the reign of Claudius. There is no proof from any ancient monuments, that christians, as such, suffered banishment under that emperor. It is allowed that Nero was the first Roman emperor who persecuted the christians. 4. The edict of Claudius only banished the Jews from Rome. It did not affect the Jews in the provinces, as appears from the New Testament itself, particularly Acts xviii. and xix. It is manifest from the history in the Acts, that in the reign of Claudius, in other parts of the empire out of Rome, the Jews enjoyed as full liberty as they did before. Paul and Silas, Aquila and Priscilla, dwelt quietly at Corinth; where the men of their nation had their synagogue, and assembled in it according to custom without molestation. 5. Nor could the governors of provinces banish either Jews or christians out of their governments, without order from the emperor: and that they had no such order, is apparent. Neither Jews nor christians were molested by them at Ephesus, as may be perceived from the history in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts. That they were not molested by them at Corinth, appears from the preceding chapter. 6. St. John could not be banished from Ephesus by Claudius, or the governors under him: for he was not in that city during the reign of that emperor, nor in the former part of the reign of Nero, as has been shown. He did not come thither till near the end of the reign of the last-mentioned emperor: therefore he could not be sooner banished from Ephesus.

These observations, if I am not mistaken, are sufficient to confute the opinion of Grotius.

Sir Isaac Newton was of opinion, that" St. John was

⚫ Consulite commentarios vestros. Illic reperietis, primum Neronem in hanc sectam, cum maxime Romæ orientem, Cæsariano gladio ferocisse. Sed tali dedicatore damnationis nostræ etiam gloriamur. Tertull. Ap. cap. vi.

Nerone imperante-qui dignus exstitit, qui persecutionem in christianos primus inciperet. Sulp. Sev. Hist. Sacr. 1. 2. cap. 39.

Nam primus Romæ christianos suppliciis et mortibus affecit. P. Oros. 1. 7. Vid. et Euseb. H. C. 1. 2. cap. 25. p. 67.

cap. 7.

Sir Isaac Newton's opinion is much the same with that of John Hentenius of Mechlin, confuted by David Blondel in the same work, and in the next chapter to that in which he confuted Grotius. Hentenius and Newton argue much alike. It may be suspected, that Newton incautiously borrowed some of his weak arguments. Says Blondel: Jean Hentenius en sa préface sur le Commentaire d' Aréthas-a le discours qui suit: Il me semble que Jean-a 'été relégué par Néron en Patmos au même temps que celui là a tué dans Rome-Pierre et Paul. Tertullien, voisin des temps des mêmes Apôtres, as'sure cela même en deux lieux. Eusèbe aussi traite la même chose au livre de 'la Démonstration Evangélique, combien qu'en ses Chroniques, et en l'His'toire Ecclésiastique il dit que cela est arrivé sous Domitien: ce que aussi 'Saint Hiérome et plusieurs autres suivent. Mais à ces livres ci, comme écrit, ⚫ les années précédentes, si grande autorité n'est pas attribuée, qu'à celui de la

banished into Patmos, aud that the Revelation was seen in the reign of Nero, before the destruction of Jerusalem.

6

V 6

'Eusebius,' says he, in his Chronicle and Ecclesiasti'cal History follows Irenæus: (who said the Apocalypse was written in the time of Domitian :) but afterwards in his Evangelical Demonstration he conjoins the banishment of 'John into Patmos, with the deaths of Peter and Paul.'

6

To which I answer, first, that the Ecclesiastical History was not written before the Evangelical Demonstration, but after it for the Demonstration is referred to at the end of the second chapter of the first book of the Ecclesiastical History. Secondly, Eusebius in his Demonstration is not different from himself in his Ecclesiastical History. In his Demonstration, having spoken of the imprisonment of all the apostles at Jerusalem, and of their being beaten, and of the stoning of Stephen, the beheading of James the son of Zebedee, and the imprisonment of Peter, he adds: James,* 'the Lord's brother, was stoned, Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downward, and Paul was beheaded, and John banished into an island.' But he does not say, that all these things happened in the time of one and the same emperor. It is plain, that it is not his design to mention exactly the time of the sufferings of all these persous. Nothing hinders our supposing, that the apostles Peter and Paul were put to death by order of Nero, and John banished by Domitian, many years afterwards, agreeably to what himself writes in his Chronicle and History.

It follows in Sir Isaac Newton. And so do Tertullian, ' and Pseudo-Prochorus, as well as the first author, whoever 'he was, of that very ancient fable, that St. John was put by Nero into a vessel of hot oil.'

I place below the words of Tertullian, to which Sir Isaac refers. And I answer: it is true, that Tertullian speaks of the death of Peter and Paul, and of John's being cast into boiling oil, and then banished, all together: but he does not say, that all happened in the same reign. St. John's banishDémonstration Evangélique, vu qu'il a éte depuis, et plus correctement élabouré.' Blondel des Sibylles. 1. 2. ch. iv. p. 148, 149.

▾ Newton's Observations upon the Apocalypse of St. John, chap. i. p. 236. See in this work, Vol. iv. p. 75. Vales. Annot. in Euseb. p. 8, 9. Fabric. Bıb. Gr. 1. 5. cap. iv. tom. VI. p. 57-59.

*και Πετρος δε επι 'Ρωμης κατα κεφαλης σαυρεται, Παυλος τε αποτέμνεται, Ιωάννης τε νησῳ παραδίδοται. Dem. Ev. l. 3. p. 116.

As before, p. 236.

* Ista quam felix ecclesia, ubi Petrus passioni Dominicæ adæquatur; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur ; ubi apostolus Joannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur! De Præsc. cap. 36. p. 245.

ment is the last thing mentioned by him: and, probably, it happened not till after the death of Peter and Paul. It is likely, that Tertullian supposed it to have been done by the order of Domitian; for in another place he speaks of the persecution of that emperor, as consisting chiefly in banish

ments.

a

- and Pseudo-Prochorus.' What place of Prochorus, who pretended to be one of the seven deacons, and is called by Baronius himself a great liar, Sir Isaac Newton refers to, I do not know. But in his history of St. John he is entirely against him. For he particularly relates the sufferings, which St. John underwent in the second persecution of the christians, which was raised by Domitian. That emperor sent orders to the proconsul at Ephesus, to apprehend the apostle. When the proconsul had got St. John in his power, he informed Domitian of it; who then commanded the proconsul to bring him to Rome. When he was come, the emperor would not see him, but ordered him to be cast into a vessel of scalding oil, and he came out unhurt. Then Domitian commanded the proconsul to have St. John back again to Ephesus. Some time after that, by order of the same Domitian, John, and others at Ephesus, were banished into Patmos. Domitian being dead, they returned to Ephesus with the leave of his successor, who did not persecute the christians. So Pseudo-Prochorus.

e

Since the great Newton has been pleased to refer to such a writer, I shall take notice of another of the like sort; I mean Abdias, who assumed the character of the first bishop of Babylon. What he says is to this purpose: thats John, a Tentaverat et Domitianus-sed, quâ et homo, facile cœptum repressit, restitutis etiam quos relegaverat. Apol. cap. 5.

- in multis mendacissimus hic auctor fuisse convincitur. An. 92. num. i. Secundam vero persecutionem Domitianus excitârat, cujus temporibus Joannes Ephesi morabatur. Imperator autem Domitianus epistolam misit Ephesum ad proconsulem civitatis-Proch. de Vit. Joan. cap. 8. Ap. Bib. Patr. Lugd. T. II.

Audiens autem Domitianus de adventu ejus, noluit impius Cæsar videre faciem apostoli. Et jussit, ut proconsul duceret ad Portam Latinam, et in ferventis olei dolium illum vivum dimitti, &c. Ibid. cap. 10.

e Ibid. cap. 14.

f Mortuo autem Domitiano, qui nos transmiserat in exilium, successor ejus non prohibebat christianos. Et cum audîsset de bonitate et sanctimoniâ Joannis, quodque fuisset injuste a prædecessore suo exilio relegatus, per literas nos revocavit ab exilio. Ib. cap. 45.

Est igitur et hoc ipsum amoris Salvatoris in beatum Joannem indicium non vulgare, quod vitâ reliquos omnes superaverit, et, ut dictum est, ad Domitiani imperatoris ætatem usque in Asiâ verbum salutis populis adnuntiârit—Cui proconsul loci cum edictum imperatoris, ut Christum negaret, et a prædicatione cessaret, legisset, apostolus intrepide respondit.-Ad cujus responsionem motus

who survived the other apostles, lived to the time of Domitian, preaching the word to the people in Asia. When Domitian's edict for persecuting the christians was brought to Ephesus, and John refused to deny Christ, or to give over preaching, the proconsul ordered that he should be drowned in a vessel of boiling oil: but John presently leaped out unhurt. The proconsul would then have set him at liberty, if he had not feared to transgress the emperor's edict. He therefore banished John into Patmos, where he saw 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.

6

Then follows an account of St. John's visiting the churches in the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Where is inserted also the story, formerly taken notice of, concerning the young man, as related by Eusebius 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 vessel of hot oil, and coming out unhurt, was banished by him into Patmos. Though this story 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 same who banished John into an island: as did also the two writers just taken notice of, Prochorus and Abdias, to whom we were led by Sir Isaac. Jerom, who in his books against Jovinian, mentions this story, as from Tertullian, proconsul jussit eum velut rebellem in dolio ferventis olei demergi; qui statim ut conjectus in æneo est, veluti athleta unctus, non adustus, de vase exiit. Ad quod miraculum proconsul stupefactus, voluit eum libertati suæ reddere. Et fecisset, nisi timuisset edictum Cæsaris. Mitiorem igitur pœnam cogitans, in exilium eum relegavit, in insulam, quæ dicitur Patmos; in quâ et Apocalypsin, quæ ex nomine ejus legitur, et vidit, et scripsit. Post mortem autem Domitiani, quia omnia ejus decreta Senatus infringi jusserat, inter cæteros, qui ab eo relegati fuerant, et ad propria remeabant, etiam sanctus Joannes Ephesum rediit, ubi et hospitiolum, et multos amicos, habebat. Abd. Hist. Apostol. cap. v. ap. Fabr. Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 533-536.

h Vidit enim in Patmo insulâ, in quâ fuerat a Domitiano principe relegatus, Apocalypsin.-Refert autem Tertullianus, quod Romæ, [al. a Nerone] missus in ferventis olei dolium, purior et vegetior exierit, quam intravit. Adv. Jovin. 1. i. tom. 4. p. 169.

according to some copies, says, it was done at Rome, according to others, in the time of Nero. However in the same place, as well as elsewhere, Jerom expressly says, that John was banished into Patmos by Domitian. And in the other place, where he mentions the casting St. John into boiling oil, he says: and presently afterwards he was banished

' into the island Patmos.' Therefore that other trial, which St. John met with, was in the same reign, that is, Domitian's. And indeed Jerom always supposes St. John's banishment to have been in that reign as he particularly relates in the ninth chapter of his book of Illustrious Men. Let me add, that if the story of St. John's being put into a vessel of scalding oil be a fable and a fiction, it must be hazardous to build an argument upon it.

6

It follows in Newton: Epiphanius represents the gospel of John as written in the time of Domitian, and the Apocalypse even before that of Nero.' I have already said enough of Epiphanius in considering the opinion of Grotius. However, as one would think, Sir Isaac Newton had little reason to mention Epiphanius, when he does not follow him. He says, that St. John was banished into Patmos in the time of Claudius: Sir Isaac, not till near the end of the reign of Nero.

k

'Arethas,' says Sir Isaac, in the beginning of his com'mentary quotes the opinion of Irenæus from Eusebius, but does not follow it. For he afterwards affirms, that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that former commentators had expounded the 'sixth seal of that destruction.'

To which I answer. Arethas does indeed say, that' some interpreters had explained things under the sixth seal, as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian: but they were some only, not the most. Yea, he presently afterwards says, that the most interpreted it otherwise. Nor does he that any say, of those commentators were of opinion, that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Arethas seems to have been of opinion, that things, which had come to pass long before, might be represented in the Revelation. Therefore immediately before

Sed si legamus ecclesiasticas historias, in quibus fertur, quod et ipse propter martyrium sit missus in ferventis olei dolium, et inde ad suscipiendam coronam Christi athleta processerit, statimque relegatus in Patmon insulam sit, &c. Comm. in Matt. xx. 23. tom. 4. P. i. p. 92.

* As before, p. 236.

Ουεσπασιανο γινομενην πολιορκιαν εξέλαβον,

1 Τινες δε ταυτα εις την υπο παντα τα ειρημενα τροπολογη

σαντες. Οι δε πλείτοι των ἑρμηνευτων. κ. λ. Areth. cap. 18. p. 709. Α.