The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
2. No sanction of slavery is found in the directions given to those servants who had believing masters. This verse comes far short of expressing the full sense of the original. The present form of the text appears to intimate that servants were in danger of despising their masters because they were brethren, whereas the fact that they were brethren in no sense tended to produce such a result, but is a good reason for not despising them, and is so designed by the apostle. This will be made plain by rendering the Greek word, hoti, for, which is now rendered because. "Let them not despise them for they are brethren." It is so translated in more than two hundred and twenty-five texts. The word partakers, does not begin to express the force of the Greek word, antilambanomenoi, from which it is translated. This word is compounded of anti, in turn, lambano, to take, or receive, and hence the compound word as used by the apostle, means partakers in turn. Dr. Clarke renders it "joint partakers," but his rendering is not as strictly in accordance with the original as mine. The word translated benefit is euergesias, which literally means well doing, good conduct. It occurs in but one other text, Acts iv. 9, where it is translated, "Good deed done." Now let me read the verse according to these renderings. "And they that have believing masters let them not despise them, for they are brethren, but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved partakers in turn of the well doing." This clearly makes the last clause refer to the servants, as faithful and beloved partakers in turn of the benefit of their own labor; that is, they were paid for their service. This removes all the difficulty that critics have met with in this part of the text. Dr. McKnight affirms that benefit cannot refer to gospel benefit or salvation, and Dr. Clarke agrees with him, but intimates that it may refer to the benefits the servants receive from their masters, but has failed to explain how. Rev. A. Barnes denies that it can refer to the fact that the master receives the benefit of the servant's labor, because that can be no special motive to the servant to serve faithfully, the force of which all must feel. He therefore construes it to mean the benefit which the gospel imparts; the very thing which Drs. McKnight and Clarke deny. The advantage of my translation is, it escapes both these difficulties besides being more in accordance with the sense of the original, making the true sense to run thus: Let them not despise them, but rather let them do them service, because they, the servants, are faithful and beloved, partakers in turn of the well doing, by receiving a fair compensation for their labor. I have no doubt this is what Paul meant, and surely it is entirely free from any direct or implied sanction of chattel slavery. I have now shown, first, that it is very far from being clear that there is real slavery involved in any part of the text; and secondly, that if those servants who are said to be under the yoke, were slaves, that slavery existed outside of the church, and those servants who served believing masters, were not slaves, but served voluntarily for wages received. Paul to Philemon does not Justify Slavery.
This epistle of Paul to Philemon has been claimed as one of the strongest proofs of the existence of slavery in the primitive churches under apostolic sanction. As it is both brief and important I will first spread upon my page that portion which is supposed to relate to slavery, and then proceed to examine it. Paul was a prisoner in Rome, and Philemon is supposed to have been an inhabitant of Colosse. Paul wrote him a letter by a person named Onesimus, in which the following words occurred concerning the bearer: "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me; whom I have sent again; thou therefore receive him, that is my own bowels; whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel; but without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him forever; not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or owed thee aught, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with my own hand, I will repay it; albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord; refresh my bowels in the Lord. Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say." It is assured from the above record that Philemon was a slaveholder, and that Onesimus was his slave, and that the slave, having run away from his master, St. Paul sent him back to the house of bondage from which he had escaped. It is certainly remarkable on what slight evidence such grave conclusions are made to rest. There is no certain proof that there was any chattel slavery in the case, but undeniable and unanswerable proof that Onesimus was not a slave. 1. The evidence relied upon to prove the main facts in support of slavery is wholly insufficient. The points involved shall be noticed in order. 1. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon. That he was a servant is implied, not affirmed. It is said, "that thou shouldest receive him forever, not now as a servant (doulos) but above a servant, a brother beloved." It is freely admitted that these words imply that Onesimus had been a servant, but this is no proof that he was or had ever been a slave. It has been proved in a preceding argument that the word here used, doulos, does not necessarily mean a slave but is used to denote free hired laborers, ministers and public officers. The reader is referred to the inquiry into the meaning of this word on page 109. Onesimus may then have been a free man in the employ of Philemon, or he may have been bound to him, as a minor by his parents or guardians, or he may have bound himself to serve for a time, and have taken up his wages in advance, and then run away. Any of these suppositions are much more reasonable than to suppose he was a slave. The fact that he is called a servant, doulos, does not and cannot prove that he was a slave, for Paul declares himself to be the servant of Christ, and also the servant of the church. 2. Onesimus ran away from Philemon, or left his employ improperly and without his consent. This is not affirmed but is too clearly implied to be denied. But this does not furnish the slightest proof that he was a slave, for slaves are not the only persons that run away. It is not uncommon for indebted apprentices, and free persons laboring under contracts to depart indebted to the master or employer. Such most clearly appears to have been the case of Onesimus. That he went off in Philemon's debt is more than probable, from the expression of St. Paul, "If he hath wronged thee, or owed thee aught, put that to mine account." The wronging spoken of must have been of a property natural, or it could not have been changed even to Paul. A crime or moral wrong could not be changed over to Paul. It is certain therefore that Onesimus must have borrowed money of Philemon, in which case he would have owed him, or he must have taken up his wages, or received his pay in advance on a contract for service which he left without performing, in170which case he would have wronged him, besides owing him. The whole face of the epistle goes much further to prove such a departure from pecuniary obligations, than from chattel bondage. 3. Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, which is regarded by the advocates of slavery as proof positive not only that he was a slave, but that it is right and a solemn duty to return all fugitive slaves to their masters. This is all an unfounded assumption. There is no proof that Paul sent him back, in the only sense in which a fugitive slave can be sent back to his master. One great fact settles this point, which is this, however clearly it may be seen that Paul sent him back, it is equally clear that Onesimus went voluntarily, of his own free will and accord. This clearly proves that there could have been no coercive servitude in the case. Though it must appear obvious upon the face of the facts, that Onesimus returned voluntarily, it may be well to glance at the proof. (1.) The expression, "whom I have sent again," is not conclusive proof of an authoritative and coercive sending. I will save the labor of a criticism, by quoting from the Rev. A. Barnes. That able writer says, "It is commonly assumed that his returning again was at the instigation of the apostle, and that this furnishes an instance of his belief that run-away slaves should be sent back to their masters. But, besides that there is no certain evidence that he ever was a slave, there is as little proof that he returned at the instigation of Paul, or that his return was not wholly voluntary on his part. For the only expression which the apostle uses on this subject (ver. 12,) whom I have sent again—anapempsas—does not necessarily imply that he even proposed it to him, still less that he commanded it. It is a word of such general import, that it would be employed on the supposition that Onesimus desired to return, and that Paul, who had a strong wish to retain him, to aid him in the same way that Philemon himself would do if he were with him (comp. ver. 13,) had on the whole, concluded to part with him, and to send him again, with a letter, to his friend Philemon. There is nothing in the statement which forbids us to suppose that Onesimus was himself disposed to return to Philemon, and that Paul sent him at his own request." (2.) The apostle had no means of sending him back against his own choice. There were no marshals to seize and chain fugitive slaves and carry them back to their masters. There was no provision for paying the expenses of a forcible return out of the public treasury, including the chartering of vessels and the employment of companies of dragoons. Rome was more than a thousand miles from Colosse, where Philemon resided, to whom Onesimus is supposed to have been sent, and when we consider that there were then no steamboats, railroads, mail lines, and expresses by which boxed up negroes can now be sent, it must be perfectly certain that Paul could not have returned Onesimus against his will, without an armed governmental express, which Rome was never mean enough to provide for the return of fugitives from bondage. Nor can it be supposed that Paul could have secured any such arrangement, had the thing been possible in itself, for he was at the time a prisoner in bonds. (3.) The fact that Onesimus was made the bearer of a letter setting forth Paul's wishes, and urging Philemon to receive him kindly, is irresistible proof that it was all a voluntary operation on the part of Onesimus. Dispatched with a communication on a journey of more than a thousand miles, he must often have had every opportunity to have escaped. He could have stopped anywhere short of his journey's end, or gone in any other direction, with the most perfect safety to himself, for there could have been neither slave catcher, marshal nor bloodhound upon his track. (4.) To assume that necessity impelled him to return to a chattel bondage, on the ground that he could not provide for his own wants, without a master to do it for him, is too absurd to be made the basis of an argument. He was capable of making his escape, and of finding his way to Rome, which, at that age, was more than it would now be for a man to work his way around the world. Paul declares it desirable for him to retain Onesimus to administer to him in his bonds. It must be clear therefore that in Rome he was capable of doing more than merely to provide for his own wants, he was capable of doing that, and assisting Paul in addition. (5.) The supposition that Onesimus returned to a state of chattel bondage, as a moral duty required by the gospel, is the last and hopeless resort of the advocates of slavery. It has been shown that no other power could have accompanied, to conduct him safely to his former home against his own will. He willed himself to return, or he never would have found his way back. Will it then be said that by being converted under the labors of St. Paul, he became so thoroughly convinced that slavery was right, and that Philemon had such a right of property in him, as to render it his moral and Christian duty to return to the condition of a chattel bondsman, as a means of glorifying God and saving his soul? Nothing else can be said, and to say this, is to abandon the argument, besides contradicting the universal consciousness of mankind. It abandons the argument, because it gives up the point that Paul sent him back as a fugitive slave against his own will. The moment it is claimed that Onesimus returned from a sense of moral obligation, the idea of coercive slavery vanishes, and the most essential element of American slavery is blotted from the record. In that case there was no slavery involved, except such as was submitted to by the slave from choice, since he had it in his power to have avoided it had he thought best so to do. If American slavery was made to rest upon the choice of the slaves, we certainly should feel much less disposed to oppose it than we now do. If the Congress of the United States will so modify the fugitive slave bill, as to secure the return of fugitives only by the use of the same means as those by which Onesimus was returned, there will be no more forcible rescues. There are not wanting enough Doctors of Divinity in the North, who claim that slavery is right. Now let Congress enact that it shall be lawful for each Doctor of Divinity to advise each fugitive slave to return to his master, and on obtaining his consent, to write a letter to said master, advising and entreating him to receive his slave and to put the same into the hand of the same fugitive slave. Let Congress further enact, that each slave, having received such letter addressed to his master, shall have the right of returning, and that it shall not be lawful for any abolitionist, judge, sheriff, constable or other officer, or any other person, to prevent, hinder obstruct or delay his return. Such a law would excite little opposition among anti-slavery men. But to suppose that Onesimus went back to chattel bondage from a sense of moral obligation, is to contradict the universal consciousness of mankind. No man ever did believe, or can believe that it is right that he should be held as a chattel slave. Every man's consciousness within himself, tells him that he has a right to himself; that his head and feet, and hands, and ears, and eyes, and tongue, and heart, and soul belong to himself, and are not, and cannot be the property of another. If Onesimus was converted to a belief that he was the rightful property of another, then has the gospel lost its power, for no such conversions take place in these times. The most pious slaves in the South would escape from their masters, did they know how to effect it. The writer recently entertained a very pious slave, a member of the Methodist church in the South, who escaped. So deeply impressed was this man of devout prayer, that he was wrongfully held, and that it was right for him to escape, that he trusted in God to assist and protect him in his flight. He said he prayed all the way as he traveled, that God would guide him in the right way, and turn his pursuers from his track. And from his narrow escape, I was inclined to believe that God heard his prayer. Within the last three months the writer has seen several fugitive slaves converted at the altar at which he officiates, and on getting emancipated from the bondage of sin, a return to physical chattel bondage, is the last thought that enters their minds. They shudder at the thought of the cruel and polluting touch of slavery more than before. It is clear then that there is no proof that Onesimus was ever a chattel slave. II. There is much proof upon the face of the record that no slavery was involved in the relation that existed between Philemon and Onesimus. 1. The simple fact that Paul so earnestly exhorted Philemon to receive Onesimus, is proof positive that the latter was not returning as a chattel slave, for no class of men have to be less earnestly entreated to receive their lost property when it is returned to them. Here the apostle talks, "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have sent again; thou therefore receive him, that is mine own bowels." Verses 10, 12. Again, in verse 17, he says, "If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself." It is worthy of remark that Paul does not plead with Philemon to abate the punishment Onesimus deserved, he does not plead to have him count a less number of lashes upon his naked back; nor yet does he plead with him, not to sell his son Onesimus to the slave dealers. There is not a word of all this, but he simply pleads that he will receive him, the last thing in all the world he would need to have asked at his hand, had he been a chattel slave. That slaveholders do not need to be moved by the pleadings of an apostle to induce them to receive returned fugitives, we have sufficient proof in the enactment of the fugitive slave law of 1850, in these United States, and in the forcible attempts that have been made to execute it, which have rocked the nation to its center. These facts show that Onesimus could not have been a chattel slave, but must have sustained some relation to, or held some position or office in, the family of Philemon, which was both respectable and advantageous to himself, the trust of which he had betrayed, and from which he had wrongfully departed; hence Paul entreated Philemon to receive him back. No argument could be necessary to persuade a slaveholder to receive back a returned slave.