Ephefus, to apprehend the Apostle. When the Proconful had got St. John in his power, he informed Domitian of it. Who then commanded the Proconful to bring him to Rome. When (m) he was come, the Emperour would not fee him, but ordered him to be caft into a veffel of fcalding oyl, and he came out unhurt. Then Domitian commanded the Proconful to have St. John back again to Ephefus. Some time (n) after that, by order of the fame Domitian, John, and others at Ephefus, were banished into Patmos. Domitian (0) being dead, they returned to Ephefus with the leave of his fucceffor, who did not perfecute the Christians. So Pfeudo-Prochorus.

Since the great Newton has been pleased to refer to fuch a writer, I fhall take notice of another, of the like fort. I mean Abdias, who affumed the character of the firft Bishop of Babylon. What he fays, is to this purpose: that (p) John, who furvived the other Apoftles, lived to the time of Domitian, preaching the word to the people in Afia. When Domitian's edict for perfecuting the Chriftians was brought to Ephefus, and John refused to deny Chrift, or to give over preaching, the Proconful ordered, that he should be drowned in a vessel of boyling oyl. But John prefently leaped out unhurt. The Proconful would then have fet him at liberty, if he had not feared to tranfgrefs the Emperour's edict. He therefore banished John into Patmos, where he faw and wrote the Revelation. After the death of Domitian, his edicts having been abrogated by the Senate, they who had been banished, returned to their homes. And John came to Ephesus, where he had a dwelling, and many friends.

Then follows an account of St. John's vifiting the churches in the neighborhood of Ephejus. Where is inferted alfo the ftorie, formerly

taken

(m) Audiens autem Domitianus de adventu ejus, noluit impius Car videre faciem Apoftoli. Et juffit, ut Proconful duceret ad Portam Latinam, et in ferventis olei dolium illum vivum dimitti. &c. Ib. cap. 10.

(n) Ibid. cap. 14.

(0) Mortuo autem Domitiano, qui nos tranfmiferat in exilium, fucceffor ejus non prohibebat Chriftianos. Et cum audiffet de bonitate et fanctimonia Joannis, quodque fuiffet injufte a prædeceffore fuo exilio relegatus, per literas nos revocavit ab exilio. Ib. cap. 45.

(p) Eft igitur et hoc ipfum amoris Salvatoris in beatum Joannem indicium non vulgare, quod vitâ reliquos omnes fuperaverit, et, ut dictum eft, ad Domitiani Imperatoris ætatem ufque in Afia verbum falutis populis adnunciarit. . . . Cui Proconful loci cum edictum Imperatoris, ut Chriftum negaret, et a prædicatione ceffaret, legiffet, Apoftolus intrepide refpondit.... Ad cujus refponfionem motus Proconful juffit eum velut rebellem in dolio ferventis olei deinergi. Qui ftatim ut conjectus in æneo eft, veluti athleta unctus, non aduftus, de vale exiit. Ad quod miraculum Proconful ftupefactus, voluit cum libertati fuæ reddere. Et feciffet, nifi timuiffet edictum Cafaris. Mitiorem igitur pœnam cogitans, in exilium eum relegavit, in infulam, quæ dicitur Patmos. In qua et Apocalypfin, quæ ex nomine ejus legitur, et vidit, et fcripfit. Poft mortem autem Domitiani, quia omnia ejus decreta Senatus infringi jufferat, inter ceteros, qui ab eo relegati fuerant, et ad propria remeabant, etiam fanctus Joannes Ephefum rediit, ubi et hofpitiolum, et multos amicos habebat. Abd. Hift. Apoflol, cap. v. ap. Fabr. Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 533. • . 536.

taken notice of, concerning the young man, as related by Eufebius from Clement of Alexandria: and as happening, not after the death of Nero, but of Domitian.

Newton proceeds: " as well as the first author, whoever he was, of "that very ancient fable, that John was put by Nero into a veffel of hot "oyl, and coming out unhurt, was banished by him into Patmos. "Though this ftory be no more than a fiction, yet it was founded on a "tradition of the first Churches, that John was banished into Patmos in "the days of Nero."

Who was the first author of that fable, I do not know. But it does not appear, that Tertullian, the first writer who has mentioned it, thought it to be in the time of Nero. He might mean, and probably did mean, Domitian, the fame who banished John into an island. As did alfo, the two writers juft taken notice of, Prochorus and Abdias, to whom we were led by Sir Ifaac. Jerome, who (q) in his books against Jovinian, mentions this ftorie, as from Tertullian, according to fome copies, fays, it was done at Rome, according to others, in the time of Nero. However in the fame place, as well as elsewhere, Jerome exprefsly fays, that John was banished into Patmos by Domitian. And (r) in the other place, where he mentions the cafting St. John into boyling oyl, he fays: "And presently afterwards he was banifhed into the island Patmos." Therefore that other trial, which St. John met with, was in the fame reign, that is, Domitian's. And indeed Jerome always fuppofes St. John's banishment to have been in that reign: as he particularly relates in the ninth chapter of his book of Illuftrious Men. Let me add, that if the Oftorie of St. John's being put into a veffel of fcalding oyl be a fable, and a fiction, it must be hazardous to build an argument upon it.

It follows in Newton: "Epiphanius reprefents the Gospel of John as "written in the time of Domitian, and the Apocalypfe even before that " of Nero." I have already faid enough of Epiphanius in confidering the opinion of Grotius. However, as one would think, Sir Ifaac Newton had little reason to mention Epiphanius, when he does not follow him. He fays, that St. John was banished into Patmos in the time of Claudius: Sir Ifaac, not till near the end of the reign of Nero.

"Arethas, fays (5) Sir Ifaac, in the beginning of his Commentarie quotes the opinion of Irenæus from Eufebius, but does not follow it. "For he afterwards affirms, that the Apocalypfe was written before the "destruction of ferufalem, and that former Commentators had expound"ed the fixth feal of that destruction."

To

(7) Vidit enim in Patmos infula, in qua fuerat a Domitiano principe relegatus, Apocalypfin... Refert autem Tertullianus, quod Romæ, [al. a Nerone] miffus in ferventis olei dolium purior et vegetior exierit, quam intravit. Adv. Jovin, l. i. Tom. 4. p. 169.

(r) Sed fi legamus ecclefiafticas hiftorias, in quibus fertur, quod et ipfe propter martyrium fit miffus in ferventis olei dolium, et inde ad fufcipiendam coronam Chrifti athleta procefferit, ftatimque relegatus in Patmos infulam fit, &c. Comm. in Matt, xx, 23, Tom. 4. P. i. p. 92.

(s) As before, p. 236.

To which I anfwer. Arethas does indeed fay, that (t) fome interpreters had explained things under the fixth feal, as relating to the deftruction of Jerufalem by Vefpafian. But they were fome only, not the moft. Yea, he prefently afterwards fays, that the most interpreted it otherwife. Nor does he fay, that any of thofe Commentators were of opinion, that the Apocalypfe was writ before the destruction of Jerufalem. Arethas feems to have been of opinion, that things, which had come to pafs long before, might be reprefented in the Revelation. Therefore immediately before that paffage, explaining Rev. vi. 12. 13. he fays: "What (u) is the opening of the fixth feal? It is the croffe "and death of the Lord, followed by his refurrection, defirable to all "faithful and understanding men. And lo, there was a great earthquake; "manifeftly denoting, fays he, the figns that happened during the cru"cifixion, the fhaking of the earth, the darkneffe of the fun, the turn"ing the moon into blood. For when it is full moon, being the four"teenth day, how was it poffible, that the sun should be eclipsed by it's "interpofition?"

However, I must not conceal what he fays afterwards, in another chapter of his (x) Commentarie. He is explaining Rev. vii. 4.... 8. "Thefe, fays he, who inftructs the Evangelift, will not partake in the "calamities inflicted by the Romans. For the deftruction caused by the "Romans had not fallen upon the Jews, when the Evangelift received "these inftructions. Nor was he at Jerufalem, but in Ionia, where is Ephefus. For he ftaid at Jerufalem no more than fourteen years. . . . "And after the death of our Lord's mother, he left Judea, and went to « Ephefus, as (y) tradition fays: where alfo, as is faid, he had the reve"lation of future things." But how can we rely upon a writer of the fixth centurie for the particulars, that John did not stay at Jerufalem more than fourteen years: that he left Judea upon the death of our Lord's mother, and then went to Ephefus: when we can evidently perceive from the hiftorie in the Acts, that in the fourteenth year after our Lord's afcenfion, there were no Chriftian converts at Ephefus; and that the church at Ephefus was not founded by St. Paul, till feveral years afterwards? What avails it, to refer to fuch paffages as thefe? Which when looked into, and examined, contain no certain affurances of any thing. And Sir Ifaac Newton himself fays: "It (≈) feems to me, that "Peter and John ftaid with their churches in Judea and Syria: till the "Romans made war upon their nation, that is, till the twelfth year of

"Nero." or A. D. 66.

We

(ε) Τινὲς δὲ ταυτα εἰς τὴν ὑπὸ ὀνεσπασιανό γινομένην πολιορκίαν ἐξέλαβον πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα τροπολογήσαντες. Οι δὲ πλείσοι τῶν ερμηνευτών, κ. λ. Arch. cap. 18. P. 709. A.

(α) Τίς δὲ ἡ λύσις τῆς ἕκτης σφραγίδος; Ο γαυρος το κυρίω καὶ θάνατος, οἷς ἀκαν λέθησεν ἡ ἐυκτᾶσα πᾶσι πισοῖς τέ καὶ αἰσθητοῖς ἀνάςασις, και λα Cap. 18. p. 708. C. D.

(x) Cap. xix. 713. 714.

(γ) . . . ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἔφεσον μεταφῆναι αὐτὸν λόγος. καθ ̓ ἦν, ὡς ἔιρηται, και λο

Ibid. p. 714. in.

(z) As before, p. 243.

We proceed with this great man's arguments, who adds: « With (a) "the opinion of the first commentators agrees the tradition of the "churches of Syria, preferved to this day in the title of the Syriac ver"fion of the Apocalypfe, which title is this: The Revelation, which was "made to John the Evangelift by God in the island Patmos, into which be "was banished by Nero Cafar." But how comes it to pafs, that the tradition of the churches of Syria is alleged here, when the Apocalypfe was not generally received by them? Moreover in the titles of the books of the New Teftament received by them, there are manifeft errours. Nor (b) can we fay, when the Syriac verfion of the Apocalypfe was male. Nor (c) is it impoffible, that the authors of that title might mean Domitian by Nero. It is not a greater errour, than that of fup. pofing the epiftle of James to have been writ by James the fon of

Zebedee.

Again, fays the celebrated Newton: "The (d) fame is confirmed by "a ftory told by Eufebius out of Clemens Alexandrinus, and other ancient "authors, concerning a youth, whom St. John fome time after his re"turn from Patmos committed to the care of the Bishop of a certain ci"ty. This is a story of many years, and requires, that John fhould "have returned from Patmos rather at the death of Nero, than at that of "Domitian."

But, firft, if this be only a feigned ftorie, or apologue, as fome have thought, contrived to convey moral inftruction; circumstances ought not to be strained, nor the truth of hiftorie be founded upon it. Secondly, we must take the ftorie, as it is related by Clement, and other ancient authors. Clement placeth it after the death of the tyrant, by whom John had been banished. And Eufebe (e) fuppofeth him to mean Domitian. Thirdly, if St. John lived in Afia two, or three, or four years, after his return from Patinos, that is time enough for the events of this ftorie.

Sir Ifaac adds in the fame place: "And John in his old age was fo "infirm, as to be carried to church, dying, above ninety years old: "and therefore could not be then fuppofed able to ride after the thief. Nevertheless

(a) P. 236. 237.

(b) Ad Neronis imperium hoc exilium Syrus refert. Verum incerta est quam maxime hujus verfionis atas, nulloque gaudet focio. Lamp. Proleg. I. i. cap. 4. §. vii.

Quapropter nihil in hifce eft, quod Syrum ab erroris culpa liberare poffit: quemadmodum nec fupra erat, quod Epiphanium in nomine Claudii "tueretur. Illud tantummodo adnotatum volo, Syriacam Apocalypfeos verfionem haud æqualem ceterorum librorum interpretationi videri, uti nec primi codices in Europam adlati appofitam habuerunt, quam demum Ludovicus de Dieu MDCXXVII. in lucem primum produxit. &c. Ch. Cellarius de feptem ecclefis Afie, num. xvii. p. 428.

(c) Sed forfan aliquis, honoris interpretis Syri folicitus et cupidus, poffet in illius gratiam afferere, illum non Neronem, fed Domitianum, alterum Neronem, feu portionem Neronis, ut vocatur Tertulliano. &c. Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. Tom. 2. p. 1019.

(d) As above. p. 237.

(c) ·H. E. l. 3. cap. 23.

Nevertheless in the original account, which we have of this affair, St. John is exprefsly called (ƒ) an old man. Sir Ifaac therefore has no right to make him young. For that would be making a new ftorie. If a man allows himself fo to do, and argues upon it; the neceffarie confequence is, that he deceives himself, and others.

Upon the whole, I fee not much weight in any of these arguments of Sir Ifaac Newton. And muft adhere to the common opinion, that St. John was banished into Patmos, in the reign of Domitian, and by virtue of his edicts for perfecuting the Chriftians, in the later part of his reign. Says Mr. Lampe: "All (g) antiquity is agreed, that St. John's banihment was by order of Domitian.”

How long he VI. We should now enquire, when St. John was released, or how long his banishment lasted.

was there.

According to Tertullian, Domitian's perfecution (b) was very short, and the Emperour himself, before he died, recalled those whom he had banished. Hegefippus likewife, that (i) Domitian by an edict put an end to the perfecution, which he had ordered.

Eufebe fays, "that (*) after the death of Domitian, John returned from his banishment." And before, in another chapter of the fame book, he faid more largely: "After (1) Domitian had reigned fifteen "years, Nerva fucceded him, and the Roman Senate decreed, that "the honourable titles bestowed upon Domitian fhould be abrogated, " and moreover, that they who had been banished by him might return "to their homes, and repoffefs their goods, of which they had been "unjustly deprived. This we learn from fuch as have writ the hif"torie of those times. Then therefore, as our ancestors fay, the Apoftle John returned from his banifhment, and again took up his abode at Ephefus."

46

Jerome, in his book of Illuftrious Men, fays: "When (m) Domitian had been killed, and his edicts had been repealed, by the Senate, because of their exceffive cruelty, John returned to Ephejus in the time of the Emperour Nerva."

I place below a paffage of (x) the martyrdom of Timothie in Photius, and another (0) of Suidas, faying, that after Domitian's death, when Nerva was Emperour, St. John returned from his banifhment.

This

()... ἐπιλαθόμενος τῆς ἡλικίας αυτό .. τι με φέυγεις τὸν γυμνὸν, τὸν γέροντα, προσελθόντα δὲ τὸν γέροντα περιέλαβεν. κ. λ. Clem. ap. Εufeb. Η. Ε. H. 1. 3. c. 23. p. 93.

(g) Tota antiquitas in eo abunde confentit, quod Domitianus exilii Joannis auctor fuerit. Lamp. Proleg. 1. i. cap. 4. §. viii.

(b).. ceptum repreffit, reftitutis etiam quos relegaverat. Apol. cap. v. vid. Supr. p. 355. note (h).

(i)

καταπᾶνσαι δὲ διὰ προσάγματος τον κατὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διωγμόν. Αρ. Eufeb. H. E. l. 3. cap. 20. p. 90. B.

(k) ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον μετὰ τὴν δομετιανε τελευτὴς ἐπανελθὼν φυγῆς.

Euf. H. E. l. 3. cap. 23. in.

(1) H. E. 1. 3. cap. 20. p. 90. B. C.

(m) See Vol. x. p. 100.

(α) Νέβα δὲ τῷ ρωμαϊκό κράτος τὸ σκήπτρον αναδεδεγμένου, ο θεόλογος ἰωάννης

τῆς ὑπερορίας φυγῆς ἀριθεὶς κατάγεται πρὸς ἔφεσον, ἧς και πρότερον ἀπὸ δομειακά Quyásoτo. Ap. Phot. Cod. 254. p. 1404.