Christianity and slavery in the first centuries of the Church

In our time, when the idea is being put forward with increasing insistence that the driving force in history is purely material factors that determine the entire historical movement of mankind, it is very useful to point out examples that testify to the existence in history of other forces that, being completely ideal and spiritual, nevertheless had a huge influence on the destinies of people and produced enormous revolutions in the history of mankind, inexplicable by any material factors. This idea has recently found expression in the whole historical movement, in the so-called school of historical materialism. In essence, this is a direct legacy of philosophical materialism. The latter, as is now beyond doubt for everyone, failed completely in his task of reducing all world phenomena to one material principle of existence. But having failed in the field of philosophical speculation, he does not want to finally give up his dominion over minds and found refuge in the field of history, believing that if not in theory, then in historical reality he will find justification for himself. The goal of historical materialism is precisely to bring all historical phenomena back to the basis of omnipotent matter, namely economic relations, outside of which no other driving forces supposedly exist. This is obviously the same materialism that previously asserted that “a person is only what he eats,” and now, invading history, asserts that the history of peoples and all of humanity is determined in its development by nothing more than what they eat - how and how much they eat, and the main engine of history is the stomach with its despotic demands for satisfaction. But just as in the field of theory, sound philosophy has indicated a lot of data that not only does not justify the assertions of materialism, but also directly overthrows it, so the history of mankind presents many facts that clearly show that in addition to material forces in the field of history, spiritual forces also operate in the field of history, completely independent of any political-economic relations, and these spiritual forces are often capable of producing the greatest revolutions, affecting not only internal, but also external life with all its complex relationships. A striking example of this is the influence of Christianity on the abolition of one of the most, apparently, firmly established socio-economic relations in the ancient world, and a brief outline of this influence will, we think, not only not superfluous, but also not uninteresting in the sense of exposing a fashionable trend in history. 1 At the beginning of our era, slavery reached its highest degree of development. The wars through which Rome subjugated the countries around the Mediterranean Sea not only delivered masses of prisoners of war into the hands of the victors, who through this, for the most part, entered into lifelong and hereditary slavery, but at the same time they made the slave trade an extremely profitable activity. In one day alone, 10,000 slaves were sold at the large slave market on the island of Delos. Moreover, the eastern countries, where the successors of Alexander the Great once ruled as kings, Asia Minor and Syria were constantly inexhaustible sources of this trade. The major wars, thanks to which the dominion of the Romans was established, were followed by smaller wars, by which their dominion was increasingly established and expanded; and even in times of peace, even within the provinces and allied countries, people were caught not only by sea robbers, but also by Roman publicans and tribute collectors on the widest scale. The main focus of this type of trade was in Rome and in Italy in general. But in all other places where capital was concentrated, numerous slavery also appeared at the same time. The rich often invested most of their property in slaves, and without a significant number of slaves it was hardly possible to exploit large capital and increase it. The time has long passed when the Roman patrician, with his sons and several serf slaves, cultivated his land himself, and the highest dignitaries of the state and troops were called into service directly from the plow. A free peasant class hardly existed anywhere. In his place in Italy and in the provinces came the planter, who, for the most part, lived away from his estates and exploited his vast possessions of land and herds through a whole horde of slaves. Likewise, in all other branches of industry, slave labor was predominantly used. Not only the workers in large factories, employing several hundred people, were usually slaves of the factory owners; but handicraft labor and petty trade were also, for the most part, in the hands of slaves, who carried on this industry at the expense and responsibility of their masters, and many of the free occupations, the performers of which we do not now usually classify as members of the working class, were also, if not exclusively, then for the most part, carried on by slaves. The merchant's accountant and clerk, the estate manager and landowner's tenant, the reader and home secretary of noble gentlemen, the housekeeper and home teacher of the gentleman's sons, even the family doctor who was always available in large houses, the actor and singer - all of them were usually not engaged as they are now, but were simply bought. It goes without saying that there were not particularly numerous such rich people who kept hundreds of slaves for the purpose of services and luxury, and in addition, several thousand more for carrying out profitable activities. But these few rich people ruled the world and set the tone for the whole society, although at the same time they themselves were obedient servants of the almighty emperor. After the rich learned to profitably exploit their capital with the help of slave labor, they increasingly pushed free labor out of the market, from the field and from the craft workshop. Against the combined competition of big capital and the unfree labor force into which capital could be transformed at any time, a healthy middle class, of course, could not withstand, at least in large central points of national life and especially in Rome. Yes, it didn’t always want this. A free-born proletariat arose, which was even ashamed to work, although at the same time it was not ashamed to live on handouts from the state. But the superiority in numbers in the big cities was on the side of the slaves. It is calculated that in Rome, in addition to the aristocracy and the garrison, there were 600,000 free inhabitants, but at the same time over 900,000 slaves lived in it, and freedmen, although in many respects they were bound by very close obligations to their former masters, were counted among the free inhabitants. Once a Senate decree was passed so that slaves in Rome were distinguished from freemen by a special cut of clothing. But this decree was not carried out, since everyone saw the enormous danger that the slaves could therefore count their masters and come to the consciousness of their numerical superiority over them. In pre-Christian times, slave uprisings often turned into long wars, and even at the beginning of the empire, one minor, quickly suppressed slave uprising in Lower Italy brought great horror to the capital itself due to the many slaves in it, whose number increased day by day, while the number of freemen apparently decreased. This was a truly dangerous class, which, apparently, could justify the drastic measures taken against it. In the year when ap. Paul was brought to Rome as a prisoner, the city prefect of Rome was killed in his own home by one of his slaves. Since, however, according to ancient custom, it was necessary to execute all the slaves of the murdered person, who at the time of the crime were under the same roof with their master (and there were 400 of them), the city mob took the side of the majority, of course, the innocent slaves of the household, and revolted with them. The Senate hesitated. The senators reasoned among themselves: “Our ancestors no longer trusted the character of their slaves, although they were still born with them on the same estate or in the same city house and from childhood grew in love for their masters. But since we now have in our service numerous peoples, distinguished by various customs, alien or even no religion at all, this rabble can only be restrained with the help of fear.” This view triumphed, but the sentence itself could only be carried out when the people were curbed by the threat of a cruel imperial decree and all the streets leading to the court square were blocked by troops. In this case, the court intervened; but until the end of pre-Christian times, the body and life of the slave were unconditionally in the power of the master. Just as he could turn a slave into any occupation he wanted, so at the same time he could sell him to whomever he wanted and whenever he wanted. Cato the Elder taught that just as old field carts and old iron should be destroyed, so should old slaves be destroyed. And if no one wanted to buy a slave who was weak from old age or terminally ill, then he could simply be kicked out, and this happened often. Finally, the master, for any reason and in any way, could kill his slave, absolutely without giving anyone an account of this. Even the moderate legal protection that Athens once provided to its slaves was deprived of the slave under the rule of Roman law. The law carefully protected only the master's right to his slaves. If the Greeks and Romans called their slaves, whether male or female, with words that usually denote soulless objects, then this was fully consistent with the legal status of slaves. A slave was considered not a person at all, but a thing, a part of equipment. The masters allowed some slaves to live with some slave in a kind of marriage, but by rights it was not a marriage at all. Not to mention the worst, the slave owner could at any time sell a husband without a wife, children without parents. It was customary to give slaves some clothing and food, as well as some money. But no law and no force could force the greedy and cruel master to treat his people humanely. Many slaves were allowed to manage their so-called “property” with a certain independence, but, from the point of view of law, this property, together with its owner, belonged to the master. The slave in this respect could no more complain to the court, as in any other. He couldn't even be a witness at the trial. If it was necessary to verify a crime to which slaves were or could be eyewitnesses, if it was necessary to prove the innocence of the accused using the testimony of slaves, then the testimony of slaves was allowed, but only if forced through torture. If the slave became crippled or died completely, then the master could demand compensation for the loss. That an injustice was done to a man who, being completely innocent, was subjected to cruel treatment only because he had to have some knowledge of the matter, public opinion was as indifferent to this as the legislation. This does not mean that some slaves were not in a more or less tolerable position, and often bonds of trust and affection were established between master and slave. Already their own benefit prompted gentlemen to treat their valuable living property with care, then the fear of terrible explosions of revenge forced cruel gentlemen to be prudent. But in addition, everywhere there was no shortage of natural kindness, as well as not always conscious humanity, which provided these powerless, completely defenseless people with a certain human sympathy. However, neither the people's conscience nor the law gave serious guarantees for this. There is no need to show with clear examples what the actual situation of the slaves was, because otherwise, for the image to be true, it would be necessary to paint, next to the few joyful pictures, those that outrage every feeling. The historian of our time rightly says that, perhaps, “the sum of all the sufferings of the blacks in our time is a drop in comparison with the then situation of slaves on the large estates of Italy and the provinces.” It will be enough to cite another saying of a Roman poet from the times of the empire, who castigated the cruelty of noble ladies towards their slaves. If, in any case, they were ready to put their slaves to crucifixion, the usual execution for slaves of that time, then he asks husbands to exhort their wives so that they first accurately investigate the matter and then pronounce the sentence; because “delay is never too long when the question is about the death of a person.” But when one husband hinted about this to his wife, she hotly replied: “Are you crazy? Is a slave really a man? Yes, whether a slave was really a person was a difficult question for that time, and many different opinions had already been expressed on the issue of slavery. Already a century earlier, the more serious and thoughtful thinkers among the Greeks had clearly expressed uncertainty about the justice and usefulness of this social institution. Plato expressed doubts especially about the danger of this institution. Others refuted the current view that there are people who are incapable of anything better than slavery, and that slaves are fully worthy of their fate. The Athenian rhetorician Alcidamus said: “God made everyone free. Nature has not made anyone a slave.” Poets in tragedies often put speech into the mouth of a person with a free and high-born soul, which retained its nobility even in captivity and slavery. There was a proverb: “the body is a slave, but the mind is free.” The comedy taught the Athenian citizen to recognize in his slave not only wit, courage and dexterity, in which he sometimes surpassed his master, but also true virtue, and loudly preached the natural equality of all people: “even though someone is a slave, he has the same body; after all, in nature no one is born a slave - only blind fate plunged his body into slavery.” On the theater stage, the slave himself, as an actor, showed his master that he had not forgotten or lost his human dignity. But whether the slave owners took all this to heart, whether they followed the advice that was given to them in the theater - to awaken the moral feeling in the slave through humane treatment, or whether they continued to draw a strict distinction between poetic freedom and the prose of life - that is the question. If philosophers taught that every virtuous person is free, and everyone who serves lusts is a slave, then on occasion they did not fail to notice that this has nothing to do with the legal distinction between slaves and masters in public life. Among the later Greeks, as well as among the Romans, at the beginning of Christian times the prevailing view was that an educated person could not exist tolerably without slaves, and that the legal or rather powerless position of a slave was completely in the order of things and corresponded to nature itself. Even Aristotle proved this. He already knew the opinion that in nature all people are equal, and that the master’s right to his slaves, based on violence, is actually a lack of rights; but he refutes this opinion. Slaves, in his opinion, necessarily belong to a normal household, and if the ancient poet Hesiod described the domestic state of a person with the words that his entire household consists of “a house, a wife and an ox that pulls the plow,” then Aristotle recognizes this position as suitable only for the poor man who has no other servant except the ox. A free citizen in a well-ordered state should not engage in any bodily work, be it cultivating the land or some kind of craft; because with such an occupation, virtue, which is necessary for a citizen, cannot flourish. Therefore, he must have others who would perform all the lower jobs for him, and he could do without slaves only if there were machines that moved by themselves. Such automata are precisely slaves. But nature also took care of producing people who are suitable to be such living instruments for other people and belong to them, as members of the body and body of the soul. Whoever is by nature such that he should belong to another in the indicated sense, that is, who has received only such a share of rationality that he can only comprehend the intelligence of others, but does not have his own intelligence, is a born slave, and it is also useful for him to actually belong to the master as a slave. But who should decide whether a famous person has such a slavish nature? Master or slave? Or a slave trader? The matter would be very simple if the philosopher himself believed the position expressed in this reasoning, that whoever has a natural disposition towards slavery is therefore actually in the possession of the master; or if he could assert (which, however, he rather had to deny) that nature usually marks the slave soul also in its very appearance. If slaves are partly already born slaves, then one would expect that nature provides this breed of slaves, which once exists and is so necessary for social life, with the opportunity to reproduce, like all other breeds in the usual way. But nature does not always fulfill its duty exactly. She sometimes produces children of masters with a slave soul and, vice versa, children of slaves with a noble disposition. Others fall into slavery as a result of wars and other types of violence, and war against those who, being born slaves, would not want to obey their masters, is as legitimate a matter as hunting. This applies to barbarians, who by nature are called to serve the Hellenes, these real people. Victory also usually serves as proof that the winner has superior moral strength. The victorious march of Alexander the Great, a student of our philosopher, from the Hellespont to the Indus, brilliantly proved that Greek genius and Greek energy are called upon to dominate the effeminate Asians accustomed to despotism. But there is no rule without an exception, and what if the rule suffers as many exceptions as it finds confirmations? If a noble is defeated by a noble, or even if a Greek is a barbarian and turns into a slave from him? This, of course, is an abnormal state, it is contrary to nature and unfair. But slaves are necessary, and there are slaves by nature; therefore, slavery is a beneficent institution of nature. 2 This opinion of slavery and the views underlying it - contempt for one's own work, the demand that the citizen should devote himself entirely to political life, and the proud sense of the superiority of the Hellenic over the barbarian - were fully consistent with the Greek popular spirit, as it had already in some respects previously manifested itself in the political system of Sparta, and then, precisely since the Persian wars, in all respects it had strongly developed throughout the whole people. Previously, the Greeks themselves thought differently. In Homer, the king's daughter washes clothes on the river with her maids, and the king of Ithaca boasts that he prepares his bed with his own hands. Then the relationship between master and slaves was patriarchal, and the opinion of foreign peoples was incomparably more humane. Homer did not yet know anything about the opposition between Hellenes and barbarians. Thucydides found in this proof of the former weakness and underdevelopment of his people, who later became so strong and proud, and it cannot be denied that the strong national self-consciousness of the later Greeks rested on major exploits and, in turn, again gave them the ability to accomplish great feats. But this development, both from Homer to Thucydides, and from Hesiod to Aristotle, does not show true progress on the path of humanism. Excessive national feeling has always been an obstacle to true humanity: this can also be seen among the noble Greeks. If Plato could not tolerate in his state one Hellen serving another Hellen as a slave, then at the same time he recognized that slavery is an unworthy state and that those who think that the Greeks themselves are the only real people are mistaken. But it was precisely the later Greek view of slavery that passed on to the Romans, and among them it found receptive soil. It was dominant at the end of pre-Christian times and could not favor a change in the legal status of slaves. But such a change has nevertheless been noticed, albeit slowly, since the beginning of the Roman Empire. Already from the first times of the reign of Augustus, there was an order that limited the power of the master in the matter of punishing slaves and made the judge the mediator between the master and his slave. 3 During the first and second centuries there followed a series of legislative definitions that provided further protection to slaves. Famous jurists, when they had to talk about the condition of slaves, began to refer to natural law and discovered, in the interpretation of the laws relating to this, an inclination everywhere to favor freedom and decide cases in the interest of humanity. And in philosophical literature one notices a turn of ideas that inevitably leaned in favor of slaves. In Latin, at least, no one has ever written as Seneca, the tutor and minister of Emperor Nero, wrote, that it is a noble feeling that can belong to everyone, just as much as it can belong to a freedman or a slave, as well as to a Roman horseman. “After all, what is a horseman, or a freedman, or a slave? These are names that arose from ambition and injustice.” In a similar way, he rebelled against gladiatorial games: “Man is a sacred matter for man, and yet he is killed for the sake of the game and pleasure.” Praising his friend, whom Seneca had heard treat his slaves with friendliness and trust, he wrote to him: “Are they slaves? No, they are people. Are they slaves? No, they are household members. Are they slaves? No, our friends are below us. Are they slaves? No, our fellow servants, if you think that fate equally rules over everyone. Therefore, I laugh at those people who consider it a shame to eat with their slaves. Why are they ashamed? Only because arrogant custom surrounded the master at the table with a crowd of standing slaves.” At the same time, Seneca mentions the times when the relations between slaves and masters among the Romans were still patriarchal, when the master of the house rightly bore the title of “father of the family,” that is, the entire totality of members of his household, since slaves could speak freely with their masters, and at the same time, with selfless loyalty, they kept silent for their masters if they wanted to torture them into confessing, which could be dangerous for their masters. Citing the then current proverb: “as many slaves, so many enemies,” he, on the contrary, asserts that “they are not our enemies in essence, but we ourselves make them such.” Of course, not every slave must necessarily be seated at his own table, just as not every free one. But the criterion should not be the slave’s higher or lower occupation, but his moral worth. Some need to be seated at your table because they are worth it, others so that they become so. He further says: “Try to be respected rather than feared.” If this is not enough for anyone, if anyone thinks that this means calling slaves to freedom and overthrowing masters from their heights, then let him think that for humane masters what God Himself is content with should be enough, namely, to be revered and loved. “Love is not compatible with fear.” One might think that this is the speaking of a Christian preacher, castigating the class arrogance of the educated classes of his time, and admonishing Christian masters to fulfill their duties towards their servants. It was not without reason that the legend was made that Seneca was a friend of St. Paul and from him was initiated into the mysteries of Christian truth. That Roman governor Gallion, before whose judgment seat the ap. Paul in Corinth found cold justice, he was Seneca's brother, and under that emperor who forced his former teacher Seneca to put himself to death, he was beheaded in Rome and St. Paul. Already in ancient times there even appeared correspondence between ap. Paul and the philosopher Seneca, and has not yet died out the tendency to attribute to hidden Christian influence those humane aspirations which are found in pagan literature and legislation during the first centuries of the Christian era. 4 Unfortunately, the question of how widespread acquaintance with Christianity was among pagans at that time, and how early and deeply Christian ideas penetrated into the pagan world, has not yet been thoroughly investigated. Although from the outside the latter was still hostile to the church, in relation to the issue of slaves it can be sufficiently proven that a revolution in views on them began to take place even before the triumph of Christianity. New ideas were already in the air, began to penetrate the ruling classes of society, and a decisive desire for improvement in Roman legislation regarding slaves became noticeable. Moreover, there was also another source for these ideas. Even twenty years before Seneca, the Alexandrian Jew Philo, though with less eloquence, but undoubtedly with greater seriousness and deep justification, preached essentially the same truths as Seneca. Natural slavery, he taught, does not exist; Every legally capable, educated, or God-beloved person is free, even if from the outside he was a slave, and external labor does not dishonor anyone. If a Jew demands gentle treatment of a slave, then he has the opportunity to refer to the immortal law of his fathers, the humanity of which in this particular point could not be equaled by any ancient legislation, and in addition, he could refer to at least the Jewish community, which was considered to be thousands, to the sect of the Essenes, who did not tolerate slaves at all, but all served each other through labor and freedom. The Jews did not borrow this view from the Gospel. It is also rooted in the very spirit of the Mosaic legislation, which was not only distinguished by the most sublime views on the relations of people among themselves in general and masters to slaves in particular, but extended humanity even to animals, ordering mercy on livestock. So, perhaps Christians learned this view, like many other things, from the Jews? After all, both Christ and His apostles were Jews, and they did not renounce anything in the heritage of their fathers that mattered and could become the common property of mankind, and just because they were true Israelis, for them and for all those who succumbed to the influence of their preaching, the very root was immediately torn out, from which the specifically pagan view of slavery actually drew its vital force, at least it was apparently mortally amazed by the beautiful words of poets and philosophers. In any case, contempt for any work that strains the body and impedes the free movement of the spirit, and the false aristocratic spirit of Greco-Roman education closely associated with it, could not find a place for themselves in a Jew who believed in his Bible and knew how to endure the ridicule of the pagans with solid national pride. In this regard, the Jews had a clearly developed and universally recognized worldview. After all, it was said not to any individual person, but to the founder of the whole people, and then to all who have a claim to the title of man: By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread. Of course, the sweat that labor costs, the tiring effort with which a person receives from the earth, instead of the thorns and thistles it brings, nutritious grain and wine that gladdens the heart, is a curse that was a consequence of sin. But the commandment to cultivate the garden and subjugate the land is older than sin; labor itself is a blessing, and it is the means through which man again acquires and expands that dominion over nature to which he is called. It is not the beasts of prey that hide in their lairs when the sun rises, but man, who then goes to his work and to his labor until evening, is the master of the earth. Consequently, also not to the philosophical thinker or the freeborn, and not to the Jew or the Greek, but to man, the weak son of man, who at his birth is more helpless than young animals, God granted dominion over all creatures, but not as a gift, which, so to speak, was placed in his cradle, but as a calling that he must fulfill, but as a task that he must solve. He achieves this through labor, and every work aimed at this and done in the fear of God is “honest” work, honorable work. Every Jewish child knew this. Therefore, there was nothing shameful in the fact that Jesus Christ was called by His compatriots the son of a carpenter and even a carpenter. Ap. Paul, being born with the rights of a Roman citizen and having received a good rabbinical education, at the same time, according to the custom of Jewish scholars, knew one craft. It is known that he constantly, alongside his intense missionary activity, worked in his craft in order to achieve complete independence in his spiritual work. When he worked in Corinth and Ephesus in the house and workshop of the tent fabric manufacturer Aquila, he undoubtedly worked together with slaves. The great apostle of the nations was, at the same time, a simple, so to speak, factory worker and worked as a slave next to slaves. He wanted to prove and ensure his freedom by this. Therefore, he could also justifiably point to his hands, with which he earned bread for himself and his employees for many years. Therefore, eliminating any possibility of the appearance of the opinion that he preaches this way only for others and not for himself, he could also prescribe to the churches the rule: “therefore, whoever does not want to work should not eat.” Both this rule and the very example of the apostle point to the radical removal of one of the fundamental errors which gave slavery its extraordinary development, and gave its most disgusting stamp to the very relations between enjoying masters and working slaves. 5 But this was not yet the Gospel, but morality, which the pagan could also learn from the Jews who had not yet become Christians. What does the Gospel itself say about slavery? First of all, we must certainly keep in mind that the Gospel is not a program for improving the well-being of the world, but a preaching of the deliverance of the world. This sermon assumes that the dignity belonging to man, as the image of God from the very creation, extends to all people just as much as the perversion of human nature, which makes man a born slave of sin, and that in comparison with that common dignity and this common misfortune, all other differences between people are of secondary importance - whether they will be based on creation, whether they will be the result of sinful degeneration or historical development. On this basis, the Gospel preaches that in Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Man, the original idea of ​​man is again restored, and with it the normal relationship of man to God, and that man, through faith in Jesus Christ, again enters into a right relationship with God and receives a guarantee that he will achieve the goal of his destiny - to be a child of God in time and eternity, in soul and body. For this gospel, which addresses all people indifferently, in any case, as the ap. Paul, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. But at the same time, it is immediately clear from here how wrong it would be to find in these excellent words the fundamental abolition of slavery. One could equally rightly say that the Gospel abolishes nationalities or even abolishes the distinction between man and woman, and therefore abolishes marriage. In reality, this only says that none of the differences that the Gospel indicates excludes a calling to a higher goal, and that what every person should become through Jesus Christ and the Gospel is of incomparably greater value than all those characteristics that anyone can acquire or possess as a member of his people, a member of his class, as a man or a woman. This, of course, also lies in the requirement that not one of these differences, but the consciousness of the same need for deliverance and equally received grace should be the actual measure of people’s relationships with each other - therefore, the requirement of the love of a Christian for a Christian and for anyone who can be one that overcomes all these differences. Further, the Gospel also contains a demand, or rather, a promise of a new organization of humanity, in which everything that has been corrupted by sin is again restored, and everyone again becomes, although not equal, but corresponding to their actual position. This new organization of humanity is called the Kingdom of God. And whoever believes that it appeared with Jesus Christ also knows that this kingdom of God cannot achieve comprehensive development during the earthly life that we know: because in this earthly cycle sin does not die, but turns all differences into hostile opposites, all order into coercion, and all life into a merciless struggle for existence, alien to all love. The Kingdom of God, in its full concept, remains an object of hope that goes beyond the present world, and Christianity, preaching the future kingdom of God and promising a new world, a new earth on which truth will dwell, preaches at the same time patience in relation to the conditions of “this evil present world,” and precisely great patience, enduring everything until the end of life and until the end of the present world. But next to this truth, which the modern Christian world tends to neglect more easily than the ancient world, which deeply appreciated it, one cannot help but see another truth, that the kingdom of God is already being realized even now, that it is a known order of life, which is rooted in the inner spiritual rebirth of people who have cast off the image of the old man. And in its present situation, the kingdom of God is also not simply an invisible union of souls who strive to leave this world, but a union of living people, to which its Founder gave certain laws and indicated a very great task in the present world. Living in this real Kingdom of God, Christians enjoy its benefits and obey its laws as the norm of their relationships. Therefore, they - of course, within the limits to which the community of their beliefs extends, i.e. That is, within the church itself and within the peoples accepted into the church - through conscious and joint work they cannot help but set an example for the future world order, introduce morals and establish institutions that would correspond to the strictly Christian relationship of people with each other, as brothers in Christ. Consequently, slavery, which Christianity found existing as an indispensable element in every family, was inevitably subject to a revolution. And this revolution took place precisely under the irresistible influence of this new Christian spirit. One must, however, beware of extremes in this regard. The idea that the church from the very beginning silently bore the abolition of slavery in her heart, or even openly wrote this abolition on her banner, would be wrong; but even less consistent with truth and historical justice would be the contrary idea that Christianity from the very beginning was indifferent to the institution of slavery, and even more the denial that Christianity, more than any other spiritual force, contributed to the elimination of the abuses of slavery and preached truths that sooner or later had to lead to the abolition of slavery itself, if only Christians wanted to remain faithful to the fundamental truths of their religion. From the very beginning, Christian preachers had many reasons to deal with the issue of slaves, because the original churches received a significant part of their members from the slave class. Pagan opponents of Christianity openly laughed that Christianity found adherents almost only among slaves and uneducated artisans, among old women and foolish children. There was almost as much truth in this as there was malicious exaggeration. The Gospel, which at first was established mainly in large cities, found there at the same time huge masses of slaves, and if, even from the outside, in many respects it had freer access to slaves than to the free population, then we must imagine that slaves in the houses of their masters, in factories and workshops did not live as if in a dungeon. In various ways they took part in the cycle of social life. But since the slave owner was acquired for the Christian faith, since such a house became a kind of residence of a missionary or an ordinary place of Christian meetings, then, first of all, the slaves of this house constituted the listeners of the preacher of the Gospel. And why shouldn’t it be that the Gospel should have found special sympathy among them, when it promised peace of mind and an easy yoke to the toiling and burdened, when it ascribed to both masters and slaves the same innate dignity before God, and to all believers the same title of children of God? These were not paradoxical propositions of the kind that some philosophical writer developed before a philosophizing public, or some lawyer or tribune before his constituents; but these were truths that were preached to slaves and masters who sat on the same bench. The large number of slaves in Christian communities in the first and second centuries, which made Christianity despicable in the eyes of the pagans, serves as the strongest proof that the Christians of that time zealously tried to persuade slaves to their faith. If they considered the soul of a slave no less worthy of the most sacred blessings of their church and no less capable of the highest tasks than the soul of noble people, then this not only theoretically, but also practically overthrew the old pagan view of the slave as a being of a lower kind. The oldest apology for Christianity that has come down to us, the recently discovered defensive essay of the Athenian Aristides to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, speaks generally about Christians: “Slaves and maidservants or children, if any of them have any, persuade them to become Christians for the sake of the love that reigns between them. And since they have become such, they call them brothers without distinction.” 6 The Christian father of the family considered it his duty to take as much care of the spiritual salvation of his not yet converted slaves as he cared for his children. And if he managed to persuade his slave to believe, then through this the latter entered into the closest communication with him in worship and in life - communication in which everyone called themselves brothers, so that after public worship no one could refuse another a brotherly kiss, and everyone ate from the same bread, everyone drank from the same cup. It was a revolution not only in views, but in life itself. This was a revolution in that area of ​​​​life in which ancient Christians received not only satisfaction of their religious needs, but also motives and rules, form and content for their social life in the family and society. By this alone, what the Gospel preached to slaves and freemen differed significantly from everything that pagan philosophers, especially the Stoic school, once said in this way. These latter have always had an influence only on individuals who listened to their treatises and read their writings, and even they could always hesitate and wonder how to implement these ideas in a society that does not share their positions. Even the influential position of some of the students of this philosophy in the highest government positions before the imperial throne and in the circles of leading legal scholars did little to help put their ideas into practice. The relaxation of laws regarding slaves during the first centuries of the empire does not make an era in the history of slavery. The renewal of society was impossible if no one felt the need and did not have the courage to preach their best beliefs also to the lower classes and, in general, to people extremely socially disadvantaged. Only from among the slaves themselves could a voice more convinced of this rise stronger. So it was with the lame Epictetus, the slave of an imperial freedman, to whom the Stoic philosopher in Rome, Musonius Rufus, allowed him to use his philosophical reasoning. When Epictetus received his freedom and himself became a teacher of philosophy, he, as he himself had experienced the entire abyss of human misery in a state of slavery, did not fail to address serious admonitions to the conscience of the young gentlemen who listened to his reasoning. Not as masters, but as brothers, as children of one God, he taught, they should look at their slaves, see in them beings similar to themselves and treat them accordingly. He protested against depriving slaves of philosophical education. It is not difficult to understand that the speeches of Epictetus, even 100 years after him, were widely read by people of lower status. 7 But he, like other thinkers like him, lacked faith that the idea of ​​​​a new, more perfect society they preached could ever achieve more or less complete realization, and that the unwritten “laws of the gods” to which they referred were once supposed to supplant the laws of the Roman state, these “pathetic laws of the dead,” as Epictetus calls them. They lacked living hope in the Kingdom of God, which was finally about to be established on earth. Living entirely in the real world, beyond which they did not dare to go even in their philosophical reasoning, since nothing definite was presented to their minds there, they lacked such an organized community of like-minded people, which, including individuals and placing them with their entire home life under its commandments, under its discipline, would provide a clear example of the implementation of the highest ideal. In both these respects, even then the situation was different where a completely new, different spirit was blowing. Philemon, a wealthy Christian and friend of St. Paul, in the Asia Minor city of Colosse, the slave Onesimus, who was still a pagan, fled. It is not known whether, through oversight or dishonesty, he caused his master any damage and, fearing punishment, fled from him, whether during his flight he stocked up on the money necessary for the journey from his master’s coffers, or, in addition, robbed him - but by the very fact that he fled, he caused damage to his master and committed a crime for which a severe punishment was usually threatened. The fugitive Onesimus, having probably wandered through the nearest cities and not finding shelter in them, arrived in Rome - either because in this large city, where a lot of rabble flocked from all over the world, he considered himself the safest, or because, trusting Christian teachers, whose names, at least, he should have often heard in the house of his master, he decided to seek refuge with them. In Rome he met with St. Paul, and the latter managed to turn a runaway pagan slave into a Christian, who recognized his duty to reward his master for the evil done to him and return to him. But he could not return except under the protection of the accompanying letter of the apostle. Ap. Paul addressed this letter not only to Philemon, his wife and son, but also to the church meeting in his home. A Christian slave was supposed to join this church. Ap. Paul does not hide the fact that he would like to keep Onesimus with him, because he acquired him with love and could well use his services. But he respects the sovereign right of the master, without whose will he does not want to decide anything. He sends Onesimus back as his son, to whom he gave new spiritual life, even his own heart. But what he demands from Philemon, as a Christian for whom kindness and mercy are obligatory, and asks him in touching words, although he could have ordered him, is nothing less than that Philemon should accept the runaway slave as one who is now more than a slave, namely, has become a Christian brother, and that instead of punishing him for the offense of which he repented, he should meet him with the same love, with which he would have met the apostle himself. The legal relationship of a slave to a master is not destroyed here, but is modified and transformed into the relationship of a Christian to a Christian. Love, which determines this new relationship, prohibits the master from demanding legal consequences of the continuing old relationship. If ap. Paul at the end of his letter says: “I know that you will do more than I say,” then it was not without reason that the ap. Paul urged Philemon to set his slave free. This could also mean that Philemon would again send Onesimus to the apostle, thereby at the same time expressing his renunciation of ownership. But ap. Paul does not ask for this, much less does he demand it from Philemon as a fulfillment of Christian duty. Then, as later, some Christians often stood with other Christians in the relation of slaves to masters, and the church did not condemn this. If the apostles remind Christian masters that they also have a master - the Lord in heaven and must wait for a Judge who does not look at class differences; if they demand from their masters that they treat their slaves fairly and condescendingly and not keep them in obedience by threats and intimidation, then at the same time they remind the slaves that they serve the Heavenly Lord, who has no partiality. They should not imagine that, due to their dependent and constrained position, they will not bear any moral responsibility. The apostles most strictly exhort them to be faithful and obedient, to fulfill the official duties assigned to them as their duty, which should flow from a welcoming heart and from a loving disposition towards their masters, to patiently endure the injustice that may be caused to them in their position, and no less humbly to honor their masters. From the special reference to this last duty one can see how the ideas of equality before God and Christian brotherhood swarmed in the minds of slaves in the Christian community. They showed a tendency to transfer these ideas to social relations, so that the landlord ceased to be the master of the house; allowed themselves, in their treatment of the Christian brother, to whom they belonged as slaves, such familiarity as St. Paul condemned it as indecency (1 Tim. 6:2. Compare in general Col. 3:22–4:1; Eph. 6:5–9; Titus 2:9 et seq.; 1 Tim. 6:1; 1 Pet. 2:18–25). These ideas manifested themselves differently if a Christian was a slave to a pagan master. The feeling of his moral and religious superiority over his master could sometimes lead him to defiant obstinacy. There was a danger that Christianity might be suspected as a revolutionary teaching, which undermined not only the state, but also the social order. If the Stoic philosophers were already suspected of being restless heads, then how much more susceptible were the Christians to such suspicion, who represented an all the more dangerous social force because they implemented the main tenets of their teaching in a community that embraced the entire empire! Therefore, the apostles and teachers of the church of subsequent times demanded from Christians who were in slavery to pagan masters, special fidelity in service, and not only for the safety of the church, but also for the sake of truth; because Christianity does not actually teach that a Christian cannot and should not be a slave. If we take into account the difficult, as well as morally dangerous, situation that Christian slaves often found themselves in in a pagan home, it is easy to understand how the opinion arose in the circles of Christian slaves that they had the right to demand from their fellow Christians that they be redeemed for freedom at the expense of the church. Already at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch resolutely opposed such abuse of evangelical freedom, condemning such encroachments of slaves. The ancient church did not recognize the right to demand their liberation, as if slavery were completely incompatible with Christianity, for slaves. They must serve God in the position in which, perhaps, human violence or a harsh law has placed them, of course, always not without the will of God, and they must be satisfied with that moral freedom, which even in this world no violence can steal from them and which in the future world will achieve its full external realization. But this still does not fully determine how Christianity treated the institution of slavery. Ap. Peter puts the relationship of slaves to masters next to the relationship of subjects to Caesar and power, and the ap. Pavel – next to the relationship of children to parents. Does it follow from this that slavery is the same just form of social life as the family and the state? Not at all. Family and marriage, according to the Christian view, were established at creation, and through them such holy bonds are established that only death, but never the will of man, can destroy. The state and government, however, are only the result of historical development, which already has sin at its core; but they, nevertheless, are also the institutions of God, for the purpose of maintaining law among people. As long as there are villains who violate the law, these regulations should be considered by everyone who wants to lead a quiet life as a blessing, everyone should respect them with their obedience, support them with good relations and prayer. On the contrary, slavery is only an historical condition, a widespread institution which Christianity found already existing. It is one of the types of unequal distribution of the benefits of earthly life, which the church could no more abolish, like the differences between rich and poor. But just as slavery does not cease to be an “unrighteous mammon” because Christians can use it correctly, and just as poverty does not cease to be evil because the poor can be rich and blessed in faith, so the recognition of slavery as a possible form of Christian life does not at all assert that it has an internal justification for its existence. Not a single apostle and not a single teacher of the ancient church expounded to slaves or masters the expediency or even the necessity of this institution, and even less did it occur to them to speak of it as an institution sanctified by God. And yet, it would be the most effective means to demand from slaves and masters the sanctification of their mutual relations on this very basis, if the truth allowed one to resort to such a means. In reality, slavery is obligatory only in so far as the master's right of ownership is recognized and protected by the state, and it was not indifference to political life, as some have asserted, but respect for the state and its rights that made the ancient church so conservative on the subject of slaves. The New Testament does not teach or pronounce any judgment on the origin of slavery. There was no need for this, because already daily experience taught by what violent and often immoral means slavery was mainly maintained and developed. But anyone, turning to reflect on the origin of slavery, could find the answer in the Bible that it is a consequence of punishment for sin, therefore, in any case, it is evil. 8 Also, in the eyes of the Apostle Paul, the state of slavery is a yoke (1 Tim. 6:1), which must be borne as much as possible. His comparison of slavery with mixed marriage, in which a Christian man or woman enters into a union with a pagan spouse, is very instructive. A Christian should not enter into such a marriage. 9 If the marriage had already taken place before the conversion of one of the spouses, then the Christian spouse should not think that it would be incompatible with Christianity to remain in such a marriage. But if a pagan spouse wants to break off the marital relationship, then a Christian should not make any effort to keep him. He should not, guided by the dubious hope of the conversion of his pagan spouse, take upon himself the difficult task of living in a mixed marriage, but must, with a good conscience, follow the instructions of God's Providence, freeing him from these bonds. These rules also apply to slaves. The Christian slave should not think that he must be free from his yoke in order to be able to live like a Christian. In this sense, he should not try to achieve freedom one way or another. But if he is given a legal opportunity to free himself, then he should not again think that he has an obligation to remain a slave, but must hopefully enter into a state of freedom. 10 He who impatiently strives for external freedom must know that in every situation he has the freedom to which Christ led His followers, and he who fearfully clings to his servile state must keep in mind that a Christian, being a civilly free person, can and must remain a slave of Christ. The basis of all this reasoning is the ap. Paul's idea is that the slave state in itself is an abnormal state, and the state of civil freedom is preferable to it. But this still does not indicate the abolition of slavery. This only indicates that the truth, which every person’s natural feeling suggests, is completely compatible with the Christian faith. A person also has a need in this regard to improve his everyday situation, as long as he is alien to the superstition that the moral and eternal benefits of life depend on this or that everyday condition: he must keep himself within the limits that are outlined for him by established law in the state and in society: but the very need to strive to improve one’s situation is recognized as completely fair. Where the commandment of such love takes on meaning, which inclines with special preference to the lower and oppressed, there, of course, better placed people will not leave the disadvantaged to take care of themselves, but should, as far as possible for them, give them a helping hand in order to lighten the “yoke” for them, and where it threatens to become harmful to them, completely remove it from them. And this the ancient church practiced just as faithfully in relation to slaves as in relation to the poor. The question to what extent Christianity in the ancient world contributed to the abolition of slavery, of course, cannot receive an answer simply because slavery was not directly abolished at that time, but either passed into other, softer forms of dependence and was replaced by them, or little by little it died out on its own. State legislation contributed very little to this, and we will not take anything away from the church if we say that during the first three centuries it did not put pressure on state legislation, nor did it contribute to it by tacit consent. Only where the dictates of the new law of the Gospel extended, namely within church society, could Christianity fully reap the fruits of its truth. It was there that it created something truly new and great, which produced a complete revolution in relations between people. Thus, in the ancient church it was not left to the will of individual Christians, but, as far as we know, it was made an obligatory act of love for communities to ransom Christian slaves who found themselves in distress, as well as captives, who through this very thing entered into slavery. 11 Already in paganism, it often happened that a master, during his lifetime, for personal reasons, gave freedom to some slaves, but among Christians this was considered a pious act, as a kind of liturgical act that was performed during public worship. When Constantine the Great recognized the legal validity of the emancipation of slaves performed before the bishop and the community, he did not create anything new, but only confirmed church practice, which proves that the church, as a corporation, has long had and implemented the need to reduce the number of slaves and provide the benefit of personal freedom to as many people as possible, or even to everyone. It is, of course, impossible to numerically determine the brilliant results that the church achieved through its struggle against the theater and the amphitheater, as well as against all those popular entertainments and enterprises in which the life and honor of slaves were sacrificed, as well as against usury and the throwing away of children, which in those centuries were a very abundant source of slavery. But no prejudice can diminish the glory of the martyrs of the Christian Church, that with incomparably greater energy than state legislation or the pagan humanity of that time, they tried to suppress the very sources of slavery. The abolition of slavery among the church itself becomes even clearer. In it, not only pagan views on slavery were rejected, 12 but such morals were established in Christian life, and an order was established according to which slaves in Christian society were given a position worthy of people. If, according to the unanimous testimony of archaeologists, on Christian funerary monuments it is extremely rare to find the name of the deceased as a slave or freedman, this indicates not that the number of Christians of this state, starting around the second century, suddenly greatly decreased, but that within the church very little importance was attached to these social relations. If the slave, according to the pagan view, was a thing and a commodity, then it is significant and, of course, not accidental that Christian literature of the first four centuries does not present us with a single example of any Christian selling his slave, or even a Christian slave, to another master. Christian teachers did not rebel against the sale of slaves, not because they considered such a sale to be permissible, but simply because such a sale did not exist among Christians at all. 13 Ancient Christian decrees, in view of the difficult and outrageous cases that sometimes occurred, could not remain silent about such a sale if it happened anywhere. If bl. Augustine found it very doubtful to transfer one slave, like any other piece of property, in the form of a gift to another master, because the possessive right of a Christian over his slave has a completely different character than in relation to a horse or clothing, then by this he only expressed a view for the expression of which in the first three centuries of the church there was actually no reason. What was the treatment of Christian slaves in a Christian home, this, as is self-evident, cannot be depicted in a few general words. What individual preachers and writers demand can, perhaps, be taken as proof that in reality there was something contrary to their exhortations, and their very exhortations partly do not go further than what the humane pagans also provided, at least to some of their closest slaves. If it is permissible to point out a small detail, which, however, is very characteristic, then we would not deny that some Seneca or Epictetus could say what Clement of Alexandria once said, namely, that “it is unworthy to give orders to serving slaves through pipes or by clicking the tongue, or by applauding.” But more evidence in this regard is what is required in church decrees. Although the distance between law and life then, as at all times, was quite large, however, in the ancient Christian writings of this kind, which by no means depict abstract ideals, but always take into account the diverse cases of real life and the possibility of their implementation, only that which was considered in wide circles to be as necessary as feasible. The oldest work related here, probably compiled in Alexandria around the year 110, “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” says, among other things: “Give orders to your servant and your servant, who trust in the same God, not with irritation, so that they do not cease to fear the God who stands above both, that is, you and them; because God does not come to call people according to partiality, but (He comes with His call) to those whom the Spirit has prepared for it.” The Church also did not provide gentle treatment of slaves to the arbitrariness of masters or the weak protection of state laws, but subjected hard-hearted masters, as well as open sinners, to church punishment. The bishop should not have accepted gifts from such persons to whom he could later say that they were treating their slaves poorly, subjecting them to beatings, hunger and cruel labor. 14 Among the Christian treatment of slaves, first of all, was the fact that on Sundays and other holidays they were freed from work and given the opportunity to attend divine services. And they took part in church life, not only as simple listeners and worshipers. All church positions up to the rank of bishop were open to slaves. Now it is difficult for us to imagine how a person, being at the same time the slave of another, could at the same time occupy the influential position of a bishop in the church. The Christian master, obviously, one way or another had to provide the freedom necessary for the performance of the office to that of his slave who, at the request of the church, was elevated to such a rank. But at the same time, it is a very significant fact that even at the end of the fourth century, there were often slaves who occupied spiritual positions without first receiving freedom or even without having it at all. Church decrees, which, for example, require for a slave to be accepted into the church a certificate from the master about his life and the sincerity of his intentions, 15 nowhere among the qualities required for occupying church positions do they mention the state of freedom. Only later, in view of the clashes that occurred with the relentlessly continuing ownership of the masters, apparently a church decree appeared that a slave should be accepted into a spiritual position only with the permission of his master and after complete emancipation. Then, while the slave, according to Roman law, did not actually have a real legal marriage, the church from the very beginning declared the marriage of a slave as inviolable and immutable as that of a senator, and in this, as in many other respects, slaves and freemen stood under the same right and the same discipline of the church and its primates. Both the apostles and the most ancient fathers and teachers of the church did not even find it necessary, in their exhortations to sacredly preserve marriage, to point out the significantly different position of slaves before civil law in this regard. And when it turned out to be necessary, the church called the marriage of a slave just as legal as the marriage of other Christians. She demanded that the master make his slave his wife only in the form of a valid marriage, and threatened with excommunication the master who, in case of need, did not assist his slave in concluding a church marriage. Thus, therefore, it was not an empty phrase, but a truth deeply penetrated into public life, that the greatest teacher of the Eastern Church once said: “The Church does not know the difference between slaves and masters.” It was also not empty rhetoric when Lactantius, that Christian Cicero, who lived at the end of the period of persecution, when asked whether Christians really have no differences between rich and poor, between slaves and free, boldly answered: “no,” and when he asserted that Christians call their slaves and their poor brothers in spirit and co-servants in faith, and look at them and treat them equally. This was the church rule, which, according to the state of the church at that time, had an incomparably greater influence on the social life of church members than state laws could ever have. Of course, not all Christian slave owners were equally loving and not all Christian slaves were virtuous. During the horrors of the last great persecutions in Egypt, it happened that Christian masters forced their Christian slaves to perform pagan sacrifices in order to remain inviolable and to divert suspicion of belonging to the Christian confession. But if the bishop of Alexandria, in his pastoral letter, which later acquired ecclesiastical legal significance, prescribed one year of repentance for slaves, and three years for their master, as church punishment, then this clearly recognized the moral responsibility of the slave, as well as the criminal abuse of power on the part of the master. And even earlier, things were also done that seem strange to us. One incident that took place at the end of the second century in the Roman church provides us with a vivid picture of life at that time. The story about him is told by a very hostile hand, but the facts are not fictitious. One Roman Christian named Carpophorus, who belonged to the imperial palace service and, in any case, had previously been a slave himself, handed over capital to his slave Callistus, who belonged to the same church, to carry out banking operations. The very name of the owner of the bank, Carpophorus, which, according to the custom of that time, was written on the sign of his slave’s office, attracted especially Christians, and among them also poor widows, who deposited their savings there. But the enterprise did not take off. After a few years, the deposits and fixed capital disappeared. Callistus, who was not actually guilty of this, fled to Porto, the harbor of Rome, and had already boarded the ship on which he intended to escape from his master and from the punishment that threatened him, when suddenly he sees that his master is fleeing in order to detain him. Then he, with the intention of either taking his own life, as the narrator thinks, or in any case to somehow avoid arrest, threw himself from the ship into the water; however, he was dragged out against his will and returned to his master, and the latter, without any embarrassment, sent him to hard labor in a treadmill - a common but very cruel punishment for slaves who had committed something similar. After some time, however, some of the church members begin to intercede for Callistus with his master. The narrator notes that this usually happened. Carpophorus was all the more easily persuaded by the fact that Callistus allegedly said that he had yet to receive money, with which Carpophorus could at least satisfy the demands of others. This, however, apparently was only a cunning excuse. The slave was animated by a selfish feeling, if only what his irritated opponent further tells about him is true. Since he could not live up to his promise, he decided to achieve an honorable death, the crown of martyrdom, of course, in a very unique way. One Saturday he goes to a Jewish synagogue, deliberately disrupts the divine service there, and openly admits himself to be a Christian. Enraged Jews pounce on him, beat him and immediately send him to the court of the Roman city prefect. The protest of Carpophorus, who came running here, demands his slave and does not recognize him as a Christian, does not bring any benefit. The judge sentences Callistus, as a Christian and a disturber of public peace, to hard labor on the island of Sardinia. Apparently, he was no longer considered a member of the Christian church; because when the Roman Bishop Victor, after some time, thanks to high mediation, achieved pardon and release of Christians who were languishing for the sake of their faith on the island of Sardinia as convicts, the name of Callistus did not appear on the list of those released. But he himself, through persistent entreaties, managed to persuade the dignitary entrusted with the execution of the sentence in his favor. When he, along with other Christians, returned safely to Rome, although he was not immediately allowed to re-enter church communion (his former master protested against this), he was not completely rejected. He was given a monthly allowance from church funds, with orders to live in Antium, a few miles from Rome. Only the successor of Bishop Victor returned him again to the capital and even made him the overseer of the Christian burial place, which is still known today under the name of the Catacombs of Callistus. In 217, this man, who had experienced so much in his life, ascended to the episcopal see of Rome. This is not a pleasant picture of life at all, even if we take into account the fact that the narrator, when telling this story, was apparently guided by a feeling of ill will. But we always see how, at decisive moments, Christian love acts with compassion and intercession, with patience and education, and delays the action of the law and customs of this world. This became doubly necessary when Christianity rose to the level of the dominant religion in the empire, when all the nobility en masse began to accept the Christian name, and with it paganism with all its shortcomings and prejudices invaded the church. Then those vices that had previously been only the exception became common again, and not only the actual abuse of the power of the masters, but also the pagan way of thought and speech again began to dominate in wide circles of society, although it called itself Christian. To justify the most cruel treatment of slaves, they referred to habit and at the same time understood the custom that the most ancient fathers and teachers of the church had to condemn only in their polemical works against paganism. At this time, they no longer wanted to consider it an injustice that state laws were left unpunished, while these latter still did not stand on the basis of Christian principles and remained essentially unchanged. The luxury that rich people indulged in with the help of countless slaves bought in different countries increased, and the violence with which the poor were turned into slaves or serfs even took on a hypocritical character, as if it were based on philanthropy, since many of the poor, who otherwise would have died from poverty, could enjoy prosperity in a rich house as slaves. But, in spite of all these abuses, in the church, even in this time of transition, there was no shortage of courageous and eloquent witnesses to the truth. The latter did not even limit themselves to exposing blatant abuses, calling on the Christian conscience as testimony; Chrysostom directly preached that slavery is the creation of greed and ignoble intentions, it is a punishment for sin from which Christ came to redeem. In their consciences, everyone already recognized the deep force of depravity to which slavery at that time exposed the entire society. “Where does all the evil come from,” the same Chrysostom complained, “that we do not care about our household, but justify contempt for them with the words: after all, this is a slave, after all, this is a slave, while we constantly hear that in Christ there is neither slave nor free”? But why did the Church not do anything to completely eliminate the institution, which so obviously revealed its disastrous power, and why did it not try to introduce a new social order in which the distribution of higher and lower types of labor, as well as the right of self-determination, could be carried out with greater justice and with greater benefit for the common good? Since the time of Constantine the Great, one would think that the Church had no lack of power and means to implement its ideals through legislation, considering with what great success it used the power of emperors to give universal binding force to the rules of faith. But to argue this way means to forget that the power of the church is “not of this world,” not material, but spiritual. With all this, it cannot be denied that the church in the field of moral and social life does not seriously strive for what it has not elevated to a legal norm. In order to correctly judge this, one must take into account the relationship into which the church and the state then became between themselves. Peace had, of course, established itself between them from the outside, but this peace was far from perfect. Since the time of Constantine, the respectful attitude of the most ancient Christians towards pagan power, even among people with the noblest souls and strong character, was replaced by bitter irritability. While some, admiring the glory of the Christian empire or personally experiencing court favor, said that the thousand-year kingdom had come, others soon, especially during the turmoil caused by various heresies, began to see in this or that Christian emperor the forerunner of the Antichrist. The church had nothing to do with it. For emperors, in the interest of state unity, it was more convenient to elevate any one formula of confession into state law, whatever its content, than to generally subordinate the life of the court and society to the moral demands of Christianity and transform the legislation itself in accordance with them. Even in those respects in which the church remained an inexorable opponent of the institutions preserved from the pagan times of the state, its demands were given only incomplete satisfaction and, in any case, not one that would gradually strengthen its influence in society. It was from the time that the emperors became Christians that representatives of the church increasingly and more painfully began to feel the depth of the difference between “external laws,” that is, state laws, and the law of God ruling in the church. It was then that only the most ancient church institutions and rules of life received their true meaning in it; Then only for the first time in the Eastern Church they turned into a generally binding code of church law. Thus the church could at least make an attempt to resolve the slave question in its own internal life. Two possibilities seemed to present themselves openly, at least to thought. The obligation of physical labor and self-service could be brought to such an extent that a Christian would no longer need slaves. But at the same time, the church would have to abolish all visible differences in the area of ​​property ownership, as well as any differences in vocations; because these differences would always inevitably begin to create again the same inequality between masters and slaves, which antiquity knew only in the form of slavery. The whole church should have turned into one monastery, in which no one would have personal property and no one could exercise the right to eat their own bread without doing their own work and devote themselves entirely to piety or science. And indeed, the combination of physical labor and the equal subordination of everyone to the same rules in ancient monasticism was an attempt to establish another society based on Christian ideas - in the place of that old society in which the opposites of wealth and poverty, labor and pleasure, freedom and service always remained irreconcilable. After all, the masses of Christians were tied to the world not simply by an anti-Christian devotion to the world, but also by a more or less vague, albeit strong feeling that Christianity had a completely different task. The radical abolition of social differences is not reconciled with the basic idea of ​​Christianity, that the various talents of individuals correspond to their various tasks in the world and in relation to the world, and that in order to fulfill them, a gradual progression of higher and lower callings within Christian society is necessary, corresponding to the various talents of individuals. This thought was combined with another possibility, which subsequently found its realization in reality. In place of slave labor, paid labor of free people could be established; it would be possible to introduce free labor, performed for a certain fee (a phenomenon by no means unknown to the ancient world), into an ordinary household; it would be possible to introduce servants who, at their free will, could enter into service and again refuse it. But precisely this was such a new political-economic theory, which was alien to all antiquity and remained so to the end. 16 It is therefore not surprising that the church did not invent this theory, and therefore, although individual Christians and church corporations continued to use slaves and use them to cultivate their fields, the church itself, in any case, did not in the least change its original aspirations. It would be strange to think that the church has its calling to invent new economic theories and implement them. She already had enough to do in that world, which was dying from decay; she had to proclaim the idea of ​​honor and compulsory work, maintain faith in the independence of the dignity of people as sons of God from any position, preach love, which alone is able to mitigate, as far as possible, the cruelty of social opposites and give practical implementation to the idea of ​​fraternity within the confines of its own social life. In this the church achieved excellent success even when it was still neglected and persecuted. And it is extremely touching to see how even when the church, having achieved external power and at the same time suffering a heavy loss in internal domination over its members, the ideal of Christian life, within the limits of existing social forms, continued to live invariably in the hearts of many of its greatest representatives, who, with eloquence pouring out from the depths of the heart, did not cease to present this ideal before the eyes of contemporary Christian society, as we see especially among the great fathers and teachers of the church in the 4th and 5th centuries. In this article we use Zahn’s excellent reading, included in the collection of his abstracts and lectures under the general title: Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, von Theod. Zahn, Erlangen 1894, pp. 62 et seq. In addition to the image in “Politics” (I, 2–6 ed. Bekker, p. 1252–55; p. 13 p. 259; III, 5 p. 1278); VII, 9 p.1328) passages in Eth are especially instructive. Nicom. VIII, 13 r. 1161: “Friendship does not consist in relation to lifeless things, but also not in relation to a horse, a donkey, or a slave while he is a slave, for there is no reciprocity here; after all, a slave is an animated tool, and a tool is a lifeless slave. To the extent that a person, therefore, is a slave, there cannot be friendship with him, but only to the extent that he is a person.” It’s as if a person can be a friend of a philosopher only to the extent that he is a philosopher himself, and not to the extent that he is a person, and precisely a person who deserves love. If it is true that the lex Petronia, which itself dates back to republican times (Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I, 494, note 3) or “the Senate decrees relating here” (Digest. XLVIII, 8, 11, §2) can be brought into connection with Tacit, ann. VI, II (Marquardt, Privatalterth. I, 197, note 1221), then any appearance completely disappears that the legal state attested by Seneca (de benef. Ill, 22) could only be an innovation dating back to Nero’s time, as Wallon, hist, de l’esclav imagines. Ill, 60 sq. Whether slavery was discussed in this way in the Stoic school even before Seneca is doubtful. The doctrine of moral slavery and freedom, which has not died since the time of Socrates (Xenoph. memor. IV, 5), the opinion about threefold slavery (Diog. L, VII, 122), cited by Seneca (de benef. III, 22, ef. Cic. de off. I, 13 41) the saying of Chrysippus “A slave is a day laborer for life” - all this does not prove nothing. The frivolous casuistry of the Stoic Hekaton (Cic. de off. III, 23. 89; Sen. de benef. III, 18, cf. II, 21) indicates the opposite. If Philo's writing that “every capable person is free,” the authenticity of which we consider undoubted, revolves in Stoic forms from title to conclusion, then nevertheless the practical tendency, the essence of everything, resonates with a completely Jewish and Old Testament spirit. Compare also de septen. §7 seq. §16; de spec. leg. §7. One place in de sept. §9 is almost literally recalls the above saying of Chrysippus, but in fact comes from Leviticus XXV, 40 et seq. It is in this sense that Philo claims that Zeno borrowed from the Mosaic Law (quod omn. probus liber §8). Not only the apologists, but every future historian of slavery in antiquity, as Wallon did in his still excellent History of Slavery in Antiquity, will point out step by step the connection between the development of slavery and the valuation of labor, both among the Greeks and Jews, among Aristotle and Philo, and among the Christians. From the very beginning, the teachers of the church, despite the luxury achieved with the help of slaves, preached about their own work and their own service as the most worthy of a person, and especially pointed to the example of St. Paul (Clem. Al. paed. III, 26 p.268, Potter cf. §65–67 p.292; I, 98, p.157; Cypr. ep.14, 2, Chrysost. ed Montfaucon III, 178. so.IV, 289, X, 384 sq.). Wed. Seeberg's translation in his Forschungen, V, 398. Clement of Alexandria (Strom, 70, p.594) places women, children and slaves on the same line in relation to the master of the house, exhorting them to the Christian life, and, in circumstances, to Christian martyrdom. See R.c. Ihering, Geist des römishen Rechts II, 172 f.3 Aufl. Ogid.. s.Celsum. VI, 2. Regarding Epictetus in general, it is necessary to take into account the following places: I, 13, 1–4; II, 1, 22–25. In a narrow river valley in Yazili, seven hours east of Girma, ancient Cremna in Pisidia, therefore not too far from Hierapolis, the birthplace of Epictetus, the American Sterrett (The Wolfe Expedition, 1888, p. 315) found a remarkable inscription, composed, except for the first two lines, in hexameter in the Doric Greek style. This is a didactic poem, composed in the spirit of the Stoic school and especially Epictetus. It conveys the idea that freedom and slavery are based not on birth or on the state of ancestors, but on character, since Zeus is the forefather of all people and the only ancestral root of men. The wise Epictetus (or, as he is called in the language of this inscription, Epictatos), the son of a slave, is presented as an example of a truly free man, and the entire poem concludes with the wish: “Oh, if only such a husband were born now, a great gain and great joy, according to the desire of all, from a mother who is a slave!” Thus, first of all, Justin Martyr (Dial.134): For the good of the slaves in the church and synagogue, Christ is a slave to this day. “For after Noah gave his two sons into slavery the offspring of a third, now Christ appeared to restore both, as well as those who are the sons of the free, as well as the slaves between them, and He honors all those who keep His commandments with equal benefits, just as those born to Jacob, of his free wives and of his slaves, the children all enjoyed the same honor as sons.” While here, at least, what is meant is mainly the abolition of slavery in religious life, Chrysostom goes even further when, with a similar reduction of slavery to Ham (vol. IV, 289, 660; X, 384; XI, 177), from the fundamental abolition of this punishment for sin by Christ, he derives the requirement that Christians use the services of slaves as little as possible, or when he asserts that “in the field of Christian life slavery, like death, is nothing more than a simple name, not to mention the fact that it does not retain its former actual meaning. Similar practical conclusions and requirements are also found in St. Gregory of Nazianzus (from 16 ed. Colon. 1690, p. 255 sq.). If Chrysostom compares with slavery the subordination of a wife to her husband that occurred as a result of sin (IV, 290:659) and, as a third form of slavery, founded by Nimrod, tyranny (IV, 292, p. 661), then, first of all, it is clear from here how little he puts slavery on the same line with marriage established before sin, and not with the state in general, but only with the existing state, absolute monarchy. At the same time, it remains to pay attention to the fact that the great preachers and exegetes of Antioch, in contrast to the radical aspirations that often manifested themselves in monasticism, pointed to the continuation of slavery not overthrown by Christianity. It is Theodore of Mopsuestia (ad. Swete, II, 264) who directly indicates that the ap. Paul does not command Philemon to let his slave go, as some in his time urgently demanded. This is how the ancient church already understood it, 1 Cor. 7:39. After a hint from St. Ignatius (ad. Pol. V,2) we have a detailed application in Tertuïl. Ad.uxor, II, 1. This interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:21, apparently for the first time by Chrysostom, opposed to the usual interpretation, which he also knows, has against itself not only the expression itself, but first of all the context of speech. Wed. in general Hofmann, N.T. II 2 2/49 ff. You can read about the heroic deeds of individuals in Clem 1Cor.55. What is said in this regard in No. mand. VIII, 10; sim. I, 8, cannot be attributed to the action of the community. The more definitely Ign speaks out for this. ad. Polyc. 4, 3 cf. Smyrn.6. The whole demand of Christian slaves for ransom by the church, which Ignatius opposes, would be completely incomprehensible if something similar had not been done in some individual, especially difficult cases. The Roman Church under Bishop Dionysius (259–268) sent messengers with money to Cappadocia to ransom the numerous Christians captured there by war (Basil. epist. 70 ed. Garnier, III, 164). Of course, probably, the predatory raids of the Goths in Asia Minor around 265 (cf. Schiller, Römische Kaiserzeit, II, 836), which are also indicated by the canonical letter of Gregory the Wonderworker (Reliquiae jur. eccl. graece ed Lagarde, p.62:11). The Syriac didascalia dates back to the same century (ed. Lagarde, p. 6, 19 – const, arch. IV, 9). Wed. also d'Allard, Les esclaves chrétiens, 2 edit. pp.321–352, one of the best sections of this book. It is remarkable, however, that the apologist Aristides, among the virtues by which Jews differ from pagans, points to the ransom of captives (p. 14, 3, Forschungen, V.392). It cannot be included here if church teachers admit and accidentally testify to the demoralizing influence of slavery, that slaves for the most part are worthless. It is possible that app. Paul in 1 Tim. 1:10 by “the kidnapper,” whom he ranks among the most evil criminals, does not mean a slave trader, but, as the Vulgate translates it, one persecuted by state laws of plagiarism. Didascalia syr. ed. Lagarde p. 74 (cf. const. apost. IV, 6); Canon 5 of the Council of Elvira from 306 (Hefele. Conciliongeschichte, I 2,157). Constitution. apost. VIII, 31, ed. Lagarde, p.267, 31 ff. For the requirement of prior manumission as a condition for the admission of a slave to the clergy, see Con. apost. 81. To Callistus, whose story is told in more detail below in the text (p. 827), Hippolytus, with all the irritation of his narrative, does not make the slightest reproach for the fact that he was a slave before he became a bishop. And yet, the latter ceased to be a slave in no other way than through a judicial sentence to hard labor on the island of Sardinia and through a subsequent imperial pardon. Slaves in ecclesiastical positions in the 4th century are evidenced by Cyrill. catech, XVII, 35; Hieron, Er. 82, 6 (Vallarsi I 2 516); as well as the indicated St. Gregory Naziavzin (cf. 28, ed. Col. p.800) and the case alleged by Basil the Great (cf. 115, ed. Garnier, III, 207). Gregory of Nazianzus had, according to his will, among his deacons two former slaves of his house, whom he freed. He also names a third there, who, like the previous two, was a monk, but not a cleric. If the Council of Elvira (canon 80) decides that freedmen whose former masters and current patrons are pagans cannot be deacons, then this also says that then such dependence on a Christian patron was by no means an obstacle to entering into a spiritual position. The change in views is shown by Canon 73 of the Council of Toledo from 633. Also, among the people of Israel, a day laborer (Exod. 12:44, 23:14; Lev. 22:10, 25:6, 40; Matt. 20:1 et seq.; James 5:4) was never the master’s partner in the house and table. Only with this assumption does the motivation for the daily payment of remuneration in Deut. 24:14 et seq. become clear. Wed Lev.19:13. On the other hand, household members are permanent slaves Matthew 24:45 et seq., Luke 16:13, 17:7 et seq. Acts 10:7, 1 Peter 2:18. In the Greco-Roman world, teachers of philosophy, grammar, etc., who were accepted into noble houses (Lucian, de merc. conduct. 4), were exceptions that confirm this rule.