THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL.

in.

THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY.
i.

EPISTLE TO THE PHIUPPIANS.

PRINTED BY J. & C. F. CLAY,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PKESS.

SAINT PAUL S

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS

A REVISED TEXT

WITH

INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS

BY

J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D,,

J..VTE BISHOP OF DUBHA.M,
HONOBARY FKLLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

A

ILonfcon
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1903

All rights reserved.

First Edition printed 1868.

Secotid 1869, Third 1873, Fourth Feb. 1878; reprinted Dec. 1878;
with additions, 1881, 1883, "with slight alterations 1^85,
1888, 1890, 1891, 1894, 1896, 1808 TyOO. 1903

t ,1

n

TO

THE REV. B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D.,

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AT CAMBRIDGE,

IN AFFECTIONATE REMEMBRANCE

OF

MANY VALUABLE LESSONS LEARNT

FROM

AN INTIMATE PRIVATE FRIENDSHIP

AND FROM

ASSOCIATION IN A COMMON WORK

MIMHTAI MOT riNC6C K A CO C K A T GJ XP ICT f

yevofj-fvos peyurros i

CLEMENT.

v% (AS UavXos 8iara<rcro/iat vp.lv eictlvos dirocrroKos,

v Sw

IGNATIUS.

Oure eyeo ourc aXXoy o/iotoy e/zoi Suvarat
a~o(f)ia rov paKapiov /cat eV5oov ElavXow.

POLYCARP.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

The present volume is a second instalment of the commentary
on St Paul s Epistles, of which I sketched a plan in the preface
to my edition of the Galatians. At the same time it is in
tended, like its predecessor, to be complete in itself; so that
the plan, as a whole, may be interrupted at any time without
detriment to the parts.

Here again I have the pleasure of repeating my obligations
to the standard works of reference, and to those commentators,
both English and German, whose labours extend over both epi
stles and to whom I before acknowledged my debt of gratitude.
The special commentaries on this epistle are neither so nume
rous nor so important, as on the former. The best, with which
I am acquainted, are those of Van Heugel, of Billict, and of
Eadie; but to these I am not conscious of any direct obligation
which is not acknowledged in its proper place. I have also
consulted from time to time several other more or less important
works on this epistle, which it will be unnecessary to specify,
as they either lay no claim to originality or for other reasons
have furnished no material of which I could avail myself.

It is still a greater gratification to me to renew my thanks
to personal friends, who have assisted me with their suggestions
and corrections ; and to one more especially whose aid has been
freely given in correcting the proof-sheets of this volume
throughout.

The Epistle to the Philippians presents an easier task to an
editor than almost any of St Paul s Epistles. The readings are
for the most part obvious ; and only in a few passages does he

viii Preface.

meet with very serious difficulties of interpretation. I have
taken advantage of this circumstance to introduce some inves
tigations bearing on St Paul s Epistles and on Apostolic Chris
tianity generally, by which this volume is perhaps swollen to an
undue bulk, but which will proportionally relieve its successors.
Thus the dissertation on the Christian ministry might well
have been left for another occasion : but the mention of bishops
and deacons in the opening of this letter furnished a good text
for the discussion ; and the Pastoral Epistles, which deal more
directly with questions relating to the ministerial office, will de
mand so much space for the solution of other difficulties, that it
seemed advisable to anticipate and dispose of this important
subject.

In the dissertation on St Paul and the Three, attached to
the Epistle to the Galatians, I endeavoured to sketch the atti
tude of the Apostle towards Judaism and Judaic Christianity.
In the present volume the discussion on St Paul and Seneca is
offered as an attempt to trace the relations of the Gospel to a
second form of religious thought the most imposing system
of heathen philosophy with which the Apostle was brought
directly in contact. And on a later occasion, if this commentary
should ever be extended to the Epistle to the Colossians, I hope
to add yet a third chapter to this history in an essay on Chris
tianity and Gnosis. These may be considered the three most
important types of dogmatic and systematized religion (whether
within or without the pale of Christendom) with which St Paul
was confronted.

As we lay down the Epistle to the Galatians and take up
the Epistle to the Philippians, we cannot fail to be struck by
the contrast. We have passed at once from the most dogmatic
to the least dogmatic of the Apostle s letters, and the transition
is instructive. If in the one the Gospel is presented in its op-

Preface. ix

position to an individual form of error, in the other it appears
as it is in itself. The dogmatic element in the Galatians is due
to special circumstances and bears a special character; while
on the other hand the Philippian Epistle may be taken to ex
hibit the normal type of the Apostle s teaching, when not deter
mined and limited by individual circumstances, and thus to
present the essential substance of the Gospel. Dogmatic forms
are the buttresses or the scaffold-poles of the building, not the
building itself.

But, if the Epistle to the Philippians serves to correct one
false conception of Christianity, it is equally impressive as a
protest against another. In the natural reaction against excess
of dogma, there is a tendency to lay the whole stress of the
Gospel on its ethical precepts. For instance men will often
tacitly assume, and even openly avow, that its kernel is contained
in the Sermon on the Mount. This conception may perhaps
seem more healthy in its impulse and more directly practical in
its aim ; but in fact it is not less dangerous even to morality than
the other : for, when the sources of life are cut off, the stream will
cease to flow. Certainly this is not St Paul s idea of the Gospel
as it appears in the Epistle to the Philippians. If we would
learn what he held to be its essence, we must ask ourselves
what is the significance of such phrases as I desire you in the
heart of Jesus Christ/ To me to live is Christ, That I may
know the power of Christ s resurrection, I have all strength in
Christ that giveth me power. Though the Gospel is capable
of doctrinal exposition, though it is eminently fertile in moral
results, yet its substance is neither a dogmatic system nor an
ethical code, but a Person and a Life.

TRINITY COLLEGE,
July ist, 1868.

x Preface,

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.

The present edition is an exact reprint of the preceding one.

This statement applies as well to the Essay on the Threefold

Ministry, as to the rest of the work. I should not have thought

it necessary to be thus explicit, had I not been informed of a

rumour that I had found reason to abandon the main opinions

expressed in that Essay. There is no foundation for any such

report. The only point of importance on which I have modified

my views, since the Essay was first written, is the authentic

form of the letters of St Ignatius. Whereas in the earlier

editions of this work I had accepted the three Curetonian letters,

I have since been convinced (as stated in later editions) that the

seven letters of the Short Greek are genuine. This divergence

however does not materially affect the main point at issue, since

even the Curetonian letters afford abundant evidence of the

spread of episcopacy in the earliest years of the second century.

But on the other hand, while disclaiming any change in my

opinions, I desire equally to disclaim the representations of

those opinions which have been put forward in some quarters.

The object of the Essay was an investigation into the origin of

the Christian Ministry. The result has been a confirmation of

the statement in the English Ordinal, It is evident unto all

men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors

that from the Apostles time there have been these orders

of Ministers in Christ s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

But I was scrupulously anxious not to overstate the evidence

in any case; and it would seem that partial and qualifying

statements, prompted by this anxiety, have assumed undue

proportions in the minds of some readers, who have emphasized

them to the neglect of the general drift of the Essay.

J. B. D.

September 9, 1881.

Preface. xi

PREFACE TO THE TWELFTH EDITION.

The following extracts from Bishop Lightfoot s works illustrate his
view of the Christian Ministry over and above the particular scope of
the Essay in his Commentary on the Philippians. He felt that unfair
use had been made of that special line of thought which he there
pursued, and soon after the close of the Lambeth Conference of 1888
lie had this collection of passages printed.

It is felt by those who have the best means of knotting that he
would himself have wished the collection to stand together simply as
his reply to the constant imputation to him of opinions for which
writers wished to claim his support without any justification.

1. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (Essay on
the Christian Ministry, 1868).

(i) (See below, p. 201.)

Unless we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of received
documents, it seems vain to deny that early in the second century the
episcopal office was firmly and widely established. Thus during the last
three decades of the first century, and consequently during the lifetime of
the latest surviving Apostle, this change must have been brought about.

(ii) (See below, p. 214.)

1 The evidence for the early and wide extension of episcopacy through
out proconsular Asia, the scene of St John s latest labours, may be
considered irrefragable.

(iii) (See below, p. 227.)

But these notices, besides establishing the general prevalence of
episcopacy, also throw considerable light on its origin.... Above all, they
establish this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in those
regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more especially St John) fixed
their abode, and at a time when its prevalence cannot be dissociated from
their influence or their sanction.

(iv) (See below, p. 234.)

*It has been seen that the institution of an episcopate must be
placed as far back as the closing years of the first century, and that
it cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissevered from the
name of St John.

xii Preface.

(v) (See below, p. 267.)

* If the preceding investigation be substantially correct, the threefold
ministry can be traced to Apostolic direction ; and short of an express
statement we can possess no better assurance of a Divine appointment
or at least a Divine sanction. If the facts do not allow us to unchurch
other Christian communities differently organized, they may at least
justify our jealous adhesion to a polity derived from this source. 3

2. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (Preface to
the Sixth Edition), 1881. (See above, p. x.)

3. Sermon preached before the Representative Council of the
Scottish Episcopal Church in St Mary s Church at Glasgow,
October 10, 1882. ( Sermons preached on Special Occasions,
p. 182 sq.)

When I spoke of unity as St Paul s charge to the Church of Corinth,
the thoughts of all present must, I imagine, have fastened on one applica
tion of the Apostolic rule which closely concerns yourselves. Episcopal
communities in Scotland outside the organization of the Scottish Episcopal
Church this is a spectacle which no one, I imagine, would view with
satisfaction in itself, and which only a very urgent necessity could justify.
Can such a necessity be pleaded ? " One body " as well as " one Spirit,"
this is the Apostolic rule. No natural interpretation can be put on these
words which does not recognize the obligation of external, corporate union.
Circumstances may prevent the realisation of the Apostle s conception,
but the ideal must be ever present to our aspirations and our prayers. I
have reason to believe that this matter lies very near to the hearts of all
Scottish Episcopalians. May GOD grant you a speedy accomplishment of
your desire. You have the same doctrinal formularies : you acknowledge
the same episcopal polity : you respect the same liturgical forms. " Sirs,
ye are brethren." Do not strain the conditions of reunion too tightly. I
cannot say, for I do not know, what faults or what misunderstandings
there may have been on either side in the past. If there have been any
faults, forget them. If there exist any misunderstandings, clear them up.
" Let the dead past bury its dead."

*#**#####

While you seek unity among yourselves, you will pray likewise that
unity may be restored to your Presbyterian brothers. Not insensible to
the special blessings which you yourselves enjoy, clinging tenaciously to
the threefold ministry as the completeness of the Apostolic ordinance and
the historical backbone of the Church, valuing highly all those sanctities
of liturgical office and ecclesiastical season, which, modified from age to
age, you have inherited from an almost immemorial past, thanking GOD,

Preface. xiii

but not thanking Him in any Pharisaic spirit, that these so many and
great privileges are continued to you which others have lost, you will
nevertheless shrink, as from the venom of a serpent s fang, from any mean
desire that their divisions may be perpetuated in the hope of profiting by
their troubles. Divide et impera may be a shrewd worldly motto ; but
coming in contact with spiritual things, it defiles them like pitch.
Pacifica et impera is the true watchword of the Christian and the
Churchman.

4. The Apostolic Fathers, Part II., St Ignatius : St Polycarp,
Vol. i. pp. 376, 377, 1885 (pp. 390, 391, 1889).

1 The whole subject has been investigated by me in an Essay on " The
Christian Ministry " ; and to this I venture to refer my readers for fuller
information. It is there shown, if I mistake not, that though the New
Testament itself contains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a
localized episcopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the
moveable episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in
Crete, yet there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later
years of the Apostolic age ; that this development was not simultaneous
and equal in all parts of Christendom ; that it is more especially connected
with the name of St John ; and that in the early years of the second
century the episcopate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more
especially in Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its
extension in the regions east of the xEgean at this epoch be resisted, I am
at a loss to understand what single fact relating to the history of the
Christian Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded
as established ; for the testimony in favour of this spread of the episcopate
is more abundant and more varied than for any other institution or event
during this period, so far as I recollect.

5. Sermon preached before the Church Congress at Wolver-
hampton, October 3, 1887. ( Sermons preached on Special
Occasions, p. 259 sq.)

4 But if this charge fails, what shall we say of her isolation ? Is not
this isolation, so far as it is true, much more her misfortune than her
fault ? Is she to be blamed because she retained a form of Church govern
ment which had been handed down in unbroken continuity from the
Apostolic times, and thus a line was drawn between her and the reformed
Churches of other countries ? Is it a reproach to her that she asserted her
liberty to cast off the accretions which had gathered about the Apostolic
doctrine and practice through long ages, and for this act was repudiated
by the Roman Church ? But this very position call it isolation if you

xiv Preface.

w ill_ w hich was her reproach in the past, is her hope for the future. She
was isolated because she could not consort with either extreme. She was
isolated because she stood midway between the two. This central position
is her vantage ground, which fits her to be a mediator, wheresoever an
occasion of mediation may arise.

But this charge of isolation, if it had any appearance of truth seventy
years ago, has lost its force now.

6. Durham Diocesan Conference. Inaugural Address, October,

1887.

When I speak of her religious position I refer alike to polity and to
doctrine. In both respects the negative, as well as the positive, bearing of
her position has to be considered. She has retained the form of Church
government inherited from the Apostolic times, while she has shaken off a
yoke, which even in medieval times our fathers found too heavy to bear,
and which subsequent developments have rendered tenfold more oppressive.
She has remained stedfast in the faith of Nicaea, but she has never
compromised herself by any declaration which may entangle her in the
meshes of science. The doctrinal inheritance of the past is hers, and the
scientific hopes of the future are hers. She is intermediate and she may
become mediatorial, when the opportunity occurs. It was this twofold
inheritance of doctrine and polity which I had in view, when I spoke of the
essentials which could under no circumstances be abandoned. Beyond this,
it seems to me that large concessions might be made. Unity is not

uniformity On the other hand it would be very short-sighted policy

even if it were not traitorous to the truth to tamper with essentials and
thus to imperil our mediatorial vantage ground, for the sake of snatching
an immediate increase of numbers.

7. Address on the Reopening of the Chapel, Auckland Castle,
August 1st, 1888. ( Leaders in the Northern Church, p. 145.)

But, while we " lengthen our cords," we must " strengthen our stakes "
likewise. Indeed this strengthening of our stakes will alone enable us to
lengthen our cords with safety, when the storms are howling around us.
We cannot afford to sacrifice any portion of the faith once delivered to the
saints ; we cannot surrender for any immediate advantages the threefold
ministry which we have inherited from Apostolic times, and which is the
historic backbone of the Church. But neither can we on the other hand
return to the fables of medievalism or submit to a yoke which our fathers
found too grievous to be borne a yoke now rendered a hundredfold more
oppressive to the mind and conscience, weighted as it is by recent and
unwarranted impositions of doctrine.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

PAGE

I. St Paul in Rome i 29

1 1 . Order of the Epistles of the Captivity 30 46

III. The Church of Philippi 4765

IV. Character and Contents of the Epistle 6673

The Genuineness of tJie Epistle 74 77

TEXT AND NOTES.

i. i i. 26 Si 94

The synonymes bishop and presbyter 95 99

The meaning qf t praftorium t in i. 13 99 104

i. 27 iii. i 105 126

The synonymes /xop^i) and o-^/ia 127 133

Different interpretations of ov^ apirayp.ov ^yj/o-aro 133 137

Lost Epistles to the Philippians? 138 142

iii. 2 iv. 23 143 167

i Clement my fellow-labourer 168 171

Cccsar s household 171 178

xvi Contents.

DISSERTATIONS.

PAGE

I. The Christian Ministry 181 269

II. St Paul and Seneca 270 328

The Letters of Paul and Seneca 329 333

INDEX 335-348

I.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

THE arrival of St Paul in the metropolis marks a new and St Paul ?
important epoch in the history of the Christian Church. Rome al-
Hitherto he had come in contact with Roman institutions

raodified by local circumstances and administered by subordi- * ween , tlie

J Gospel

nate officers in the outlying provinces of the Empire. Now he and the
was in the very centre and focus of Roman influence ; and from
this time forward neither the policy of the government nor the
character of the reigning prince was altogether a matter of
indifference to the welfare of Christianity. The change of
scene had brought with it a change in the mutual relations
between the Gospel and the Empire. They were now occupy
ing the same ground, and a collision was inevitable. Up to
this time the Apostle had found rather an ally than an enemy
in a power which he had more than once successfully invoked
against the malignity of his fellow-countrymen. This pre
carious alliance was henceforward exchanged for direct, though
intermittent, antagonism. The Empire, which in one of his
earlier epistles he would seem to have taken as the type of
that restraining power which kept Antichrist in check 1 , was
itself now assuming the character of Antichrist. When St
Paul appealed from the tribunal of the Jewish procurator to
the court of Ca3sar, he attracted the notice and challenged the
hostility of the greatest power which the world had ever seen.
The very emperor, to whom the appeal was made, bears the

1 i Thess. ii. 6, 7.
PHIL. I

ST PAUL IN ROME.

The Nero-
nian per
secution a
conse
quence.

St Paul s
sense of
the im
portance
of this
visit.

Its promi
nence in
St Luke s
narrative.

Aspect of
afl airs
when
St Paul
arrived.

ignominy of the first systematic persecution of the Christians ;
and thus commenced the long struggle, which raged for
several centuries, and ended in establishing the Gospel on the
ruins of the Roman Empire. It was doubtless the impulse
given to the progress of Christianity by the presence of its
greatest preacher in the metropolis, which raised the Church in
Rome to a position of prominence, and made it a mark for the
wanton attacks of the tyrant. Its very obscurity would have
shielded it otherwise. The preaching of Paul was the necessary
antecedent to the persecution of Nero.

It is probable that the Apostle foresaw the importance of
his decision, when he transferred his cause to the tribunal of
Caesar. There is a significant force in his declaration at an
earlier date, that he must see Rome V It had long been his
earnest desire 2 to visit the imperial city, and he had been
strengthened in this purpose by a heavenly vision 3 . To pre
pare the way for his visit he had addressed to the Roman
Church a letter containing a more complete and systematic
exposition of doctrine than he ever committed to writing before
or after. And now, when the moment has arrived, the firm
and undaunted resolution, with which in defiance of policy he
makes his appeal, bears testimony to the strength of his con
viction*. The sacred historian takes pains to emphasize this
visit to Rome. He doubtless echoes the feeling of St Paul
himself, when he closes his record with a notice of the Apostle s
success in the metropolis, deeming this the fittest termination
to his narrative, as the virtual and prospective realisation of
our Lord s promise placed in its forefront, that the Apostles
should be His witnesses to the uttermost part of the earth 6 .

It was probably in the early spring of the year 61, that
St Paul arrived in Rome 6 . The glorious five years, which
ushered in the reign of Nero amidst the acclamations of a

1 Acts xix. 21.

2 Eom. i. 10 16, xv. 22 24, 28, 29,
32, timroBw, eirnrodiav $x wv -

3 Acts xxiii. ii So must thou bear
witness also at Rome.

4 Acts xxv. 1 1 .

8 Acts i. 8. See Lekebusch Apostel-
gescldchte p. 227 sq.

6 See Wieseler Chronol. p. 66 sq.

ST PAUL IN ROME. 3

grateful people, and which later ages recalled with wistful
regret, as an ideal of imperial rule *, had now drawn to a close.
The unnatural murder of Agrippina had at length revealed the
true character of Nero. Burrus and Seneca, it is true, still
lingered at the head of affairs : but their power was waning.
Neither the blunt honesty of the soldier nor the calm modera
tion of the philosopher could hold their ground any longer
against the influence of more subtle and less scrupulous coun
sellors.

At Rome the Apostle remained for two whole years, Length of
preaching the Gospel without interruption, though preaching it jj^
in bonds. By specifying this period 2 St Luke seems to imply
that at its close there was some change in the outward condition
of the prisoner. This change can hardly have been any other
than the approach of his long-deferred trial, which ended, as
there is good ground for believing 8 , in his acquittal and release.
At all events he must have been liberated before July 64, if
liberated at all. The great fire which then devastated Rome
became the signal for an onslaught on the unoffending Chris
tians ; and one regarded as the ringleader of the hated sect
could hardly have escaped the general massacre.

It will appear strange that so long an interval was allowed Probable
to elapse before the trial came on. But while the defendant the delay
had no power to hasten the tardy course of justice, the accusers of . hld
were interested in delaying it. They must have foreseen
plainly enough the acquittal of a prisoner whom the provincial

1 Aurel. Viet. Gas. 5 Uti merito Tra- end alike, as they had begun alike. (7)

janus sfflpius testaretur procul differre The success of St Paul s preaching in

cunctosprincipesNerouisquinquennio. Borne is a fitter termination to the his

s Acts xxviii. 30, 31. The inference tory than any other incident which

in the text will not hold, if, as some could have been chosen. It is the most

suppose, St Luke s narrative was ac- striking realisation of that promise of

cidentally broken off and terminates the universal spread of the Gospel,

abruptly. From this view however I which is the starting-point of the nai-

dissent for two reasons, (i) A compa- rutive.

riaon with the closing sentences of the 3 The discussion of this question is

Gospel shows a striking parallelism in reserved for the introduction to ths

the plan of the two narratives; they Pastoral Epistles.

I 2

4 ST PAUL IN ROME.

governor himself had declared to be innocent 1 . If they wished
to defer the issue, the collection of evidence was a sufficient
plea to urge in order to obtain an extension of time 2 . St Paul
was charged with stirring up sedition among all the Jews
throughout the world 3 . From the whole area therefore, over
which his labours had extended, witnesses must be summoned.
In this way two years might easily run out before the prisoner
appeared for judgment. But more potent probably, than any
Indolence formal plea, was the indolence or the caprice of the emperor
himself 4 , who frequently postponed the hearing of causes inde
finitely without any assignable reason, and certainly would not
put himself out to do justice to a despised provincial, labouring
under a perplexing charge connected with some foreign super
stition. If St Paul had lingered in close confinement for two
years under Felix, he might well be content to remain under

of Nero.

1 Acts xxv. r2, 75;comp. xxvi. 31,32.

8 Two cases in point are quoted, as
occurring about this time. Tac. Ann.
xiii. 52 Silvanum magna vis accusa-
torum circumsteterat,poBcebatque tern-
pus evocandorum testium: reus illico
defend! postulabat. Silvanus had been
proconsul of Africa. Also we are told
of Suillius, who was accused of pecula
tion in the government of Asia, Ann.
xiii. 43 Quifl, inquisitionem annuam
impetraverunt, brevius visum [sub-] ur-
bana criinina incipi quorum obvii testes
erant. In both these cases the accusers
petition for an extension of the period,
while it is the interest of the defendant
to be tried at once. In the second case
a year is demanded and allowed for col
lecting evidence, though the crimes in
question are confined to his tenure of
office and to the single province of
Asia. On the whole subject see Wie-
seler, Chronol. 407 sq. , who has fully
discussed the possible causes of delay.
Compare also Conybeare and Howson
ii. p. 462 sq. (2nd ed.).

a Acts xxiv. 5 iraan, rots Ioi/3cu ots

Tots Kara TTJV ol

4 Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6. 5) says of
Tiberius, whom he describes as neXXijrrjs
el Kal TIS ertpuv fia<n\t(t)i> T) rvpdvvwv
yei>o/j.evos, that he deferred the trial of
prisoners indefinitely in order to pro
long their tortures. Nero seems to have
been almost as dilatory, though more
from recklessness and indolence than
from deliberate purpose. The case of
the priests accused by Felix (see below,
p. 5, note 4) illustrates this. Felix
ceased to be procurator in the year 60 :
yet they were still prisoners in 63 or 64,
and were only then liberated at the in
tercession of Josephus. For the date
see Clinton Fasti Bom. i. pp. -23, 45, 77.

Geib Geschichte des romischen Crimi-
nalprocesses etc. p. 691, speaking of
causes tried before the emperor, de
scribes the practice of the early Caesars
as so unsteady and capricious in all re
spects, that no definite rule can be laid
down: Erst in der spateren Kaiser-
zeit, he adds, ist dieses anders gewor-
den und zwar namentlich hinsichtlich
des Appellationsverfahrens Similarly

1ST PAUL IN HOME. J

less irksome restraints for an equal length of time, awaiting
the pleasure of Ctesar.

Meanwhile events occurred at Rome which shook society to stirrinp
its foundations. The political horizon was growing every day
darker 1 . Death deprived Nero of his most upright adviser in
the person of Burrus the prefect of the prastorians. The office
thus vacated was handed over to Tigellinus, with whom was
associated as colleague the feeble and insignificant Rufus. By
the death of Burrus the influence of Seneca was effectually
broken 8 ; and, though the emperor refused to consent to his
retirement, his part in the direction of affairs was henceforth
merely nominal. At the same time the guilty career of Nero
culminated in the divorce and death of Octavia; and the cruel
and shameless Poppaea became the emperor s consort in her
stead. With a strange inconsistency of character, which would
atone for profligate living by a fervour of religious devotion,
and of which that age especially was fertile in examples, she
had become a proselyte to Judaism 8 , and more than once advo
cated the cause of her adopted race before the emperor with
zeal and success*.

Laboulaye Lois Criminelles des Ro- 348 (2nd ed.).

mains p. 444, Sous les premiers C6sars 4 It is not irrelevant to relate two

tout se fit sansr&gle et sans inesure.et incidents which occurred at this time,

il ne faut pas chercher a cette 6poque as they illustrate the nature of the com-

de systeme re"gulier, etc. There is no munication kept up between the Jews

trace of a statutable limitation of time and the imperial court, and the sort of

(prffiscriptio) applying to the imperial influence which Poppcea exerted on the

tribunal at this epoch. affairs of this people.

1 Tao. Ann. xiv. 51 Gravescentibus (i) Felix, while procurator of Ju-

indies publicis malis. daea, had brought a trivial charge

3 Tac. Ann. xiv. 52 More Burri in- against certain Jewish priests, and sent

fregit Seneca potentiam. them to Home to plead their cause be-

3 Joseph. Antiq. xx. 8. n 0eo<re/Si?j fore Caesar. Here they were kept in a
yap ijv, i. e. a worshipper of the true lingering captivity, living on the hard-
God, a proselytess. In connexion with est fare, but remaining faithful in their
this fact the notice of her burial is n - allegiance to the God of their fathers,
markable; Tac. Ann. xvi. 6 Corpus The historian Josephus, to whom these
non igni abolituin, ut llomanus mos; priests were known, then a young man,
sed regum externorum oonsuetudine undertook a journey to Home for the
differtum odoribus conditur etc. See purpose of procuring their liberation.
Friedlander Sittengeschichte Roms i. p. Like St Paul he was shipwrecked in

6 ST PAUL IN ROME.

not un- How far the personal condition of St Paul, or his prospects

St Paul, at the approaching trial, may have been affected by these two
changes, I shall have to consider hereafter. At all events he
cannot have been ignorant of such stirring incidents. His
enforced companionship with the soldiers of the praetorian
guard must have kept him informed of all changes in the
administration of the camp. His intimacy with the members
of Caesar s household must have brought to his hearing the
intrigues and crimes of the imperial court. It is strange
therefore, that in the epistles written from Rome during this
period there is not any, even the faintest, reference to events
His silence so notorious in history. Strange at least at first sight. But
the Apostle would not venture to risk his personal safety, or
the cause which he advocated, by perilous allusions in letters
which from their very nature must be made public. Nor
indeed is it probable that he was under any temptation to
allude to them. He did not breathe the atmosphere of political
life ; he was absorbed in higher interests and anxieties. With
the care of all the churches daily pressing upon him, with a
deep sense of the paramount importance of his personal mission,

the Adriatic, and like him he also closure and to witness the performance

landed at Puteoli. Arrived at Home, of the holy rites. This was an outrage

he was introduced to Poppaea by a cer- on Jewish feeling, as well as a breach of

tain Jew, Aliturus by name, an actor immemorial custom, and was resented

of mimes, who was in great favour with accordingly. The Jews erected a coun-

Nero. The empress not only advocated terwall, which excluded all view from

the cause which he had at heart and the royal residence. Festus the procu-

procured the liberation of his friends, rator took the side of the king and or-

but sent him back to his native country dered the demolition of this wall; but

laden with presents (Joseph. Vit. 3). afterwards yielded so far as to allow

This took place in the year 63 or 64, the Jews to refer the case to Nero. An

and was therefore nearly, if not quite, embassy was accordingly sent to Kome,

coincident with St Paul s residence in composed of twelve persons including

Eome. Ismael the high-priest and Helcias the

(?) The second incident almost cer- treasurer. Poppcea interested herself

tainly occurred while the Apostle was in in the success of their mission, and in

the metropolis. The king s palace at deference to her entreaties the emperor

Jerusalemstoodintheimmediateneigh- allowed the wall to stand (Joseph. Ant.

bourhood of the temple. Agrippa had xx. 8. n).

recently built a lofty tower, which en- It is suggested (Conybeare and How-

abled him to overlook the sacred en- son n. p. 462), that this embassy may

ST PAUL IN ROME.

with a near and fervid anticipation of his own dissolution and
union with Christ, if not of the great and final crisis when
heaven and earth themselves shall pass away, it is not sur
prising that all minor events, all transitory interests, should be
merged in those more engrossing thoughts. His life so he
himself writing from Rome describes the temper of the true
believer his life was hidden with Christ in God 1 .

The degree of restraint put upon a person labouring under character
a criminal charge was determined by various circumstances; by ^ t ^ t
the nature of the charge itself, by the rank and reputation of
the accused, by the degree of guilt presumed to attach to him.
Those most leniently dealt with were handed over to their
friends, who thus became sureties for their appearance ; the
worst offenders were thrown into prison and loaded with
chains 2 . The captivity of St Paul at Rome was neither the
severest nor the lightest possible.

By his appeal to Ca3sar 3 he had placed himself at the
emperor s disposal. Accordingly on his arrival in Rome he is
delivered over to the commander of the imperial guards, the
prefect of the praetorians 4 , under whose charge he appears to

have been entrusted with the prosecu- The custody of St Paul belongs to the

tion of St Paul. It seems at least last of the three.

certain, that the ambassadors arrived 8 In republican times a difference
in Rome while the Apostle was still a was made between provocatio and
prisoner there ; since Festus had ceased appellatio. The former was a refer-
to be procurator before the autumn of ence to the populus, the latter to the
61 : but beyond the coincidence of date tribunes. On the other hand, the ap-
all is conjecture. In any case the peal to the emperor was called indiffer-
friendly meeting of Festus and Agrippa, ently provocatio or appellatio ; for
related in the Acts, may have had refer- he combined all functions in himself,
ence to this dispute about Agrippa s The latter term however seems to have
building: and if so, the incident Links been the more common. On this sub-
together the accusation of St Paul and ject consult Geib p. 675 sq., Rein Da*
the complaint against Agrippa. Privatrecht etc. p. 960. Krebs, Opusc.
1 Col. iii. 3. p. 135 sq-, has an essay De provocation*
* On the different kinds of custodia, D- Pauli ad Casarem ; which however
roughly distinguished as libera,publica, does not contain any important matter,
and militaris, but admitting various 4 Acts xxviii. 16 TraptduKtp TOJ>J
modifications, see Geib p. 561 sq., Serious T$ ffTpa.roire5a.pxu, i.e. to the
Wieseler ChronoL p. 380 sq., 394 sq. praefectuspreetorio or praefectusprap-

ST PAUL IN ROME.

He is in have remained throughout his captivity. He represents him-

. Olltj , rt .-. T i l /*!

self as strictly a prisoner : he speaks again and again of his
bonds 1 . At times he uses more precise language, mention
ing the coupling-chain 2 . According to Roman custom he was
bound by the hand to the soldier who guarded him, and was
never left alone day or night. As the soldiers would relieve
guard in constant succession, the praetorians one by one were
brought into communication with the prisoner of Jesus Christ/

tori, for botli cases are found in in
scriptions. From the use of the singu
lar here it has been argued with much
probability that the officer in question
was Burrus. He held the prefecture
alone, whereas both before and aftjr
his time the office was shared by two
persons: see Tac. Ann. xii. 42, xiv.
51. For the changes which this office
underwent at different times consult
Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth.
ii. 3, p. 286. With the singular here
contrast the plural in Trajan s letter,
Plin. Ep. x. 65 Vinctus mitti ad prae-
fectos prffitori mei debet, and in Phi-
lostr. Vit. Soph. ii. 32 dveTr^fj.^dt) ek
TTJV Pu3/j.rjv us d jroXoyrjffOfj.ei OS TOIS ruv
aTpa.TOTr$<j)v yye/ji.6ffu>: see Wieseler
Chronol. p. 88. The whole clause how
ever is rejected by most recent editors,
as the balance of existing authorities is
very decidedly against it. On the other
hand the statement does not look like
an arbitrary fiction, and probably con
tains a genuine tradition, even if it was
no part of the original text.

1 He calls himself Sfofuos, Acts
xxviii. 17, Philem. i, 9, Ephes. iii. i,
iv. i ; his Seoyxoi are mentioned Phil, i.
7 i3 H> i7 Philem. 10, 13, Coloss.
iv. 18; cornp. Coloss. iv. 3 Si 5 (or fc)

ment rather than confinement. After
wards however it signifies especially
hand-fetters (manicag), as opposed to
TrtSai (pedicffl); Mark v. 4 TT^CUS /cai

2 d Xuo-ts, Ephes. vi. 20 v-n-ty ov
pevo) tv dXuo-et, Acts xxviii. 20 rrjv
aXvffiv TavTrjy Tre^/cet/tat. The word
seems originally to differ from 5eoyto,
only as bringing out the idea of attach-

TOV ras dXuaets Kal rot? Tr^Sas awrerpL-
(pOat. Meyer indeed denies this dis
tinction : but the words 5teer7ra<r0cu,
crvi>TTpt<j)dat, if taken to denote the ac
tion of the hands and feet respectively,
are much more expressive ; and the dis
tinction of dXt^rets and Tr^Sat seems cer
tainly to be observed elsewhere, e.g.
Polyb. iii. 82. 8, Dion. HaL Ant. Rom.
vi. 26, 27: comp. Plut. Mor. p. 879 A
rcus xe/jo-tj aXvcms. In Aristoph..Fra#m.
(Meineke n. p. 1079), where both d\v-
aeis and irtdai are mentioned as ladies
ornaments, the former are perhaps
bracelets or cuffs : see also Nicostr.
Fragm. (ib. in. p. 289). Hence the
word is used especially of the coupling-
chain, hand-cuff, by which the pri
soner was attached to his guard, as in
tne case of Agrippa, Joseph. Ant. xviii.
6. 7, 10. Compare the metaphor in
Lucian, Qiwm. hist, conscr. 55 <%<fyie-
vov avrov Kal dXtf<rews rpoir^ (rpdirov?)
ffvvrjpfj.offfjt.h>ov, with Senec. Epist. i. 5
Quemadmodum eadem catena et cus-
todiam et mih tem copulat. See a simi
lar use in Plutarch, Vit. Mar. 27 -fj^av
virtp TOV IU.T) 5ia<Tir8.<r0ai rty ry^iv ol
Tr/so/iaxoi /j-aKpals d\v<re<ri (ruvexoufvoi.

When the confinement was very rigo
rous, the prisoner was bound to two
soldiers. This was the case with 8t

ST PAUL IN ROME. 9

and thus he was able to affirm that his bonds had borne
witness to the Gospel throughout the imperial regiments 1 .

On the other hand, the severity of his confinement was not enjoys

. compara-

so great as this circumstance standing alone might seem to the li-
imply. It is certain that all had free access to him, and that he ertj
was allowed to converse and write without restraint. He was
not thrown into prison, but lived in rooms of his own. When
he first arrived, he was taken to temporary lodgings ; either to
a house of public entertainment, or to the abode of some friend 8 .
But afterwards he rented a dwelling of his own 8 , and there he
remained apparently till his release.

A natural desire has been felt to determine a locality so
fraught with interest as St Paul s abode in Rome. Some have St Paul s
imagined him a prisoner within the barracks attached to the Rome,
imperial residence on the Palatine. Others have fixed his
dwelling-place in the great camp, the head- quarters of the prae
torians, without the walls to the north-east of the city. The
former conjecture seems hardly consistent with the mention of
his own hired house. The latter is less unlikely, for the camp

Peter, Acts yii. 6 Koi/j.ufj.evos Aterai> 11 irot/j.a^ /-tot &vlav rather suggests

5i5o ffrpartuTuv dfdff^voy aXvaeffiv Svfflv. a lodging in a friend s house : comp.

Such had also been St Paul s condition Acts xxi. 16.

during the early days of his captivity 3 Acts xxviii. 30 frtpeiisfv Steriav SKyv

at Jerusalem: Acts xxi. 33. A relaxa- tv ISiy /<r0w/iaTi, where ISii? seems cer-

tion of the rigour of liis earlier impri- tainly to distinguish the fj.i<r6ufui here

sonment is mentioned Acts xxiv. 23. from the &vla above. The word /z/-

On this whole subject see Wieseler <r0uvxa elsewhere signifies hire, being

Ghronol. p. 380 sq. When Ignatius, used especially in a bad sense of shame-

Rom. 5, speaks of himself as ^5e5e/x^os ful wages, e.g. Deut. xxiii. 18. Hence

5^/co XeoTrdpSoij 6 <JTU> ffTpa.Tid3ri.Kbv Philo in Place, p. 536 M /teri T&V iird-

rd-y/xo, we must understand that he parov nur66v, TJ Kvpiurepov flireiv, TO /jd-

was in charge of a company of ten, <r0oyta: cornp. ^Elian V. II. iv. 12.

who successively relieved guard, so The sense, which it has here, is not re-

that he was attached to one at a time. cognised by the Greek lexicographers,

1 PhiL i. 13 iv S\(f T$ TrpauTuply. nor can I find any other instance.

1 Acts xxviii. 23 els TT/V ev(cu>. Sui- Wetstein indeed quotes ev iu.<r6&p.a.Ti

das explains tvLa.v by tcaTayuyiov, na- olKelv as from Philo, but gives no refer-

TdXvfia, and similar lyHesychius; comp. ence, and I suspect there is a mistake.

Clem. Horn. L 1 5 tiripdin-ot fj.ov T^J 77)$ This exceptional meaning of fjdfffu^a

Kai ^fviav 6rip<aiJ.tvw, viii. a, xii. 24, may perliaps be explained as a traus-

iriv. 1.8. On the other hand Philem. lation of the Latin conductum.

10 ST PAUL IN ROME.

was large and might have contained within its precincts lodgings
rented by prisoners under military custody. Yet the reference
to the praetorium does not require this, and the circumstances
seem naturally to point to a separate dwelling. Within the
camp then his abode may have been, near to the camp it pro
bably was, for in the choice of a locality the convenience of the
soldiers in relieving guard would naturally be consulted 1 .

Thus mitigated, his captivity did not materially impede the
progress of his missionary work. On the contrary he himself
regarded his bonds as a powerful agency in the spread of the
Gospel. Beyond the dreary monotony of his situation, which
might well have crushed a spirit unsustained by his lofty hopes
and consolations, he was not very hardly treated. It was at
least an alleviation, that no restriction was placed on the visits
of his friends.

Friends Of these friends not a few names imsjht be supplied bv con-

resident in .
Rome. jecture from the long list of salutations in the Epistle to the

Romans. Did he fall in once again with Aquila and Priscilla,
his fellow-artisans and fellow-sufferers, who for his life had
laid down their own necks 2 ? Did he still find in Rome his
countrymen, perhaps his kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias and
Herodion 8 ? Did he experience once more the tender care of
the mother of Rufus, who in times past had treated him as her
own son 4 ? Did he renew his intimacy with those former friends
of whom he speaks with affectionate warmth, Epaenetus his
well-beloved, Urbanus his helper in Christ, Mary who laboured
much for him, Amplias, Stachys, Persis 8 ?

Of Roman residents however, beyond a general reference to
the members of Caesar s household 8 , he makes no mention in
his letters written from the metropolis. They would probably

His perso- be unknown to his distant correspondents. But of occasional.

nalcoinpa- . . -r>

nions and visitors in Rome, his converts or his colleagues in the Gospel, the

1 See the detached notes on the 4 Bom. xvi. 13.

meaning of prsetorium in i 13. 6 R om> xvi> ^ 6> 8) ^ I2>

- Rom. xvi. 3. 6 phfl. j Y . ?.-2.
3 Horn. xvi. 7, n.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

companions of his travels and the delegates of foreign churches, otlu r
not a few are named. His youthful disciple and associate
Timotheus, the best beloved of his spiritual sons, seems to have
been with him during the whole or nearly the whole of his
captivity 1 . Another friend also, who had shared with him the
perils of the voyage, Luke the beloved physician, now his
fellow-labourer and perhaps his medical attendant, hereafter his
biographer, is constantly by his side 2 . His two favourite Mace
donian churches are well represented among his companions :
Philippi despatches Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid, welcome
to him as a relief of his wants but doubly welcome as a token
of their devoted love 8 : Aristarchus is present from Thessalonica 4 ,
a tried associate, who some years before had imperilled his life
with St Paul at Ephesus 6 and now shared his captivity at Rome 8 .
Delegates from the Asiatic churches too were with him : Ty-
chicus 7 , a native of the Roman province of Asia and probably of
Ephesus its capital 8 , the Apostle s companion both in earlier
and later days 9 : and Epaphras the evangelist of his native
Colossae, who came to consult St Paul on the dangerous heresies
then threatening this and the neighbouring churches over
which he watched with intense anxiety 10 . Besides these were

1 His name appears in the opening Or does it signify a spiritual subjection
salutations of the Epistles to the Phi- (a/x/iaXcjo-io, Kom. vii. 23, 2 Cor. x. 5,
lippians, Colossians, and Philemon: Ephes. iv. 8), so that it may be corn-
compare also Phil. ii. 19 23. It may pared with <rw/5ovXos (Col. i. 7, iv. 7),
perhaps be inferred from St Luke s and ffvvffTpaTi&njs (Phil. ii. 25, Philem.
silence, Acts xxvii. 2, that Timotheus 2)? St Paxil uses the term yuvaLxfJ-d-
did not accompany St Paul on his jour- Xwros also of Epaphras (Philem. 23),
ney to Home, but joined him soon after and of his kinsmen Andronicus and
his arrival. Junias or Junia (Rom. zvi. 7). See

5 Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24. the note on Col. iv. 10.

8 Phil. ii. 25 30, iv. 14 18. See 7 Ephes. vi 21, Col. iv. 7.

below, p. 60. 8 Acts xs. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12. He is

* Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24. On the mentioned together with Trophimus,

notice of Aristarchus in Acts xxvii. 2, Acts I.e., and Trophimus was an Ephe-

aee below, p. 34, note 2. sian, ib. xxi. 29.

4 Acts xix. 29. Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12: comp.

8 In Col. iv. 10, St Paul styles him Tit. iii. 12. Perhaps also he is one of

6 ffwcuxAtaXwros /J-ov. Perhaps however the anonymous brethren in 2 Cor. viol,

this may refer to the incident at Ephe- 18, 22.

sus already alluded to (Acts xix. nj). 10 CoL i. 7, iv. j?.

12 ST PAUL IN ROME.

other friends old and new : one pair especially, whose names are
linked together by contrast ; John Mark who, having deserted
in former years, has now returned to his post and is once more
a loyal soldier of Christ 1 ; and Demas, as yet faithful to his
allegiance, who hereafter will turn renegade and desert the
Apostle in his sorest need 2 . To these must be added a disciple
of the Circumcision, whose surname the just 3 proclaims his
devotion to his former faith one Jesus, to us a name only, but
to St Paul much more than a name, for amidst the general
defection of the Jewish converts he stood by the Apostle almost
alone 4 . Lastly, there was Philemon s runaway slave Onesimus,
not now a slave, but above a slave, a brother beloved, whose
career is the most touching episode in the apostolic history and
the noblest monument of the moral power of the Gospel 6 .
St Paul s These friendships supported him under the care of all the
churches/ which continued to press upon him in his captivity
n * ^ ess neav ^y ^ an b e f re - The epistles of this period bear
testimony alike to the breadth and the intensity of his sym
pathy with others. The Church of Philippi which he had
himself planted and watered, and the Church of Colossse with
which he had no personal acquaintance, alike claim and receive
his fatherly advice. The temporal interest of the individual
slave, and the spiritual well-being of the collective Churches of
Asia 6 , are equally the objects of his care. Yet these four epi
stles, which alone survive, must represent very inadequately the
extent of the demands made upon his time and energies at this
period. There is no notice here of Thessalonica, none of Corinth,
none of the churches of Syria, of his own native Cilicia, of
Lycaonia and Pisidia and Galatia. It is idle to speculate on
the possibility of lost epistles : but, whether by his letters or
by his delegates, we cannot doubt that these brotherhoods,

1 Col. iv. 10, Pliilem. 24: comp. ^ * Col. iv. n.

Thn - iv - " 5 Col. iv. 9, and Philem. 10 sq.

3pl. iv. 14, Philem. 24: comp. 2 The Epistle to the Ephesians

Tira - iv I0 - seems to have been a circular letter to

3 See the note on Col. iv. n. the Asiatic Churches.

ST PAUL IN ROME. 13

which had a special claim upon him as their spiritual father,
received their due share of attention from this prisoner of
Jesus Christ.

But it was on Rome especially that he would concentrate E
his energies : Rome, which for years past he had longed to see
with an intense longing : the common sink of all the worst Church,
vices of humanity 1 , and therefore the noblest sphere for evan
gelical zeal. Here he would find a wider field and a richer soil,
than any which had hitherto attracted him. But the ground
had not lain altogether fallow. There was already a large and
flourishing Church, a mixed community of Jew and Gentile
converts, founded, it would seem, partly by his own companions
and disciples, partly by teachers commissioned directly from
Palestine and imbued with the strongest prejudices of their
race; a heterogeneous mass, with diverse feelings and sympa
thies, with no well-defined organization, with no other bond of
union than the belief in a common Messiah; gathering, we may
suppose, for purposes of worship in small knots here and there,
as close neighbourhood or common nationality or sympathy or
accident drew them together; but, as a body, lost in the vast
masses of the heathen population, and only faintly discerned or
contemptuously ignored even by the large community of Jewish
residents.

With the nucleus of a Christian Church thus ready to hand, Success of
but needing to be instructed and consolidated, with an enor- i a \, u" 8 ^
mous outlying population of unconverted Jews and Gentiles to Bome -
be gathered into the fold, the Apostle entered upon his work.
Writing to the Romans three years before, he had expressed his
assurance that, when he visited them, he would come in the
fulness of the blessing of Christ 2 . There is every reason to
believe that this confidence was justified by the event. The
notice, with which the narrative of St Luke closes, implies no
small measure of success. The same may be inferred from

1 Tac. Ann. xv. 44 Quo cuncta ing of the spread of Christianity in
undique atrocia aut pudenda conflu- Borne,
unt celebranturque. Tacitus is speak- s Bom. xv. 29.

14 ST PAUL IN ROME.

allusions in St Paul s own epistles and is confirmed by the
subsequent history of the Eoman Church.

In considering the results of the Apostle s labours more in
detail, it will be necessary to view the Jewish and Gentile con
verts separately. In no Church are their antipathies and feuds
more strongly marked than in the Roman. Long after their
junction the two streams are distinctly traced, each with its own
colour, its own motion; and a generation at least elapses, before
they are inseparably united. In the history of St Paul they
flow almost wholly apart.

St Paul i. Several thousands of Jews had been uprooted from their

himself 8 native land and transplanted to Rome by Pornpeius. In this
Jews* the new so ^ ^ey nad s P rea d rapidly, and now formed a, very im
portant element in the population of the metropolis. Living
unmolested in a quarter of their own beyond the Tiber, pro
tected and fostered by the earlier Caesars, receiving constant
accessions from home, they abounded everywhere, in the forum,
in the camp, even in the palace itself 1 . Their growing influ
ence alarmed the moralists and politicians of Rome. The
vanquished, said Seneca bitterly, have given laws to their
victors*. Immediately on his arrival the Apostle summoned to
his lodgings the more influential members of his race probably
the rulers of the synagogues 3 . In seeking this interview he
seems to have had a double purpose. On the one hand he
was anxious to secure their good-will and thus to forestall the
calumnies of his enemies ; on the other he paid respect to their
spiritual prerogative, by holding out to them the first offer of
the Gospel 4 . On their arrival he explained to them the cir-

1 On the numbers and influence of Compare also Pers. Sat. v. 180, Juv.

the Jews in Rome, see Merivale His- vi. 542. The mock excuse of Horace,

tory of the Romans vi. p. 257 sq., Fried- Sat. i 9. 70, shows how wide was the

lander Sittengesch. in. p. 509 sq. influence of this race in Borne, even a

8 Seneca quoted by St Augustine De generation earlier. See also Ovid A. A.

Civ. Dei vi. 1 1 , Cum interim usque eo i. 76, and references in Merivale p. 259.

sceleratissim gentis consuetude con- 3 Acts xxviii. 17 sq.

valuit, ut per omnes jam terras recep- 4 He had declared this prerogative

ta sit: victi victorious leges dederunt. of the Jews in writing to the Roman

ST PAUL IN ROME. 1 5

cumstances which had brought him there. To his personal ex- but is
planations they replied, in real or atfected ignorance, that they
had received no instructions from Palestine; they had heard no
harm of him and would gladly listen to his defence ; only this
they knew, that the sect of which he professed himself an ad
herent, had a bad name everywhere 1 . For the exposition of his
teaching a later day was fixed. When the time arrived, he ex
pounded and testified the kingdom of God, arguing from their
own scriptures from morning till evening. His success was not
greater than with his fellow-countrymen elsewhere. He dismissed
them, denouncing their stubborn unbelief and declaring his inten
tion of communicating to the Gentiles that offer which they had
spurned. It is not probable that he made any further advances
in this direction. He had broken ground and nothing more.

Yet it was not from any indisposition to hear of Messiah s Their an-
advent that they gave this cold reception to the new teacher. f
The announcement in itself would have been heartily welcomed, siah -
for it harmonised with their most cherished hopes. For years
past Jewish society in Rome had been kept in a fever of excite-

Churoh, i. 16, ii. 9, 10, and would feel would do wisely to shield themselves

bound to regard it, when he arrived in under a prudent reserve. Their best

the metropolis. policy was to ignore Christianity; to

1 It is maintained by Baur (Pauhis enquire as little as possible about it,

p. 368), Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeit. n. and, when questioned, to understate

p. 93), and Zeller (Theoloy.Jahrb. 1849, their knowledge. In a large and popu-

p. 571), that this portion of the narra- lous city like Rome they might without

tive betrays the unhistorical character much difficulty shut their eyes to its

of the Acts; that the language hero existence. When its claims were di-

aecribed to the Jews ignores the exist- rectly pressed upon them by St Paul,

ence of the Roman Church, and that their character for fairness, perhaps

therefore the incident is irreconcileable also some conscientious scruples, re-

with the facts as gathered from the quired them to give him at least a for-

Epistle to the Romans. On the con- mal hearing. At all events the writer

trary, this language seems to me to be of the Acts is quite aware that there

quite natural under the circumstances, was already a Christian Church in

as it was certainly most politic. It is Rome; for he represents the Apostle

not very likely that the leading Jews as met on his way by two deputations

would frankly recognise the facts of the from it. Indeed the two last chapters

case. They had been taught caution of the narrative so clearly indicate the

by the troubles which the Messianic presence of an eyewitness, that we can

feuds had brought on their more im- hardly question the incidents, even if

petuous fellow-countrymen : and they we are at a loss how to interpret them.

i6

ST PAUL IN ROME.

Judaic
Christian
ity in
Rome.

ment by successive rumours of false Christs. On one occasion
a tumult had broken out, and the emperor had issued a general
edict of banishment against the race 1 . If this check had made
them more careful and less demonstrative, it had certainly not
smothered their yearnings after the advent of a Prince who
was to set his foot on the neck of their Roman oppressors. But
the Christ of their anticipations was not the Christ of St Paul s
preaching. Grace, liberty, the abrogation of law, the supre
macy of faith, the levelling of all religious and social castes
these were strange sounds in their ears; these were conditions
which they might not and would not accept.

But where he had failed, other teachers, who sympa
thized more fully with their prejudices and made larger con
cessions to their bigotry, might win a way. The proportion of
Jewish converts saluted in the Epistle to the Romans 2 , not less

1 Sueton. Claud. 25 Judceos im-
pulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes
lioma expulit. Suetonius here makes
a double mistake: (i) He confuses the
names Chrestus and Christus. This
confusion was not unnatural, for the
difference in pronunciation was hardly
perceptible, and Chrestus, the good-
natured, was a frequent proper name,
while Christus, the anointed, would
convey no idea at all to a heathen
ignorant of the Old Testament and
unacquainted with Hebrew customs.
The mistake continued to be made
long after Suetonius : oomp. Justin
Apol. i. p. 54 D Htffov ye c/c TOU Karrjyo-
poVfA&OV ijn&v dvo/Aaros, xP r l crT TaTOi
vTrdpxo/j.ev, Tertull. ApoL 3 Cum per-
peram Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vo-
bis, ad Nat. i. 3, Theoph. ad Autol. i.
12 trepl 8 TOV KarayeXav fj.ov KoXovvrd,
fj.e 3LpiffTiav6v, OVK olSas 6 \t
TOV (itv tin TO xpi&TW rjdv ical
Aral dKaraytXaarov IVTLV, and even as
late as Lactantius, Inst. Div. iv. 7
4 Exponenda hujus nominis ratio est
propter ignorantium errorern, qui eum
immutnta littera Chrestum solent di-

cere. 1 See also Boeckh C. I. 3857 p,
App. The word Chrestianus appears
in an early inscription (Miinter Sinn-
bilder der alien Christen i. p. 14, Orell.
Inscr. 4426), where however it may be
a proper name. At all events the de
signation Christian would hardly be
expected on a monument of this date ;
for other names in the inscription
(Drusus, Antonia) point to the age of
the earlier Cfflsars. M. Renan (Les
Apotres, p. 234) is wrong in saying that
the termination -anus betrays a Latin
origin. Compare ZapSiavos, Tpa\\iai/6s.
(2) It seems probable that the dis
turbances which Suetonius here attri
butes to the instigation of some one
Chrestus (or Christus), understanding
this as a proper name, were really
caused by various conflicting rumours
of claimants to the Messiahship. Yet
even in this case we may fairly sup
pose that the true Christ held a pro
minent place in these reports ; for He
must have been not less known at this
time than any of the false Chiists.

- The only strictly Jewish name is
Mary; but Aquila and Priscilla are

8T PAUL IN ROME. 17

than the obvious motive and bearing of the letter itself, points
to the existence of a large, perhaps a preponderating, Jewish
element in the Church of the metropolis before St Paul s arrival.
These Christians of the Circumcision for the most part owed
no spiritual allegiance to the Apostle of the Gentiles : some of
them had confessed Christ before him 1 ; many no doubt were
rigid in their adherence to the law. It would seem as though
St Paul had long ago been apprehensive of the attitude these
Jewish converts might assume towards him. The conciliatory Their op-
tone of the Epistle to the Romans conciliatory and yet uu-
compromising seems intended to disarm possible opposition.
Was it not this gloomy foreboding also which overclouded his
spirit when he first set foot on the Italian shore ? He had
good reason to thank God and take courage/ when he was
met by one deputation of Roman Christians at the Forum
of Appius, by another at the Three Taverns 2 . It was a relief
to find that some members at least of the Roman Church were
favourably disposed towards him. At all events his fears were
not unfounded, as appeared from the sequel. His bold advo
cacy of the liberty of the Gospel provoked the determined
antagonism of the Judaizers. We can hardly doubt to what,
class of teachers he alludes in the Epistle to the Philippians as
preaching Christ of envy and strife, in a factious spirit, only
for the purpose of thwarting him, only to increase his anguish
and to render his chains more galling 8 . An incidental notice
in another, probably a later epistle, written also from Rome,
reveals the virulence of this opposition still more clearly.
Of all the Jewish Christians in Rome the Apostle can name

known to have been Jews. St Paul s also would in all likelihood be Jews,

kinsmen also, Andronicus, Junia (Ju- l At the first day of Pentecost oi ^?n-

nias?), and Herodion, must have be- S^OUJ/TCS Pw/zauu, lovScuol re Kal trpoff-

longed to this race, whatever sense we ^Xvrot, are mentioned among those pre-

attach to the word kinsmen. Apelles sent, Acts ii. 10. In the Epistle to the

too, though not a strictly Jewish name, Komans St Paul salutes certain Jewish

was frequently borne by Jews. If Christians, who were before him in

moreover the Aristobulus mentioned in Christ, xvi 7.

ver. 10 belonged to the family of Herod, Acts xxviii. n.

as seems most probable (seep. 173 sq.), 3 phi} ^ r - ^

then the members of his household

PHIL. 2

1 8 ST PAUL IN ROME.

three only as remaining stedfast in the general desertion ; Arist-
archus his own companion in travel and in captivity, Marcus
the cousin of his former missionary colleague Barnabas, and
Jesus surnamed the Just. In them, he adds feelingly, I
found comfort 1 .

Their zea- But if these sectarians resolutely opposed St Paul, they were
lySsm rOSe " nar dly less zealous in preaching Christ. The incentive of rivalry
goaded them on to fresh exertions. Their gospel was dwarfed
and mutilated ; it ignored the principle of liberty which was
a main feature of the true Gospel: but though their motives
were thus unworthy and their doctrine distorted, still Christ
was preached : and for this cause, smothering all personal
feeling, the Apostle constrained himself to rejoice a .

The Geu- 2. Meanwhile among the Gentiles his preaching bore more
tile Chris- a k imc [ an t and healthier fruit. As he encountered in the exist-

tilU18 W6l*

come St i n g Church of Rome the stubborn resistance of a compact body
of Judaic antagonists, so also there were doubtless very many
whose more liberal Christian training prepared them to welcome
him as their leader and guide. If constant communication was
kept up with Jerusalem, the facilities of intercourse with the
cities which he himself had evangelized, with Corinth and
Ephesus for instance, were even greater. The Syrian Orontes
which washed the walls of Antioch the mother of Gentile
Christendom, when it mingled its waters with the Tiber,
assuredly bore thither some nobler freight than the scum and
refuse of Oriental profligacy, the degraded religions and
licentious morals of Asia 8 . Gentile Christianity was not less
fairly represented in Rome than Judaic Christianity. If there
were some who preached Christ of envy and strife/ there were
others who preached Him of good-will/

Thus aided and encouraged, the Apostle prosecuted his
work among the Gentiles with signal and rapid success. In

1 Col. iv. 10, ii ofowes tyevWiffdv * Phil. i. 18 d\XA Kal

Hoi iraprjyopla. Compare the expression 3 Juv. Sat. iii. 62 Jam pridem Sy-

quoted above from Acts xxviii. 15 eu- rus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes etc.

ST PAUL IN ROME. IQ

two quarters especially the results of his labours may be traced. His suc-
The praetorian soldiers, drafted off successively to guard him prseiorium
and constrained while on duty to bear him close company, had
opportunities of learning his doctrine and observing his manner
of life, which were certainly not without fruit. He had not
been in Rome very long, before he could boast that his bonds
were not merely known but known in Christ throughout the
praetorian guard 1 . In the palace of the Caesars too his influence
was felt. It seems not improbable that when he arrived in

Rome he found among the members of the imperial household, aud the

palace,
whether slaves or freedmen, some who had already embraced

the new faith and eagerly welcomed his coming. His energy
would be attracted to this important field of labour, where an
opening was already made and he had secured valuable allies.
At all events, writing from Rome to a distant church, he singles
out from the general salutation the members of Caesar s house
hold 8 , as a body both prominent enough to deserve a special
salutation and so well known to his correspondents that no
explanation was needed.

Occupying these two strongholds in the enemy s territory,
he would not be slack to push his conquests farther. Of the
social rank, of the race and religion from which his converts
were chiefly drawn, we have no direct knowledge and can only
hazard a conjecture. Yet we can hardly be wrong in assuming
that the Church was not generally recruited from the higher
classes of society and that the recruits were for the most
part Greeks rather than Romans.

Of the fact that the primitive Church of the metropolis Greek na-
before and after St Paul s visit was chiefly Greek, there is tiSftoinan
satisfactory evidence 8 . The salutations in the Roman letter con- Church -
tain very few but Greek names, and even the exceptions hardly
imply the Roman birth of their possessors. The Greek nation-

1 Phil. i. 13. See the detached note. best writers. See for instance West-

8 Phil. iv. 72. cott History of the Canon p. 244 aq.,

8 The Greek origin of the Roman and Milman Latin Christianity i. p.

Church is now generally allowed by the 27 sqo. (1863).

20 ST PAUL IN ROME.

ality of this church in the succeeding ages is still more clearly
seen. Her early bishops for several generations with very few
exceptions bear Greek names. All her literature for nearly
two centuries is Greek. The first Latin version of the Scrip
tures was made not for Rome, but for the provinces, especially
for Africa. Even later, the ill-spelt, ill-written inscriptions of
the catacombs, with their strange intermingling of Greek and
Latin characters, show that the church was not yet fully
nationalised. Doubtless among St Paul s converts were many
who spoke Latin as their mother tongue : the soldiers of the
praetorian guard for instance would perhaps be more Italian
than Greek. But these were neither the more numerous nor
the more influential members of the Church. The Greeks were
the most energetic, as they were also the most intelligent and
enquiring, of the middle classes in Rome at this time. The
successful tradesmen, the skilled artisans, the confidential ser
vants and retainers of noble houses almost all the activity and
enterprise of the common people whether for good or for evil-
were Greek 1 . Against the superior versatility of these foreign
intruders the native population was powerless, and a genera
tion later the satirist complains indignantly that Rome is no
Social longer Roman 2 . From this rank in life, from the middle and
the early lower classes of society, it seems probable that the Church
converts, drew her largest reinforcements. The members of the Roman
Church saluted in St Paul s Epistle could assuredly boast no
aristocratic descent, whether from the proud patrician or the
equally proud plebeian families. They bear upstart names,
mostly Greek, sometimes borrowed from oatural objects, some
times adopted from a pagan hero or divinity, sometimes de
scriptive of personal qualities or advantages, here and there
the surnames of some noble family to which they were perhaps
attached as slaves or freedmen, but hardly in any case bearing
the stamp of high Roman antiquity 8 . Of Rome, not less than

1 See especially Juv. Sat. iii. 73 2 Juv> S . iii. 60 Non possum ferre,
So. Comp. Friedlander Sittengeschichte Quirites, Gracam urbem.
Rom* i. p. 60 sq. (ed. 2). 3 Examples of these different classes

ST PAUL IN ROME. 21

of Corinth, it must have been true, that not many wise after
the flesh, not many powerful, not many high-born were
called 1 .

Not many, and yet perhaps a few. On what grounds and Converts
with what truth the great Stoic philosopher and statesman has

been claimed as a signal triumph of the Gospel I shall have to classeB -
consider hereafter. Report has swollen the list of Roman con
verts with other names scarcely less famous for their virtues or
their vices. The poet Lucan, the philosopher Epictetus, the
powerful freedmen Narcissus and Epaphroditus, the emperor s
mistresses Acte and Popprea 2 , a strange medley of good and
bad, have been swept by tradition or conjecture into that capa
cious drag-net which gathers of every kind/ For such conver
sions, highly improbable in themselves, there is not a shadow
of evidence. Yet one illustrious convert at least seems to
have been added to the Church about this time. Pomponia Pomponia
Graecina, the wife of Plautius the conqueror of Britain, was
arraigned of foreign superstition. Delivered over to a do
mestic tribunal according to ancient usage, she was tried by
her husband in presence of her relations, and was pronounced
by him innocent. Her grave and sad demeanour (for she never
appeared but in a mourning garb) was observed by all. The
untimely and cruel death of her friend Julia had drawn a cloud
over her life, which was never dissipated 3 . Coupled with the
charge already mentioned, this notice suggests that shunning
society she had sought consolation under her deep sorrow
in the duties and hopes of the Gospel*. At all events a
generation later Christianity had worked its way even into the
imperial family. Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domi-

of names among the Roman Christians place in the year 57 or 58, i.e. about

are: Stachys; Hermes, Nereus; Epro- the time when the Epistle to the Ro-

netus, Ampliatus, Urbauus ; Julia, mans was written, and some three years

Claudia (i Tim. iv. 21). before St Paul s arrival in Rome.

1 i Cor. i. a6. 4 The superstitio externa of Tacitus

* See Fleury Saint Paul et Stneque in this passage has been explained by

ii. p. 109, and the references there Lipsius and others after him as referring

given. to Christianity. See especially Meri-

A Tac. Ann. xiii. 32. The trial took vale s History of the Romans vi. p. 373.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

tilla, both cousins of Domitian, were accused of atheism * and
condemned by the emperor. Clemens had only just resigned
office as consul; and his sons had been nominated successors to
the empire. The husband was put to death; the wife banished
to one of the islands. Allowing that the emperor sacrificed his
kinsman on a most trivial charge/ the Roman biographer yet
withholds his sympathy from the unoffending victim as a man
of contemptible indolence 1 . One whose prejudice or ignorance

1 Sueton. Domit. 15 Flavium Cle-
mentem patruelein suum contemptissi-
mffl inertias... repente ex tenuissuna sus-
picione tantum non in ipso ejus consu-
latu interemit : Dion Cass. Ixvii. 14
Kav T$> aury rei aXXous re TroXXotl S
Kal rbv QKaovlov K\r)uei>Ta inrarevovra,
Kaiirep ave^LOv ovra Kal yvvaiKa Kal
avTTji* vvyyevrj eavrou <b\aoviav Ao/urX-
\av ^x VTa t Kar^ff^a^ev 6

77$

ol

Kal aXXoi es rck, lovSaiwv #77
oXXoi KO.TeoLKaadi]ffav, Kal
airtQavov ol 6^ r&v yovv ovffi<3v
i) 82 Ao/itrXXa virepupi-
ffdr) fj.6i>oi> es llavdarepiav. Ati;eism was
the common, charge brought against the
early Christians. The relationship of
this Domitilla to Doiuitiau is not
given by Dion Cassias. It appears
however from other authorities that
she was his sister s daughter ; Quintil.
Iwt. iv. Prooem., Orelli-Henzen Inscr.
5422, 5423. Again Eusebius, H. E.
iii. 1 8, refers to heathen historians
as relating (with an exact notice of
the date, the fifteenth year of Domi
tian) the persecution of the Christians,
and more especially the banishment of
Flavia Domitilla, the niece of Flavius
Clemens (^ ddeXtyrjs yeyovvlav <&\aovlov
KXij/xej/ros) one of the actual consuls,
t<vthe island of Pontia, T^S els X/n-
ffrov /j.aprvplas &>e/cei>. The heathen
writer especially intended here is one
Bruttius, as appears from another pas
sage in Eusebius, Chron. p. 162 (Schone)
sub anno 95, Scribit Bruttius plurimos

Christianorum sub Douiitiauo fecisse
martyrium : inter quos et Flaviam Do-
mitillam, Flavii dementis consulia ex
sororeneptem,ininsularnPontiamrele-
gatam quia se Christianam esse testata
est. This Bruttius is not improbably
the Projsens with whom the younger
PLLny corresponds (Epist. vii. 3), Prae-
sens being a cognomen of the Bruttii.
For the various persons bearing thia
name see Lardner s Testimonies of An
cient Heathens xii. On the confirma
tion of this account derived from de
Eossi s archffiological researches, and
on the possible connexion of Clement
the writer of the Epistle with this
Flavius Clemens, see S. Clement of
Rome Appendix p. 257 sq.

It will be seen that the account of
Bruttius (or Eusebius) differs from that
of other authorities both in the place
of exile and in the relationship of
Domitilla to Clemens. Hence many
writers have supposed that two Dorni-
tillas, aunt and niece, were banished
by Domitian : so e. g. among recent
writers, Imhof Domitianus p. 116, de
Rossi Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1865, p.
1 7 sq. , 1 8 7 5 , p. 69 sq. The calendar also
commemorates a Domitilla as a virgin
and martyr, thus distinguishing her
from the wife of Clemens : see Tille-
rnont Hist. Eccl. n. p. 124 sq. Yet it
can hardly be doubtful that one and
the same person is intended in these
notices. Nor is it difficult to explain
the two discrepancies, (i) The locality.
Pontia (or Pontiae, for it is a group of

8T PAUL IN ROME.

e

tt V* ttj .

allowed him to see in Christianity only a * mischievous super
stition 1 would not be very favourably impressed by a convert
to the new faith, debarred by his principles from sharing the
vicious amusements of his age, and perhaps also in the absorb
ing contemplation of his higher destinies too forgetful of the
necessary forms of social and political life. There seems no
reason to doubt that Clemens and Domitilla were converts to
the Gospel 2 .

It is impossible to close this notice of St Paul s captivity The Nero
without castiug a glance at the great catastrophe which over- B ecution
whelmed the Roman Church soon after his release. The Nero-
nian persecution, related on the authority of Tacitus and

islands) and Pandateria are close to
each other; Strabo v. p. 233 Ilai>5a.-
Tcpta re Kdl Hovrta ov iro\f> air dXX^Xwj/
Si^x ovffai - Heuce they are constantly
named together; e.g. Strabo ii. p. 123,
Varro K. R. ii. 5, Suet. Calig. 15,
Mela ii. 7. And both alike were con
stantly chosen as places of exile for
members of the imperial family ; Tao.
Ann. xiv. 63, Suet. Tib. 53, 54, Calig.
15, Dion Cass. Iv. 10, lix. 22. The cells,
in which Domitilla was reported to
have lived during her exile, were
shown in Pontia in Jerome s time;
Hieron. Ep. cviii. 7 (i. p. 695).
(2) The relationship. The divergence
here may be explained very easily by
the carelessness of Eusebius or some
early transcriber. In the original text
of Bruttius the words corresponding to
Flavii dementis probably signified
the wife of FJavius Clemens, while
those translated ex sorore ueptern
described her relationship not to Cle
mens but to Domitian. G. Syncellus
(p. 650, ed. Bonn.), copying the Chroni-
con of Eusebius, says <b\avta Ao/trriXXa
i$a5\<f>i) KXrifj-yvTos (sic) $\aviov i)?ra-
TLKOV wy XpKrriai fj els v^aov Hovrlav <f>v-
yaSevcTai. This expression suggests a
very probable account of the error. If
Bruttius (or some other authority)

wrote $\aovla Ao^eriXXo ^a5^X0i7 17
$>\aoviov KXTj/itJToy, the accidental
omission of 77 would at once transfer
the relationship from Domitian to
Flavins Clemens. When Philostratus,
Vit. Apoll. viii. 25, speaks of the wife
of Clemens as the sister of the emperor,
he confuses her with another Domitilla
no longer living ; unless indeed (as
seems probable) the conjectural read
ing ta.5t\<t>Tiv should be substituted
for d8e\<f>rjv in his text. The stemma
of the Flavii, constructed by Mornm-
sen (Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. p. 173), seems
to me to have nothing to recommend
it except the name of this truly great
scholar. It contradicts Apollonius,
Dion, Eusebius, and Quintilian alike ;
besides being open to other objections.
See the criticism of de Rossi Dull, di
Arch. Crist. 1875, p. 70 sq.

1 Sueton. Nero 16 superstitio nova
ac malefica.

9 So even Gibbon, who says (o. xvi),
1 The guilt imputed to their charge was
that of Atheism and Jewish manners;
a singular association of ideas, which
cannot with any propriety be applied
except to the Christians etc. So too
Baur Paulus p. 472. Early in the
second century the Roman Christians
are so influential that Ignatius fears

24 ST PAUL IN ROME.

Suetonius and embodied as a cardinal article in the historic
creed of the Church from the earliest times, has latterly shared
the fate of all assumed facts and received dogmas. The histo
rian of the Decline and Fall was the first to question the
truth of this persecution. The obscurity as well as the inno-
cency of the Christians/ wrote Gibbon, should have shielded
them from Nero s indignation and even from his notice.*
Accordingly he supposed that the real sufferers were not
Christians but Jews, not the disciples of the true Christ but
the dupes of some false Christ, the followers not of Jesus the
JSTazarene but of Judas the Gaulonite. It might easily happen,
so he argued, that Tacitus, writing a generation later when the
Christians, now a numerous body, had been singled out as the
objects of judicial investigation, should transfer to them the
guilt and the sufferings which he might with far greater truth
and justice have attributed to a sect whose odious memory was
almost extinguished 1 . An able living writer also, the author of
the l History of the Romans under the Empire 8 , paying more
deference to ancient authorities, yet feeling this difficulty,
though in a less degree, suggests another solution. He sup
poses that the persecution was directed in the first instance
against Jewish fanatics 3 ; that the persons thus assailed strove
to divert the popular fury by informing against the Christians;
that the Christians confessed their allegiance to a King of their
own in a sense which their judges did not care to discriminate ;
that in consequence they were condemned and suffered ; and
finally, that later writers, having only an indistinct knowledge
of the facts, confined the persecution directed against Jews and
Christians alike to the latter, who nevertheless were not the
principal victims. If I felt the difficulty which this suggestion
Testimony i s intended to remove, I should be disposed to accept the solu-
historians. tion. But I do not feel justified in setting aside the authority
of both Tacitus and Suetonius in a case like this, where the

lest their intercession may rob him of s A later notice however (Pseudo-

the crown of martyrdom. Senec. ad Paul. Ep. 12) mentions the

1 Decline and Fall c. xvi. Jews also as sufferers.

8 vi. p. 780.

ST PAUL IN ROME. 25

incident recorded must have happened in their own life-time;
an incident moreover not transacted within the recesses of the
palace or by a few accomplices sworn to secrecy, but open and
notorious, affecting the lives of many and gratifying the fanati
cal fury of a whole populace.

But besides the distinct testimony of the Roman historians, AUusionin
there is, I venture to think, strong though indirect evidence

which has generally been overlooked. How otherwise is the
imagery of the Apocalypse to be explained ? Babylon, the great
harlot, the woman seated on seven hills, drunken with the
blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus 1 -
what is the historical reference in these words, if the Neronian
persecution be a figment of later date? It is plain that some
great change has passed over the relations between the Gospel
arid the Empire, since the days when St Paul sought protection
and obtained justice from the soldiers and the magistrates of
Rome. The genial indolence of Gallic, the active interposition
of Claudius Lysias, the cold impartiality of Festus, afford no ex
planation of such language. Roman justice or Roman indiffer
ence has been exchanged meanwhile for Roman oppression.

And after all the sole ground for scepticism is the assumed The
insignificance of the Roman Church at this epoch, its obscure Rome not

station and scanty numbers. But what are the facts of the ,

ncant at

case ? Full six years before the Neronian outbreak the brethren tllis time -
of Rome are so numerous and so influential as to elicit from
St Paul the largest and most important letter which he ever
wrote. In this letter he salutes a far greater number of persons
than in any other. Its tone shows that the Roman Church
was beset by all the temptations intellectual and moral, to
which only a large and various community is exposed. lu
the three years which elapsed before he arrived in the metro
polis their numbers must in the natural course of events
have increased largely. When he lands on the shores of

1 Rev. xvii. 6. The argument in the for the passage might then be sup-
text loses some of its force, if the later posed to refer to the persecution of
date be assigned to the Apocalypse; Domitian.

26 ST PAUL IN ROME.

Italy, he finds a Christian community established even at
Puteoli 1 . For two whole years from this time the Gospel is
preached with assiduous devotion by St Paul and his compa
nions ; while the zeal of the Judaizers, whetted by rivalry, is
roused to unwonted activity in the same cause. If besides this
we allow for the natural growth of the church in the year in
tervening after the Apostle s release, it will be no surprise that
the Christian community -had by this time attained sufficient
prominence to provoke the indiscriminate revenge of a people
unnerved by a recent catastrophe and suddenly awakened to
the existence of a mysterious and rapidly increasing sect.

For it is in the very nature of a panic that it should take

alarm at some vague peril of which it cannot estimate the

The Eo- character or dimensions. The first discovery of this strange

lace 1 seized community would be the most terrible shock to Homan feeling.

byapamc. JJ QW w ^ e m ig a t no t be its ramifications, how numerous its

adherents? Once before in times pust Roman society had

been appalled by a similar revelation. At this crisis men

would call to mind how their forefathers had stood aghast at

the horrors of the -Bacchanalian conspiracy ; how the canker

still unsuspected was gnawing at the heart of public morality,

and the foundations of society were well-nigh sapped, when the

discovery was accidentally made, so that only the promptest and

most vigorous measures had saved the state 2 . And was not this

a conspiracy of the same kind ? These Christians were certainly

atheists, for they rejected all the gods alike ; they were traitors

1 Acts xxviii. 1 4. The traffic with 2 For the history of the Bacchanalian
Alexandria and the East would draw conspiracy detected in the year u. c. 186
to Puteoli a large number of Oriental see Livy xxxix. 8 sq. In reading this
sailors and merchants. The inscrip- account it is impossible not to notice
tions bear testimony to the presence of the resemblance of the crimes apparent-
Jews in these parts: see an article by ]y proved against these Bacchanalians
Minervini in the Bullett. Archeol. Na- with the foul charges recklessly hurled
pol. Feb. 1855. For the reference to at the Christians : see e. g. Justin Apol.
this article I am indebted to Fried- i. 2 6, Tertull. ApoL 7, Mimic. Felix, 9,
lander Sittengeschichte Roms n. p. 65. 28. [The passage in the text was writ-
See also de Kossi Bull. di Archeol.Crist. ten without any recollection that Gib-
1864, p. 69 sq., on the Pompeian in- bon had mentioned the Bacchanalian
scription. conspiracy in the same connexion.]

ST PAUL IN ROME. 2?

also, for they swore allegiance to another king besides Caesar.
But there were mysterious whispers of darker horrors than
these ; hideous orgies which rivalled the loathsome banquet of
Thyestes, shameless and nameless profligacies which recalled
the tragedy of the house of Laius 1 . To us, who know what the
Gospel has been and is, who are permitted to look back on the
past history of the Church and forward to her eternal destinies,
such infatuation may seem almost incredible; and yet this mode
of representation probably does no injustice to Roman feeling
at the time. The public mind paralysed by a great calamity has
not strength to reflect or to argue. An idea once seizing it
possesses it wholly. The grave and reserved demeanour of the
Christians would only increase the popular suspicion. The ap
parent innocence of the sect would seem but a cloak thrown ovei
their foul designs, which betrayed themselves occasionally by de
nunciations of Roman life or by threats of a coming vengeance 2 .

The general silence of the Roman satirists is indeed a signi- Silence of
ficant fact, but it cannot fairly be urged to show the obscurity satirists
of the Church at the date of the Neronian persecution. If no exp amod -
mention is made of Christianity in the short poems of Persius,
it will be remembered that he died nearly two years before this
event. If Juvenal and Martial, who in the next generation
have dashed in with such glaring colours Jews, Greeks, and
Egyptians 3 , banish the Christians to the far background of
their picture 4 , the fact must not be explained by the compara
tive insignificance of the latter 3 . We may safely infer from

1 See the letter of the Churches of 8 Merivale vr. p. 277.

Lyons and Vienne in imseb. H. E. \. i. * Mart. x. 25, Juv. i. 155, viii. 135.

14 K.a.Te\l/twavTo TI^V QvtffTeia oeiwa Even in these passages the allusion is

KO.I Ol5nro5eiovs /u/eu KOI oaa /tiTjre Xa- doubtful.

Xetv fji-fire vociv 0^us fyuV, Athenag. 5 The following instance will show

Legal. 3 rpLa tTri<f>i)iuov(riv rnj.lv fyxXiJ- how little dependence can bo placed on

/ittra, ade6TtjTa, Qvtffreia Sriwva, OiSi- this line of argument. Dean Milman

TTodelovs /i/ets, ib. 31, Theoph. ad Ant. (History of Christianity, in. p. 352)

iii. 4, 15, Tertull. ad Nat. L 7. writes: M. Beugnot has pointed out

1 See the suggestion of Dean Milman, one remarkable characteristic of Clau-

History of Christianity u. p. 456(1863). dian s poetry and of the times his ex-

So also Presseuse Trois Premiers traordiuary religious indifference. Here

Sieclcs n. p. 97. is a poet writing at the actual crisis of

28 ST PAUL IN ROME.

the narratives of Pliny and Tacitus that at this time they
were at least as important and influential as the Jews. But
in fact they offered very poor material for caricature. So far
as they presented any salient features which the satirist might
turn to ridicule, these were found in the Jews to a still greater
degree. Where they differed, their distinctive characteristics
would seem entirely negative to the superficial glance of the
heathen. Even Lucian, who satirizes all things in heaven and
earth, living at a time when Christians abounded everywhere,
can say nothing worse of them than that they are good-natured
charitable people, not overwise and easily duped by charlatans 1 .
Reticence But how did this vast religious movement escape the
losophers " not i ce of philosophical writers, who, if they were blind to its
spiritual import, must at least have recognised in it a striking
moral phenomenon ? If the Christians were so important, it is
urged, how are they not mentioned by Seneca, though Seneca
is full of the tenets of the philosophers 2 ? To this particular
question it is perhaps sufficient to reply, that most of Seneca s
works were written before the Christians on any showing had
attracted public notice. But the enquiry may be pushed further,
and a general answer will be suggested. How, we may well
ask, are they not mentioned by Plutarch, though Plutarch dis
cusses almost every possible question of philosophical or social
interest, and flourished moreover at the very time, when by
their large and increasing numbers, by their unflinching courage
and steady principle, they had become so formidable, that
the propraetor of Bithynia in utter perplexity applies to his
imperial master for instructions how to deal with a sect thus
passive and yet thus revolutionary? How is it again, that
Marcus Aurelius, the philosophical emperor, dismisses them in
his writings with one brief scornful allusion 3 , though he had

the complete triumph of the new reli- works of Claudian.

gion and the visible extinction of the l Lucian De Mort. Peregr. 1 1 sq.

old: if we may so speak, a strictly his- a Merivale, I.e.

torical poet... Yet... no one would know 3 M. Anton, xi 3 ^ /card ^t\7;V

the existence of Christianity at that wapdra^ (from mere obstinacy), ws of

period of the world by reading the Xpiariavoi, d\\a

/cat

ST PAUL IN ROME. 29

been Hooded with apologies and memorials on their behalf, and

though they served in large numbers in the very army which

he commanded in person 1 ? The silence of these later philoso- assumed

phers at least cannot be ascribed to ignorance ; and some other dentiaf

explanation must be sought. May we not fairly conclude reaBOU8<

that, like others under similar circumstances, they considered

a contemptuous reticence the safest, if not the keenest, weapon

to employ against a religious movement, which was working

its way upwards from the lower grades of society, and which

they viewed with alarm and misgiving not unmingled with

secret respect 2 ?

ical, uarc Kal d\\ov TTfiffcu, a.Tpa.- niemorare ausus est, ne vel laudaret

7<5wj. contra suro patriee veterem consuetudi-

1 Thus much at least may be in- nem vel reprehenderet contra propriam

ferred from the story of the thunder- forsitan voluntatem. Seneca indeed

ing legion: see especially Mosheim De could hardly be expected to mention

Rebus Christian. sc. i. xvii, and the Christians, for most of his works

Lardner Testimonies, etc. xv. 3. were perhaps written before the new

3 St Augustine dc Civ. Dei vi. i r sect had attracted the attention of his

says of Seneca, after mentioning this fellow-countrymen. But some such

philosopher s account of the Jews, motive as Augustine here suggests

Christianos tamen, jam tune Judoeis must have sealed the lips of the later

inimicissimos, in neutram partem com- philosophers.

II.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

Four epi
stles writ
ten from
Home.

ST PAUL remained in captivity between four and five years
(A.D. 58 63); tiie first half of this period being spent at
Csesarea, the second at Rome. While thus a prisoner he wrote
four epistles, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Ephe-
sians, to Philemon. Though a few critics have assigned one or
more of these epistles to his confinement at Csesarea 1 , there are
serious objections to this view 2 ; and the vast majority of writers

1 The three epistles are assigned to
the Ceesarean captivity by Bottger
(Beitr.u. p. 47 sqq.), Thiersch (Kirche
im apozt. Zeit. p. 176), Reuss (Gesch.
der hell. Sckriften 114), Meyer (Ephes.
Einl. 2) and others : the Epistle to
tne Philippians by Paulus (Progr. Jen.
1799, and Heidelb. Jahrb. 1825. H. 5,
referred to by Bleek), Bottger (I.e.), and
Thiersch (ib. p. 212), while Rilliet (in-
trod. ii and note on i. 13) speaks
doubtfully. The oldest tradition or con
jecture dated all four epistles from
Rome : and this is the opinion of most
modern writers. Oeder alone (Progr.
Onold. 1731: see Wolf Cur. Phil. in.
p. 1 68) dates the Philippians from Co
rinth during St Paul s first visit.

9 Reasons for dating the three epi
stles from Cffisarea are given fully in
Meyer (Ephes. Einl. 2). I cannot at
tach any weight to them. For the Epi
stle to the Philippians there is at least
thicprima facie case, that the mention

of the praitorium in Phil. i. 13 would
then be explained by the statement in
Acts xxiii. 35, that St Paul was con
fined in the pnetorium of Herod. But
the expression throughout the prasto-
rium (ei> 6 Xw r$ Trpcuruply), while it
implies a wider space than the palace
or official residence of Herod, is easily
explained by the circumstances of St
Paul s connexion with the imperial
guards at Rome : see above, p. 9. On
the other hand there are many serious
objections to Cffisarea as the place of
writing, (i) The notice of Caesar s
household (Phil. iv. 22) cannot without
much straining of language and facts
be made to apply to Csesarea. (2) St
Paul s account of his progress (i. 12
sq. ) loses all its force on this supposi
tion. He is obviously speaking of some
place of great consequence, where the
Gospel had received a new and remark
able development. Csesarea does not
satisfy these conditions. It was after

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

agree in placing all four at a later date, after the Apostle had
been removed thence to Rome.

Assuming then that they were all written from Rome, we
have next to investigate their relative dates. And here again
the question simplifies itself. It seems very clear, and is gene
rally allowed, that the three epistles last mentioned were written
and despatched at or about the same time, while the letter
to the Philippians stands alone. Of the three thus connected
the Epistle to the Colossians is the link between the other two.
On the one hand its connexion with the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians is established by a remarkable resemblance of style and
matter, and by the fact of its being entrusted to the same
messenger Tychicus 1 . On the other, it is shown to synchronize
with the letter to Philemon by more than one coincidence :
Onesimus accompanies both epistles 2 ; in both salutations are
sent to Archippus 8 ; in both the same persons are mentioned as
St Paul s companions at the time of writing 4 .

The Phi-
lippian let
ter stands
apart ; the
other three
are linked
together.

all not a very important place. It hail
been evangelized by the Apostles of the
Circumcision. The first heathen con
vert Cornelius lived there. As a chief
seaport town of Palestine, the great
preachers of the Gospel were constantly
passing to and fro through it. Alto
gether we may suppose it to have re
ceived more attention in proportion to
its size than any other place; and the
language of St Paul seems wholly in
applicable to a town with this antece
dent history. (3) When this epistle is
written, he is looking forward to his
speedy release and purposes a visit to
Macedonia (i. 26, ii. 24 : compare Phi-
lem. 22). Now there is no reason to
suppose that he expected this at C-
sarea. For what were the circumstances
of the case? He had gone up to Jerusa
lem, intending immediately afterwards
to visit Kome. While at Jerusalem he
is apprehended on a frivolous charge
and imprisoned. When at length he
is brought to trial, he boldly appeals to

Cresar. May we not infer that this
had been his settled determination from
the first? that he considered it more
prudent to act thus than to stake his
safety on the capricious justice of the
provincial governor? that at all events
he hoped thereby to secure the fulfil
ment of his long-cherished design of
preaching the Gospel in the metropolis?

These considerations seem sufficient
to turn the scale in favour of Rome, as
against Caesarea, in the case of the Epi
stle to the Philippians. As regards the
other three, I shall endeavour to give
reasons for placing them later than the
Philippian letter : and if so, they also
must date from Borne. At all events
there is no sufficient ground for aban
doning the common view.

1 Col. iv. 7, Ephes. vi. 21.

8 CoL iv. 9, Philem. 10 12.

8 CoL iv. 17, Philem. i. Hence it
may be inferred that they went to the
same place.

4 Philem. i, 23, 24, CoL L i, iv.

32

Was it
written
before or
after the
others ?

Argu
ments for
its later
date stated
and ex
amined.

j. Progress
of the
Eoman
Church.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

The question then, which I propose to discuss in the follow
ing pages, is this : whether the Epistle to the Philippians should
be placed early in the Roman captivity and the three epistles
later; or whether conversely the three epistles were written first,
and the Philippian letter afterwards. The latter is the prevail
ing view among the vast majority of recent writers, German
and EDglish, with one or two important exceptions 1 . I shall
attempt to show that the arguments generally alleged in its
favour will not support the conclusions : while on the other
hand there are reasons for placing the Philippians early and
the three epistles late, which in the absence of any decisive
evidence on the other side must be regarded as weighty.

The arguments in favour of the later date of the Philippian
letter, as compared with the other three, are drawn from four
considerations : (i) From the progress of Christianity in Rome,
as exhibited in this epistle ; (2) From a comparison of the
names of St Paul s associates mentioned in the different epistles ;
(3) From the length of time required for the communications
between Philippi and Rome; (4) From the circumstances of
St Paul s imprisonment. These arguments will be considered
in order.

I. It is evident that the Christians in Rome form a large
and important body when the Epistle to the Philippians is
written. The Gospel has effected a lodgment even in the im
perial palace. The bonds of the Apostle have become known
not only throughout the prsetorium but to all the rest/
There is a marvellous activity among the disciples of the new

7 14. The names common to both
are Timotheus, Epaphras, Marcus,
Aristarehus, Demas, Luke. Tychicus
and Jesus the Just are mentioned in
the Epistle to the Colossians alone.

1 In Germany, De Wette, Schrader,
Hemsen, Anger, Credner, Neander,
Wieseler, Meyer, "Wiesinger; in Eng
land, Davidson, Alford, Conyheare and
Ho^son, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Eadie.
The exceptions are Bleek (Einl. in das

Neue Test. pp. 430, 460) who considers
the data insufficient to decide but
treats the Philippians first in order;

547), who however rejects the Epistle
to the Ephesians, and supposes the re
maining three to have been written
about the same time. The older Eng
lish critics for the most part (e.g. Ussher
and Pearson) placed the Philippians
first, without assigning reasons.

ORDER OP THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 33

faith : In every way Christ is preached. All this it is argued
requires a very considerable lapse of time.

This argument has to a great extent been met already 1 . It its condi-
is highly probable, as I have endeavoured to show, that St Paul gt^pa^i"/ 6
found a flourishing though unorganized Church, when he corain g-
arrived in Rome. The state of things exhibited in the Epistle
to the Romans, the probable growth of Christianity in the in
terval, the fact of his finding a body of worshippers even at
Puteoli, combine to support this inference. It has been sug
gested also (and reasons will be given hereafter for this sug
gestion) that the members of Caesar s household were, at least
in some cases, not St Paul s converts after his arrival but older
disciples already confessing Christ. And again, if when he
wrote he could already count many followers among the prae
torian soldiers, it is here especially that we might expect to see
the earliest and most striking results of his preaching, for with
these soldiers he was forced to hold close and uninterrupted in
tercourse day and night from the very first.

Nor must the expression that his * bonds had become His lau-
known to all the rest of the Roman people be rigorously f" j^ 6 not
pressed. It is contrary to all sound rules of interpretation to pressed.
look for statistical precision in words uttered in the fulness
of gratitude and hope. The force of the expression must be
measured by the Apostle s language elsewhere. In writing to
the Thessalonians for instance, only a few mouths after they
have heard the first tidings of the Gospel, he expresses his joy
that from them has sounded forth the word of the Lord, not
only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place their faith to
Godward is spread abroad 2 .

Indeed this very passage in the Philippian letter, which The notice
has been taken to favour a later date because it announces Un 8 ? 08 ^
the progress of the Gospel in Rome, appears much more site infer -
natural, if written soon after his arrival. The condition of
things which it describes is novel and exceptional It is evi
dently the first awakening of dormant influences for good or

1 See above, p. 25 sq. 8 i Thess. i. 8.

PHIL. 3

34 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

evil, the stirring up of latent emotions of love, emulation, strife,
godless jealousy and godly zeal, by the presence of the great
Apostle among the Christians of Rome. This is hardly the
language he would have used after he had spent two whole
years in the metropolis, when the antagonism of enemies and
the devotion of friends had settled down into a routine of
hatred or of affection. Nor is the form of the announcement
such as might be expected in a letter addressed so long after
his arrival to correspondents with whom he had been in con
stant communication meanwhile.

i st Paul s 2 - ^ ne argument drawn from the names of St Paul s asso-

associates. c i a tes i s as follows. We learn from the Acts that the Apostle
was accompanied on his voyage to Rome by Luke and Arist-
archus 1 . Now their names occur in the salutations of the
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon 2 , but not in the
Epistle to the Philippians. It seems probable therefore that
the letter last mentioned w T as written later, his two companions
having meanwhile separated from the Apostle.

General J ^ n argument from silence is always of questionable force.

tidsar u ^ n or( ^ er to ^ e va lid, ^ ought to apply to all these epistles alike.

ment. Yet in the Epistle to the Ephesians no mention is made of
Aristarchus and Luke, and what is more remarkable, none of
Timothy, though it was written at the same time with the
letters to Colossse and to Philemon. The omission in any par
ticular case may be due to special reasons 3 .

Nor is it difficult to account for this silence. In the Epistle
to the Philippians St Paul throws his salutation into a general
form ; The brethren that are with me greet you/ In this ex
pression it is plain that he refers to his own personal com
panions : for he adds immediately afterwards, All the brethren/

1 Acts xxvii. 2. in the letter to Philemon. Of this

2 Col. iv. 10, 14, Philem. 24. omission no account can be given.

3 The doubtful force of such argu- There is the highest a priori probabi-
ments from silence is illustrated by an- lity that he would be mentioned either
other case occurring in these epistles. in both letters or in neither, for they
Jesus Justus is mentioned in the Epi- both were sent to the same place and
stle to the Colossians (iv. u), but not by the same messenger.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

35

including the resident members of the Roman Church, but
especially they of the household of Caesar greet you 1 . If
Aristarchus and Luke were with him, they might well be com
prehended in this general salutation. Of Aristarchus the most Aristar-
probable account, I think, is, that he parted from St Paul at c
Myra, and therefore did not arrive in Rome with the Apostle
but rejoined him there subsequently 2 . If this be the case, the
absence of his name in the Philippian Epistle, so far as it de
serves to be considered at all, makes rather for than against the
earlier date. On the other hand St Luke certainly accom- st Luke.
panied the Apostle to Rome : and his probable connexion with

1 Phil. iv. 2i, 22.

a St Luke s account is this : Em
barking on an Adramyttiau vessel,
intending to sail to (or along) the
coasts of Asia (/iA/Wres Tr\eii> TOI)S
Kara TIJV Kalav TO TTOUJ) we put Out to
sea, Aristarchus a Macedonian of Thes-
salonica being with us (Acts xxvii. 2).
When they arrived at Myra, the centu
rion found an Alexandrian vessel sail
ing to Italy and put them (^as) on
board. Now it is generally (I believe,
universally) assumed that Aristarchus
accompanied St Paul and St Luke to
Home. But what are the probabilities
of the case ? The vessel in which they
start belongs to Adramyttium a sea
port of Mysia. If they had remained
in this ship, as seems to have been their
original intention, they would have
hugged the coast of Asia, and at length
(perhaps taking another vessel at Adra-
myttium) have reached Macedonia : and
if they landed, as they probably would,
at Neapolis, they would have taken
the great Egnatian road through Phi-
lippi. Along this road they would have
travelled to Dyrrhachium and thence
have crossed the straits to Italy. Thus
a long voyage in the open seas would
have been avoided : a voyage peculiarly
dangerous at this late season of the
year, as the result proved. Such also,
at least from Smyrna onwards, was

the route of Ignatius, who likewise
was taken a prisoner to Eome and
appears also to have made this
journey late in the year. It was the
accident of falling in at Myra with an
Alexandrian ship sailing straight for
Italy which induced the centurion to
abandon his original design, for the
sake, as would appear, of greater ex
pedition. But the historian adds when
mentioning this design, one Aristar
chus a Macedonian of Thessalonica
being with us. Does he not, by in
serting this notice in this particular
place, intend his readers to understand
(or at least understand himself) that
Aristarchus accompanied them on the
former part of their route, because he
was on his way home ? If so, when
their plans were changed at Myra, he
would part from them, continuing in
the Adramyttian vessel, and so reach
his destination.

I have hitherto given the received
text,^XXoi Tes TrXeij , as we were to sail.
The greater number of the best authori
ties however read /xAXoiri v\eii> as it
(the vessel) was to sail. If the latter be
adopted, the passage is silent about the
purpose of the centurion and his pri
soners, but the probable destination of
Aristarchus remains unaffected by the
change. The copies which read /*A-
\OVTI for the most part also insert

32

36 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

Philippi 1 suggests at least a presumption that he would be
mentioned by name, if he were still with St Paul. Again, when
in another passage 2 the Apostle declaring his intention of sending
Timotheus to Philippi adds that he has no one like-minded
who will naturally care for them, for all pursue their own
pleasures and interests, we cannot suppose that Luke the
beloved physician is included in this condemnation. It may
reasonably be conjectured however that St Luke had left Italy
to return thither at a later period, or that he was absent from
Home on some temporary mission, or at least that he w r as too
busily occupied to undertake this journey to Philippi. Even if
we assume Rome to have been the head-quarters of the evan
gelist during the whole of St Paul s stay, there must have been
many churches in the neighbourhood and in more distant
parts of Italy which needed constant supervision; and after
Timotheus there was probably 110 one among the Apostle s
companions to whom he could entrust any important mission
with equal confidence.

3. Join-- 3. Again it is urged that the numerous communications

tween Phi- ^ etween Philippi and Rome implied by the notices in this
lippi and epistle in themselves demand a very considerable lapse of time

after the Apostle s arrival.

Four at The narrative however requires at most two journeys from

Rome to Philippi and two from Philippi to Rome; as fol
lows.

(1) From Rome to Philippi. A messenger bears tidings to

the Philippians of St Paul s arrival in Rome.

(2) From Philippi to Rome. The Philippians send contri

butions to St Paul by the hand of Epaphroditus 3 .

(3) From Rome to Philippi. A messenger arrives at the

latter place with tidings of Epaphroditus illness.

els before TOVS /card rty Aa-iav K.T.\. would be a temptation to alter fj^\~

It seems probable therefore that there \ovres in order to adapt it to subse-

has been a confusion between ^\- quent facts.

Xor/res and /J.{\\WTI els. The best l See below, pp. 53, 59.

authorities are certainly in favour of 2 Phil. ii. 19 21.

the latter. On the other hand there 3 Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 37

(4) From Philippi to Rome. Epapbroditus is informed
that the news of his illness has reached the Philip-
pians 1 .

The return of Epaphroditus to Philippi cannot be reckoned
as a separate journey, for it seems clear that he was the bearer
of St Paul s letter 2 .

I say four journeys at most ; for the number may well be and this
halved without doing any violence to probability. As it has may t e
been already stated 3 , St Luke s narrative seems to imply that reduced -
Aristarchus parted from the Apostle at Myra, coasted along
Asia Minor, and so returned to his native town Thessalonica
by the Egnatian road. On his way he would pass through
Philippi, and from him the Philippians would learn that the
Apostle had been removed from Ca3sarea to Home. Thus taking
into account the delay of several months occasioned by the ship
wreck and the sojourn in Malta, Epaphroditus might well arrive
in Rome with the contributions from Philippi about the same
time with the Apostle himself; and this without any inconve
nient hurry. On this supposition two of the four journeys
assumed to have taken place after St Paul s arrival may be dis
pensed with. Nor again does the expression he was grieved
because ye heard that he was sick necessarily imply that Epa
phroditus had received definite information that the tidings of
his illness had reached Philippi. He says nothing about the
manner in which the Philippians had received the news. The
Apostle s language seems to require nothing more than that
a messenger had been despatched to Philippi with the tidings in
question. This however is a matter of very little moment. On
any showing some months must have elapsed after St Paul s
arrival, before the letter to the Philippians was written. And
this interval allows ample time for all the incidents, consider-

1 Phil. ii. 26 liruroduv TJV Trcuras Philem. 1 1, 12, where d^ire^a is said
vnas [iSeiv] ical ddTjfj.ovui Si6n ij/cotfcraTf of Onesimus the bearer of the letter.
Sri ri<jQtvr\atv. See the note on Gal. vi. n.

2 Phil, ii. 25, 28, 29. The tire/j.\f/a of 3 See above, p. 35, note a.
ver. 28 is an epistolary aorist : comp.

;8 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

ing that the communication between Rome and Philippi was
constant and rapid 1 .

.StPaul s 4. Lastly, it is urged that the general tone of the Epistle
Stion to the Philipp ians accords better with a later stage of the Apo
stle s captivity. The degree of restraint now imposed upon the
prisoner appears to be inconsistent with the liberty implied in
the narrative of the Acts : the spirit of anxiety and sadness
which pervades the letter is thought to accord ill with a period
of successful labour. For these reasons the epistle is supposed
to have been written after those two years of unimpeded pro
gress with which St Luke s record closes, the Apostle having
been removed meanwhile from his own hired house to the
precincts of the praetorium, and placed in more rigorous con
finement,
and with And the view thus suggested by the contrast which this

Contrast
with the
Acts,

1 A month would probably be a fair
allowance of time for the journey be
tween Borne and Philippi. The distance
from Home to Brundisium was 360
miles according to Strabo (vi. p. 283) or
358 according to the Antonine Itine
rary (pp. 49, 51, 54, Parth. et Find.).
The distance from Dyrrhachium to Phi
lippi was the same within a few miles ;
the journey from Dyrrhachium to Thes-
salonica being about 270 miles (267,
Polybius in Strabo vii. p. 323 ; 269, Itin.
Anton.}). 151; and 279,2^6. Peuting.),
and from Thessalonica to Philippi 100
miles (Itin. Anton, pp. 152, 157). The
present text of Pliny understates it at
325 miles, H. N. iv. 18. Ovid expects
his books to reach Kome from Brundi
sium before the tenth day without hur
rying (Ep. Pont. iv. 5. 8 ut festinatum
non faciatis iter ) ; while Horace mov
ing very leisurely completes the dis
tance in 1 6 days (Sat. i. 5). The voyage
between Dyrrhachium and Brundisium
ordinarily took a day : Cic. ad Att. iv.
i ; comp. Appian i. p. 269 (ed. Bekker).
The land transit on the Greek continent
would probably not occupy much more

time than on the Italian, the distances
being the same. This calculation agrees
with the notices in Cicero s letters.
Cicero (if the dates can be trusted)
leaves Brundisium on April 3oth and
arrives at Thessalonica on May 23rd
(ad Att. iii. 8); but he travels leisurely
and appears to have been delayed on
the way. Again Atticus purposes start
ing from Kome on June ist, and Cicero
writing from Thessalonica on the i3th
expects to see him propediem (iii. 9).
Again Cicero writing from Thessalonica
on June i8th says that Atticus letter
has informed him of all that has hap
pened at Eome up to May 25th (iii.
10). Lastly Cicero at Dyrrhachium re
ceives on Nov. 27th a letter from Eome
dated Nov. i2th (iii. 23). The sea route
was more uncertain : but under favour
able circumstances would be quicker
than the journey by land, whether the
course was by the gulf of Corinth or
round the promontory of Malea. On
the rate of sailing among the ancients
see Friedlander Sittengeschichte Roms
ii. p. 12, to whom I owe some of the
above references.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 39

epistle offers to St Luke s narrative is further supported by a the other
comparison with the other letters written during his captivity.
As distinguished from the remaining three, the Epistle to the
Philippians is thought to wear a gloomier aspect and to indicate
severer restraints and less hopeful prospects 1 .

At this point the aid of contemporary history is invoked, accounted
Have we not a sufficient account, it is asked, of the increased temporary
rigour of the Apostle s confinement in the appointment of the history.
monster Tigellinus to succeed Burrus as commander of the
imperial guards ? Must not the well-known Jewish sympathies
of Poppsea, now all-powerful as the emperor s consort, have
darkened his prospects at the approaching trial ?

The argument drawn from St Luke s narrative has been Contrast
partially and incidently met already 2 . It seems highly proba- JjJJj ^
ble that the prtetorium does not denote any locality, whether
the barracks on the Palatine or the camp without the city.
Even if a local meaning be adopted, still it is neither stated nor
implied that St Paul dwelt within the praetorium. If he did
dwell there, he might nevertheless have occupied hired lodg
ings. In the history, as in the letter, he is a prisoner in
bonds. His external condition, as represented in the two
writings, in no way differs. In tone, it is true, there is a strong
contrast between St Luke s account and the language of St
Paul himself: but this could hardly be otherwise. St Luke,
as the historian of the Church, views events in the retrospect
and deals chiefly with results, presenting the bright side of the
picture, the triumph of the Church. St Paul, as the individual
sufferer, writing at the moment and reflecting the agony of
the struggle, paints the scene in darker colours, dwelling on his
own sorrows. The Apostle s sufferings were in a great degree
mental the vexation of soul stirred up by unscrupulous op
position the agony of suspense under his impending trial
his solicitude for the churches under his care his sense of

1 So Alford (Prol. iii. 5). But alacriorque et blandior caeteria.
Bengel, summa epistola, gaudeo, * Above, p. 9, and on prsetorium*

Qaudere ; and Grotius, Epistola laetior in i. 13.

4 o ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

responsibility his yearning desire to depart and be with Christ.
It was impossible that the historian should reproduce this state
of feeling : he has not done so in other cases 1 .

Contrast And again : comparing the language of the Philippian letter

the other epistles, it is difficult to see anything more than

sties con- those oscillations of feeling which must be experienced daily

31 (3. 81*6 ("I

under trying circumstances of responsibility or danger. All
these epistles alike reveal alternations of joy and sadness,
moments of depression and moments of exaltation, successive
waves of hope and fear. If the tone of one epistle is less cheer
ful than another, this is a very insecure foundation on which
to build the hypothesis of an entire change in the prisoner s
condition.

The argu- Moreover arguments are sometimes alleged for the later
t^KsecTb" date f ^ ne Philippian letter, which, though advanced for the
other pas- same purpose, in reality neutralise those already considered.
It is no longer to the prevailing gloom, but to the hopefulness
of the Philippian letter, that the appeal is made. The Apostle
is looking forward to his approaching trial and deliverance. He
knows confidently that he shall abide and continue with the
Philippians for their furtherance and joy of the faith: their
rejoicing will abound by his coming to see them again 2 ; he
trusts in the Lord that he shall visit them shortly 3 . Such
passages are, I think, a complete answer to those who represent
the sadness of this epistle as in strong contrast to the brighter
tone of the other three. Yet considered in themselves they
might seem to imply the near approach of his trial, and so
to favour the comparatively late date of the epistle. But here
again we must pause. These expressions, even if as strong, are
not stronger than the language addressed to Philemon, when the
Apostle bids his friend prepare him a lodging/ hoping that
through their prayers he shall be given to them 4 . At many
times doubtless during his long imprisonment, he expected his

1 Compare for instance the agony of passioned account of the same period

feeling expressed in the opening chap- in St Luke.

tera of the Second Epistle to the 2 Phil. i. 25, 26.

Corinthians with the calm and unim- 3 Phil. ii. 24. * Philem. 22.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 4*

trial to come on. His life at this time was a succession of broken
hopes and weary delays.

If this be so, we need not stop long to enquire how the Political
political changes already noticed might possibly have affected did^foT
St Paul s condition. A prisoner so mean in the eyes of the p ^ st
Roman world, a despised provincial, a religious fanatic like
Festus, they would see nothing more in him than this was
beneath the notice of a Tigellinus, intent on more ambitious and
grander crimes. More plausible is the idea that Poppaea, insti
gated by the Jews, might have prejudiced the emperor against
an offender whom they hated with a bitter hatred. Doubtless
she might have done so. But, if she had interfered at all, why
should she have been satisfied with delaying his trial or increas
ing his restraints, when she might have procured his condemna
tion and death ? The hand reeking with the noblest blood of
Rome would hardly refuse at her bidding to strike down a poor
foreigner, who was almost unknown and would certainly be un
avenged. From whatever cause, whether from ignorance or
caprice or indifference or disdain, her influence, we may safely
conclude, was not exerted to the injury of the Apostle.

Such are the grounds on which the Epistle to the Philip- The later
pians has been assigned to a later date than the others written g^^
from Rome. So far from establishing this conclusion they seem ed.
to afford at most a very slight presumption in its favour. On
the other hand certain considerations have been overlooked,
which in the absence of direct evidence on the opposite side are
entitled to a hearing. They are founded on a comparison of the Argument
style and matter of these epistles with the epistles of the pre- e riie?
ceding and the following groups with the letters of the third date -
Apostolic journey on the one side, and the Pastoral Epistles
on the other. The inference from such a comparison, if I mis
take not, is twofold ; we are led to place the Epistle to the
Philippians as early as possible, and the Epistles to the Colos-
sians and Ephesians as late as possible, consistently with other
known facts and probabilities.

I. The characteristic features of its group are less strongly ,. Reasons

42 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY,

for placing marked in the Epistle to the Philippians than in the others.
uppians Altogether in style and tone, as well as in its prominent ideas,
early, it bears a much greater resemblance to the earlier letters, than
Hesem- do the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians 1 . Thus it
forms the link which connects these two epistles with those of
the third apostolic journey. It represents an epoch of transition
in the religious controversies of the age, or to speak more cor
rectly, a momentary lull, a short breathing space, when one an
tagonistic error has been fought and overcome, and another is
dimly foreseen in the future. The Apostle s great battle hitherto
has been with Pharisaic Judaism ; his great weapon the doctrine
of grace. In the Epistle to the Philippians we have the spent
wave of this controversy. In the third chapter the Apostle
dwells with something like his former fulness on the contrast
of faith and law, on the true and the false circumcision, on his
own personal experiences as illustrating his theme. Henceforth
when he touches on these topics, he will do so briefly and in
cidentally. Even now in his apostolic teaching, as in his inner
life, he is forgetting those things which are behind and reach
ing forth unto those things which are before. A new type of
error is springing up more speculative and less practical in its
origin which in one form or other mainly occupies his attention
throughout the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians and
the Pastoral Epistles ; and which under the distinctive name of
Gnosticism in its manifold and monstrous developments will
disturb the peace of the Church for two centuries to come.

But of all the earlier letters it most nearly resembles the
Epistle to the Romans, to which according to the view here
maintained it stands next in chronological order. At least I do

1 This fact is reflected in the opi- is instructive. The special character-

nions entertained respecting the genu- istics of the main group (i, i Corinth-

ineness of these epistles. While the ians, Galatians, Komans) have been

authorship of the Epistle to the Phi- taken as the standard of the Apostle s

lippians has been questioned only by style, when they rather indicate a par-

the most extravagant criticism, more ticular phase in it. The Epistle to

temperate writers have hesitated to the Philippians has been spared be-

accept the Colossians and Ephesians. cause it reproduces these features more

This hesitation, though unwarranted, nearly than the other two.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

43

not think that so many and so close parallels can be produced
with any other epistle, as the following :

PHILIPPIANS.

(1) i. 3, 4, 7, 8. I thank my
God in every mention of you at
all times in every request of mine
...as ye all are partakers with me
in grace (TTJS ^a ptros) : for God is
my witness, how / long for you
all in the bowels of Christ Jesus.

(2) i. 10. That ye may ap
prove the things that are excel
lent.

(3) ii. 8, 9, 10, ii. He became
obedient unto death... wherefore
God also highly exalted Him...
that in the name of Jesus every
knee may bow of things in hea
ven and things on earth and
things under the earth, and every
tongue may confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, &c.

(4) ii. 2 4. That ye may
have the same mind, having the
same love, united in soul, having
one mind : (Do) nothing in fac
tiousness or vainglory,

but in humility holding one
another superior to yourselves.

(5) iii. 3. For we are the
circumcision,

who serve (Xarpevovres) by the
Spirit of God (foov v. 1. 0e<5),
and boast in Christ Jesus...

4, 5. If any other thinketh

ROMANS.

i. 8 ii. First I thank my Parallel
God through Jesus Christ for you passages.
all.. .for God is my witness .. .how
incessantly I make mention of
you... at all times in my prayers
making request... for / long to see
you, that I may impart some spi
ritual grace (^a pto-/xa) to you.

ii. 1 8. Thou appro vest the
things that are excellent.

xiv. 9, ii. For hereunto Christ
died and lived (i.e. rose again),
that he may be Lord both of the
dead and of the living... For it
is written, I live, saith the Lord :
for in me every knee shall bow
and every tongue shall confess
unto God (Is. xlv. 23, 24).

xii. 1 6 19. Having the same
mind towards one another : not
minding high things... Be not
wise in your own conceits (<po -
vijucoi Trap tavrots)... having peace
with all men : not avenging your
selves.

10. In honour holding one
another in preference.

11. 28. For the (circumcision)
manifest in the nesh is not cir
cumcision..^^ circumcision of
the heart.

i. 9. God whom I serve (Xa-
Tpcvo) in my spirit 1 .

v. ii. Boasting in God through
oui- Lord Jesus Christ.

xi. i. For I also am an Is-

1 The idea of the spiritual \arpeia
appears again Horn. xii. i, T^V \oytK^v
\arpflav vpuv, where this moral service
of the Gospel is tacitly contrasted with
the ritual service of the law as the

living sacrifice to the dead victim.
Compare also James i. 27 6pr)<TK(La na-
dapb Kal &fj.lavros K.T.\. See the notes
on Phil. iii. 3.

44

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

PHILIPPIANS.

Parallel to trust in the flesh, I more :...

passages.