He believed in progress. It was contrary to the instinct of human
nature to send back a poor fugitive into bondage, and he was glad for
one that he lived in an age when the innate moral sentiments, under the
lucid teachings of our more transcendental scholars were becoming more
and more the all-sufficient guide in the affairs of life. He would,
therefore, publicly disclaim his allegiance to the teachings of the
Apostle Paul, if, upon reflection, Paul should insist that he was right
in remanding Onesimus to be Philemon's property 'forever;' it was well
enough that he should be sent back to restore what he had taken by
theft, provided Philemon would immediately release him; otherwise, to
steal from Philemon was doing no more than Philemon had done to him, in
taking away that liberty which is the birthright of every human being;
and Onesimus probably stole merely to assist his escape. He was
justifiable in doing so.
"If one should insist that there can be no intrinsic wrong in holding a
fellow-being as property because God allowed Hebrews to sell themselves,
and in certain cases to be servants forever, and directed the Israelites
to buy servants of the heathen round about them, who should be an
inheritance to the children of the Israelites, he would simply say
either that the whole pentateuch which contained such a libel on the
divine character, is thereby proved to be a forgery, or, that if the
pentateuch is to be received, it only proves that in condescension to a
race of freebooters who were employed, as the Israelites were, in bloody
wars of extermination, slavery was allowed them, to prevent, perhaps,
worse evils, and in consistency with their dark-minded, semi-barbarous
condition.
Pages:
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288