and fellow-heirs of the grace of life; and that it is a duty to render to all that which is just and equal; and to these things let him add the golden rule of the Saviour, and what sanction would these two passages (Eph. vi. 9, and Col. iv. 1) really give to the system of slavery? What would be the fair influence of all the precepts of Christianity, which the master could regard as appropriate to him, and bearing on his duty? Would it be could it be, to satisfy his conscience that the apostles meant to teach that it was right for him as a Christian man to hold his brother-his fellow Christian-as property; and to regard him as, in any sense, a 'chattel' or a 'thing?' Could he feel this-when it is never said, and when it is never even implied? No! no man under the full and fair influence of these principles could feel thus.

The case of Onesimus, the servant of Philemon.

In pursuing the inquiry whether the precepts addressed to masters furnish a sanction for slavery, there is a propriety in examining, with a somewhat more rigid attention, the case of Onesimus, the servant of Philemon. This is especially impórtant, from the reliance which is reposed on that case by the advocates of slavery. The epistle to Philemon is often referred to by them as full proof that the sanction of the New Testament is given to slavery; and, indeed, it would seem to be regarded as so clear on the point, that all that is necessary is to name this epistle as settling the whole matter in debate. The points which it is supposed to prove are two:-first, that slavery is right, since it is assumed that Onesimus was a slave, and that Paul, in writing to his master Philemon, does not intimate that the relation was contrary to the spirit of Christianity; and second, that it is our duty to restore a slave to his master, if he runs away-since it is assumed that Paul did this in the case of Onesimus.* This argument is con

Comp. Dr. Fuller on Slavery, in his Letters to Dr. Wayland, pp. 194,

195.

stantly referred to by the advocates of slavery at the North as well as at the South.

It cannot be denied that this view of the matter would be sustained by most of the commentaries on this epistle; but it is time to inquire whether that exposition is the true one, and whether this epistle gives any sanction to slavery in these respects. Perhaps a not less important inquiry also would be, whether the common interpretation put on this epistle, as sustaining slavery, could be made to commend itself to the innate sense of mankind as what a revelation would teach; and especially whether it could be so commended to slaves themselves as to make them feel that a book which taught the doctrine commonly supposed to be taught in it, could be a revelation from God.* In order to this, it is important to

* A very affecting illustration of the use which is often made of this epistle at the South in defence of slavery, and of the innate conviction of the slaves themselves that a revelation from God cannot inculcate the doctrine that is derived from it, and of the distrust and suspicion excited in the minds of slaves against the ministers of the gospel when they declare that this epistle does sanction slavery, is found in the Tenth Annual Report of the "Association for the Religious Instruction of the Negroes in Liberty county, Georgia." In that report, the missionary, the Rev. C. C. Jones, frankly says:-"Allow me to relate a fact which occurred in the spring of this year, illustrative of the character and knowledge of the negroes at this time. I was preaching to a large congregation on the Epistle to Philemon; and when I insisted upon fidelity and obedience as Christian virtues in servants, and, upon the authority of Paul, condemned the practice of running away, one half of my audience deliberately rose up and walked off with themselves, and those that remained looked any thing but satisfied, either with the preacher or his doctrine. After dismission, there was no small stir among them: some solemnly declared that there was no such epistle in the Bible;' others, that it was not the gospel;' others, that I preached to please masters;' others, that they did not care if they ever heard me preach again.""-pp. 24, 25. This is a very instructive passage on the subject of slavery. Mr. Jones has shown himself by his labours to be a sincere friend of the coloured man, and to be truly desirous of his welfare, and has been making a very interesting

know exactly what was the state of the case in relation to these points-for in interpreting the New Testament it should not be assumed that any part of it is in favour of slavery, any more than it may be assumed in respect to polygamy, profaneness, adultery, or any other sin. The points which it is necessary to make out, in order to prove that the epistle of Philemon may be urged in favour of slavery, are, that Onesimus was actually a slave; that Paul returned him against his will to his former master; that he sent him back because he supposed he had done wrong by escaping from servitude; that he so expressed himself in the letter to his master as to show that he was not unfriendly to the system, or regarded it as not inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion; and that he meant that Onesimus should continue to be held as a slave, after his return to Philemon. Now, in regard to these points, I would make the following remarks :—

experiment-which, from the nature of the case, must ultimately be a failure to see whether true religion can be propagated and maintained among a people by mere oral instruction, and where the slave is forbidden by law to have free access to the oracles of God. If Mr. Jones had been trained under different influences, and had adopted a different method of interpreting this epistle; if he had been able, consistently with his views of truth, in expounding it to his congregation of slaves, to have said that there was no certain evidence that Onesimus was a slave at all; that when he was away, and had been converted to Christianity, he may have felt that he had wronged Philemon, and on many accounts wished to return to him; that there is no proof that Paul sent him back against his will, or even advised him to go, but that, seeing he was desirous to return, he gave him a kind letter to Philemon, to induce him to be willing to receive him again; and that, even supposing he had been a slave, Paul expressly directed him not to regard and treat him any more as a slave, but as in all respects a Christian brother, it cannot be doubted that his audience would have all retained their seats. That view would have accorded well enough with their common sense, and with what they would expect to find in a revelation from the Father of all mankind; it is no wonder that they could not be persuaded that, the other view was any part of a revelation from heaven.

(a.) There is no positive or certain evidence that Onesimus was a slave at all. Even if it should be admitted to be probable that he was, it would be necessary, in order that the epistle might be adduced in favour of slavery, that the fact should be made out without any ground of doubt, or the argument is worthless-for the only conceivable force in the argument is, that he was a slave. Just so far as there is any doubt about that, so far is the argument of no value. It is clear that the epistle can, under any circumstances, be adduced in favour of slavery only so far as it is certain that Onesimus had been a slave. But that is not certain. It cannot be made to be certain, and it should not be taken for granted. Either of the suppositions that he was bound to service till he was of age by a parent or guardian, or that he had voluntarily obligated himself to serve for wages, if true, would be fatal to the argument derived from this epistle in favour of slavery; and in order to that argument, it must be shown by fair exegesis that neither of these suppositions accord with what is said of him by the apostle.

66

What, then, is the evidence that Onesimus was a slave? All the proof that there can be on that point must be derived from ver. 16, and all the evidence in that verse is in the fact that he is there called "a servant,”—dovños. “Not now as a servant." What evidence that verse affords that, if he were a slave, Paul did not mean that the relation should be continued, will be considered hereafter. The question now is, whether the mere application of the term "servant” to him— dovno-necessarily proves that he was a slave?

From the remarks which I have before made on the meaning of the Greek word rendered servant—dovños—it is evident, I trust, that nothing certain can be determined, from the mere use of this word, in regard to the condition of one to whom it is applied. It is not the peculiar and distinctive word which in the Greek language denotes a slave-though like our word servant, it was often, perhaps usually applied to a slave. Like that word, it is of a general character, and would be ap

plied to any one who was engaged in the service of another, whether bound by a parent or guardian, or whether he engaged voluntarily to serve another, or whether he was purchased as a slave, or whether he was a serf attached to the soil. The word denotes servant of any kind, and it should never be assumed that those to whom it was applied were slaves. Unless there is some circumstance stated which will enable us to determine what kind of a servant any one was, it can never be ascertained by the mere use of the word. In the instance before us, there is no circumstance mentioned by which it can be determined whether Onesimus was a voluntary or involuntary servant, and no advocate of slavery has a right to assume that he was a slave. It cannot be inferred, from the fact that he had run away from his master, that he was a slave, for indented apprentices often do this; and those who have made a voluntary contract to labour for others do this, and by doing it are guilty of all the wrong here charged on Onesimus. It cannot be inferred, from the fact that Paul sent him back to his master, that he was a slave, for this might have occurred if he had been a bound servant, an apprentice, or even one who had voluntarily agreed to labour in the employment of Philemon; and, as we shall see, there is no evidence whatever that Paul compelled him to return against his will. All that is said of him in ver. 16 of the epistle, or in any other part of the epistle, would be met by the supposition that he was a voluntary servant, and that he had been in fact intrusted with important business by Philemon. No man has a right to assume that when the word Souhos-doulos-occurs in the New Testament, it means a slave, or that he to whom it was applied was a slave; (comp. Mark x. 44; Luke ii. 29, xvii. 10; Acts ii. 18, iv. 29, xvi. 17; Rom. i. 1, vi. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 5; Rev. i. 1, ii. 20, &c. &c. ;) and yet, without such an assumption, it is impossible to prove that Onesimus sustained this relation.

(b.) There is not the least evidence that Paul used any force, or even persuasion, to induce Onesimus to return to