says, It is certain, the paying taxes to the Romans was at this time a very heavy affliction to the Jewish nation. When Josephus gives the history of the census or enrolment of their estates by Cyrenius, after Archelaus was deposed by Augustus, and had been banished into Gaul, he that the Jews were at first surprised at the name of a census, but that, by the persuasion of Joazar the high priest, they generally acquiesced in it. IIowever, Judas Gaulanites, 'associating to himself Sadduc a pharisee, excited the people to rebellion; told them that an assessment would introduce downright slavery, and persuaded them to assert their liberty.The people heard their discourses with incredible pleasure. And it is impossi'ble to represent the evils the nation has suffered, which were owing to these men. -- For Judas and Sadduc brought in amongst us this fourth sect; and there being many who em'braced their notions, they not only caused disturbances in the government at that time, but laid the foundation of those evils that followed; which indeed are owing to this principle, 'till then unknown." He then delivers the character and principles of the three chief and more ancient sects of the Jews; (as he calls them,) the pharisees, the sadducees, and the essenes. And afterwards returns again to the men he had been speaking of before. 'Judas the Galilean was the leader of the fourth sect. In all other points they hold the same sentiments with the pharisees. But they have an invincible affection for liberty, and acknowledge God alone their Lord and Governor. From this time the nation became infected with this distemper: and Gessius Florus, by abusing his power when he was president, threw them into despair, and provoked them to rebel against the Romans.' d What is here transcribed from Josephus is enough to convince us, that the paying tribute to the Romans must have been very grievous to the Jews, and that they who collected it for them, must have been scorned and abhorred by the people: for he says, that Judas's and Sadduc's speeches were heard by them with incredible pleasure; that their principle had caused many great evils to the nation, and that it was one ground of the war with the Romans. But I must make two or three remarks. Josephus calls this a principle till then unknown to them. But this is not exactly true without some limitation. There was an oath of fidelity to Augustus and Herod tendered to the Jewish nation, at the latter end of Herod's reign. But there were above six thousand pharisees, who refused at that time to take it. Josephus says, that at the persuasion of Joazer the high priest the nation generally acquiesced. Doubtless, the Romans carried their point, but yet a very deep grudge remained in the minds of the Jewish people. And the service which Joazer had done the Romans upon this occasion, rendered him so unpopular, that it cost him the priesthood. These are the very words of Josephus Cyrenius having made a seizure of Archelaus's effects, and finished the census in the thirty-seventh year after the victory at Actium, constituted Ananus the Son of Seth high priest, having taken away that dignity and honour from the high priest Joazer; who was overpowered by the seditions and tumults of the multitude,' or in other words, who had been mobbed by the people. 6 :f Lastly, Josephus calls Judas of Galilee the head of a fourth sect. But, though he uses these words here, he oftentimes makes but three sects of the Jews. And I think, that the sect of the pharisees must generally have held the same notion, which he ascribes to Judas. The six thousand, who refused to take the oath above-mentioned, were pharisees. Josephus owns, that Judas's followers differed from the pharisees in nothing else, but this one principle of an excessive fondness for liberty. He expressly calls Sadduc, who joined with Judas, a pharisee. And I would fain know what sect Judas had been of before. If he had been of the sect of the sadducees or essenes, Josephus would have said so. The case seems to me to have been thus: Judas and they that held his principles were generally of the sect of the pharisees, but they were not pharisees; because this title was more peculiarly appropriated to those, who had some distinction for their learning, riches, posts, employments; or to those who had a great deal of leisure, and little else to do, but to make an uncommon shew of devotion and sanctity. Thus, I suppose, the pharisees in general had this principle, but the common people only avowed it. Josephus had a difficult task: he was concerned to save the honour of the supreme parts of the Roman government, and of the chief men of the Jewish nation, and particularly of those properly called pharisees, of whom he was one; and to throw the blame of the war, and all their sufferings, upon the cruelty and avarice of Albinus and Gessius Florus, the two last Roman procurators, and the common people among the Jews and their leaders. This part he has acted very finely. But I think, that if the pharisees had controlled this principle sincerely, they might have suppressed it. For a proof of this, I refer the reader to the chapter of the Jewish sects, where the power of the pharisees appears very evident. I shall here add only one passage more from Josephus. And on the account of these, [principles] they [the pharisees] are in great authority with the people; and all parts of divine worship, whether prayers or sacrifices, are performed according to their interpretations. This testimony have 'the cities given to their virtue, because of their following in all things that which is best, both in their words and actions.'* XI. But though the Roman tribute was a heavy grievance, and they who collected it were much hated, yet it is evident that many Jews were employed in this work. The publicans mentioned in the gospels must have been of the Jewish nation. "Then came also the publicans tò be baptised, and said unto him [John,] master, what shall we do?" Luke iii. 12. See Matt. xxi. 31, 32. It appears likewise, that some of the publicans in Judea were honest persons, and men of substance. Such an one was Levi, or Matthew. "And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sate down with them," Luke v. 29. See Matt. ix. 10. Mark ii. 14. Nor is there any hint of any unjust practices, which Levi had been guilty of in the post he had enjoyed. And from the great openness and impartiality with which the evangelists have written their history, it is reasonable to conclude, there was no exception against Matthew's character, beside his employment; which, undoubtedly, was not reputable. Zaccheus, when he entertained Jesus, was certainly a thorough convert to virtue; and I think, he could not have been a very wicked man before." And Zaccheus stood and said,Behold Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him four-fold," Luke xix. 8. According to his computation, he supposed himself capable of making ample restitution to all he had injured, out of the remaining half of his goods, and it is likely supposed he should have somewhat left for himself. His unjust gains, therefore, were but a small portion of his estate. That there were Jews who were publicans, and that some of these were honest and wealthy men, will appear from a story in Josephus. There lay near the Jewish synagogue at Cæsarea 'a piece of ground in the possession of a Greek of the same place. The Jews had often 'attempted to make a purchase of it, and had offered a great deal more than the intrinsic ' value. But the owner refused all their offers: and, as if he intended to affront them, began 'to build workhouses on the ground, leaving the Jews but a very strait and narrow passage. The warmer part of the people attempted to obstruct the builders. But Florus not restrain'ing these practices by his authority, the chief men of the Jews, among whom was John the 'publican, not knowing well what course to take, wait upon Florus, and give him eight talents of silver to stop the building. That he might get the money into his hands, he promised all they desired; but having received it, went away from Cæsarea to Sebaste, leaving the riotous people to themselves, as if the Jews had only purchased a licence to quarrel.' And so it happened, the Jews and Greeks at Cæsarea had a battle, in which the former were worsted. Upon this John with twelve of the chief of the Jews go to Sebaste, and coming to Florus, 'make complaints to him concerning these proceedings, and entreat his assistance, modestly 'putting him in mind likewise of the eight talents.' This John must have been one of the most considerable of the Jews at Cæsarea, since he only is mentioned by name. Nor is there any thing here said of him, but what is very honourable; unless any think fit to except against the giving a bribe to a bad man, to do what is in itself just and reasonable. There is, in the gospels, so frequent mention of publicans who were Jews, that I have been sometime inclined to think that the Roman tribute was collected for the most part by Jews. * Και δι' αυτα τοις τε δήμοις πιθανοίαίοι τυίχανεσι, και όποσα θεια ευχων τε και ἱερων ποιήσεως εξείησει τη εκείνων τυίχανεσι πρασσόμενα εις τοσονδε αρετης αυτοις αἱ πόλεις εμαρτύρησαν επιτηδεύσει τα επι πασιν κρείσσονος, εν τε τη διαιη το βίο και λογοις. Antig. lib. xviii. c. 1. sect. 3. De Bell. lib. ii. cap. 14. sect. 4, 5. The Romans might choose this method. The Jews employed in this work became odious thereby, but the Roman government was relieved. a Josephus has made mention of several Jews who were Roman knights. It is certain, that the Roman knights were the great farmers and collectors of the Roman tribute. It seems to me, therefore, very probable, that those Jews had merited the honour of knighthood by their good services in some part of the revenue. I do not pretend to be master of the Roman method of collecting taxes, but it appears to me not unlikely, that in most provinces the natives were employed in the towns as the under collectors, and that the receivers general or other superior officers only were Romans. It is plain, that in the province of Sicily, in the time of the republic, when a new assessment was made there, (as it was every fifth year,) Sicilians were appointed to be the under censors. The publicans were far from being beloved in any province; the Romans might therefore judge it prudent to employ some natives in collecting taxes; and it is probable, that in all places some would be found, who were willing to make an advantage of the subjection of their country, and accept places under the Romans their masters. CHAP. X. ROMAN CUSTOMS MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. The Romans used the question. II. Examined by scourging. III. Unlawful to scourge a Roman. IV. Especially uncondemned. V. Lysias's Power at Jersusalem. VI. Of St. Paul's citizenship. VII. This privilege bought with a great sum. VIII. Accusations not to be heard in the absence of the accused person. IX. Of St. Paul's imprisonment. X. Prisoners sent to Rome from the provinces. XI. Delivered there to the captain of the guard. IN the history of St. Paul, there are many Roman customs expressly mentioned or alluded to. I shall here endeavour to take some notice of all those we meet with, from the time of his being apprehended at Jerusalem to his confinement at Rome; excepting only those, which have been already observed in the chapter of the State of the Jews in Judea. When Lysias, the chief captain, had rescued Paul out of the hands of the Jewish multitude, "he commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?" Acts xxii. 24, 25. Three or four things are here implied: that it was customary for the Romans to use the question or torture, for the discovery of crimes; that this was sometimes done by beating or whipping; that it was unlawful to scourge a Roman especially uncondemned. I. It was customary for the Romans to make use of the question for the discovery of crimes. There are many instances of it about this time, in the history of the Roman emperors. Nor had the Jews any particular reason to complain of the Romans putting this in practice in their country, provided it was not done when there were no grounds of suspicion, since Herod the Great had openly practised it there before. II. This was sometimes done by whipping or beating. There were several ways of examining persons, some were used to citizens or freemen, others were reckoned servile. But that scourging was practised in this case, is evident from an example I give of it from Tacitus in a the reign of Nero. Epicaris, a woman, among other tortures was so examined. And it is observable that she was not then a slave. There are other instances in Grotius. It is likely that a stick was made use of in examining a citizen, rods for others. C III. Thirdly, It is intimated, that it was unlawful to scourge a Roman: which thing is also taken notice of in the account of the treatment of Paul and Silas at Philippi, Acts xvi. 22—37. Cicero says, it was a crime to bind or whip a Roman citizen. It is one of his charges against Verres, that he had openly whipped a Roman at Messina who had claimed the privilege of the city, and when they were going to inflict this punishment upon him, cried out to the officers; (much after the same manner that Paul is said to have done;) I am a Roman citizen.“ Here again it is to be observed, that a citizen of Rome, if he had committed a fault that deserved it, might be beaten with a stick, but might not be whipped with rods.* IV. But it was more especially unlawful to punish a man uncondemned, or before he had been convicted. This the magistrates at Philippi did, but they soon repented of it. It is said to have been one of the laws off the twelve tables, that no man should be put to death before he had been tried. According to Dionysius, this was a law among the Romans long before the twelve tables were composed. Indeed I think, it must be a law with all people who have any sense of justice or equity. Cicero lays it down as an undoubted maxim, that no sentence of condemnation ought to be pronounced before a cause had been heard." i V. From Lysias's order to examine St. Paul, and from other things done by him at Jerusalem, it may be inferred that he had there some sort of jurisdiction. It appears from a passage alleged by me above from Marcianus, that it was usual for presidents of provinces to delegate part of their power and authority to under officers. For this reason Cicero advises his brother, then president of Asia, not only to oberve himself the rules of justice, but to have a strict eye upon all the ministers of his government, and to be very circumspect in the choice of persons to whom he committed any power. And it appears from a passage of Josephus already transcribed, that there were at Cæsarea officers under Felix who had the power of whipping offenders. k I have in answer to Tertullus's accusation given Lysias" a great character. But perhaps some may think, that this order for examining St. Paul by scourging is unjustifiable. They may be of opinion, that here were not sufficient grounds of suspicion to put him to the question. To this I say: If I should here abandon Lysias, my apology for him will in some respect be strengthened by it. If Lysias here strained a point in complaisance to the Jewish multitude, and bore too hard upon his prisoner, Tertullus's complaints will appear the more unreasonable. But I am still inclined to think that Lysias acted honestly herein. Paul was a stranger to him, and he could not but pay some regard to the vehement and general clamour of the people of the city in which he resided, and which was the metropolis of the province. Any man in the same case with Lysias would have been apt to conclude, that Paul must have committed some offence or other when " they cried so against him." The method of inquiry he had appointed was not fit to be practised upon a Roman; but Lysias did not then know that Paul was a ratusque muliebre corpus impar dolori, tormentis dilacerari ju- Hac se hos putatis esse, quemadmodum sit iste solitus virgis plebem rant. * Nequaquam satis esse, ipsum hasce habere virtutes, sed esse circumspiciendum diligenter, ut in hac custodiâ provinciæ non te unum, sed omnes ministros imperii tui, sociis, & civibus & reipublicæ præstare videare. Ad Quint. Fratr. lib. i. cap. 3. 1 Sed si quis est, in quo jam offenderis, de quo aliquid senseris; huic nihil credideris, nullam partem existimationis tuæ commiseris. Ibid. cap. 4. m P. 101. n P. 40. Roman. In other respects it must have been unexceptionable; for I cannot but think, it was a more gentle way of examining than some others then in use. VI. After St. Paul had been beaten at Philippi, he complained of the injustice done him because he was a Roman. As they were binding him at Jerusalem, he claimed the privilege of a Roman citizen, and it was granted him; for it follows: "When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou dost, for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him; Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him and the chief captain also was afraid after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." Acts xxii. 26-29. St. Paul therefore does expressly affirm that he was a Roman. Nor ought it to be thought strange that a Jew should be a citizen of Rome. There were many such instances about this time. Julius Cæsar bestowed the freedom of the city upon Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, in consideration of services he had done him. Philo says that there was a great number of Jews in Augustus's time at Rome, who had been taken captives and carried thither, and who had obtained their freedom from their masters. Josephus complains loudly, as well as very justly, of Florus the last procurator of Judea, That he had been guilty of an unheard of cruelty, and what had never been done before, when he whipped before his tribunal, and crucified men of the equestrian rank. For, says he, though their extraction was Jewish their quality was Roman. And our historian Josephus, who was a Jewish priest, received the freedom of the city from Vespasian after the war was finished, as he has assured us himself." c But though there is no improbability but that St. Paul might be a Roman citizen, yet it has been a question how he came by this privilege. Some learned men are of opinion that Tarsus was a Roman colony, and that St. Paul was therefore a citizen of Rome by virtue of his nativity at Tarsus. But it will be worth our while to take a view of St. Luke's account of this matter. Lysias took Paul out of the hands of the Jews. "And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art thou not that Egyptian-? But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people." Acts xxi. 37-39. In his speech, St. Paul tells the Jews, "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia," chap. xxii. 3. When the people had interrupted Paul's speech," the chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging," ch. xxii. 23, 24. The chief captain therefore did not suspect as yet that Paul was a citizen of Rome, though he had been told by Paul he was of Tarsus. St. Paul had also said the same thing at the beginning of his speech to the Jews: but I do not insist upon that; for though it is likely the chief captain stood by, I suppose he did not understand Paul, his speech being made in the Hebrew tongue. It cannot be said, that the chief captain bade that he should be examined with scourging, though he knew Paul to be a Roman: because Lysias does not appear to be one of those fierce officers, that have no regard to laws. Quite the contrary: as soon as Paul had claimed his privilege, "then straitway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." "Then the chief captain came and said unto him: Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea." If Tarsus had been a town of Roman citizens, St. Paul having before told the chief captain that he was of Tarsus, the question now put would not have been, Art thou a Roman ? but, Art thou really of Tarsus? The sequel of this discourse affords more proof. "The chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom." Lysias having purchased this privilege with a great sum, and observing nothing considerable in Paul's person or mien, and supposing therefore that he had no money to spare, he still makes a doubt of the truth of his claim. This answer of Lysias had been altogether impertinent, if Tarsus had been a town of Roman citizens. "And Paul • Πολιτεία τε αυτον τη Ρωμαίων ελίμησεν. Joseph. de Bell. lib. i. p. 978. v. 29. a b De legat. p. 1014. C. E. • Ων ει και το γενος Ιεδαίων, αλλα το γεν αξίωμα Ῥωμαϊκον 7. Jos, de Bell. lib. ii, cap. 14. fin. e Baron. Ann. A. 58. n. 147, 148. Tillemont memoir. Ecclesi. Wit d De vitâ. p. 945. 28. |