_receive him as myself_." This then surely cannot be forced into a
justification of the practice of returning runaway slaves back to
their masters, to be punished with cruel beatings and scourgings as
they often are. Besides the word [Greek: doulos] here translated
servant, is the same that is made use of in Matt. xviii, 27. Now it
appears that this servant owed his lord ten thousand talents; he
possessed property to a vast amount. Onesimus could not then have been
a _slave_, for slaves do not own their wives, or children; no, not
even their own bodies, much less property. But again, the servitude
which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very different
from American slavery, for he says, "the heir (or son), as long as he
is a child, differeth _nothing from a servant_, though he be lord of
all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time appointed of
the father." From this it appears, that the means of _instruction_
were provided for _servants_ as well as children; and indeed we know
it must have been so among the Jews, because their servants were
not permitted to remain in perpetual bondage, and therefore it was
absolutely necessary they should be prepared to occupy higher stations
in society than those of servants. Is it so at the South, my friends?
Is the daily bread of instruction provided for _your slaves?_ are
their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to rise from
the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members of the
state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience,
answer these questions.

If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, why did he exhort masters-thus
in his epistle to the Ephesians, "and ye, masters, do the same things
unto them (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ,
not unto me) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also
is in heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in