Diatribe on the Seven Apocalyptic Letters: Whether HISTORIC or PROPHETIC? 

By Dutch Reformed Theologian and Professor Hermann Witsius (d. 1708)

First Ever Translation of the 1678 Franeker Latin edition

SOURCE

[N. B. After translating Johannes Cocceius’ 7 Letters to the 7 Churches, it is clear Witsius is directing his diatribe at him. Although Witsius’ arguments do not overturn the main propositions of Cocceius, he does give many valuable historic details which are not taught today, as well as exposing several inconsistencies of those who view the 7 letters as foretelling 7 distinct periods in Church history. Witsius begins by summarizing the difficulty and controversy surrounding the Apocalypse.]

The sacred Apocalypse presents great difficulty 

I. The Apocalypse of St. John, truly an august and Divine writing, has been enveloped in a very dense fog of enigmas, and not only do the minds of the sharpest interpreters fail to exercise themselves, but also become fatigued; indeed, sometimes cast into despair in attempting to grasp its genuine meaning; this is a common complaint both among the Ancients and the More Recent. Some of the Ancients, according to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, said it was άγνωσον καὶ ἀσυλλόγισον [‘unknowable and irrational’], but not even truly an Apocalypse or Revelation because “it is densely covered with a thick veil of ignorance.”  Jerome said, “The Apocalypse contains as many secrets as words.” Ansbert, in the Most Holy Prayers which he prefixed to his commentary on the Apocalypse, called the oracles contained within it “obscure pathways of enigmas.” And in the Preface to the same work, he modestly says, “The things we strive to contemplate are too lofty for our understanding; they are beyond our strength to advance in confidence; they are too difficult for our intellect; so we are compelled to pass over them in our attempt to explain.” Nor was it wrong for the Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera to say in the Prologue to his commentaries that the Apocalypse “is a great and spacious sea, full of storms and tempests, in which all human wisdom is devoured.” And how many interpreters have not experienced similar difficulties? 

The reason for this difficulty lies partly in the very writing itself 

II. However, this difficulty arises from not one cause alone: partly it must be sought in the very writing itself, and partly in the condition of the readers. For the subject matter of the writing is exceedingly lofty; the style is symbolic and enigmatic; there are frequent allusions to the ancient Prophets, especially Ezekiel and Daniel, mystical and not yet fully understood visions which either correspond with or are similar to those ancient types; and all prophecy suffers from a certain obscurity; both because its expression is usually enigmatic, and because events that took place at different times and places often bear such similarity to each other and to the words of prophecy that one must be uncertain to which the prediction should be applied. And if the prophecy has not yet been confirmed by its fulfillment, the difficulty is greater: for it is hardly possible for us to grasp or occupy our thoughts with the manner in which these enigmatic outlines of divine fates were once to be explained. God generally speaks indefinitely about future things, so that He places moments of time, places, persons, and other circumstances in His own power, which if anyone defines by their own imaginations, it is hardly possible not to be reproved by the event for rashness and folly. Even the prophets themselves sometimes did not understand their visions, so much so that they needed an angel as a monitor and interpreter. 

However, it is all wisely arranged by God

III. Nor did God wish to exercise His servants rashly in this manner. For just as this difficulty prevents the divine wisdom from being too common or trivial, it also compels a confession of ignorance and dullness, a more diligent inquiry, and a more earnest devotion to prayer, for pious reasons. Gregory beautifully says, “The very obscurity of God’s words is of great use because it exercises the mind so that it may be enlarged by fatigue, and the exercised mind seizes what the idle cannot grasp. It also has a greater purpose, for if the understanding of sacred Scripture were open in all things, it would become cheap. In certain obscure places, it refreshes with a much greater sweetness, found all the more because it fatigues the soul with greater labor in seeking.”

The difficulty must partly be sought in the condition of man  

IV. But the cause of very many difficulties lies in the man himself. For after sin, we all suffer from such a dullness of mind that the Divine and heavenly things become entirely darkened and obscured. Added to this, in many is a sluggish laziness and contempt for the secrets of Divine wisdom’s treasures, which, unless dug into and carefully examined, are not found. Some also, who profess themselves content with the open Scriptures and the common doctrines of faith, by no means think it worthwhile to devote effort to searching the hidden things of the prophecies, which even to those who search are exceedingly elusive. Others, after they have applied themselves to the reading and meditation of some sacred prophecies, are terrified by the almost immense labor required in investigating the phrases, symbols, and prophetic enigmas, the matters of the Church and, indeed, throughout the whole world, and then in comparing these with the prophecies. Prejudices also prevent many from seeing things that otherwise would not be obscure at all. And finally, in some cases, the study of the Apocalypse is utterly extinguished by a very peculiar opinion about its impenetrable obscurity. For it is imagined that the exposition of the Apocalypse is “like the squaring of the circle, about which it is said it is knowable but not yet known; and without a singular revelation from God, the Apocalypse is entirely incomprehensible.” Hence, those who prefer not to comment on the Apocalypse are praised for their modesty above the diligent efforts of others at the interpretation.  

It is nevertheless our duty to diligently examine the Apocalypse

V. But truly, since all Scripture is divinely inspired and has been given for the perfecting of the man of God, there is nothing in it, nothing at all, that may be reverently neglected by the man of God, or as if it did not pertain to him, be set aside. Indeed, there are places where the study of the prophecies is expressly commended. 1 Thessalonians 5:4; 2 Peter 1:19. And concerning the Apocalypse specifically, chapter 1:3: “Blessed is he who reads and hears the words of this prophecy, and keeps what is written in it.” By reads the Lord means privately, and by hears in the Church, where they must also be explained in sermons, and preserved both in the treasury of sanctified memory and in the practice of a holier life; and to those who do this, He promises the greatest happiness. Whoever seeks this ought not to consider the meditation on the Apocalypse as foreign to his own affairs. 

For it also sets forth many salutary things that are obvious to all 

VI. For truly, it “has woven together the profound sacraments of the Church,” as I remember Jerome somewhere said. And even if it is not understood in all parts, it nevertheless contains scattered precepts of holiness; it has excellent exhortations to the steadfastness of faith and piety; it has the most certain promises of reward for the steadfast; it has a clear demonstration of divine judgment both upon the Church and upon its enemies; it has a most splendid description of the glory to be conferred on the Church both in this and in the future age; it has the sweetest songs of the Saints and Angels, by which the praise of divine virtues goes before us; finally, it is full of such sentiments that exhale the most delightful fragrance of holiness everywhere. And indeed, these things have hitherto been exposed openly to all and are suitable to bring great benefit to the soul, although they do not attain to each detail carefully. Nor are these things inaccessible to those who “are trained in schools, practiced in libraries, who belch forth wisdom gained from Academies and porticoes: but also to the simple, the unlearned, the unpolished, and the ignorant, who are concerned with the market place, the crossroads, and the street corner:” as these words of Tertullian I borrow. You should rightly apply yourself especially to the Apocalypse, because Ambrose says generally of Scripture: “It is a sea, having in itself deep meanings, the height of prophetic enigmas. Into this sea many rivers have flowed. Therefore, there are rivers sweet and clear; there are also snowy fountains, from which they leap into eternal life; there are also good discourses like honeycombs of honey, and pleasant sayings, which irrigate the souls of hearers with a certain spiritual drink, and soothe them with the sweetness of moral precepts.” And indeed, these things will perhaps suffice for the edification of those faithful who are among the common people. 

Nor should one despair of understanding the hidden things. 

VII. Meanwhile, it is the duty of theologians to examine each detail more carefully, and to do their best to uncover the truth hidden deep within. Following the example of Daniel 8:15: “And it came to pass, when I, Daniel, saw the vision,” וָאֲבַקְשָׁה בִּינָה “that I sought understanding.” Nor should the mind despair but should sharpen diligence despite the obscurity of things proposed. “For the truth is not hidden in the Scriptures, but obscure: not so that those who seek it cannot find it; but so that those who do not want to seek it cannot find it: so that indeed the glory may pertain to those who have found it, because they desired it and sought and found it; but to the condemnation of those who do not find it, because neither did they desire it, nor seek it, nor find it.” (Chrysostom, Homily 50, On John.) Let the promise of God be a consolation to the diligent in Daniel 12:4 “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased,” and again, verse 10, “No wicked ones will perceive this,” but הַמַּשְׁכִּילִים “the wise, or learned, will perceive it.” And indeed, the Spirit of God would never have wished the book of Revelation to be written and published unless He also wished it to be understood at some time. What then hinders us “from also humbly knocking at the doors of Divine Wisdom, and with a certain pious and religious boldness of faithful mind going to Christ, the best of all friends, who gave this Apocalypse to His servant John to reveal plainly to His servants, and seeking in the middle of the night the obscure bread of understanding of this and Sacred darkness, which we may either distribute to our followers (if God so wills) or to future ones?” (Ribera, Preface to Apocalypse Commentary.) 

Yet we must never presume that we have attained to [the full knowledge of] everything. 

VIII. Moreover, one must proceed cautiously in this matter, and with a certain sacred fear and trembling; lest either through laziness we wish to be ignorant of something or arrogantly presume that we have understood everything. For however much diligence we apply, there will not be lacking those of whom it must be said to us, as Zechariah responded to the angel asking if he knew what those things meant to them, “I do not know, my Lord.” Zech 4:13. No one should presume to think that they have explored those things which were not revealed to John except after many bitter tears, Rev. 5:4. Let us rejoice in those things which have been given to us to understand; let us reverently admire the rest, timidly but also diligently investigating. Equally holy and modest is he whom I recently praised, Dionysius: Μείζονα ἢ τῆς ̓εμαυτέ φρονήσεως τιὼ ὑπόληψιν τῆς πεὶ ἀντὰ λαμβάνων, κεκρυμμύην εἶναι τινα καὶ θαυμασιώτερην τίω καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐκδοχικώ ὑπολαμβάνω. Καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὴ συνίημι, ἀλλ’ ὑπενόω γε νὲν τίνα βαθύτερον ἐγκεῖσθαι τοῖς ρήμασι, σττι ἰδίᾳ ταῦτα μετὰ τῶν κὶ κρίνων λογισμῶν, πίστιν ἢ πλέον νέμων, ὑψηλότερα ἢ ὑπ’ ἐμὲ κατηληφθῆναι νομίζω. Καὶ σοκ ἀποδοκιμάζω ταῦτα ἃ μὴ συνεώρακα· θαυμάζω ἢ μᾶλλον ὅτι μὴ νὰ εἶδον:

“But I feel this more (about the book of Revelation), that what is written in it exceeds and surpasses the measure of human hearing, and that in it there is a certain secret, hidden and admirable meaning to all; which I also admire and venerate even if I do not understand it. And so, I think that some divine mysteries are contained in human words, not so much discerning as believing by faith. And therefore, I do not reject what I do not understand, but rather admire it all the more, the less I attain understanding.” 

What is disputed today about the meaning of the Apocalyptic Letters? 

IX. But since the duty of a faithful interpreter is to bring light to obscure things, above all he must beware lest he surrounds those things which are clear with the darkness and mist of subtle, rather than solid interpretations. Whether those who contend that the Letters, which are written in the name of Christ to the seven churches of Asia Minor, are prophetic and that they contain a mystical description of the whole Catholic [i.e., Universal] Church through its seven periods in [chronological] order, is a question that has been asked before and now deserves to be asked again. For since the study of Prophecies, which for a long time lay as if half dead, now seems again to stir limbs, there has begun a more careful, or rather more curious, inquiry into the sense of these letters as well. I considered it reasonable to present the arguments supporting both perspectives comprehensively, ensuring each was fully articulated and robustly defended. My intention is not to reveal my preference prematurely, but rather to thoroughly examine and juxtapose each position so that readers may find it challenging, or at least not straightforward, to discern where my inclinations lie before all points have been presented. 

It is not whether the seven cities existed 

X. First, the state of the controversy must be properly formed. It is not questioned whether at the time of John the seven cities of Asia mentioned in Revelation 1:11 existed, and whether in them were the Churches of Christ; but rather whether the names of those cities, and whatever is further said about them, should be interpreted only as symbolic, hieroglyphic, and dramatic, just as some have wrongly transformed the History of Job into a tragicomedy and drama. For on both sides it is assumed as an indubitable truth that those Churches did truly exist in the mentioned cities of Asia at that time, and that they were made the singular depositaries by the grace of the divine power, not only of their individual heavenly Epistles, but also of the whole Sacred Apocalypse. 

Nor whether those letters are common to the use of the whole Church 

XI. Nor is it controversial whether “those things contained in these Epistles are to be used for the whole Christian Church?” For just as the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, indeed, to individual persons, for example, Timothy, Titus, Gaius [3 John], were specifically and nominally addressed to them; yet they are dictated and intended by God for the edification of the whole Catholic Church, so that individual faithful should consider that what was said to the Romans or to Timothy was said to them for the instruction of faith or correction of morals: in the same way, these also have this effect. What Jesus said to His disciples, He said to us also, for He said it “to all.” Mark 13:37. “And whatever was written before was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope,” Rom. 15:4. 

Nor whether those churches can be called types of other things in some sense 

XII. Indeed, I do not even think it is disputed whether “this Church of Asia,” both in its virtues and its vices, as well as in God’s judgments upon it, “can be said in a certain way to be a type and figure of certain other Churches that follow,” in the sense in which the Apostle writes concerning the Hebrews in 1 Corinthians 10:6, “Now these things happened unto them as types, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.” And again verse 11, “Now all these things happened unto them as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” 

And finally, not whether by their number seven the universality of the whole Church is in some way represented 

XIII. But neither do I think that the crux of the controversy lies in whether the totality of the Catholic [i.e., Universal] Church is figuratively represented by this septenary number of the Asiatic Churches, so that the Church of every age may be able to contemplate the image of itself in some one or perhaps several of these epistles together, as in a mirror. For I find that interpreters, whatever their reading, generally agree on this point. 

But rather, are these seven Epistles historically and dogmatically adapted to the state of the particular Churches to which they were each written, as are the Apostolic Epistles? 

XIIII. What, then, finally remains in controversy? It has hitherto been believed by most that the arguments of these epistles pertain closely and specifically to those Churches to which each is inscribed, and that they ought not to be considered otherwise than as depicting their historical state there, with praises or reproaches, threats or promises, which were adapted to the distinct conditions of each: which matter indeed serves for the admonition of the universal Church, and is to be wisely applied to other assemblies of other ages, in which similar conditions obtain; but should not be transformed into allegories or prophecies of future things than should Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. 

Or do the seven periods symbolically and prophetically represent the ages of the universal Church in sequence? 

XV. But those who more recently and diligently have commented on the Apocalypse contend that the arguments of those epistles are no less prophetic than the arguments of the seven seals and the seven trumpets, to which each also correspond in order; and they maintain that those Churches of Asia are to be considered not so much in themselves, but as emblems and types of the whole Christian Church in seven distinct periods of time succeeding one another in order; by which their individual names, since they are symbolic, signify this. Thus, indeed, the first, ‘Ephesus,’ represents the condition of the primitive Church beginning from Christ’s ascension into heaven and ending with the death of the Apostles around the end of the “first century;” which was, as is fitting, the purest and most chaste of all: The second, ‘Smyrna,’ which is named after ‘Myrrh,’ which has a bitter but salutary aroma, corresponds to the “second and third centuries,” and is a figure of the Church as patient and tested by many martyrdoms. The third, ‘Pergamos,’ figures the state of the three following centuries from about the year 300 or 325 to the year 600 or 606, at which time the Church began to be in a towered and great city, that is, Mystic Babel, to which Pergamos corresponds. The fourth, ‘Thyatira,’ encompasses several centuries up to the time of the Reformation, during which breathings of the ages afflicted the Church with cruel tribulations and was, as it were, sacrifices to God. The fifth, ‘Sardis,’ is an emblem of the Church which having renounced communion with Antichrist and somewhat restored to a purer worship of the divine power, yet was defiled with many vices, and above all with the foul μισαδελφία [brother-hatred], such as were found in Churches addicted to Luther: unless someone prefers to refer also the Bohemians and Hussites to this period. Therefore, it is said of the Sardis Church that “it lives only in name but is truly dead:” The sixth, ‘Philadelphia,’ corresponds to the Reformed Church, which is somewhat later in time but purer in Doctrine, more accurate in Discipline, more steadfast in afflictions, and far superior in brotherly love: The seventh, ‘Laodicea,’ describes the Church of the last times, to which the Lord will execute His judgments beforehand among peoples. 

Summary of the Controversy  

XVI. To bring the matter briefly to a head, this is the question asked: “Are the Apocalyptic Letters historically, dogmatically and hortatively explanatory of the condition of the Asian churches as they then were, with exhortations, threats, and promises suited to that condition, in the same manner as the other Apostolic Letters; or are they prophetic, allegorical, and emblematic, foretelling the future state of the Church, like the Seven Seals and the Seven Trumpets, to which the seven Letters correspond in their prophecies and allegories?” Theologians and interpreters generally decided the former earlier; some more recent learned men have decided the latter afterwards. We will weigh the arguments of both opinions. 

Regarding the prophetic sense, 

 FIRST ARGUMENT 

Ancient names of cities and regions often serve as symbols 

XVII. Those who advocate the Prophetic and Allegorical sense establish: FIRST, they command us to observe that nothing is more common in the Sacred Scriptures than that the names of ancient regions and cities, or even of nations, mystically designate those bodies of people who live far away in later times and in entirely different places. Thus, Zion or Jerusalem, Israel or Judea, signify the Church of the New Testament, while Sodom, Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, signify the name of Antichristian Rome. Since this observation is of great importance for the understanding of prophecies, it will not be useless or unpleasant to illustrate it with certain notable examples. 

The Mystery of Babylon 

XVIII. Who, for example, when he hears Lucifer called king of Babylon, the son of the dawn, who in his heart says, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High,” Isa. 14:12,13,14, would not readily understand that the Roman high priest/Bishop [Pope] is being described, which before his fall seemed to be the brightest star (although in truth it was a false light, a wandering star of deceit, Jude 13) and son of the dawn, vaunting himself to be the very morning, or the first dawn of Evangelical light in the darkness of the world; and “says in his heart,” doing all things according to his own will, “I will ascend into heaven,” by a worldly design to free myself from every judicial, ecclesiastical, and political authority to which those who stand on earth are subject, and “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God,” I will have a throne and will sit in it far above all the stars of God — both the priests and elders of the Old Testament and the ministers of the New Testament — and “I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation,” according to that of the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2:4, “so as to sit in the temple of God,” “in the sides of the north,” where the tables on which slain sacrifices were placed, Ezek. 40:39, and the table of showbread, Exod. 26:35; that is, I will behave as a Priest, appointed by God for that purpose, to offer and to see that offerings are made for the sins of the people, and I will attribute to the sacrament of the Lord’s bread all things of highest importance.” And “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,” which are the origin of dew and rain, to which the word of God is compared, which I will subject to my judgment and authority. And “I will be like the Most High,” according to 2 Thess. 2:4, showing himself that he is God. 

Moabite 

XIX. Thus, MOABITE in the account of Isaiah, chapters 15 and 16, signifies the Jews visited and invited by Christ to the fellowship of His kingdom, and the persecutors of the Apostles and the faithful are called Moabites because some were inhabitants of Moab and others joined in Moabite superstition and spirit. And what is said in chap. 16: 9, “Therefore I wept for the weeping of Jabesh, I watered you with my tears, Chesbon and Eleale,” is a prophecy of the tears of Christ when he was approaching Jerusalem, Luke 19:41. Compare this with Isaiah 16:14, “The glory of Moab shall be laid waste,” that is, the temple of Jerusalem, which was the glory of the Jews, will be thrown down and cast upon the heads of the priests, and the Jews will no longer be heirs of the holy land nor a people set apart for God; and this will happen over three years, such as the years of a hireling: for it can be shown from Josephus and Tacitus that the final Jewish war lasted three years, during which the glory of the Jews fell and a great number of them perished. 

Tyreites 

XX. In a like manner Tyre, the commercial and coronating city, is set forth by the emblem of Rome in Isaiah 23, which carries on spiritual trade and places diadems on emperors, kings, and princes. He who appeared from the land of Chittim and its merchants almost as a help but was broken at home, verse 1, is the Emperor Charles V, who appeared to the Roman prelates as a faithful and auspicious supporter and as one who would crush the burdensome Roman Tyre — he seemed Lutheran — but being shaken at home by rebellion in Spain he was forced in his twenty‑third year to return to Spain. “The fortress of Tyre destroyed,” verse 14, is both the Emperor and the Council. The Emperor was brought into order by Suleiman, Maurice and the Federates, and Henry II, King of the French. The Council was scattered by Maurice’s war in the year 1552. The time of forgetfulness to which Tyre was given for seventy years, verse 15, corresponds to that period which followed the Passau settlement made in the same year, 1552. For from that time Rome ceased to be feared and admired, and contempt for it gradually grew. The whore’s song that was sung in Tyre after seventy years denotes the rejoicing and boasting of the Romans about their victories in the name of not the true God. For in the year 1622, that is, exactly seventy years after the preaching of the Gospel began again at Augsburg and the religious peace at Passau was concluded, the Jesuits occupied the academies of Prague and Heidelberg, and canonized Ignatius Loyola and other members of the same order; which canonization was celebrated everywhere with great festivity, and thanks were offered to these and other idols for the victories of the Emperor. 

Gog and Magog 

XXI. Similarly in Ezekiel ch. 38, GOG, which if taken as gable or roof, hieroglyphically denotes him who places himself between God and men (just as a roof interposes between heaven and earth) and removes free access to heaven, nor allows faith to be immediately directed to Christ, and shuts off spiritual blessings from the Church. MAGOG denotes the land that is covered by that roof and is subject to it, namely the Beast seated with the False Prophet, or more clearly, the men who through Antichrist, as the image of Christ, suppose themselves to believe in Christ. The place given to Gog for a “sepulcher” in Israel, “the valley of the travelers toward the east sea,” Ezek. 39:11, is the Tridentine valley, situated among the mountains that bound Gog’s farthest dominion in the neighborhood of the land of the Church. Those mountains are the Alps. The land of Israel, or of the Church, is Germany. Moreover, by the Tridentine valley there is a road from the north, from Germany, into Palestine situated beyond the eastern sea. Tridentum is a three‑day journey from Venice. Hence, the east is sought by ships in the shortest route by those who come from Germany and the whole North. The prophecy could not indicate the burial place of Gog more plainly, while preserving the decorum of its allegory. Gog and all his multitude are buried at Trent; for the Council gathered there by Gog made such decrees as show that Gog, and all who act with him, are plainly dead, and blinded so as not to be able to see the truth: and to those decrees they added anathemas by which the Romans separated themselves from the communion of those passing toward Zion, that is, from Israel or the evangelical Church. Which, since it is called the land of the living, while they place themselves in the land of death and destruction, are rightly said to bury themselves. 

It is therefore not surprising that in prophetic writings the names of Asian cities are likewise to be interpreted symbolically 

XXII. Other examples of this kind are almost countless, which, having been safely neglected or perhaps despised by the older writers, could not escape the keen industry of more recent ones. Since the allegorical and hieroglyphic meanings of cities, regions, and nations are so frequent in the prophecies, what envy can hinder anyone from asserting that the names of Asian cities are likewise allegorical and hieroglyphic, especially in a prophetic writing full of emblems and types, such as the Apocalypse? All the more because even those who insist on the literal sense are forced to explain enigmatically what stands in the letter to the Thyatirans about Jezebel. If nothing else, at least this follows from what has been said: those who, as elsewhere, without blame and not without praise for subtlety, render city names hieroglyphically in a prophetic book, do not err in applying the same method to the Apocalypse. 

SECOND PROPHETIC ARGUMENT 

 The whole Apocalypse is one Catholic [Universal] Epistle addressed to the Church

XXIII. SECOND. To approach the present controversy more closely, it should be noted that the whole Apocalypse has the character of a single Epistle addressed to the Catholic [Universal] Church. For it is not without reason that (contrary to what is customary in the apostolic letters written to individual churches) the address is not first directed to those seven churches, but from the outset the blessed author pronounces: “to all who read, and hear, and keep the words of this prophecy” (Rev. 1:3), by which words he implies that this letter is universal, for all the churches of all ages. Moreover, when John proceeds after finishing those letters to the fourth chapter, he does not break off the established order as if he were about to direct his discourse to other churches; rather, by the same method he expounds and applies to the same churches the subjects of the seven seals and the seven trumpets and whatever else the Apocalypse contains. All of which is brought to a general conclusion, in the manner customary in epistles, at Rev. 22:21: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” Know that here, finally, is the end of the whole Catholic Epistle. 

THIRD PROPHETIC ARGUMENT 

 Each Epistle has a universal epilogue

XXIV. THIRD. So that no one can reasonably doubt that these Epistles refer to the universal Church, God has willed that the Epilogue of each should be universal: He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches. 

FOURTH PROPHETIC ARGUMENT 

 The emblems employed here are more august than those for particular churches 

XXV. FOURTH. The majestic sacred emblems seem greatly diminished by those who will have them refer to nothing beyond the churches of Asia. For what [reason should they be limited]? Are the Angels of those churches alone “stars” shining light into an otherwise dark night? Have not many faithful teachers been with them? Even some before them? Does Jesus direct and protect only those whom He “holds in his hand”? [Rev. 1:16]. Who does not know that when “seven golden lampstands” are spoken of, there is an allusion to the golden lampstand of the Mosaic tabernacle, which though the one had seven lamps, signifying not seven local churches but the one Catholic [Universal] Church in seven ages, Exod. 25:37? As Zechariah also, prophesying of the future time of the New Testament, presents the Church in the figure of a golden lampstand, chap. 4:2 ff. It is likewise certain that the glory of Christ the Lord is described and set forth as His ensign when He is said to “walk in the midst of the golden lampstands.” But are His favor, Spirit, and help given only to the Asian churches? Did He not promise the same to all those who are His, to the consummation of the age? Why then would He name Himself after those seven only? That is not fitting; it is not worthy of so great a King. Just as it would be unseemly for a Lord of three kingdoms and more than a hundred dominions to inscribe the names of only seven provinces or cities on his insignia and call himself by them, so, too, here — what of the fact that the Spirit himself is called “sevenfold” because of the churches? Surely not on account of those Asian churches. For if, perhaps, Philippi or Colossae had been numbered among them, would John then have spoken of an “eighth” or “ninth” spirit? The text itself teaches the contrary, Rev. 5:6, namely that these are “the seven spirits which are sent forth into all the earth,” and doubtless for all times and ages. All of which sufficiently proves that some more august mystery, and one not confined within the Asian churches, underlies those emblems. 

FIFTH PROPHETIC ARGUMENT 

From the comparison of the seven pillars, the seven eyes and the seven steps of the temple, it is inferred that seven periods of the Church are here likewise figured

XXVI. FIFTH. The same thing seems to be inferred from similar phrases and testimonies. Proverbs 9:1 says that Wisdom (that is, according to the Hebrew style, the Sum of wisdom, the Son of God) “has built her house and hewn out her seven pillars.” Zech. 3:9 carries a promise concerning the coming of Christ in these words: “Behold the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone shall be seven eyes.” Likewise, Ezekiel 40:26 shows that one must ascend to each gate of the temple “by seven steps.” What could those “seven pillars” in the house of Christ prefigure but that Christ would be shown in as many trials sustaining the Church of the New Testament? What could those seven eyes fixed upon the stone mean other than that the same Church would fix its eyes in seven distinct tribulations upon Christ, “a tried stone, the Rock of salvation,” approved by God? What could those seven steps to the gates of the temple signify other than seven periods of afflictions to be overcome before the glorious temple of the Lord would be seen? That God wished us to attend carefully to these things, and not to say scornfully that a number is certain for an uncertain thing, is proved abundantly by the frequent inculcation of the same number, which therefore cannot lack a mystery. Since, then, the same septenary number is repeated here as well, by what face can it be denied that the seven churches here spoken of are the universal Church of the New Testament in series, and that these seven Epistles embrace the entire history of the New Testament? 

SIXTH PROPHETIC ARGUMENT 

It is customary for the Holy Spirit to teach through proper names

XXVII. SIXTH. The very names of the Churches lead us to this, which most learned interpreters long ago warned are symbolic. Nor is it unusual for the Holy Spirit to teach by proper names. What, for example, does the name Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Israel, Immanuel, Magor‑missabib [‘terror on every side’] or Jesus mean if not that they demand explanation from their etymology? What about the name Jehovah itself? Again, does not John 9:7, τὸ Σιλωάμ [‘of Siloam’] interpreted as “sent,” imply that this was proof Christ was sent by God to heal the blind man. It is not out of place to notice, as Paul does in Gal. 4:25, that the region of Mount Sinai corresponds in name to Hagar the handmaid. Why then should we not believe that the same holds true in the names of these cities? Especially since the thing itself teaches that the Spirit deliberately assigned these Churches such names as if inscribed on their foreheads to indicate their whole condition, which will be seen evident in each case. 

What does Ephesus symbolically signify? [According to the Prophetic POV]  

XXVIII.The Church of Ephesus could, above all others, represent and be a type of the whole Church in which the Apostles taught. With what diligence and perseverance Paul labored in that Church is shown in Acts 20:31. First, one can note the Church of the Gentiles, which was turned from the abyss of wickedness into the most glorious royal salvation. For Ephesus, besides the dreadful idolatry by which it set a torch before the other cities, had a most corrupt luxury: casting out a certain Hermodorus, not for any other crime than that the man was honest, he adding moreover ἡμέων μηδεὶς ὀνηϊς ἴσω, εἰδὲ μὴ, ἀλλης τε καὶ μετ’ ἄλλων: “let no one among us be superior, but if anyone excels, let him be elsewhere and among others.” This city, once prince of wickedness, now made head of holiness and first among the seven churches, figures the converted Gentiles, who excel no less in piety than formerly in all vices. Indeed, if I may be allowed to concur with the learned Thomas Brightman in this point as well, what is reproved about the loss of the church’s former charity in Rev. 2:4 can be easily deduced from the name itself. For Ἐφέσῳ [Ephesus] is like ἄφεσις, omission, which is hinted at by the word ἀφήκας, “you have left” — you have abandoned your first love. 

What is the prophetic POV of Smyrna? 

XXIX. The name of the Church of Smyrna alludes to σμύρνα, which is myrrh, Song of Solomon 3:6. The Church is said to “ascend from the desert like palm trees, scented with myrrh and incense, washed above all dust as if in a perfumer’s shop.” There is signified the patience of the faithful in persecution and their martyrdom, which spread their fragrance widely like the smoke of sacrifices or incense. And this epistle proclaims such patience. It is therefore not at all unlikely that this letter is addressed not only to the Angel of the Church of one city only, but to the Angel of the Church of those patient everywhere, namely in the first three centuries, during which martyrdoms were very frequent. 

What about Pergamos? 

XXX. Pergamos denotes a citadel, as Greek chronicler Hesychius of Milites notes; Πέργαμος was the acropolis of Ilion [aka Troy], and the city by that name, towered, high, and proud, was the “seat of the kings of Asia.” What, then, is more fitting than understanding the Church of a domineering city, surrounded by great power, and (why should this not also be added?) whose people boast of Authors who were “Asian and Trojan” and thus Pergamene origin? Such was the Church in the Roman Empire after the times of Constantine the Great. 

What about Thyatira? 

XXXI. The Church of Thyatira signifies τιὼ θυομένην καὶ πειρομένην [“one which is burned and tried”], i.e., that which is sacrificed and afflicted. Nothing more plainly confesses the vanity of being high than the word bamah [‘high places’] does in Ezekiel 20:29, than this Church reveals by its name. For this is the Church that we have seen subjected to very many disputes, rebukes, persecutions, torments and every kind of agitation, in the Empire nominally called Christian under the tyranny of the Antichrist. 

What about Sardis? 

XXXII. Sardis was the capital of Lydia, once the royal seat of King Croesus and aptly signifies the Church in the Christian Empire that exerts its headship higher than its accustomed place. Perhaps it also alludes to Princes, or to שֶׁרֶר and שָׂרִיר, meaning ruler and survivor. For following the Reformation begun by Luther, some secular Princes rendered useful service to the Church, and some Ecclesiastics, following that example, arrogated to themselves rule over their brethren in the infancy of the renewed Church itself; and with the words of God’s truth, according to which His temple was to be built, the work was again entrusted into the hands of men; and the remnant from spiritual Israel were gathered, while some who had not defiled their garments survived in a foul corruption of morals. 

What about Philadelphia? 

XXXIII. In the enigma of Philadelphia is contained the real character of a church, which is φιλαδελφία, brotherly love. This implies, as it shows, that brothers in Christ are pleasant and agreeable to one another and share with one another in good and evil. Likewise, it signifies the avoidance, not of brothers, but of schism and false doctrine. Moreover, Philadelphia was situated in a dangerous place and therefore, even when it flourished most, was thinly populated by citizens who lived scattered in the fields, fearing frequent tremors of the city. How fitting is this name for the Reformed Church which rose after the German, that Sardian one — that is, the Helvetic, Swabian, Genevan, French, Belgian, Scottish? For this Church is truly pious because of fraternal love, modest and humble, and obscure, deprived of almost all worldly power and human renown; in this respect it stands diametrically opposed to Pergamum, the proud and towered city, whose citizens, though joined in mind and will and living under the same laws and institutions for things of some importance, yet dwell scattered and separated from one another in remote places, always in the greatest peril, being exposed to the multitude and power of enemies who surround them with raging hostility. 

What about Laodicea? 

XXXIV. Laodicea, a great and wealthy city “on the Lycus” [River valley in modern-day Turkey], was founded by Antiochus, son of Stratonice, and named Laodicea in honor of his wife Laodice, as if “princess of the peoples” over whom he would administer justice and bring laws. It is, if we follow Thomas Brightman, a type of the Reformed Church in doctrine indeed, but swollen with its own riches and worldly pomp, such as the English Church, whose Bishops are the nobles of the realm. They are viewed superior to many great men in honor, and equal to the highest counts in wealth, service, magnificence of houses, and all the rest of worldly display, with annual incomes at least equaling those of esquires by the many benefices they accumulate and are called Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, Chaplains. Or according to others: by Laodicea is meant the last-times Church, at which God will execute judgment among the peoples. 

It is concluded [according to the Prophetic POV] that it cannot be that apart from the intention of the Divine that the affairs of the Church precisely correspond to those symbolic names 

XXXV. Therefore, since it is now made evident from what has been more fully explained how aptly the names of these cities represent the distinct conditions of the Churches according to their eras, who will not acknowledge the wisdom of the Divine Spirit in so fittingly employing symbols to lead minds to the contemplation of the things signified? Could it happen by chance, and apart from the intention of the Divine, that events done or to be done in the Church so exactly correspond to symbolic names employed by God? 

SEVENTH PROPHETIC ARGUMENT 

The fulfillment confirms the credibility of the prophetic exposition

XXXVI. Seventh. The thing speaks for itself, and the outcome gives such weight to this prophetic interpretation that it forces assent even from the most stubborn. It cannot be conceived how what is contained in these epistles could present so accurate a delineation of all the changes that have happened to the New Testament Church, unless this was intended by the Holy Spirit. Let us briefly examine the individual arguments. 

[Witsius continues to cite arguments of those who hold the Prophetic POV] 

In the Epistle to the Ephesians there is a corruption in the Apostolic Church 

XXXVIII. Could the condition of the Apostolic Church be more clearly described than it is in that Epistle to the Angel of Ephesus? [The purveyors of the Prophetic POV say.] There you see praised the works of piety and the labor poured forth by the Apostles in propagating the Gospel, who divided among themselves all the lands and filled them with the proclamation of Christ; as well as patience, both in enduring those who were weak and in cheerfully undergoing afflictions, as is evident from the martyrdoms of Stephen and of almost all the Apostles, and from the Church under Claudius, Nero, Domitian and other persecutions; and an “aversion to evils and a fleeing from them,” examples of which are Acts 5:5, 10; 8:23; 13:8, 10–11; and the “examination of pseudo-apostles,” with whom Paul had frequent contests, as also John had with Ebion and Cerinthus. Yet they are blamed for the “omission of their first love,” examples of which are seen in Galatians 3:3; 1 Cor. 1:5; Hebrews 10:32–33; and Demas, 2 Tim. 4:10. They are praised, on the other hand, because they “hate the works of the Nicolaitans”—likewise detested by Christ. To be a “Nicolaitan” is to make a sect and to name a man’s name besides the name of Christ. That which the Apostle forbids in 1 Cor. 1:12 is of this kind. It is certain, however, that after the earliest times there were men who followed human names; it is more certain that afterwards arose those who wished to be more of Peter than of Christ and who made the human name of Peter’s successors the principle of faith. It is certain that the deeds of such men were not good. It is certain that the head of that sect can enigmatically be called Nicolaus, or in Hebrew, Balaam, as if it were בַּעַל עַם, lord of the people. Nicolaus signifies ὁ νικῶν τὸν λαὸν, “he who conquers the people,” who prevails over the people like a lord, and makes them subject and slave. Hence, the primitive church is praised because it shunned such ambitions of φιλοπρωτεῖν [“to be ambitious for pre-eminence”]. Compare 3 John, vv. 9–10. 

In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans the times nearest the Apostolic are portrayed 

XXXIX. Further, who does not see that “those times which next succeeded the Apostolic” are prefigured in the Epistle to the Smyrneans? There the Church is presented as “most afflicted and poor,” yet rich in the Spirit and in the kingdom of God. Such was the condition of the Church after the Apostolic age (1 Cor. 1:26–28; Heb. 10:34). After the last wars that miserably devastated all Judea, they were impoverished. Those nearest to Christ were mocked and despised by Domitian for their poverty. Many others were exiled to islands and condemned to the mines, where, as servants of punishment, they endured a life harsher than death. A certain Sylvester was, like Joseph, brought forth from prison, raised by Constantine to the highest dignities in the Church. Yet they were full of God and rich in the treasures of his grace, and abounding in spiritual consolations, equaling kings in riches of spirit. The “blasphemy of the Jews” is also mentioned — that slander by which the Jews of earlier times made Christians odious among the Gentiles — of which Justin Martyr and Eusebius give account. Finally, an affliction of “ten days” is foretold: this is either ten general persecutions or the final persecution of Diocletian, which lasted for “ten years.” The learned observation of theologian Ludovico Capelli deserves no small praise. “Ten days,” he says, “constitute 240 hours.” Now if you reckon years from AD 85 as Christian, about the time when the second persecution under Domitian occurred and the exile of the Apostle John to Patmos, in which he wrote these things, down to the year AD 325, when Licinius was removed by Constantine, the years are precisely 240. For what is attributed to the Smyrneans pertains to the whole Church of those centuries. 

In the Pergamene is the type of the succeeding centuries 

XL. The subsequent centuries are exhibited in the Epistle to the Pergamene. The church of that time is said to “dwell where Satan’s throne is.” This must be compared with Rev. 13:2, where it is said that “the dragon gave his throne and his power to the beast.” By this the church dwelt where Satan’s throne was. For “the Beast” signifies a multitude bearing the Christian name, though a Beast ruling in the world. This thought leads us to the “great city,” the Roman Empire, in which Constantine caused all things to be subjected to the Christian name. More clearly, the throne of Satan is the throne of the Antichrist, now reigning in Christian Rome, just as formerly the Dragon reigned in pagan Rome. The remark about Antipas, a faithful martyr of Christ, is a prophetic enigma. Antipas is truncated from ἀντίπαπς [“in place of the father”]. This signifies roughly ἰσόπατρον, ἴσιν τῷ πατρὶ, “equal to the father.” For in composition words sometimes denote likeness or equality, as is known from the lexicons. Nor could a name be more fitting to signify those same assertors who would call the Son equal to the Father (John 5:18). This martyr, or all the supporters of this doctrine, were at once slain, and some were persecuted and killed by Arians, whose supporters were Constantius and other Eastern emperors. The Church of that time is reproved because it had “those who teach the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans.” For on the occasion of the Arian controversies the Roman Pope began to be held in higher esteem even among the Catholics. At the Council of Nicaea, the ancient custom was confirmed that churches should be under their Bishops, Bishops under Metropolitans, and the chief of the Metropolitans in the West should be the Roman Pope. Thus, at the same time the truth of the Gospel was confirmed against Arius, and the imperious doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans was established. 

In the Thyatiran church the Waldenses are described 

XXXXI. In the Thyatiran Epistle are praised “love, ministry, faith, patience, and the later works more abundant than the earlier.” These things show the Waldenses as if by an outstretched finger, whose churches, after the rise of the Antichrist, became celebrated for the purity of their faith, the ardor of their charity, the zeal of their ministry, the patience of their persecutions, and the abundant excellence of their works, scarcely having equals even from the age of the Apostles. But the [powerful] Church of that time is also blamed because it “allowed a woman called Jezebel to teach,” etc., not sufficiently resisting “the system of false prophets,” and all of them subject to the head, the Antichrist. To that Jezebel “a time of repentance was given,” when God delivered the Roman Popes together with the assembly that they dominated from the persecutions of the Arians under Gratian in the year 382, and under Theodosius in the year 388, and from incursions both of Saracens and Goths, and by Duke John of Austria allowed them to gain a great victory over the Turks in A.D. 1571. This last event was, as it were, the last point of Divine patience toward them. When that Jezebel did not repent, God “cast her into a bed,” afflicting the city of Rome and all Italy with various torments through the Vandals, Goths, Huns, Saracens, and Mohammedans. It is also worth remembering here all that has happened since the beginning of the Reformation, and into what distresses God has recently cast the persecutors and the Roman clergy. Finally, it threatens that “he will kill her children,” that is, will abolish the Beast by the appearance and boldness of the age. Compare Rev. 11:18 and 19:20–21. 

The Sardian Church presents an image similar to that of the Lutheran 

XLII. Does not the Sardis epistle describe the German Church as it was after the Reformation? There many bore the name of the living, because they were separated from the company of Jezebel, or the great harlot, yet they did not possess the thing itself. They spoke and wrote much, and showed zeal for the truth, and did many things that the living do, but when they did these things they were convicted more by the shame of falsehood than by love of the truth, and therefore, did not enjoy the happiness of a good conscience: “they were truly dead.” It is also clearly said in verse 3 that many of the Doctors of the Church, while opposing Jezebel’s doctrine, did not hold fast what they had received and heard, but added new inventions, such as the new doctrine of ubiquity, which disturbed the Church. There are also other similar synergists, and new opinions about justification. Meanwhile, some had remained there, but few, who had not defiled their garments, namely by hatred of the brethren and by new doctrines and by scandal given to the dying. To them it is promised that they shall walk with Christ in white garments; this signifies that peace will be given to the Church for the sake of their justification. 

The Church of Philadelphia corresponds to our Reformed Church 

XLIII. The Church of Philadelphia plainly corresponds to our Reformed Church. An open door was given to her, that is, an opportunity to preach the doctrine of truth, despite all human force and diabolical fraud striving in vain. She indeed had little power, which was especially evident in the Netherlands, where things, reduced to the lowest ebb, seemed to involve all its supporters in the same ruin: nevertheless “she kept the word of Christ, and did not deny his name,” persevering steadfastly in the truth once acknowledged. Until “those two who say they are Jews,” the Most Mighty Monarchs, who falsely glory as the true people of God, and who had been the oppressors of the afflicted servants of the Lord, were forced “to come and worship before his feet,” that is, to make peace with the regions in which the Church is, renouncing all their rights, yea, even confessing in words that God Himself had helped them. 

Laodicea represents the condition of the Last Times 

XLIV. The Laodicean Church represents the condition of the last times. And the beginnings of lukewarmness are observed with pious sorrow in England, France, the Netherlands. In fact, where is it not so? Are not those who lately sought to reconcile religions with little effort examples of this lukewarmness? And the title given to the Angel of the Church of the last times, which ought rather to be applied to those who chiefly call themselves Bishops, and who from these very epistles conclude that in each church there must be Bishops like themselves—let them see how they will be proved to be zealous and “not lukewarm.” Let them see lest they be “vomited out of the mouth of the Lord.” But why should we ask elsewhere what is plainly betrayed in the Netherlands? Where (so some say) “the zeal for the truth barely stirs the spirit; and what is the chief matter, life does not correspond to doctrine but wholly deviates from it. Those very men who boast themselves patrons of the truth fear more for themselves and their reputation what harm it might suffer than they fear for the Truth. Hence, if you call their words and deeds to examination, you will find for sincere and solid theology almost nothing except political detours and meanders, by which they try to slip free whatever may be done for the truth, so long as they are not entirely safe: their cause is either wholly regarded as secondary, or, as if the matter were theatrical, asserted incidentally, &c. Meanwhile we seem to ourselves to be rich, our benches often creak, this land is full of the knowledge of Jehovah; in our doctrine nothing remains to be corrected, nothing to be added, &c.” But since the last period has many articles, so that the brightest light follows the darkest night, and the felicity of that spiritual Church follows its trials; the Lord also here refers to this: saying, and indeed to all, in verse 20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock,” that is, no longer withdrawing Himself from the sight of men, but rather to exert power and to attempt an entrance into hearts by public and universal preaching of the word. He promises also that He will enter to him who opens, and will dine with him, that is to say, that He will fill him with righteousness and joy, and will show him His gladness, as friends delight one another at a banquet. He adds also to the conqueror a kingdom. By this without doubt is understood the more illustrious form of the kingdom, when all peoples shall submit to Christ, serve the Church, and confess that it reigns with Christ. Which is the glorious kingdom of the last times. 

Conclusion of this argument 

XLV. Since, therefore, the complement of what is contained in the individual Epistles is seen so exactly in the successive periods of the Catholic [i.e. Universal] Church, and, as the historian Herodian says, “in overlapping ages does not the thing itself powerfully confirm by its testimony the exposition of these Epistles?” 

EIGHTH ARGUMENT FOR THE PROPHETIC POV 

 Many things in these Epistles do not fit the specific Churches of their times, therefore they must be interpreted figuratively 

XXVI. EIGHTH. This demonstration shows that while many aspects of these epistles do not directly apply to the specific churches addressed, they accurately reflect the broader era of the Church linked to those churches in the Apocalypse. Supporters of this view present their argument as follows. 

Examples by which this is demonstrated 

XXVII. In Revelation’s Epistle to the Ephesians there is mention of the Nicolaitans. The ancients applied this to the Ephesian Church, “without doubt on account of this passage, by conjecture handed it down so that it almost became a history of the Nicolaitans,” whom they say held the heresy that it is permissible to fornicate and to use women promiscuously, even married ones. Some trace them to “Nicolas the proselyte of Antioch,” Acts 6:5, of whom they say that when accused of jealousy toward a very beautiful wife he wished to abandon her and prostitute her to all. Therefore, they thought him to have been the founder of such depravity; and they report that he said, as Epiphanius writes, ἐι μή τις καθ’ ἡμέραν λαγνεύς ζωῆς ἐδύναται μετέχειν ἀνωνία, “unless one is lascivious every day of life he cannot participate in continence.” Others make some other person the founder of this sect; I know not whom. Both accounts lack all probability. For it is not credible that a holy man, approved by the Apostles, could, on so slight or no occasion, have entertained thoughts so absurd and alien not only to Christian piety but even to civil probity. [Dutch Calvinist theologian], Franciscus Gomarus, treated this argument at length. Nor is it more credible that, by him or by anyone else, men professing sanctity of Christian faith, with the Apostles of the Church still present, could have been induced to add themselves to the number of so wicked a sect. One must not also suppose that this Epistle was written so that it can only be explained and understood by such uncertain divinations. In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans mention is made of “ten days of persecution.” But that cannot be demonstrated from the history of that named church. Who would say why “Pergamum is called the throne and dwelling of Satan” rather than another place, when the power of the Devil by domination of the Gentiles commonly then prevailed in the world? Who is that Antipas the “Martyr of Pergamos,” unknown to all antiquity? For the more recent Greek menologies, and the Roman Martyrology, and Simeon Metaphrastes [Byzantine hagiographer], and similar writers’ rubbish about Antipas’ martyrdom, and the brazen ox, are fables rightly exposed by Grotius. Which “morning star” arose for the Thyatirans? Unless perhaps someone understands by that name the dominion of the Turks and Saracens to whom they are now subject. Or who was the “woman Jezebel” there, so equipped with such defenses or endowed with such gifts as to be able to seduce the servants of God? Who is “that bed into which she was thrown,” whose “children perished by death,” which “depths of Satan” she contrived? Is it not far more probable that these things are to be interpreted figuratively, rather than applied without the support of any authority of ancient history to some woman of no account, the wife of some bishop unknown? Who also walked with Christ “in white garments” at Sardis? And by what notable victory did they obtain justification of their cause in this age? Or from what “hour of temptation pervading the whole inhabited world” were the Philadelphians rescued? What history records that? And finally, what throne, what glorious kingdom with Christ on this earth, did the Laodiceans attain? How much wiser, simpler, and surer it is to explain all these things figuratively? 

NINTH ARGUMENT FOR THE PROPHETIC POV  

The agreement between Interpreters, both ancient and more recent 

XXXXVIII. NINE. Let no one rashly reject this prophetic interpretation and the application of these Epistles to the universal Church as if it were some novelty of yesterday or the day before yesterday and therefore suspect because of its newness; it should be known that the most outstanding theologians, both ancient and more recent, have often warned that these things were written for all the Churches of the New Testament. To this end the ancients Bede, Arethas, Primasius; among the more recent, [English clergyman] Thomas Brightman, [Scottish theologian and pastor] Patrick Forbes, and the Belgian Annotators are praised by the supporters of this view: who with one voice all assert that what is contained in these epistles concerns the universal Church, which is signified through these churches collectively. But many far older and more weighty authors can be produced in the same sense. Chrysostom, Gregory, Isidore, cited by [Flemish Jesuit priest] Cornelius a Lapide on Rev. 1:4. Augustine is very eloquent, De Civitate Dei, Book XVII, chap. 4, a passage which will not be tedious to set down here. Explaining the Song of Solomon [sic: 1 Samuel 2:5] in which it is said “that she who was barren bore seven,” he comments thus: “Here all that had been prophesied has shone forth to those who understood the number seven, which signifies the perfection of the universal Church. For which reason also the Apostle John writes to the seven churches, Revelation 1:4, showing in that way that he writes to the totality of the one Church; and in the Proverbs of Solomon, 9:1, it is said aforetime, prefiguring this, “Wisdom has built her house, she has strengthened her seven pillars.” Add “Haimo, Andreas Pannonius, Ansbert, Joachim Abbot,” praised by Viega; among more recent Roman writers, Lyra, Viega & others; among our own, Bullinger and [Reformed theologian and pastor], Raphael Eglinus. 

In seeking the truth, candor is required 

XLIX. And these are all the arguments of this opinion which I was able to collect from its learned authors and patrons, presented by me in a manner and arranged in an order which I judged most effective for persuasion. Anyone who investigates a question with the aim of determining what should be accepted as true, and helping others reach certainty as well, should ensure thoroughness, transparency, and diligence throughout the process. Those who do otherwise fear being driven from their preconceived opinions by opposing arguments. Truth, wrapping itself in its own simplicity, fears nothing: and those who seek it alone and sincerely admit, without equivocation, whatever can be brought to the present matter, and weigh it with the incorruptible scale of judgment. 

Many things can also be said for the Historical [Literal] sense 

L. Let us now produce with the same candor the arguments of those who think otherwise, for which very serious men fight, or certainly can fight, for the merely HISTORICAL [literal] MEANING of these Epistles, against the mystical, allegorical, and prophetic explanation. 

FIRST ARGUMENT FOR THE HISTORICAL SENSE 

 No prophecy is of ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως [“private interpretation”] 

LI. And FIRST, in the abstract it must be observed that no prophecy of the Scriptures is of private interpretation, of one’s own explanation, as 2 Peter 1:20 says, so that any mortal may not untie its knots at his own discretion. For what Peter here calls ἐπίλυσις is the Hebrew תרון or קִטְרִין of Daniel, “to untie knots,” Dan. 5:16. Since prophecy was not spoken by the will of man but was delivered by the Holy Spirit, it is wrong to interpret it otherwise than according to the intention of that same Holy Spirit. Every genuine interpretation has a demonstration to the conscience (διόδειξιν ἄώς τιὼ συνείδησιν) and a conviction of the soul (ἔλεγχον), that the Spirit wished by the words of the Prophet to indicate that very thing which we think about them. Without this, the mind has no point on which to rest. Hence it follows that it is by no means permitted to invent allegories, types, symbols, or prophetic riddles where the words of a passage are plain, the history evident, and the sense simple; nor does God teach there or elsewhere that by those plain words and evident history he intended to shadow out some abstruse thing far in the future. If anyone dares to do this, they make their hearers and readers vain — they utter a vision of their own mind, not from the mouth of Jehovah. 

Frequent allegories of curious minds are not solid nourishment 

LII. Men of sound judgment in the Church have always disliked an excessive zeal for allegory. For if anywhere, it is here that the itch of human curiosity must especially be bridled, which often, when given even a small occasion, imagines as much as it pleases and, as if by right of translation, uses everything shamelessly, daring more than modesty permits. Who did not find Origen offensive in this respect? Jerome (who himself also, moreover, was guilty of excess here) was noted for always being an allegorical interpreter, fleeing the truth of history and thinking the subtleties of his wit were the [solutions to the] Church’s mysteries. Basil justly and severely censures those allegorizers who, by fanciful translations and tropes, attempted to attach some dignity to the Scriptures from their own understanding. He compares them to the interpreters of dreams who, when visions appear in sleep, distort the natural meaning and, like interpreters of specters seen in dreams, ascribe to them whatever end they have predetermined for themselves. 

It is wicked to sell anything as allegorical or typical which cannot be shown to have been given by God as a symbol of another thing

LIII. It is therefore necessary to confine all allegorical and typical interpretations (for it is not unreasonable with somewhat scrupulous care to distinguish those things which Paul, Gal. 4:24, [refers to]) within certain limits. And this above all must be held: it is wrong to attribute to any saying of Scripture, a typical or allegorical sense besides the simple sense which it presents itself to the attentive reader, unless it is established by certain reasons that God willed the thing first expressed by those words to be a type and figure of another thing. For since all those sacred signs signify nothing except by divine institution, it is altogether necessary that that divine institution be demonstrated by valid arguments.  

To that demonstration, the mere similarity of one thing to another is not sufficient 

LIV. Often, events from the past reoccur in forms resembling those of later centuries. Even if God, through a single creative act, set similar events at different times and places, it does not mean earlier actions serve as direct models for future behavior. God’s intent is that people observe the pattern of His works and recognize His consistent wisdom, not to allegorize ancient events as types for later ones. Plutarch’s comparisons between Greeks and Romans do not imply one group was meant as a blueprint for the other, nor should we read biblical figures as prototypes for later individuals without explicit scriptural indication. According to Dutch theologian Johannes Cocceius, only when Scripture clearly presents something as an image or type of another can such a claim be made; otherwise, such interpretations are unfounded. 

Unless a testimony of Divine institution, whether expressed or implied, be added

LV. To recognize when something should be allegorized or treated as a type, it must either be clearly stated by God, classified with similar things, referenced through obvious wording, implied by argument, or have a description that is not literally true and requires interpretation in another context. Since these observations are highly valuable for interpreting the Scriptures and relevant to our discussion, it is worthwhile to clarify them with detailed explanations and examples, so they are not misunderstood. 

Now and then, God reveals and declares a matter 

LVI. First: Where God plainly testified to have ordained something as the type of another thing. Thus the “brazen serpent” lifted up by Moses is interpreted by Christ Himself crucified and exalted. That “Melchizedek” was a figure of Christ; the “Red Sea,” Baptism; the “manna,” spiritual food brought down from heaven; the “water from the struck rock,” a mystical drink flowing forth; “Sarah and Hagar, the mountains Sinai and Zion,” two Covenants or Testaments; Jonah’s staying in the belly of the fish from which he came forth alive, typify Christ’s burial and resurrection, as the Spirit himself declares in the Scriptures; and such typical explanations are no less certain than if the thing itself were declared in so many words without the ambiguity of types. 

Occasionally, statements are made about a general category that includes various specific items 

LVII. Second: God may not state the prophetic fulfillment concerning a particular thing but still affirms it concerning the class of things which includes it. For example, concerning “the Mosaic Ceremonies” it is stated in general that they are “shadows of things to come,” whose “substance is Christ.” Whatever, therefore, pertains to those Ceremonies, even if we do not find it expressly applied to Christ, must nevertheless be interpreted enigmatically and symbolically, and compared with those things which are spoken of Christ or his mystical body and to which those ceremonies have an analogous correspondence. For it must not be supposed that all types are openly explained in Scripture and applied to their subject, for the Apostle confessed he “did not speak of everything individually,” (Heb. 9:5). It seemed sufficient to the Holy Spirit to remind us generally that all Mosaic publicly proclaimed institutions illustrate this by certain examples; by which He showed the way one must proceed in the elucidation of the Symbols and gave the key for the explanation of these hidden things. The remaining items of the same sort are committed to human diligence to be investigated. 

Sometimes, by wise allusion to material things, He leads us into the knowledge of spiritual things 

LVIII. Thirdly, it is occasionally the case that God, through explicit verbal references to more tangible and physical entities, directs our attention to recall matters of a corporeal or material nature. In doing so, it is demonstrated that the physical reality served as a symbolic representation of the spiritual and mystical. Thus, we know that the visible “creation of this world,” as it is narrated by Moses, is a type of the “new creation” of the faithful and of the constitution of the Church because the whole scheme of our restoration is often set forth in phrases and similitudes taken from the first creation. The new man is said to be “created according to God” (Eph. 4:24). And the faithful are called “God’s workmanship made in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:10), and the whole mystical body of Christ, “a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). 

Sometimes He intimates or presupposes that something is typical by His manner of argumentation

LIX. There are times in Scripture when the Holy Spirit does not explicitly state that something is symbolic but instead implies it through the way He argues and quietly assumes its meaning. For example, when the Apostle disputes with the Jews from the types of Sarah, Hagar, Melchizedek, etc., he assumes for his argument the hypothesis — well known to both parties and familiar to the Hebrews from ancient teaching — that God wished to exhibit, in memorable persons of the Old Testament to whom certain notable events happened out of their ordinary course, an elegant picture, worthy of the care of a great artist, by which Christ, together with his mystical body, was portrayed. Having laid down this foundation, he at once descends to an explanation of certain specific types with a certain divine art. Nor does he overwhelm them with his Apostolic authority and credibility but convinces by the evident force of his reasons and the ease of his deduction, arguing only from conceded or self-evident premises. From this method of argument, it is rightly concluded that those memorable persons whose typical significance is nowhere explicitly explained — such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and many others — were types of Christ in many things that happened to them or were done by them. 

Finally, if anything is said about a certain matter, which is either not true or not fully verified, it is necessary to consider the concept of Antitype. 

LX. Fifth: Finally, if a quality is said of something but we don’t find its counterpart in that thing, we should look elsewhere to see if the statement fits something else where it makes complete sense. This must be fixed and established for us in the interpretation of the Scriptures: that in the speech of God no word is placed in vain, and nothing is ever spoken so loftily that its truth does not answer most exactly. Sacred writers are far from the inflated grandiloquence of those who, as Herodian says at the beginning of his History, ευτελή καὶ μικρὰ ἔργα, λόγων ἀρετῆ, δόξῃ παρείδωκαν τῆς ἀληθείαις μείζονε — “having exalted by rhetorical art small and insignificant things far above the credibility of truth.” It is not to be supposed that we should sometimes grant God a less prudent, less fitting, or more liberal style of speech. True and sound understanding of Scripture is that which makes manifest to the conscience the wisdom and prudence of the Speaker; so that you can neither imagine anything more just, more holy, or more praise‑worthy of God with regard to the thing signified, nor devise a mode of speech more graceful, fair, or fitting. Therefore, when those things that belong to some subject fall far short of the magnificence of Divine speech, the necessity is imposed on us to think of some other subject in which all the predicates are most fully verified. Paul supplies an example of this in Hebrews 2:6–9. He considers the things said in Psalm 8 concerning man and the son of man and observes that some of the predicates are too august to have their full truth shown in any ordinary man of sorrow (אנוֹשׁ); whence he concludes that they must be expounded of Christ. Thus, the things said in Psalms 2, 16, 22, 45, 69, 72 and the Song of Songs are understood to be spoken not so much of David, or of Solomon (although certain particulars seem in a narrower sense somewhat to suit them) as of Christ, whose spiritual kingdom they prefigured. For, according to the rule of the Logicians, such predicates are to be placed under subjects which can bear them. And those predicates are too great for a mere man and sinner. In Jesus Christ, however, and his Church, they are so realized that the magnitude of the realities far exceeds the capacity of the words. In a similar manner it may be inferred that Tyre, Babylon, etc., are symbols of other peoples in the Prophets, if the things predicated of those cities are not fulfilled in them as predicated. 

None of these allegorical rules of interpretation has any place here 

FIRST ARGUMENT OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION [including Witsius]  

LXI. Allegorical and typological interpretation requires following established rules. Ignoring these and inventing mystical meanings turns figurative language into confusion, relying on personal imagination rather than genuine teaching. According to Jerome, this leads to misinterpretation of Scripture. Applying these principles to the Epistles of the Apocalypse shows that allegorical or prophetic readings lack a solid basis and are therefore invalid. There is no clear evidence that God designated the Asiatic Churches as models for others, nor did He state that everything in the Apocalypse refers to future events or that the experiences of the early Church foreshadow those of later churches. The Holy Spirit does not present arguments supporting this idea or use these Epistles to clarify the destiny of the later Church, especially since this book concludes all divine writings. Therefore, the only thing that can be said in favor of an allegorical and prophetic interpretation of these Epistles is that not all that is contained in them was fulfilled in the Asiatic Churches; whence, according to the fifth rule, the necessity arises of thinking of some other subject. But even that cannot be affirmed; this will be shown plainly in what follows. Let this be their FIRST ARGUMENT. 

SECOND ARGUMENT 

The Apocalypse has three parts, the last of which is prophetic 

LXII. FOR THEIR SECOND ARGUMENT: one may urge the threefold division of the whole Apocalypse which the Holy Spirit himself suggests to us. Rev. 1:19: Write THE THINGS WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN, and THE THINGS WHICH ARE, and THE THINGS WHICH SHALL BE AFTER THESE. John is commanded there to write three things. (1) “What you have seen,” namely the apparition of Christ and his glory, and the mystery of the seven stars and seven lampstands. For this is explained in what follows, v. 20: “the mystery of the seven stars WHICH YOU SAW in my hand… and those seven lampstands WHICH YOU SAW.” With this command the first part is finished. (2) “Those things which then were.” This cannot be more conveniently explained than the condition of the Asiatic Churches as they were at that time. For they were in the world, were nearby, were entrusted to John’s care and inspection, and were endowed with virtues or vices, adorned by good deeds or stained by wicked acts, for which they are praised or blamed. The writing of these Epistles pertains to the execution of that command, in which “the things which are” are set forth. Thus, to omit the possibility of other interpretations, in the very last of the letters it is said, chap. 3:15, “I know your works, that you are neither hot nor cold.” (3) “The things which shall be,” that is, prophecy setting forth the fate of the Church from that time to the end of the ages. These were revealed to John in heaven only after the aforesaid Epistles, which he received on earth, had been delivered. Rev. 4:1: “AFTER THIS I looked and behold a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard like a trumpet speaking with me, said, Come up hither, and I will show you WHAT MUST HAPPEN HEREAFTER.” From this the prophetic pericope of the Apocalypse begins its enigmas. The earlier parts are historical and doctrinal. For even if some future things are signified in these chapters, they are few, and are promises or threatenings rather than prophecies, and are especially determined to these Churches. 

Those parts are not to be mixed or confused 

LXIII. There can be no doubt that it is the duty of a faithful interpreter to see that the wisdom, exactness, and accuracy of God are perceived in His words. There are those [who adhere to an inconsistent view who] do not seem to satisfy that duty because they rend, disturb, confuse, or at least intermingle the members of this work, seeking the third part in the second, and the second in the third: for when John sets forth some things as future, they are tortured into being taken for those already fulfilled, (as is clear from their commentaries on the first two seals and trumpets) — not attending, as they ought, to the methodical arrangement of the whole work, which, according to the division and order and expressions proposed, most artfully corresponds to the interpretation our side has given. 

The reason for this order is most wise 

LXIV. The reason for this order is most wise. But what could be more accurate than this partition? More fitting than this arrangement? More wise and holy in its order, or more suitable and probable in its explanation, than that which makes manifest those attributes of God and of his speech? Truly, the mind of a Christian man about to approach, with familiarity, the contemplation of the secrets of God’s counsels, must first be imbued with knowledge of Christ the Lord, so that he may revere that Majesty, keep his eyes fixed on Him, view the depths and hidden things of the heart, and tremble at His words; then he must descend into himself and conform all his actions exactly to the will of Christ, rousing faith, charity, patience, and the other Christian virtues, if they languish, and carefully restore whatever has fallen away in his practice of Christianity; and only then will he be fit to stand in the counsel of Jehovah, to be admitted into the sanctuary of God, and to become a partaker of his secrets. For “the secret of the LORD is with them that fear him,” Ps. 25:14. “He that loves me,” says the Lord Jesus, “shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him,” John 14:21. To this also pertains Daniel 12:10: “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” Because Abraham walked in the way of the LORD, doing righteousness and justice, and was an example to his household to do likewise, the LORD refused to hide from Abraham what he intended to do. Thus, in this order, by Christ’s command, John prepares the minds of those to whom the Apocalypse was first committed for the knowledge of the secrets of prophecy. First, he sets forth to them what he learned of Christ’s Majesty from his wondrous appearance; then he presses upon them what tends to the correction of morals and to the practice of the Christian life, placing before their eyes a kind of mirror of themselves; after all these things he unfolds the sequence of events, and prophesies what shall come to the Church, what shall be the lot of its enemies, and in what manner all things shall at last be brought to an end by the glorious coming of Christ. 

THIRD ARGUMENT  

John governed and ruled the Churches of Asia  

LXV. THIRD. Nor can any reason be given why John should name those Churches in particular for admonishment, having been commanded to make them the depositaries of his whole Apocalypse. It was not because he first founded and established those churches, for it is clear that that honor belongs to Paul. But rather because he settled, governed, and held them entrusted to his care and inspection after Paul’s departure or death. All antiquity agrees that John, in his old age, undertook the administration and oversight of the Asian Churches, which had been founded by Paul’s preaching and were excellently instructed in piety; lest, since many heretics were active in that region, by their cunning arts they should fall away from the sincere faith they had once received. He lived at Ephesus before his exile to the island [of Patmos] accused of impiety before the Emperor Domitian and was sent bound by the proconsul of Asia. Returning from exile he again fixed his seat and residence at Ephesus and governed the neighboring churches; even traveling into bordering regions, there appointing Bishops, duly organizing whole churches, diligently serving everywhere in the office of an Apostle, and dwelling in Asia down to the time of Trajan, as Eusebius relates from Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian, Epiphanius, Jerome, and others agree with one voice. See Baronius at years 45 and 97. 

This is the reason why John was commanded to write to them by name 

LXVI. There is therefore no reason to ask why these letters, rather than any others, were delivered to the Churches as heavenly missives through John, and why they were made custodial of the whole Apocalypse, which pertains to the universal Church since they were not greater or more celebrated than many others. For besides the fact that the free will of the most liberal and wise Divinity is sufficient for every reason, there is no hidden cause why several letters and one whole book, having John as their Author, should have been addressed to the Asian churches, whose governance John had presided over for many years and was to preside over in the future. What was more fitting and more just than that those things which he had taught in person he should also enrich and instruct by writing, enduring for all time? He knew, moreover, that the use and fruit of these writings would not be confined by limits or times, but would overflow to the whole Church of Christ. 

FOURTH ARGUMENT 

The Churches to which the Epistles are addressed could not help but consider themselves to be praised or disparaged 

LXVII. FOURTH. The very contents of the Epistles are such that the churches, reading the letters directed to their own names, could not have judged otherwise than that they were being blamed or praised, and that an account of things done among them was being established. Is it possible that the church of Pergamos, reading what was written to it from heaven, could imagine that it dwelt where Satan has his throne, and that Antipas, a faithful martyr of Christ, had been killed among them, and that they had those who held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans? Could it, I say, have thought on reading this that Satan’s throne was no more present there than in other cities of the Roman world, nor that they had ever seen or heard of anyone named Antipas, or of any man who praised as lawful the eating of idols or fornication, or of any sect known by the name of the Nicolaitans; but that these enigmatic words hinted at things that would occur centuries later in far distant places? Would they not, in their simplicity, have said to John, “Whom do you call Satan’s throne, whom Antipas, whom the followers of Balaam, whom the Nicolaitans, of whom we have heard neither deeds nor a name?” Who can understand such riddles of speech? And so of the rest. 

Nor was it lawful and permissible for them to understand the Epistles as referring to the future and to other places 

LXVIII. And should they not have believed the reproofs, exhortations, promises, and threats addressed to each Church by name to be spoken to them and directed at them? Could the Laodiceans interpret what is noted of their lukewarmness and arrogance in their own Epistle to pertain no more to themselves than to their neighbors in Philadelphia, but only to foretell what would be the Reformed Church after fifteen or more centuries in England, for example, or in the Netherlands? Who would doubt that by such an alien interpretation they would have incurred the greatest indignation of the Lord, who was seriously reproving and admonishing them? Or by what reasoning is such an interpretation to be made for us now, when it would have been a sin and an indignity for them to make for themselves? 

[A summary of the controversy]: Which, however, some wish 

LXIX. The thrust of this argument could be considered wasted if the learned men with whom this dispute is carried on held the opinion that everything contained in these Epistles was at first written and fulfilled literally in the Asian churches, and then afterwards typically represented other churches by a certain method of correspondence (συστιχέσις), a view of the highly respected Brightman. But learned men themselves assert otherwise, and their commentaries proclaim it and the arguments advanced above prove it. They plainly wish the names of the churches to be symbolic and emblematic, and therefore, that those Epistles describe not so much the condition of the Asian churches as they were in John’s time, but the condition of the universal Church in those periods of time that enigmatically correspond to each emblem; and for that reason many things are said there which were never discovered in those Asian churches. Against this opinion, this fourth argument is directly opposed. 

These Epistles contain nothing that was not fulfilled in the Churches of Asia 

Nor is there anything contained in these Epistles that was not thereby proved to have been fulfilled in those Asian churches; nor anything that should force us to look to another subject in which to anxiously seek the truth of what is here said. It must now be shown, more narrowly, [its fulfillment] for each of the individual Epistles. As to the exhortations to repentance, steadfastness, patience, and other duties of that sort, and as to the threats against deserters and the lukewarm, and the promises of grace and glory to be granted to those who remain faithful to the Lord to the end, there can be no doubt that these could be proposed to each church in that manner. All challenges relate to history, and on the rare occasions when something prophetic arises, it does not actually create any real obstacles, as the following points will clarify. 

This is shown concerning the Ephesians 

LXX. We begin with the church of Ephesus. The Lord praises its “labor, without weariness,” such as Paul endured there, Acts 20:19–21, and afterward Timothy, 2 Tim. 4:2,5, and the Church itself was animated by so many examples (Acts 19:18–20; Eph. 1:15–16), and its “tolerance” under the burdens by which it was oppressed: for it was exposed to many vexations, both from the worshipers of Diana, to whose divinity the Christian religion was a great detriment, Acts 19:23; 2 Cor. 1:8, and, as is probable, from the followers of the Greek philosopher, Apollonius of Tyana, who in the time of Domitian “philosophized for a somewhat longer time” at Smyrna and Ephesus: “he had long practiced philosophy at Smyrna and Ephesus, astonishing the Ephesians, who, when he discoursed, were often present.” He had attained such fame by his tricks that he was regarded as a god; at least he was in no respect inferior to Christ. It is added that they “could not bear the wicked” and had tested those who called themselves apostles and found them false. These were those ravenous wolves, not sparing the flock and eloquent in perverse things to lead disciples away after them, of whom Paul had foretold, Acts 20:29–30. Ebion, [who denied the Deity of Christ], as did Cerinthus, and similar offshoots were then prowling in Asia, with whom John also had to struggle — who does not know that fact? That praise is most fully agreed by that of Ignatius [of Antioch], who not long after John wrote to the Ephesians: “Onesimus [slave of Philemon] himself highly praises your godly conduct in God because you all live according to truth, and because in you no heresy dwells, but rather if anyone speaks of Jesus Christ, he speaks in truth.” The ancient interpreter thus rendered it: “Onesimus, therefore, highly praises your divine order because you all live according to truth, and because in you no heresy dwells; nor do you hear anyone more than Jesus Christ speaking the truth.” And a little later: “I knew even those who had passed by from there — some of them having evil teaching — whom you did not permit to sow their cancer among you, stopping your ears so as not to receive them.” They are accused by the term ἄφεσις, that is, omission or remission of first love, which seems to have had more than one cause. For it could easily have happened that the former zeal of many deserted them, partly from faintheartedness because Jews as well as Gentiles stubbornly resisting them; partly because of the prestige of the man we mentioned, Apollonius, whom many believed to perform miracles equal to the Apostles; partly also because of John’s absence during Domitian’s time when he was banished to Patmos, whose sermons, always breathing charity, and whose example framed after the pattern of Christ had until then greatly fostered the ardor of sacred love. 

Who are the Nicolaitans? 

LXXI. There is also mention of the Nicolaitans nesting in this church, of whom all the ancients constantly report that their sect was most shameful, since they denied the true divinity of Christ and praised promiscuous intercourse; they didn’t separate their food from things sacrificed to idols, and did not shun other rites of pagan superstition. Ignatius — if that Ignatius is genuine — wrote: “Also shun those most unclean ones of the false name, Nicolaitans, who are lovers of lust and evil slanderers. For Nicolaus was not such a minister of the Apostles.” See Tertullian on Prescription, ch. 45; Epiphanius, Heresies, 25; Augustine, On Heresies, ch. 5; and others after them who collected many from the ancients; Baronius at A.D. 68. That these things were not rashly asserted by the ancients may be partly gathered from this passage itself, where the works and deeds (Gr: ‘erga’) of the Nicolaitans are mentioned, by which phrase it is hinted that their heresy was above all practical; partly from the testimonies of Peter and Jude. Peter describes certain heretics of his time as those “who follow the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and lead a life of daily pleasure, spots and stains — delighting themselves in their deceptions while they feasted with Christians; eyes full of adultery, who know not how to cease from sin, alluring unstable souls, following the way of Balaam,” 2 Pet. 2:10,13–15. Some, with Oecumenius and others, have observed that by these words the Nicolaitans are meant; and the thing speaks for itself: those whom Peter joins with the followers of Balaam, as the Holy Spirit does in the letter to the Pergamums. Jude likewise depicts the same, “who change the grace of our God into licentiousness, and deny only our Lord God Jesus Christ, and, asleep, pollute the flesh, feeding themselves without fear,” Jude vv. 4, 8, 12. Such heretics, under the name of Nicolaitans, existed in the age of the Apostles; and why not at Ephesus, in the greatest and wealthiest city of Lesser Asia, where luxury is not wont to be lacking? 

The origin of the name is uncertain 

LXXII. It is not necessary to determine whence those foul heretics called Nicolaitans took their name: whether from Nicolaus the Deacon (rightly or wrongly), or from some other Nicolaus; for that is indifferent to the present matter, provided it is certain that such shameful men — however they were called Nicolaite for whatever reason — existed at that time both elsewhere and at Ephesus. And if no obligation of antiquity binds us here, what reason then compels us to derive that name from some unknown author of the sect? Why may we not rightly believe that they were named from the thing itself, from the opinion, from the practice — those wicked men having been so called? What if, with the very learned Dr. John Lightfoot, we assert that the name of the sect is derived from the Chaldean word ניכולה (Nicola), which signifies “Let us eat”? For since nothing was more common among those depraved little men than to urge one another to eat the food offered to idols — saying to one another and to others, as one may conjecture, ניכולה, “Nicola, let us eat” — how appropriately could the orthodox call them Nicolaite from that? Compare the Targum on Leviticus 11:13: בסר “They say, NICOL, let us eat flesh. Nevertheless, it is sufficient for us at this point to refute all those ancient traditions and texts that deny the existence of the heretics called the Nicolaitans—named after their disgraceful excesses and feasting—during the Apostolic age in the Church. And why wouldn’t they have been present in Ephesus too? 

The affliction of Smyrna 

LXXIII. In the Epistle to the Smyrneans almost everything is easily understood. Their affliction and poverty are mentioned, on account of the confiscation and plundering of their goods (as Christians of those times were often stripped of their possessions for the name of their religion), and the blasphemy of those who falsely called themselves Jews is recorded, and the imprisonments of some are foretold, and ten days of affliction. What present or past persecution it was in which the Smyrneans proved their patience to be steadfast may almost be gathered from that which the Spirit foretells was to come, and which is more fully described in the monuments of history. 

In the time of Polycarp 

LXXIV. They relate that, when almost all of Asia was being shaken by the greatest storms of persecution, a tremendous tempest fell upon the church of Smyrna, which the blessed Polycarp, a hearer of the Apostle and by him appointed Bishop of Smyrna, calmed with the blood of his martyrdom. How savage that affliction was is told elegantly and pathetically by the Greek (chapter xiv). The Smyrnaeans themselves described it according to the Epistle which Eusebius presents, where they skillfully set forth what steadfast and erect firmness of soul the blessed martyrs showed in enduring the pains of suffering. For “those who looked on from all sides” (I repeat the words of the Epistle), “when they saw those before them scourged until the deepest veins and arteries were lacerated, so that their entrails and other more hidden members, concealed in the innermost recesses of the body, were exposed to the eyes of all; some brought down by the witness of trumpets and afflicted beneath certain sharp stones, and some carried away through every kind of torture and torment, and at last — forsooth — delivered to beasts for tearing apart, when they saw (I say) that these men bore all these things so patiently, they were struck with almost incredible admiration.” 

The burning slander of the Jews 

LXXV. These things, however, befell them not only from the cruelty of the Gentiles but from the calumnies of the Jews: of the Jews, I say, who, although such by nation, nevertheless boasted falsely in that name. For they were not, as that word signifies, the people of God, nor confessors and proclaimers of His name and divinity; but rather the Synagogue of Satan, a band of malign ones, who, under command to the Emperor, the Devil, assailed God and His people. For being filled with an insane hatred against the Christian Religion, they stirred up the magistrates and the common people against the faithful, Acts 13:50, 14:2, 19, 17:5; 1 Thess. 2:14-16. And that this also happened to them, the Smyrnaeans complain several times in that same letter. When Polycarp had publicly and constantly professed himself a Christian, the whole multitude, both of Gentiles and Jews who dwelt in Smyrna, being inflamed with the impulse of their spirits and with bile boiled over, cried out with a loud voice, “This is the Teacher of Asia; this is the Father of the Christians.” The same when, condemned alive to the pyre, a great crowd of people, straightaway gathering wood and brush from the workshops and the baths, (especially the Jews, with hot zeal, as they railed against him, surpassing others in wickedness) — for especially the Jews eagerly lent their aid to this deed (for such was their custom in such business). When the martyr was now dead they admonished the people and urged earnestly that the governor would not give his body to anyone; lest the Christians (as they blasphemed) having that crucified one left to them should begin to venerate him; and they carefully watched the Christians who were of a mind to rescue him from the fire. 

Ten days mark a fixed and short time yet is sufficient for our proof 

LXXVI. What is added about the coming affliction of ten days is somewhat more obscure. But what forbids explaining that phrase so that it denotes a definite and short time, yet sufficient for testing? For this explanation fits well with both the style of the sacred writings and the sequence of the text and the history. It is true that the number ten is sometimes used in Scripture to mean a great number; but it is also sometimes used to mean a small one, according as it is compared with a larger or a smaller number: compared with a single unit the number 10 is much larger; yet compared with centuries it is little. Genesis 24:55: “Let the girl remain with us at least ten days,” that is, for a short time. Compare Amos 5:8 and 1:9 and Genesis 18:39 and Numbers 11:19. Yet that brief time is intimated to be sufficient for proof in Daniel 1:12. The connection of the words also favors this interpretation. For they are so framed as to exhort the faithful to patience and constancy by an argument drawn from the shortness of the sufferings; which elsewhere the Holy Spirit likewise uses. Isaiah 26:20; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Peter 1:6. And the thing itself almost persuades. For the tempest of persecution ceased with the death of Polycarp, ὅτι ὥσπερ ἐπραγίσεως Ἀμα τῆς μαρτυρίας· ἀντὰ κατέπαυσε τὸν διωγμόν, [“because, just as by the accomplishment of the one act of testimony, so likewise the persecution ceased.”] 

Is the letter to Pergamos historic? 

LXXVII. In the letter to the people of Pergamos these historical matters occur: that in that city there was the throne of Satan, and that Antipas, a faithful martyr of Christ was killed in that place; that there were also those who held the doctrine of Balaam, as well as the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, against whom the Lord fights with the sword of His mouth. The explanation of all these things does not seem very difficult. 

Pergamum is called the throne of Satan because of the temple of Asclepius there, in which the Devil was worshiped 

LXXVIII. I will not say, with Bullinger, Brightman, and others, that Pergamum was the seat of the proconsul of Asia’s jurisdiction, from which, by cruel edicts suggested and dictated by Satan, he persecuted Christians both there and elsewhere in his province. For some, without reason, think that the proconsul of Asia resided at Ephesus. It is more useful to observe that in that city there was a very famous sanctuary and oracle of Asclepius, to which vows were made and offerings sent from the most remote places. Thus, a lock of hair of Titus Flavius Earinus, a freedman of Domitian, with a jewel encased casket and mirror, was sent to Asclepius of Pergamos, as Publius Papinius Statius indicates. And Martial wrote of the hair of that same Earinus: — “He placed the sacred gifts and sweet locks before the Pergamene god.” Likewise, Apollonius of Tyana turned aside there and took his stand in the temple of Asclepius, advising those who came to worship God how they might obtain dreams from God. Herodian is the authority for Emperor Antoninus Caracalla also having visited Pergamum, that there he might make use of the cures of Asclepius and seek dreams. In that sanctuary of Asclepius fictitious miracles were produced; the devil spoke in that idol and was worshiped. Not only because generally those things which the Gentiles perform as sacred to their gods they in fact offer to demons, 1 Cor. 10:20, but also specifically because snakes and dragons were consecrated to Asclepius and were reared at public expense in his temples; as the serpent of Epidaurus [i.e., a renowned healing site] is believed to have come even to Rome. And is not Satan the ancient Dragon and Serpent? (Rev. 12:9) Who, in order that his kingdom might be preserved, stirred up his worshipers against the Christians with all the vigor he could. Wherefore Arethas rightly calls Pergamos “the throne of Satan,” τῷ Σατανᾷ τὴν Πέργαμον καλεῖν, as being the chief seat of idolatry throughout all Asia. 

Who was Antipas? 

LXXIX. Of Antipas these things are related by more recent writers: that he was Bishop of Pergamos who, when he publicly preached Christ and compelled demons to confess Christ, they were driven out by him when invoked in the name of Christ; whereupon he was seized by the city prefect, dragged to the temple of Diana and cast into a bronze bull glowing with great fire, and thus consummated his life with glorious martyrdom, in the 93^rd year of Christ, in the reign of Domitian, in which year John was also banished into exile. Moreover, the bronze bull in which Antipas of Pergamos was burned is said to have been transported to Constantinople and placed in the Church of the Apostles. So say Arethas, Metaphrastes, Cedrenus, Benedict Pereira, Baronius, Laurentius Surius, and Cornelius à Lapide. Let everyone assign these as much weight as he will. At least the episcopate of Antipas is uncertain; the story about the bronze bull seems plainly fabulous. It must meanwhile be confessed that there is no mention at all of this Antipas in ancient history; as are many persons of that first century, at that time unknown to most or to no writers except the Divine ones. But to infer from the lack of histories that there was no martyr of Pergamos called Antipas is utterly without reason, and contrary to the reverence due to sacred letters. Those alone suffice for faith. Who will endure that one should presume to doubt whether those illustrious men whom Paul greets in Romans 16 were at Rome in his time, when there is a profound silence about most of them in ancient monuments?  

By what reasonable justification do we place greater confidence in these Divine Epistles than in other writings, or more than strict critics would find acceptable for any classical author? Boethius, [the Roman senator and historian], laments that many well-known men from their era have been forgotten due to a lack of documentation by writers. Let us therefore say, and say with confidence, that the Lord Himself says there was some pious and zealous man of Pergamos who for the name of Christ was cruelly slain,—it is permissible that we be ignorant of the rest of the man’s condition, the manner of his death, and similar circumstances. 

The Balaamites and the Nicolaitans are either the same, or at least similar heretics 

LXXX. From what we have adduced in section 71, it is clear that the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans were either the same or certainly similar heretics — those given over to the belly and to what is beneath the belly. Just as they attacked the Church in Smyrna they were not lacking in Pergamos. It is very believable that the adherents of this Balaamite doctrine were also authors of the rest, so that they might boldly take part in the feasts of their pagan fellow-citizens, at which they ate food offered to idols, under the pretext alike of Christian liberty and prudence, lest by excessive scrupulousness and unnecessary separation the flames of persecution be more sharply kindled. And thus, they attempted to transform the sheep of Christ into swine, whom, as I remember Jerome elegantly wrote somewhere, “they nourished them to be slain in hell.” Those profane banquets were easily accompanied or followed by fornication, both spiritual and carnal. Wherefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols and fornication are by the decree of the Apostolic Synod prohibited to the faithful with the same breath, so that vices that love to walk together may be restrained in like manner, Acts 15:29. Moreover, the Lord threatens that he will “fight them with the sword of his mouth” concerning those Balaamites and Nicolaitans. For since they were swollen with pride and “putting on a bold front of vainglory,” 2 Pet. 2:18, they “provoked the Lord to jealousy as if they were stronger than he,” 1 Cor. 10:22. Hence the war against them, in which nothing is easier for the Lord than to smite them with the mere “sword of his mouth,” exposing and confounding their foul impiety by His most holy oracles, convincing them, exposing the punishments which He had defined by His word, both in body and soul, both in this life and in the life to come: according to Peter’s Gospel (2 Pet. 2:12-13) and Jude (vs. 11, 14). 

Hidden manna, and a white stone 

LXXXI. The Lord promises the victor the meal of hidden manna, as well as a white stone: of these things the one signifies the sense of gratuitous justification, the other the most pleasant taste of Divine sweetness; very apt indeed. For the lot of the faithful in that idolatrous city was to be held as common victims of hatred, as it were expiatory sacrifices, especially those who, through fear of the divine power and the tenderness of a holy conscience, were forbidden to frequent the abominable feasts of the Gentiles. Against this unjust hatred of the citizens the Lord gives the promise of His favor and friendship, declaring they will be more acceptable to Him the more they are unseen by others in the world. And certainly nothing more delightful can happen to a faithful man than to please Christ and to be defended by Him against the perverse judgments of the world, 1 Cor. 4:3–4. This is hinted at by the white stone. Unless, perhaps, because the discourse is about giving a prize to the victor and mention was made a little before of giving manna, one should look to the sacred Greek contests, in which certain “provisions of food” or “rewards” (εισελάσματα) were given to those who had won: of which Pliny and others relate that when they left the contest they received a Ticket with the inscription of the quantity of what they were to receive. A Ticket of that sort may be compared to the Holy Spirit, which whoever has Him is certain of perpetual abundance. Added is the “eating of the hidden manna.” This is opposed to the meats of those sacrifices which had been offered to idols; and, as Tertullian says, to “yesterdays’ pottages, which are not without the pomp of the Devil, without the invitation of Demons,” by which the Nicolaitans and Balaamites boldly fed themselves. If anyone, with noble constancy of faith, bravely scorns these blandishments and allurements of the flattering world together with all its delights and enticements, he shall be certain to be satiated at the most delightful banquets of Divine grace and glory, whose sweetness no one can rightly estimate except he who has tasted. The hidden manna is therefore compared to those things which were to be kept in a golden urn in a hidden place, set apart before the face of Jehovah, Exod. 16:33–34. For what is chief in this participation of Christ’s sweetness is reserved with Christ in heaven, Col. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:12, 11. And because no worldly man knows the sweetness of this, John 14:17. Nay, not even the faithful themselves before they are tried, 1 John 3:2. This communion is not for a day, like the daily manna, but perpetual, like that which, kept before the Lord, was free from corruption and worms, John 6:27, and therefore immensely to be preferred to the profane banquets of the Pergamenes. Who does not see how neatly these things are suited to the condition of the Church of Pergamos, whose grace is greatly lost if its members are drawn elsewhere against their will? 

The woman Jezebel of Thyatira taught every kind of wickedness 

LXXXII. In the Epistle to the Thyatirans there is nothing that can raise difficulty, except perhaps what is told about the seductress Jezebel, and the promise concerning authority over the nations and the morning star. There is, so far as I know, no clear mention of her in the monuments of ancient history that we now have; nevertheless, it is easy from this place to conclude that there was at Thyatira a certain prominent and notorious woman, an idolater, sorceress, prostitute, a counterpart and sister of that ancient Jezebel in the kingdom of Israel; yet more skillful for ruin, in that the ancient Jezebel openly showed herself an enemy and persecutor of the Church [i.e., Israel], whereas this one wished to appear a prophetess, seeming to favor Christianity, perhaps even professing Christianity, and uttering prophetic ravings: certainly instructed in every wickedness in the school of the Nicolaitans. By her tricks she seduced some, especially, as one may believe, “novices who were just beginning to drink in the Divine discourses, and who, like young puppies of still fresh infancy, groped with imperfect eyes;” or those also who, even if they had taken the name of Christ, nevertheless could not be wholly turned away from the licentiousness of profane Gentile life. 

There was a plentiful crop of false prophetesses in the ancient Church 

LXXXIII. No one ought to find it strange that so much was then entrusted to impious little women. For the gift of prophecy flourished in the Church, by which God had endowed and adorned not only men but also women, according to the prophecy, Joel 2:28 — whose example also appears in the four daughters of Philip the evangelist, Acts 21:8–9. Therefore, some female ministers of the Devil, impure and like barking dogs, were not ashamed to boast of the prophetic spirit. The heretics and pseudo-prophets of the early times cunningly made use of their works to ensnare the simple. Who does not know of Simon Magus or Selenus or Helena, and Marcellina of Carpocrates, and Philomena of Apelles, and Priscilla, Maximilla, Quintilla of Montanus, and wicked women like them? Jerome observed that most heresies were propagated through women. “Simon,” he says, “founded his heresy aided by the ministering of the harlot Helena.” Nicolaus of Antioch, “the author of all uncleanness, led female choirs.” Marcion “also sent a woman to Rome to greater licentiousness.” Apelles had Philomena as his “companion.” Montanus “first corrupted Priscilla and Maximilla with gold, then defiled them with heresy.” Arius, “to deceive the world, first deceived the sister of the prince.” Donatus was “helped by the wealth of Lucilla.” Elpidus the blind “took with him Agape the blind.” Galla was “joined” to Priscillian, “not by birth, but by name.” Who then should wonder that what was so frequent happened at Thyatira as well, that an evil female leader of the Christians, by her charm, led some from the faith into impurity? 

The impurities of this harlot are called the depths of Satan on account of the secret wisdom she claimed to possess 

LXXXIV. The Lord calls the impure doctrines of Jezebel “the depths of Satan” (ὰ βάθη τε σατανᾶ). Heretics used to vaunt great mysteries, secret and hidden doctrines, which with its more recondite wisdom greatly exceeded the refined simplicity of the Gospel. An example of this is found in the Gnostics, who were a branch of the Nicolaitans, established in the same school with Jezebel for debauchery; and they called themselves Gnostics “because of the excellence of knowledge,” namely those who had penetrated the mysteries of God more deeply and were above all others. Gregory wisely said, “Heretics pretend to hear the hidden Word so that they may cast over the minds of their listeners a certain reverence for their preaching. Hence, they also preach covertly, insofar as their preaching is to seem so much the holier for being hidden. They shun having common knowledge, lest they be thought equal to others. They take pride in knowing things others don’t, valuing their unique knowledge above those bereft of such knowledge. They insinuate this knowledge is hidden (as we have said), in order that they may be admired, so they affirm they have perceived this knowledge secretly.” But the Lord testifies that these mysteries are not of God but of Satan; and He praises those who do not know or approve them, but rather shudder at them, detest them, and curse them. 

The punishment of Jezebel and her children 

LXXXV. Furthermore, the Lord accuses the woman’s obstinacy because she refused to be led to repentance by her own long-suffering. Therefore, when the time of His forbearance has run out, He declares that she, who had shamefully used couches for fornication and profane and lascivious banquets, will be cast into a bed of pain and death, denied all hope of restoration. The same fate remained for her children, whether you understand them as natural sons or metaphorical — that is, most attached disciples whose works propagated her vicious doctrine: he says he will “put them to death,” an elegant allusion to the sons of the ancient Jezebel, who were all slain by Jehu, 2 Kings 10:6–7. Moreover, those who committed adultery with Jezebel may be distinguished from her children, that is to say, those who were seduced by others and became followers of her impurity. To these the Lord does not yet threaten death, but great affliction, in which they will have time to repent. As to how these things happened in the church at Thyatira, it is no more necessary to inquire from histories than that which Paul writes concerning the Corinthians: 1 Cor. 11:30, “Therefore many among you are weak and sickly, and many sleep.”  

The authority of the faithful over the nations 

LXXXVI. To the one who conquers and keeps his works unto the end, the Lord promises two things: authority over the nations and the morning star. First, He notes the communion of Christ’s glory and victory, of which Psalm 2:8 speaks, so that all enemies by whom they were oppressed and troubled in this age will be seen subject under their feet, deprived of all power, and doomed to eternal ruin; and broken by the iron rod of Divine vengeance like potsherds. That which properly belongs to the Lord Jesus is attributed to the faithful, because there they are one with Christ, and thus do the same things with and in him, strengthened by his glory; especially because all the fruit of this victory redounds to them. 

The giving of the morning star 

LXXXVII. The giving of the morning star signifies (1) a closer communion with Christ, in whom is the fountain of light, Psalm 36:10, and who calls himself that bright and morning star, Rev. 22:16. (2) From this follows an increase of spiritual light and knowledge, indeed, the consummation of heavenly Wisdom (cf. 2 Peter 1:19). (3) A glorious and ineffable joy which is often compared to dawn’s light, Job 30:26; Psalm 97, and above all the morning light, which, coming immediately after the terror of the dark night, is most welcome of all, Job 11:17; 2 Sam. 23:4; Isaiah 8:20. 

Promises made to individuals under conditions are not prophecies about the state of the Church on earth 

LXXXVIII. It should be observed in general that this and other similar promises are not prophecies of things that will happen to the whole Church on earth when considered in its entirety, but conditional promises made to individual believers, provided only that they eagerly and steadily pursue the course set before them; and the fulfilment of which is to be sought not so much on earth, where only firstfruits are given, as in heaven. 

The condition of the Church at Sardis 

LXXXIX. In the letter to the Sardians there is absolutely nothing that should give one concern. There the state of the Church is described: it indeed had pure doctrine, untainted by heresies, and a not-to-be-scorned knowledge of the truth, and it openly and freely confessed Christ; hence it had also obtained the name of life. Yet the morals did not correspond to the doctrine, the deeds did not match the reputation, the works were not full in the sight of God, nor so arranged that they could be counted as suitable proofs of a spiritual life, or of regeneration and sanctification; and if anything good still remained, it was very slight and weak, and seemed almost to be struggling with death. Nevertheless, in so great a corruption of morals a few are praised, because “they have not defiled their garments,” that is, they had kept themselves chaste and pure from the foul lusts of the Nicolaitans, “hating even the garment that is stained by the flesh’s contact,” Jude 23, and taking pains that they should commit nothing unworthy of their holy calling, and keeping those bright habits which they had received from the Lord Jesus through regeneration and which were figuratively those white garments which they were wont to put on coming forth from the bath of baptism. It is promised to them that they “shall walk with Christ in white,” that is, that they shall be partakers of perfect Holiness, Triumph, and Joy. For all these things were formerly signified by white garments. Concerning Holiness see Revelation 19:8; concerning Glory Genesis 41:42, Esther 8:15, Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:3; concerning Triumph, Revelation 19:14 and 7:9, 13, 14; concerning Joy, Ecclesiastes 9:8. Why, I pray you, is it impossible that these things were true in the Sardian Church; and why should this not, I do not say compel a necessity upon us, but at least furnish the slightest occasion for thinking about other churches of later times in which these things were more carefully observed? What compels us to understand precisely this about “giving peace to the Church in this age for the justification of the pious cause”? Why should we not believe, with Ludovicus de Dieu, that reference is to the priestly custom of the Jews, who, whenever there was a question about births, ordered those who were impure to go out of the court wrapped in black garments, while the legitimate ones remained clothed in white in the temple and served with the brethren—Maimonides taught this, Biath Hammikdas, section 11. 

The key of David 

XC. Now let us examine the Epistle to the Philadelphians. Not without reason does the Lord Jesus claim for Himself the key of David, by which He opens and no one shuts; He shuts and no one opens — that is, the supreme authority over His Church, so that He may receive or exclude into the communion of the holy and blessed, as He deems convenient, and bar every access to His citizens from enemies who would assail them. This is an allusion to the prophecy about Eliakim in Isaiah, who was prefect of the royal court (they called him καραπαλάτης [‘chamberlain’] in Constantinople), whose badge of dignity was a key woven on his garment. Therefore, it is said that “the key of the house of David shall be laid upon his shoulder” Isa. 22:20–22. The Lord prudently makes mention of this authority here: since the Philadelphians, compared with all the other cities of Asia mentioned, were of the lowest condition — not by stature, not by wealth, nor supported by any human protection, whence they are said to have μικράν δύναμιν (little strength) — the most wise and most kind Jesus suggests to them that He is indeed their true Eliakim, God who raises up and establishes, upon whose shoulders the government is laid (Isa. 9:6), plainly provided for their protection, and who would be to them in the place of a Father, as Eliakim was to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the house of Judah. They, indeed, lived scattered in the fields, often fearing the shaking of the city; but the Lord claims for Himself the keys of the spiritual gates, by whose security they may be safe and secure from every hostile invasion: like a locked garden, a sealed spring, a barred fountain, Song of Songs 4:12. He also shows to whom they owe this, that a church, though not flourishing with great renown in the town, had been gathered together. 

The door was opened and the Jews supplicated 

XCI. The following pertains to the same. “Behold I give you an open door, etc.”: that is, an opportunity to carry out a good deed, and to spread the Gospel excellently both among citizens and neighbors; as Paul testifies concerning Ephesus and Troas that “a great and fruitful opportunity was opened to him,” 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 11:12. The Lord adds that He will “give some out of the Synagogue of Satan” to him, who in the same way as those Jews in Smyrna lied about themselves. He was not only about to restrain their insolence, but also to turn them effectively, so that, as suppliants for forgiveness of their offenses, they would join themselves to the Church. By these words the universal conversion of the Israelite nation is not indicated, of which Paul speaks in Rom. 11, but only the conversion of certain Jews of Philadelphia who previously had troubled the Church. For the speech is not about the whole people, but about a certain synagogue, and not about it as a whole, but about some from that synagogue. 

Preservation from the hour of universal trial 

XCII. Finally, the Lord promises that he will “preserve them from the hour of trial which was to come upon the whole world.” This is very suitably referring to the persecution of Trajan which fell upon the Christian world not long after the Apocalypse was written; and which was perhaps less severe for the Church of that town because it was small and therefore of less renown and standing among the Gentiles than many other larger and more prominent churches, and thus less exposed to envy. 

Some things about the Philadelphians from Ignatius 

XCIII. I, indeed, remember nothing specific that the history of those times has about the Philadelphians. But, as we have already warned many times, God’s word does not borrow its confirmations from any monuments of men. Still, something is found in the Epistles of Ignatius, from which a little light falls upon what has been said. When that blessed martyr of Christ, under the reign of Trajan, was bound in Antioch—where the Church had been grievously troubled by persecution—and was being led to Rome, he sojourned for a time at Smyrna; and when the chains of that most holy man, celebrated throughout the whole East became known to the churches of Asia, immediately sent delegates to him to pay due homage. The neighboring bishops also hastened. After he had been conveyed to Troas, the Bishop of the Philadelphia Church met him there. Recognizing, with a grateful heart, the duty of Christian courtesy, he sent letters full of humanity and piety to that same Church, from which we gather that those things which are praised in the Revelation letter also flourished in that Church at that time. For as here the constancy of the Bishop is praised in maintaining a message of tolerance and not denying the name of Christ, so Ignatius testifies that he knew him to be such, “not able of himself nor through men to exercise an administration fitting for the common good, nor for human glory, but in the love of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Indeed, he says he was astonished at that man’s “meekness, who in silence can do more than those who speak foolishly.” He further praises his “immutability and unprovokability, living in all the meekness of God.” He describes the Church itself as “having propitiation, and established in the concord of God, and exulting in the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and in his resurrection, separated and certified in all mercy” (so reads the old version). From this we infer that the Church of Philadelphia was truly preserved in the hour of trial. He also mentions Jews who had at one time been hostile to this Church, some of whom, however, having been converted, later, it seems, also preached Christianity. “But if anyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him; for it is better to hear Christianity from a man having circumcision than Judaism from one having a foreskin.” These things are from Ignatius about the Philadelphians. 

The letter to the Laodiceans is completely suited to the condition of their city 

XCIV. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is adapted to the condition of that city so well that it seems it could not be applied elsewhere without violence. Long ago learned men observed from Tacitus, Strabo, and others that Laodicea was an extremely wealthy city, so much so that when it was overturned by an earthquake it was restored by its own resources: and these riches were invested especially in wool. “The districts,” says Strabo, “around Laodicea produce excellent sheep, not only in the softness of their fleeces, in which they even surpass the Milesians, but also for their black color rivaling that of ravens.” These riches, as is wont, had produced luxury, luxurious security, tepidity and arrogance, even in the Church. Hence, a neglect of self-examination and daily admonition. Hence, a superfluous concern for heavenly and spiritual things, flattering themselves in those things which they supposed they had already acquired, boasting themselves enriched no less by the Spirit than by the wealth of the world. The Lord sharply rebuked these things in them, and taught that other riches ought to be sought, far more valuable than those they possessed in their fine but black fleeces — namely “gold tested by fire,” the treasures of faith and charity, and “white garments,” both of Christ’s righteousness and of purity and holiness. Who does not see the elegance of these translations? All their beauty is lost if they are referred to the Church of the last times, which has nothing to do with Laodicea. 

It is concluded that there is nothing in these Epistles that demands regard to any other subject than the Churches of Asia 

XCV. Based on the previous arguments, it is evident that all statements within these Epistles could reasonably have been true for the churches of Asia, and there is no indication requiring consideration of another context when pursuing the genuine meaning of the Lord’s words. And these arguments can be contested only by those to whom a mystical, symbolic, and prophetic explanation is to be preferred to a simple, historic explanation. 

Epilogue 

XCVI. If anyone now desires our reply, it is this: We prefer the opinion of those who stand for the historical sense; for it is both the most received and the safest, and it produces nothing except what is plain and obvious to anyone, fitting the simplicity of Scripture, the natural meaning of words, and the history of the times; and it is what those for whom these Epistles were first written could not but have in mind. In my judgment it is almost superfluous to offer a single argument for the simple sense, which defends itself by that one axiom acknowledged by all interpreters: one must not depart from the primary, proper, and usual meaning of words unless either the thing itself forces one to do so, or God declares that a deeper mystery lies beneath the proper meaning. Since that is not the case here, one must adhere absolutely to the letter, and in the exposition show that everything flows conveniently in it, that nothing is twisted, nothing obscure, nothing alien to the truth of the matter, or unworthy of the majesty of God’s discourse. If anyone draws enigmas and mystical symbols from plain words that easily make sense, it belongs to him not to dictate them by bold divinations, rash conjectures, or groundless assertions, but to support them with solid demonstrations. Yet the arguments produced for that purpose cannot take the place of demonstrations, indeed, they cannot even stand in for probable reasons. On the contrary, that prophetic explanation is weighed down by many, and very grave, inconveniences. The following observations will make these clear. 

Not because the names of cities are sometimes symbolic, therefore here as well, [are we to hold the prophetic interpretation] 

XCVII. Let us therefore call each argument back to examination in the order in which they were proposed. We certainly have no doubt that the names of ancient regions, cities, and nations are often symbolic in sacred writings, and that they enigmatically signify other groups of people. But that does not mean one must suppose that because this sometimes happens it must always happen; or that because it happens elsewhere it must necessarily happen here as well. Learned men have no more proved by that argument that Ephesus or Smyrna are symbolic names here than that Rome, Corinth, Philippi, or Thessalonica are symbolic in Paul’s Epistles. Nor is there any reason to consider these Epistles when doubtless dogmatic that they should be treated differently from those in the Revelation, though inserted in a prophetic book and therefore must be explained according to the style of prophecy. For not everything written in a prophetic book is therefore prophetic in the sense of being to be regarded as more symbolic than if it were narrated elsewhere. The history of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah must be interpreted no less properly than in the books of Kings or Chronicles. 

Indeed, not even the same names that are symbolic in one place are so everywhere 

XCVIII. Moreover, nothing is to be set up as a symbol or a mere figure unless it can be demonstrated to be such, according to the rules of sacred types which we have confirmed above. I do not think learned men will attempt this in the present matter. Indeed, even if a city or nation somewhere serves as a type, it cannot therefore be inferred that it is a type everywhere. Not all that is told about Egypt, Babylon, or Tyre — even in prophetic records — may rightly be interpreted typically. Nor if learned men wish to make Ephesus typical in the Apocalypse will they also maintain that it is so in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul’s epistles. Much less can one infer from an induction of similar examples that something in question is therefore typical. 

No example can prove that the churches of the New Testament were established by God as symbols of other churches 

XCIX. But the examples produced are not similar; hence any appearance of probability that might have seemed to lie in this argument entirely vanishes. For nothing is proved by them except that cities or nations flourishing under the economy of the Old Testament were types and emblems of those assemblies that were to exist under the dispensation of the New Testament — or perhaps that earthly events were types of heavenly things. But it is neither proven by any authority nor by any fitting example that certain churches of the New Testament, or their names as given by God, were meant as symbols of other subsequent churches. 

The claim that Isaiah 14:12, etc., is to be understood of the Roman Antichrist is questionable 

C. The examples produced for illustration truly show how much learned men allow themselves in interpreting the Prophets; yet they are such that they scarcely find credence even with themselves, much less make similar ones acceptable to others. If they can persuade the Roman Catholics that Isa. 14:12, 13, 14 describe the Antichrist as Roman, so be it by me; yet I, who believe with the most eminent among our own, will first understand these passages literally of the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar. 

• And scarcely can either the Emperor or the Council of Trent be called the ruined citadel of Tyre. 

• It is asserted, awkwardly, that the Pope is the shelter of the Church, and is called Gog by that name. 

• It is almost ridiculous to call Trent the Pope’s tomb because of the council assembled there. 

[………………………..] 

It is awkward to say that because it is asserted the Pope is the roof of the Church, he is called Gog 

CVIII. What follows concerning Gog and Magog has neither a roof in heaven, as they say, nor a foundation on earth. For besides the fact that among the Hebrews it is never said “Gog” to mean a roof, but always Gog itself, and likewise Magog nowhere denotes “that which is covered,” these meanings of the words are fabricated and are supported by no authority: what could be more disagreeable than that the Roman Pope is called a roof because he places himself in the middle between God and men, blocking the influx of heavenly rays and the descent of fruitful rain, so covered from the earth; that is, the assembly of men believing in him, barring them. Has he ever used a roof? Has any mortal ever established him rightly for such an end, that he would exclude free view of the sky from himself, or keep off rains from that part of the earth which ought to be fertilized by rains? Or rather that he might have refuge from rains, shade from heat, shelter from winds, a defense against all injuries of the air? To what emblematic fitness could anyone be compared to a roof, on account of that which, besides the use of a roof, happens to it from that inconvenience which accompanies all human conveniences? 

It is almost ridiculous to say that Trent is the tomb of the Pope, on account of the Council gathered there 

CIX. How ridiculous it is to call the “Tridentine valley” the tomb of the Roman Bishop on account of the Council gathered there. Especially when I am now ordered to believe that the same Council is the fortress of Rome. Was the Pope defeated, conquered, and buried at the Council of Trent where the Fathers were gathered? At the Council, I say, the Council of Trent, which served above all to establish, confirm, and propagate the Pontifical Doctrine; which decrees were inordinate, as [Hungarian Catholic Bishop] Andreas Dudithius wrote to Emperor Maximilian II, and truly how shamefully they were used to defend the power of the Popes: so that nothing could be decreed except according to the opinion of those who thought it their religion to defend papal power and luxury. On account of this burden, Pius IV is said to have thanked the Fathers upon their return to Trent in Consistory because they had taken such care for the authority of the Pontiff. It is true those Fathers, defending their deadly dogmas with horrible anathemas, separated themselves from the communion of the true Church in which life is: but since the Pope is the Prince of the Antichristian multitude, the more vehemently he opposes Christ and his kingdom, the more vigorously he lives. His life, as also that of the Dragon from whom he received his power and throne, is placed in the authority and power of spiritual death. His advent is from that effectual strength of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders: and with all deceit of unrighteousness in those who perish. At that time he is to be killed and destroyed by the Spirit of the mouth of the Lord, not when he establishes and fortifies his deadly doctrine, which was done at the Council of Trent, but when he is accused by demonstration of evangelical truth as a false prophet and enemy of Christ, and stripped of all his power, cast into the lake of burning fire and sulfur; which will happen at the glorious coming of the Lord. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10. 

The words of God must be held in reverence 

CX. We have pursued these matters at greater length, even if we seem to have departed somewhat from our plan because some consider them to contain a remarkable elucidation of the enigmas of the Prophets — a cleverness foe which few will merit praise. It seems worthwhile to us, however, to warn candidates for sober and sound wisdom not to let themselves be blinded by the allurements of such novel commentaries, which, whatever they promise on the surface, have nothing solid within. The dreadful words of the great God must be held in reverence: lest, like children hearing strange sounds, we ascribe to them whatever we have imagined in our minds or set a stumbling block before Jews and Papists by attacking them with interpretations which, because of their oddity, will obtain assent from not even the orthodox. Jews would sooner be persuaded of anything than that Isaiah and Jeremiah call them Moabites, or that what they read about the land of the Moabite was predicted about their own country. Nor will Papists ever be persuaded that their Pope is buried by the Fathers in the council of Trent, and that this is in accordance with Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning Gog. 

• It is gratuitously assumed that the whole Apocalypse is a single epistle addressed to the Catholic [Universal] Church; and even if that were granted, it would not prove the point in question. 

Having finished the Epistles, John weaves a new thread of discourse 

CXII. Moreover it is somewhat more broadly asserted that John, having finished the writing of the seven Epistles, did not break off the thread of his discourse. The contrary is clear from the beginning of chapter four. For after he had addressed each Church in turn with those matters which then concerned them and had treated them specifically, he narrates in a new discourse that he was taken up into heaven and saw what would happen thereafter: and these things are set forth not with special appropriation to this or that church, but in general terms. And on this point the great Interpreter himself [Cocceius?] supports us. “There occurs,” he says, “from the beginning a transition by which John is prepared for the vision, when, the door in heaven being opened, he is bidden to ascend that he may be shown WHAT WILL HAPPEN. He had seen Christ walking on earth among the lampstands and had heard his voice admonishing the churches. He was also to be seen in the kingdom, etc.” Thus, by this second argument many things are gratuitously assumed by learned men: and even if everything were granted, they still could not accomplish by these things what they desire. 

• A particular letter can be concluded with a general maxim. 

• Those things that suit the Catholic [Universal] Church are, for their part, rightly attributed to the particulars. 

• Whether the seven lamps of the Mosaic lampstand designate seven periods of the New Testament Church is uncertain. 

• It is not unbecoming for Christ the King, when circumstances warrant, to be named from some part of his kingdom. 

Why are seven Spirits mentioned? 

CXVII. It is not inappropriate that the Holy Spirit be called sevenfold in relation to those seven churches: for he had so adorned those seven churches with his gifts and governed them with such solicitous providence that each seemed to have a peculiar Spirit; yet that one Spirit sufficed them all, no less than if there had been seven. But they ask, what if Philippi or Colossae had been numbered — would there then have been eight or nine Spirits? I answer that it is not for us to prescribe formulas for God’s speech. If I read of eight or nine Spirits, I would receive that phrase no less reverently than that which is now found about the Seven Spirits. But why allow our ill-tempered curiosity so far as to dare to inquire about something that is neither present nor ever will be? To debate whether an eighth or ninth church should be added, and whether the number of Spirits should be increased or not, is idle. I truly fear that such temerity in asking and disputing may be displeasing to the Heavenly Teacher. Yet it is urged that these “seven Spirits sent forth” are said to be sent “into all the earth,” that is, into all times and ages. Why? I say “because that one and the same Spirit works all things, distributing privately as he wills.” 1 Cor. 12:11. 

The number seven is not always symbolic 

CXVIII. The fifth argument, (§. XXVI) embellished but poorly coherent rhetoric, is this. For what if the number seven is often sacred and symbolic, therefore always here too? Was it mystical that Jacob pursued Laban for “seven days’ journey”? Gen. 31:23. Or that Jethro had “seven daughters”? Exod. 2:16. Or that “the Israelites served the Midianites seven years”? Judg. 6:1. Or that “Jephthah judged Israel for seven years”? Judg. 12:9. Or that “seven days were given for Samson’s wedding”? Judg. 14:12. Or that the men of Jabesh requested “the same number of days” to deliberate? 1 Sam. 11:3. Who does not see in these and similar passages that the number seven is to be understood simply, without any connotation of symbol or mystery? Why not here also, where seven topical Churches are named each by its own name, in order, and according to the place they occupy? 

Nor wherever it is symbolic does it always mark periods of the Church 

CXIX. Granted: if something of mystery lies in the septenary number, does it therefore everywhere signify seven periods of the New Testament Church? Learned men seem always to have those seven periods before their eyes, just as the Papists have their “seven sacraments”: they point to types and cry “Seven” (so they speak) “seals of the Old Testament,” Rev. 5:1; “the seven trumpets by which angels sounded,” Rev. 8:6; “the seven stars which the likeness of the Son of Man held in his right hand,” Rev. 1:16; “the seven loaves with which the Lord fed the crowds,” Matt. 15; “the seven eyes upon the stone,” Zech. 3:9; “the seven lamps set upon the lampstand,” Zech. 4:2; “the seven washings of Naaman,” 2 Kings 5. And why not add “the seven ears and seven cows of Pharaoh,” or “the seven wonders of the world,” or “the seven sages of Greece,” or “the seven hills of the great harlot”? That would be only a little less foolish than the conceit of some man, the Austrian Jesuit Georg Scherer, who proves the same number of the Sacraments from this: “because soldiers commonly blaspheme in sevens, by seven, by seven thousand sacraments, not by two, nor by these thousand, etc.” It is not a time for further joking. 

• And that, since the alternations of changing conditions occur, are not therefore given to be prefigured by the pillars of the temple of Wisdom. 

• The seven eyes that behold the stone can be understood of God; and if they are ecclesiastical, they do not necessarily signify the seven periods of his church. 

• What the seven steps of the temple signified, and whether they signified anything at all, is more modestly left unknown than decided. 

• The number seven is sometimes used to denote something indefinite, yet grand and complete. 

• Finally, the question is not what the septenary number signifies elsewhere, but what it signifies here. 

When and in what manner the Holy Spirit teaches by proper names 

CXXV. The sixth argument drawn from the names of cities reeks of Jewish Kabbalah and contains nothing solid. Not that we deny the Holy Spirit sometimes teaches by proper names; but we maintain that this occurs only in those names which were originally given by the Spirit’s command, or later changed by Him, or at least whose symbolic doctrine the Holy Spirit has indicated in the Scriptures. For we acknowledge no other doctrine of the Spirit than that declared in the sacred monuments of Scripture. And such are indeed all the examples brought forward by learned men. But that we should, on our own in the spirit of the Gentiles, fabricate etymologies of city names and translate them to the condition of the Christian Church—without any testimony of Divine authority—and sell the inventions of our brains as the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, seems to me a rash and presumptuous deed. It is certain, moreover, that those who first imposed these names on the cities of Asia had nothing less in mind than to have the periods of the Christian Church symbolically designated by those names. It is not established that God, beyond the intention of the original names, used those words for mystical meanings. And if they assert that it is established, let them at least concede the one witness of God to whom we ought to yield. 

• What is said about the etymologies of the cities of Asia is uncertain. 

Grotius’ thoughts concerning them 

CXXVII.  If anyone is not tired of amusing himself and abusing his ingenuity, he could concoct other Kabalistic meanings from those names no less pleasing. To me the flowers of thought seem to be the reflections of Hugo Grotius, who proposed it thus. All these names nicely admonish Christians of their duty. Ἔφεσος reminds them that they ought to be inflamed with desire for eternal things: ἔφεσις indeed is desire. Σμύρνα, that they should be incorruptible, like myrrh. Pergamum, that they should think on high things. For Hesychius and Suidas and Servius on the second Aeneid note that Pergama was a name given to all things lofty among the Asians. Thyatira, φύσιν ἀτειρία, that is, to “subdue untamed passions” in honor of God. Σάρδας, to hold Christ’s commands well impressed on the mind, as Sardis impresses a sign most excellently among all gems. Φιλαδέλφεια points to “brotherly love.” λαοδίκεια, to show justice toward all peoples. Thus far Grotius. But these things, and others of the same kind, however delightful, prove nothing. 

• Not dissimilar are the Lutherans’ commentaries on the prophecies drawn from proper names. 

• And likewise, the qualities of these cities that are observed 

• Their being hieroglyphic cannot be proved. 

• Several parallels can be drawn, perhaps no less ingenious, but rather lacking in solidity. 

• It is pointless to force what was done in the Church to match the wording of the Epistles. 

Not all prophecies can be demonstrated from Histories 

CXXXIII. The eighth argument (§§ 46 & 47) is twofold: first it insists that these epistles contain things that cannot be shown by history to have occurred in the churches of Asia, then more boldly asserts that some things stated can be shown not to have occurred. I answer the first point. There are many prophecies whose fulfillment in the Church can be proved only from the Prophets themselves because of the deficiency of the histories of those times. From many examples I will adduce a few. Joel 1 and 2 recount a great desolation by “locusts, grasshoppers, caterpillars, and palmerworms.” Grotius, finding no account of such devastation in Israel or Judah, enigmatically explained them as “Pul, Tiglath‑Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib”; others, moved by the same method, understand “Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans.” That is displeasing to the most famous interpreter, Dutch theologian Johannes Cocceius, who rightly insists on following the simplicity of the letter, nonetheless cannot, nor can anyone else, show from history when these things happened in Judea, nor even that they did happen at all. He, indeed, compares them with the drought spoken of in Jer. 14:1-6. But besides the fact that he frankly admits it is wholly uncertain when Joel lived, Jeremiah does describe a drought, yet no one there mentions devouring insects. Add that the drought Jeremiah describes was not so extreme that what is predicted of this plague in Joel 1:2 does or did have a parallel in the former times of the elders. For it is not credible that such a drought was so long and so parching as in the age of Elijah. Finally, so far as I know, no history of this locust scourge is to be found anywhere, save in Jeremiah. Rightly says Cornelius à Lapide: “The prophets threaten many things which we nevertheless truly believe to have happened, even though some do not narrate them elsewhere.” Similarly in Amos 4:7 the Lord calls the ten tribes to account, “And yet I withheld the rain when the harvest was three months off; I caused it to rain on one city and not on another.” What history records this? For our famous Interpreter himself warns that this cannot be referred to the great rains of Elijah. Where is the history of the famine that Isaiah foretells in ch. 19? Where are histories of earthquakes and pestilences in Judea which the Lord foretells as preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. 24:7? Would it not be bold and rash for anyone to claim because of silence or ignorance in the histories all these things must be explained symbolically? The great Interpreter modestly wrote elsewhere: “We are compelled to be ignorant of things that belong to a prior age; and if we peacefully remain ignorant, and therefore quarrel with no one, we may perhaps be no less wise: so many good things remain to be learned which we can know, etc.” Let that be applied to the present purpose: and add that very few of these things lack any mention in the histories, and that what is enumerated in this argument can scarcely be referred to the “hidden” (άδηλα), as we have shown. To the latter point I say that the assertion may be confidently made, but the contrary has been clearly demonstrated by us in the preceding passages, where we have solved all the raised difficulties. There is no need now to add another word. 

The verdict of the ancient theologians concerning this argument 

CXXXIV. Neither party asserts that interpreters, ancient or modern, claim these epistles were meant to describe events in the universal Church over seven eras, rather than what occurred in the Asian Churches during John’s time. It is not clear that any ancient person ever had this in mind. But Augustine, Bede, Aretas, and others, when they said that through these seven Churches the entire Church is written because the whole is usually designated by the number seven, meant nothing else, as has been judiciously observed by Ribera and [Dutch theologian] Franciscus Gomarus, than that what is said to these seven Churches can be accommodated to all; and although the Epistles are addressed only to the Asians, yet the communication and utility to be derived from their admonitions and examples are evidently for all written. Just as Tertullian replied to Marcion, who wished to interpolate the title of Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: “But it does not matter about the title, since the Apostle wrote to all while writing to some.” To this pertains another of the same author: “For they also have a special meaning. When God admonishes or rebukes the Israelites concerning discipline, it certainly applies to all. When He threatens Egypt or Ethiopia with destruction, it prejudices every nation that is a partaker. Thus, every nation is called Egypt and Ethiopia.” 

As also Bullinger 

CXXXV. Bullinger shares the same opinion as those ancient ones and is often praised by learned men for his explanation of the Apocalypse. For thus he says: “This greeting, this book, and the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ, written by John, pertains to the universal Church of Christ existing throughout the whole world and in all ages. Hence it also pertains to all of us, as many as are in the Church of Christ. For although the Epistles are addressed to the Romans and Gauls, it does not, therefore, follow that they are not ours.” See also the same at the beginning of the seventh sermon. But why use words? The entire commentary on these Epistles does not hint at it more subtly, but shouts and cries it out. Nor is it any less clear what the Belgian interpreters intended than the rays of the sun when it is midday, as is usual. However, this differs from the opinion of learned men as much as the Hyparis [Hipparis] differs from the Eridanus. [N. B. The Hipparis river is called Ippari today, located in south-eastern Sicily. Eridanus is a constellation representing a celestial river.] 

Thomas Brightman 

CXXXVI. Among the more recent ones, I admit, Thomas Brightman and Patrick Forbes, men renowned for their learning and piety, come closest to them; yet still with a considerable space between them. For besides the great divergence in their application of opinions, these most illustrious men did not think it to be denied that everything contained literally, immediately, and from the proximate intention of the Holy Spirit in these epistles corresponds to the Churches of Asia. Brightman says that he desires what Aretas, Bede, and all interpreters, as he thinks, “unanimously agree upon.” However, they never even dreamed of such a prophetic exposition as learned men deliver, as is clear from their commentaries. Brightman adds: “Yet not all churches are to be thus considered, as if nothing truly had been sent to those specifically designated below, but the truth of history must be retained together with the [prophetic] meaning of the mystery.” 

Patrick Forbes 

CXXXVII.  Forbes spoke very impressively. “These matters are of two kinds due to the diversity of times, boundaries, and means of revelation: from which two parts of the narration emerge. The first is of those things which are, and which will be in the future, that is, those which indeed existed at that time in the truth of History, truly according to the constitution of those seven Churches, and expressed for their instruction; yet so that the future things may also be revealed there for the instruction of all ages. Because these seven (it seems) have a typical relation to the entire militant Church, according to its various degrees and conditions, with the mystery of iniquity growing to its height, and itself again emerging from evil. Hence, I include the first part of the narration within the first three chapters, and the second arises in the boundaries and modes of revelation as a distinction. For although the first is about future things, insofar as it is by this that the whole Church is taught; nevertheless, this is only through a typical relation of things existing at that time, and primarily for the use of particular churches. Since the second, continued in the rest of the book, concerns those things which will happen afterward, so that nothing existing on earth at that time is taken to signify them. And its use at first properly pertains to the whole militant Church. Therefore, John had to ascend into heaven to perceive it.” Thus far Forbes. How this differs greatly from what has been thought by his followers, even today’s Interpreters would not deny. 

It is concluded that all these arguments are invalid 

CXXXVIII. Thus, having examined all the arguments for the prophetic exposition of the Apocalypse’s Epistles, we believe that we have shown that none of them have any force to accomplish the purpose for which they are intended. It now remains for us to candidly explain what ‘inconveniences’ this exposition is burdened. These indeed are many, and very serious. 

The edification which the Churches of Asia were to receive from this is greatly altered by that prophetic exposition 

CXXXIX. First, the edification which the Churches of Asia could and ought to receive from the epistles addressed to them is greatly altered and certainly diminished by this new explanation, if not entirely removed. They are commanded to have in mind the Churches of other places and times, so that they may find the truth of those things written to them in those Churches. This greatly weakens the effectiveness of the praises, exhortations, and commendations, as if directed to others, and deprives a large part of the Epistles of their emphasis. The Lord writes to the Ephesians, “I know thy works and thy labor,” etc. Learned men explain this as the indefatigable diligence of the Apostles in preaching the Gospel as they divided the world among themselves. He praises “aversion of evils,” whose examples they say exist in Peter, who rebuked the wickedness of Ananias and Sapphira in Jerusalem, and Simon Magus was ashamed in Samaria, etc. He blames “the omission of former love:” examples of this are assigned in Galatians, Corinthians, Hebrews, Demas. Let us now suppose that the Bishop of the Ephesian Church interpreted the words of the Lord in this way, as if He had written: ‘I know how much labor my Apostles have willingly endured for the propagation of the Gospel, nor am I ignorant of how vigorously Peter fought against Ananias and Simon Magus, Paul against Bar Jesus. But I also want you to know, Galatians, Corinthians, Hebrews, and Demas, an otherwise excellent man, have suffered greatly from the failure of their former love, etc.’ Let us suppose, I say, that the Ephesian interpreted his Epistle in this sense, which learned men assert; would it not completely weaken the Lord’s moving address? Is it believable to anyone that there was one pious man in Ephesus who, reading this Epistle, thought even a little about the laborious journeys of Andrew to Scythia, Bartholomew to India and Greater Armenia, Matthew to Ethiopia, Thomas to Persia, etc., which the new commentators refer here, or about Ananias, Bar Jesus, Demas, etc.? Does anyone doubt that the Bishop of Ephesus, and all those who trembled with him at the words of the living God, upon reading this epistle gave thanks to God who so kindly valued their labors, and could not, should not, and did not think His praise was His blame? And so with the others. 

The praises and rebukes of the Catholic [Universal] Church are of all times and should not be precisely assigned to distinct periods 

CXL. Secondly, the praises or rebukes which occur throughout these Epistles are such that they can only be very forcibly referred to distinct periods of the universal Church. Never has the Catholic Church been compared so poorly that it lacked some worthy of all praise, nor so highly that it did not have many deserving of reproach. 

Does the reproach of the omission of first love apply solely or primarily to the primitive Apostolic Church? Was it less evident under the Smyrna and especially Pergamum periods, after the times of Constantine the Great, when the world had entered the Church, and wealthy bishoprics were sought with greater ambition than the once glorious martyrdoms? Do we consider vain Cyprian’s complaint around the year 253: “There is no devout religion in priests, no complete faith in ministers, no mercy in works, no discipline in morals,” etc.; read what follows. Add Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VIII, Chapters 1 and 11, where he graphically describes the corrupt morals of the Church and attributes the persecution of Diocletian around the year 302 to this profanation as its cause. But who does not know how much everything began to collapse and fall backward from the time external splendor was placed around Christianity by Constantine? Is it proper to the Sardis period, that is, to the German Church after the first Reformation, to have many who are alive in name but actually dead? Was there ever a time in the universal Church to which this complaint does not apply? Even in our times and those of our Fathers, do we not flatter our Churches, which we refer to the Philadelphia Period, that among so great a multitude of mortals who profess Christ with their mouth and attend external worship, we do not recognize most as lacking in spiritual and true Christian life? And meanwhile, shall we count the Bohemians in that period? The Bohemians, whose Churches after the Apostles were seen as nothing simpler, purer, or holier on earth: whose order was said by Martin Bucer “to be more heavenly than ecclesiastical”; whose morals and institutions John Lasitius praised as “a living explanation of the New Testament,” who testified to what he had seen. What probable reason persuades us to cast the lukewarmness reproved in the Laodiceans, the foolish pride flattering itself, [to the age] at end of the world? As if this disease had not been the same in all preceding ages, for which Paul also rebuked his Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:8). It does not agree with the condition of the universal Church that praises or reproaches should be distinguished by exact periods of time. 

No reason can be given why the Apostolic Church receives more criticism than those who followed during the Smyrna and Philadelphia periods 

CXLI. Thirdly, since the Apostolic and primitive Church was undoubtedly the purest of all and the model for those that followed; what reason will learned men give why it nevertheless deserves to be so harshly reproved under the symbol of the Ephesian Church, when the second Smyrna and the sixth Philadelphia are praised without any rebuke? I wish that our Reformed Church was as similar as it is said to be! Was that age which followed the Apostles so much holier and happier than the former? Will our times not only not compete with the Apostolic for the palm, but also triumph over them? I am not ignorant of what the most noble Forbes answers concerning the Smyrnaeans: namely, that Ephesus is to be blamed and Smyrna commended because Ephesus had not yet so completely failed that God would judge those declining no longer to be from His Church or irrevocable; but the Smyrnaeans had fallen so far into decline that they no longer come under that judgment, God therefore abandoning all care to recall them. But these are hypotheses foreign not only to the condition of so excellent a Church as Smyrna and to God’s long-suffering towards it but also to the interpretations of modern commentators. For they distinguish the periods very differently from Forbes and make the Smyrnæan period much earlier than those times in which the Arian heretics prevailed so greatly that they dared to claim the true name of Church for themselves and to despise the poverty and solitude of the Orthodox. And whatever is said about Smyrna, what will be alleged about the Philadelphia period? 

The periods of the Church ages have their own boundaries and limits, just as the beams and curtains of the tabernacle have their fitted joints 

CXLII. Fourthly, by this new interpretation, the periods themselves of the Church are disturbed by a strange confusion. I will not now urge that those who assert [the seven letters foretell] seven [Church] periods usually do not agree equally among themselves in their distribution, just as the clocks of a great city do not: for Brightman determines them one way, Forbes another, and the celebrated Cocceius yet another. My concern is now with those who have chosen this most famous Interpreter as the leader of their studies. And I assert that these very men rashly confuse the calculations of their periods. It pleased the Great Man to compare the pericopes, or if you prefer, those sections, to the curtains and beams of the tabernacle. But these curtains and beams were not confusedly placed one upon another but had knots, rings, and circles by which they were joined, fitted, and fastened together. Thus, it is fitting that those periods also have fixed limits and boundaries by which they begin and end. But our interpreters mix or transpose them whenever it is convenient. The matter will be made clear by examples. 

However, this prophetic explanation wonderfully confuses and disturbs them 

CXLIII. They say the Ephesian period ends around the end of the first century and corresponds to the first seal and first trumpet; they assign the Smyrnaean period to the second and third centuries and wish to correspond it to the second seal and trumpet. Let us see how well these agree, even if we follow their own hypotheses and commentaries. The most celebrated Cocceius observes that the epistle to the Ephesians was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the time of Domitian, brother of Titus, son of Vespasian. [N. B. Though some modern scholars agree, most believe the date to be A.D. 60-62.] It is therefore not without cause that we say the reproach for the omission of first love (whose examples others find in Galatians, Corinthians, Hebrews, Demas, while Paul yet lived) corresponds mostly to that time. However, the destruction of Jerusalem and what preceded it are interpreted by that great man, along with his entire officious crowd of followers, as the second seal and second trumpet. For when the second seal was opened, a red horse appeared, whose rider was given “power to take peace from the earth,” that is, from the Jewish people, which was done by Gessius Florus, [the last and most wicked] procurator of Caesar Nero, the first instigator of the Jewish war. The beginning of this war was in the 12th year of Nero, that is, 64 or 65 AD according to the calculation of [Huguenot scholar] Louis Cappel. “And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea,” Revelation 8:8. That is, some notable polity in the world, inflamed with God’s wrath and already broken by multiple destruction, was abolished so that it would no longer stand out in the world; and the remnants of that polity were scattered among all nations. The Jews, with their temple, city, and region, are undoubtedly understood. About this mountain, Christ also says in Matthew 17:20 and Luke 17:6, “He will say to this mountain, ‘Be moved from here to there.'” Thus, learned men declare. I do not now inquire how soundly. If the Ephesian Epistle aligns with the period after Jerusalem’s destruction, how can it relate to the first seal and trumpet, when those events are described under the second seal and trumpet? Similarly, when those things said about the poverty of the Smyrnaean Church are to be explained, they recall what Paul said about the plundering suffered by the Hebrews, and Eusebius narrates about the poor Christians mocked by Domitian: yet these pertain to the first century and the Ephesian period. By the same judgment, an example is added by not a few interpreters of Sylvester, who was raised from a cave, just as Joseph was from prison, by Constantine to high dignities in the Church, which happened in the fourth century and pertains to the Pergamene period. So that for the ten days’ persecution predicted for Smyrna, the persecutions of Nero and Domitian are again transcribed from the Ephesian period into this one. And what will be the end result if we wish to ἐξονυχίζεας [scrutinize] every single detail? 

What is specifically shown about the Thyatira Period 

CXLIV. I cannot omit this one thing, how ignorantly the times of the Thyatiran period are confused. The Holy Spirit carefully distinguishes the time when Jezebel was active teaching, the time given to her to repent, and when she was cast into the bed of punishment, sickness, and death. Here everything is wonderfully confused. The time of patience granted for Jezebel to repent begins from the year 366 when the Roman Church was freed from the persecution of Julian. But at that time, Roman Jezebel had hardly, or scarcely at all, begun to seduce the servants of Christ to commit fornication, that is, according to the explanation of learned men, to worship saints and images dedicated to them as idols and to partake in idolatrous Mass. But what is truly ridiculous is that they place the last moment of Divine patience concerning Jezebel at the victory led by John of Austria over the Turks in the year 1571. However, Jezebel had long since been cast into the bed of sickness and death, indeed buried, if, as the Great Interpreter teaches, Gog with all his troops, to whom certainly, according to the minds of learned men, this Jezebel with her children pertains, was buried at the Council of Trent, whose last session was held on December 4, 1563. Moreover, they refer the bed of punishment into which Jezebel was cast to the calamities that afflicted Italy by the Vandals, Goths, Huns, Saracens, etc. I now remain silent on the fact that all histories relate that through these barbarian peoples the power of the Popes was rather increased than diminished: I only observe that the storms of Divine long-suffering and punishment are foolishly confused and so much so that the latter are placed after the former. Except that learned men also remind us of “the afflictions into which God recently cast persecutors and the Roman Clergy.” But what a tremendous leap it is if those things which pertain to Thyatira, that is, the fourth period, are sought in our times, [which is supposed to be] at the end of the sixth or beginning of the seventh period? And this is the precise order of times which gives credibility to the prophetic explanation! 

The Balaamites and Nicolaitans are no longer so called because they oppress the people of God by human authority 

CCXLV. Fifthly, in explaining the mystery of the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans, learned men take upon themselves more than modesty allows. It is injurious to attribute to the ancient learned and God-fearing Fathers that “without doubt, on the occasion of this passage, they handed down a history of the Nicolaitans through divination.” For this, if you set aside the sought λύγων συμορφίαν (soft conformity), and, like the uneducated Macedonian, call a sicum a sicum, a boat a boat, is as much as to say that they rashly, from the heart and without reason fabricated a history of events which never happened, and that having fabricated it, they imprudently, if not impudently, committed it to writing. Concerning the author and origin of the sect, they are known to hand down diverse and therefore uncertain accounts, which, to confess the truth, remain somewhat clouded to me. Nevertheless, to say the history is fabricated is entirely foreign to modesty: especially since those doctrines of the sect mentioned by the Fathers agree so well with the testimonies of Peter and Jude cited above by us, and Ignatius, in that place which we have cited from the Epistle to the Trallians above, speaks of the Nicolaitans as heretics in his own time. But let us see what more sound and certain things learned men assert. They say that to be a Nicolaitan “is to form a sect and to call oneself by a name other than that of Christ.” On what argument? Because in Greek Νικολά (Nikola) means ὁ νικῶν ἢ λαὸν, “he who overcomes the people.” Balaam in Hebrew means “he who is the Lord of the people.” But who made learned men wiser to derive the nature of this sect from the origin of the names? Who added with certain reasons that the Nicolaitans are to be derived from the Greek Νικολά and not from the Chaldean נִיכוֹלָה (Nicola)? Moreover, Nicolaus and Balaam do not mean exactly the same thing. One is νικῶν (nikon) the other בעל (baal). But what is most important, nowhere do the Holy Scriptures testify that Balaam arrogated to himself dominion over the people of God; nor do the ancient writers of heresies say that the Nicolaitans tried to introduce human authority or worldly dominion into the Church. Nor does the Holy Spirit mention this in a word. But in them He establishes the heresy of the Balaamites and Nicolaitans; that they “cast a stumbling block before the children of God, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.” How cold and fragile then is it, from the etymology of words alone, apart from Scripture, contrary to universal antiquity, to describe the sect of the Nicolaitans by the name of human authority in the Church? 

Antipas cannot be noted as a supporter and το ομοουσίου [consubstantial] 

CXLVI. Sixthly. The same confidence is used in the new exposition of the word Antipas as I consider it unprecedented before Cocceius. The Eastern Versions—Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian—are ignorant of the name of this Martyr. The Syriac version has in his place אֶתְחַזִית, which translates to “He was exposed to spectacle.” Adding in the notes: “Perhaps this was intended to explain the composite meaning of the word Αντιπάς, as if ‘opposed to all, having been mocked.’ However, this is mere guesswork; I do not know how probable it is. Our men speak more confidently. They say Antipas is truncated from ‘Αντίπατρος,’ [Antipatros] and “it means the same.’ I do not deny it. Moreover, ̓Αντίπατρος “denotes one who is equal to the Father.” I do not doubt it, but I have not yet found this among the Greeks, nor do the examples brought forward by learned men confirm it. It could mean this from the use of the particle αντι (anti), but whether it actually means that, I do not know. Let the most learned men of letters instruct us. I find Αντίπατρον to mean one ‘who opposes the Father.’ For among Theocritus, it is an epithet of Jupiter because with a hostile mind he stripped his father of the kingdom and cast him into the underworld. It is not that the parents who named their sons Antipater predicted hostility; nor should it be thought that they were so taken by love for themselves as to solemnly desire and foretell sons like themselves. It is more credible that Antipater meant to indicate them as coming into the place of their deceased parents: as Matthew 11:22, αντι Ηρωδε ὁ πατρὸς αυτό (meaning “against Herod who was his father”). But I am not slow. I will also consider it demonstrated that Αντίπατρος means one who is equal to the Father. So, what then? Therefore, Christ can be called Antipas because of τὸ ὁμούσιον (the consubstantiality) He has with Him. But where was He so called? By whom? When? To whom was He known by this name? It is remarkable that the Greek Doctors of the Church were so anxiously concerned about this little word, the syllable, the letter of “consubstantiality,” yet gave no thought to “Antipas,” the word ἐγγράφω [‘inscribed’], and what they wished to express so happily. It is to be regretted that learned men of our age did not live then, who could have warned those careless about such an important matter. But let it be said that Christ is called Antipas because He is ἰσόπατρος (equal to the Father). Therefore, no name could be more fitting to signify and assert the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Woe to such inconsistency! Who would bear that the defender of the Deity of Christ, God; the avenger and consubstantial one; the advocate of the eternity of our Lord, eternal; the teacher of equality with the Father, ἰσόπατρος, should now be called by this name? 

There is no mention in these Epistles of a glorious Kingdom on earth 

CXLVII. Seventh, according to the steadfast opinion of the most learned men, it is to be expected in the last times a glorious Kingdom of Christ on earth, whose scene is depicted and most beautifully adorned in the last chapters of the Apocalypse. But these Letters, which they wish to sum up gradually the fate of the whole Church up to the end, lead to nothing less than such glory. For in the last state of the Church, it is described as “troublesome, miserable, poor, and blind,” and naked. There is no mention of that blessed condition. 

In vain do you twist those words of the Lord by which He declares He stands and knocks at the door 

CXLVIII. For what the Lord writes about “standing and knocking at the door,” — that is, to retain the explanation of the Brethren, not to withdraw Himself from the sight of men, but to exert force, striving to gain entrance into hearts by the effective public preaching of the word; — this is not the characteristic of the last good [Church] period, nor a sign of the glorious kingdom. For from the beginning Christ circulated the preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world this way, and according to the manifold dispensation of His grace, first to this province, now to that province, He came with greater efficacy of His word and Spirit. But this letter from heaven struck the hearts of the Laodiceans more vehemently. 

Or to each one opening, He promises a mutual feast 

XCLIX.   Nor is it promised the Church restricted to any certain period, but to all and each one opening to Him, at whatever time and place that grace and favor will “enter” them, John 14:23. He will feast with them in the sharing of spiritual gifts and the exchange of most sweet love. The truth of this promise is experienced by the faithful in every age: “O taste and see that the Lord is good,” Psalm 34:9. 1 Peter 2:3. 

And to each one who overcomes, a seat on His Throne 

CL. Nor is there reason why you should draw from this promise of the Throne on which it is said he who overcomes will sit. For these words do not contain a prophecy outlining the condition of the whole Church on earth, but a promise of heavenly reward which is granted to each victor, whether sincere and steadfast Christians: just as each of his Epistles concludes with such a promise of heavenly glory, under various other emblems. Christ does not comfort the pious ones in Laodicea by saying, Be of good cheer in this hateful lukewarmness and torpor which has seized almost all minds, for the time is coming when He will change the entire face of the Church and bring down a New Jerusalem from the high heaven. Endure, and keep yourselves in favorable circumstances. But to those who do not repent He proclaims His wrath: He exhorts each one to duty and to all who repent He promises the throne of glory which on this earth, shortly before the end of things, none are partakers except those who heed this exhortation of the Lord and have repented. But just as He enjoys His glorious kingdom in heaven, where He sits at the right hand of God the Father, so He promises the communion of that same glorious kingdom in heaven to all and each one of the victors. [Dutch Protestant minister and renowned Orientalist], Ludovicus De Dieu has observed learnedly, “the throne of the King among the Orientals is broad and wide, like a litter [chaise lounge], raised somewhat above the ground on supports, and adorned with carpets, so that besides the King’s own seat, others whom the King wishes to honor can also have seats on the same throne.” If the Lord alludes to this, as it plainly seems, what can be inferred from this earthly kingdom? Surely we do not envy the Church the hope of a holier and happier condition on this earth, which we also fervently wish with warm prayers: but in order to await it with full assurance of mind, our faith needs stronger trumpeters than those supported by this epistle to the Laodiceans. “You, meanwhile, Lord Jesus, only leader and Author of our Salvation, hasten willingly and graciously the work which you have undertaken from eternity, and at the appointed time, to the amazement of hosts, to the joy of Angels, to the riches of Gentiles, and to the glory of your people Israel; proceed wisely, strongly, happily; undertake, perform.” AMEN. 

END