Setting aside the fantastic conjectures that the Libertines were a philosophical sect, or the adher- ents of the school of one Libertus, and the sugges- tion of Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. et Talm.) that they were Pal. Jews who had been enslaved and sub- sequently set free, we conclude that the Libertines
were freedmen in the Roman sense of the term. They were mainly descendants of those Jews whe had been taken as prisoners to Rome by Pompey in B.C. 63, and there sold as slaves. We learn from Philo (Leg. ad Gaium, ο. 23, ii. 568 (Mang.)) that the majority of the Roman Jews belonged to the class of freedmen (ef. Tacitus, Ann. ii. 85; Suet. Τὶ}. c. 36). Their enslaved condition lasted but a short time, and they soon became an important factor in the community. Whether they were manumitted by their masters because their value as slaves was greatly lessened by their tenacious adherence to their national customs (Hausrath), or because their fidelity as slaves suggested to their masters that as freemen they would be of still greater service (Berliner), or whether they were ransomed by their own countrymen (Gritz), we do not know; but the language of Philo seems to indicate that the first-mentioned cause was the most influential. The fear of the Jews expressed by Cicero (pro Flacco, c. 28) is no doubt rhetorical ; but rhetorically it would have been pointless if the Jews had been a feeble folk (cf. Hor. Sat. i. 4. 143). By such of them as returned to settle in Jerus, or were temporarily resident there, a synagogue was built. According to Hausrath the building of a separate synagogue was a necessity, as from 8 theocratic pany of view they were subject to certain disabilities. Among the inscriptions quoted by Schiirer (Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in fiom, p. 15) is one referring to a synagogue τῶν Αὐγυστησίων ; and if, as is probable, this refers to freedmen or slaves in the house of Augustus, it seems to show that at Rome was reproduced the type of distinctions that existed in Jerusalem. Like the other Hel. Jews, the Libertines were keenly opposed to the new faith, and the very inferiority of their social and theocratic standing may have caused them to emphasize the distinctive- ness of their religious position (ef. Gerdes, op. cit.; Schiirer, op. cit., HIP. Il. ii. 56 f., 276; Hausrath in Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon; Meyer on Ac 6°; Ea- positor, July, 1895, p. 35). JOHN PATRICK.
LIBERTY.—The only passage in which this word needs verbal attention is 1 Mae 104 ‘And whosoever they be that flee unto the temple at Jerusalem, or be within the liberties thereof, being indebted unto the king, or for any other matter, let them be at liberty, and all that they have in my realm.’ The ‘liberties’ of the temple are its
recincts, the parts within which its inmates have Fberty of action. The Gr. is ὅρια, borders, bounds. Scrivener gives this as one of the colloquialisms peculiar to the Apocr., which the AV translators accepted with slovenliness from the Bishops’ Bible. It is also the tr. of Coverdale and the Geneva Bible. Wyclif’s word is ‘ coasts’= boundaries, and so Douay, after Vulg. jines. J. HASTINGS.
LIBERTY.—This idea forms one of the char- acteristic differences between OT and NT con- ceptions of religion. In OT the idea is almost entirely absent. ‘The fear of the Lord’ is the distinctive name for religion (Ps 34" ete.), ‘ser- vant’ is the distinctive title of the good (Ps 19", He 3° etc.). God is thought of chiefly as the supreme, universal sovereign and ruler, Is 33”. Obedience is the central virtue of religious char- acter, to which all blessings are promised, 1S 15”. To illustrate this position fully, it would be neces- sary to quote a large part of the OT. We do not mean that there are no indications of more in- timate relations between God and man. The freer,
entler side of religion is undoubtedly known. The law of love for God and man is promulgated. Many of the psalmists and prophets rise to lofty heights of divine joy and fellowship. But the
LIBERTY
ground-tone of OT piety is reverential fear. This order of development in revelation was fitting and indeed inevitable. The OT age was the age of childhood in revealed religion, and children are trained for independence by a course of obedience and subjection to authority (Gal 4%). ‘The law hath been our tutor to ing us unto Christ’ (Gal 339. The patriarchal age certainly seems to breathe a freer spirit than the age of the law roper. Still, even then religious thought and eeling can only have been elementary; and this is the impression made by the narrative. Of later days St. Paul uses strong, even harsh, language, ‘weak and beggarly rudiments’ (Gal 4°). The prevailing spirit was a ‘spirit of bondage to fear’ (Ro 815. At the same time the emphasis laid on God’s work of redemption must have given rise to thoughts of spiritual freedom (Ex 13", Dt 78, 1Ch 17 ete.), and in Is 61! this truth finds glori- ous expression. It is perhaps worth while to notice that, while in the political system of Israel there is no trace of the idea of liberty in the modern sense, that system is distinguished from the despotisms of the day by many humane regu- lations unknown elsewhere, such as those with regard to alavery (Ex 21°) and land (Ly 2510. 33). hristianity brought, first of all, freedom from the ceremonial restrictions and conditions of OT religion. The Mosaic law is described as ‘a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear’ (Ac 15"). To all attempts to continue or reimpose the yoke on Christian believers, St. Paul offered unflinching and successful resistance (Gal 34 51), and so won the victory of Christian free- dom for all time. The teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews throughout supports St. Paul (955 10). The NT condemns beforehand all attempts to reduce Christianity to a mere system of ritual. The Lord Jesus, St. Paul, and St. John are at one in their insistence on spiritual religion.