The provinces are said to have been better governed under the empire than under the commonwealth, and those of the emperor better than those of the senate (Tacitus, Ann. i, 76; iv, 6; Dion, liii. 14). Two impor- tant changes were introduced under the empire. The governors received a fixed pay, and the term of their command was prolonged (Josephus, Ant. xviii, 6, 5). But the old mode of levying taxes seems to have been continued. The companies who farmed the taxes, con- sisting generally of knights, paid a certain sum into the Roman treasury, and proceeded to wring what thej' could from the provincials, often with the connivance and support of the provincial governor. The work was done chiefly by underlings of the lowest class {jwrti- tores). These are the publicans (q.v.) of the New Test.
On the whole, it seems doubtful whether the wrongs of the provinces can have been materially alleviated under the imperial government. It is not likely that such rulers as Caligula and Nero would be scrupulous about the means used for replenishing their treasury. The stories related even of the reign of Augustus show how slight were the checks on the tyranny of provincial governors. See the story of Licinius in Gaul (Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Biog. s. v.), and that of the Dal- matian chief (Dion, Iv). The sufferings of Paul, pro- tected as he was, to a certain extent, by his Roman cit- izenship, show plainh' how little a provincial had to hope from the justice of a Roman governor.
V. Roman Citizenship. — Seeing how great the privi- leges of a Roman citizen were, the eagerness with which it was sought, and the earnestness with which it was f (leaded in case of any unjust treatment, is not to be wondered at. The freedom of Rome was often obtained by purchase for great sums (Acts xxii, 28), though at the time of Claudius it is said that it became so cheap that it might be bought for a little broken glass (Dion Cass. Ix, 17). A citizen under the republic could in
criminal cases, if he were so minded, appeal from the magistrates to the people, for without the acquiescence of the whole Roman people no man could be put to death (Cicero, Tusc. (Imrst. 4, I ; In Verr. 54, 57). At the commencement of the imperial period it was, however, necessary that the appeal shoidd be made to the em- peror, who had assumed the privilege of final adjudica- tion. It was thus that Paul, when being tried before Festus, '-appealed unto Ca-sar" (Acts xxv, 11; xxvi, 32), fulfilling our Lord's words that he should "bear witness also at Rome" (xxiii, 1 1 ; xxvii, 23; xxviii, 14, 16, 17; 2 Tim. i, 17 ; iv, 17). The scourging of a Roman citizen was contrary to the law, and Paul, by the asser- tion of his Roman citizenship, prevented Claudius Lysi- as from ordering him to i)e scourged (Acts xxii, 26-29 ; xxiii, 27). At an earlier perioil Paid and Silas had been scourged (xvi, 37), and two Roman laws thereby violated {Lex Valeria, B.C. 508 ; Lex Rorciu, B.C. 300). They were also illegally treated, being " uncondemned" (Cicero, Verr. i, 9; Tacitus, Hist, i, 6). See Sigonius, De A ntiquo Jure Civ. Rom. (Paris, 1572) ; also in (irievii Thesaurus, \o\. i; Spanheim, Orbis Rvm. (Lond. 1703); Cellarii Dissert att. p. 715 sq. ; Fabricius, Bihlior/raph. Antiq. p. 724 sq. See Citizknsiitp.
VI. Reliyious Toleration. — The treatment that the Jews received at the hands of the Romans was at times very moderate. Under Julius Caesar they were not for- bidden to live according to their customs even in Rome itself (Josephus, Ant. xiv, 10, 8j, and Augustus ordered that they should have full freedom of worship, hold their assemblies, and make gifts to their Temple; they were even admitted with the citizens to a share in the largesses of corn (Philo, Ad Cui. p. 1015; comp. Horace, iSaf. i, 9, 69) ; and when it fell upon the Sabbath day, Augustus allowed it to be put off to the next day. They were also exempted from military service on account of their religious prejudices (Josephus, Ant. xiv, 10, 11-19 ; xvi, 6; comp. xix, 5, 3). Suetonius {Cas. 84) records that the Jews were in great grief at the death of Au- gustus. Tiberius and Claudius banished them from Rome, the latter on account of tumults caused by a cer- tain Chrestus (Tacitus, Ann. ii, 85; Suetonius, Tib. 86; comp. Josephus, A7it. xviii, 3, 5; Suetonius, Claud. 25; Acts xviii, 2); but the expulsion by Claudius is contra- dicted by Dion Cassius (Ix, 6), and a few years after the Jews were again at Rome in great numbers (Acts xxviii, 17 sq.). The interference of the Roman gov- ernment was confined to keeping peace at the great fes- tivals at Jerusalem ; for which purpose a guard was stationed in the fortress of Antonia, overlooking the city (xxii, 24). The administration of religious cere- monies was committed to the high-priest and Sanhe- drim; civil and criminal jurisprudence was retained by them, and they were allowed to pass the sentence of condemnation, but its execution depended upon the procurator (Josephus, Ant. xx, 9,1; Mark xiv, 53-55, 62-65). They were also permitted to inflict lesser punishments, especially for infractions of the Mosaic law; but the power of life and death was taken from them (John xviii, 31). (See Alford's note on this pas- sage, and Biscoe On the Acts, p. 134-167.) The ston- ing of Stephen probably took place during a tumult, and not with the sanction of the procurator (Acts vii, 28). Even beyond the borders of Palestine the Jews exercised among themselves the civil jurisdiction ac- cording to their laws. Josephus (.4 nt. xiv, 10, 17) gives a Roman decree to the city of Sardis sanctioning this privilege.