header image
Home arrow Griffin's History arrow Debate on Foreign Missions-Chapter 24
Debate on Foreign Missions-Chapter 24 PDF Print E-mail
Written by Potter/Yates   




We are still here, and from the size of the audience it seems the interest in the debate is not entirely dying away; from some cause or other, either because the people are interested or from curiosity, they come.

MODERATOR: You are interesting speakers, and we like to listen to you.

MR. POTTER: Yes; that denotes intelligence on your part.

I am before you again to negative the proposition. We have been here now, this is the fifth day. The proposition reads: Resolved that the gospel work carried on by the different denominations of the Prot­estant world in heathen lands or foreign countries is authorized in the Scriptures, and blessed and owned of God.” I thought I would read it, as you have been listening to about an hour’s speech, and I was afraid you have forgotten it by this time. Some people forget things in the course of an hour, if they do not hear them mentioned. Now, the rules of our discussion, that we have agreed to be governed by, require us in the start to have the terms of the proposition in the de­bate so clearly defined that there can be no misunder­standing respecting them. It took Brother Yates four days to define his proposition. We never got a defini­tion of it from him until yesterday evening. He wanted the Brother Moderators to decide on Monday evening the meaning of blessed and owned of God.” I tried then for two days in succession to get him to say what he thought it meant. And yesterday evening he told us, and I rather gave the credit to Brother Darby but they exonerate Brother Yates that far, and say Brother Darby is not the cause of it. But that brought a definition; and there is a question I want this audi­ence to think about. If it takes a man four days to de­fine a proposition, how long will it take him to prove that proposition? Four days this people waited, and waited, and listened, and wondered what the proposi­tion meant. No wonder Brother Yates wanted six days to debate this proposition in. I asked him once, in conversation, if he thought he could not prove it in one day, or if he thought it would take him six days to prove it? I did not think then about it taking him four days to define it. But it is defined; “blessed and owned of God,” means that those missionary laborers are means and instruments in the regeneration and eternal salva­tion of souls that would not have been saved with­out them. That is what it means. Now, for the four days up to this time, I want you to see the attitude in which Brother Yates has stood as a debater. He has demeaned himself this morning, in my judgment, bet­ter than he has at any time during the debate.

MR. YATES: Thank you.

MR. POTTER: You know it is a long lane that has no turning, and reformation is commendable. He said the -first day of the debate, that he believed that those hea­then who do the best they can, with what light they have, will be saved. That is what he said on Monday. On Thursday he comes and challenges me to prove one instance of the salvation of the heathen that does not hear the truth. That is Brother Yates. He says he has driven me from one position to another, ever since the debate began. He is very fearful the people will not know it. He has said a great deal to us about that. He first told us that he had a Baptist almanac of ours that said we only number 40,000 members.

MR. YATES: You are mistaken; I said the Mission­ary Baptists.

MR. POTTER: No; you did not that day. He has said two or three things about it. Here is what you said about it. He next said he got it from Uncle Sam instead of a Baptist almanac. That makes two things he said. He then said he got it from a New School Magazine, copied from Uncle Sam. He then said it was from the Popular Educator, which gave us 40,000 members. But he does not question the authority that I produced yesterday, saying that our denomination in 1869 numbered 105,000; he leaves you to believe that since 1869, until now, our denomination, in addition to the accessions we have had to our Church, has lost 60,000 members. Of course you can believe that without any trouble. It has only been sixteen years. Now, is it not unreasonable to ask a people to believe that? He asks you to believe that Mr. West being correct, that we numbered 105,000 in 1869; and the Popular Edu­cator being correct, that we only number 40,000 now; that we are dwindling away very fast. We have had some accessions during that time, but with all that we have dwindled down to 40,000, and lost 65,000 in about sixteen years. That is a grand loss. He claims that he has driven me from all my old authorities. So it seems there has been a considerable amount of driving done during this debate.

He says Paul was sent to open the eyes of the hea­then, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God; but he says if I mean he was sent to give them experimental religion, I know he does not believe it. Then it was not Paul’s work to re­generate. Let Brother Yates tell us what he means. This audience understands him to mean that Paul was sent there to do that work, but not alone, not that the Lord would not he there with him. He says himself that if I mean teach the people experimental religion, that I know he does not believe it. Well, if he does not believe it, according to his own theory on the sub­ject of experimental religion, when does a man receive remission of sins? When? where? and how? Is it not at some period in the history of his experience? That is what was in connection with Paul’s case there; in the Lord’s language, it was that they were to receive remission of sins. I want him to tell us what. Paul means, then, if it was not to teach them experimental religion. That is the very thing I deny—that one man can teach another.

  He says the martyrs I referred to yesterday were Lu­therans and Presbyterians, but he gave us no authority only his own word, as evidence of that fact. But of course Brother Yates is well known here, and his word ought to he taken, and perhaps would be, if it was not in a debate. But we are not here to take each other’s word. This audience has not come here to hear mere assertions. Let him prove what he says, if he does nor say quite so much. I think it would be more commendable not to say quite so much, but to prove some of it. He not only said that, but he said we are the fruits of the spirit of Foreign Missions. But he did not even try to tell us why he said so. We know why— because it is the best he can do for his proposition. If he were to debate here twenty years in the future— after Brother Hume, and Brother Strickland, and Broth­er Lampton and I are dead and gone, and he had our history—he would call us missionaries, actuated by the missionary spirit, because we traveled and preached. I am willing to compare notes with Brother Yates as to who travels the most, visits most families, etc. Now, he says those men preached there, and that is the spirit of Foreign Missionism. He has not proved it. He sim­ply asks us to take his bare word. That is what he asks. I did not come here to do that. Did you? If I cannot get any thing better than that, I will take noth­ing. With all the good feeling and esteem I have for Brother Yates, when it comes to an assertion I want something better than his mere word. And another thing: in order to show that his position was wrong, that the salvation of the people was not limited to the Bible and the preacher, that the Bible and the preacher were not absolutely essential to the salvation of sinners, I referred you the other evening to a cov­enant made with Abraham, in which God told Abraham, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” This was God’s covenant; it was God’s promise. In connection with that promise I showed you that if any man is Christ’s that he is Abraham’s seed, and an heir according to that promise. Brother Yates replies to time whole of that by saying that all of those promises are conditional, without even undertak­ing to tell us why. We want to know why; we have come here to learn. If we are wrong we want to be righted. I made a proposition yesterday that if he would just give us one text, just one—we do not want a great volume of texts, we want one—that says that one man can teach another to know the Lord, in the New Testament, we will join the missionaries. Was not that fair? Now, Brother Yates said he wanted me when he challenged for the debate; now see if he will have me on that proposition. If he does not produce that text, I will think he does not want me. I will think he has changed his notion very materially since he has found me out a little better.

He says he admires Carpenter, the missionary author of this book. That is what he said yesterday; but he seemed disposed to go back on that this morning, say­ing he was not here to defend Carpenter. Ah! you have swallowed him too soon, Brother Yates. It will not do for you to go back on Brother Carpenter now. You said yesterday you admired him. That is what you said. Too late now to go back on him. Carpen­ter accused the apostles of staying at Jerusalem a thou­sand days, when they should not have staid more than about ten. He said they might have staid there until they died ingloriously, had not God sent the besom of perse­cution that drove them out. And Brother Yates said yesterday he admired him, but from some cause, perhaps, he has fallen out with him by this time. But that is right; if he wants to just give up his admiration for Carpenter, it is all right with me; we are getting along very well. I merely mentioned it to notice that we are­ progressive. Brother Yates told us in the introduction of this discussion that he was progressive, and I see he is, and I am glad he is, because he likes it. He has told us more than once that wise men change, and it seems to me, from the changes during this discussion, there must be considerable wisdom manifested in it.

Now, I want to pay some little attention to the posi­tion where we are now. Here is where we are now. Brother Yates comes with a cloud of Scripture quotations. That is the reason I admire the speech. I do not like the application of it at all, but I love to hear the Scripture, and he says he loves that old Book. I want to show the position Brother Yates stands in be­fore this audience and these brethren now. Now w e have the revised Presbyterianism before us this morn­ing. It is not the old one. We want to see how it and Brother Yates agree. Let us hear it. He has argued this morning, and he answered the question yesterday that I put to him, that the truth—and he means by that the preaching of the gospel—is indispensably necessary to the salvation of the heathen, and that by their labors in those mission fields, or foreign countries, the mission­aries are the means and instruments in the conversion and salvation of souls that would have sunk down to hell without them. That is the way he has answered the question. No conversions, no regenerations, no salvation, without the preached gospel. Come up, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and let us hear what you say about that.

Divine Influence, page 27: “God the Father, having sent forth his Son Jesus Christ as a propitiation for the sins of the world, does most graciously vouchsafe a manifestation of the Holy Spirit with the same intent to every man.” Now, what is it to vouchsafe a thing to a man? Notice, it is agreed that the Father having sent his Son into the world as a propitiation for the sins of the world, that, as this is true, so something else is true. Well, what is that something else? Why, that he does most graciously vouchsafe a manifestation of the Holy Spirit with the same intent to every man. That is what he vouchsafes, according to Cumberland Presbyterianism. Well, if he does that, will he .not have to go farther than any of the missionaries have ever gone yet, if he vouchsafes to every man a mani­festation of the Holy Spirit? That is what this says he will do. And that is not all. “The Holy Spirit, operating through the written word and through such other means as God in his wisdom may choose, or directly without means, so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin, of their lost estate, and of their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ.” What does the Lord do? What does he do without means? Just lay the means part of it aside, and admit for argument’s sake that the gospel is the ordinary means, as Brother Yates says. Then, after the ordinary means fails, then what? God, without the use of means, all according to this book, “so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin, of their lost estate, and of their need of salvation, and by so doing inclines them to come to Christ.” That is what he does, according to Cumberland Presbyterianism without means. Brother Yates denies that. His ques­tion says it is never done without means. His question says those souls that are converted by the missionaries and brought to Christ would have gone to hell had not the missionaries got there.

I read of a railroad accident one day, over at Carmi, Ill. The locomotive got into a bad shape, and the pa­per stated that it was by undertaking to perform the difficult task at the “Y” of running on both tracks at once. It was a difficult task, and by so doing it was ditched. Here is Brother Yates trying to run both ­tracks at once, and if he is not ditched before long, some of us will have to watch him. Now, let me say to you, my friends, in all seriousness—this is a serious matter. Brother Yates says he wants to be willing to go to judgment, and face what he says in this debate; I have been laboring in the ministry, and I attribute all the honesty and candor to my brother that I claim for myself, and the ability, so far as that is concerned; all the ability, and opportunities, and learning, and every thing of that kind—I attribute it all to him. I do not think he is a hypocrite; I do not believe that; I think men can honestly be mistaken. Now have you ever considered, have you ever thought, have you ever no­ticed, what gave rise to this discussion? why a challenge was published in the Gibson County Leader. Why was it? The challenge said, for the sake of gos­pel truth, and for the honor of the blessed Saviour. That is why. Who had assailed truth? Why, Brother Thomas had said, making a passing remark up here at the General Baptist Church, concerning the heathen, that God would save his people in heathen lands. That was making an assault on foreign missionism. That gave rise to this debate. Don’t you think foreign mis­sionism is tolerably, touchy, that you are not allowed even to say that much—give your own opinion about it, just in a passing discourse? It reminds me of the little boy who was in the habit of making unbecoming personal remarks concerning present company. It an­noyed his mamma considerably for him to do that way, and one day she saw a gentleman coming in who had a very long nose, and she told him before the man came in that if he said one word about that man’s nose while he was there, she would whip him as soon as he left. Well, you know how little boys are; I do, for I was one myself, once. That called the little fellow’s atten­tion to the man’s nose when he came in; hence, boy­-like, he stood up and surveyed it from one side to the other, and finally remarked, said he, “Lord! what a nose! and yet I ain’t allowed to say one word about it! “Now, you must not say any thing about missionism—must not even give your opinion that God will save any of the heathen—without you are willing to get into a de­bate—unless you want to be challenged. That is the cause of this debate. Isn’t it an awful thing? and no one allowed to say any thing about it! What is it? It is the doctrine, according to their own published charts~ that we have already exhibited to you, that one hundred thousand heathen are dropping into eternity every day. Brother Yates’ position is that they all go to hell. That is it. Now, you must not say any thing against that, if you do not want to debate. What do they go to hell for? What for? Because they do not receive the gos­pel, as I read from a missionary tract here. I am not the author of those tracts. They were not gotten up in my interest. They were gotten up in the interest of the missionary cause; and as I have already read in your hearing since We have been here, as much as twice, this man says that we are today surrounded by eight hundred millions of brothers and sisters who must perish in their sins unless they receive the gospel. This gospel they have never yet heard. That is the doctrine. I do not love the doctrine. I do not believe one word of it. One reason I do not is because it contradicts the Word of God; and another reason I do not, is because it does not allow any efficacy in the blood of Christ in the atonement. It neutralizes all that. Let us see whether that is so. Jesus Christ came into the world to save the lost, as yesterday we read, and the author of that article describes the heathen as being that peo­ple. Whether anybody else is lost or not, the heathen are, says this man Carpenter. They are lost. Jesus came to save the lost. Carpenter says so. Jesus says so, and that is right. Jesus came into the world to save the lost; then he came into the world to save the heathen. Then, if he came to save the heathen, and died for them—if God had delivered up the most dignified offering that heaven and earth could produce, and made the most dignified sacrifice for the salvation of those lost peo­ple—does God put their salvation into the hands of the preacher and the church? That is where he has put it if that is true. And they must all he lost, if the preacher and the Church do not do their duty. Then, why are the hea­then lost? Why? Because the Church and the preacher do not do their duty. That is why. That is what Brother Yates referred to the third chapter of Ezekiel so much for, to prove that they would be lost, and if we do not do our duty their blood would be required of us. Then we are all lost, are we not—church heathen and all, if we do not do our duty? All lost, according to his own text. That is the doctrine that I am here to oppose, and that I do not believe. What good does the death of Christ do? What good did all those groans and this anguish and death do, if, after it is done, the God of heaven, who knows all things, places these effects in the hands of the Church and the minister, and has so arranged it as not to allow himself to reach out any fur­ther than they go, in the salvation of those whom Jesus came to save. That is the doctrine. Did God know that we would not do our duty? Did he know that the gospel would never get all over the world? Did he know that nineteen hundred years after the commission was given to go into all the world and preach the gos­pel to every creature, that there would be about twelve hundred million of people without the gospel, and that they must universally be damned? Did he know that? If he did know it, and yet made such a plan as that, does it look like he loved them very much? Is that the kind of love God has for his people? Is that a great exhibition of his love, and mercy, and grace to the peo­ple, and then to send them to hell? What for? Be­cause we did not do our duty? Is that it? Yes, that is the doctrine. That is the doctrine Brother Yates is here to defend. He is worse than his Church is. Now, the Cumberland Church is very respectable; when it comes to their doctrinal sentiments, it will do very well. It is a great deal more liberal than Brother Yates is. It says God operates without means, by his Spirit, and so moves upon the hearts of men as to enlighten, re­prove and convince them of sin, and their lost estate, and need of salvation. This Confession of the Cum­berland Presbyterian Faith says the Spirit does that directly, without means. It does not say it does it in every case, but it says it does do that kind of work. Brother Yates denies it. When I was a little boy—and some of these older brethren remember it, perhaps—I was brought up in Southern Illinois, where we used to bring our corn in to shell; and we would all get around it, and I would shell until I got tired, and then I would see the little cobs lying around, and would make me a cob house, and build it as high as I could. After I got it built, I knew it was not much account, and if any of the other children undertook to come around within a foot of it I would squeal. I knew it was easily thrown down. And that reminds me of this grand missionary cause today, that preaches the doctrine of the univer­sal and eternal destruction of one hundred thousand souls a day. You must not come near them, or they will squeal. They know it won’t do to rub close to that.

Another thought. I want to notice some of the speech we have heard this morning. He says he is not here to defend brother Carpenter or anybody else; not to defend any man’s opinions. He refers me to the doctrine, and principles, and practice, of the Regular Baptists, and I do not know what he made the quotation for. He did not give us any comment on it, only he agreed to it, and he understood me at the beginning of this debate to deny it. Now, while I am right here, let me say this: When he referred to the Proverbs of Solomon, he introduced it to prove man’s responsibility. I admitted man’s responsibility; I stated that every time he introduced that text; that I always admitted and believed in the responsibility of man. I believe it is right for every man to do right, because the law requires it and forbids him to do wrong; and consequently, as he was undertaking to prove man’s responsibility by that text, and all the others he used, it would not be necessary for me to go over them. I expect the reporter has put it down there, and not only that text but Ezekiel, and most of the others he has quoted during this discussion. That is what he used that text for, or else I misunderstood him. If I admit the responsibility of man, what is the use of his trying to prove it to me by an argument? How many times does he want me to tell him? The people will know how it is.

Now, in regard to Brother Carpenter, and what he said about the apostles. Brother Yates himself says they were slow to learn, Now, that is not Brother Carpenter; that is Brother Yates. What does he say about the apostles? The commission was given to them: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” and he comes up here and says they were slow to learn. Now, he must defend that, or take it back, one or the other. He can do whichever he pleases. That is not Brother Carpenter; that is Brother Yates; and if he does not want to defend Carpenter, he must defend Yates, or take it back. If he feels like taking it back, then this is the last I have to say on it I do not want the apostles charged that way. They went to preach. The memorable sermon of Peter on the day of Pentecost, was the most noted sermon that has ever been delivered upon earth, except the Saviour upon the mount. When did he preach it? As soon as he was endued with power from on high. What does history say about the apostles from that on? They continued steadfast in the apostles’ doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers That is what the writer says about them. They continued; they were not slow to learn. Brother Yates says they were.

Let us take it easy. I am generally ugly, and people must not think I am mad, because I am ugly. I get in earnest when I come to these points. When it comes to these points there is something serious about it. If we cannot trust the apostles, whom can we trust? If we could not trust the apostles, can we trust the mis­sionaries? If the apostles could “go back” on the Lord at the start—the very first ones to whom the commission was given—what might we expect in the latter part of the nineteenth century? What could we ex­pect?

Now, I tell you the apostles did not organize any missionary boards; they got up no Foreign Missionary Societies. This book Brother Yates introduced, and which he says was couched in language by which he can show a chain of missionism from the apostles until now, is a missionary work. I will venture that asser­tion now. If he proves it is not, I will take back what I have said about it. I venture the assertion it is a missionary work. He did not read any from it. Let me tell you what I know missionaries have done. Since For­eign Mission Societies have been established, they have claimed that men who traveled and preached prior to them were missionaries. Brother Yates has been guilty of that during this discussion. He said yesterday that these martyrs that were so cruelly butchered about the time of Luther were the fruits of missionary labors. Well, now, that kind of men might go to work and get up a chain of mission societies from the days of the apostles until now. Let him show some unbi­ased witness that will show a chain of organized mis­sion hoards from the apostles until now, and these peo­ple will learn something. Let him produce an unbi­ased witness, a disinterested party, or let him produce one on the side of what he calls anti-mission, and we will take it. Now all the witnesses that he has given, he tells us, are good, and their authority dare not be questioned. I do question the authority of any man that would say that there has been a chain of missionary organizations and hoards from the apostles to the present time. Why does not Eusebius say something about it? and why does not Mosheim say something about it? Why does not Brother Yates bring him? Because those books were written before modern mis­sionism was thought of. That is the reason. Hence they said nothing about it, because they knew nothing about it.

MR. YATES: May I ask you a question?

MR. POTTER: Yes, sir.

MR. YATES: Do I understand you to say that Mo­sheim says nothing about Foreign Missions?

MR. POTTER: No, sir.

MR. YATES: What do you say?

MR. POTTER: That he does not say any thing about a chain from the time of the apostles to the present time, of missionary organizations. Why does he not name them? Now, I will tell you, Brother Yates will not bring that authority. Let him bring it; we want to learn.

Do you know how many times he has threatened to do something during this debate? Don’t you be scared. I am not. Let him bring it.

Another thought: He said a missionary said, “Don’t think I’m lazy.” Somebody must have been accus­ing them of being lazy. I have not. I think they are energetic; and I will say this, so far as the work is con­cerned itself, there have been some changes for good, so far as education and civilization are concerned, among some of the heathen, and I admitted that at the start, in the very first speech I made in this debate. Now, I do not know of any one thing alone that caused those changes. I do not know whether it was powder and lead, in connection with something else, or wheth­er it was the gospel alone. I do know that, there have been arms used. There were arms used in Mad­agascar; there were arms used in Japan. Brother Yates told us that until certain times they were not al­lowed to preach. When the apostles went out to preach the gospel, they did not have to take an army along to shoot the people into submission and civiliza­tion before they could preach to them. It seems to me that under the present dispensation the army and the gospel go together, and if they do not, the army goes first. That seems to be the way of it.

MR. YATES: What authority have you for that?

MR. POTTER: Appleton’s Encyclopedia concerning Madagascar. I have it here, and you can sec it if you want to. Now, 1 want to notice that while I admit there has been great good done, and while I admit that the Bible in its influence is a good thing anywhere, and that every people would be better off with it than with­out it, I do not admit that God has limited his salvation to that Book and its influence. That is the issue be­tween us. I believe that educational interests are a good thing for society; schools are a good thing for society, and where the Bible has the greatest influence we have the best civilization—I admit all that. Brother Yates represents me here today as being opposed to Philip going to preach, and Apollos going to preach, and Pe­ter going to preach. How many times must I tell these people that that is a misrepresentation of my position? It is not a question as to whether a minister should go and preach the gospel; I believe it is right for every minister to go. I believe when the Saviour said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” it is right for them to go. I believe that ev­ery Baptist believes it. If Brother Yates has any doc­umentary evidence against us on that point, in our Con­fession of Faith, let him produce it. I am not here fighting my Confession of Faith, as he is. Whenever I get that way, then I am going to go home; I am go­ing to yield the debate and go home whenever I get to that. He is here on one side, and his Confession on the other, and yet he is charging me all the time with be­ing, and doing, and believing so and so, a thing that I, have never intimated. But while I admit that the gospel is a good thing, and education a good thing, and the gospel a greater incentive to civilization than any thing else in the world, I do not believe it is absolutely essential to the salvation of anybody, and the people know I have been very plain on that ever since this discussion commenced. Hence, what is the issue between us? He says it is essential to the eternal salvation of the people, not only to civilization and education, but that it is to the eternal salvation, and without it they will not be saved. Hence, when he refers to those glowing colors on the map, and talks about civilization, I have not denied it, only I think in all probability there is some exaggeration in those colors, as I am going to show before I get through.

Now, as to the text: He called on me to show a text saying that persons were converted and saved without the truth. He wants one. Well, I am going to let the Cumberland Presbyterians select it for me. They surely will not have any objections to that, if it is one of their own selection. John xii. 30—32: “Jesus answered and said, this voice came not because, of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” That is the Presbyterian selection to prove that point, and as it is their own selection it is not necessary for me to make any comment on it. It is the text referred to by their Confession of Faith to prove that very point. That is what Jesus said, and they say it means that the Spirit operates without means. That is on page 27, Article 39, of the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of Faith—“without means, so moves upon the i hearts of men as to enlighten, reprove, and convince them of sin,” etc.; and they say the text I have just given proves that. Then, if it does, they wanted one, and there it is. I have shown a text. I thank you, Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, for selecting it for us. Now, if that text does not prove it, you will have to get your brethren to explain why they put it there to prove it. If it does not prove it, then the Cumberlands are wrong, for they say it does, and they refer to it for that purpose. He thinks be will have to sprinkle me after awhile. Ah, I shall hate that. I should hate to have to be sprinkled. Do not you, brethren, receive immersion from an Old Baptist, or would I have to he sprinkled? I should hate to have to be sprinkled, for I do not believe in that mode of baptism at all. He does not say, though, that he would have to baptize inc. Perhaps he does not mean that sprinkling is baptism in his Association. Let me tell you where Brother Yates is. He is just where Alexander Campbell was in the debate between Campbell and Rice. Alexander Campbell made the same challenge in that debate that Brother Yates makes. I will read it to you, and you can see the unity between the two. On page 619 he says: “Our second argument is deduced from the fact that no living man has ever been heard of, and none can now be found, possessed of a single concep­tion of Christianity of one thought, feeling, or emo­tion, where the Bible, or some tradition from it, has not been before him. Where the Bible has not been sent, or its traditions developed, there is not one single spiritual idea, word, or action. It is all a midnight, a gloomy profound utter darkness.” What does Brother Yates say? He challenges me here to show the very thing that Alexander Campbell says cannot be shown. He is your brother who believes in immersion, and you are like him. Perhaps we had better deliver you over to him and have him immerse you. He surely would immerse you if you were to go over and make the no­ble confession—immerse you into the name of the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Spirit; and you have almost made it, and it will go out that way. Acts xviii. 10: “For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” The Lord was talking to the Apostle Paul; he asked him to stay at Corinth. You know the apostle was going to leave, as I showed yesterday. Now, the Lord appeared td him to tell him to remain there. Tarry here; I will see to it that no one shall set on thee to hurt thee, for I have much people in this city. Brother Yates says that is prophetic. We want to know why he said it. Broth­er Yates, what makes you think that is prophetic? Isn’t it more convenient for you to say it is in harmony with your theory than from any conclusion you draw from God’s word? God says, I have them. Brother Yates says it is prophetic. It means he will have them if the apostle stays there to preach. I would like to see a commentary gotten up by Brother Yates. I pre­sume there is not a lady or gentleman in this house who ever thought of that being prophetic before—not one.

We are learning. Why do you want Paul to stay here? Because I have much people here. What does that mean? It means that I have not got them? Is that it? No. But Brother Yates says so. Does it mean it?

No. It means that he is going to have them, if Paul stays there and preaches. That is the way arguments are presented, and that is the way that modern missionism is supported in God’s Word. I presume that every­body here now is ready to say, “O yes, Foreign Mis­sions are authorized in the Scriptures, and they are blessed and owned of God!” I suppose, from such arguments as that; and, by the way, he has accused me of not noticing his quotations. Very well. I have just now thought of one he quoted on Monday to prove that the Scripture authorized the missions. It is somewhere in Corinthians. 2 Corinthians viii.9: “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” Did that make you think of Foreign Missions when he read it? Re­member, that is one text introduced by Brother Yates to prove that Foreign Missions are authorized in the Scripture, and my judgment is it is about as good as any other he has used, and it comes about as near prov­ing it.

He says I spoke of two salvations—a spiritual and a temporal salvation. I did not call them by that name. He has given them the names himself. I do speak of two. I want you to think of them. In the first place, Brother Yates’ Confession of Faith teaches it, and so do I. Hence we agree that if a man is truly born of God, if he is a saint, if he is truly regenerated, that he will be preserved, and that heaven will finally be his home—that he is saved. Then there comes a salvation after that. What is it? To whom it is said, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” It is to those who have obeyed. “Beloved, as ye have obeyed not as in my presence only, but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Now, if we have once been saved, and yet have to work out our own salvation, is not that two? Do they have to work out the same salvation again after being once saved?. Brother Yates admits that when they are regenerated they have been saved, and the apostle tells them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. I refer you to the text in i Corinthians i., beginning at the 23d verse: “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Unto those who are called, those who are saved, the gospel is the power of God, according to this text. I refer you to his own text where the apostle says: “It pleased God by the fool­ishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wis­dom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews’ a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” I showed you that this call here spoken of was a pre­requisite to the gospel, being the power of God and the wisdom of God in that case, for the gospel was preached to all of them alike, and was not the power of God to all. What was the difference? Some were called, others were not. To those that were called it was Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God, and foolishness to the others. What does that “called” mean? it means saved, because the apostle uses that word, as unto us that are saved it is the power of God. That is the salvation; he can call it spiritual or tem­poral just as he pleases. But here are two salvations— one before the gospel is the power of God, and the other afterward. That is two. Let him notice that. They are his own texts. He brings them up himself and then says I do not answer his arguments, and not notice his texts. Then, he has been complaining because we have not stuck to the proposition. He left it first. I am not here to prove any thing. It is not my place to prove. Every person that is acquainted with debating knows it is the duty of the affirmative to prove his proposition; and it is the duty of the negative to follow him and see whether he does or not, to examine his arguments and proof-texts. Brother Yates has led from the proposition in his arguments. The people have seen that. He asked me questions con­cerning the heathen, and would have mc write them down, when my moderator and myself claimed that it was irrelevant to the subject, but his moderator, Broth­er Collins, thought that the questions I put to him were also irrelevant to the question. Brother Darby, since he heard it, admitted that it must be answered, as an admission that it was not irrelevant, while he also ad­mits that those questions that were put to me were ir­relevant.

MR. COLLINS: I was misunderstood yesterday morn­ing; I said they were not either of them relevant to the question.

MR. POTTER: That is correct. I stand corrected.

MR. POTTER’S MODERATOR: I said that the question on one side was irrelevant; that the responsibility rested on Brother Yates, and that Brother Potter was under no obligation to answer any question; but Brother Collins said if it was relevant on one side, it was on the other, and I yielded the point.

MR COLLINS: I did not say it was relevant at all. I said if relevant to one side it was to the other. Mr. Lampton said it was relevant.

MR. LAMPTON: I said one was relevant.

MR. POTTER: That is the reason I left the proposition. We had nothing to talk about. Brother Yates would not define his proposition, much less affirm it, and much less undertake to prove it. He would not tell us what Foreign Missions were for. We asked him. The people wanted to know. What are they for? We en­treated him for two days before he would tell us what he meant by “blessed and owned of God.” He means the eternal salvation of souls that would not have been saved without it. That is what he meant. He need not talk about civilization, or the elevation of men, or any thing of that kind, or the education of men, and bringing them into a better state in this world. Let him talk about bringing them into heaven—those that would not have got there without their labors. That is the proposition. I hope he will stick to it, and not complain if we wander after him away from it in the future.

I want to notice one thing more on the lump of clay. I do not know what he meant by it. He quoted a text of Scripture, and then made an illustration with the sunlight; that the gospel was the savor of life to some, and the savor of death to others. He said it was just like a lump of clay and a lump of wax in the sunshine—while one would melt the other would remain as it was. There is no wax in this, Brother Yates. It is all clay. Now we want to know what is the difference? “Hath not the potter power over clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dis­honor?” Not to make a vessel of honor out of wax, and of dishonor out of clay. No, sir; your illustration is not very apt in this direction. No, but to make the vessels of the same lump. Well, he referred to this oc­casion as though it were I who was going to make the vessel. I do not claim that it is applicable to this occa­sion. The apostle is talking about God’s authority. I notice that text, not so much to show the doctrine of election as to show God’s light to do as he pleased. Brother Yates seemed to want my authority for be­lieving that God had a right to do as he pleased. ‘ I noticed that text to prove that men were all guilty, and that lie had a right to harden and punish them if he wished to; and he had a right to have mercy on them.

MR. YATES: I want to ask Brother Potter, if he will permit me, in regard to Madagascar. There are two classes of missionaries in Madagascar—Catholics and Protestants. I want to know whether my brother meant the Catholics or Protestants, when he said the missionary work was backed up by arms.

MR. POTTER: I will tell you this evening what I meant by that, if you will tell me of it this evening.

MODERATOR: Brother Potter is not obliged to answer that. These questions should he asked and answered through the speeches.

MR. YATES: I asked the privilege of asking the question, and left it with him. I am ready to answer a question when asked.

MR. POTTER: Brother Yates says he is ready to an­swer a question when a man asks him one. We know he is. He answered one in four day

< Previous   Next >


The Primitive or Old School Baptists cling to the doctrines and practices held by Baptist Churches throughout America at the close of the Revolutionary War. This site is dedicated to providing access to our rich heritage, with both historic and contemporary writings.