Paul’s Offer for Onesimus
2. THE offer of Paul to assume the pecuniary responsibilities of Onesimus to Philemon, proves that the former was not a chattel slave. His words are, "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account. I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand. I will repay it." Verses 18, 19. The thing supposed here, is utterly impossible in the case of a chattel slave. A slave cannot owe. The assumed right of property in a man, so swallows up every right, power and interest that can attach to the party thus held as property, that he must be incapable of owing. Power and obligation must be co-ordinate, and cotemporaneous, hence, the assumption of a debt or an obligation to pay, expressed by the term, owe, implies a power to act, to accumulate, to own, and to transfer for one's self and own benefit, which cannot be true of a chattel slave, or him who is the property of another. St. Paul, therefore, by assuming that Onesimus might owe Philemon, as clearly and positively assumed that he was not his chattel slave. This one consideration is of itself sufficient to settle this controversy. There are other reasons which might be rendered in proof that Onesimus was not a slave, but I will not urge them, but pass to take another and final view of this epistle. III. If it were admitted that Onesimus was a lawful chattel slave, when he ran away, it would be clear from the language of the epistle, that Paul did not send him back as a slave, but commanded his freedom to be given him. To contend that he was a slave, must prove fatal to the right of slavery, since Paul clearly and unequivocally ordered his emancipation upon the supposition that he was a slave. The apostle specifies to Philemon too plainly how he was to receive Onesimus, to be misunderstood, and in such terms as to forever exclude chattel slavery from the relation. 1. He was to receive him "not now as a servant, but above a servant." Suppose then that he was a slave, and that the word here used, doulos, means slave, and the whole clause will read thus: "Perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; not now as a slave but above a slave." Is not this making an end of all slavery in the case? It certainly is, unless it can be proved that a man can be a slave, and above a slave at the same time, which strikes me as impossible, unless a man can get above himself. Paul cannot have sent him back as a slave, and Philemon cannot have received him as a slave, unless a man can be received as a slave, and not be received as a slave at the same time; for the words are, "that thou shouldest receive him, not now as a slave." Such is the fatal consequence to slavery if it be admitted that Onesimus was a slave, and if we, accordingly, render the word doulos slave. 2. Paul instructed Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive him. His words are, "If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself." Verse 17. Here it is plain that Philemon was exhorted to receive Onesimus as he would have received Paul himself. Then must he have received him as an equal, as a Christian brother, as a fellow laborer, and if so, he could not receive him or regard him as his slave. It is not possible that he should receive him as a fugitive slave returned, and at the same time receive him as he would have received Paul. The expression, "if thou count me a partner," places Onesimus on a perfect Christian level with Philemon. Paul here places himself before Philemon as his partner, and then requires him to receive Onesimus as himself. The Greek word koinonos here rendered partner, occurs ten times, in the Testament, and is translated as follows: It is translated partners three times, twice besides this text. James and John are said to have been partners with Peter in the fishing business. Luke v, 10. Paul declares that Titus is his partner and fellow laborer. 2 Cor. viii, 23. In every case in which the word is used, it implies equality in a sense which renders it impossible to conceive of a slaveholder and his chattel slave as partners, yet this is the relation which Paul marked out for Philemon and Onesimus. 3. With the above agrees the few facts known of Onesimus. The subscription to the epistle to the Colossians reads thus, "Written from Rome to the Colossians, by Tychicus and Onesimus." From this it appears that the same person was one of the bearers of that important letter. This is confirmed in Chap. iv, 7-9. Here both are said to be sent by Paul. Of Onesimus it is said, "With Onesimus a faithful and beloved brother who is one of you." The most obvious sense is that Onesimus was a member of the Church at Colosse. He could not have been so when sent with the letter to Philemon. He must then, after his reconciliation to Philemon through Paul's intervention, soon have returned to Rome, and been sent as a messenger to the Colossian Church. This proves clear enough that he was not a chattel slave, and here I rest my argument on this epistle. Paul to Titus does not Justify Slavery.
"Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." Titus ii, 9, 10. But little need be said on this text, after what has preceded, for nearly every point has been treated, and it appears only necessary to remark that not a word is said which is not applicable to more or less persons in every community, where slavery has no existence, and of course, it cannot prove the existence of slavery. It will be observed that in the ninth verse the translators have added four words not found in the original. They are, "exhort," "and," "them," & "things." Leaving these words out the verse reads, "Servants to be obedient unto their own masters, to please well in all; not answering again." This might all be said to hired laborers as has been shown in remarks already made upon other texts. But the language of the tenth verse clearly implies a state of things very different from slavery. "Not purloining." This is much more applicable to a free agent with his own property interests, who has charge of another man's business and funds, than it is to a slave, who can have nothing which he can call his own, and whose crime would be established, if aught was found in his possession. The Greek word occurs in but one other place, Acts v, 1, 2, where it is found twice in the same connection, and is rendered, "keep back," and "kept back." The sense is plain; in the connection in which it is applied to servants, it forbids the appropriating of the property of their masters to their own use, which is a crime to which free hired agents are more exposed than slaves. The matter is made still more clear by the antithesis, "Not purloining, but showing all good fidelity." The word fidelity is not a true rendering of the original, it should be faith. Fidelity implies a simple discharge of obligations on the part of any accountable agent, but "good faith," as it ought to read, implies a mutual treaty, covenant or trust reposed. "Good faith" is kept between two parties, and implies mutually and voluntarily assumed obligations, and mutual trust reposed. That the word here used should be rendered faith, is very clear from the fact that it occurs two hundred and fifty-nine times in the New Testament, and is rendered faith in every case except two. Acts xvii, 31, it is rendered "assurance," and in this place, it is rendered "fidelity." In the other 257 cases it is178translated faith. Calling it faith, the clause should read thus: "Not purloining, but showing all good faith." There is no proof of slavery in this, for "good faith implies voluntarily assumed obligations, and mutual trust in each other. It implies the very relation that subsists between the employer and employed, where both parties are free. Peter does not Justify Slavery.
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps." 1 Peter ii, 18-21. We here meet with a new word rendered servant, not found in any of the preceding texts. It is oiketai, and its first and literal meaning is, "an inmate of one's house." It is derived from oikos, a house, and hence an inmate of one's house, a household servant. The words of the apostle apply to such servants as were employed as domestics, servants, whose business was in the house. It does not prove that they were slaves, but only that they served in the house, whether bond or free. Most of the terms have been explained in remarks made upon other texts. The expression, "subject with fear," has been explained sufficiently, in remarks offered upon Eph. vi, 5, where the expression "fear and trembling" occurs. An examination of what is peculiar to this text, will show that it does not prove the existence of slavery, and that it does not justify it upon the supposition that it did exist. No directions are given to masters, and hence it is fair to suppose the class of persons referred to, were not members of the Church. Some of them we know were not, for they are represented as "froward," and as inflicting grief upon their servants' "conscience toward God." Such persons were not Christians, and if they held slaves, it would not prove it to be right. But some are represented as "good and gentle," and were not they members of the Church and Christians? There is no proof that they were. The Greek word agathos, good, does not mean a Christian, nor goodness in a high moral sense. It is applied to all kinds of nouns, and means only that the noun is good in its kind, as "good gifts, good tree, good things, good treasure, good fruits, good works, good days, good ground." In this text it qualifies masters, understood, and good masters are not necessarily Christians, or members of the church. Nor does the word "gentle" imply that they were Christians. The Greek word epieikees, means not only gentle, but mild, moderate. It occurs five times in the New Testament. Once it is translated "moderation;" Phil. iv, 5; once it is rendered "patient;" 2 Tim. iii, 3; and three times it is rendered gentle. These three cases are Titus iii, 2, and James iii, 17, and 1 Peter ii, 18. There is then no proof that the masters referred to were members of the Church, but evidence that they were not. If they were slaveholders, therefore, it is no proof that slavery is right. If we look at the directions given to the servants, they neither prove the existence of slavery, nor yet that it is right, if it did exist. The only point involved in these instructions, which has not been sufficiently met, is the fact implied that the servants were liable to be buffeted. This word, kolaphizo, buffet, more properly means to box the ears with the hand, but may denote beating of any kind. The fact that they were liable to be beaten does not prove that they were slaves, for the following reasons: 1. Beating was a common punishment inflicted for minor offenses, upon free persons as well as upon slaves. That custom has come down to our own times, and though it is now nearly abolished, persons are still punished at the whipping post for minor offenses in some of these States. 2. Christians generally were liable to be buffeted at that time, and even the apostles themselves were buffeted. Paul says, "Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked and are buffeted." 1 Cor. iv, 2. At a time when all Christians, and especially ministers were liable to be buffeted, the fact that servants were liable to be buffeted, cannot prove that they were slaves. 3. The advice of the apostle has often been applicable, and called for, in our day, where no slavery existed. Children and apprentices have often been buffeted in the free States of this free country, on account of their religion, not only by infidels, but by members of churches, because their children persisted in attending the meetings of a different denomination from the one they preferred. I know a young lady who was most severely buffeted by her father for attending a meeting contrary to his orders, he being a member of another church. I am well acquainted with a minister of the gospel, who, when a youth, was buffeted and dragged out of the house, by the hair of his head, by his own father, because he persisted in attending the meetings of a different denomination from the one the father preferred. If such things can occur in a Christian community, it must be plain that the fact that servants were liable to be buffeted among heathen, cannot prove that they were slaves. But allowing that they were slaves, there is not the slightest proof that slavery is right. The apostle does not endorse the buffeting in any case, not even when it is inflicted for wrong doing. The buffeting referred to is of two kinds, that which is inflicted on account of the wrong doing of the servants, and that which is inflicted on account of their well doing, or without their fault. Suppose then slaves do wrong, and are buffeted for it, still the buffeting may be as wrong as the conduct for which it is inflicted. A wrong act may be wrongfully punished. The directions of our Savior, in relation to smiting and resisting evil, must settle the question that no Christian can be justified in smiting a fellow Christian, the buffeting therefore must be wrong though provoked by the wrong doing of the servant. The liability therefore of slaves to be buffeted, if slaves they were, or the fact that they were buffeted, cannot prove that slavery is right. The fact that Peter cautioned them against provoking the wrath of their wicked heathen masters, nor yet the fact that he gave them to understand that there would be no special virtue in bearing the buffeting patiently, after having provoked it by bad conduct, cannot be construed into a justification of slavery nor even of the buffeting. But they were liable to be buffeted when they did well, and this proves that it was wicked men and a wrong state of things of which the apostle was treating, and no justification for slavery, or anything else, can be inferred from the conduct of such men. This further appears from the fact that Peter appeals to the suffering of Christ as an example, which was wrongfully inflicted. Allowing them to have been slaves, the fact that the apostle exhorts them not to provoke punishment, and to bear it patiently when they do well and yet are buffeted, appealing to the sufferings of Christ to enforce his exhortation, no more proves that they were rightfully held as slaves, than the fact that Christ suffered patiently proves that his sufferings were rightfully inflicted. I have now done, for though I have not examined every text that some may be disposed to urge in support of slavery, I have examined all the most important ones, so that, if those I have examined do not prove the rightful existence of slavery, it cannot be pretended that there are other texts that will prove the point without them. In the argument I have kept two points in view, namely, the texts relied upon to support slavery, do not prove that it ever existed in the church, and that, if it did exist, they do not prove it is right. Here I rest, and will close my argument with the words with which a more brilliant writer commenced his. "The spirit of slavery never seeks shelter in the Bible of its own accord. It grasps the horns of the altar only in desperation—rushing from the avenger's arm. Like other unclean spirits, it hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its deeds should be reproved. Goaded to frenzy in its conflicts with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every covert, it vaults over the sacred enclosure, and courses up and down the Bible seeking rest and finding none. The law of love glowing on every page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming touch, as demons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, 'Torment us not.' . . . Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of refuge the city of destruction. It flies from light into the sun; from heat into devouring fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest of his thunders."