against slavery as it now exists, the fact cannot be denied, and that fact is not to be called in question in our reasonings on the subject.

It has recently been made a question whether slavery existed in those parts of the Roman empire where the apostles founded churches, and consequently whether they ever in fact came in contact with it. Indeed, it has been maintained by some of the friends of the anti-slavery cause, that there is no reason to think that it existed in Asia Minor in the time of the apostles, and that, consequently, when, in addressing 'masters and servants' in the Epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and in the first Epistle of Peter, there is no evidence that slaves were intended, but that the reference is to a condition of voluntary service. If this could be made out; if it could be demonstrated that there was no slavery in those places to which those epistles were addressed, it would be indeed fair to suppose that the terms used by the apostles did not relate to slavery, and that it could not be proved from those epistles that the apostles ever admitted the masters of slaves to the communion of the church. But even then the whole difficulty would not be met, for in the epistles to Timothy, (1 Epis. vi. 1-3,) and to Titus, (ii. 9, 10,) there is a reference to the same relation, and those epistles have no special reference to Asia Minor, but contain general directions to those who were ministers of the gospel in the church at large.

But, it seems to me, that it is wholly improbable that there were no slaves .in Asia Minor, and, at all events, it cannot be demonstrated that there were none; and if this is so, then it is to be admitted that the passages in those epistles refer to those who sustained the relation of master and slave-and that whatever advantage can be derived from that fact, if any, by the advocates of slavery, the fact is to be conceded. The reasons for this are briefly these: (1.) It is highly improbable that when slavery prevailed so extensively throughout the Roman empire, it should not have existed in Asia Minor. There were no influences at work there, as in Palestine; no

institutions of religion; no principles of liberty to prevent it. (2.) We have seen above that large numbers of Phrygians and Cappadocians were taken as slaves to Rome, and it is a rare thing, perhaps a thing that never has occurred, that slavery did not prevail in a country which furnished slaves for another country. The very fact that Phrygia and Cappadocia were understood to be places from which slaves could be obtained for the capital, would make it necessary to keep them for the market. (3.) There is direct evidence which makes it more than probable that slavery had an existence in the provinces of Asia Minor. It undoubtedly existed all around it, and in such a way that it would naturally exist there also. Thus Timæus asserts that, in early times, before Athens had obtained possession of the commerce of the seas, Corinth had four hundred and sixty thousand slaves. In Sparta, slaves abounded, and the name Helot was synonymous with that of slave. In Attica there were about eighty thousand citizens, and four hundred thousand slaves. After the fall of Corinth, the island of Delos rose into importance as a commercial place, and especially as a mart for slaves. The slave-trade there was so brisk that the port became proverbial for the traffic, and was capable, says Strabo, of importing and re-exporting ten thousand slaves in a single day.* As a matter of fact it is asserted that "there were six thousand slaves which belonged to the temple of a goddess in Cappadocia." Hence the words of Horace, "Mancipiis locuples, eget æris Cappadocum rex." These facts make it morally certain that slavery must have existed in Asia Minor, and that it undoubtedly existed at Ephesus and Colosse. It should be added, (4.) That the most natural and obvious interpretations of the passages in those epistles, is to refer them to the relation of master and slave. This will be shown in the sequel. I am persuaded that no

* See an article in the Biblical Repository on "Slavery in Ancient Greece," by Professor B. B. Edwards, vol. v. pp. 138, seq.

† See Biblical Repository, vol. v. p. 416.

thing can be gained to the cause of anti-slavery by attempting to deny that the apostles found slavery in existence in the regions where they founded churches, and that those sustaining the relation of master and slave were admitted to the churches if they gave real evidence of regeneration, and were regarded by the apostles as entitled to the common participation of the privileges of Christianity. If the argument from the Scriptures against slavery cannot be sustained without admitting that, I do not see that it can be sustained at all.

§ 2. The Apostles did not openly denounce Slavery as an evil, or require that those who were held in bondage should be at once emancipated.

In inquiring into the manner in which the apostles treated the subject of slavery, it is clear that they did not openly and everywhere denounce it as an evil; that they did not make immediate and direct war upon it; that they did not declare that a slaveholder could in no possible circumstances be a Christian; that they did not demand the emancipation of slaves as an indispensable condition of admission to the church; that they did not forbid all fellowship with those who held slaves, or require others wholly to separate from them; and that they did not encourage efforts to promote insurrection among the slaves themselves. These things seem to me to lie on the face of the New Testament, and whatever argument they may furnish to the advocates of slavery, or whatever difficulty they may present to the enemies of slavery in disposing of these facts, it seems plain that the facts themselves cannot be denied.

More particularly, in reference to this point, the following things must be regarded as indisputable :

1. That slaveholders were admitted by the apostles to the Christian church, and were not subjected to immediate discipline for holding slaves; in other words, that where those were converted who held slaves, as probably many were, it

was not required of them in all cases to emancipate their slaves in order that they should become members of the church. This is clear, because (a) it is undeniable that they preached to many who were slaveholders; (b) there is no direct evidence that they required them to emancipate their slaves in order to their being admitted to the church; (c) they addressed those to whom their epistles were directed as in fact still sustaining this relation, though they were members of the church. Eph. vi. 9; Col. iv. 1; 1 Tim. vi. 2, and Titus ii. 9, 10. The passage in 1 Tim. vi. 2, makes this so clear, it seems to me, that it cannot be denied by any one who will candidly and carefully examine the direction of the apostle: "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved." The same thing is taught with equal clearness in 1 Cor. xii. 13: "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles; whether we be bond or free." Here, it is evident, that as there were in the church those who had been Jews, and those who were of Gentile origin, so there were those who were properly described by the word 'bond'-dovno-and those who were described by the word 'free'—ɛɛpol. It is true, that the latter term does not necessarily prove that they were masters or owners of slaves, still the use of the term bond and free' in the same connection would most naturally suggest that. I do not think that an argument could be based on the mere words used here, to prove that they were slaveholders; but in a community where slavery abounded-for example, like that in South Carolina or Georgia, the phrase, the bond and the free,' used in any connection, would most naturally be understood as referring to masters and slaves. The only question which can be raised on this point is, whether the term used in the passages just referred to, oi xípioi, and the corresponding term used in 1 Pet. ii. 18, deoлórns-and rendered in every instance masters, refers to masters in the sense of

proprietors of slaves, or masters in the sense of having those in their employ who were voluntary or hired servants. I admit that so far as the words themselves are concerned, they do not necessarily imply that those to whom they are applied were masters in the former sense, for they would be used, and were often used, to denote those who had those under them who were voluntary servants, and would be the terms which would be naturally employed to denote such a relation. But there are three circumstances which seem to make it clear that the words are used here as denoting those who were the owners of slaves. 1. One is, that the condition of those towards whom they are represented as sustaining the relation of masters, was evidently that of slavery. No one, it seems to me, can doubt that they were slaves. Their condition is not described as one of voluntary service, but as a much harder service-in which they were under the yoke;' in which they were subjected to great hardships; and from which it is said that it would be desirable to be delivered if possible. The evidence of this will appear in another part of the argument. But if this be so,

then it will follow that the terms used in addressing masters were such as denote the owners of slaves. 2. A second thing is, that considering the universal prevalence of slavery where the gospel was preached, it is not probable that any very considerable number would be found who were masters and servants in the sense of a voluntary servitude on the part of the latter. The great mass of those who sustained the relation of master and servant, were those among whom the terms would denote slavery, and it is morally certain that many of them would be brought under the power of the gospel. In other words, it is absurd to suppose that the gospel would be preached in so discriminating a manner that only those would be converted who stood entirely aloof from slavery -both as masters and servants. But unless these terms are used in that sense, there is no reference to the relation in the New Testament, and nothing can be inferred about the views of