[Footnote B:  Verse 11,18.]

[Footnote C:  Verse 18.]

7.  He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus.  How?  “Not as a servant, but above a servant."[A] How much above?  Philemon was to receive him as “a son” of the apostle—­“as a brother beloved”—­nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive Onesimus as he would receive the apostle himself[B].  So much above a servant was he to receive him!

[Footnote A:  Verse 16.]

[Footnote B:  Verse 10, 16, 17.]

8.  But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as “an article of merchandise,” CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a “brother beloved,” SPIRITUALLY?  In other words, might not Philemon consistently with the request of Paul, have reduced Onesimus to a chattel, AS A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, as a CHRISTIAN?  Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle!  Never.  As if, however, to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and moonshine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to the dignity of a brother beloved, “BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE LORD;"[C] as a man and Christian, in all the relations, circumstances, and responsibilities of life.

[Footnote C:  Verse 16.]

It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what sense the apostle in such connections uses the word “brother.”  It describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the servile.  It is “NOT” the relation of a “SERVANT.”  It elevates its subject “above” the servile condition.  It raises him to full equality with the master, to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood side by side as brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, spiritual sense, affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, but in every way, “both in the FLESH and in the Lord.”  This matter deserves particular and earnest attention.  It sheds a strong light on other lessons of apostolic instruction.

9.  It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the apostle clearly defines the moral character of his request.  It was fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relations of things—­a thing which ought to be done.[D] On this account, he might have urged it upon Philemon in the form of an injunction, on apostolic authority and with great boldness.[E] The very nature of the request made it obligatory on Philemon.  He was sacredly bound, out of regard to the fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full equality with himself—­to treat him as a brother both in the Lord and as having flesh—­as a fellow man.  Thus were the inalienable rights and birth-right privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority.

[Footnote D:  Verse 8.  To [Greek:  anaekon].  See Robinson’s New Testament Lexicon; “it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought.”  In what sense King James’ translators used the word “convenient” any one may see who will read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.]