HOLY joy must have filled the heart of Thomas Campbell as plans for the establishment of Bethany College were talked over by the leaders, among whom he was not the least, though somewhat aged. He had been an educator; had established several academies; had helped to educate young ministers and sensed the need of both an educated ministry and constituency. On May 11, 1840, the first meeting of the Board of Trustees was called. The elder Campbell was a trustee and was unanimously called to the chair to preside over the deliberations. Again on September 18 Thomas Campbell presided at a meeting of the trustees. Both sets of minutes were signed by him as president pro tem. Probably advancing age hindered him from taking the field side by side with his son to raise funds for the embryonic institution.

      The religious education of the young concerned the great church leader. He had exercised himself to bring up his own large family in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and had been close to a large group of grandchildren and their training. It is no mere theorist therefore, who chooses the theme, "Family Education," with a subtitle, "The Nursery," and relieves himself of a burden [182] in 1840 (Millennial Harbinger, p. 340). Are these not striking sentences?

"Most infants from twelve to eighteen months old are capable of being instructed; so that at the age of two years they would be able to connect the idea of the heavenly Father with every object of delight and enjoyment; and thus not only become duly acquainted with the divine existence, but also with the delightful attributes of his nature--his power, wisdom, goodness and love."

He stresses the need of incessant attention on the part of parents, and laments that children are seldom seen to be treated as human beings and educated by their responsible elders. He declares they are treated rather as puppets, mere playthings.

"Yes, indeed, many parents (I had almost said most) take more care in training inferior animals . . . than they do in the moral and religious culture of their children; at least, for the first three, four or five years. . . . There is an indispensable necessity of family reformation towards God, in order to family education for God. . . . May the good Lord hasten family reformation."

The deep concern of the writer is seen in the way he closes his production: "To, the mourners in Zion"--italicized and preceded by the sign of a hand with pointing index finger. Less than a year later from the father in Israel comes "A catechetical and analytical index to the study and teaching of the Bible." At its close he uses the principles of interpretation that have become so familiar to many (not to claim that he originated them):

"1st. Who speaks? 2nd. To whom does he speak? [183]

      3rd. What does he speak? Is it histories--prophecies--doctrinal declarations--commands--promises--threatenings--divine intimations, or devotional exercises? 4th. Why, when and where were these things spoken?"

"A Scriptural View of the Agency of the Holy Spirit in the Conversion and Salvation of Sinners, According to the Gospel," was written by the father in 1841, and anticipated by almost two years the treatment of the subject by the son Alexander in his debate with Nathan L. Rice in Lexington, Ky. Thomas Campbell was not forced by any debate proposition to make any extreme statements, such as some profess to find in the just-mentioned debate.

      In some matters the lives and attitudes and convictions of the two Campbells were so interwoven and intermingled that we can not do otherwise than treat them together. This is particularly true of the then vexatious subject of slavery. How the father had been moved to leave Kentucky, on account of conditions that attended slavery there, has been chronicled in a previous chapter. A national leader among Disciples of Christ in a public address delivered in 1934 assured his hearers that the fathers of the reformation (among whom the Campbells are ranked as chief) took no dogmatic position as to slavery, and that Alexander Campbell never owned a black man. This represents the general opinion, and is demonstrably incorrect. From Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Richardson, Vol. I., pp. 501, 502), we copy these words:

"As to Mr. (Alexander) [184] Campbell's own sentiments on the, subject of slavery, knowing that the relation of master and servant was recognized in the New Testament and the respective duties of the parties distinctly described, he thought it by no means inconsistent with Christian character to assume the legal rights of a master, or to transfer those rights to another, as he accordingly did in one or two instances. As he did not, however, any more than his father, approve of the abuses of power connected with the institution, those under his charge had the opportunity of learning to read and of receiving religious instruction; and furthermore, perceiving the institution as it existed in the United States to be peculiarly liable to abuses, he was always in favor of emancipation, and gave practical effect to his principles in setting free the two or three slaves he had under his control as soon as they were sufficiently grown to provide for themselves. As both father and son concurred in these views, and were determined to keep themselves free from all personal responsibility in regard to slavery, they felt themselves perfectly free to pursue their reformatory labors in any part of the country."

The few slaves referred to above evidently came to Alexander Campbell with the gift of the farm by his father-in-law, when he forestalled the former's going into Ohio in a colonizing plan. The slaves' quarters are to be seen in the Campbell homestead, near Bethany. In 1829 and 1830, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of Virginia, Alexander Campbell opposed the position [185] of the eastern part of Virginia which placed emphasis upon the advantage with slaveholders and slaveholding. In the latter year a slave insurrection broke out in Southampton County, Va., and in its suppression more than sixty persons were slaughtered, of whom nearly half were women and children. This happening Moved the younger Campbell to write all editorial lamenting the occurrence, and to outline a plan for the gradual termination of slavery. From Jan. 1, 1834, he proposed that the sum of ten millions of dollars be set aside annually for the purchase and colonization of all people of color, slave or free, in Africa. No legislator was moved to foster the plan. In an extended tour of seventy-five days in Ohio he met with a Dr. Field, of emancipation fame, and wrote the following in his diary:

"He is body, soul and spirit opposed to American slavery, and would, if he could, have one American jubilee, which would leave no room for a second. I am not sure, however, but he loves liberty even to intolerance, and would compel the churches into measures unprecedented in the days of the Apostles."

      Both the Campbells found their dogmatism in opposition to the extremes of Antislavery and Abolition parties and advocates. In 1841, Cyrus McNeely, of Ohio, wrote to Thomas Campbell a copy of a letter that he was proposing to send to the brethren and churches in the slaveholding areas. It was fortunate that he sent it first to Thomas Campbell, otherwise the history of the Restoration movement might have been vastly [186] different. The recipient took the pains to make a complete study of the Bible record as to slavery and sent same to Mr. McNeely, with the result that he saw he had been embarking on a course of unwarranted extremeness. He very wisely deferred to the judgment of his older brother in the faith. By 1845 there was much clamor for Alexander Campbell to declare himself at length upon the question of slavery. Feeling that the time was ripe, he set himself to the task of writing quite exhaustively. By way of introduction to his own series, the son requested his father to revise his reply to Mr. McNeely and made use of the same. The following paragraphs indicate the position taken:

"Upon the whole, with reference to American slavery, wherever distinguished by any inhuman and anti-Christian adjuncts, we may justly and reasonably conclude that as Christianity and truly moralized humanity prevail, it must and will go down; and that in these respects, no Christian can either approve or practice it. It may also provoke God to destroy it more speedily by terrible judgments, as in the case of Egypt, Babylon, Nineveh and Jerusalem, wholly destroyed on account of their cruelty and oppression. Wherefore it becomes the American people, both as citizens and Christians, to consider these things and to so discharge their duties for the amelioration and ultimate abolition of slavery; especially those of them that have embraced the gospel."

Appended to the letter goes the following note from Alexander, the admiring son:

"The preceding document [187] we have thought might not be unacceptable to many of our readers in this period of excitement and extremes upon a very exciting subject. It is the calm, considerate and candid reasonings and conclusions of one of the most disinterested of mankind--an octogenarian of sound mind and discriminating judgment--well-read in sacred literature--and, in my opinion, as pure a philanthropist as breathes. He has long thought upon the subject. The crisis calling upon me for some remarks upon this theme, I have thought good to preface my remarks by a re-publication of this document."

The editor of the Harbinger used as his subject "Our Position to American Slavery." He made comments on a written debate that was being carried on between Dr. Wayland, of Brown University, and Dr. Richard Fuller, of South Carolina, as he set forth his position. But the aged Campbell was not silent, for he wrote a reply to "A Disciple on Slavery," and found time to write on "Laws and Duties of Matrimony" also. In an editorial (Millennial Harbinger, p. 233, 1845) Alexander Campbell mentions the actual threatening divisions among the Methodists and Presbyterians over slavery, and thus declares himself:

"For myself, I greatly prefer the condition and the prospects of the free to the slave states; especially as respects the whole portion of their population. . . . Our position is not that of a politician, an economist, a mere moralist, but that of a Christian."

Numerous other quotations could be cited to indicate and prove that the Campbells did not sidestep their responsibility in [188] helping to show the people the way out of slavery. Was it the overruling providence of God, the soundness of mind of the Campbells and other leaders, the willingness of disciples of both North and South to be led, that enabled them to come through the forties, fifties and sixties and not divide into "North Disciples" and "South Disciples"? What a great sentence is this: "Christians can never be reformers in any system which uses violence, recommends or expects it"! It comes from 1845. [189]

[TCSCUA 182-189]