once he consigned to others duties connected therewith. His example was followed by succeeding emperors.

The census was at first taken in the forum in Rome; afterwards in the villa publica, which stood in the Campus Martius. The citizens, called together by public proclamation, went before the censors (there were two) individually and according to their tribes. Each one had to give in his name in full; the name of his tribe or district in which he lived; the name of his father, his wife, and the names of his children; together with his own age. After the enrolment there ensued a return of his property on the part of each citizen. This return was minute and exact. The presence of each citizen was required under severe penalties. When the names and the property were taken, the censors divided the citizens into their several ranks and classes, and assessed their pecuniary obligations to the state. The registers, called tabulæ censoriæ, containing the particulars thus ascertained, were carefully preserved.

e

In the municipia or affiliated cities, the census was separately held, but the registers were sent to Rome. Municipal censors are mentioned in ancient authorities." Also in the colonies were there special censors, who from the time of the second Punic war, sent the census-rolls (tabulæ censorie) to Rome, to be there laid up in the public archives. The provincial census system became under the emperors more strict; it also was more extensive, for the boundaries of the empire were enlarged. The emperors sent into the provinces and colonies officers of their own appointment (censitores), who appointed their own subalterns (censuales) to perform the actual duties of the office.

It has been supposed that the Roman census was taken in each one's dwelling-place. When all who were Roman citizens dwelt in Rome, such was the case. The reason was, that in Rome they had had their origin. When however the citizenship was shared by other places, then each person underwent the census, to use the words of Luke, "in his own city." (Luke ii. 3.) The Latins, for instance, who dwelt at Rome, had to return home for the purposes of the census. Home, in this sense, was for a Roman citizen the place where he was born, where he had been adopted or set free; municipem aut nativitas facit, aut manumissio aut adoptio.9

The census is thus seen to have comprised many distinct acts. Consequently the term census, as taken either in relation to these acts severally or to the whole collectively, has various

c Sueton. Oct. 37. f Livy, xlii. 10.

d Orelli Inscr. xvi. 10.

e Livy, xxix. 15, 37. 9 Huschke Ueber den Census, Breslau, 1840.

and dissimilar significations. It may accordingly denote the enrolment of names; the returns of property; the assessing of taxes; and the assessment or tax itself. Inferior varieties of meaning are passed over. The census however comprised these four leading transactions, and the word was indifferently used of the whole or of any one separate act. These several parts of the census, occupying a long time, were of necessity distinct one from another. The names had to be entered before the property-estimates were given in; and only after the valuations had been written down, could the classes be formed; on the formation of the classes depended the assessments; when the assessments were made the taxing might take place. The formation of the registers and the levy of the census or impost ("tribute," Matt. xxii. 17), closed the duties and completed the census. The census, it is thus seen, was an act of sovereignty. When a census was taken by Rome in one of her provinces, the act implied subjection. If the actual subjection was incomplete, the census indicated an intention on the part of the emperor to bring the country into full subjection. And lastly, the census having for its final object the imposition of taxes, could not fail to be odious, and might be oppressive to a country reduced by the Roman arms into submission.

The census having its origin under Solon in Athens, presents itself to us here as a Roman institution. When Rome began to extend her power over distant parts of the world, the census lost its exclusively Roman character, and was employed for political purposes in the provinces. In this its later application it underwent modifications, which arose partly from its transference from the seat of government, partly from its new connexion with foreign laws and customs. Preserving the essential features of the properly Roman census, those who received a commission to take a census in a province, of necessity omitted what was peculiar to Rome, such as the customary atoning sacrifices and the civil division of the citizens into tribes and centuries; and while making careful provision to secure the imposts (vectigalia), which was the ultimate aim, they in a measure consulted the feelings, and complied with the usages, and profited by the institutions of the people whose subjugation they were thus turning to account. The census in the provinces assumed in consequence a special character, which having the common type in that which was customary at Rome, varied with the varieties of the several provinces. Another source of variation was found in the degree of policy which prudence suggested. In some cases the census might in all its parts be at once carried into effect. In another, the final levying of the impost

might be approached step by step through a series of years. It is easy to conceive that the first might be the only acts performed. The enrolment might never lead to an imposition of taxes, or be consummated in an imposition of taxes only after a series of years. A general census throughout the world was an impossibility until a universal monarchy was fully established. But when the empire of the civilized world had its centre at Rome, the emperor of Rome could not fail to desire to employ in foreign parts an instrument of government which, like the census, gave him an exact acquaintance with his subjects, and put their resources under his eyes and in part at his disposal. It would therefore be strange if Augustus had not taken some steps towards a general census of the empire.

How marked, however, was the difference between the pure Roman census, and the census as modified in subjugated nations, appears from these words of an unknown jurist of the second century, given by Huschke :

̓Αλλ' ἐν τῇ πόλει Ρωμαίων μόνον ἀποτίμησιν ἄγεσθαι δεδήλωται, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἐπαρχίαις μᾶλλον ἀπογραφεις χρῶνται.

"But in the city of Rome only it has been shewn a census is had; in the provinces they merely take registrations."

It may not be possible to determine in what particulars the provincial census differed from the metropolitan, nor is it likely that any one model prevailed in the provinces; but it is clear from the quotation just given that the provincial census comprised less than that which was held in Rome. The reason of the thing shews that the defect would chiefly lie in the remoter and more important, and therefore politically the more delicate, parts of the transaction. Lardner remarking (i. 277) on the authority of Tacitus that "the Batavi paid no tribute to the Romans, and furnished the state with arms and men only upon occasion;" adds, "and some may be disposed to infer from hence that there might be enrolments made in such a province, of the names of the people and their conditions of life, in order to know what number of troops it might furnish the state with."

A complete census of the Roman empire in the sense of the imposition of taxes, could scarcely be effected in the reign of the first emperor, even if it were commanded. The fulfilment of such a command was a work of time and difficulty. Even in the second century, as we have just seen, an entire uniformity had not been introduced. Early in the first century therefore we are justified in expecting only a commencement. Well then may we find no record on the part of contemporary or ancient

But

historians of a universal census as having been made in the days of Cæsar Augustus. No universal census was made. No universal census was possible. Even the imperial power of Rome sufficed not to impose the census with all its results on the whole civilized world within the reign of one sovereign. Rome had her plans; she foresaw her booty and made a beginning. Hence arose the decree spoken of by Luke. This decree commanded not a universal census, but a registration; and that the decree was by no means fruitless, we know on the best guarantees. From Tacitus we learn that Augustus left behind him, written in his own hand, a libellus, or outline of the empire, which contained statements of the public wealth, the number of citizens and of allies in arms; how many were the fleets, the kingdoms, the provinces, tributes or taxes, as well as public burdens and benefactions. Suetonius (Aug. 28) and Dio Cassius (liii. 30, 33, 56) make statements to the same effect.

The only census taken by the Romans in Judea of which we have any information, is spoken of by Josephus,' who clearly implies that the census referred to was the only census to which the Jews had been subjected by the Romans. Whether the mode observed approached more or less nearly to the Roman type, the history does not enable us to determine; but it is beyond a doubt that a complete census was effected. The facts are as follows. Archelaus had been deposed by Augustus. Archelaus left considerable property in Judea. Judea had now no sovereign of its own. Therefore in the thirty-seventh year after his victory over Antony at Actium (U. C., 760, A.D. 7), Augustus appointed, as president of Syria, Cyrenius, a man of consular dignity, who stood high in the imperial favour; commanding him to sell the property of Archelaus, and take a census of the Jewish people. At the same time he made Judea an integral part of the province of Syria, and so of the Roman empire, appointing Caponius as its ruler or procurator. Cyrenius, in obedience to his instructions, held a census. In so doing, he experienced great difficulty. Judas, a Galilean or Gaulonite, incited the people to resist, on the ground that the census was an invasion of their national freedom. Great excitement ensued. The rights of the strongest prevailed; but what Josephus calls a fourth Jewish sect was called into existence. In other words, there arose a patriotic party, who used every effort and scrupled no means, in order to withstand the power of Rome; and originated and occasioned struggles against its authority, the final issue of which was the rasure of Jerusalem from the face of the earth.

k Ann. i. 11. ' Antiq. xvii. 12, 4; xviii. 1, 1; ii. 1; Jewish War, ii. 8, 1.

The terms employed by Josephus in the general account he gives of this disastrous event, deserve attention, since they afford us aid in forming a conception of what the Roman census comprised. Cyrenius is called by him TunTns, that is, appraiser or valuer; he is termed τιμητὴς τών οὐσιῶν, οι τῶν χρημάτων, valuer of property, substance or goods; he is said to be sent, ἀποτιμησό μένος αυτῶν τὰς ὀύσιας, in order to make a valuation of their property; the people are advised against Tǹv πì Tâis аπоyρаpâιs aкρóаow, that is, obedience to the registrations; and when they yielded it is said ȧπeтíμwv Xρýμaтa, they gave in the value of their goods.

Judas, their leader, denominates the transaction as Tv άπоτíμηow, the valuation or assessment.

Here then we find that the census, as enforced by Rome in Judea, involved, 1. ǹ ȧπoyрapń (he apographé), or registration; 2. аTOτíμnois (he apotimésis), or valuation of property. These two chief acts led to the imposition of a tax, and the tax thus imposed occasioned a tumult which brought a revolt, and more remotely rebellion, war and desolation. Of the import of the words here employed there is no doubt; equally clear in general is the nature of the transactions. The Roman officers by their deputies presided; the people, as in Rome, gave in the values of their property. Assessments and registers were made; imposts enforced, and the people were coerced into a sullen and uneasy obedience. Let it however be observed, that a proper census consisted of several parts; the transaction had separate and distinct stages; the apographé (strictly writing down the names from the statements of those who bore them) was different from the apotimésis, or the taking of the value of their property from the averments of its possessors. Moreover these two transactions involved others, the performance of which was a work of time.

In carrying the census into effect, the Roman officers would require aid from the native authorities. How, without that aid, could the censor ascertain that all the Jews had complied with his proclamation? In order to ascertain that all were present who ought to appear, the Jewish rulers had to appeal to the family registers of the Hebrew race. This appeal called every head of a family to his native place. Hence we may infer that the census, under the joint supervision of Roman and Jewish officers, was taken in the more ancient towns and cities of the land. That the people were present at the taking of the census, is evident from the statement of the historian, that "they gave in the values of their property."

Our conception of the whole proceeding will be less incom