Sophron and Neophilus, or The School of Wisdom

ity, be accepted or rejected—or explained in one way or another. Here, for example, I include the authenticity and meaning of the Revelation of John; and therefore, one cannot blame our writer at all for presenting his astrognostic star-knowledge related interpretations of this obscure book, provided he does not conclude anything to the detriment of religion that does not actually follow from it. In these apocalyptic interpretations of his, he could be entirely correct, and Christianity would remain in all its dignity as before. For, tell me, what does it suffer if it were—not merely made probable to one reader or another through wit, but—proven through completely irrefutable reasons (which, however, our author has by no means accomplished) that the author of the Apocalypse was a fantasist and all his previous interpreters were deceived fools?

Neoph. I understand you! You demand from the writer who [discusses] those passages and the main events