his master, whom he had found in Rome. Paul knew the slave, and when he was converted, and he had ascertained that he was a runaway from Colosse, and that he belonged to Philemon, a friend of his, and a member of the church, he immediately wrote a letter, gave it to the slave, and directed him to return again to his master, Philemon. Had not this slave been converted to Christianity, he never would have obeyed St. Paul in this matter, nor would he have troubled himself about it. But, as the slave was now, by his association with the members of the church, thrown under the care of the apostle, it was proper for that great minister of the faith to take the matter in hand, as justice demanded the return of the servant to his master and owner again; to which the slave willingly consented for righteousness's sake, as he had become obedient to the word of God. Had St. Paul had any particular objection to the principle of slavery, as applied to the descendants of Ham, now was the time for him to have stated it, and in language the most unequivocal, such as the scribes of abolitionism, now-a-days, would have written on the occasion, which would have been pretty strong, no doubt; but of such objections, we hear not a word from the pen of that apostle.
At this point of our remarks, we have a most doleful circumstance to present, which, according to the views of abolitionists, must have been a glaring breach, even of the law of Moses, as well as of the benevolent intentions of the Gospel. This circumstance, or deed of misdemeanor, is found to have been perpetrated by St. Paul himself, and related to the
