Philemon he should not have to encounter again the unreasonableness and rage of a heathen, but that he should meet with the justice and tenderness of a Christian—­qualities, with the existence and value of which, he had now come to an experimental acquaintance.  Again, to show that the letter in question does not justify slaveholding—­in what character was it, that Paul sent Onesimus to Philemon?  Was it in that of a slave?  Far from it.  It was, in that of “a brother beloved,” as is evident from his injunction to Philemon to “receive him forever—­not now as a slave, but above a slave—­a brother beloved.”

It is worthy of remark, that Paul’s message to Philemon, shows, not only that he himself was not in favor of slaveholding, but, that he believed the gospel had wrought such an entire change on this subject, in the heart of Philemon, that Onesimus would find on his return to him, the tyrant and the slaveholder sunk in the brother and the Christian.

Paul’s course in relation to Onesimus was such, as an abolitionist would deem it proper to adopt, under the like circumstances.  If a fugitive slave, who had become a dear child of God, were near me, and, if I knew that his once cruel master had also become a “dearly beloved” Christian; and if, therefore, I had reason to believe, as Paul had, in the case of Philemon, that he would “receive him forever—­not now as a slave, but above a slave, a brother beloved,” I would advise him to revisit his old master, provided he could do so, without interference and violence from others.  Such interference and violence did not threaten Onesimus in his return to Philemon.  He was not in danger of being taken up, imprisoned, and sold for his jail fees, as a returning Onesimus would be in parts of this nation.

On the 72d page of your book, you utter sentiments, which, I trust, all your readers will agree, are unworthy of a man, a republican, and a Christian.  You there endeavor again to make it appear, that it is not the relation of master and slave, but only the abuse of it, which is to be objected to.—­You say:  “Independence is a charming idea, especially to Americans:  but what gives it the charm?  Is it the thing in itself? or is it because it is a release from the control of a bad master?  Had Great Britain been a kind master, our ancestors were willing to remain her slaves.”  In reply to this I would say, that it must be a base spirit which does not prize “independence” for its own sake, whatever privation and suffering may attend it; and much more base must be that spirit, which can exchange that “independence” for a state of slavish subjection—­even though that state abound in all sensual gratifications.  To talk of “a kind master” is to talk of a blessing for a dog, but not for a man, who is made to “call no man master.”  Were the people of this nation like yourself, they would soon exchange their blood-bought liberties for subjection to any despot who would promise them enough to eat,