with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially
apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any
doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to
the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles
called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and
the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having
written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully
quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently
made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to
the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of
the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.
The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the
tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution
under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in
support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the
close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the
persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command
given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as
also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the
historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded
Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the
latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,
according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He
states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,
governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his
return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan
succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account
of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must
be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly