Footnote 718:
_Eth. Nic._ viii. 13 (p. 1161) φιλία δ’ οὐκ ἔστι πρὸς τὰ ἄψυχα οὐδὲ
δίκαιον· ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ πρὸς ἵππον ἢ βοῦν, οὐδὲ πρὸς δοῦλον ᾗ δοῦλος· οὐδὲν
γὰρ κοινόν ἐστιν· ὁ γὰρ δοῦλος ἔμψυχον ὄργανον, τὸ δ’ ὄργανον ἄψυχος
δοῦλος· ᾗ μὲν οὖν δοῦλος, οὐκ ἔστι φιλία πρὸς αὐτόν, ᾗ δ’ ἄνθρωπος
κ.τ.λ. On the views of Aristotle respecting slavery see Becker’s
_Charikles_ III. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the editor K. F.
Hermann’s references to the literature of the subject, p. 5.
Footnote 719:
1 Cor. vii. 21 sq., Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11. With this contrast the
expression attributed to a speaker in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11 ‘quasi vero
curent divina de servis’.
Footnote 720:
Philem. 16.
Footnote 721:
ver. 12.
[Sidenote: Necessity for his return]
But there was an imperious demand for the sacrifice. Onesimus had
repented, but he had not made restitution. He could only do this by
submitting again to the servitude from which he had escaped. Philemon
must be made to feel that, when Onesimus was gained for Christ, he was
regained for his old master also. But if the claim of duty demanded a
great sacrifice from Paul, it demanded a greater still from Onesimus.
[Sidenote: notwithstanding the risk.]By returning he would place himself
entirely at the mercy of the master whom he had wronged. Roman law, more
cruel than Athenian, practically imposed no limits to the power of the
master over his slave[722]. The alternative of life or death rested
solely with Philemon, and slaves were constantly crucified for far
lighter offences than his[723]. A thief and a runaway, he laid no claim
to forgiveness.
Footnote 722:
_Dig._ i. 6 ‘In potestate sunt servi dominorum; quae quidem potestas
juris gentium est: nam apud omnes peraeque gentes animadvertere
possumus dominis in servos vitae necisque potestatem fuisse’. Comp.
Senec. _de Clem._ i. 18 ‘Cum in servum omnia liceant’.
Footnote 723:
So the mistress in Juv. _Sat._ vi. 219 sq. ‘Pone crucem servo. Meruit
quo crimine servus supplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit?... O
demens, ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto. Hoc volo, sic jubeo,
etc.’ Compare the words of the slave in Plautus _Mil. Glor._ ii. 4. 19
‘Noli minitari: scio crucem futuram mihi sepulcrum: Ibi mei sunt
majores siti, pater, avos, proavos, abavos’.
[Sidenote: Mediation of Tychicus]
[Sidenote: supplemented by the Apostle’s letter.]
A favourable opportunity occurred for restoring Onesimus to his master.
Tychicus, as the bearer of letters from the Apostle to Laodicea and
Colossæ, had occasion to visit those parts. He might undertake the
office of mediator, and plead the cause of the penitent slave with the
offended master. Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he
encountered Philemon alone. But St Paul is not satisfied with this
precaution. He will with his own hand write a few words of eager
affectionate entreaty, identifying himself with the cause of Onesimus.
So he takes up his pen.
[Sidenote: Analysis of the letter.]
After the opening salutation to Philemon and the members of his family,
he expresses his thankfulness for the report which has reached his ears
of his friend’s charitable deeds. It is a great joy and encouragement to
the Apostle that so many brethren have had cause to bless his name. This
wide-spread reputation for kindliness emboldens him to reveal his object
in writing. Though he has a right to command, he prefers rather to
entreat. He has a petition to prefer on behalf of a child of his own.
This is none other than Onesimus, whom Philemon will remember only as a
worthless creature, altogether untrue to his name, but who now is a
reformed man. He would have wished to detain Onesimus, for he can ill
afford to dispense with his loving services. Indeed Philemon would
doubtless have been glad thus to minister vicariously to the Apostle’s
wants. But a benefit which wears the appearance of being forced, whether
truly so or not, loses all its value, and therefore he sends him back.
Nay, there may have been in this desertion a Divine providence which it
would ill become him Paul to thwart. Onesimus may have been withheld
from Philemon for a time, that he might be restored to him for ever. He
may have left as a slave, that he might return more than a slave. To
others—to the Apostle himself especially—he is now a dearly beloved
brother. Must he not be this and more than this to Philemon, whether in
earthly things or in heavenly things? He therefore begs Philemon to
receive Onesimus as he would receive himself. As for any injury that he
may have done, as for any money that he may owe, the Apostle makes
himself responsible for this. The present letter may be accepted as a
bond, a security for repayment. Yet at the same time he cannot refrain
from reminding Philemon that he might fairly claim the remission of so
small an amount. Does not his friend owe to him his own soul besides?
Yes, he has a right to look for some filial gratitude and duty from one
to whom he stands in the relation of a spiritual father. Philemon will
surely not refuse him this comfort in his many trials. He writes in the
full confidence that he will be obeyed; he is quite sure that his friend
will do more than is asked of him. At the same time he trusts to see him
before very long, and to talk over this and other matters. Philemon may
provide him a lodging: for he hopes through their prayers that he may be
liberated, and given back to them. Then follow the salutations, and the
letter ends with the Apostle’s benediction.
[Sidenote: Result of the appeal.]
Of the result of this appeal we have no certain knowledge. It is
reasonable to suppose however that Philemon would not belie the
Apostle’s hopes; that he would receive the slave as a brother; that he
would even go beyond the expressed terms of the Apostle’s petition, and
emancipate the penitent. But all this is a mere conjecture. One
tradition makes Onesimus bishop of Ephesus[724]. But this obviously
arises from a confusion with his namesake, who lived about half a
century later[725]. [Sidenote: Legendary history.]Another story points
to Berœa in Macedonia as his see[726]. This is at least free from the
suspicion of having been suggested by any notice in the Apostolic
writings: but the authority on which it rests does not entitle it to
much credit. The legend of his missionary labours in Spain and of his
martyrdom at Rome may have been built on the hypothesis of his
continuing in the Apostle’s company, following in the Apostle’s
footsteps, and sharing the Apostle’s fate. Another story, which gives a
circumstantial account of his martyrdom at Puteoli, seems to confuse him
with a namesake who suffered, or was related to have suffered, in the
Decian persecution[727].
Footnote 724:
See _Acta Sanct. Boll._ xvi Febr. (II. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the
authorities, if they deserve the name.
Footnote 725:
If we take the earlier date of the Epistles of St Ignatius, A.D. 107,
we get an interval of 44 years between the Onesimus of St Paul and the
Onesimus of Ignatius. It is not altogether impossible therefore that
the same person may be intended. But on the other hand the language of
Ignatius (_Ephes._ 1 sq.) leaves the impression that he is speaking of
a person comparatively young and untried in office.
Footnote 726:
_Apost. Const._ vii. 46, quoted above, p. 372, note 676.
Footnote 727:
For these ecclesiastical legends see _Act. Sanct._ l.c. p. 858 sq.
[Sidenote: Depreciation of the epistle in early times.]
The estimate formed of this epistle at various epochs has differed
widely. In the fourth century there was a strong bias against it. The
‘spirit of the age’ had no sympathy with either the subject or the
handling. Like the spirit of more than one later age, it was enamoured
of its own narrowness, which it mistook for largeness of view, and it
could not condescend to such trivialities as were here offered to it.
Its maxim seemed to be _De minimis non curat evangelium_. Of what
account was the fate of a single insignificant slave, long since dead
and gone, to those before whose eyes the battle of the creeds was still
raging? This letter taught them nothing about questions of theological
interest, nothing about matters of ecclesiastical discipline; and
therefore they would have none of it. They denied that it had been
written by St Paul. It mattered nothing to them that the Church from the
earliest ages had accepted it as genuine, that even the remorseless
‘higher criticism’ of a Marcion had not ventured to lay hands on
it[728]. It was wholly unworthy of the Apostle. If written by him, they
contended, it must have been written when he was not under the influence
of the Spirit: its contents were altogether so unedifying. [Sidenote:
Reply of the fathers.]We may infer from the replies of Jerome[729], of
Chrysostom[730], and of Theodore of Mopsuestia[731], that they felt
themselves to be stemming a fierce current of prejudice which had set in
this direction. But they were strong in the excellence of their cause,
and they nobly vindicated this epistle against its assailants.
Footnote 728:
Hieron. _Comm. in Philem._ Præf. VII. p. 743 ‘Pauli esse epistolam ad
Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore doceantur: qui, quum cæteras
epistolas ejusdem vel non susceperit vel quædam in his mutaverit atque
corroserit, in hanc solam manus non est ausus mittere, quia sua illam
brevitas defendebat’. St Jerome has in his mind the passage of
Tertullian _adv. Marc._ v. 21 ‘Soli huic epistolæ brevitas sua
profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet’.
Footnote 729:
_ib._ p. 742 sq. ‘Qui nolunt inter epistolas Pauli eam recipere quæ ad
Philemonem scribitur, aiunt non semper apostolum nec omnia Christo in
se loquente dixisse, quia nec humana imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti
Spiritus ferre potuisset etc.... His et cæteris istius modi volunt aut
epistolam non esse Pauli quæ ad Philemonem scribitur aut, etiamsi
Pauli sit, nihil habere quod ædificare nos possit etc.... sed mihi
videntur, dum epistolam simplicitatis arguunt, suam imperitiam
prodere, non intelligentes quid in singulis sermonibus virtutis et
sapientiæ lateat’.
Footnote 730:
_Argum. in Philem._ ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ τινές φασι περιττὸν εἶναι τὸ καὶ
τάυτην προσκεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, εἴγε ὑπὲρ πράγματος μικροῦ ἠξίωσεν,
ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἀνδρός, μαθέτωσαν ὅσοι ταῦτα ἐγκαλοῦσιν ὅτι μυρίων εἰσὶν
ἐγκλημάτων ἄξιοι κ.τ.λ., and he goes on to discuss the value of the
epistle at some length.
Footnote 731:
_Spicil. Solesm._ I. W. 149 ‘Quid vero ex ea lucri possit acquiri,
convenit manifestius explicare, quia nec omnibus id existimo posse
esse cognitum; quod maxime heri jam ipse a nobis disseri postulasti’;
_ib._ p. 152 ‘De his et nunc superius dixi, quod non omnes similiter
arbitror potius se (potuisse?) prospicere’.
[Sidenote: High estimate of modern writers.]
In modern times there has been no disposition to under-rate its value.
Even Luther and Calvin, whose bias tended to the depreciation of the
ethical as compared with the doctrinal portions of the scriptures, show
a true appreciation of its beauty and significance. [Sidenote:
Luther.]‘This epistle’, writes Luther, ‘showeth a right noble lovely
example of Christian love. Here we see how St Paul layeth himself out
for poor Onesimus, and with all his means pleadeth his cause with his
master: and so setteth himself as if he were Onesimus, and had himself
done wrong to Philemon. Even as Christ did for us with God the Father,
thus also doth St Paul for Onesimus with Philemon.... We are all his
Onesimi, to my thinking’. [Sidenote: Calvin.]‘Though he handleth a
subject’, says Calvin, ‘which otherwise were low and mean, yet after his
manner he is borne up aloft unto God. With such modest entreaty doth he
humble himself on behalf of the lowest of men, that scarce anywhere else
is the gentleness of his spirit portrayed more truly to the life.’ And
the chorus of admiration has been swelled by later voices from the most
opposite quarters. [Sidenote: Later writers.]‘The single Epistle to
Philemon,’ says one quoted by Bengel, ‘very far surpasses all the wisdom
of the world’[732]. ‘Nowhere’, writes Ewald, ‘can the sensibility and
warmth of a tender friendship blend more beautifully with the loftier
feeling of a commanding spirit, a teacher and an Apostle, than in this
letter, at once so brief, and yet so surpassingly full and
significant[733].’ ‘A true little chef d’œuvre of the art of
letter-writing,’ exclaims M. Renan characteristically[734]. ‘We have
here’, writes Sabatier, ‘only a few familiar lines, but so full of
grace, of salt, of serious and trustful affection, that this short
epistle gleams like a pearl of the most exquisite purity in the rich
treasure of the New Testament[735]’. Even Baur, while laying violent
hands upon it, is constrained to speak of this ‘little letter’ as
‘making such an agreeable impression by its attractive form’ and as
penetrated ‘with the noblest Christian spirit’[736].
Footnote 732:
Franke _Præf. N. T. Græc._ p. 26, 27, quoted by Bengel on Philem. 1.
Footnote 733:
_Die Sendschreiben_ etc. p. 458.
Footnote 734:
_L’Antechrist_ p. 96.
Footnote 735:
_L’Apôtre Paul_ p. 194. He goes on to say; ‘Never has the precept
which Paul himself gave at the end of his letter to the Colossians
been better realised, ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος
κ.τ.λ. (Col. iv. 6).’
Footnote 736:
_Paulus_ p. 476.
[Sidenote: The epistle compared with a letter of Pliny,]
The Epistle to Philemon has more than once been compared with the
following letter addressed to a friend by the younger Pliny on a
somewhat similar occasion[737]:
Your freedman, with whom you had told me you were vexed, came to me, and
throwing himself down before me clung to my feet, as if they had been
yours. He was profuse in his tears and his entreaties; he was profuse
also in his silence. In short, he convinced me of his penitence. I
believe that he is indeed a reformed character, because he feels that he
has done wrong. You are angry, I know; and you have reason to be angry,
this also I know: but mercy wins the highest praise just when there is
the most righteous cause for anger. You loved the man, and, I hope, will
continue to love him: meanwhile it is enough, that you should allow
yourself to yield to his prayers. You may be angry again, if he deserves
it; and in this you will be the more readily pardoned if you yield now.
Concede something to his youth, something to his tears, something to
your own indulgent disposition. Do not torture him, lest you torture
yourself at the same time. For it _is_ torture to you, when one of your
gentle temper is angry. I am afraid lest I should appear not to ask but
to compel, if I should add my prayers to his. Yet I will add them the
more fully and unreservedly, because I scolded the man himself with
sharpness and severity; for I threatened him straitly that I would never
ask you again. This I said to him, for it was necessary to alarm him;
but I do not use the same language to you. For perchance I shall ask
again, and shall be successful again; only let my request be such, as it
becomes me to prefer and you to grant. Farewell.
Footnote 737:
Plin. _Ep._ ix. 21.
[Sidenote: as an expression of character.]
The younger Pliny is the noblest type of a true Roman gentleman, and
this touching letter needs no words of praise. Yet, if purity of diction
be excepted, there will hardly be any difference of opinion in awarding
the palm to the Christian Apostle. As an expression of simple dignity,
of refined courtesy, of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection,
the Epistle to Philemon stands unrivalled. And its pre-eminence is the
more remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It owes
nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely to the
spirit of the writer.
[Sidenote: Its higher interest.]
But the interest which attaches to this short epistle as an expression
of individual character is far less important than its significance as
exhibiting the attitude of Christianity to a widely spread and
characteristic social institution of the ancient world.
[Sidenote: Slavery among the Hebrews.]
Slavery was practised by the Hebrews under the sanction of the Mosaic
law, not less than by the Greeks and Romans. But though the same in
name, it was in its actual working something wholly different. The
Hebrew was not suffered either by law-giver or by prophet to forget that
he himself had been a bondman in the land of Egypt; and all his
relations to his dependents were moulded by the sympathy of this
recollection. His slaves were members of his family; they were members
also of the Holy Congregation. They had their religious, as well as
their social, rights. If Hebrews, their liberty was secured to them
after six years’ service at the outside. If foreigners, they were
protected by the laws from the tyranny and violence of their masters.
Considering the conditions of ancient society, and more especially of
ancient warfare, slavery as practised among the Hebrews was probably an
escape from alternatives which would have involved a far greater amount
of human misery. Still even in this form it was only a temporary
concession, till the fulness of time came, and the world was taught that
‘in Christ is neither bond nor free[738]’.
Footnote 738:
On slavery among the Hebrews see the admirable work of Prof. Goldwin
Smith _Does the Bible sanction American slavery?_ p. 1 sq.
Among the Jews the slaves formed only a small fraction of the whole
population[739]. They occupy a very insignificant place in the pictures
of Hebrew life and history which have been handed down to us. [Sidenote:
Large number of slaves in Greece and Rome.]But in Greece and Rome the
case was far different. In our enthusiastic eulogies of free,
enlightened, democratic Athens, we are apt to forget that the interests
of the many were ruthlessly sacrificed to the selfishness of the few.
The slaves of Attica on the most probable computation were about four
times as numerous as the citizens, and about three times as numerous as
the whole free population of the state, including the resident
aliens[740]. They were consigned for the most part to labour in gangs in
the fields or the mines or the factories, without any hope of bettering
their condition. In the light of these facts we see what was really
meant by popular government and equal rights at Athens. The proportions
of the slave population elsewhere were even greater. In the small island
of Ægina, scarcely exceeding forty English square miles in extent, there
were 470,000 slaves; in the contracted territory of Corinth there were
not less than 460,000[741]. The statistics of slave-holding in Italy are
quite as startling. We are told that wealthy Roman landowners sometimes
possessed as many as ten or twenty thousand slaves, or even more[742].
We may indeed not unreasonably view these vague and general statements
with suspicion: but it is a fact that, a few years before the Christian
era, one Claudius Isidorus left by will more than four thousand slaves,
though he had incurred serious losses by the civil war[743].
Footnote 739:
In Ezra ii. 65 the number of slaves compared with the number of free
is a little more than one to six.
Footnote 740:
Boeckh _Public Economy of Athens_ p. 35 sq. According to a census
taken by Demetrius Phalereus there were in the year 309 B. C. 21,000
citizens, 10,000 residents, and 400,000 slaves (Ctesicles in Athen.
vi. p. 272 B). This would make the proportion of slaves to citizens
nearly twenty to one. It is supposed however that the number of
citizens here includes only adult males, whereas the number of slaves
may comprise both sexes and all ages. Hence Boeckh’s estimate which is
adopted in the text. For other calculations see Wallon _Histoire de
l’Esclavage_ I. p. 221 sq.
Footnote 741:
Athen. _l.c._ p. 272 B, D. The statement respecting Ægina is given on
the authority of Aristotle; that respecting Corinth on the authority
of Epitimæus.
Footnote 742:
Athen. _l.c._ Ῥωμαίων ἕκαστος ... πλείστους ὅσους κεκτημένος οἰκέτας·
καὶ γὰρ μυρίους καὶ δισμυρίους καὶ ἔτι πλείους δὲ πάμπολλοι κέκτηνται.
See Becker _Gallus_ II. p. 113 (ed. 3).
Footnote 743:
Plin. _N.H._ xxxiii. 47.
[Sidenote: Cruelty of Roman law towards slaves.]
And these vast masses of human beings had no protection from Roman
law[744]. The slave had no relationships, no conjugal rights.
Cohabitation was allowed to him at his owner’s pleasure, but not
marriage. His companion was sometimes assigned to him by lot[745]. The
slave was absolutely at his master’s disposal; for the smallest offence
he might be scourged, mutilated, crucified, thrown to the wild
beasts[746]. Only two or three years before the letter to Philemon was
written, and probably during St Paul’s residence in Rome, a terrible
tragedy had been enacted under the sanction of the law[747]. [Sidenote:
Murder of Pedanius Secundus.]Pedanius Secundus, a senator, had been
slain by one of his slaves in a fit of anger or jealousy. The law
demanded that in such cases all the slaves under the same roof at the
time should be put to death. On the present occasion four hundred
persons were condemned to suffer by this inhuman enactment. The populace
however interposed to rescue them, and a tumult ensued. The Senate
accordingly took the matter into deliberation. Among the speakers C.
Cassius strongly advocated the enforcement of the law. ‘The disposition
of slaves,’ he argued, ‘were regarded with suspicion by our ancestors,
even when they were born on the same estates or in the same houses and
learnt to feel an affection for their masters from the first. Now
however, when we have several nations among our slaves, with various
rites, with foreign religions or none at all, it is not possible to keep
down such a rabble except by fear.’ These sentiments prevailed, and the
law was put in force. But the roads were lined by a military guard, as
the prisoners were led to execution, to prevent a popular outbreak. This
incident illustrates not only the heartless cruelty of the law, but also
the social dangers arising out of slavery. Indeed the universal distrust
had already found expression in a common proverb,‘As many enemies as
slaves[748].’ But this was not the only way in which slavery avenged
itself on the Romans. The spread of luxury and idleness was a direct
consequence of the state of things. Work came to be regarded as a low
and degrading, because a servile occupation. Meanwhile sensuality in its
vilest forms was fostered by the tremendous power which placed the slave
at the mercy of the master’s worst passions[749].
Footnote 744:
On the condition of Greek and Roman slaves the able and exhaustive
work of Wallon _Histoire de l’Esclavage dans l’Antiquité_ (Paris 1847)
is the chief authority. See also Becker and Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._
v. 1. p. 139 sq.; Becker _Charikles_ II. p. 1 sq., _Gallus_ II. p. 99
sq. The practical working of slavery among the Romans is placed in its
most favourable light in Gaston Bossier, _La Religion Romaine_ II. p.
343 sq. (Paris 1874).
Footnote 745:
_Röm. Alterth._ l.c. p. 184 sq.; _Gallus_ II. p. 144 sq. In this, as
in other respects, the cruelty of the legislature was mitigated by the
humanity of individual masters; and the inscriptions show that male
and female slaves in many cases were allowed to live together through
life as man and wife, though the law did not recognise or secure their
union. It was reserved for Constantine to take the initiative in
protecting the conjugal and family rights of slaves by legislature;
_Cod. Theod._ ii. 25. 1.
Footnote 746:
Wallon II. p. 177 sq.; _Röm. Alterth._ l.c.; _Gallus_ II. p. 145 sq.;
Rein _Privatrecht der Römer_ p. 552 sq. Hadrian first took away from
masters the power of life and death over their slaves; Spart. _Vit.
Hadr._ 18 ‘Servos a dominis occidi vetuit eosque jussit damnari per
judices, si digni essent’. For earlier legislative enactments which
had afforded a very feeble protection to slaves, see below p. 393.
Footnote 747:
Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 42. This incident took place A. D. 61. The law in
question was the _Senatusconsultum Silonianum_, passed under Augustus
A. D. 10.
Footnote 748:
Senec. _Ep. Mor._ 47 ‘Deinde ejusdem arrogantiæ proverbium jactatur
_totidem hostes esse quot servos_’; comp. Macrob. i. II. 13. See also
Festus p. 261 (Ed. Mueller) ‘_Quot servi tot hostes_ in proverbio
est.’]
Footnote 749:
See the saying of Haterius in the elder Seneca _Controv._ iv. Præf.,
‘Impudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, _in servo necessitas_, in liberto
officium’, with its context. Wallon (I. p. 332) sums up the condition
of the slave thus: ‘L’esclave appartenait au maître: par lui même, il
n’était rien, il n’avait rien. Voilà le principe; et tout ce qu’on en
peut tirer par voie de conséquence formait aussi, en fait, l’état
commun des esclaves dans la plupart des pays. A toutes les époques,
dans toutes les situations de la vie, cette autorité souveraine plane
sur eux et modifie leur destinée par ses rigueurs comme par son
indifference. Dans l’âge de la force et dans la plénitude de leurs
facultés, elle les vouait, à son choix, soit au travail, soit au vice;
au travail les natures grossières; au vice, les natures plus
délicates, nourries pour le plaisir du maître, et qui lorsqu’il en
était las, étaient reléguées dans la prostitution a son profit. Avant
et après l’âge du travail, abandonnés a leur faiblesse ou a leurs
infirmités; enfants, ils grandissaient dans le désordre; viellards,
ils mouraient souvent dans la misère; morts, ils étaient quelquefois
délaissés sur la voie publique....’
[Sidenote: Christianity not revolutionary.]
With this wide-spread institution Christianity found itself in conflict.
How was the evil to be met? Slavery was inwoven into the texture of
society; and to prohibit slavery was to tear society into shreds.
Nothing less than a servile war with its certain horrors and its
doubtful issues must have been the consequence. Such a mode of operation
was altogether alien to the spirit of the Gospel. ‘The New Testament’,
it has been truly said, ‘is not concerned with any political or social
institutions; for political and social institutions belong to particular
nations and particular phases of society’. ‘Nothing marks the divine
character of the Gospel more than its perfect freedom from any appeal to
the spirit of political revolution[750]’. It belongs to all time: and
therefore, instead of attacking special abuses, it lays down universal
principles which shall undermine the evil.
Footnote 750:
G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ pp. 95, 96.
[Sidenote: St Paul’s treatment of the case of Onesimus.]
Hence the Gospel never directly attacks slavery as an institution: the
Apostles never command the liberation of slaves as an absolute duty. It
is a remarkable fact that St Paul in this epistle stops short of any
positive injunction. The word ‘emancipation’ seems to be trembling on
his lips, and yet he does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take
the runaway slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him
with all affection; to regard him no more as a slave but as a brother;
to treat him with the same consideration, the same love, which he
entertains for the Apostle himself to whom he owes everything. In fact
he tells him to do very much more than emancipate his slave, but this
one thing he does not directly enjoin. St Paul’s treatment of this
individual case is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity
towards slavery in general.
[Sidenote: His language respecting slavery elsewhere.]
Similar also is his language elsewhere. Writing to the Corinthians, he
declares the absolute equality of the freeman and the slave in the sight
of God[751]. It follows therefore that the slave may cheerfully
acquiesce in his lot, knowing that all earthly distinctions vanish in
the light of this eternal truth. If his freedom should be offered to
him, he will do well to accept it, for it puts him in a more
advantageous position[752]: but meanwhile he need not give himself any
concern about his lot in life. So again, when he addresses the Ephesians
and Colossians on the mutual obligations of masters and slaves, he is
content to insist on the broad fact that both alike are slaves of a
heavenly Master, and to enforce the duties which flow from its
recognition[753]. He has no word of reproach for the masters on the
injustice of their position; he breathes no hint to the slaves of a
social grievance needing redress.
Footnote 751: