PAUL, originally Saul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and author of several portions of the New Testament canon. Though a native of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia,^[1. Acts, xxii. 3, &c. ] he was the son of Jewish parents, belonging to the tribe of Benjamin.^[2. Philip. iii. 5. ] From his father he inherited the rights of Roman citizenship,^[3. Acts, xxii. 25-28. ] which had probably been conferred upon some of his ancestors for some important services rendered to the commonwealth;^[4. The opinion that the natives of Tarsus enjoyed the jus civitatis as a birthright, is not supported by evidence. The fact of that city’s haying been created by Augustus an urbs libera (Phn. v. 27) does not lead to any conclusion as to the possession by its natives of the right of Roman citizenship; and from Acts, xxι 39, compared with xxii. 24, 27, it may be inferred, that as the chief captain knew Paul to be a native of Tarsus, and yet was ignorant of his Roman citizenship, these two were not necessarily conjoined. ] and it is with great probability supposed, that the cloak and parchments which he so earnestly charged Timothy to bring with him to Rome, were the Roman toga and the certificates of his citizenship, which he expected might be of use to him in his anticipated trial before the emperor. The name Saul (⅛ιxit), which he received at his birth, and which signifies “the longed-for, the desired,” would seem to indicate that he was the first-born son of his parents, and that his birth was viewed by them as an answer to many prayers; that he was not, however, their only child, is apparent from Acts, xxiii. 16, where mention [7:17:151]is made of his “sister’s son.” His father being of the sect of the Pharisees, probably devoted him from his infancy to the service of religion; and with this view he seems to have received such education as appeared most calculated to fit him for the duties to which he was destined. At that time Tarsus was eminently distinguished for its cultivators of philosophy, and every other department in the circle of instruction (σπoυ3⅛ ngò¢ « φιλοσοφίαν καί τf ∣ ν αλλην εγκύκλιον απασαν nαιδειαν); ^[5. Strabo, lib. xiv. c. 5. ] but to what extent the future apostle of Christianity was indebted to the labours of such teachers for his early education, no means are left us of judging. It is probable that his obligations were not very great; for as his ultimate destination was to the office of an expounder of the Jewish law and traditions, it does not appear likely that he would be sent by his parents to occupy himself with the literature and philosophy of those whom the Jews despised as outcasts, as well from the light as from the favour of heaven. At the same time, it cannot be denied that his residence in a city where the study of the liberal sciences was so assiduously and successfully prosecuted as to place it upon a par with “Athens, Alexandria, or any other place that could be named in which schools and studies are to be found,”^[6. Ibid. ] must have had a powerful influence in refining his taste, and liberalising and expanding his views. It was at Jerusalem, however, the centre of the Jewish world, that the most important part of his education was received. At an early age, in his twelfth or fourteenth year, as is supposed,^[7. GreswelΓs Dissertations, vol. i. p. 554. ] he was brought to this city, and placed under the instruction of Gamaliel, one of the most famous teachers of Jewish learning at that time.^[8. Acts, xxii. 3. ] Here he finished his education as a Pharisee, and at the same time, according to the custom of the Jews, acquired a mechanical art, that of a σκηοπoιος, which some render “a mechanist,”^[9. Michaelis, Introd, by Marsh.; Haenlein, Einleitung, ch. iii. s. 301. ] others “a haircloth-maker,”^[10. Eichhorn, Einleit. iii. 9; Hug, Einleit. ii. 213. ] others “a maker of tapestry or carpeting,” and others, with most apparent propriety, as in our version, “a tent-maker.”^[11. “Persons travelling in the East, in order to shelter themselves from the rain and noxious blasts during the night, carry with them small tents made of leather or cloth; and the manufacture of these is a profitable occupation.” (Winer, Bib. Real∙w'0rtcrbuclι in Paulus.') ] By this he probably supported himself during the time he was engaged in the prosecution of his studies, as we know he was in the habit of doing at an afterperiod whilst engaged as an apostle. How long he abode in Jerusalem at this time, or whether he returned to Tarsus at all before his conversion, are points on which no certain information can now be obtained. In the history of the early church, he is introduced to us, for the first time,^[12. Acts, vii. 58. ] as “a young man,”^[13. Nothing satisfactory, however, can be drawn from this as to Paul’s age at this period, for the word vsaw≈; is applied with much inde-finiteness to persons of from twenty-four to forty years of age. Perhaps his age was about thirty. ] whose zeal for the religion of his fathers had prompted him to assume the character of an active persecutor, of those who had forsaken that religion for the faith of Christ. On the occasion of the martyrdom of Stephen, he appears in the capacity of an abettor, and in some respects a sort of superintendent, of the act; and immediately after this, he, as if rendered more ferocious by the blood he had assisted in shedding, kindled the flames of a relentless and unsparing persecution, in which all, without respect of age or of sex, who had professed the hated religion, were compelled to blaspheme the name of Jesus, or obliged to endure the utmost indignities and the most condign punishments.^[14. Acts, viii. 1-3; xxvi. 10, 11. ] It was whilst engaged in these cruel efforts of a dark and bigoted zeal that he was made to experience that extraordinary change of opinion and feeling which gave a new direction to all his energies, and led him to devote his life to the advancement of that cause which he at first deemed it serviceable to God to oppose and destroy. Having obtained from the rulers of his nation a commission to go to Damascus, in which city the Jews were very numerous, and where also the new religion had obtained a footing, for the purpose apparently of arresting such of the Christians as had fled to that city, and bringing them back bound to Jerusalem, he was himself arrested by a higher power, and made to feel his utter impotency when attempting to oppose the cause of Christ. Whilst crossing the plain to the south of Damascus, about noon-day, and at a short distance from that city, he was suddenly surrounded by a miraculous light from heaven, which had the effect of so paralyzing him, that he fell to the ground, whilst a voice addressed to him the thrilling question, “Saul, Saul, why persecutes! thou me ?” In answer to the inquiry which he made in return, the voice said, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest; but arise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what to do.” Confounded, humbled, and agitated, he obeyed the heavenly vision; and as the brilliancy of the light had obscured his vision, he was led by his astonished attendants into the city, where he remained in a state of deep dejection for three days and nights, during which he tasted neither meat nor drink. From this painful condition he was relieved by the visit of a man named Ananias, who, at the command of Christ, sought him out, welcomed him as a brother, and baptized him into the profession of Christianity.^[15. Acts, ix. 1-18. The conversion of such a man, at such a time, and by such means, furnishes one of the most complete proofs that have ever been given of the divine origin of our holy religion. That Saul, from being a zealous persecutor of the disciples of Christ, became all at once a disciple himself, is a fact which cannot be controverted, without overturning the credit of all history. He must therefore have been converted in the miraculous manner in which he himself said he was, and of course the Christian religion be a divine revelation; or he must have been either an impostor, an enthusiast, or a dupe to the fraud of others. There is not another alternative possible. If he was an impostor, who declared what he knew to be false, he must have been induced to act that part by some motive. (See Miracle.) But the only conceivable motives for religious imposture are, the hopes of advancing one’s temporal interest, credit, or power; or the prospect of gratifying some passion or appetite under the authority of the new religion. That none of these could be St Paul’s motive for professing the faith of Christ crucified, is plain from the state of Judaism and Christianity at the period of his forsaking the former and embracing the latter faith. Those whom he left were the disposers of wealth, of dignity, of power, in Judea; those to whom he went were indigent men, oppressed, destitute of all means of improving their fortunes. The certain consequence, therefore, of his taking the part of Christianity, was the loss not only of all that he possessed, but of all hopes of acquiring more; whereas, by continuing to persecute the Christians, he had hopes rising almost to a certainty of making his fortune by the favour of those who were at the head of the Jewish state, to whom nothing could so much recommend him as the zeal which he had shown in that persecution. As to credit or reputation, could the scholar of Gamaliel hope to gain either by becoming a teacher in a college of fishermen? Could he flatter himself, that the doctrines which he taught would, either in or out of Judea, do him honour, when he knew that “they were to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness?” Was it, then, the love of power that induced him to make this great change? Power! over whom? over a flock of sheep whom he himself had assisted to destroy, and whose very Shepherd had lately been murdered? Perhaps it was with the view of gratifying some licentious passion, under the authority of the new religion, that he commenced a teacher of that religion. This cannot be alleged; for his writings breathe nothing but the strictest morality, obedience to magistrates, order, and government, with the utmost abhorrence of all licentiousness, idleness, or loose behaviour, under the cloak of religion. We nowhere read in his works, that saints are above moral ordinances; that dominion is founded in grace; that monarchy is despotism which ought to be abolished; that the fortunes of the rich ought to be divided amongst the poor; that there is no difference in moral actions; that any impulses of the mind are to direct us against the light of our reason and the laws of nature; or any of those wicked tenets by which the peace of society has been often disturbed, and the rules of morality often broken, by men pretending to act under the sanction of divine revelation. He makes no distinctions, like the impostor of Arabia, in favour of himself; nor does any part of his life, either before or after his conversion to Christianity, bear any mark of a libertine disposition. As amongst the Jews, so amongst the Christians, his conversation and manners were blameless. It has been sometimes objected to the other apostles, by those who were resolved not to credit their testimony, that having been deeply engaged with Jesus during his life, they were obliged, for the support of their own credit, and from having gone too far to return, to continue the same professions after his death; but this can by no means be said of St Paul. On the contrary, whatever force there may be in that way of reasoning, it all tends to convince us that St Paul must naturally have continued a Jew, and an enemy to Christ Jesus. If they, were engaged on one side,∙½e was as strongly engaged on the other. If shame withheld them from changing sides, much more ought it to have stopped him, who, from his superior education, must have been vastly more sensible to that kind of shame than the mean and illiterate fishermen of Galilee. The only other difference was, that they, by quitting their Master after his death, might have preserved themselves; whereas he, by quitting the Jews, and taking up the cross of Christ, certainly brought on his own destruction. As St Paul was not an impostor, so it is plain he was not an enthusiast. Heat of temper, melancholy, ignorance, and vanity, are the ingredients of which enthusiasm is composed; but from all these, except the first, the apostle appears to have been wholly free. That he had great fervour of zeal, both when a Jew and when a Christian, in maintaining what he thought to be right, cannot be denied; but he was at all times so much master of his temper, as, in matters of indifference, to “become all things to all men;” with the most pliant condescension bending his notions and manners to theirs, as far as his duty to God would permit; a conduct compatible neither with the stiffness of a bigot nor with the violent impulses of fanatical delusion. That he was not melancholy, is plain from his conduct in embracing every method which prudence could suggest to escape danger and shun persecution, when he could do it without betraying the duty of his office or the honour of his God. A melancholy enthusiast courts persecution, and when he cannot obtain it, afflicts himself with absurd penances; but the holiness of St Paul consisted only in the simplicity of a godly life, and in the unwearied performance of his apostolical duties. That he w⅛ ignorant, no man will allege who is not grossly ignorant himself; for he appears to have been master not only of the Jewish learning, but also of the Greek philosophy, and to have been very conversant even with the Greek poets. That he was not credulous, is plain from his having resisted the evidence of all the miracles performed on earth by Christ, as well as those that were afterwards worked by the apostles; to the fame of which, as he lived in Jerusalem, he could not possibly have been a stranger. And that he was as free from vanity as any man that ever lived, may be gathered from all that we see in his writings, or know of his life. He represents himself as the least of the apostles, and not meet to be called an apostle. He says that he is the chief of sinners; and he prefers, in the strongest terms, universal benevolence to faith, and prophecy, and miracles, and all the gifts and graces with which he could be endowed. Is this the language of vanity or enthusiasm? Did ever fanatic prefer virtue to his own religious opinions, to illuminations of the Spirit, and even to the merit of martyrdom? Having thus shown that St Paul was neither an impostor nor an enthusiast, it remains only to be inquired, whether he was deceived by the fraud of others; but this inquiry needs not be long, for who was to deceive him? A few illiterate fishermen of Galilee? It was morally impossible for such men to conceive the thought of turning the most enlightened of their opponents and the most cruel of their persecutors into an apostle, and to do this by a fraud in the very instant of his greatest fury against them and their Lord. But could they have been so extravagant as to conceive such a thought, it was phytic ally impossible for them to execute it in the manner in which we find his conversion to have been effected. Could they produce a light in the air which at mid-day was brighter than the sun? Could they make Saul hear words from out of that light which were not heard by the rest of the company? Could they make him blind for three days after that vision, and then make scales fall off from his eyes, and restore him to sight by a word? Or, could they make him and those who travelled with him believe that all these things had happened, if they had not happened? Most unquestionably no fraud was equal to all this. Since, then, St Paul was neither an impostor, an enthusiast, nor deceived by the fraud of others, it follows that his conversion was miraculous, and that the Christian religion is a divine revelation. See Lyttleton’s “Observations on the Conversion of St Paul a treatise to which it has been truly said, that infidelity has never been able to fabricate a specious answer, and of which this note is a very short and imperfect abridgement. ]

The first three years after his conversion were spent by [7:17:152]Paul in Arabia,^[16. Galatians, i. 11—17 ] where he received the Gospel he preached “by revelation from Christ,” and where in solitude and quiet he was doubtless engaged in training himself for the work in which he was about to engage. On his return to Damascus, he openly appeared as a preacher of Christianity, a circumstance which the Jews felt to be so injurious to their cause, that they sought, by the aid of the governor, who was in all probability himself a Jew, to put him to death. Having by the aid of his Christian brethren escaped their malice, he betook himself to Jerusalem, where, after the fears of the brethren, who remembered his former enmity, but had not heard of his subsequent conversion to Christianity, had been removed by the testimony of his friend and companion Barnabas, he was gladly welcomed amongst them, and permitted to occupy that rank to which Christ had called him.^[17. Acts, ix. 20-28. ] The enmity of the Jews again compelled him to change his residence. After being fifteen days in Jerusalem, he went to Caesarea, and thence to his native city Tarsus, where he abode for several years.^[18. Acts, ix. 30. ] In the mean time, Christianity, which had hitherto been preached only to the Jews, had received some adherents from amongst the Gentiles at Antioch; and this led to the mission of Barnabas from Jerusalem, for the purpose of instructing and regulating the church that had been formed there. Barnabas, after some time, finding the need of assistance and counsel, went to Tarsus, and returned with Paul to Antioch, where they abode for a year, occupied in united efforts for the promulgation of Christianity. At the close of that period, they were sent to Jerusalem by the

Christians at Antioch, with the contributions which had been made by them on behalf of their brethren in Judea, who were suffering from the effects of a dearth.^[19. Ibid. xi. 22-30. ] This was Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem since his conversion. After some months, they again returned to Antioch, accompanied by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas. The cause of Christianity by this time had begun to flourish in that city, and several persons had been received into the church who were qualified to act as teachers to the rest This rendered it the less necessary that Paul and Barnabas should remain any longer with them; and accordingly, shortly after their return, the church received a special command from heaven to set them apart to general missionary work. In obedience to this command, they were sent forth; and, accompanied by John Mark, who, however, soon deserted them and returned to Jerusalem, they visited Seleucia, Cyprus, Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia (at the former of which, in consequence of Paul’s curing a cripple, the people were on the point of offering him and his companion divine honours, under the impression that the gods had come down in the likeness of men, but were restrained by the vehement expostulations of those for whom these impious honours were designed; and in a few days after, they had so completely changed their minds, that, at the instigation of the Jews, they stoned Paul, and left him for dead); and then retracing their steps, they returned by way of Attalia, a city of Pamphylia, by sea to Antioch, where they rehearsed to the church all that God had [7:17:153] done by them. This formed the apostle Paul’s first great missionary tour.^[20. Acts, xiii. xiv. ]

After some time spent at Antioch, he and Barnabas again went up to Jerusalem, for the purpose of consulting the apostles and elders in regard to some dissensions which had occurred in the church at Antioch, as to the obligation on Gentile converts of the Mosaic ceremonial. This gave occasion to the holding of a council at Jerusalem, at which, after much disputing, it was at length agreed unanimously, at the suggestion of the apostle James, that they should lay no stumbling-block in the way of their Gentile brethren, by requiring of them more than simply that they should abstain from meats offered to idols, from uncleanness, from things strangled, and from blood, whether pure or mixed with anything else. A letter to this effect was written to the church at Antioch in the name of the church at Jerusalem; and with this, two of the members of this church, Judas and Silas or Silvanus, were appointed to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.^[21. /Ibid. XV. 1-31. ] By these means the difference of opinion amongst the brethren was removed, and the church restored to peace. This led Paul to propose to Barnabas another missionary tour, to which that faithful fellowlabourer having consented, they were on the verge of departure, when an unhappy contention, arising out of a determination on the part of Barnabas to take with them his nephew John Mark, a step which Paul firmly resisted, on the ground of Mark’s former conduct in deserting them, produced a rupture between these two eminent individuals, and led to their prosecuting a separate course.^[22. Ibid. XV. 36-41. ] Whilst Barnabas, in company with his nephew, went to Cyprus, Paul, attended by Silas, went towards the east, and, passing through Syria and Cilicia, revisited the scenes of his former labours and sufferings in Lycaonia. At Lystra he found Timothy, a young man who had been probably converted to Christianity on the occasion of the apostle’s former visit, and who was so highly commended by the church in that place that Paul selected him as the companion of his travels, having previously ordained him by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.^[23. Tim. iv. 14. ] Accompanied by him and Silas, the apostle next passed through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia, and avoiding Asia strictly so called, which he was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to enter, as well as Bithynia, they came by way of Mysia to Troas, a city and port on the borders of the Hellespont. Here he was directed by an apparition in a vision to go into Macedonia; and accordingly, with his companions, having crossed to Samothracia, and thence to Neapolis, a seaport of Thrace, he arrived in due course at Philippi. Here they remained for some time, and made many converts, amongst others the jailor of the prison, into which Paul and Silas had been thrust after having been scourged, in consequence of a charge which had been brought against them as disturbers of the peace of the city, by a set of impostors whose trade they had destroyed by expelling an evil spirit from a female slave who brought them much gain by her skill in soothsaying. From Philippi they passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, cities of Macedonia, to Thessalonica, where, though they abode only a short time, they preached the gospel with great success. A tumult having arisen at the instigation of the Jews, the Christian converts, fearing for their safety, sent them by night to Berea, another city of Macedonia, about forty miles west of Thessalonica, where they were favourably received by their Jewish brethren, until a party which had followed them from Thessalonica stirred up a persecution against them. This determined Paul to go to Athens, whilst Timothy and Silas, as less ob noxious to the Jews, remained at Berea. It does not appear to have been the apostle’s intention in the first instance in visiting Athens to preach the gospel there, at least until Timothy and Silas, to whom he had sent a message on his arrival, requiring them to join him, should have arrived; but as he waited for them, the sight of a city like that of Athens, entirely given to idolatry, so stirred and excited his spirit that he could no longer refrain; and accordingly, in the synagogues he disputed with the Jews, and in the market-place with such as he met This led to his coming into contact with certain Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, by whom he was contemptuously invited to unfold his new doctrines, and describe the strange deities of which they supposed him to be the votary; and for this purpose he was taken to the Areopagus, where, with admirable tact, he exposed the follies of their idolatry, and commended to them the worship of the one living and true God, in the midst of avast assemblage of people, on many of whom a favourable impression was produced by his address.^[24. Acts, xvi. 17. ] Having been joined by Timothy,^[25. These, iii. 1. ] and in all probability by Silas also,^[26. Greswell, vol. ii. p. 31, 32. ] he sent the former again to Macedonia, and either retaining the latter in his company, or despatching him to some other quarter, he himself passed over to Corinth.^[27. Thess. iii. 1, 2, 6, compared with Acts, xviii. 5. ] On the occasion of this his first visit to that city, he supported himself by his labours as a tent-maker, in company with a pious couple named Aquila and Priscilla, who had taken refuge in Corinth after having been expelled from Rome by an edict of Claudius Caesar against the Jews; and at the same time he availed himself of every opportunity of urging the gospel of Christ upon the acceptance both of Jews and Greeks. Here he was rejoined by Silas and Timothy, with whom he continued a year and a half in active exertion for the advancement of Christianity. By the persevering enmity of his former opponents the Jews, he was again compelled to leave Corinth, and betake himself, along with Aquila and Priscilla, to Ephesus. Here he abode at this time only a few days, having been commissioned by a divine revelation to go up to Jerusalem in time for the approaching feast of the passover. On this journey, which ended in his paying his fourth visit to Jerusalem since his conversion, he was accompanied by Barnabas, with whom his former friendship had been re-established, and Titus, a Greek, who seems to have been a convert of Barnabas. After a brief residence there, he returned to Antioch, and so finished his second great apostolic tour.^[28. Acts, xviii. 1-22. ]

At Antioch he abode for some time, and then commenced another extensive tour, accompanied, as is supposed, by Titus. Passing through Phrygia and Galatia, where he revisited the churches he had formerly planted, he arrived at Ephesus. This city stood in the same relation to the region of Hither Asia in which Jerusalem stood to Palestine, Antioch to Syria, Corinth to Achaia, and Rome to the west; and accordingly the apostle made it his head-quarters for three years, during which time he was occupied in making converts in the city, and in paying short visits to the surrounding places, and to Crete and other islands of the adjoining archipelago. With so much success were his labours attended in Ephesus, that the revenues of those who were interested in the support of the idolatrous worship of the tutelar goddess of the city, Diana, began to be affected; and at the instigation of one of these, by narΛe Demetrius, a silversmith, who carried on an extensive manufacture of miniature representations of the famous temple of Diana at Ephesus, a popular tumult was excited against the apostle, which was with difficulty appeased by the calm and sagacious conduct of the γ%αμματεhς, or town-clerk, who, along [7:17:154]with others of the chief men in the place, seems to have been friendly towards Paul. Whether this tumult had any effect in quickening the apostle’s determination to leave Ephesus, is uncertain; it is clear, however, that he had come to that determination before it happened.^[29. Acts, xix. 21. ] By divine direction, he had resolved to go to Macedonia; and accordingly, shortly after the tumult, he departed from Ephesus, and went by way of Troas to Philippi. There he seems to have remained a considerable while, for, during his residence at Philippi as his head-quarters, he preached the gospel in all the surrounding districts, even as far as to Illyricum, on the eastern shore of the Adriatic.^[30. Rom. xv. 19. ] Leaving Philippi, he paid a second visit to Corinth, where he abode three months, and then returned to Philippi, having been frustrated in his intention of proceeding through Syria to Jerusalem by the malice of the Jews. From Philippi he sailed for Troas, where he abode seven days; thence he journeyed on foot to Assos; and thence he proceeded by sea to Miletus, having visited several of the intermediate places. At Miletus he had an affecting interview with the elders of the church at Ephesus, to whom, in the prospect of seeing them no more, he gave a solemn and impressive charge, and bade them farewell. From Miletus he sailed for Syria, and, after visiting several intermediate ports, landed at Tyre, where he remained seven days. Thence he journeyed by way of Ptolemais and Caesarca to Jerusalem, which he visited on this occasion for fifth time since his conversion.^[31. Acts, xx. xxι. 15. ]

At Jerusalem he recounted to the whole church the events connected with the progress of Christianity of which he had been witness, and, apparently to quiet the scruples of some Jewish converts, who thought he had too lax and incorrect a view of the obligation of the Mosaic ritual, he united himself, at the suggestion of the apostle James, to four persons who had taken upon them the vows of Nazarites, and, entering with them into the temple, signified to the priest that he would pay the cost of the sacrifices which were necessary to absolve them and him from the vow. Whatever effect this compliance had on the minds of his scrupulous brethren, it procured for him no mitigation of the hatred with which he was regarded by the unconverted Jews. On the contrary, so eager was their zeal against him, that, before his vow was accomplished, they seized him in the temple, and would have put him to death, had not Lysias, commander of the Roman cohort in the citadel adjoining the temple, brought soldiers to his rescue. By his permission, and under his protection, Paul addressed to the infuriated mob an apology for himself, in which he set forth the main circumstances of his life from the beginning up to the period when he opened his commission to the Gentiles. At first he was listened to with attention, but as soon as he spoke of placing the Gentiles on a par with the Jews, they interrupted him with execrations, and shouted, “away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live.”^[32. Acts, xxii. 22. ] The Roman commander seeing these demonstrations of popular resentment, and being ignorant of what Paul had been saying, from the address having been uttered in the Hebrew tongue, imagined that he must be some execrable criminal, and gave orders that he should be brought into the fort, in order that he might by scourging compel him to confess his crime. From this indignity Paul saved himself by asserting his privileges as a Roman citizen, to bind or scourge whom was strictly forbidden by law. Next day the chief captain brought him before the Sanhedrim, for the purpose of hearing what it was that was urged against him; and here Paul again entered into a defence of his conduct, in the course of which he professed his attach-, ment to the doctrine of a corporeal resurrection, and there by stirred up a fierce controversy between the two parties composing the Sanhedrim, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the former of whom maintained, whilst the latter denied, this doctrine. So angry and vehement did this discussion become, that the chief captain, fearing for the safety of his prisoner, whom, as a Roman citizen, he was bound to protect, commanded his soldiers to go down and remove him from amongst the combatants, into the fort. Upon the day following, above forty of the Jews entered into a solemn engagement neither to eat nor drink until they had killed Paul, and for this purpose proposed to the chief priests to invite him to a conference, in the hope that they might have an opportunity of assaulting him on his way from the fort. This scheme was rendered abortive by intelligence of it having been conveyed to Lysias by Paul’s sister’s son, who, alongst with his mother, seems to have been an early· convert to Christianity.^[33. Acts, xxiii. 16- - 22. compared with Rqui. xvi. 7, 11, 21. ] Matters assuming this desperate aspect, Lysias determined to bring the whole under the consideration of the procurator; and, accordingly, placing Paul under the protection of a sufficient escort; he sent him to Caesarea, with a letter to Felix, explaining the reasons of this step. After five days, Felix held a court, at which Paul and his accusers were brought together, and both parties heard at fall length. The defence of the apostle was triumphant; but Felix, unwilling to offend the. Jews, remanded him, under the pretence of obtaining farther information from Lysias. Some days afterwards, he summoned him again to his tribunal, in order that he and his wife Drusilla, who was a daughter of Herod Agrippa, might hear him “concerning the faith in Christ on which occasion, the apostle, with all that fearless zeal and faithfulness for which he was distinguished, expostulated so forcibly with the procurator in regard to those vices for which he was notorious, that Felix trembled, and hastily dismissed him from his presence. Shortly after this, Felix was removed from his office, and was succeeded by Porcius Festus, before whom the Jews again brought their charges against Paul. When both parties came to be heard, Paul perceived so evident a disposition in the new governor to favour the Jews, that he felt constrained to avail himself of the privilege which, as a Roman citizen, he possessed, of removing his cause from the province to the metropolis, by appealing to the emperor. This led to his being sent to Rome, but not before he had been again heard by Festus, attended by King Agrippa and his wife Bernice, by whom he was adjudged to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds, so that he might have been set at liberty had he not appealed unto Caesar. His voyage to Rome was long and disastrous. After coasting along Syria as far as Sidon, they struck across to Myra, a port of Lysia, having passed under Cyprus; thence they sailed slowly towards Cnidus, and thence, in consequence of the wind being contrary, to Crete, where they with difficulty put into a port on the southern side of that island, called the “The Fair Haven,” near the city of Lasea. The season being now far advanced, Paul advised the centurion to proceed no farther; but the place not being suitable for wintering in, and the weather promising favourably, his advice was disregarded, and they again set sail, intending to reach Phoenice, a port in the same island, and there to winter. Scarcely, however, had they ventured to sea when the apostle’s prediction was verified; for a boisterous wind arose and drove them at its mercy across the Mediterranean. In this state they continued for fourteen days, at the close of which they were shipwrecked on the coast of Malta, but without any loss of life. Here the apostle and his company remained for three months, during which time he was actively employed in [7:17:155]instructing the inhabitants, and performed many miracles ' for their benefit. On the approach of spring, they availed themselves of a ship of Alexandria that had wintered in the island, and set sail for Syracuse, where they remained three days; thence they crossed to Rhegium, and thence along the coast to Puteoli, from which place he journeyed by land to the imperial city. Here he was delivered by the centurion in whose charge he had come from Caesarea, to the captain of the guard, who, with great lenity, permitted him to dwell in his own hired house, under the charge of a soldier.^[34. Acts, xxi. 16; xxviii. 31. ]

The sacred historian closes his narrative by informing us that Paul continued in this state of easy imprisonment for “two years, receiving all that came to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” Of the subsequent events of the apostle’s life, consequently, we have much less direct and certain information; and from this has arisen much diversity of opinion on the subject. By many it is supposed that this his first imprisonment at Rome was his last, and that he perished in the persecution which Nero excited against the Christians, by representing them as the agents in the burning of the city; whilst others contend that he was set at liberty before that event, and that he set out on another great missionary tour to the west, in the course of which he preached the gospel throughout Spain, and, according to some, in Britain also;^[35. See Bishop Stillingfleet, Antiquity of the British Churches, vol. iii. p. 25-28, ed. 1770; and others. ] revisited Ephesus and other places in Lesser Asia, passed over to Crete, returned to Ephesus, passed through Troas into Macedonia, thence to Nicoolis in Epirus, Dalmatia in Illyricum, and back again to Asia, when he was apprehended and conveyed to Rome the second time, where he suffered martyrdom. By some who hold this latter opinion the order of places visited is completely reversed, and Paul is supposed to have commenced his tour in Asia, and ended it in Spain. It would require a much larger space than this article can be permitted to occupy, to enter into any examination of the arguments and evidence on both sides of this question. Suffice it to remark, that whilst the whole subject is involved in much uncertainty, and whilst little more than probable conjecture can be furnished for the details of either hypothesis, the preponderance seems to be in favour of the latter. Our readers will probably be satisfied of this by a reference to what has been written on it by Mr Greswell and Professor Neander; the former of whom contends for it with all the zeal of an advocate, whilst the latter admits it with all the deliberation of a cautious and impartial judge.^[36. GreswelΓs Dissertations, vol. ii. pp. 78-100; Neander’s Geschichte d. Pflanzung und Zeitung d. Christliche Kirche, u. s. w., &c. s. 267-281. ]

In the above sketch of the principal events of the apostle’s life no attempt has been made to assign to each its proper date. This has resulted from the great perplexity in which this part of the subject is involved, and the consequent inexpediency of adopting any particular chronology without assigning the reasons on which it is founded; a course which would have extended this article greatly beyond its proper bounds. We have deemed it preferable, therefore, to present, in the first instance, the leading facts in the history of Paul in the order of their occurrence, and shall now furnish a table of the dates assigned to the more important of these in those systems of chronology which are most deserving of notice, leaving it with our readers to consult the works in which they are unfolded, for the arguments by which they are respectively supported.
[table]

During the brief intervals of comparative ease which the apostle enjoyed amid his arduous and almost incessant exertions as a preacher of Christianity, he wrote several treatises, more or less elaborate, both of a doctrinal and a practical nature, in the shape of epistles to different churches. Of these, thirteen, avowedly of his composition, and one that is with great probability ascribed to him (the Epistle to the Hebrews)^[41. See Stuart’s Commentary on the Hebrews, vol. i. ] have come down to us; and there is good reason to believe that in these we have the whole of those compositions which, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, he gave to the church. It is supposed, indeed, by many distinguished biblical critics, that there is evidence in the first of his extant epistles to the Corinthians, of his having written one to that church antecedently to either of these; but the basis of evidence on which this rests is at best very slender, and the support which it lends to what is raised on it very doubtful.^[42. See Blomfield, Recensio Synoptica, on 1st Cor. v. 9; and a note by the translator of Billroth’s Commentary on the Corinthians (Edin burgh Biblical Cabinet, No. xxi. vol. i. p. 4). ] In what order these epistles were written, and what date is to be assigned to each, are points on which much discussion has been expended. The following lists present the results of the investigations of Greswell and Ncander; and the agreement of these two very able and independent inquirers in so many particulars may be safely regarded as an argument in favour of the generaI correctness of that scheme which, with trifling variations, both adopt.
[table]

Neander regards the Epistle to the Hebrews as of uncertain authorship, but deems it probable that it was written about the period of the apostle’s martyrdom, by “some apostolic man of the Pauline school.”^[43. Geschickte, s. 281. ]

In perusing the history and the writings of St Paul, it is impossible not to be struck with the amazing energy of thought and action by which he was characterized. The conception of power is impressed upon the mind by every view of his history, and the study of every page of his writings. The ease with which he threw off the prejudices of [7:17:156]Judaism, notwithstanding the deep hold which these had taken of his mind; the rapidity with which he expanded his thoughts to embrace the vast conceptions unfolded by the free offers and unbounded claims of Christianity, so different from the narrow sectarianism of his former religion; the accuracy with which he received into his mind, almost instantaneously, and in all their multiplicity, the mutual bearings and relations of the old economy and the new; the dauntless intrepidity with which, from the very commencement of his Christian profession, he entered into discussion with the advocates of Judaism, and vanquished them with their own weapons; the unflinching perseverance with which, in spite of danger, suffering, contumely, persecution from enemies, ingratitude and desertion from friends, he prosecuted his arduous and exhausting labours; the unwearying assiduity with which he watched over the churches of which he had the care, and the promptitude and accuracy with which he adopted and executed measures for their advantage, widely scattered and variously circumstanced though they were; the resistless force of his arguments, the persuasiveness of his appeals, the bitterness of his irony; all conspire to show that he possessed, in a high degree, those capacities for command by which men are fitted to be the leaders and directors of their fellows in enterprises of importance to the interests of the race. But it was not by attributes of strength and power alone that the mind of Paul was characterized. The sternness of these was relieved and softened by others of a more amiable and gentle cast. A vein of tenderness and sensibility flowed through his soul, which, whilst it made him the more susceptible of suffering from ingratitude or persecution, rendered him at the same time gentle and compassionate to the feelings of others. With all his freedom from Jewish prejudices, he never lost his reverence for the country and institutions of his fathers; and with all his zeal for rectitude, and all his firmness in rebuking error, he never forgot what was due to the imperfections of his brethren, or deemed that truth could be made attractive if divorced from charity. Removed alike from the extremes of fanaticism on the one hand and apathy on the other, his whole life was a noble instance of the consecration, on sound and elevated principles, of the highest powers, and the most indefatigable energies, to a work in which he had no personal interest apart from that of his fellow Christians, and from the honour which was to accrue from his exertions to that Master whom it was his high ambition to serve in life, and his∙ animating expectation to join at death. Apart altogether from his character as an apostle of Christ, his labours in the cause of human amelioration entitle him to veneration as one of the greatest benefactors of the species; whilst in his peculiar capacity as one of the founders of the Christian church, and an inspired expositor of divine truth, he stands without a rival in his claims upon our gratitude and reverence. His history is a standing evidence of the truth of our religion; to his labours we are indebted mainly for the rapid extension of Christianity both in the East and in the West; and in his writings are contained those treasures of heavenly doctrine which it has been the chosen occupation of some of the greatest minds of subsequent ages to explore and to unfold. With these irresistible claims, the more his life, character, and writings are studied, the deeper will be the veneration in which he will be held, and the more sincere will be the gratitude of every pious mind to the Author of all good, for having, in so remarkable a manner, supplied the church with a teacher so eminently qualified to advance its’ best interests, and establish, to the end of time, the faith, efficiency, and enjoyment of its members. (n. n. n. n.) Paul, St, an island in the South Pacific Ocean, about 10,000 toises in circumference. Long. 75. 2. E. Lat. 37. 56. S.

Paul, first bishop of Narbonne, or Sergius Paulus the proconsul, converted and made bishop by St Paul, was descended from one of the best families of Rome.

Paul, Father, whose name, before he entered into the monastic state, was Peter Sarpi, was born at Venice, on the 14th of August 1552. His father followed merchandise, though with so little success, that at his death he left his family very ill provided for, but under the care of a mother whose piety was likely to bring the blessing of Providence upon them, and whose wise conduct supplied the want of fortune. Happily for young Sarpi, she had a brother, master of a celebrated school, under whose direction he was placed by her; and here he lost no time, but cultivated his abilities, which were naturally of the first rate, with unwearied application. He was born for study, having a natural aversion to pleasure and gaiety, and a memory so tenacious that he could repeat thirty verses after once hearing them. Proportional to his capacity was his progress in literature. At the age of thirteen, having made himself master of school learning, he turned his attention to philosophy and the mathematics, and entered upon logic under Capella of Cremona, who, though a celebrated master of that science, confessed that in a very little time he found himself unable to give his pupil any further instructions.

As Capella was of the order of the Servites, his scholar was induced by him to engage in the same profession, although his uncle and his mother represented to him the hardships and austerities of that kind of life, and advised him with great zeal against it. But he was steady in his resolutions, and in 1566 took the habit of the order, being then only in his fourteenth year; a time of life with most persons very improper for such engagements, but in him attended with such maturity of thought, and such a settled temper, that he never seemed to regret the choice which he then made, and afterwards confirmed it by a solemn public profession in 1572.

At a general chapter of the Servites which was held at Mantua, Paul, being then only twenty years old, distinguished himself so much in a public disputation, by his genius and learning, that William duke of Mantua, a great patron of letters, solicited the consent of his superiors to retain him at his court, and not only made him public professor of divinity in the cathedral, and reader of casuistical divinity and canon law in that city, but honoured him with many proofs of his esteem. But Father Paul finding a court life not agreeable to his temper, quitted it two years afterwards, and retired to his beloved privacy, being then not only acquainted with the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldaic languages, but with philosophy, the mathemàtics, canon and civil law, all parts of natural philosophy, and chemistry itself; for his application was unintermitted, his head clear, his apprehension quick, and his memory retentive.

Being made priest at twenty-two, he was by the illustrious Cardinal Borromeo honoured with his confidence, and employed by him on many occasions, not without the envy of persons of inferior merit, who were so far exasperated as to lay a charge against him before the Inquisition, for denying that the Trinity could be proved from the first chapter of Genesis; but the accusation was too ridiculous to be entertained. After this he passed successively through the dignities of his order, and having been chosen provincial for the province of Venice at the age of twenty-six, he discharged the duties of his office with such ability, that in 1579 he was appointed, with two others, to draw up new regulations and statutes for its government. This he éx-ecuted with great success; and when his office of provincial expired, he retired for three years to the study of natural and experimental philosophy and anatomy, in which he is said to have made some useful discoveries. In the intervals-of his employment he applied himself to his studies with an extensive capacity, which left no branch of knowledge[7:17:157] untouched. Acquapendente, the great anatomist, confesses that he Iearned from Paul how vision was performed; and there are proofs that he was not a stranger to the circulation of the blood. He frequently conversed on astronomy with mathematicians, on anatomy with surgeons, on medicine with physicians, and on the analysis of metals with chemists, not as a superficial inquirer, but as a complete master. He was next chosen procurator-general of his order; and, during his residence at Rome, he was not only greatly esteemed by Pope Sixtus V., but also contracted an intimate friendship with Cardinal Bellarmine and other eminent persons.

But the hours of repose, which he employed so well, were interrupted by a new information in the Inquisition, where a former acquaintance produced a letter written by him in ciphers, in which he said, “that he detested the court of Rome, and that no preferment was obtained there but by dishonest means.” This accusation, however dangerous, was passed over on account of his great reputation; but it made such an impression on that court, that he was afterwards denied a bishopric by Clement VIII. After these difficulties were surmounted, Father Paul again retired to his solitude, where he appears to have turned his attention more to improvement in piety than to learning. Such was the care with which he read the Scriptures, that, it being his custom to draw a line under any passage which he intended more nicely to consider, there was not a single word in his New Testament but was underlined. The same marks of attention appeared in his Old Testament, Psalter, and Breviary.

But the most active scene of his life commenced about the year 1615, when Paul V., exasperated by some decrees of the senate of Venice which interfered with the alleged rights of the church, laid the whole state under an interdict. The senate, filled with indignation at this treatment, forbade the bishops to receive or publish the pope’s bull; and, convening the rectors of the churches, commanded them to celebrate divine service in the accustomed manner, with which most of them readily complied; but the Jesuits and some others, having refused, were by a solemn edict expelled the state. Both parties having proceeded to extremities, employed their ablest writers to defend their measures. On the pope’s side, Cardinal Bellarmine entered the lists, and, with his confederate authors, defended the papal claims with great vehemence of expression, and very sophistical reasonings; which were confuted by the Venetian apologists in much more decent language, and with greater solidity of argument. On this occasion Father Paul was eminently distinguished by his Defence of the Rights of the Supreme Magistrate, and his Treatise of Excommunication, translated from Gerson, with an Apology, and other writings. For these he was cited before the Inquisition at Rome; but it may easily be imagined that he did not obey the summons.

The Venetian writers, whatever might be the abilities of their adversaries, were at least superior to them in the justice of their cause. The propositions maintained on the side of Rome were, that the pope is invested with all the authority of heaven and earth; that all princes are his vassals, and that he may annul their laws at pleasure; that kings may appeal to him, as he is temporal monarch of the whole earth; that he can discharge subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and make it their duty to take up arms against their sovereign; that he may depose kings without any fault committed by them, if the good of the church requires it; that the clergy are exempt from all tribute to kings, and are not accountable to them even in cases of high treason; that the pope cannot err; that his decisions are to be received and obeyed on pain of sin, though all the world should judge them to be false; that the pope is the vicegerent of God upon earth; and that to call his power in question is to call in question the power of God; maxims which it did not require the abilities and learning of Father Paul to prove to be false and destructive. It may easily be imagined, that such principles were quickly overthrown, and that no court but that of Rome thought it for its interest to favour them. The pope, therefore, finding his authors confuted and his cause abandoned, was willing to terminate the affair by a treaty; which, by the mediation of Henry IV. of France, was concluded upon terms very much to the honour of the Venetians. But the defenders of the Venetian rights, though comprehended in the treaty, were excluded by the Romans from the benefit of it. Some, upon various pretences, were imprisoned; others were sent to the galleys; and all were excluded from preferment. But their malice was chiefly aimed against Father Paul, who soon felt the effects of it; for, as he was going one night to his convent, about six months after the accommodation, he was attacked by five ruffians armed with stilettoes, who gave him no less than fifteen stabs, three of which wounded him in such a manner that he was left for dead. The murderers fled for refuge to the nuncio, and were afterwards received into the pope’s dominions; but they were pursued by divine justice, all, except one man who died in prison, having perished by violent deaths.

This, and other attempts upon his life, obliged him to confine himself to his convent, where he engaged in writing the History of the Council of Trent; a work unequalled for the judicious disposition of the matter, and the skilful texture of the narration. It is commended by Dr Burnet as the completest model of historical writing, and celebrated by Mr Worton as equivalent to any production of antiquity; a work in which the reader finds “liberty without licentiousness, piety without hypocrisy, freedom of speech without neglect of decency, severity without rigour, and extensive learning without ostentation.”

In this, and other works of less consequence, he spent the remaining part of his life, until the beginning of the year 1622, when he was seized with a cold and fever, which he neglected till it became incurable. He languished more than twelve months, which he spent almost wholly in preparation for his passage into eternity; and amongst his prayers and aspirations he was often heard to repeat, “Lord, now let thy servant depart in peace.” Throughout the whole course of his illness, to the last hour of his life, he was consulted by the senate in public affairs, and returned answers in his greatest weakness with such presence of mind as could only arise from the consciousness of innocence.

On the day of his death he had the passion of our blessed Saviour read to him out of St John’s Gospel, and spoke of the mercy of the Redeemer, and his confidence in his merits. As his end approached, the brethren of his convent came to pronounce the last prayers, with which he could only join in his thoughts, being able to pronounce no more than the words Esto perpetua, which was understood to be a prayer for the prosperity of his country. He died in the seventy-first year of his age, hated by the Romans as their most formidable enemy, honoured by all the learned for his abilities, and esteemed by the good for his integrity.