ed the Chriftians. 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 Teftament itfelf, particularly, Acts xviii. and xix. It is manifest from the hiftorie 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, Aquile and Prifcilla, dwelled quietly at Corinth: where the men of their nation had their fynagogue, and affembled in it according to custom, without moleftation. 5. Nor could the Governours of provinces banish either Jews or Chriftians out of their governments, without order from the Emperour. And that they had no such order, is apparent. Neither Jews nor Chriftians were molested by them at Ephefus, as may be perceived from the hiftorie in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts. That they were not molefted by them at Corinth, appears from the preceeding chapter. 6. St. John could not be banished from Ephefus by Claudius, or the Governours under him. For he was not in that city during the reign of that Emperour, nor in the former part of the reign of Nero, as has been fhewn. He did not come thither, till near the end of the reign of the laft mentioned Emperour. Therefore he could not fooner be banished from Ephesus.

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

Sir Ifaac Newton was of opinion, that (B) St. John was banished into Patmos, and that the Revelation was feen in the reign of Nero, before the deftruction of Jerufalem.

"Eufebius, fays (d) he, in his Chronicle, and Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie "follows Irenæus (who faid, the Apocalypfe was writ in the time of "Domitian): But afterwards in his Evangelical Demonftration he con"joyns the banishment of John into Patmos, with the deaths of Peter "and Paul."

To which I anfwer, first, that (e) the Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie was not writ before the Evangelical Demonftration, but after it. For the De. monftration

(B) Sir Ifaac Newton's opinion is much the fame with that of John Hentenius of Mechlin, confuted by David Blondel in the fame work, and in the next chapter to that, in which he confuted Grotius. Hentenius and Newton argue much alike. It may be fufpected, that Newton incautiously borrowed fome of his weak arguments. Says Blondel: "Jean Hentenius en fa preface fur le Commentaire d' Arethas. . . . a le difcours, qui fuit; Il me femble, que fean ...a eflé relegué par Neron en Patmos au mefme temps que celui là a tué dans Rome Pierre et Paul. Tertullien, voifin des temps des mefmes Apoftres, affeure cela mefme en deux lieux. Eufebe auffi traitte la mefme chofe au livre de la Demonfration Evangelique, combien qu'en fes Chroniques, et en l'Hiftoire Ecclefiaftique il dit cela eft arrivé fous Domitien; ce que auffi Saint Hierome et plufieurs autres fuivent, Mais à ces livres cy, comme eferis és années precedentes, fi grande authorité n'eft pas attribuée, qu'a celui de la Demonstration Evangelique, veu qu'il a eflé depuis, et plus correctement élabouré. Blindel des Sibylles. 1. 2. ch. iv. p. 148.

que

149.

(d) Newton's Obfervations upon the Apocalypfe of St. John, ch. i. p. 236.

(e) See in this work Vol. viii. p. 47. Valef. Annot. in Eufeb. p. 8. 9. Fabric. Bib. Gr. 1. 5. cap. iv. Tom. 6. p. 57. ・・・ 59.

monftration is referred to at the end of the fecond chapter of the first book of the Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie. Secondly, Eufebius in his Demonftration is not different from himself in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie. In his Demonstration, having spoken of the imprisonment of all the Apostles at Jerufalem, and of their being beaten, and of the ftoning of Stephen, the beheading of James the fon of Zebedee, and the imprisonment of Peter, he adds: "James (f) the Lord's brother, was ftoned, Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downward, and Paul was beheaded, and John banished into an island." But he does not fay, that all these things happened in the time of one and the fame Emperour. It is plain, that it is not his defign to mention exactly the time of the fufferings of all these perfons. Nothing hinders our fuppofing, that the Apoftles 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 Hiftorie.

It follows in Sir Ifaac Newton. " And (g) fo do Tertullian, and Pfeudo"Prochorus, as well as the first author, whoever he was, of that very "ancient fable, that St. John was put by Nero into a veffel of hot "oyl.”

I place below (b) the words of Tertullian, to which Sir Ifaac refers. And I answer: It is true, that Tertullian speaks of the death of Peter and Paul, and of John's being caft into boyling oyl, and then banished, all together. But he does not fay, that all happened in the fame reign. St. John's banishment 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 fuppofed it to have been done by the order of Domitian. For in another place he speaks of the perfecution of that Emperour, as (i) confifting chiefly in banishments. "... and Pfeudo-Prochorus." What place of Prochorus, who pretended to be one of the feven deacons, and is called by Baronius (k) himself a great lyar, Sir Ifaac Newton refers to, I do not know. But in his hiftorie of St. John he is entirely against him. For (1) he particularly relates the fufferings, which St. John underwent in the fecond perfecution of the Chriftians, which was railed by Domitian. That Emperour fent orders to the Proconful at Ephefus,

(ƒ) . . . καὶ πέτεος δὲ ἐπὶ ῥώμης κατὰ κεφαλῆς ταυγεται παῦλος τε αποτέμνεται, Ιωάννης τε νήσῳ παραδίδοται. Dem. Εv. Ι. 3. p. 116.

(g) As before, p: 236.

(4) Ifta quam felix ecclefia, ubi Petrus paffioni Dominicæ adæquatur: ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur: ubi Apoftolus Joannes, pofteaquam in oleum igneum demerfus, nihil paffus eft, in infulam relegatur. De Prefer. cap. 36.

p. 245.

(Tentaverat et Domitianus, . . fed quâ et homo, facile ceptum repreffit, reftitutis etiam quos relegaverat. Apol. cap. 5.

(k)-in multis mendaciflimus hic auctor fuiffe convincitur. An. 92.

num. i.

(1) Secundam vero perfecutionem Domitianus excitârat, cujus temporibus Joannes Ephefi morabatur. Imperator autem Domitianus epiftolam mifit Ephefum ad Proconfulem civitatis... Proch, de Vit. Joan. cap. 8. Ap. Bib, Patr. Lugd. T. 2.

Epbefus, 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 banifhed into Patmos. Domitian (0) being dead, they returned to Ephefus with the leave of his fucceffor, who did not perfecute the Chriftians. 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 first 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 Christ, or to give over preaching, the Proconful ordered, that he fhould 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 Ephefus. Where is inferted alfo the ftorie, formerly

taken

(m) Audiens autem Domitianus de adventu ejus, noluit impius Cæfar vi. dere faciem Apoftoli. Et juflit, ut Proconful duceret ad Portam Latinam, et ju 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 fuiflet injufte a prædeceffore fuo exilio relegatus, per lite, ras 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 est, ad Domitiani Imperatoris ætatem ufque in Afia verbum falutis populis adnunciarit. . . . Cui Proconful loci cum edictum Imperatoris, ut Chriftum nega, ret, et a prædicatione ceffaret, legiffet, Apoftolus intrepide refpondit.... Ad cujus refponfionem motus Proconful juffit eum velut rebellem in dolio ferwentis olei demergi. Qui ftatim ut conjectus in æneo eít, veluti athleta unctus, non aduftus, de vale exiit. Ad quod miraculum Proconful ftupefactus, voluit eum libertati fuæ reddere. Et feciffet, nifi timuiffet edictum Cafaris. Mitiorem igitur poenam cogitans, in exilium cum relegavit, in infulam, quæ dicitur Patmos. In qua et Apocalypfin, quæ ex nomine ejus legitur, et vis dit, et feripit. Poft mortem autem Domitiani, quia omnia ejus decreta Sepatus infringi jufferat, inter ceteros, qui ab eo relegati fuerant, et ad propria remeabant, etiam fanétus Joannes Ephefum rediit, ubi et hofpitiolum, et multos amicos habebat. Abd, Hift. Apoftol, cap, v. ap, Fabr, Cod, Apocr. N. T. p. 533. 530.

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 firft 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 banifhed by him into Patmos. "Though this story be no more than a fiction, yet it was founded on a "tradition of the firft 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 also, the two writers juft taken notice of, Prochorus and Abdias, to whom we were led by Sir Ifaac. Jerome, who (9) 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 expressly 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 banished into the island Patmos.' fore 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 banifhment 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 ftorie 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.

There

It follows in Newton: "Epiphanius represents 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 banifhed into Patmos in the time of Claudius: Sir Ifaac, not till near the end of the reign of Nero.

"Arethas, fays (s) 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 "deftruction of Jerufalem, and that former Commentators had expound"ed the fixth feal of that deftruction."

Τα

(9) Vidit enim in Patmos infula, in qua fuerat a Domitiano principe re legatus, Apocalypfiu... 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 delium, 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 answer. Arethas does indeed fay, that (t) fome interpreters had explained things under the fixth feal, as relating to the destruction 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 deftruction of Jerusalem. 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 crofle "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 darknefle 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 fhould be eclipfed by it's " interpofition?"

情

However, I muft 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 "thefe inftructions. Nor was he at Jerufalem, but in Ionia, where is "Ephefus. For he ftaid at ferufalem 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 also, 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 Ephesus; 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 these? Which when looked into, and examined, contain no certain affurances of any thing. And Sir Ifaac Newton himfelf fays: "It (≈) feems to me, that "Peter and John taid with their churches in Judea and Syria: till the "Romans made war upon their nation, that is, till the twelfth of year « Nero.” or A. D. 66.

We

(1) Τινὲς δὲ ταυτα εἰς τὴν ὑπὸ δυεσπασιανό γινομένην πόλιοςκίαν ἐξέλαβον πάντα τὰ εἰρημένη τροπολογήσαντες. Οι δὲ πλείςοι τῶν ερμηνευτῶν. κ. λ. Areth. cap. 18. P. 709. A.

(α) Τις δὲ ἡ λύσις τῆς ἕκτης σφραγίδος; Ο σάυρος το κυρίες καὶ θάνατος, οἷς ήκοα λάθησεν ἡ ἐυκτάκα πᾶσι πιςοῖς τέ καὶ αἰσθητοῖς ἀνάςασις. κ. λ. Cap. 18. p. 708.

C. D.

(x) Cap. xix. 713. 714.

κ,

(α) . . . ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἔφεσον μεταφῆναι αὐτὸν λόγον, καθ ̓ ἦν, ὡς ἔφηταιο το λο Ibid. p. 714. in.

() As before, f. 243.