that is peculiar to African slavery to-day, as
existing among us.
It took deeper root in the Hebrew nation
after their settlement in Canaan, and we find
humane laws enacted for its regulation. In-
deed, so carefully was the person of the slave
protected, that personal injury, such as the
loss of an eve or a tooth, entitled him to
freedom. (Exodus 21: 26. 27.)
The New Testament treats slavery as an ex-
isting institution deeply rooted in the law
of the Roman government, of which Pales-
tine was a province, as well as in the preju-
dices of the people. Neither Jesus nor His
apostles taught rebellion against civil author-
ity nor resistance to properly enacted laws.
They could not be convicted of treason,
neither did they needlessly array prejudice
against them.
Nor was it necessary so to do, in order to
work out the abolition of slavery in the
church, and they did not aim at being nation-
al reformers.
Had slaveholding hern sinful in itself, it
would have been their duty to insist upon
its repudiation as a condition of membership
in the church. But it was not necessarily so:
it became so only through the. abuses which
too naturally sprung from it, the cruel or un-
just treatment of their servants.. Hence, then,
as now, a man might be a slaveholder and yet
an eminent Christian. Still the relation of
inaster and bondman, between man and man,
and in many cases between Christian brothers
was anomalous and contrary to the spirit of
the Gospel. We find the enactment of laws
for the government of the church which
would lead to its gradual abolishment. Thus
80. far from receiving liberty to break the
bonds and repudiate the authority of their
inasters—whatever may be said of this as a
natural and unalienable right—slaves were
required to obey with alacrity, and with a
sincere desire to do their duty to their
masters as a part of their duty to Christ—be-
ing submissive to the Divine will in this as
in every other trying situation into which
they might he brought by the providence of
God. Though a servant yet was he the
Lord's freeman. (1 Cor. 7: 22.)
But what was enjoined as to the masters?
Though they were not commanded as an im-
mediate and imperative duty to emancipate
their slaves, yet they were enjoined to treat
them according to the principles of justice
and equity. " Ye masters do the same thing
unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing
that your inaster also is in Heaven; neither
is there respect of persons with him.." " Mas-
ters give unto your servants that which is
just and equal" (Col. 4: 1; Eph. 6: 9.)
Now, justice requires that all their rights
as men, as husbands and as parents should
be regarded. And these rights are not de-
termined by the civil. laws, but by the laws
of God.
4 |
If these laws in regard to slavery were gen-
erally acknowledged and obeyed—and we
profess to be a Christian nation, governed by
the laws of God—first the evils of slavery,
and then slavery itself, would pass away as
naturally and healthfully as children cease
to be minors-
in regard to the frequently cited and much
perverted case of Onesimus, who is alleged
as a runaway, slave returned to his master by
the authority of an apostle—I say in the first
place there is nothing to prove that Onesimus
was aslave. That be was a person held to
service by Philemon is true, but that would
be equally true on the supposition that he
was bound to Philemon either by his parents
or guardian or by himself voluntarily as an
apprentice.
Now, can anything else be proved from the
word used to designate his condition, or in-
ferred from the fact that he ran away? as it
is as common for apprentices to run away as
for slaves.
That Paul returned him to his master as a
fugitive from justice is as contrary to the facts
of the case, as it is gratuitously assumed.
Paul could scarcely be considered as doing
so in violation of the explicit command of
God, recorded in Dent. 23, v. 15, 16, which
forbids the return of the fugitive—''Thou shalt
not deliver unto his master the servant which
is escaped from his master unto thee; he shall
dwell with thee, even among you. in that
place which he shall choose in one of thy
gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt
not oppress him."
The facts of the case would seem to be
these: For some reason Onesimus, when
converted, was desirous of returning to his
former master. Whether this arose from the
suggestion of his own mind, or of the Apos-
tle, does not appear; for the expression used
by the Apostle on this subject, ????????,
"whom I have sent again," does not neces-
sarily imply that he even proposed it to him,
much less commanded it. At all events the
return was voluntary on the part of Onesi-
mus. I reason that Paul sent him with a
letter to Philemon to secure his kindly recep-
tion. Many reasons may have inclined One-
simus to return, for it is no uncommon occur-
rence for runaway apprentices and servants
when. they have seen and felt the misery of
being among strangers and in want, to wish
themselves back at their former homes; or he
may have felt. now that he was converted,
that he had wronged his master in some way
as the Apostle acknowledges " that in time
past he was unprofitable," and now he was
desirous of repairing the wrong. Or he may
have had friends or kindred whom he was
desirous of seeing again. Any of those is
sufficient to suppose ham desirous of returning
to his former master, and hence he sought the
I kindly interposition of Paul to secure his |
