under no
moral obligation to go back. He might have refused to give him this
letter, and might have so represented to him the dangers of the way, and
the probability of a harsh reception, as effectually to have dissuaded
him from such a purpose. But, in that case, it is clear that this might
have caused hard feeling in the bosom of Philemon, and rather than do
that, he preferred to let him return to his master, and to plead for him
that he might have a kind reception. It is, therefore, by no means
necessary to suppose that Paul felt that Onesimus was under _obligation_
to return, or that he was disposed to _compel_ him, or that Onesimus was
not inclined to return voluntarily; but all the circumstances of the
case are met by the supposition that, if Paul had retained him, Philemon
might conceive that he had injured _him_."

Alas! that so much truth should have been suppressed; and that, too, by
the most glorious champion of truth the world has ever seen. He tells
not his "son Onesimus" that he is under no moral obligation to return to
his master. On the contrary, he leaves him ignorant of his rights--of
his inherent, sacred, and eternal rights. He sees him blindly put off
"the hero," and put on "the brute" again. And why? Because, forsooth, if
he should only speak, _he might cause hard feeling in the bosom of his
master_! Should he retain Onesimus, his son, he would not injure
Philemon at all. But then Philemon "might _conceive_" that he had
injured him. Ah! when will abolitionist again suppress such mighty
truth, lest he disturb some _fancied_ right, or absurd feeling ruffle?
When the volcano of his mind suppress and keep its furious fires in,
lest he consume some petty despot's despicable sway; or else, at least,
touch his tender sensibilities with momentary pain? "_Fiat justitia,
ruat coelum_," is a favorite maxim with other abolitionists. But St.
Paul, it seems, could not assume quite so lofty a tone. He could not
say, "Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall." He could not
even say, "Let justice be done," though the feelings of Philemon should
be hurt.

It is evident, we think, that St. Paul needs to be defended against Mr.
Barnes' defenses of him, and vindicated against his apologies. If,
indeed, he were so pitiful a pleader of "the innocent cause" as Mr.
Barnes would have us to believe he is, then, we ask if those
abolitionists are not in the right who despise both the apostle and his
doctrine? No ot