Slavery, an accepted practice by Christians and Jews
The regulation of slavery in the Old Testament and the implicit acceptance of the practice in the New Testament is arguably the most contentious issue in the Bible. You would think Jesus, supposedly God incarnate and who grew up studying the Jewish scriptures, would condemn the practice of slavery outright and in very clear and unmistakable terms considering its pervasive nature in not just Greco-Roman but Jewish society of that time. But in fact, Jesus never condemns slavery at all. However, the acceptance of the practice – both implicit and explicit – can be found not just in the Old Testament scriptures but also in the New Testament in the writings of St. Paul for example.
Now there is plenty of information on the internet already covering the verses in the Bible concerning the practice. And I’ve left links in the description below on some sources. But what’s much less well covered is what the early Christians of the first century and beyond, the influential church fathers, the various saints and theologians like St. Augustine for example thought of the practice and which sections of the bible they liked to use to justify or at the very least accept the practice of slavery.
So let’s take a look at some of these characters and well-known personalities of the Roman period and what they had to say on the issue and in fact how they defended the practice, in particular St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Basil of Caesarea, St Ambrose and a Roman from Gaul called Salvian who lived in the late Roman period. And as a bonus, I’ll add in one of the more well-known popes as well, Pope Gregory the Great.
But firstly let’s very quickly cover the views of Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle and also a very influential Jewish theologian and intellectual of Jesus’ time called Philo who all tried to justify slavery despite the unsavoury nature of the practice. The reason for covering these characters is that the early Christian saints and Church fathers were naturally and heavily influenced by the Greco-Roman culture of the time in which slavery was acceptable. And with Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism, they used the same verses of course from the Jewish scriptures as Jews like Philo did to reinforce their own opinion on the matter. In fact, Philo was used extensively by the Church fathers and is almost seen as a pseudo-Christian. So we’ll cover his explanation of slavery being acceptable as far as the Jewish Old Testament scriptures were concerned as that had huge parallels with Christian thinking.
Plato and Aristotle on slavery
Ok, let’s get into it. Let’s have a very quick look at what Plato and Aristotle’s thoughts were on the issue. Plato was clearly of the opinion that it was better for the superior human to rule over the inferior.
…nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways, she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior. – Plato (Gorgias)
There was, Plato suggested, a need for a master/slave relationship to keep society on an even keel. Plato also suggested barbarians were the natural slaves but was generally uncomfortable with the idea of Greeks enslaving their fellow Greeks. So in other words what he thought was that civilised people should not be enslaved but that it was constructive for less civilised people to be under the command of the more civilised.
Now Aristotle who was Plato’s student in Athens – and who was no doubt influenced by him on the subject – would also agree with Plato. Aristotle would put forward what’s called his ‘Natural slave theory’ where he argued that the inequality of man was the way of the world with each man having different skills and intelligence and therefore a different place in the pecking order of life.
For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule… – Aristotle (Politics)
The idea was that a certain proportion of the population just couldn’t think to a sufficient level for themselves and therefore they needed to be led. Aristotle also agreed with the idea of having what we would call ‘legal slaves’. These were people who were for example captured in war and sold as slaves although their natural propensity and abilities did not mark them out to be slaves by nature. They were simply unlucky due to misfortune caused by war.
These views of Plato and Aristotle and others were accepted and were popular with the early Christian thinkers since they essentially supported slavery as in the bible. In fact, Aristotle would be used to justify slavery as late as the mid-nineteenth century by American pro-slavery politicians like William Harper amongst others for instance who quotes him in his book ‘Memoir on Slavery’ as the discussions about slavery in the America deep south were raging prior to the American civil war. So these views by the Greek philosophers were influential, to say the least right till modern times.
Biblical examples on slavery
But the primary influence on Christians of course was the Bible and before we look at the various church fathers’ views, let’s quickly go through the chapter and verses in the bible which were very popular with these various characters and which they typically used to quote to justify slavery as we will see later on.
Now there are three clear sections in the Old Testament used where the Jewish God himself sanctions or certainly accepts slavery (that is of course excluding the various rules and regulations on keeping slaves as written in Deuteronomy etc). And of course, the Christian thinking being that Jesus himself is part of the Trinity and therefore God himself, then the natural conclusion one has to come to is that Jesus himself agreed on the sanctioning of this slavery in the Old Testament. So let’s have a look at these three examples.
Canaan made a slave
The first example is the enslavement of Canaan who was the grandson of Noah. This is detailed in Genesis Chapter 9. The reason for Canaan being made a slave is a strange one. His father Ham, had seen Noah lying naked after being drunk on wine. Ham did the right thing and told his brothers Shem and Japheth who had then covered their father with clothing but without looking at him. But because Ham had originally seen his father naked, Noah decides to take punitive action. Instead of targeting Ham though, he very curiously condemns Ham’s son Canaan instead to slavery. The reason for this is never explained.
Genesis Chap 9
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Now Noah is of course the man the Jewish God chose above everyone else – saving him and his family from the flood. And of course, God communicates to him but God never criticises Noah for reducing Canaan to slavery. And so this narrative in Genesis Chapter nine shows God’s clear acceptance of the practice.
Esau made a slave
The second example that was frequently used by early Church theologians is that of Esau, son of Isaac and his story can be read from Genesis Chap 25 onwards. This is a much more explicit example where God himself makes some people and nations superior to other nations and others deliberately inferior and fit only to be slaves. In the narrative, Isaac’s wife gives birth to two sons and God tells Rebekah, his wife, that the descendants of one of the sons will serve the descendants of the other.
Genesis Chap 25
21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.
Why one son, Esau and his people, deserved to be treated as inferior to Jacob’s for no fault of their own is never mentioned. But it was the will of God that they serve Jacob and his people. So here God has for no good reason made Esau and his descendants the slaves of Jacob’s offspring and by implication, this suggests the biblical God finds nothing wrong with slavery.
Joseph made a slave
The third and last example that gets quoted is that of Joseph, the son of Jacob who was made a slave by his brothers and sold off for twenty pieces of silver. And this story pops up in Genesis Chap 37.
Gen Chap 37
23 And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him;
24 And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.
25 And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmeelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt.
26 And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood?
27 Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content.
28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
In the narrative Joseph’s brothers decide rather than killing Joseph it would be better to sell him off to some Midianites who were passing along the way. So Jacob receives no help or assistance for his predicament from God. And this was proof that God was content with Joseph’s status as a slave in Egypt.
So these were the three typical examples that popped up often when the Church fathers discussed slavery either directly or in passing.
Philo and the Jewish perspective
And examples like this from the Jewish Scriptures were used by Jewish theologians before they began to be used by Church fathers in what would become the Christian Old Testament. And this included Philo who I mentioned earlier and who happened to be one of the most famous Jewish thinkers of the first century and who would influence Christian thinkers of that time and beyond.
Philo was a near contemporary of Jesus although he lived in Alexandria at the time. He was a well-educated and Hellenised Jew and in fact, would be part of a deputation of Jews sent to Rome to meet the Emperor Caligula no less after there had been disturbances and riots between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria.
Philo was influenced and borrowed heavily from Plato and Aristotle’s idea of some people being ‘natural-born slaves’ – people who have not been born wise or attained virtue. As such these kind of people would benefit from slavery, he suggested. Their subjugation would be good in terms of self-improvement, shall we say.
But Philo like the Church fathers after him would also use the examples from the bible – specifically of Canaan and Esau being made slaves – to show the practice was acceptable to the Jewish God as well. He doesn’t go through why Esau was made a slave or his perceived weaknesses or lack of wisdom etc – something which the Bible never alludes to anyway – but implies that this was the reason for his unfortunate status. According to Philo there were two kinds of people – those who are naturally servile and fit to follow others and those who are naturally blessed to lead and command – and this was pretty much borrowing from Aristotle’s view as well.
Why are some people born into slavery? The case of Esau
So what about the question of why some people are born into slavery whatever their nature – servile or not?’ Do they deserve to be slaves through no fault of their own? What was the reason for Canaan’s and Esau’s descendants being destined for slavery by God himself? Why were these people dealt a bad hand in life? Surely this was unfair of God to condemn some humans to servitude the minute they are born while others are born free? It seems to be pure chance.
On this issue, Philo’s view was that surely this was God’s design otherwise he would not have engineered matters so that they were born as slaves. Because they were born into slavery then this was what the Jewish God desired.
Once again, of Jacob and Esau, when still in the womb, God declares that one is a ruler and leader and master but that Esau is a subject and a slave. For God, the maker of living beings knows well the different pieces of his handiwork, even before He has thoroughly chiselled and consummated them, and the faculties which they are to display at a later time, in a word, their deeds and experiences. And so when Rebecca, the soul that waits on God, goes to inquire of God, He tells her in reply, Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy belly, and one people shall be above the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger’ (Gen. 25:23). For in God’s judgement that which is base and irrational is by nature a slave, but that which is of fine character and endowed with reason and better, is princely and free. And this not only when either is full-grown in soul, but even if their development is still uncertain. – Philo (Legum allegoria)
So he’s essentially alluding to the omniscience of God and the idea that God knows more worthy people and those who are less worthy even before they are born and so gives them both their just desserts. In other words, Esau is what he would call a ‘natural slave’ and that there are others like him in consequence as well. The fact that Esau is inferior is God’s decision from the beginning and not the fault of man or Esau’s.
Adam, Eve and the serpent
Another example Philo uses of God knowing who is worthy of punishment comes from the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis. In Chap 3 of Genesis, the serpent persuades Eve to eat from the tree of good and evil. A little later, God asks Adam if he has eaten from the tree. Adam blames his action on Eve. Then God asks Eve in turn what happened and Eve blames it on the serpent. Now at this point, God should have questioned the serpent who we know had the power of speech for his side of the story. But he strangely enough doesn’t ask the serpent and therefore the serpent is not given the chance to defend or explain himself. God simply jumps to the conclusion that the serpent must be at fault. He then punishes the serpent for leading Adam and Eve astray.
Philo argues that this was because God knew that the serpent must be at fault knowing its bad nature. This he suggests was an example of God’s omniscience – that he knows who are the good people and who the bad or wicked – even before they are born. So just as the snake was summarily punished without recourse to a discussion, the same goes for Esau who had a faulty nature even though he had not been born as yet and therefore was given the role of a slave as punishment.
God has made some natures of themselves faulty and blameworthy in the soul, and others in all respects excellent and praiseworthy, just as is the case with plants and animals. – Philo
… he wrote.
And this he suggests is the reason God uses his Grace to spread fortune and freedom for good people while inflicting misfortunes including being born as slaves to other people.
For should anyone ask why the prophet says that Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord God, when as yet he had, so far as our knowledge goes, done no fair deed, we shall give a suitable answer to the effect that he is shown to be of an excellent nature from his birth, for Noah means ‘rest’ or ‘righteous’. – Philo
And the same went for others who seemed to find favour with god – Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Bezalel. These men had done nothing of any great significance to deserve God’s blessing but had simply been favoured by god because they had been destined for such roles.
He has so far pointed to no work or deed of Bezalel’s such as to win him even commendation. We must say then that here too we have a form which God has stamped on the soul as on the tested coin.- Philo
So if we take a step back, why then is God creating two natures for humans? On the one hand, he creates people who are designated or designed to be evil, or with lack of merit or accursed might be a better description and who are therefore destined to be slaves and servants while others are destined to be good and are blessed and planned to be the masters? Well, Philo saw no issue with this. The chosen people of God were simply now fulfilling their destiny and others who were less favoured were – simply by accepting slavery – working to the benefit of their superiors and community, fulfilling their roles as decided by the almighty.
Ignatius of Antioch
So these were the views of Philo an educated Jew whose views as I mentioned influenced to some extent the early Christians as they also attempted to justify slavery in the Old Testament. But let’s move to the church fathers themselves and see how the Greco-Roman and Jewish ideas on slavery had affected their views on life.
The first church father I thought I’d look at was one of the earliest whose letters are still extant. This was Ignatius of Antioch or St. Ignatius as he became after his martyrdom. Ignatius died early in the second century and therefore would have no doubt met some of the early Christians of the time of Jesus. He was also around at the same time as the gospels were written and is therefore classified as one of the ‘apostolic fathers’ – meaning he may have met some of the twelve apostles – although the writings of the apostolic fathers were not included in the Bible. Other Apostolic fathers were Clement of Rome and Polycarp amongst others.
Ignatius’ views
Now Ignatius in his letter to Polycarp, another early Christian who would also be martyred talks of the conduct that a Christian should aspire to and amidst general instructions mentions slaves and how they should be treated. St. Ignatius – like Philo or perhaps being influenced by him – also seems to tilt towards the idea of people being designated slaves by God himself, this being their station in life as decided by the almighty.
Take care that widows are not neglected; next to the Lord, be yourself their guardian. See that nothing is ever done without consulting you, and do nothing yourself without consulting God – as I am sure you never do. Take a firm stand. Hold services more frequently, and hunt up everyone by name. You must not be overbearing in your manner to slaves, whether men or women; but on the other hand, never let them get above themselves. It should be their aim to be better slaves, for the glory of God; so that they may earn a richer freedom at His hands. And they are not to set their hearts on gaining their liberty at the church’s expense, for then they only become slaves to their own longings. – Epistle to Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna)
In other words, a slave should be content with his station in life with the expectation that rewards will be obtained in the afterlife for his harder life and the burden that he had to bear. The mention of gaining liberty was the idea that the Church might free them or buy them from their masters and set them free if they became Christians. Perhaps a way of making sure slaves weren’t tempted to convert for the wrong reasons – that of freedom.
So Ignatius himself was clear on the slave’s station in life and seems to offer no hope in the direction of manumission of all slaves and perhaps that was too much to expect anyway in the 2nd century Roman Empire. Certainly, Ignatius could find no direction in terms of Jesus condemning the practice.
Basil of Caesarea
Another saint who mentions slavery in oblique fashion was Basil of Caesarea – or St. Basil the Great as he later became known.
St. Basil was a highly literate, late-fourth century bishop of Caesarea Mazaca who had travelled extensively all over the eastern Mediterranean.
He practised law and taught rhetoric as well but he’s perhaps more well-known for being one of the prime movers in setting up a culture of monasticism in the Christian community and of drawing up various guidelines and regulations on how monks should behave and organise themselves in their communities. He also happened to be an active opponent of the Arian heresy which seems to have the upper hand at various points in the 4th century. So one of the more dynamic of the Christian saints of the time. But what were his views on slavery and whether Christians should accept the practice?
Basil’s views
Well, in his work ‘On the Holy Spirit’, he mentions the practice although never really addressing it full-on in terms of its ethics. In this work, he begins by suggesting no man is born inherently servile or a slave by nature. But from this seemingly enlightened position, he then scoffs at the notion that all men should be treated equally and that their position as superiors or inferiors largely depends on their intelligence. And it is no shame therefore for a less capable man to end up enslaved to someone superior to him.
Men are brought under the yoke of slavery either because they are captured in battle or else they sell themselves into slavery owing to poverty; as the Egyptians became the slaves of Pharaoh. Sometimes, by a wise and inscrutable providence, worthless children are commanded by their father to serve their more intelligent brothers and sisters. Any upright person investigating the circumstances would realize that such situations bring much benefit, and are not a sentence of condemnation for those involved. It is better for a man who lacks intelligence and self-control to become another’s possession. Governed by his master’s intelligence, he will become like a chariot driven by a skilled horseman, or a ship with a seasoned sailor at the tiller.
So Basil seems to be heavily influenced by Aristotle’s ideas and wants to link slavery directly with a lack of intelligence or ability, with the more capable in human society being quite right to make those less capable inferior to them but he tries to show this as benevolence, that this is being done to teach or direct them in matters so that they learn from more supposedly capable people.
Jacob’s example
And to reinforce his point of view he uses examples from the bible that the inequality of life is so apparent but how that makes perfect sense in the grand scale of things in terms of productivity or efficiency of a particular community.
That is why Jacob obtained his father’s blessing and became Esau’s master: so that this foolish son, who had no intelligence properly to guide him, might profit from his prudent brother, even against his will. Canaan became “a slave of slaves to this brother”, because his father Ham was void of understanding, unable to teach his son any virtue. That is why men become slaves, but those who escape poverty, war, or the need of a guardian, are free. And even though one man is called a master, and another a slave, we are all the possessions of our Creator; we all share the rank of slave.
So as you can at the end, for the comfort of all people reading his work, be they master or slave he brings a spiritual element about human relations with God. But this seems to be a clear acceptance of slavery by St Basil even though he seems to recognise the sheer inequality that brings to human society,
St Ambrose
Moving on to another influential member of the Christian clergy at a slightly later time, St Ambrose also used examples of slavery from the Bible to suggest the practice was in line with Christian belief.
Ambrose was Bishop of Milan in the late 4th century and is well known for being a fierce anti-pagan and opposing the restoration of the Altar of Victory from the senate house in Rome and four opposing the state sponsorship of pagan festivals and temples.
On the subject of slavery, Ambrose also uses the writings of Philo the Jew and was one of those heavily influenced by his writings. Ambrose brings up the examples of slaves being used by the patriarchs of the Old Testament as examples. And he suggests that these were men of God so surely what they did was right for all men, they being examples in the right code of conduct. Certainly, these patriarchs were not taken to task by God with who they seemed to have a good line of communication. Otherwise, God would certainly have condemned them for turning their fellow men into chattels.
The example of Esau
Ambrose also puts forward the example of Esau but from the New Testament, his story is mentioned in Romans Chap 9. That’s the chapter where the apostle Paul also uses and mentions the issue of Jacob being loved by God but his brother Esau being hated by God. Esau being just born had not done anything evil or sinful – and of course, did not deserve to be a slave. But why then was his fate as a slave settled by God before his birth? For this Ambrose falls back on the typical reason that others before him gave – that Esau would benefit from slavery learning wisdom from his brother, he being a lesser human in intellect or merit than his brother.
Because he sc. Esau could not rise to virtue by means of his own resources, or make any advance on his own initiative, he sc. Isaac gave him the blessing of serving his brother, of being his slave, showing that folly is worse than slavery, which would be a remedy for him, because a fool cannot rule himself, and if he does not have someone to control him, he will be destroyed by his desires.
And he goes on to suggest that Esau being under the command of Jacob would therefore end up a better man than if he had not been made a slave.
After due deliberation the devoted father made him his brother’s slave so that he would be guided by the other’s prudence . .. So he put a yoke on the foolish one as on an unruly man, and he denied freedom to one who he decreed must live by his sword. He put his brother over him so that he might not sin by his temerity, but that, being subject to this authority and limitations, he might come to repentance. Slavery, you see, draws a distinction (some are weak of necessity though strong of purpose, because that is more beautiful which is done not of necessity but willingly), and so he put on him the yoke of necessity and later secured for him the blessing of willing subjection.
Ambrose, therefore, suggests that slavery was a blessing in that it would benefit the foolish son. And therefore he argues that God is not unjust in what he does even to the point of reducing someone’s destiny to slavery – someone who had done no wrong as the motive is good and constructive.
The example of Canaan
And to reinforce his point Ambrose also viewed Noah cursing Ham and the enslavement of Canaan as being due to the same reasons – lack of wisdom.
Let us consider the source of that philosophy from which the patriarchs drew their wisdom and learning. Was not Noah the first to curse his son when he learned that Ham had in folly made fun of his nakedness: ‘Cursed be Ham; he shall be a household slave to his brethren’, and he put as masters over him his brothers, who with wisdom knew that they should respect their father’s years. – Epistulae 7.6-8 (part)
Calamus, the Indian sage
And in any case, he states, that slavery of the body is unimportant and is not unjust and that real freedom is through the advancement of the mind, To reinforce his point Ambrose also quotes the famous answer Calamus the Indian sage in the Punjab gave to Alexander when the Macedonian King ordered him to accompany him back to Greece, a journey which Calamus didn’t want to do and which would make him a virtual slave or servant of Alexander. Calamus had famously replied…
Thus natura does not make a man a slave but folly does, just as manumission does not make a man free but wisdom does.
So Ambrose uses this reply to connect slavery with intelligence and wisdom and morality. Those having these qualities should be leaders, he suggests and those without are not wrong to be their slaves.
The parallels with Christianity and Judaism
And in fact, Ambrose uses the example of Jacob and Esau – in other words, the younger son superseding the older and making him a slave – to draw a parallel between the Christian Church and Judaism with Christianity (the younger sibling if you like) taking the place of Judaism and the synagogue in God’s favour. So even taken allegorically Christianity taking the lead and command from the older Judaism was part of God’s plan.
Jesus was treated worse than a slave
And to finally and further reinforce his view he points to the treatment that Jesus was given before he was crucified. He was treated worse than a slave and was humiliated before all. Surely if God found nothing wrong with him being treated as such then slavery could not be wrong in God’s eyes.
It is written not that he took the form of God, but that he was in the form of God; and that he took the form of a slave, inasmuch as he suffered humiliation as if he were a sinner. For slaves are made out of sin, just as in the case of Cham the son of Noah, who was the first to take the name of slave and to do so deservedly.13 – Commentary on Phillipians
Salvian
On the vexing issue of why some people or nations who were formerly free become enslaved Salvian a Christian thinker would attempt an answer.
Now Salvian lived just after Ambrose in the 5th century but this was a quite different time from Ambrose’s time. Salvian was living during the barbarian invasions of the early 5th century and therefore would have been an eye-witness to tribes like the Visigoths, Vandals and Huns crossing the river Rhine and entering Roman Gaul. The Roman Empire was crumbling and Barbarian tribes though converted to Christianity were the new masters. The Vandals, one of the most destructive of the tribes would occupy North Africa and would go on to sack Rome itself.
Previously barbarian men, women and children would be bought and sold as slaves in Roman slave markets, but now the shoe was on the other foot. Many Romans now found themselves sold into slavery or at the very least becoming second-class citizens with the barbarian tribes forming the upper layer of society. So how could Christianity explain this sudden reversal of fortune? Well, Salvian would equate the Roman plight to their inability to live Christian lives as they should. So in other words falling back on the same reasoning that others gave – of lack of merit and wisdom. In his book ‘On the Government of God’ Salvian suggests God had abandoned the Romans allowing them to be turned into slaves while the barbarian tribes who were used to being slaves of the Romans previously were much better Christians and like Jacob had gained God’s favour and blessing and had now become the masters.
My description, at the end of the previous book, of the weakness and misery of the Romans, may seem to be at variance with my general proposition. I admitted that the very people who, as pagans, conquered and ruled the world, are being conquered and enslaved, now that they have become Christians. Is not this clear evidence of God’s neglect of human affairs?
The charge is easily refuted by what I said long ago about the pagan nations. Those who know the law of God and neglect it are more guilty than those who fail to observe it through lack of knowledge.
So God had shifted his support to the barbarians and that was Salvian’s explanation for the recent unfortunate events. Again like the others, Salvian has no great dislike of the practice of slavery seeing it as the way of the world.
Pope Gregory the Great
The last character I thought I’d bring up very quickly is Pope Gregory or Pope Gregory the Great as he was later known.
Gregory was a 6th-century Pope who came from a pretty wealthy Roman family. And he lived in a time when the Western Roman Empire had fallen but the Italian peninsula had been recaptured by the East Roman army under Belisarius by 539CE in a fairly lengthy and destructive war with the Ostrogoths. The country would though, shortly later, fall to the Lombards in 568CE. So a fairly turbulent period in all respects and with these never-ending wars many slaves were being taken no doubt in the various conflicts. So slavery was perhaps arguably much more apparent in the 6th century than before.
This pope held several important positions including the role of papal ambassador to the imperial court in Constantinople for several years. But he’s most famous perhaps for his role in sending St. Augustine to Anglo-Saxon Britain to convert the country to Christianity.
Anyway returning to the issue of slavery, Pope Gregory in his various letters comments on the need for aristocrats and landowners of the country to pressurise the peasants and other servants and slaves under them to abandon pagan worship and to direct them towards Christianity.
I have learned from the report of my brother and fellow bishop Felix and my son the servant of God Cyriacus that nearly all of you have peasants on your estates given to idolatry. And this has greatly saddened me because I know that the guilt of subjects weighs down the life of their superiors, and that, when sin in a subject is not corrected, the sentence rebounds on the master – Pope Gregory Letter 423
This was of course a time when paganism in the Italian peninsula had officially at least all but been wiped out. And certainly, public shows of paganism had disappeared and Christianity had had the upper hand for nearly 200 years. And this shows the tenacity that the Greco-Roman beliefs still held with sections of the public. However, in his directive, he warns people against treating pagan slaves in the same manner as free men and that greater liberties can be taken with them to force them into Christianity.
We vehemently exhort your fraternity to maintain your pastoral vigilance against idol-worshippers and soothsayers and magicians; to preach publicly among the people against the men who do such things and recall them by persuasive exhortation from the pollution of such sacrilege and from the temptation of divine judgment and peril in the present life. If, however, you find them unwilling to change their ways, we desire you to arrest them with a fervent zeal. If they are slaves, chastise them with blows and torments to bring about their correction. But if they are free men, let them be led to penitence by strict confinement, as is suitable, so that they who scorn to listen to words of salvation which reclaim them from the peril of death, may at any rate by bodily torments be brought back to the desired sanity of mind. – Pope Gregory the Great, Letter 423
So little in the form of a condemnation of slavery in general by the pope but an interesting insight into the class system of the country with the violence against slaves being accepted and in this case even being promoted by the pope himself to try and eliminate pagan beliefs which were still surviving in the late 6th century despite huge efforts by the church to wipe out the old beliefs and culture. Pagan temples of course had been closed for a couple of centuries by this time.
A summary
So there you have it – quite a mixed bag of opinions and comments on various issues all related to slavery in the Roman world. So the basis for much of their views of the church fathers and other theologians was not unexpectedly the casual acceptance, regulation and examples of slavery in the Bible but this was of course confirmed by the prevailing cultural Greco-roman influences of that time.
I’ll go into the subject in greater depth in future posts and if you are interested in the subject I’ll be doing one on St. Augustine’s views on slavery soon but there is one on Church Councils and synods and their mentions of the practice which should be coming out soon as well.
