More, Newton, and the Language of Biblical Prophecy

Abstract

The English Millenarian Joseph Mede (1586–1638) is acknowledged to be one of the most important Protestant interpreters of the Book of Revelation in the seventeenth century.1 He could also be described as the founder of a Cambridge School of millenarianism, or at least of the interpretation of biblical prophecy. His synchronic scheme which forms the “key” of revelation (as the title of his book on the subject, Clovis Apocalyptica, has it)2 was, it is true, taken up by many contemporary English and continental interpreters, including William Twisse, John Durie, Knorr von Rosenroth, Pierre Jurieu and Daniel van Laaren,3 none of whom had direct connections with Cambridge. But in the post-Restoration period, Mede’s work on prophecy came to be the model for a succession of interpreters, all of whom were Cambridge dons: Henry More, Isaac Newton and William Whiston all made studies of the Book of Revelation.4 Although they all differed from Mede on points of interpretation and details of the synchronic arrangement of the prophecies they all take Mede as their point of departure.5 Each produced what was in essence a variation on Mede’s original synchronic scheme, a scheme which was itself the culmination of a protestant interpretation of the Apocalypse as foretelling the ruin of anti-Christ identified as the Roman Catholic Church.6 Both Whiston and Newton invoke the work of Mede’s immediate successor, Henry More. More’s contribution to the development of Mede’s scheme is still largely unstudied, and his possible influence on the Newton, in particular is still largely unexplored. As a preliminary attempt to rectify this situation, the aim of this paper is to look in some detail at More’s and Newton’s elaboration of Mede’s scheme. In particular I will examine the ways in which their common interest in prophetic language go beyond Mede.