not a text that I know of that says it always absolutely must come through the preaching of the gospel. It has not been produced. Six days we have called for it and looked for it. We read the Bible ourselves; we are ready to sit down at the feet of any man, and learn more and more. We do not profess to possess a great deal of wisdom, but we do profess a willingness to learn. This being true, we take the position that modern missionism is wrong in its doctrine, because it limits salvation to where the Bible and preacher go.
I argued that salvation is by Christ, and while it is by Christ I find I am not alone in arguing that way. I find that our brethren of the Church to which my worthy opponent belongs agree that the "Holy Spirit, operating through the written word, and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose, or directly without means, so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin, and of their lost estate and need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ." This is the doctrine, not of the Regular Baptist Church, but of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church - that without means - that means without the gospel, without the Bible, without the preacher. Then, if they preach that, why do they get up, with so much importance attached to it, this Foreign Mission work, and say all those people in all those blank places on the map where the missionaries have not been are dying and going to hell? One or the other is wrong. One or the other is a mistake.
Now, let me appeal to you in the conclusion of this discussion. I want to say that if we are wrong, we want to be righted, and not only that, but we have shown you the disadvantages under
which the early Christians had to work; and we have not only shown that, but have shown in addition, from a missionary man himself - to wit, Mr. Carpenter - that he himself accuses the apostles of not obeying the commission when it was given. He says "They might have tarried at Jerusalem until they had died ingloriously, had not God sent the besom of persecution which swept them out among those nations which were perishing for lack of the knowledge which the apostles alone could give." He here means ability - "could give." Could not God give it without them? That is what Mr. Carpenter said; that has been introduced here time and again during this discussion. And instead of the apostles leaving Jerusalem in about ten days, which Mr. Carpenter says they should have done, they remained at Jerusalem about a thousand days - about three years - and then might have died ingloriously had not God sent the besom of persecution among them, which drove them out to do the work they would not do otherwise. I say that is a slur on the apostles, it is a slander upon God's servants, a censure on the apostles, who received the commission immediately from the Almighty, and who were told to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high.
I introduced a text of Scripture to show that they did not remain there so long. Where do we get the authority? In the Acts of the Apostles. On the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was showered down upon them, the apostle preached the most noble sermon that has ever been preached at all in the world, with one exception - that is, the Sermon on the Mount; and not only that, but the record says, "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Yet, missionaries of the 19th century say they remained in Jerusalem three years after being commissioned; and not only that, but after they had been sent abroad, and had preached the gospel, and through this persecution the gospel was spread, after awhile, after the apostles died, that the Church slept for forty or fifty generations; that the spirit or germ of it was well-nigh lost; that the Church lay with arms folded in lazy lock for about 1,500 years, and that they died and went to judgment to meet the heathen and their Judge, and that they were not doing their duty. This missionary says they must have understood the commission. They did not do it. What did they do? We call upon all people here, what does that say for John Wycliffe, who went from England to Germany, and went further and did more to oppose the real errors of popery than Luther himself ever did, although he lived about a century and a half before Luther? Forty years after he was buried his bones were dug up and burned in contempt of the doctrine he preached while he lived, and his ashes spread upon a running brook. Then, he must have been one of those that died and went to judgment to meet the heathen, for he lived at that time. What does that doctrine say of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, who yielded their lives for the gospel? And yet a missionary, favored with all the advantages we have in the world, says that they slept, and were not shut up to only hints. He said a hint of the Master's will ought to have been
sufficient. But they were not shut up to hints; they had the gospel, and yet they did not obey it. Is that necessary for the propagation of the doctrine of modern missionism? If it is, it is wrong. Brother Yates tried to get around that in this way. He labored over that, and then came in and said he admired Carpenter. Next morning he came in and said that some of his brethren may have been wrong. When he spoke of the commission to the apostles, he said himself that the apostles were slow to learn. That is Brother Yates, not Brother Carpenter. I charged him with it yesterday, and he has not said any thing about it, and it will appear in the book that he charged the apostles with being slow to learn. How does that look for a man in the nineteenth century, who knows the apostles were all put to death - none of them, with one exception, but what was put to death? - all but one, John, and he was banished to the Isle of Patmos; and their successors - Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others - for nearly three hundred years, suffered violent persecutions from pagan Rome - burned at the stake - then for about twelve hundred years from papal Rome. The emperors, and authorities, and governors, were all against, and none of them in favor of them. They were
hunted like the beasts of the forest; mothers were drowned, and their daughters sewed up in sacks and thrown to wild beasts to be devoured; Latimer, Ridley, Philpot, and others, were burned at the stake in Smithfield, England; Hooper and others were roasted by a slow fire. Not only that, but English ladies had one eye gouged out with a spear, and then seared with a red-hot iron; and molten lead was run down the back of a person, all molten hot; and they were persecuted in every way imaginable.
I want to say now that I desire to return my thanks to this respectable audience for the respect and kindness with which you have treated me during this long discussion. I want to return my thanks to the brethren moderators, for the dignified manner in which they have presided over this debate. I want to return my thanks to Brother Yates for the kindness and good feeling manifested toward me in this debate, and I want to thank the Lord that we have had the privilege of discussing the question, and that everything has been gone over so pleasantly during this contest.
CLOSING WORDS BY MR. YATES.
I want to say to the people, with Brother Potter, I am thankful from my heart that you have shown so much respect; that you have come out so kindly and listened so earnestly during these six days that have gone by. It has been no little thing for you to leave your homes and come here and spend four hours a day listening to us as we have gone over this large field of discussion. I want to say, further, that while the war has been pretty warm, and my worthy opponent and I have almost had a hand-to-hand combat, figuratively speaking, that I do not hold the remotest feeling of indifference or prejudice toward the brethren that have been opposed to me. I have been speaking, if I know myself, for the honor of God and the advancement of his cause. I also return my thanks to the moderators for their kindness and courtesy during this discussion, and I highly appreciate the kindness and courtesy my opponent has extended to me. Now, in conclusion, I will say this: I hope, my dear friends, that in the hands of God this discussion will prove a blessing to
all of us in this community, and to the cause of Christ in general. I simply ask you, as one who loves the Master, to investigate this subject; read for yourselves. Truth need not fear investigation, its foundation is permanent and unalterable. I leave it with you; think about it; weigh it. And I pray God that when we are gathered together up in that grand company upon the sunlit mountain of God, where clouds never come, when they come up from the east and from the west, and from the north and from the south, each one of us may hear it said, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: . . . enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."
EXPLANATORY NOTE.
According to item seven in the regulations set forth in the Preface, the speeches of the debaters in this joint discussion, as furnished by the stenographer, were revised, examined, and approved. After the speeches were printed, they were submitted to each debater, previous to the binding of the volume, that he might note "errata." It was also understood that if any verbal revision which had been made by either debater was objected to by the other, the same should be fully set forth in an appendix, and in connection therewith should appear the exact corresponding language of the stenographic reporter. The foregoing errata constitute all that has been furnished by the debaters for publication under this agreement. With these exceptions, therefore, the reader will accept the foregoing pages as a correct exhibit of the arguments presented on either side during the joint discussion, no formal certificate of correctness being deemed necessary.
