that the Apostle was afraid to meddle with it, I
reply, that there was never anything yet that Paul was afraid to meddle
with, if it was right to do so. He "meddled" with Diana of the Ephesians
and her craftsmen; he "meddled" with the "beasts" there; he "meddled"
with idolatry on Mars Hill at Athens, I being witness; he has been
beaten, stoned, imprisoned, and is now the second time before Nero for
his life. Afraid to "meddle" with slavery! I am ashamed of the man who
makes the suggestion. He who thinks it, has never yet understood him.

"'Now, where in all his teachings has he ever intimated that it is wrong
to hold property in man? Nowhere; I repeat it, nowhere. But is he
ignorant of the nature of slavery? We all know what has lately happened
at Rome, in connection with slavery. The very year that Paul arrives at
Rome, the prefect of the city, Pedanius Secundus, was murdered by his
slave; and agreeably to the laws of slavery all the slaves belonging to
the prefect, a great number, women and children among them, were put to
death indiscriminately, though innocent of the crime.[A] Such is slavery
under the Apostle's eye; and yet'--

[Footnote A: Tacitus, _Annals_, xiv. 42.--A thrilling tale. See
Bohn's Classical Library, 53.]

"'And, therefore,' interrupted the Laodicean brother, 'the Apostle
approves of murdering innocent slaves for the sin of one. That is the
conclusion to which your reasoning will bring us.'

"'Excusing the brother for interrupting me, I ask, Is that agreeable to
the plain facts in the case?' said the speaker. 'Are the abuses of
parentage chargeable upon the relationship of parent and child?
Moreover, does not the Apostle expressly teach us, in this Epistle, that
such things are wrong? but still, does he condemn the relation of master
and slave?

"'The tale of that horrid butchery was present to the mind of the
Apostle when he sends Onesimus back into slavery. Moreover, he knew that
by our laws Philemon could put Onesimus to death; yet he sends him back.

"'It is said by my brother that Paul enunciated principles which in time
would kill slavery, and therefore he did not care to denounce it, but
prudently let it alone. What else, I inquire, did Paul fail to denounce?
and why is this "enormous wrong," this "stupendous injustice," alone,
left to die, without being attacked? No, Paul treated slavery as he did
all other forms of government; he did not denounce government, not even
its despoti