LETTERS
ON THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON,
OR THE
» ^}' ■ mk
CONNECTION OF APOSTOLICAL CHRISTIANITY
WITH SLAVERY.
BY
AUGUSTUS B. LONGSTREET, L. L. D.
CHARLESTON, S. C.
PRINTED BY B. JENKINS, 100 HAYNE-STREET.
1845.
/
EMORY UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
Purchased from the
funds of
The Lewis H. Beck Foundation
169223
OCT 2 6 1946
INTRODUCTION.
The following letters .were written about a year
ago, for publication in the New York Christian Ad¬
vocate and Journal, that being the only Methodist
paper of general circulation throughout the Union,
and, consequently, the only one which could bring
the questions discussed fairly before the great body
of the Church. But the Editor of that paper de¬
clined the publication of them upon the ground of
their length,—that they placed the persons addressed
in the position of abolitionists; a position which, he
was of opinion, none of them occupied ; and that all
four of them might claim the right of replying; in
which event, the controversy would, obviously, oc¬
cupy too much room in his paper. Believing that
they might be serviceable to the cause, to Southern
Methodism in particular, and to the Southern Church at
4
large, I have concluded to present the letters to the public
in pamphlet form. Some things in them do not now
suit the present state of the Methodist Church ; but
I preferred letting them remain, to taking the trouble
that it would cost me to remove them, and accom¬
modate the remainder to the change. I, therefore,
give them just as they were originally written.
THE AUTHOR.
No. 1.
TO DOCTORS DURBIN, BANGS, PECK, & ELLIOTT.
Rev. and Dear Brethren,
You all deplore a division of the Methodist E.
Church; and several of you have submitted to your
brethren plans, whereby, in your view, it may be prevent¬
ed. Let me now propose one, for the success of which I
vouch. Do you conjointly, or any one of you, separately,
present to the Methodists of the South, an unanswerable ar¬
gument, based upon the Scriptures, in support of your posi¬
tion, that it is a sin for a Christian, a Christian Minister,
or a Christian Bishop to hold slaves. When I say an un¬
answerable argument, I mean one that meets the several
texts of Scripture which have been so often quoted as
clearly sanctioning slavery. Only convince us, that God
forbids the relationship of Master and Slave—nay, only
give us a satisfactory answer to the arguments which we
adduce from Scripture to show, that he sanctions it—and
all the wounds of our Church will be healed in an instant.
We who urged Bishop Andrew not to submit to the ex¬
actions of the General Conference, will confess our errror,
and recall our appointment of a Southern Convention.
We who hold slaves will instantly remove them to a free
State, or to Liberia, and join you heart and hand in re¬
moving the sin, not from the ministry merely, but from the
whole Methodist connexion. Here lies the difficulty, and
6
it is an insuperable one in the present state of parties.
"What you believe to be sinful, we believe to be perfectly
innocent. There is but one appeal in such a case, and
that is to the Word of God. Wb make this appeal, and
how are we met ? Either with perfect silence, or with
such expressions as these—" We consider it a great aggra¬
vation of the sin of slavery, that Christians, and even
Christian ministers, undertake to vindicate it from Scrip¬
ture." " Surely, sir, you are not going to quote Scripture
to justify slavery !" Thus are we disposed of; and, though
I have marked the rise and progress of abolitionism from
its birth to the present moment, I have never yet seen,
from one of its votaries, a regular, systematic Scriptural ar¬
gument against it—an argument, I mean, which meets the
texts so often quoted by Southern slaveholders in support
of their authority.* The usual course of our adversaries
* Since the above was written, the deeply interesting correspondence be¬
tween Drs. Fuller and Wayland has met my eye. It is in admirable spirit upon
both sides ; and should stand as a model of style and temper to all disputants
upon this exciting subject. Had this mode of discussion been adopted at the
rise of abolitionism, all the candid and pious on either side of Mason & Dixon's
line, would by this time, in all probability, have been of one way of thinking.
Dr. Wayland does discuss the Scripture doctrines upon this subject, but in a
manner, which is, to me, very unsatisfactory. He dwells upon no texts of the
Old Testament, but tells us what is their teaching when taken collectively,
namely,—that God barely permitted slavery, and extended the permission to
the Jews only. This was quite enough for Dr. Fuller's purpose ; but is it true %
If Noah's curse upon the posterity of Ham was, as an able commentator tells
us, pronounced " by the spirit of prophecy," it certainly is not true. It doomed
the descendants of Ham to be the "servant of servants unto his brethren."
God " said unto Abram, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in
the land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four
hundred years. And also that nation whom they serve will I judge." Among
the curses denounced against the Jews in case of their failure to keep the com¬
mandments of God was this,—"And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt
again with ships by the way whereof I spake unto thee. Thou shalt see it no
more again, and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bond-
to.men, and no man shall buy you." (Deut. xxviii. 68.)
Dr. Wayland deals with the passages of the New Testament which coun¬
tenance slavery nearly in the same way. He aggroups them, (strangely over¬
looking the letter upon which this pamphlet is founded,) and extracts the prin¬
ciples from them, which he thinks they were alone intended to establish. These
are, says he, " patience, meekness, fidelity and charity." The two first passages
which he quotes begin thus,—" servants be obedient to them that are your
masters, &c."—"Servants obey-, in all things, your masters, &c.," and yet the
Doctor's analysis could not detect obedience as one of the principles involved in
these texts! Nor could he see any force in the term " your masters —But I
am extending this note too far.
7
when pressed with " the law and the testimony is to retreat
behind the Declaration of Independence ; or to throw up a
breast-work out of the long-forsaken rubbish of the Social
Compact; or to bewilder their pursuers in the mazes of
metaphysical subtlety. If any one of them has ever yet
met us fairly with our own weapons, I have not the honour
of an acquaintance with him. Pardon us brethren, if
while the contest is thus carried on, we ever believe we
have the vantage ground. With your people, this mode
of warfare may do very well; because in their view, you
are proprietors of the whole battle-field, and no matter to
what point of it you may be driven, you are still masters of
that point, and still upon your own possessions. With
many of them, too, adroitness in avoiding an adversary's
weapons is equivalent to victory. But our people think
very differently. I do not say that they are right,—nor is it a
matter of any consequence to my present purpose, whether
they be right or wrong—they think that you do not meet
the Scriptures opposed to you, because you cannot. That
the horror which you exhibit at the innovations of Scrip¬
ture to justify slavery, is either assumed, or a pitiable re¬
vulsion produced by the virus of rabid abolitionism alone.
They think it is the water of life, that brings on your
spasms, and not the reflections from it—that you dare not
approach or flee from it, and that to hide your embarrass¬
ment, you point to the man who places it before you, and
shudder, and writhe, and declaim against him, as though he
were the cause of your tortures. I repeat, that in all this,
they may be doing you great injustice, but the effects upon
the Church are the same as though their opinions were
well founded. The consequences are precisely what we
might expect in this state of things. You of the North,
(your people I mean) look upon us as manstealers, tyrants,
and every thing that is vile and base ; and we of the South
look upon you as a band of desperate fanatics, alike reck-
8
less of the laws of God and man—shutting your eyes to
the one code, that you may with quiet conscience violate
the other. To you, our religion becomes base hypocricy,
our sacrifices a stench in the nostrils of all true christians,
and our whole life a desperate career of implacable
cruelty, which neither reason, nor entreaty, nor justice, nor
mercy, can arrest. With us, you are a tribe of self-infuri¬
ated madmen, rushing through the country with the Bible
in one hand and a torch in the other—preaching peace,
and.scattering the flames of civil war—enjoining love, and
arousing to butchery—lauding liberty, and firing liberty's
last temple. Your counsels, therefore, become insult, your
schemes of reform, conspiracy, and your maledictions, a
curse upon the sages of the revolution in general, upon
your own sires in particular, and blasphemy against the
plainly revealed will of God. These are solemn, awful
truths; subject to many qualifications, to be sure, as to
persons, but to none, as to facts ; and it, is in vain to blink
them. They should make both parties tremble; for,on
that side where lies the original sin of this state of things,
God will, in all likelihood, soon pour out the vials of his
wrath, with tremendous fury. Now it is remarkable, that
from the beginning of the war against slavery to the
present time, there should never have been a candid, free
'discussion between any two of us upon the main question.
That on the one hand the sin of slavery should be consider¬
ed unquestionable, and on the other, its innocence incon¬
trovertible, and that the parties holding these opposite
opinions, should act upon them, even to the rending of the
Church, and yet never bring them to the test of full dis¬
passionate argument upon Scripture principles ! I am
aware, brethren, how shocking it is, to persons of your train¬
ing and habits of thinking, to see God's word produced
in defence of slavery; but in imitation of your great
Master's example, when Satan quoted Scripture to him,
9
can you not hear us calmly, and meet us with our own
weapons 1 You will perhaps say, why waste arguments
upon a people who are determined not to be convinced.?
As this is a question which presses with equal force on
both sides, I might be excused for not answering it; but as
it implies a misconception of facts when coming from you,
it is entitled a respectful notice. Let me say, then, we are
not impenetrable to conviction upon this subject. Many
of our preachers own no slaves', and never expect (o own
any; why then should they be incorrigible in their opin¬
ions upon this subject, I see that there is at least one, in
the very fo.cus of abolitionism (brother Potter) who sees
it in the Scripture light as we do*; so on the other hdnd there
may be many in this latitude who may see it as you do,
with such light as you may afford them. As for myself, if
you can but raise a serious doubt in my mind as to the cor¬
rectness of my interpretation of one single short epistle of
Paul's, Which I understand as clearly proving that a slave¬
holder may be a good Christian,, and worthy of the holiest
man's love and fellowship, I will instantly become your
ally, and pi'each against slavery in my own land, if it costs
me my head. But the more I read it, the more thoroughly
do I becorrle convinced, that it recognises the relation of
master and slave as perfectly inriocent, and the more I
study it, the more amazed do I become at the course which
your people are pursuing in relation to slavery and slave¬
owners. If I understand. the Scripture aright, their anti-
slavery movements are awfully dangerous to them. By the
Word of Truth will they certainly be judged; and all
.their starts and horrors at hearing it invoked in protection
of the slaveholder, will, in the sight of its Divine Author, be
as light and unavailing as the. horrors of the Hindoo at
seeing his wooden god demolished. That they cannot see
how God can be just, and righteous, and merciful, and.yet
allow one man to have almost absolute dominion over an-
10
other, will be just as poor an apology at his bar, as the in¬
fidel's plea, that he could not see how the coming of sin
into the world, its diffusion and punishment, could be re¬
conciled with God's goodness, mercy and love. We must
meet this subject as we do every other involying duty; not
with wire-drawn arguments from the laws of nature, but
with honest arguments deduced from the word of God.
And while we argue it, there must be no sophistry, no skip¬
ping of hard texts, no forgetting of strong inferences from
them, no cuttle-fish hiding, no theatrics. All this may do
very well in debate, for the mere exercise of skill; but
upon a grave question of divine law, involving the peace
of the Church, and the eternal interests of millions, it will
never do. God sees through all such tactics, arid he will
reward them according, to their deserts. If I know my own
heart, brethren, I desire to be undeceived, if I misinterpret
the Scriptures in regard to slavery. It would not cost me
a struggle to give, up all the slaves I possess, if I could be
persuaded that I sin in holding them in bondage. But
after examining the Scriptures carefully, and as impar¬
tially as I could, from Genesis to Revelation, I cannot be so
persuaded. . The more I have examined, the more quiet has
my conscience become upon this subject. I must look
away from myself for light, if I am in the dark upon this
subject. As I have just hinted, Paul's letter to Philemon
seems to me of itself decisive of every ground of difference
between us. I am strongly impressed with the belief that
we have just reached the point of time when God's design
in making that letter a part of the sacred Canon is to be
properly understood. Will you allow me to submit to your
correction my views upon that epistle? Hear all that I
have to say upon it, before you reply ; and summon all your
patience that you may hear me through ; for I forewarn
you that it will be heavily taxed. That you may employ
the time which I consume, in preparation to meet my
11
views, I here announce to you the positions which I think
that letter clearly establishes.
First. That there is no sin in holding slaves.
Second. That a Slaveholder may be a very pious man in
the sight of God, and worthy of the love, fellowship, and
confidence of the best of men.
Third. That if by " moral evil," as used so often by our
Northern brethren, is meant, that the holding slaves, per se,
casts the least shade of guilt upon the owner, then there
is no moral evil in slavery.
Fourth That slaveholding is no disqualification for the
ministry. I do not say that I shall labour each of these
grounds separately and distinctly; but I think I shall
establish them all fully by this letter. I will announce to
you when I am through. If you will then favour me with
a reply, (which I desire may be confined to the letter alone,
at least as strictly as I have adhered to it) exposing any
error into which I may have fallen in my interpretation of
this remarkable passage of Holy Writ, I shall feel that
you have conferred a great favour on me, and done the
Church some service. I address you all in the hope that
if one will not confer this favour upon me, another will.
The order of your names may designate the order in which
I shall wait upon you.
Your friend and brother,
A. B. Longstreet.
12
No. II.
TO DOCTORS DURBIN, BANGS, PECK & ELLIOTT.
Rev. and dear brethren,
In my last communication I. stated that, in my
opinion, Paul's letter to Philemon covered the whole
-ground of dispute between the Northern and Southern
members of our Church, and said, that if either of you
would give me a satisfactory answer to my vieWs upon
that letter, that I for one would change sides- I proceed
to submit these views to your consideration.
Before. I, address myself to the details of this epistle I
beg to be indulged in a few remarks upon it? in the entire.
The first thing that strikes us as. remarkable about it, is,
that it should ever have found a place among the Scrip¬
tures of Divine Truth. Doctor Clarke, who is one of the
most bitter, uncompromising enemies of slavery that ever
wrote a commentary upon the Bible, holds this language
in relation to it. " It may be thought strange that a pri¬
vate letter, written entirely upon a .private subject, without
reference to the proof or defence of any doctrine of the
gospel, should, by the general consent qf the Church of
God, from the highest christian antiquity, have been re¬
ceived into the sacred canon, not only as the genuine pro¬
duction of St. Paul, but as a piece assigned by the Holy
Spirit for the edification of the Church. However, such
is the fact; and we may add, that this very piece was held
so sacred that even the ancient heretics did not attempt to
impugn its authenticity, or corrupt its matter, while making
dangerously free with the four Gospels." I am sure, my
13
dear brethren, that you will not treat it with less respect
than did the heretics of old.
Dr. Henry speaks of this letter as follows; " The re¬
markable Providence of God in preserving such a short
letter as this, that might be thought of little concern in
the Church, being not only a letter to a particular person,
&c., but of a private and personal matter, viz., Cie re¬
ceiving a poor fugitive servant into the favour and fa¬
mily of his injured master. What in . this is there that
concerns the common salvation ? And yet, ove'r this has
there been a special Divine care, it being given, as the
other Scriptures were, by the inspiration of God, &q.
Dr. Lardner's; invaluable work is before me, from
which I might quote largely to the same point;- but, as
brevity is my object, I unite his authority to Home's, in
the following quotation. " It," (the above epistle;) " was
likewise most .expressly quoted by Origen, and was pro¬
nounced to be authentic by all the, ancient writers quoted
by Eusebius, as also by all subsequent ecclesiastical writers',
and it has been inserted in every catalogue of the books of
the New Testament. Stronger external tkstimdny to the
authenticity of any part of the Bible- exists not than that
which we have for the Epistle to Philemon; the argument
of which is not mean, nor is any part of it unworthy of
the great apostle of the Gentiles." (Home's Introduc.
vol. iv. p. 385.) I might fill my sheet with extracts from
Christian writers to the same effect,—but let, these suffice.
About fourteen hundred years ago " some fastidious critics
showed an inclination to expunge this epistle from the
sacred canon, as being a private letter, and, consequently,
of very little importance to .the Christian Church." But
among all the various Christian Sects that have since
sprung up, notwithstanding their many hot * disputes,
not one has ever questioned its authenticity, or pro¬
posed to remove it from the Bible. Nor, until the
14
abolition spirit rose up amongst us, was there ever a
serious difference of opinion between any two of them, or
between any two writers or commentators upon it, as to
the true import of any verse, sentence, word, syllable, or
letter in it. It was reserved for this day and generation
to discover that Onesimus was Philemon's brother and
hired servant, and any thing and every thing else but his
slave. But of this by and by. Now, is it no,t wonderful
that the genuineness, authenticity and divine origin of such
a letter should have been placed so completely beyond
question, cavil or dispute ? Drs. Benson, Macknight,
Whitby and others have attempted to account for the in¬
spiration of this letter in the very wholesome doctrines
which it contains; and, in so doing, they have furnished
us with some very valuable matter; but I apprehend that
there was a more important design in it than all this. I
suppose that it may have been to settle the question
whether five millions of people must turn loose among
them two millions and a half of paupers in hopeless
ignorance and destitution, and then battle it with them
for the common sustenance of life, or be forever debarred
the kingdom of Heaven? Whether it is such a sin to be
born a master, that he must throw off that character "even
if his slaves be involved in ruin," or be himself forever
lost? Whether the woman who owns slaves is to be
denied the right of marriage with a Christian minister?
Whether the minister who unites himself to such a one
without permission of the Church, is to be stript of his
clerical robes, and be turned adrift with the censures of
his Church upon him, unless he will make atonement, by
extorting from her love a surrender of them to the orders
of his synod ? Whether the fugitive slave is to be wel¬
comed to the pulpit^nd communion-table of his Christian
brethren, while the humane master, in like fellowship, is to
be repelled from both ? Whether the fathers shall entail
15
slayery upon a race, and the sons afflict that race for the
crime of slavery? Whether an inheritance of slaves
carries with it such turpitude of guilt as to justify a
breach of -all conventional agreements, all national cour¬
tesies, all civil obligations, all rules of delicacy, and an
unheard of intrusion into the counsels of the nation, the
affairs of foreign states, and the saiictuary of domestic
peace ? These very grave questions, with many others of
equally solemn imp'ort, I believe to be fully settled by the
Epistle in question; and, surely, to this end, it was
worthy of Divine dictation and preservation..
In the next place,.jetus enquire whoOnesimus was? I
assert confidently that he was a slave. To have adduced
proof of this position fifty years ago would have been
considered an insult to the person to whom it w&s aid-
dressed. "But, in this age of > .theological illumination,
nothing is to be considered as settled which conflicts with
the views and feelings of moral or political reformers. So
we must go gravely to work to prove what, for seventeen
hundred years, was never disputed, to'wit,<Au< Ofiesimus
was a slave. In the first,place, we appeal to authority,
without regard to the order of time. We begin with
Methodists,
Mr. Wesley calls Onesimus a servant, but ' the con,
nection in which the term is used, shows plainly that he
meant, by that term, a slave ; for, he says, " he ran away
froth his master."
Dr. Coke. " Onesimus, the slave, upon becoming, a
Christian," &c. Co. Com. Pref. to Phil.
Mr. J. BensCn. " Onesimus, the servant, or slave, rather,
to Philemon," &c. Pref. to Phil.
Mr. Watson. " Onesimus was a Phrygian by nation, a
slave to Philemon." Wats. Die. verb. Ones.
Dr. Clarke. "Onesimus, a slave, had, on some pretence
16
or other, run away from his master, Philemon," &c. Pref.
to Phil..
Mr. Henry,—" Onesimus, a poor slave" &c. Hen. Com.
on Phil. v. _ 20.«Note.
Dr. Doddridge',—" The" Apostle proceeds, &c., to- en¬
gage Philemon'kindly to receive and forgive his fugitive
slave" Dodd. - Exp. Pref. to Phil. 2nd sec.
Again he paraphrases-" the 15th verse thus,—" I, there¬
fore, return him, &c., that he .might not only be dear and
useful* to thee, during all the remainder of his life, whose
ear is, as it' were, bored to the dpor, of thine house, (to al¬
lude to the Hebrew custom, Exqd. xxi., &c.) *,
Whitby. " This Epistle' contains instructions, &c.—1st.
That no Christian, though of the meanest sort,, .is to be
condemned, &c.-^-that Christianity makes the vilest servant
profitable, &c.—2nd. That. Christianity does not impair the
power of Masters over their servants; or give any authority to
them who convert them to use them yas their servants without
leave granted from their masters.—3d. That servants ought
to make satisfaction for any wrong of injury they have
done to their masters." (Whitby. Pref. to Phil.)
Bloomfield. " This epistle is simply a brief letter written
to reconcile a Colossian named Phileipon to his slave?'
(Bloomf. Gr. Test, note 1st to Phil.) .
Lardher. " Perhaps some have been the rather unwil¬
ling to allow that Philemon was a Bishop because lie had
a1 wife, &c.: and was a man of substance who" had one
7 7
slave at least." (Lard. vol. vi. p. 77. last ed.)
T. H. Home. "-We learn from this epistle that Onesi¬
mus was the slave of Philemon." (Home. Introduc. vol.
iv. p. 386.)
*Ifthe servant shall plainly say I love my master, my wife and my children,
,I will not go out free, then his master shall bring him unto, the judges; he
shall also bring him to the door; or unto the door-post, and his master shall
bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. (Ex. xx.
15-16.) -
17
Dr. G. Benson. " Onesimus the slave," &c., speaking of
the doctrines of the epistle he adds, " Christianity makes
no alteration in men's civil affairs. By Christian baptism a
slave did not become a freedman." (Home. Introduc. vol.
iv. p. 385.)
Dr. Macknight. " It is most probable, as Dr. Macknight
conjectures," (says Home) " that Philemon had a number
of slaves on whom the pardoning of Onesimus too easily
might have had a bad effect." (Home. Supra, p. 387.)
Calmet. "Onesimus, a Phrygian by nation, slave to
Philemon." (Calm. Die. Verb. Ons.)
Neander. Referring to this epistle with others—" It does
not appear to me surprising that a runaway slave from
Colosse should betake himself to Rome." (Neand. 183.
Note.)
I might add many more names to this list, but if these do
not convince you, a thousand will not. That they are right
in considering Onesimus a slave is manifest from the terms
of the letter itself. The 16th verse, if literally rendered,
would commence thus : " Not now a slave (&>uXov) but
above a slave."
Watson says, of the term servant: " This word generally
signifies a slave. For formerly among the Hebrews and
the neighbouring nations, the greater part of servants
were slaves ; that is to say, they belonged absolutely to
their masters, who had a right to dispose of their persons,
their bodies, goods, and even their lives, in some cases."
(Wat. Die. verb. Servant.)
That this is true any one may prove who will take the
trouble to trace the word through'^the Scriptures. It is
used sixty-seven times in the Evangelists—most frequent¬
ly by our Saviour, and in sixty-five jof them it very clearly
means slaves, and in no three of them can it be certainly
affirmed that it means any thing else. And here I would
enquire, whether it is possible to suppose that Christ, who
18
made a text for instruction or reproof, of almost every
question asked him, every sentiment dropped in his hearing,
and every object brought distinctly to his notice by those
about him, should have used this term so often,—should
have seen slaves around him every day,—should have re¬
peatedly drawn parables from the relation of master and
servant,—should have recognised a distinction between
them again and again, and yet never utter a word from
which it can be inferred that he thought it a sin to hold
slaves ? Nay, that he should have healed the servant of a
man who came to him avowing his authority over his ser¬
vants, and their prompt obedience to his commands, and
not only not reprove him, but declare of him that he had
not found so great faith in all Israel ? Brethren, I be¬
seech you to look at these things candidly—not to see how
you may escape from their teachings, but to learn the true
meaning of them. Their instructions aside, do you feel
yourselves under no obligations to follow Christ's example
in these cases ? But more of this in my next.
A. B. Longstreet.
19
No. III.
TO DOCTORS DURBIN, BANGS, PECK, & ELLIOTT.
Rev. and Dear Brethren,
After having adduced a number of authorities to
prove that Onesimus was a slave, I called your attention,
as you may remember, to the terms of the letter itself, in
further proof of this fact. I resume the argument at the
point where I left it in my last.
" I beseech thee," says Paul, " for my son Onesimus,—
which in time past was to thee unprofitable—whom 1 have
sent again—therefore receive him—whom I would have re¬
tained—but without thy mind "(permission)" would 1 do no¬
thing—for perhaps he therefore departed for a season that
thou shouldst receive him forever—not now as a servant,
"(slave)" but above a servant "(slave)"—if he hath
wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that to mine ac¬
count." In the name of common sense what does this
language mean ? It is the language of supplication ob¬
viously,—it is addressed to Philemon, beyond dispute, in
behalf of Onesimus, most clearly,—and it imports a pecu¬
liar relation between them, which placed Onesimus in the
power of Philemon. Now I earnestly request you to tell
me what was that relation. Do not, if you please, (as did
one of you in the Conference room) dispose of the whole
matter with a short question which may throw discredit
upon my opinion, while it keeps your own entirely out of
sight. Tell me frankly whether you admit or deny that
Onesimus was a slave; and if you deny it, tell me as frank¬
ly what you think he was. I think you will be constrained
to admit, that he was the son, brother, hired servant, or
20
slave of Philemon. (I insert brother, because it was very
gravely suggested to me in New York, that this was the
relation between them.) Let it be remembered that when
Paul wrote this epistle, Onesimus had " departed" from
Colosse, and gone to Rome. That he had remained there
we know not how long before he heard Paul preach.
That he was there converted, and that Paul desired to de¬
tain him to minister to him in the place of Philemon. That
when he was sent home, Paul commended him to the
Church at Colosse as one of them. So that he could not
have been a minor; and as Paul nowhere intimates that
he was a young man, as he does of Timothy, we may fairly
infer that he was pretty well advanced in years at the
time of which we are speaking. Now take the language
which I have quoted from the epistle, and consider it ad¬
dressed to Philemon as the father or brother of Onesimus,
and how ridiculous does it become.
As the father: " I have sent again your son (thirty years
old) " whom I would have retained—but without thy mind
would I do nothing. Perhaps he departed from thee for a
season that thou shouldst receive him forever,—not now
as a servant, but above a servant ! If he hath wronged thee,
or oweth thee ought, put that to mine account.
If this is the true version of Paul's letter, it deserves
none of the commendations which have been bestowed
upon it. Onesimus would never have borne such a letter
as that to his father ; and the more ready Philemon might
have been to forgive his son, the more indignant must he
have felt at Paul. The Apostle, like his Master, had too
often drawn the distinction between the heir and the
servant, to write such a letter to a father, in behalf of his
son.
As the brother : " Though I might be much bold to en¬
join thee, yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee for " thy
brother Onesimus, which in time past was to thee unprofit-
21
able, but now profitable to thee and to me—perhaps he de¬
parted from thee for a season that thou shouldst receive him
forever," &c., &c. I cannot dwell upon this version. It is a
thousand times more preposterous than the other ; and I
am sure, brethren, neither of you will adopt it. Hut some
man may say—"What do you do with the 16th verse,"
where Paul says of Onesimus, " a brother beloved, especi¬
ally to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh
and in the Lord V I answer, do any thing with it rather
than turn the whole epistle into nonsense, by supposing it
to mean that Philemon and Onesimus were children of the
same parents. In that case what authority had the first
over the last. Why was Onesimus sent back to Philemon ?
How could he be said to have left Philemon 1 how profit¬
able to him—how, no longer a servant, but above a servant.
Why should Paul plead for him ? But there is no difficulty
even in the language here. Paul does not say a " brother
in the flesh" but a brother beloved both in the flesh and in
the Lord." How beloved in the flesh ? Why, as one whose
person belongs to you, and now about to become endeared
to you by his fidelity, obedience, and attention to your
secular business : and still more endeared to you by becom¬
ing a fellow servant of the Lord. We, of the South, under¬
stand Paul, here, perfectly. Dr. Clarke says, " there is no
reason to believe that Onesimus was of the kindred of Phile¬
mon. We must take the term flesh, here, as referring to
the right which Philemon had in him. He was part of his
property and his family; as a slave this was his condition.
But now he stood in a two-fold relation to Philemon. 1st.
According to the flesh he was one of his family. 2nd. In
the Lord he was a member of the heavenly family, and of
the church at Philemon's house." (The Italics are the Doc¬
tor's.) To the same effect speaks every commentator that
I can lay my hands upon. " Flesh—as a dutiful servant"
says Mr. Wesley. I will not weary the reader with quo-
22
tations of like import; but with Doddridge's paraphrase of
this verse close my remarks upon this head. "In the mean
time receive him, not now as a fugitive slave, to be long
frowned upon and kept at a distance for his former faults ;
nor treat him merely as a common servant, but as above a
servant, as standing in a much more dear and honorable
relation, a brother beloved, especially to me, as having been
sometime a. very useful attendant upon me in my afflic¬
tions ; but how much more so to thee to whom he belongs,
both in the flesh and in the Lord, as thou hast so long known
him, and will have the pleasure of discerning more parti¬
cularly how happy a change Christianity has made in his
temper and character."
Was Onesimus the hired servant of Philemon 1 Assured¬
ly not. No commentator has thought so: no unprejudiced
mind can think so. The language of the epistle forbids this
interpretation of it. Why should Paul supplicate Philemon
to take back a hired servant. How could he talk of such
an one serving forever ? How was such an one any more
above a servant to Philemon now, than he was before his
conversion ? How could he be more dear to Philemon
than to Paul ? Why could not Paul have detained such
an one without Philemon's consent ? What sort of a hired
servant was he—a carman, a field-hand, a house-servant,
or what ? How long was he hired for ? His place must
have been supplied long before Paul saw him. Imagine
him in any particular avocation, violating his contract,
and going off, and a year it may be afterwards meeting
Paul, and Paul sending him back with such a letter as
this ; and you turn the whole scene, one of the most touch¬
ing in the Bible, into a perfect farce. In your latitude,
you have hired servants quitting their employers constant¬
ly. How many of them did you ever hear begging letters
of commendation to the masters they had deserted. Should
one ask such a letter of you, would you word it as
23
Paul has worded his ? But Colosse was about a thousand
miles from Rome in a right line, and much farther by the
usual course of travel. To make the cases parallel, there¬
fore, I must suppose that a man whom you hired last year
to cultivate your farm, left you and came to Georgia ; and
was here converted. What would you think of him and
me if he should present himself before you this year with
just such a letter from me as Onesimus carried to Phile¬
mon ? Credit me, Paul had quite as much forecast and
consistency of character as any of us. But it is asked (it
was asked by one of you) how could Paul propose to pay
what Onesimus owed to Philemon, if Onesimus was a
slave. How could a slave be in debt to his master ? It
would be quite enough for me to say that I will answer
these questions when I get an answer to the half of those
which I have just propounded. It might be quite enough
for me to say, that with but one opinion upon this subject
for seventeen hundred years, that opinion is not to be
shaken by two dry questions which do not even disclose
the propounder's dissent from it. But as I am not disposed
to stand upon ceremonies, I will answer them. And in the
first place it doth not appear that Onesimus did owe Phile¬
mon any thing. Your proposing to pay any thing that my
slave may owe me, surely does not prove that the slave is
actually my debtor. It does not even imply that you think
he owes me any thing. It imports no more than that you
suppose he may hy possibility be my debtor. But if you
even supposed that my slave was in my debt, and proposed
to pay the debt, and in the letter containing the propositon,
you called him my slave, and recognised me as his
master, would you expect to be understood as contradicting
yourself in that letter ? That is, would you expect to be
understood as denying in the proposition the relation of
master and slave, which you expressly admit all through
the letter ? Should I deal with you in this way you would
24
certainly consider me a very severe interpreter. But, thus
far, I have argued upon the concession that Paul used the
term owe in its common acceptation in this day; which
is, obviously, not true. Onesimus was present when
Paul wrote the letter ; he had been with him for some time
before ; and, if Onesimus had been Philemon's debtor, in
the usual sense of the term, the proposition would not
have been made hypothetically. Paul would not have
hesitated to ask, nor Onesimus to tell, whether he was in
debt to his master. But, the truth is, that, in the days of
Paul, slave and thief were synonymous terms, and Paul
supposed it likely that Onesimus had not left his master
without taking from him the means of living and
travelling, for a time at least. But he would not wound
the feelings of his new convert with questions upon this
subject, nor would he broadly announce his suspicions in
the letter; he, therefore, delicately says, "if he hath
wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that to mine
account," leaving the matter to be adjusted between the
parties who alone knew, and who alone ought to know
about the matter. This is the general opinion, and, I
have no doubt, the correct opinion upon the subject. It
throws the same tender delicacy into this part of the epistle
which is seen all through it, and harmonises the whole.
Paul used the term " owe," then, to cover any kind of ob¬
ligation that Onesimus might be under to his master,—
such as restitution of money or goods that he might have
purloined, or incidental losses that the master might have
sustained from the sudden and unexpected elopement of
the slave. The very word here used (o<psi\ei, he oweth) is
repeatedly used to express obligation generally, without
reference to contract. Thus : " woe unto you, blind
guides which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple it
is nothing, but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the
temple he is a debtor," (o<psi\si, he oweth, or is bound.) "An d
25
whosoever shall swear by the altar it is nothing, but who¬
soever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty"
(txpsiXsi.) "We have a law, and, by our law he ought,
(ocpetXsi, he otueth,) to die." It seems to me strange that
commentators should have puzzled themselves to find out
the nature of the debt which Paul supposed Onesimus to
owe. When it is so evident that Paul neither knew nor
desired to know the nature of his obligation. Before I
take leave of this head, I must answer another question
that was very archly put to me in New York, namely, was
not Onesimus a bishop after his conversion ? Of this there
is no satisfactory evidence. But, suppose it true. Does
it prove that he was not a slave before his conversion?
Report says that Philemon pardoned him, and sent him to
minister to Paul. And, as Paul set all to work in the min¬
istry that he could, I think it very likely that he engaged
Onesimus in this service. How strange is it, that, without
evidence, we should be ready to believe that a newly con¬
verted slave became a bishop; and that, with the very
strongest kind of evidence, we should be reluctant to be¬
lieve that the master, a long established christian, held
any office at all in the Church. But of this by and by.
The only remaining supposition is, that Onesimus was a
slave. I hardly think, brethren, that either of you will
deny it. If you cannot deny it, then frankly admit it; and
proclaim it to your people, that we may have the l^enefit
of the truth enforced by your influence, as far as the one
or the other can affect a people, so long in the habit of
looking to but one side of this question.
A. B. Longstreet.
26
No. IV.
TO DOCTORS DURBIN, BANGS, PECK, & ELLIOTT.
Rev. and Dear Brethren,
Having, as I conceive, placed it beyond dispute,
that Onesimus was a slave; I beg leave, in the next place,
to invite your particular attention to the persons who were
engaged in interceding for this slave, with his master.
The letter purports to have been written by Paul and
Timothy, both eminently holy men, both active laborers in
the vineyard of the Lord ; and one of them an inspired
Apostle. But Paul himself tells us that it was written with
his own hands; a form of expression which he never used in
"an epistle, unless he meant to give it all the weight of his
character, and to impress its precepts with peculiar force
upon the minds of those whom he addressed. This was
" his token in every epistle." (2. Thess. iii. 17.) Paul,
who never failed to reprove sin whenever he encountered
it, whether in his flocks, his associates or his judges ; and
Timothy, whom he instructed to rebuke before all, these
stand in the front rank of a little Conference of Christians,
most humbly solicting a slave-owner, to receive back in kind¬
ness his runaway slave ! The modern Christianity in certain
latitudes is, to seduce slaves from their masters, and when
they return to their owners, to pursue those owners some four
or five hundred miles, and drag them before a court of justice
upon the charge of kidnapping or man stealing. If Paul
did obtain mercy that in him first, Jesus Christ might show
forth all long-suffering for a pattern to them who should here¬
after believe on him to life everlasting—if he really was a
preacher, and an Apostle, and a teacher; strangely have his
precepts and his example affected some of his professed
27
followers! Here was Paul who really desired to keep
Onesimus with him that he might in some measure supply
the place of his master ; yet he would not presume to do it
without the master's permission. Here we have an Apos¬
tle and a Bishop dispatching a Christian slave hundreds of
miles off to his master, and both humbling themselves to
supplication before that master, in behalf of that slave.
This single act would have been argument decisive that
Paul discovered nothing sinful in the relation of master and
slave. If any abolitionist doubts this, he has only to look
to the conduct of his associates under like circumstances
for proof incontestible. They believe slavery is a sin ; and
how do they act towards the fugitive slave ? Do they ad¬
vise him to go home to his master ? Could it be said that
in the performance of such an act, Paul and Timothy might
have overlooked the moral character of the relation ?
That would have been impossible ; but even if it were
possible, we know it was not the case here. Philemon was
a Colossian, and by the very hand that bore this letter,
Paul sent another to the Colossians generally, in which he
says, " servants (i. e. slaves—<5ouXoi) obey in all things your
masters after the flesh; not with eye-service as men-
pleasers ; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Masters,
(xupioi) give to your servants that which is just and equal,
&c." Both these epistles, say the commentators, just
quoted, were written under the inspiration of God ; so that
we may consider God as interdicting Paul from detaining a
master's servant from him, without his consent—as renew¬
ing to Paul the instructions given to the Angel in reference
to Jtlagar, eighteen centuries before—as recognizing, in
terms, the relation of master and slave, and as declaring
that the first may abound in love to the Lord Jesus, and that
the last may be a brother beloved, even to an Apostle, with¬
out affecting that relation. But I am digressing. Next to
Paul and Timothy, the most conspicuous figure in the letter-
28
scene is Tychicus. He was dispatched with Onesimus to
the Colossians to declare Paul's state—learn their own, and
comfort their hearts. (Col. iv. 7, 8, 9.) And who was
Tychicus ? A beloved brother, a faithful minister, and fellow-
servant in the Lord. (Ib. ver. 7.) The same who accom¬
panied Paul into Asia,—(Acts xx. 4)—who was sent to
comfort the hearts of the Ephesians,—(Eph. vi. 22)—and
who seems to have been Paul's most active associate.
(2 Tim. iv. 12. Tit. iii. 12) "The Greeks celebrated the
feast of Tychicus, December 8th and 9th, and give him the
title of one of the seventy disciples, and Bishop of Colophon
in the province of Asia." [Calmet.] Certain is it that Paul
considered him competent to supply the place of Titus, who
was a Bishop. Behold now, this zealous, holy, distinguished
man of God, journeying far away to the land of slavery to
comfort the hearts of slaveholders, while he carried back
with him to the owner a fugitive slave ! Suppose a Me¬
thodist Bishop in this day should do the same thing; what
would be thought of him ? Alas, the passport to the Bishop-
rick in these days, is ingenuity and subtlety in finding pre¬
texts for degradingthe bishop, who gives any countenance
to slavery.
The next personage we notice in the group around Phile¬
mon is Epaphras. He was a servant of Christ, (i. e., says
Clarke, a minister of the Gospel) one that " labored fer¬
vently for the Colossians, (Philemon among the rest) in
prayers that they might stand perfect and complete in all the
will of God—who had a gre^t zeal for them, as well as
for the Church of Laodicea, and them in Hieropolis. (Col.
iv. 12. 13.) Believed to be the first Bishop of Colo^se.
[Calmet.]
Next there was Marcus (or Mark ;) nephew of Barnabas,
or the Evangelist, or both intended in one and the same
person ; about which commentators do not fully agree. If
nephew of Barnabas, and distinct from the Evangelist, we
29
find him accompanying Paul in his labours of love, and
though Paul took exceptions to him at Pamphilia, he after¬
wards says to Timothy: " Take Mark and bring him with
thee ; for he is profitable to me far the ministry." (2 Tim.
iv. 11.) If the Evangelist, every body knows his
character.
The next we notice is Aristarchus, Paul's companion in
travel, (Acts xix. 29.) and now, as heretofore, sharing
Paul's troubles. (Col. iv. 10.) As through Paul's history
we constantly meet with Aristarchus, as Paul calls him, a
fellow-prisoner, in his letter to the Colossians, we think it
likely the Greeks were right in saying he was beheaded
with Paul. They say that he was Bishop of Apamea;
but the Roman Martyrology makes him Bishop of Thessa-
lonica. [Calmet.] Be that as it may, he was certainly a
fellow-laborer of Paul's, as the letter before us shows
(ver. 24.)
Demus stands next in the list. He forsook his religion,
it is true ; but at this time he was a zealous servant of the
Lord.
Luke, the Evangelist, and beloved physician, closes the
list. I so designate him according the generally received
opinion, and as I believe, most reasonable opinion.
All these holy men were privy to the writing of this let¬
ter. " They may," says Dr. Clarke, " be all considered as
joining here with St. Paul in his request for Onesimus."
Henry speaks to the same effect, and adds, " How ill
would it look, by a denial of it, to slight so many worthy
men as most of these at least were." Is it possible to be¬
lieve that all these men would have thus humbled them¬
selves before a sinner, or before one touched, in the slight¬
est degree, with " moral evil ?" Suppose the relation in
question unlawful; is it believed these men would have
lent their assistance to re-establish it, after it had been dis¬
solved ? Suppose Drusilla had been converted through
30
Paul's preaching—would he and his companions have sent
her to Felix with a letter of commendation ? Would they
have interceded with Herod for Herodias. Turn now from
the contemplation of these inspired and holy men, thus en¬
gaged in conciliating master and slave, to the scenes in
some of your abolition societies, and tell me, brethren, do
you not blush for them, or for Paul and his Apostles ?
In the last place, let us enquire who Philemon wras ?
And here I maintain, with great confidence, that he was
a devout Christian, a minister of the gospel, and a slave¬
holder.
It is universally admitted that he was a very holy man ;
and therefore it is not necessary to consume time upon the
first branch of the proposition. Was he a minister of the
Gospel ? " According to Grotius, Philemon was an elder
of Ephesus ; Bausobre and Dr. Doddridge suppose him to
have been one of the ministers of the Colossian Church; and
from St. Paul's requesting him to provide lodgings for him at
Colosse, Michaelis thinks that he was a Deacon of the
Church. These opinions appear to have been founded on
the inscription in the epistle where St. Paul calls him a
fellow-laborer. But this appellation (fellow-laborer) Drs.
Whitby, Lardner and Macknight have remarked, is of am¬
biguous signification, being not only given to those who
were employed in preaching the Gospel ; but also to such
pious individuals of either sex, as assisted the Apostles in
any manner. Rom. vi. 8, 3. (Home's Introduc. vol. vi.
p. 384.)
Whitby, commenting on the word rendered fellow-laborer,
says, " Hence Chrysostom conjectures he must have been
one of the Clergy." "But," he adds, " this is no good argu¬
ment, for the reasons just assigned."
Bloomjield, upon the same word, says, " tfuvspyw" literally,
helper, (in the cause of the Gospel) whether as Deacon or
31
preacher to the congregation assembled at his house is un¬
certain. (Bloom. Gr. Test.)
Again in his Digest (vol. viii. p. 372) he repeats," though
the term <fwspyoi was often applied (as Benson shows) to
those who were not ministers, yet he was probably a
Deacon.
The Apostolic constitutions say, that Paul made him
Bishop of Colosse ; but the Minora insinuate that He weAt
to Gaza in Palestine of which he was the Apostle and first
Bishop. [Calmet.]
Henry says, Philemon, one of note arid probably a minister.
Benson (Joseph) says 'fellow-labourer, that is, in the
Gospet,." Bens. Comm.
The Assembly's Bible (published 1657) says, "this epis¬
tle was written by the Apostle Paul unto Philemon, one of
his fellow-labourers in the ministry of the Gospel."
To this list I venture to add Jerome, though Dr. Lard-
ner says he does not understand him as expressly saying
that Philemon was Bishop or Elder of Colosse. Had not
the Doctor himself expressly declared that he " did not
think the thing of great importance," (from which we may
know that he examined it no farther than just to collect the
different opinions upon it,) or had he expressed a decided
opinion of Jerome's language, I should hardly have ven¬
tured to lisp a word in opposition to him. But, under the
circumstances, I trust I shall be excused for suggesting
an adverse opinion, and the reasons for it. I am anxious
to secure the testimony of Jerome, 1st, because he lived
but a few centuries after Paul; 2nd, because he was one
of the best—if not the very best—biblical scholars of his
age ; and, 3dly, because he was violently opposed to
clergymen's marrying. Speaking of this letter he uses
this language, as quoted by Lardner: " Scribunt igitur
Paulus et Timotheus Philemoni carissimo et co-operatori \
qui ideo carissimus dictus est, quod in eodem Christi opere
32
versitur." Had Jerome meant to say that Philemon was
a mere collateral assistant of Paul and Timothy in the
work of Christ, I do not think he would have used the
word co-operator, but coadjutor or adjutor. In an old
Latin Bible, now before me, printed in 1511, adjutor is
used to express the assistance which Priscilla and Aquila
rendered to Paul, as well as that rendered by his aids in
the ministry. But in the Latin commentary of John
Crellius, printed in 1656, speaking of fellow-labourer as ap¬
plied to Philemon, he says, " Co-operario nostro, id est, qui si-
mul nobiscum in Christi vineo laborat; qui iisdem quibus nos
laboribus promovendae gloriae Dei vacat." But, in com¬
menting upon Paul's salutation to Priscilla and Aquila, it
is, " Qui aliquando una mecum labores in religione Jesu
Christi promovenda susciperunt et exaultarunt." To the
work of Crellius is appended a very copious index, in
which he refers to the places in the work in which co-
operarii is used ; in all of which the term means ministeri¬
al assistants clearly; and in no place does he refer to it as
having any other meaning. This is his language, " Co-op-
erarii Dei dicuntur apostoli et ministri ecclesia." So that,
if Crellius does not explain Jerome, he certainly takes
sides with those who believe that Philemon was a min¬
ister. Co-operarii and co-operatores are not the same
word, to be sure, nor are either of them of the age of pure
Latin ; but they are too much alike to have a different
meaning. Adilungo in his Glossary de Scriptores mediae
et enfama: Latinetatis, (the very place to look for Je¬
rome's meaning) defines co-operator thus, " Co-operator
Episcopi, coadjutor in Praefatione Rabini " (Rabani ?) " ad
libellum, sacris ordinibus." But we have better author¬
ity than all this,—to wit, Jerome himself. In one of his
epistles he says, Co-operatoribus et actoribus vobis haeresis
jugulata est." Face. Die. verb. Co-operator. We have
his own authority, with that of Augustin and Tertullian,
33
for saying that a heresy in his day was what it is now, " a
dogma opposed to the principles of the Christian religion."
Face. Die. verb. H^resis. Would he, could he, ascribe
the destruction of heresy to fellow-labourers in any thing
but in the dissemination of the word of Truth ? Would
"entertaining preachers, feeding the poor, visiting the sick,
&c., have had this effect ? With all, what is the natural
import of the whole sentence quoted from Jerome ? Paul
and Timothy, says he, call Philemon dearly beloved, be¬
cause he was engaged in the same work of Christ, (with
them.) Why, if, in the opinion of Jerome, Philemon only
performed the common offices of a Christian layman,
should they have endeared him so much to Paul and Tim¬
othy, above any other Christian who did the like ? Je¬
rome adds, too, a word (Christi,) that Paul does not»
which, to my mind, strongly marks the character of Phil¬
emon's labours in his view. I think, then, I may safely
put Jerome on our side, and, I have no doubt, had Dr.
Lardner deemed the question worthy of an hour's critical
investigation, he would have done the same thing. We
have, then, Jerome, Chrysostom, the Apostolic Consti¬
tutions, Grotius, Bausobre, Crellius, the Westminster As¬
sembly, Doddridge, Michaelis, Bloomfield, Henry and Ben¬
son, all concurring in the opinion that Philemon was a
minister ; and most of them placing him in higher orders.
. And whom have we on the other side ? Acumenius, who
wrote about six hundred years after Jerome, when celibacy
of the clergy had become a settled law of the Romish
Church ; An anonymous writer upon Paul's epistle, sup¬
posed to be Hilary ; Dr. Clarke, and, perhaps, Dr. Lardner.
I say perhaps Doctor Lardner, for he advances no direct
opinion on the subject, admits " that it is not very easy
to be decided," and drops not a word from which we can
discover the inclination of his mind, but this : " If Philemon
had been an Elder he must have known his duty, and
3
34
could not have needed so pressing an exhortation to receive
a penitent, and he one of his family." Lard. vol. vi. 78. But,
if the Doctor be against me here, how are we to reconcile
him to himself, when arguing in another place against the
many who think that the Epistle to the Ephesians ought to
have been inscribed to the Laodiceans, he says," there are
some other things to be observed here concerning this
person," (Philemon.) " For in the first verse of that Epistle
Paul calls Philemon beloved, and his fellow-labourer;
which, if I am not mistaken, indicates and implies their
having laboured together in the service of the Gospel at
Colosse, Ephesus, or in some other place. Lard. vol. vi.
p. 113. Here is a plain confirmation of what I just now
said: that if the Doctor, when writing upon the letter to
Philemon at large, had deemed the office of Philemon of
any importance, he must have come to the conclusion
that he was a minister. In his debate upon the letter to
the Ephesians it was important to show that Philemon
and Paul had been together ; and, so, he distinctly admits
that they were fellow-labourers in the service of the Gos¬
pel. Not one who has denied that Philemon was a min¬
ister has given a reason for his opinion, except Dr. Lard-
ner, and his is very unsatisfactory. Why should an Elder
be under any higher obligation to forgive a penitent than
any other Christian ? In Paul's day the modern dis¬
tinctions between Christians in and out of office did not
prevail. Paul himself disclaimed all dominion over his
people's faith, and was content to be a helper of their joy.
A. B. Longstreet.
35
No. V.
TO DOCTORS DURBIN, BANGS, PECK & ELLIOTT.
Rev. and dear Brethren,
In my last I showed you that those who believed that
Philemon was a minister, were, to those who believed he
was not, as ten to three. The works of Macknight and Dr.
Benson are not within my reach; but from the references
to them which I have, I cannot collect, that either of them
has ventured the opinion, that he was not a preacher. All
that they have said upon this head is, that the appellation,
fellow-laborer, is not decisive of the fact. Certainly Whitby
goes no farther than this; whom the others seem to have
followed, as far as I can trace them. Bloomfield says:
" Though the term fellow-laborer was often applied (as Ben¬
son shows) to those who were not ministers, yet he probably
was a Deacon." Now, although, as I have just said, Ben¬
son's work is not before me, I venture the assertion, that
neither he nor Dr. Lardner, nor any of the learned Doctors
whom I am addressing, can show me two places in Paul's
writings, or more than two in the New Testament, where
the term is applied to a person whom we know not to have
been ministers. A position so bold, against so many great
names, is not, I know, to be maintained by a word of de¬
fiance. I, therefore, proceed to lay before the reader every
passage in the New Testament in which the term here
rendered fellow-laborer occurs; and he need not be alarm¬
ed ; for in so doing I shall detain him but a very short time.
The words in italics designate the recurrence of the origi¬
nal word here rendered fellow-laborer. " Greet Priscilla
36
and Acquila my helpers in Christ." (Rom. xvi. 3.)
" Salute Urbane our helper in Christ." (Yer. 9.) " Timo-
theus my work-fellow" (Ver. 21.) "For we" (Paul and
Apollos) " are laborers together with God." (1. Cor. iii. 9.)
" Not that we" (Paul, Timothy, and Silvanus) " have do¬
minion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy."
(2. Cor. i. 24.) " Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper
concerning you." (2. Cor. viii. 25.) " Epaphroditus my
brother, companion in labor and fellow-soldier." (Phil. ii.
25.) " With Clement, also, with other my fellow-laborers."
(Phil. iv. 3.) "These only" (Aristarchus, Marcus and
Justus) " are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God."
(Col. iv. 11.) "Timothy our fellow-laborer" (1. Thes.
iii. 2.) " Philemon our dearly beloved and fellow-laborer."
(Philem. 1.) " Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas and Lucas, my
fellow-laborers." (Yer. 29.) "We ought to receive such
brethren (and strangers) that we might be fellow-helpers to
the truth." (3 In. 8.)
If these be not all the places in which the term in question
is to be found in the New Testament, I have not been en¬
abled to find them all, after diligent search, aided by an ex¬
cellent concordance. The word occurs, then, but thirteen
times in the New Testament, twelve times of the thirteen,
it is used by Paul. Nine times in the twelve we know
that it was applied to preachers of the gospel; twice, to men
whose vocation we do not know, and once to a man and his
wife. That is to say, in every instance in which he has
applied it to men only, whose occupation we know, we find
they were preachers of the gospel. But in two cases he
applies it to men whose occupation we do not know ; I ask
- by what rule of construction is it, that we are to give it a
different meaning, when applied to them, from that which
it bears when applied to the other nine. Nay, the case is
stronger than this, for he really applies the term to twelve
persons in the nine places mentioned, ten of whom, out of the
37
twelve, were preachers. Does the fact that Paul uses it
once in reference to a man and his wife, involve it in any
doubt, when used in reference to men only ? Suppose he
had addressed Philemon as his beloved who ministered to
the Church in his house, (for Philemon had a Church in
his house;) would it bring the nature of his ministry in
question, to show that Peter's wife's mother rose when she
was healed and ministered to those about her? What
term could Paul have used to designate Philemon's calling,
which would not have been as ambiguous, as this ? Had
he called him Bishop, Elder, Deacon, Minister or Preacher,
it could have been shown that every one of these terms
has two or more significations in the original. I think I
might venture to give you your choice of them, and then
pledge myself to show you, that the one chosen has more
significations, as used by Paul himself, than this term
fellow-laborer. Upon the mere doctrine of chances, it
would be ten to two that Philemon was a preacher of the
Gospel. But let us examine the excepted case a little.
Finding that Paul had so uniformly used the term fellow-
laborer, to designate a helper in the ministry, it occurred to
me that surely there must have been something peculiar
in the history of Priscilla and Aquila which had escaped
my notice in my general reading of the Scriptures. And
behold, a minute's search explained the matter fully.
Both these persons were actually teachers and expounders
of Gospel truth. It was by their instructions that the
eloquent Apollos first came to the knowledge of the truth
as it is in Christ Jesus. They found him boldly preach¬
ing, but knowing only the baptism of John ; and they took
him unto them and expounded unto him the way of God
more perfectly." (Acts xviii. 24, 5, 6.) They had a
Church in their house ; are we to believe that they ex¬
pounded the way of God to nobody but Apollos ? " Aquila
and Priscilla," says Dr. Clarke in his note on the 25th verse,
38
" were acquainted with the whole doctrine of the Gospel—
and in this they instructed Apollo." "When the Apostle left
Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him to Ephesus,
where he left them to profit that Church by their instruc¬
tions and example whilst he went to Jerusalem." (Calmet.)
Hardly any two laborers are mentioned oftener by Paul than
these two ; none with higher commendations ; and it is a
singular fact, that of the five places in which these per¬
sons are mentioned, Priscilla is put first in all, save one.
She was, doubtless, a Deaconess. Only one verse separ¬
ates the passage in which Priscilla is called Paul's helper
in Christ, from that in which he says : " I commend unto
you Phebe, our sister, which is a servant of the Church,
which is at Cenchrea." (Rom. xvi. 1.) "There were,"
says Watson (Die. verb. Deacon) " females invested
with this office, who were termed deaconesses. Of this
number was Phebe." " These persons," continues Calmet
(whom Watson follows generally) "appear to be the same
as those whom Pliny in his famous letter to Trajan (Epist.
97) styles Ancilles, quae ministry dicebantur—female at¬
tendants called assistants, ministers or servants. It appears
then, that these were customary officers through the
Churches; and when the fury of persecution fell on
Christians, these were among the first to suffer; the most
cruel tortures were inflicted on them." The very language
of Paul excludes the idea of help in any other way than in
the spread of the gospel, as applied to this pious couple.
" Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus."
This cannot refer to their joint labors in tent-making ; nor
is there a shadow of reason for supposing that it refers to
any of the common services of Christian laymen. Paul
never called one of these his helper in any sense, much less
his helper in Christ Jesus. Does any man doubt that
Aquila was a preacher ? The Greeks and Romans both
recognise him as a Bishop; and though his wife could not
fill that office, we have the same reason to believe that she
39
preached, (not perhaps in the same way, but with equal
effect) that we have to believe that he preached. Should
we find a letter addressed by two ministers to our own Mrs.
Fletcher, saluting her as their fellow-laborer, how would
we understand it? We see then, that Paul, so far as we
can discover, never applied the term fellow-laborer to one
who did not, in some way, minister the word of truth.
Whitby, who I believe was the first to discover that this ap¬
pellation " was applied to women, (a woman, he should
have said) obviously looked no farther; but took it for
granted that, therefore, it could not always imply a helper
in the ministry. This is of a piece with pretty much all
that has been written upon the letter to Philemon, as will
more fully appear presently; plainly because the letter has
been considered by commentators of no great importance.
As to John's use of the term, it is of little consequence, since
we are in quest of the sense which Paul attached to it.
But a word upon this, the only remaining exception. John,
speaking of those engaged in the work of Christ, says:
" that we ought to receive such, that we may be fellow-
helpers to the truth." That is, open the way, to remove ob¬
stacles, grant facilities to those who preach the truth, and
you will be fellow-helpers to the truth. In other words :
ye who enable ministers to preach, who could not do it
without your assistance, may be considered fellow-helpers
to the truth. Is this equivalent to saying that " all who as¬
sist in promoting the general interests of religion are
fellow-helpers of the apostles ?" Is this the same thing as
designating a man by name and calling him a fellow-laborer I
And would any one, speaking with becoming caution, say
that one of the expressions is a qualification of the other;
especially when they come from different persons ? But
suppose it true that Paul and John have each in a single
instance qualified the general sense of the term ; are we at
liberty to restrict it farther than they have restricted it ?
It is a monstrous doctrine, that if we find a Jerm used in
40
three senses, we are at liberty to give it three hundred ; or
to treat it as if it had no determinate sense at all. No,
brethren; if you deny that Philemon was such a fellow-
laborer as Timothy and Titus; you must admit that he
was such an one as Priscilla and Aquila, or such an one
as John refers to. But, as I have said, John may be thrown
out of the question in this discussion, as we are in quest of
Paul's use of the term. You must, therefore, admit that
Philemon was such a fellow-laborer as Timothy and Titus,
or such an one as Priscilla and Aquila. Jn either case he
was a preacher of the gospel; for remember that preach¬
ing in his day was not exactly the thing that it is in ours.
Let it be borne in mind, too, that it is not Paul alone who
calls Philemon a fellow-laborer, but Paul and Timothy
both. Here, then, we have three fellow-laborers. Re¬
move Philemon, and there is no doubt as to the sense in
which the term is used in reference to Paul and Timothy ;
but remove Timothy, and then it becomes a very question¬
able matter! Strange reasoning this ! But I have not
half done with the proof upon this head. The eight first
verses of the letter plainly import, that Philemon was not a
Christian in the private walks of life. Mark the coinci¬
dence in the opening of this letter, and the second to
Timothy:
Paul to Timothy. Paul to Philemon.
Paul an apostle of Jesus Paul, a prisoner of Jesus
Christ—to Timothy my dearly Christ—unto Philemon our dear-
beloved son; grace, mercy and ly beloved and fellow-laborer—
peace, from God the Father and Grace to you and peace from
Christ Jesus our Lord. I thank God our Father and the Lord
my God—that without ceasing Jesus Christ. I thank my God,
I have remembrance of thee in making mention of thee always
my prayers night and day— in my prayers, blearing of thy
when I call to mind the un- love and faith which thou hast,
feigned faith that is in thee. That the communication of thy
Wherefore I put thee in remem- faith may become effectual, by
brance that thou stir up the gift the acknowledging of every
of God which is in thee, by the good work which is in you in
putting on of my hands. Christ Jesus.
41
Is it not clear, that the feeling of Paul to these two men,
was identically the same ? In this same epistle four other
persons are called fellow-laborers, all of whom were
preachers. And when we find a term used by the same
person, at the same time, in the same letter, but applied to
different persons, are we to give it different significations ?
Again, in this epistle, Paul twice calls Philemon brother,
exclusive of the introduction, in which he says, " Paul and
Timothy our brother," &c. Now this is a term that he
often applies to ministers, but never to one who was not a
minister, so far as we can discover. He often uses the term
brethren to designate Christians generally, and in address¬
ing Christians he not unfrequently speaks of a brother, (their
brother) but no where can I find that he calls a Christian
my brother, or our brother, unless that Christian was a minis¬
ter of the gospel, or one whose calling we do not know.
In a large majority of the cases, we know that it applies to
ministers. I lay them all before the reader that I can
find—confining myself, of course, to Paul's writings:
" Paul an apostle, &c.—and Sosthenes our brother, unto the
church," &c. (1 Cor. i. 1.) "As touching our brother Apol-
los," '&c. (1 Cor. vi. 12.) "Paul an apostle, &c.,
and Timothy our brother." (2 Cor. i. 1.) "I had no
rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus, my brother."
2 Cor i. 13. " Titus," &c., " and we have sent with
him the brother whose praise is in the Gospel throughout
all the churches." 2 Cor. viii. 18. (Dr. Clarke inclines
to the opinion that this brother was Luke, John, or Mark.)
" 1 desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother." 2
Cor. xii. 18. " But, that you may know my affairs,
Tychicus, a beloved brother, and faithful minister in the
Lord." Ephes. vi. 21. "Yet I supposed it necessary to
send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in
labour." Phil. ii. 25. " Paul, an apostle," &c., " and
Timotheus, our brother." Col. i. 1. "All my estate shall
42
Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and
faithful minister." Col. iv. 7. " With Onesimus, a faith¬
ful and beloved brother, and one of you," ver. 9. "And
sent Timotheus our brother." 1 Thess. i. 1. "Paul and
Timothy, our brother, unto Philemon our dearly loved,''
&c. Philem. 1. " Saints are refreshed by thee,
brother" ver. 7. " Above a servant, a brother beloved,"
ver. 16. " Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the
Lord," ver. 20. I have put down every passage from
which it can, with any reason, be inferred that Paul re¬
cognises a person spoken of as his brother; and in every
case, save two, (the cases of Philemon and Onesimus) it
is clear that the person so recognised was a minister of
the Gospel. Now, though there is a marked distinction
between the manner in which Paul speaks of Philemon
and Onesimus under this appellation, I have no doubt but
that Onesimus had laboured in the ministry before he left
Paul, and was expected so to labour afterwards. My
reasons for this opinion will be given presently. It is a
remarkable fact that Paul recognises Philemon oftener as
a brother in this epistle than he does any one else in the
same space in all his writings. He gives him exactly the
character that he gives to Tychicus: brother beloved and
companion in labour. But as though this matter was to
be put beyond dispute, Paul uses another expression
which makes strongly with other proofs : "If thou count
me, therefore, a partner (xoivuvov) receive him as myself."
" If thou count me a friend," says Dr. Clarke. Now I
boldly assert that xoivwvocr has not that signification in any
part of the New Testament. Let the reader judge be¬
tween us. He who is not acquainted with the Greek will
know where the word occurs by the italicised English
words ; he will learn, too, its true meaning from the cases
adduced.
"And say if we had been in the days of our fathers we
43
would not have been partakers with them in the blood of
the prophets." (Matt, xxiii. 30.) " He was astonished" (at
the draught of fishes) "and so were also James and John who
were partners with Simon." (Luke v. 10.) We now come
to Paul's use of the term, which the reader will be pleased
to notice particularly: " The things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and I would not that ye
should have fellowship with devils." (1. Cor. x. 20.)
" Are one bread and one body, for we axe partakers of that
one bread." (Ver. 18.) "Knowing that as ye are par¬
takers of the sufferings, so shall ye also of the consolation."
(2. Cor. i. 7.) " Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my
partner and fellow-helper concerning (2 Cor. viii. 23.)
(Partner—mad fellow-helper—the very language applied to
Philemon, and Titus was a Bishop.) " If thou count me a
partner," receive him. (Phile. 17.) " Partly while ye
were made a gazing-stock, both by reproaches and af¬
flictions, and partly while ye became a companion of them
that were so used." (Heb. x. 23.)
" The Elders I exhort who am an elder and a wit¬
ness of the sufferings of Christ, and also partaker of the
glory that shall be revealed." (1. Pet. v. 1.) "Exceeding
great and precious promises, that by these ye might be par¬
takers of the divine nature." (2. Pet. i. 4.) Here are all
the passages of the New Testament, in which I can find
the word xoivwvoj;; and it invariably designates persons en¬
gaged in the same calling, or sharing the same fortunes. Now
that Paul and Philemon were not sharing a common lot
at this time, every body knows ; and if they were, Paul
could not have known it, for he was in prison in Rome ;
while Philemon was at liberty in Colosse. " Receive him
as myself," says Paul, that is, as you would receive me.
The expression better marks the office, than if Paul had
called Philemon his partner. "Ifyou count me" (your)
" partner," then by our common calling I entreat you to re-
44
ceive Onesimus as you would receive me. Prove by your
reception of Onesimus that you acknowledge me as a part¬
ner. What was Philemon to have understood from this
language, if Paul and he were not fellow-laborers. Did
Paul and he ever unite in any of the petty services of the
Church ? " If you count me" now " a partner." In what
could they be partners, but the ministry; the one being in
Asia Minor, and the other in Europe ! Why did not Timothy,
who joined in the letter, suggest to Paul that this expression
would perplex Philemon ? If Paul meant friend, why did he
not say friend. That was the very term which he ought to
have used, and would have used had Philemon been nothing
nearer to him than a friend. In the same letter Paul says:
" That the communication of thy faith may become effectual,"
&c. Whatever may be the true interpretation of the 6th
verse, which has puzzled commentators much, (and made
them puzzle their readers more) this much of it certainly
imports something very different from common hospitalities
and christian charities. Again ; Paul says, " the bowels
of the saints are refreshed by thee, brotherand strange
to tell this is generally understood as a statement that Phile¬
mon fed the saints. Paul never used the term in this
sense in his life. The term which we render bowels, he in¬
variably used to express the heart or affections. Probably
to express an interest pervading the whole inner man.
Twice does he use the same expression in this very letter;
and I need only cite them to show the fallacy of this ex¬
position : " Receive him," (Onesimus) " that is mine own
bowels." " Yea, brother," (Philemon) " let me have joy of
thee in the Lord : refresh my bowels in the Lord." Here
is the identical expression which is so strangely construed
in the seventh verse. When Paul uttered this last sen¬
tence, he had closed his importunity for Onesimus, as he
was just opening it in the first quoted; and in both, he
was speaking of Philemon's general Christian character
45
and labours. The expression, " Let me have joy of thee
in the Lord; refresh my bowels in the Lord," surely is too
strong, and too unnatural for the interest which Paul felt,
in the forgiveness of the slave; especially when followed
by the declaration, he doubted not that Philemon would do
even more than he requested. Finally, Paul says: " whom"
(Ones.) " I would have retained with me, that in thy
stead he might have ministered to me in the bonds of the
Gospel: but without thy mind would I do nothing." The
general, if not the unanimous opinion of commentators is,
that Paul desired to rethin Onesimus to wait on him in
prison. If this be true, then, Paul only wanted Philemon's
consent to become a slaveholder himself. This conclusion
seems to me inevitable from the premises. What shall
we do ? Shall we hazard the imputation of vanity by
opposing the whole corps of commentators ? Or shall we
admit the soundness of this exposition ? The alternative
is yours, brethren, not mine. If you take the former
branch of it—though it would be somewhat my interest
just at this time to make you " connect Paul with slavery "
—you shall have all the help that I can give you ; for all
the commentators on earth could not persuade me that
this was the kind of ministration for which Paul wished
to retain Onesimus. I throw out a few suggestions for
you to improve upon. What! Paul, who would rather
work with his own hands than become chargeable to any
body, desire to keep another man's slave to wait on him !
Would he have desired thus to use a new convert, of whom
he had just said, "Now, (that he is converted) " profitable
to me and to thee /" Now, that he is " no longer a slave,
but a brother beloved," desire to make a waiter of him !
Receive him, Philemon, " as mine own bowels," but, with thy
consent, I would have kept him to bring me meat and drink !
Receive him, says he to the Church at Colosse, "as a
faithful and beloved brother, and one of younevertheless
46
I should have been pleased to have made a lackey of him!
Paul, whose prison-house was like a general's camp,
thronged by aids who were ever receiving his orders, and
bearing his despatches to all parts of the world ; Paul,
who, at that mement was surrounded by a troop of
brethren, any one of whom would have laid down his
life for him, whose eye was ever out for labourers in his
Master's cause, who expected soon " to be offered up
Paul, under these circumstances, desire to retain his bro¬
ther's slave, just from the bondage of sin, to do the com¬
mon drudgeries of servitude for him ! All this would be
strange enough ; but it ceases to be wonderful, when we
understand Paul as saying that he wished to use the slave
thus, in the place of the master ; and as telling the master
so, to gain his favour ! ! Verily this mars the beauty and
delicacy of the far-famed epistle not a little. I would have
preferred thee, Philemon, my brother, my partner, my dearly
beloved, my fellow-labourer, I would have preferred thee to
Onesimus as a waiter ; that is to say, I would that you quit
the Church in thy house, and your ivife and your servants,
and come over here to Rome, which is but a step of twelve or
fifteen hundred miles, and go of errands for me, but, as I
cannot have you, I would fain keep your servant, if I dare!!
Brethren, never adopt this version. Say that " the bonds
of the Gospel," were not the prison-chamber or fetters
then upon him, but bonds which he endured " for the
Gospel's sake and that the service he required was that
which he would have performed if he were at liberty. 1
" am bound, " said he, " but the word is not bound." He
wanted assistance in nothing but to do his master's work.
" In all things," said he, " I have kept myself from being
a burden to you, and so will I keep myself." The ministry
he referred to was such as he spoke of, 2 Cor. viii.: "that
which is administered by us to the glory of the same Je¬
sus." He did not desire Onesimus to wait upon him, hut
47
under his guidance and counsel, to wait on the Lord
whom he served. I would prefer you, Philemon, who
have assisted me in my ministry, and, now that I am con¬
fined, could far better represent me in this great and glo¬
rious work than your new-born slave, but I could not feel
myself at liberty to invade your rights, even for this noble
purpose, without your consent. This, I take it, is the true
sense of the passage. This preserves the beauty and ten¬
derness of the whole epistle, and breathes an eloquence
into the thirteenth verse more touching and irresistible
than is to be found in any other part of the letter. This
saves Paul from coveting his neighbor's man-servant, and
" being connected with slavery." But, then, it makes both
Philemon and Onesimus preachers, beyond controversy.
Brethren, I have done. I have many solemn reflections to
offer to you upon what has been said, but I reserve them
until I am assured that what I have said is all true. For the
reasons submitted, I am thoroughly convinced, that Phile¬
mon was a holy, zealous minister of the gospel; but a
slaveholder, nevertheless. That he was ardently beloved
by Paul and Timothy, neither of whom dreamed that his
relation to slavery threw the slightest discredit upon his
christian or ministerial character. Nay, that they dis¬
tinctly recognize his authority over his slave, as of a cha¬
racter too sacred to be interfered with, by even an inspired
apostle, for a brief space of time, and for a truly noble
service. If Paul and his colleagues thus esteemed Phil¬
emon, how can you and your colleagues reconcile it to
your consciences to treat Bishop Andrew as you have
treated him, and as you are still treating him ?
A. B. Longstreet.
.
'• ■
■
• • ... ;
.