Again, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn slavery, for he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be said he sent him back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus was not thrown into prison and then sent back in chains to his master, as your runaway slaves often are--this could not possibly have been the case, because you know Paul as a Jew, was _bound to protect_ the runaway; _he had no right_ to send _any_ fugitive back to his master. The state of the case then seems to have been this. Onesimus had been an unprofitable servant to Philemon and left him--he afterwards became converted under the Apostle's preaching, and seeing that he had been to blame in his conduct, and desiring by future fidelity to atone for past error, he wished to return, and the Apostle gave him the letter we now have as a recommendation to Philemon, informing him of the conversion of Onesimus, and entreating him as "Paul the aged" "to receive him, _not_ now as a _servant_, but _above_ a servant, a _brother beloved_, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count _me_ therefore as a partner, _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 _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. And what is still more surprising, if he was a _slave_, is, that "forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded _him_ to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." Whoever heard of a slaveholder selling a _slave_ and his family to pay himself a debt due to him from a _slave_? What would he gain by it when the slave is himself his _property_, and his wife and children also? 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