Chapter XIV: Part 14

_What further, then, can we say of slaves, than that the servant should have benevolence towards his master, with the fear of God, though he should be impious, though wicked; though he should not even agree with him in religion. In like manner, let the master love his slave, and though he is above him, let him judge him to be his equal at least as a human being. But let him who has a Christian master, having regard to his dominion, love him both as a master, as a companion in the faith, and as a father, not as an eye-servant, but loving his master as one who knows that he will receive the reward of his service to be paid by God. So let the master who has a Christian slave, saving the service, love him as a son and as a brother, on account of the communion of faith._

Ne amaro animo jubeas famulo tuo aut ancillæ eidem Deo confidentibus: ne aliquando gemant adversus te, et irascatur tibi Deus. Et vos servi dominis vestris tanquam Deum repræsentantibus subditi estote cum sedulitate et metu, _tanquam Domino, et non tanquam hominibus_.

_Do not command your man-servant nor your woman-servant having confidence in the same God, in the bitterness of your soul; lest they at any time lament against you, and God be angry with you. And you servants be subject to your masters, the representatives of God, with care and fear_, as to the Lord, and not to men.

In the eighth book, ch. 33, is a constitution of SS. Peter and Paul, respecting the days that slaves were to be employed in labour, and those on which they were to rest and to attend to religious duties.

Stephen I., who was the pontiff in 253, endeavoured to preserve discipline, and set forth regulations to remedy evils.

Accusatores vero et accusationes, quas sæculi leges non recipiunt, et antecessores nostri prohibuerunt, et nos submovemus.

_We also reject these accusers and charges which the secular laws do not receive, and which our predecessors have prohibited._

Soon after he specifies:

Accusator autem vestrorum nullus sit servus aut libertus.

_Let not your accuser be a slave or a freed person._

Thus, in the ancient discipline of the church, as in the secular tribunals, the testimony of slaves was inadmissible.

In the year 305, a provincial council was held at Elvira, in the southern part of Spain. The fifth canon of which is—

Si qua domina furore zeli accensa flagris verberaverit ancillam suam, ita ut in tertium diem animam cum cruciatu effundat: eo quod incertum sit, voluntate, an casu occiderit, si voluntate post septem annos; si casu, post quinquennii tempora; acta legitima pænitentia, ad communionem placuit admitti. Quod si infra tempora constituta fuerit infirmata, accipiat communionem.

_If any mistress, carried away by great anger, shall have whipped her maid-servant so that she shall within three days die in torture, as it is uncertain whether it may happen by reason of her will or by accident, it is decreed that she may be admitted to communion, having done lawful penance, after seven years, if it happened by her will; if by accident, after five years. But should she get sick within the time prescribed, she may get communion._

Spanish ladies, at that period, had not yet so far yielded to the benign influence of the gospel, and so far restrained their violence of temper, as to show due mercy to their female slaves.

It may be well to observe a beneficial change, not only in public opinion, but even in the court, by reason of the influence of the spirit of Christianity; so that the pagan more than once reproved, by his mercy, the professor of a better faith.

Theodoret (l. 9, de Græc. cur. aff.) informs us that Plato established the moral and legal innocence of the master who slew his slave. Ulpian, the Roman jurist (l. 2, de his quæ sunt sui vel alieni jur.) testifies the power which—in imitation of the Greeks—the Roman masters had over the lives of their slaves. The well-known sentence of Pollio upon the unfortunate slave that broke a crystal vase at supper,—that he should be cast as food to fish,—and the interference of Augustus, who was a guest at that supper, give a strong exemplification of the tyranny then in many instances indulged.

Antoninus Pius issued a constitution about the year 150, restraining this power, and forbidding a master to put his own slave to death, except in those cases where he would be permitted to slay the slave of another. The cruelty of the Spaniards to their slaves, in the province of Bœtica, gave occasion to the constitution; and we have a rescript of Antoninus to Ælius Martianus, the proconsul of Bœtica, in the case of the slave of Julius Sabinus, a Spaniard. In this the right of the masters to their slaves is recognised, but the officer is directed to hear their complaints of cruelty, starvation, and oppressive labour; to protect them, and, if the complaints be founded in truth, not to allow their return to the master; and to insist on the observance of the constitution.

Caius (in l. 2, ad Cornel. de sicar.) states that the cause should be proved in presence of judges before the master could pronounce his sentence. Spartianus, the biographer, informs us that the Emperor Adrian, the immediate predecessor of Antoninus, enacted a law forbidding masters to kill their slaves, unless legally convicted. And Ulpian relates that Adrian placed, during five years, in confinement (relegatio) Umbricia, a lady of noble rank, because, for very slight causes, she treated her female slaves most cruelly. But Constantine the Great, about the year 320, enacted that no master should, under penalty due to homicide, put his slave to death, and gave the jurisdiction to the judges but if the slave died casually, after necessary chastisement, the master was not accountable to any legal tribunal. (Const. in 1. i.; C. Theod. de emendat. servorum.)

As Christianity made progress, the unnatural severity with which this class of human beings was treated became relaxed, and as the civil law ameliorated their condition, the canon law, by its spiritual efficacy, came in with the aid of religion, to secure that, the followers of the Saviour should give full force to the merciful provisions that were introduced.

The principle which St. Augustine laid down was that observed. The state was to enact the laws regulating this species of property; the church was to plead for morality and to exhort to practise mercy.

About the same time, St. Peter, archbishop of Alexandria, drew up a number of penitential canons, pointing out the manner of receiving, treating, and reconciling the “lapsed,” or those who, through fear of persecution, fell from the profession of the faith. Those canons were held in high repute, and were generally adopted by the eastern bishops.

The sixth of those canons exhibits to us a device of weak Christians, who desired to escape the trials of martyrdom, without being guilty of actual apostasy. A person of this sort procured that one of his slaves should personate him, and in his name should apostatize. The canon prescribes for such a slave, who necessarily was a Christian and a slave of a Christian, but one-third of the time required of a free person, in a mitigated penance, taking into account the influence of fear of the master, which, though it did not excuse, yet it diminished the guilt of the apostasy.

The general council of Nice, in Bythinia, was held in the year 325, when Constantine was emperor. In the first canon of this council, according to the usual Greek and Latin copies, there is a provision for admitting slaves, as well as free persons who have been injured by others, to holy orders. In the Arabic copy, the condition is specially expressed, which is not found in the Greek or Latin, but which had been previously well known and universally established, “_that this should not take place unless the slave had been manumitted by his master_.”

About this period, also, several of the _Gnostic_ and _Manichean_ errors prevailed extensively in Asia Minor. The _fanatics_ denied the lawfulness of _marriage_; they forbid _meat to be eaten_; they condemned the _use of wine_; they praised extravagantly the monastic institutions, and proclaimed the _obligation on all_ to enter into religious societies; they decried the _lawfulness of slavery_; they denounced the _slaveholders_ as violating equally the laws of _nature and of religion_; they offered to _aid slaves_ to _desert their owners_; gave them _exhortations_, _invitations_, _asylum_, and _protection_; and in all things assumed to be more _holy_, more _perfect_, and more _spiritual_ than other men.!!!

Osius, bishop of Cordova, whom Pope Sylvester sent as his legate into the east, and who presided in the council of Nice, was present when several bishops assembled in the city of Gangræ, Paphlagonia, to correct those errors. Pope Symmachus declared, in a council held in Rome, about the year 500, that Osius confirmed, by the authority of the pope, the acts of this council. The decrees have been admitted into the body of canon law, and have always been regarded as a rule of conduct in the Catholic church. The third canon:

Si quis docet servum, pietatis prætextu, dominum contemnere, et a ministerio recedere, et non cum benevolentia et omni honore domino suo inservire. Anathema sit.

_If any one, under the pretence of piety, teaches a slave to despise his master, and to withdraw from his service, and not to serve his master with good-will and all respect. Let him be anathema._

_Let him be anathema_ is never appended to any decree which does not contain the expression of unchangeable doctrine respecting belief or morality, and indicates that the doctrine has been revealed by God. It is precisely what St. Paul says in _Gal._ i. 8: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” 9: “As we said before to you, so I say now again: If any man preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received; let him be anathema.” It is therefore manifest, that although this council of Gangræ was a particular one, yet the universal reception of this third canon, with its _anathema_, and its recognition in the Roman council by Pope Symmachus, gives it the greatest authority and in Labbe it is further entitled as approved by Leo IV., about the year 850, _dist. 20, C. de libell_.

Several councils were held in Africa in the third and fourth centuries, in Carthage, in Milevi, and in Hippo. About the year 422, the first of Pope Celestine I., one was held under Aurelius, archbishop of Carthage, and in which St. Augustine sat as bishop of Hippo and legate of Numidia. A compilation was made of the canons of this and the preceding ones, which was styled the “African Council.” The canon cxvi. of this collection, taken into the body of the canon law, decrees that slaves shall not be admitted as prosecutors, nor shall certain freedmen be so admitted, except to complain for themselves; and for this, as well as for the incapacity of several others there described, the public law is cited, as well as the 7th and 8th councils of Carthage.

The great St. Basil was born in 329, and died in 379. His works, called “Canonical,” contain a great number of those which were the rules of discipline, not only for Asia Minor, but for the vast regions in its vicinity. The fortieth canon regards the marriages of female slaves. In this he mentions a discipline which was not general, but was peculiar to the north-eastern provinces of the church, requiring the consent of the master to the validity of the marriage-contract of a female slave: this was not required in other places, as is abundantly testified by several documents.

The forty-second canon treats in like manner of the marriages of children without their parents’ consent, and generally of those of all slaves without the consent of the owner.

------------------

LESSON VI.

It may not be improper now to take a more particular view of the civil world, its condition, and of those wars at the instance of which it had been, and then was, flooded with slaves. As an example, we select the middle of the fifth century:

Attila, to whom the Romans gave the sobriquet, “_Flagellum Dei_,” _Scourge of God_, was driven by Ætius out of Gaul in the year 451; and the following year, pouring his wild hordes down upon Italy, conquered Aquillia, Pavia, Milan, and a great number of small cities, and was in the attitude of marching on Rome. The Emperor Valentinian III., who was a weak prince, panic-struck, shut himself up in Ravenna; and his general, Ætius, who had been so victorious in Gaul, partook of the general fear when invaded at home. The destruction of Rome and its imperial power, the slaughter and slavery of the Roman people, and the extinction of the church appeared probable. Under such a state of things, the emperor and his council prevailed on Leo the pontiff himself, supported by Albienus and Tragelius, men of great experience and talent, to undertake an embassy to the enemy’s camp, then on the banks of the Minzo. This embassy was accompanied by a most grand and numerous retinue—a small army—armed, not with the weapons of war, but with the crosier and crook. Nor did Attila attempt to hide his joy for their arrival. The most profound attention, the most convincing demonstrations of his kindness to them, were studiously displayed by him.

The terms proposed were readily accepted, and Attila and his army, a tornado fraught with moral and physical ruin to Rome, the church, and the civilized world, silently sank away far behind the Danube.

Nor is it strange that the great success of this embassy should have been attributed to some intervention of miraculous power during the dark ages that followed;—and hence we find that, four hundred years after, in one of Gruter’s copies of “The Historica Miscella,” it is stated that St. Peter and St. Paul stood, visible alone to Attila, on either side of Leo, brandishing a sword, commanding him to accept whatever Leo should offer; and this is quoted as credible history by Barronius, _ad ann._ 452, _no._ 47–59, and has been painted by Raffaele, at a much later period. The idea was perhaps poetical, and this piece alone would have immortalized the artist. But it is truly singular that this appearance of Peter and Paul should have gained a place in the Roman Breviary, especially as it is nowhere alluded to by Leo, nor by his secretary, Prosper, who was present at that treaty, nor by any contemporary whatever. The facts attached to Attila, in connection with this treaty, were:—His army was extremely destitute, and a contagious and very mortal disease was raging in his camp; in addition to which, Marcian had gathered a large army, then under march for Italy, to join the imperial forces under Ætius, while, at the same moment, another army, sent by Marcian long before, were then ravaging the country of the Huns themselves: of these facts Attila was well advised. These were the agencies that operated on his mind in favour of peace with Valentinian. To us the idea seems puerile to suppose Jehovah sending Peter and Paul, sword in hand, to frighten his Hunnish majesty from making slaves of the Roman people.

Would it not be more consonant with the general acts of his providence to point Attila to his diseased army; to their consequent want of supplies, and to the threatening danger of his being totally cut off by the two armies of Marcian, saying nothing of the possibility of a restored confidence among the then panic-struck Romans? Besides, it has been well ascertained that, at the time of Leo’s arrival, he had been hesitating whether to march on Rome—or recross the Alps. See _Bower_, vol. ii. p. 202; also, _Jornandez Rer. Goth._ c. 41, 49.

But, we acknowledge the intervening influences of the Divine will, in this case, as forcibly as it could be urged, even if attended with all the particulars and extravagancies of the poetic painter’s fancy. We have alluded to this particle of the history of that day, as it stands upon the records, in order that, while we quote, we may not be misunderstood as to our view of the providences of God.

But to return to our subject:—Upon a review of these times, we may notice the distractions of the church by means of the various heresies which imbittered against each other the different professions of the Christian faith. How the followers of Arius, for more than half a century, spread confusion and violence over the entire Christian world:—How, crushed and driven out by Theodosius, thousands took shelter among the pagans, whose movements they stimulated, and whom we now perceive in progress of the gradual overthrow of the Roman Empire:—How, upon the partial or more general successes of these hordes, their Arian confederates, with a fresh memory of their late oppressions and the cruelties inflicted on them, retaliated with unsparing severity and bloodshed upon their Nicene opponents; while, among all these savage invaders, the Arian creed supplanted and succeeded the pagan worship:—How this wild Attila swept the banks of the Danube and the Rhine, carrying death or desolation to the followers of Pharamond, and to the Goths, who had then already established themselves in the strongholds of ancient Gaul and of the more modern Romans. True, his career was checked on the banks of the Rhone, but, like a hunted lion, he rushed towards the Mediterranean, and, recruiting his force in Pannonia, directed his march to Italy; and to-day, after fourteen centuries, it is said that Aquillia still stands the monument of his barbarity. We have this moment noticed the extraordinary manner in which, it is said, by the monition of Leo, his path of ruin was suddenly directed to the ice-bound fortresses of the north. But the captives made on both sides, in these desolating wars, greatly increased the number of slaves of the white race, which otherwise, from operating causes, would have been diminished.

Up to this time in these regions, and, as we shall see, to a much later time, slavery was the result of that mercy in the victor, whereby he spared the life of the conquered enemy. Its condition did not depend on any previous condition of degradation, of freedom or slavery, nor upon the race or colour of the captive,—and the wars, for ages, which had been and were so productive of slavery, were almost exclusively among those who, in common, claimed a Caucasian origin. Instances of African slavery were rare. The Romans derived some few from their African wars, valued mostly by pride, because they were the most rare.

Thus we read in the Life of Nero, by Tacitus:—“Nero never travelled with less than a thousand baggage-wagons; the mules all shod with silver, and the drivers dressed in scarlet; his African slaves adorned with bracelets on their arms, and the horses decorated with the richest trappings.” But these times had passed away. Yet we find in the Life of Alphonso el Casto, that, upon his conquest of Lisbon, 798, he sent seven Moorish slaves as a present to Charlemagne. And also, in Bower’s “Lives of the Popes,” that in 849, “A company of Moors, from Africa, rendezvoused at Tozar, in Sardinia, and thence made an incursion, by the Tiber, on Rome. But they were mostly lost in a storm before landing. Of those who got on shore, some were killed. in battle, some were hanged, and a large number were brought to Rome and reduced to slavery.”

Yet the great mass of slaves were of the same race and colour of their masters; and at this age, a most important fact with the Christian, if they were pagans, was their conversion to Christianity.

For the first three hundred years, we may notice how Christianity had threaded her way amidst the troublous and barbarous paganisms of that age. But, at the time to which we have arrived, Christianity had ruled the civilized world for more than a century. And had Providence seen fit to have attended her future path with peace, human sympathy might have fondly hoped that the mild spirit of her religion would have been poured in ameliorating, purifying streams upon the condition and soul of the slave, and like a dissolving oil on the chains that bound him.

------------------

LESSON VII.

We present a series of records and documents which elucidate the practice and doctrine of the church in regard to slavery, as we find it in that age.

These records are mostly extracts from Bishop England’s Letters, and collated by him with accuracy. Some few, from Bower, Bede, Lingard, and others, will be noticed in their place.

It should be remembered that, in all cases where the contrary is not explicitly announced, the slave is of the same colour and race as the master. At this era of the world, slaves were too common, and their value too little, to warrant the expense of a distant importation. The negro slave, from his exhibiting an extreme variety of the human species, was regarded more as an article of curiosity and pride than usefulness; and therefore was seldom or never found in Europe, except near the royal palaces, or in the trains of emperors.

As early as the days of Polycarp and St. Ignatius, who were disciples of the apostles, Christians had, from motives of mercy, charity, and affection, manumitted many of their slaves in presence of the bishops, and this was more or less extensively practised through the succeeding period. In several churches, it was agreed that if a slave became a Christian, he should be manumitted on receiving baptism. In Rome, the slave was frequently manumitted by the form called _vindicta_, with the prætor’s rod. Constantine, in the year 317, Sozomen relates, lib. i. c. 9, transferred this authority to the bishops, who were empowered to use the rod in the church, and have the manumission testified in the presence of the congregation. A rescript of that emperor to this effect is found in the Theodosian code, 1. i. c. _De his qui in eccl. manumitt_. The master, who consented to manumit the slave, presented him to the bishop, in presence of the congregation, and the bishop pronounced him free, and became the guardian of his freedom. The rescript was directed to Protogenas, bishop of Sardica, and was in the consulship of Sabinus and Ruffinus.

In book ii. of the same code, is a rescript to Osius, bishop of Cordova, in which the emperor empowers the bishops to grant the privilege of Roman citizenship to such freedmen as they may judge worthy.

In the consulship of Crispus and Constantine, a grant was given to the clergy of manumitting their own slaves when they pleased, by any form they should think proper. About a century later, St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, informs us (_Sermo. de diversis_, 50) that this form was established in Africa. “The deacon of Hippo is a poor man: he has nothing to give to any person: but, before he was a clergyman, he, by the fruit of his labour and industry, bought some little servants, and is to-day, by the episcopal act, about to manumit them in your sight.”

This same bishop writes, (_Enarrat in Ps._ cxxiv.,) “Christ does not wish to make you proud while you walk in this journey, that is, while you are in this life. Has it happened that you have been made a Christian, and you have a man as your master: you have not been made a Christian that you may scorn to serve. When, therefore, by the command of Christ you are the servant of a man, your service is not to him, but to the one that gave you the command to serve. And he says, Hear your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, and in the simplicity of your hearts, not as eye-servants, as if pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God, from your hearts, with a good will. Behold, he did not liberate you from being servants, but he made those who were bad servants to be good servants. Oh, how much do the rich owe to Christ who has thus set order in their houses! So, if there be in his family a faithless slave, and Christ convert him, he does not say to him, Leave your master, because you have now known him who is the true Master! Perhaps this master of yours is impious and unjust, and that you are faithful and just; it is unbecoming that the just and faithful should serve the unjust and the infidel: this is not what he said; but, let him rather serve.” This great doctor of the church continues at considerable length to show how Christ, by his own example, exhorts the servants to fidelity and obedience to their masters in every thing, save what is contrary to God’s service. Subsequently, he passes to the end of time, and the opening of eternity, and shows many good, obedient, and afflicted servants mingled with good masters among the elect, and bad, faithless, and stubborn servants, with cruel masters, cast among the reprobates.

In his _book_ i., _on the Sermon of Christ on the Mount_, he dwells upon the duty of Christian masters to their slaves. They are not to regard them as mere property, but to treat them as human beings having immortal souls, for which Christ died.

Thus we perceive that, though from the encouragement of manumission and the spirit of Christianity, the number of slaves had been greatly reduced and their situation greatly improved, still the principles were recognised of the moral and religious legality of holding slave property, and of requiring that they should perform a reasonable service.

The instances of voluntary slavery, such as that of St. Paulinus, were not rare. It is related, that having bestowed all that he could raise, to ransom prisoners taken by the barbarians who overran the country; upon the application of a poor widow whose son was held in captivity, he sold himself, to procure the means of her son’s release. His good conduct procured the affection of his master, and subsequently his emancipation. Thus slavery lost some of its degrading character. This, together with the confusion arising from the turbulence accompanying the invasions, caused a relaxation of discipline: to remedy some of the abuses, Pope Leo issued several letters. The following is an extract from the first of them: it has been taken into the body of the canon law. _Dist. 5, Admittuntur_:—

“Admittuntur passim ad ordinem sacrum, quibus nulla natalium, nulla morum dignitas suffragatur: et qui a dominis suis libertatem consequi minime potuerunt, ad fastigium sacerdotii, tanquam servilis vilitas hunc honorem jure capiat, provehuntur, et probari Deo se posse creditur, qui domino suo necdum probare se potuit. Duplex itaque in hac parte reatus est, quod et sacrum mysterium (ministerium) talis consortii vilitate polluitur, et dominorum, quantum ad illicitæ usurpationis temeritatem pertinet, jura solvuntur. Ab his itaque, fratres carissimi, omnes provinciæ vestræ abstineant sacerdotes: et non tantum ab his, sed ab illis etiam, qui aut originali aut alicui conditioni obligati sunt, volumus temperari: nisi forte corum petitio aut voluntas accesserit, qui aliquid sibi in eos vindicant potestatis. Debet enim esse immunis ab aliis, qui divinæ militiæ fuerit aggregandus; ut a castris Dominicis, quibus nomen ejus adscribitur, nullis necessitatis vinculis abstrahatur.”

_Persons who have not the qualifications of birth or conduct, are everywhere admitted to holy orders; and they who could not procure freedom from their masters are elevated to the rank of the priesthood; as if the lowliness of slavery could rightfully claim this honour: and, as if he who could not procure the approbation of even his master, could procure that of God. There is, therefore, in this a double criminality: for the holy ministry is polluted by the meanness of this fellowship, and so far as regards the rashness of this unlawful usurpation, the rights of the masters are infringed. Wherefore, dearest brethren, let all the priests of your province keep aloof from these: and not only from these, but also, we desire they should abstain from those who are under bond, by origin or any condition, except perchance upon the petition or consent of the persons who have them in their power in any way. For he who is to be aggregated to the divine warfare, ought to be exempt from other obligations: so that he may not by any bond of necessity be drawn away from that camp of the Lord for which his name has been enrolled._

Prosper, lib. 2 _de vitâ contemplat._ c. 3, and many other writers of this century, treat of the relative duties of the Christian master and his Christian slave. The zeal and charity of several holy men led them to make extraordinary sacrifices during this period, to redeem the captives from the barbarians: besides the remarkable instance of Paulinus, we have the ardent and persevering charity of Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, who sold the plate belonging to the church, and used glass for the chalice, that he might be able by every species of economy to procure liberty for the enslaved.

Nor was this a solitary instance. About the year 513, Pope Symmachus called a national council, by which, among other enactments, he established the rule that under no circumstances, could the church property be alienated. See Bower, vol. ii. p. 277.

About the year 535, Cæsarius, primate of Arles, applied to Pope Agapetus for means to relieve the poor Christians in Gaul. But, at that time, the church being quite destitute of money, the pope excused himself, and quoted the decree of Symmachus. The Arians, and some others, hence inculcated the doctrine that the alienation of church property, under any circumstances, was sacrilege. The laws of the empire also forbid such alienation, but with the proviso, “except there was no other means by which the poor could be relieved in time of famine, nor the captives be redeemed from slavery.” Such was the practice among the most pious of the age.

St. Ambrose did not scruple to melt down the communion-plate of the church of Milan to redeem some captives, who otherwise must have continued in slavery. The Arians charged him with sacrilege: in answer to which he wrote his Apology, which has reached this late day, as the rules and reasons of the church in such cases. He says—“Is it not better that the plate should be melted by the bishop to maintain the poor, when they can be maintained by no other means, than that it should become the spoil and plunder of a sacrilegious enemy? Will not the Lord thus expostulate with us, Why did you suffer so many helpless persons to die with hunger, when you had gold to relieve and support them? Why were so many captives carried away and sold without ransom? Why were so many suffered to be slain by the enemy? It would have been better to have preserved the vessels of living men than lifeless metals. To this, what answer can be returned? Should one say, I was afraid that the temple of God should want its ornaments: Christ would answer, My sacraments require no gold, nor do they please me more for being ministered in gold, as they are not to be bought with gold. The ornament of my sacrament is the redemption of captives; and those alone are precious vessels that redeem souls from death.”

The saint concludes that though it would be highly criminal for a man to convert the sacred vessels to his own private use, yet it is so far from being a crime, that he looks upon it as an obligation incumbent on him and his brethren to prefer the living temples of God to the unnecessary ornaments of the material edifices. See Ambrose de Offic. lib. ii. cap. 28; and such was the doctrine of St. Austin, see Possid. Vit. Aug. caput 24; of Acacius of Amida, see Socrat. lib. vii. c. 24; of Deigratias of Carthage, see Vict. de Persec. Vandal, lib. i.; of Cyril of Jerusalem, see Theodoret, lib. ii. c. 27; yea all, who have touched on the subject, have subscribed to the doctrine of St. Ambrose. Even the Emperor Justinian, in his law against sacrilege, forbids the church plate, vestments, or any other gifts, to be sold, or pawned; but adds, “except in case of captivity or famine, the lives and souls of men being preferable to any vessels or vestments whatever.” See Codex Just. lib. i. tit. 2. de Sacr. Eccles. leg. 21; also see Bower’s Life of Agapetus, p. 354.

It will be readily conceived that the barbarians, in the earlier ages of the Christian church, treated their slaves with cruelty, inconsistent with the spirit of the new religion; and, upon their adoption of the Christian creed, they sometimes ran into an opposite extreme, contrary to the rules of the church. In both cases the church used her authority, and, says Bishop England, upon their embrace of Christianity, “slavery began to assume a variety of mitigated forms among them,” which will, in some degree, be developed as we proceed with the history of canonical legislation on that subject.

The rules of the Christian church are evidently founded upon the laws of God, as delivered to Moses: “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”

“If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite his man-servant’s tooth, or his maid-servant’s tooth, he shall let him go for his tooth’s sake.” _Exod._ xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27. And if a man took his female slave to wife, and became displeased with her * * * she should be free. See _Deut._ xxi. 10–15. But fornication in a female slave was not punished by death, but by stripes. See _Lev._ xix. 20–23.

Neither the laws of Moses, nor indeed of any civilized people, have ever permitted unusual or cruel punishments to be inflicted on the slave. Civilization, as well as Judaism, seems to have inculcated, “Be not excessive toward any; and without discretion do nothing. If thou have a servant, let him be unto thee as thyself, because thou hast bought him with a price.” _Eccl._ xxxiii. 29.

Among heathen nations, their laws were to the effect, that when the slave, sick or wounded, was neglected, or abandoned to his fate by his master; yet, if he recovered, the master should lose his property in such slave, and the slave should be free; and such neglect was often otherwise made punishable. The Roman law sanctioned this doctrine: “Si verberatus fuerit _servus_ non mortifere, negligentia autem perierit, de vulnerato actio erit, non de occiso.” See Lex Aquillia. And so in ancient France, see Fœdere, vol. iii. p. 290: _If negligence or bad treatment towards the slave was proved in the master, the slave was declared free._

At this day, in all civilized countries, the civil law forbids unusual and cruel punishment of slaves, and also a wanton and careless negligence of them, either in sickness or health. Thus the law punishes the master for his neglect to govern his slaves, by making him responsible for their bad conduct, and the damage their want of proper government may occasion others.

In the year 494, Pope Gelesius admonished the bishops, at their ordinations, that—

“Ne unquam ordinationes præsumat illicitas; ne * * * curæ aut cuilibet conditioni obnoxium notatumque ad sacros ordines permittat accedere.”

_That he should never presume to hold unlawful ordinations; that he should not allow to holy orders * * * any person bound to the service of the court, or liable to bond for his condition_ (slavery) _or marked thereto_.

In the year 506, a council was held at Agdle, the sixty-second canon of which is—

“Si quis servum proprium sine conscientiâ, judicis occiderit, excommunicatione vel pœnitentia biennii reatum sanguinis emendabit.”

_If any one shall put his own servant to death, without the knowledge of the judge, let him make compensation for the guilt of blood by excommunication or two years’ penance._

Another council was held eleven years later. Many of the canons of this synod are transcripts of those of Agdle. The thirty-fourth is:

“Si quis servum proprium sine conscientiâ, judicis occiderit, excommunicatione biennii effusionem sanguinis expiabit.”

_If any one shall slay his own servant without the knowledge of the judge, let him expiate the shedding of blood by an excommunication of two years._

This was nearly two hundred years after the law of Constantine forbidding this exercise of power by the master.

The third council of Orleans was held in the year 538.

The thirteenth canon regulates, that if Christian slaves shall be possessed by Jews, and these latter require them to do any thing forbidden by the Christian religion, or if the Jews shall seize upon any of their servants to whip or punish them for those things that have been declared to be excusable or forgiven, and those slaves fly to the church for protection, they are not to be given up, unless there be given and received a just and sufficient sum to warrant their protection.

The canon xxvi. gives a specimen of the early feudalism nearly similar to the subsequent villain service.

“Ut nullus servilibus colonariisque conditionibus obligatus, juxta statuta sedis apostolicæ, ad honores ecclesiasticos admittatur; nisi prius aut testamento, aut per tabulas legitime constiterit absolutum. Quod si quis episcoporum, ejus qui ordinatur conditionem sciens, transgredi per ordinationem inhibitam fortasse voluerit, anni spatio missas facere non præsumat.”

_Let no one held under servile or colonizing conditions be admitted to church honours, in violation of the statutes of the Apostolic see; unless it be evident that he has been previously absolved therefrom by will or by deed. And if any bishop, being aware of such condition of the person so ordained, shall wilfully transgress by making such unlawful ordination, let him not presume to celebrate mass for the space of a year._

The colonial condition was in its origin different from the mere servile. The _mancipium_ or _manu captum_ was the _servus_ or slave made in war: the _colonus_, or husbandman, though, at the period at which we are arrived, he frequently was in as abject a condition, yet was so by a different process. St. Augustine, in cap. i. lib. x. _De Civitate Dei_, tells us, “Coloni _dicuntur_, qui conditionem debebant genitali solo propter agriculturam sub dominio possessorum.” They are called _colonists who owe their condition to their native land, under the dominion of its possessors_.

The following history of various modes by which they became servants, is taken from the work _De Gubernat. Dei_, lib. v., by the good and erudite Salvianus, a priest, who died at Marseilles, about the year 484.

Nonnulli eorum de quibus loquimur, * * * cum domicilia atque agellos suos pervasionibus perdunt, aut fatigati ab exactoribus deserunt, quia tenere non possunt, fundos majorum expetunt, et coloni divitum fiunt. Aut sicut solent hi qui hostium terrore compulsi, ad castella se conferunt, aut qui perdito ingenuæ incolumitatis statu ad asylum aliquod desperatione confugiunt: ita et isti qui habere amplius vel sedem vel dignitatem suorum natalium non queunt, jugo se inquilinæ abjectionis addicunt: in hanc necessitatem redacti, ut exactores non facultatis tantum, set etiam conditionis suæ, atque exultantes non a rebus tantum suis, sed etiam a seipsis, ac perdentes secum omnia sua, et rerum proprietate careant, et jus libertatis amittant. * * * Illud gravius et acerbius, quod additur huic malo servilius malum. Nam suscipiuntur advenæ, fiunt præjudicio habitationis indigenæ, et quos suscipiunt ut extraneos et alienos, incipiunt habere quasi proprios: quos esse constat ingenuos, vertunt in servos.

_Some of those, when they lose their dwellings and their little fields by invasion, or leave them, being worried by exactions, as they can no longer hold them, seek the grounds of the larger proprietors, and become the colonists of the wealthy. Or, as is usual with those who are driven off by the fear of enemies, and take refuge in the castles, or who, having lost their state of safe freedom, fly to some asylum in despair: so they who can no longer have the place or the dignity derived from their birth, subject themselves to the abject yoke of the sojourner’s lot; reduced to such necessity, that they are stripped not only of their property, but also of their rank; going into exile not only from what belongs to them but from their very selves, and with themselves losing all that they had, they are bereft of any property in things and lose the very right of liberty. * * * A more degrading injury is added to this evil. For they are received as strangers, they become inhabitants bereft of the rights of inhabitants; they who receive them as foreigners and aliens begin to treat them as property, and change into slaves those who, evidently, were free._

In this picture of the colonist, we may find the outline of the villain of a later age; and in the several enactments and regulations of succeeding legislators and councils, we shall discover the changes which servitude underwent previous to its total extinction in Europe.

Flodoardin, c. 28, History of the church of Rheims, gives us the will of St. Remi, its bishop, who baptized Clovis, upon his conversion in 496, and who was still living in the year 550. This document grants freedom to some of the colonists belonging to that church and retains others in service.

Du Cange says (Art. _Colonus_) that though in several instances the condition of the colonists was as abject as that of slaves, yet generally they were in a better position. _Erant igitur coloni mediæ conditionis inter ingenuos seu liberos et servos._

------------------

LESSON VIII.

From the fact that the slaves of this era were of the same colour and other physical qualities of their masters; from their great number, and consequently little value, their condition became attended with extremely diverse circumstances; so various were, therefore, the relations between them and the master, that it would now be impossible, perhaps, to give an accurate history of their various castes. These facts should be kept in mind, lest we mistake, and find confusion, where distinction was sufficiently clear and obvious.

Muratori, treating of the Roman slaves and freedmen, acknowledges that he is unable accurately to state the conditions on which they manumitted their slaves. In his treatise, “_Sopra i Servi e Liberti Antichi_,” he has a passage thus:

Noi non sappiamo se con patti, e con quai patti una vulta si manomettessero que’ Servi, che poi continuavano come Liberti a servire in Casa de’ loro Padroni, con essere alzati a piu onorati impieghi. Sappiamo bensi dal Tit. _ne Operis Libertorum_, e dall’ altro _de bonis Libertorum_ ne’ Digesti, che moltissimi acquistavano la Liberta con obbligarsi di fare ai Padroni de’ Regaii, o delle Fatture, se erano Artefici, _Operas, vel Donum_. Questo si praticava verisimilmente dai soli Mercatanti, ed altri Signori dati all’ interarse, ma non gia dalle Nobili Case. Per conto di questo, le antiche Iscrizioni ci fanno vedere, che moltissimi furono coloro, che anche dopo la conseguita Liberta seguitavano a convivere, e servire in quelle medesime Case, non piu come Servi, ma come Liberti, perche probabilmente tornava il conto agli uni e agli altri. I Padroni si servivano di Persone loro confidenti, e gia innestate nella propria Famiglia; ei Liberti cresciuti di onore, e di guadagno poteano cumulare roba per se e per li Figli. Non ho io potuto scoprire se i Romani tenessero Servi Mercenarj come oggidi. O di veri Servi, o di Liberti allora si servivano. Cio posto, maraviglia e, che il Pignoria, in trattando degli Ufizj de’ Servi antichi, imbrogliasse tanto le carte, senza distinguere i Servi dai Liberti, e con attribuir molti impieghi ai primi, che pure erano riserbati agli ultimi. E piu da stupire e, citarsi da lui Marmi, che parlano di Liberti, e pure sono presi da esso, come se parlassero di Servi.

_We know not whether they manumitted upon condition, or, if so, upon what conditions they manumitted formerly those servants who continued thenceforth as freed persons, but elevated to more honourable employments, to serve in the houses of their masters. We do indeed know in the Tit._ de Operis Libertorum, _and in another_ de bonis Libertorum _of the Digests, that very many acquired their liberty with the obligation of giving to their masters presents, or doing work if they were artists_, Operas vel donum. _This was in all likelihood practised only by merchants or other masters given to making profit, but not by noble houses. As to these the ancient inscriptions exhibit to us that very many who obtained their freedom, yet continued to live and to do service in those same houses, no longer as slaves, but as freed persons, because probably each party found it beneficial. The patrons kept about them persons in whom they had confidence, and who had already been engrafted on their families; the freed persons, grown to honour and making profit could create property for themselves and for their children. I cannot discover whether the Romans had hireling servants, as is now the case. They had then true slaves and sometimes freed persons. This being the case, it is matter of surprise that Pignoria, in treating of the employment of the ancient slaves, should have been so perplexed as not to be able clearly to distinguish slaves from freed persons, and should have attributed to the former many employments which were specially reserved for the latter: and it is more to be wondered at, that marbles which speak of freed persons are referred to by him and explained as treating of slaves._

It is clear that even in the days of the Emperor Claudius, to whose reign, A.D. 45, the marble of which he treats refers, and probably long before that period, many of the freedmen of the Roman empire were bound to do certain services for the patrons who had been their masters, and that this obligation descended to their progeny. Hence this would still be a species of servitude.

The barbarians who overran the empire came chiefly from Scythia and Germany, as that vast region was then called which stretches from the Alps to the Northern Ocean. When they settled in the conquered provinces of Gaul and in Italy, they introduced many of their customs as well of government as of policy. Most of their slaves were what the writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries describe as _coloni_ and _conditionibus obligati_. As Tacitus describes, in xxv. _De Moribus Germanorum_:

“The slaves in general are not arranged at their several employments in the household affairs, as is the practice at Rome. Each has his separate habitation, and his own establishment to manage. The master considers him as an agrarian dependant, who is obliged to furnish a certain quantity of grain, cattle, or wearing-apparel. The slave obeys, and the state of servitude extends no further. All domestic affairs are managed by the master’s wife and children. To punish a slave with stripes; to load him with chains, or condemn him to hard labour, is unusual. It is true that slaves are sometimes put to death, not under colour of justice, or of any authority vested in the master; but in a transport of passion, in a fit of rage, as is often the case in a sudden affray but it is also true that this species of homicide passes with impunity. The freedmen are not of much higher consideration than the actual slaves; they obtain no rank in their master’s family, and, if we except the parts of Germany where monarchy is established, they never figure on the stage of public business. In despotic governments they often rise above the men of ingenuous birth, and even eclipse the whole body of the nobles. In other states the subordination of the freedmen is a proof of public liberty.”

At all ages, slaves who belonged to the absolute monarch, sometimes became elevated above the native nobility: witness the case of Joseph in Egypt; of Ebed Melech, who was black, in Judea; of Haman, also a black, an Amalekite; of Mordecai, his successor; of Esther the queen; of Daniel the prophet, and Felix, governor of Judea, a Greek slave to the Roman emperor. But such things can never occur in a republic. To a political misfortune of this kind the prophet alludes—“Servants (slaves) have ruled over us”—than which nothing can be more expressive of the loss of liberty.

In the appendix to the Theodosian code, Const. 5, we read—

Inverecundâ arte defendetur, si hi ad conditionem vel originem reposcuntur, quibus tempore famis, cum in mortem penuria cogerentur, opitulari non potuit dominus aut patronus.

_It is forbidden as a shameless trick, that an effort should be made to regain to their condition or original state, those whom the master, or patron could not aid, when, in a period of famine, they were pressed nearly to death by want._

This exhibits the obligation on the patron of the person _under condition_, and on the master of the slave, to support them, and the destruction of their title by the neglect of their duty.

Muratori observes, that in process of time, the special agreements and particular enactments regarding the _conditions_, gave such a variety as baffled all attempts at classification and precision.

At a much earlier period, slaves had become a drug in the Italian market. When, about the year 405, Rhadagasius, the Goth, was leading upwards of three hundred thousand of his barbarians into Italy, the Emperor Honorius ordered the slaves to be armed for the defence of the country, by which arming they generally obtained their freedom; Stilichon, the consul, slew nearly one hundred and fifty thousand of the invaders in the vicinity of Florence, and made prisoners of the remainder, who were sold as slaves at the low price of one piece of gold for each. Jacobs estimates the _aureus_ at eleven shillings. It is supposed to have contained about 70 grains of gold, which will make the price of a slave, at that time, about $2.60. But Wilkins (Leges Saxon.) informs us that, in England, about the year 1000, the price of a slave was £2 16_s._ 3_d._ sterling, not quite the value of two horses. But, of these slaves of Stilichon, numbers died within the year, so that Baronius relates (Annals, A.D. 406) that the purchasers had to pay more for their burial than for their bodies; according to the remarks of Orosius, in this state of the market, it was easy for the slave to procure that he should be held _at a condition_, and thenceforth the number under condition greatly increased, and in process of time became more numerous than those in absolute slavery.

In the year 541, the fourth council of Orleans was celebrated, in the thirtieth year of King Childebert. The ninth canon:—Ut episcopus, qui de facultate propria ecclesiæ nihil relinquit, de ecclesiæ facultate si quid aliter quam canones eloquuntur obligaverit, vendiderit aut distraxerit, ad ecclesiam revocetur, (ab ecclesia, _in other editions_.) Sane si de servis ecclesiæ libertos fecit numero competenti, in ingenuitate permaneant, ita ut ab officio ecclesiæ non recedant.

Be it enacted, _That a bishop who has left none of his private property to the church shall not dispose of any of the church property, otherwise than as the canons point out. Should he bind or sell or separate any thing otherwise, let it be recalled for the church. But if, indeed, he has made freemen of slaves of the church to a reasonable number, let them continue in their freedom, but with the obligation of not departing from the duty of the church_.

The canon xxii. of the same council is—

Ut servis ecclesiæ, vel sacerdotum, prædas et captivitates exercere non liceat; qui iniquum est, ut quorum domini redemptionis præstare solent suffragium, per servorum excessum disciplina ecclesiastica maculetur.

_That it be not lawful for the slaves of the church, or of the priests, to go on predatory excursions or to make captives, for it is unjust that when the masters are accustomed to aid in redeeming, the discipline of the church should be disgraced by the misconduct of the slaves._

In Judaism, God had established a limited sanctuary for slaves and for certain malefactors, not to encourage crime, but to protect against the fury of passion, and to give some sort of aid to the feeble. Paganism adopted the principle, and the Christian temple and its precincts became, not only by common consent, but by legal enactment, the sanctuary instead of the former. Like every useful institution, this too was occasionally abused.

The xxixth canon was—