drawn by Mede (the "great Mede," Mather's usual form of address, indicates the respect he felt). 40 If Mede had done nothing more than connect the Revelation of St. John and the Book of Daniel, he would have gone a long way toward satisfying Protestant scholars. His contention that Revelation simply offered an elaboration of Daniel's seventh chapter, which describes the appearance of the fourth beast of ten horns "diverse from all the rest," linked a series of baffling prophecies. 41 This fourth beast, Mede wrote, referred to the Roman Empire, the last and fourth, of the great empires which followed the Babylonian, Persian, and Ancient Greek. This beast appears in Revelation where, Mede argued, its fate was projected into the future. Grotius, Hammon, Thorndike, all respected commentators, had held that these passages referred to the destruction of carnal Jerusalem and therefore should be understood as history rather than prophecy. Mede not only discarded their assumptions but also suggested that Revelation contained two prophetic systems: the first, announced in Chapter 5 in the ''sealed book," dealt with the Roman Empire; the second, in Chapter 10, in the "little book open,'' revealed the future of the Church of Christ in the wilderness. These two systems of prophecies intersected in the second half of Revelation, Mede believed, but as far as rational understanding was concerned the visions of the prophet had to be considered separately until it was clear that he referred to a mingling of secular and ecclesiastical affairs. 42
|
Until Mather read William Whiston's Essay on Revelation , shortly after it was published in 1706, he seems not to have questioned Mede's general view. 43 He continued to accept its main outlines throughout his life, though Whiston convinced him that the two sets of prophecies in the sealed book and the open little book referred to the Church within the empire, and that the distinction Mede made between Res Imperii secular affairsand Res Ecclesiae ecclesiastical affairswas unnecessary. What Revelation revealed, Whiston argued, was the condition of the Church within the Roman Empire from its beginning to its latter-day forms. To a twentieth-century mind, the entire matter reeks of antiquarianism, but as Whiston pointed out, the separation of the two sets of visions led Mede to make other errors of interpretation. The one that interested Cotton Mather revolved around the pouring of the vials (described in Chapter 16 of Reve-
|
|