The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-01-06
SLAVE Oh SERVANT.
To the Editor Of tie National Era

20 the Editor o. the National Era
DEAR SIR In the Fro of December I'd, /
have just seen, under the head of " Correction
of an Error" O criticism signed l.. T., which
has somewhat the air of rebuke to YOU, that
you have allowed me $50 inoulcate an error y
in my communication on the Right of Prop
erty in Man. hlthe Era of November 10th
and to me, for the inculcation of that error,
The alleged error is, that | called Onesimus
the fugitive slave" of Philemon. As in YOUR
introduction you say you had overlooked
this expression | infer that you agree with L.
T., that it was an error, and would have ex-
plunged it had you noticed it; but if, under the
impression that the Era should be kent free
from oil heresy on Anti-Slavery subjects diff.
ferences of opinion on disputed points or even
supposed errors, not important to the argu-
ments of freedom are to be excluded, it is to be
feared that the Era will not be able to main
tain the character for hberality and liberation
to which it is so justly entitled
In the present case, | rejoice that you over.
looked this supposed error, which | believe to
be truth; as the omission of il would have
much diminished the force of my argument
against the scriptural authority for Slavery.
Next to the absurd differences drawn by slave
holders from the curse of Ham, there is no
transaction recorded in the Bible, more urged
by them in justification o. their institution.
than the return Of Onesmus by st. Paul and
it was important to show, that taking their
own ground-that he was an escaped slave
the eplstle accompanying his return was de-
cided protest against Slavery, instead of being
vindicahon OF it. as they contend Had rep,
resented him as only hired servant it would
| have been said that rested my argument on
that fact and that being denied, the argument
was invalid.
l.. 1. says for the thousandth tine, that Gin
PauPs admirable Epstle 10 Philemon, the
word slave is not found" II is true that tho
English word slave" is not there, for st. Pau
did not write in English. do not know that
the word is to be found in the Bible the trans
iators did not use it; but he admits that do,llo
sometimes means "slape ~ and as that WORD
does occur in the Epstle, it cqnnot be positive
r., that no mJnrIoH osg slave z ioIn,
there. confess myself to be one of thos
Anti-Slayery writer's, who concede (not con
cede' but claim) that doulos in the Epistl
means slave" because it strengthens the arru
ment that Christianity strikes from the arm
the letters Of Slavery agree that we shout,
mot wrest Scripture to strengthen this argu
l Aaohe out ogpichcuu tffr Ur0nfDftiOI
does not apply to this case. | am sure that m,
friend L. r., for whom have the highest re
gard, is too liberal, and knows me too we'll I.
lmpute to me the attempt to wrest Scripture
knowingly to strengthen any argument; he
thinks the probability is that Onesimus wa.
not slave, but had obligated himself in some
other way, He will, trust credit me when
sincerely assert the heresy of believing that he
was slave, for reasons which cannot com.
prise in this communication and indeed do
not desire to, as think The friends of freedom
will he much better employed in strengthening
the argument against the right of property in
man, than in controversies or corrections on
unimportant questions involved ia it.
cannot close this communication without
rendering you, MIR. Editor, my warmest thanks
that you published my former one, November
llth,l as consider the question which it treats
as fundamental to the whole Anti-Slavery con.
troversy, and am very DESTROYS that the advo-
Gates of freedom should turn more of their at
tention to it. ] am confident that you and our
mutual friend l.. T. agree with me in the main
scope of my argument upon it. You are both
engaged in glorious course; and any aid in
ii my feeble efforts may give, you may COM
mand. JP.B