FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

THIRD SERIES.

VOL. II.	BETHANY, VA. MAY, 1845.	NO. V.

BETHANY, March 29, 1845.      

      Respected Brother--I HAVE received in due time and order the papers you have been so good as to send me, for which please accept my hearty thanks. In the meantime, however, the contents of these letters upon the subject of slavery, signed by "A Disciple," appear to me very unscriptural, and, of course, inconclusive. From Genesis xvii. 12, &c. wherever the distinctive terms--"born in thy house," or "bought with money;" or the word "bond-servant,"--man or maid, occur, as in Leviticus, xxv. 39, &c., he confounds them with the terms--"hired servant." Now if all these terms respectively signify the same thing, why are they expressly used to describe different classes of servants?--the former, as being absolute property; the latter, as only hired for a limited time? See the above quotation: Lev. xxv. 39, &c,--"If thy brother that dwelleth by thee, be waxen poor, and be sold to thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant: but as a hired servant, and as a sojourner he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee till the year of Jubilee; and then shall he depart from thee; to his possession shall he return, and his children with him to the possession of his fathers."--"Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about thee; of them shalt thou buy bond-men and bond-maids.--Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall he your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." And again, "If a poor brother sell himself to a rich neighbor, who is a stranger, not an Israelite, he may redeem himself, or one of his relations may redeem him, and hold him in servitude to the year of Jubilee." "But as a yearly hired servant shall he be with [196] him: he shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight." See verse 53. Now if the distinctions above specified, respecting the servitude of bought strangers, and of bought or hired Israelites, signify the same thing, either in respect of duration or treatment, then language has no meaning at all, how plain soever it may appear.

      Again, that bought servants are considered as property, is evident from Leviticus xxi. 21, 26, 27, 32. For according to verse 21, if the servant die in consequence of a punishment inflicted by his master, the latter is not to be punished "because he is his money." Now is not a man's money his property? Again, if an ox that was known to push with his horn, killed a man or a woman, his owner knowing him to be accustomed so to do, his owner was liable to be put to death, or to ransom his life with whatever sum of money was laid upon him. But if the person killed was a man-servant or a maid-servant, then the owner was to give the master thirty shekels of silver, as a restitution. And was not this property for property, according to legal valuation? We learn that Joseph's brethren sold him to the Midianites for twenty pieces of silver, (Gen. xxxvii. 28,) which was one third less. Again, if a master smite out the eye or tooth of his man-servant or his maid-servant, the person thus injured is to be liberated on account of the injury thus sustained. Whereas, if the person thus injured was free, that, is, his own property, then-the person that injured him was to suffer the same penalty; that is, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," &c.

      Again, we have the same evident distinction between the different classes of servants made, Exodus xii. 44, 45, with respect to the passover:--"Every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof." Now, according to the covenant made with Abraham and his covenanted seed, Genesis xvii. 12, 13, "Every man-child in your generations that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, that is not of thy seed, must needs have been circumcised." But if their circumcision dissolved the relation of bond-servant, then they could have had none such: therefore, the command, Exod. xii. 44, above quoted, would have been vain.--Moreover, it is also evident, that a Hebrew and his children might become bond-servants by his own free choice: see Exodus xxi. 2-6. For if he was single when he became a bought servant for six years, and his master gave him one of his bond-maids to wife, his children by her were his master's property; and if he did not like to leave his wife and children, he might also become his master's property for ever; that is, as long as he lived, by having his ear bored through with an awl to the door-post, in the presence of appropriate judges. [197]

      The writer of the letters under consideration calls my attention, in his eighth, to 1 Cor. vii. 20-24, gravely asking me "if I believe the Apostle Paul was so unwise, as to give such directions in relation to an institution he meant to support, as would, if obeyed, infallibly abolish it?" I answer, that it does not appear from the Apostle's letter, above quoted, nor, indeed, from any of his writings, that he was an advocate for slavery; but only for submission to the divine will with respect to our temporal lot. Wherefore he says, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein be was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it." Thus evidently showing that he meant their temporal condition--the place they occupied in civil society. Yet by no means forbidding them to change it for the better, if they could lawfully do it:--"But if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." But however that might be, they were in the meantime spiritually free. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's free man." And also, that--"he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant." That therefore all such should continue so, that thus they might be wholly at his disposal, both soul and body. Wherefore, he says to all such, "Ye are bought with a price-be not ye the servants of men." And then concludes the subject as he commenced it; saying, "Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God." Thus inculcating the doctrine of universal contentment with our natural or temporal lot, so far as Christianity is concerned; not, however, prohibiting us to, change it for the better, if we consistently can. But, upon the whole, in none of his addresses, either to Christian masters or servants, does he insinuate that slave-holding, or a state of slavery, is inconsistent with Christianity: and, therefore, neither can we assert that it is so, in a consistency with our holy religion.

      Our brother, "Disciple," in the close of his eighth letter, seriously asks, "Will brother Campbell affirm it as his opinion, that God intended (by certain directions referred to, 1 Cor. x. 24-33, and xiii. 5, and Phil. ii. 4,) to ratify, to sanction, and to support the institution of human slavery?" My reply is, that it is not human opinion, but the divine testimony respecting slavery, that I am exhibiting.--That he that said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," (Levit. xix. 18.) has also said to the same people, "Of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bond-men for ever," Lev. xxv. 45. I now ask brother "Disciple," Is it his [198] opinion that God means what he says? Or if the above injunction was recorded in the Constitution of the United States, would they not be chargeable with ratifying, sanctioning, and supporting slavery? And even suppose the said Constitution should contain a law prohibiting a citizen, upon pain of death, to steal his fellow-citizen for the purpose of selling him: and also a law for the protection of fugitive slaves who had fled to these States for protection: I ask, would either of these laws, being in the same Constitution, nullify the former? or prove the said Constitution to be antislavery? And if not, there is not a law in the Bible that condemns it; for the Bible laws are given to the people to whom they are addressed;--the law of Moses--to the Israelites;--the law of Christ--to Christians. Therefore, though neither Jews nor Christians may steal men and sell them; yet neither the one nor the other is prohibited from purchasing and possessing them as bond-servants. Nor are these assertions matters of opinion; they are matters of fact: for there is no such prohibition to be found in the Bible, either to Jews or Christians. But there are commands to treat them well, both naturally, morally, and religiously; which, if duly attended to, would so ameliorate their condition as to render it truly blissful; and, of course, infinitely preferable to that of heathenism, out of which they were brought. And this, I think, is the divine reason for the scriptural permission of the practice, both amongst Jews and Christians: and these are the only two classes for which God has legislated since the mission of Moses: and these, indeed, are the only classes of character amongst whom, in their respective eras, the kind of slavery, which the Bible authorizes, could be considered as a special blessing. And this is the only kind of slavery, that I deem admissible; that is, the kind of slavery which Paul and Peter describes with approbation, as tending to the salvation of the parties concerned, and to the honor of Christianity. I am not, therefore, to be considered as advocating the cause of American slavery; nor, indeed, of slavery of any kind, absolutely considered: but only in so far as the Bible authorizes it; and when managed accordingly, to the real good of the parties. This far the church is concerned, and no farther. That is, to see that the parties do their duties to each other according to the law of Christ; and if not, to cast them out of his church.--Therefore, if a master, professing Christianity, do not give to his servants that which is just and equal; namely, what the law of God and of our nature justly requires; that is, a just competency of food, raiment, and rest; with the enjoyment of the natural family relations of husband and wife, of parents and children; with a religious education in the knowledge of the Good Book, and the consequent enjoyment of all religious privileges:--I say, if he do not these things, he [199] stands condemned by the law of Christ, for not doing to others, what he would justly desire of them, in similar circumstances. Likewise, if a professing servant do not honor and obey his master, and serve him faithfully in all things, according to the apostolic injunctions, he likewise forfeits his Christian character. Therefore, all such characters should be cast out of the church. Nor can any human laws justify the neglect of Christian, duties, or be any excuse to the transgressor. See Acts iv. 19. "Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you rather than to God, judge ye." Therefore, in all such cases, Christians must follow the example of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; that is, lose their lives rather than disobey God, if the case require it. And, surely, to rob our fellow-creatures of their natural, moral, and religious rights, above specified, is direct rebellion against God; and, of course, the laws that justify it are expressly antichristian: consequently, the person that obeys them, justly forfeits his Christian character.----Yours, very respectfully,

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

      P. S. I have nothing to do with friend "Disciple's" remarks upon the Epistles of James, and Paul's to Philemon; for, as he says, I have taken no notice of either; and therefore am not responsible for his remarks upon these two epistles: I have nothing to do with them.

T. C.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (May 1845): 196-200.]

      Thomas Campbell's "Reply to 'A Disciple' on the Subject of Slavery" was first published in The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, Vol. 2, No. 5, May 1845. The electronic version of the essay has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. Alexander Campbell (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1845), pp. 196-200.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. I have let stand variations and inconsistencies in the author's (or editor's) use of italics, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the essay.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 24 March 1998.
Updated 9 July 2003.