Such is the impression received from the representations of common life in the scriptures of the New Testament. The instances they allege of cruelty and injustice are drawn from the conduct of the Jews towards one another, rather than of the foreigner towards the native. The scribe and the Pharisee are held up to odium or contempt, not the minister of police or the instrument of government. The Romans are regarded in them as the protectors of the people against their domestic tyrants. The duty of paying them tribute is urged as the proper price of the tranquillity they maintain; their fiscal officers are spoken of with forbearance; their soldiers are cited as examples of thoughtful toleration; the vice of the provincial ruler is indifference and unbelief rather than wanton violence; and the tribunal of the emperor himself is appealed to as the last resort of injured innocence. The freedom of movement enjoyed by the subjects of Rome, the permission so fully allowed them of passing, from frontier to frontier, of assembling together for social and religious objects, of flocking in crowds at the call of popular leaders, all indicate a state of personal liberty which might be envied throughout Europe at the present day.[f] INTERNAL GOVERNMENT During the earlier years of Tiberius’ sway, his administration was happy for the state. Even Tacitus[d] draws a brilliant picture of it: “Public matters and the more serious of those relating to private persons were determined by the senate. In the distribution of honours, he took birth, military service, and civil talent into consideration, so that it would have been difficult to have made a better choice. As to laws, if one excepts that of majesty, good use was made of them. For his private affairs the prince chose most eminent men, some unknown to him except by reputation, and the greater part grew old in service. He took care that the provinces were not burdened with taxes. The prince’s domains in Italy were not much extended. His slaves were not insolent, his freedmen not many. Had he disputes with private persons, the law decided the matter.”[b]