FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

SERIES III.

VOL. IV.	B E T H A N Y, NOVEMBER, 1847.	NO. XI.

      My dear Clarinda--I ARRIVED here to-day, and mail the contents of my correspondence with Mr. Robertson, &c.

[No. I.]
THE REV. J. ROBERTSON'S CHALLENGE.

To the Reverend Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, United States, America.

      SIR--As I promised at our interview, yesterday, I beg to hand you the enclosed anti-slavery pamphlet.

      The position which you hold in America as the leader of a sect; the opinions which you have published in reference to slave-holding; the fact that you have been a slave-holder yourself, and did not relinquish it because of its sinfulness, but for other reasons; and the fact that you now hold religious fellowship with slave-holders, appears to me to render it necessary that you should not be permitted to quit the capital of Scotland without receiving a PUBLIC CHALLENGE to vindicate, in the city of Edinburgh, and before a Scottish audience, the position which you occupy in reward to American Slavery.

      That challenge I beg, hereby, respectfully to present to you, and declare that I am prepared to maintain that your POSITION and OPINIONS on the question of AMERICAN SLAVERY and SLAVE-HOLDING are at once UNGODLY, UNCHRISTIAN, and INHUMAN.

      The time and other conditions of the debate can be mutually arranged.

      Hoping that you will see the propriety of accepting of this challenge,

	I have the honor to be, Sir,
	Your most humble servant,
JAMES ROBERTSON.
Edinburgh, August 11, 1847.

[No. II.]
REPLY TO THE REV. J. ROBERTSON.

To the Rev. James Robertson.

      SIR--Your letter of to-day was handed me this evening after my return from Kirkaldy, together with Mr. Thompson's speech in the Music Hall, Edinburgh, June 1846, for which please accept my thanks.

      Your allusion to my position as a leader of a sect in America, however courteously intended, with your allusions to my position in reference to 'American Slavery,' rather indicates your own opinion of my position in both respects, than the facts of the case. I am neither the leader of a sect, nor the apologist of any system of slave-holding, ancient or modern, English or American. I do indeed teach that all Christians should form one community on the catholic foundation that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," [633] irrespective of all differences of opinion on either the politics or the metaphysics of existing sectarian institutions. If, then, the advocacy of Christian union or Christian principles be sectarianism, I must plead guilty of the charge, otherwise I am neither a sectary, nor the leader of a sect.

      As to your allusions to my opinions published in reference to slave-holding, to the alleged fact that I have been a slaveholder, and to my reasons for emancipating my slaves, they are still more imaginative, unfortunate, and exceptionable, than your reference to my position to a sect. And still worse, I have to-day seen a placard of which, from certain allusions in it to our conversation of yesterday, I must suppose you to be the author, in which you call upon the citizens of Edinburgh, to "beware" of me; that is, I presume, not to hear me on the subject of religion; for in no other respects are they in danger of me. Now in all these particulars, to say the least, I am sorry I cannot commend the candor, the liberality, the justice, or the conscientiousness, which I had expected from a gentleman sustaining your moral and religious associations in this community.

      I am, sir, according to your placard, advertized as "the defender of man-stealers." Had you said that I was in your opinion a defender of man-stealers, then, indeed, while I might regret the frailty of your logic, I could not regret that of your morality. If to take up an evil report of one's neighbor is no characteristic of an inhabitant of Zion, still less is it to originate and put into circulation an evil report against him. To one less accomplished than yourself, I should not have thought it would have appeared allowable to give to his neighbor for his office or for his character the construction which any one may please to put upon one of his expressions, especially, too, when informed by his neighbor that he both reprobated and abjured the theory and the practice implied in such imputation.

      But to return from the placard to your letter--to the opinions which you say I have published in reference to slaveholding--Have you read my opinions? or only some garbled extracts from some ex parte representations of them! Have you not other opinions of mine upon the subject which would have more fully and justly exhibited them, and my position to 'American slavery,' and have placed these extracts which you have quoted in a proper light before this community? Did I not in your presence say, in response to one of your company, that the opinions expressed in the Christian Baptist are still my opinions? Why, then, did you not also lay these before the public with those you have given? Did I not also intimate to you that the opinions expressed by the Free Church of Scotland were the same as those which I had published in America? Are they, in your judgment, defenders of men-stealers? You say that I have been a slaveholder, and did not relinquish it because of its sinfulness, and therefore, my position is ungodly, unchristian, and inhuman. You had only my word for it that I had ever owned a slave, and you had my word also that I had owned some without buying them; also that I had bought others for the purpose of emancipating them--and that I had emancipated them; some for one reason and some for another; and that I had not owned one for many years. Why, then, did you [634] not equally honor my word and tell the whole truth without suppressing one part of it and misconstruing another part of it, adding, that I did not relinquish it for its sinfulness, leaving it to he inferred that it might have been for its unprofitableness, or from some other cause? Was this done for a good effect or for a bad effect on the public mind, as it appears all to be done for public edification? Indeed, I have learned that your letter to me was placarded and exhibited at the door of the Waterloo Rooms before I had time to answer it.--You must be panic stricken. Do not think, my good sir, that I am going to carry all Edinburgh with me, not leaving you a single adherent. Be calm; be patient. Hasten leisurely!

      But, sir, may I ask by what code of morality or politeness are you allowed to call upon a stranger, as if in common courtesy, without informing him of your intentions, availing yourself of his frankness and candor, soliciting his opinions without informing him of the use you intended to make of them, and immediately on leaving him, walk into a printing office, placard his opinions, and then address him by letter for publication, as you have now done in that lying before me? I have, sir, believe me, too high an opinion of Scotland--dear to me from many pleasant associations, and of this Modern Athens, its elegant and enlightened metropolis--to think that your conduct is in harmony with its elevated standard of good taste or of good manners. I will not, therefore, ex uno discite omnes, take you, sir, as a proper representative of what is esteemed polite or moral at this meridian, until public opinion shall have passed its sentence upon your conduct on this occasion. I opine, sir, that Scotchmen will not order any stranger or citizen first to be chastened, and then to ask him what he has done.

      But in good keeping with your preface and introduction, you have challenged me to mortal combat, on pain of being proved "ungodly, unchristian, and inhuman," should I differ from you in a question of moral expediency, and that too, after you had first ascertained that I could not possibly accept it, having printed and published appointments and engagements throughout Scotland and Ireland for every day until late in September; and that too, to meet said appointments, after redeeming my pledges in Edinburgh, I must leave on Saturday next. Truly your bravery and courtesy are admirably unique and elevated!

      Well, sir, as you are a very clever and lion-like man, if the Anti-Slavery Society will endorse you as a trust-worthy champion of its cause, I hereby inform you that your challenge is accepted; and according to the mode of mortal combatants in this chivalrous age and nation, you having given the challenge, it is mine to choose the arms, and the mode of using them. My appointments are printed and circulated for every day till the 22d of September; and, with the exception of one or two days after that, every day till the 4th of October, when I sail for the United States. I propose then to exchange with you three essays of ten octavo pages, each, to be simultaneously printed; yours in the affirmative, and mine in the negative; first, in the Anti-Slavery periodical, or some other popular paper in Scotland; and also in the Christian Messenger in England; also, in the Millennial Harbinger, which circulates through North America; and [635] also the Abolition paper printed in Washington city, United States.--As I can attend to this amidst my travels, and as a printed argument will be more concentrated and useful than an oral one, your object can be more effectually gained and on a much larger field, than by a few speeches orally delivered to two or three thousand people in Edinburgh. I doubt not you and the public will concur with me in opinion, that this will be a more useful and effectual way of spreading our views before our contemporaries. I cannot, therefore, doubt your ready acquiescence. While, sir, I may thus show that you cannot sustain your allegations, I will, I hope, be able to show, without assuming too much, that my position to American slavery is the only moral and religious one, which a Christian, well read in the Bible, Old Testament and New, can possibly sustain; and that yours is dishonorable alike to Moses and to Christ, so far as you make your theory a condition of Christian esteem and communion.

	With proper respect,
	Your obedient servant,
A. CAMPBELL.
Edinburgh, August 11th, 1847.

      P. S. It will be important that I hear from you to-morrow, as I leave on Saturday morning; and that arrangements be made for the carrying out of your challenge. It will be expedient that your first essay be sent to me as soon as possible that I may respond to it immediately. I will mention P.C. Grey, 81, Candlemaker's Row, who will send them to me as soon as put into his hands. I will, all things concurring, read your letter to me, and my response to you, on Friday evening, and will deliver a lecture on my position to American slavery in the Waterloo Rooms, at half 7 o'clock.

A. C.

[No. III.]
REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL.

To the Rev. Alexander Campbell, Bethany, Va., United States.

      SIR--Your letter of the 11th inst. in reply to my challenge, has only reached me this morning. You inform me that MY CHALLENGE IS ACCEPTED; but instead of agreeing to meet me IN PUBLIC DEBATE IN THE CITY OF EDINBURGH, you propose that we shall "exchange THREE ESSAYS OF TEN PAGES EACH."

      THIS, SIR, IS AN EVASION, AND NOT AN ACCEPTANCE OF MY CHALLENGE. I did not challenge you to A PAPER WAR, but to A PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN THE CITY OF EDINBURGH.

      Let not the plea of previous engagements prevent you from meeting me face to face. I shall wait, if you wish, till your engagements are over; at the same time I beg leave to say that the people of Great Britain and Ireland will listen all the more readily to what you have to say on other matters AFTER YOU HAVE CLEARED YOURSELF FROM THE INFAMY CONNECTED WITH SLAVE HOLDING.

      Your proposal to LECTURE this evening on slavery, appears to me to be rather unfair--unless you are willing and agree to divide the evening with me. I shall be at the lecture, however, and if [636] permitted, shall interrogate you, and make such statements as I may consider called for.

	I have the honor to be, sir,
	Your most obedient servant,
JAMES ROBERTSON.
Edinburgh, August 14, 1847.

[No. IV.]
REPLY TO MR. ROBERTSON.

Edinburgh, August 13, 1847.

REV. JAMES ROBERTSON;

      Sir--Your letter just now received lies before me. You have, it seems to me, recalled your challenge, and RETREATED from your position.

      The words of your challenge are--"That challenge I beg leave hereby respectfully to present to you, and declare that--I am prepared to maintain that your POSITION and OPINIONS on the question on the question of AMERICAN SLAVERY and SLAVE-HOLDING, are at once UNGODLY, UNCHRISTIAN, and INHUMAN."

      In this challenge there is neither time, place, nor mode of debate stipulated or mentioned. You speak in a preamble to it of a Scottish audience, and of vindicating my position in the city of Edinburgh; but unless your whole letter be a challenge, or every word that precedes and succeeds it, be conditions of it, I see nothing to justify or authorize you in the evasion now resorted to.

      But as one of my conditions is not complied with nor alluded to, I have, of course, nothing more to do with you in this affair. You have not produced any evidence that you will be appointed by any organized body of anti-slavery men to represent them; and without such authority, from your whole conduct in the affair, and so much of public opinion as to your standing with the community as has come to my ears, I cannot, in the absence of such authority, recognize you as a capable or approved representative of any community or organization, ecclesiastic or moral.

	With all due respect, yours,
A. CAMPBELL.

      The activity of the opposition to my influence was such as to call for the following letter from Dundee. On a single sentence in the last paragraph, Mr. Robertson swore to damages equal to more than 24,000 dollars. Had I said that he was the person so expelled, I know not what the damages would have been; for when an "IF he be such a man" is so detrimental, who could assess the damage of "he is such a man"!

[No. V.]
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "EDINBURGH JOURNAL."

Dundee, 21st August, 1847.

      SIR--For the impartial notice taken of my lecture in your paper of the 18th instant, you are entitled to my thanks, and to those of [637] my friends and the impartial public in this kingdom. It never has been my lot to be assailed with more violence, or to be slandered with more apparent malignity than in the city of Edinburgh, by some of the priesthood of your city. If sincere in their sympathy with the unfortunate slave, why unjust to me who have ever been the friend of that slave? If they desire to weaken the plea of the slave-master and the man-stealer, why encourage them by placing me upon their side? It is, sir, I must think, a spirit of sectarian opposition to my views of religious reform and Christian union--not sympathy with the slave, that has prompted and animated this crusade. I cannot reconcile a spirit of slander and defamation, and the most gross misrepresentations of my sayings and doings, with the profession of mercy for the slave, or of justice to me. I, therefore, ask the favor of simply declaring, in your impartial columns, my true position to American slavery, and that in as few words as possible.

      Allow me farther to premise, that in consequence of some typographical errors in the notice taken of my address in the Waterloo Rooms, and owing to the impossibility of the reporter, in the midst of such tumult as occasionally occurred, to hear what I did say, I am made to say some things neither exactly accordant with fact nor with my opinions. I presume, indeed, that if my position to society justified the notice which I received in your city from the Rev. Mr. Robertson, and those who sustain him in it, it will justify you in permitting me, in my own words, briefly to define my position.

      I. In the first place, I never approved nor defended, in word or writing, any system of slavery, Grecian, Roman, Anglican, or American. I have always regarded and represented them, as sanctioned by law and displayed in statute books, as impolitic, immoral, and irreligious.

      II. But that there were bond servants as well as hired servants amongst Patriarchs, Jews, and Christians, sanctioned and approved by the Supreme Lawgiver of the universe, I as firmly believe as I believe the Christian religion. A mere sample of my reasons for so believing, will be found in the following passages in the Bible:--

      I need not more than state the fact that Abraham, the father of the faithful, and the friend of God, had at one time three hundred and eighteen male servants, born in his own house, fit to bear arms; and that in the divine ordinance concerning circumcision, the statute legalizes the buying and the rearing of bond-servants. The Divine statute ordains--"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in thy flesh an everlasting covenant." Gen. xvii. 12, 13. Hagar also, by whom he had Ishmael, a son and a servant, was an Egyptian slave. So she is called by Moses and by Paul. "Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son--even with Isaac, the son of the free woman." Gen. xxi. 10; Gal. iv. 30.

      In the second place, as respects the Jews. In the Jewish law there are three statutes concerning bondmen. Of these the first is--One allowing the buying of a Hebrew servant by his brother Hebrew for the term of six years. Exodus xxi. 2-6. This statute allows the master, when he gives to a single man, thus purchased, a [638] wife, to hold her children, with herself, as his own property, even contrary to, or without the will of the mother, the children, or the father; simply, too, because they were born of a woman who was his property At the end of six years, the father was free, according to contract; but, by the express law of God, his wife and children were his master's property; and, by the same law, the father could enjoy their society only by having his ear bored in proof of his becoming his master's property all his life: and this, too, is the first law that God enacts after the tenth commandment, which expressly says "Thou shall not covet" thy neighbor's property, amongst which are specified his man-servant, his maid-servant, his ox, and his ass.

      The second Jewish statute concerns heathen bondmen. God gave the Jews license to buy bondmen from the heathen. The law reads--"Both thy bondmen and thy bondwomen, which thou shall have, shall be of the heathen that are round about thee. Of them shalt thou buy bondmen and bondmaids." "They shall be your possession," alias property; and you shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bondmen forever." Leviticus xxv. 44-46.

      The third statute respects poor brethren that sell themselves to pay their debts. These were again to be set free at the jubilees--till then they were to serve, not with the rigor of bondmen, but as hired servants. Lev. xxv. 39-43. Thus enacts the law. Now, as to the Christian institution:--When the Christian churches of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, &c., were founded, slavery abounded in them, and in all the Roman empire. No one can deny this.--What did the Apostles enact on this subject? Did they inhibit or regulate it? Their statutes are--"Art thou called being a servant (or slave) care not for it. But if thou mayest be made free, use it rather; for he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, (slave) is the Lord's freed man; likewise he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant (or slave.) 1 Cor. vii. 22. "We are all baptized into one body"--the church--"whether we be Jews or Gentiles--whether we be bond or free"--slaves or freemen. 1 Cor. xii. 13. To the same effect Gal. iii. 28. See also 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor." "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, and partakers of the benefit"--of their labor. See also Titus ii. 9; Eph. vii. 5-8; Philemon 16th verse.

      Now, sir, from this exhibit, and from much more to the same effect, it appears to me as evident as the law of ten commandments, that God, for certain reasons, allowed, in certain cases, the relation of master and slave, amongst Patriarchs, Jews, and Christians, at the same time enjoining the golden rule of "loving our neighbors as ourselves, or of doing to others as we would that others should do to us;" a law, by the way, seldom interpreted correctly by some anti-slavery men. We must logically or grammatically interpret it--"Are you a master? treat your servant, in all things, as you would have him to treat you, were you his servant and he your master.--Are you a servant? treat your master, in all things, as you would have him to treat you, were you his master and he your servant." This [639] law must always be interpreted and applied mutatis mutandis, or by the parties changing places.

      Now, sir, with these Divine documents before my eyes I could as soon become a Socialist, a Free-thinker, or a Sceptic, as to say or think that it is immoral and unchristian to hold a bondservant in any case whatever, or to allow that a Christian man cannot have property in man. I therefore, dare not, with my Bible in my hand, join in the anti-slavery crusade against the relation of master and slave in all cases whatever, or proscribe from the Lord's table a Christian minister, because he holds property in man.

      We draw a well-defined difference between slavery in a statute book, by law established in certain American States, and as practised in these communities. No Christian master is obliged by the statute-book to sell a wife from her husband, or a parent from an infant child, or to bring up his servants in ignorance of Christ or his religion.

      There are, indeed, in our statute-books most odious laws on the subject of slavery; and should any master avail himself of them, and thereby violate the Christian laws, I, for one, will have no fellowship with him, or knowingly with the church that sanctions him.

      I am, sir, opposed to all cruelty, oppression, and tyranny, ecclesiastic and political, English and American. I am myself no slave-holder, no "defender of, or ally of man-stealers," as most uncourteously, unjustly, and I fear most maliciously placarded in your city, by a certain reverend clique of anti-slavery defamers. I have personally, and by my influence, and at considerable expense, set free from slavery a number of slaves, and have always been anti-slavery in my opinions, feelings, words, and actions, because of its general moral, and political aspects and bearings, as injurious to both masters and slaves.

      I have never said that I would not eat the Lord's Supper, nor a common meal with an African slave, on either political, moral, or religious grounds. These are falsehoods, circulate them who may. I have never defended, as most falsely affirmed in an anti-slavery meeting in Edinburgh, the "negro pew system." Indeed, I never saw it practised to my knowledge. Our African brethren in all churches known to me, eat the Lord's Supper at the same Lord's table with their masters. They may or may not in all cases sit in the same pews, but if they do not, it is for other reasons than mere color or mere relation. Those who have two Lord's tables in one church have never fallen under my observation.

      My views on all these allegations have been fully published in the United States and in this country by the late William Jones of London in his Millennial Harbinger. See vol. i. pp. 77, 78, 79; Vol. ii. pp. 356, 357, 358. Also in the Christian Messenger, Feb. 20, 1847. Also in the Christian Baptist, vol. i., 1st article on Abuses of Christianity.

      From these documents our position to American slavery can be fully ascertained, as also from our whole volume of the Millennial Harbinger of 1845, published in Virginia.

      A word or two on the challenge tendered me from the Rev. Mr. Robertson, and I have done. Before that challenge was given, Mr. [640] Robertson was careful to know my engagements; and having ascertained that my appointments over the United Kingdom, till late in September, were published, and that therefore, without violation of pledges given, a challenge could not be accepted, he went home and wrote it. I proposed to meet him in the only way that I could.--He then dishonorably backed out of it. A condition, indeed, was required by me, and probably that condition could not, on his part, be fulfilled. Knowing nothing of his standing with the Church of Scotland or its Anti-Slavery Society, I required an endorsement or an assurance that he was esteemed by them that knew him in said society, a proper and trust-worthy representative of the party. As soon as he placarded me, I inquired for his standing. I was so unfortunate as to learn that he was not in high esteem with the public, nor of such attainments or talents as to attach any consequence to a discussion with him. I stated this in a very large meeting, and in his presence too. Since that time the Anti-slavery Society held a meeting, but did not endorse for him as their representative in any discussion. Of course, then, I could not have any thing more to say to him on the subject. But I will now say to the Anti-slavery Society, that I will meet in public debate, oral or written, any man in Great Britain whom they may appoint, either on my position to American slavery, or on the negative of the proposition submitted by Mr. Robertson. I will only add, 1st, that if it be oral it can only be held from the 24th to the 27th of September, my whole time, except these days, being now pledged, and my passage taken in the steamer of the 4th October, for the United States. Liverpool and its vicinity being the place where my appointments terminate, would be the most suitable as well as the most convenient for an oral discussion;--for a written one, any place or time can be made acceptable. I will, in either way, meet any gentleman whom they may select--even Mr. Robertson himself--provided only, that he be not that Reverend James Robertson who was publicly censured, and excluded from the Baptist Church, for violating the fifth commandment, in reference to his mother, of whom I have heard something in Dundee. All of which is most respectfully submitted to the citizens of Edinburgh, especially to the Scottish Anti-slavery Society, by their much-abused but unresenting friend,

A. CAMPBELL,          of Bethany College, Virginia.

      P. S. Will the editors of those papers that have published anything against my views have the kindness and impartiality to copy this into their journals--and in my way as editor, I will do as much for them when called upon.

A. C.

[The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, 4 (November 1847): 633-641.]