A few faint rays of light, however, have been permitted to penetrate beyond the dividing barrier, and of these we must make the best use we can; for it is now our task to trace the history of St. Paul beyond the period where the narrative of his fellow-traveler so suddenly terminates. (f2638) The only contemporary materials for this purpose are his own letters to Titus and Timothy, and a single sentence of his disciple, Clement of Rome; and during the three centuries which followed we can gather but a few scattered and unsatisfactory notices from the writers who have handed down to us the traditions of the Church.

The great question which we have to answer concerns the termination of that long imprisonment whose history has occupied the preceding chapters. St. Luke tells us that Paul remained under military custody in Rome for "two whole years" (Acts 28:16 and 30); but he does not say what followed at the close of that period. Was it ended, we are left to ask, by the Apostle’s condemnation and death, or by his acquittal and liberation? Although the answer to this question has been a subject of dispute in modern times, no doubt was entertained about it by the ancient Church. (f2639) It was universally believed that St. Paul’s appeal to Caesar terminated successfully; that he was acquitted of the charges laid against him; and that he spent some years in freedom before he was again imprisoned and condemned. The evidence on this subject, though (as we have said) not copious, is yet conclusive so far as it goes, and it is all one way. (f2640)

The most important portion of it is supplied by Clement, the disciple of St. Paul, mentioned Philippians 4:3,(f2641) who was afterwards Bishop of Rome. This author, writing from Rome to Corinth, expressly asserts that Paul had preached the Gospel "IN THE EAST AND IN THE WEST;" that "he had instructed the whole world [i. e. the Roman Empire, which was commonly so called] in righteousness;" and that he "had gone to THE EXTREMITY OF THE WEST" before his martyrdom. (f2642)

Now, in a Roman author, the extremity of the West could mean nothing short of Spain, and the expression is often used by Roman writers to denote Spain. Here, then, we have the express testimony of St. Paul’s own disciple that he fulfilled his original intention (mentioned Romans 15:24-28) of visiting the Spanish peninsula; and consequently that he was liberated from his first imprisonment at Rome.

The next piece of evidence which we possess on the subject is contained in the canon of the New Testament, compiled by an unknown Christian about the year A.D. 170, which is commonly called "Muratori’s Canon." In this document it is said, in the account of the Acts of the Apostles, that

"Luke relates to Theophilus events of which he was an eye-witness, as also, in a separate place (remote) [viz. Luke 22:31- 33], he evidently declares the martyrdom of Peter, but [omits] THE JOURNEY OP PAUL FROM ROME TO SPAIN." (f2643)

In the next place, Eusebius tells us, "after defending himself successfully. it is currently reported that the Apostle again went forth to proclaim the Gospel, and afterwards came to Rome a second time, and was martyred under Nero." (f2644)

Next we have the statement of Chrysostom, who mentions it as an undoubted historical fact, that "St. Paul, after his residence in Rome, departed to Spain." (f2645)

About the same time St. Jerome bears the same testimony, saying that "Paul was dismissed by Nero, that he might preach Christ’s Gospel in the West." (f2646)

Against this unanimous testimony of the primitive Church there is no external evidence (f2647) whatever to oppose. Those who doubt the liberation of St. Paul from his imprisonment are obliged to resort to a gratuitous hypothesis, or to inconclusive arguments from probability. Thus they try to account for the tradition of the Spanish journey by the arbitrary supposition that it arose from a wish to represent St. Paul as having fulfilled his expressed intentions (Romans 15:19) of visiting Spain. Or they say that it is improbable Nero would have liberated St. Paul after he had fallen under the influence of Poppaea, the Jewish proselyte. Or, lastly, they urge, that, if St. Paul had really been liberated, we must have had some account of his subsequent labors. The first argument needs no answer, being a mere hypothesis. The second, as to the probability of the matter, may be met by the remark, that we know far too little of the circumstances, and of the motives which weighed with Nero, to judge how he would have been likely to act in the case. To the third argument we may oppose the fact, that we have no account whatever of St. Paul’s labors, toils, and sufferings, during several of the most active years of his life, and only learn their existence by a casual allusion in a letter to the Corinthians (2Corinthians 11:24, 25). Moreover, if this argument be worth any thing, it would prove that none of the Apostles except St. Paul took any part whatever in the propagation of the Gospel after the first few years; since we have no testimony to their subsequent labors at all more definite than that which we have above quoted concerning the work of St. Paul after his liberation.

But farther, unless we are prepared to dispute the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, (f2648) we must admit not only that St. Paul was liberated from his Roman imprisonment, but also that he continued his Apostolic labors for at least some years afterwards. For it is now admitted by nearly all those who are competent to decide on such a question, (f2649) first, that the historical facts mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus cannot be placed in any portion of St. Paul’s life before or during his first imprisonment in Rome; and, secondly, that the style in which those Epistles are written, and the condition of the Church described in them, forbid the supposition of such a date. Consequently, we must acknowledge (unless we deny the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles) that after St. Paul’s Roman imprisonment he was traveling at liberty in Ephesus, ( 1Timothy 1:3.) Crete, (Titus 1:5.) Macedonia, (1Timothy 1:3.) Miletus, ( 2Timothy 4:20.) and Nicopolis, (Titus 3:12.) and that he was afterwards a second time in prison at Rome. (2Timothy 1:16, 17.)

But, when we have said this, we have told nearly all that we know of the Apostle’s personal history, from his liberation to his death. We cannot fix with certainty the length of the time which intervened, nor the order in which he visited the different places where he is recorded to have labored. The following data, however, we have.

In the First place, his martrydom is universally said to have occurred (f2650) in the reign of Nero.

Secondly, Timothy was still a young man (i.e. young for the charge committed to him) (1Timothy 1:16, 17.) at the time of Paul’s second imprisonment at Rome.

Thirdly, the three Pastoral Epistles were written within a few months of one another. (f2651)

Fourthly, their style differs so much from the style of the earlier Epistles, that we must suppose as long an interval between their date and that of the Epistle to Philippi as is consistent with the preceding conditions.

These reasons concur in leading us to fix the last year of Nero as that of St, Paul’s martrydom. And this is the very year assigned to it by Jerome, and the next to that assigned by Eusebius, the two earliest writers who mention the date of St. Paul’s death at all. We have already seen that St. Paul first arrived in Rome in the spring of A.D. 61:we therefore have, on our hypothesis, an interval of five years between the period with which St. Luke concludes (A.D. 6-3) and the Apostle’s martrydom. (f2652) And the grounds above mentioned lead us to the conclusion that this interval was occupied in the following manner.

In the first place, after the long delay, which we have before endeavored to explain, St. Paul’s appeal came on for hearing before the Emperor. The appeals from the provinces in civil causes were heard, not by the Emperor himself, but by his delegates, who were persons of consular rank: Augustus had appointed one such delegate to hear appeals from each province respectively. (f2653) But criminal appeals appear generally to have been heard by the Emperor in person, (f2654) assisted by his council of Assessors. Tiberius and Claudius had usually sat for this purpose in the Forum; (f2655) but Nero, after the example of Augustus, heard these causes in the Imperial Palace, (f2656) whose ruins still crown the Palatine. Here, at one end of a splendid hall, (f2657) lined with the precious marbles (f2658) of Egypt and of Lybia, we must imagine the Caesar seated, in the midst of his Assessors. These councillors, twenty in number, were men of the highest rank and greatest influence. Among them were the two consuls, (f2659) and selected representatives of each of the other great magistracies of Rome. (f2660) The remainder consisted of Senators chosen by lot. Over this distinguished bench of judges presided the representative of the most powerful monarchy which has ever existed, - the absolute ruler of the whole civilized world. But the reverential awe which his position naturally suggested was changed into contempt and loathing by the character of the Sovereign who now presided over that supreme tribunal. For Nero was a man whom even the awful attribute of "power equal to the gods" (f2661) could not render august, except in title. The fear and horror excited by his omnipotence and his cruelty were blended with contempt for his ignoble lust of praise, and his shameless licentiousness. He had not as yet plunged into that extravagance of tyranny, which, at a later period, exhausted the patience of his subjects, and brought him to destruction. Hitherto his public measures had been guided by sage advisers, and his cruelty had injured his own family rather than the State. But already, at the age of twenty-five, he had murdered his innocent wife and his adopted brother, and had dyed his hands in the blood of his mother. Yet even these enormities seem to have disgusted the Romans less than his prostitution of the Imperial purple, by publicly performing as a musician on the stage and a charioteer in the circus. His degrading want of dignity, and insatiable appetite for vulgar applause, drew tears from the councillors and servants of his house, who could see him slaughter his nearest relatives without remonstrance.

Before the tribunal of this blood-stained adulterer, Paul the Apostle was now brought in fetters, under the custody of his military guard. We may be sure that he who had so often stood undaunted before the delegates of the Imperial throne did not quail when he was at last confronted with their master. His life was not in the hands of Nero: he knew that while his Lord had work for him on earth, HE would shield him from the tyrant’s sword; and, if his work was over, how gladly would he "depart and be with Christ, which was far better." (f2662) To him all the majesty of Roman despotism was nothing more than an empty pageant; the Imperial demigod himself was but one of "the princes of this world, that come to nought." (1Corinthians 2:6.) Thus he stood, calm and collected, ready to answer the charges of his accusers, and knowing that in the hour of his need it should be given him what to speak.

The prosecutors and their witnesses were now called forward to support their accusation:(f2663) for although the subject-matter for decision was contained in the written depositions forwarded from Judaea by Festus, yet the Roman law required the personal presence of the accusers and the witnesses, whenever it could be obtained. (f2664) We already know the charges (f2665) brought against the Apostle. He was accused of disturbing the Jews in the exercise of their worship, which was secured to them by law; of desecrating their Temple; and, above all, of violating the public peace of the Empire by perpetual agitation, as the ringleader of a new and factious sect. This charge (f2666) was the most serious in the view of a Roman statesman; for the crime alleged amounted to majestas, or treason against the Commonwealth, and was punishable with death.

These accusations were supported by the emissaries of the Sanhedrin, and probably by the testimony of witnesses from Judaea, Ephesus, Corinth, and the other scenes of Paul’s activity. The foreign accusers, however, did not rely on the support of their own unaided eloquence. They doubtless hired the rhetoric of some accomplished Roman pleader (as they had done even before the provincial tribunal of Felix) to set off their cause to the best advantage, and paint the dangerous character of their antagonist in the darkest colors. Nor would it have been difficult to represent the missionary labors of Paul as dangerous to the security of the Roman state, when we remember how ill informed the Roman magistrates, who listened, must have been concerning the questions really at issue between Paul and his opponents; and when we consider how easily the Jews were excited against the government by any fanati cal leader who appealed to their nationality, and how readily the kingdom of the Messiah, which Paul proclaimed, might be misrepresented as a temporal monarchy, set up in opposition to the foreign domination of Rome.

We cannot suppose that St. Paul had secured the services of any professional advocate to repel such false accusations, (f2667) and put the truth clearly before his Roman judges. We know that he resorted to no such method on former occasions of a similar kind. And it seems more consistent with his character, and his unwavering reliance on his Master’s promised aid, to suppose that he answered (f2668) the elaborate harangue of the hostile pleader by a plain and simple statement of facts, like that which he addressed to Felix, Festus, and Agrippa. He could easily prove the falsehood of the charge of sacrilege by the testimony of those who were present in the Temple; and perhaps the refutation of this more definite accusation might incline his judges more readily to attribute the vaguer charges to the malice of his opponents. He would then proceed to show, that, far from disturbing the exercise of the religio licita of Judaism, he himself adhered to that religion, rightly understood. He would show, that, far from being a seditious agitator against the state, he taught his converts everywhere to honor the Imperial Government, and submit to the ordinances (Compare Romans 13:1- 7.) of the magistrate for conscience’ sake. And, though he would admit the charge of belonging to the sect of the Nazarenes, yet he would remind his opponents that they themselves acknowledged the division of their nation into various sects, which were equally entitled to the protection of the law; and that the sect of the Nazarenes had a right to the same toleration which was extended to those of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

We know not whether he entered on this occasion into the peculiar doctrines of that "sect" to which he belonged; basing them, as he ever did, on the resurrection of the dead; (f2669) and reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. If so, he had one auditor at least who had more need to tremble than even Felix. But doubtless a seared conscience, and a universal frivolity of character, rendered Nero proof against emotions which for a moment shook the nerves of a less audacious criminal.

When the parties on both sides had been heard, (f2670) and the witnesses all examined and cross-examined (a process which perhaps occupied several days), (f2671) the judgment of the court was taken. Each of the assessors gave his opinion in writing to the Emperor, who never discussed the judgment with his assessors, as had been the practice of better emperors, but, after reading their opinions, gave sentence according to his own pleasure, (f2672) without reference to the judgment of the majority. On this occasion, it might have been expected that he would have pronounced the condemnation of the accused; for the influence of Poppaea had now (f2673) reached its culminating point, and she was, as we have said, a Jewish proselyte. We can scarcely doubt that the emissaries from Palestine would have sought access to so powerful a protectress, and demanded her aid (f2674) for the destruction of a traitor to the Jewish faith; nor would any scruples have prevented her from listening to their request, backed as it probably was, according to the Roman usage, by a bribe. If such influence was exerted upon Nero, it might have been expected easily to prevail. But we know not all the complicated intrigues of the Imperial Court. Perhaps some Christian freedman of Narcissus (f2675) may have counteracted, through the interest of that powerful favorite, the devices of St. Paul’s antagonists; or possibly Nero may have been capriciously inclined to act upon his own independent view of the law and justice of the case, or to show his contempt for what he regarded as the petty squabbles of a superstitious people, by "driving the accusers from his judgment-seat" with the same feelings which Gallio had shown on a similar occasion.

However this may be, the trial resulted in the acquittal of St. Paul. He was pronounced guiltless of the charges brought against him, his fetters were struck off, and he was liberated from his lengthened captivity. And now at last he was free to realize his long-cherished purpose of evangelizing the West. But the immediate execution of this design was for the present postponed, in order that he might first revisit some of his earlier converts, who again needed his presence.

Immediately on his liberation it may reasonably be supposed that he fulfilled the intention which he had lately expressed ( Philemon 1:22, and Philippians 2:24), of traveling eastward through Macedonia, and seeking the churches of Asia Minor, some of which, as yet, had not seen his face in the flesh. We have already learnt, from the Epistle to the Colossians, how much his influence and authority were required among those Asiatic Churches. We must suppose him, therefore, to have gone from Rome by the usual route, crossing the Adriatic from Brundusium to Apollonia, or Dyrrhachium, and proceeding by the great Egnatian road through Macedonia; and we can imagine the joy wherewith he was welcomed by his beloved children at Philippi, when he thus gratified the expectation which he had encouraged them to form. There is no reason to suppose, however, that he lingered in Macedonia. It is more likely that he hastened on to Ephesus, and made that city once more his center of operations. If he effected his purpose, (See Philemon 1:22.) he now for the first time visited Colossae, Laodicea, and other churches in that region.

Having accomplished the objects of his visit to Asia Minor, he was at length enabled (perhaps in the year following that of his liberation) to undertake his long-meditated journey to Spain. By what route he went, we know not; he may either have traveled by way of Rome, which had been his original intention, or more probably, avoiding the dangers which at this period (in the height of the Neronian persecution) would have beset him there, he may have gone by sea. There was constant commercial intercourse between the East and Massilia (the modern Marseilles); and Massilia was in daily communication with the Peninsula. We may suppose him to have reached Spain in the year 64, and to have remained there about two years; which would allow him time to establish the germs of Christian Churches among the Jewish proselytes who were to be found in all the great cities, from Tarraco to Gades, along the Spanish coast. (f2676)

From Spain St. Paul seems to have returned, in A.D. 66, (f2677) to Ephesus; and here he found that the predictions which he had long ago uttered to the Ephesian presbyters were already receiving their fullfillment. Heretical teachers had arisen in the very bosom of the Church, and were leading away the believers after themselves. Hymenaeus and Philetus were sowing, in a congenial soil, the seed which was destined in another century to bear so ripe a crop of error. The East and West were infusing their several elements of poison into the pure cup of Gospel truth. In Asia Minor, as at Alexandria, Hellenic philosophism did not refuse to blend with Oriental theosophy; the Jewish superstitions of the Cabala, and the wild speculations of the Persian magi, were combined with the Greek craving for an enlightened and esoteric religion. The outward forms of superstition were ready for the vulgar multitude; the interpretation was confined to the aristocracy of knowledge, the self-styled Gnostics (1Timothy 6:20); and we see the tendencies at work among the latter, when we learn that, like their prototypes at Corinth, they denied the future resurrection of the dead, and taught that the only true resurrection was that which took place when the soul awoke from the death of ignorance to the life of knowledge. (f2678) We recognize already the germ of those heresies which convulsed the Church in the succeeding century; and we may imagine the grief and indignation aroused in the breast of St. Paul, when he found the extent of the evil, and the number of Christian converts already infected by the spreading plague.

Nevertheless, it is evident from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, written about this time, that he was prevented by other duties from staying in this Oriental region so long as his presence was required. He left his disciples to do that, which, had circumstances permitted, he would nave done himself. He was plainly hurried from one point to another. Perhaps also he had lost some of his former energy. This might well be the case if we consider all he had endured during thirty years of labor. The physical hardships which he had undergone were of themselves sufficient to wear out the most robust constitution; and we know that his health was already broken many years before. (See Galatians 4:13, 14, and 2Corinthians 12:7- 9.) But in addition to these bodily trials, the moral conflicts which he continually encountered could not fail to tire down the elasticity of his spirit. The hatred manifested by so large and powerful a section even of the Christian Church; the destruction of so many early friendships; the faithless desertion of followers; the crowd of anxieties which pressed upon him daily, and "the care of all the Churches," must needs have preyed upon the mental energy of any man, but especially of one whose temperament was so ardent and impetuous. When approaching the age of seventy, (f2679) he might well be worn out both in body and mind. And this will account for the comparative want of vigor and energy which has been attributed to the Pastoral Epistles, if there be any such deficiency; and may perhaps also be in part the cause of his opposing those errors by deputy, which we might rather have expected him to uproot by his own personal exertions. However this may be, he seems not to have remained for any long time together at Ephesus, but to have been called away from thence, first to Macedonia, (1Timothy 1:3.) and afterwards to Crete; (Titus 1:5.) and immediately on his return from thence, he appears finally to have left Ephesus for Rome, by way of Corinth. (2Timothy 4:20.) But here we are anticipating our narrative: we must return to the first of these hurried journeys, when he departed from Ephesus to Macedonia, leaving the care of the Ephesian Church to Timothy, and charging him especially with the duty of counteracting the efforts of those heretical teachers whose dangerous character we have described.

When he arrived in Macedonia, he found that his absence might possibly be prolonged beyond what he had expected; and he probably felt that Timothy might need some more explicit credential from himself than a mere verbal commission, to enable him for a longer period to exercise that Apostolic authority over the Ephesian Church wherewith he had invested him. It would also be desirable that Timothy should be able, in his struggle with the heretical teachers, to exhibit documentary proof of St. Paul’s agreement with himself, and condemnation of the opposing doctrines. Such seem to have been the principal motives which led St. Paul to despatch from Macedonia that which is known as "the First Epistle to Timothy;" in which are contained various rules for the government of the Ephesian Church, such as would be received with submission when thus seen to proceed directly from its Apostolic founder, while they would perhaps have been less readily obeyed if seeming to be the spontaneous injunctions of the youthful Timothy. In the same manner it abounds with impressive denunciations against the false teachers at Ephesus, which might command the assent of some who turned a deaf ear to the remonstrances of the Apostolic deputy. There are also exhortations to Timothy himself, some of which perhaps were rather meant to bear an indirect application to others, at the time, as they have-ever since furnished a treasury of practical precepts for the Christian Church.

See Notes To The First Epistle To Timothy (Timothy).

The expectations which St. Paul expressed in the above letter, of a more prolonged absence from Ephesus, could scarcely have been fulfilled; for soon after (f2680) we find that he had been in Crete (which seems to imply that, on his way thither, he had passed through Ephesus), and was now again on his way westwards. We must suppose, then, that he returned shortly from Macedonia to Ephesus, as he hoped, though doubtfully, to be able to do when he wrote to Timothy. From Ephesus, as we have just said, he soon afterwards made an expedition to Crete. It can scarcely be supposed that the Christian Churches of Crete were first founded during this visit of St. Paul; on the contrary, many indications in the Epistle to Titus show that they had already lasted for a considerable time. But they were troubled by false teachers, and probably had never yet been properly organized, having originated, perhaps, in the private efforts of individual Christians, who would have been supplied with a center of operations and nucleus of Churches by the numerous colonies of Jews established in the island. (f2681) St. Paul now visited them in company with Titus, (f2682) whom he left in Crete as his representative on his departure. He himself was unable to remain long enough to do what was needful, either in silencing error, or in selecting fit persons as presbyters of the numerous scattered Churches, which would manifestly be a work of time. Probably he confined his efforts to a few of the principal places, and empowered Titus to do the rest. Thus, Titus was left at Crete in the same position which Timothy had occupied at Ephesus during St. Paul’s recent absence; and there would, consequently, be the same advantage in his receiving written directions from St. Paul concerning the government and organization of the Church, which we have before mentioned in the case of Timothy.

Accordingly, shortly after leaving Crete, St. Paul sent a letter to Titus, the outline of which would equally serve for that of the preceding Epistle. But St. Paul’s letter to Titus seems to have been still further called for, to meet some strong opposition which that disciple had encountered while attempting to carry out his master’s directions. This may be inferred from the very severe remarks against the Cretans which occur in the Epistle, and from the statement, at its commencement, that the very object which its writer had in view, in leaving Titus in Crete, was that he might appoint Presbyters in the Cretan Churches; an indication that his claim to exercise this authority had been disputed. This Epistle seems to have been despatched from Ephesus at the moment when St. Paul was on the eve of departure on a westward journey, which was to take him as far as Nicopolis (f2683) (in Epirus) before the winter. The following is a translation of this Epistle:

See Notes To The Epistle To Titus.

We see from the above letter that Titus was desired to join St. Paul at Nicopolis, where the Apostle designed to winter. We learn, from an incidental notice elsewhere, (2Timothy 4:20.) that the route he pursued was from Ephesus to Miletus, where his old companion Trophimus remained behind from sickness, and thence to Corinth, where he left Erastus, the former treasurer of that city, whom, perhaps, he had expected, or wished, to accompany him in his farther progress. The position of Nicopolis (f2684) would render it a good center for operating upon the surrounding province; and thence St. Paul might make excursions to those Churches of Illyricum which he perhaps (f2685) founded himself at an earlier period. The city which was thus chosen as the last scene of the Apostle’s labors, before his final imprisonment, is more celebrated for its origin than for its subsequent history. It was founded by Augustus, as a permanent memorial of the victory of Actium, and stood upon the site of the camp occupied by his land-forces before that battle. We learn, from the accounts of modern travelers, that the remains upon the spot still attest the extent and importance of the "City of Victory."

"A long lofty wall spans a desolate plain; to the north of it rises, on a distant hill, the shattered scena of a theatre; and, to the west, the extended though broken line of an aqueduct connects the distant mountains, from which it tends, with the main subject of the picture, the city itself." (f2686) To people this city, Augustus uprooted the neighboring mountaineers from their native homes, dragging them by his arbitrary compulsion "from their healthy hills to this low and swampy plain." It is satisfactory to think (with the accomplished traveler from whom the above description is borrowed) that, "in lieu of the blessings of which they were deprived, the Greek colonists of Nicopolis were consoled with one greater than all, when they saw, heard, and talked with the Apostle who was debtor to the Greeks."

It seems most probable, however, that St. Paul was not permitted to spend the whole of this winter in security at Nicopolis. The Christians were now far more obnoxious to the Roman authorities than formerly. They were already distinguished from the Jews, and could no longer shelter themselves under the toleration extended to the Mosaic religion. So eminent a leader of the proscribed sect was sure to find enemies everywhere, especially among his fellow-countrymen; and there is nothing improbable in supposing that, upon the testimony of some informer, he was arrested (f2687) by the magistrates of Nicopolis, and forwarded to Rome (f2688) for trial. The indications which we gather from the Second Epistle to Timothy render it probable that this arrest took place not later than (f2689) midwinter, and the authorities may have thought to gratify the Emperor by forwarding so important a criminal immediately to Rome. It is true that the navigation of the Mediterranean was in those times suspended during the winter; but this rule would apply only to longer voyages, and not to the short passage (f2690) from Apollonia to Brundusium. Hence, it is not unlikely that St. Paul may have arrived at Rome some time before spring.

In this melancholy journey he had but few friends to cheer him. Titus had reached Nicopolis, in obedience to his summons; and there were others also, it would seem, in attendance on him; but they were scattered by the terror of his arrest. Demas forsook him, "for love of this present world," (2Timothy 4:10.) and departed to Thessalouiea; Crescens (f2691) went to Galatia on the same occasion. We are unwilling to suppose that Titus could have yielded to such unworthy fears, and may be allowed to hope that his journey to the neighboring Dalmatia (f2692) was undertaken by the desire of St. Paul. Luke, (2Timothy 4:11.) at any rate, remained faithful, accompanied his master once more over the wintry sea, and shared the dangers of his imprisonment at Rome.

This imprisonment was evidently more severe than it had been five years before. Then, though necessarily fettered to his military guard, he had been allowed to live in his own lodgings, and had been suffered to preach the Gospel to a numerous company who came to hear him. Now he is not only chained, but treated "as a malefactor." (f2693) His friends, indeed, are still suffered to visit him in his confinement; but we hear nothing of his preaching. It is dangerous and difficult (2Timothy 1:16.) to seek his prison; so perilous to show any public sympathy with him, that no Christian ventures to stand by him in the court of justice. (2Timothy 4:16.) And, as the final stage of his trial approaches, he looks forward to death as his certain sentence. (2Timothy 4:6-8.)

This alteration in the treatment of St. Paul exactly corresponds with that which the history of the times would have led us to expect. We have concluded that his liberation took place early in A.D. 63:he was therefore far distant from Rome when the first imperial persecution of Christianity broke out, in consequence of the great fire in the summer of the following year. Then first, as it appears, Christians were recognized as a distinct body, separate both from Jews and heathens; and their number must have been already very great at Rome to account for the public notice attracted towards a sect whose members were, most of them, individually so obscure in social position. (1Corinthians 1:26.) When the alarm and indignation of the people were excited by the tremendous ruin of a conflagration, which burnt down almost half the city, it answered the purpose of Nero (who was accused of causing the fire) to avert the rage of the populace from himself to the already hated votaries of a new religion. Tacitus (f2694) describes the success of this expedient, and relates the sufferings of the Christian martyrs, who were put to death with circumstances of the most aggravated cruelty. Some were crucified; some disguised in the skins of beasts, and hunted to death with dogs; some were wrapped in robes impregnated with inflammable materials, and set on fire at night, that they might serve to illuminate the circus of the Vatican and the gardens of Nero, where this diabolical monster exhibited the agonies of his victims to the public, and gloated over them himself, mixing among the spectators in the costume of a charioteer.

Brutalized as the Romans were by the perpetual spectacle of human combats in the amphitheatre, and hardened by popular prejudice against the "atheistical" sect, yet the tortures of the victims excited even their compassion. "A very great multitude," as Tacitus informs us, perished in this manner; and it appears from his statement that the mere fact of professing Christianity was accounted sufficient (f2695) to justify their execution; the whole body of Christians being considered as involved in the crime of firing the city. This, however, was in the first excitement which followed the fire; and even then, probably but few among those who perished were Roman citizens. (f2696) Since that time, some years had passed, and now a decent respect would be paid to the forms of law, in dealing with one who, like St. Paul, possessed the privilege of citizenship. Yet we can quite understand that a leader of so abhorred a sect would be subjected to a severe imprisonment.

We have no means of knowing the precise charge now made against the Apostle. He might certainly be regarded as an offender against the law which prohibited the propagation of a new and illicit religion (religio nova et illicita) among the citizens of Rome. But, at this period, one Article of accusation against him must have been the more serious charge of having instigated the Roman Christians to their supposed act of incendiarism, before his last departure from the capital. It appears that "Alexander the brass-founder" (2Timothy 4:14) was either one of his accusers, or, at least, a witness against him. If this was the same with the Jewish (f2697) Alexander of Ephesus (Acts 19:33), it would be probable that his testimony related to the former charge. But there is no proof that these two Alexanders were identical. We may add, that the employment of Informer (delator) was now become quite a profession at Rome, and that there would be no lack of accusations against an unpopular prisoner as soon as his arrest became known.

Probably no long time elapsed, after St. Paul’s arrival, before his cause came on for hearing. The accusers, with their witnesses, would be already on the spot; and on this occasion he was not to be tried by the Emperor in person, (f2698) so that another cause of delay, (f2699) which was often interposed by the carelessness or indolence of the Emperor, would be removed. The charge now alleged against him probably fell under the cognizance of the city Prefect (Praefectus Urbi), whose jurisdiction daily encroached, at this period, on that of the ancient magistracies. (f2700) For we must remember, that, since the time of Augustus, a great though silent change had taken place in the Roman system of criminal procedure. The ancient method, though still the regular and legal system, was rapidly becoming obsolete in practice. Under the Republic, a Roman citizen could theoretically be tried on a criminal charge only by the Sovereign People; but the judicial power of the people was delegated, by special laws, to certain bodies of Judges, superintended by the several Praetors. Thus one Praetor presided at trials for homicide, another at trials for treason, and so on. (f2701) But the presiding magistrate did not give the sentence: his function was merely to secure the legal formality of the proceedings. The judgment was pronounced by the Judices, a large body of judges (or rather jurors) chosen (generally by lot) from amongst the senators or knights, who gave their vote, by ballot, for acquittal or condemnation. But under the Empire this ancient system, though not formally abolished, was gradually superseded. The Emperors from the first claimed supreme (f2702) judicial authority, both civil and criminal. And this jurisdiction was exercised not only by themselves, but by the delegates whom they appointed. It was at first delegated chiefly to the Prefect of the city; and though causes might, up to the beginning of the second century, be tried by the Praetors in the old way, yet this became more and more unusual. In the reign of Nero, it was even dangerous for an accuser to prosecute an offender in the Praetor’s instead of the Prefect’s court. (f2703) Thus the trial of criminal charges was transferred from a jury of independent Judices to a single magistrate appointed by a despot, and controlled only by a Council of Assessors, to whom he was not bound to attend.

Such was the court before which St. Paul was now cited. We have-an account of the first hearing of the cause from his own pen. He writes thus to Timothy immediately after:-

"When I was first heard in my defense, no man stood by me, but all forsook me, - I pray that it be not laid to their charge. Nevertheless the Lord Jesus stood by me, and strengthened my heart; that by me the proclamation of the Glad-tidings might be accomplished in full measure, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of the lion’s mouth."

We see from this statement, that it was dangerous even to appear in public as the friend or adviser of the Apostle. No advocate would venture to plead his cause, no procurator (f2704) to aid him in arranging the evidence, no patronus (such as he might have found, perhaps, in the powerful Aemilian (f2705) house) to appear as his supporter, and to deprecate, (f2706) according to ancient usage, the severity of the sentence. But he had a more powerful intercessor, and a wiser advocate, who could never leave him nor forsake him. The Lord Jesus was always near him, but now was felt almost visibly present in the hour of his need.

From the above description we can realize in some measure the external features of his last trial. He evidently intimates that he spoke before a crowded audience, so that "all the Gentiles might hear;" and this corresponds with the supposition, which historically we should be led to make, that he was tried in one of those great basilicas which stood in the Forum. Two of the most celebrated of these edifices were called the Pauline Basilicas, from the well-known Lucius AEmilius Paulus, who had built one of them, and restored the other. It is not improbable that the greatest man who ever bore the Pauline name was tried in one of these. From specimens which still exist, as well as from the descriptions of Vitruvius, we have an accurate knowledge of the character of these halls of justice. They were rectangular buildings, consisting of a central nave and two aisles, separated from the nave by rows of columns. At one end of the nave was the tribune, (f2707) in the center of which was placed the magistrate’s curule chair of ivory, elevated on a platform called the tribunal. Here also sat the Council of Assessors, who advised the Prefect upon the law, though they had no voice in the judgment. On the sides of the tribune were seats for distinguished persons, as well as for parties engaged in the proceedings. Fronting the presiding magistrate stood the prisoner, with his accusers and his advocates. The public was admitted into the remainder of the nave and aisles (which was railed off from the portion devoted to the judicial proceedings); and there were also galleries along the whole length of the aisles, one for men, the other for women. (f2708) The aisles were roofed over; as was the tribune. The nave was originally left open to the sky. The basilicas were buildings of great size, so that a vast multitude of spectators was always present at any trial which excited public interest.

Before such an audience it was that Paul was now called to speak in his defense. His earthly friends had deserted him, but his Heavenly Friend stood by him. He was strengthened by the power of Christ’s Spirit, and pleaded the cause not of himself only, but of the Gospel. He spoke of Jesus, of His death and His resurrection, so that all the Heathen multitude might hear. At the same time, he successfully defended himself from the first (f2709) of the charges brought against him, which perhaps accused him of conspiring with the incendiaries of Rome. He was delivered from the immediate peril, and saved from the ignominious and painful death (f2710) which might have been his doom had he been convicted on such a charge.

He was now remanded to prison to wait for the second stage of his trial. It seems that he himself expected this not to come on so soon as it really did; or, at any rate, he did not think the final decision would be given till the following (2Timothy 4:21.) winter, whereas it actually took place about midsummer. Perhaps he judged from the long delay of his former trial; or he may have expected (from the issue of his first hearing) to be again acquitted on a second charge, and to be convicted on a third. He certainly did not expect a final acquittal, but felt no doubt that the cause would ultimately result in his condemnation. We are not left to conjecture the feelings with which he awaited this consummation; for he has himself expressed them in that sublime strain of triumphant hope which is familiar to the memory of every Christian, and which has nerved the hearts of a thousand martyrs.

"I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me in that day."

He saw before him, at a little distance, the doom of an unrighteous magistrate, and the sword of a bloodstained executioner; but he appealed to the sentence of a juster Judge, who would soon change the fetters of the criminal into the wreath of the conqueror; he looked beyond the transitory present; the tribunal of Nero faded from his sight; and the vista was closed by the judgment-seat of Christ.

Sustained by such a blessed and glorious hope - knowing, as he did, that nothing in heaven or in earth could separate him from the love of Christ - it mattered to him but little if he was destitute of earthly sympathy. Yet still, even in these last hours, he clung to the friendships of early years; still the faithful companionship of Luke consoled him in the weary hours of constrained inactivity, which, to a temper like his, must have made the most painful part of imprisonment. Luke was the only one (f2711) of his habitual attendants who now remained to minister to him: his other companions had left him, probably before his arrival at Rome. But one friend from Asia, Onesiphorus, (2Timothy 1:16.) had diligently sought him out, and visited him in his prison, undeterred by the fear of danger or of shame. And there were others, some of them high in station, who came to receive from the chained malefactor blessings infinitely greater than all the favors of the Emperor of the world. Among these were Linus, afterwards a bishop of the Roman Church; Pudens, the son of a senator; and Claudia, his bride, perhaps the daughter of a British king. (f2712) But however he may have valued these more recent friends, their society could not console him for the absence of one far dearer to him: he longed with a paternal longing to see once more the face of Timothy, his beloved son. The disciple who had so long ministered to him with filial affection might still (he hoped) arrive in time to receive his parting words, and be with him in his dying hour. But Timothy was far distant, in Asia Minor, exercising apparently the same function with which he had before been temporarily invested. Thither, then, he wrote to him, desiring him to come with all speed to Rome, yet feeling how uncertain it was whether he might not arrive too late. He was haunted also by another fear, far more distressing. Either from his experience of the desertion of other friends, or from some signs of timidity which Timothy (f2713) himself had shown, he doubted whether he might not shrink from the perils which would surround him in the city of Nero. He therefore urges on him very emphatically the duty of boldness in Christ’s cause, of steadfastness under persecution, and of taking his share in the sufferings of the Saints. And, lest he should be prevented from giving him his last instructions face to face, he impresses on him, with the earnestness of a dying man, the various duties of his Ecclesiastical office, and especially that of opposing the heresies which now threatened to destroy the very essence of Christianity. But no summary of its contents can give any notion of the pathetic tenderness and deep solemnity of this Epistle.

See Notes To The Second Epistle To Timothy (Timothy).

We know not whether Timothy was able to fulfil these last requests of the dying Apostle; it is doubtful whether he reached Rome in time to receive his parting commands, and cheer his latest earthly sufferings. The only intimation which seems to throw any light on the question is the statement in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Timothy had been liberated from imprisonment in Italy. If, as appears not improbable, (f2714) that Epistle was written shortly after St. Paul’s death, it would be proved not only that the disciple fearlessly obeyed his master’s summons, but that he actually shared his chains, though he escaped his fate. This, also, would lead us to think that he must have arrived before the execution of St. Paul, for otherwise there would be no reason to account for "his being himself arrested in Rome; since, had he come too late, he would naturally have returned to Asia at once, without attracting the notice of the authorities.

We may, therefore, hope that Paul’s last earthly wish was fulfilled. Yet if Timothy did indeed arrive before the closing scene, there could have been but a very brief interval between his coming and his master’s death. For the letter which summoned him (f2715) could not have been despatched from Rome till the end of winter, and St. Paul’s martyrdom took place in the middle of summer. (f2716) We have seen that this was sooner than he had expected; but we have no record of the final stage of his trial, and cannot tell the cause of its speedy conclusion. We only know that it resulted in a sentence of capital punishment. The privileges of Roman citizenship exempted St. Paul from the ignominious death of lingering torture, which had been lately inflicted on so many of his brethren. He was to die by decapitation; (f2717) and he was led out to execution beyond the city walls, upon the road to Ostia, the port of Rome. As he issued forth from the gate, his eyes must have rested for a moment on that sepulchral pyramid which stood beside the road, and still stands unshattered, amid the wreck of so many centuries, upon the same spot. That spot was then only the burial-place of a single Roman; it is now the burial-place of many Britons. The mausoleum of Caius Cestius (f2718) rises conspicuously amongst humbler graves, and marks the site where Papal Rome suffers her Protestant sojourners to bury their dead. In England and in Germany, in Scandinavia and in America, there are hearts which turn to that lofty cenotaph as the sacred point of their whole horizon; even as the English villager turns to the gray church-tower which overlooks the gravestones of his kindred. Among the works of man, that pyramid is the only surviving witness of the martyrdom of St. Paul; and we may thus regard it with yet deeper interest, as a monument unconsciously erected by a pagan to the memory of a martyr. Nor let us think that they who lie beneath its shadow are indeed resting (as degenerate Italians fancy) in unconsecrated ground. Rather let us say, that a spot where the disciples of Paul’s faith now sleep in Christ, so near the soil once watered by his blood, is doubly hallowed; and that their resting-place is most fitly identified with the last earthly journey and the dying glance of their own Patron Saint, the Apostle of the Gentiles.

As the martyr and his executioners passed on, their way was crowded with a motley multitude of goers and comers between the metropolis and its harbor - merchants hastening to superintend the unloading of their cargoes - sailors eager to squander the profits of their last voyage in the dissipations of the capital - officials of the government, charged with the administration of the Provinces, or the command of the legions on the Euphrates or the Rhine - Chaldean astrologers - Phrygian eunuchs - dancing-girls from Syria with their painted turbans - mendicant priests from Egypt howling for Osiris - Greek adventurers, eager to coin their national cunning into Roman gold - representatives of the avarice and ambition, the fraud and lust, the superstition and intelligence, of the Imperial world. Through the dust and tumult of that busy throng, the small troop of soldiers threaded their way silently, under the bright sky of an Italian midsummer. They were marching, though they knew it not, in a procession more truly triumphal than any they had ever followed, in the train of General or Emperor, along the Sacred Way. Their prisoner, now at last and forever delivered from his captivity, rejoiced to follow his Lord "without the gate." (f2719) The place of execution was not far distant; and there the sword of the headsman (f2720) ended his long course of sufferings, and released that heroic soul from that feeble body. Weeping friends took up his corpse, and carried it for burial to those subterranean labyrinths, (f2721) where, through many ages of oppression, the persecuted Church found refuge for the living, and sepulchres for the dead.

Thus died the Apostle, the Prophet, and the Martyr; bequeathing to the Church, in her government and her discipline, the legacy of his Apostolic labors; leaving his Prophetic words to be her living oracles; pouring forth his blood to be the seed of a thousand Martyrdoms. Thenceforth, among the glorious company of the Apostles, among the goodly fellowship of the Prophets, among the noble army of Martyrs, his name has stood pre-eminent. And wheresoever the Holy Church throughout all the world doth acknowledge God, there Paul of Tarsus is revered, as the great teacher of a universal redemption and a catholic religion - the herald of Glad-tidings to all mankind.

Location of Seven Churches in Book of Revelation Pictures of Prophetic Churches of Revelation

Coin of Antioch in Pisidia.

(f2637) The comparison occurs somewhere in Arnold’s works.

(f2638) Numerous explanations have been attempted of the sudden and abrupt termination of the Acts, which breaks off the narrative of St. Paul’s appeal to Caesar (up to that point so minutely detailed) just as we are expecting its conclusion. The most plausible explanations are — (1) That Theophilus already knew of the conclusion of the Roman imprisonment; whether it was ended by St. Paul’s death or by his liberation. (2) That St. Luke wrote before the conclusion of the imprisonment, and carried his narrative up to the point at which he wrote. But neither of these theories is fully satisfactory. We may take this opportunity to remark that the "dwelt" and "received" (Acts 28:30) by no means imply (as Wieseler asserts) that a changed state of things had succeeded to that there described. In writing historically, the historical tenses would be used by an ancient writer, even though (when he wrote) the events described by him were still going on.

(f2639) If the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul, it proves conclusively that he was liberated from his Roman imprisonment; for its writer is in Italy and at liberty . (Hebrews 13:23, 24.) But we are precluded from using this as an argument, in consequence of the doubts concerning the authorship of that Epistle. See the next chapter.

(f2640) Since the above was published, the same opinion has been expressed yet more strongly by Chevalier Bunsen, whose judgment on such a point is entitled to the greatest weight. He says, "Some German critics have a peculiar idiosyncrasy which leads them to disbelieve the second captivity of Paul. Yet it appears to me very arbitrary to deny a fact for which we have the explicit evidence of Paul’s disciple and companion Clemens." — Bunsen’s Hippolytus Second Ed., vol. 1:p. 27.

(f2641) For the identity of St. Paul’s disciple Clemens with Clemens Romanus, see the note on Philippians 4:3. We may add, that even those who doubt this identity acknowledge that Clemens Romanus wrote in the first century.

(f2642) Clem. Romans 1, chap. v. We need scarcely remark upon Wieseler’s proposal to translate the words for the extremity of the West (toterma thv dusewv), the Sovereign of Rome ! That ingenious writer has been here evidently misled by his desire to wrest the passage (quocunque modo) into conformity with his theory. Schrader translates one phrase "having been martyred there," and then argues that the extremity of the West cannot mean Spain, because St. Paul was not martyred in Spain; but his "there" is a mere interpolation of his own.

(f2643) For an account of this fragment sea Routh’s Reliquiae Sacroe, vol. 4, p. 112.

(f2644)Hist. Ecclesiastes 2:22.

(f2645) He adds, "whether he went to the Eastern part of the Empire, we know not." This does not imply a doubt of his return to Rome.

(f2646) Hieron. Cotal. Script.

(f2647) It has indeed been urged that Origen knew nothing of the journey to Spain, because Eusebius tells us that he speaks of Paul "preaching from Jerusalem to Illyricum," — a manifest allusion to Romans 15:19. It is strange that those who use this argument should not have perceived that they might, with equal justice, infer that Origen was ignorant of St. Paul’s preaching at Malta. Still more extraordinary is it to find Wieseler relying on the testimony of Pope Innocent I., who asserts (in the true spirit of the Papacy) that "all the churches in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the interjacent islands, were founded by emissaries of St. Peter or his successors;" an assertion manifestly contradicting the Acts of the Apostles, and the known history of the Gallican Church, and made by a writer of the fifth century. It has been also argued by Wieseler that Eusehius and Chrysostom were led to the hypothesis of a second imprisonment by their mistaken view of 2Timothy 4:20. But it is equally probable that they were led to that view of the passage by their previous belief in the tradition of the second imprisonment. Nor is their view of that passage untenable, though we think it mistaken.

(f2648) On the question of the date of the Pastoral Epistles, see Appendix 2.

(f2649) Dr. Davidson is an exception, and has summed up all that can be said on the opposite side of the question with his usual ability and fairness. With regard to Wieseler, see the note in the Appendix, above referred to. [in an able and candid review of this work, which appeared in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Literature, the reviewer has misunderstood our assertion in the text, on which this is a note. He states that we have there asserted that competent judges are nearly unanimous in agreeing with our view of the second imprisonment. But any one who reads carefully what we have written above will perceive that this is not what we have said We have only asserted that most competent judges are agreed in thinking that the Pastoral Epistles cannot be placed before the first captivity.]

(f2650) See the references to Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, &c, given below, p. 847, note 1.

(f2651) See remarks on the date of the Pastoral Epistles, in Appendix 2.

(f2652) The above data show us the necessity of supposing as long an interval as possible between St. Paul’s liberation and his second imprisonment. Therefore we must assume that his appeal was finally decided at the end of the "two years" mentioned in Acts 28:30, — that is, in the spring of A.D. 63.

(f2653) Sueton. Oct. 33; but Geib thinks this arrangement was not of long duration.

(f2654) "Other matters he himself examined and decided with his assessors, sitting on the tribunal in the Palatium." (Dio, 55:27.) This is said of Augustus.

(f2655) As to Tiberius, see Dio, Mi. 7; and as to Claudius, Dio, 60:4.

(f2656) Tiberius built a tribunal on the Palatine (Dio, 57:7).

(f2657) Dio mentions that the ceilings of the Halls of Justice in the Palatine were painted by Severus to represent the starry sky. The old Roman practice was for the magistrate to sit under the open sky, which probably suggested this kind of ceiling. Even the Basilicas were not roofed over (as to their central nave) till a late period.

(f2658) Those who are acquainted with Rome will remember how the interior of many of the ruined buildings is lined with a coating of these precious marbles.

(f2659) Memmius Regulus and Virginius Rufue were the consuls of the year A. D. 63 (A. U. O 816). Under some of the Emperors, the consuls were often changed several times during the year; but Nero allowed them to hold office for six months. So that these consuls would still be in office till July.

(f2660) Such, at least, was the constitution of the council of assessors, according to the ordinance of Augustus, which appears to have remained unaltered. See Dio, 53:21. Also see Sueton. Tiber. 55, and the passages of Dio referred to in the notes above.

(f2661) "Diis aequa potestas" was the attribute of the Emperors. (Juv. iv.)

(f2662) See his anticipations of his trial. Philippians 1:20-25, and Philippians 2:17. 1Corinthians 2:6.

(f2663) The order of the proceedings was (1) Speech of the prosecutor; (2) Examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the prosecution; (3) Speech of the prisoner; (4) Examination and cross-examination of the witnesses for the defense. The introduction of cross-examination was an innovation upon the old Republican procedure,

(f2664) As to the accusers, see above, p. 688, note 8. Written depositions were received at this period by the Roman Courts, but not where the personal presence of the witnesses could be obtained. See also Acts 24:19, "who ought to have been here present before thee."

(f2665) See Acts 24:5, 6, and Acts 25:7, 8, and pages 660, 661, and 668.

(f2666) It must be remembered that the old Republican system of criminal procedure had undergone a great change before the time of Nero. Under the old law (the system of Quoestiones Perpetuoe), different charges were tried in distinct courts, and by different magistrates. In modern language, a criminal indictment could then only contain one count. But this was altered under the Emperors; "ut si quis sacrilegii simul et homicidii accusetur; quod nunc in publicis judiciis [i. e. those of the Quoestiones Perpetuoe, which were still not entirely obsolete] non accidit, quoniam Praetor certa lege sortitur; Principum autem et Sena-tus cognitionibus frequens est." (Quintil Inst. Orat. 3:10.)

(f2667) It was most usual, at this period, that both parties should be represented by advocates; but the parties were allowed to conduct their cause themselves, if they preferred doing so.

(f2668) Probably all St. Paul’s judges, on this occasion, were familiar with Greek, and therefore he might address them in his own native tongue, without the need of an interpreter.

(f2669) Compare the prominence given to the Resurrection in the statement before the San-hedrin ( Acts 23:6), before Felix (Acts 24:15), before Festus (Acts 25:19), and before Agrippa ( Acts 26:8).

(f2670) We are told by Suetonius, as we have mentioned before, that Nero heard both parties on each of the counts of the indictment separately, and gave his decision on one count before he proceeded to the next. (Sueton. Nero, 15. The proceedings, therefore, which we have described in the text, must have been repeated as many times as there were separate charges against St. Paul.

(f2671) Plin. Epist. 2:11. "The giving of the proofs continued till the third day;" and again, Ep. 4:9, "On the following day, Titius, Homullus, and Fronto pleaded admirably for Bassus: the proofs occupied four days."

(f2672) Suet. Nero, 15. This judgment was not pronounced by Nero till the next day. The sentence of a magistrate was always given in writing at this period, and generally delivered by the magistrate himself. But in the case of the Emperor, he did not read his own sentence, but caused it to be read in his presence by hit Quaestor.

(f2673) Poppaea’s influence was at its height from the birth to the death of her daughter Claudia, who was born at the beginning of 63, and lived four months.

(f2674) See last chapter, p. 785, note 8.

(f2675) This Narcissus must not be confounded with the more celebrated favorite of Claudius. See Dio, 64:3. The Narcissus here mentioned had Christian converts in his establishment; see Romans 16:11, and note.

(f2676) See p. 17.

(f2677) This hypothesis best explains the subsequent transactions recorded in the Pastoral Epistles. See remarks in Appendix 2. on their date, and the Chronological Table given in Appendix 3.

(f2678) See p. 394.

(f2679) See p. 59, and compare Philemon 1:9 and the Chronological Table in Appendix 3.

(f2680) See remarks on the date of the Pastoral Epistles, Appendix 2.

(f2681) Philo mentions Crete as one of the seats of the Jewish dispersion; see p. 17. [For the introduction of Christianity into the island in connection with St. Paul, see the art. "Crete" in the Dict. of the Bible. — H.]

(f2682) For the earlier mention of Titus, see above, pp. 512, 513. There is some interest in mentioning the traditionary recollections of him which remain in the island of Crete. One Greek legend says that he was the nephew of a proconsul of Crete, another that he was descended from Minos. The cathedral of Megalo-Castron on the north of the island was dedicated to him. His name was the watch-word of the Cretans, when they fought against the Venetians, who came under the standard of St. Mark. The Venetians themselves, when here, "seem to have transferred to him part of that respect, which, elsewhere, would probably have been manifested for Mark alone. During the celebration of several great festivals of the Church, the response of the Latin clergy of Crete, after the prayer for the Doge of Venice, was Sancte Marce, tu nos adjuva; but, after that for the Duke of Candia, Sancte Tite, tu nos adjuva." Pashley’s Travels in Crete, vol. 1:pp. 6 and 175.

(f2683) See below, p. 827, note 3.

(f2684) It is here assumed that the Nicopolis, spoken of Titus 3:12, was the city of that name in Epirus. There were other places of the same Dame; but they were comparatively insignificant.

(f2685) See above, pp. 515 and 579.

(f2686) See Wordsworth’s Greece, pp. 229-232, where a map of Nicopolis will be found, and an interesting description of the ruins. See also Leake’s Northern Greece, vol. 1, p. 178, and vol. 3, p. 491; and Merivale’s Rome , vol. 3, pp. 327, 328. In Bowen’s Mount Athos and Epirus (p. 211), there is also a notice of its present desolate aspect.

(f2687) It may be asked, why was he not arrested sooner, in Spain or Asia Minor? The explanation probably is, that he had not before ventured so near Italy as Nicopolis.

(f2688) The law required that a prisoner should be tried by the magistrates within whose jurisdiction the offence was alleged to have been committed; therefore, a prisoner accused of conspiring to set fire to Rome must be tried at Rome . There can be no doubt that this charge must have formed one part of any accusation brought against St. Paul, after 64 A. D. Another part (as we have suggested below) may have been the charge of introducing a religio nova et illicita.

(f2689) The reason for supposing this is, that it leaves more time for the events which intervened between St. Paul’s arrest and his death, which took place (if in Nero’s reign) not later than June. If he had not been arrested till the spring, we must crowd the occurrences mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy into a very short space.

(f2690) Even an army was transported across the Adriatic by Caesar, during the season of the "Mare Clausum," before the battle of Philippi. See also p. 274.

(f2691) Ibid.

(f2692) Ibid. See above, p. 515.

(f2693) 2Timothy 2:9. According to the legends of the Mediaeval Church, St. Paul was imprisoned in the Mamertine Prison, together with St. Peter; see the Martyrology of Baronius, under March 14. But there is no early authority for this story, which seems irreconcilable with the fact that Onesiphorus, Claudia, Linus, Pudens, &c., had free access to St. Paul during his imprisonment. It seems more likely [see 2Timothy 1:16] that he was again under military custody, though of a severer nature than that of his former imprisonment. We have given a view of the Tullianum, or dungeon of the Mamertine Prison, in p. 297. Very full details will be found in Sir. W. Gell’s work on Rome and its neighborhood.

(f2694) Tac. Ann. 15:44. We give the well-known passage from a popular translation:— "But neither these religious ceremonies, nor the liberal donations of the prince, could efface from the minds of men the prevailing opinion that Rome was set on fire by his own orders. The infamy of that horrible transaction still adhered to him. In order, if possible, to remove the imputation, he determined to transfer the guilt to others. For this purpose he punished, with exquisite torture, a race of men detested for their evil practices, by vulgar appellation commonly called Christians. The name was derived from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered under Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judaea. By that event, the sect, of which he was the founder, received a blow which for a time checked the growth of a dangerous superstition; but it revived soon after, and spread with recruited vigor, not only in Judaea, the soil that gave it birth, but even in the city of Rome, the common sink into which every thing infamous and abominable flows like a torrent from all quarters of the world. Nero proceeded with his usual artifice. He found a set of profligate and abandoned wretches, who were induced to confess themselves guilty; and, on the evidence of such men, a number of Christians were convicted, not, indeed, upon clear evidence of their having set the city on fire, but rather on account of their sullen hatred of the whole Roman race. They were put to death with exquisite cruelty, and to their sufferings Nero added mockery and derision. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts, and left to be devoured by dogs; others were nailed to the cross; numbers were burnt alive; and many, covered over with inflammable matter, were lighted up, when the day declined, to serve as torches during the night. For the convenience of seeing this tragic spectacle, the emperor lent his own gardens. He added the sports of the circus, and assisted in person, sometimes driving a curricle, and occasionally mixing with the rabble in his coachman’s dress. At length the cruelty of these proceedings filled every breast with compassion. Humanity relented in favor of the Christians. The manners of that people were, no doubt, of a pernicious tendency, and their crimes called for the hand of justice; but it was evident that they fell a sacrifice, not for the public good, but to glut the rage and cruelty of one man only."

(f2695) It was criminal, according to the Roman law, to introduce into Rome any religio nova et illicita. Yet, practically, this law was seldom enforced, as we see by the multitude of foreign superstitions continually introduced into Rome, and the occasional and feeble efforts of the Senate or the Emperor to enforce the law. Moreover, the punishment of those who offended against it seems only to have been expulsion from the city, unless their offence had been accompanied by aggravating circumstances. It was not, therefore, under this law that the Christians were executed; and, when Suetonius tells us that they were punished as professors of a superstitio nova et malefica, we must interpret his assertion in accordance with the more detailed and accurate statement of Tacitus, who expressly says that the victims of the Neronian persecution were condemned on the charge of arson. Hence the extreme cruelty of their punishment, and especially the setting them on fire.

(f2696) No doubt most of the victims who perished in the Neronian persecution were foreigners, slaves, or freedmen; we have already seen how large a portion of the Roman Church was of Jewish extraction (see p. 543, n. 3). It was illegal to subject a Roman citizen to the ignominious punishments mentioned by Tacitus; but probably Nero would not have regarded this privilege in the case of freedmen, although by their emancipation they had become Roman citizens. And we know that the Jewish population of Rome had, for the most part, a Servile origin; see pp. 335, 739.

(f2697) An Alexander is also mentioned, 1Timothy 1:20, as a heretic, who had been excommunicated by St. Paul. This is, probably, the same person with the Alexander of 2Timothy 4:14; and if so, motives of personal malice would account for his conduct.

(f2698) Clemens Romanus says that Paul, on this occasion, was tried "before the presiding magistrates." Had the Emperor presided, ha would probably have said "before Caesar."

(f2699) See above, p. 746.

(f2700) The authority for this, and for all the points of Roman Law referred to in this chapter, is given in our larger editions.

(f2701) This was the system of Quoestiones Perpetuoe.

(f2702) The origin of this jurisdiction is not so clear as that of their appellate jurisdiction, which we have explained above Some writers hold that the Emperor assumed the supreme judicial power as an incident of his quasi-dictatorial authority. Others think that it was theoretically based upon a revival of that summary jurisdiction which was formerly (in the earliest ages of the Commonwealth) exercised by the great magistrates whose functions were now concentrated in the Emperor. Others again refer it to the Tribunitian power conferred upon the Emperor, which was extended (as we have seen) so as to give him a supremo appellate jurisdiction, and by virtue of which he might perhaps bring before his tribunal any cause in the first instance which would ultimately come under his judgment by appeal.

(f2703) Tacitus relates that Valerius Ponticus was banished under Nero, because he had brought some accused persons before the Praesor instead of the Prefect. Ann. 14:41.

(f2704) The procurator performed the functions of our attorney.

(f2705) We have already (p. 138) suggested the possibility of a connection of clientship between Paul’s family and this noble Roman house.

(f2706) It was the custom, both in the Greek and Roman courts of justice, to allow the friends of the accused to intercede for him, and to endeavor by their prayers and tears to more the feelings of his judges. This practice was gradually limited under the Imperial regime.

(f2707) The features of the basilica will be best understood by the ground-plan of that of Pompeii, which is given at the end of Ch. 25. Here the tribune is rectangular; in others it was semicircular.

(f2708) Pliny gives a lively description of the scene presented by a basilica at an interesting trial:"A dense ring, many circles deep, surrounded the scene of trial. They crowded close to the judgment-seat itself, and even in the upper part of the basilica both men and women pressed close in the eager desire to see (which was easy) and to hear (which was difficult)." Plin. Ep. 6:83.

(f2709) The hypothesis of an acquittal on the first charge agrees best with the being delivered from the mouth of the lion (2Timothy 4:17). We have seen that it was Nero’s practice (and therefore, we may suppose, the practice of the Prefects under Nero) to hear and decide each branch of the accusation separately (Suet Ner. 15, before cited). Had the trial taken place finder the ancient system, we might have sup-posed an Ampliatio, which took place when the judices held the evidence insufficient, and gave the verdict Nan liquet, in which case the trial was commenced de novo; but Geib has shown that under the Imperial system the practice of Ampliatio was discontinued. So also was the Comperendinatio abolished, by which certain trials were formerly divided into a prima actio and secunda actio. We cannot therefore agree with Wieseler in supposing this "first defense" to indicate an Ampliatio or Comperendinatio.

(f2710) See the account given by Tacitus (above quoted) of the punishment of the supposed incendiaries. In the case of such a crime, probably, even a Roman citizen would not have been exempted from such punishments.

(f2711) 2Timothy 4:11. If we suppose Tychicus the bearer of the Second Epistle to Timothy (2Timothy 4:12), he also would have been with St. Paul at Rome till he was despatched to Ephesus.

(f2712) For the evidence of these assertions, see note on 2Timothy 4:21. We may take this opportunity of saying that the tradition of St. Paul’s visit to Britain rests on no sufficient authority. Probably all that can be said in its favor will be found in the Tracts of the late Bishop Burgess on the origin of the ancient British Church. See especially pp. 21-54, 77-83, and 108-120.

(f2713) We cannot say with certainty where Timothy was at this time; as there is no direct mention of his locality in the Second Epistle. It would seem, at first sight, probable that he was still at Ephesus, from the salutation to Priscilla and Aquila, who appear to have principally resided there. Still this is not decisive, since we know that they were occasional residents both at Rome and Corinth, and Aquila was himself a native of Pontus, where he and Timothy may perhaps have been. Again, it is difficult, on the hypothesis of Timothy being at Ephesus, to account for 2Timothy 4:12, "Tychicus I sent to Ephesus," which Timothy need not have been told if himself at Ephesus. Also, it appears strange that St. Paul should have told Timothy that he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus, if Timothy was himself at Ephesus, within thirty miles of Miletus. Yet both these objections may be explained away, as we have shown in the notes on 2Timothy 4:12, and 2Timothy 4:20. The message about bringing the articles from Troas shows only that Timothy was in a place whence the road to Rome lay through Troas; and this would agree either with Ephesus, or Pontus, or any other place in the north or north-west of Asia Minor. It is most probable that Timothy was not fixed to any one spot, but employed in the general superintendence of the Pauline Churches throughout Asia Minor. This hypothesis agrees best with his designation as an Evangelist (2Timothy 4:5), a term equivalent to itinerant missionary.

(f2714) See the next chapter. If our Chronology he right, Timothy’s escape would be accounted for by the death of Nero, which immediately followed that of St. Paul.

(f2715) Supposing the letter to have been despatched to Timothy on the 1st of March, he could scarcely have arrived at Rome from Asia Minor before the end of May.

(f2716) Nero’s death occurred in June, A. D. 68. Accepting therefore, as we do, the universal tradition that St. Paul was executed in the reign of Nero, his execution must have taken place not later than the beginning of June. We have endeavored to show (in the article on the Pastoral Epistles in Appendix 2.) that this date satisfies all the necessary conditions.

(f2717) Such is the universal tradition; see note 1 in page 847. The constitutional mode of inflicting capital punishment on a Roman citizen was by the lictor’s axe. The criminal was tied to a stake; cruelly scourged with the rods, and then beheaded. See Livy, 2:6. "Missi lictores ad sumendum supplicium, nudatos virgis coedunt, securigue feriunt." Compare Juv. 8, "legum prima securis." But the military mode of execution — decapitation by the sword — was more usual under Nero. Many examples may he found in Tacitus; for instance, the execution of Subrius Flavius (Tac. Ann. 15:67). The executioner was generally one of the speculators, or imperial bodyguards, under the command of a centurion, who was responsible for the execution of the sentence. See the interesting story in Seneca de Ira, lib. 1, cap. 16.

(f2718) The pyramid of Caius Cestius, which now marks the site of the Protestant burying-ground, was erected in, or just before, the reign of Augustas. It was outside the walls in the time of Nero, though within the present Aurelianic walls.

(f2719) Hebrews 13:12, "He suffered without the gate."

(f2720) The death of St. Paul is recorded by his contemporary Clement, in a passage already quoted; also by the Roman presbyter Caius (about 200 A.D.) (who alludes to the Ostian Road as the site of St. Paul’s martyrdom), by Tertullian, Eusebius (in the passage above cited), Jerome, and many subsequent writers. The statement of Caius is quoted by Eusebius. That of Jerome is the most explicit.

The statement that Paul was beheaded on the Ostian Road agrees with the usage of the period, and with the tradition that his decapitation was by the sword, not the axe. We have this tradition in Orosius and Lactantius. It was not uncommon to send prisoners, whose death might attract too much notice in Rome, to some distance from the city, under a military escort, for execution. Wieseler compares the execution of Calpurnius Galerianus, as recorded by Tacitus, "who was sent under a military escort some distance along the Appian Road." (Tac. Hist. 4:11.) This happened A. D. 70.

The great Basilica of St. Paul now stands outside the walls of Rome, on the road to Ostia, in commemoration of his martyrdom, and the Porta Ostiensis (in the present Aurelianic wall) is called the gate of St. Paul. The traditional spot of the martyrdom is the tre fontane not far from the basilica. The basilica itself (S. Paolo fuori le mura) was first built by Constantine. Till the Reformation it was under the protection of the Kings of England, and the emblem of the Order of the Garter is still to be seen among its decorations.

(f2721) Eusebius (2:25) says that the original burial-places of Peter and Paul, in the Catacombs, were still shown in his time. This shows the tradition on the subject. Jerome, however, in the passage above cited, seems to make the place of burial and execution the same.

Visit our Section Dedicated to the Apostle Paul!
View Maps related to Paul's missionary journeys and MORE!