Again, on the groundless and chimerical assumption of those expositors who view these epistles as prophetical of seven successive periods of the destiny of the church general, the last estate would be worse than the first,—­Laodicea being the worst of all.  But this is obviously contrary to the description contained in ch. xx. 1-10, where the saints are represented as in possession and exercise of all their purchased and social rights.  Neither does authentic history prove that the church of Christ was more prosperous under the “ten persecutions” by the heathen Roman emperors than in the apostolic age, as the superior condition of the church in Smyrna to that of Ephesus would require.  The very contrary is true; and hence the groundlessness of such interpretation, however respectable the names of its authors.  The object of our Saviour in all the instructions, counsels, warnings, rebukes and threatenings addressed to these several churches is doubtless the real benefit of his people in after generations;—­just as his dealings with the church in Old Testament times, “were written for our admonition and learning.” (Rom. xv. 4; 1 Cor. x. 11.) Moreover, some persons have inferred from our Lord’s treatment of these churches, a divine warrant for the existence, and an imperative Christian duty for the charitable recognition, of all the conflicting and antagonistic organizations of our time, popularly styled Christian churches.  But as the designation, “Christian churches,” is in the apprehension of some too general, the term “evangelical” is used by them as restrictive of the term “Christian.”  Still the question will present itself,—­What constitutes a church “evangelical?” And this question is still without any definite answer.  Perhaps no two persons would include in one category the same denominations of professing Christians.  For example,—­Is a community to be considered a Christian church in which the “doctrine of Balaam” is taught?  Does the law of charity require the recognition of an organization as a Christian church, in which a “Jezebel would be suffered to teach, and to seduce the servants of Christ?” Is that a Christian church which denies the supreme deity of Christ, and rejects the seals of the covenant of grace,—­the only charter of the Christian church’s existence, on earth?  Or is that combination to be viewed as a Christian church which has no regular ministry, but expressly rejects the “pastors and teachers” of Christ’s appointment and the morality of the sabbath?  These, and many other questions of similar or analogous import, will suggest negative answers to all who fear God, respect his authority, and are free from the bewildering effects of popular error.