Jesus Himself used the relation of master and slave to illustrate His teaching, without any word condemning slavery as an evil in itself (see, e.rj., Mt IS^^if-)- So, too, St. Paul in his Epistles lias nothing to say against the institution. Indeed, in one important passage (1 Co J^-'-*] he definitely counsels slave converts to stay contentedly in their lot, even if they should have an opportunity to become free. The renderinj^ of the liVV (' use it rather') is enigmatical; and certainly from early times some have under.stood the Apostle's phrase (liaWov xP^""-'-) thus rendered to mean, ' take your freedom, if j'ou can get it,' but there is more to be said for viewing it as counselling them to stay as they were. (RVm dimly indicates this. ) Again, in bis letter to Philemon (th.at little classic in tlio literature of slaverj-), St. Paul does not dream of suggesting that Onesimus should be set at liberty because he has become a Christian. Nor is this attitude to be explained merely by the fact that St. Paul was alisorbed in the exiiectation of the Parousi.a and the break-up of all society in the near future (as A. E. Garvie suggests in Stndies of Paul and his Gospel, London, HUl, pp. 73, 304). Kather, surely, slavery was so ancient and estab- lished a feature in the social framework as to be
regarded as quite natural. Besides, in the Apostle'j eyes, a slave could bo as good a Christian as a freeman. The life of faith, the s|iiritnal experi- ence, was the one thing that nuiltered ; and ' in Christ' the distinction between slave and freeman, likeother distinctions, was of no moment (Col 3", etc.). And then, did not the Lord lliiiiself a.^sumo the liopcpT) SovXov 1 — a consideration repeateilly used by the Fathers of the Early Church in consoling and encouraging believers who were slaves.
From the iirst both slaves and slave-owners were found in the ranks of the Christian society. No doubt the greater proportion of converts to the Faith came from the servile class — witness St. Paul's references in 1 Co 1 and elsewhere; but, as Friedliinder says, the evangel 'certainly pene- trated often enough from the cell of the slave to the house of the master' (op. cit., iii. 195). There was many another Philemon as well as many aniither Onesimus. Otherwise there would be little point in the reiterated NT counsels addressed to masters and slaves. Athenagoras, the 2nd cent, apologist, mentions as a simple matter of fact : ' We have slaves, some more anil some fewer ' (Apol. 35). In the persecution at Lyons, a.d. 177, pagan slaves gave evidence against their Christian masters (Eusebius, UE v. 1). And, again, from Constantino's time onw.ards we lind numerous laws in operation dealing with the case of Christian slaves. Thus, Jews (against whom, especially as proselytizers, strict laws al.so existed in the Early Empire) were forbidden to possess such.
\et the principles of Christianity were bound in time to act as powerful solvents on this institution. They contributed to its ultimate downfall. l"or one thing, Christianity set up a new order of relations that did not recogidze class-distinctions. Master and slave sat together at the Agape, received the sacred elements together, and joined together in public worship. The Epistle to Philemon, though written to restore a runaway slave to his master, had within it the seeds of revolution in the words, ' No longer as a bond- servant, but. . . a brother beloved ' (v."). In peni- tential discipline, wrongs done to a slave were not distin";uished from wronj's done to a freeman. Church legislation carefully guarded the chastity of female slaves. Slave-birth was no bar to admission to the priesthood : e.g. Callistus, a 3rd cent, bishop of Kome, was originally a slave. Many names of slaves appear in the roll of the martyrs, and the memories of such as Blandina, Felicitas, and Vitalis, who sullered in the persecu- tions of the iirst two centuries, received highest honour.
Again, Christianity placed a high value on what might be called servde virtues — the qualities that anj' master would esteem as most desirable in his slaves. Humility, obedience, patience, gentleness, resignation are cardinal virtues in a Christian. Jesus said to His disciples, when speaking of the high-handed exercise of authoritj' and power in the world, 'Not so shall it be among you' (Mt 20-"), and apostolic teaching followed the same line. It emphasized qualities that paganism neglected or under-rated, as was only natural since Roman society in general held slaves in utter contempt.
Primitive Christian teaching, however, in rela- tion to the various duties of life, kept the balance even as between masters and slaves. Th.'it teaching in its essence still supjilies the fundamental prin- ciple for regulating similar relations (masters and servants, employers and employees) under whatever changed conditions they may continue to exist. Masters were warned against a tyrannical spirit, a disdainful inhumanitj' ; slaves were counselled to avoid 'eye-service ' and do their work as for Christ
512
SLAVE, SLAVERY
SLEEP
(Epli 6'"-). and even to be patiently submissive towanls hard masters (1 P 2"). So alf^o the Didmhe (4) exhorts Christian masters not to sliow harshness towards their slaves, ' whose hope is in the same God,' and slaves to submit to tlieir lords as being a type, or copy, of God. The regulating consideration for both parties is summarily given in the so-called Apostulir. Constitutions (iv. 12) ; it is their common humanity — ' even as he is a man.' The warning addressed to slaves in 1 Ti 6"' is noticeable, and by no means superfluous, human nature being what it is. If their masters were fellow-believers, they were not to despise them, ' because they are brethren.' Similarly Ignatius (Ep. ad Polyc. 4) : ' Do not desjjise slaves, yet neither let them be putted up with conceit, but rather submit themselves the more (sc. as Christian slaves with Christian masters) for the glory of God.' He adds: 'Let them not long to be set free at the public e-xpense, lest they be found slaves to their own desires.' With the continuance of slavery in the Christian era the need for such counsels continued. How imperfectly Christians sometimes followed them may be gathered from the simple fact that the Synod of Elvira (c. A.D. 300) could legislate for the possibility that a Christian mistress might whip her handmaid to death (Canon v.).