Paul writes a letter to the chief murderer of the
gang, or to the captain of the robbers, sends Onesimus back, and
"beseeches" the brigand for "his son Onesimus," telling him that now he
receives him "forever," and then calls the desperado "our dearly beloved
fellow-laborer"! Why not, with equal propriety, if slavery be,
necessarily, as our brother describes it? There is some mistake in our
brother's theory.
"'I venture to state the distinction which I think he overlooks, and
which, if observed, will relieve his difficulty. Paul never denounces
government; "the powers that be are ordained of God." He appeals to
"Caesar"; he goes before "Nero"; he never counsels insurrection, nor
denounces government, in whatever hands or under whatever forms it may
be; but he enjoins principles and duties which, if observed, would make
"Caesars," even though they be "Neros," blessings, and their despotisms
even would cease to be a curse. So with slave-holding. It is
incorporated into the state of society; it is, moreover, a relation
which can exist and no sin be committed under the relation; hence, it is
not sin in itself, any more than the throne of Nero is sin in itself;
and the Apostle speaks to the slave-holding Philemon as he would to a
father receiving back a wayward son.
Pages:
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297