CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE
ON
THE HOLY SPIRIT
BEING
THE FIFTH PROPOSITION
IN THE GREAT DEBATE ON "BAPTISM," "HOLY SPIRIT"
AND "CREEDS," HELD IN LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY,
BEGINNING NOVEMBER 15, 1843, AND
CONTINUING EIGHTEEN DAYS,
BETWEEN
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, CHRISTIAN,
AND
N. L. RICE, PRESBYTERIAN.
1901
CINCINNATI, O.
F. L,. ROWE, PUBLISHER.
INTRODUCTION.
In offering to the public the following portion of
the great Campbell and Rice Debate, the publisher
believes he is placing within the reach of all the great
thoughts of two great men on matters vital to the in-
terest and permanency of the Church. The scarcity of
the complete edition of this great debate renders it
inaccessible for a general reading. The high price at
which the few remaining copies are held, also places
it beyond the reach of most people to possess. To
make possible a general reading of this great work,
we issue it in this popular form. Should it meet with
the reception that we anticipate, we will continue the
republishing of other propositions in this debate.
PUBLISHER.
RULES FOR DEBATE.
The following rules governed the entire discus-
sion:
1. The debate shall commence on Wednesday,
November 15, 1843.
2. To be held in the Reform Church.
3. Judge Robertson, selected by Mr. Rice, as Mod-
erator. Col. Speed Smith, selected by Mr. Campbell.
And agreed that these two shall select a President
Moderator. In case of either of the above-named gen-
tlemen declining to act, Judge Breck was selected by
Mr. Rice as alternate to Judge Robertson, and Colonel
Caperton as alternate to Col. Speed Smith.
4. In the opening of each new subject the affirmant
shall occupy one hour, and the respondent the same
time: and each thereafter half hour alternately to the
termination of each subject. The debate shall com-
mence at 10 o'clock A.M., and continue until 2 o'clock
P.M., unless hereafter changed.
5. On the final negative no new matter shall be
introduced.
6. The propositions for discussion are the follow-
ing:
I. The immersion in water of a proper subject, into
the name of the Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
is the one, only apostolic or Christian baptism. Mr.
Campbell affirms. Mr. Rice denies.
II. The infant of a believing parent is a Scriptural
subject of baptism. Mr. Rice affirms. Mr. Campbell
denies.
6 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
III. Christian baptism is for the remission of past
sins. Mr. Campbell affirms. Mr. Rice denies.
IV. Baptism is to be administered only by a bishop
or ordained Presbyter. Mr. Rice affirms. Mr. Camp-
bell denies.
V. In conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of
God operates on persons only through the word of
truth. Mr. Campbell affirms. Mr. Rice denies.
VI. Human creeds, as bonds of union and com-
munion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical.
Mr. Campbell affirms. Mr. Rice denies.
6. No question shall be discussed more than three
days, unless by agreement of parties.
7. Each debatarit shall furnish a stenographer.
8. It shall be the privilege of the debaters to make
any verbal or grammatical changes in the stenogra-
pher's report, that shall not alter the state of the argu-
ment, or change any fact.
9. The net available amount, resulting from the
publication, shall be equally divided between the two
American Bible Societies.
10. The discussion shall be conducted in the pres-
ence of Dr. Fishback, President Shannon, John Smith,
and A. Raines, on the part of the Reformation ; and
President Young, James K. Burch, J. F. Prise, and
John H. Brown, on the part of the Presbyterianism.
11. The debatants agree to adopt as "rules of de-
corum" those found in Hedges' Logic, p. 159, to-wit:
Rule i. 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.
Rule 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
DEBATE. 7
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.
Rule 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or
without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should
be strictly avoided.
Rule 4. Personal reflections on an adversary
should, in no instance, be indulged.
Rule 5. The consequences of any doctrine are not
to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he ex-
pressly avows them.
Rule 6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed
object of controversy, whatever proofs may be ad-
vanced, on either side, should be examined with fair-
ness and candor ; and any attempt to answer an adver-
sary by arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his
reasoning by wit, cavilling or ridicule, is a violation
of the rules of honorable controversy.
(Signed.) A. CAMPBEXL,,
N. L
CAMPBELL- RICE DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S OPENING ADDRESS.
MONDAY, Nov. 27, 10 A.M.
Mr. President. The proposition to be discussed
to-day is admitted on all hands to be of transcendent
importance to the Christian. It is expressed in the
following words: "In conversion and sanctification,
the spirit of God operates on persons only through the
Word."
Most controversies are mere logomachies wars of
words about words, and not about things. Perspicu-
ity and precision in the definition of the terms of a
proposition at the commencement, would have pre-
vented more than half of all the debates in the world,
and would have reduced the other half to less than half
their size. Indeed, we yet need for daily use a much
more simple and Scriptural vocabulary, on the great
subject of religion, as well as in some other depart-
ments of literature and science. The cumbrous, un-
wieldy, and badly assorted nomenclature of certain
sciences has, for centuries, retarded their progress.
This is most unfortunately true in the intellectual and
moral departments. Scholastic theology is greatly
behind the age. The stale divinity of other times re-
fuses to reconsider its sense or its symbols. Hence the
superabundance of the barbarous gibberish and miser-
able jargon yet extant in our creeds and systems of
theoretic divinity. Some samples of these quaint
2 CAMP!>V.U,-RICE DEBATE.
vocables may be given in the discussion of the creed
question.
Meantime, we have yet to learn how much perver-
sion, not of language only, but of the mind also, has
grown out of sectarian animosities and bickerings.
The periodical hobbies of religious parties generate,
like our political feuds, hosts of new terms ; and often
change and modify the old ones, that even a well-
practiced politician, with Johnson, and Webster, and
Richardson by his side, can not nowadays define, either
Whig or Tory, Democrat or Republican.
It is truly an interesting study to learn the new
phraseology of religion not only of religion in gen-
eral, but of the different leading parties of the present
church militant. An adept in this study could almost
swear to a Romanist or a High Churchman, a Presby-
terian of a Methodist, in the dark, if he only heard him
speak for a single hour ; and that, too, without stating
one of his peculiar dogmata. Certain words, like the
shibboleth of the Ephraimites, invariably identify the
religious tribe to which the speaker belongs.
In the midst of this babelism there is one fact which
it behooves me to state.' I scarcely know how. indeed,
to introduce it in this place ; and yet it is essential to a
proper understanding of the whole subject before us.
This fact is, that, in the strife of partyism. some Bible
terms have been so appropriated to represent peculiar
tenets and views which never occurred to their inspired
authors; that, were Paul now living amongst us, he
could not understand much of his own language. To
this class belong the words "regeneration/' "sanctifica-
tion," and "conversion."
With special reference to the discussion, and to the
words of my proposition, I must, therefore, notice one
capital blunder, which, if not now detected, might
involve the subject before us in great obscurity. I can
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 3
not, however, much as I regret it, distinctly unfold my
meaning in a single sentence. Allow me, then, to
open it gradually to the apprehension of all.
The various conditions of man, as he was, as he
now is, and as he shall hereafter be, as connected with
Adam the first, and Adam the second, are set forth in
Sacred Scripture, under various images and meta-
phors, each of which belongs exclusively to its own
class, and is independent of every other one ; requiring
no addition or subtraction of other images, from other
classes, to complete or to unfold it. For example, the
present condition of sinners, in Adam the first, is set
forth under such metaphors as the following: dead,
destroyed, lost, alienated, enemy, going astray, con-
demned in law, debtor, unclean, sold to sin, darkened,
blind, etc. Each one of these has a class of opposite
metaphors, of the same particular idea or figure.
These metaphors, just now quoted, give rise to a cor-
responding class, indicative of his new condition in
Adam the second, such as quickened, made alive, born
again, new created, saved, reconciled, friend, con-
verted, illuminated, pardoned, redeemed, etc. The
changing of these states is also set forth in suitable
imagery, such as regeneration, conversion, reconcilia-
tion, new creation, illumination, remission, adoption,
redemption, salvation, etc. Now, the error to which I
allude, primarily, consists in not uniformly regarding
each one of these as a complete view of man, in some
one condition, or in his whole condition in Adam the
first, or in Adam the second ; but in sometimes con-
templating them as parts of one view, as fractions of
one great whole, and, consequently, to be all added up
to make out a full Scriptural view of man, in Adam and
in Christ, and of the transition from the one state to
the other. From this wild confusion of metaphors
the indiscriminate use of certain leading terms, mere
4 CAMPBEU,-RICE
images it may be our very best and most admired
treatises on theology are not always exempt. Hence
regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification,
etc., etc., are frequently represented as component
parts of one process ; whereas, any one of these, inde-
pendent of the others, gives a full representation of the
subject. Is a man regenerated? he. is converted, jus-
tified, and sanctified. Is he sanctified? he is con-
verted, justified, and regenerated. With some system-
builders, however, regeneration is an instantaneous
act, between which and conversion there is a positive,
substantive interval ; next comes justification ; and
then, in some still future time, sanctification.
A foreigner, in becoming a citizen, is sometimes
said to be naturalized, sometimes enfranchised, some-
times adopted, sometimes made a citizen. Now, what
intelligent citizen regards these as parts of one pro-
cess? Rather, who does not consider them as different
metaphors, setting forth the same great change under
various allusions to past and present circumstances?
From such a statement none but a simpleton would
imagine that a foreigner was first naturalized, then
enfranchised, then adopted, and finally made an Amer-
ican citizen ; yet such a simpleton is that learned rabbi,
who represents a man first regenerated, then con-
verted, then justified, then sanctified, then saved.
Under any one of these images, various distinct acts
of the mind, or of the whole person of an individual,
may be necessary to the completion of the predicate
concerning him. Thus, in regeneration or conver-
sion there may be included hearing, believing, repent-
ing, and being baptized. These are connected as
cause and effect, under a fixed administration or econ-
omy of salvation. So Paul asks, "How shall they call
upon him in whom they have not believed ? How shall
they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 5
and how shall they hear without a preacher? and
how shall they preach unless they be sent?"
The terms of my proposition will now be easily
defined and apprehended. Conversion is a term de-
noting that whole moral or spiritual change, which is
sometimes called sanctification, sometimes regenera-
tion. These are not three changes, but one change
indicated by these three terms, regeneration, conver-
sion, sanctification. Whether we shall call it by one
or the other of these depends upon the metaphor we
happen to have before us, in contemplating man as
connected with the two Adams the old or the new,
the first or the second, the earthly or the heavenly. Is
he dead in the first? then he is born again and alive
in the second. Has he, like the prodigal son, strayed
away in the first? he returns, or is converted in the
second. Is he unclean or polluted in the earthlv
Adam? he is sanctified in the heavenly. Is he lost
in the first? he is saved in the second. Is he de-
stroyed and ruined in the first ? he is created anew in
the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.
If I am asked, why I admitted the terms conver-
sion, sanctification, or regeneration into the proposi-
tion, I answer again, I could not help it. It would
have been to debate the question while settling the
preliminaries. We must take the religious world as
we have to take the natural or the political; that is,
just as we find them, or as they find us. I seek to
accomplish in this preamble, what ought to have been,
but which could not be, accomplished in settling the
propositions. I therefore now most distinctly and
emphatically state, that with me, and in reference to
this discussion, these terms, severally and collectively,
indicate a moral, a spiritual, and not a physical nor
legal change.
A physical change has respect to the essence or
6 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
form of the subject. A legal change is a change as
respects a legal sentence, or enactment. Hence par-
don, remission, justification, have respect to law. But
a moral or spiritual change is a change of the moral
state of the feelings, and of the soul. In contrast with
a merely intellectual change, a change of views, it is
called a change of the affections, a change of the heart.
It is in this acceptation of the subject of my proposi-
tion that I predicate of it, "The Spirit operates only
through the Word."
The term only is indeed redundant, because a
moral change is effected only by motives, and motives
are arguments ; and all the arguments ever used by
the Holy Spirit are found written in the book called
the Word of Truth. Hence, the term is only equivalent
to a denial of what I conceive to be the assumption of
my respondent, viz., that the Spirit in regeneration
operates sometimes without the Word. Only is,
therefore, by the force of circumstances, made to mean
always. But, indeed, this is more a matter of form
than of any grave importance, inasmuch as the com-
mon admission of Protestants, and, I presume, of my
opponent also, is, that the change of which we speak is
a moral or spiritual change.
If, then, I prove that conversion, or sanctification.
is effected by the Word of Truth at all, I prove that it
is a moral change, and, consequently, accomplished by
the Holy Spirit, through the Word alone.
On the subject of spiritual influence there are two
extremes of doctrine. There is the Word alone sys-
tem, and there is the Spirit alone system. I believe in
neither. The former is the parent of a cold, lifeless
rationalism and formality. The latter is, in some tem-
peraments, the cause of a wild, irrepressible enthusi-
asm ; and, in other cases, of a dark, melancholy
despondency. With some there is a sort of compound
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 7
system, claiming both the Spirit and the Word repre-
senting the naked Spirit of God operating upon the
naked soul of man, without any argument, or motive,
interposed in some mysterious and inexplicable way-
incubating the soul, quickening, or making it spirit-
ually alive, by a direct and immediate contact, without
the intervention of one moral idea, or impression.
But, after this creating act, there is the bringing to
bear upon it the gospel revelation, called conversion.
Hence, in this school, regeneration is the cause ; and
conversion, at some future time, the result of that ab-
stract operation.
There yet remains another school, which never
speculatively separates the Word and the Spirit ;
which, in every case of conversion, contemplates them
as co-operating ; or, which is the same thing, con-
ceives of the Spirit of God as clothed with the gospel
motives and arguments enlightening, convincing,
persuading sinners, and thus enabling them to flee
from the wrath to come. In this school conversion
and regeneration are terms indicative of a moral or
spiritual change of a change accomplished through
the arguments, the light, the love, the grace of God
expressed and revealed, as well as approved by the
supernatural attestations of the. Holy Spirit. They
believe, and teach, that it is the Spirit that quickens,
and that the Word of God the Living Word is that
incorruptible seed, which, when planted in the heart,
vegetates, and germinates, and grows, and fructifies
into eternal life. They hold it to be unscriptural, irra-
tional, unphilosophic, to discriminate between spiritual
agency or instrumentality between what the Word,
Per se, or the Spirit, per sr, severally does; as though
they were two independent and wholly distinct powers
or influences. They object not to the co-operation of
8 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
secondary causes; of various subordinate instru-
mentalities ; the ministry of men ; the ministry of
angels ; the doctrine of special providences ; but, how-
ever, whenever the Word gets into the heart the
spiritual seed into the moral nature of man it as
naturally, as spontaneously, grows there as the sound,
good corn, when deposited in the genial earth. It
has life in it, and is, therefore, sublimely and divinely
called "The Living and Effectual Word."
1 prefer the comparisons of the Great Teacher.
They are the most appropriate. We frequently err
when handling tbese, because, in our quest of forbidden
knowledge we are disposed to carry them farther than
he himself did. In the opening parable of the Gospel
Age a parable placed first in the synopsis of parables
presented by Matthew, Mark, and Luke he thus com-
pares the Word of God to seed ; and, with reference to
that figure, he compares the human heart to soil, dis-
tributed into six varieties: the trodden pathway, the
rocky field, the thorny cliff, the rich alluvian, the bet-
ter, and the best of that. But we are not content with
that beautiful and instructive representation of the
philosophy of conversion. We must transcend these
limits. We must explain the theory of vegetation.
We must explain the theory of soils. We must even
become spiritual geologists, and explore all the strata
of mother earth ; and even then there yet remains an
infinite" series of whys and wherefores concerning all
the reasons of things connected with these varieties.
These speculations, and the conflicting theories to
which they have given birth, we will and bequeath to
the more curious and speculative, and will farther
premise some things necessary to a proper opening of
the argument.
Man, by his fall or apostasy from God, lost three
INFLUENCE; OF THE; HOLY SPIRIT. 9
things union with God, original righteousness, and
original holiness. In consequence of these tremen-
dous losses he forfeited life, lost the right of inheriting
the earth, and became subject to all the physical evils
of this world. He is, therefore, with the earth on
which he lives, doomed to destruction ; meanwhile, a
remedial system is introduced, originating in the free,
sovereign, and unmerited favor of God; not, indeed,
to restore man to an Eden lost to an inheritance for-
feited to a life enjoyed before his alienation from his
divine Father and Benefactor. This supremely glori-
ous and transcendent scheme of Almighty love con-
templates a nearer, more intimate, and more sublime
union with God than that enjoyed in ancient paradise
a union, too, enduring as eternity, as indestructible
as the divine essence. It bestows on man an ever-
lasting righteousness, a perfect holiness, and an endur-
ing blessedness in the presence of God for ever and
ever.
To accomplish this a new manifestation of the
Divinity became necessary. Hence the development
of a plurality of existence in the Divine Nature. The
God of the first chapter of Genesis is the Lord God
of the second. Light advances as the pages of human
history multiply, until we have God, the Word of God,
and the Spirit ot God clearly intimated in the law, the
prophets, and the Psalms. But it was not until the
Sun of Righteousness arose till the Word became
incarnate and dwelt among us till we beheld his glory
as that of an only begotten of the Father, full of grace
and truth; it was not till Jesus of Nazareth had fin-
ished the work of atonement on the hill of Calvary
till he had brought life and immortality to light, by his
revival and resurrection from the sealed sepulcher of
the Arimathean senator ; it was not till he gave a com-
io CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
mission to convert the whole world that the develop-
ment of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit was fully stated and completed. Since the de-
scent of the Holy Spirit, on the birthday of Christ's
Church since the glorious immersion of the three
thousand triumphs of the memorable Pentecost, the
Church has enjoyed the mysteries and sublime light of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as
one Divinity, manifesting itself in these incomprehen-
sible relations, in order to effect the complete recovery
and perfect redemption of man from the guilt, the pol-
lution, tbe power, and the punishment of sin.
No one, Mr. President, believes more firmly than
I, and no one, I presume, endeavors to teach more
distinctly and comprehensively than I, this mysterious,
sublime, and incomprehensible plurality and unity in
the Godhead. It is a relation that may be apprehend-
ed by all, though comprehended by none. It has its
insuperable necessity in the present condition of the
universe. Without it, no one can believe in, or be re-
conciled to, the remedial policy, as developed in the
apostolic writings. And, sir, I have no more faith in
any man's profession of religion, than I have in the
sincerity of Mahomet, who does not believe in the
Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit as co-
operating in the illumination, pardon, and sanctifica-
tion of fallen, sinful, and degraded man. While, then,
I repudiate, with all my heart, the scholastic jargon
of the Arian, Unitarian and Trinitarian hypotheses, I
stand up before heaven and earth in defense of the
sacred style in the fair, full and perfect comprehen-
sion of all its words and sentences, according to the
canons of a sound, exegetical interpretation.
I would not, sir, value at the price of a single mill
the religion of any man, as respects the grand affair
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 1 1
of eternal life, whose religion is not begun, carried on,
and completed by the personal agency of the Holy
Spirit. Nay, sir, I esteem it the peculiar excellence
and glory of our religion, that it is spiritual ; that the
soul of man is quickened, enlightened, sanctified and
consoled by the indwelling presence of the Spirit of
the eternal God. But, while avowing these, my con-
victions, I have no more fellowship with those false
and pernicious theories that confound the peculiar
work of the Father with that of the Son, or with that
of the Holy Spirit, or the work of any of these awful
names with that of another; or which represents our
illumination, conversion and sanctification as the work
of the Spirit without the knowledge, belief and obed-
ience of the Gospel, as written by the holy apostles and
evangelists, than I have with the author and finishers
of the Book of Mormon.
The revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is
not more clear and distinct than are the different
offices assumed and performed by these glorious and
ineffable Three in the present affairs of the universe.
It is true, so far as unity of design and concurrence
of action are contemplated, they co-operate in every
work of creation, providence and redemption. Such
is the concurrence expressed by the Messiah in these
words, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,"
"I and my Father are one," "Whatsoever the Father
doeth, the Son doeth likewise" ; but not such a con-
currence as annuls personally, impairs or interferes
with the distinct offices of each in the salvation of man.
For example, the Father sends his Son, and not the
Son his Father. The Father provides a body and a soul
for his Son, and not the Son for his Father. The Son
offers up that body and soul for sin, and thus expiates
it, which the Father does not, but accepts it. The
12 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
Father and Son send forth the Spirit, and not the
Spirit either. The Spirit now advocates Christ's
cause, and not Christ his own cause. The Holy Spirit
now animates the Church with his presence, and not
Christ himself. He is the Head of the Church, while
the Spirit is the heart of it. The Father originates all,
the Son executes all, the Spirit consummates all.
Eternal volition, design and mission belong to the
Father ; reconciliation to the Son ; sanctification to
the Spirit. In each of these terms there are numerous
terms and ideas of subordinate extent, to which we
can not now advert. At present, we consider the sub-
ject in its general character, and not in its particular
details.
In the distribution of official agency, as it presents
itself to our apprehension, with reference to ':he sub-
ject before us, we regard the benevolent design and
plan of man's redemption, as originating in the bosom
of our Divine Father; the atonement, or sacrificial
ransom, as the peculiar work of the Messiah ; and the
advocacy of his cause, in accomplishing the conver-
sion and sanctification of the world, the peculiar mis-
sion and office of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Spirit is
the author of the written Word, as much as Jesus
Christ is the author of the blood of atonement. The
atoning blood of the everlasting covenant is not more
peculiarly the blood of Jesus Christ than is the Bible
the immediate work of the Holy Spirit, inspired and
dictated by him: "For holy men of old spake as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit." Now, as Jesus, the
Messiah, in the work of mediation, operates through
his blood, so the Holy Spirit, in his official agency.
operates through his Word and its ordinances. And
thus we have arrived at the proper consideration of
pur proposition, to-wit: In conversion and sanctifica-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 13
t:on the Holy Spirit operates only through the Word
of Truth.
In how many other ways the Spirit of God may
operate in nature, or in society, in the way of dreams,
visions and miracles, comes not within the premises
contained in our proposition. To what extent he may
operate in suggestions, special providences, or in any
other way, is neither affirmed nor denied in the propo-
sition before us. It has respect to conversion and
sanctification only. Whatever ground is fairly cov-
ered by these terms belongs to this discussion. What
lies not within these precincts comes not legitimately
into this debate.
I. Our first argument in proof of our proposition
shall be drawn from the constitution of the human
mind.
That the human mind has a specific and well-
defined constitution is as evident as that the body has
a peculiar organization ; or that the universe itself has
one grand code of laws which govern it. Our intel-
lectual and moral constitution, as well as our physical,
has its peculiar powers and capacities, not one of which
is violated on the part of our Creator in his remedial
administration, any more than are our sensitive and
animal faculties destroyed or violated by the physician
who rationally and benevolently aims at our restora-
tion to health from some physical malady. No new
faculties are imparted no old faculty destroyed.
They are neither more nor less in number; they are
neither better nor worse in kind. Paul, the apostle,
and Saul of Tarsus are the same person, so far as all
the animal, intellectual and moral powers are con-
cerned. His mental and physical temperament were
just the same after as before he became a Christian.
The Spirit of God, in effecting this great change, does
14 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
not violate, metamorphose, or annihilate any power or
faculty of the man in making the saint. He merely
receives new ideas, and new impressions, and under-
goes a great moral or spiritual change, so that he
becomes alive wherein he was dead, and dead wherein
he was formerly alive.
As the body or outward man has its peculiar or-
ganization, so has the mind. Both are organized in
perfect adaptation to a world without us: the one to
a world of sensible and material objects, the other to
that of the world, and to a spiritual system also, with
which it is to have perpetual intimacy and communion.
But the mind is to commune with its Creator, and its
Creator with it, through material as well as through
spiritual nature ; and for this purpose he has endowed
it with faculries, and the body with senses favorable to
these benevolent designs.
Now, as the body has to subsist upon material na-
ture, and the mind upon the spiritual system, both are
so organized and furnished as to secure and assimi-
late so much of both as are necessary for this end.
Thus, for example, the body lives, moves, and has its
being in the midst of matter from which it is to draw
perpetual sustenance and comfort. For doing this it
is admirably fitted with an animal machinery, created
for this purpose, without which animal life would
immediately become extinct. The lungs are fitted for
respiration, and the stomach is furnished with all the
powers necessary to the reception, digestion, and as-
similation of so much of material nature as is necessary
to the healthful, vigorous and comfortable subsistence
of the body. But nothing from without can afford it
subsistence or comfort but in harmony with this or-
ganization.
Man, then, has to live by breathing, eating, and
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 15
drinking; and without these operations nothing
around him can afford him life and comfort. Nothing
of the bounties of nature can administer to his animal
enjoyments in any other way. God, then, feeds and
sustains man in perfect harmony with this organiza-
tion. He neither dispenses with any of these powers
nor violates them in supporting physical life and com-
fort.
Precisely so is it in the spiritual system. The mind
has its powers of receiving, assimilating and enjoying
whatever is suitable to itself, as the body with which it
is furnished. While embodied, it has only its own
proper faculties, but it has also organs and senses in
the body, by and through which it communes with
matter and with spirit, with God, and nature, and man ;
and through which they commune with it. It receives
all the ideas of material nature by outward, bodily
sense, without which it could not have one idea or
impression of the external universe. A blind man
has no idea of colors, nor a deaf man of sounds.
Neither can any one give him an idea of them without
those senses. Since the world began, every man sees
by his eyes and hears by his ears. Whatever knowl-
edge, therefore, is peculiar to any sense can never be
acquired by another. If God give sight to the blind,
or hearing to the deaf, he does it by restoring these
senses ; for, since the world began, no man has ever
seen by his ears nor heard by his eyes.
So true it is, that all our ideas of the sensible uni-
verse are the result of sensation and reflection. All
the knowledge we have of material nature has been
acquired by the exercise of our senses and of our
reason upon those discoveries. With regard to the
supernatural knowledge, or the knowledge of God,
that comes wholly "by faith," and "faith" itself "comes
1 6 CAMPBELL-RICE; DEBATE.
by hearing/' This aphorism is Divine. Faith is,
therefore, a consequence of hearing, and hearing is the
effect of speaking ; for, hearing comes by the Word of
God spoken, as much as faith itself comes by hearing.
The intellectual and moral arrangement is, therefore:
(i) the word spoken; (2) hearing; (3) believing;
(4) feeling; (5) doing. Such is the constitution of the
human mind a constitution divine and excellent,
adapted to man's position in the universe. It is never
violated in the moral government of God. Religious
action is uniformly the effect of religious feeling: that
is the effect of faith ; that of hearing ; and that of some-
thing spoken by God.
Now, as faith in God is the first principle the soul-
renewing principle of religion ; as it is the regenerat-
ing, justifying, sanctifying principle; without it, it is
impossible to be acceptable to God. With it, a man is
a son of Abraham, a son of God ; an heir apparent to
eternal life an everlasting kingdom.
And what is Christian faith ? It is a belief of testi-
mony. It is a persuasion that God is true; that the
gospel is divine ; that God is love ; that Christ's death
is the sinner's life. It is trust in God. It is a reliance
upon his truth, his faithfulness, his power. It is not
merely a cold assent to truth, to testimony : but a cor-
dial, joyful consent to it, and reception of it.
Still, it is dependent on testimony. No testimony,
no faith. The Spirit of God gave the testimony first.
It bore witness to Jesus. It expected no faith without
something to believe. Something to believe is always
presented to faith ; and that something must be heard
before it can be believed ; for, until it is heard, it is as
though it were not a nonentity. But it is not
enough that it be heard by the outward ear. God has
given to man an inward, as well as an outward ear.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 17
The outward recognizes sounds only ; the inward
recognizes sense. Faith is, therefore, impossible
without language, and consequently without the
knowledge of language, and that language understood.
It is neither necessary nor possible without language
intelligible language. An infant can not have faith ;
but it needs neither faith, nor regeneration, nor bap-
tism. It was a figment of St. Augustine, adopted by
Calvin, propagated in his Institutes and adopted by his
children.
These infant regenerations are lame in both limbs
in the right limb of faith and in the left limb of
philosophy. They move on crutches, and broken
crutches, too. They have no philosophy of mind, or
else they abandon it in all their theological embarrass-
ments. They will have infants regenerated, and souls
morally dead quickened by a direct impulse. The
Spirit of God is supposed to incubate their souls to
descend upon them and work a grace in them a faith
without reason, without argument, without evidence,
without intelligence, without perception, without fear,
hope, love, confidence or approbation.
The whole system cf Calvinism, of Arminianism, is
crazy just at this point. They build a world upon the
back of a tortoise, they pile mountains upon an egg.
They build palaces upon ice, and repose on couches
of ether. They have not one clear idea on the subject
of regeneration. It is to them a mystic mystery, a
cabalistic word, a mere shibboleth. The philosophy of
mind is converted into a heap of ruins. They have
the Spirit of God operating without testimony, with-
out apprehension or comprehension, without sense,
susceptibility or feeling ; and all this for the sake of an
incomprehensible, unintelligible, and worse than use-
less theory. I therefore, ex animo, repudiate their
1 8 CAMPBELL- RICE DEBATE.
whole theory of mystic influence and metaphysical
regeneration as a vision of visions, a dream of dreams,
at war with philosophy, with the philosophy of mind,
with the Bible, with reason, with common sense, and
with all Christian experience.
II. 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 emo-
tion, 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 midnight a
gloom profound utter darkness. What stronger evi-
dence can be adduced than this most evident and indis-
putable fact? It weighs more than a thousand vol-
umes of metaphysical speculations.
One would most rationally conclude that if the
Spirit of God did anywhere illuminate the human
mind, or work into the heart the principle of faith
previous to, and independent of, any knowledge of
the Holy Scriptures, he would most probably do it in
those portions of the earth and amid those vast masses
of human kind entirely destitute of the Word of Life
wholly ignorant of the "only name given under the
whole heaven" by \vhich any sinful man can be
saved. If, then, he has never operated in this way,
where the Bible has never gone, who can prove that
he so operates here, where the Bible is enjoyed.
When, then, we reflect upon the melancholy fact so
often pressed upon the attention of Christendom, by
her missionaries to heathen lands, that not more than
one-third of human kind enjoy the name of Jesus;
that six-tenths or seven-tenths of mankind are wholly
given up to the most stupid idolatries or delusions;
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 19
that pagan darkness and Mahometan impostures cover
the fairest and largest portions of our earth, and
engulf the great majority of our race in the most
debasing superstitions, in the grossest ignorance, sen-
suality, and vice; and that from these is withholden
all spiritual and divine influence of a regenerating and
salutary character, so far as all documentary evidence
avoucheth, if, then, indeed, the Spirit of the Bible, the
Holy Spirit of our God, did at all travel out of the
record and work faith, or communicate intelligence,
without verbal testimony, methinks this is the proper
field. And there being no evidence of his having
so done, is it not a fact as clear as revelation from
heaven, clear as demonstration itself, that the illumin-
ating, .regenerating, converting, sanctifying influences
of the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation are not ante-
cedent to, nor independent of, the written oracles of
that Spirit?
III. Our third argument is deduced from the fact
that no one professing to have been the subject of the
illuminating', converting and sanctifying operations of
the Spirit of God can ever express a single right con-
ception or idea on the whole subject of spiritual
things, not already found in the written Word. We
have been favored with numerous revelations of the
experiences of the most spiritually minded and excel-
lent Christians of this, our age. And on listening to
them with the strictest attention, marking, with all our
powers of discrimination, every idea, sentiment and
expression as uttered, I have never heard one sug-
gestion containing the feeblest ray of light which was
not eighteen hundred years old, and already found in
the Holy Scriptures read of all men who choose to
learn what the Spirit of God has said to saints and
sinners. Evident, then, it is, from this fact, which, I
2O CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
presume, I may also call an incontrovertable fact, that
no light is communicated by the Holy Spirit in re-
generating and converting men; which is equivalent
to saying that in conversion and sanctification the
Spirit ot God operates only through the Word of
Truth.
IV. My fourth argument is derived from another
fact which calls for special consideration just at this
point, to-wit, whatever is essential to regeneration in
any case is essential to it in all cases. The change,
called regeneration, is a specific change. It consists
of certain elements, and is effected by a special agency.
If it be a new heart given, a new life communicated,
it is accomplished in all cases, as generation is, by the
same agency and instrumentality. If, then, the Spirit
of God, without faith, without the knowledge of the
Gospel, in any case regenerates an individual, he does
so in all cases. But if faith in God, or a knowledge
of Christ, is essential in one case, it is essential in every
other case.
Now this being admitted, as I presume it will be,
without farther argument or illustration, follows it not
then that neither the Word of God, nor the Gospel of
Christ, neither preaching nor teaching, neither hear-
ing nor believing is necessary to regeneration, accord-
ing to the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church ? inas-
much as that church believes and teaches that infants
and pagans are regenerated, in some cases, without
any instrumentality at all, but by the direct, naked
and abstract influence of the Spirit of God operating
immediately upon their souls. As this is a most essen-
tial affair in this discussion, it is all-important that we
deliver ourselves in the very words of the Church, and
especially in the creed of that branch of the Church
to which my respondent belongs.
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 21
"This effectual call is of God's free and especial
grace alone ; not from anything at all foreseen in man,
nor from any power or agency in the creature co-work-
ing with his special grace, the creature being wholly
passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until
being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is
thereby enabled to answer this call and to embrace the
grace offered and contained in it ; and that by no less
power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and
saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when,
and where, and how he pleases : so also are all other
elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly
called by the ministry of the Word."
So speaks the Confession, Chapter x, sections 2, 3.
Now, I ask, of what use is the ministry of the Word
in any case, so far as regeneration is concerned? This
is a point on which I am peculiarly solicitous of illu-
mination. Surely faith, and preaching, and the Gos-
pel ministry are all vain and useless in making a man
a new creature, if dying infants and untaught pagans
may be regenerated by the Spirit alone, without faith,
knowledge or any illumination whatever. Nay, indeed,
if my position be true, and true it most assuredly is, that
whatever is essential to regeneration in any case is es-
sential in all cases, then, although we have three classes
of subjects, to-wit: Elect infants, elect pagans and elect
Gospel hearers, we have for them all one and the same
species of regeneration. This is one of my reasons
why I have charged my Presbyterian friends, on some
occasions, of ''making the Word of God of non-effect
by their traditions" ; and, therefore, I solicit such an
exposition of this dogma as will set me right if I en
in this particular. As the Confession reads, we have
thus, in effecting the regeneration of an infant, the
22 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
Spirit alone operating by a physical power, tanta-
mount to that which raised up to life again the dead
body of the crucified Messiah.
Miracles truly never cease on this hypothesis: inas-
much as the regeneration of every infant is a demon-
stration of a power as supernatural as the resurrec-
tion of the Messiah. Unfortunately, however, this
power is not only never displayed to our conviction
at the time, nor ever so displayed after the event as
to become an object of perception, much less of sensi-
ble demonstration. Tf, indeed, as it sometimes hap-
pens in some branches of tins school, regeneration is
not regarded as another name for conversion and
sanctification, but a previous work, then it will be
important that we be enlightened on the question,
How long the interval between regeneration and con-
version, between regeneration and faith, and between
regeneration and the dying infant's or pagan's exit?
For if the interval should be such as to preclude the
possibility of conversion and sanctification, we should
have the startling fact promulgated that infants, and
pagans, too, dying regenerate, enter heaven without
being converted ! Another curious question will cer-
tainly arise here. Of what use is infant baptism accord-
ing to such a theory of regeneration? For, if elect
infants are regenerated without knowledge, faith,
repentance, or baptism, and if non-elect infants,
though baptized, are not regenerated, why have such
a war of words about the matter virtually worth noth-
ing to the living or to the dead?
V. My fifth argument shall be deduced from the
Holy Spirit's own method of addressing unconverted
men; by signs addressed to the sense, and words to
the understanding and affections. The Messiah him-
self, the seventy evangelists, and the twelve apostles
INFLUENCE OF THE; HOLY SPIRIT. 23
were accomplished and fitted for their ministry to the
world by such inspirations and accompanying powers
as human nature and society, Jewish and pagan, then
required, and I presume always will require. They
were first sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ;
and afterwards the apostles were sent to the Gentiles.
Now, in seeking to regenerate and save the human
family, they, divinely guided, uttered certain words,
and accompanied them with certain miracles. These
were the means supernaturally chosen and used. They
were certainly apposite means, appropriate and fitted
to the end proposed by the donor of this intelligence
and power. He seems to have sought admission into
the hearts of the people by these glorious displays of
divine power presented to the eye, and these words
of grace addressed to the ear. They saw the sick
healed, the leper cleansed, demons dispossessed and
the dead raised ; and, while seeing these solemn and
significant arguments they heard words of tender-
ness words of pardon and of life, spoken with a divine
earnestness, with a heavenly sympathy and affection.
Thus the Spirit sought to convert them. He used
means, rational means ; therefore, we argue, such
means were necessary, and are still, *n certain modifi-
cations of that same supernatural grandeur, necessary
to conversion and sanctification. Signs, as Paul
explains them, were necessary, not for believers, but
for unbelievers. They \vere necessary to faith. The
miracle opened the heart, the testimony of the Lord
entered, and the Spirit of God with it, and the work
of conversion was finished.
Now, may we not conclude that miracles and words
are not a mere redundancy a perfect superfluity?
May we not regard them as essential means, employed
by the Holy Spirit in accomplishing his work? It is,
24 CAMPBELL-RICE DKBATK.
perhaps, important also to say, that the proof of a
proposition is always subordinate in rank to the propo-
sition which it proves. The life is not in the miracle,
but in that which the miracle proves. The grand
proposition is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of
God, the Savior of the world. He that believes this
proposition is "begotten of God." It is the "incor-
ruptible seed.'* It is the "living Word." It abideth
forever. The Church of the Messiah is built upon it.
The premises, then, certainly justify the conclusion
that, in converting and sanctifying the world, the
inspired apostles and evangelists used means of divine
authority ; and neither did depend upon, nor teach
others to depend upon any agency from above, dis-
pensing with such an instrumentality.
VI. Our sixth argument is derived from the name
chosen by the Messiah as the official designation of the
Holy Spirit. He calls him the Paracletos, and that,
too, with a special reference to his new mission. This
term, occurring some five times in the apostolic writ-
ings, is, in the common version, translated both com-
forter and advocate; and, by Dr. Campbell, monitor.
As an official name I prefer advocate to either of the
others. It is generic, and comprehends them both.
An advocate may be a monitor or a comforter; but a
monitor, or a comforter, is not necessarily an advo-
cate. Now, as the Spirit is to advocate Christ's cause,
he must use means. Hence, when Jesus gives him the
work of conviction, he furnishes him with suitable and
competent arguments to effect the end of his mission.
He was to convince the world of sin, righteousness and
judgment. In accomplishing this he was to argue from
three topics: (i) The unbelief of the world; (2)
Christ's reception in heaven ; (3) The dethronement of
his great adversary, the Prince of this world. Then
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 25
the person, mission and character of the Messiah alone
came into his pleadings. Jesus promised him the docu-
ments. And, indeed, the four evangelists are arranged
upon the instruction given by the Messiah to his advo-
cate. In converting men, the Spirit, the Holy Advo-
cate, was to speak of Jesus. Hence, speaking of Jesus
by the Spirit is all that was necessary to the con-
version of men. The official service and work thus
assigned the Holy Spirit is a standing evidence that,
in conversion and sanctification, he operates only
through the Word. And, as it has been already
shown, conversion is, in all cases, the same work, he
operates in this department only by and through the
Word, spoken or written ; and neither physically nor
metaphysically.
VII. Our seventh argument shall be deduced from
the opening of the commission ; from the gift of
tongues, by which the Advocate commenced his oper-
ations. That the Messiah had a commission for con-
vincing and converting the world has been already
shown. That he was to use arguments has been fully
proved ; that he was to speak and work also ; that by
signs and miracles he accompanied the Word, and
made it effectual. Now, that language is essential
to the completion of the commission is further proved
from the great fact that the first gift of the Holy Spirit,
under the Messiah's commission, was the gift of
tongues.
Language, not merely the various dialects of human
speech, but language itself not Hebrew, Greek and
Roman, but that of which Hebrew, Greek and Roman
are mere dialects, forms or modes is essential. He
gave the first : and he gave the second. He made a
glorious display of the use of language, of the need
of tongues, in commencing his new work. He gave
26 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
utterance, foi utterance is his gift. So Paul to the
Corinthians said, "You are enriched by him in all
knowledge and in all utterance." The day of Pente-
cost is the best comment on this whole subject of
spiritual influence ever written. We have much use
for it in this discussion. It is just as useful on the work
of the Spirit as on the genius and design of baptism.
It seldom occurs to us that all Christendom the
living world is now indebted for the very book that
records the name and embalms the memory of the
Messiah, and for all that is known of the Holy Spirit,
for the very language of the new covenant, for the
gospel of the kingdom, and for every spiritual idea and
conception of God, of heaven, of immortality, of our
origin, nature, relations, obligations and destiny, to
the immediate agency of this Spirit of all Wisdom and
Revelation to the gift of tongues or of language.
Yet true to the letter it is, that " no one could say that
Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit."
Some among us, through the ignorance that is in
them on this grand theme, ascribe to the human mind
the powers of the Holy Spirit. They represent the
human mind as possessing some sort of innate power
of originating spiritual ideas ; to arrive at the knowl-
edge of God by the mere contemplation of nature.
They annihilate the doctrine of the fall, of human imbe-
cility and depravity, and adorn human reason with a
very splendid plagiarism, called natural religion.
While at variance on almost everything else, the
mental philosopher and the Deist, the Romanist and
the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, admi-
rably coalesce and harmonize in this self-congratu-
latory assumption. They say that man can, by the
feeble, glimmering rush-light of his own studies of
nature, either descend from his a-priori, or ascend from
INFLUKNCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 27
his a-posteriori reasoning of God to the apprehen-
sion of his very being and perfections, human respon-
sibility, the soul's immortality, and a future state of
rewards and punishments - without the Bible and
without the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
We have neither so studied nature nor learned the
Bible. We subscribe to Paul's dogma, " The world
by wisdom knew not God," and agree with him, that
"it is by faith," and not by reason, "we know that the
worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things
now seen existing did not formerly exist." We,
indeed, ascribe all our ideas of spirit and of a spiritual
system, our conceptions of God as Creator, of creation
itself, of providence and of redemption, to one and the
same Spirit, and to that Logos who, in one form or
other, has been the prophet or the advocate of the
Messiah and his cause for some six thousand years.
We go yet further. We assign to the Spirit of all
Wisdom and Revelation the origination of the spiritual
language perhaps, indeed, of all language. The
most enlightened men, whether Pagans, Jews or Chris-
tians, regard language as a divine revelation, even
that large proportion of it derived from sensible
objects. The philosophers, from Plato down to Dr.
Whitby, have claimed for the Supreme God this honor.
They have refused it to either civilized or uncivilized
man, to all conventional agreement. They have
handled, with great effect, that plainest of propositions,
that councils could not be convened that if they had
spontaneously arisen, no motions could have been
made, no debates commenced nor conducted, without
the use of speech. Philosophers assume that men
think in words as well as communicate by them ; or,
at least, have some image of the thing, natural or
artificial, or thev can not even think about it. The
28 CAMPBEI,L-RICE DEBATE.
natural process, which can easily be made intelligible
to all, is that the thing is pre-existent, the idea of it
next, and the word last. The line ascending is the
word, the idea, the thing. The line descending is the
thing, the idea, the word. Now, as the line descending
is necessarily first, we must, especially in things spir-
itual, admit that the spiritual things could be com-
municated to man only by one that comprehends them,
who had seen them, and who selected from the ele-
ments of that language first given to man, when he
conversed face to face with God in Eden, the proper
materials for words to communicate things spiritual.
In strict accordance with this assumption, Moses
teaches us that God conferred with Adam, and con-
tinued his lessons until Adam was able to give every
creature around him a suitable name. That language
commenced in this way all admit from one fact, to wit:
Every one speaks the language wbich he first hears.
This is his vernacular. A miracle is before us ; the
first man spoke without being spoken to ; else God
spoke to him. Either is a miracle ; and of the two, the
latter is of the easiest credence ; and, indeed, it is to
the faithful evidently true from the words of Moses.
With Plato, then, I say, that God taught the primitive
words, and from that, man manufactured the deriva-
tives. With Newton I say, God gave man reason and
religion by giving him speech. With tradition I say.
that the god Thath, of the Egyptians, is the Theos of
the Bible, and the Logos of the New Testament. The
Logos incarnate is the Messiah of Christianity. There-
lore, the Spirit of God, now the Spirit of the Word, is
the origin of all spiritual words and conceptions.
With Paul, therefore, I say, "We speak spiritual things
in spiritual words, or words which the Spirit teacheth,
expressing spiritual things in spiritual words."
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 29
I will conclude in the language of the Hebrew
poet: "It is God that teacheth man knowledge, and
the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him under-
standing." "The entrance of thy Word giveth light:
it giveth understanding to the simple." The very lan-
guage, then, as well as the ideas that convert the soul,
is spiritual. So that truly we may affirm that in con-
version the Spirit of God operates upon a person only
by and through the Word, and the ideas originated by
himself. Of all which the first demonstration of the
Spirit in fiery tongues, words, language, and signs, is a
full and ample proof. [Time expired.]
30 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. RICE'S FIRST REPLY.
MONDAY, Nov. 27, n A.M.
Mr. President There are two principal obstacles in
the way of man's salvation. The one is, that he has
broken the law of God, and is, therefore, condemned;
the other is, that he possesses a depraved nature, and
is, therefore, disqualified for the service of God and the
happiness of heaven. There are, likewise, two great
doctrines which especially characterize the Gospel.
The one is the atonement of Christ, by which we may
be relieved from the curse of the law; the other is the
work of the Spirit, by whose agency we may be sancti-
fied and prepared for heaven. These doctrines consti-
tute the two chief pillars in the temple of gospel truth ;
and he who attempts to overturn the one or the other
does what he can to destroy the sacred edifice, and to
expose the human race, helpless and hopeless, to the
wrath of a just God.
The subject of discussion th ; s morning is, there-
fore, as important as the immortal interests of the soul.
Without the atonement of Christ, all must die in a
state of condemnation, and without the special agency
of the Holy Spirit all must die in depravity and be
eternally lest.
In the discussion of a subject such as the one now
before us, it is of the utmost importance that we under-
stand distinctly the point of controversy. In this, as
in his other introductory addresses, my friend, Mr. C..
seems to have directed his efforts more to beauty of
style and composition than to the clear statement and
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 31
defense of his faith. I venture the opinion that no one
individual in this large and intelligent audience has
been able to gather from the address he has just read
to us wherein we differ, or what is the point to be
debated. If any one has been so happy as to have
been enlightened concerning this important matter, I
must award to him more ingenuity and discrimination
than I possess. If time were allowed me, and I were
capable of writing so handsome a discourse, I might
afford the audience another hour's entertainment, and
yet they would not know how far we agree in our
views of this important subject, nor wherein we differ.
The gentleman has said a number of things which
are true, and a number of things which. I suppose, are
not true. Indeed, 1 could but admire the number of
topics he contrived to introduce in the course of an
hour sectarian phraseology, the Trinity, the parts of
the work of salvation assigned to each of the Persons,
the nature of matter and mind, infant baptism, the
origin of language, etc ! I can not subscribe to much
that he said with regard to theological systems and
sectarian phraseology. With him it seems all churches
are "sects" but his own, and yet it would be difficult to
find a denomination that is more accurately described
by a correct definition of the word "sect." He tells us
he can at any time know a Calvinist or an Arminian by
liis phraseology before he has heard him an hour. And
I will say that I can identify a modern reformer of his
school in half the time ; not by his close adherence to
vScripture phraseology, but by the cant of the sect. The
exclusive claims of some of our modern sects to be the
church the only true church, savors more of the pride
of Rome than of the Spirit of the gospel. If, however,
the gentleman can establish the high claim of his
Church, he will have accomplished an important work.
32 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
The proposition before us is in the following words:
"In conversion and sanctification the Holy Spirit
operates on persons only through the Word of Truth."
The word "conversion," as used in the Scriptures, in
its most enlarged sense, expresses two important ideas,
viz.: First, a change of heart; and, second, a change
of conduct; or a turning in heart and in life from sin
to holiness, from the service of Satan to the service of
God. The word signifies literally turning from one
thing to another. When an individual who has been
pursuing a certain course turns to an opposite one we
naturally conclude that his mind is changed. Hence,
the word "conversion" came to signify both cause and
effect the change of heart and the consequent change
of conduct. In this sense it i? used in Matt, xviii. 3:
"Except ye be converted, and become as little children,
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The word "sanctification" is employed in the Scrip-
lures, and by all accurate theological writers, not to
signify something in its nature distinct from regenera-
tion or conversion, but the progress of the gracious
\vork of which regeneration is the commencement.
The difference between us, so far as this subject is
concerned, is. in general terms, this: Mr. Campbell
believes that in the work of conversion and sanctifica-
tion the Spirit operates only through the Truth. I
believe that the Holv Spirit operates through the
truth where, in the nature of the case, the truth can
be employed ; but I deny that the Spirit operates only
through the truth. I would not have consented to dis-
cuss the proposition, if the word "only" had been
omitted. For we believe and teach that the Holy
Spirit operates ordinarily Hirough the truth, but not
only through the truth.
That we may ascertain precisely the point in debate
INFLUENCE OF THK HOLY SPIRIT. 33
it is important to inquire how far we agree. I remark,
then, that we agree on the following points:
First That the Holy Spirit dictated the Scriptures
that "holy men spake of old as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost."
Secondly That the Holy Spirit confirmed the truth
of the Scriptures by miracles and prophecies.
Thirdly That in the conversion and sanctification
of those who are capable of receiving and understand-
ing the Scriptures the Spirit operates ordinarily
through the truth.
Thus far we are agreed. We differ on the follow-
ing important points:
First Mr. Campbell contends that in conversion
and sanctification the Spirit never operates without
the truth, as the means of influencing the mind. I
maintain that in the case of those dying in infancy and
idiocy the Spirit operates without the truth.
Second Mr. Campbell affirms, that in the con-
version and sanctification of those capable of under-
standing the Word, the Spirit operates only through
the truth that is, the Spirit dictated and confirmed
the Word, and the Word, by its arguments and
motives, converts and sanctifies the soul. I desire that
this point may be very distinctly apprehended, for it is
of vital importance. Mr. Campbell teaches, that in
conversion and sanctification, the Holy Spirit operates
an the minds of men just as his spirit operates on the
minds of this audience, or as the spirits of Demos-
thenes and Cicero operated on the minds of their au-
ditors or their readers, viz., by his words and argu-
ments alone. As Mr. Campbell presents words and
arguments to the minds of his hearers or readers, and
those words and arguments exert an influence on
them, so the Holy Spirit presents in the Scriptures
34 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
arguments and motives, and by these alone does he
operate on the human mind.
Such precisely is his doctrine on this vital subject.
I regret that he did not, in his address, more distinctly
present it. To prove to you, my friends, that I am
not misrepresenting him I will read several passages
from his "Christianity Restored."
"Because arguments are addressed to the under-
standing, will and affections of men, they are called
moral, inasmuch as their tendency is to form or change
the habits, manners or actions of men. Every spirit
puts forth its moral power in words: that is, all the
power it has over the views, habits, manners or
actions of men, is in the meaning and arrangements of
its ideas expressed in words or in significant signs
addressed to the eye or ear. All the moral power of
Cicero and Demosthenes was in their orations when
spoken, and in the circumstances which gave them
meaning, and whatever power these men have exer-
cised over Greece and Rome since their death is in
their writings.
"The tongue of the orator and the pen of the writer,
though small instruments and of little physical power,
are the two most powerful instruments in the world,
because they are to the mind as the arms to the body
they are but the instruments of moral power. The
strength is in what is spoken or written. The argu-
ment is the power of the spirit of man, and the only
power which one spirit can exert over another is its
arguments. How often do we see a whole congrega-
tion roused into certain actions, expressions of joy or
sorrow, by the spirit of one man. Yet no person sup-
poses that his spirit has literally deserted his body, and
entered into every man and woman in the house.
although it is often said he has filled them with his
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 35
spirit. But bow does that spirit, located in the head
of yonder little man, fill all the thousands around him
with joy or sadness, with fear and trembling, with
zeal or indignation, as the case may be? How has it
displayed such power over so many minds ? By words
uttered by the tongue ; by ideas communicated to the
minds of the hearers. In this way only can moral
power be displayed.
"From such premises we may say that all the moral
power which can be exerted on human beings is, and
must of necessity be, in the arguments addressed to
them. No other power than moral power can operate
on minds ; and this power must always be clothed in
words, addressed to the eye or ear. Thus we reason
when revelation is altogether out of view. And when
we think of the power of the Spirit of God exerted
upon minds or human spirits, it is impossible for us
to imagine that that power can consist in anything
else but words or arguments. Thus, in the nature
of things, we are prepared to expect verbal communi-
cations from the Spirit of God, if that Spirit operates
at all upon our spirits. As the moral power of every
man is in his arguments, so is the moral power of the
.Spirit of God in his arguments. Thus man still retains
an image of his Creator ; and from such analogy Paul
reasons when he says: " For the things of a man
knows no man, save the spirit of a man which is in
him ; even so the things of God knows no man, save
the Spirit of God." And the analogy stops not here ;
for as he is said to resist another, whose arguments
he understands and opposes, so are they said to resist
the Holy Spirit who always resist or refuse to yield
to his arguments." Pp. 348, 349.
"But tc return. As the spirit of man puts forth all
its moral power in the words which it fills with its
36 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
ideas, so the Spirit of God puts forth all its converting
and sanctifying power in the words which it fills
with its ideas. Miracles can not convert. They
can only obtain a favorable hearing of the con-
verting arguments. If they fail to obtain a
favorable hearing, the arguments which they prove
are impotent as an unknown tongue. If the Spirit of
God has spoken all its arguments, or if the New and
Old Testament contain all the arguments which can
be offered to reconcile man to God, and to purify them
who are reconciled, then all the power of the Holy
Spirit which can operate upon the human mind is
spent, and he that is not sanctified and saved by these
can not be saved by angels or spirits, human or
divine. * * *
"We plead that all the converting power of the Holy
Spirit is exhibited in the divine record." Pp. 350, 351.
These passages present, with great clearness, the
views of Mr. C. on this important subject. He asserts
that in conversion and sanctification the Holy Spirit
operates on the minds and hearts of men only as the
spirit of some one man operates on the spirit of
another. Nay, he even goes further, and denies, not
only that the Spirit docs operate except simply by
words and arguments, but that he can exert any other
influence over the human mind ! In the Millennial
Harbinger he has given us an exhibition of his doc-
trine too clear to admit of any mistake as to his real
sentiments. It is as follows:
" As all the influence which my spirit has exerted
on other spirits, at home or abroad, has been by the
stipulated signs of ideas, of spiritual operations, by my
written or spoken word ; so believe I that all the
influence of God's good Spirit no\v felt in the way of
conviction or consolation in the four quarters of the
INFLUENCE OF THH HOLY SPIRIT. 37
globe, is by the Word, written, read and heard, which
is called the living oracles." Vol. VI., p. 356.
Thus you see, according to the gentleman's doc-
trine, the Spirit of God has no more power over the
minds of men than his spirit ; except that He may pre-
sent stronger arguments. That is. the only difference
consists in the fact that the Holy Spirit is a more
powerful preacher than Mr. Campbell, though his
operations are precisely of the same kind ! Against
this doctrine I enter my solemn protest.
We believe and teach that in conversion and sanc-
iification there is an influence of the Spirit in addi-
tion to that of the Word, and distinct from it an
influence without which the arguments and mo-
tives of the gospel would never convert and
sanctify one of Adam's ruined race. We further
believe that, although the Word of God is employed
as the instrument of conversion and sanctification
where it can be used, God has never confined himself
to means and instrumentalities where they can not be
employed. In all ordinary cases He has always
clothed and fed men by the use of means ; but when
his people were journeying through the wilderness
to the promised land, and could not obtain either food
or raiment in the ordinary way, they were fed with
manna from heaven : their thirst was quenched by
water miraculously brought out of the rock, and their
raiment was not permitted to wax old. When Elisha
the prophet could, no longer obtain food in the ordi-
nary way, God sent a raven to bear it to him ; and
when the widow's cruse of oil was almost exhausted,
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.
38 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
But let it be remarked that, whilst 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. 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 sinfulness to holiness, and from the
love and practice of sin to the love and service of
God.
Nor do we maintain that in conversion and sanc-
tification the Holy Spirit reveals to the mind new
truths not contained in the Scriptures. " For all Scrip-
ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruc-
tion in righteousness: that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly 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 de-
pravity, to see the truths of revelation in their beauty
and excellency, and to incline him to embrace them,
and to live accordingly. The difficulty is not, that
God's revelation is not perfect, presenting every truth
which is necessary to life and godliness ; nor that its
truths are obscurely taught ; but that the hearts of men
are "fully set in them to do evil" that they ''love dark-
ness more than light" that they are proud and rebel-
lious, averse to the service of God, and to the plan of
salvation which he has devised. The psalmist, David,
sensible of his blindness to spiritual things, the glori-
ous truths of revelation, offered this prayer: "Open
thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things
out of thy law" (Psa. cxix. 18). The law of God, the
Holy Scriptures, he knew contained wonderful things :
but, in consequence of his sinful blindness, he did not
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 39
behold them clearly and distinctly. He therefore
prayed, not for an additional revelation, but for spirit-
ual illumination, for sanctification, that the cause of his
blindness being removed, he might see those things in
their true nature; that "with open face he might be-
hold, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord."
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 Holy Spirit, have received no
new ideas which are not contained in the Scriptures.
Regeneration consists not in giving a new revelation,
but a new heart.
In further elucidation of this subject, I remark, that
the "modus operandi," the manner in which the Spirit
operates on the human heart, we do not pretend to
comprehend. Nor is the mysteriousness of the influ-
ence, as to the mode of it, an objection against the
doctrine. That God created mind and matter, is per-
fectly clear, and easily apprehended; but how he cre-
ated either the one or the ether, none can understand.
The fact, that the mind acts through the body, is clear ;
but how it acts, no philosopher can explain. Nico-
demus, the Jewish ruler, objected to this doctrine as
mysterious, and the Savior replied, "The wind bloweth
where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof.
but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it
goeth ; so is every one that is born of the Spirit'' (John
iii.) We feel the blowing of the wind, and perceive its
effects; but how it blows, "whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth," is a mystery. The Spirit renews
the heart. We can realize the effects in ourselves, and
see them in others ; but how he operate?, we can not
comprehend. No man denies that the wind blows
because he can not explain how it blows : for he sees
and feels the effects. The effects of the Spirit's agencv
^o CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
are equally manifest. We see the wicked man turning
from his wickedness, and delighting himself in the
service of the Holy One of Heaven. We ascribe the
marvelous effect to an adequate cause. That cause,
the Scriptures teach us, is the Holy Spirit; but the
manner of his operation they do not explain, nor does
it become us to inquire concerning it.
Again, I remark, the necessity of the special agency
of the Spirit on the heart, in addition to the Word of
Truth, does not arise from any lack of evidence that
the Bible is a revelation from God. For, to every can-
did mind, who will weigh the evidence, it is not only
conclusive, but overwhelming. Nor does it arise from
any obscurity with which its instructions are con-
veyed ; for the inspired penmen wrote with inimitable
simplicity. The great doctrines and duties of Chris-
tianity are so clearly presented, and so variously illus-
trated, that all who are willing to know and obey the
truth, must understand them. "The King's highway"
is made so plain that "the wayfaring man, though a
fool, need not err therein." Nor does it arise from
any defect in the motives presented in the Gospel, to
induce men to serve God: for they are high as heaven,
deep as hell, vast as eternity, and melting as the dying
agonies of the Son of God. Nor is a special divine
influence necessary, because man is not a free moral
agent ; for he is as free as an angel to consider the
motives placed before him, and to choose his own
course. All that we mean, or can mean, by free moral
agency, is, that men, looking at the motives which
present themselves to their minds, voluntarily choose
their own course. They do as they please they are
under no compulsion.
Why, then, it will be asked, is it necessary that there
should be an influence of the Spirit, in addition .to that
of the Word, and distinct from it ? The necessity arises
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 41
simply from the depravity of the human heart its
pride, its love of sin, and its deep-rooted aversion to
the character of God, to his pure law, and his soul-
humbling gospel. To secure the perfect and perpet-
ual obedience of the angels, it is enough that the will of
God be made known to them ; for they are holy they
love God with all their powers, and their fellow-beings
as themselves. Their highest joy is derived from his
service. They fly, swift as lightning, in obedience to
his commands.
But such is not the character of man. He was creat-
ed in the image of his Maker ; but he is fallen greatly
fallen. The divine image has been defaced. The
character of God, so glorious in the eyes of angels,
has no attractions for him. Pride reigns in his heart.
Angels prostrate themselves with adoring wonder and
love, before the throne of God ; but man is too proud
to kneel before Jehovah. Angels find the perfect
gratification of their pure affections, and the highest
possible happiness, in the contemplation of the works
and perfections of God, in communion with him, and
in his holy service. But man is fearfully degraded.
He worships and serves the creature, and forgets the
Creator. He loves earth, and its low and degrading
pleasures. His affections are entwined around them.
Appeals to his gratitude and to his interest fail to with-
draw them from earth, and fix them on heaven.
How shall we account for the widely different and
opposite courses of conduct pursued by angels and
men? Both are rational and accountable creatures,
under the government of the same God, having the
same motives to obedience. Why do they not see,
feel, and act alike? The answer is plain. The angels
are holy, and men are sinful deeply depraved. Hence
the necessity of a special divine influence, in addition
to, and distinct from, the Word. Motives are suffi-
42 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
cient to secure the obedience of angels; for they arc
holy; they are disposed to do their whole duty.
Motives will not secure the obedience of men ; for the,y
are sinful; they are disposed to rebel. Consequently,
if any of the human family love and serve God, it is
because he "worketh in them to will and to do, of his
good pleasure." If those who have entered upon his
service persevere to the end, it is because "he who
began the good work in them, will perform it unto the
clay of Jesus Christ."
What are the effects of man's depravity, with regard
IQ his reception of the gospel of Christ? The follow-
ing are some of them:
1. Their minds, their affections, and their thoughts,
are occupied with earthly objects ; so that, like Gailio,
they ''care for none of these things." They can not be
induced to hear and to consider. The cares of the
world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word.
"Israel doth not know; my people do not consider.''
They are unwilling to be taught the truths of revela-
tion.
2. Others hear and think ; but they are deeply averse
to the soul-humbling doctrines of the cross, and it?
pure principles and precepts. "Man, through the
pride of his countenance, will not seek after God.''
Desiring to take the world as their portion, they catch
at every cavil against the truth of the Bible, and be-
come infidels ; or, perverting its plain instructions, and
seeking a broader way to heaven, they become heretic?.
3. Others still, admitting the inspiration of the
Scriptures, and the truth of the doctrines of the cross.
are mere speculative believers; and loving the world
and the things thereof, they reject the council of God
against their own souls. They barter their immortal
interests for the pursuits and pleasures of earth.
Such, briefly, are some of the effects of human de-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 43
pravity. It fills the mind with trifles, makes it averse
to the truths of revelation, and to the service of God,
and thus closes it against the appeals of the gospel of
Christ.
In conversion and sanctification, this corruption of
nature is to be subdued and eradicated. No individ-
ual, it is certain, will ever become a true Christian,
until he sees sin to be odious, and hates it ; till he sees
the character of God to be glorious, and loves it ; till
he perceives his lost condition, and the precise adapta-
tion of the Gospel to secure his salvation, and cordially
embraces it ; in a word, till the service of God is his
joy and his rejoicing. A radical moral change must
be experienced, before the sinner will, or can, become
a disciple of Christ.
That I have given a correct account of the character
of man, I will now prove, by a number of plain declara-
tions of Scripture. Indeed, it is scarcely necessary for
me to enlarge on this branch of the subject: for we
have just heard read, by Mr. Campbell, several pass-
ages of Scripture, which present a very dark picture
of human nature. To those I will add several others.
In John iii. 6, the Savior, giving the reason why the
new birth is necessary, says: "For that which is born
of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit." The meaning of this passage will be
clear, if we can ascertain the meaning of the word
"flesh." This word has, in the Scriptures, several mean-
ings ; but when used with reference to moral character,
it always signifies depravity, sinfulness. Tims it is
used in Galatians v. 19-21: "Now the work? of the
flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornica-
tion, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft.
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions.
heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, reviling?,
and such like." These are the works of the flesh, the
44 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
legitimate products of man's corrupt nature, ieft to
itself. Here we can be at no loss to understand the
meaning of the word. It is the cause in man from
which flow the dreadful evils here enumerated ; it is
his corrupt nature or disposition. And let it be re-
marked, no good is said to proceed from this nature ;
its fruits are "evil, and only evil, continually." In the
same sense the word "flesh" is used in the epistle to the
Romans (viii. i, 6, 8, 9,) "There is, therefore, now no
condemnation to them that are in Christ, who walk not
after the flesh,. but after the Spirit." "To walk after
the flesh is to be wicked, to walk after the Spirit is to
be holy." Again: "So, then, they that are in the
flesh can not please God. But ye are not in the flesh,
but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell
in you." They who are in the flesh can not please
God. It is evident, therefore, that there is nothing
morally good in them ; for God is pleased with good-
ness wherever he sees it. But who are in the flesh?
All are in the flesh, unless the Spirit of God dwell in
them. It is, then, perfectly clear, that the passage,
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh," means, that
by the natural birth all are depraved, entirely de-
praved ; for the flesh, as we have seen, produces noth-
ing but evil.
The same doctrine is taught in Gen. viii. 21 : "And
the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in
his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more
for man's sake ; for [or though] the imagination of
his heart is evil from his youth." I do not read the
description of man's character, as given in Genesis vi..
because some have pretended that it applied only to
the corrupt generation then living ; and I desire to
prove, that after the flood, when only Noah and his
family remained on earth, the same doctrine was
taught in the most unqualified terms "The imagina-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 45
tion of his heart, [the human heart] is evil from his
youth." It is evil from the earliest period of his be-
ing.
The same doctrine is taught, in the strongest lan-
guage, in Psa. li. 5 : "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ;
and in sin did my mother conceive me." Again, Psa.
Iviii. 3-5: "The wicked are estranged from the womb ;
they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Their poison is like the poison of a serpent ; they are
like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; which will
not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never
so wisely." These passages teach the doctrine of the
original and entire depravity of man from his birth, in
language so clear and so strong, that comment is un-
necessary.
The same exhibition of the character of man is made
by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. xvii. 9, 10: "The heart
is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ;
who can know it ? I, the Lord, search the heart ; I try
the reins, even to give every man according to his
ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Ob-
serve, he does not say the hearts of some men, or of
some classes of men, are thus deceitful and desperately
wicked ; but the heart, using the most general expres-
sion in human language, without qualification. How
dark is the picture "deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked; who can know it?"
In the third chapter to the Romans, Paul gives an
infallible description of man, as he is in heart and in
life. "There is none righteous ; no, not one ; there is
none that nnderstandeth, there is none that seeketh
after God. They are all gone out of the way ; they are
together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth
good ; no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ;
with their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of
asps is under their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing
46 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood.
Destruction and misery are in their ways ; and the way
of peace have they not known. There is no fear of
God before their eyes." Thus Paul presents the deep
and total corruption of man's nature. The description
belongs not to one class, or to one nation, or to one
age. He pronounces it a correct exhibition of the
character of both Jews and Gentiles. All men do not
actually commit all kinds of sin ; nor do all proceed to
the same length in any one course. But there are in
man the seeds of all evil a nature which, freed from
restraint, and exposed to temptation, will run head-
long into crimes of all kinds. Such is, in fact, the
character of the human race, that John, the apostle,
says, without qualification. ''The whole world lieth in
wickedness" (i John v. 19).
In further confirmation of the doctrine of man's total
depravity, if indeed the evidence can be increased, I
will state an important fact, viz., that all that is morally
good in any man is by the Scriptures ascribed to a
radical change of heart, of which God is the author.
Does any one do good \vorks? Paul ascribes it to a
new creation. "For we are his workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus into good works, which God hath or-
dained that we should walk in them" (Eph. h. 10).
Does any one love God and his fellow-creatures?
John says: "He that loveth is born of God" (i John
iv. 7). Does any one believe that Jesus is the Christ?
The same apostle says he "is born of God" (chap. v.
i). Since, then, all that is good in man is ascribed to
a great change wrought in his heart by the Holy Spirit,
and all that is evil is ascribed to his nature, it follows
inevitably that he is entirely corrupt.
Such being the character of men, it is impossible, till
their hearts are renewed, that they shall love God, his
law, or his Gospel, or find pleasure in his service. The
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 47
reason is this: No human being ever admired and
loved a moral character just the opposite of his own.
Both the judgment and the conscience of a wicked
man may constrain him to acknowledge that his virtu-
ous neighbor is better than he; but he will not choose
him as a companion, because of his purity of heart and
life, nor find pleasure in his society. ''The light shin-
eth in darkness ; and the darkness comprehended! it
not." Our Savior appeared amongst the Jews in all
the perfection and loveliness of human nature, and in
the glory of divinity "the glory as of the Only-begot-
ten of the Father" ; and yet they hated him, because
his character was to theirs as light to darkness. "For
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteous-
ness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"
(2 Cor. vi. 14.)
It i?, then, perfectly clear, that every individual must
experience a radical change in his moral character,
before he ever will love God or embrace the Gospel of
Christ. But are the truths of revelation sufficient to
effect this change? They are not. If a man has con-
ceived a strong prejudice against his neighbor,
through a mistaken view of his character and conduct,
you may remove the prejudice by giving him correct
information. Or if one man entertains unkind feel-
ings towards another, only because of some peculiar
circumstances in which they happen to be placed in
relation to each other; a change of circumstances may
produce a change of feelings reconciliation may take
place. Thus Joseph's brethren hated him, because
they looked upon him as a successful rival in the
affections of their father. But when the circumstances
were changed, and, instead of regarding him as a rival,
they looked up to him as a benefactor, their feelings
were changed, and they were reconciled. But if a
man hate the true character of his neighbor, if he dis-
48 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
like him, not viewed through erroneous information,
but as he really is, the one or the other must greatly
change, or they will never come together as friends.
You can not induce the man who hates the real char-
acter of his fellow-man to love him by presenting the
hated qualities more distinctly to his view. The more
distinctly he sees that which he dislikes, the stronger,
of course, is his aversion to it. Suppose, for example,
an individual has a most inveterate dislike to some
particular color, red, if you please. Will you be able
to make him admire it by placing it before his eyes in
the clearest possible light? The color is the very thing
he dislikes, and you present it to him in its scarlet hue
with the hope of inducing him to admire it ! Evidently
until his taste, if I may so call it, is changed, no clear-
ness of light through which it is seen will cause him
to admire it.
Let me apply the illustration. God is infinitely
pure; his law is ''holy, just and good," and his gospel
is like its glorious author. The character of man is just
the opposite. Consequently his aversion to God does
not arise either from mistake, or from any unfavorable
circumstances, which might be changed. He is sin-
ful ; God is infinitely pure ; therefore there is in his
heart a deep-rooled aversion to God. "The carnal
mind is enmity against God." The Word of God is
compared to light. It is the medium through which
we see the objects of revelation. Light is the medium
through which you see objects around you. It pre-
sents to your view many things that please, and many
that offend. vSelect, if you please, one of the objects
to which you have the greatest aversion. Concen-
trate upon it as much light as possible, so that you
distinctly see its every feature. Now let me ask, will
this concentration of light upon an object to which you
have the strongest aversion cause you to admire and
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
49
love it? You say, it will not. Light can not change
your feelings toward an object which you dislike.
Either the object must change, or you must change be-
fore you will love it. Let your mind be changed, and
the same light which before revealed its apparent de-
formity will now reveal its beauty and loveliness.
So through the light of revelation we have presented
to our minds the character of God, his law, his gospel,
heaven and hell. This revelation presents these ob-
jects in their true character; but men, because of their
depravity, feel a strong aversion to them. They arc
not averse to the character of God and the Gospel of
Christ through mistake, but they dislike these glorious
objects in their real character. Now when a man
whose heart is enmity to God in his true character has
that character presented to his mind by the light of
Divine Truth, will the light cause him to admire and
to love it ? Or will he whose proud heart rises in re-
bellion against the pure and soul-humbling gospel be
induced to love and embrace it by having it very
clearly presented to his view? Surely not. It is clear,
then, that man must experience a radical moral reno-
vation must be greatly changed or he never will
love God and obey the Gospel of Christ.
This I take to be the correct philosophy, as well as
correct theology. There is no mysticism and no ab-
struse speculation in it. It requires not the mind of
a Newton, a Locke, or a Bacon to perceive its truth.
It strikes the common sense of every reflecting mind ;
and it presents to view the reason why conversion and
sanctification never can be secured, in the case of any
one of our race, without an agency of the Holy Spirit
in addition to the truth, and distinct from it.
Having thus briefly explained the doctrine for
which I contend, and proved the necessity of a direct
divine influence in conversion and sanctification, I
50 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
wish now to offer some further arguments against the
doctrine believed and taught by Mr. Campbell.
I. My first argument is this: It prescribes to the
power of God over the human mind, an unreasonable
and unscriptural limitation. I can never subscribe to
the doctrine that God can exert over the human mind
no more power than I, except that he may employ
stronger arguments ; that the Creator can influence
men morally, only as they may be pleased to listen to
his arguments. I can never consent to place the Holy
Spirit on a perfect equality with man, except that he is
a better preacher.
First. The doctrine which thus limits the power of
the Spirit is most unreasonable, as well as most un-
scriptural. God created man holy in the beginning,
and he did it without words and arguments. Gen. i.
26, 27: "And God said, Let us make man in our im-
age, after our likeness. So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God created he him."
"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man
upright, but they have sought out many inventions."
Now, if God could originally create man holy, with-
out words and arguments, who shall presume to assert
that he can not create him anew, and restore his lost
image, without them ; or that he has now no power
over the human mind, beyond that of argument and
motive? The gentleman may philosophize and specu-
late as much as he pleases, to prove that God has no
more power over the heart of man than a fellow-
creature ; but the simple fact now stated, that originally
he made him upright, without words or arguments, is
abundantly sufficient to refute his theory.
As he created man holy, so can he new-create him.
As he created Adam in his own image, without words,
so can he renew the infant mind, and prepare it for
.heaven, though it can not receive the truth.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 51
Mr. Campbell will not deny that God created man
upright, since in his "Christian System" he has so
taught (pp. 26, 28) :
"Man, then, in his natural state, was not merely an
animal, but an intellectual, moral, pure, and holy be-
ing."
Again :
"God made man upright, but they sought out many
inventions. Adam rebelled. The natural man be-
came preternatural," etc.
If, then, God made man upright without words and
arguments, exerting a moral influence over his mind
without motives, who can prove that now his power is
limited to mere words and arguments ?
It is admitted that the light of revelation is necessary
to call into exercise proper feelings and affections, and
to prompt to a right course of conduct ; for we can not
love an object of which we know nothing, nor obey
a law concerning the requirements of which we are not
informed. But whether the light will call into exercise
such feelings depends upon the moral character or
state of the mind. The Jews beheld the miracle^
wrought by the Messiah in proof of his divinity and of
his mission to save men ; but such was the state of their
minds that they were either unconvinced or unwilling
to become his followers. Thus Paul accounted for
their blindness in reading the Old Testament, and yet
rejecting the very truths which it most clearly revealed.
"But their minds were blinded, for until this day re-
maineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of
the Old Testament" (2 Cor. iii. 14).
The gentleman would make the impression on your
minds that according to our doctrine there is no need
of the gospel at all. But this is not true. The light
is necessary as the medium through which we may sec
the objects around us ; but the light will not open the
52 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
eyes of the blind. The sun may shine with noonday
brightness, but the blind man will be blind still ; or if
a man hate the light and shut his eyes against it, he-
will not see. This is not owing to any defect in the
light, but to the defect in his eyes in the one case, and
to hatred of light in the other. So the light of revealed
truth is necessary to present to the mind the objects
calculated to call into exercise holy affections ; but
whether the eftcct will be produced, depends upon the
state of the heart. The fact that men love darkness
more than light, and turn from beholding it, argues no
imperfection in the light.
The light is still necessary, though of itself it can not
cause the blind to see. The gospel is equally neces-
sary, though of itself insufficient to renew and sanctify
the depraved hearts of men. If a man were suddenly
made as holy as an angel, he could not love God, un-
less he knew him ; nor embrace the gospel unless it
were presented to him ; nor do his work unless it were
made known to him ; nor aspire to heaven unless it
were revealed to him. But when, by the Holy Spirit,
the heart of the sinner has been renewed, he is filled
with adoring gratitude, and with deep penitence, as the
cross of Christ is presented to his view. He beholds
an adaptation in the plan of salvation to his situation
which he never saw before, and a glory in the character
of the blessed Redeemer he never before beheld. In
the beginning God made man upright : yet a revelation
of himself and of his will was absolutely necessary that
he might love and obey him. For similar reasons the
gospel is necessary, though alone it can not purify
man.
Second. That Mr. Campbell's doctrine prescribe-
an unreasonable and unscriptural limitation to the
power of God over the human mind, is proved conclu-
sively bv the fact that God does, in the course of his
INFLUKNCK OF THE; HOLY SPIRIT. 53
providence, exert over the moral conduct of man a
controlling influence, which is not simply nor chiefly
by words and arguments. And if he can control them
at all without words and arguments, he can control
them to any extent. This fact I will prove by several
declarations of Scripture. (Exod. xxxiv. 24.) All
the adult males of the Jews were required to go to
Jerusalem thrice even- year, to attend their three
principal festivals. But how could they safely leave
their families and their possessions exposed, as they
must be, to the incursions of malignant enemies on
their borders? To free their minds from apprehension
God gave them the following promise: ''For I will
cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy bor-
ders; neither shall any man desire thy land when thou
shalt go up to appear before the Lord." Does not this
promise proclaim the truth that God could and would
exercise a controlling influence over the desires of the
surrounding nations? He not only said that they
should not invade the territory of his people, but that
they should not desire their land. Had he no power to
control their desires? or did he restrain them by words
and arguments?
Again, Prov. xxi. I : "The king's heart is in the hand
of the Lord, as the rivers of water ; he turneth it whith-
ersoever he will." Does Solomon mean that God
turns the hearts of kings by words and arguments?
Observe, the language is very emphatic expressing
the entire control which God can and does exercise
over the hearts of kings. "He turneth it whitherso-
ever he will, even as he turns the rivers of water."
And if he can and does thus completely turn the hearts
of kings, can he not, and does he not, also turn the
hearts of others, not by words and arguments only?
We can not avoid seeing that in this passage God
54 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
claims to govern men by an influence far more pow-
erful than mere motive.
The same truth is taught with equal clearness in
Ezra vi. 22. The Jews, who had returned from cap-
tivity in Babylon, "kept the feast of unleavened bread
seven days with joy: for the Lord had made them
joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria
unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of
the house of God. the God of Israel/' Here we have
a very remarkable instance of the exertion of a divine
influence over the moral conduct of a pagan king
a man who believed not in God's revelation, but was
an idolater. He turned the proud heart of this king
to his people, so that he aided them in the building of
the temple at Jerusalem. Did he influence this king-
by words and arguments ? Was this remarkable con-
duct of the king the effect of mere motives ?
Again, chap. viii. 27, 28: "This Ezra went up from
Babylon ; and he was a ready scribe in the law or'
Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given ; and
the king granted him all his request, according to the
hand of the Lord his God upon him." Ezra having
obtained a decree of the king, in favor of the work of
building the temple, uttered the following language:
"Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath
put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify
the house of the Lord, which is in Jerusalem ; and hath
extended mercy unto me before the king and his coun-
sellors, and before all the king's mighty princes."
Ezra recognized the hand of the Lord in his success ;
a divine influence on the hearts of proud and ungodly
idolaters ; and he. therefore, offers thanks to God for
this remarkable interposition. Was this an influence
exerted by words and arguments? Did not God con-
trol the moral conduct of those men by another and
more powerful influence?
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 55
The same doctrine is illustrated and confirmed by
Neh. i. ii. Nehemiah had heard of the deplorable
condition of Jerusalem and its inhabitants ; and he de-
sired to go and rebuild the temple and the city. It was
necessary to gain the consent of the king of Babylon ;
and, therefore, he prays: "O Lord, I beseech thee, let
now thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy ser-
vant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who desire to
fear thy name ; and prosper, I pray thee, thy servant
this day, and grant him mercy in the sight of this
man." Nehemiah prayed for what? That the Lord
would so influence the mind of the king that he would
grant him his request. And his prayer was answered:
"And the king granted me, according to the good
hand of my God upon me" (chap. li. 8).
These passages, and many others, prove, beyond
controversy that God can and does exert upon the
minds of men a controlling influence, distinct from
words and arguments. Consequently the doctrine of
Mr. Campbell, which denies that he does or can exert
any other moral influence than that of mere motives, is
not true.
I will now offer a second argument against the gen-
tleman's doctrine. By the way, I should have been
disposed to follow him in his argument, if he had
made any distinct statement of his doctrine, and at-
tempted to prove it. But it can not be expected that
I should follow him in such a dissertation as that we
have heard this morning, in which there is no clear
and definite statement of the points at issue, and, of
course, no clear and pointed argument. It has, there-
fore, become necessary for me to state his doctrine
from his published works, and to advance arguments
against it.
II. The argument I was about to offer is this: Mr.
Campbell's doctrine necessarily involves the damna-
56 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
tion of all infants and idiots. I do not say that he
holds the doctrine of infant damnation, but I do say
that, to be consistent, he must hold it, for it follows, as
a necessary consequence, if his doctrine concerning
divine influence is true.
The gentleman, I must so far digress as to remark,
is yet in trouble on the subject of infant baptism. He
has brought it up again. I did suppose, that, after
calling it up in almost every speech since the subject
was disposed of, he had at last fully delivered himself
upon it; but I was mistaken. If I understand his re-
marks correctly, he said that all infants, baptized or
not, are saved. Is he not aware that no Presbyterian,
Methodist, or evangelical Pedobaptist baptizes Infants
for the purpose of saving them from hell, should they
die in infancy? Many things in the plan of salvation
we regard as useful, that are not absolutely essential
to the salvation of the sou). We esteem it a precious
privilege and a solemn duty to enter into covenant
with God to train up our children in his nurture and
admonition, and humbly to claim his promise to be a
God to us and to our seed. God has commanded us
to bring our children with us into the covenant and
into the church ; and we think it wise and useful to
obey him. I hope the gentleman will now be satisfied,
but if he still feels uneasy, he must still scatter his re-
marks about infant baptism through all his speeches to
the close of the debate.
But to return. The gentleman's doctrine, I have
said, necessarily involves the damnation of infants and
idiots. This is an important argument, for more
than one-third of the human race die in infancy. And
although I do not suppose that his views will affect
the safety of infants, still it is a subject which very
deeply interests the feelings of every affectionate par-
ent. It would indeed be difficult to induce them to be-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 57
lieve that infants, incapable of knowing right or wrong,
are sent to hell.
It is a truth, clearly taught in Scripture, and admit-
ted by Mr. C., that infants and idiots are by nature-
depraved. Our Savior said: "That which is born of
the flesh is flesh." By the natural birth all are de-
praved. This, I say, Mr. Campbell admits. I will
read an extract or two from his "Christian System"
where he has presented his views on this subject:
"This alarming and most strangely pregnant of all
the facts in human history proves that Adam was not
only the common father, but the actual representative
of all his children. * * * There is therefore a sin
of our nature, as well as personal transgression .
Some inappositely call the sin of our nature our 'orig-
inal sin,' as if the sin of Adam was the personal offense
of all his children. True indeed it is, our nature was
corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmit-
ted to us ; and hence that hereditary imbecility to { \o
good, and that proneness to do evil, so universally ap-
parent in all human beings. Let no man open his
mouth against the transmission of a moral distemper
until he satisfactorily explain the fact that the spe-
cial characteristic vices of parents appear in their chil-
dren as much as the color of their skin, their hair, or
the contour of their faces. A disease in the moral
constitution of man is as clearly transmissible as any
physical taint, if there be any truth in history, biogra-
phy, or human observation.
"Still man, with all his hereditary imbecility, is not
under an invincible necessity to sin. Greatly prone to
evil, easily seduced into transgression, he may or may
not yield to passion and seduction. Hence the dif-
ferences we so often discover in the corruption and de-
pravity of man. All inherit a fallen, consequently a
sinful, nature; though all are not equally depraved.
58 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
* Condemned to natural death, and greatly
fallen and depraved in our whole moral constitution
though we certainly are, in consequence of the sin of
Adam, still, because of the interposition of the second
Adam, none are punished with everlasting destruc-
tion from the presence of the Lord but those who
actually and voluntarily sin against a dispensation of
mercy under which they are placed."
This system is indeed quite orthodox, and since this
is the gentleman's second confession of faith, we may
hope that his third will bring him very nearly right.
There is, then, he acknowledges, "a sin of our nature,
as well as personal transgression" ; there is "a. disease
in the moral constitution of man" ; and he is "greatly
fallen and depraved in his whole moral constitution."
Now the question is, how are infants, thus fallen and
depraved, to be saved ? The gentleman, with singular
inconsistency, admits their depravity, denies any divine
influence by which they can be sanctified, and still ex-
presses the opinion that they may be saved !
Infants, it is admitted, are depraved. Then, con-
cerning all that die in infancy, one of three things is
necessarily true, viz.: either they go to hell, or they go
to heaven, in their depravity, or they are sanctified by
the Spirit without the truth. But we know that they
can not go to heaven in their depravity ; we know that
they can not be sanctified through the truth, which
they can not comprehend ; and Mr. Campbell denies
that they can be sanctified without the truth. We arc,
therefore, forced to the horrible conclusion, if his doc-
trine be true, that they die in depravity, and are for-
ever lost. With his opinions on this subject I have
nothing to do. They directly contradict his doctrine,
and, therefore, the one or the other is false. But here
I will, for the present, close my argument. (Time ex-
pired.)
or 1 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 59
MR. CAMPBELL'S SECOND ADDRESS.
MONDAY, Nov. 27, 12 o'clock M.
Mr. President. I have had reasons numerous and
various, before to-day, to conclude that my zealous
opponent has fallen upon a rather singular mode of
conducting the defense of the dogmata of his party,
and of assailing us. When the Presbyterians first
proposed the discussion to me, it was distinctly stated
and agreed upon that we should severally maintain
and defend the doctrines which we teach, in such
words and propositions as we respectively preferred.
The points selected were supposed to comprehend the
points at issue. It was also always contemplated and
understood on my part that we should have an equal
number of affirmatives and negatives, as our corre-
spondence will exhibit, when examined from first to
last. We have now had the experience of ten clays,
and upon an impartial retrospect of the past, and of
the speech of this morning, I must say that I have
never before been placed exactly in the same circum-
stances. I have had some little experience in conduct-
ing popular discussions, and have had a considerable
variety of opponents, some that sought always to lead,
and some who preferred to follow; but I have never
before found just such an opponent as my friend, Mr.
Rice one that will neither lead nor follow. [A laugh.)
This is precisely the state of the case. He has con-
ducted the discussion of two affirmatives. I did not
wish to form an estimate of the man, his talents, or his
policies, from his management of the first. But I have
60 CAMPBEU<-RICE DEBATE.
now all the data before me which the present occasion
will afford. He has done with his affirmative propo-
sitions. He is new, for the third time, on the nega-
tive.
On the first affirmative I was curious to compre-
hend his resources, and to form a proper estimate of
his powers of defense. After speaking nearly half an
hour, he took out his watch, and during twenty min-
utes looked at it no less than five times. Finally, be-
fore his time expired, he asked the moderators if his
time was not nearly expended. On learning that he
had still a few minutes, he sat down. Thus toiled he
under the "onus probandi" of an infant subject of bap-
tism. On Saturday last, as most of you will remember,
when his other affirmative was on hand, after various
efforts in his opening speech, to advance into the
merits of the question, after the fourth appeal to his
tardy watch, he sat down at the end of forty minutes !
He looks to me, sir, for matter of argumentation.
He is made for contradiction. I have then to furnish
materials for both sides. Instead of responding to the
proper issue, already formed, lie seeks in my addresses
new points from which to digress into new regions of
negations ; that is to say, I must give him data out of
which to excogitate new, adventitious, and foreign
subjects, on which to wrangle in the way of digression.
He endeavors to make me always affirm, even while on
the negative side, that he may occupy a negative posi-
tion as often as convenient.
Of all this I ought not, probably, to complain. It i>
the best, the very best mode of defense which his
cause affords. I must, however, because of his boast-
ful manner, expose the awkwardness of his position.
and the barrenness of the soil which he occupies.
He can do no better.
The gentleman knew that he had not one argument,
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 61
not one precept or precedent in the Bible in support of
cither of his affirmations. His hope, then, rested upon
remote questions, far-off inferences, involved reason-
ings, irrelevant or false issues and contingencies. And
while I affirm and file off my arguments numerically,
challenging investigation, why does he not, why can
he not, respond to them as in duty bound, according
to all the laws of disputation ? Has he, then, sirs, at all
responded to my opening speech on this grand propo-
sition-? With all reasonable emphasis, I pronounced
argument first, second, third, etc., in order to chal-
lenge his special attention. But I could not succeed.
The gentleman is not to be moved in that way. I
have, then, sir, really and in truth, no opponent on
this occasion. In a speech of one hour he did not
come up to one of my arguments, as though he felt it
neither necessary nor important formally to encounter
them.
These arguments I introduced by a considerable
preface, containing very important items of thought,
and even of argument, as I supposed, demanding
some notice. Even that, too, the gentleman found it
most convenient to pass in a respectful silence. But
he was pleased to say that I do not state the issue, nor
make out the difference between us. Did I not read
the proposition? Did I not distinctly affirm "that the
Spirit of God operates in conversion and sanctification
only through the truth"? This I solemnly affirm as my
belief. This he denies. He maintains another prop-
osition, viz., that the Spirit of God operates in con-
version and sanctification, not only through the truth.
but sometimes without it. The issue, then, was fairly
stated and definitely made out. There is no necessity
for expatiating much more on this subject. I submit-
ted seven arguments in proof of the issue agreed upon.
He has formally responded to none of them. In so
62 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
doing I can not but conclude that the argument, the
real issue, is given up, and the gentleman can not at all
respond to my proof. This is my conscientious con-
viction. I may, then, either sit down or proceed for
the gratification of the audience to state some other
arguments and proofs. I opine the gentleman will
never ans\ver those now on hand ; indeed, I feel confi-
dent he can not.
He has given us a few of the dry remains of some
old harangues or lectures upon total depravity, which
he may have preached around the country I know not
how many times. This matter is wholly foreign to
the subject. The question is not about total depravity.
1 believe man is depraved. He is proving a proposi-
tion, wide as the breadth of the heavens of the subject
before us. I believe that God presides over all the
works of his hands. But that is not the point of de-
bate, nor is the question about what God can or can
not do, whether or not he turns the hearts of kings
and mortals, as the channels of the rivers or the seas
are turned. Whether he disposes the hearts of men.
without words, is not the question: for were it proved
that he can move kings and princes, and men of all
ranks and degrees, as I believe, without the Bible, and
without words, that reaches not this issue at all. The
question before us is about sanctificatwn, about con-
rcrsion. These are but sallies, feints, mock assaults,
wholly alien to the issue. The question is whether
God converts men to Christ or sanctifies Christians
ivitlwut the truth of the Bible. If I could now marvel
at any course the gentleman might adopt I would at
his present singular attitude. Neither as affirmant or
respondent will he keep to the Bible. I truly regret
this truckling and catering to vulgar prejudices this
ad captandum rhetoric. When he will rise he may tell
you with a smile, "Well, 1 can not please my friend,
INFLUENCE; OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 63
Mr. Campbell, nor do I expect to please him." Mighty
logic, indeed ! Unanswerable argument, truly ! Alas !
as my friend would say, alas ! for the cause that
depends upon such logical legerdemain !
While on this subject, I beg leave to expatiate for
a moment on the scenes transpiring around us. I
came here, at considerable sacrifice, to debate certain
great principles with the elect representative of a re-
spectable religious denomination, claiming the advan-
tages of an elevated clerical character, and some
antiquity in some its tenets and forms. During ten
days I have carefully observed the management, the
tactics and developments of my respondent and his
party. I do not recollect on any occasion, certainly
at no discussion of any great religious question, to
have noticed so much homage and condescension to
catch, if not to manufacture, public opinion, and to
set on foot the opinion that Mi. R. had gained a
glorious victory, in the cause of immersion at least.
Touching the love of partisan triumph, I am aware
that this is common to such occasions ; but the means
by which it is sought on the present occasion really
surpass everything I have ever known or witnessed.
I was, indeed, expecting something of the kind ;
but my anticipations have been greatly transcended.
On arriving in this city I asked a gentleman whom I
now see standing in this audience how many news-
papers \vere published in this city and by whom, and
to what parties the editors belonged ? Being informed
on these points, the gentleman wished to know un-
reasons for making these inquiries. I responded that
I simply desired to know what facilities my Presby-
terian friends might have for manufacturing public
opinion. My experience led me to expect that efforts
of this kind would be made, for, in my debate with
Mr. McCalla, past twenty years ago, that indefatigable
64 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
party had spared no pains to propagate and circulate
a glorious Pedobaptist victory, and so continued for
several days, until Pedobaptism became so perfectly
bald and naked that none seemed disposed to do it
homage. For at least two or three days rumors were
sent abroad all over the land that Mr. McCalla had
gloriously maintained the cause. A reverend gentleman,
now in this assembly, one of the moderators of that
discussion, on his return to Flemingsburg, as I learn
from good authority, very ingeniously explained the
result of that discussion, very much to the credit of
the party. The excited community, on hearing of his
arrival, were anxious to hear his opinion as to the
final result. Some of the elders of his church,
approaching him, said, "Well, sir, what of the debate?
How did it close?'' "Why, sir," said he, "Campbell
would prove that a crow was white if you would listen
to him." This sage remark saved the cause, at the
expense of my reputation. It was the man that was
defeated, and not the cause of infant baptism.
On the present occasion I learn a more extended
system has been got up. Runners spread the tidings
abroad letters are written to distant places. Ever,
the Presbyterian press has proclaimed all over the
land a glorious victory. To the old system more thor-
oughly carried out, has, in this age of the march of
mind, been added a new invention. True, indeed,
something like it in days of yore seems to have
occurred at Drury Lane and other London theaters.
when some new actor was about to make his debut.
In order to stimulate his energies, and to manufacture
fame, a few friends were stationed in the galleries
above, with a previous understanding when to clap,
express their plaudits and to encore his performances.
As an improvement, T learn a. laughing committee has
been organized, with a clerical fugleman, at whose
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 65
signal certain persons are to smile a little broad, and
thus encourage my worthy friend ! I have, indeed,
in these particulars been somewhat disappointed. My
Pedobaptist friends have rather gone ahead of all my
past experiences and expectations.
During the Roman Catholic discussion at Cincin-
nati, in 1836, I had a second lesson in this school of
experience. A certain Protestant editor, who would
at this day take rank among Puseyites of the first
class, soon as the discussion began set on foot a manu-
facturing of public opinion. He observed, very
frankly, one day, that it was due to Protestantism that
.1 should not triumph over the Bishop, on some of
the questions at least, for, said he, we ought all to
know that our bishops stand or fall with those of the
Roman hierarchy. "If Mr. Campbell destroys the
succession, on what shall we hang our plea? Our
episcopacy goes by the board !" Still I was not pre-
pared for all that T have seen, and read, and heard on
this occasion. I hade hoped the dignity of the dis-
cussion and solemnity of the occasion would have pre-
vented anything of this sort.
For myself, I contend for truth, and not for vic-
tory without truth. My prayer is that truth, immu-
table, eternal truth, may prevail. The occasion
demands a calm, dignified, religious investigation of
these grand principles. It is all important that it
should be so. We are getting up a book for the
public, and we desire to give it to them without
prejudice and without bribe. Our motto is, "Read,
think, judge and decide every man for himself."
I did not come here to gain a triumph of that sort.
I did not consider there were any laurels to be won,
nor any honors to be gained in this field, nor from
my present opponent. I presume no one of reflec-
66 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
tion thinks otherwise. I never felt more the dignity,
grandeur and power of truth than on the present
occasion. She, standing erect, with lofty mien and
heaven-directed eye, deigns not to use any other
arguments or to employ any other means than con-
science, religion, and the God of truth will sanction
and approve. Her reliance is not on human passion,
temporal interest, nor fleshly policies ; but on solid
facts, substantial reasons and dignified argumentation.
Entering upon a new week and upon a new subject,
1 regard it due to myself, my brethren, the public and
the triumphing cause of Divine Truth to offer this
critique upon the past that, if possible, we may
redeem time and proceed in a manner more worthy
of ourselves and the cause we advocate. To proceed,
then, to the subject offered by Mr. Rice in his last
speech.
Human depravity and special providence are not
the topics on hand. The gentleman must reply to me,
or admit that he can not. It is my duty now to lead,
and his to follow, if he can. Meantime, I have noth-
ing to defend and nothing to do in further maintain-
ing my position. It seems to be established. I will,
therefore, make some remarks on the gentleman's
use of my \vritings. I do not shrink from the discus-
sion of anything I have ever written on this sub-
ject. Yet it would be more than human, more than
any mortal man has yet achieved, if, in twenty years'
writing, and in issuing one magazine of forty-eight
octavo pages every month, written both at home and
abroad, in steamboats, hotels and in the houses of
my private friends and brethren, I should have so
carefully, definitely and congruously expressed myself
on every occasion on ihese much-controverted sub-
jects as to furnish no occasion to our adversaries to
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 67
extract a sentence or a passage which, when put into
their crucible and mixed with other ingredients, might
not be made to appear somewhat different from itself,
s and myself, and my other writings. To seal the lips
of cavilling sectarians and captious priests is a natural
impossibility. The Great Teacher himself could not,
at least he did not do it.
I state it as a fact somewhat curious that for sev-
eral years I have not looked over my first volumes,
nor do I, when about to write upon a subject, feel it
necessary to examine all that I have previously said
about it. I am at no such pains to prevent contradic-
tions real or apparent. The secret is, I have, like the
four cardinal points, certain grand principles clearly
defined and solidly fixed in my own mind. These I
can not forget, nor contradict. I can affirm, off-hand,
what I have not written, if I can not always say what
I have written. I can not contradict these funda-
mentals. They are sternly fixed in my mind. As the
first principles of mathematics can never be forgot-
ten, nor lost sight of, while the mind is master of
itself, so the grand fundamental principles of Chris-
tianity can never be forgotten by him who has once
clearly apprehended and sincerely embraced them.
We may not, however, always express ourselves with
equal clearness and precision.
As respects the passages read from "Christianity
Restored," I will say that the gentleman has very
greatly misrepresented me. I was explaining what is
usually called moral power in contradistinction from
physical power, or what some call spiritual power, as
defined by some of our schoolmen. Physical force
and the power of motives are very different things.
Reasons, containing motives, constitute the elements
and materials of all moral, converting or sanctifying
68 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
power, so far as known to man. God's power is om-
nipotent, but it is consistent with himself and itself.
The Gospel, Paul says, is "the power of God unto
salvation/' Hence, the moral omnipotence of God is
in the document called the Gospel. God's moral
power is infinitely superior to ours. Yet all that
power is in the Gospel, and this is all we mean by all
the converting power being in the Word of God. God
may employ other means, other power, if you please,
in converting men ; but nothing finally converts them
but the light and love of God in the Gospel.
Every word of God has life in it. If I might explain
myself by one of the divine metaphors: The seed, said
Jesus, is the Word of God. Now every grain of
wheat, sound and good, has life in it ; but it must be
placed in a soil and under circumstances favorable to
its development. It will not germinate nor grow but
under those circumstances. Hence, when the Word
of God is sown in the heart it will grow and develop
itself in all the fruits of righteousness and holiness.
The question is not, how it is sown, how it gets into
the heart ; but the question is, as to the power devel-
oped and exhibited when there. Whenever the seed
of the Word is planted in the moral constitution of
man I believe it will vegetate, grow, blossom and
fructify unto eternal life.
With Mr. Rice conversion and sanctification seem
to be by the Spirit alone. If this be so in one caes, it
is so in all cases. This is one of my main arguments,
for, as before affirmed, whatever will produce one ear
of corn will produce an indefinite number ; seeing
that all that is essential in any one case, is essential,
neither more nor less, in every other case. So observa-
tion and experience testify in all vegetable and animal
products. Is it not so, also, in the spiritual? If the
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 69
Bible is to be our only guide, that it is so, can be made
most evident. It is thus that we use and apply those
offensive words that all the converting power of the
Holy Spirit is in the Word. All the motives, argu-
ments and persuasions of the Holy Spirit are found
in the record. He uses no other in the work of con-
version, or in the work of sanctification. "Sanctify
them through thy truth." ''The law of the Lord is
perfect, converting the soul." So far as moral influ-
ence is concerned there is none besides, none beyond
this.
If there be any other moral or spiritual influence in
the new creation of man, we call for the testimony
and the definition of it. If the Lord converts, sancti-
fies and saves an infant without the Word, the Gospel
of Christ sanctification or conversion, then, is inde-
pendent of the Word, and seeing it is so. the Word
.ceases to be the means of grace and of conversion.
The fact that whatever is essential to one product,
whether animal, vegetable, intellectual, moral or
spiritual, is essential to every other result of the same
kind, will one day explode this mystic, unintelligible,
unscriptural jargon, which makes void and of non-
effect the Word of the living God.
The doctrine which I oppose, so far as it is really
believed and acted upon, neutralizes preaching, annuls
the Bible, and perfectly annihilates human responsi-
bility. I know of no doctrine more fatal. For if God,
by some mysterious power, without light, knowledge,
a new idea, view or reflection, touch the soul of A,
B or C, and make it holy by "infusing a holy prin-
ciple," if he does this without anv thought, motive
or argument, instantaneously and immediately, what
comes of the doctrine of human responsibility ! Of
what use is preaching, or the name of the Lord Jesus,
70 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
or any instrumentality whatever! While, then, I
believe and teach, and rejoice in the presence, and
power, and positive influence of God's Spirit in the
work of conversion and sanctifi cation, I do repudiate
a doctrine full of desolation which makes man a
mere machine, annihilates all rational liberty, destroys
human responsibility, and makes the Word of God
a mere superfluity, of no essential importance, of no
salutary instrumentality in the great work of regen-
eration. [Time expired.]
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 71
MR. RICE'S SECOND REPLY.
MONDAY, Nov. 27, 12:30 P.M.
Mr. President I have had some little experience
in public debate, and I have uniformly observed, that
when men find themselves pressed with arguments
which they are conscious of being unable to answer,
their effort is to induce the audience to believe that
their opponents are saying absolutely nothing to the
point. Such, as you are aware, has been the course
pursued by my opponent from the commencement of
this discussion. Fearful that the audience, in their
simplicity, would believe that his arguments had been
answered, and his doctrine overthrown, he has again
and again most solemnly asseverated, as if divinely
commissioned, that I had advanced not an argument,
had said not one word bearing on the subject before
us. Such are the means by which he vainly seeks, in
his trouble, to save a sinking cause. Such are the
means to which it is common for men to resort when
defending a bad cause.
But the gentleman has, at length, put fortli his high
decree, that Mr. Rice must follow him, or confess
that he can not. And it is now time for me to say
to Mr. Campbell distinctly that we have moderators,
whose business it is to determine when I am out of
order, to whose decisions I shall cheerfully submit ;
but that Mr. Campbell can not moderate me. To his
dictation I most assuredly will not submit.
His statements concerning my previous course in
this discussion are not true. I will not say that he
72 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
knows them to be untrue. I will not violate the rules
of this discussion, and of common courtesy, as he has
repeatedly done, by throwing out against him per-
sonal imputations ; but I will say he is mistaken.
Mr. Campbell I submit to the moderators whether
I have violated the rules of this discussion ?
Mr. Rice I will, then mention some of his expres-
sions: "Licentiousness of the tongue," "base asper-
sion," etc.
Mr. Campbell If I say an author has written a base
aspersion, does this involve the moral character of my
opponent ?
Colonel Speed Smith I understand the expression
"base aspersion" to be used concerning the author
read.
Mr. Rice I read only two authors, Perrin and
Jones. Perrin wrote a hundred years before Jones,
and, therefore, could not have written against him a
base aspersion. The charge was against myself.
Mr. Campbell It was Faber to whom I referred,
and not Perrin.
Mr. Rice I have never seen anything from Faber
on this subject. I read the paragraph from Perrin,
and compared Jones's quotation with the original,
proving that whilst he professed to quote from Per-
rin, he omitted what related to infant baptism. The
gentleman can not escape.
When a man so accustomed to debate as Mr. Camp-
bell, and so remarkable for his coolness and self-pos-
session, displays so much temper as the audience
witnessed in his last speech ' there is sad evidence
that something is wrong. Men do not ordinarily lose
their temper when successful in argument. I will no f
now detain to reply to his singular assertions concern-
ing my course in this discussion. I verily believe that
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 73
the sole cause of his trouble is, that I adhere too
closely to the point. Every argument I have advanced
bears directly on the subject in debate unless when T
am diverted from it, in pursuit of my opponent.
He, of course, expects you to believe that he never
wanders from the subject. Yet a part of his first speech
was against infant baptism ! The argument, I pre-
sume, would be this: Infants ought not to be bap-
tized ; therefore the Spirit, in conversion and sancti-
fication, operates only through the truth ! He is
always in order precisely to the point ! All this is
very easily understood.
His statements concerning the debate with McCalla
the runners who proclaimed victory, etc., require
proof. Moreover, the assertion that McCalla was
defeated needs to be proved. I also desire some evi-
dence that Mr. Burch, one of the moderators, made
the remark charged upon him. I have the very best
reason for asserting that it is not true. No doubt Mr.
Campbell has been so informed ; but when he makes
statements that are to be stereotyped, and go forth to
be read by thousands, he is solemnly bound to have
his proof at hand. Who does not know that thousands
of rumors get afloat on such occasions which have
absolutely no foundation in truth ? The gentleman
really seems to have greedily swallowed all that his
friends and his flatterers told him, and, hence, he
found no difficulty in believing that everybody
ascribed to him a glorious victory.
But what has all this to do with the subject under
discussion? Quite as much, no doubt, as his ad cap-
tandum closing speech on Saturday had to do with the
administrator of baptism. To prove, of course, how
closely he always adheres to the subject in debate he
gave us a long harangue about going for faith to
74 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
Geneva, to Westminster, to Rome, etc. ! So now he
has given us a variety of statements, none of which
are true, about my mode of conducting the discus-
sion; the debate with McCalla; manufacturing public
sentiment, etc. all, of course, to prove that in con-
version and sanctification the Spirit operates only
through the truth!
In reading the gentleman's writings for the pur-
pose of having his views distinctly before the audi-
ence, I was acting precisely in accordance with our
written agreement, as the correspondence will show.
I was not pleased with the wording of the proposition
now under discussion, and I agreed to debate it with
the distinct understanding and agreement on his part
that I would appeal to his writings in determining its
true meaning. But I discover that he is never so
much out of temper as when I read to the audience
from his own works !
But the gentleman, in his excitement, told you that
I was delivering to you the dry remains of old ha-
rangues which had been delivered he knew not how
often. This he asserts as a fact. Now, pray, how
does he know? What are we to think of a man who
will stand up and boldly assert facts, of the truth of
which he can not have evidence?
But he tells the audience, as usual, that his argu-
ments have not been answered. Let us see whether
they have or not. True, I did not choose to number
them one, two, three, etc. ; but they have been effectu-
ally answered.
His first argument to prove, that there can be no
divine influence on the human mind except words
and arguments, was based on his notion concerning its
nature and constitution. This I was under no obliga-
tion to answer. If he will produce a "Thus saith the
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 75
Lord," to sustain his doctrine, I will at once yield the
point ; but I am not concerned to answer a long
metaphysical argument, based on what he conceives
to be the constitution of the mind. He has professedly
repudiated human philosophy, and taken the Bible
alone as his guide ; and yet, in the discussion of a
Scriptural doctrine he hurries us immediately into the
dark regions of metaphysical speculation ! Does the
Bible say that such is the constitution of the human
mind that the Spirit of God can exert over it no moral
influence except by words and arguments? Mr.
Campbell's philosophy says so ; but where is the pass-
age in God's Word that does so teach ?
Now although I was under no obligation to answer
such an argument, I did expose it by presenting the
simple and indisputable fact that originally God did
create man holy, and that he did it without words and
arguments. I also proved, by the Scriptures, that G.od
in his providence, can, and does, exert a controlling-
influence over the moral conduct of men by his Spirit.
and not simply or mainly by argument and motive.
These simple and incontrovertible Bible facts demolish
effectually his fine-spun metaphysical argument, writ-
ten out with so much labor.
His second argument was, that there are among pa-
gans, 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.
His third argument was. that whatever is essential
to regeneration in one case, is essential in all cases ;
and, therefore, if the Word of Truth is necessary in
76 CAMPBELL-RICK DEBATE.
any case, it is necessary in all. This was fully an-
swered by proving that God has never limited him-
self in the bestowment of his blessings to any particu-
lar means and instrumentalities. Ordinarily, he has
given his people food in the use of means ; but when
they have been placed in circumstances where means
could not be employed, as in their journey through
the wilderness, he has fed them without means. When
the multitudes were with the Savior in a desert place,
he gave them bread miraculously. So when infants
are called from earth before they can be sancti-
fied through the truth, they are sanctified without it.
Surely if God would feed the bodies of his people with-
out the ordinary means, he would not refuse to the
soul of an infant the bread of life. The soul is worth
infinitely more than the body, and eternal life than the
temporal. Such was my reply to his third argument,
and I regard it as perfectly conclusive.
-His fourth argument was. that the Holy Spirit has
addressed words and arguments to men. This i
true ; but does this fact prove that in conversion and
sanctification he operates only through the truth? He
can easily prove that ordinarily the Spirit operates
through the truth ; but he can not prove that he oper-
ates only through the truth. Yet this is precisely what
he has undertaken to prove. His proof, therefore,
falls very far short of his proposition.
His fifth argument was, that the Holy Spirit is
called an Advocate. This is but a repetition of the
other. But as an Advocate, does he influence the
mind only by words and arguments? The gentleman
has not produced a passage of Scripture, which so
teaches. He boasts, that for every article of his faith
he has a "Thus saith the Lord." Has he, I ask you.
my friends, produced one passage of Scripture that
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 77
sustains his proposition? He has not, and he can not.
Yet he has heaped on me no slight reproach and
abuse, because, as he pretends, I did not answer all his
metaphysics.
Before proceeding farther in the regular course of
argument I must make a few remarks which I forgot
at the proper time. The gentleman, in the reckless-
ness of despair, has charged the Presbyterians of this
community with attempting by unfair means to manu-
facture public sentiment against him. The charge is
not true not a word of truth in it. If he believes
what he has said, it only proves that a man in trouble
can persuade himself to believe the greatest absurdi-
ties. The truth is, my friends have been more than
satisfied with the expression of public sentiment rela-
tive to this debate. So clear, so strong, so unanimous
has been the verdict against him, by the crowds of
intelligent persons of all classes, of different denomina-
tions, and of no denomination, that they have had no
temptation to seek to change it. I rejoice that such is
the power of truth, that it, and not Presbyterians, has
made public sentiment what it is. I would not have
it changed. I am more than satisfied.
But Mr. C. goes not for victory. I wish he would.
I am anxious to see his gigantic powers brought fully
to bear on the subject. It may be true, as he fretfully
intimates, that he can not gain very great fame by tri-
umphing over one so feeble as your humble servant ;
but it is also true that he may gain the more disgrace
by failing, as he evidently has, to sustain himself.
What opinion will the public form of the strength of
his cause, when he, who would affect to look down
with contempt upon men of ordinary powers, fails to
sustain it ! What must be thought of this boasted ref-
ormation, and of its invincible champion, when both
78 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
sink under the feeble strokes of a mere pigmy ! It
is truly cause for alarm, if, surrounded and sustained
by almost an hundred of his preachers, and crowds of
his people, who came to this place in the most confi-
dent expectation of a complete triumph, he can not
keep public sentiment from going strongly against
him ! Alas, for this vaunted reformation !
It would appear, if we are to believe the gentleman,
that I misrepresented him by reading his own book.
He says, he maintains, that moral power is exerted
only by words and arguments; but he makes a dis-
tinction between moral power and purely spiritual
power. I will again read from "Christianity Restored"
(pp. 347, 349), and leave the audience to judge whether
I misrepresented him:
"We have two sorts of power, physical and moral.
By the former we operate upon matter ; by the latter
upon mind. To put matter in motion we use physical
power, whether we call it animal or scientific power ;
to put mind in motion we use arguments, or motives
addressed to the reason and nature of man.
Every spirit puts its moral power in words ; that is, all
the power it has over the views, habits, manners or
actions of men is in the meaning and arrangement of
its ideas expressed in words, or significant signs
addressed to the eye or ear."
Again :
"No other power than moral power can operate on
minds ; and this power must always be clothed in
words addressed to the eye or ear. Thus we reason
when revelation is altogether out of view. And when
we '.hink of the power of the Spirit of God exerted
upon minds or human spirits, it is impossible for us to
imagine that that power can consist in anything else
but words and arguments. Thus, in the nature of
things, we are prepared to expect verbal communica-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 79
tions from the Spirit of God, if that Spirit operates at
all on our spirits. As the moral power of every man
ig in his arguments, so is the moral power of the
Spirit of God in his arguments."
Now, observe, the gentleman tells us we have only
two kinds of power, viz., physical and moral; and lie
asserts that no other power than moral, power can
operate on minds. He further affirms that every
spirit puts forth its moral power in words ; that as the
moral power of every man is in his arguments, so is
the moral power of the Spirit of God in his arguments,
which must be addressed to the eye or ear. I gave
you the doctrine precisely as he himself stated it. If
he will say that he was in error when he wrote this
book we will certainly admit that he has the right to
change ; and since he is accustomed to change, it can
not injure him much. I once heard of a Dutchman
and an Irishman who had been condemned to be
hanged, and were in the same prison. The Irishman
was greatly bewailing his fate. The Dutchman
reproached him for his cowardice. "Ah !" said the
Irishman, ''ye're used to it." Mr. C. is used to chang-
ing.
I must occasionally illustrate a point by an anec-
dote, since the gentleman has charged me with hav-
ing a "Laughing Committee" here ; or they will have
nothing to do. He has dealt out to this imaginary
committee, which must be large, quite a lecture for
their unworthy employment!
Let it be understood that he has asserted that only
moral power can be exerted on mind, and that all the
moral power of the Spirit must be put forth in words
and arguments. He even goes so far as to say that
"if the Spirit of God has spoken all its arguments ; or,
if the New and Old Testaments contain all the argu-
ments which can be offered to reconcile man to God,
8o CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
and to purify them who are reconciled, then all the
power of the Holy Spirit which can operate upon the
human mind is spent ; and he that is not sanctified and
saved by these can not be saved by angels or spirits,
human or divine." (Ib., p. 350.) If all the converting
power of the Spirit is spent, there is, of course, no
further influence that he can exert to save man.
The gentleman, either to illustrate or to prove his
doctrine, told us that a grain of wheat or of corn, has
life in it, and that when it is placed in the earth it will
grow ; and so the Word of God, the seed, when it gets
into man's moral nature, will bring forth fruit. But
the wheat and the corn will not grow without the heat
of the sun and rain ; and man can not create either the
one or the other. I am pleased with the illustration,
for the Scriptures teach, that though "Paul planteth
and Apollos watereth, God giveth the increase." In
conversion and sanctification there is a work for man
and a work for God ; and he who rejects God's part of
the work must be forever undone.
The gentleman objects to the doctrine for which
we contend That it makes the Word of God wholly
unnecessary. Light can not heal the eyes of the
blind man, nor open the eyes of him who hates it.
But is light therefore worthless? Light is the medium
through which objects are seen ; but if my eyes are
diseased the light, however brightly it may shine, can
not cause me to see. But let my eyes be healed, and
then I can see by means of the light. As the light is
absolutely necessary to vision, though it can not cause
the blind to see, so is the Gospel necessary, though
alone it can not purify the depraved heart.
Again, Mr. Campbell objects that the doctrine of a
special divine influence in conversion and sanctifica-
tion destroys the accountability of man. That this
objection is wholly unfounded is perfectly plain. Man
of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 81
is a free moral agent. In view of motives he freely
chooses and refuses. But his heart, as Solomon says,
"is set in him to do evil." In the exercise of his free-
dom he deliberately chooses to sin. Is he then a mere
machine? But God works in him to will and to do
inclines him to turn from sin to holiness. Is his free
agency thus destroyed ? Can not God incline the sin-
ner to the path of righteousness without interfering
with his freedom and accountability? The gentleman
would have us believe that he never makes assertions
without adducing the proof. I venture to say that he
can not find a passage in the Bible, nor an acknowl-
edged principle of mental philosophy, by which to sus-
tain his objection.
When I closed my last speech I was proving that
Mr. Campbell's doctrine necessarily involves the dam-
nation of infants and idiots. He admits their native
depravity. He denies that they can be sanctified with-
out the truth. We know that they can not receive
the truth ; consequently they must die in their deprav-
ity; and wherever they may go, certain it is that they
can not 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 dif-
ficulty but by abandoning the doctrine. He can not
answer the argument it admit of no answer.
But the Scriptures clearly teach the necessity of
regeneration in the case of infants, as well as of adults.
Our Savior said to Nicodemus, "That which is born
of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit" (John iii. 6). Infants, it will be
admitted, are born of the flesh ; consequently they
must be born of the Spirit, or they can not enter into
the kingdom of God. By the natural birth they are
sinful ; by the spiritual birth they become holy. But
82 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
if, as Mr. C. teaches, infants can not be born of the
Spirit, they can not be saved.
He complains that I do not follow him in his train
of remark, as the respondent should follow the affirm-
ant. Whether I will follow him or not depends very
much on the course he takes. Every passage of Scrip-
ture which he may adduce in support of his doctrine
I will notice; but in his metaphysical dissertations I
shall not feel bound to follow him.
III. My third argument against his doctrine is
that it contradicts the doctrine of human depravity, as
taught in the Scriptures ; for, if his doctrine is true,
men sin only through ignorance or mistake. All that
is necessary in order to convert and sanctify those, at
least, who ever will be saved, is, according to Mr. C.,
simply to teach them the truth to present before their
minds words and arguments. Only teach them the
truth, and they will turn and serve God, and go to
heaven. Why, then, did they not sooner turn?
Because they were laboring under mistaken notions.
They had adopted erroneous views of the character
of God, of his law, and his Gospel ! All that is neces-
sary, therefore, according to this doctrine, is to correct
their mistakes.
This doctrine, I say, is contrary to the Scriptures.
L,et us examine a lew passages, which prove clearly
that men do not sin simply through mistake, but will-
fully. Eccl. viii. ii : "Because sentence against an evil
work is net executed speedily, therefore the heart of
the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil " Ch.
5x. 3: "Yea, also, the heart of the sons of men is full
of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live,
and after that they go to the dead." Psa. x. 4: "The
wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not
seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." The
reception with which the Gospel meets men is set
INFLUENCE OE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 83
forth in a parable by our Savior, in which he says,
"And they all with one consent began to make excuse"
(Luke xiv. 18). Paul accounts for all the abominations
of the heathens by saying, "And even as they did not
like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them
over to a reprobate mind" (Rom. i. 28).
These Scriptures and many others teach most dis-
tinctly that men sin, not because they are ignorant or
are under mistaken impressions, but knowingly, will-
fully, deliberately that their actual transgressions flow
from a corrupt and rebellious disposition. It is true
that men do fall into error ; but it is not so much
the error that causes them to sin as it is sin that causes
them to err. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans,
proves the depravity of the heathen, first, by their er-
rors in belief, and secondly, by their immoralities in
practice. The former affords as decided evidence of a
sinful disposition as the latter. If a man stumble over
everything in his way in daylight, we know that he is
blind. So if any man with the Bible in his hand, err
fundamentally, we know that a sinful heart has blind-
ed him.
The doctrine of Mr. C. makes men, at least those
who will ever be saved, sin only through mistake. The
Scriptures teach that thev sin knowingly, willfully, and
deliberately. His theory, therefore, contradicts the
teaching of the Scriptures concerning human deprav-
ity. It is, therefore, false.
I fear I shall look at my watch too often for the
comfort of my friend, but I do not like to commence a
new argument when my time is near out. So I will,
for the present, close.
Here Mr. Campbell arose and said: "I beg the de-
cision of the moderators upon the point, whether the
respondent is not bound, according to the established
84 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
usage of debate, to answer and respond to such mat-
ters as may be advanced by the affirmant."
One of the moderators then arose and remarked as
follows: It is the most appropriate mode of pro-
cedure for the affirmant to open his ground of debate
with such arguments as he may be able to adduce, and
for the respondent to notice those grounds ; but in his
own way. The object of each is to prove his own po-
sition ; but he must do it in his own mode. Men's
minds are differently constituted. Their reasoning
faculties run in different channels ; and while one is
making an argument, the other may suppose that he is
evasive, and his remarks not appropriate ; while the
party replying may deem them perfectly so. All that
we can decide is, whether or not the parties indulge in
extraneous or irrelevant matter.
Mr. Campbell: Is it not usual for the respondent
to reply in some way or other to the matter presented
by the affirmant?
Moderator: It is certainly expected that he will
notice the matter presented by the affirmant.
Another moderator remarked that it had devolved
upon him to offer a few words with reference to the
course of procedure thus far. He had on several oc-
casions observed the boundaries of good order to
have been very nearly trodden upon ; but it was al-
ways unpleasant, on such an occasion, to check the
speaker; and, though he had been more than once
upon the point of striking, when, by an explanation
from the speaker, the debate had been permitted to
proceed. If he might be indulged in the suggestion,
he would here intimate the propriety of avoiding, in
future, everything of a personal character, and he
trusted they would be able to get along without
again touching so nearly upon the line.
The former moderator said he would add another
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 85
suggestion. He thought that, generally, the debat-
ants had conducted themselves with great propriety
and decorum, which, to the moderators, had been
highly gratifying. It could not be denied, however,
that on some occasions there had been digressions
from the true line of logical argumentation, and he
would add, that these things would never do good, and
that such matter would not look well in print. The
propositions should alone be considered, and nothing
but authorities and argument ought to be introduced
into the discussion.
Mr. Fishback said, as a friend, he would recom-
mend the reading of the rules.
Mr. Campbell: Under these rules I have thought
that my friend was out of order, in upbraiding me with
the consequences of a doctrine which I do not teach.
If I understood, he ascribes to my teaching the conse-
quences of sending infants to hell ; which I have as-
cribed to those cruel decrees.
Mr. Rice: I have stated that I did not charge upon
my friend with actually holding the doctrine of infant
damnation.
Moderator: We can not decide whether the argu-
ment is persuasive or conclusive. Mr. Rice has as-
sailed and endeavored to disprove the doctrine ad-
vanced on the other side ; and he has a right to try that
argument and except to its absurdities. But whether
he can maintain his ground, we are not prepared to
decide.
86 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S THIRD ADDRESS.
MONDAY, Nov. 27, 12:30 o'clock P.M.
Mr. President. Sir: There are several small mat-
ters that require attention. Among these is the re-
mark of Mr. Burch on the result of the McCalla de-
bate, as to the conversion of a black crow into a white
one.
Mr. Rice: Mr. Burch says he did not say so.
Mr. Campbell : Of course, the gentleman means he
did not remember his having said so. He could not
testify in such a case. Xo man could testify in a case
of this sort, after an interval of twenty years, what he
did not say on such an occasion. One single good
witness declaring that he heard him say so, would, in
a court of evidence, set aside his want of recollection
in the case, and would stand in law. A person's hav-
ing no present recollection of what he said twenty
years ago is no proof that he did not say so. This is,
indeed, a matter of very small moment ; it is only the
occasion that gives it any consequence.
Mr. Rice desires to know how I could say that he
had been delivering the fragments of old harangues on
total depravity. He seems to intimate that Christian
morality might be implicated in such a saying. I have
satisfactory evidence of the fact from two sources.
First, I have heard of his discourses on this subject
round the country, in different places; and again. I
have positive written evidence of the fact of his pro-
mulgation of these views in his controversy, in one of
our periodicals, with President Shannon.
INFLUKNCF, OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 87
The remarks on the subject of my excitement I will
reserve to another occasion. I shall, then, proceed to
the argument which closed my last speech.
If there be the slightest apparent relevancy in the
arguments of my opponent to anything I have ad-
vanced, or to" the true and proper issue before us, I
hold myself in duty bound to respond to it. But
when there are many things of the same class, it is not
necessary to respond to them individually and several-
ly. I will, in such case, select the strongest particular
or incident introduced ; and in disposing of that, as a
matter of course, the others of that class are disposed
of.
To illustrate and apply this observation, I must re-
mind you that in my introductory address it is my
aim to express, in a written form, the more cardinal
principles and classes of evidence and arguments re-
lied on, as fixed points, to which, at any time after, in
the course of discussion, we may recur with certainty.
In my opening address, therefore, I very formally pro-
pounded one invaluable principle or argument in sup-
port of this thesis that God has given to the human
mind a certain constitution as he has to the body of
man, or to the universe ; and that, whatever be the pro-
cess of regeneration, conversion, or sanctification, it
must, from the universal laws of the universe, be in
perfect harmony with that constitution ; hence no pow-
er or faculty of the human mind is changed or de-
stroyed, in this great moral revolution of which we
speak. A fact this, which, when duly appreciated,
forever annihilates the system which I oppose. Mr.
Rice gives evidence of its clearness and power. He
felt it, and how does he seek to dispose of it? He tells
us that God made man holy at first, and that he can do
it again ! He created Adam holy, and he may create
others. This is, in reality, an admission of the unan-
88 CAMPBELL-RICK DEBATE.
swerable force of this argument. He therefore seeks
to go beyond its dominions beyond the present con-
stitution of man, and affirms, that if God can not vio-
late his present constitution, he can do as he did be-
fore, make an original constitution or create him holy
as he created Adam ! That is, he can create a new
Adam out of the old Adam, as he created Adam out
of the dust of the ground, etc. ! Truly, this is a tri-
umph of no ordinary character. He commences a
response by conceding my position, and asking for
God the power to literally create a new man. But
this is not the question before us. I admit that God
could have created another Adam, and that he can
now literally create a holy man ; but it is not an origi-
nal physical primordial creation, but a moral change,
a moral renovation and creation of which we speak.
""It is not the origination of a new constitution, but a
change of heart, a transformation moral that we are
inquiring into.
Will the gentleman say that creation, providence,
and redemption are the same process of divine power ?
Was not creation a miracle? Was there a previously
existing constitution of the universe and of man ? Did
God make man after man's own previously existing
constitution ? Because God did at first give to man a
constitution after his own image, follows it, therefore,
that God will create for him a new constitution, now
that he is fallen, and make him new by miracle? And
would not man be as perfect now as he was at first,
according to this hypothesis? For when God made
Adam holy, he was perfectly holy. Does God thus
make Christians perfectly holy? When these objec-
tions to his presumptive assumption are responded to,
he shall have others.
Infants and adults are then created holy by the same
direct and positive fiat, the same specific miracle that
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 89
made Adam holy. Avaunt, then, all secondary
causes, all ministerial means, all Bible preaching and
moral argumentations ! God makes infants, adults
and pagans holy by the same means that he made
Adam holy; that is, by a miracle. With Mr. Rice
every conversion is just as great a miracle as the crea-
tion of Adam ; for, recollect, his only escape from my
argument is, that as God could and did give to Adam a
holy constitution, so does he now give a holy consti-
tution to infants, pagans, Jews, and all other persons
whom he pleases thus to create anew. Was there ever
a more perfect fatalism than this? Every infant and
adult now made holy is a miracle a new and original
demonstration of Omnipotence. Yet still the wonder
is, that this new creation is not perfectly holy, inas-
much as all other works of God are perfect.
Now, according to my introductory speech and
fourth argument, I insist, that if one infant be regen-
erated without 'moral instrumentality, all can ; and if
one perfect and complete regeneration, without the
Word of God, can, in any case whatever, be consum-
mated, then in all other cases the Word is wholly un-
necessary. For if I can produce one apple without a
tree, or one ear of wheat without earth, then I can
do it ad infinitum. No living man, as I conceive,
can in these points refute my introductory address.
I will insist that Mr. Rice explains to us why preach
the Word ; why print Bibles ; why send missionaries to
foreign lands ; why set on foot any human instrumen-
talities whatever, on the assumption that God makes
men and infants holy, as he did Adam. I never ob-
jected to a spiritual religion. Nay, I love it. I preach
it, I contend for it. I never would have jeopardized
my reputation in questioning the popular notions of
spiritual influence, but to aim a blow at the root of
all fanaticism, and of a wild, irrepressible enthusiasm.
90 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
I believe not only in the Holy Spirit, but in a religion
of which this divine agent is both the substance, origin,
cause, and reason. But, sir, in my humble opinion
this metaphysical abstraction, this theological specula-
tion, this electric, immedial operation, that makes an
infant or a pagan holy in a moment, has been the most
soul-ruining dogma ever invented, preached, or propa-
gated. It has slain its tens of thousands. It has
made skeptics, fanatics, despondcnts, and visionaries
without number, and without limit.
These elect infants, elect pagans, elect idiots, on
whom God acts when, where, and how he pleases, but
makes them holy in a moment, without light, knowl-
edge, faith, or love (for though these may be called by
them effects of the regeneration, the thing, the work,
the operation itself, is anterior to them, above and in-
dependent of them, without any human agency what-
ever,) are figments of distempered brains, the creatures
of religious romance, the offspring of a metaphysical
delusion, for which there is no cure, but in the rational
reading and study of the Book of God.
Mr. Rice seems, if I understand him, to have drunk
deep into these muddy waters, and to have adopted the
fable of infant regeneration as a choice of evils. His
dilemma is, Infants are saved or lost. Xot lost truly!
Well, then, they are saved. With, or without, regen-
eration ! Without regeneration is to him inadmissible,
because then they would be saved in a state of wicked-
ness. His theory is, therefore, adopted to get rid of a
metaphysical difficulty. It owes its origin to a mystic
knot which he can not untie, and which he dares not
cut. The regeneration of these infants is, then, not
moral, but physical. Well, perhaps we may yet agree
in their physical regeneration. I believe those dying
infants, and with me they are all elect, are fitted for
heaven by a physical regeneration, of which we shall
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 91
hereafter speak. But in the meantime the question is
lost, if we lose sight of the regeneration of which we
now speak, and which is an essential part of the sys-
tem we oppose.
What, then, let me ask, is the philosophy of regen-
eration according to Mr. Rice? It is a change of heart.
There we agree again. What sort of change? Not
of the flesh, but of the spirit a change of the affec-
tions, of the feelings and sympathies of the soul.
Agreed ! a change so great that we love our former
hates, and hate our former loves. We love God and
our Savior supremely, and our brethren fervently.
We hate Satan, falsehood, and sin. Hence comes the
annihilation of his hypothesis can an infant love or
hate, without previous knowledge, faith or appre-
hension of things amiable and hateful ! No, says every
man ; where there is no light, no understanding, no
intelligence, there can be no disposition at all, no
moral feeling, no change of affections, no change of
heart ; consequently no infant moral or spiritual regen-
eration. It is impossible it is inconceivable! No
man can demonstrate, illustrate, or prove it. When-
ever Mr. Rice can show that a man, a child, or an in-
fant, can love what he never heard, saw, felt or thought
of, and that he can love, fear, or eschew that of which
he has no conception whatever, then, but not till then,
can he offer one argument, reason, or evidence, of in-
fant moral regeneration. Whenever he shows a man
loving Jesus Christ, righteousness, and holiness, who
has never heard of him and hating Satan, sin. and im-
purity, who has never heard of them, then I will be-
lieve that he can find a dying infant regenerated and
sanctified in its spiritual and moral nature. Till then
I shall regard it as a mere phantasy, an idol, or chimera
of the brain, and the whole doctrine growing out of it
a miserable delusion.
92 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
But now with regard to our physical regeneration
of infants, my faith is in the Lamb of God, who hath
taken away the sin of the world. The atonement of
the Messiah has made it compatible with God, with the
honor of his throne and government, to save all those
infants who die in Adam. He has made an ample pro-
vision for extending salvation from all the conse-
quences of Adam's sin to whomsoever he will. Ever
blessed be his adorable name ! The Lamb of God has
borne away the sin of the world. Infants then need
that same kind of regeneration that Paul, and Peter,
and James, and John, and all saints need the entire
destruction of this body of sin and death. The most
perfect Christian that I have seen needs a regen-
eration to fit him for the immediate presence of God.
The infant that falls asleep in its mother's bosom, and
after a few short days breathes out its spirit gently
there, needs no more change to fit it for Abraham's
bosom, than that which the Spirit of God will effect in
the resuirection of the dad, or in the transformation
of the living saints at the time of his coming. Phil-
osophy, reason, and faith are alike silent on the sub-
ject of any infant regeneration before death. It is all
theory idle, empty, suicidal theory. Experience lifts
her ten thousand voices against it. Whoever saw a
child regenerated growing up from birth a pure and
exemplary Christian ? Persons have been sanctified ;
that is, set apart to the Lord from their birth ; but that
any one was, in our sense of regeneration, changed in
heart from birth, reason, revelation, experience, obser-
vation, depose not ; on this subject they are all as silent
as death. While, then, I believe in the physical regen-
eration of infants after death, I repudiate their spiritual
or moral regeneration in life, because unscriptural.
irrational and absurd.
This delusive doctrine operates very differently on
OF THE HoivY SPIRIT. 93
two classes of subjects the sanguine and vain, the
imaginative and elate. Those of high self-esteem are
often the victims of a conceit that they have been
touched by a supernatural impulse, a sort of celestial
electricity, which in a moment regenerated and gave
them religion. Some of them tell right marvelous
tales of mighty shocks of this sort. A lady of whom I
recently heard, from a highly credible source, in de-
scribing her conversion, said, "The Holy Spirit went
through her from head to foot, bursting off the nails
from her fingers and toes." This was, truly, an extra-
ordinary case ; yet many of the same class, not so well
marked, daily occur. These persons often live and die
without any right conception of God, of his Son, or of
his salvation, yet are they joyful, happy, riding on the
clouds communing with spirits, and filled with rapture,
which neither poetry nor philosophy can reveal. They
carry with them through life, the notion that they were
once truly regenerate, and, therefore, can never perish.
But there are some rather of a melancholy tempera-
ment ; somewhat atrabilious and desponding. They are
more rational, though less imaginative they have lit-
tle hope, and less self-esteem ; but they feel their need
of this regeneration, without feeling that sensible
touch Divine, which instantly brings them out of na-
ture's darkness and death into supernatural light and
life. They are too rational to dream of it. They are
too sensible to imagine it ; and sometimes they fall
into a frightful melancholy, which, in instances not a
few, bereaves them of reason and sends them into an
asylum, where, although surrounded with all that
science and humanity can bestow, leaves them without
the comforts and assistance of relatives and friends,
those best palliatives of mental alienation and woe.
The gentleman has given us another exemplifica-
tion of his freedom in quoting Scriptures. Paul may
94 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
plant and Apollos water, but God gives the increase.
His meaning is: Paul may plant the seed of religion
in the heart of A, B and C ; Apollos may water that
seed, but God alone makes it to grow. I rejoice in the
truth of the fact here stated, but I pronounce the appli-
cation of the passage to the point before us a gross
misconception and perversion of its meaning. Paul
may plant churches and Apollos may water churches,
but God makes the churches grow. So says the con-
text, and so say I with all my heart.
I do not wish to lose time in expositions of the
various sophisms of false quotation and application of
Scripture. I do not even choose to defend my own
writings from such illogical torture. I should give no
argument if I stopped to wrangle about all these mis-
quotations and misapplications. I only request those
who choose to examine more accurately these quota-
tions, to read the whole contexts from which they are
illegally arrested. The gentleman is very emphatic
(for effect, no doubt) in telling you how often he calls
my attention to certain matters, which, but for his
manner of quoting them, deserve no real regard, be-
cause irrelevant. He said the other day, he called my
attention three times to a verse, and finally affirmed
that he could neither make me see or hear it, although
I had two or three times replied to it in common with
its whole class. And when it was for the third or
fourth time replied to by me, what use did the gentle-
man make of my reply? All those passages I have
shown, like the oft-repeated case of the thief on the
cross, are misapplied, because they were spoken of
things and persons as they were before the gospel age
commenced before the Christian ordinances were in-
stituted or the church began. The thief indeed was
saved without baptism ; not merely because there was
no Christian baptism then ; for if there had. he being
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 95
converted as he was, and having no opportunity, would
have been saved without it, as all are who are provi-
dentially prevented from receiving it. Scriptures are
generally quoted wrong when applied to prove a prop-
osition not of the same species with that in the writer's
mind.
The gentleman rights for victory, and he will have it
in any and every contingency whatever. He has at
proper intervals the mournful alas. Alas! alas! for
the reformation ! The unfeeling crowd, so perfectly
destitute of sympathy, however, smile at his wailings !
He can hardly proceed under the dreadful weight of
arguments on his side, and yet he can not utter them.
For who has heard them ! I do not think it either edi-
fying or important to notice these matters, for any
other reason than to express my pleasure in reflecting
upon the dignity of my cause and its self-respect ; that
it needs not such ephemeral and political appliances
to sustain or commend it.
Mr. Rice may express all his conceptions of himself
and his cause without any offense to me whatever. I
presume that owing to his education he honestly thinks
so, whether or not I am obliged to so regard him, and
I will so continue till the end. What is said here is to
be read by all parties ; and my only desire on that sub-
ject is that the book may be read impartially, and that
the argument may be duly weighed on both sides. Let
every man take up the book and read it as though it
had fallen from heaven into his hands. Let him read
it candidly, decide according to evidence and fact, and
then let him act in perfect harmony with his convic-
tions ; and may the I ord bless him in so doing ! (Time
expired.)
96 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. RICE'S THIRD REPLY.
MONDAY, November 27, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. President: I have but a remark to make in
reply to the singular logic of Mr. Campbell, concern-
ing the alleged statement of Mr. Burch. No man, he
would have us believe, can testify, that twenty years
ago he did not make a certain statement ! I presume
Mr. Burch may very well know he never did believe
that Mr. C. triumphed over Mr. McCalla, and, there-
fore, that he never did make a statement which implied
such an admission. He never believed that Mr. C.
triumphed, and, consequently, never so said. The
gentleman's anonymous evidence is worth absolutely
nothing.
The gentleman attempts to justify his assertion that
I am delivering scraps of old harangues by saying that
he has heard of my preaching on these subjects, and
has seen, in my discussion with President Shannon,
some of the same arguments I have advanced on this
occasion. Why, I have read in his publications almost
everything he has advanced on this subject; and a
considerable part of his closing speech, on Saturday, I
heard almost verbatim some three years ago. Why,
then, may I not charge him with delivering scraps of
old harangues?
But he can not so easily escape the difficulty into
which his temper hurried him. For it is not true that
I have ever before discussed this subject just as T have
done to-day. I have occasionally, it is true, discussed
all these subjects, though not so thoroughly and ex-
tensively as now.
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 97
Regeneration, the gentleman says, must take place
in harmony with the powers of the human mind. This
is true. I have not said that in regeneration men are
deprived of any of their faculties, or that new faculties
are created. But he tells us, that creation is one thing,
and the renewing of the heart quite another; and he
seems to consider the idea of creating holiness quite
absurd. The doctrine of Mr. Campbell, as stated by
himself, is, that no other than moral power can be
exerted on the human mind; and it must always be
exerted by words and arguments. In refutation of
this assumption, I stated the Scripture fact, that God
created man holy, and consequently there must have
been a moral influence exerted, not by words or by
arguments. We do not regard holiness as a distinct
substance or essence. It is, however, true, that God
created man with a holy heart or nature. liow he did
it I know not, nor does Mr. C. Inasmuch, then, as
he understands not how that influence was exerted,
which made man originally holy, he can not possibly
prove that the Spirit may not now exert a moral influ-
ence, distinct from motives.
It is worthy of special remark, that Paul, in speaking
of the sanctification of the human heart, uses the word
"create." "We are his workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus unto good works" (Eph. ii. 10). There is not,
in any language, a stronger word than the word
"create." Yet this word is employed, without qualifi-
cation, in regard to the renewal of the human heart.
If, then, this word does not express a direct divine
influence, distinct from the word, and in addition to it,
by what word, I ask, could the idea be expressed?
God did not create the heavens and the earth by words
and arguments ; neither did he thus create the body or
the soul of man. The very word "create" expresses the
putting forth of divine power. Can it, then, be true,
98 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
that God creates the heart anew by words and argu-
ments? Is it not perfectly absurd to talk of creating
by arguments? It is an abuse of language. God
created man in his own image; and now, by the new
creation he restores that image. In the latter, as in
the former, there is an exertion of divine power ; and in
both the modus operandi is equally mysterious.
Mr. G. objects to the doctrine of special divine in-
fluence } that it makes every instance of conversion or
regeneration a miracle. So it does, if we take his
definition of a miracle; but if we take the definition
given by all correct writers on the subject, regenera-
tion is not a miracle. A miracle is a suspension of the
laws of nature, by the immediate interposition of
divine power, of which men can take cognizance, for
the purpose of confirming the truth of God's revelation.
God sends rain, and in a time of dearth we pray for
rain, not expecting God to work a miracle, and yet ex-
pecting him to put forth his power in answer to our
prayers, so as to grant the desired blessing. Elisha
prayed that it might not rain ; and during the space of
three years and a half it rained not. He prayed for
rain, and it descended in torrents. In one sense, per-
haps, these divine interpositions might be called mira-
cles; but so far as man could see, the laws of nature
were uninterrupted, both whilst the long drought con-
tinued, and when the rain descended. Properly speak-
ing, therefore, there was, in this case, a divine inter-
position, but not a miracle.
So the Holy Spirit operates, though invisibly, on
the hearts of all who are renewed. The change is
wrought by supernatural power ; but it is not a miracle
because it is invisible, nor is it a suspension of the
fixed laws of nature. The effects of the divine influ-
ence we do see. The man who, yesterday, delighted
only in sin, to-day turns from his iniquities, and re-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 99
joices in the service of God. The effects are manifest ;
and common sense compels us to ascribe them to
some adequate cause. The Bible teaches us, that the
cause of the visible change is a new creation wrought
by the Holy Spirit. "We are his workmanship, cre-
ated in Christ Jesus unto good works."
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 em-
ployed are, in all cases, the same. He asserts that the
same means must always be employed, but he can not
prove the truth of the assertion, either Scripturally or
philosophically. I know of no part of God's Word
that teaches that if God should sanctify a soul in one
instance without the truth, because it can not be em-
ployed, he must, of course, sanctify all others with-
out the truth. God is a sovereign; and he works by
means or without means, as his infinite wisdom directs.
But the gentleman asks of what use is the Word, if
regeneration can take place without it? If the ques-
tion has any meaning, it is this: Of what use is the
Word to adults, if infants, that can not receive it, can
be regenerated without it. This is a singular question.
Or does he mean to ask, of what use is the Word to
adults, if there is necessary a distinct divine influence?
I presume if he had been in the camp of Israel, in the
days of Joshua, he would have asked, why should the
priests compass the walls of Jericho seven times, and
blow rams' horns, since the walls will not fall without a
direct interposition of divine power? The Lord com-
manded, and that is sufficient. Or, perhaps, he would
have found fault with our Savior, because, in healing
the eyes of the blind man, he used clay and spittle. He
ioo CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
might ask, of what use are the clay and spittle, since
they will not open his eyes without a direct exertion of
divine power ? Such is the logic of my friend. It is in
vain to reason against facts. God has often employed
means, when, without an immediate exertion of his
power, they were wholly inadequate to accomplish the
end. So he employs the Word ordinarily, though
alone it is not adequate to effect the conversion and
sanctification of men. Yet God has never confined
himself to means and instrumentalities ; and no man
has the right to limit him where he has not limited
himself.
The doctrine of special divine influence, Mr. Camp-
bell believes, leads to a great deal of fanaticism ; and he
has told us an anecdote about some very fanatical
woman. It is admitted that there have been, and now
are, many fanatics in the world ; but his is quite as con-
clusive against the truth of Christianity as against the
doctrine I am defending. Multitudes of those who
have professed to be Christians, have been, or now
are, fanatics ; therefore, says the infidel, Christianity
leads to fanaticism, and, of course, it can not be true.
The infidel adopts Mr. Campbell's principle, and
argues quite as conclusively as he. It is a trite re-
mark, that the abuse of a doctrine, or of a principle,
does not prove it false. Does the doctrine of special
divine influence generally make fanatics of those who
embrace it? There is not a body of people in this
world who are more free from fanaticism than Presby-
terians ; and yet there are none who more firmly be-
lieve in the special agency of the Spirit than they;
nor any who more zealously contend for the constant
use of means, in order to conversion and sanctifica-
tion.
I could also tell an anecdote concerning a convert in
Mr. C's church that would be quite a match for the
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 101
one he has related, but I could not do so without treat-
ing this solemn subject with unbecoming levity.
The gentleman has at length produced one passage
of Scripture in support of his doctrine. I am grati-
fied to see him leaving his metaphysical speculations,
which he has, indeed, long professed to repudiate, and
entering upon this Scripture proof. The passage is in
John xvii. 17: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy
word is truth.'' It is really one of the most conclusive
proofs of the truth of the doctrine I am advocating.
Does not the Savior pray to his Father to sanctify
them ? But if Mr. C's doctrine is true, why should he
have prayed? He did not pray that new truths, new
arguments, might be revealed to his people. Accord-
ing to his doctrine, it was necessary only to give them
the truth. But the Savior prayed to his Father to do
something for them, and to do it by certain means
to exert on their minds a sanctifying influence distinct
from the truth, but in connection with the truth.
Mr. Campbell asks, how can an infant be born of
God before it has any knowledge of God ? There can
be no disposition, he says, where there is no knowledge.
I thought he had repudiated metaphysics ; but really,
he appears to rely upon his speculations more than
upon the Bible. But his philosophy is most unphilo-
sophical and unscriptural. Who does not know that
there are a thousand things which we admire at first
sight, and as many to which we feel a decided aver-
sion ? Does not this prove that there may, and does,
exist in the mind a disposition or inclination to love
some objects, and to dislike others, even before we
have any knowledge of them ? There are dispositions
existing in the mind, as well as tastes and appetites in
the body, before the knowledge of the appropriate ob-
jects calls them into existence. A child loves sweet-
ness the first time it tastes it ; and is charmed by music
IO2 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
the first time it hears it. Why, then, may not the soul
be in such a moral state, that when first it is made
acquainted with the character of God, it will admire,
love and adore him ; or, that it will turn from him with
strong aversion? There is neither sound theology
nor sound philosophy in the gentleman's objection.
But he is not willing to give up the salvation of in-
fants ; and he complains of me for urging the argument
against his doctrine, that it necessarily involves the
damnation of infants. He does not find fault with me
for maintaining that they are depraved ; for, although
he now denies that there can be moral disposition
where there is no knowledge, he admits and teaches,
that infants are by nature depraved ! that they have
a proneness, a disposition to sin ! This being admitted,
my argument against his doctrine is most certainly
legitimate and conclusive. It is what logicians call
the "reductio ad absurdum" proving that it leads
necessarily to results which he admits to be false and
absurd. I was indeed surprised that he thought it
necessary to appeal to the moderators to protect his
doctrine against the force of this argument.
He attempts, however, to escape from the difficulty
by saying that nothing more than the atonement of
Christ is necessary to the salvation of infants. Does
the blood of Christ purify the heart? The atonement
secures the remission of sins ; but does the Bible teach
that it takes away depravity? Why, the very idea is
absurd. There is not a word in the Bible to counte-
nance such a notion. The difficulty still remains. In-
fants, as the gentleman admits, are depraved. How,
then, shall they be sanctified and prepared for the en-
joyments of a holy heaven? They can not be sancti-
fied through the truth ; and Mr. C. asserts that they
can not be sanctified without it. Therefore they must
die in sin, and be forever lost ! Such are the results to
103
which his doctrine necessarily leads, whether he is
willing consistently to carry it out or not.
There is nothing in the Bible, he tells us, that favors
the idea of infant regeneration. He takes care, how-
ever, not to reply to the argument founded on John
iii. 6, "For that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Infants are
born of the flesh ; and therefore they must be born of
the Spirit ; and if not born of the Spirit, they can not
enter into the kingdom of God they must be lost.
They can not go to heaven in their depravity.
But, says the gentleman, adult believers must, at
death, undergo as great a change in order to enter
heaven as infants need experience. For this assertion
he can find no authority in the Bible ; and it is vain for
him, on a subject such as we are now discussing, to
give us either his opinions or his assertions. Death
will produce on the mind no moral change, such as
infants must experience before they can enter heaven.
It is, no doubt, true, as the gentleman says, that
some persons who have believed in the doctrine of the
special agency of the Spirit have been melancholy,
under the conviction that they were not serving God
faithfully, or from other causes ; but it can not be
proved that the doctrine has any such tendency. On
the contrary, thousands and tens of thousands have
felt their hardened hearts melt under the blessed in-
fluences of the Spirit, have renewed their strength as
they have waited on God in prayer, and have in their
affections and joys mounted up as on the wings of an
eagle, have run without weariness, and walked without
fainting. "The Spirit itself," says Paul, "beareth wit-
ness with our spirit, that we are the children of God;
and, if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint-
heirs with Christ." Convince the man who has become
acquainted with his true character that there is no
104 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
such special influence of the Spirit ; that he must pre-
pare himself by his unaided exertions for heaven ; and
he will lie down in deep despair. He will never again
entertain a hope that he can see God in peace, or enter
into his rest. It is a holy heaven to which he desires
to go; a holy God reigns there; holy angels worship
around his glorious throne; and none but "the spirits
of just men made perfect" can ever enter there. If,
then, sinful man is left to prepare himself for such a
heaven, well may he weep in despair.
In my last address I directed your attention to the
language of Paul in I Cor. iii. 6: "I have planted,
Apollos watered ; but God gave the increase." But
the gentleman says Paul spoke of planting churches.
There is no such expression in the connection. On
what evidence, then, does he found the assertion?
Paul was rebuking the Corinthian Christians because
there were contentions among them, one saying, I am
of Paul ; another, I am of Apollos ; and a third, I am
of Cephas; and a fourth, I am of Christ. All this, he
tells them, is most unwise as well as very sinful ; for,
says he, "who, then, is Paul, and who is Apollos but
ministers by whom ye believe, even as God gave to
every man ? I have planted, Apollos watered ; but
God gave the increase." Paul had planted the seed,
had first preached the Word in Corinth ; Apollos had
succeeded him with his eloquent exhortations ; and
God had by his Holy Spirit caused the seed to spring
up and bring forth fruit.
But if Paul were speaking of planting a church
(though this is not a Scripture expression) his mean-
ing must be that he had induced Christians to remove
from other parts of Corinth and settle there. You
may plant corn ; but you must first have corn to plant.
A church might be planted ; but the members must
be there before it could be planted. But Paul planted
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 105
the seed, the Word, and God blessed it to the con-
version of many ; Apollos preached and exhorted, and
God blessed his labors to their growth in grace.
But if Paul could really plant a church, and Apollos
could water it without any special divine influence,
could they not keep it alive, and cause it to extend?
Or what are we to understand by the declaration that
"God gave the increase"? The figure used by the
apostle is both beautiful and striking, and the meaning
can not easily be misunderstood. Before you plant
your seed the ground must be prepared ; and then the
sun must shine and the refreshing rains descend upon
it. Man plants his seed and sometimes waters it ; but
there is no artificial sun to shine upon it. God must
give the increase. So the ministers of Christ are to
preach the Word, to proclaim the glorious gospel to
men, and look up to God for that divine influence, the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which only can cause
men to turn to God.
My friend can not forget the past days of this dis-
cussion. He constantly calls up the subjects that have
been disposed of. He says that on the third proposi-
tion he did answer my argument from John iii. 18:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned." I cer-
tainly did not hear his answer. It must have been ex-
tremely brief. The truth is, it adrnits of no answer.
The obvious and only meaning is that no believer,
baptized or not, is condemned ; but all believers are
justified.
The last note I took of the gentleman's speech
relates to the charge he had made that great pains
have been taken to bias the public sentiment, to make
the people believe that he has failed to sustain himself.
He tells you he has heard the fact from various qtiar-
tei s. I will not condescend to gather up floating reports
and state them here as facts for the purpose of produc-
io6 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
ing effect. When I state facts, and they are denied, I
will prove them. These reports, which would seem to
have given him so much trouble, are not only false
and slanderous, but unspeakably ridiculous. Does the
gentleman expect to make the impression that the
intelligent people who have come together from all
parts of the country to hear this debate can not judge
for themselves, but will believe just what Presbyte-
rians tell them they must believe? This most ridicu-
lous charge I pronounce to be utterly false. There is
not one word of truth in it.
I know not whether it is necessary for me to intro-
duce any additional arguments in favor of the doctrine
for which I contend, until Mr. C. shall have advanced
something to sutain his proposition. I will, however,
quote a few passages of Scripture which clearly teach
the doctrine of a special divine agency in conversion
and sanctification. Ezekiel xxxvi. 26, 27: "A new
heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And
I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk
in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and
do them." Does not God here proclaim himself the
author of that radical change of heart which causes
men to turn from sin and keep his commandments?
The passage is a promise and a prediction of the con-
verting and sanctifying influences of the Spirit which
should be exerted upon the Jews in a future day.
Does this language teach that the Spirit can exert on
the heart no other moral power but that which is con-
tained in words and arguments? The Bible is, on all
important points, a plain book; and its obvious
meaning is generally its true meaning. Now I ask,
what idea would this language convey to the mind of
any one who has no theory to support? When God
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 107
says, I will give you a new heart, would not such a
person understand that he would exert an influence
quite different from mere argument? I cheerfully
leave every candid hearer to determine whether there
is not here the promise of an influence of the Spirit in
addition to the Word, and distinct from it.
The next passage I quote is Jer. xxxii. 37: "Be-
hold, I will gather them out of all countries whither I
have driven them in mine anger, &c., and I will give
them one heart and one way that they may fear me
forever, for the good of them and their children after
them." Does the prophet mean that God would by
arguments give to his people one heart and one way ?
He promises to gather them from their wanderings,
and to exert such an influence on their minds that
with one heart they would turn from their sins to his
service, and fear him forever. I ask again, what idea
would be conveyed by such language to the unso-
phisticated mind, to a plain, honest man, who has no
theory to support? What is the obvious meaning of
the language? I verily believe that there is not an
intelligent man living who, on hearing this passage
read, would not, if he had no favorite theory to bias
his judgment, understand it to teach the doctrine of
a special divine influence distinct from mere words
and arguments. (Time expired.)
io8 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S FOURTH ADDRESS.
TUESDAY, Nov. 28, 10 o'clock A.M.
Mr. President. Before proceeding to the business
of the day, I must make a few introductory remarks.
In reference, then, to the incidents of yesterday, I
ought, perhaps, to advert to some of them which were
not of so pleasant a character as usual. And, first, as
to the incident in the after part of the day which called
for an allusion to Mr. Burch. I did not, indeed, name
that gentleman; Mr. Rice named him in your pres-
ence. My remarks could not in the least involve the
moral character of that gentleman. I did not intend
to impeach the moral character of Mr. Burch or any
one else. It was, sir, I repeat, the most remote thing
in my mind to violate the feelings, unnecssarily, of any
one present, much less the moral reputation of Mr.
Burch. The fact stated I believed then, and I believe
now, to be strictly true. But having ascertained that
Mr. Burch's feelings have been wounded, and a desire
having been expressed that it should not go to record,
I cheerfully consent that it be not published. I have
no desire to put anything on record which might at all
tend to mar good feelings.*
As respects the imputation uttered on yesterday by
Mr. Rice, that in some of my remarks touching the
management of affairs here I spake under excitement.
If by excitement the gentleman means animal passion
* Understanding from Mr. Rice that Mr. Burch desired
this incident to go to record, I have consented to the pub-
lication. A. C.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 109
or anger, I can not admit it. Exciting as have been
some of the circumstances in which I have been
placed in conducting this discussion, I have not
allowed myself to yield to any temptation of that sort.
If I appeared so to him or any one else* I certainly am
not conscious of it. It must be because they thought
I had provocation enough. It is with me a principle,
confirmed by habit, on all occasions, especially one so
solemn as the present, to hold in abeyance those pas-
sions which might be wrought up into effervescence.
Knowing that the wrath of man worketh not the
righteousness of God, I feel myself always admonished
to avoid even the slightest appearance of it. I have,
therefore, on no occasion of this sort, in all my life,
been accused of anything of this kind. Indeed, as the
troubled water is generally muddy, and the calm,
gently flowing stream clear, excited passions are no
way auxiliary to the ascertainment of truth, but rather
of a contrary tendency. Mr. Rice is fully compre-
hended in this maneuver.
I shall now proceed to the business of the day. The
proposition before us is: "In conversion and sanctifi-
cation the Spirit of God operates only through the
Word of Truth," or always through the Word of
Truth. Mr. Rice admits it sometimes so operates, but
not always ; sometimes operating without the Word of
Truth. The proper difference between us is the differ-
ence between sometimes and always. That the Spirit
of God does operate in both conversion and sanctifi-
cation we both admit. But I affirm and he denies that
it operates only in that way. In sustaining the affirm-
ative, my method has been to show that as these works
of conversion and sanctification are specific works
works uniformly the same, as any of the products of
the animal or the vegetable kingdom there must be
uniformity in the operation. This the constitution of the
no CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
human mind requires; and hence, whatever is in any
one case essential to any one result, such as regenera-
tion, is necessary in each and every other case what-
ever. So far we have reasoned on the inductive plan ;
these being the results of innumerable multitudes of
facts, such as no man can suggest an idea, or view, or
feeling, of a moral or spiritual character, which has not
been borrowed from the Bible ; and again, the person
destitute of that book is destitute of all those ideas,
impressions and sensations.
To these views Mr. Rice has simply affirmed that
there is no such uniformity; that it is not necessary.
We call, but we call in vain, for an example of conver-
sion by the Spirit alone, or where the Word was
wholly unknown. Such a case, even were it plausibly
alleged, would be entitled to very high consideration.
He will not attempt such a case ; he presumes upon no
such evidence. His, then, is a position purely meta-
physical, and belongs to the science of abstract specu-
lative theology. It is wholly and forever insusceptible
of any appreciable demonstration or proof. We have
not only Bible declarations, but facts and analogies
innumerable, on our side of the question. One of my
axioms is, whatever is essential in one case is essential
in every case. But as the gentleman has not met, and,
I presume, will not meet me in a debate on any one of
these great positions, I shall proceed to a new argu-
ment, more intelligible to all minds, and more in sup-
port of these conclusions than any merely analogous
or abstract reasonings could be. I open the New
Testament at once and read as my
Eighth argument, i Peter i. 23: "Being born again,
not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, by
the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
Now, as you all remember, our Lord compares his
Word, or the Word of God, to seed planted or sown ;
INFLUENCE; OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1 1 1
and, under the parable of the sower, represents its
various fortunes, and beautifully teaches the true
philosophy of conversion in the fact that the good
ground is the man who "receives the Word of God in
an honest heart." Under both metaphors, drawn the
one from the vegetable, the other from the animal
kingdom, the Word of God is the seed of which we
are born again or renewed in heart and life. This
Word of God liveth and abideth, for God 1 lives and
abides forever.
First. With regard to the essentiality of the seed.
We all know that, in the vegetable kingdom, without
that there is no harvest, no fruit. And, as certain it
is, that when the Word of God is not first sown in
the heart, there can be no regeneration, or renewal of
the spirit, and, consequently, no fruit brought forth
unto eternal life. So the metaphors taken from the
animal and vegetable kingdoms teach the same lesson.
But does not the mere fact that Peter says, that we are
born again of incorruptible seed, declare that where
this incorruptible seed is not, there can possibly be no
birth ! Unless, then, Mr. Rice can shew that it is just
as true to say, we are born again, neither by corrupt-
ible nor incorruptible seed, without the Word of God,
this single passage settles this question forever, as I
honestly conceive.
Is it necessary now to traverse the whole face of
nature, to explore the whole kingdom of botany, to
find a planet without a seed, in order to prove the
proposition, that every ear of corn comes from one
grain of seed deposited in the earth? No more is it
essential to my argument, that I should first hear all
the conversions in the world, before I conclude that
there is one that originated without one word of God
having been sown in the human heart. Will not all
the word believe me, if I prove in one case that
H2 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
without the specific seed, corn, wheat, etc., we can
not have the crop, that it is true in all other cases,
without a particular examination; and from every
principle of analogy, if I prove the Word in one case
of a new heart to be necessary, it needls not that I
prove it to be so in every other heart, in every other
case. The mere fact of calling the Gospel the incor-
ruptible seed, is enough. Where that seed is not, the
fruit of it can not be.
The phrase, "the incorruptible seed" of anything, in-
dicates, in the ears of common sense, that it is essential
to that thing; and if so, then who can be a Christian
without being born? and who can be born but ac-
cording to one uniform and immutable law ? Now, in
the theory of Mr. Rice, there is no uniformity; there
is a plurality of ways of being born, which, to my mind,
is most palpably at fault in every particular.
But I will adduce some other testimonies under this
head of argument. We shall hear James the apostle,
chapter i. 18: "Of his own will begat he us by the
word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits
of his creation." Hence the truth again appears as
an instrument of regeneration. God's will is the origin
of it ; his Spirit the efficient cause of it ; but the Word
is the necessary instrument of it. By the Word of
Truth, then, we are begotten, and not without it, ac-
cording to James. We may add testimonies without
increasing either authority or evidence ; but, for the
sake of illustration, if not for authority, we shall offer
a few other testimonies to complete this particular ar-
gument. We shall hear Paul, as a father, speak to his
sons in the faith in Corinth (i Cor. iv. 15): "As my
beloved sons I warn you: for though you have ten
thousand instructors in Christ, yet have you not many
fathers; for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you
through the gospel." Paul regards the gospel just in
INFLUENCE; otf THE HOLY SPIRIT. 113
the same attitude in which James represents it. The
gospel is here the seed, the instrument of the conver-
sion of the Corinthians.
But the whole oracle of God is unique on this sub-
ject. God "purifies the heart by faith," that is, the
truth believed not by believing as an act of the mind,
but by the truth believed, which constitutes "the
faith." Paul also told the Thessalonians that God
had, "from the beginning, chosen them to salvation
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the
truth." Here again the belief of the truth is the in-
strument of sanctification and salvation. I shall con-
clude this little summary of a portion of the direct
and positive testimony of God, in proof of my grand
position on the Holy Spirit's work of conversion and
sanctification, by the testimony of the Messiah, in per-
son: "Sanctify them through thy truth, O Father,
for thy Word is the truth." Whether, then, we call
the truth the Word, the Word of God, the gospel, it
is called the seed, the incorruptible seed of the new
birth ; by which a sinner is quickened, begotten, born,
sanctified, purified, and saved. I regard this my
eighth argument as a host in itself nay, as the sol-
emn, direct, and unequivocal declaration of God, in
attestation of the entire truth and safety of the propo-
sition concerning both conversion and sanctification.
I wish Mr. Rice and the whole community to know
that I regard this argument, when fully canvassed and
developed, as enough on this subject. I am willing to
place the whole cause upon it.
I shall now go on to review some portions of Mr.
Rice's speeches not yet noticed, which may by some
be considered as constituting some objections to my
former reasonings on the subject. The gentleman ral-
lied with great zeal and warmth, upon the passage,
"Paul planted and Apollos watered." He expressed
1 14 CAMPBELL- RICE DEBATE.
some astonishment at my presuming to give such an
interpretation, and I am just as much astonished at
his pertinacity. It fully proves how much he is the
slave of bad commentators. 1 have all good trans-
lators, commentators, and critics with me; but, better
still, I have got good Dr. Common Sense with me,
and he will make it plain to all. Indeed, no really
learned theologian thinks differently from me. But let
us look to the context. The Word of God is not men-
tioned in the passage as the gentleman said, Canaan
was not found in the Epistle to the Galatians. Paul
speaks of men and not of the Word. I planted you
men in God's field or husbandry, and Apollos watered
you, but God gave the increase, the growth. He pre-
sents the same persons under three distinct figures, in
the same context, and connects with each an appro-
priate imagery. But we shall confine ourselves to two
of them the husbandry, and the building. As a hus-
bandry, Paul planted them ; as a building, a temple, he
laid the foundation. But if I must make it still plainer,
I will then suppose it to be the Word. Well, then,
Paul planted the Word in the people's heart; and
Apollos watered it in their hearts, and God made it
grow in their hearts. Paul, in this case, planted the
Word by preaching the Word, and Apollos watered
the Word by exhorting them through the Word ; and
God made it grow by his Spirit operating through the
Word. Well, now Paul is placed in a most awkward
attitude. He is converted into a school-boy, con-
founding all laws and usages of the schools. He has
Paul planting the Word by the Word ! and
Apollos watering the Word by the Word ! Suppose
we convert it into corn ; then all the world will com-
prehend Paul's beautiful rhetoric. Paul planted corn
by scattering corn in the fields ; Apollos came along
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 115
and watered that corn by scattering some of the same
corn upon it !
But my friend superciliously asks, How can any one
plant a church? would you stick it in the ground!
Profoundly erudite objection! How do> men plant a
colony of men ? stick them in the ground ! Men
have been said to plant churches and colonies from
time immemorial! The field or husbandry is the
place where Paul figuratively planted men; and as
living stones, he also builded them together, under
another figure, "for an habitation of God through the
Spirit." The apostle's rhetoric is classic, rich, and
beautiful. As a field, Paul brought the Corinthians
into it, and planted them in the nursery. Apollos
came next, and refreshed them much by his exhorta-
tions; and thus, through their joint labors, Corinth-
ians became God's husbandry. I take pleasure in
avowing my conviction that it is the blessing of God
upon the labors of Paul and Apollos, that made these
Corinthians grow. I do not labor this passage to op-
pose that idea, but to expose this most licentious way
of quoting the Scriptures, and forcing them into the
sectarian service. The improvements in the science of
hermeneutics will, I hope, move westwardly.
A favorite passage, which has been quoted oftener
many times than any other text in the Bible, during
this discussion, and for no reason that I can see, but
because the word "sprinkle" that blessed word
"sprinkle," is found in it, along with clean water I
must quote it once, out of courtesy: Ezek. xxxvi. 25:
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
sjiall be clean from all your filthiness ; and from all
your idols will I cleanse you." This is not literally
water free from mud, but an allusion to the water
mixed with ashes, which purified the unclean a mere
symbol here of the cleansing of the Jews. He says in
n6 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
verse 24: "For I will take you from among the
heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will
bring you into your own land." Here there is an ex-
press declaration that God would bring them back to
their own land. "Then will I sprinkle clean water
upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness,
and from all your idols." It was to cleanse them from
their idols by the water of purification. "A new heart
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will
put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes; and ye shall keep my judgments, and do
them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to
your fathers, and ye shall be my people, and I will be
your God." Now, with regard to this strong phrase
"a new heart will I give you" suppose I should affirm
that men make their own hearts new? As he proves
his positions, so would I prove it. Ezek. xviii. 31:
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby
ye have transgressed ; and make you a new heart and
a new spirit : for why will you die, O house of Israel ?"
Here, I say, Israel is commanded to make for them-
selves a new heart; could I not prove that they were
thus commanded by the sound of these words? My
friend says that God does create a clean heart. But in
what sense? There is nothing to be gained by thus
quoting Scripture out of its proper connection. Paul
say?: "Be renewed in the spirit of your minds." I
doubt not the propriety of both these forms of speech.
The Lord does everything that is good. He says: "I,
the Lord, create light, and I create darkness ; I create
good, and I create evil ; I, the Lord, do all these
things." How does he do them? by his own imme-
diate power? Certainly not. But by various instru-
ments permits some, and appoints others, in various
INFLUENCE OE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 117
ways. He does not always create good and evil by the
same means.
The word "create" does not only mean to make a
thing out of original nonentity, but to change its rela-
tions, and sometimes only to new-modify it. In creat-
ing light, God does something. In creating darkness,
he withholds something. In creating good, he im-
parts something. In creating evil, he withholds good.
Men make to themselves a new heart ; and God makes
for them a new heart. He institutes the means, gives
his Spirit, and they receive and obey the truth.
The gentleman, in an attempt to reply to the just
objection that he makes conversion in every case a
miracle equal to the resurrection of the Lord, went
into the definition of a miracle, instead of removing
the difficulty, and asks what need of the instru-
mentality of angels in the world? We always admit
that an angel's visit is a miracle. But what has that
to do with the subject before us ? I do not admire his
definition of a miracle. I sometimes define it as "a
display of supernatural power in attestation of the
truth of some proposition." That supernatural power
may be either intellectual or physical, such as raising-
Lazarus, or foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem.
But this is no place for such matters. God never
squanders power unnecessarily. He never does by
miracle what he can do without it. He works by
secondary causes, unless some great emergency in the
universe calls for the primary, original, creating
power. God does not work without the laws of mind,
nor change the laws of mind. He does not violate
the constitution of the mind, nor give a man ne\v
powers, intellectual or moral, through any moral or
supernatural change in this life. To work salvation,
or a change of heart, without the laws of mind or con-
u8 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
trary to the laws of mind, would be a miracle as great
as the resurrection of Lazarus. And such, I presume,
to be Mr. R.'s theory of regeneration without knowl-
edge, argument, faith, hope, or love, etc.; a direct,
immediate operation of omnipotence upon the naked
soul, without any instrument between.
The gentleman gave a singular definition of moral
disposition. He made it a sort of animal instinct for
a child was disposed to love music! Hunger and
thirst are also dispositions upon the same philosophy !
And, sir, this was the answer given to a very important
question, viz.: If moral disposition be a part of regen-
eration, and if moral disposition be to love God and
hate Satan, to love righteousness and hate iniquity
query, Can an infant then be regenerated? Can it love
or hate a being or a thing concerning which it knows
nothing more than a rock? Mr. R. can not explain
this difficulty, and it is fatal to his theory. If a child be
regenerate, it must love holiness and hate iniquity;
but this can not be without knowledge, because in
religion, as in everything else, intellect pioneers the
\vay, while the affections and the heart follow. We
must see beauty before we can love it. We must see
deformity before we can hate it. And, therefore, "the
love of holiness and the hatred of sin" are impossible
to an infant. (Time expired.)
INFLUENCE OE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 119
MR. RICE'S FOURTH REPLY.
TUESDAY, Nov. 28, 10:30 o'clock A.M.
Mr. President Before proceeding to the discussion
of the subject before us, I must briefly notice Mr.
Campbell's statement concerning Mr. Burch, who was
one of the moderators in the debate between him and
Mr. McCalla. When he made the statement, on yes-
terday, about an opinion expressed by one of the mod-
erators in that debate, there were present many who
knew that Mr. Burch was alluded to. I wish now to
say that I am authorized by Mr. B. to deny most posi-
tively that he ever expressed or entertained the opin-
ion that in that debate Mr. C. was victorious ; and to
state that from that day to this, he has expressed pre-
cisely the opposite opinion. It is taking an unfair
advantage of a man who, according to the rules of this
discussion, can not be permitted to reply, to prefer
such charges.
The gentleman says he has not spoken, at any time
during the debate, under the influence of passion. I
will not dispute the truth of his statement ; but I must
say that he has said many things which would have
been more excusable, if uttered under excitement,
than if spoken deliberately.
It is of the first importance in this discussion that
we keep distinctly in view the point in debate. I
stated it clearly on yesterday: but it has not been
brought prominently to view in the speech of this
morning. Indeed, I believe it would be utterly impos-
1 20 CAMPBELL-RICK DEBATE.
sible to learn, from all the gentleman has said this
morning, wherein we differ.
The main point in the debate is not whether the
Spirit always operates through the truth. I was sur-
prised to hear him read the proposition in this way,
"only and always." I was not aware that the words
"only" and "always" are synonymous. I presume
that no dictionary can be found that defines "only" to
mean "always." If you will substitute "always" for
"only," it will make a proposition radically different
from that we are now discussing. What, then, are the
points in regard to which we differ? First, we differ
concerning the sanctification of infants and idiots.
This, however, is not the only difference between us,
nor the most important. For, second, we differ wide-
ly concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit in the
conversion and sanctification of adults. Mr. Camp-
bell contends that the Spirit operates only through the
truth. I believe that the Spirit operates ordinarily
through the truth, but not only through the truth.
The word only, in the proposition before us, is an
emphatic and an important word. He maintains that
the Spirit dictated the Word, and confirmed it by
miracles, and that the Word, presented to the mind by
any instrumentality, converts and sanctifies it. That
is, the Spirit, according to his doctrine, converts
and sanctifies men, just as the spirit of Dem-
osthenes and Cicero affected their hearers or
readers ; and as the spirit of Mr. Campbell affects this
audience! He exerts on your minds no other influ-
ence than that exerted by his words and arguments.
Just so, according to his doctrine, the Spirit of God
operates.
We believe and teach that the Word is ordinarily
employed in conversion and sanctification. Yet there
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 121
must be, and there is, an influence of the Spirit on the
heart, in addition to the Word, and distinct from it;
and by this influence, especially, man is converted and
sanctified. This is, practically, the great point on
which we differ.
As I have heretofore distinctly stated, we do not
believe in a physical change of the faculties of the soul.
Mr. C.'s remarks about physical regeneration are,
therefore, out of place. Our Confession of Faith does
not teach the doctrine, nor do we hold it.
He desires me to follow him in his train of argu-
ment. I will now do so, as far as time will permit. I
have adduced against his doctrine some four distinct
arguments, viz.: I. That it prescribes to the power of
God over the human mind an unreasonable and an
unscriptural limitation. 2. That it necessarily in-
volves the damnation of infants and idiots. 3. That
it contradicts the Scripture doctrine of human deprav-
ity, making it arise from mere mistake; whereas the
Bible teaches that men sin willfully and deliberately.
4. I have quoted several passages of Scripture directly
teaching the special agency of the Holy Spirit in con-
version and sanctification.
I will now pay my respects to the gentleman's new
arguments. He refers us to Luke viii. 1 1 : "The seed
is the word of God"; and to I Pet. i. 23. Do these
passages prove that in conversion and sanctification
the Spirit operates only through the truth? Do the
seed of themselves produce the harvest? Who ever
heard of obtaining an abundant harvest only by seed ?
Does not the farmer first prepare his soil? He does
not scatter his seed amongst thorns and weeds. The
human heart is like the unprepared earth ; and in the
parable to which the gentleman referred, the seed that
produced the harvest are said to be sown in "good
122 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
ground" in soil previously broken up and prepared.
But when the soil has been prepared, and the seed
sown, the sun must shine, and the rain must descend,
or there will be no harvest. God has a most important
agency in these things. He only can cause the sun to
shine, and the showers to refresh the earth. In these
things there is human agency, and there is divine
agency. So the servants of God sow the seed of life ;
but God prepares the hearts of men to receive it, and
the Holy Spirit, like showers on the thirsty ground,
causes it to spring up and bear fruit to the glory of
God. The argument from the passage under consid-
eration is decidedly in favor of our views. I prove my
doctrine by the very arguments brought forward to
overthrow it !
He has repeatedly asserted if the Word of God is
employed in conversion and sanctification in one case,
it must be necessary in all. But this is bare asser-
tion. Let the gentleman prove it if he can. I should
like to see him attempt to prove that God has bound
himself always to employ in this work the same means
and instrumentalities. If he has thus limited himself,
let the passage be produced ; if he has not, who dares
limit him?
The next argument used by Mr. C. is founded on
James i. 18: "Of his own will begat he us with his
Word of Truth." The argument is mine. I prove the
doctrine of special divine influence by this very pass-
age. Observe, it presents two influences exerted on
man in regeneration the agency of God who begets
him, and the instrumentality of the truth through
which he is begotten or renewed. Does James say he
begat us only by his Word ? He does not. God begat
us; he put forth power, and he did it in connection
with his Word as the means. How, then, can it be
INFLUENCE OE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 123
said with truth, that the means or instrumentality did
the whole work ? James says, God did the work, and
that he did it by the Word, not only by the Word.
This is precisely the doctrine for which I am contend-
ing.
The next argument offered by Mr. C. is founded on
the language of Paul, in I Cor. iv. 15: "For in Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel."
There are commonly three agencies employed in the
conversion and sanctification of the soul: First, the
agency or influence of the Word ; second, the agency
of the minister who preaches it ; and, third, the agencj
of the Holy Spirit on the heart, inducing men to re-
ceive the truth in the love of it, and to live according
to its divine principles and precepts. There are some
passages of Scripture which present particularly the
agency of man ; some which present the influence of
the Word ; and some which speak directly and clearly
of the agency of the Holy Spirit. I believe in the
importance of all these three. The special agency of
the Spirit is taught as distinctly and as frequently as
either of the others. It is unsafe, therefore, to reject
any one of the three. We have not the right to do so.
I must now notice the remarks of the gentleman on
i Cor. iii. 6: "I have planted, Apollos watered, but
God gave the increase.," He insists that Paul speaks
here of planting the church. Yet not a word is said
about planting the church in the chapter, nor in the
epistle. But, he asks, if Paul planted the Word, how
did Apollos water it? And I ask him, if Paul planted
the church, how did Apollos water it? By preaching.
He says I make Apollos water the Word with the
Word. But if there is any inconsistency, is he not
equally guilty of it ? He makes Paul plant the church
by preaching the Word, and Apollos water it by
1 24 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
preaching the Word; so that the planting and the
watering are thus made to be the same operation.
The truth is, Paul planted in the hearts of the people
the seed of divine truth ; God by his Holy Spirit caused
the seed to grow; and then Apollos came and con-
tinued to proclaim the truth, in connection with which
the Spirit still descended like refreshing showers on
the parched earth, and brought the fruit to maturity.
That a special divine influence was exerted is evi-
dent from the fifth verse: "Who, then, is Paul, and
who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man?" Does not the
apostle here teach that God inclined each one to be-
lieve, to receive the Gospel ?
But, says the gentleman, we talk of planting a col-
ony or a city. [Mr. C.: I did not say planting a city,
but founding a city.] Very well, I have nothing to do
with the word "founding." We are speaking of plant-
ing. When we speak of planting a tree, we mean
removing it from one place and setting it in another.
When men speak of planting a colony, they mean
transferring people from one place, and establishing
them in another. Did Paul transfer Christians from
Antioch and from other churches to Corinth? The
Scriptures never speak of planting a church.
The gentleman is quite tired of hearing me quote
Ezekiel xxvi. 25, 26. True, I have had occasion fre-
quently to quote it, for it presents the emblem of puri-
fication in connection with the work of the Spirit. I
have referred to it as illustrating both the mode and
the design of baptism ; and I now have use for it in
proof of the doctrine, that in conversion and sanctifica-
tion there is an agency of the Spirit distinct from the
truth. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new
spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 125
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an
heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you."
Here God promises to give a new heart and a new
spirit. How could language more fully teach the doc-
trine we hold? I have no occasion to say anything
more about the sprinkling of clean water. That part
of the passage belongs to subjects that have been dis-
posed of.
Mr. C. attempts to evade the force of this and other
plain and unequivocal declarations of Scripture by tell-
ing you that God commanded men to make them-
selves new hearts, and that Paul exhorted Christians to
be renewed in their minds.
And he says he could thus prove that men do re-
new their own hearts. So he perhaps could if he could
only prove that men always do their duty. It is the
duty of all men to love and serve God to be holy;
but the question is, Do they do it? God commands
them to repent, believe, and be perfectly holy ; but do
they do so? But in the passage under consideration
God does not command men to do their duty ; but he
tells his people what he will do. "A new heart will I
give you ; and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I
will take away the stony heart out of your flesh. And
I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk
in my statutes." Here we have most clearly exhibited
the radical change of heart, and the consequent
change of life, of which God is the glorious author.
The cause must be bad that leads a man to attempt to
evade the force of language so perfectly unequivocal.
I rejoice to know that in the Bible, as in the book
of nature, the truths which are essential to the safety
and happiness of men are revealed in language so clear
and so simple that the uneducated, as well as the wise,
may understand them. Not more certainly are we
taught that God sends rain upon the thirsty earth than
126 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
that he pours out his Spirit upon the hearts of men ;
and he who can pray for the former, that his seed may
produce an abundant harvest, may also pray with
stronger faith for the latter, that he may bear the
peaceable fruits of righteousness. The gentleman re-
peats the assertion that regeneration, according to
our views, is a miracle. He admits that it is not a
miracle in the common acceptation of the word, but
he chooses to use it in a new sense. If he chooses to
say that every event brought about by divine interpo-
sition is a miracle, he must be permitted to do so ; but
such is not the meaning of the word as used in the
Bible. Daily, in the course of his providence, God
puts forth his almighty power. If he does not, why
should we pray for his protection? If all things are
now governed by fixed laws, our prayers are worse
than vain.
It is true, God does not directly interpose supernat-
ural power without means, when means can be em-
ployed. But when an infant dies, that could not re-
ceive the Word, nor be sanctified through it, there is
occasion for God to work without means. Mr. C.
admits that infants are depraved ; and therefore he
must admit that if they are not sanctified and prepared
to enter heaven, they must be lost. And is not the
soul of an infant of sufficient value to call for a divine
influence without means to sanctify it? It is immor-
tal; it will live through endless ages. It is worth more
than the whole world. When such a spirit is called to
leave the world, and is unfit for heaven, shall we be
told that God can not sanctify it by his Spirit ? that he
can not prepare it for the joys and glories of heaven?
The gentleman reasserts his unphilosophical princi-
ple that there can be no moral disposition where there
is no knowledge. A child, he says, can not love God
before it knows him. But it is absolutely certain that
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 127
the mind may be in such a state, that it will love some
objects and feel an aversion to others on first sight.
This is a fact known to everybody. Thousands have
experienced its truth, for they have loved or disliked
persons and things the first moment they ever saw
them. This love or aversion depends upon a previ-
ously existing character or state of mind.
Everything has its nature. The lion, however
young, has a lion's nature. All lions, in all climates
and countries, manifest the same disposition, as soon
as capable, proving that they possess a common na-
ture. Plant two trees in the same soil, and let them
be watered by the same stream , and one will produce
sweet fruit and the other bitter. They possess dif-
ferent natures. This very illustration is by the Savior
applied to the subject now under discussion. He said:
"Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good."
Make the heart pure, and the life will be pure. Again,
he says: "A good man out of the good treasure of the
heart bringeth forth good things ; and an evil man out
of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things" (Matt,
xii. 35.) Such may be the moral disposition of a
man's heart, that an object of compassion will in a mo-
ment call forth his sympathy and his benevolence. So
may an infant possess a holy nature ; so that when first
it shall look upon God in heaven, it will love, adore,
and worship him. This, I think, is perfectly clear to
every one but my friend, Mr. C.
I think I have answered every argument he has of-
fered, for I was careful to note them all. I will now
adduce some further arguments in favor of a special
agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctifi-
cation.
The first passage I will read is Ezekiel xi. 18, 19,
which contains a prediction concerning the spiritual
blessings which God would bestow upon the Jews:
128 CAMPBELL- RICE DEBATE.
"And they shall come thither, and they shall take away
all the detestable things thereof, and all the abomina-
tions thereof from thence. And I will give them one
heart, and I will put a new spirit within you ; and I will
take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give
them an heart of flesh." Are we to understand by
such language as this that God intended at a future
day simply to present the truth before their minds
the very truth which they now rejected ? Or are we not
plainly taught, that he purposed to exert upon their
hearts such a spiritual influence as would cause them to
return to his service ? The meaning of the passage is
so perfectly plain that no criticism can obscure it.
Again, I will read Isaiah liv. 3: "For I will pour
water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry
ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my
blessings upon thine offspring; and they shall spring
up as among the grass, as willows by the water
courses." This is one of the precious promises made
to the church in her affliction. The day was coming
when the Lord would pour water upon the thirsty
would cause the influences of his Spirit to be abun-
dantly enjoyed by his people and by their descendants.
Here we have the emblem and the thing signified.
This outpouring of the Spirit was to result in the con-
version and sanctification of their seed.
Now compare this language with that employed by
the prophet Joel, which was fulfilled on the day of Pen-
tecost. "And it shall come to pass in the last days,
(saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,"
etc. This language of Joel is admitted by all to de-
note a divine agency distinct from words and argu-
ments. Then, when Isaiah employs the very same
expression "I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed" is
it not clear that he also speaks of an influence of the
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 129
Spirit distinct from arguments ? Mark, too, the happy
results of this spiritual influence. The blessing of God
was to descend upon their offspring ; and they were to
grow up spiritually as willows by the water courses.
They were to bring forth the peaceable fruits of right-
eousness. (Time expired.)
130 CAMPPELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S FIFTH ADDRESS.
TUESDAY, November 28, n o'clock A.M.
Mr. President. On yesterday morning, sir, I gave
reasons why I sometimes read the word "always" for
"only" not as its grammatical import, but its con-
textual import in the proposition, as it relates to our
respective views. Mr. Rice might, therefore, have
saved his time for a more important purpose. The
terms "only" and "always," as before explained, have
here an equivalent value ; and, therefore, I lay no stress
whatever upon any preference, except for sake of
perspicuity.
The legitimate point of discussion in this proposi-
tion, is not whether the Word operates, but whether
the instrumentality of the Word be necessary, accord-
ing to the words, only through the Word. The gen-
tleman is shifting the ground. I never said, nor wrote,
that the Word was the original cause of man's salva-
tion, nor even the efficient cause. I have never ranked
it above the instrumental cause. All that has been
offered by Mr. R. upon the subject, in any other view
of the matter, is gratuitous and irrelevant. It is to
change the proposition, and hide the point in his sys-
tem, which I repudiate. The proposition is, in its own
language, a refutation of all these insinuations. It
affirms that the Spirit of God operates. The question
is not upon operation, but upon instrumentality
"only through the Word." This is the question to be
debated here. If there be any controversy at all, this
is just the point. If Mr. Rice will make the Word the
uniform and universal instrument, he agrors with me,
INFLUENCE OE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 131
There is, then, no controversy about it. This is the
true and real issue. Any other issue is false, feigned
and deceptive. I have, during a protracted contro-
versy for many years, given my views on physical,
moral and spiritual influences ; upon physical and
metaphysical regeneration but these are other ques-
tions than that now before us. What the Spirit of
God does is not the question ; but by what means the
Spirit of God operates in conversion and sanctification.
The gentleman is seeking to get off from the ques-
tion; still, he perceives the real point, for he has of-
fered arguments which have no relevancy, if that be
not the point.
He argues against my views, because they "limit the
power of God." That is, of course, in confining the
operation to the instrumentality of the Word. It lim-
its, but does not deny the operation. He is right here.
This is the issue, and the objection was made in a just
view of it. Well, now, I meet the objection as a legiti-
mate one. We shall try its merits. The Universalian
says, the Unitarian, the Calvinist, and especially the
Presbyterian, limits the power of God, because he
makes salvation depend upon faith and a holy life.
When Mr. Rice defends himself from that charge, his
defense shall be mine from his charge of limitations.
The Unitarian, too, talks against limiting the great
God, in extending salvation beyond the precincts of
Bible influence. But all this is idle talk. I do limit
the power of God only because he himself has limited
it. God can only do by his power, what his wisdom
and benevolence approve. He has no power beyotui
that, though almighty to do what these two perfections
approbate. Therefore, "He can not lie''; "He can not
deny himself." Therefore, he can not make a wicked
man happy; and, therefore, lie ran convert turn only
132 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
through the Gospel. There are physical as well as
moral impossibilities. God can not make two moun-
tains without a valley. He can not make light and
darkness cohabit the same place at the same time.
He can not lie. This is another ad-captandum argu-
ment. God can do many things he will not do. I say
again, he can only do what is in harmony with all his
perfections. There are, also, moral impossibilities. A
virtuous and kind father could kill all his children, and
yet he could not. He has physical, but not moral,
power. His arm could, but his heart could not; and,
therefore, the moral sometimes triumphs over the
physical. God can only save through the means his
wisdom, justice and benevolence dictate.
But a second objection, pertinent to the true issue, is
couched in the following terms: My doctrine "leads
to infant damnation." That is, if the Spirit operates
only through the Word, then infants can not be saved,
because they can not understand or believe the Word.
Now, if his views of faith and spiritual influence were
correct, then the objection would lie against my affir-
mation, "only through the Word." But his views be-
ing erroneous on these points, the objection is idle and
impotent. These words, "infant damnation," are ugly
words and they come not so consistently from one
who believes and teaches the Confession. His creed
divides infants into two classes the elect and the
"non-elect." Of course, then, infant damnation is in-
evitable, if the Confession be true. Now, if we were to
proportion the number of "elect infants" by the num-
ber of elect men, according to appearances, there
would be a hundred non-elect, for one. And yet this
gentleman upbraids my doctrine as objectionable, be-
cause it might, perchance, involve the possibility of
infant damnation, when his own Confession consign^.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 133
an awful overwhelming majority of all infants to eter-
nal perdition ! Think not that I exaggerate the rela-
tive proportions. Look at the whole world ! Pagans
of all castes ; Greek and Roman parties ; Jews, Turks,
Atheists, and all the reprobate Protestants! What
disproportion between the good and the bad ! It is as
one to the hundred !
There is nothing more repulsive to the human mind
than the doctrine of infant damnation. It was the first
item of Calvinistic faith at which my infant soul revolt-
ed. I still remember my boyish reasonings on that
tenet of elect and non-elect infants. I dared not to say
that it was absolutely false, seeing my creed and my
ancestors recognized it. But, thought I, can it be
true? How can it be true? An infant is born, yet
could not help it ; it opened its eyes but once, and shut
them forever and went to everlasting anguish ! ! !
That millions should be forced into existence, and
forced out of it 'in a day, a month, a year, or some six
or seven, and go down to everlasting agonies ! My
soul sickened at the thought ! and yet, I had lived full
fourteen years before I presumed to utter to any mor-
tal what my heart felt. I thank God, this doctrine of
reprobate infants is not found anywhere but in the
creed; and there they are found only in minced form.
by implication, in the words "elect infants."
There are various assertions and negations, and
sometimes oft repeated, the only object of which, as
it seems to me, is to call me off from the main issue.
I should like to refer to all these matters, some of them
several times repeated, if I had time, or if it were in-
cumbent on me. We should lose nothing by a full ex-
amination of them all. Meantime, I am just remind-
ed of the speculation on the word "holy."
The gentleman's speculations on the word "holy/'
134 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
and God's making man holy, and a holy house, etc..
have not been full of light to my reason. Holiness is
not a positive creation, an entity, a substantive exist-
ence, nor an attribute like wisdom, power, or good-
ness. It is a relative attribute. Were there no im-
purity there could be no holiness. In contrast with
impurity, God, and angels, and saints, are holy beings.
The gentleman's positions would apply as much to
Eden and paradise as to man. He might say, God
created Eden and paradise holy, as well as man. In
that acceptation the universe was made holy. I must
be permitted, though perhaps not in a way adapted to
universal intelligence and acceptance, to offer a re-
mark or two on man, tending to illustrate my position
at least.
Man, with me, when contemplated in his whole per-
son, is a plural unit. He is one man, having a body, a
soul, and a spirit. So both my philosophy and my
Bible teach. Paul prayed for the Thessalonians that
God would sanctify them wholly (holoteleis), their
body, soul and spirit. Their pnuema, psuchc, soma.
Not only have the Greeks these three names, but the
Latins also. They had their animus, their anima, and
their corpus. So had the Hebrews. So have the
moderns, as we have body, soul, spirit. The body is
a mere organized material machine the soul is the
seat of all the passions and instincts of our nature, and
is intimately connected with the blood. It is the ani-
mal life. The spirit is a purely intellectual principle,
as intimately connected with the soul as the soul with
the blood, and the vital principle. Now the spirit, or
intellectual principle, in man is not the seat of corrup-
tion, or of depravity absfractly, any more than the
mere materials of human flesh. The understanding or
intellect is indeed weakened, and sometimes perverted
INFLUP;NCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 135
by the passions, the animal instincts and impulses.
But the soul is the great seat of all those corrupting
and debasing propensities and affections that involve
the whole man in sin and misery. Man was not con-
demned for reasoning illogically; nor was he con-
demned because he was either hungry or thirsty, or
had these appetites, but because captivated by
his passions, he was led into actual rebellion. This is
still the depravity of man. His spirit is enslaved to his
passions and appetites. Its approvings and disap-
provings are all more or less contaminated, biased,
and tinged by these rebellious elements, this "law of
sin which is in his members," warring against the law
of his mind, reason and conscience. Now these not
being developed in infancy, any more than reason or
conscience, places them under quite a different dis-
pensation and destiny. Dying in that undeveloped
state, they are not the subjects of condemnation eter-
nal, never having disobeyed God, nor refused the Gos-
pel. They need not those operations of the Spirit of
which the theory of Mr. Rice so often speaks, and witli
which it is so replete, all of which originated, too, in
the brain of one Saint Augustine.
Hours might be consumed in the development of
these principles ; and without a full development, per-
haps they ought not to be introduced. I have, indeed,
spoken thus far merely to show that we have reason
to repudiate the notion of the abstract, undefinable
metaphysical regeneration of an infant, as essential to
its salvation. It only needs, as before observed, a
physical regeneration ; a destruction of that body in
which those seeds of passion and sinful appetites are
so thickly sown, in consequence of the animal and sen-
sitive having triumphed over the intellectual and moral
man, and so entailing upon our race this natural prone-
136 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
ness to evil. Hence the necessity of physical regen-
eration. The adult saint needs it as much as the in-
fant. "That law (or power) of sin" in the members,
of which Paul complained that "body of sin and
death," under which he groaned, and which made him,
in his own esteem, a "wretched man," must be de-
stroyed. While "the inward man delighted in the law
of God, he saw another law in his members, warring
against that law of his mind, and bringing him into
captivity to the law of sin, which was in his members."
Ihis will be destroyed in the saint before admission
into heaven and that is what I mean by physical re-
generation ; and this is destroyed before development
in the dying infant, and, therefore, through the Lord
Messiah ; the Resurrection and the Life ; the sin-aton-
ing Lamb of God ; the Second Adam it slumbers in
the bosom of its Father and its God, till the great re-
generation of heaven and earth.
Air. R. says he believes not in physical regeneration.
Why, then, believe in infant regeneration, without the
moral means of the Word? Without a regeneration
of the heart, he says, they can not be saved ; and that
being without knowledge, faith, love or hope, must be
either physical or metaphysical, or both. I plead the
physical regeneration of the body and animal soul, he
the physical and immediate regeneration of the spirit
while in the body. This, however, is all aside from the
great question. It comes in by the way, to illustrate
or support the fact, that with him regeneration is not
according to my eighth argument, through the incor-
ruptible seed of the Word, but without it. I will dis-
miss this episode by a quotation from Paul (Rom. v.):
"By one man's disobedience many were constituted
sinners, so by one man's obedience shall many be con-
stituted righteous"; and as death reigned, before the
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 137
law, over them that had not sinned, as Adam did, by
violating a positive precept, so grace will reign by
another man, over them that never obeyed a precept ;
who, by reason of their infancy, never on earth could
discern between good and evil. So I opine, and in so
thinking, I have much countenance, if not positive
testimony, from my Father's Book.
Our Savior's death has laid such a broad, strong,
and enduring foundation, that the Divine Father of
humanity can, with the most perfect propriety, so fat-
as mortal vision can pierce, throw the arms of his sub-
lime philanthropy around the dying millions of our
race, whose only Son was in their flesh, and not only
snatch them from the desolation of the grave, but also
train them in the skies, as he does their parents on the
earth, for the high beatitudes of an eternal fruition of
him that made and redeemed them from the earth.
Mr. Rice has not yet explained to us his views of
faith. He has a regeneration without it; indeed, in all
cases, I presume, a regeneration anterior to faith.
Faith, as I perceive, is the effect of regeneration, not
the cause, according to his theory. A holy principle
is immediately infused, and then faith is a holy act of
a holy soul, regenerated by immediate contact with the
Divine Spirit. Hence his adult and infant regenera-
tion are, if I understand him, alike physical, or with-
out the Word of God. Faith or regeneration must be
prior a simultaneous existence is not supposable.
With me faith is first, and repentance, or a change of
heart, next in the order of things in the order of
nature and causation. If regeneration be the cause of
faith, anterior to faith, without faith, then again, of
what use are all human instrumentalities, preaching.
Bibles, etc.? T wonder, except to save appearances,
why any one should be taught to read the Bible, or go
138 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
to meeting, until he is born again. If regeneration is
not within the control of any mortal instrumentality
if no means are to be used with reference to it, I ask,
then, how do men make faith void, and the Gospel of
none effect ? If the Bible be not a moral instrument in
this matter, what kind of instrument is it?
With me every Christian is a new man. His heart
is changed. His soul is renewed in the image of God,
"in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness."
God's Holy Spirit is the agent his Gospel is the in-
strument. Instrumental causes are not original nor
procuring causes. Without the instrumental, how-
ever, it can not be accomplished. No man can see
without the instrument called an eye, or the instrument
called light. Truth, and faith are the grand means,
or the conjoint means, of conversion and sanctifica-
tion.
Mr. R. must again have up Paul and Apollos. It is
a small matter, but he may have it again. I have not
opened a commentator as an authority for my views
in any case in the discussion, but I will read a few
words from Henry confirmatory of them. (Here Mr.
C. read a passage from Henry, the copy of which is
lost.)
I repose no confidence in Henry as a critic, but I do
in McKnight, who paraphrases these words thus: "I
have planted you in God's vineyard ; others have wat-
ered you by giving you instruction ; but God hath
made you to grow." Henry, in his common-sense
view, very well agrees with McKnight. I know not
how many critics agree with me, but I have the con-
text.
Paul preached the Word, and Apollos watered the
Word! A little better acquaintance with Paul and
Apollos would relieve him from this strait. Paul was a
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 139
powerful reasoner, and Apollos was an eloquent ex-
horter. Now, the reasoner is the strong man, and
therefore grubs and plants. The exhorter follows him,
and refreshes with his zeal, his ardor, his eloquence.
They do well to go together. Two by two, let them go.
One reasons and one pleads. Sinners are converted,
and saints are built up, and churches made to grow, by
such joint laborers in God's field. While the idea of
a church is in our mind, the figure is apposite and
beautiful. But substitute the Word, and it is destitute
of consistency, propriety, and beauty. It is peculiarly
unfortunate for the development of the great princi-
ples involved in these propositions, that I have no re-
spondent. Eight arguments are now before us, with-
out any response or closing upcn any one, in the form
of a direct issue. In my last I brought the united tes-
timony of Peter, Paul, and James, and of the Messiah
himself, on the indispensable instrumentality of the
Word. I gave all emphasis to the figure of seed, con-
secrated as it is by Jesus and the apostle Peter. It
appears as though Air. R. feared the figure and the
argument deduced from it. He can not but perceive
that if the Word be so compared to seed, with regard
to the new creation, whether traced in its animal or
vegetable associations, it is made essential to the
product of a new man. Where that is not the off-
spring, the product can not be. Our Savior carries
the figure so far as to say that if even the seed be sown
in the heart, and the devil should take it away by any
stratagem, then there is no change, no salvation. May
I not then conclude that the gentleman's neglect to
reply is an indisputable evidence of his lack of ability
to reply. Well, we shall expect to hear from him on
the subject of physical regeneration, and especially on
faith, as the cause or the effect of moral renovation.
140 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
The gentleman has indeed said, the seed is not every-
thing ! And so say we.
An acquaintance with Mr. Rice's manner of asser-
tion, attack, and negation, makes it the more incum-
bent on me to keep the proper issue before you, fel-
low-citizens ; and frequently to assert my views on the
subject on which we have been most calumniated.
Our reformation began in the conviction of the inade-
quacy of the corrupted forms of religion in popular
use, to effect that thorough change of heart and life
which the Gospel contemplates as so essential to ad-
mission into heaven. You may have heard me say
here, (and the whole country may have read it and
heard it many a time,) that a seven-fold im-
mersion in the river Jordan, or any other water, with-
out a previous change of heart, will avail nothing,
without a genuine faith and penitence. Nor would
the most strict conformity to all the forms and usages
of the most perfect church order ; the most exact ob-
servance of all the ordinances, without personal fanli,
piety, and moral righteousness without a new heart,
hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit any man in refer-
ence to eternal salvation.
We are represented, because of the emphasis laid
upon some ordinances, as though we made a Savior of
rites and ceremonies as believing in water regenera-
tion^ and in the saving efficacy of immersion; and as
looking no farther than to these outward bodily acts ;
all of which is just as far from the truth and from our
views as transubstantiation or purgatory. I have, in-
deed, no faith in conversion by the Word without the
Spirit; nor by the Spirit without the Word. The
Spirit is ever present with the Word, in conversion and
sanctification. A change of heart is essential to a
change of character, and both are essential to admis-
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 141
sion into the kingdom of God. "Without holiness no
man shall enjoy God." Though as scrupulous as a
Pharisee, in tithing, mint, anise, and cummin, and
rigid to the letter in all observances, without those
moral excellencies usually called righteousness and
holiness, no man can be saved eternally ; "for the un-
righteous shall nof enter the kingdom of God." (Time
expired.)
142 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. RICE'S FIFTH REPLY.
TUESDAY, November 28, n 130 o'clock A.M.
Mr. President. I do not deny that Mr. Campbell
believes in the necessity of a change of heart ; but the
great difficulty is that he rejects the only agency which
can effect it. It is of little advantage for him to urge
the necessity of such a change, so long as his doctrine
makes it unattainable. He teaches that without holi-
ness no man shall see the face of God, but denies the
only agency that can prepare him for the bliss of
heaven.
I do not know what he means when he says the
Spirit is always present with the Word, nor does he
convey any definite information concerning his views
when he says men are converted and sanctified by the
Spirit and the Word. We desire to know what he
means by these expressions. Does he mean, that in
addition to the words and arguments contained in the
Scriptures, there is an influence of the Spirit on the
heart? If so, what are we contending about? But if
I am to learn his views from his publications, he does
not so believe. The manner in which he has illus-
trated his views on this subject, leaves no room to
doubt what they are. The Holy Spirit, he has said,
operates on the minds of men just as the spirits of
Demosthenes and Cicero operated on the minds of
their hearers or readers. But, I ask, would there be
any propriety in saying that the spirits of Demosthenes
and Cicero are always present with their writings ?
Who ever heard of such language being employed?
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 143
If his illustration is not wholly deceptive, the Holy
Spirit is with the Word in no other sense than the
spirits of those ancient orators are present with their
writings which still are extant !
It is very important that we do not lose sight of
the real difference between us. I will, therefore, again
read a passage from his Christianity Restored, which
I read on yesterday:
"Every spirit puts forth its moral power in words ;,
that is, all the power it has over the views, habits,
manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and
arrangement of its ideas expressed in words, or in sig-
nificant signs addressed to the eye or ear. * * *
The argument is the power of the spirit of man, and
the only power which one spirit can exert over another
is its arguments."
Observe, he says only moral power can be exerted
on minds, and every spirit puts forth the only power
it can exert over others in words and arguments. The
whole converting and sanctifying power of the Holy
Spirit, he contends, is in the written Word. The
Spirit dictated and confirmed the Word, and the Word
accomplishes the whole work of conversion and sanc-
tification. It is against this doctrine that I enter my
solemn protest.
Mr. C. says, he holds, that the Word is only the
instrument in conversion and sanctifkation. This,
however, like his other statements, is entirely ambigu-
ous, for the words of Demosthenes and Cicero were
the instruments by which they sought to produce an
effect on the minds of their hearers and readers. But
he does not come out plainly and tell us whether he
believes in any influence of the Spirit direct from the
Word. Does the gentleman now believe in any such
additional influence in conversion and sanrtinYattcm,
144 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
or does he still hold the doctrine taught in his publica-
tions? Does he retract his former views?
In our correspondence, so far as I had anything to
do with it, I was careful to have a perfect understand-
ing that I should have the right to explain the propo-
sition by his published writings. To this he agreed,
and I have read them. And most certainly he does
deny any influence of the Holy Spirit in conversion
and sanctification, except the mere force o words and
arguments !
I am truly gratified that the gentleman has brought
forward the charge against us of holding the doctrine
of the damnation of infants, because it is believed by
many who are unacquainted with our views. He says
our Confession of Faith teaches this doctrine. This
is not correct. It is true that it speaks of elect infants.
''Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and
saved by Christ through the Spirit." Are all infants
dying in infancy elect ? All Presbyterians who express
an opinion on the subject so believe. The expression,
"elect infants," the gentleman seems to think, implies
non-elect infants ; but I call on him to produce one
respectable Presbyterian author who ever interpreted
the Confession of Faith as he has. I never heard a
Presbyterian minister, nor read a Presbyterian author
who expressed the opinion that infants dying in in-
fancy are lost. Mr. Campbell boasts of his familiarity
with the doctrine of our Church. He, then, is the very
man to make good this oft-repeated charge. I call
for the proof.
So far as I know the sentiments of Presbyterians on
this subject, they believe that all that die in infancy
are of the elect are chosen of God to eternal life, and
are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and saved accord-
ing to his eternal purpose. Infants do not die by acci-
dent. He whose providence extends to the falling of
INFLUENCE OF THE; HOLY SPIRIT. 145
the sparrow, takes care of every human being; and
we believe that his purpose is to save those whom
he calls from time before they are capable of knowing
the truth.
But the gentleman has made the charge that the
Presbyterian Church holds the doctrine of the damna-
tion of infants, and now I demand the proof. What
proportion of the human family are chosen to eternal
life, our Confession of Faith does not profess to deter-
mine. The calculations of Mr. C., therefore, is an
affair of his own, for which we are not responsible.
The very worst that any candid man can say of our
Confession, so far as this subject is concerned, is
that it does not profess to determine whether all in-
fants are saved. It gives not the least intimation that
any are lost.
But the gentleman tells us that, when quite young,
his mind was shocked at this doctrine. Is it not, then,
most marvelous that whilst his mind revolted at the
imagined doctrine that some infants may be lost, he
should have embraced a doctrine that makes it utterly
impossible that any of those dying in infancy can be
saved! It was certainly a most singular effect of his
early dislike of what he imagined to be the doctrine
of our Church !
I must say a word or two in reply to his remarks
concerning the limiting of the power of God over the
human mind. He says he does limit the power of God,
and that the Universalists complain of him for so
doing, and he has specified two things which God
can not do, viz.: He can not lie, and he can not make
two hills without a valley ! I was not aware that these
things were the objects of power. Absurdities are not
the objects of power. There is no objection to his
speaking of the exertion of God's power as limited
where God has so spoken; but I call on him now to
146 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
show us where, in the Bible, God has said that he
can not, or that he will not, exert on the human mind
any power except through words and arguments. Or
where has he said that he can not or will not sanctify
the hearts of any of the human family without the
Word! There is not such passage from Genesis to
Revelation. And since God has not limited himself,
who dares undertake to limit him ?
Mr. C., let it be remembered, not only denies that
God does exert on the human mind any other power
than that of words or arguments ; but he even goes
so far as to assert that he can not operate except by
the Truth ! ! ! Where has God said that he can not ?
Nowhere. How, then, can any man venture to say so?
I was quite pleased with the gentleman's last speech.
For our cause it was the best he has made since the
debate commenced, except that remarkable one on
yesterday morning. His doctrine has driven him into
absurdities so glaring that all must see them. He
asserts that God did not create man holy, and says we
might as well talk of making the Garden of Eden
holy! Solomon said, "God made man upright, but
he sought out many inventions." What is the mean-
ing of the word "upright"? What is the difference
between uprightness and holiness? If the gentleman
chooses to charge Solomon with talking foolishly, let
him do it. It is the language of Divine revelation.
Mr. C. says that there is no depravity in intellect
that it is all in our animal passions, which belong to the
body. I was pleased to hear him advance this doc-
trine. Not that I desire to see any one run into dan-
gerous error, but I am glad when false principles lead
to such results as to prove to every one their errone-
ousness. The doctrine that depravity is in the body,
not in the mind, is indeed quite ancient. The Mani-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 147
cheans held that matter is inherently evil, and that the
soul is not depraved. Hence, they believed that to
become holy it was only necessary to afflict, starve,
and emaciate the body ! If all sin is in the body, the
sooner we get out of it the sooner we shall get clear
of sin. If sin belongs to the body, let us get the body
into a proper state, and all will be right !
But I understand that "sin is the transgression of
the law," not that it consists in corruption of the body.
The works of the flesh, as enumerated by Paul, are
"Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,
drunkenness, revellings, and such like." By the word
"flesh," as I have repeatedly remarked, he means the
depraved nature of the human mind, and these are its
works. Yet Mr. C. tells you that depravity is in -the
appetites and passions belonging to the body ! This
is not only a contradiction of Paul, but of his own
doctrine, as stated in his Christian System, where he
says:
"Man, then, in his natural state, was not merely an
animal, but an intellectual, moral, pure and holy
being."
Admitting and teaching that God created him holy.
Again:
"There is, therefore, a sin of our nature, as well as
personal transgression. Some inappositely call the
sin of our nature our 'Original Sin'; as if the sin of
Adam was the personal offense of all his children.
True, indeed, it is, our nature was corrupted by the
fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us, and,
hence, that hereditary imbecility to do good, and that
proneness to do evil, so universally apparent in all
human beings. Let no man open his mouth against
the transmission of a moral distemocr until he satis-
148 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
factorily explains the fact that the special character-
istic vices of parents appear in their children, as much
as the color of their skin, their hair, or the contour
of their faces. A disease in the moral constitution of
man is as clearly transmissible as any physical taint,
if there be any truth in history, biography, or human
observation. * * * All inherit a fallen, conse-
quently a sinful nature, though all are not equally
depraved. * * * Condemned of natural death,
and greatly fallen and depraved in our whole moral
constitution, though we certainly are, in consequence
of the sin of Adam," etc. (Chap. IV., Sec. 4, pp.
29, 30.)
Now, observe, he here distinctly states that there is
a sin of our nature, as well as personal transgression.
Yet he has positively asserted, during this discussion,
that there can be no disposition where there is no
knowledge! In his last speech he located sin in the
body ; but here he says, "Let no man open his mouth
against the transmission of moral distemper until he
can satisfactorily explain the fact," etc. "A disease
in the moral constitution of man is as clearly trans-
missible as any physical taint, if there be any truth
in history, biography, or human observation !" And
on the next page, "All inherit a fallen, therefore a sin-
ful nature"; or would he say a sinful body? Again,
he represents man as depraved in his whole moral con-
stitution ! Ah, when a man, in order to sustain his
tenets, is forced into such palpable contradictions, con-
cerning subjects so clear, he must feel that his cause
is hopeless !
A word about physical regeneration. He says
regeneration, without means, as in case of infants, is
physical regeneration. Let him prove it. He has
asserted it, but the Bible does not so teach. I deny
that the regeneration of a soul, without means, is phy-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 149
sical, and an assertion is, I think, properly met by
a denial.
Mr. C. says I have not defined regeneration. I have
explained conversion to mean a change of heart, fol-
lowed by a change of life. The former is commonly
called regeneration, and the latter conversion. Regen-
eration is a change of heart from sinfulness to holi-
ness, and, consequently, from the love and practice
of sin to the love and service of God. When the heart
is renewed, man loves that Savior against whom here-
tofore it rose in enmity. He sees a divine beauty and
loveliness where before he saw, as it were, a root out
of a dry ground. It is of this blessed work of the
Spirit Paul speaks, when he says: "It is God that
worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure.''
The heart is renewed by the Holy Spirit, and the result
is that the sinner wills r.nd acts in obedience to God's
commands.
The gentleman has read Henry's Commentary to
prove that in I Cor. iii. 6 Paul spoke of planting a
church.. I have not examined Henry on this passage,
but I observed that he read Henry's comment, not on
the passage in dispute, but on the loth verse, in which
Paul says: "I as a wise master-builder have laid the
foundation!" What was the foundation? It was
Christ crucified the doctrine of the cross. "Other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ."
But I will admit, for the sake of argument, that
Paul, when he used the word "planted," meant plant-
ing the church. I see not how this can help the gen-
tleman's argument. Paul planted the church, but God
caused it to grow gave the increase. Paul planted it
instrumentally ; God, by his spirit, gave efficiency to
the work. I have no objection, so far as this argument
is concerned, to this interpretation. I will cheerfully
150 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
admit that Paul planted the church instrumentally ; but
I also contend that God caused it to grow gave it life
and increase. The gentleman, however, overlooked the
fifth verse: "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos,
but the ministers by whom ye believe, even as the Lord
gave to every man?" This passage speaks distinctly
of a divine influence leading the Corinthian Christians
to believe ; but my friend did not see it !
He says there was never a tree without a seed, and
hence he infers that no one was ever converted with-
out the Word. This is running out figurative expres-
sions, so as to make them contradict the plain teach-
ing of the Bible. God at first created trees without
seeds, and made all things without means. He fed
the Israelites in the wilderness without means, because
means could not be employed. The gentleman might
as well deny that Elijah was fed by a raven, because
persons are not commonly thus supplied with food.
God clothes and feeds men only in connection with
means, when by the exertion of the power he has
pfiven them the means can be used ; but he has never
confined himself to means. Nor has he ever said that
he will, in no case, regenerate and sanctify without the
written Word.
I wish the audience distinctly to see the contradic-
tory positions of the gentleman. Yesterday he as-
sumed one position, and to-day the opposite. In my
argument. shoAving that his doctrine necessarily in-
A r olves the damnation of infants, I stated the fact that
infants are depraved. I stated, Avhat all admit, that
they can not be sanctified through the truth. The
conclusion, then, is unavoidable, that if they are not
sanctified by the Spirit without the truth, they must,
dying in infancy, either e^o to heaven in their deprav-
ity, or be forever lost. He admits their depravity, and
therefore he is forced to admit that if not sanctified
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 151
without the truth, they go to heaven in unholiness, or
to hell!
To escape the force of this argument he told us, on
yesterday, that only the atonement of Christ is neces-
sary to save infants. But I replied that the blood shed
on the cross does not change the heart ; and that the
difficulty in the way is that they are unholy. Now, to
escape the difficulty in which he is involved, he has
located their depravity in the body. But this is not
only absurd and unscriptural, but it is contradictory
of his own writings on this very subject !
The difficulty, then, returns upon him with double
force. If the doctrine taught in his Christian System
is true, infants are depraved in their whole moral con-
stitution ; and, I ask, can beings thus depraved dwell
in the presence of the infinitely holy God? Who can
believe it possible? The gentleman has contradicted
himself more than once, and is now involved in the
gross absurdity of maintaining the doctrine of cor-
poreal depravity!
I, therefore, again urge against him the unanswer-
able argument that his doctrine necessarily involves
the damnation of all that die in infancy. The argu-
ment is a fair one it is perfectly legitimate. It is
what logicians call the rcductio ad absurdum. He
admits that the doctrine of infant damnation is both
false and absurd. Consequently by proving that his
doctrine necessarily involves this absurdity, I prove it
untrue.
I will now bring forward some further Scripture
evidence in favor of the doctrine of the special agency
of the Spirit in conversion and sanctification, for I pre-
fer to go by the Bible. I had supposed, from his for-
mer professions, that my friend, Mr. C., would do the
same ; but he has found it necessary to use a great deal
of philosophy quite an abundance of metaphysics.
152 CAMPBELL,- RICE DEBATE.
He seems to prefer these speculations to the Word of
God'.
I will read Ephesians ii. I : "And you hath he
quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins."
The word ''quickened," it is true, is not found in the
original Greek, in the first verse; but it is in the fifth.
"Even when we were dead in sins (God) hath quick-
ened us together with Christ." The apostle repre-
sents men as dead in sin, and God as having quick-
ened or made them alive. Did he quicken them with
words and arguments? Did he reason with them, and
exhort them to live? Surely this is not the meaning
of the apostle. Jesus Christ stood at the grave of
Lazarus, and said: "Lazarus, come forth." Did he
raise Lazarus from the dead merely by the words ut-
tered, or by an exertion of almighty power accom-
panying the word? Every one admits, at once, that
Lazarus was quickened by an immediate exertion of
divine power. Precisely similar language is used with
regard to regeneration. Men are dead ; and God
quickens them.
The next passage I read is in the tenth verse of the
same chapter, where the apostle proves that men are
not saved by good works: "For we are his workman-
ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God hath before ordained that we should walk in
them." Now observe how it came to pass that the
Ephesian Christians performed good works. God
created them anew unto good works ; their good works
were all the result of a new creation, of which God was
the author. Was this a creation by arguments? A
.creation by words and motives? The apostle used the
very strongest term in any language, without qualifi-
cation. And when the inspired writers selected the
strongest language to express their ideas, and used it
without qualification, we must take their words in
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 153
their obvious and undiminished meaning. What
word in the English, Hebrew, or Greek language
could be selected that would more unequivocally ex-
press the idea of a direct divine influence on the heart
than the word "create" ? God directs his servants to
use the strongest expressions on this subject, evi-
dently knowing that there was no danger of their be-
ing misunderstood. We are, then, obliged to under-
stand by this language a special divine influence, dis-
tinct from words and arguments, on the hearts of men.
The language is too plain to require the aid of criti-
cism to elicit its meaning, or to be obscured by plausi-
ble interpretations. (Time expired.)
154 CAMPBELL-RICK DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S SIXTH ADDRESS.
TUESDAY, November 28, 12 o'clock M.
Mr. President. You perceive, sir, I doubt not, in
common with this great assembly, that in the latitude
and longitude of Mr. Rice's theory of response in de-
bate, there is not a single point of theoretic or polemic
theology that may not legitimately, or illegitimately,
be brought into this discussion ; and that, according to
his interpretation of our rules of debate, we may touch
at every point in the compass of the most extended
ecclesiastic creed, in good keeping with the most strict
construction of the proposition before us. Every-
thing, it seems, can interest Mr. R. and call forth
some attention except the arguments on which I rely,
and to which I challenge special attention. It is ex-
ceedingly painful to me to have to occupy so much
time in the mere statement of what has been done, or
left undone, by my respondent. But to pass on, from
argument to argument, without any reply or debate
on the proper issue, and without a single notice of the
failure or neglect on his part, would seem neither re-
spectful to myself, nor to the audience. I exceedingly
regret, sir, that I have so little to reply to, in the
speech which we have just now heard. I have asked,
not for the sake of asking a question with the appear-
ance of something under it of great importance, as I
have seen some persons do, but, sir, I have asked the
gentleman for a single verse, Old Testament or New,
that asserts regeneration by the Spirit alone. When
adducing those of the most unambiguous and incon-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 155
trovertible import, affirming regeneration through the
instrumentality of the Word of God, I have not suc-
ceeded, either in getting such a text, or in obtaining
a response to those which I have presented.
His assumed leading objection to our views on the
proposition in discussion is, that we rather make void
the necessity of spiritual influence in our teachings of
the Christian religion, while our grand objection to his
theory of spiritual influence in the work of conversion
is, that it makes void the necessity of preaching the
Gospel or reading the Bible. And while some affect
to believe that we take too many into the church on
our terms of discipleship, we are of opinion that the
opposite theory takes in too many that ought not to be
admitted, both adults and infants, and that it keeps out
of the Christian profession a great mass of intelligent
and virtuous persons, many of them more worthy than
some in the church, who are waiting for some miracle,
some special impulse divine, which may at once reno-
vate and rouse them into spiritual life and action ; in
the absence of which they dare not presume upon
making the Christian profession. To settle these mat-
ters, an appeal to the Scriptures, and to such reason-
ings as the Scriptures seem to sanction, has been insti-
tuted, and we have only to regret that it has not been
followed up.
Notwithstanding the apparent absurdity of the
thing, there are not a few who still regard something
like physical impulses operating upon the soul as a
hammer in the hand of a smith operates upon the
metal placed upon his anvil. Their notion, as far as
we can gather it, is, that the spirit of God comes into
a personal contact with the spirit of a man, and either
new-molds, or attempers, or changes, or imbues it
with something from himself, which is sometimes
called the infusion of a holy principle. And this seed
156 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
or principle remains immutably and forever in that
person, according to one theory, without any possi-
bility of a failure of eternal life, but according to oth-
ers, it may be lost forever. This divine touch is some-
times compared to that which reanimated the body of
Lazarus, or raised to life the dead body of Jesus. The
other theory is, that the Word or Gospel of God is
that type or medium through which it sheds abroad
in the human heart the love of God to man in the gift
of his Son, and thus renews him in the moral image
of his Redeemer, through an inward revelation of his
grace and mercy in the heart.
Mr. Rice is greatly indebted to my writings. They
supply him with something to read and to say, and
give him an opportunity to play upon words. Every
man of observation, however, understands the policy ;
and, therefore, it fails, as he does, to establish any real
discrepancy and especially that he can not get me into
a mere logomachy. But once more I will enter my
protest against his manner of quoting my writings. It
is neither magnanimous, nor is it generous, nor is it
fair. A man with genius enough to be a mere quibbler,
and that never had a very large capital, can figure away
in great style in making Paul contradict James, and,
worse still, in making Paul contradict himself. The
master quibblers in the science of doubting arc inim-
itably astute in the art. Paul, says one, affirmed that
"a man was justified by faith without works"; and
James says, "A man is justified by works, and not by
faith." Reconcile your two inspired apostles, if you
can! Again, continues he, Paul contradicted himself,
for he said: "If you be circumcised Christ shall profit
you nothing." Yet he took his son Timothy, a Chris-
tian man, who had been baptized also, and circumcised
him, and sent him to preach Christ ! What a con-
sistent man was votir Doctor Paul !
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 157
I could find a hundred instances of this sort in the
Bible, and spend a month with a skeptic arguing them.
See what a file of newspapers, pamphlets and Har-
bingers my friend has got around him ! Does he dream
of diverting me from the grand position into all these
documents? I do not intend any such discussion. He
may have that to himself, and I will attend to my busi-
ness. I will give argument for argument, and docu-
ment for document on the question before us ; but
these hundred and one other topics the gentleman will
please reserve for some other more favorable oppor-
tunity. As the gentleman affirms regeneration with-
out faith, he had better proceed to prove it by an
induction of cases, and then I will examine them, if he
can not respond to me.
He represented me as saying that all sin was in the
body. I did not say so, nor anything so importing. I
have only said that "Sin works in our members," and
that "in the flesh dwelleth no good thing," and that
there is "a law working in the flesh and warning
against the law of the rnind, and bringing it into cap-
tivity to the law of sin, which is in the body" and that,
therefore, the seeds of sin and the roots of transgres-
sion are in the passions, and that the spirit is brought
into captivity to the flesh ; but there are the "sinful
desires of the mind," as well as of the flesh, in conse-
quence of this captivity. I said that sin works through
the body. Hence the greatest saint may, like Paul,
long for the redemption of the body from sin and
death. "Who shall deliver me from this body of sin
and death? I thank God through Jesus Christ my
Lord."
These reflections and associations led Paul to
descant with great earnestness and grandeur upon the
earnest expectation of the creature, and of the adop-
tion, to wit: "The redemption of the body." I must
158 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
take the pleasure of reading, with a passing remark,
two or three sentences. Rom. viii. 19-21: "The earn-
est expectation" of our humbled body, "the creature,
waiteth" in joyful hope "for the manifestation," the
full development, "of the sons of God" in their pure,
sinless and immortal bodies. "For the creature" the
mortal body "was made subject to vanity" dissolu-
tion "not willingly," but it is reconciled to the grave
"by reason of him who has subjected it, in hope that
the creature" the body "itself shall be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious lib-
erty of the sons of God" at the resurrection. This is
a portion of the glorious hope of every saint.
Now the dying infant is delivered from this body,
sown with all these elements of sin, these "desires of
the flesh," and the aged saint is also delivered from
the same by death. This physical regeneration, the
birth of the spirit, is essential to an entrance into the
everlasting kingdom. But whence came this new des-
ignation, "elect infants"? It is not elect persons, nor
elect men. but elect infants. There certainly were non-
elect infants not only non-elect men, but non-elect
infants. Who taught this language? The creed and
not the Bible. But we have been just now informed,
by a revelation made from the upper world through
Mr. Rice, that all infants that die are "elect infants."
If we had only a miracle, we might believe in this new
revelation. But what becomes of the non-elect infants ?
They become non-elect men. Why, then, call them
non-elect infants, as none of that kind can die? All
non-elect infants are immortal infants. As infants they
can not die ! ! It is only above a year ago that this
new revelation of elect infants being all dying infants,
first reached my ears. The Scotch Presbyterians never
have been favored with this new revelation. I must
again read this remarkable passage.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 159
"3. Elect 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
all other elect persons, who are incapable of being out-
wardly called by the ministry of the Word."
The Westminster divines must have got into Mr.
Rice's dilemma when they conceived this doctrine.
They supposed but three conditions of the question.
Infants dying were lost, or infants dying were saved ;
and if saved, they must be regenerated, because none
can enter heaven but regenerate persons. They as-
sumed the last, and made the doctrine to escape from
the folly of the assumption! There are, then, three
classes of elect persons to be regenerated by the Spirit
without the Word. These are elect infants, elect
pagans and elect idiots. Of four classes of mankind,
but one are regenerated through the Word. My friend
will have three subjects of physical regeneration for
my one. Will the gentleman say that all these elect
pagans are, like infants, in a state of irresponsibility?
And if they are not, in what consists the parallelism?
I heard of a lady who drank pretty deep into this new
revelation. She became a monomaniac. She had a
small family of infant children ; and weary of the world
herself, she thought it was best to make her own mind
easy about her offspring, and to make their happiness
secure. She accordingly rose up in the night and
strangled them all. She gave this, on trial, as the
only reason of her conduct. Of course, she was sent
to the lunatic asylum.
I regret that my friend, Mr. Rice, could find so
much time to discuss this matter rather than the ques-
tion. I shall dismiss it with a single remark, viz.,
that it is but a flimsy and superficial covering for a
very incredible and unchristian dogma. I would then
advise its being expunged from the book altogether.
160 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
Because, among other reasons, it had been more ra-
tional to have made the non-elect infants die ; for then
there would have been much more mercy than in this
scheme. The elect would have lost nothing by living
seventy years, but rather gained much by their good
works; and the non-elect would have gained much,
too, in having no punishment to endure for actual
transgressions; their only cause of regret would then
be merely that they had been born. Thus dispose we
of this branch of the philosophy of infant regeneration,
without the Word.
The gentleman, in responding to my remarks upon
the word "holy," quoted a passage highly complimen-
tary to his philological skill in interpreting language.
As a proof that God created Adam holy, he says, "God
made man upright, but they have sought out many
inventions." Now the question is, are "holy" and
"upright" synonymous terms? Does "upright" and
"holy" mean the same ? Mr. Rice, by the force of the
quotation, makes a holy man an upright man, and an
upright man is a holy man still, they are not at all
equivalent. No man accustomed to criticism has ever
argued that because two epithets are applied to one
man, the epithets must be one and the same in sense.
Holiness means separation from sin. Sin must, there-
fore, previously exist before the term "holiness" could
come into use. Hagiosune is derived from hagee, and
that is a compound of two words a, privative, and
gee, the earth. Hagios, "holy," therefore, means
separate from the earth ; no earth, no separation from
it. There is, then, a contrast in the word itself un-
earthy, not earthy, separate from the earth. The very
origin of the word "holy" intimates that there was
something unclean before it, just as the word "un-
earthy" indicates there was something earthy before it.
It is, therefore, good sense to say that God made man
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 161
perfect, or in his own image. But the Bible does not
say that God made man holy, and therefore I object
to it in such an argument as this ; although, in common
free conversational style, I have no objection to say
that Adam was holy till he sinned.
The term "holy" is applied to the earth, to anything
at all separated to God's service or presence. Moses,
said God, "take off your shoes, for you stand on holy
ground." The Lord was there ; that spot was separ-
ated to the presence of God, There is no moral qual-
ity in the word "holy." It indicates no moral attrib-
ute. It can, therefore, be applied to an altar, a temple,
a camp, a % vessel, the earth, or anything sacred to the
Lord. God is said to be holy, because he is separated
from all impurity ; infinitely separated from sin. "He
is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity."
The argument, then, is, that God made Adam holy,
and he makss an infant holy: the first by creation, the
second by regeneration. And what means a holy
infant? One regenerate, or one simply sanctified or
separated to the Lord, as Samuel or John the Baptist
was? If in that sense, the word is misapplied to regen-
eration ; because these persons, like Jeremiah, are sep-
arated to the Lord or some special work. All persons
and things called holy in the Bible were specially set
apart and separated to God in some peculiar way, or
for some very special purpose. To apply this word as
Mr. Rice has done, is, therefore, to mystify its proper
meaning in the Scriptures, to confuse the sacred dia-
lect, and to mislead us in our conceptions of Adam and
his offspring. It is, therefore, an innovation not to be
tolerated, but rather repudiated by all sensible and
reflecting men.
I shall fill out my time with a few remarks on his
definition of regeneration. He has at last given us a
definition of this important word. But he has not yet
1 62 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
answered the great question whether regeneration is
the cause or the effect of faith? Is regeneration the
cause of faith or prior to faith, or is faith the effect of
regeneration, or subsequent to it ? Are they simultan-
eous? What connection between them ? Is there any
connection ? and if any, what is it ? I have brought up
the subject in every form I can conceive of, to elicit
from him such an expression as will facilitate our clear
and satisfactory decision of this much and long-liti-
gated case.
He has, indeed, vouchsafed the following definition
of regeneration: "It is a change of heart from a love
of sin to a love of holiness." Whether it be an act, a
process, or an effect, is not distinctly stated. Nothing
but the heart is changed in regeneration. No such
regeneration is found in the Bible. Persons are there
spoken of as regenerated after their hearts are changed.
His is scholastic regeneration. Be it so. We now un-
derstand him. Regeneration is, then, a change of
heart from one love to another love. Now I believe
in such a change, though I do not believe in calling it
regeneration: for certainly regeneration in the New
Testament is not that thing. A regenerated person is
a new creature.
It is, then, but a change of disposition: for love is no
more than an affection or disposition of the mind.
There must, then, be a prior disposition ; for, unless
there be a disposition existing already, there can be no
change of it. This is self-evident. Now, a disposition
always presupposes an object. No person can think of
a disposition, without conceiving of something to
which the mind is turned or disposed. No one can
possibly be disposed to an object of which he knows
nothing. He must see in the object something- to call
forth his attention to allure, to attract, or some way
draw out his affection or disposition towards it. Xeed
INFLUENCE OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 163
I ask how a person can love an object, or hate an ob-
ject, of which he is perfectly ignorant ?
But regeneration is a change of one disposition for
another. Consequently there must be a change of ob-
jects to the mind. The mind must have in contrast
two sorts of objects. It must contemplate them clear-
ly, compare them accurately, discover a difference, a
superior beauty and loveliness, before the disposition
leaves the one and cleaves to the other. Now, I ask,
is an infant susceptible of all this discovery, contem-
plation, comparison, intelligence, preference and
choice of objects? Can a child have any moral or im-
moral disposition, without an object? Can it have an
object which it sees not, contemplates not, and can not
apprehend? Can it abandon one object and prefer an-
other, without perception, comparison, and conclu-
sion without the power of reasoning and the posses-
sion of previous knowledge ? I repeat it, sir, the gen-
tleman's definition is fatal to his cause. It is without
fact, without philosophy, without the Bible, and there-
fore, can not be assented to by any one of thought and
reflection, whose mind has been called to the rational
examination of the subject. Have we not, then, from
his own definition, given a requiem to his speculation,
and forever sealed up his argument? When Mr. Rice
disposes of this argument, we shall give him a few
more. But, sir, he will never try. (Time expired.)
1 64 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. RICE'S SIXTH REPLY.
TUESDAY, November 28, 12:30 o'clock P.M.
Mr. President. My friend calls on me to prove by
the Scriptures that the Spirit ever operates in conver-
sion and sanctification without the truth. He affirms,
and has undertaken to prove, that the Spirit operates
only through the truth. Has he produced a solitary
passage that sustains his proposition ? He has not, and
he will not ; for there is none such in the Bible. But
he is in the affirmative. With what propriety, then,
does he call on me to prove a negative? I might re-
main silent until he produces at least some show of ar-
gument from the Scriptures ; for he professes to hold
no article of faith for which he can not produce a
"Thus saith the Lord." Where is his Scripture proof
of the proposition now before us ?
The Scriptures, as I have proved, speak of three
agencies or influences, in the conversion and sanctifica-
tion of men the ministry, the Word, and the Holy
Spirit. Mr. Campbell takes the ministry and the
Word, but rejects the agency of the Spirit. I take all
the three. This is the difference between us.
He say he did not assert that all depravity is in the
body. Yet, to prove that it has its seat in the body,
he read to us the language of Paul to the Romans,
chap. vii. 23: "But I see another law in my members,
warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me
into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my mem-
bers. Oh, wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver
me from the body of this death?" But by his mem-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 165
bers, and the body of death, Paul did not mean his own
body, but the corrupt propensities of his nature. He
represents his remaining corruption as a dead body,
which, in all its loathsomeness, he was carrying about
with him. He desired most earnestly to be delivered,
not from his natural body, but from his indwelling cor-
ruption.
The audience will remember my argument on this
subject. I proved that the gentleman's doctrine neces-
sarily involves the damnation of infants, because they
are depraved, and he denies that they can be sanctified
without the truth. I then understood him to say that
depravity is in the body, and, therefore, their souls
might be saved. But now he has got the depravity
back in the soul, and is involved in the old difficulty.
The minds of infants, he admits, are depraved. How,
then, can they be sanctified? Certainly not through
the truth ; and he denies that they can be sanctified by
the Spirit, without the truth. Consequently, accord-
ing to his doctrine, they die in their depravity, and are
lost ! There is no escape from the difficulty.
But Mr. C. says that I am very unfair in quoting his
writings ; that he could read the writings of Paul so as
to make him apparently contradict himself. If any
one attempts to prove that Paul contradicts himself, I
am prepared to prove his perfect consistency. And if
I have misrepresented Mr. Campbell, as he charges, he
is the man, of all others, best qualified to correct the
misrepresentation. Then let him do it. He is per-
fectly at liberty to produce his writings, and to prove,
if he can, that I have misrepresented him. He con-
ceded to me the right as the correspondence
will show a right which I should have had
without his consent to read his writings in
explanation of the proposition stated by him-
self; and now he is disposed to complain of
1 66 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
me for doing it. I know it is distressing to him, but
I can not help it. I can not possibly misunderstand
his writings on this subject ; for he states, with perfect
clearness, that there are only two kinds of power
moral and physical. The former, which is exerted
only by words and arguments, operating on mind ; and
the latter, on matter. In the book from which I read
his views are presented with entire clearness. I only
wish he had stated them as clearly in this discussion.
If he had come out with an open and fair presentation
of his views, we should have known just where to find
him. As it is, they are involved in mist and darkness
impenetrable. Yet he is a man of remarkably clear in-
tellect; but he is singularly inconsistent. At one time
he states his doctrines so clearly as to admit of no
doubt concerning them ; and at another, he is dark as
midnight, and it is impossible to ascertain what he be-
lieves.
I am happy, however, to have his books, from which
we are able to ascertain precisely what he has taught,
and to repel his charges of misrepresentation. If a
man should, in a public discussion with me, read from
a book of mine, and should not read enough fairly to
represent me, I would read the remainder of the con-
nection. Let Mr. C. do so.
He quotes Paul, complaining that sin did work in
his members, and that he carried about with him a
body of death ; and he tells us, the members are the
corrupted passions seated in the body ; and that Paul,
when he came to die, needed a regeneration as much as
do infants. I know of no system of philosophy that
confines the passions to the body. We speak of the
passion of hatred, or the passion of love. Some of the
passions belong particularly to the body; others to the
mind. These two classes Paul enumerates together,
as the works of the flesh. (Gal. v. 19-21.) Anger,
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 167
wrath, malice, hatred, envy, etc., belong to the mind.
Paul found depravity in the mind. What he meant b>
the body of death, we may, perhaps, learn from chap-
ter 6th, verse 6th, of the same epistle: "Knowing that
our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin
might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not
serve sin." The old man, or corrupt nature, is cruci-
fied ; and the new man, or renewed nature, leads to a
holy life. The same idea is conveyed, when he says,
"They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with
the affections and lusts."
The gentleman is now placed in this predicament:
he must maintain the absurd doctrine that depravity is
only in the body, and not in the mind and certainly
his arguments look that way and therefore infants,
being pure when they leave the body, can go to heav-
en ; or he must hold that they die in their moral cor-
ruption, and are forever lost ! There is no way to
escape from these absurdities, but by abandoning his
theory concerning spiritual influence. I can not but
believe it would be better to abandon his theory than
meet the consequences.
But he seeks to shield himself by charging our
Church with holding the doctrine of infant damnation.
The expression, "elect infants," used in our Confession
of Faith, teaches no such thing. The word "elect" sig-
nifies chosen from or out of; and infants are chosen
from the world, the human family. But he says, as
there can not be adults without infants, so there can
not be elect infants without non-elect adults. I was not
aware that there could not be adults without infants.
I know there have been adults without infants, and
possibly there might be again. It is not true that the
word "elect," applied to infants dying in infancy, im-
plies that there are non-elect infants ! Though he car.
not prove the doctrine to be in our Confession, he tells
1 68 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
us he has heard it preached in good old Scotland. I
was never in Scotland, nor can I know what strange
things he may have heard there; but I again call on
him to produce one respectable Presbyterian author
who has taught this doctrine. He has asserted that
the Presbyterian Church holds the doctrine of infant
damnation, and I demand the proof. Whenever I pre-
fer a charge against his Church, the proof shall be
forthcoming when called for, and when he makes
charges against my Church, I shall certainly expect
him to prove them. I hope he will not shrink from
proving his assertions.
Concerning the doctrine of election, I will only re-
mark, that I am not disposed to mingle together things
which are entirely distinct ; I am, however, prepared to
discuss this doctrine with him, whenever he chooses to
enter into it properly ; but I do not intend to permit him
to divert the attention of the audience from the sub-
ject under consideration.
That infants are depraved, he admits. That they
can not be sanctified through the truth, we know. He
denies that they can be sanctified without the truth.
They must, therefore, die in sin, and be forever lost.
I leave you, my friends, to determine whether a doc-
trine involving such consequences can be true.
Strangely enough, Mr. C. denies that God created
man holy. I quoted the passage, "God made man
upright." But now, for the first time in my life, I
have heard it asserted that the word "holy" does not
express moral quality. When the heavenly hosts ex-
claim, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty," do not
they express moral quality? But the gentleman says
the word implies previous sinfulness. Angels are said
to be holy, and God is holy. Does the word, in these
cases, imply previous sin ? If, however, the gentleman
is disposed to be hypercritical about the word "holy"
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 169
I will take the word "upright." "God made man up-
right." This word signifies, literally, standing erect or
straight; and, as applied to denote moral qualities, it
means conformity of God's law. He whose heart and
life accord with that rule, is said to be an upright man.
The gentleman is now placed in the same difficulty
from which he vainly sought to escape ; for certain it is
that God made man upright, and that he did it not by
words and arguments. If, then, God did, at first,
create him upright, not by words or arguments, who
shall say he can not exert on his mind a divine influ-
ence, creating him anew unto good works? And if he
can exert such an influence on the mind of an adult,
who will deny that he can sanctify the infant?
He asks whether faith is the cause or the effect of
regeneration. I am not disposed to be diverted from
the proposition before us, to the discussion of other
questions. The question now before us is, whether the
Spirit of God operates only through the truth ? Does
the Bible say, the Spirit operates only through the
truth? It does not. But it does plainly teach tha<- in-
fants must be regenerated, or born again. "For," said
our Savior, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This is the
reason why the new birth is absolutely necessary. But
infants are born of the flesh : therefore they must be
born of the Spirit. They ran not be regenerated
through the truth, consequently they must be regener-
ated without it. This passage, therefore, teaches clear-
ly the doctrine that regeneration may be, and is, effect-
ed by the Spirit without the truth.
But the gentleman returns to the position that there
can be no holiness without knowledge ; and he asks,
Can an infant love holiness or hate sin, when it knows
nothing of either? And I ask, Can an infant love music
before it has heard it? You sav, No. But still there
170 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
may be such a taste for music that the moment when
it first hears it, it will be charmed and delighted. So
the heart of an infant may be so purified that it will love
and adore Jesus Christ so soon as it may be able to
contemplate his character. Just here I will very
briefly answer the gentleman's question concerning
faith and regeneration, though I am under no obliga-
tion to do it. A dead man does not perform the acts
which flow from life. He is first alive, and then he
acts. Those who are spiritually dead do not put forth
the acts of spiritual life. They are first quickened,
then they exercise true faith and love. Spiritual acts
flow from spiritual life. This I take to be the doc-
trine of God's Word.
Having now paid due attention to the gentleman's
speculations and arguments, I will invite the attention
of the audience to some further Scripture evidences in
favor of the special agency of the Holy Spirit in con-
version and sanctification. I prefer to establish the
doctrine for which I contend by the clear testimony of
the Bible.
I will read for your consideration Luke xxiv. 45:
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might
understand the Scriptures." The Savior, after his
resurrection, appeared to his disciples, who as yet un-
derstood not the things concerning him which are
taught in the Old Testament. It is not said that he
opened their understandings by the Scriptures, but he
opened their understandings, that they might under-
stand the Scriptures. David felt his need of this di-
vine illumination, when he prayed: "Open thou mine
eyes, that I may behold wonderful things out of thy
law" (Psa. cxix. 18). There were wonderful things in
God's Word ; but because of his comparative blindness
he did not see them in all their divine excellency.
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 171
These passages clearly teach the doctrine of the agency
of the Holy Spirit in enlightening the minds of men.
The next passage I read is in the epistle to Titus iii.
5: "Not by works of righteousness which we have
done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus
Christ our Savior." We are saved by the renewing
(making anew) of the Holy Spirit, which God shed on
us. Does not this language teach with perfect clear-
ness the doctrine of a direct divine influence on the
heart? Or are we to understand by the Spirit being
shed upon them, only their having the words and argu-
ments contained in God's revelation ? If such was the
apostle's meaning, he certainly took a very singular
method of expressing it. Let us compare with this the
language employed in the Acts of the Apostles con-
cerning the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pen-
tecost: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."
Does not this language express an influence of the
Spirit not exerted merely by words and arguments
a direct influence? All agree that it does. If, then,
the pouring out of the Spirit expresses an influence
distinct from mere words and arguments, does not the
expression, "shed upon," mean the same thing? The
expressions are very similar, and both evidently ex-
press a divine influence upon the minds of men, in addi-
tion to the truth, and distinct from it. Similar lan-
guage is also used in regard to the descent of the
Spirit on the family of Cornelius: "While Peter yet
spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them
which heard the word" (Acts x. 44). Was not this a
direct influence of the Spirit? All admit that it was.
If, then, the expression "fell on" expresses a direct
divine agency, not by word or argument, does not the
expression "shed upon" also express a special divine
172 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
agency ? It will not do to say that one of these expres-
sions has reference simply to the Word, and the other
to an influence distinct from the Word. In employ-
ing this strong language without qualification, the
apostles did not seem to fell the least apprehension that
their language would be understood to teach the neces-
sity of an immediate agency of the Spirit, in which they
did not believe. We must, then, understand their lan-
guage in its obvious sense.
I will now invite your attention to I Cor. ii. 14. I
am acquainted with Mr. C.'s mode of commenting on
this passage, and I bring it forward now, that he may
have an opportunity of defeading his interpretation of
it, if he can. "But the natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness
unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned." The first question in order to
ascertain the meaning of this passage, is concerning the
expression, "natural man." I understand the natural
man to be man as he is by nature unsanctified. That
this is the correct explanation of the expression is evi-
dent from the other instances in which the word "nat-
ural" is employed in the New Testament. Thus in i
Cor. xv. 44, 45, "It is sown a natural body, it is raised
a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there
is a spiritual body." The natural body here evidently
is the body in its natural state, unchanged. The spir-
itual body is the body as it will be changed and refined
at the resurrection. So the natural man means man as
he is by nature, unrenewed. The word translated
"natural" is also used by James iii. 15: "This wisdom
descendeth not from above, but it is earthly, sensual
(Greek natural), devilish." Here the word "sensual"
or "natural" evidently denotes moral corruption. The
word is again found in the igih verse of the epistle of
Jude: "These be they who separate themselves, sen-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 173
sual (Greek natural), having not the Spirit." The
apostle is here speaking of "mockers in the last time,
who should walk after their own ungodly lusts" ; and
he says they are natural, having not the Spirit.
These are all the instances in which the word trans-
lated "natural" is used in the New Testament ; and it is
a fact that in every instance where it is employed, with
reference to moral character, it is used in a bad sense.
When used with reference to the body, it denotes its
natural state. It is, then, clear from the usage of the
word, that by the "natural man" Paul means man as he
is by nature, sinful. The correctness of this interpre-
tation is rendered certain by the connection. The nat-
ural man does not receive the things of the Spirit.
Why? Because "they are foolishness to him." The
meaning of this expression is made perfectly clear by
the eighteenth verse of the first chapter: "For the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolish-
ness ; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of
God." That is, they that perish see in the preaching of
the cross no wisdom, no adaptation of the plan of sal-
vation to their condition, nothing attractive. It ap-
pears to them foolishness. So the natural man, like
those who perish, receives not the Gospel, the truths
revealed by the Spirit ; for they appear to him unmean- f
ing, unwise, unlovely.
But if, as Mr. C. supposes, the natural man were
simply a pagan, ignorant of divine revelation, the apos-
tle would have said: "The natural man receiveth not
the things of the Spirit ; for they are not revealed to
him." But when he says they are foolishness to him,
we are compelled to understand that they have been
presented to his mind, and that he sees in them no wis-
dom, nothing lovely or attractive to him ; and there-
fore he rejects them ; for a thing of which a man has
never heard can not be said to be foolishness to him ;
174 CAMPBEU/-RICE DEBATE.
and especially can it not be said that he does not re-
ceive what was never presented to him, because it is
foolishness to him.
By the natural man, then, we are to understand the
unrenewed man, man as he is by nature. All such
reject the gospel of Christ, "the things of the Spirit."
Consequently the gospel alone is not sufficient to effect
their conversion. They do not receive it can not un-
derstand it. Hence the absolute necessity of an agency
of the Spirit, additional to the Truth, and distinct from
it. They must experience such a change as will cause
them to see wisdom, adaptation to their condition,
beauty and attractiveness in the gospel. The spiritual
or regenerated man, enlightened from above, admires
and embraces the truths of divine revelation.
The next passage of Scripture to which I call your
attention, is I Cor. i. 22-24: "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." Here you will observe the
gospel was preached indiscriminately to Jews and
Greeks, and both rejected it. There was, however, a
third class, composed of both Jews and Greeks, to
whom it was the power of God unto salvation. Those
who received the gospel, and were converted and
saved, are mentioned by the apostles as "Them which
are called." By this language he can not mean the
call of the Word, for all had this indiscriminately. It
must be, then, an additional influence, an influence
effectual in securing their conversion ; for, to all such,
the gospel was the power of God to salvation. By this
call, then, we must understand the special agency of the
Holy Spirit, not simply by words and arguments, call-
ing them "out of darkness into his marvelous light."
of THS HOX.Y SPIRIT. 175
This passage establishes beyond controversy the doc-
trine for which we contend. That I have given the
correct interpretation of it would appear still more
manifest by comparing it with other passages in which
the same apostle uses the word ''called."
I have time only to read one other passage in Heb.
viii. 10: "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." This is a prophecy
quoted by the apostle from Jeremiah. What does God
promise to do? "I will put my laws into their mind,
and write them in their hearts." Are we to under-
stand by this that he would influence them simply by
words and arguments? They, at that time, had the
Word of God before their minds "line upon line, and
precept upon precept." Inspired men were sent to re-
form, exhort, and warn them ; but God declares his
purpose, at a future day, to teach them effectually, to
write his laws upon their hearts, and to cause all to
know him, from the least to the greatest, and to walk
in his statutes and do them. Does not this language
most clearly and conclusively establish the doctrine
that, in conversion and sanctification, the Spirit ex-
erts on the human mind an influence in addition to that
of the Word, and more powerful and efficacious ? It is
this agency only that can subdue the rebellious disposi-
tions of men, melt their obdurate hearts, and cause
them to love and serve Jesus Christ in sincerity and in
truth. (Time expired.)
1 76 CAMPBELL- RICE DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S SEVENTH ADDRESS.
TUESDAY, November 28, i o'clock P.M.
Mr. President. The gentleman has finally com-
plied with my request. He has given an answer to so
much of the question as concerns the priority of faith,
or regeneration. He has clearly committed himself by
avowing his conviction that regeneration, or a change
of heart, is previous to faith. This is a point which I
desired to elicit at an earlier period of this discussion.
It would have saved time. We, however, thankfully
accept it at this late hour. The gentleman backed it
well with a liberal collection of Scriptures. The only
exception to his quotations is, that they happen not at
all to pertain to the subject. He tries to show that the
Spirit operates through the Word. But that is not
the question. We both professedly agree in that point.
That the Spirit operates is agreed on both sides. I
hope the gentleman will not attempt to make another
false issue here. He also admits that the Spirit some-
times operates through the Word. That is not the
point to be proved. What, then, must I again ask, is
the proposition? Is it not that "In conversion and
sanctification the Spirit of God operates only through
the Word?" He has proved that it operates through
the Word. This I affirm. Has he come over? Or
does he mean to use the Scriptures that prove his oper-
ation through the Word, to prove his operation with-
out the Word! All Scriptures, then, that prove that
the Spirit of God operates through the Word are irrele-
vant to his position, but relevant to mine, unless he
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 177
comes fully over and affirms that it operates only
through the Word.
I do not, indeed, think that the gentleman under-
stands those portions of Scripture right, else he could
not have so quoted them. But it is not necessary now
to make a commentary upon them. You will all un-
derstand that a passage of Scripture that proves the
Holy Spirit operates through the Word, does not prove
that he operates without the Word, or independent of
it. It" is with him, then, essentially necessary that a
change of heart should precede faith. All men are
dead. They must be quickened. True, all living men
are dead to something. And a pagan man, or a Jew-
ish man, may be alive to his own theory, and dead to
another. But the sophism seems to be, what rhetori-
cians sometimes call "killing the metaphor, or running
it mad." Now a man that is metaphysically dead to
one thing, is not literally dead to everything else.
There is still something alive in him, through which
truth may find its way to his heart. His reason and
conscience are not dead, although his heart may be.
Paul says of a certain person: "She that liveth in
pleasure is dead while she lives." All this I have
?hewn in my opening speech, to which the gentleman
has yet paid so little attention. Whenever any point
or portion of Scripture is so interpreted, as to make
another void, I set it down that it is most certainly
misconstrued. Any theory, or view, of any passage
which makes the preaching of the Gospel of no use,
that makes faith vain, or the Bible useless to that par-
ticular end, I hold to be infallibly wrong.
It is no new development. I have read it from the
days of Thomas Boston till now. I presume the gen-
tleman would make regeneration a miracle, a positive
immediate act of Omnipotence, without any instrumen-
tality at all. And I have drawn him out as large as
178 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
life on that topic. A change of heart is therefore before
belief, because the throng of the old modern school of
self-ycleped orthodoxy stands in need of it. What-
ever is before anything is without it. The cause may
be without the effect, in one sense of the word "cause,"
but the effect can in no sense be without the cause.
I say again, my voice never could have been raised
upon the subject of spiritual influence, had not I seen
in these extravagant forms, as I judge, it making void
the Word of God, and the preaching of the Gospel.
I yet remember the singular impressions that some-
times accompanied my early readings of modern re-
vivals. Many years since I read of a singular out-
pouring of the Spirit in New York. In a certain
neighborhood there were a thousand converts report-
ed, as the result of a great outpouring of the Spirit.
Of these thousand converts about one-third went to
each of the three leading denominations in that neigh-
borhood Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists. The
first impression was, Did the Spirit of God thus at one
outpouring make three hundred Presbyterians, Metho-
dists, Baptists? Strange operation! In old times he
made them all Christians, and of one heart and soul.
I concluded there was some delusion in the affair;
that man's spirit had likely as much to do in it as the
Spirit of God. Since that time I have been an observer
of such occasions and reports, and suffice it to say,
twenty-five years' observation has greatly confirmed
the first impression. Men and parties often make re-
vivals, and now we have got a class of preachers,
known by the title of "Revivalists," men well dis-
ciplined in the art and mystery of obtaining- outpour-
ings of the Spirit.
P>ut my stnnrling proof of the great amount of de-
ception practiced on such occasions is the lamentable
fact that after the excitement ceases, and reason re-
INFLUENCE; OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 179
sunies her wonted dominion, the converts are about as
unenlightened in the religion of the volume of Gad's
own inspiration as before. Their feelings were moved,
and their hearts quailed, or their affections were over-
come by the scenes around them ; yet still their minds
were not enlightened, their spirits were not more ele-
vated, nor their faith enlarged. In most instances the
converts are as ignorant of God and Christ, after, as
before. Persons so converted, too, rarely love the
Bible. They believe more in excitement than in the
twelve apostles ; and would rather listen to exciting
speeches than keep the commandments of God. Chil-
dren love their proper parents more than others.
Hence those born of great excitement, love them
born in storms and tempests of the soul, they have a
great attachment to them. They feel more in debt to
the revivalist than to the Bible; and they love him
more ardently, and will obey him more joyfully and
faithfully. They soon learn a few texts, and by these
they prove everything. A universal favorite is, "The
Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the
children of God." They reason from that within to
prove that without, rather than from that without to
prove that within. They prove the doctrine to be true
by their feelings, and then they prove their feelings to
be true by the doctrine. They reason in a most fal-
lacious circle ; and multitudes, it is to be feared, are
deluded into fatal mistakes.
I heard the other clay, indeed since the discussion
commenced, that a preacher of some pretensions, and
of some notoriety in this State a man fond of con-
spicuity in a recent discourse undertook to prove the
resurrection of Christ to his audience by their feelings.
He was himself suddenly transported into an ecstacv
at the discovery of the new proof. He was, with
Archimedes, ready to say, Eureka 1 have found, T
180 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
have found. He said, My friends, I have never heard
it uttered, I have never read it in a book. It is to me
a perfectly original argument, but really it appears to
me the best I have ever heard. It is simple, and you
can all apply it. Paul says, "If Christ be not risen
faith is vain, preaching is vain; you are yet in your
sins." Now follows it not, that when sins are par-
doned, preaching is proved to be not in vain, and faith
is demonstrated not to be in vain, and, consequently,
Christ is risen from the dead? Now, brethren, I feel
that my sins are pardoned, and you feel that your sins
are pardoned ; surely, then, neither our faith nor our
preaching is vain. Hence we are infallibly certain,
from our own hearts, that Jesus Christ rose from the
dead ! But suppose this sense, or feeling of forgive-
ness, is a delusion, what comes of the argument ?
In one word, if a spiritual illumination makes a
Methodist, and a spiritual illumination makes a Bap-
tist and a Congregationalist, it is not only a new light,
a modern illumination, but it makes these parties of
divine authority ; and thus the Spirit is at war with
itself in these different denominations. Here is A
preaching against the Baptists by divine illumination,
here is B preaching against the Methodists by divine
illumination, and here is C preaching against them
both, and in favor of old-fashioned Presbyterianism, by
the same divine illumination. Well, there are differ-
ent ways to London, they say; and so there are to
heaven, they argue!
But I will submit another case to these learned
doctors. Of the numerous converts that joined a cer-
tain church, many have gone over to infidelity. They
told of raptures, felt ecstacies, had their visions, and
rejoiced in the assurance of pardoned sins. But now
the Bible and religion are with them a mere delusion.
They affirm it all to be a hoax. What now has be-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 181
come of their former illuminations ? their visions and
their ecstacies? They are all abandoned as a mere
delusion. It is not denied that they once had those
feelings, emotions, and transporting views. They still
admit the fact of their former actual existence; but
they were the results of a delusion? With their faith
in the Bible, those pleasant dreams and fancies fled.
No more light, nor spirit, nor inward witness. Now
does not this prove that there is no real foundation
of confidence, no true hope in God, no real love of the
truth, nor of the God of truth, in these phantoms!
Had they been solid, substantial evidences, would not
their faith in them have remained when their faith in
the testimony of prophets and apostles failed ?
For these reasons, and not from any aversion to
the doctrine of spiritual influence, do we repudiate the
popular notions of getting religion, and of enjoying
religion. We rejoice in the belief of the influence of
the Spirit of God in the great work of our salvation
from sin. We pray for larger measures of these
divine influences. We desire them for the union of
Christians, and as an end to all these vain wranglings
and controversies. No greater proof of the enjoyment
of God's spirit can be given, than an ardent devotion
to all his oracles, and to the keeping of his command-
ments.
To return again to regeneration. Mr. R. has got
the heart purified without faith, if I rightly understand
him. The heart is renewed, changed, regenerated by
the Spirit before faith ; consequently faith is not neces-
sary to the purification of the heart. There is much
difference between our two systems. Mr. Rice has the
heart purified before faith ; I have the heart purified
through faith. My reason for so believing is found in
the fact that Peter said God made no difference
1 82 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
between Jew and Gentile, in that "he purified their
hearts by faith."
We are accustomed to regard the purification of the
heart as the greatest of all things in religion. If, then,
that be accomplished without faith, of what essential
use is faith afterwards ? If the greatest of all events is
achieved without it, why may not the effects of that
change be accomplished without it? Why do we
preach the gospel to convert men, if, before they be-
lieve the gospel, and without the gospel, men are re-
newed and regenerated by the direct and immediate
influence of God's Spirit? I would conclude that if a
man may be born of the Spirit without faith, he may
also be saved without faith ; and thus faith, from being
the primary principle in religion, is anticipated and set
aside by the Holy Spirit in the capital point of the
renewal of the heart.
In the case of adults, for, with Mr. Rice regeneration
is the same in all cases, we have a regenerated unbe-
liever ; and if we could suppose an interval between
regeneration and faith, as must be the case in all in-
fants, then we have not only a regenerated unbeliever,
but also the possibility, in the case of death, of such a
one being saved without faith. Again, in the case of
infants, the interval between regeneration and faith
may be an interval of years, for anything known to
the contrary, and then we have the extraordinary case
of an infant being a child of God, and living in the
world without the knowledge of God, without Christ,
and without hope !
I hope Mr. Rice will throw some light on this knotty
subject, and, if possible, reconcile these views of his
Church with those of the Bible, and the experiences
and observations of a Christian community. He has
certainly been driven to a very high latitude, by ad-
verse winds, when he has to assume that regeneration
is wholly independent of faith, and always anterior to
it, and thus, by one bold assumption, make void all
the means of grace, and the utility of a Christian min-
istry. But we shall wait for his expositions.
The gentleman, in his disquisitions upon holiness,
still compares it to a taste. This is his only escape
from the difficulties propounded in my last address.
According to his Church, holiness is set forth as the
supreme love of God', or, "he is said to be holy who
loves the Lord with all his heart, and soul, and mind,
and strength." A regenerated child possesses not this
holiness himself being judge. Neither has it a dis-
position towards God, for it has no knowledge of him.
These concessions Mr. R. is obliged to make. The
common sense of community requires them at his
hand. But will it satisfy the intelligent, after having
defined regeneration to be a change of heart, from the
love of sin to the love of holiness, to be informed, that,
instead of having this love of holiness, and hatred of
sin, an infant has an undeveloped taste for them
something like a taste for music ? ! But even this taste
is an assumption. However, the gentleman does not
even say it has, but a child "might liave a taste for
music." Still, this might have and having are differ-
ent things. And inasmuch as the gentleman has not
yet produced any child, nor any well-authenticated fact
of any child having a taste for holiness, as having been
charmed, as with music, on the first presentation of the
subject, we must put it down as a complete failure on
his part, to sustain his infant regeneration. He has
truly toiled hard in this case, but certainly has not
made out either the theory or the fact of instinctive
holiness.
We have also had another dissertation on the word
"holiness." Anything but the question on hand.
Well, now, must I repeat that this term indicates no
184 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
real substantial attribute, or virtue, but mere separa-
tion from all impurity ? or, if any one prefers it it is
purity itself. The tabernacle, and afterwards the tem-
ple, and all its functions, were holy. God's presence
on earth or in heaven, makes all things holy, as did his
presence in the mount with Moses. And even Mount
Tabor, where Moses and Elias appeared to Jesus, is
called the "Holy Mount" by Peter. The angels inces-
santly repeat this adorable conception of God; and
thus represent him as infinitely, eternally and perfectly
pure removed from all contaminations. They say,
"Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty !" But
with them this is not merely a single attribute, but an
ineffable conception of his infinite, awful, and glorious
purity. In their eyes it is his superlative beauty and
loveliness. He is said to be of purer eyes than to be-
hold iniquity ; and the very heavens are represented as
not clean in his sight.
But we are reminded that holiness is a substantive
requisite from Christians, and that Jesus, the Messiah,
is made unto us by God "wisdom, righteousness,
holiness and redemption." It is, therefore, important
to understand it well, inasmuch as "without holiness,
no man shall enjoy God." Jesus is not imputed to us
for wisdom, righteousness, etc., but he is the author of
these perfections in us. These terms comprehend
much, and are indicative of very distinct conceptions
and excellencies. Justice, or righteousness, has re-
spect to positive duties and obligations to society.
Holiness, or sanctification, a hatred of, and separation
from, all impurities ; and redemption expresses our de-
liverance from death and the grave. We may, indeed,
suppose it, as this term indicates, the consummation
of salvation that as it is the ultimate goal of man's
aspirations, ("Be you holy, for I am holy,") it must
indicate the supreme of moral grandeur, and the per-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 185
fection of moral excellence. But, in discussing the
term philologically, it intimates no more than simple
separation from sin, or any kind of legal or moral im-
purity. But we shall now proceed to a new argument
on the modus operandi, or means of sanctification,
which we shall call our ninth argument.
IX. It shall be based on the special commission
given to Paul, as explained by that given to the Mes-
siah himself. And, therefore, we shall read that to the
Messiah, as introductory to that presented to the Apos-
tle Paul. "I give thee," says Jehovah, "for a cove-
nant of the people ; for a light of the Gentiles ; to open
the blind eyes; to bring out the prisoners from the
prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-
house." "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me ; be-
cause the Lord has anointed me to preach good tid-
ings to, the meek ; he hath sent me to bind up the
broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to them that are bound ;
to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the
day of vengeance of our God ; to comfort all that
mourn." Isaiah xlii. 6, 7; Ixi. i, 2. We shall now
hear Paul relate his own, as he had it from the mouth
of the Lord : "I have appeared unto thee for this pur-
pose, 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, 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." Here, then, we have a full develop-
ment in these grand commissions, of the manner and
means employed in the wisdom and grace of God in
converting and sanctifying the nations of the earth,
1 86 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
through the mediation of the Messiah. The most con-
spicuous point, or the chief means stated, is, that God
would use light, knowledge, the gospel, and that he
would open the eyes of men turning them from dark-
ness to light, and from the kingdom and power of
Satan to God. God, then, who commanded light to
arise out of darkness, has used moral light that is,
revelation, the gospel as the means of conversion and
sanctification. Illumination is, therefore, an essential
prerequisite to conversion and holiness. Without light
there is no beauty ; for in the dark beauty and de-
formity are undistinguishable. Without light there
is nothing amiable, because amiability requires the
aid of light for its exposition, as much as beauty.
The power of Satan is in darkness ; the power of God is
in light. God, therefore, works by light; and Satan
by darkness. Hence, in Paul's commission, it reads,
"Turn them from darkness to light"; and the conse-
quence will be, "From the power of Satan to God" ;
and the ultimate effect will be remission of sins, and an
inheritance among the sanctified. After the study of
these, and many such similar documents, found in the
Bible, I confess I am wholly unable to conceive of a
religion without knowledge, without faith, without an
apprehension, an intellectual, as well as a cordial re-
ception, of the gospel of Christ. I repudiate, there-
fore, with my whole heart, this notion of infant, idiot
and pagan regeneration this speculative conversion,
without light, knowledge, faith, hope or love. It
makes void the whole moral machinery of the Bible,
the Christian ministry, and the commission of the
Holy Spirit. It is no advocate of Christ ; it is no com-
forter of the soul, on the hypothesis of infant, and
pagan, and idiot regeneration.
But again, what is orthodoxy worth on Mr. Rice's
hypothesis? What is it better than heterodoxy? In
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 187
not one single point. Persons are regenerated with-
out any doctrine, good, bad, or indifferent. It is a
work that depends on nothing but the special, direct,
and immediate impulse, or impression of the Spirit
upon the naked soul of an infant, a pagan, or a gospel
hearer. This rage for orthodoxy is madness upon his
hypothesis. Why this crusade against us on the part
of my friend? We can do no harm, if his theory of
conversion and sanctification be true! All that the
Spirit regenerates live forever according to him!
Consequently they can not be injured ; and none else
can be saved. In what a singular attitude stands he
before this community and the universe, if his notions
of regeneration are worth anything! The gentleman
will not, because he can not, explain his zeal for ortho-
doxy on his principles. If the Spirit descends from
heaven on a person, and by a direct touch regenerates
him without faith, without knowledge, or preparation
of any sort, what can sound doctrine and sound preach-
ing avail? Mr. Rice's theory is a moral paralysis to
the tongue and to the heart of a preacher. It is to the
hearers a moral stupor, a spiritual lethargy.
There are no means of regeneration at all on his
assumption. I wish I could say, with an emphasis that
would seal it upon the heart forever, if Mr. Rice's the-
ory be anything but a mental hallucination, there are
no means of conversion or sanctification no means
whatever of regeneration. I ask him what are the
means? Can he name them? He can not. Prayer,
preaching, reading, all ordinances, are useless. Man,
with him, is born again before he believes. He is as
passive in the new birth as in the first birth. There
were no motives, no volitions, no previous impulses
of the soul in his first ; nor are there any in his second
birth. He runs the two metaphors of birth and death
into a fatal paralysis.
1 88 CAMPPELL-RICE DEBATE.
Are you prepared, fellow-citizens of the nineteenth
century, are you prepared to receive a doctrine of re-
generation that at one fell swoop annihilates all means
of grace whatsoever? that makes faith, preaching,
praying, reading, etc., altogether vain ! This has been,
in my esteem, for many years the most false delusion.
I saw the doctrine of metaphysical and romantic re-
generation leading just to this point. This is its nat-
ural Ultima Thule issue. If it always ends not here
with you, it is only because you can not, or do not
understand it. Well did the Messiah say, of certain
Rabbis, You make void the Word of God by your tra-
ditions.
I do, sir, most sincerely regard the Spirit of God as
the author of every spiritual and noble desire in the
human heart ; the author of every pious affection, of
every holy aspiration of our souls. His mysterious
but certain power is in and with the gospel, and he
makes it the power of God to salvation to every one
that believes it. He sanctifies us through the truth.
He works in us by it to will and do of his good pleas-
ure. He is the Spirit of grace, because he is .the Spirit
of truth.
Much has been said, and whispered, and gossiped,
concerning my heterodoxy. But, sir, allow me to
compliment myself I am, in all the great and weighty
matters of religion, more orthodox than any of my
impugners. I speak it not boastingly, sir, but in dec-
laration of my general views of all gospel truths. I do
not believe, sir, most sincerely, that there is any of
those gentlemen that oppose us, more radically and
universally orthodox on all these great subjects of
evangelical faith, piety, and morality, than we. Time
expired.
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 189
MR. RICE'S SEVENTH REPLY.
TUESDAY, November 28, 1 130 o'clock P.M.
Mr. President. I do not remember ever to have
seen a man who pretended to religion of any kind, who
did not consider himself rather more orthodox than
others. This is a common weakness of human nature.
It displays itself everywhere, and especially in men who
imagine themselves to be great reformers, and believe
all but themselves in serious error. If it be true, as
my friend evidently thinks, that of all the world he
only, and those who agree with him, are in the light,
whilst all Christendom gropes in midnight darkness,
it follows, as a necessary consequence, that he is one
of the most orthodox men ! There can be no doubt
about it.
We might, perhaps, excuse the other remarks the
gentleman has so repeatedly made, concerning the
doctrine of Presbyterians, which he professes perfect-
ly to understand ; but when he charges our Church
with holding the doctrine of infant damnation, we
have the right to expect him to produce at least one
Presbyterian author who has taught it. I have chal-
lenged him to produce even one, and he has not done
it; nor has he been able to prove that it is counte-
nanced by our Confession of Faith. I deny that our
Church holds the doctrine. He has made the charge,
and once more I demand the proof. I had supposed
him to be a man who had so much experience in pub-
lic discussions that he would be prepared at once,
190
CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
when he stated facts, to prove them. But it is not so.
Very far otherwise.
I will now proceed to respond to his remarks and
arguments, if, indeed, he has offered arguments, to
prove the proposition he affirms. Let me ask you, my
friends, has he produced one passage of Scripture that
says the Spirit operates in conversion and sanctifica-
tion only through the truth? What passage has he
quoted ? Do you remember one ? I certainly did not
hear one quoted. Yet the gentleman boasts that he,
more than all other men, confines his faith within the
lids of the Bible.
He says : "I have been proving only that the Spirit
does operate," and this he admits. Such, however, is not
the fact. I have been proving that the Spirit does not
operate only through the truth, but that in conversion
and sanctification there is an influence of the Spirit, an
addition to the Word, and distinct from it. This doc-
trine he, in his writings and discussions, has positively
denied. I like to see a man march up boldly and fear-
lessly to the defense of his published principles, or
openly and candidly retract them. He has very re-
peatedly taught and published that only moral power
can be exerted on mind, and moral power can be
exerted only by words and arguments, addressed to
the eye or ear. Yet from what we have heard from
him on this occasion, no one would imagine that he
had ever believed such a doctrine. I do desire to see
him come up and openly defend his published doc-
trines, or retract them. I have been proving that in
the conversion and sanctification of adults, there is,
first, the instrumentality of the Word, and. second, a
distinct agency of the Holy Spirit, for which the pious
are accustomed to pray an influence effectually re-
newing and sanctifying the soul. This latter agency
Mr. C. denies. This is the most important point in
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 191
regard to which we differ ; and I am resolved to keep
it prominently before the audience.
The gentleman has asserted that a number of his
arguments remain unnoticed. If there are such, I
have entirely missed them ; and I do not know how it
could have happened, for I have taken full notes of his
speeches. If there are any that remain unanswered, I
hope he will mention them.
. He has informed us how he was led to adopt his
present views. He heard of the Spirit being poured
out in divers places, and the result was, that so many
Baptists, so many Methodists, and so many Presby-
terians were made ; and he concluded that if all this
had been the work of the Spirit, it would have been
more unique. Really, I had supposed that he professed
to have been led to the adoption of his views simply
by a calm and unprejudiced examination of the Bible;
but it appears that I was mistaken. He now informs
us that his faith in the special agency of the Spirit was
shaken, if not destroyed, by hearing that the Spirit was
poured out in this, that, and the other place. Verily, I
see nothing in this to shake the faith of a believer in
the truth of the Scriptures. What is the language of
the Bible on this subject? On the day of Pentecost
the prophecy of Joel began to be fulfilled, in which
he said: "It shall come to pass in the last days, saith
God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," etc.
And Paul says: "God saves us 'by the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which
he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ.' ' : I
can not envy the feelings of the man who can speak
slightingly of the very language of the Bible. If Paul,
and Peter, and Joel, were in error, I am willing to err
with them.
But, he says, if the Spirit had converted all those
Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, they would
192 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
all have been alike. I see no absurdity or inconsist-
ency in believing that the Spirit of God may renew
the hearts of several hundred persons, and that some
of them might become Baptists, others Presbyterians,
and others Methodists. I believe that in all these, and
other evangelical denominations, there are vast num-
bers who, with garments washed in the blood of the
Lamb, will stand in the presence of God, where there
is fullness of joy forever. I have never taken the
ground that the Presbyterian Church constitutes the
whole family of God on earth, and that all other
Churches are synagogues of Satan! The gentleman
can not believe that the Spirit of God would make
Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists and Presbyterians.
But, I ask, has he not repeatedly published his belief
that there are Christians among "the sects" ; Chris-
tians, of course, converted by the Holy Spirit?
But, he says, the work, if it were the work of the
Spirit, would be more unique; those converted would
be in their views more alike. Is the work unique in
his own Church, where he holds that disciples are
made on principles truly apostolic? Do he and his
brethren agree with each other in their views? I can
point to a preacher of high standing in his Church,
who, for a length of time after joining his Church and
being recognized as a minister, believed in the doctrine
of universal salvation ! I can point to another promi-
nent preacher in his Church who denies that man has
a soul, and contends most zealously that in the Scrip-
tures the word "soul" means "breath"! Why is not
the work of the Spirit unique in his Church ? If this
be a fair test of the work of God, and Mr. C. professes
to think it is, his Church is the very last place in this
wide world where we could expect to find it ; for in it,
as he himself has informed us, all sorts of doctrines
have been preached by all sorts of men ! If the unique-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 193
ness of the work be the ground on which we are to
form a judgment of its character, he would better have
said nothing on the subject.
He has told you an anecdote illustrative of the fanat-
icism to which our doctrine leads, and I like to hear
anecdotes occasionally. He told you of a certain
preacher who adopted a very singular method of prov-
ing the doctrine of the Resurrection ; and he argues,
even gravely, that those who are said to have experi-
enced the special influences of (he Spirit, are quite as
ignorant of the Word of God as before. Well, I must
tell an anecdote to match his. I hope my "laughing
committee" are all present. [Laughing.] A young
man not far from Lexington had been immersed into
the Church of my friend, where, we are to suppose,
converts are made in the right way. After his immer-
sion he, as is rather common in certain quarters, was
somewhat wise in his own conceit, and anxious to
make converts to his new views. He soon got into
a discussion with some persons older and better in-
formed than himself, who quoted against his doctrine
a passage from the Old Testament. Not being quite
prepared to meet the argument, he replied: "I care
nothing about that ; the Old Testament was written
before the flood." [A laugh.] I doubt whether he
was even so well taught as the gentleman's preacher.
Indeed, it admits of very serious doubt, whether, as a
general thing, his people, in the knowledge of the
Scriptures, can justly claim any superiority over
others.
But, as further evidence that the doctrine for which
we contend is not true, Mr. C. tells you that he has
known many who professed to be converted by the
Spirit, who afterwards apostatized and became infidels.
Does he know whether, in the clays of the apostles,
194 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
there were any cases of the kind? Were there not
many who seemed to run well for a time, and then
turned to the beggarly elements of the world? Per-
haps the apostles did not preach as they should. Cer-
tainly they employed language very much like that we
use on this subject. This circumstance may, perhaps,
account for the fact that many apostatized ! I should
like to inquire of my friend, whether any who have
become members of his Church, and who appeared
zealous for a time, have afterwards apostatized? I
think he will admit that many such cases have oc-
curred, and that they became worse than before their
professed conversion. One of his preachers, as I re-
marked several days since, stated that he knew
churches to which, some little time since, large acces-
sions had been made, that were now almost dead. It
is not wise in my friend to use arguments that, if at all
sound, will ruin his own cause. The same class of ar-
guments might be urged with equal conclusiveness
against Christianity itself. At any rate, his argument,
if it proves anything, affords conclusive evidence that
he himself preaches false doctrine.
But it is a principle universally acknowledged, that
the abuse of a doctrine is no valid argument against it.
If men delude themselves, or are deluded by others
into the belief that they have experienced a change of
heart, when in truth they have not, is this to be urged
against the fact that all true conversions are effected
by the special agency of the Spirit ? Another objection
urged by Mr. C. is, that according to our doctrine re-
generation precedes faith. Suppose the matter to be
just as he has represented it. he is reasoning as decid-
edly against the apostle John as against us. John
says: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ,
is born of God" (i John v. i). According to the apos-
INFLUENCE OE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 195
tie, every believer is born of God, is regenerated. Re-
generation is the cause of which faith is an effect. The
fact that an individual believes is proof that he is re-
generated. Paul, too, represents men as "dead in
trespasses and sins," and God as quickening them.
(Eph. ii. 1-5.) If my friend had lived in those clays,
and had entertained his present views, I can not but
think he would have disapproved of Paul's theology.
For certainly a dead man can not put forth acts, as
one who is alive. And he would have exposed the
ridiculous absurdity of preaching to men who are
dead ! Faith is certainly the act of a being who is spir-
itually alive, and he must be quickened before he exer-
cises faith.
But, says Mr. C., this doctrine makes faith and the
preaching of the Word wholly unnecessary and use-
less. There is a passage in Paul's defense before
Agrippa, that completely refutes this objection.
"King Agrippa," exclaimed Paul, "believest thou the
prophets? I know that thou believest" (Acts xxvi.
27). Was Agrippa a pious man? Had he the faith
that overcomes the world? He had faith, but not the
faith that secures salvation. He believed the truth of
divine revelation ; but he did not approve and embrace
it. In this sense multitudes believe. They doubt not
the inspiration of the Scriptures, nor that they teach
the great and essential doctrines and duties of Chris-
tianity; but they do not love and embrace the Gospel.
Evangelical faith works by love, and leads to good
works.
The kind of faith exercised by Agrippa, though it
could not secure justification and eternal life, is not
useless. It induces men to hear the Word, to read it,
to think of it ; and God may, through the truth, renew
and sanctify them. This faith precedes regeneration;
196 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
but the faith that works by love and overcomes the
world, is consequent upon regeneration. He who is
induced to embrace fundamental error is not likely
ever to be converted ; for God does not sanctify
through error. But he who theoretically believes the
truth, may be converted and sanctified by the Spirit
through the truth.
As to the objection that this doctrine makes the
preaching of the Word unnecessary, it has not the
least foundation. God is pleased to work by means,
when they can be employed. And not only does he
employ means where they are wholly inefficient with-
out the exertion of his power, but he has employed
such means as had not the least tendency to produce
the desired effect. Our Savior used clay and spittle in
opening the eyes of a blind man. According to the
logic of Mr. C., it was wholly unnecessary and unwise
to use such means. He would ask, why use means
that will not produce the effect ? God has been pleased
to say that he will convert and sanctify the heart
through the truth, though the truth alone can not con-
vert and sanctify ; and who shall say it is unwise? The
gentleman's whole difficulty arises from an entire mis-
apprehension of our views.
He tells us he has known persons who professed to
have been regenerated one day, and yet they did not
believe for many days afterwards. I am obliged to
admit that he has found more singular people in this
world than any man I have ever known ! I, of course,
can not dispute the truth of his statement, but I have
never heard of persons entertaining such notions.
Just as rationally might you talk of a man being alive
several days without breathing. The moment when
there is life there are the actions that flow from it.
Lazarus was no sooner made alive than he breathed.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 197
So soon as there is in the soul spiritual life, it manifests
itself by spiritual acts. He who is regenerated believes,
loves, and obeys God. Such is the simple truth on
this subject. It is God's truth.
The gentleman tells you that I have reduced holiness
to mere instinct. And he asks, how can there be holi-
ness, which is love to God, where there is no knowl-
edge of God ? How can an infant be holy, when it can
not know God ? In reply, I say, everything possesses
what we call nature. Our Savior said: "A good man
out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
good things ; and an evil man out of the evil treasure
bringeth forth evil things" (Matt. xii. 35). Here the
heart or moral nature of man is represented as a treas-
ure, fountain or source from which flow all his good
and all his evil actions. If the heart be impure, it will
prompt to conduct of the same character. There is
something in the fruit tree which we call its nature,
which causes it to produce fruit of a particular kind.
Two trees may grow in the same soil, be watered by
the same stream, and warmed by the same sun ; and
yet they will produce different kinds of fruit. Com-
mon sense leads us to ascribe these different effects to
causes equally different. The circumstances being the
same, we conclude that the causes are in the trees, and
we say, they have different natures. The chemist can
not analyze the trees, and point out what we call their
nature ; yet common sense forces us to admit its exist-
ence.
No less certain is it, that men may and do possess
a nature or disposition prior to their acts and choices,
which is sinful or holy. It was in illustration of this
very principle that our Savior said: "Make the tree
good, and his fruit good ; or else make the tree cor-
rupt and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by
198 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
his fruit" (Matt. xii. 33). Of two men, who are living
under the government of the same God, and enjoying
the same gospel privileges, one loves, adores, and
serves God ; and the other knowingly, willfully, and
deliberately rebels against him. You call the one a
good man, a holy man ; and the other an unholy,
wicked man. Common sense compels us to believe
that the actions of the one flow from a pure source
a holy nature, and those of the other, from an unholy
nature. The cause exists before the effect ; and these
different natures or dispositions exist before the
actions to which they prompt. There may, then, be
in the mind of an infant the disposition which will
induce it to love and serve God, or the opposite dispo-
sition, which will induce it to rebel against him, so
soon as capable of knowing him. There is in this
nothing more unphilosophical than that there should
be a disposition to love music. If I were to assert that
there can be no such thing before the person has
heard music, how could he prove the contrary? He
asserts that there can be no disposition to love God
where there is no knowledge of him. To prove this
he can produce no acknowledged principle of phil-
osophy ; and, as I have proved, it is directly contra-
dictory of the Bible. I will not give up plain and
positive declarations of the Word of God for his
unphilosophical speculations.
In reply to the gentleman's charge that our Church
holds the doctrine of infant damnation, I gave the
common interpretation of the language of our Confes-
sion of Faith. This interpretation, he says, he never
heard until recently. Well, I verily believe there are
a great many things in this world of which he has
never heard ; for it is a notorious fact that the inter-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 199
pretation I gave of the language of our book, is tlic
one universally given by Presbyterians.
All the gentleman's learned criticisms on the word
"holy," even if they were correct, could not help him
out of the difficulty, arising from his limiting the power
of God over the human mind. The word "holy," he
says, does not express moral quality. Suppose we
admit it. I have proved that God originally made man
upright ; and all we desire is to have him made upright
again. If God made him upright once, he is able to
make him so again. Mr. C. says God can not exert
on the human mind any moral power, except by
words ; I say he can.
The word "holy," when applied to moral character,
as it is constantly in the Bible, does not mean simply
separation from all impurity. A log of wood might
be separated from all impurity ; but it would still not
be holy. The word expresses most clearly moral
purity. But I will not spend time in such criticisms.
My friend has brought forward one more passage
of Scripture to sustain his doctrine. We occasionally
induce him to leave his metaphysics and enter the
Bible. He quotes Acts xxvi. 18, where we are told
that God sent Paul to the Gentiles, "To open their
eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and
from the power of Satan unto God." But here a very
important question arises, viz.: Was Paul sent to do
this work by the Word only? The passage does not
say so. Paul had certain work to do. He was sent
to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. But God
had also a work to do. So Paul taught the Ephe-
sians. They were dead in trespasses and in sins, and
God quickened them. (Eph. ii. 1-5.) I should like
to hear the gentleman explain that passage, so as to
make it consistent with his faith. He has brought
2OO CAMPBELL-RICE
fonvard several passages ; but, unfortunately, they all,
when properly understood, refute his doctrine, and
establish ours.
He says he can not conceive of a religion that begins
in darkness, in mere blind feeling. Neither can I.
But I can conceive that God may "call men out of
darkness into his marvelous light" (i Pet. ii. 9), that
he may open their eyes and renew their hearts, causing
them to love the light ; for, our Savior said, "This is
the condemnation, that light is come into the world ;
and men love darkness more than light." For this
pure light David prayed: "Open mine eyes, that 1
may behold wonderful things out of thy law." The
Word was before his mind, but he prayed that
God would grant him more purity of heart, that he
might better understand it, and appreciate more fully
its glorious truths. Such is the religion in which we
believe.
I have now gone through the whole catalogue of
my friend's arguments. I do not consider them very
strong. I believe he quoted but one text of Scrip-
ture. I will now very briefly present one more argu-
ment, in proof of the doctrine that the Spirit operates
not through the truth only. The Scriptures teach that
God gives repentance. Christ was exalted a prince
and a Savior, "For to give repentance unto Israel, and
remission of sins," (Acts v. 31). Can any one believe
that God gives both remission and repentance, merely
by the preaching of the Word? The obvious meaning
of the apostle is, that he inclines men -by his blessed
Spirit, to repent, that he may grant to them remission
of sins." So again, in Acts xi. 18: "Then hath God
also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
Now, what is meant but that God granted the Gentiles
the gracious influence of his Holy Spirit, and thus
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 20 A
induced them to repent? The grace of God brought
them to repentance ; but going to God brought them
also to repentance. I have one more passage 2
Tim. ii. 25, 26: "In meekness instructing those that
oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give
them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth:
and that they may recover themselves out of the snare
of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
The truth is before them. They have heard it ; but
will not receive it. Now, here God is said to give
them repentance, or a change of mind, to the acknowl-
edgment of the truth. I ask any man if this language
does not mean something additional- to the mere influ-
ence of the Word ? They had heard the truth, but it
failed to lead them to repentance ; and now God
exerts in their minds a more effectual agency. We
do not see how it was possible for the Savior and the
apostles to have taught more plainly the doctrine of a
special agency of the Spirit, in addition to the Word ?
I defy any one to teach it in stronger language. If
the Bible does not teach the operation of the Spirit,
distinct from the Word, I defy mortal man to teach it
by any language. When the apostles used the
strongest language, without qualification, did they not
wish it to be understood according to its obvious
import? It is, then, clear that they taught that the
Spirit operates not only through the Truth, but in
addition to it. They all taught it, and took delight in
it. It is one of the chief pillars in the Temple of
Truth ; and he who denies it, leaves man to perish
without hope. But I will close for the present.
(Time expired.)
2O2 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S EIGHTH ADDRESS.
WEDNESDAY, November 29, 10 A.M.
Mr. President. It is all-important in every debate,
especially in this one, that the proper issue be kept
distinctly and definitely before the minds of the
debatants and of the auditors. There is no question of
more sublime comprehension, of more awful grandeur,
or of more transcendent importance, than the question
of spiritual and divine influence. Like the vital prin-
ciple, however, it is the most sublimated, and in its
naked and abstract form, the most unapproachable of
all the entities of creation. It is, indeed, the vital
principle of religion, and therefore, the most incom-
prehensible, though the most real and substantive
existence in the universe. The question before us
involves the value of the Bible, and all its ordinances
the gospel, its ministry, and all that mortals have
comprehended under that most precious conception
called the means of grace. I feel that I am discussing
the value of the Bible, the gospel, the church, the min-
istry, while endeavoring to know what the converting
and sanctifying power and influence of God's Spirit is.
Let us, then, fix our minds upon the precise points
expressed in the proposition before us. "In conver-
sion and sanctification the Spirit of God operates on
persons only through the truth."
There is no debate upon spiritual operations. They
are of an abstract nature and quality. It is not pos-
sible for a man to conceive of spiritual operations.
The fact of the operation is as evident as gravity, but
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 203
who can explain it? No man can form a single con-
ception of any spiritual influence or operation. Who
can grasp the idea of a spirit? Who can apprehend
its nature, its identity, its form, its person, or its modes
of living, moving, and operating ! We can neither
have a consistent idea of a spirit nor of any of its oper-
ations. That the spirit of God operates on the human
understanding and heart is just as certain as that man
has an understanding and affections. Our spirit is
allied to the spiritual system, to the Great Spirit. God
can commune, and does commune with man, and man
with God.
It is the glory of our religion that it is spiritual and
divine, and that as man has both a body and a spirit,
his religion also has both. This question has respect
rather to the means and to the effect of the operation,
and not to the operation itself. Times without num-
ber have I declared that the Scriptures are but an
instrument, an embodiment in speech of spiritual
power, and like all other instruments, this instrument
is adapted to some end. Without that instrument the
end proposed by it can not be obtained.
Now, does the Spirit operate through the instru-
ment, or without it, in the ordinary work of conversion
and sanctification ? This is the question in its present
form. This question involves various other questions.
No question either in nature, religion, or society, is
properly insular. These are all perfect systems, and,
therefore, there is not one insular or independent truth
in any one, nor all of them. Not a particle of the uni-
verse, not an atom of our planet is independent of
other atoms and principles. Nor is there an isolated
verse, nor an independent period in the Bible. Those
atoms of the universe, those particles of our planet,
and those verses of our Bible, are to be contemplated
204 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
with reference to the whole. Little minds sport with
particles, great minds with systems.
Mr. Rice has quoted some passages of Scripture.
But have they been quoted as proverbs, or as parts of
great contexts? I do not believe that any one pass-
age, read you by my friend, has anything specially to
do with the question before us. I might throw into
a speech thirty verses, and make thirty assertions, and
prove nothing, only that I intended to employ some
one else, some other mind than my own, for not one
of the thirty may come within a thousand miles of the
real issue. My manner is to notice everything relied
upon as proof of the proposition on hand ; not every-
thing, however, that may be offered on various other
matters. That would be the work of months, and not
of weeks. I will, so far as I have recollection or mem-
oranda, allude to some of the proofs offered, to show
that the Spirit operates in conversion without the
Word. These are supposed to be against my views.
I have proved that it operates through the Word, and
my proofs are in the main unassailed. Mr. R.'s plan
is to prove a proposition the contrary of our stipulated
proposition. He seeks to prove that the Spirit oper-
ates without the Word from such passages as the fol-
lowing: Luke xxiv. 45: "Then opened he their un-
derstanding, that they might understand the Scrip-
tures." In the first place it is irrelevant, because this
has no respect to regeneration nor conversion ; nor
does it speak particularly of sanctification. Again, it
was Jesus and not the Spirit. They were disciples,
and not sinners. "To open the understanding" is also
explained in the context, verse 32. Thus the subject
of the operation is explained in these words: "Did not
our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us,
and while he opened to us the Scriptures?" To open
I INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 205
the Scriptures to the understanding, is the meaning of
the Hebraistic phrase, "open the understanding to
understand the Scriptures." Their hearts burned not
by the abstract spirit, but through the talk "while
he talked with us." So dispose we of this passage.
Was the opening previous to, and independent of, the
speaking of the Word ?
Another proof text was I Cor. ii. 14: "The natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for
they are foolishness to him; neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned." The
natural man is here contrasted with the spiritual man.
The word is sometimes rendered physical, natural,
animal, sensual. Natural is the most common. It is
four times natural, and twice sensual in the common
version. McKnight prefers the animal man, and he is
high authority in Scotland, and I learn, of high author-
ity in the theological school at Princeton. Some of
the professors there, I am told, speak of him in much
admiration. The animal man, then, in the context,
means the "wise man according to the flesh," - in
contrast with the spiritual man, wise according to the
Spirit.
A sensual man is a man merely of sense ; but it
has come to signify one enslaved to sense. Now such
a man, who has no other guide than sense, can not
receive the things of the Spirit of God. "The things
of the Spirit" can only be discerned by him that is
spiritual one that is enlightened by the Spirit. But
the things of the Spirit are revealed things and,
therefore, the discernment of revealed things is very
different from the discernment of nothing as in the
case of infants, pagans, idiots, etc., supposed to be
regenerated without having the things of the Spirit
2O6 CAMPBEU<-RlCE DEBATE.
discerned at all. The text, therefore, comes not
within a thousand miles of the subject on hand.
I object, however, altogether to the theological ap-
propriation of this term. Our gospel-hearers are not
Paul's natural men, and, therefore, it is the sophism of
equivocation, or of an ambiguous term, of which all
are guilty, who use this word as equivalent, to the
citizens of Kentucky who read the Bible. We have
no natural men in that sense, nor in the proper sense
of that word. Adam was a natural man ; we, as his
mere offspring, are preternatural men, and under
Christ we hope to rise to be supernatural men.
I object to much of the nomenclature of modern
theology. We have drawn too much on the paganized
vocabulary of Rome. Neither Jewish, Christian, nor
Pagan, but a mongrel dialect, is the jargon of the
present age. Nature and grace are from the same
God twin sisters of the same divine family. But
man has strayed away from God and nature, and has
become a preternatural being. From this miserable
condition God proposes, in his glorious philanthropy,
to redeem man and to make him supernatural through
Christ, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. God
made man upright, and while he remained in nature,
that is, in his natural or original state, he had not
a passion, appetite, or instinct which he might not
most religiously gratify. But now his soul is har-
assed with the tumult of a thousand passions, lusts,
appetites, and elements that war against his soul. If
there were no sin in human nature, there could be
none in obeying all its passions. Skeptics are de-
ceived, always deceived, and fatally deceived, in their
reasonings from Mr. Rice's premises. Like him, they
suppose man to be in the state of nature ; and, there-
fore, think it no crime to gratify their passions. Their
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 207
reasoning is just, but their premises are false, and their
conclusion is a fatal error.
We have had numerous allusions and references to
Titus iii. 5. The gentleman can find in the phrase
"renewing of the Holy Spirit," no proof of a propo-
sition contrary to mine. The renewing of the Holy
Spirit is in the second birth connected with other
means. He has saved us through the washing of the
new birth, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This
renewing of the Spirit is not immediate, nor exclusive
of other means; it being associated with a washing,
and a shedding forth of the Spirit through Jesus Christ
our Savior.
The gentleman has more than onc called upon me
to read something from some of rny books contrary
to what he has read. Being here in person, I prefer
speaking on these subjects viva voce, to reading my
views already published. Besides, I have no time to
debate a hundred questions, growing out of his
designs, of which I am now apprized. The gentlemati
may read from them when he is hard pressed for mat-
ter. I perceive this is his principal use of them. For
me, when my present resources are exhausted, I may
turn in and debate with him on those writings. I
have another reason: I do not find just such passages
as suit all the topics that occur. Yet, as a matter of
complaisance, I will furnish the gentleman with one or
two extracts, if he will ask me for no more (Christian
System, p. 66) :
"Some will ask, Has not this gift been conferred on
us to make us Christians? True, indeed, no man can
say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit. As
observed in its proper place, the Spirit of God is the
perfecter and finisher of all divine works. 'The Spirit
of God moved upon the waters' ; 'the hand of the
208 CAMPBEI^-RICE DEBATE.
Lord has made me; the Spirit of the Almighty has
given me life'; 'by his Spirit he has garnished the
heavens ; his hand has formed the crooked serpent'
the milky way ; 'the Spirit descended upon him' ; 'God
himself bare the apostles witness, by divers miracles
and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his will';
'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the
Holy Spirit' ; 'when the Spirit of truth, the Advocate,
is come, he will convict the world of sin, because they
believe not on me, and of justification, because I go to
my Father' ; 'God was manifest in the flesh, and justi-
fied by the Spirit.'
"Now we can not separate the Spirit and Word of
God, and ascribe so much power to the one and so
much to the other: for so did not the apostles. What-
ever the Word does, the Spirit does ; and whatever the
Spirit does in the work of converting men, the Word
does. We neither believe nor teach abstract Spirit,
nor abstract Word ; but Word and Spirit, and Spirit
and Word." Again (pp. 277, 278):
" 'He has saved us,' says the apostle Paul, 'by the
bath of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy
Spirit, which he poured on us richly through Jesus
Christ our Savior; that being justified by his favor
(in the bath of regeneration), we might be made
heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' Thus, and
not by works of righteousness, he has saved us. Con-
sequently, being born of the Spirit, or the renewing
of the Holy Spirit, is as necessary as the bath of regen-
eration to the salvation of the soul, and to the enjoy-
ment of the hope of heaven, of which the apostle
speaks. In the kingdom of which we are born of
water, the Holy Spirit is as the atmosphere in the
kingdom of nature: we mean, that the influences of
the Holy Spirit are as necessary to the new life, as the
INFLUENCE 6* THE HOLY SPIRIT. 209
atmosphere is to our animal life in the kingdom of
nature. All that is done in us before regeneration,
God our Father effects by the Word, or the Gospel as
dictated or confirmed by his Holy Spirit. But after
we are thus begotten and born by the Spirit of God
after our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on us
richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, of which the
peace of mind, the love, the joy, and the hope of the
regenerate is full proof: for these are amongst the
fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise of which we
speak."
Many other such passages might be read from our
numerous writings on this subject. But this, as a
specimen, may perhaps suffice to gratify my friend.
The gentleman also relies upon the new covenant
in proof of his proposition. Of the four provisions of
the new institution only one of them applies to this
subject. The first is: "I will put my laws into their
mind, and write them upon their hearts." Now, in
every covenant there are parties the covenanter and
the covenantees. God is the covenanter, and Chris-
tians the covenantees. "With the house of Israel, (not
according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,) I
will make a new covenant." Now, what bearing has
this on the question before us? Were the covenantees
infants, pagans, idiots, unconverted men? If not, the
passage is wholly misapplied, because brought to prove
a subject wholly different from that in the mind of
the Spirit. We are debating about the work of the
Spirit on conversion, and in that discussion a question
has arisen about regeneration, and the question on
that subject is are persons regenerated by the Spirit
without the Word? This position the gentleman is
now seeking to prove, and this is one of his proofs.
210 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
Having shown its entire impertinence to the subject,
we shall attend to another point.
Mr. Rice, from some remarks made in some of my
essays, in illustration of the converting power in the
divine Word, on the influence which the writings of
Demosthenes and Cicero have exerted upon the
world, has sought to institute a comparison for me
to make me say, that, as all the moral or argumenta-
tive power of Demosthenes and Cicero is in their
writings, so all God's moral power is in his Word.
So far so good; but the gentleman goes a little far-
ther, and would not allow the case to terminate there,
but supposed me to assign no other power or presence
to the Spirit of God than to the spirit and personal
influence of those ancient orators. I am prepared to
say, that, so far as moral power is concerned, the ar-
guments and motives of the Spirit of God are all set
forth in the New Institution, in all their perfection;
and that this power can not be increased. Nay, I
argue, that if the Spirit of God were again to descend,
as on Pentecost, and in the person of a new legate
from heaven, should plead with the human race, touch-
ing their condition and destiny under God's philan-
thropy and active benevolence ; when he had set forth,
in all their amplitude, all the facts and promises in the
universe on this subject, he would then, at the close of
the effort, have not increased one grain the amount of
the moral momentum and influence of the Gospel. He
would not then have increased, in the least, its convert-
ing power. For if the story is all told now, and if God
veraciously and sincerely asks, what more could be
done than what I have done for my vineyard, then
there is no possibility of accumulating the power by
any other means ; but whether the ever-living and
ever-present Spirit of our God may not through that
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 211
truth, in ways unknown to mortals, affect the soul of
man, by fixing the attention upon it, or removing,
providentially, obstructions, etc., is neither affirmed
nor denied in that comparison, nor in the circum-
stances that called it forth. And this having been
spoken with special reference to the fanaticism and
wild enthusiasm of the age, in certain cases of pre-
tended new light and new-converting power, ought
to have been construed accordingly. But this method
of torturing men's words by putting them on the par-
tisan rack, and dislocating every joint, works as per-
vertingly on them as on the Word of God. When-
ever all the gospel argument is comprehended, all the
moral power of God is exhausted ; for beyond that he
has never displayed any to any man, and he that hears
not Moses and the prophets, Christ and his apostles,
would not be persuaded though one rose from the
dead.
The gentleman has more than once asked me for
proof that the Spirit operates only through the Word ;
and avows that unless I shew him some text that
exactly affirms that, he will not believe. Well, I gave
him, in my proposition on the design of baptism, the
very words in the book, with the mere supplement
past, to which he did riot demur, and then he would
not believe. And I verily believe if I gave him every
word in one verse, he would be for construing it in a
different sense. But this is a new mode of argumen-
tation, by which he could not prove one article in his
creed ; for not one of them is found in the identical
words of the book. Nor could we prove any propo-
sition not found verbatim in the Bible. But I have
proved only through the Word. By shewing, first,
that the Spirit does regenerate and sanctify through
the Word, and, in the same place, by that great law
CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
of the physical and moral universe, that whatever is
necessary to any given result, is always necessary.
Also, by various other considerations and arguments,
yet unnoticed by him. Did 1 not, on yesterday, dem-
onstrate on his own definition of regeneration, the
utter impossibility of infant regeneration ? and yet he
has neither retracted nor defended the definition.
Surely, he ought to do the one or the other.
At the commencement of this discussion he clearly
stated that the Spirit does sometimes operate through
the Word. Had it not been for idiots, pagans, and
infants, he would, no doubt, have said only through
the Word. He has since admitted that on adults he
operates generally through the Word. It was some
time before he gave us a definition of regeneration ;
and still longer before he informed us whether faith
or regeneration were prior, or which was the cause
of the other. Finally, he informed us that regenera-
tion preceded faith, therefore both infants and adults
are regenerated without faith, and prior to faith.
Without perceiving, and, I am confident, without in-
tending it, he has thus indisputably proved my fourth
argument, which, you will remember, says: "What-
ever is essential to regeneration in one case, is essen-
tial in all cases." For having been brought to concede
namely, that regeneration is prior to faith, thus mak-
ing adults the subject of regeneration without belief,
and infants, as a matter of course, because incapable
of belief, we have obtained from him the admission of
my fourth argument. Again, we have proved to his
own satisfaction that the Spirit generally operates
through the Word on adults, and in some cases only
through the Word ; follows it not, then, that accord-
ing to our fourth argument, regeneration must be
through the Word, and therefore infant regeneration
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 213
is impossible ? In any view of the matter, then, I may
say, without fear of successful contradiction from any
quarter, that Mr. Rice has given us the data for his
own refutation, and now stands self-refuted for the
reasons now assigned. This subject is still suscep-
tible of farther illustration, but my time being almost
expired, I shall only add a few words on the plan of
the Bible as developing its theory of regeneration.
The Old and New Testaments are arranged upon
the same grand plan. They present a record of facts
well documented and proved. The first five books
of both Testaments are historical. The historical and
the didactic go together. The fact first, the testi-
mony concerning it, and then the development of it.
There is one grand arrangement of revelation, adapted
to the constitution and philosophy of man. The
order of things is simple, because it is rational. The
connection is first, fact ; next, testimony concerning
that fact that something said or done; then faith,
or the belief of that testimony ; after that, feeling in
harmony with whatever is believed joyful or sor-
rowful, good or bad ; and. in the last place, action
a course of conduct corresponding with that feeling.
This is not only the rational, but it is the fixed and
necessary and immutable arrangement of things pro-
ducing faith and growing out of it. It is no arbitrary
division, no conventional arrangement. It must be so
while man is a being that walks by faith, and while
faith is the belief of testimony. These five words
fact, testimony, faith, feeling, action set forth the
economy of the Bible, and are the grand links in that
divine chain that give to the facts of revelation their
influence on the soul of man. The thing done or
spoken by God, or man, called the fact, passes into the
testimony, and the testimony passes into faith, and the
214 CAMPBELL- RICE DEBATE.
fact, in that faith, passes into corresponding feeling,
and then it is made living and efficient in the action.
Now this being the immutable order of things, and
regeneration being the offspring of the Word of God
believed, it is impossible that any one, incapable of
understanding the fact, of believing the testimony, of
exercising faith, of possessing moral feeling, and of
correspondent action, can be regenerated. (Time
expired.)
INFLUENCE; OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 215
MR. RICE'S EIGHTH REPLY.
WEDNESDAY, November 29. 10:30 A.M.
Mr. President. I intend that, throughout this dis-
cussion, the precise points in debate shall be kept dis-
tinctly in view. Mr. C. says he admits that in conver-
sion and sanctification the Spirit does operate, and
that the Word is only the instrument. I inquired of
him, on yesterday, what he meant by this language?
Whether he holds that there is any operation of the
Spirit distinct from the Word, or whether he believes
only that the Spirit dictated the Word and confirmed it
by miracle, and now the Word converts and sancti-
fies? To this important question I received no answer.
If he believes the Spirit to be the agent in this work,
he must put forth some power; for there can not be
an agent without an action. If, then, his language
means anything, it must be that at the moment when
the soul is converted the Spirit of God exerts convert-
ing power, performs an act which produces this result.
I wished to be informed whether he believes that the
Spirit exerts an influence distinct from the Word, but
he would not answer the question.
He told us, also, that the Spirit is always present
with the Word. I asked him what he meant by this
language, but I received no answer. I discover
plainly that the audience are not to see the real point
at issue, unless I constantly keep it before them, and
this I am resolved to do.
The great question is not, whether ordinarily the
Spirit operates through the truth, but whether the
216 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
only influence exerted in conversion and sanctification
is that of words and arguments ; whether the Spirit of
God operates on the hearts of men only as Mr. C.'s
spirit operates on the minds of this audience. This is
the question I use the gentleman's own illustration
We are not debating the question by what instrumen-
tality the Spirit converts and sanctifies men, but what
is the work which the Spirit does. We hold that in
the case of infants and idiots, inasmuch as instrumen-
tality can not be employed, sanctification takes place
without the truth. In the case of adults we hold that
there is not only the influence of words and arguments,
but a distinct influence of the Spirit, opening the eyes
and purifying the heart. This Mr. C. denies.
The gentleman has a clear head. I wonder at the
confusion in which he keeps his real sentiments. On
some subjects he delivers himself with great clearness,
and on the one before us he has written clearly. Yet
this is the third day we have been on this proposition,
and I must say that more fog and mist I never did see
thrown around any subject !
Let me now give you a specimen of the manner in
which my Biblical friend expounds Scripture. He
professes to be a very Biblical man. In proof of a
divine influence, in addition to the Word, I quoted
Luke xxiv. 45: "Then opened he their understand-
ings, that they might understand the Scriptures." The
inspired writer, you observe, does not say he opened
their understandings in order that they might under-
stand the Scriptures. What is the gentleman's reply?
He turns to the 27th verse: "And beginning at Moses
and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all
the Scriptures, the things concerning himself." Now,
according to his principles of interpretation, expound-
ing the Scriptures and opening their understandings
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 217
that they might understand them, are the same thing!
Why, you might expound the Scriptures to persons by
the hour, and yet they might have no correct under-
standing of them ; but if you had power to open their
understandings, the whole difficulty would be at once
removed. Remove the causes of their blindness, and
they will see clearly. So did David pray: "Open
thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things
out of thy law." Did he not pray for a divine influ-
ence on his mind, opening his understanding? It is
vain to attempt to evade the force of language so per-
fectly plain. It will not do to say that to open the
understanding, and to open the Scriptures, are phrases
meaning the same thing.
To prove the necessity of the special work of the
Spirit on the heart, I quoted I Cor. ii. 14: "The nat-
ural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they
are foolishness to him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned." The gentle-
man appeals to McKnight, who translates the phrase
"animal man." And he tells us he has somewhere
heard that the professors in the Princeton Theological
Seminary have placed McKnight at the head of critical
commentators. This may be true, but I should prefer
to have some proof of the fact. But let us take his
translation. Now, the question is, who is the animal
man? Mr. C. says he is the pagan without a divine
revelation to guide him. But the fact is, the word
translated "natural" or "animal" has not this meaning
in one instance in the New Testament. It is used in
i Cor. xv. 44, 45, to distinguish the natural body from
the spiritual body. The natural body, we know,
means the body as it is by nature, unchanged. "It is
sown (or buried) a natural body." The spiritual body
means the body as it will be changed at the resurrec-
2i8 CAMrBF,i^-RiCE DEBATE;.
tion. So the natural man means man as he is by
nature depraved ; and the spiritual man is the man
renewed by the Holy Spirit.
The same word, as I have already stated, is used by
James, who describes the wisdom which is not from
above, as "earthly, sensual, (Gr., natural,) devilish."
In this passage the word is used with reference to
moral character, and it certainly expresses the idea of
depravity. It is also used by Jude (vs. 19), where he
describes the wicked thus : "These be they who separ-
ate themselves, sensual, (Or., natural,) having not the
Spirit." The wicked, who have not the Spirit, are
described as natural or sensual. On the use of the
word in these passages, the gentleman forgot to make
even a passing remark. The usage of the New Testa-
ment, in regard to this word, leaves no room to doubt
what is its meaning. The natural man certainly is
man in his native depravity. Mr. C. objects to the use
of the word "natural," as applied to man in his deprav-
ity, because by nature he was not depraved. He,
therefore, uses the word "preternatural." But he
seems not to remember that in making this objection
he is finding fault with the language of inspiration.
In the epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says "men are by
nature the children of wrath" (chap. ii. 3). The word
here used is phnsis, the literal and uniform meaning of
which is "nature." If Paul thus uses the word
"nature," I may be excused for following his example.
But Mr. C. was careful not to notice the succeeding
part of the verse under discussion. Why does not the
natural man receive the things of the Spirit ? Because,
says Paul, "they are foolishness unto him." The
meaning of this language, as I proved, is made per-
fectly clear by Chapter i. 18: "The preaching of the
cross is to them that perish, foolishness ; but unto us
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 219
which are saved, it is the power of God." That is,
when they hear the Gospel pleached it is to them fool-
ishness ; they see in it no wisdom, no adaptation to
their condition, nothing attractive ; and therefore they
reject it. So to "the natural man" the things of the
Spirit, the truths, of the Gospel, are foolishness, and
he rejects them. But if Mr. C.'s interpretation be cor-
rect, the passage should read thus: "The animal man
receiveth not the. things of the Spirit, for they arc
not revealed to him."
It is now perfectly clear that "the natural man" is
the unrenewed man ; and since unrenewed men do not
receive, but uniformly reject the Gospel, it follows,
inevitably, that the special influence of the Holy Spirit,
in addition to the Word, is absolutely necessary to
their conversion and sanctification. Consequently, in
every case of conversion, such a divine influence is
actually exerted.
To show you how much I have misrepresented him,
the gentleman read a paragraph or two from his
"Christian System." I am pleased to see him read his
publications, and I am quite disposed to aid him in pre-
senting them before you. On page 66 he read as
follows: "Some will ask, Has not this gift [of the
Spirit] been conferred on us to make us Christians?
True indeed, no man can say that Jesus is Lord, but
by the Holy Spirit. As observed in its proper place,
the Spirit of God is the perfecter and finisher of all
divine works. 'The Spirit moved upon the waters,' '
etc. But the difficulty is, that in this whole paragraph
he says not one word concerning an influence of the
Spirit upon the heart, in conversion ! He quotes sev-
eral passages, as follows: "The hand of the Lord has
made me, the Spirit of the Almighty has given me
life"; "By his Spirit he has garnished the heavens, his
220 CAMPBELL- RICK DEBATE.
9
hand has formed the crooked serpent"; "The Spirit
descended upon him ; God himself bore the apostles
witness, by divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit,
according to his will." Not one of these passages,
nor any one quoted by him, has the slightest reference
to a change of the heart by the Holy^ Spirit.
He also read on the next page: "Now we can not
separate the Spirit and the Word of God, and ascribe
so much power to the one and so much to the other ;
for so did not the apostles. Whatever the Word does,
the Spirit does ; and whatever the Spirit does, in the
work of converting men, the Word does. We neither
believe nor teach abstract Spirit nor abstract Word,
but Word and Spirit, and Spirit and Word." All
this is perfectly ambiguous. For if the Spirit dictated
and confirmed the Word, and the Word converts and
sanctifies men, it is true, in a sense, that the Spirit
does the work. But does Mr. C. hold to an influence
of the Spirit in conversion, distinct from the Word?
On this point these paragraphs give us no light. Let
me read on the 2/7th page of his "Christianity
Restored." Perhaps we shall here gain some informa-
tion. He says:
"But this pouring out of the influences, this renewing
of the Holy Spirit, is as necessary as the bath of regen-
eration to the salvation of the soul, and to the enjoy-
ment of the hope of heaven, of which the apostle
speaks. In the kingdom into which we are born of
water, the Holy Spirit is as the atmosphere in the
kingdom of nature: we mean, that the influences of
the Holy Spirit are as necessary to the new life as the
atmosphere is to our animal life in the kingdom of
nature. All that is done in us before regeneration,
God our Father effects by the Word, or the Gospel, as
dictated and confirmed by his Holy Spirit. But after
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 221
we are thus begotten and born by the Spirit of God
after our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on us
richly through Jesus Christ our Savior ; of which the
peace of mind, the love, the joy, and the hope of the
regenerate is full proof: for these are amongst the
fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise, of which we
speak."
On this passage I make two or three remarks:
i. "This pouring out of the influences, this renewing
of the Holy Spirit," he says, "is as necessary as the
birth of regeneration (immersion) to the salvation of
the soul, and to the enjoyment of the hope of heaven."
The influences of the Spirit only as necessary to salva-
tion, as immersion not more so ! ! ! 2. Observe,
he says, "All that is done in us before regeneration
(immersion) God our Father effects by the Word, or
the Gospel as dictated and confirmed by his Holy
Spirit." Here we have a denial as clear and as strong
as language can make it, of any influence in conver-
sion, except that of the Word as dictated and con-
firmed by the Spirit. This is the most important point
about which we differ, and which I desire the audience
not to lose sight of. 3. As my friend is fond of ask-
ing questions, I wish to ask him, What kind of influ-
ence does the Spirit exert on the minds of immersed
believers? This is a very important question. He
has said in his publications, that there are but two
kinds of power moral and physical. He has also
said, that the only power that can be exerted on mind
is moral power ; and he has said, that "every spirit
puts forth its moral power in words"; that "all the
power it has over the views, habits, manners or actions
of men is in the meaning and arrangement of its ideas
expressed in words ; or in significant signs addressed
to the eye or ear." Now I am particularly anxious to
222 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
know what kind of influence the Spirit does exert on
the minds of believers, after they are immersed. Is
it physical power? My friend will say No. Is it spir-
itual power neither physical nor moral ? He will
say No. Is it a moral influence which sanctifies the
heart ? If so, it must be an influence simply and only
of the Word. Will the gentleman enlighten us on this
subject? We wish to know something about this
influence which is not physical, nor moral, nor any-
thing else !
I was pleased to hear him, for once, come out and
express with some clearness his real sentiments. The
Spirit of God, he tells us, produces moral effects only
by arguments; that when all his arguments and
motives are brought to bear on the mind, his moral
power is exhausted. This is precisely what I read on
yesterday from his ''Christianity Restored." What
moral power could Demosthenes or Cicero exert on
their hearers or readers, after they had put forth all
their arguments? So it appears, according to this
doctrine, that the Holy Spirit has no more power over
the minds and hearts of men than had those ancient
orators, except that he may reason more power-
fully! ! ! So he teaches in his "Christianity Restored"
(PP- 348, 349):
"Because arguments are addressed to the under-
standing, will, and affections of men, they are called
moral, inasmuch as their tendency is to form or
change the habits, manners, or actions of men.
Every spirit puts forth its moral power in words ;
that is, all the power it has over the views, habits,
manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and
arrangement of its ideas expressed in words, or in sig-
nificant signs addressed to the eye or ear. All the
moral power of Cicero and Demosthenes was in their
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 223
orations when spoken, and in the circumstances which
gave them meaning; and whatever power these men
have exercised over Greece and Rome since their
death, is in their writings. * * *
"From such premises we may say, that all the moral
power which can be exerted on human beings, is, and
must of necessity be in the arguments addressed to
them. No other power than moral power can operate
on minds ; and this power must always be clothed in
words, addressed to the eye or ear. Thus we reason
when revelation is altogether out of view. And when
we think of the power of the Spirit of God exerted
upon minds or human spirits, it is impossible for us
to imagine that that power can consist in anything
else but words or arguments. Thus, in the nature of
things, we are prepared to expect verbal communi-
cations from the Spirit of God, if that Spirit operates
at all upon our spirits. As the moral power of every
man is in his arguments, so is the moral power of the
Spirit of God in his arguments."
This limiting of the power of God, I have said, is
both unscriptural and unreasonable. God originally
created man upright. He exerted on him an influ-
ence, not by words and arguments, which made him
holy. Who shall venture, in view of this fact, to say
he can not now exert an influence which will renew
his sinful nature?
The gentleman asks, What can the Spirit do, after
all his arguments have been put forth ? Will he inform
us how the devil tempts men to sin? He acknowl-
edges that the devil has access to the minds of men,
and exerts a moral influence, not by words and argu-
ments addressed to the eye or ear ; yet he can not
tell us how that influence is exerted. If, then, we do
not know how good or evil spirits can exert an influ-
224 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
ence on our minds, is it not most presumptuous in
any man to assert that the Holy Spirit can not exert
a moral or spiritual influence except by words and
arguments addressed to the eye or ear? Shall we
venture to say that the devil has more power over the
human mind than God ?
Let all this false philosophy go to the winds, and
give us the Bible. The gentleman is attempting to
prove that in conversion and sanctification the Spirit
operates on persons only through the truth. If
there is a passage in the Bible that expresses such a
sentiment, let us have it. I desire to see the passage,
if it is in the Bible. If it is not, he would better aban-
don his doctrine.
But he says the proposition he affirmed on the design
of baptism was, with the exception of one word, pre-
cisely the language of the Bible, and yet I was not
satisfied with it. The difficulty was, that I was not
satisfied with his interpretation of the language of the
Bible, because it flatly contradicted many of the plain-
est declarations of Christ and the Apostles ! The gen-
tleman has a remarkable tact at representing all men
who differ from him as fighting against the Scrip-
tures. I verily do not believe that he is infallible ;
and believing him fallible, I must venture to differ
from him.
He has given you, my friends, some important in-
formation this morning, viz., that on yesterday I gave
up the whole question ! I venture to say that not an
individual in the house, except himself, discovered
that I had done so. It was, therefore, particularly
important that he should make the announcement !
But how did I give up the question? By admitting
that generally the Spirit operates through the truth.
So says Mr. C. Let me repeat the substance of mv
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 225
remarks on this point, and the audience will judge
whether I gave it up. I stated distinctly that the
Scriptures speak of two kinds of faith, very different
in their character. King Agrippa had the one, and
Paul had the other. Paul, in his defense, thus
addressed the king: "King Agrippa, believest thou
the prophets? I know that thou believest." Yet
Agrippa was not a Christian, but only almost per-
suaded to be a Christian. It is evident to every man's
common sense, that you may believe a thing to be
true, and yet be perfectly indifferent concerning it.
"Gallic cared for none of these things." You may
be constrained by clear evidence to believe the truth,
and yet most earnestly wish it were not a truth.
Thousands believe the Bible to be a divine revelation,
and yet are wholly indifferent to its sublime truths.
Their minds are occupied with other subjects, and
their time employed in worldly pursuits. One goes
to his farm, another to his merchandise ; and each says,
"I pray thee, have me excused." There are others
who are constrained to admit the truth of the Bible,
but are deeply averse to its doctrines and precepts.
"The devils believe and tremble."
This faith, though it leads the soul not immediately
to Christ, is yet important ; because it causes men to
hear and to think, that their consciences may be
reached, and that God may regenerate and sanctify
them through the truth. Thus they may be induced
to embrace the Gospel, which before they both
believed and hated ; or to the appeals of which they
were indifferent. The faith of Agrippa is the faith
which precedes regeneration ; and the faith of Paul is
the effect of it. The faith of Paul worked by love, and
overcame the world. This is the faith of which John
speaks, as an effect of the new birth: "Whosoever
226 CAMPBELL- RICE DEBATE.
believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." 1
should be pleased to know whether Mr. C. ascribes
to faith any moral quality; or whether he supposes
that men believe in Christ, just as they believe that
there was such a man as Caesar, and as they believe
what he relates of his wars. Is not faith the cordial
reception of Christ as cur Savior? I did not give up
the question.
I have offered a considerable number of arguments,
to which my friend has attempted no reply. He has
pursued his usual course. He says they are irrele-
vant. This is the easiest way in the world to answer
arguments. If a man finds them unanswerable, he
can say they are all irrelevant ! To prove that in con-
version and sanctification there is an agency of the
Spirit, distinct from the Word, I quoted such passages
as the following: "I will pour out my Spirit upon
thy seed." "A new heart also will I give you, and a
new spirit will I put within you." "I will give them
one heart and one mind," etc. They are all irrele-
vant, says the gentleman. Such is his answer, though
every one can see that they bear directly and most
conclusively on the point at issue, for they teach in
the clearest manner that men repent and believe,
because God sheds upon them his Holy Spirit.
My time is so nearly out that I will not now intro-
duce another argument. (Time expired.)
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 227
MR. CAMPBELL'S NINTH ADDRESS.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 29, n o'clock A.M.
Mr. President. More than half the time occupied
by my friend has been devoted to the consideration of
passages of Scripture more or less animadverted on
before. He deems them of great importance, and I
am willing that he should think so. But as I deem
them no way relevant to our position in the question,
I shall hasten, in the first place, to state some other
arguments, reserving for further notice of these to cir-
cumstances. His remarks on spiritual operations,
when further explained, may, perhaps, be compre-
hended. As yet, however, to me they are not com-
prehensible. I will answer his interrogations when
they are more definitely set forth. Let him explain
his distinct power. I can not comprehend his theory
of an abstract power. If he say superadded power, I
wish to know of what character it is physical or
moral? I can readily conceive of various means being
employed to secure the attention of persons to impress
the subject on the mind, and of means used providen-
tially to remove obstructions ; but, to talk of super-
added power, of a distinct power, without any defini-
tion of the nature and character of it, seems not in
the least to enlighten us. If I see a man take an ax
and fell a tree, I call the ax the instrument, and I say,
whatever power he puts forth in felling the tree is
put forth through the ax. Not one chip is removed
without it. This illustrates so much of the subject
as pertains to instrumentality. I am at a loss to
228 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
understand his additional power. I see but the man
and the ax, and the tree falls. That the Spirit oper-
ates through the instrumentality of the Word I doubt
not ; but if asked to explain the modus operandi, I con-
fess my inability. The fact of the power I admit, but
the how it works I presume not to comprehend. If
Mr. Rice will set it forth, I will cheerfully avow my
assent or dissent, as the case may be ; for I keep no
secrets on that subject, or any other, connected with
man's salvation. I candidly consider that the gentle-
man has, however, conceded the real issue. He has
got a regeneration without true faith, but now seems
to have need of a pretended faith, or some sort of an
indescribable, partial, imperfect faith as a pre-requisite.
He has a faith before, and a faith after regeneration.
But this seems not to meet the case, nor relieve him
from the dilemma. His indefinable, previous faith is
just no faith at all; and, therefore, his true doctrine is
regeneration without faith, and consequently without
any human instrumentality. A faith that does not
renew the heart is a species of infidelity. His infant
and adult, his pagan and idiot, regeneration are there-
fore all of one sort; all special miracles without any
instrumentality whatever. He has, indeed, as before
shown, admitted my fourth argument ; and, accord-
ing to it, as regeneration is in one case, it is in all
cases. Whatever means are necessary to produce
one ear of corn, are necessary to the production of
every other ear of corn. So in all well-regulated
States, whatever is necessary to constitute one for-
eigner a citizen, is necessary to the naturalization of
every other foreigner. We shall, then, till otherwise
informed, regard this case as settled.
On my side of this question, I have only to prove
that the seed is essential to the fruit, and on this, I
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 229
presume, amplification is not called for. When, how-
ever, Mr. Rice again brings up this same view, I may
amplify still further. Till then I will not spend time
in expatiating on principles so well established, so
universally admitted. Neither need I dwell upon the
peculiar arrangement of the Scriptures, on the prin-
ciple submitted at the close of my last address. It is
true, that I intend it to be the basis of a branch of the
evidence adduced, in confirmation of the views given.
Our feelings are properly called our active powers.
Now, in religion, they are properly dependent on our
faith no true faith, no true feeling. That again
depends not merely upon the testimony being good
and valid, but upon our appreciation of it. No one
can believe testimony which he does not understand ;
hence, if either the testimony of God, or the facts
contained in the Bible, have anything to do with
renewing or purifying the heart, there can be no
renewal without a previous belief.
But I hasten to state another argument, which shall
obtain the rank of my tenth argument, in proof of the
proposition. It is expressed in the following words:
X. Whatever influence is ascribed to the Word
of God in the Sacred Scriptures, is also< ascribed to the
Spirit of God ; or, in other words, what the Spirit of
God is at one time, and in one place, said to do, is at
some other time or in some other place ascribed to
the Word of God. Hence, I argue that they do not
operate separately, but in all cases conjointly. We
shall give an induction of a number of cases in exem-
plification of the fact. Are we said to be enlightened
by the Spirit of God? We are told in another place,
"The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening
the eyes." Again, "The entrance of thy Word giveth
light, and makes the simple wise." Are we said to be
230 CAMPBELL-RICE
converted by the Spirit of God ? We hear the prophet
David say, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting
the soul." Are we said to be sanctified through the
Spirit of God? We hear our Lord praying to his
Father, "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy Word
is the truth? Are we said to be quickened by the
Spirit of God? The same is ascribed to the Word of
God. David says, "Thy Word, O Lord, hath quick-
ened me," "Stay me with thy precepts, thy statutes
quicken me." This is one of the strongest expres-
sions.
In other forms of speech, the same effects and influ-
ence are ascribed to both. . Paul, in one context, says,
"Be filled with the Spirit" ; and when again speaking
of the same subject, in another, he says, "Let the Word
of Christ dwell in you richly." In both cases the pre-
cepts are to be fulfilled in the same way, "teaching and
admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, making melody in your hearts to the
Lord." "The Spirit," says Paul to Timothy, "speak-
eth expressly that in the latter day some shall depart
from the faith." Again, "Know ye, in the last days
perilous times shall come." Again, Paul says he has
sanctified the church and cleansed it with "a bath of
water and the Word." In another instance he says,
he hath saved us "with the washing of regeneration
and renewal of the Holy Spirit." Are we said to be
"born of the Spirit"? \Ve are also said to be born
again, or "regenerated by the Word of God." I might
trace this matter much further, but I presume, as we
have touched upon the most important items, \ve have
found such an induction as will satisfy the most scru-
pulous. Unless questioned, I shall then affirm it as a
conclusion fairly drawn, that whatever effects or influ-
ences connected with conversion and sanctification
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 231
are, in one portion of the Scripture, assigned to the
Word, are ascribed also to the Spirit; and so inter-
changeably throughout both Testaments. Whence
we conclude, that the Spirit and Word of God are not
separate and distinct kinds of power the one super-
added to the other, but both acting conjointly and
simultaneously in the work of sanctification and sal-
vation.
As Mr. Rice would seem to argue for two substan-
tive powers, essentially distinct from each other, I do
hope he will be at pains to explain to us the peculiar
discriminating characteristics or attributes of each.
XI. My eleventh argument is deduced from the
important fact, that resisting the Word of God and
resisting the Spirit of God, are shown to be the same
thing, by very clear and explicit testimonies, such as
Stephen, the proto-martyr, when filled with the Holy
Spirit, and, indeed, speaking as the Holy Spirit gave
him utterance, in the presence of the sanhedrin, said,
"You uncircumcised in heart and ears, as your fathers
did, so do you. You do always resist the Holy
Spirit." What proof does he allege? He adds, "As
your fathers did, so do you" (resist). "Which of the
prophets did they not persecute?" This, then, is his
proof. In persecuting the prophets, they resisted the
Holy Spirit ; because the words spoken by the proph-
ets were suggested by the Spirit. We are said to
resist a person when we resist his word. When, then,
any one resists the words of the prophets or the apos-
tles, he is said by inspired men to resist the Holy
Spirit. This important fact should be more frequently
insisted on than it is. Men should be taught that in
resisting the words spoken by apostles and prophets,
they are, in truth, resisting the Holy Spirit, by whom
they uttered those words. Mav we not, then, con-
232 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
sistently say, with Stephen, that when men resist the
prophets and apostles in their writings, and will not
submit to their teachings, they are resisting the Holy
Spirit ? This being admitted, follows it not again, that
the Spirit of God operates through the truth ; and that
we are not to suppose that in conversion and sanctifi-
cation, they do not act separately and distinctly from
each other?
A still more impressive instance of this kind we find
in the book of Nehemiah. In his admirable prayer,
preserved in the ninth chapter, he has two very re-
markable expressions ; one in the 2Oth and one in the
29th verse. In the former, when speaking of the
instructions given the Jews by Moses, he said, "Thou
gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them" ; and in
the latter, he says, "Many years didst thou forbear
them, and testifiedst against them by thy Spirit in thy
prophets, yet would they not hear." Here, then, we
are taught that God, by his Spirit in Moses, instructed
the Jews by his good Spirit, and that in testifying to
them by the prophets, God was testifying to them by
his Holy Spirit. We are, then, still more fully con-
firmed in the conclusion that the Spirit of God oper-
ates through his Word, and only through his Word,
in conversion and sanctification ; and that the Word
and Spirit of God, in those spiritual and moral
changes and influences of which we now speak, are
never to be regarded as operating apart ; that what-
ever is done by the Word of God, is done by the Spirit
of God ; and whatever is done by the Spirit, is done
through the Truth and certainly he can through
that instrument operate most powerfully on the
spirit of man, as all Christians experience, and the
saints of all time exhibit.
Notwithstanding the pains taken in my opening
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 233
speech on this subject, to indicate the different offices
assigned to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, in the work of salvation, it seems, from some
of the quotations offered by Mr. Rice, that he indis-
criminately assigns to any one of them the work pecu-
liarly and exclusively assigned to another. Seeing
this so often done by others, and presuming that it
might occur here, I remonstrated against it as both
illogical and unscriptural. How often is the passage,
Matt. xvi. 17, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed this
to you, Peter, but my Father, who* is in heaven," quot-
ed, with a special reference to the work of the Holy
Spirit. The system-makers and system-mongers,
almost to a man, press this passage into their service.
They prove by it a special revelation to Peter by the
Holy Spirit: to all of which I have no objection what-
ever, so far as either the possibility or practicabil-
ity of making original suggestions to< Peter, on this
or any other subject, is concerned. But I plead for
the proper application and interpretation of the Scrip-
tures, much more than for the particular import of a
single text, however important that text may be.
It was the Father, and not the Spirit, of whom Jesus
here speaks. It was "my Father who is in heaven,"
that revealed this fact to you, -Peter, that I am the Son
of God, and the Christ of God. The fact, as stated,
too, is very plain. God spake out from heaven, after
the Messiah's baptism, and revealed who he was. He
also indicated him by the Spirit descending in the form
of a dove, and lighting upon his head. This being
done very publicly, and reported in Jerusalem, as we
learn from John, Chapter v., "Peter must have heard
and believed," whether at the Jordan, when it hap-
pened, or not. Thus it was that the Father revealed,
234 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
and in person introduced, his Son. Peter, in common
with some others, believed it.
I said in the commencement of this discussion, that
I did not affirm or deny as to any other operations of
the Spirit, save in conversion and sanctification.
What he may do in the way of suggestions or impres-
sions, by direct communication of original ideas, or
in bringing things to remembrance long since forgot-
ten, I presume not to discuss. I believe he has exert-
ed, and can exert, such influences. Nor do I say what
influence he may exert, or cause to be exerted, in
bringing man's minds to consider these matters ; but
I confine my reasonings and proofs to conversion and
sanctification. I wish, Mr. Rice, when he next quotes
John iii. 5, would give us the predicate of "So is every
one born of the Spirit." What means the word "so" ?
XII. My twelfth argument is deduced from the
fact that God created nothing without his Word. ''He
said, Let there be light, and there was light." "By
faith," says Paul, "we know that the worlds were
framed by the Word of God." All the details of the
six days show that "God made all things by the Word
of his power." Of course, then, we have no idea of
any new creation or regeneration without the Word
of God. Mr. Rice has taken it for granted, that God
made man holy at first without his Word. But this is
a mere assumption. It is an overwhelming fact, that
God does nothing in creation nor redemption without
his Word. His creative power has always been em-
bodied in that sublime instrument. Nay, it is the
sword of the Spirit. Still, there was through that
Word an almighty power put forth, and still there is
both in conversion and sanctification. God works
mightily in the human heart by his Word. The heart
of the King's enemies are mightily broken by it.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 235
Hence, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the
Word of God.
Indeed, there is much of this wisdom of God appar-
ent in the fact that he has chosen the term Logos to
represent the author and founder of the Christian faith
in his antecedent state of existence. And hence, John
represents Jesus Christ himself as the Word of God
incarnate. "Now the Word was made flesh," or be-
came flesh, "and dwelt among us." This is a mys-
terious name. He had a name given him which no
one can comprehend. His name is the Word of God.
Now, as Jesus Christ was "once God manifest in
Word," and now God manifest in flesh, we have reason
to regard the Word of God as an embodiment of his
wisdom and power. This, however, is spoken with
a reference to the Gospel Word; for Jesus Christ is
both the wisdom and the power of God, and so is his
Gospel, because containing this development. It is
the wisdom and power of God unto salvation, to every
one that believes it.
It was not, however, in creating light alone that God
employed his Word. Every work of creation is rep-
resented as the product of his Word. He said, "Let
there be a firmament in the midst of the waters," and
it was so. Again, "Let the dry land appear," and it
was so. "Let the earth bring forth grass," and it was
so. And last of all, "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness, and let them have dominion. So
God created man." God, therefore, made man in his
own image by his Word, and he now restores him to
that same image, by his Word of power. Thus we
have all the authority of the Bible with us in our views
of spiritual and divine influence. A spiritual, or
moral, or creative power, without the Word of God,
236 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
is a phantom, a mere speculation. It receives no
countenance from the Bible.
The gentleman said something about false prem-
ises. It will come up in its own time. If he would
follow my argument in the usual way of response, it
would prevent many such assertions. These matters
would then come up in their proper place, as well as
in their proper time.
The Lord has embodied his will in his Word.
Now the will of God is another form of his power.
Divine volition is divine power. The Word of God
is the fiat of God. ''Let there be" is a mere volition
expressed. Indeed, we may go further, and say that
the Word of the Lord is the Lord himself. The word
of a king is the king himself, so far as authority or
power is considered. As the Lord Jesus is the Word
of God incarnate, so is his Word an embodiment of his
power. For, as Solomon says, "Where the word of a
king is, there is power" ; there is the power of the
king himself. The Word of God is, then, the actual
power of God. God is a consuming fire, and his
"Word is as fire, and as a hammer that breaketh the
rock to pieces." It should not, therefore, be thought
strange, that the Word of God, and the Spirit of God,
are sometimes represented as equi-potent as equiv-
alent. Indeed, in all those passages that represent
the Word and Spirit of God as being the causes of the
same effects, this equivalency is clearly implied.
Hence, while Peter says, "By the Word of God the
heavens were of old, Job says, "By his Spirit he has
garnished the heaven?."
Can any one imagine what power could have been
superadded to the Word of God, that created light,
that made the heavens and the earth, that made man
upright or holy, as Mr. R. says ! Let him explain
INFLUENCE QF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 237
what that power could have been, which was distinct
from, and attached to, or that accompanied that word
by which all things were created and made. Explain
that accompanying power, and I will explain the
accompanying spiritual or superadded power in the
case of regeneration ! You can not break a man down
by physical power. You can not soften and subdue
the heart, as you grind a rock to pieces. A super-
added power beyond motive is inconceivable to any
mind accustomed to think accurately upon spiritual
and mental operations. The heart of man is to be
subdued, melted, purified from all its hatred of God
and enmity, by love, by developments of grace, and
not by any conceivable influence of a different nature.
His love is poured out into our hearts, says Paul, by
the Holy Spirit that is given to us.
Men had better be careful how they speak of, and
how they treat, the Word of God. It will stand for-
ever. Till the heavens pass away, not one word shall
fail. Mountains, by the wasting hand of time, may
crumble down to dust ; oceans may recede from their
ancient limits ; the heavens and the earth may pass
away but God's Word shall never, never pass
away. It is God's mighty moral lever, by which he
raises man from earth to heaven. It is his almighty,
awful, sublime and gracious will, embodied in such a
medium as can enter the secret chambers of the human
heart and conscience, and there stand up for God, and
confound the sinner in his presence. The love of God
is all enveloped in it, and that is the great secret of its
charm the mystery of its power to save, It is love,
and love alone, that can reconcile the heart of man to
God. Now love is a matter of intelligence a mat-
ter that is to be told, heard, believed, and received by
faith. "The power of God to salvation" is the per-
238 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
suasive power of infinite and eternal love, and not the
compulsive and subduing power of any force super-
added to it. The promise of eternal life is itself a
power of mighty magnitude. So are all the promises
that enter into the Christian hope. These are
almighty impulses, when understood and believed,
upon the veracity and faithfulness of God.
But there yet remains another argument, of the
inductive kind, which adapts itself to all minds, which
I may, in my next address, offer to your consideration.
We shall have an examination of every case of con-
version reported in the Bible history of the primitive
Church, down to the end of the inspired record.
Meantime, I must attend to some texts of Scripture
advanced by Mr. Rice, to show that repentance is the
gift of God. But who denies it ? He has quoted three
texts upon this subject. Two of the three speak of
the grant of repentance and remission of sins, in the
sense of the Gospel. And one of them, the last,
speaks of one opposing the truth. They are the fol-
lowing: "He," the Messiah, "is exalted a Prince and
a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and the for-
giveness of sins" a .dispensation of mercy. The
second is, "Then has God also granted unto the Gen-
tiles repentance unto life." He has also extended sal-
vation to the Gentiles upon the same principles of
repentance given to the Jews. And, in the case of an
opponent, says Paul, "Instruct him meekly"; that if
he have not hardened himself against the truth, God
may, peradventure, extend to him the advantage of
repentance. (Time expired.)
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
MR. RICE'S NINTH REPLY.
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 11:30 o'clock A.M.
Mr. President. I was very much gratified to hear
the illustration of the work of the Spirit introduced
by the gentleman at the commencement of his last
argument. It is this: An individual takes an axe and
cuts down a tree. All the power he exerts is through
the axe. Now I wish to know, whether the man does
not, at the time he is cutting the tree, put forth power ?
Is this not the fact? Then if the illustration he appro-
priate, it follows, that at the time when a man is con-
verted, the Spirit of God must put forth power in
some form by some direct act : and that is pre-
cisely what my friend denies. For he contends, as I
proved in my last speech, that before immersion no
other influence is exerted on the mind, but that of the
Word. To make the illustration suit his doctrine, the
axe must cut the tree till it is almost ready to fall, and
then the man must take hold of it, and complete the
work ! I think I can give a much more correct and
striking illustration of his doctrine than the one he has
given. A certain man made and tempered the axe ;
the axe cut the tree; and therefore the maker of the
axe might be said to have cut it. So the Spirit of God
dictated and confirmed the Word ; the Word converts
men ; and in this sense the Spirit converts them.
Just as the man who made and tempered the axe
might be said to do what the axe does, so the Spirit
who dictated and confirmed the Word, may be said to
do what the Word does. Or, a certain man made a
240 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
gun ; and the gun, in the hands of some other person,
shot a man. Then the maker of the gun is chargeable
with having killed the person who was shot with it.
These illustrations are precisely in point, and if my
friend can gain anything to his cause by them he shall
be welcome to them. But in the cutting of the tree
there must be an agency distinct from the axe, which
is the instrument. The man who employs the axe
as the instrument, must, at the time, put forth power,
or the instrument can accomplish absolutely nothing.
Now, the question before us is, whether conversion is
effected by the truth alone; or whether the Spirit puts
forth its power in addition to the influence of the
Word? The gentleman's illustration proves our doc-
trine conclusively.
I have not admitted, nor will I admit, that in regen-
eration, or conversion, God's mode of proceeding is, in
all cases, the same. The Bible does not teach that
God always produces this change by the same instru-
mentality. Mr. C. has not produced a passage which
sustains his assertion. I have said, and I repeat it,
where God has not limited himself, no man dares
attempt to limit him. Ordinarily, he works by means :
but he has not said that he will never work without
means. When his people were journeying in the wil-
derness, where food could not be procured by means,
he gave them manna for food ; and if he fed the bodies
of the children of Israel without means, may he not
save the souls of infants without means?
There is not a text in the whole Bible which says
that the Lord can net sanctify the heart without the
intervention of the Word. Nor is there one which
says he will not. Yet my friend has ventured to say
that he will not, and that he can not! In his Chris-
tianity Restored he says, if all the reasons and argu-
of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 241
ments by which men can be converted, are contained
in the Old and New Testaments, the power of the
Holy Spirit is spent that he will not, and that he
can not do more. The Bible says neither one nor the
other. And if it be true, either that he can not, or
that he will not, exert a sanctifying agency in any
case without the truth, all infants must go to peadi-
tion. The argument is one that can not be answered.
The gentleman has repeatedly contradicted himself
since this subject has been before us. You will re-
member that on the first day of this discussion he told
us that nothing more is necessary to secure the salva-
tion of infants than the atonement of Christ. I re-
plied that the atonement can not change the heart.
On yesterday he told us that depravity was seated in
the body, not in the mind, and therefore infants need
no change to fit them for heaven, but the separation
of the soul from the body. Now he seems to have it
in the mind. So he is still involved in the old diffi-
culty, and has left infants and idiots without the pos-
sibility of being saved !
The gentleman excuses himself for having been so
constantly involved in the mists of metaphysics by
telling you that he is following me. Did you hear his
first speech? It was one of the most metaphysical dis-
courses I ever heard. There was scarcely a passage of
Scripture in it. Now he is following me ! I did not
introduce these philosophical or unphilosophical spec-
ulations. He introduced them, and I followed him
partially. On this, as on all other religious subjects,
I am perfectly satisfied with the plain instructions
of the Bible a book which I love infinitely more
than his philosophy.
In his last speech he gave us what he considers the
philosophy of the Bible concerning conversion and
242 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
sanctification. It is this: First, fact; then testi-
mony ; then faith ; then feeling ; then action. Now,
there is a very serious difficulty about this philosophy.
For when a fact is proved, and the people are con-
strained to believe it true, their feelings are of dif-
ferent and even opposite characters. One approves,
another disapproves ; one loves, another hates. So it
is in regard to the Bible. All men by nature are op-
posed to it. When convinced that it is a revelation
from God, and informed concerning its contents, they
do not approve and embrace them ; nor will they,
until their hearts are renewed. And if ever they are
to be induced to love God, the Spirit must so purify
their hearts that they will no longer love darkness
more than light; that they will see the odiousness
of sin, the beauty of holiness, and the glory of the
divine perfections. There must be a radical change,
for no human being ever loved a moral character
which is the opposite of his own. This difficulty com-
pletely overturns all the gentleman's philosophy. It
will answer him no purpose. His fact, his testimony,
his faith, may all exist, and yet the right kind of feel-
ing the great thing, after all may be wanting.
I will now briefly reply to his arguments drawn from
the Scriptures. He says, whatever influence is as-
cribed to the Spirit, in the Bible, is also ascribed to
the Word. If the Spirit enlightens, the Word also
enlightens; if the Spirit converts, the Word converts.
By this argument he expects to prove that when the
Scriptures speak of the operations of the Spirit, the
written Word is meant that when the Word oper-
ates on the heart, the Spirit is said to operate. By
this mode of reasoning, I could establish some very
singular propositions. I could prove that, when the
Lord Jesus opened the eyes of the blind man, the
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 243
light caused him to see. What would you think if
I should thence infer that he opened his eyes by means
of light? It is true, the psalmist says, "The entrance
of thy Word giveth light"; but if my eyes are dis-
eased, the light can not heal them. This is the work
of the great Physician. When he put forth his power
and healed the eyes of the blind man, then the light
broke in, and he could see. In one sense it is true
that the light caused him to see. In another ind most
important sense, the Savior, and not the light, gave
him vision. There was a divine power exerted, which
was entirely distinct from the light. So in one sense
it is true that the Word of God causes the spiritually
blind to see ; but in another and most important sense,
the Holy Spirit opens their eyes, effects their conver-
sion.
In the Acts of the Apostles (chapter xxvi.) it is said
that Paul was sent to open the eyes of the blind.
Now, by adopting the logic of Mr. Campbell, I could
prove by this passage, that whatever influence is
ascribed to the Word is ascribed also to Paul, and from
this fact I would reach the conclusion that in conver-
sion and sanctification the Spirit operates only
through human instrumentality ! I could also prove
conclusively that if conversion is ascribed to the
Spirit, it is also ascribed to Paul and other preachers
of the Gospel : for James the apostle says, "Brethren,
if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert
him, let him know, that he which converteth the sin-
ner from the error of his way shall save a soul from
death," etc. Now, does the Spirit of God convert sin-
ners? So does Paul; so do other preachers. There-
fore (and the conclusion is precisely as legitimate as
that by which the gentleman proved that the Spirit
operates only through the truth) therefore, in con-
244 CAMPBELL-RICE
version and sanctification the Spirit never operates,
except through a preacher^ Such is the reasoning of
my worthy friend.
The truth is, that conversion and sanctification are
commonly effected by three distinct agencies: the
agency of the Word ; the agency of the man who pre-
sents it, and the agency of the Spirit, which is taught
as distinctly as the others, and is represented as more
important, causing men to receive* the truth in the love
of it, and to obey it. I believe in all the three. God
does not confine the operations of his grace in con-
verting men to the instrumentality of the living
preacher. My friend will agree that some have been
converted by reading the Word, without a preacher.
Sometimes all the three are employed the preacher,
the Word, and the Spirit ; sometimes only two ; and
sometimes only one, as in the case of infants, where it
is impossible that either the Word or the ministry can
be employed.
The fact that the Word is said to convert men does
not prove that the Spirit does not sanctify infants
without the Word ; nor that conversion is ever
effected simply by the influence of the Word. I might
say with truth, that the blowing of the rams' horns
prostrated the walls of Jericho ; for they would not
have fallen if the horns had not been blown. But it
would be folly to say that the blowing of the horns
was the power by which alone they were made to fall.
Christ opened the eyes of the man born blind by the
use of spittle and clay, but if I were to affirm that his
eyes were opened only by spittle and clay, I should
speak most unwisely. So the gentleman's argument
will not bear one moment's careful examination. It is
absolutely worthless.
Mr. C. told us, a few days ago, that according to
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 245
a correct principle of language the definition of a
word, if substituted for it, will make good sense. Now
let us try his doctrine by this principle. He says that
when the agency of the Spirit is spoken of, the Word
is meant. Let us try it: "He saved us by the wash-
ing of regeneration and renewing of his Word, which
he shed on us abundantly," etc. Now, did the apostle
mean that he shed his Word on men abundantly
through Jesus Christ? Again: "I will pour out my
Word upon your seed !" Is this the idea the prophet
intended to convey? Again: "I will take away the
stony heart out of your flesh." That is, I will reason,
talk, argue with you! Is this the meaning of the
prophet? The fact is, there are passages of Scripture
which teach that conversion and sanctification are
effected by the instrumentality of the Word, but not
by the Word only. There are others that recognize
the agency of man, but not his agency only. The
agency of the Spirit is the only agency which is de-
clared to be absolutely necessary in all cases. The
ministry is sometimes necessary, and so is the Word ;
because God has appointed these as the ordinary
means through which the blessings of his salvation
shall be conveyed to men. But neither of these is
always necessary. The agency of the Spirit is abso-
lutely essential in all cases ; because, as all men and all
infants are "born of the flesh," and are, therefore,
carnal, so all must be born of the Spirit.
Great errors, the gentleman seems to think, grow
out of systems of theology ; and he would have you
believe that he is quite opposed to system-making.
Do you see that book? [Pointing to the Christian
System.] Who is the author of it? My friend. If he
is not a system-maker, he has not told the truth ; for
he calls this book "The Christian System," and he says
246 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
those who make systems are system-makers. I think
he is in very good company ; but I hope he does not
claim the exclusive privilege of making systems. Cer-
tainly he should allow others to make systems, at least
occasionally. "Christianity Restored" was his first sys-
tem, and the "Christian System" his second. If he
can make two systems, he should, at least, permit us
to make one.
Another argument urged by Mr. C. is, that God
never made anything without a word, and he tells us
that God created the world by a word. But I assert
that he never created anything only by a word. If
we were to admit that in the work of creation he did
literally speak words, this would only prove that when
he spoke he exerted Almighty power to produce the
result. So the Word of God is used ordinarily in
conversion. But there is also a divine influence ex-
erted on the heart, in addition to the Word, and dis-
tinct from it.
But what is the truth in regard to creation by
words? The inspired writers, to express most strik-
ingly the infinite ease with which God created all
things, represented him as speaking, and it was done
as commanding, and it stood fast. He had but to
speak and the universe sprang into being at his bid-
ding! But will the gentleman say that he created all
things by words and arguments? Has he not told us
that words and arguments could only exert a moral
power? Did God create the soul of man by argu-
ments? He is confounding things as dissimilar as
light and darkness. What connection is there between
creation and argument? If he will prove that God
created man by argument and motive, I will admit that
the same influence may renew him in the image of
God. Christ raised Lazarus from the dead by words,
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 247
but not by words only. When he said, "Lazarus,
come forth," he exerted an omnipotent power.
In the original creation of man, God exerted im-
mediate power. He created nothing by words. So in
creating man anew, in restoring his divine image to
his soul, there is an agency of the Spirit, in addition
to the Word, and distinct from it. How absurd, then,
the gentleman's argument from the works of creation,
to prove that in conversion and sanctification the
Spirit operates on the mind simply by words and mo-
tives ! Strange logic indeed !
My friend will alarm us, if he can not convince us.
He says, men had better take care how they trifle with
the Word of God. And I would say, that he had
better take care how he speaks of the Holy Spirit.
In the Millennial Harbinger (Vol. II., p. 211,) he uses
this language: "Some Holy Ghost is the soul of every
popular sermon, and the essential point in every evan-
gelical creed." I must confess I was shocked when I
cast my eye on this sentence. I know the gentleman
does not admire the English word "Ghost," but he is
perfectly aware that these words are used as the name
of the third person in the adorable Trinitv. I have
heard similar language from men less intelligent, but I
could not have supposed that he would allow himself
to utter, or to write, such an expression. Since he
has done so, I can not help thinking that the warning
he has given, does not come well from him. I have
never heard any professor of religion speak of the
Word of God as he has spoken of the Holy Spirit.
I will now proceed to offer some additional argu-
ments against the doctrine taught by Mr. Campbell.
The first that I will offer is this: His doctrine makes
it both useless and improper to pray for the conver-
sion of men. I know he will not deny that it is the
duty and the privilege of Christians to pray, that Gcxl
248 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
would convert sinners ; for \ve have both precept and
example authorizing and requiting it. Paul .said con-
cerning himself: "My heart's desire and prayer to
God for Israel is, that they might be saved" (Rom. x.
i). And he directed that "supplications, prayers, in-
tercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all
men" (i Tim. ii. i). But whilst the duty is perfectly
clear, if we regard either precept or precedent, or both,
the doctrine of Mr. C. makes it wholly unnecessary,
if not improper. This objection did not originate with
me, or perhaps it might be supposed to be founded
in a misconception of his views. It has occurred to
his own friends and followers, as a very serious diffi-
culty. I will read part of a letter written to him by a
gentleman who is a member of his church, and pub-
lished in the Millennial Harbinger (Vol. II., p. 469,)
in which the objection is strongly stated:
"Without any further preface or apology, I will
come at once to the object I had in addressing you at
this time, and that is, to ask your opinion whether it be
lawful, according to the will of God as revealed to us,
to pray for our unconverted friends that is, to ask
God to convert them to the Christian religion? If it
be true, as you affirm, (and which I am not prepared to
controvert.) that the righteousness of a Christian is a
righteousness by faith in Jesus as the Messiah ; that
that faith comes alone by hearing or reading the testi-
mony concerning Jesus ; and that we have no right to
expect any influence superinducing the mind to faith,
or even causing the sinner to examine this testimony,
or place himself in circumstances for the light of
divine truth to shine upon his mind ; I say, upon the
supposition that these things are so, what right has
any one to expect that God will answer his prayers in
the behalf of his unconverted friends? Ever since I
have felt the importance of divine things, I have felt
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 249
the most anxious solicitude for many of my relatives
and friends who on their part manifested the greatest
indifference to these matters, and have often tried to
pray for them, too, that God would cause them to sub-
mit themselves to Jesus as the only Savior of sinners ;
but whether these prayers were in accordance to the
Word of our Divine Master, I confess I am somewhat
at a loss to say. When we pray, we are told to pray in
faith ; and in order that we may pray in faith, as I
understand, we should pray for such things as our
Heavenly Father has authorized us to expect at his
hands, and no other. Now if the Divine Being exer-
cises no other influence over the minds of men than
that influence which is derived to them through the
words he has spoken to men, and we can not prevail
upon wicked men to give attention to those words,
the question is, are we authorized to expect that God
will answer our requests in the behalf of such a one?
Here is my difficulty, and it has long been a difficulty
with me ; and I find it is no less so with many of my
friends and your friends. If you have opportunity to
write me a private letter on this subject, I will esteem
it as a singular favor; or if you consider the subject of
enough importance, you can, if you please, furnish us
an essay upon it through the Harbinger. Very affec-
tionately, WILL. Z. THOMPSON."
The difficulty, it appears, had presented itself, not to
the mind of some one individual of a speculative char-
acter, but to many of Mr. C.'s friends, who were famil-
iar with his writings. In view of his denial of the
agency of the Spirit in conversion, they ask, whether
it is right that they should pray to God to convert their
unbelieving friends, and whether they have any right
to expect God to answer such prayers? In his reply
to this letter Mr. C. gave not the slightest intimation
that the writer had misconceived his views of the
250 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
agency of the Spirit, and yet he states them precisely
as I have stated them.
Now, if this doctrine be true, I ask emphatically,
where is the propriety of praying for the unconverted?
Have we a promise from God, that he will answer
such prayers ? If this doctrine be true, we have not ;
for the Spirit has dictated and confirmed the Word of
Truth, and no influence will or can be exerted, in addi-
tion to the Word, to cause the wicked to turn to God.
If, then, no special divine influence is promised, or can
be exerted to cause men to repent and believe, why
should we pray for it ? And how can we pray in faith ?
This I regard as a most important matter ; for it is
as truly a part of the plan of Infinite Wisdom to con-
vert men in answer to prayer, as by the instrumen-
tality of the preached Gospel. It is, moreover, one
of the consolations of many an afflicted father and
mother, that they can pray in faith for the conversion
of their children, when far away, exposed to the temp-
tation and unhallowed influences of a wicked world.
Could you approach their closet, where they have
retired to commune with God, and to pour the desires
and the sorrows of their hearts into his ear , you might
hear them plead with an irresistible eloquence, that by
his Holy Spirit he would convince their children of sin,
of righteousness and of judgment : that he would turn
their feet from the paths of folly and sin unto his testi-
monies. How many ten thousand such prayers are
incessantly ascending from the hearts of God's faithful
children for those who are dear to them, and for a sin-
ruined world ! But if this doctrine be true, those pray-
ers are all in vain. Not one of them ever was, or ever
can be heard. We must bid the weeping father and
mother, and the heart-broken wife, to pray no more
for those whose salvation is almost as dear to them as
their own, Then let all prayers for the unconverted
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 251
cease. Let it be known that God has done for them
all he will do, or can do ; and if they are not converted
by reading or hearing the Word, they must perish !
If this doctrine be true, why did the apostles give
themselves to prayer and the preaching of the Word ?
Why did Paul pray that Israel might be saved ? Why
should we pray for the success of the Gospel? Shall
we bow down and implore God to do what we believe
he never will do ?
The difficulty stops not here. It makes prayer for
believers equally vain at least so far as regards their
sanctification. For, although the gentleman says the
Spirit is poured out on those who are immersed, it
does not exert a sanctifying influence. In the propo-
sition under discussion the ground is taken, that in
sanctification, as well as in conversion, the Spirit oper-
ates only through the truth. Why, then, should
Christians pray for themselves and for each other,
that they may be sanctified? Paul prayed for the
Philippian Christians, because he was confident that he
who had begun a good work in them would perform
it until the day of Jesus Christ. (Philip, i. 6.) He
prayed for the Ephesians, that they might be strength-
ened with might by his Spirit in the inner man. The
apostles once prayed to the Savior, "Lord, increase
our faith." Did they desire an additional revelation
or other miracles? Or did they desire that he would
take away the cause of their unbelief their deprav-
ity? A certain man came and desired the Savior to
heal his son. He asked him, "Believest thou that I
can do this?" He answered, with tears, "Lord, I be-
lieve ; help thou mine unbelief." He also said to
Peter, on a certain occasion, "Simon, Satan hath de-
sired to have thee, that he may sift thee as wheat ; but
I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." Here
we have examples of prayers offered, for a divine
252 CAMPPELL-RICE DEBATE.
influence to strengthen faith and to sanctify the
heart.
I turn your attention to one more example of this
kind. David, under a deep sense of the corruption of
his heart, prayed: "Create in me a clean heart, O
God, and renew a right spirit within me" (Psa. li. 10).
Now, I ask, would not every unprejudiced mind un-
derstand the Psalmist to pray, that God would exert a
purifying influence on his heart ? Did he believe that
all the converting and sanctifying power of the Spirit
is in the Word ? Multitudes of similar passages are
found in the Scriptures. I have brought forward
several where prayer was offered and answered for a
supernatural influence to be exerted on the hearts of
the wicked. In a word, the Scriptures teach with
perfect clearness, from Genesis to Revelation, that the
Spirit of God can and does exert a controlling, con-
verting, enlightening, and sanctifying influence on the
hearts of men, not by words and arguments simply,
but more powerful and efficacious. (Time expired.)
INFLUENCE; of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 253
MR. CAMPBELL'S TENTH ADDRESS.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 29, 12 o'clock M.
Mr. President. I am now so well acquainted with
my friend, Mr. R., as to know when he feels himself
grievously pressed and oppressed. He has not re-
sponded to any of those all-important questions and
difficulties, propounded to him as growing out of his
assumptions. What light has been thrown upon the
subject of that power, abstract and superadded, of
which he speaks so much ? Has he not passed the
matter in perfect silence? May I not with propriety
say it is an indescribable power wholly unintelli-
gible since the gentleman himself can give no ac-
count of it? 1 repeat once more, that whenever the
gentleman describes his metaphysical abstract power,
superadded to the Word, I will affirm, or deny, in the
most definite manner. I believe in a substantive in-
fluence of the Spirit of God through the truth, upon
the conscience, the understanding and the affections.
He appears to approve of the figure of the wood-
chopper and his axe. But in his remarks, he seems to
have forgotten that, on his theory, the wood-chopper
has to cut the tree down without the axe. Or, if he
should use the axe in any case at all, he must superadd
some power without the axe, beyond the axe, and
wholly extra its instrumentality ! Figures are not to
be used for any other purpose than they are proposed.
I do not make this one represent the Word of God in
any other particular than its mere instrumentality.
He had no time to explain how his infant is cut off the
stock of depravity, without one stroke of the axe. But
254 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
he had time to hold up this book (The Christian Sys-
tem) as my Confession of Faith. He ought, in these
precious moments, to avoid things extraneous, and
refer that subject to the creed question. I shall then
show who makes creeds, and binds them, as heavy
burdens, upon men's shoulders.
His dissertation upon power is inapplicable to the
subject before us. I might, on his own principles, ask
him why he prays for the salvation of any person, see-
ing he believes and teaches that the number of the
elect is so definite and fixed that it can neither be in-
creased nor diminished one single individual ! Is that
not, by his own showing, labor in vain? The means
and the end are both so foreordained, that without the
one, the other can not be, either in salvation or con-
demnation. Hence, all the powers of the universe can
not add one to either the saved, or the condemned.
Fellow-citizens, from all the premises before my
mind, I conclude that the Spirit of Truth that omni-
present, animating Spirit of our God whose sword
or instrument this Book is, is always present in the
work of conversion, and through this truth changes
the sinner's affections, and draws out his soul to God.
It is, therefore, doing us an act of the greatest injus-
tice to represent us as comparing the Bible to the
writings of any dead or absent man, in this point of
comparison. In some points of view, all books are
alike ; but in other points of view, they are exceedingly
dissimilar. In comparison of all other books, the
Bible is superlatively a book sui generis. Its author
not only ever lives, but is ever present in it, and with
it, operating through it, by it, and with it, upon saints
and sinners. The gentleman talks upon themes he
does not comprehend. Abstract spiritual operations
in nature, and in redemption, are wholly beyond his
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 255
ken. Were he to speak to the day of eternity, he can
not communicate one distinct idea on the subject.
The singular course of my opponent has constrained
me to quote and comment on numerous passages of
Scripture no way connected with our topics of discus-
sion. But he will have it so, and therefore we must
occasionally launch into matters somewhat remote and
recondite. He relies much upon such passages as
"The wind bloweth where it listeth ; and thou hearest
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh.
or whither it goeth. So is every one that is born of
the Spirit." He seems to glory in the mystery of his
regeneration, because he can not explain it. His
main argument is, it is a mystery, and we can not
understand it ; therefore, my doctrine is true ! I asked
him to explain the predicate of the last proposition.
The words were: "So is every one that is born of the
Spirit." But has he done it? No. He can not, I pre-
dict, explain the word "so." The subject of the prop-
osition is, "Every one that is born of the Spirit"- is
compared to what? So what? That is the question
he can not answer! He has mistaken the point of
comparison. To him, indeed, it is a mystery. I call
for the predicate of the proposition, and then we shall
canvass the whole matter.
When I sat down I was expatiating on some other
of my respondent's proof-texts the passages con-
cerning the grant of repentance to Jews and Gentiles,
by him that is exalted a Prince and a Savior. I shall
illustrate the view, which I partially expressed at the
close of my last address. Suppose the people of any
country had all been destitute of the right of suffrage
living under an absolute despotism, in consequence
of some great political disaster. Meantime, some
great prince interposes in their behalf, invades the
country, overcomes the tyrant, and, when in authority
256 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
over the people, grants to the whole State the right
of suffrage would it be just to say that he had, by
some special, personal, direct approach to every man,
constrained or specially induced him to go to the polls
and vote ? That, indeed, he might do. But the ques-
tion is, not whether he might, or might not do so, but
whether the language imports that he does so! True,
Jesus Christ has been exalted a Prince and a Savior, to
grant to Israel, and afterwards to the Gentiles, repent-
ance unto life and remission of sins. Does that mean
he makes a personal appeal to every one, or to any
one in particular ? or, that he has opened a way in
which all, if they please, may obtain the benefits of
repentance and remission of sins? I do not say that
other Scriptures may teach this doctrine. But the
question is, do the passages Mr. Rice has quoted
prove that point at all? I affirm the clear conviction
they do not. But let every man judge for himself.
It is one thing, indeed to confer a right upon a people,
but whether they shall use it is quite another question.
An opponent may so oppose the truth as to make it
questionable whether, on repentance, God would for-
give him whether God would grant him the bene-
fits of repentance. Thus says Paul, in meekness in-
structing them that oppose themselves, if God perad-
venture might grant them repentance (the advantages
of repentance), to eternal life. I am not controverting
the fact, but I am controverting the appositeness of the
gentleman's quotations, and that extreme latitudinar-
ianism in which he indulges. To grant a right, and to
compel to use it, arc very different ideas. God con-
fers the rights, and thus opens the way for our volun-
tary acceptance of them. We rejoice in the glorious
fact that God has granted repentance unto life to the
whole Gentile world. Philology peremptorily forbids
any other interpretation of this passage. It is not to
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 257
believing Gentiles, or to a few Gentiles, but in con-
trast with the Jews. They said: "Then hath God
also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
Repentance unto life is, then, bestowed on all the na-
tions to which the Gospel is preached ; and whosoever
will, may come and possess its advantages. To inter-
pret this according to my opponent's scheme that
is, to make it respect a few individuals, specially called
and constrained to come in, is to rob the Gentile world
of one of the richest charters ever expressed in human
speech. I thank my God that Jesus Christ has been
exalted a "Prince and a Savior," to grant repentance
unto life, not unto Israel only, but to the Gentiles
also. Mr. Rice's freedom with this statute robs us of
our rights, for the sake of a speculative assumption.
As great injustice is done me by Mr. Rice, in some-
times changing this position of only in the proposition,
I do not maintain that a person is converted by the
Word only. I say that "in conversion," etc., the Spirit
operates only through the Word ; not that a person is
converted by the Word only. The latter excludes the
Spirit altogether, which is directly in contradiction of
the ground assumed in my opening speech. We are
only converted through the Word ; only we are con-
verted through the Word ; and we are converted
through the Word only, are three very different prop-
ositions. The gentleman ought to place the word
"only" where it stands in the proposition.
The gentleman has again introduced the subject of
infant damnation. I am sorry to spend so much time
on such an ungracious theme; but as my reputation
is somewhat involved in what was said yesterday, I
must show that I have not misconstrued the doctrines
preached, and interpretations of Scripture given on
this subject, by the good old Scotch Presbyterians. I
am indeed pleased to see that Mr. Rice is ashamed of
258 CAMPBEUv-RlCE DEBATE.
it, and has taxed his ingenuity to find a new way of
expounding the elect infants of the creed. His inter-
pretation is ingenious apparently so, however, be-
cause it does not read elect persons, but elect infants.
All infants that die are elect infants! A happy
conception truly ! But a fair construction of the Con-
fession will not authorize it. I first heard the gloss
last year. But neither the founders of Calvinism on
the continent, nor the Westminster divines, so under-
stood this matter, as my reading and recollection fully
justify. I shall read a few passages on this subject,
and, first, one from- Calvin's Institutes. I have both
the Latin original and Calvin's own French transla-
tion of the passage. I wonder not that Calvin, to
quote his own words, calls it Decretum quidem horribile,
fateor, which Professor Norton renders as follows: "I
ask again, how it has come to pass, that the fall of
Adam has involved so many nations with their infant
children in eternal death, and this without remedy, but
because such was the will of God? It is a dreadful de-
cree, I confess." Knowing that Allen has translated
it, softening it down, I give the following from other
authorities:
[Translated from the Latin]: "I ask, again,
whence has it happened, that the fall of Adam has
involved so many nations together with their infant
children, in eternal death, without remedy, unless that
it has so pleased God? A horrible decree indeed, I
confess."
[From the French]: "I ask them again, whence
it has come to pass, that the fall of Adam has involved
with him so many nations with their infants, unless
that it has thus pleased God? I confess that this
decree ought to shock us."
But Calvin, besides this passage quoted from his In-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 259
stitutes, (Lib. 3, c. 23, sec. 7,) in speaking of the errors
of Servetus, says : "In the meantime, certain salvation
is said (by Servetus) to await all at the final judgment,
except those who have brought upon themselves the
punishment of eternal death, by their personal sins;
(propriis scekribus;) from which it is also inferred that
all who are taken from life while infants and young
children, are exempt from eternal death, although
they are elsewhere called accursed," (Tract. Theo.
Refut. Error. Mich. ServetiJ This was one of Ser-
vetus' errors, according to Calvin. Servetus would
have all infants saved that died; but Calvin thought
this a great error, because there were of these some
infants called accursed. Augustine, in condemning
the doctrine of Pelagius, says, "We affirm that they
(infants) will not be saved and have eternal life, except
they be baptized in Christ"; and much more to the
same effect.
Turretin, the chief of Calvinistic writers, teaches the
same doctrine in the clearest manner. He is of high
authority at Princeton, and has stood on my shelf for
thirty years. He says:
"The ancient Pelagians, who, having followed as
their master Pelagius the Briton, denied original sin
in all its parts, contending that the sin of Adam hurt
nobody but himself, or if it should be said to have in-
jured anybody else, that it was through example or
imitation, not by propagation. Not unlike them are
the Remonstrants, who in their apology pronounced
certain, whatever Augustine and others may have de-
termined to the contrary, that God will appoint, and
that he, on account of original sin, so called, with jus-
tice can appoint no eternal torments to infants, of
whatever lot or descent, dying without actual and
personal sins; holding that their opinion, viz., that
2(k> CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
any infants will be appointed to eternal torments is
opposed to divine goodness and right reason; nay,
that it is uncertain whether the preponderance is in
favor of the absurdity or its cruelty.
Here, then, is an explicit declaration from a Calvin-
ist of the highest authority, that God can, in justice,
appoint infants to eternal torments. Indeed, I can
quote distinguished Calvinists in considerable num-
bers, in proof that infant damnation on account of
original sin, was the doctrine of a portion of the Pro-
testant Reformation, of the Synod of Dort, and of the
Westminster Assembly. But I am sorry to have been
compelled to bring up a doctrine of this sort on this
occasion ; and certainly would not, had Mr. Rice not
compelled me to it. But when I undertake to prove
anything, I do prove it, and can prove it.
One man may be said to convert another, as Paul
begat the Corinthians, through the gospel, and was
spiritually their father. But Mr. Rice says, then they
may be said to do all other things akin to conversion
quicken, save, etc. That is not a fair inference.
It is so far-fetched and so gross as not to entangle any
one no one can believe it. But it seems I commit-
ted a great sin in his eyes, in speaking of the Holy
Ghosts of several systems the alleged chimeras of
modern theories. Be it understood, then, that I never
use the words 'Holy Ghost" with disrespect, although
I think the term ought to be changed into "Holy
Spirit." Time was when it was a very proper term.
I have shown somewhere within the last seven years
that our Saxon forefathers used the word "ghost" as
equivalent to our word "guest," and properly enough
called our spirits guests, while in our bodies re-
garding the body as a house or tabernacle, and the
spirit as a guest or ghost. I was, some years since,
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 261
much struck with the fact that we have not in the
common English Bible the words "Holy Ghost" in the
Old Testament at all, but "Holy Spirit" ; and, in the
same version, we have "Holy Ghost" most frequently,
though not exclusively, in the New. Tyndale, I pre-
sume, was the cause of this, in the New Testament ;
for in many points, nay, in most points, Tyndale was
followed by James' translators. The question arose
in my mind, why Tyndale did so, and the answer oc-
curred in this way: the Spirit of God was promised
in the Old Testament to be the guest of the Christian
church that, as in a temple, it was to reside in it ;
hence, the Spirit of the Old Testament having be-
come the guest of the New, Tyndale introduced "Holy
Ghost" for the "Holy Spirit" of the previous age.
With us, however, "ghost" has degenerated into the
representative of a disembodied spirit, the spirit of a
dead man. Hence, I think it is bad taste to call the
living Spirit of the living God a "Holy Ghost," accord-
ing to our modern usage.
While, then, the new theories of modern times about
spiritual influence is, indeed, more ghostly than spir-
itual, they may, with more propriety than we, use the
term "Holy Ghost" ; and as all parties have not one
theory, more than one faith, I see no more impropriety
in speaking of Holy Ghosts, more than of two faiths,
two Lords, two Spirits, two baptisms, which I believe
are universally tolerated. Still, if I am, by so doing,
chargeable with disrespect for either the name or the
persons that use it, I should not patronize it at all.
For my own part I prefer, and almost universally use,
the name "Holy Spirit."
The theories of spiritual influence are as variable
as the winds, and fires, and floods of the earth. With
some it is the baptism of fire, with others it is a mighty
262 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
rushing wind, and with some it is water. Some read
"born of the Spirit, even born of the water" there-
by making water and Spirit identical. The sin against
the Holy Spirit, as explained by our Savior, consists in
speaking against the works of the Spirit, ascribing his
miracles to satanic influence a sin which can not,
in this, his view, be committed now. It was not a sin
of thought, a general action ; but a sin of the tongue,
accompanied with a cordial malice.
Mr. R. would make me almost, if not altogether,
guilty of the sin and error of Manicheism, because of
my remarks upon the law of sin in the fleshly menir
bers. I must now, according to him, have translated
all sin from the mind into- the flesh. Hence he quotes
envy, and hatred, and pride, etc., as antagonizing with
my views. And yet, while I give to the mind sinful
views and desires, may I not ask him whence come
envy, and pride, and hatred? Do they not generally
come from the flesh? Do they not spring from our
worldly and fleshly associations, from our carnal and
temporal interests? The mind is enslaved to the body.
Our intellectual powers are all placed under tribute
to some fleshly and earthly objects. Hence hatred,
variance, strife, emulation, fraud, etc., come almost
exclusively from our competitions about securing so
much of earth's and time's favors, as gratify our fleshly
lusts and pleasures. Whence, then, come these sinful
desires but from the flesh? Still, I am very far from
saying that sin is wholly and exclusively confined to
the flesh. But all the elements of sin are there.
Through "this body of sin and death," as Paul calls
it, sin "works in our members to bring forth fruit unto
9eath." The mind is, indeed, made to participate in
all these fleshly lusts that war against our souls ; "for
the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 263
against the flesh, so that we can not do the things that
we would."
We must also revert to the word "holy." I object-
ed merely to his use of the word, and not to the word,
nor the thing. He represented the heart as being
made holy by an immediate fiat. God made man holy
as he created him. To-day he has added "not by the
word only." Did I say, in my speech, "by the word
only"? That is a wrong issue. His argument was,
that God made man without a word. Mine was, that
he did not. He has changed his position, and got up
a new issue. I argue that God created nothing with-
out a word. But it was so inapplicable ! In his view,
I presume it was, because fatal to his assumption. No
one can form a single conception of naked power. It
is bad philosophy to descant upon it, as well as bad
theology.
Still, holiness is not of the nature of a distinct, sep-
arate and substantive attribute, as wisdom, power,
goodness. And yet it is not an attribute of God, as
eternity, infinity, immutability, because it is relative to
impurity. It is an attribute, or perfection, in contrast
with sin and impurity. In classifying the divine per-
fections, I usually destribute them into four classes:
three which nature develops wisdom, power, and
goodness ; three which the law develops justice,
truth, and holiness ; three which the gospel develops
mercy, condescension, and love ; and three attrib-
utes of all these, viz., eternity, immutability, and infin-
ity. These apply to all the others. Hence God our
Father is eternally, immutably, and infinitely just, wise,
good, powerful, etc. These three last are perfections
of perfections. Purity has been preferred to holiness
by some writers, because a more clear and distinct
conception to most minds than the term "holiness."
264 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
It is indeed, as before observed, the supreme excel-
lence and majesty of God; and in the esteem of the
higher order of intelligence, it is a generic exponent
of all his adorable perfections. Hence, in their most
sublime anthems and ecstacies, this word is a conse-
crated symbol of their highest admiration.
I now proceed to the argument proposed at the
close of my last speech. It is to be deduced from
that inestimable document called the "Acts of the
Apostles" a document of the highest value to the
Church. It is worth all the ecclesiastic histories of
all nations and languages, because it is authentic and
authoritative; and because it gives just such a devel-
opment of things as reveals Christianity to us in all
its practical details. We see the apostles in the field
of labor, carrying out their commission ; and also the
particular lessons Christ and the Holy Spirit taught
them ! I have much use for the Scriptures of truth
in this argument, and will use them very freely.
The argument I now propose is simply this: I will
show that all the reported conversions, detailed in
that book as occurring for some thirty years after the
ascension, are represented as having been through
what the persons saw performed, and heard said, from
the original witnesses and heralds of the resurrection
of the Messiah. I wish to adduce every case on
record, and show from them all, that these conver-
sions were in accordance with our proposition. And
certainly, if Mr. Rice can not produce a single case in
which conversion was accomplished without the
Word, or Gospel testimony being presented and
heard, he will have most signally failed in sustaining
his negation of this proposition. (Time expired.)
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 265
MR. RICE'S TENTH REPLY.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 20, 12:30 o'clock P.M.
Mr. President. I shall be prepared to pay due at-
tention to my friend, when he comes to speak of mak-
ing systems and binding them upon the consciences
of men ; and I expect to prove that he is quite as liable
to the charge as are those whom he denounces. I am
truly anxious to reach that subject.
The gentleman has failed to make any answer what-
ever to my argument against this doctrine, that it
makes prayer, especially for unbelievers, unnecessary
and improper. Does he deny it, or attempt to prove,
that the objection is not valid? Not a word of it.
He makes no attempt to prove that his doctrine is at
all consistent with prayer. But he says I am in the
same predicament, because I believe in the doctrine
of election. Suppose this were true; would he be the
better for having me in company with him in his
errors? If the doctrine of election were the subject
under discussion, I would promptly meet and refute
his charge, not by showing that he is involved in the
same difficulty, but by proving the objection not to be
well founded. I should have no fears in meeting the
gentleman on that subject. If we were discussing the
doctrine of election, I would turn to his Christian Sys-
tem, and prove that he himself teaches that the pur-
poses of God are eternal, and that "the whole affair
of man's redemption, even to the preparation of the
eternal abodes of the righteous, was arranged ere time
was born." This might pass for tolerable Calvinism.
266 CAMPBEI^-RICE DEBATE.
He tells us, the Spirit of God is always present with
his Word. I have asked, and now ask again, what
does he mean by this language? It is easy, and not
uncommon for men to use expressions which convey
no definite idea either to their own minds or to those
of their hearers. In his writings he has so clearly
stated and illustrated his views, as to leave no room
to doubt what he really believes. He has said dis-
tinctly that no power but moral power can be exerted
on minds ; and that moral power can be exerted only
by words and arguments. He has declared his belief
that when the Spirit of God had dictated and con-
firmed the Scriptures, all his converting and sanctify-
ing power was spent. Perhaps I can explain in what
sense he supposes the Spirit to be present and to
operate with the Word. As Mr. Campbell's spirit is
present with the ideas he has published in his Har-
binger, operating on the minds of his readers, so in
the same sense the Spirit of God is present with the
Scriptures. I use his own illustration. Such being
his meaning, does he believe in any other agency in
conversion and sanctification, than that of the Word
dictated and confirmed by the Holy Spirit ?
It is not necessary for me now to enter into any
discussion of the passage in John iii. "The wind
bloweth where it listeth," etc. I quoted it while we
were discussing the design of baptism, and since sim-
ply to prove that the new birth is, in some sense, mys-
terious. I was proving the erroneousness of Mr. C.'s
doctrine by showing that, according to the Bible,
there is a mystery connected with the new birth ; but
according to his views there was no mystery about it.
How the Spirit operates on the heart in conversion
and sanctification I profess not to understand. And
since Mr. C. can not explain how Satan exerts an
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 267
influence on the human mind, I am certainly not
bound to explain how the Spirit operates in conver-
sion. Indeed, we can not explain the how of any one
fact in nature. No wonder, then, if the agency of the
Spirit is mysterious.
The gentleman has made an attempt to answer some
of my arguments. I am gratified that he made the
effort. I wish to see him march up to the question
boldly, and expose my arguments, if he can. I proved
the doctrine of the special influence of the Spirit by
the fact that God is said to give repentance. Paul
directs Timothy in meekness to "Instruct those that
oppose themselves ; if God peradventure will give
them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"
(2 Tim. ii. 25). This argument the gentleman attempts
to answer by an illustration. Suppose, says he, cer-
tain persons for a time deprived of the right of suf-
frage, and again having this right restored, he who
restored the right would be said to give them the
right of suffrage, but would not for.ce them to exer-
cise it. This is indeed a most singular illustration.
Did Paul say, Instruct those who oppose themselves,
if peradventure God will give them the right, the
privilege to repent? Does Luke say, Christ is exalted
a Prince and a Savior to give men the right to repent ?
Really, I was not aware that any human being had
ever been deprived of the right to repent ! Nor did
I know that God had ever refused to look with com-
passion on the broken heart and contrite spirit. Men
have always had the right, and it has always been
their duty to repent. Consequently we find nothing
in the Scriptures about granting men the right, the
privilege! This is one of the many absurdities into
which the gentleman's erroneous doctrines force him.
The language of inspiration is : "Then hath God also
268 CAMPBEU<-RICE DEBATE.
to the Gentiles granted repentance [not the right to
repent] unto life" (Acts xi. 18). Instruct them, "if
peradventure God will grant them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth." But to make these
passages accord with Mr. C.'s theology we must allow
him to introduce the word right or privilege before
repentance ! If I may be permitted thus to interpolate
or expunge words from the Bible, I can make it teach
anything, even the greatest absurdity. But the Scrip-
tures declare that God does grant unto men repent-
ance to the acknowledging of the truth, repentance
unto life that he does exert upon their minds a
divine influence, leading them to repent and turn from
sin to God.
I proved the doctrine of a special divine influence
also by Luke xxiv. 45: "Then opened he their under-
standings, that they might understand the Scrip-
tures." The gentleman replied that this passage is
irrelevant, because Christ, not the Holy Spirit, opened
their understandings. Strange reply ! Christ is rep-
resented as working many miracles, and he is said to
have wrought them by the Spirit of God. (Matt. xii.
28.) The Spirit is said to be shed on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ. (Tit. iii. 5.) It is by virtue of
his atoning sacrifice and intercession that the Holy
Spirit is poured out upon the hearts of men. By his
blessed Spirit, therefore, he opened the understand-
ings of his disciples, that they might understand the
Scriptures.
The gentleman makes a criticism on the difference
between the phrases "through the Word only," and
"only through the Word." I am not concerned to an-
swer it. I was not pleased, as he knows, with the
proposition as it is worded, because I believed it left
room for quibbling; and I would not have consented
Off THE HOI,Y SPIRIT. 269
to debate it, but with the distinct and express under-
standing that I should interpret it by his publications
on the subject. I have proved that in his Christianity
Restored he says there are only two kinds of power,
moral and physical ; that only moral power can oper-
ate on the human mind ; and that all moral power is
in words and arguments. Let the gentleman either
come out candidly and say that he was in error when
he wrote the books from which 1 have quoted, or come
up to the defense of his published doctrines. It does
not look well for a man to attempt to conceal the
truth in this way.
He seems to regret the necessity that is laid upon
him to speak of the doctrine of infant damnation, as
held by Presbyterians ! I am truly glad that the sub-
ject has been brought up on this occasion, for Mr. C.
is the very man to prove upon us this stale charge, if
it can be proved. On yesterday he professed to find
it in our Confession of Faith. He now acknowledges
that it is not there, but he says Calvin taught it. I
deny that Calvin ever taught it. If he did, I have
failed to find it in his writings.
Now, what is the doctrine taught by Calvin in the
passage quoted? Does he teach that infants are act-
ually lost? He does not. He contends that in con-
sequence of the fall of Adam, all his posterity, infants
and adults, are in a state of condemnation, and are
exposed to the wrath of God ; and that, had no rem-
edy been provided, all must have perished. He does
not say that any infant actually perishes, but that all
are exposed to ruin in consequence of the fall, and
must have perished had no remedy been provided.
The gentleman might have proved, with equal conclu-
siveness, that according to Calvin, all nations, adults
as well as infants, do actually perish forever; for he
270 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
speaks not of infants only, but of both adults and in-
fants of the whole race.
Is it true that the gentleman's reformation can not
sustain itself without such caricatures and gross mis-
representations of the doctrines of others? No man
has more frequently complained of being misrepre-
sented than Mr. C., and no man living has dene great-
er injustice to others, living and dead.
Calvin did not teach the doctrine he has charged
upon him. But he quotes Augustine as teaching it.
Was Augustine a Presbyterian? The gentleman is
attempting to prove that the Presbyterian Church
holds the doctrine of infant damnation, and, to estab-
lish the charge, he quotes Augustine ! But he quotes
Turretin, too. Was Turretin a member of the Pres-
byterian Church ? But I will subscribe to the doctrine
of Turretin. He opposes the sentiments of those who
say that it would be unjust in God to exclude infants
from heaven that he is bound in justice to save
them. He holds, not that infants are actually lost,
but that their salvation is of grace, not of justice.
Zanchius was also quoted. Was he a Presbyterian?
This author, in speaking of infants, uses the Latin
word damno; but Mr. C. certainly knows that this
word means simply to condemn. The doctrine of
Zanchius, as that of Calvin and Turretin, seems clearly
to be, that all the human race, in consequence of the
sin of Adam, are involved in a common condemnation,
from which they can be saved only by the grace of
God in Christ.
But this doctrine, as Mr. C. ought to know, is not
peculiar to those who are called Calvinists. It is
taught with great clearness and force by Rev. Richard
Watson, in his Theological Institutes ; which, if I
mistake not, is regarded as a kind of text book by our
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT. 271
Methodist brethren. He, as well as Presbyterians,
teaches that in consequence of the sin of Adam, the
human race are all, old and young, justly exposed to
the wrath of God, and that all who are saved, are
saved by grace. The gentleman has repeatedly boast-
ed of his thorough acquaintance with Presbyterianism.
I will not charge him with willful misrepresentation of
the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, but I will
say that you can scarcely find an old Presbyterian
lady who does not know that our Church never did
teach or hold the doctrine he has charged upon her.
Charity, then, requires us to suppose that his knowl-
edge of Presbyterianism is very limited. He certainly
is not half so well informed concerning these matters
as he professes to be.
He attempted to prove that the Spirit operates in
conversion and sanctification only through the truth,
by the fact that whatever the Spirit is represented as
doing, the Word is also said to do that if the Spirit
converts men, the Word converts them. I replied,
that by the same logic I could prove that the Spirit
operates only through human instrumentalitv, because
Paul was sent to convert the Gentiles, and ministers of
the Gospel are said to convert men. The argument,
therefore, would prove as conclusively that the Spirit
never converted a person without human instrumen-
tality that he operates only through the living min-
ister, as that he never converts and sanctifies without
the truth, or that he operates only through the truth.
But the gentleman seeks to escape from the difficulty
by saying Paul was not sent to quicken men. Paul
was to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness
to light, and from the power of Satan to God. Could
this be done without their being quickened or made
spiritually alive? Paul said to the Corinthians: "Tn
272 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"
(i Cor. iv. 15). Can a person be begotten, and not
quickened? There is no way in which he can escape.
His argument proves as conclusively that the Spirit
operates only through human instrumentality, as that
he operates only through the truth.
I think it unnecessary tc press the gentleman much
further with the absurdity of locating all depravity in
man's animal nature. It is perfectly certain, without
argument, that anger, wrath, malice, hatred, are pas-
sions which belong to the mind ; that have no neces-
sary connection with the body. The mind can hate
as malignantly out of the body as in it. There is no
truth in his philosophy. It is profoundly absurd. Nor
is there one word in the Bible to countenance it.
I see neither pertinency nor meaning in all the gen-
tleman has said about the word "holy." On yester-
day he told us, strangely enough, that it did not ex-
press moral quality. I did not choose, because it was
wholly unnecessary, to spend time disputing about a
word. I therefore quoted the passage, "God made
man upright." The word "upright" is admitted to
express moral quality. If, then. God originally made
man upright, not by words and arguments, it follows
that he can do it again ; that his power over the human
mind is not confined to mere motives. But, says Mr.
C., God did not make man upright without a word, but
he said, "Let us make man," etc. Were these words
addressed to man? Did they create him in whole or
in part? Did they exert even the slightest influence?
No ; man was created in the image of God by an im-
mediate exertion of his omnipotent power. A word
never created anything. If, then, God did originally
exert on man such a power, as made him holy or
upright, not by words, who shall dare say he can not
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 273
restore his image to the soul, either through the Word
or without it ? The Word of God is not able, of itself,
to overcome the enmity of the human heart, and to
inspire it with supreme love to God.
I wish now to present the remaining arguments
which I had proposed to offer, and then to give a brief
and condensed view of the ground over which we have
passed. I have said that Mr. C.'s doctrine prescribes
to the power of God an unreasonable and unscriptural
limitation ; and this I have proved by the facts, that
originally God created man holy, and that he does
exert a controlling influence over his moral conduct,
not merely or chiefly by words and arguments. I will
now prove that God can, and that he does, exert on
the human mind a converting and sanctifying power,
distinct from the Word, by the inspired accounts of
the first revivals. In the second chapter of the Acts
of the Apostles, we learn, that on the day of Pente-
cost three thousand souls were converted. Men who
went to the temple in all their pride, unbelief, love of
sin, and hatred of the tr.uth, were on that day con-
verted, became penitent believers, were filled with
hatred of sin and love to God, and were added to the
church. This was a most remarkable event. The
change wrought in their minds was sudden. They
went to the temple loving sin and hating the truth.
They left it hating sin and rejoicing in Christ. The
change was radical and thorough. The things they
hated one hour before they now supremely loved.
They beheld in the Savior a beauty and a glory they
had never before discovered ; and in the plan of sal-
vation they saw an adaptation to their condition and
necessities which they had never discovered. They
trusted, loved, praised, and worshiped the Redeemer
of men. The change was permanent. From that
274 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
hour to the hour of their death they proved by their
lives, that they were new creatures. Through re-
proach and persecutions, even unto death, they held
out faithfully. They counted not their lives dear.
They suffered joyfully the spoiling of their goods,
knowing that through Christ they had the assurance
of a heavenly inheritance.
Now let me ask any reflecting man, how do you ac-
count for this sudden, radical, permanent change in
the hearts and lives of those persons ? Was it effected
by the miracles they witnessed? Miracles, Mr. C.
admits, can not convert men. They can only arrest
their attention, and convince them of the truth ; but
they can not change the heart. The question is, what
caused these wicked men so suddenly and so ardently
to love the truth which they had hated ? What caused
them to see in sin an odiousness they had not before
seen, and in holiness a beauty they had never before
perceived ? Why did they now find their highest hap-
piness in that service from which hitherto they had
turned with aversion and disgust ? Was this astonish-
ing revolution in their dispositions, views and feelings
effected by Peter's arguments? Many of them had
doubtless heard the preaching of Him who spake as
never man spake ; and they were not thus affected.
Thousands had heard the gracious words which con-
stantly fell from his lips ; but no discourse of his ever
produced effects such as we are now contemplating.
Resides, it is a fact, proved by universal observation,
that if the characters of bad men are changed by argu-
ments and motives, the change is very gradual. They
do not readily subdue passions long indulged, and at-
tain to the -possession of opposite virtues. Such
changes, even if effected merely by motives, are the
work of months, if not of years. But the work we
o* THE HOI,Y SPIRIT. 275
are now contemplating, was effected in a day, even in
an hour; for when the Lord works, a moment is as
good as a year. Suddenly the three thousand had new
hearts, new views, new feelings, new sorrows, new
joys. They were new creatures. Old things had
passed away, and, behold, all things were new !
Here we learn why it was that the apostle's preach-
ing was attended with so much greater success than
that of the Savior. He wrought stupendous mira-
cles, and spake with an eloquence which no human
orator could ever rival ; but the Holy Spirit was not
so abundantly poured out before his ascension to
heaven as after. Can any one, not blinded by false
theory, doubt that on the day of Pentecost the Holy
Spirit exerted on the minds and hearts of the three
thousand a power distinct from the Word, and more
efficacious ?
Another argument in favor of the doctrine of a spe-
cial agency of the Spirit, an argument which, as it
appears to me, has great weight, is this: The contrary
doctrine leaves man in a hopeless condition. Heaven
is a holy place. An infinitely holy God reigns there;
and holy angels bow around his throne. God has
taught us that nothing impure can enter into the holy
city ; that none from earth but "the spirits of just
men made perfect" can approach his presence. Men
are deeply depraved. Even the most godly groan
under indwelling corruption. Tell them that they
must, by their own exertions, in view of the motives
of the gospel, prepare themselves to see God, and
they will be down and weep in despair. A man is sud-
denly called to die, and appear before his Judge. He
may be a pious man, but he is conscious of being very
imperfect. What assurance can he have that he is
pure enough to be admitted to stand in the presence
276 CAMPBEI^-RICE DEBATE.
of God? What distressing apprehensions must fill his
mind. How gloomy must be his future prospects.
But let him hear the language of Paul : "Being confi-
dent of this very thing, that he which hath begun a
good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus
Christ" (Phil. i. 6). Cheered by such a promise, the
humble believer, though conscious of great imperfec-
tion, feels his fears subside, and his hopes rise. If
God has undertaken the work, it will be well done.
He is assured that Christ will present his happy spirit
before his Father, "without spot or wrinkle." He
knows he will soon behold his face in righteousness.
Never will I give up this soul-cheering doctrine, and
those great and precious promises founded upon it.
Living and dying, I hope to experience their fulfill-
ment.
This doctrine is the hope of our guilty and polluted
race. God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh. In
answer to the prayers of the faithful, it shall descend
as showers on the thirsty earth, and shall cause the
wilderness and the solitary place to be glad, and the
desert to blossom as the rose.
I must present one more argument. It is this:
The great mass, the overwhelming majority of the
readers of the Bible, in all ages, have understood it
to teach the doctrine for which I am contending. This
fact can not be denied. Now Mr. C. agrees with me,
that on all important points of faith and duty the Bible
is a plain book, easily understood. It was designed
to be read and understood by the unlearned as well
as the wise. Ask all who have made that blessed book
their study, how they understand it on this subject,
and with wonderful unanimity they declare their firm
belief that it teaches that in conversion and sanctifica-
tion there is a divine and efficacious influence of the
ot THE HOLY SPIRIT. 277
Spirit, distinct from the Word. This influence, in con-
nection with the cross of Christ, is the ground of their
hope. For it they pray day and night, and in the wit-
ness of the Spirit that they are the children of God
they rejoice.
If the doctrine of Mr. C. is indeed true, the fact
I have just stated is most unaccountable. How shall
we account for the fact that the whole Christian world
have misunderstood the Bible on this vital point? Is
its teaching plain ? and yet almost all have misunder-
stood it ! If Mr. C. so thinks, he of all men should, in
consistency, believe most firmly in the doctrine of total
depravity. How else can he account for the amazing
blindness of almost all the readers of the Bible? In-
deed, I know not whether we should more wonder at
the blindness and stupidity of all Christendom, or at
the superior illumination of Mr. C. and those who
agree with him! How it has happened that they,
whilst denying all supernatural illumination, have
gained so much greater light than all others, I can
not comprehend.
I trust the time will never come when I shall feel
myself constrained to differ in regard to any funda-
mental doctrine of Christianity, from the overwhelm-
ing majority of the wise and the good. Were I to
entertain such views, I should greatly suspect myself
of being under some blinding influence. We need
not. however, appeal to the views of even the wisest
and best. On this vital subject, the language of inspir-
ation is clear and full. It leaves no room to doubt
that God has promised to save us, bv the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed
upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ.
I have now offered as many arguments as I de-
signed to present on this topic not all that I could
278 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
offer. It is not my plan to confuse your minds by a
great multiplicity of arguments, but to present a few
that are clear, striking, and conclusive.
I will now commence a brief review of the ground
over which I have traveled. What have been the
precise points in debate? I have said that my oppon-
ent and myself agree that the Holy Spirit dictated and
confirmed the Scriptures. We agree, also, that ordi-
narily the Spirit operates, in some sense, through the
Word.
Mr. C. contends that the Spirit never operates with-
out the truth. I contend that in the case of infants
and idiots, he does. Mr. C. believes that in the con-
version and sanctification of adults the Spirit operates
only through the truth ; that he dictated and con-
firmed the Word, and the Word converts and sancti-
fies. I maintain that, in addition to the Word, and
distinct from it, there is an influence of the Spirit on
the heart, without which the Word would never con-
vert and sanctify any human being.
Let me repeat a few explanations, that I may not be
misunderstood. I do not hold that in regeneration
there is a change of the physical nature of the mind,
but a change of the dispositions and affections of the
heart. Nor do I hold that in regeneration any new
revelation is made, any new ideas given which are not
taught in the Scriptures ; but such a change of heart
as enables the renewed soul to see the beauty and ex-
cellency of the things there revealed. "Open mine
eyes" prayed David, "that I may read wonderful
things out of thy law."
Again. The modus operandi, the manner in which
the Spirit operates on the heart, I do not profess to
understand. The fact that he does operate is clear;
the mode is mysterious. That God created man is cer-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 279
tain ; how he created him is mysterious. How spirits
communicate their thoughts to each other, or to the
mind of man, I do not comprehend. We pry not' into
things beyond our comprehension.
The necessity of the special influence of the Spirit
I have said does not arise from any lack of evidence
that the Scriptures are true; for the evidence is con-
vincing and overwhelming. Nor does it arise from
any obscurity in the manner of presenting the truths
taught in the Bible; for they are presented with re-
markable simplicity and clearness. Nor does it arise
from the fact that men are not perfectly free agents ;
for they are. The necessity of the divine influence
arises from the deep, the total depravity of human
nature; the aversion of the unsanctified heart to the
holy character of God, to his pure law, and his soul-
humbling gospel. "This is the condemnation," said
our Savior, "that light is come into the world ; and
men loved darkness more than light, because their
deeds were evil/' The Word of God alone can not
change their hearts, so that they will hate darkness
and love light turn from sin and follow holiness.
The effects of this depravity are, that the affections
of men are placed on forbidden objects ; their minds
are preoccupied with worldly plans and desires ; and
they refuse to hear the Word ; or, hearing, they reject
or pervert its divine teachings and become infidels or
heretics ; or, being speculative believers, they live
without Christ and without God in the world. (Time
exoired.)
280 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
MR. CAMPBELL'S CLOSING ADDRESS.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 29, i o'clock P.M.
Mr. President. I have but thirty minutes to
close the argument, unless I should be indulged with
a few more. I am sorry to see Mr. Rice so positive
in his assertions and contradictions respecting the
readings and comments on Calvin. He has not given
a correct translation of Calvin's Latin, according to
the copy now before me. I have read other transla-
tions of it, besides my own, and I have also read
Calvin's own French translation of the passage in dis-
pute. I will read an interpretation of it by Jeremiah
Taylor:
"If we are guilty of Adam's sin by the decree of God,
by his choice and constitution that it should be so, as
Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twiss (that I may name no more
for that side) do expressly teach, it follows that God is
the author of our sin, so that I may use Mr. Calvin's
words: 'How is it that so many nations with their
children should be involved in the fall without remedy,
but because God would have it so ; and if that be the
matter, then to God, as the cause, must that sin and
that condemnation be ascribed." Jere. Taylor's
Works, Heb. ed., vol. ix., p. 322; quoted by the Chris-
tian Examiner, Boston, 1828.
Now, if the gentleman desires to contest the matter
farther, I now inform him that I shall be forthcoming
under the next question of creeds. At present we
must close this present argument, and reserve 'what
we have farther to sav on the "horrible decree" till
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 281
the next question, under which it will be quite as suit-
able as here. I will sustain the ground which I occupy
by ample authority.
His allusions to repentance unto life and remission
are more for appearance than from any new ideas or
new arguments. I have shown it to be not individual
and personal, but -commensurate with the Gentile
world a rich and glorious tender to all the nations
of the earth. A matter alike unexpected by Jew or
Gentile. The question stands as I left it in my last
address.
The letter from Bro. Thomson on the subject of
prayer, read from the Millennial Harbinger by Mr.
Rice, was introduced for effect, and especially to hide
his own retreat from the difficulty propounded to him
on that very same subject. Why did he not read
my answer to it? That would have set the matter in
its proper attitude before you. My time will not
allow me to read such disquisitions and comment on
them. They are not called for. There are few who
can comprehend the reasons of things. The best phil-
osophy of prayer is, that God has granted the privi-
lege, enjoined the duty, and given a promise. We,
therefore, violate no decree, and sin against no reve-
lation, in praying for all men. I believe, practice, and
preach the necessity and propriety of praying for the
salvation of our children, families, friends, etc., as
much as I believe, preach, or practice any point of
domestic and social duties and privileges. If I were
to follow Mr. Rice into all these digressions into my
writings, we should have scores of questions in discus-
sion.
He says there is a certain power displayed in con-
version, and so say I. And does it not come with as
good a grace from me as from him? But he says he
282 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
goes for a power beyond the naked Word, and that,
too, an accompanying power. Well, the word "ac-
companying" explains not the nature of that power,
and for that I have asked more than once, but I have
asked in vain. He can neither expound what the "ac-
companying power" is, or can be, now how it operates,
and therefore whether or not we agree, I could not
say. I believe the Spirit accompanies the Word, is
always present with the Word, and actually and per-
sonally works through it upon the moral nature of
man, but not without it. I presume not to speculate
upon the nature of this power, nor the mode of opera-
tion. I believe the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our
hearts the love of God, and dwells in all the faithful;
that it sanctifies them through the truth ; that "it
works in them to will and do," and that it comforts
them in all their afflictions.
But the Spirit of God does not thus enter into the
wicked. When it fell from heaven on Pentecost, it
fell only on the one hundred and twenty, and not upon
the promiscuous assembly. For the multitude, after
the Spirit's descent, did still upbraid the disciples with
drunkenness. Those who first received it that day
preached by it to the audience. The thousands who
heard were pierced to the heart, and yet had not re-
ceived the Spirit. They believed, and were in an
agony of fear and terror, but had not yet re-
ceived the Spirit. They asked what they should do,
and yet had not received it. Peter commanded them
to "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the
remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit." Of course, then, they had not yet re-
ceived that gift. They, however, gladly received his
Word, and were baptized. We have, then, the first
three thousand converts regenerated by gladly receiv-
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 283
ing the Word and baptism. This is a strong fact for
the first one in my fourteenth argument.
The second fact of conversion is found, Acts iv.,
and the question is, how were they regenerated ? We
shall read the passage: "Now that many of them
which heard the Word believed, and the number of
the men was about five thousand." We are now mor-
ally certain that these five thousand were converted
by the Spirit only through the Word. We have al-
ready eight thousand examples of our allegation, and
not one instance of one converted without the Word.
Our third exemplification is found, Acts v. 14:
"And believers were the more added to the Lord,
multitudes of both men and women." Women are
here mentioned as well as men. We have, then, got
multitudes of both sexes to add, in proof that the Spirit
converted these, not without the Word, but by what
they saw and heard.
We shall find a fourth example, Acts viii. 5, 6, 12.
Philip went to Samaria and preached Christ to them.
"And when they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of the
Lord Jesus, they were baptized, both men and wo-
men." So the Samaritans were regenerated by the
Holy Spirit through faith in the Word, which Philip
preached.
A fifth example is found in the eunuch: "If thou
believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." He said:
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Then
he, too, was born of the water, and converted, not
without the Word.
Paul furnishes a sixth case. When he had fallen
to the ground, he heard "a voice saying to him, Saul,
Saul, why persecuteth thou me? I am Jesus whom
thou persecutest." His case is certainly one of indis-
284 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
putable certainty. He both saw, heard, and believed,
and was baptized.
Eneas furnishes a seventh case: And Peter said to
him, "Eneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole ; arise
and make thy bed."
The citizens of Lydda and Saron furnish the eighth
case. Of them we read: "All that dwelt in Lydda
and Saron saw Eneas" made whole by Peter, and they
"turned to the Lord." The people of Lydda and Saron
were converted by what they saw and heard. Con-
version here, too, was not by the Spirit alone.
The inhabitants of Joppa furnish the ninth case. On
Peter's visit, and the revival of Dorcas, through his
preaching, many believed in the Lord. So that Peter
tarried there many days.
Cornelius and his friends furnish the tenth case.
That is so notorious, it needs only to be named.
Peter told the words of salvation, and the Spirit
miraculously sustained him. So that he, also, and his
friends, were regenerated, through both the Word
and the Spirit.
The Antiochans constitute the eleventh case. Com-
mon preachers, exiles from Jerusalem, came to An-
tioch, Phenice and Cyprus. The hand of the Lord
was with them. They spake unto the Grecians,
preaching the Lord Jesus, and a great number believed
and turned unto the Lord. (See also Acts xiii. 43-48.)
Sergius Paulus, deputy governor of Paphos, gives
us the twelfth case. When he saw Paul strike Elymas,
the sorcerer, blind, and heard Paul preach, he believed,
being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Lydia constitutes the thirteenth case. Lydia, a
pious lady, a worshiper of God, whose heart the Lord
had formerly touched, attended to Paul's preaching,
believed, and was baptized.
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 285
The Philippian jailer heard Paul; he and all his
house believed in God, and were filled with joy. This
is the fourteenth special case.
Dionysius, the Areopagite of Athens, Lady Damaris
and others with them, heard Paul, believed, and clave
unto him and the Lord. These noble Athenians con-
stitute the fifteenth case.
Crispus, the chief ruler of the Corinthian synagogue,
and all his family, hearing Paul, believed on the Lord.
This is the sixteenth case.
The Corinthians constitute the seventeenth exam-
ple. Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and
were baptized. The whole story is here beautifully
told in the three words, "hearing, believing, and being
baptized."
The Ephesians constitute the eighteenth case.
Many of them hearing Paul, believed, came and con-
fessed their deeds, burned fifty thousand pieces of
silver worth of books, "so mightily grew the word of
the Lord, and prevailed."
To these may I add the cripple at Lystra, as a nine-
teenth case ; the people of Iconium as a twentieth
"To whom Paul so spake that a multitude believed" ;
and as the twenty-first example, the noble Bereans,
"who searched the Scriptures daily, therefore many of
them believed." Here are twenty-one clear and dis-
tinct cases recorded in one book, containing, in all,
probably not less than from thirty to fifty thousand
persons ; in every one of which they heard, believed,
and were baptized. So that, as far as sacred history
goes, the Spirit of God never did operate in conversion
without the Word.
Now I ask Mr. Rice to bring forward one single case
of any one being converted to the Lord without the
Word being first heard and believed ! If the salva-
286 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
lion of the world depended on it, he could not give it.
It is, then, so far as the New Testament deposeth, idle,
and worse than idle, to talk about sanctification or
conversion, without the Word and Spirit of God.
They are always united in the great work. No one is
converted by the Word alone, nor by the Spirit alone.
Having then surveyed the premises, and heard the
arguments and objections from the other side, I pro-
ceed, with great haste, to place in a miniature view the
whole argument before you.
I. The first of this series of thirteen arguments was
drawn from the constitution of the human mind, intel-
lectual and moral. It was shown that the human
mind, like the human body, has a specific constitu-
tion, which is never to be violated. In no instance
does God, in the government of the universe, violate
the laws and constitution which he has given, in effect-
ing the ordinary objects of his providence, moral gov-
ernment, or in the scheme of redemption. He always
addresses himself to man in harmony with his consti-
tution: first addressing his understanding, then his
conscience, then his affections. Miracles only except-
ed, he has never violated the powers given to man.
He gives no new powers, annihilates no old powers,
but takes the human constitution as he made it ; and
by enlightening the understanding, and renewing the
heart by the gospel, effects, through his Holy Spirit,
that grand moral change which constitutes a new
moral creation.
II. Our second argument was deduced from the fact
that from the earliest antiquity till now there never
has been found a human being in any country or age
possessed of one spiritual idea, impression, or feeling,
where some portion of the Word or revelation of God
had not been spoken to him, or read by him. So that
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 287
it appears, in fact, indisputable that the Spirit of God
rather follows, and in no case precedes, the progress
or arrival of his Word. We have the history of man
in the four quarters of the world, in attestation of this
most significant and momentous fact.
III. By an induction of many cases of personal ex-
perience from observation, and, I may add, by a gen-
eral concession, it appears, that amongst Christians
the most gifted and enlightened, not one idea can be
suggested from the most gifted, the most eminently
illuminated with spiritual light and intelligence not
one idea can be expressed, not taken from the Holy
Scriptures. Not one thought, idea, or impression,
truly spiritual, can be heard from any man in Chris-
tendom, not borrowed from that Holy Book, directly
or indirectly. These two matter-of-fact arguments,
on almost any other subject, would be deemed all-
sufficient.
IV. My fourth argument consisted in the avowal
and development of that great law of mind, and of all
organic existence, animal or vegetable, viz., that what-
ever is essential to the production of any specific re-
sult, is necessary in all cases. Whatever is essential
to the production of any one effect, or offspring, vege-
table or animal ; any one result, intellectual or moral,
is always and invariably necessary to the consumma-
tion of the same results. Therefore, whatever is essen-
tial to the conversion of one individual, is essential to
the conversion of every other individual. It need not
be urged that the same order and arrangement of
things is necessary, because that is not implied as
always essential ; but so much of order, arrangement,
and circumstances, as are essential to the production
of one ear of corn, are uniformly and invariably neces-
sary. Just so in the new birth. When called to assert
288 CAMPBEUv-RlCE DEBATE.
and maintain any fact, we are not obliged to explain
the whole nature, reasons, and contingencies thereof
I am only obliged to establish the fact itself. Nat-
ural birth is always the same thing. So is the spir-
itual. Baptism is always the same thing. Mr. Rice,
without knowing it or designing it, was constrained to
come to this result. While, in fact, seeking to oppose
it, he came to the very same conclusion. He first
argued for infant regeneration without faith ; he then
sought to have believers regenerated in some way
different, but ultimately he asserted that regeneration
was also before faith in adults, and thus, by the force of
the universal law, he came to my grand conclusion,
that whatever is necessary to the new birth, or regen-
eration, in one case, is necessary in all other cases.
And so that point is decided.
V. My fifth argument is deduced from the name
"Advocate," given to the Holy Spirit by the Messiah,
as his official designation, in conducting the work of
conversion, convincing the world of sin, righteousness,
and judgment. He was, then, to use words in plead-
ing this cause ; hence it is a moral argument, and a
change effected by motives.
VI. My sixth argument is drawn from the commis-
sion given to this Advocate in pleading his cause. He
was to convince the world of sin, righteousness, and
judgment, by certain means. The Messiah prescribes
the topics. He furnishes the arguments, and states
them to the disciples in advance. The first topic is,
"Because they believe not in me"; the second, "be-
cause I go to my Father, and you see me no more";
the third is, "because the Prince of the world is cast
out." In this way, then, the work was to be con-
ducted, and it has been conducted. And so proceeded
the apostles through their whole ministry. All useful
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 289
and successful pleaders, in all ages, have been obliged
to adopt this course. And while the human constitu-
tion remains as it now is, the same course must be
essentially and substantially pursued.
VII. "My seventh argument is founded on that most
significant and sublime fact, that the first gift the
Spirit of God bestowed on the apostles was the gift of
tongues. What could have been more apposite to
teach, that the Spirit of God was to operate through
the Word, than, as prefatory to the work, first of all
giving to its pleaders the gift of tongues ? that by the
machinery of words, he might accomplish his glorious
work of regenerating the world. These seven argu-
ments I distinctly stated in my first address on this
subject. To some of these there was no reply what-
ever made. To none of them was a direct and formal
refutation attempted. 1 regard them as I did at first,
not only as unassailed, but unassailable.
VIII. My eighth argument was composed of the
direct and explicit testimony of the apostles, affirm-
ing regeneration and conversion through the Word
of God, as the seed or principle of the new life. The
instrumentality of the Word was asserted by James as
the will or ordinance of God. We had the united testi-
mony of two apostles directly and positively affirming
the very issue in our proposition James affirming,
that of his own will begat he us by, net without, the
Word of Truth. And Peter saying, "We are born
again," or according to McKnight, "We are regener-
ated, or having regenerated us, not by corruptible, but
through," not without, "the incorruptible seed of the
Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Here
is as clear an indication of the instrumentality of the
Word as can be expressed in human language. To
explain these passages away is impossible, and you see
290 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
how my opponent has evaded them. Paul, also, in
various forms of speech, gives us similar views of the
instrumentality of the Word. He told the Corinth-
ians that he himself had "begotten them through the
gospel." Thus making the gospel the indispensable
instrument of regeneration. Peter, indeed, asserted
before all the apostles in the convention at Jerusalem,
that .God purifies the heart by faith. But it was re-
served to these later times to assume and teach, that
God purifies the heart without faith, before faith, and
independent of the Word of God.
IX. I elicited a ninth argument from the commis-
sion given to the Messiah, as reported in Isaiah, and
from the commission given to Paul from the Messiah
in person, with respect to the conversion of the Gen-
tiles. This commission is reported by Paul himself
in his speech before King Agrippa (Acts xxvi.). These
commissions show the arrangement of means in ref-
erence to conversion, remission and sanctification, in
the divine mind, purpose and plan. Illumination
through the gospel is always first. The apostle was
sent to "open the eyes" of the nations. He was "to
turn them from darkness to light, and from the power
of Satan unto God, in order to their forgiveness and
participation of an inheritance amongst those sancti-
fied through faith."
X. My tenth argument consisted of those Scrip-
tures which show that whatever is ascribed to the Holy
Spirit in the work of salvation is also ascribed to the
Word ; and that what is ascribed to the Word is also
ascribed to the Spirit. The gentleman has not found
a single exception to it. Are persons said to be en-
lightened, quickened, converted, sanctified, regen-
erated, comforted, etc., by the Word? they are also
in some other Scriptures said to be so by the Spirit;
INFLUENCE OF THE HOI,Y SPIRIT. 291
and vice versa. This agent and instrument were so
inseparably connected in the minds of the apostles and
prophets that they could not conceive of the one with-
out the other, in any operation or effect connected
with the salvation of man.
XI. My eleventh argument was deduced from the
fact that those who resisted the Word of God, or the
persons that spoke it, are said to resist the Spirit of
God. By not giving ear to the prophets that spoke
by the Spirit, they resisted the Spirit. The Sanhedrim
of the Jews, who resisted the words spoken by Stephen
and by the twelve apostles, are represented by him as
resisting the Holy Spirit. His words are: "As your
fathers did, so do you always resist the Holy Spirit.
Which of the prophets have not your fathers perse-
cuted? and they have slain them that showed before
the coming of the Just One, of whom you have now
been the betrayers and murderers."
XII. A twelfth argument was deduced from another
important fact: that the strivings of the prophets by
their words, are represented as the strivings of the
Holy Spirit. Thus spoke Nehemiah: "Thou sendest
thy good Spirit to instruct them," through Moses,
"and thou testifiedst against them by thy Spirit, in thy
prophets, yet would they not give ear." Thus, in the
Divine Word, the Spirit and the Word of God, and
those who spoke it by the immediate authority of God,
are so perfectly identified, that everything that is said
to be done by, to, for, or against the one, is said to be
done to, by, for, or against the other. So that we may
still say that those who hear not Moses nor the proph-
ets, would not be persuaded, though one rose from
the dead! God still strives with men by his Spirit,
and they still resist his Spirit, in and through the
292 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
Word spoken by prophets and apostles. "Let every
one hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."
XIII. My thirteenth argument consists in that most
sublime and impressive fact, that God nowhere has
operated without his Word, either in the old creation
or in the new. In nature and in grace, God operates
not without his Word. He never has wrought with-
out means. He has, so far as earth's annals reach,
and as the rolls of eternity have been opened to our
view, never done anything without an instrumentality.
The naked Spirit of God never has operated upon the
naked spirit of man, so far as all science, all revela-
tion teach. Abstract spiritual operations is a pure
metaphysical dream. There is nothing to favor such
a conceit in nature, providence, or grace. God broke
the awful stillness of eternity with his own creative
voice. He spoke, before anything was done.
Speech, or language, or a word, is the original and
sublime instrumentality of all divine operations. God
said, "Let there be light," and light was born. Does
not the Bible say, "By faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the Word of God," so that
the things that were made, were not made of things
that did formerly exist? They were made out of the
Word of God. All things having been created by the
Word of God. Most evident it is, that his Word is the
all-creative instrument. Without it was not anything
made that now exists. Of course, then, if persons
were to be created anew in Christ Jesus, without the
Word of God, it would be a perfect anomaly, some-
thing wholly new in the history of the universe. If
God operated upon absolute nonentity, and then upon
inert matter, by his Word, and if his Spirit thus brood-
ed on old chaos, what tongue of man can prove that
in the new creation, he regenerates," renews, re-creates
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
and sanctifies man without his Word ! It never can be
done, Mr. President. It is not only out of the power
of Mr. Rice, but every other living man, to show that
God moves at all in the affairs of redemption but
through his Word. God's Spirit and Word operated
conjointly on ancient chaos, and they still operate
together on the chaos of the human heart in its sins.
Read Psalm xxix. 3-9; Psalm xxxiii. 6-9. So my
fourteenth argument details.
I am sorry that my time is always too short for the
full development of the great elements of things, and
mighty evidences of truth found in these propositions.
I have arranged, however, such amount of facts and
evidences as, I humbly think, never can be set aside
by the ingenuity of mortal man. I am willing to com-
mit these fourteen arguments to the world, fearless of
the consequences. I think the case is a clear one,
and one upon which we may say we have line upon
line and precept upon precept. We have certainly the
law and the prophets.
In conclusion, then, I must say that we have been
much reproached and slandered on this theme. It is
not from any aversion to preaching the Holy Spirit,
(for we do efficaciously preach it,) that I have been
constrained to take this ground, so offensive to some,
and which has been made, in many instances, to retard
the great and growing cause of reformation which we
plead. I believe and teach the inspiration of the Spirit,
the influences and effects of the Spirit of God in the
hearts of all Christians, men and women. The man
who represents me as opposed to a spiritual religion
and to the operations, converting and sanctifying, of
the Holy Spirit, does me the highest injustice, and
blasphemes my good name in a way he must answer
for to a higher tribunal. I have been long endeavor-
294 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
ing to draw the proper lines between a wild enthusi-
asm and the true Spirit of our God between what is
spiritual and animal in some of the present forms of
Christianity ; and to save my contemporaries from a
religion of blind impulses, animal excitements, and new
revelations, by which I most sincerely believe vast
multitudes are deluded to everlasting ruin. With
Paul, and with me, there is but one body and but one
Spirit, as there is but one hope of our calling as
there is but one God and Father of us all. (Time
expired.)
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 295
MR. RICE'S CLOSING REPLY.
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 29, 1:30 o'clock P.M.
Mr. President. I see not what advantage the gen-
tleman expects to gain by attempting to blacken the
character of Calvin a man who was a blessing to the
world, and who has long since gone to his rest. He
says I have not a correct translation of Calvin's Insti-
tutes. I have one of the very best that has been
made. But there are present in this large audience
many scholars, who understand the Latin language.
I was waiting to hear him read us the original. He
certainly can not expect us to take his bare assertion
in matters of this kind.
He emphasized the expression "horrible decree."
Yet I presume he knows perfectly well that the Latin
word horribilis is not precisely synonymous with the
English word "horrible," derived from it. Calvin
used it in the sense of awful. But, as I have already
remarked, if Mr. C.'s interpretation of Calvin were
correct, it would prove not that he held that some
infants are lost, but that all nations, infants and adults,
believers and unbelievers, perish without remedy ; for
he includes them all ! Yet every one knows that he
held no such doctrine. I will read from Calvin one
passage which may throw some light on this subject.
It is in the chapter on baptism.
"The mischievous consequences of that ill-stated no-
tion, that baptism is necessary to salvation, are over-
looked by persons in general, and therefore they are
296 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
less cautious ; for the reception of an opinion that all
who happen to die without baptism are lost, makes
our condition worse than that of the ancient people, as
though the grace of God were more restricted now
than it was under the law ; it leads to the conclusion
that Christ came not to fulfill the promises, but to
abolish them ; since the promise which, at that time,
was of itself sufficiently efficacious to insure salvation
before the eighth day, would have no validity now
without the assistance of the sign." Book IV.. chap,
xv., sec. 20.
Calvin here contends that it is unnecessary for lay-
men to baptize a child that is likely to die, because its
salvation is secure without baptism. He never taught
the doctrine the gentleman has charged upon him.
The charge has been often made, but, I believe, never
proved. If any passage can be found in his works
that does teach the doctrine, I wish to see it produced.
Mr. C. still vainly strives to evade the force of the
argument for a special divine influence, founded on the
fact that God is said to grant or give repentance. He
says God granted repentance, not to individuals, but
to the whole Gentile world ! The Bible does not say
so. Peter had related to his brethren at Jerusalem the
conversion of the family of Cornelius, a single Gentile
family. When they heard the history of this interest-
ing event, "they glorified God, saying. Then hath God
also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life"
(Acts xi. 18). Did they say, God hath granted to the
Gentiles the privilege of repenting? Had they not
always this privilege? Was it ever refused to them?
Was it not always their duty to repent ? But the lan-
guage of Paul to Timothy places the matter beyond
cavil or objection: "In meekness instructing those
that oppose themselves ; if God peradventure will give
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 297
them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"
(2 Tim. ii. 25). The gentleman says God had given
repentance to the whole Gentile world; but Paul
directs Timothy in meekness to instruct a certain class
of wicked persons, if peradventure God will grant them
repentance; so that they will acknowledge the truth.
It is worse than vain to attempt to destroy the force of
language so perfectly clear.
One of my most conclusive arguments against Mr.
C.'s doctrine is, that it makes prayer for unconverted
persons, as well as for the sanctification of believers,
both unavailing and improper. To prove that this in-
surmountable difficulty had occurred to his own
friends, as well as to me, I read a letter from a member
of his church, published in the Harbinger. How does
he answer it? Why, he says, I ought to have read his
answer to the letter. It would have required rather
more time than I have to spare ; for of all men he ex-
cels in going round and round a difficulty which he
feels himself incapable of meeting. Besides, it is my
business to present arguments against his doctrine,
and his to answer them. But he would have you be-
lieve that when I present an argument against his
views, I am bound, if he have written anything on the
subject, to read his answer ! This is truly a singular
demand.
I repeat the argument. If his doctrine be true,
there is absolutely no propriety in praying. Why
should we, and how can we, pray for blessings, which
we verily believe God will never grant? He says he
prays for the conversion of sinners. When he enters
the pulpit he stands before the congregation and prays
that God will convert the unbelieving portion of it ;
and then he opens the Bible and tells them that God
will not convert them : that the Spirit has dictated
298 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
and confirmed the Word, and they must be converted
and sanctified by it, or be lost ! If his doctrine be true,
what are his prayers worth? But he says he prays
for the conversions of sinners. It is a happy thing
when, as it sometimes happens, a man's heart keeps
in the path of duty, when his head would lead him
from it. The better feelings of the heart do not always
yield to the frigid speculations of the head. I am
happy to hear that he still prays that God would con-
vert sinners, even though he tells them he will not
do it!
I wish now to notice the list of some eight argu-
ments, on which the gentleman has principally relied
to prove the Spirit operates only through the truth.
1. The first was from the nature of the human mind
an argument purely metaphysical. But that God
can, and does, exert a moral influence on the mind,
distinct from words and arguments, was proved by the
facts, that he created man upright, and that in protect-
ing his church and people the Bible teaches us that he
has exerted a controlling influence over the moral con-
duct of wicked men, not by words and arguments.
2. His second argument was that there are no spir-
itual ideas where the Word of God is not possessed.
This assertion he can not prove. I have no objection,
however, to admitting it ; for the design of regenera-
tion is not to make a new revelation, but to change the
heart, and cause the sinner to understand and embrace
the truths of the Bible. This argument, therefore, is
worthless. It bears not upon the doctrine for which
I contend.
3. Again, he argues that whatever is necessary to
regeneration in one case is necessary in all cases, and
consequently if the Word be necessary at all, regener-
ation can not occur without it, in any case. But the
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 299
Bible says no such thing. God has never said that he
will employ the same instrumentality in all cases.
Sometimes, as I have proved, the living ministry is
employed in converting men ; and, at other times, it is
not. This bold assertion, therefore, is without proof,
and is contrary to fact.
4. His next argument is, that the Holy Spirit is
called an Advocate. But does this name prove that
the Spirit, in converting and sanctifying men, employs
no other influence than that of words and arguments ?
Most certainly it does not.
5. On the day of Pentecost, he tells us, the first mir-
aculous gift was that of tongues or languages ; and the
Spirit did employ words. Does the fact that God ordi-
narily employs the instrumentality of the truth in con-
verting men, prove that he always employs it, or that
he does not exert any other influence on their minds?
Certainly it does not. These assertions, founded on
such facts, are not worth a straw. The premises and
the conclusion are the poles apart. ,
6. His next argument is, that believers are said to
have been begotten by the Word. But God is said to
beget them. So, then, God is the agent, and the Word
the instrument. Does this prove that he exerts no
other influence but that of the Word ? The conclusion
follows not from the premises. The expression, "puri-
fying their hearts by faith," it would not be difficult
to prove, militates against the doctrine of special
divine influence.
7. Naked Spirit, he asserts, never operates on naked
spirit. This is mere assertion. How can the gentle-
man prove it true? Does he know how one spirit in-
fluences another? Can he inform us how Satan can
tempt men ? Does he understand it ? What are such
unproved assertions worth ?
3oo CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
But he says he does not pretend to know how the
Spirit operates. He has tried to tell us both how he
can, and how he can not operate. I will not misrep-
resent him. I will, therefore, keep his language before
your minds. Let me once more read from his Chris-
tianity Restored (p. 350) :
"But to return. As the spirit of man puts forth all
its moral power in the words which it fills with its
ideas, so the Spirit of God puts forth all its converting
and sanctifying power in the words which it fills with
its ideas. Miracles can not convert. They can only
obtain a favorable hearing of the converting argu-
ments. If they fail to obtain a favorable hearing, the
arguments which they prove are impotent as an un-
known tongue. If the Spirit of God has spoken all
its arguments, or if the New and Old Testament con-
tain all the arguments which can be offered to< recon-
cile man to God, and to purify them who are recon-
ciled, then all the power of the Holy Spirit which can
operate upon the human mind is spent, and he that is
not sanctified and saved by these, can not be saved by
angels or spirits, human or divine."
The gentleman could not have employed language
more clear and definite. He puts the Holy Spirit, in
regard to conversion and sanctification, on a perfect
equality with man, except so far as he may present
more powerful motives than man. In the most defi-
nite terms, he denies any influence of the Spirit, other
than that of his words and arguments. I hold that
the Word is ordinarily used, but not always; and that
when it is used there is also an influence of the Spirit
distinct from it, renewing the heart, and inclining the
sinner to receive the truth in the love of it.
In reply to my argument from the conversions on
the day of Pentecost, Mr. C. says those persons were
INFLUENCE; OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 301
converted not without the Word. But did he prove
that the three thousand were converted simply by the
Word? He did not, and he can not. The apostles
gave themselves not only to preaching, but to prayer
(Acts vi. 4). Why did they pray? Because they knew
that the Word alone could not convert men. They
therefore prayed for the efficacious influences of the
Holy Spirit. The very fact that they connected prayer
with preaching proves conclusively that they believed
the special and immediate agency of the Spirit neces-
sary. The argument is conclusive.
But suppose I should admit that the Spirit oper-
ates on adults only through the truth, would it follow
that the same is true of infants? I can easily prove
that adults are saved by faith, never without it; but
does it follow that infants must believe, or be damned ?
According to the gentleman's logic, it would ; for he
contends that whatever is essential in one case is
essential in all cases. Neither reason nor Scripture
will permit us to assume the principle that what is said
of adults is applicable to infants. Mr. C. denies that
infants are regenerated by the Spirit. So he leaves
them to die in sin and be lost.
I will now resume the recapitulation of my argu-
ment. The necessity of the agency of the Spirit on
the hearts of men, I have said, arises simply from
their deep depravity. I have proved by a large num-
ber of passages of Scripture, that man by nature is
destitute of holiness, and inclined only to sin ; that he
is born of the flesh and is carnal ; that his thoughts are
evil from his youth ; that he is conceived in sin, and
goes astray from his very birth ; that his heart is de-
ceitful above all things and desperately wicked, etc.,
etc. I have also stated and proved the fact that what-
ever is truly good in any man, is in the Scriptures as-
302 CAMPBELL-RICE; DEBATE.
cribed to a radical change wrought in his heart by
God. This most important fact, Mr. C. has not de-
nied. Man being thus totally depraved, estranged
from God, I have proved that he never will, and never
can, love God, until he shall have experienced a radi-
cal moral renovation a change which can not be
effected simply by the Word of God.
I have offered several arguments against the doc-
trine taught by Mr. C. and in favor of the doctrine of a
special divine influence in conversion and sanctifica-
tion.
I. My first argument against his doctrine was, that
it prescribes to the power of God over the human mind
an unreasonable and unscriptural limitation. This I
proved by two plain facts, viz.: ist. God made man
holy, upright, without words or arguments. In what
manner he did it we know not, but most certainly the
fact that such a power was exerted proves that God
can sanctify the soul either through the truth, or with-
out it. 2nd. I proved by several passages of Scrip-
ture, that he claims and has exercised a controlling
influence over the moral conduct of men by an influ-
ence more powerful than mere motives. And if he
can consistently control their moral feelings and con-
duct at all, without argument and motive, can he not
exert such an influence as will lead them to Christ ? To
this argument Mr. C. has attempted no reply.
II. My second argument was, that the doctrine of
Mr. C. necessarily involves the damnation of infants
and idiots. He admits that they are depraved, that
they "inherit a sinful nature," that they are "greatly
fallen and depraved in their whole moral constitu-
tion." This being true, one of three consequences
must follow, viz.: 1st. They go to hell; or, 2nd,
they go to heaven in their depravity ; or, 3rd, they
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 303
are sanctified by the Spirit without the Word. He will
not say they go to hell, nor will he pretend that they
go to heaven in their depravity. The conclusion is,
therefore, inevitable, that they are sanctified by the
Spirit without the Word. This is our doctrine ; and
it is the doctrine of the Bible. Our Savior taught
that all must be born again, because "that which is
born of the flesh is flesh" is carnal ; and therefore it
must be born of the Spirit. You have seen how the
gentleman writhed under this argument, and to what
absurdities and contradictions he has been driven to
evade its force. I leave you, my friends, to determine
whether it is more accordant with reason and Scrip-
ture, that infants should be sanctified by the Spirit
without the truth, or that they should be forever lost.
III. My third argument was, that the doctrine of
Mr. C. contradicts the teaching of the Scriptures con-
cerning the depravity of man. They teach that men
sin knowingly, willfully and deliberately ; that their
hearts are fully set in them to do evil. According to
his doctrine, they sin only through mistake or error ;
and all that is necessary to convert them is to give
them correct information. To this argument he has
not even attempted to. reply. He has not said one
word concerning it not a word.
IV. My fourth argument was, that a large number
of passages of Scripture directly and most clearly
teach that in conversion and sanctification, the Spirit
of God exerts an influence powerful and efficacious, in
addition to the Word, and distinct from it. "I will
give them one heart and one way, that they may fear
me forever, for the good of them and their children
after them" (Jer. xxxii. 39). Does this language
mean that God would reason with them? No. The
time was coming when he would take the work into
304 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
his own hands, and then his people, would have one
heart and one way. Again, "I will pour cut water
upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry
ground : I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my
blessing upon thine offspring; and they shall spring
up as among the grass, as willows by the water-
courses" (Tsa. xliv. 3). Such are the blessed results,
when the Spirit of God moves upon the hearts of men.
Again, "A. new heart also will I give you, and a new
spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an
heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you,"
etc. (Ezekiel xxxvi. 26). I need not repeat other pass-
ages, quoted from the Old Testament. To the most
of them the gentleman has attempted no reply.
In the New Testament we find declarations equally
strong in proof of our doctrine. Thus in Eph. ii. 10,
Paul says: "We are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before
ordained, that we should walk in them." I endeav-
ored to prevail on the gentleman to notice this text,
but could not succeed. The word "create" is the
strongest word in any language, and the apostle uses
it without qualification, to express that change which
is wrought in man by the Spirit, and which results in
his doing good works.
Again, in the same chapter, the apostle represents
man as dead in trespasses and in sins, and as being
quickened by the power of God. Was a dead man
ever made alive by words or arguments? Jesus stood
at the grave of Lazarus and said: "Lazarus, come
forth," but at that moment he exerted an almighty
power to quicken him. So when God speaks to the
sinner, who is spiritually dead, his Spirit breathes into
his soul spiritual life exerts an influence which
INFLUENCE of THE HOLY SPIRIT.
305
causes him to embrace Christ as his Savior and re-
joice in his service.
In the epistle to Titus, the apostle says, God saves
us "by the washing of regeneration and renewing of
the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ" (chap. iii. 5). And I have
proved that in every instance where the expressions,
"poured out," "shed upon," etc., occur, an immediate
divine influence, distinct from the Word, is intended.
When the Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his family,
Mr. C. admits there was an immediate agency of the
Spirit, entirely distinct from the Word ; but when the
same kind of expression is used concerning conver-
sion and sanctification, he denies that any special and
distinct agency is intended !
These and a number of other passages I have read,
to most of which no answer has been attempted, prove
conclusively that in conversion and sanctification
there is an agency of the Spirit, distinct from the
Word, renewing the heart and inclining it to the ser-
vice of God. Most certainly such is the obvious mean-
ing of these Scriptures ; and they will bear no other
interpretation.
V. My fifth argument was, that God is represented
as giving repentance unto life as granting repent-
ance to the acknowledging of the truth. Faith, too,
is declared to be the effect of regeneration. "Whoso-
ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God"
(i John v. i). So in I Cor. iii. 5, Paul says, "Who,
then, is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by
whom ye believe, even as God gave to every man."
This passage I could not possibly induce Mr. Campbell
to see ! There are many others that teach most clearly
;that repentance, faith, and every grace, are the result
306 CAMPBELL-RICE DEBATE.
of a change of heart, of which God is the author all
of which establish the doctrine for which I contend.
VI. My sixth argument was, that the doctrine of
Mr. C. makes prayer for the unconverted, and even
for the sanctification of believers, wholly useless and
improper. Why should we ask God to convert men,
and then preach to them, that he never purposed to
convert any man, woman or child, by any other influ-
ence than that of arguments presented before their
minds? Some of the followers of the gentleman are
quite consistent. I have observed that in their public
prayers they rarely ever ask God to convert sinners.
If I believed as they do, I might reason with men;
but I should never think of praying to God, to cause
them to turn and live. And why pray at all ? for Mr.
C. teaches that both conversion and sanctification are
to be obtained by reading or hearing the Word, and by
this only. If Paul believed this doctrine, why did he
pray for the Ephesian Christians, that they might be
"strengthened with might in the inner man by his
Spirit"? Paul believed in the special agency of the
Spirit, and therefore prayed. This doctrine has been,
and still is, the consolation of thousands of the fol-
lowers of Christ, who regard it as one of their highest
privileges, to pray for the conversion and salvation of
dear friends, who are far away, or whose hearts are
callous to the appeals of divine truth.
VII. My seventh argument was, that the conver-
sions on the day of Pentecost and afterwards, prove a
divine influence distinct from the Word. On that
memorable day, three thousand souls were suddenly
converted to God. With repentance for their sins and
faith in Jesus Christ, they entered his church, and, to
the day of their death, delighted in his service. Argu-
ments and motives never produced in the minds of men
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 307
such a revolution in an hour. "It was the Lord's
work, and marvelous in our eyes." Thousands and
tens of thousands have since experienced the same
happy change. And even in these last days we are
permitted to witness the fulfillment of God's promise
to pour out his Spirit on all flesh. We often see a
general religious interest gradually pervading a town
or neighborhood, where no extraordinary efforts have
been made to arrest the attention of the people.
Christians become more prayerful. The unconverted
pause and consider. They go to the house of God,
which they had seldom entered, and hear with fixed
attention the melting appeals of divine truth. The
solemnity increases. The most careless become
thoughtful. The proud are humbled. The most
hopeless are reclaimed. They come "as clouds and
as doves to their windows." Many are added to the
church of God, and continue to adorn the doctrine of
Christ by a godly life. Who can believe that results
like these are the effect of mere argument and motive ?
No ; it is the Lord's work. His Spirit is poured out
as showers on the thirsty ground.
VIII. My last argument is, that the overwhelming
majority of all the readers of the Bible, in all ages,
have understood it to teach the doctrine for which I
contend. From Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians,
and others, we differ in some things, but we meet at
the cross of Christ. We hold the doctrine of human
depravity and the absolute necessity of the special
agency of the Holy Spirit in order to effect the con-
version and sanctification of men. We can bow
together around the mercy-seat, and unitedly pray to
God that his Word may run and be glorified : that
men may be convinced and converted, and that be-
lievers mav be sanctified.
308
Indeed, so clearly is this doctrine taught in the
Scriptures, that few have been found to deny it. Is
the Bible a plain book? My friend admits that it is;
and if it is, he is certainly in error ; for the overwhelm-
ing mass of the wise and the good are against him. If
his doctrine be true, we must conclude that the Bible
is one of the most obscure books ever written ; for
few indeed have been able to understand it on this
vital point.
But I must bring my remarks to a close. I do re-
joice and bless God that in the defense of this funda-
mental doctrine of Christianity I am sustained by so
large a portion of those who profess to take the Bible
as their only infallible guide. On this hallowed
ground we meet, sensible of our need of divine aid in
our preparation for heaven, and confident that in an-
swer to our united prayers he who began the good
work in us will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ.
Here, too, we find our encouragement to go forth
and preach the gospel which is "not after man." If I
believed that no other influence but that of words and
arguments would be exerted on the minds of men, I
should have no heart to preach another sermon. I
possess no eloquence that can melt the hardened
hearts of men ; no power to open their eyes and turn
them from darkness to light, and from the power of
Satan to God. My encouragement to preach the un-
searchable riches of Christ is found in the promise that
God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, and will cause
the wilderness and the solitary place to be glad, and
the desert to bud and blossom as the rose.
Convince me that no such agency is promised, and
I will weep for myself and for my race. There is no
hope for man if this doctrine be not true. He is not,
and never will be, pure enough to see God. Let me
otf THE Hoi/r SPIRIT. 309
exhort those who have been induced to reject it, to a
careful re-examination of the whole subject. If
ninety-nine hundredths of the pious readers of the
Bible were against me on a point so vital, I would
examine again and again. I should greatly fear that I
had fatally erred, and that, depending on my own
efforts, with only motives before me, I should fail of
preparation for heaven.
May God, in his infinite mercy, guide you and me
into the knowledge of all truth ; and may we be sanc-
tified and fitted for the enjoyments of heaven by his
Holy Spirit. (Time expired.)
END OF PROPOSITION.
UCSB LIBRARY
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
A 000 590 838 9
