"All men are born free and equal, and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a slave sees fit to walk off, or run off, or ride off on his master's beast, or sail off in his master's boat, he has a perfect right to do so. Slavery is violence; every man may resist violence offered to his person, except under process of law; the person cannot be taken except for crime, or debt, or in war; every man owns his body and soul; the person cannot become merchandise, except for the three causes above named, which he acknowledged were justifiable causes of involuntary servitude at present. But to forcibly seize a weaker man, or race, and hold them in bondage he declared to be in violation of the laws of nature, and contrary to the Christian religion.
"If it should be replied that Paul the Apostle countenanced slavery by sending back Onesimus, he would answer, that Paul was a Jew, and was not yet freed wholly from Jewish practices and associations of ideas. Gnosticism has supervened upon the rudimental childhood of spiritual truth. He believed in progress. It was contrary to the instinct of human nature to send back a poor fugitive into bondage, and he was glad for one that he lived in an age when the innate moral sentiments, under the lucid teachings of our more transcendental scholars were becoming more and more the all-sufficient guide in the affairs of life. He would, therefore, publicly disclaim his allegiance to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, if, upon reflection, Paul should insist that he was right in remanding Onesimus to be Philemon's property 'forever;' it was well enough that he should be sent back to restore what he had taken by theft, provided Philemon would immediately release him; otherwise, to steal from Philemon was doing no more than Philemon had done to him, in taking away that liberty which is the birthright of every human being; and Onesimus probably stole merely to assist his escape. He was justifiable in doing so.
"If one should insist that there can be no intrinsic wrong in holding a fellow-being as property because God allowed Hebrews to sell themselves, and in certain cases to be servants forever, and directed the Israelites to buy servants of the heathen round about them, who should be an inheritance to the children of the Israelites, he would simply say either that the whole pentateuch which contained such a libel on the divine character, is thereby proved to be a forgery, or, that if the pentateuch is to be received, it only proves that in condescension to a race of freebooters who were employed, as the Israelites were, in bloody wars of extermination, slavery was allowed them, to prevent, perhaps, worse evils, and in consistency with their dark-minded, semi-barbarous condition. In this enlightened age when Greece and Rome had shed superior light on human relationships and obligations, and especially since Christ had promulgated the golden rule, the idea that man could own a fellow-creature was so preposterous that he would be an infidel, nay, he would go farther, he would be an atheist, rather than believe it. Our moral instincts are our guide. They are the highest source of evidence that there is a God, and they are a perfect indication as to what God and his requirements should be. He was for passing a vote of disapprobation at the act of Paul the Apostle in sending back Onesimus into bondage. Tell me not, said he, that the Apostle calls him 'a brother beloved,' and 'one of you;' these honeyed phrases are but coatings to a deadly poison. Slavery is evil, and only evil and that continually. Disguise it as you will, Philemon holds property in Onesimus. By the laws of Phrygia, he could put Onesimus to death for running away. He deplored the act as a heavy blow at Christianity. It would countervail the teachings of the Apostle. He sincerely hoped that the Epistle to Philemon would not be preserved; for should it be collected hereafter, as possibly it may, among Paul's letters, unborn ages might make it an apology for slavery, it would abate the hatred of the world against the sum of all villanies. He would even be in favor of a vote requesting Philemon to give Onesimus his liberty at once, even without his consent, sending him back, with this most unwise and unblest epistle to Philemon, to Paul, who says that he 'would have retained him,' but would not without Philemon's consent. He did hope that the brethren would speak their minds, be open-mouthed, and not be like dumb dogs. For his part he wanted an anti-slavery religion. He acknowledged that the truths of the Gospel needed the stimulant of freedom to give them life and power.
"His remarks evidently produced a great sensation, for a variety of reasons, as we may well suppose.
"A man took the floor in opposition to this Laodicean brother. He was a
Jewish convert, a member of the Colossian Church. His name was
Theodotus. Born a Jew, he had renounced his religion and became a Greek
Sophist, practised law at Scio, and heard Paul at Mars Hill, where, with
Dionysius the Areopagite, with whom he was visiting, he was converted.
He had established himself at Colosse, in the practice of law. He was
unusually tall for a man of his descent, had beautifully regular Jewish
features, and was a captivating speaker.
"He said that they had 'heard strange things to-day. If they are true, we have no foundation underneath our feet. Every man's moral sentiments, it seems, are to be his guide. Where, then, is our common appeal? For his part he believed that if God be our heavenly Father, he has given his children an authentic book, a writing, for their guide, unless he prefers to speak personally with them, or with their representatives. When he ceased to speak by the prophets, he spoke to us by his Son; and now that his Son is ascended, I believe,' said he, 'that inspired men are appointed to guide us, and seeing that they cannot reach all by their living voice, I believe that the evangelists and apostles are to furnish us with writings which shall be inspired disclosures of God's will and our duty. The Old Testament is as truly God's word as ever; Christ declared that not one jot or tittle should pass from it, till all be fulfilled. Some of it is fulfilled, in him, the end of the types; parts of it refer to local and temporary things; all which is not local and temporary is still binding upon us. At least, the spirit of its laws is benevolent and wise. Damascus and its scenes are too fresh in the memories of the brethren to need that I should argue the inspiration of the Apostle to the Gentiles. His miracles are known to us. Nay, what miracles are we ourselves, reclaimed from the service of the devil, once the worshippers of Bacchus and of our Phrygian mother; now, clothed, and in our right minds. The Apostle claims to speak and act by divine authority. We must question everything, if we set aside this claim.
"'I maintain,' said he, 'that the Apostle Paul regards the holding a fellow-creature as property to be consistent with Christianity. To prevent all misunderstanding, however, let me declare that he insists on the golden rule as the law of slave-holding, as of everything else; that he discountenances oppression, that he warns and threatens us with regard to it; and that he considers slave-holding as consistent with the Christian character and happiness of master and slave.
"'In the very Epistle just received by our Church, and by the hands of Tychicus and Onesinius himself, from the Apostle, we find these words: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God; and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men, knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons. Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
"'Where, in this, is there a word that countenances the wrongfulness of being a slave, or of holding men as slaves? He directs all his exhortations to the duties which are to be performed in the relation, and he leaves the relation as he finds it. He does not enjoin slavery; he treats it as something which belongs to society, to government, and he leaves Christianity to regulate it as circumstances shall make it proper. If any one says that the Apostle was afraid to meddle with it, I reply, that there was never anything yet that Paul was afraid to meddle with, if it was right to do so. He "meddled" with Diana of the Ephesians and her craftsmen; he "meddled" with the "beasts" there; he "meddled" with idolatry on Mars Hill at Athens, I being witness; he has been beaten, stoned, imprisoned, and is now the second time before Nero for his life. Afraid to "meddle" with slavery! I am ashamed of the man who makes the suggestion. He who thinks it, has never yet understood him.
"'Now, where in all his teachings has he ever intimated that it is wrong to hold property in man? Nowhere; I repeat it, nowhere. But is he ignorant of the nature of slavery? We all know what has lately happened at Rome, in connection with slavery. The very year that Paul arrives at Rome, the prefect of the city, Pedanius Secundus, was murdered by his slave; and agreeably to the laws of slavery all the slaves belonging to the prefect, a great number, women and children among them, were put to death indiscriminately, though innocent of the crime.[A] Such is slavery under the Apostle's eye; and yet'—