7. The Deeds and Doctrine of the Nicolaitans were crept into the Churches before this Book was written by John , and he commends the Church of Ephesus for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans , Rev. 2.6 . and he blames the Church of Pergamus , for that they had them amongst them which held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans , Rev. 2.15 . but when did these Nicolaitans first begin , and when did their Doctrine first creep into the Churches ? Not in the Reign of Claudius ; for then other Books of Scripture would have spoken of them ; especially those which were written at that time : but we find nothing of these Nicolaitans in any Book of Scripture , save only in the Revelation , which shews they were not known in the Reign of Claudius but came up afterward , and therefore Baronius and others place them in the Reign of Nero. Baronius Anno Neronis 12.

8. This Book was written after Antipas was slain , Rev 2.13 . and 't is written and sent to the Angel his successour who ever he were : But now History tells us , and our Adversaries confess that Antipas was slain not in the days of Claudius , but in the days of Domitian the Roman Emperour . See Doctor Hammond Page 927. Menolog . April . 11. Baronii M●●●y to 〈◊〉 pag. 249. Baronii Annal. Anno Domitiani 10. And to this Argument they have not any thing to say , but that Rev. 2.13 . the Preter tense is put for the Future tense , Antipas was slain for Antipas will be slain ; to which I answer , 1. That the Preter tense is not usually put for the Future tense , except it be in Prophecies ; but that part of the Epistle to the Church of Pergamus is not a Prophecy , but a History of what was done before the Revelation was written . 2. The proper names of men be not usually joyned with Verbs of the Preter tense before the thing spoken of be done , but in the Future rather , as when 't is said of Josiah , that he shall burn dead mens Bones upon the Altar , 1 King . 13.2 . it is spoken in the Future tense and not in the Preter tense . So when 't is said of Cyrus , He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure , Esa. 44.28 . it is spoken in the Future tense , and not in the Preter tense . 3. The Epistle to the Church of Pergamus is directed and sent to the Angel , Antipas his successour : Therefore it was written after Antipas was dead . 4. Men are not commended in Letters in the Preter tense for what they will do hereafter , but for what they have done already ; but the Angel of the Church of Pergamus is commended for that he had not denied the Faith of Christ even in those dayes wherein Antipas was slain ; therefore this commendatory letter was written after Antipas was dead : and because he was slain in the dayes of Domitian , and not in the dayes of Claudius , therefore we conclude that this Book was written in the Reign of Domitian , and not in the Reign of Claudius .

9. This Book was written after the Seven Churches of Asia were converted to the Christian Faith : But we cannot find that these Seven Churches were converted to the Faith in the dayes of Claudius , but 't is more likely that Ephesus was converted in the dayes of Nero , and that because , as Doctor Hammond observes pag. 648. the first time that Paul disputed at Ephesus was about Ann. Ch. 51. and it was three years after that before Ephesus was converted , and that was Anno Ch. 54. which was the First year of Nero's Reign . See Bishop Vshers Annal. pag. 668. 670. 671. from whom we may learn that Ephesus was not converted until the Reign of Nero.

10. Suppose it were true that these Churches were converted in the dayes of Claudius ; yet they could not be converted any long time before his Death , and that because he Reigned but thirteeen years and nine moneths in all , and either all or the greatest part of that time was spent in converting other Churches , as you may read Act. 15 , 16 , 17 , and 18. Chapters ; so that they could not be converted any long time before his death , yea in his time it was that Paul and Timothy were forbidden to Preach in Asia , Act. 16.6 . But now the Gospel had been Preached unto them a long time before this Book was written , and they were not new converts , but old ones , and of long standing in the Christian Faith , when this Book was written to them , as these Texts of Scripture sufficiently declare , Rev. 2.2 , 3 , 4 , 5.9.13.19.21 .

11. If this Book had been written in the ninth year of Claudius , Paul would not have gone to Ephesus to Preach the Gospel there at the latter end of his Reign , for Paul did not Preach the Gospel where it had been Preached : before by others , as he himself confesseth , Rom. 15.20 , 21. 2 Cor. 10.13 , 14 , 15 , 16. Now we find that Paul went to Preach the Gospel at Ephesus before it was converted , Act. 18.19 . and this was at the latter end of Claudius's Reign , for his going thither was , as Dr. Hammond in his Preface before the Epistle to the Ephesians saith , about the one and fiftieth year of Christ , and that was at the latter end of Claudius's Reign , and therefore this Book was not written then , but at some time or other afterward .

12. Why was this Book revealed unto John , and not rather unto Paul , for Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles , and John of the circumcision , Gal. 2.9 . and Paul had the honour to convert the Gentiles to the Christian Faith , not John , as you may read in the Acts of the Apostles , c. 18.19 . and 20. and therefore it is likely that if this Prophecy had been revealed in the days of Paul , that it should have been revealed unto him , and that Paul should have been the pen-man of it , and not John , which we know is otherwise ; and therefore the true cause , why this Prophecy was revealed unto John , and not to Paul , was because Paul was dead , and the other Apostles were dead when this Prophecy was revealed , and onely John was then alive , whom it could be revealed unto .

13. This Book was one of the last Books of Scripture that was written , if not the last of all , as the words , Rev. 22.18 . do imply : but if this Book were written in the ninth year of Claudius , the Epistle to the Ephesians , and all other of Pauls Epistles had been written after this , yea the Gospel of St. Luke , the Acts of the Apostles , and all other Books of the new Testament , except the Gospel by St. Mathew , had been written after this , and this Book should not have been one of the last , much less the last of all , but one of the first Books of the new Testament that was written .

Ob. What Irenaeus affirms concerning John's Vision at the end of Domitian , is not of all but particularly of that Vision of the number of the Beast , c. 13.18 . Thus will Eusebius's words be understood , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. If the name of Antichrist ought to be Proclaimed openly now , it would have been declared by him that saw the Revelation , for it was not seen any long time ago . Where 't is clear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( was seen ) may belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( the name of the Beast ) as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( declared ) did . And that it not only may , but must be so understood , appears by the Latine of Irenaeus ( which only is extant ) which reads it thus , Antichristi nomen per ipsum utique editum fuisset qui & Apocalypsin viderat , neque enim ante multum temporis visum est sed pene sub nostro seculo ad finem Domitiani imperii , The name of Antichrist would have been published by him who saw the Apocalypse , for it was not seen any long time since , but almost under our age , at the end of Domitians Empire . Where the word visum in the Neuter , seen , not visa in the Feminine , belongs apparently to the name not to the Apocalypse .

Ans. 1. John saw the Prophecies of the Revelation all together at one time , and not at several distant times , as shall be proved in the next question , and therefore for any man to think that he had the vision of the name of the Beast , by it self alone , at the end of Domitians Reign , and of the rest of the Apocalypse at some other time before , is but a meer fancy at the best . 2. Irenaeus counted the name of the Beast not worthy to be divulged at large by the Holy Ghost , and therefore it is far from his meaning , that it was seen by itself alone from the rest of the Apocalypse . 3. Irenaeus doth not say , nomen viderat , that John saw the name of the Beast , but Apocalypsin viderat that be saw the Apocalypse , and this was seen not any long time ago , but almost in our time at the end of Domitians Reign . 4. Eusebius brings the Testimony of Irenaeus , to prove that John was banished into Patmos at the end of Domittans Reign , and therefore he understands Irenaeus as we do , and his opinion is , that the Apocalypse was seen by John in the Reign of Domitian , and not the name of the Beast by itself alone . 5. It is a very unlikely thing that John should be banished into Patmos , in the Reign of Claudius , and see some part of the Revelation there in his time , and the name of the Beast elsewhere by itself alone at the end of Domitians Reign , which was above fourty years afterwards , without the least intimation of any such thing . 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is not the Nominative case to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , was seen , as the objection would have it , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Nominative case unto it , which I prove thus : That which John saw , is the Nominative case to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was seen ; but Eursebius saith , that John saw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Revelation ; therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Revelation , is the Nominative case to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was seen . 7. Though it be true , that in the Latine Copy of Irenaeus , the word is visum in the Neuter Gender , yet in the Latine Copy of Eusebius , the word is visa in the Feminine Gender , and in the Margent of one of them , I find these words , Anno Domini 96. Joannes in Patmon relegatus scripsit Apocalypsin , in the year of the Lord 96. John was banished into Patmos , and then wrote the Revelation . 8. Let the word be visa , or visum , one that has but half an eye , may see what Irenaeus's meaning is , that if the name of Antichrist ought to be divulged openly now , it would have been divulged by him who saw the Revelation for it ; that is , the Revelation was seen not any long time ago , but almost in our age , at the end of Domitians Reign ; and seeing it was not openly declared by him who saw the Revelation , and that so lately too , it ought not to be proclaimed openly by us , as to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his proper name : this is Irenaeus's meaning , and the drift of his discourse . Lastly , be it so as they would have it , that visum seen doth belong to the name of the Beast , yet 't is far from Irenaeus's meaning , that the name of the Beast was seen by itself alone , his meaning rather is , that it was seen when the rest of the Apocalypse was , and that was , as he saith , at the latter end of Domitians Reign ; and as for the name of the Beast , his meaning is , that it was not seen by John himself , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifestim , that is , in words at length , but in figures only .

Ob. Though it should be acknowledged to be the opinion of Irenaeus , that John received the Revelation , and all his Visions at the end of Domitian , yet on the other side 't is the affirmation of Epiphanius , that John Prophecied in the time of Claudius Caesar , when saith he , he was in the Isle Patmos . And that which may give authority to Epiphanius's Testimony , is this . 1. That Epiphanius in that place , is a writing against the Montanists about the authority of the Apocalypse , and that the later it were seen , or written , the more it would have been for his turn , towards confuting , or answering them , whose objection it was that the Church of Thyatira , mentioned in the Apocalypse , was not yet a Church , when that was said to be revealed . And therefore if it had been but uncertain , whether it were written so early or no , he would without all question , have made use of this as some advantage against his adversaries , whom he was then in confuting , 2. That Epiphanius is so far from doing this , that he doth twice in the same place expresly affirm , 1. That his being in the Isle of Patmos , 2. That his seeing these Visions there , were in the time of Claudius .

Ans. The Testimony of Irenaeus who lived so near the time of Domitian , is far to be preferred before the Testimony of Epiphanius , who lived above two hundred years after . 2. If there be any truth in Epiphanius's Testimony , why did Jerom , Eusebius , and others follow the Testimony of Irenaeus , and not the Testimony of Epiphanius , but that they saw some fault in his Testimony ? yea , why did all our modern Writers since , as well Papists as Protestants ( except Grotius and his adherents ) follow the Testimony of Irenaeus , and forsake the Testimony of Epiphanius ? if there were any credit to be given to his Testimony . 3. Either the Copy of Epiphanius is corrupt , or else he mistook and set down Claudius for Domitian , as the marginal note mendosè pro Domitiano doth imply , and he might as well mistake Claudius , for Domitian , as he did Priscilla , Maximilla , and Quintilla , for Jesebel , for he thinks that by Jesebel the Apostle meant Priscilla , Maximilla , and Quintilla , which is a very unlikely thing , for Iesebel was a woman then in being , though of another name when the Apostle wrote the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira , and he called her Iesebel by a Metaphor , for the likeness she bore to Iesebel , Ahabs Wife , in wickedness , witchcraft , Adultery , and Idolatry , whenas Priscilla , Maximilla , and Quintilla the Disciples of Montanus , were not Prophetesses till the latter end of Antoninus Pius , which was many years after Claudius , and Domitian too . 4. I find another gross mistake in Epiphanius , for he makes Iohn to be above ninety years old in the days of Claudius , whenas he was not above fifty at that time , and he lived at least forty years after his decease , and died in the Reign of Trajan . Helvirus pag. 87.5 . Whereas 't is said , the later it was seen , or written , the more it would have been for his turn , it is nothing so , for he makes the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira , to be a Prophecy of a Church then to come , and not a History of a Church that then was , in which regard it made nothing to his turn , whether it were written sooner , or later ; for suppose it were written sooner in Claudius's time , and that there were no Church in Thyatira at that time , it made nothing against him , nor against the authority of the Revelation , if the Epistle be meant Prophetically of a Church then to come , as he understood it ; or suppose it were written later in Domitians time , and that there were no Church at Thyatira in his time neither , it made nothing against him , and his way , nor against the authority of the Revelation neither , if the Epistle be to be understood prophetically of a Church to come , as he understood it : but the truth is , there was no Church at Thyatira in the Reign of Claudius , nor in any other part of Asia , Act. 16.6 . much less such renowned Churches as St. Iohn speaks of , consisting of Elders , Bishops , and Metropolitans too , as some would have it , and therefore this Book was not written in his days , but at some time or other afterward , Lastly , if the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira were written in the days of Claudius , how will they answer the objection of the Montanists , which was , that there was no Church there when that Epistle was written , as indeed there was not , if that Epistle were written in Claudius's days .

Ob. Having said this for the confirming this assertion of Epiphanius , to have as much authority as his Testimony can give it , four Arguments I shall add for the truth of it . The first Negative , to the disparagement of that relation that affirms him banished by Domitian , and returned after his death in Nerva's Reign . For of the persecution by Domitian , there be but two authors mentioned by Eusebius , l. 3. c. 20. Tertullian , and Egesippus ; but of Tertullian , he hath these words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Domitian went about to do as Nero had done , being a part of his cruelty , or as Tertullians words are Apol. c. 5. portio Neronis de crudelitate , a Portion of Nero for cruelty , sed facile coeptum repressit , restitutis etiam quos relegaverat , but he ceased from it presently , and recalled those whom he had banished , which no way agrees with his banishing John , and not recalling him all his lise , as is supposed in the other relation , and affirmed by Eusebius , l. 3. c. 20. And therefore Baronius , that is for his banishment under Domitian , in the tenth year of his Reign , is forced fairly to reject Tertullians authority in this matter , giving for it his proof out of Dio , viz. that Nerva released those who were condemned of impiety , and restored those who were banished . Which affirmation of Dio's being granted as far as belongs to those who were in exile , or stood condemned at Nerva's coming to the Empire , doth no way prejudice the truth of Tertullians words , of Domitians having repressed his severity against the Christians , and revoked the banished , ( wherein he is much a more competent witness than Baronius . ) No more doth his killing his Unkle Clemens , and banishing his Cousin Flavia Domitilla , for that was five years after this time of Johns supposed banishment , in the fifteenth or last year of Domitians Reign . In the relation of Egesippus a most ancient Writer that lived in those times , there is no more but this , that Domitian had made a decree for putting to death all that were of the linage of David , that some delators had accused some of the Children of Jude , the Kinsman of our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as such who were of Davids Seed , that Jocatus brought these to Domitian , but upon examination , being found to be plain men , and such as believed not Christs Kingdom to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this World , or earthly , but heavenly , and angelical , to begin at the end of the World , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he set them free , and by Edict took off the persecution against the Church , and they being released , became Bishops in the Church , and continued peaceably , and lived till Trajans days . And this certainly agrees very little with the other relation , nor can any account probably be rendred why when the persecution of Christians was taken off by the Edict , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peace restored to the Church of Christ , and when the profession of Christianity in the Sons of Jude being by them avowed to the Emperor , was not yet thought fit to be punished in the least , yet Iohn should be banished , and continue in his exile , 'till Nerva's Reign , for no other crime , but that of being a Christian . Where by the way , Baronius's artifice much fails him , Tertullian ( saith he ) fell into this error by following Egesippus's authority , but Egesippus ( saith he ) spake apparently de ea persecutione quae mota est in Judaeos , of that persecution which was raised against the Iews , not against the Christians . How true that is , will now appear , when the express words are , that by that Emperors edict the persecution against the Church ( sure that was not of Iews , but Christians ) ceased .

Ans. If there be no credit to be given to that relation that affirms Iohn banished by Domitian , and returned after his death in Nerva's Reign , why did all Writers ever since give credit to that relation , and forsake Epiphanius in this point , except Grotius and his followers ? 2. If Domitian presently ceased from his cruelty , and recalled the banished , why did Dr. Hammond say , that after the rebuilding of the Capitol Domitian began a persecution against the Christians , as those which opposed the Heathen Worship , and continued it above three years and a half , until his death ? Paraph. on Revelation 13. v. 5. pag. 967. 3. If Domitian presently ceased from his persecution of the Church , how can he be the Beast Apocalyptical as they would have him ? for the Beast after he began a persecution against the Church , never ceased from it , but continued it until his dying day , Rev. 19.19 , 20. 4. If Domitian began his persecution in the tenth year of his Reign , and presently ceased from it , how came it to pass that in the fifteenth year of his Reign , he slew Flavius Clemens , ( who had been a Consul ) for his Christianity , and banished Flavia Domitilla for being a Christian ? doth not this plainly shew that Domitian continued his persecution against the Church ; and never wholly ceased from it ? though for a while he might relent , and be more remiss at one time than another , as a continued feaver hath its time of relaxation , and exacerbation , yet never wholly ceaseth . 5. If Domitian presently ceased from his persecution , and never took it up again , this had been no grand persecution , as all the ten persecutions were , but a very light one , even the lightest that ever was . 6. That relenting which Tertullian speaks of , may very well agree with that which Eusebius saith , for he might cease from his cruelty for a time , and take it up again , as a continual feaver doth relent for a time , and have a strong fit again : but I rather think that that ceasing which Tertullian speaks of , was in the fifteenth year of his Reign , not long before his death ; and whereas 't is said he ceased presently , the meaning is , not that he ceased presently after he first began his persecution , but the meaning rather is , that he ceased presently after he heard the words of Judes Sons , that Christs Kingdom was not earthly , but heavenly , this was it which made him to relent , and this was done at the latter end of his Reign , whenas his persecution began about five years before , and this doth well agree with that which Dio saith , that Nerva released those who where condemned of impiety , and restored those who were banished , Domitian not living himself to see it put in execution . Lastly , that which Egesippus saith , doth very well agree with that which Eusebius saith , for 't was at the latter end of his Reign that the Sons of Jude were brought before him , and when he found them to be plain men , and such as believed not Christs Kingdom to be of this World , he thereupon set them free , and there were no more set free by him than they , and more than this he did not , but made an Edict that the persecution against the Church should cease , and this edict reached not the Jews only , as Baronius would have it , but the whole Church , but Domitian dying suddenly thereupon , no more was done in his days but the making of the edict only , all the rest was put in execution by Nerva ; in his days it was that the Sons of Jude became Bishops in the Church , and not before ; in his days it was that peace was restored , and not before ; and in his days it was that John was released , and not before : and upon this account it is , that it was not done in Domitians days , because Domitian died suddenly after he heard the words of Judes Sons , and was slain by Stephen , and did not live to see his edict put in execution .

Ob. About the ninth year of Claudius , the Christians were pursued , and banisht by the Roman Powers . That at that time Claudius banished the Jews out of Rome , is evident by Josephus , and acknowledged by all . And that by the Jews , the Christians are meant , appears by Suetonius in the life of Claudius , c. 25. Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Româ expulit , he banished the Jews out of Rome , for the tumults which they daily raised by the impulsion of Chrestus . By Chrestus it is certain that the Roman Writers meant Christ , calling him Chrest , and his followers Chrestians , as Tertullian observes , Apol. c. 3. And so they that were acted by the impulsion of Chrest , in that narration must , though called Jews , necessarily be resolved to be Christians . And what was done at Rome , is to be supposed to have been done also in other parts of the Emperors Dominions . And so that edict mentioned Act. 18.2 . was in reason to reach to Ephesus , and may justly be thought to have involved St. John there . And accordingly Chronologers have placed this banishment of his to Patmos in that year .

Ans. That the Christians were pursued , and banished by the Roman Powers about the ninth year of Claudius , doth not yet appear to me , for as yet there was law made against Christian Religion , saith Dr. Hammond . paraph. on Act. 18. v. 15. and a little after he saith , that Claudius set out an Edict against the Jews , but none against Christians , any otherwise than as they were comprehended under the name of Jews . 2. That edict set forth by Claudius , in the ninth year of his Reign , was against the Jews only , and not against the Christians ; and the Christian Jews , as Jews , not as Christians fell under that edict , saith the same Doctor , notes on Act. 26. pag. 456. 3. The cause of that edict were the tumults which the Jews made in Rome , but John was banished into Patmos , not for any such cause , but for the word of God , and for the Testimony of Jesus Christ , Rev. 1.9 . 4. The Ringleader of these tumults was one Chrestus , as Suetonius saith , lib. 5. c. 25. but that by Chrestus is meant our Lord Christ , adhuc mihi persuadere non possum , I cannot yet perswade my self , saith Bishop Vsher in his Annals , pag. 666. 5. What Roman Writers they be , which called Christ Chrest , and his followers Chrestians , they do not tell us ; I find that Tacitus in his Annals lib. 15. c. 6. calls them Christians , and our Saviour he calls Christ . Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos & quaesitissimis poenis affecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat . Therefore to extinguish the rumour , Nero falsly accused and punished most grievously , certain people hated for their wickedness , which the common sort called Christians . Auctor nominis ejus Christus , qui Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat . The author of that name was Christ , I find also that Plinie in his Epistle to Trajan which is in the tenth Book of his Epistles , calls him Christ , and his followers he calleth Christians . who in Tiberius 's Reign was put to death , under Pontius Pilate Procurator of Judaea . Yea Suetonius himself in the life of Nero lib. 6. c. 16. calls them Christians by their right name , Afflicti suppliciis Christiani , the Christians were put to death ; and though others call them Chrestians , as Tertullian observes they did in his time , yet since Suetonius himself calls them otherwise , this 〈◊〉 another Argument that by Chrestus he doth not mean Christ , but it is very likely that that name came up after he was dead , and that through ignorance of the common people . 6. These tumults were raised impulsore Chresto by the impulsion of Chrestus ; now what is meant by impulsion but verbum & exemplum his winning words , and leading example ? and this also shews that Chrestus was not Christ , but a man then alive , and one that lived in Rome at that time , else he could not stir up these tumults , verbo & exemplo by his winning words , and leading example , as this Chrestus did . 7. But suppose it to be true , that by Chrestus he means Christ , yet it will not serve their turn , for the exile which Suetonius speaks of , is of such as were at Rome at that time , Judaeos Româ expulit , he banished the Jews out of Rome , and St. Luke hath the same expression of the place , Act. 18.2 . Claudius commanded all Jews to depart from Rome , but how doth it appear that St. John was then at Rome ? for unless he were there at that time , how is he concerned in the exile ? 8. But let us suppose as they do , that that edict went farther than Rome , and did reach those that were at Ephesus , how doth it appear that St. John was then at Ephesus ? for unless he were there at that time he is still unconcerned in the exile . And here by the way the Reader may observe that they suppose John to be at Ephesus at that time , and that the edict did reach him there , both which we expect they should prove , and make good before we can consent unto it , that John was banished by Claudius into Patmos . 9. But though they bring no Argument for it , I will advance an Argument or two against it , If that edict did reach to Ephesus , and involve John there , how came it to pass that it did not reach to Corinth , which is nearer Rome than Ephesus , and involve Paul at Corinth , but suffer him to continue there , and Preach the Gospel there , Act. 18.1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , &c. 10. If that edict did banish John from Ephesus , how came it to pass that Paul went to Ephesus a little afterward , and was not banished too , Act. 18.19 , 20 ? 11. The Jews were commanded by that edict to depart from Rome , but not confined to any certain place , as John was , and after they were gone from thence , they were at liberty to reside where they would , as appears by Aquila's going to Corinth , and residing there , where he was at liberty , to continue or remove from thence to any other place except Rome , as he pleased , Act. 18.2 , 3.18 , 19. So was not Johns confinement unto Patmos , from whence he had not liberty to remove to a more commodious place , but was forced to continue there against his will . 13. The Church of Ephesus was planted by Paul , as appears , Act. 19. and confirmed by John , as Irenaeus saith , l. 3. c. 3. Eusebius , l. 3. c. 20. and therefore Paul was there before John , and when John came thither he confirmed what Paul had done before ; but if John were at Ephesus at that time , when that edict came forth from Claudius , he must have been there before Paul , for Paul had not been there at that time , but came thither afterward , and found no Church there , as appears , Act. 18.1 , 2.19 , 20 , 21. Act. 19.1 , 2. To which may be added , that Paul did not Preach the Gospel , where it had been Preached before by others , Rom. 15.20 , 21. 2 Cor. 10.13 , 14 , 15. and therefore John did not Preach at Ephesus before Paul came thither , as he must have done , had he been there the ninth year of Claudius . Lastly , what Chronologers they be , which have placed Johns banishment into Patmos , in that ninth year of claudius , they do not tell us , neither can I tell who they be , for all that I have seen , do place it in Domitians Reign , and they are these , Bucholcerus , Helvicus , Alstedius , Calvicius , and Funcius a Papist , beside our English Writers Isaacson , Fox , and Hanmer .