plete
household is that which consists of slaves and freemen, ([Greek: oikia
de teleios ek doulon kai eleutheron],) and he defines a slave to be a
living working-tool and possession. ([Greek: Ho doulos empsychon,
organon], Ethic. Nicim. viii. 13; [Greek: ho doulos ktema ti empsychon],
Pol. i. 4.) Thus Aristotle himself defines the [Greek: doulos] to be,
not a "servant of any kind," but a slave; and we presume that he
understood the force of this Greek word at least as well as Mr. Barnes
or Mr. Sumner. And Dr. Robinson, as we have just seen, declares that it
never means a hired servant.

Indeed, all this is so well understood by Greek scholars, that Dr.
Macknight does not hesitate to render the term [Greek: doulos], applied
to Onesimus in the Epistle to Philemon, by the English word _slave_. He
has not even added a footnote, as is customary with him when he deems
any other translation of a word than that given by himself at all worthy
of notice. In like manner, Moses Stuart just proceeds to call Onesimus
"the slave of Philemon," as if there could be no ground for doubt on so
plain a point. Such is the testimony of these two great Biblical
critics, who devoted their lives in great measure to the study of the
language, literature, and interpretation of the Epistles of the New
Testament.

Now, it should be observed, that not one of the authorities quoted by us
had any motive "to pervert texts," or "to invent authorities," "in
support of slavery." Neither Donnegan, nor Liddell and Scott, nor
Stephens, nor Schleusner, nor Robinson, nor Smith, nor Macknight, nor
Stuart, could possibly have had any such motive. If they were not all
perfectly unbiassed witnesses, it is certain they had no bias in favor
of slavery. It is, indeed, the abolitionist, and not the slaveholder,
who, in this case, "has perverted texts;" and if he has not "invented
authorities," it is because his attempts to do so have proved abortive.

Beside the clear and unequivocal import of the word applied to Onesimus,
it is evident, from other considerations, that he was the slave of
Philemon. To dwell upon all of these would, we fear, be more tedious
than profitable to the reader. Hence we shall confine our attention to a
single circumstance, which will, we think, be sufficient for any candid
or impartial inquirer after truth. Among the arguments used by St. Paul
to induce Philemon to receive his fugitive slave kindly, we find this:
"For perhaps he therefore d