CHAPTER XXVII.

Authorities for St. Paul's Subsequent History - His Appeal is heard.— His Acquittal.— He goes from Rome to Asia Minor. Thence to Spain, where he resides Two Years. - He returns to Asia Minor and Macedonia. - Writes the First Epistle to Timotheus. - Visits Crete. – Writes the Epistle to Titus. — He winters at Nicopolis. He is again imprisoned at Rome.

- Progress of his Trial. He writes the Second Epistle to Timotheus. - His Condemnation and Death.

WE

E have already remarked that the light concentrated upon that portion of St. Paul's life which is related in the latter chapters of the Acts makes darker by contrast the obscurity which rests upon the remainder of his course. The progress of the historian who attempts to trace the footsteps of the Apostles beyond the limits of the Scriptural narrative, must, at best, be hesitating and uncertain. It has been compared1 to the descent of one who passes from the clear sunshine which rests upon a mountain's top into the mist which wraps its side. But this is an inadequate comparison; for such a wayfarer loses the daylight gradually, and experiences no abrupt transition, from the bright prospect and the distinctness of the onward path, into darkness and bewilderment. Our case should rather be compared with that of the traveller on the Chinese frontier, who has just reached a turn in the valley along which his course has led him, and has come to a point whence he expected to enjoy the view of a new and brilliant landscape; when he suddenly finds all farther prospect cut off by an enormous wall, filling up all the space between precipices on either hand, and opposing a blank and insuperable barrier to his onward progress. And if a chink here and there should allow some glimpses of the rich territory beyond, they are only enough to tantalize without gratifying his curiosity.

Doubtless, however, it was a Providential design which has thus limited our knowledge. The wall of separation, which forever cuts off the Apostolic age from that which followed it, was built by the hand of God. That age of miracles was not to be revealed to us as passing by any gradual transition into the common life of the Church: it was intentionally isolated from all succeeding time, that we might learn to appreciate

1 The comparison occurs somewhere in Arnold's works.

more fully its extraordinary character, and see, by the sharpness of the abruptest contrast, the difference between the human and the divine.

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-traveller so suddenly terminates.' The only contemporary materials for this purpose are his own letters to Titus and Timotheus, 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 xxviii. 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. It was universally believed that St. Paul's appeal to Cæsar 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.'

1 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 Cæsar (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 xxviii. 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.

2 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. (Heb. xiii. 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.

8 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.

The most important portion of it is supplied by Clement, the disciple of St. Paul, mentioned Phil. iv. 3, 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.2

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 Rom. xv. 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 xxii. 31-33], he evidently declares the martyrdom of Peter, but [omits] THE JOURNEY OF PAUL from ROME TO SPAIN.'

993

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 martyre under Nero."

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.'

995

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."

996

Against this unanimous testimony of the primitive Church there is no

1 For the identity of St. Paul's disciple Clemens with Clemens Romanus, see the note on Phil. iv. 3. We may add, that even those who doubt this identity acknowledge that Clemens Romanus wrote in the first century.

2 Clem. Rom. i. chap. v. We need scarcely remark upon Wieseler's proposal to translate the words for the extremity of the West (Tò répμa rñs dvoɛws), 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. Schra

der 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.

3 For an account of this fragment see Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. iv. p. 1–12. 4 Hist. Eccl. ii. 22.

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. • Hieron. Catal. Script.

external evidence' 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 (Rom. xv. 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 Poppaa, 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 (2 Cor. xi. 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, 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,3 first,

1 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 Rom. xv. 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 Eusebius and Chrysostom were led to the hypothesis of a second imprisonment by their mistaken view of 2 Tim. iv. 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.

2 On the question of the date of the Pastoral Epistles, see Appendix II.

3 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

that the historical facts mentioned in the Epistles to Timotheus 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 travelling at liberty in Ephesus,1 Crete, Macedonia, Miletus, and Nicopolis, and that he was afterwards a second time in prison at Rome."

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 in the reign of Nero. Secondly, Timotheus was still a young man (i. e. young for the charge committed to him) at the time of Paul's second imprisonment at Rome. Thirdly, the three Pastoral Epistles were written within a few months of one another. 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.

8

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. 63) and the Apostle's martrydom.10 And the grounds above mentioned lead us to the conclusion that this interval was occupied in the following manner.

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.]