Slaveholders and the upholders of the infamous Fugitive Slave Law, lay the case of Onesimus to their consciences as a healing unction when dogging down the fugitive slave. In their blindness they assume that Philemon was a slaveholder, Onesimus a slave, and St. Paul a slave-catcher. But not a word of this is true.
1. Onesimus was a SERVANT and not a SLAVE, and Philemon was not a SLAVEHOLDER. The assumption that the one was a slave and the other a slave-owner is altogether without support.
2. Onesimus was not forcibly sent back. St. Paul did not arrest him, and send him in chains to Philemon, charging the expense to the government.
3. He was not sent back as a servant, much less a slave. How then? Why as a “brother beloved.” “Thou therefore receive him as mine own bowels— * * receive him as myself.” “If he oweth thee ought put that on mine account.” These directions are wholly inconsistent with the idea of slavery. If Onesimus was the property of Philemon, Paul knew that he owed the service of his whole life. But Onesimus was no slave. Had he been a slave Paul would have said, “Receive him not as a slave (andrapodon) but above a slave,” instead of saying, “not as a servant (doulos) but above a servant.” Onesimus was a relative of Philemon, probably a natural brother,—brother “in the flesh;” as may be inferred from Philem., verse 16. He was undoubtedly a young man of great promise, and was not only entrusted with the epistle of Paul to Philemon, but jointly with Tychicus was the bearer of the venerable apostle’s letter to the church at Colosse. On the authority of Calmet, and indeed of Ignatius, it is affirmed that he succeeded Timothy as bishop of Ephesus.
They who affirm that the New Testament writers sanctioned Roman slavery, seem not to be aware of the serious imputation they cast upon that book and its authors. Look at that awful despotism, that you may understand what a savage, scaly, bloody-mouthed beast was welcomed into the church and baptized with a Christian baptism, if we may believe the advocates of human bondage.
1. “The (Roman) slave had no protection against the avarice, rage, or lust of the master, whose authority was founded in absolute property; and the bondman was viewed less as a human being subject to arbitrary dominion, than as an inferior animal, dependent wholly on the will of his overseer.[14]
2. “He might kill, mutilate or torture his slaves for any or no offence; he might force them to become gladiators or prostitutes.
3. “The temporary unions of male with female slaves were formed and dissolved at his command; families and friends were separated when he pleased.
4. “Slaves could have no property but by the sufferance of their masters.
5. “While slaves turned the handmill they were generally chained, and had a broad wooden collar to prevent them from eating the grain.