Chapter XX: Part 20

The earliest testimony on this point does not appear, however, until near the close of the fourth century; when it arises in the form of a vague notion, that John had once preached to the Parthians, and that his first epistle was particularly addressed to them. From a few such remnants of history as this, it has been considered extremely probable, by some, that John passed many years, or even a great part of his life, in the regions east of the Euphrates, within the bounds of the great Parthian empire, where a vast number of his refugee countrymen had settled after the destruction of Jerusalem, enjoying peace and prosperity, partly forgetting their national calamities, in building themselves up almost into a new people, beyond the bounds of the Roman empire. These would afford to him an extensive and congenial field of labor; they were his countrymen, speaking his own language, and to them he was allied by the sympathies of a common misfortune and a common refuge. Abundant proof has already been offered, to show that in this region was the home of Peter, during the same period; and probabilities are strongly in favor of the supposition, that the other apostles followed him thither, making Babylon the new apostolic capital of the eastern churches, as Jerusalem had been the old one. From that city, as a center, the apostles would naturally extend their occasional labors into the countries eastward, as far as their Jewish brethren had spread their refugee settlements; for beyond the Roman limits, Christianity seems to have made no progress whatever among the Gentiles, in the time of the apostles; and if there had been no other difficulties, the great difference of language and manners, and the savage condition of most of the races around them, would have led them to confine their labors wholly to those of their own nation, who inhabited the country watered by the Euphrates and its branches; or still farther east, to lands where the Jews seem to have spread themselves to the banks of the Indus, and perhaps within the modern boundaries of India. Some wild traditionary accounts, of no great authority, even offer reports, that the Apostle John preached in India; and some of the Jesuit missionaries have supposed that they had detected such traditions among the tribes of that region, among whom they labored. All that can be said of these accounts is, that they accord with a reasonable supposition, which is made probable by other circumstances; but traditions of such a standing cannot be said to _prove_ anything.

_Parthia._――The earliest trace of this story is in the writings
of Augustin, (A. D. 398,) who quotes the first epistle of
John as “the epistle to the Parthians,” from which it appears
that this was a common name for that epistle, in the times of
Augustin. Athanasius is also quoted by Bede, as calling it by
the same name. If he wrote to the Parthians in that familiar
way, it would seem probable that he had been among them, and
many writers have therefore adopted this view. Among these, the
learned Mill (Prolegomena in New Testament § 150) expresses his
opinion very fully, that John passed the greater part of his
life among the Parthians, and the believers near them. Lampe
(Prolegomena to a Johannine Theology, Lib. I. cap. iii. § 12,
note) allows the probability of such a visit, but strives to fix
its date long before the destruction of Jerusalem; yet offers no
good reason for such a notion.

_India._――The story of the Jesuit missionaries is given by
Baronius, (Annals 44. § 30.) The story is, that letters from
some of these missionaries, in 1555, give an account of their
finding such a tradition, among an East Indian nation, called
the Bassoras, who told them that the apostle John once preached
the gospel in that region. No further particulars are given; but
this is enough to enable us to judge of the value of a story,
dating fifteen centuries from the event which it commemorates.

HIS RESIDENCE IN ASIA.

The great mass of ancient stories about this apostle, take no notice at all of his residence in the far eastern regions, on and beyond the Euphrates, but make mention of the countries inhabited by Greeks and Romans, as the scenes of the greater part of his long life, after the destruction of Jerusalem. The palpable reason of the character of these traditions, no doubt, is, that they all come from the very regions which they commemorate as the home of John; and the authors of the stories being interested only to secure for their own region the honor of an apostolic visit, cared nothing about the similar glory of countries far eastward, with which they had no connection whatever, and of which they knew nothing. That region which is most particularly pointed out as the great scene of John’s life and labors, is ASIA, in the original, limited sense of the term, which includes only a small portion of the eastern border of the Aegean sea, as already described in the life of Peter. The most important place in this _Little_ Asia, was Ephesus; and in this famous city the apostle John is said to have spent the latter part of his life, after the great dispersion from Palestine.

The _motives_ of John’s visit to Ephesus, are variously given by different writers, both ancient and modern. All refer the primary impulse to the Holy Spirit, which was the constant and unerring guide of all the apostles in their movements abroad on the great mission of their Master. The divine presence of their Lord himself, too, was ever with them to support and encourage, in their most distant wanderings, even as he promised at parting,――“Lo! I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” But historical investigation may very properly proceed with the inquiry into the real _occasion_ which led him, under that divine guidance, to this distant city, among a people who were mostly foreign to him in language, habits and feelings, even though many of them owned the faith of Christ, and reverenced the apostle of his word. It is said, but not proved, that a division of the great fields of labor was made by the apostles among themselves, about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; and that, when Andrew took Scythia, and others their sections of duty, Asia was assigned to John, who passed the rest of his life there accordingly. This field had already, indeed, been gone over by Paul and his companions, and already at Ephesus itself had a church been gathered, which was now flourishing under the pastoral care of Timothy, who had been instructed and commissioned for this very field, by Paul himself. But these circumstances, so far from deterring the apostle John from presenting himself on a field of labor already so nobly entered, are supposed rather to have operated as incitements to draw him into a place where so solid a foundation had been laid for a complete fabric. As a center of missionary action, indeed, Ephesus certainly did possess many local advantages of a high order. The metropolis of all Asia Minor,――a noble emporium for the productions of that great section of the eastern continent, on whose farthest western shore it stood,――and a grand center for the traffic of the great Mediterranean sea, whose waters rolled from that haven over the mighty shores of three continents, bearing, wherever they flowed, the ships of Ephesus,――this port offered the most ready and desirable means of intercourse with all the commercial cities of the world, from Tyre, or Alexandria, or Sinope, to the pillars of Hercules, and gave the quickest and surest access to the gates of Rome itself. Its widely extended commerce, of course, drew around its gates a constant throng of people from many distant parts of the world, a few of whom, if imbued with the gospel, would thus become the missionaries of the word of truth to millions, where the name of Jesus was before unknown. And since, after the death of all the other apostles, John survived alone, so long, it was desirable for all the Christian churches in the world, that the only living minister of the word who had been instructed from the lips of Jesus himself, should reside in some such place, where he might so easily be visited by all, and whence his instructions might quickly go forth to all. His inspired counsels, and his wonder-working prayers, might be sought for all who needed them, and his apostolic ordinances might be heard and obeyed, almost at once, by the most distant churches. But the circumstance, which more especially might lead the wanderer from the ruined city and homes of his fathers, to Ephesus, was the great gathering of Jews at this spot, who of course thus presented to the Jewish apostle an ample field for exertions, for which his natural and acquired endowments best fitted him.

In the account given in the Acts of the Apostles of Paul’s visit to Ephesus, particular mention is made of a synagogue there, in which he preached and disputed daily, for a long period, with great effect. Yet Paul’s labors had by no means attained such complete success among the Jews there, as to make it unnecessary for another apostle to labor in the ministry of the circumcision, in that same place; for it is especially mentioned that Paul, after three months’ active exertion in setting forth the truth in the synagogues, was induced by the consideration of the peculiar difficulties which beset him, among these proud and stubborn adherents of the old Mosaic system, to withdraw himself from among them; and during the remainder of his two years’ stay, he devoted himself, for the most part, to the instruction of the willing Greeks, who opened the schools of philosophy for his teachings, with far more willingness than the Jews did their house of religious assembly. And it appears that the greater part of his converts were rather among the Greeks than the Jews; for in the great commotions that followed, the attack upon the preachers of Christianity was made entirely by a _heathen_ mob, in which no Israelite seems to have had any hand whatever; so that Paul had evidently made but little impression, comparatively, on the latter class. Among the Jews then, there was still a wide field open for the labors of one, consecrated, more especially, for the ministry of the circumcision. The circumstances of the times, also, presented many advantages for a successful assault upon the religious prejudices of his countrymen. The great Center of Unity for the race of Israel throughout the world, had now fallen into an irretrievable oblivion, under the fire and sword of the invader. The glories of the ancient covenant seemed to have passed away forever; and in the high devotion of the Jew, a blank was now left, by the destruction of the only temple of his ancient faith, which nothing else on earth could fill. Henceforth he might be trained to look for a spiritual temple,――a city eternal in the heavens, whose lasting foundations were laid by no mortal hand, for the heathen to sweep away in unholy triumph; but whose builder and maker was God. Thus prepared, by the mournful consummation of their country’s utter ruin, for the reception of a pure faith, the condition of the disconsolate Jews must have appeared in the highest degree interesting to the solitary surviving apostle of Jesus; and he would naturally devote the remnant of his days to that portion of the world where he might make the deepest impression on them, and where his influence might spread widest to the scattered members of a people, then as now, eminently commercial.

Under these peculiarly interesting circumstances, the Apostle John is supposed to have arrived at Ephesus, where Timothy, still holding the episcopal chair in which he had been placed by the Apostle Paul, must have hailed with great delight the arrival of the venerable John, from whose instructions and counsels, he might hope to derive advantages so much the more welcome, since the sword of the heathen persecution had removed his original apostolic teacher from the world. John must have been, at the time of his journey to Ephesus, considerably advanced in life. His precise age, and the date of his arrival, are altogether unknown, nor are there any fixed points on which the most critical and ingenious historical investigation can base any certain conclusion whatever, as to these interesting matters. Various and widely different have been the conclusions on these points;――some fixing his journey to Ephesus in the reign of Claudius, long before the destruction of Jerusalem, and even before the council on the question of the circumcision. The true character of this tale can be best appreciated by a reference to another circumstance, which is gravely appended to it by its narrators;――which is, that he was accompanied on this tour by the Virgin Mary, and that she lived there with him for a long time. This journey too, is thus made to precede the journey of Paul to Ephesus, by many years, and yet no account whatever is given of the reasons of the profound silence observed in the Acts of the Apostles, on an event so important to the history of the propagation of the gospel, nor why John could have lived so long at Ephesus, and yet have effected so little, that when Paul came to the same place, the very name of Christ was new there. But such stories are not worth refuting, standing as they do, self-convicted falsehoods. Others however, are more reasonable, and date this journey in the year of the destruction of Jerusalem, supposing that Ephesus was the first place of refuge to which the apostle went. But this conjecture is totally destitute of all ancient authority, and is inconsistent with the very reasonable supposition adopted above,――that he, in the flight from Jerusalem, first journeyed eastward, following the general current of the fugitives, towards the Euphrates. Where there is such a total want of all data, any fixed decision is out of the question; but it is very reasonable to suppose that John’s final departure from the east did not take place till some years after this date; probably not until the reign of Domitian. (A. D. 81 or 82.) He had lived in Babylon therefore, till he had seen most of his brethren and friends pass away from his eyes. The venerable Peter had sunk into the grave, and had been followed by the rest of the apostolic band, until the youngest apostle, now grown old, found himself standing alone in the midst of a new generation, like one of the solitary columns of desolate Babylon, among the low dwelling places of its refugee inhabitants. But among the hourly crumbling heaps of that ruined city, and the fast-darkening regions of that half-savage dominion, there was each year less and less around him, on which his precious labor could be advantageously expended. Christianity never seizes readily on the energies of a broken or degenerating people, nor does it flourish where the influences of civilization are losing their hold. Its exalted and exalting genius rather takes the spirits that are already on the wing for an upward course, and rises with them, giving new energy to the ascending movement. It may exert its elevating influence too, on the yet wild spirit of the uncivilized, and give, in the new conceptions of a pure faith and a high destiny, the first impulse to the advance of man towards refinement, in knowledge, and art, and freedom; but its very existence among them is dependent on this _forward_ and _upward_ movement,――and the beginning of its mortal decay dates from the cessation of the developments of the intellectual and physical resources of the race on which it operates. Among the subjects of the Parthian empire, this downward movement was already fully decided; and they were fast losing those refinements of feeling and thought on which the new faith could best fasten its spiritual and inspiring influences; they therefore soon became but hopeless objects of missionary exertion, when compared with the active and enterprising inhabitants of the still improving regions of the west. “Westward” then, “the star” of Christianity as “of empire, took its way;” and the last of the apostles was but following, not leading, the march of his Lord’s advancing dominion, when he shook off the dust of the darkening eastern lands from his feet, forever; turning his aged face towards the setting sun, to find in his latter days, a new home and a foreign grave among the children of his brethren; and to rejoice his old eyes with the glorious sight of what God had done for the churches, among the flourishing cities of the west, that were still advancing under Grecian art and Roman sway.

_Ephesus._――On the importance of this place, as an apostolic
station, the Magdeburg Centuriators are eloquent; and such is
the classic elegance of the Latin in which these moderns have
expressed themselves, that the passage is worth giving entire,
for the sake of those who can enjoy the beauty of the original.
“Considera mirabile Dei consilium. Joannes in Ephesum ad littus
maris Aegei collocatus est: ut inde, quasi e specula, retro
suam Asiam videret, suaque fragrantia repleret: ante se vero
Graeciam, totamque Europam haberet; ut inde, tanquam tuba Domini
sonora, etiam ultra-marinos populos suis concionibus ac scriptis
inclamaret et invitaret ad Christum; presertim, cum ibi fuerit
admodum commodus portus, plurimique mercatores ac homines
peregrini ea loca adierint.” The beauty of such a sentence
is altogether beyond the force of English, and the elegant
paronomasia which repeatedly occurs in it, increasing the power
of the original expression to charm the ear and mind, is totally
lost in a translation, but the meanings of the sentences may be
given for the benefit of those readers to whom the Latin is not
familiar.――“Regard the wonderful providence of God. John was
stationed at Ephesus, on the shore of the Aegean sea; so that
there, as in a mirror, he might behold his peculiar province,
Asia, behind him, and might fill it with the incense of his
prayers: before him too, he had Greece and all Europe; so that
there, as with the far-sounding trumpet of the Lord, he might
summon and invite to Christ, by his sermons and writings, even
the nations beyond the sea, by the circumstance that there,
was a most spacious haven, and that vast numbers of traders and
travelers thronged to the place.”

Chrysostom speaks also of the importance of Ephesus as an
apostolic station, alluding to it as a strong hold of heathen
philosophy; but there is no reason to think that John ever
distinguished himself by any assaults upon systems with which
he was not, and could never have been sufficiently acquainted
to enable him to attack them; for in order to meet an evil, it
is necessary to understand it thoroughly. There is no hint of
an acquaintance with philosophy in any part of his writings,
nor does any historian speak of his making converts among them.
Chrysostom’s words are,――“He fixed himself also in Asia, where
anciently all the sects of Grecian philosophy cultivated their
sciences. There he flashed out in the midst of the foe, clearing
away their darkness, and storming the very citadel of demons.
And with this design he went to this place, so well suited to
one who would work such wonders.” (Homily 1, on John.)

The idea of John’s visit to Ephesus, where Timothy was already
settled over the church as bishop, has made a great deal of
trouble to those who stupidly confound the office of an apostle
with that of a bishop, and are always degrading an apostle into
a mere church-officer. Such blunderers of course, are put to
a vast deal of pains to make out how Timothy could manage to
keep possession of his bishopric, with the Apostle John in the
same town with him; for they seem to think that a bishop, like
the flag-officer on a naval station, can hold the command of the
post not a moment after a senior officer appears in sight; but
that then down comes the broad blue pennon to be sure, and never
is hoisted again till the greater officer is off beyond the
horizon. But no such idle arrangements of mere etiquette were
ever suffered to mar the noble and useful simplicity of the
primitive church government, in the least. The presence of an
apostle in the same town with a bishop, could no more interfere
with the regular function of the latter, than the presence of a
diocesan bishop in any city of his diocese, excludes the rector
of the church there, from his pastoral charge. The sacred duties
of Timothy were those of the pastoral care of a single church,――a
sort of charge that no apostle ever assumed out of Jerusalem;
but John’s apostolic duties led him to exercise a general
supervision over a great number of churches. All those in Little
Asia would claim his care alike, and the most distant would look
to him for counsel; while that in Ephesus, having been so well
established by Paul, and being blessed by the pastoral care of
Timothy, who had been instructed and commissioned for that very
place and duty, by him, would really stand in very little need
of any direct attention from John. Yet among his Jewish brethren
he would still find much occasion for his missionary labor,
even in that city; and this was the sort of duty which was most
appropriate to his apostolic character; for the apostles were
missionaries and not bishops.

Others pretend to say, however, that Timothy was dead when John
arrived, and that John succeeded him in the bishopric,――a mere
invention to get rid of the difficulty, and proved to be such
by the assertion that the apostle was a bishop, and rendered
suspicious also by the circumstance of Timothy being so young
a man.

The fable of the Virgin Mary’s journey, in company with John, to
Ephesus, has been very gravely supported by Baronius, (Annals,
44, § 29,) who makes it happen in the second year of the reign
of Claudius, and quotes as his authority a groundless statement,
drawn from a mis-translation of a synodical epistle from the
council of Ephesus to the clergy at Constantinople, containing
a spurious passage which alludes to this story, condemning the
Nestorians as heretics, for rejecting the tale. There are, and
have long been, however, a vast number of truly discreet and
learned Romanists, who have scorned to receive such contemptible
and useless inventions. Among these, the learned Antony Pagus,
in his Historico-Chronological Review of Baronius, has utterly
refuted the whole story, showing the spurious character of
the passage quoted in its support. (Pagus, Critica Baronius
Annals, 42. § 3.) Lampe quotes moreover, the Abbot Facditius,
the Trevoltian collectors and Combefisius, as also refuting the
fable. Among the Protestant critics, Rivetus and Basnage have
discussed the same point.

Of the incidents of John’s life at Ephesus, no well authorized account whatever can be given. Yet on this part of apostolic history the Fathers are uncommonly rich in details, which are interesting, and some of which present no improbability on examination; but their worst character is, that they do not make their appearance until above one hundred years after the date of the incidents which they commemorate, and refer to no authority but loose and floating tradition. In respect to these, too, occurs exactly the same difficulty which has already been specified in connection with the traditionary history of Peter,――that the same early writers, who record as true these stories which are so probable and reasonable in their character, also present in the same grave manner other stories, which do bear, with them, on their very faces, the evidence of their utter falsehood, in their palpable and monstrous absurdity. Among the possible and probable incidents of John’s life, narrated by the Fathers, are a journey to Jerusalem, and one also to Rome,――but of these there is no certainty, nor any acceptable evidence. These long journeys, too, are wholly without any sufficient assigned object, which would induce so old a man to leave his quiet and useful residence at Ephesus, to travel hundreds and thousands of miles. The churches of both Rome and Jerusalem were under well organized governments, which were perfectly competent to the administration of their own affairs, without the presence of an apostle; or, if they needed his counsel in an emergency, he could communicate his opinions to them with great certainty, by message, and with far more quickness and ease, than by a journey to them. Such an occasion for a direct call on him, however, could but very rarely occur,――nor would so unimportant an event as the death of one bishop and the installation of another, ever induce him to take a journey to sanction a mere formality by his presence. His help certainly was not needed by any church out of his own little Asian circle, in the selection of proper persons to fill vacant offices of government or instruction. They knew best their own wants, and the abilities of their own members to exercise any official duty to which they might be called; while John, a perfect stranger to most of them, would feel neither disposed nor qualified for meddling with any part of the internal policy of other churches. But the principal condemnation of the statement of his journey to Rome is contained in the foolish story connected with it, by its earliest narrator,――that on his arrival there, he was, by order of the emperor Domitian, thrown into a vessel full of hot oil; but, so far from receiving the slightest injury from such a frying, he came out of this greasy place of torture, quite improved in every respect by the immersion; and, as the story goes, arose from it perfumed like an _athleta_ anointed for the combat. There are very great variations, however, in the different narrations of this affair; some representing the event as having occurred in Ephesus, under the orders of the proconsul of Asia, and not in Rome, under the emperor, as the earlier form of the fable states. Among the statements which fix the scene of this miracle in Rome, too, there is a very important chronological difference,――some dating it under the emperor Nero, which would carry it back as early as the time of Peter’s fabled martyrdom, and implies a total contradiction of all established opinions on his prolonged residence in the east. In short, the whole story is so completely covered over with gross blunders and contradictions about times and places, that it can not receive any place among the details of serious and well-authorized history.

_Thrown into a vessel of oil._――This greasy story has a
tolerably respectable antiquity, going farther back with its
authorities than any other fable in the Christian mythology,
except Justin Martyr’s story about Simon Magus. The earliest
authority for this is Tertullian, (A. D. 200,) who says that
“at Rome, the Apostle John, having been immersed in hot oil,
suffered no harm at all from it.” (De Praescriptionibus adversus
Haereticos, c. 36.) “In oleum igneum immersus nihil passus est.”
But for nearly two hundred years after, no one of the Fathers
refers to this fable. Jerome (A. D. 397.) is the next of any
certain date, and speaks of it in two passages. In the first
(Against Jovinianus I. 14,) he quotes Tertullian as authority,
but bunglingly says, that “he was thrown into the kettle by
order of _Nero_,”――a most palpable error, not sanctioned by
Tertullian. In the second passage, (Commentary on Matthew xx.
23,) he furthermore refers in general terms to “ecclesiastical
histories, in which it was said that John, on account of his
testimony concerning Christ, was thrown into a kettle of boiling
oil, and came out thence like an _athleta_, to win the crown
of Christ.” From these two sources, the other narrators of
the story have drawn it. Of the modern critics and historians,
besides the great herd of Papists, several Protestants are
quoted by Lampe, as strenuously defending it; and several of
the greatest, who do not absolutely receive it as true, yet do
not presume to decide against it; as the Magdeburg Centuriators,
(Century 1, lib. 2. c. 10,) who however declare it very doubtful
indeed, “_rem incertissimam_;”――Ittig, Le Clerc and Mosheim
taking the same ground. But Meisner, Cellarius, Dodwell,
Spanheim, Heumann and others, overthrow it utterly, as a
baseless fable. They argue against it _first_, from the bad
character of its only ancient witness. Tertullian is well known
as most miserably credulous, and fond of catching up these idle
tales; and even the devoutly credulous Baronius condemns him in
the most unmeasured terms for his greedy and undiscriminating
love of falsehood. _Secondly_, they object the profound silence
of all the Fathers of the second, third and fourth centuries,
excepting him and Jerome; whereas, if such a remarkable incident
were of any authority whatever, those numerous occasions on
which they refer to the banishment of John to Patmos, which
Tertullian connects so closely with this story, would suggest
and require a notice of the causes and attendant circumstances
of that banishment, as stated by him. How could those eloquent
writers, who seem to dwell with so much delight on the noble
trials and triumphs of the apostles, pass over this wonderful
peril and miraculous deliverance? Why did Irenaeus, so studious
in extolling the glory of John, forget to specify an incident
implying at once such a courageous spirit of martyrdom in this
apostle, and such a peculiar favor of God, in thus wonderfully
preserving him? Hippolytus and Sulpitius Severus too, are silent;
and more than all, Eusebius, so diligent in scraping together
all that can heap up the martyr-glories of the apostles, and
more particularly of John himself, is here utterly without a
word on this interesting event. Origen, too, dwelling on the
modes in which the two sons of Zebedee drank the cup of Jesus,
as he prophesied, makes no use of this valuable illustration.

On the origin of this fable, Lampe mentions a very ingenious
conjecture, that some such act of cruelty may have been
meditated or threatened, but afterwards given up; and that
thence the story became accidentally so perverted as to make
what was merely designed, appear to have been partly put in
execution.

In this decided condemnation of the venerable Tertullian, I
am justified by the example of Lampe, whose reverence for the
authority of the Fathers is much greater than that of most
theologians of later days. He refers to him in these terms:
“TERTULLIANUS, cujus credulitas, in arripiendis futilibus
narratiunculis alias non ignota est.”――“Whose credulity in
catching up idle tales is well known in other instances.”
Haenlein also calls him “der leichtglaubige Tertullian,”――“the
credulous Tertullian.” (Haenlein’s Einleitung in Neuen
Testamentes vol. III. p. 166.)

This miraculous event procured the highly-favored John, by
this _extreme unction_, all the advantages with none of the
disadvantages of martyrdom; for in consequence of this peril he
has received among the Fathers the name of a “living martyr.”
(ζοων μαρτυρ) Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Athanasius,
Theophylact and others, quoted by Suicer, [sub voc. μαρτυρ,]
apply this term to him. “He had the _mind_ though not the _fate_
of a martyr.” “Non defuit animus martyrio,” &c. [Jerome and
Cyprian.] Through ignorance of the meaning of the word μαρτυρ,
in this peculiar application to John, the learned Haenlein
seems to me to have fallen into an error on the opinion of these
Fathers about his mode of death. In speaking of the general
testimony as to the quiet death of this apostle, Haenlein says:
“But Chrysostom, only in one ambiguous passage, (Homily 63
in Matthew) and his follower Theophylact, number the Apostle
John among the martyrs.” [Haenlein’s Einleitung in Neuen
Testamentes vol. III. chap. vi. § 1, p. 168.] The fact is, that
not only these two, but several other Fathers, use the term in
application to John, and they all do it without any implication
of an actual, fatal martyrdom; as may be seen by a reference to
Suicer, sub voc.

So little reverence have the critical, even among the Romanists,
for any of these old stories about John’s adventures, that the
sagacious Abbot Facditius (quoted by Lampe) quite turns these
matters into a jest. Coupling this story with the one about
John’s chaste celibacy, (as supported by the monachists,) he
says, in reference to the latter, that if John made out to
preserve his chastity uncontaminated among such a people as the
Jews were, in that most corrupt age, he should consider it a
greater miracle than if John had come safe out of the kettle of
boiling oil; but on the reverend Abbot’s sentiment, perhaps many
will remark with Lampe,――“quod pronuntiatum tamen nimis audax
est.”――“It is rather too bold to pronounce such an opinion.”
Nevertheless, such a termination of life would be so much in
accordance with the standard mode of dispatching an apostle,
that they would never have taken him out of the oil-kettle,
except for the necessity of sending him to Patmos, and dragging
him on through multitudes of odd adventures yet to come. So we
might then have had the satisfaction of winding up his story,
in the _literal_ and happy application of the words of a certain
venerable poetical formula for the conclusion of a nursery tale,
which here makes not only rhyme but reason,――

* * * * *

HIS BANISHMENT.

This fable of his journey to Rome is by all its propagators connected with the well-authorized incident of his banishment to Patmos. This event, given on the high evidence of the Revelation which bears his name, is by all the best and most ancient authorities, referred to the period of the reign of Domitian. The precise year is as much beyond any means of investigation, as most other exact dates in his and all the other apostles’ history. From the terms in which the ancient writers commemorate the event, it is known, with tolerable certainty, to have occurred towards the close of the reign of Domitian, though none of the early Fathers specify the year. The first who pretend to fix the date, refer it to the fourteenth year of that emperor, and the most critical among the moderns fix it as late; and some even in the fifteenth or last year of his reign; since that persecution of the Christians, during which John seems to have been banished, may be fairly presumed, from the known circumstances as recorded in history, to have been the last great series of tyrannical acts committed by this remarkably wicked monarch. It certainly appears, from distinct assertions in the credible records of ecclesiastical history, that there was a great persecution begun about this time by Domitian, against the Christians; but there is no reasonable doubt that the extent and vindictiveness of it has been very much overrated, in the rage among the later Fathers, for multiplying the sufferings of the early Christians far beyond the truth. The first Christian writers who allude to this persecution very particularly, specify its character as far less aggravated than that of Nero, of which they declare it to have been but a shadow,――and the persecutor himself but a mere _fraction_ of Nero in cruelty. There is not a single authenticated instance of any person’s having suffered death in this persecution; all the creditable historians who describe it, most particularly demonstrate that the whole range of punishments inflicted on the subjects of it, was confined to banishment merely. Another reason for supposing that this attack on the Christians was very moderate in its character, is the important negative fact, that not one heathen historian makes the slightest mention of any trouble with the new sect, during that bloody reign; although such repeated, vivid accounts are given of the dreadful persecution waged by Nero, as related above, in the Life of Peter. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that there were no great cruelties practised on them; but that many of them, who had become obnoxious to the tyrant and his minions, were quietly put out of the way, that they might occasion no more trouble,――being sent from Rome and some of the principal cities, into banishment, along with many others whose removal was considered desirable by the rulers of Rome or the provinces; so that the Christians, suffering with many others, and some of high rank and character, a punishment of no very cruel nature, were not distinguished by common narrators, from the general mass of the banished; but were noticed more particularly by the writers of their own order, who thus specified circumstances that otherwise would not have been made known. Among those driven out from Ephesus at this time, John was included, probably on no special accusation otherwise than that of being prominent as the last survivor of the original founders, among these members of the new faith, who by their pure lives were a constant reproach to the open vices of the proud heathen around them; and by their refusal to conform to idolatrous observances, exposed themselves to the charge of non-conformity to the established religion of the state,――an offence of the highest order even among the Romans, whose tolerance of new religions was at length limited by the requisition, that no doctrine whatever should be allowed to aim directly at the overthrow of the settled order of things. When, therefore, it began to be apprehended that the religion of Jesus would, in its progress, overcome the securities of the ancient worship of the Olympian gods, those who felt their interests immediately connected with the system of idolatry, in their alarmed zeal for its support, made use of the worst specimens of imperial tyranny to check the advancing evil.

PATMOS.

The place chosen for his banishment was a dreary desert island in the Aegean sea, called Patmos. It is situated among that cluster of islands, called the Sporades, about twenty miles from the Asian coast, and thirty or forty southwest of Ephesus. It is at this day known by the observation of travelers, to be a most remarkably desolate place, showing hardly anything but bare rocks, on which a few poor inhabitants make but a wretched subsistence. In this insulated desert the aged apostle was doomed to pass the lonely months, far away from the enjoyments of Christian communion and social intercourse, so dear to him, as the last earthly consolation of his life. Yet to him, his residence at Ephesus was but a place of exile. Far away were the scenes of his youth and the graves of his fathers. “The shore whereon he loved to dwell,”――the lake on whose waters he had so often sported or labored in the freshness of early years, were still the same as ever, and others now labored there, as he had done ere he was called to a higher work. But the homes of his childhood knew him no more forever, and rejoiced now in the light of the countenances of strangers, or lay in blackening desolation beneath the brand of a wasting invasion. The waters and the mountains were there still,――they are there now; but that which to him constituted all their reality was gone then, as utterly as now. The ardent friends, the dear brother, the faithful father, the fondly ambitious and loving mother,――who made up his little world of life, and joy, and hope,――where were they? All were gone; even his own former self was gone too, and the joys, the hopes, the thoughts, the views of those early days, were buried as deeply as the friends of his youth, and far more irrevocably than they. Cut off thus utterly from all that once excited the earthly and merely human emotions within him, the whole world was alike a desert or a home, according as he found in it communion with God, and work for his remaining energies, in the cause of Christ. Wherever he went, he bore about with him his resources of enjoyment,――his home was within himself; the friends of his youth and manhood were still before him in the ever fresh images of their glorious examples; the brother of his heart was near him always, and nearest now, when the persecutions of imperial tyranny seemed to draw him towards a sympathetic participation in the pains and the glories of that bloody death. The Lord of his life, the author of his hopes, the guide of his youth, the cherisher of his spirit, was over and around him ever, with the consolations of his promised presence,――“with him always, even to the end of the world.”

THE APOCALYPSE.

The Revelation of John the Divine opens with a moving and splendid view of these circumstances. Being, as it is recorded, in the isle that is called Patmos, for preaching the word of God, and for bearing witness of Jesus Christ, he was in his lonely banishment, one Lord’s day, sitting wrapped in a holy spiritual contemplation, when he heard behind him a great voice, as of a trumpet, which broke upon his startled ear with a most solemnly grand annunciation of the presence of one whose being was the source and end of all things. As the amazed apostle turned to see the person from whom came such portentous words, there met his eye a vision so dazzling, yet appalling in its beauty and splendor, amid the bare, dark rocks around, that he fell to the earth without life, and lay motionless until the heavenly being, whose awful glories had so overwhelmed him, recalled him to his most vivid energies, by the touch of his life-giving hand. In the lightning-splendors of that countenance, far outshining the glories of Sinai, reflected from the face of Moses, the trembling eye of the apostolic seer recognized the lineaments of one whom he had known in other days, and upon whose bosom he had hung in the warm affection of youth. Even the eye which now flashed such rays, he knew to be that which had once been turned on him in the aspect of familiar love; nor did its glance now bear a strange or forbidding expression. The trumpet-tones of the voice, which of old, on Hermon, roused him from the stupor into which he fell at the sight of the foretaste of these very glories, now recalled him to life in the same encouraging words, “Be not afraid.” The crucified and ascended Jesus, living, though once dead, now called on his beloved apostle to record the revelations which should soon burst upon his eyes and ears; that the churches that had lately been under his immediate attention, might learn the approach of events which most nearly concerned the advance of their faith. First, therefore, addressing an epistolary charge to each of the seven churches, he called them to a severe account for their various errors, and gave to each such consolations and promises as were suited to its peculiar circumstances. Then dropping these individualizing exhortations, he leaves all the details of the past, and the minutiae of the state of the seven churches, for a glance over the events of coming ages, and the revolutions of empires and of worlds. The full explanation of the scenes which follow, is altogether beyond the range of a mere apostolic historian, and would require such ability and learning in the writer,――such a length of time for their application to this matter, and such an expanse of paper for their full expression, as are altogether out of the question in this case. Some few points in this remarkable writing, however, fall within the proper notice of the apostle’s biographer, and some questions on the scope of the Apocalypse itself, as well as on the history of it, as a part of the sacred canon, will therefore be here discussed.

The minute history of the apostolic writings,――the discussion of their particular scope and tenor,――and the evidences of their inspiration and authenticity,――are topics, which fall for the most part under a distinct and independent department of Christian theology, the common details of which are alone sufficient to fill many volumes; and are of course altogether beyond the compass of a work, whose main object is limited to a merely historical branch of religious knowledge. Still, such inquiries into these deeper points, as truly concern the personal history of the apostles, are proper subjects of attention, even here. The life of no literary or scientific man is complete, which does not give such an account of his writings as will show under what circumstances,――with what design,――for what persons,――and at what time, they were written. But a minute criticism of their style, or illustrations of their meaning, or a detail of all the objections which have been made to them, might fairly be pronounced improper intrusions upon the course of the narrative. With the danger of such an extension of these investigations, in view, this work here takes up those points in the history of John’s writings, that seem to fall under the general rule in making up a personal and literary biography.

In the case of this particular writing, moreover, the difficulties of an enlarged discussion are so numerous and complicated, as to offer an especial reason to the apostolic historian, for avoiding the almost endless details of questions that have agitated the greatest minds in Christendom, for the last four hundred years. And the decision of the most learned and sagacious of modern critics, pronounces the Apocalypse of John to be “the most difficult and doubtful book of the New Testament.”

The points proper for inquiry in connection with a history of the life of John, may be best arranged in the form of questions with their answers severally following.

I. DID THE APOSTLE JOHN WRITE THE APOCALYPSE?

Many will doubtless feel disposed to question the propriety
of thus bringing out, in a popular book, inquiries which have
hitherto, by a sort of common consent, been confined to learned
works, and wholly excluded from such as are intended to convey
religious knowledge to ordinary readers. The principle has
been sometimes distinctly specified and maintained, that some
established truths in exegetical theology, must needs be always
kept among the arcana of religious knowledge, for the eyes and
ears of the learned few, to whom “it is given to know these
mysteries;” “but that to them that are without,” they are ever
to remain unknown. This principle is often acted on by the
theologians of Germany and England, so that a distinct line
seems to be drawn between an _exoteric_ and an _esoteric_
doctrine,――a public and a private belief,――the latter being the
literal truth, while the former is such a view of things, as
suits the common religious prejudices of the mass of hearers and
readers. But such is not the free spirit of true Protestantism;
nor is any deceitful doctrine of “_accommodation_” accordant
with the open, single-minded honesty of apostolic teachings.
Taking from the persons who are the subjects of this history,
something of their simple freedom of word and action, for the
reader’s benefit, several questions will be boldly asked, and
as boldly answered, on the authorship, the scope, and character
of the Apocalypse. And first, on the present personal question
in hand, a spirit of tolerant regard for opinions discordant
with those of some readers, perhaps may be best learned, by
observing into what uncertainties the minds of the greatest and
most devout of theologians, and of the mighty founders of the
Protestant faith, have been led on this very point.

The great Michaelis (Introduction to the New Testament, vol. IV.
c. xxxiii. § 1.) apologizes for his own doubts on the Apocalypse,
justifying himself by the similar uncertainty of the immortal
Luther; and the remarks of Michaelis upon the character of the
persons to whom Luther thus boldly published his doubts, will be
abundantly sufficient to justify the discussion of such darkly
deep matters, to the readers of the Lives of the Apostles.

Not only Martin Luther as here quoted by Michaelis, but the
other great reformers of that age, John Calvin and Ulric Zwingle,
boldly expressed their doubts on this book, which more modern
speculators have made so miraculously accordant with anti-papal
notions. Their learned cotemporary, Erasmus, also, and the
critical Joseph Scaliger, with other great names of past ages,
have contributed their doubts, to add a new mark of suspicion to
the Apocalypse.

“As it is not improbable that this cautious method of proceeding
will give offense to some of my readers, I must plead in my
behalf the example of Luther, who thought and acted precisely in
the same manner. His sentiments on this subject are delivered,
not in an occasional dissertation on the Apocalypse, but in the
preface to his German translation of it, a translation designed
_not merely_ for the learned, but for _the illiterate_, and even
for _children_. In the preface prefixed to that edition, which
was printed in 1522, he expressed himself in very strong terms.
In this preface he says: ‘In this book of the Revelation of
St. John, I leave it to every person to judge for himself: I
will bind no man to my opinion; I say only what I feel. Not one
thing only fails in this book; so that I hold it neither for
apostolical, nor prophetical. First and chiefly, the apostles
do not prophesy in visions, but in clear and plain words, as St.
Peter, St. Paul, and Christ in the gospel do. It is moreover the
apostle’s duty to speak of Christ and his actions in a simple
way, not in figures and visions. Also no prophet of the Old
Testament, much less of the New, has so treated throughout his
whole book of nothing but visions: so that I put it almost in
the same rank with the fourth book of Esdras, and _cannot any
way find that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost_. Lastly, let
every one think of it what his own spirit suggests. My spirit
can make nothing out of this book; and I have reason enough not
to esteem it highly, since Christ is not taught in it, which an
apostle is above all things bound to do, as he says, (Acts i.)
Ye are my witnesses. Therefore I abide by the books which teach
Christ clearly and purely.’

“But in that which he printed in 1534, he used milder and less
decisive expressions. In the preface to this later edition,
he divides prophecies into three classes, the third of which
contains visions, without explanations of them; and of these
he says: ‘As long as a prophecy remains unexplained and has
no determinate interpretation, it is a hidden silent prophecy,
and is destitute of the advantages which it ought to afford to
Christians. This has hitherto happened to the Apocalypse: for
though many have made the attempt, no one to the present day,
has brought any thing certain out of it, but several have made
incoherent stuff out of their own brain. On account of these
uncertain interpretations, and hidden senses, we have hitherto
left it to itself, especially since some of the ancient Fathers
believed that it was not written by the apostle, as is related
in Lib. III. Church History. In this uncertainty we, for our
part, still let it remain: but do not prevent others from taking
it to be the work of St. John the apostle, if they choose. And
because I should be glad to see a certain interpretation of it,
I will afford to other and higher spirits occasion to reflect.’

“Still however, he declared he was not convinced that the
Apocalypse was canonical, and recommended the interpretation of
it to those who were more enlightened than himself. If Luther
then, the author of our reformation, thought and acted in
this manner, and the divines of the last two centuries still
continued, without the charge of heresy, to print Luther’s
preface to the Apocalypse, in the editions of the German Bible
of which they had the superintendence, surely no one of the
present age ought to censure a writer for the avowal of similar
doubts. Should it be objected that what was excusable in Luther
would be inexcusable in a modern divine, since more light has
been thrown on the subject than there had been in the sixteenth
century, I would ask in what this light consists. If it consists
in newly discovered testimonies of the ancients, they are rather
unfavorable to the cause; for the canon of the Syrian church,
which was not known in Europe when Luther wrote, decides against
it. On the other hand, if this light consists in a more clear
and determinate explanation of the prophecies contained in the
Apocalypse, which later commentators have been able to make out,
by the aid of history, I would venture to appeal to a synod of
the latest and most zealous interpreters of it, such as Vitringa,
Lange, Oporin, Heumann, and Bengel, names which are free from
all suspicion; and I have not the least doubt, that at every
interpretation which I pronounced unsatisfactory, I should have
at least three voices out of the five in my favor. At all events
they would never be unanimous against me, in the places where I
declared that I was unable to perceive the new light, which is
supposed to have been thrown on the subject since the time of
Luther.