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 Praescript. adv. Haer. 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 (adv. Jovin. 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, (Comm. in Matt. 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, (Cent. 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 N. T. 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." ([Greek: zoôn martyr.]) Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Theophylact and others, quoted by Suicer, [sub voce [Greek: martyr],] 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 [Greek: martyr], 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, (Hom. 63 in Matt.) and his follower Theophylact, num-
