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 restraining 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 them'selves, 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. The Romans might choose this method. The Jews employed in this work became odious thereby, but the Roman government was relieved.

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 De Bell. lib. ii. cap. 14. sect. 4, 5. De Bell. lib. ii, cap. 14. Certe huic homini spes nulla salutis esset, si publi

sect. 9.

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 Jerusalem. 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 bere 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 cani, hoc est, si equites Romani, judicarent. Cic. in Verr. lib. iii. cap. 62. n. 168. Cic. in Verr. lib. ii. cap. 53. n. 131. et seq. Sic porro nostros homines diligunt, ut his SOLIS neque publicanus neque negotiator odio sit. Ibid. cap. 3. n. 7.

V

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 the reign ofa 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.

a Nihil enim exprimi quæstione potuit, Suet. in Vit. August. 19. Diversi interrogantur.-Tum exorta suspicio, quia non congruentia responderant: inditaque vincla. Et tormentorum aspectum ac minas non tulere. Tacit. Ann. 15, 56, et passim. b Antiq. lib. xvi. cap. 10. sect. 2--5. Et. Q. Gallium prætorem--servilem in modum torsit: ac fatentem nihil, jussit occidi. Sueton. Aug. c. 27. d Atque interim Nero recordatus Volusii Proculi indicio Epicharim attineri, ratusque muliebre corpus impar dolori, tormentis dilacerari jubet. At illam non verbera, non ignes, non ira eo acrius torquentium ne a feminâ spernerentur, pervicêre quin objecta denegaret-clariore exemplo libertina mulier-cum ingenui et viri et equites Romani senatoresque, intacti tormentis, carissima suorum quisque pignorum proderent. Ann. xv. c. 57.

e Ad. Matt. c. xxvii. 19.

f Nullam existimationis

infamiam avunculus tuus pertimescat ictibus fustium subjectus ob crimen quæstione habitâ. L. Nullam. c. ap. Grot. ibid.

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.i

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 of 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.m

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

8 Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari. In Verr. 1. v. n. 170. h Cædebatur virgis in medio foro Messanæ civis Romanus, judices; cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia istius miseri, inter dolorem crepitumque plagarum audiebatur, nisi hæc, civis Romanus sum. Hac se commemoratione civitatis omnia verbera depulsurum cruciatumque a corpore dejecturum arbitrabatur. Ibid. n. 162. O nomen dulce libertatis! O jus eximium nostræ civitatis! O lex Porcia, legesque Semproniæ ! -Huccine tandem omnia reciderunt, ut civis Romanus, in provinciâ populi Romani, deligatus in foro virgis cæderetur? n. 163. Oblitosne igitur hos putatis esse, quemadmodum sit iste solitus virgis plebem Romanam concidere? În Verr. lib. i. n. 122. Ex quibus causis liber fustibus

cæditur, ex his servus flagillis cædi. Lib. x. in pr. ff. de pœnis.

* Interfici indemnatum quemcunque hominem, etiam xii. tabularum decreta vetuerant. Hæc Salvianus episcopus Massiliensis de judicio et providentiâ. Fragment. xii. Tab. Tit. 27. sect. 1.

1 Τες νόμες παρεχόμενοι τις εκ εωντας ακριτον αποκτείνειν εδενα. Antig. Rom. lib. iii. cap. 22. p. 153. v. 7.

m Nam, causà cognitâ, multi possunt absolvi; incognitâ quidem condemnari nemo potest. In Verr. lib. i. n. 25.

"P. 77. note f.

their power and authority to under officers. For this reason Cicero advises his brother, then president of Asia, not only to observe 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.

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 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 as 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,

Nequaquam satis esse, ipsum hasce habere virtutes, sed esse circumspiciendum diligenter, ut in hac custodia provinciæ non te unum, sed omnes ministros imperii tui, sociis, et civibus et reipublicæ præstare videare. Ad. Quint. Fratr. lib. i. cap. 3. P Sed si quis est, in quo jam offenderis, de quo aliquid senseris; huic nihil credideris, nullam partem existimationis tuæ commisseris. Ibid. cap. 4 9 P. 184. * P. 73.