association. For a time it was in abeyance.

In particular, the exile pronounced against St. John was apparently an act of the Emperor, and ceased to be

valid when his acts were declared invalid. The Apostle was now free to return to Asia. He may have brought

the Apocalypse with him. More probably an opportunity had been found of sending it already. But it

reached the Churches, and began to be effective among them, in the latter part of Domitian's reign; and

hence Irenaeus says it was written at that time. But while his account is to be regarded as literally true, yet

the composition was long and slow, and the point of view is placed at the beginning of the exile.

There grew up later the belief that his exile had only been short; and that he was banished about two years

before the end of Domitian's reign. But this seems to rest on no early or good evidence: all that can be

reckoned as reasonably certain (so far as certainty can be predicated of a time so remote and so obscure) is

that St. John was banished to Patmos and returned at the death of Domitian.

Antoninus Pius (138-161), indeed, laid down the rule that criminals might be released from this penalty after

ten years on account of ill-health or old age, if relatives took charge of them. But this amelioration cannot be

supposed to have been allowed in the Flavian time for an obscure Christian. No other end for the

punishment of St. John seems possible except the fall of Domitian; and in that case he must have been exiled

by Domitian, for if he had been condemned by another Emperor, his fate would not have been affected by

the annulment of Domitian's acts.

There arose also in that later time a misconception as to the character of the Flavian persecution. It was

regarded as an act of Domitian alone, and was supposed to be, like all the other persecutions except the last,

a brief but intense outburst of cruelty: this misconception took form before the last persecution, and was

determined by the analogy of all the others.

But the Flavian persecution was not a temporary flaming forth of cruelty: it was a steady, uniform

application of a deliberately chosen and unvarying policy, a policy arrived at after careful consideration, and

settled for the permanent future conduct of the entire administration. It was to be independent of

circumstances and the inclination of individuals. The Christians were to be annihilated, as the Druids had

been; and both those instances of intolerance were due to the same cause, not religious but political, v iz.,

the belief that each of them endangered the unity of the Empire and the safety of the Imperial rule. Domitian

was not a mere capricious tyrant. He was an able, but gloomy and suspicious, ruler. He applied with ruthless

logic the principle which had apparently been laid down by his father Vespasian, and which was confirmed a

few years later by Trajan. But the more genial character of Vespasian interfered in practice with the thorough

execution of the principle which he had laid down; and the clear insig ht of Trajan recognised that in carrying

it out methods were required which would be inconsistent with the humaner spirit of his age, and he forbade

those excesses, while he approved the principle. But the intellect of Domitian perceived that the proscription

of the Christians was simply the application of the essential principles of Roman Imperialism, and no

geniality or humanity prevented him from putting it logically and thoroughly into execution. His ability, his

power to grasp general principles, and h is narrow intensity of nature in putting his principles into action,

may be gathered from his portrait, Fig. 5, taken from one of his coins.

Figure 5: Domitian the persecutor