THE SHAPING OF JOHN NELSON DARBY’S ESCHATOLOGY

Peter David Lee

Submitted to the University of Wales in fulfilment of the requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

University of Wales, Lampeter

2010

6800854265 LEE
 The Shaping of John Nelson Darby’s Eschatology

Peter David Lee

Abstract

The Albury and Powerscourt prophetical conferences saw the birth of a

new form of premillennial dispensationalism that has shaped evangelical
eschatology ever since. It owed its debut to John Nelson Darby, who espoused
the centrality of the “two peoples of God.”
Dispensationalism affirmed three cardinal doctrines: first, a sharp
dichotomy between the two peoples of God—national Israel and the church;
second, God’s glory rather than the covenant of grace defining His purpose in
history; and third, the hermeneutical principle of a literal interpretation of
Scripture.
This dispensationalism was indeed revolutionary, displacing the
traditional historicist hermeneutic, with its system of date-setting, in favour of
futurism, with its doctrine of imminency. This forced Darby to deal with the
problem of what to do with the church so that God could fulfil his redemptive
plan regarding national Israel. He resolved this by providing for a rapture of
the church and by inserting a gap of an indeterminate number of years in the
last part of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy.
The question that arises over this new doctrine of premillennial,
pretribulational dispensationalism concerns its provenance, since Darby is
widely credited as its originator. There is good reason for this. His influence
can be seen in C. I. Scofield’s Reference Bible, as well as such popular novels
as Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth and Timothy LaHaye’s Left
Behind series. There are two dominant schools of thought regarding Darby and
the origin of dispensationalism. One traces his dispensationalism back to the
Patristic Writings, and the other sees Darby as “inventing” his system. Both
are incorrect, as I will demonstrate by tracing his eschatology to earlier
thinkers to show that Darby “adapted” extant doctrines to form his unique
system.
This dissertation will establish a much more coherent picture of Darby
and his contribution to the field of eschatology by identifying the sources that
were available and were adapted by him to form his premillennial
dispensationalism. This will also provide a greater understanding of the
modern “revisionist” and “progressive” forms of dispensationalism.

i
 Contents

Chapter Page

Abstract i

Table of Contents ii

1. Introduction 1
The thesis of the study 2
The basis of the study 2
The methodology of the study 5
The outcomes of the study 6
Darby: biography and lasting influence 6

2. The Premillennialist Revival: Origins, Leaders, and Groups 10

The Plymouth Brethren 10
Dr. Magee’s Charge 18
Darby’s relationship with the Established Church 22
The ecclesiology of the Plymouth Brethren 25
The nature of the church 25
Christology and the mission of Christ 28
Soteriology 30
Eschatology 31
The Albury prophetical conferences 33
James Hatley Frere 45
Edward Irving 50
The Catholic Apostolic Church 58
The Powerscourt prophetical conferences 62
Conclusions from the Albury and Powerscourt conferences 68

ii
Secession and the Ruin of the Church 79
Pre-Darbyite notion of the ruin of the church 81
The ruin of the church and eschatology 83
The ruin of the church with respect to unity 85
The ruin of the church with respect to revelation 85
The ruin of the church with respect to Darby 86

The Two Peoples of God and Dispensational Theology 96

Darby’s understanding of unfulfilled prophecy 97
The Abrahamic Covenant and Galatians 98
Darby’s understanding of the two peoples of God 100
Early usage of the terms relating to the two peoples of God 102

Darby’s concept of “dispensations”: test, failure, and judgment 103

Darby defines “dispensations” 104
Darby’s reasons for periodization 106
Darby’s dispensationalism and the two peoples of God 107
Darby’s system of periodization 110
Darby’s hermeneutical principle 123

The 70 Weeks of Daniel and the Gap Theory 125

The Millerite historist hermeneutic 126
The Darbyite futurist hermeneutic 130
The Jesuit futurist apologetic 132
Pre-Darbyite usage of the gap thesis 134
Newtonian futurism 135
The Fifth Monarchist Parliament 140
Darby’s familiarity with Isaac Newton 142
Darby’s hermeneutic concerning the gap 145
Current views regarding Darby and the gap 147

The Secret Pretribulation Rapture 150

The imminency and parousia of the Second Advent 152
Pre-Darbyite notions of the rapture 155

iii
 The rapture and the invention thesis 158
The events surrounding the rapture, trumpet, and call 163
The post-, mid-, and pretribulation hermeneutic 170
Darby’s hermeneutic 175

7. Darby’s Dispensationalism in Retrospect 183

Putting the puzzle together 183
Summarizing Darby’s dispensational system 183
Perpetuating Darby’s vision: classical 185
The continuing debate over Darby’s originality 189
Darby as inventor 189
In defense of Darby: the Ehlert thesis 191
Conclusion: Darby as adaptor, not inventor 203

8. Conclusion 205

Selected Bibliography 209

IV
 Introduction

The thesis of the study

This study will show John Nelson Darby’s dispensational system
within the broader system of premillennialism. Prior to Darby, there was a
rudimentary concept of God working with humankind within defined periods,
properly termed “periodization.” These defined periods contained “a test of
conformity to the plan of God.” The failure of the test necessitated that God
provide a new dispensation or period. Darby took these earlier forms of
periodization and used them as building blocks to construct his unique system
that we term “dispensationalism.” He then added to these forms a number of
other adaptive ideas to create his own system. These adaptive ideas included
“the two peoples of God, the ruin of the church, the gap theory, and the secret
rapture.”
This overview will assist the reader in forming a better understanding
of Darby’s contribution to eschatology in light of the plethora of erroneous
views surrounding how he constructed his dispensational system. The study
will also show how Darby’s system has stood the test of time and how in
many cases his dispensationalism has been further adapted to meet the needs
of modem biblical scholarship.
Darby’s influence and position in the 19th and 20th centuries is central
to this thesis. Historically in the 19,h century he is best viewed as peripheral to
mainstream British Christianity. His was a separatist movement embracing an
eschatology that for most people was novel and innovative, but it was hardly
reflective of the Established Church. Neither was he alone in his doctrines, and
this thesis will highlight other thinkers that embraced similar eschatological
and prophetical interpretations. By the latter half of the 19th and into the 20th
century Darby’s eschatology had been exported to America, where it moved
from being peripheral to being central. Starting from a private conference in
New York City in 1868, regular conferences were held until 1897, when the
venue was set at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. This was the beginning of the
Niagara conferences.1According to Sandeen, .. the Niagara conference
represented J. N. Darby’s concept of the church adapted to the American
environment.”2 Aside from the Niagara conferences, Darby and other
Plymouth Brethren gave Bible readings in private homes. This became highly
successful and influenced many Bible expositors, including D. L. Moody,
James H. Brookes, and C. I. Scofield.
Darbyite dispensationalism is one form of premillennialism that took
shape in the early 19th century and has endured into the 21st century. Its
greatest success occurred in America, where it formed a strong, self-
perpetuating subculture within Protestantism. It was first popularized in C. I.
Scofield’s annotated Bible. In more recent years, it has made inroads into the
popular culture through bestsellers like Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet
Earth3 and the Left Behind novel series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.4 It
has also made headlines though a number of political action and lobbying
groups that promote strong ties between the U.S. and Israel.5 This study will
explain the origins of dispensationalism in the early nineteenth century.

The basis of the study

Darby’s reticence to provide source material in his writings may be
due to the fact that he did not construct his dispensational system in a vacuum,

1Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1970. The roots o f fundamentalism; British and American
millenarianism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 134.
2 Ibid.
1 Lindsey, Hal, and Carole C. Carlson. 1970. The late great planet earth. Grand Rapids, Ml:
Zondervan.
4 LaHaye, Tim F., and Jerry B. Jenkins. 1995. Left behind: a novel o f the earth's last days.
Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
5 Boyer, Paul S. 1992. When time shall be no more: prophecy belief in modern American
culture. Studies in cultural history. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press. ^
Fineman, Howard, and Tamara Lipper. “A Very Mixed Marriage. Evangelical Christians
lining up to fight for Israel may be an unmovable obstacle to Bush's 'Roadmap.' ”
Newsweek, June 2, 2003.
Sizer, Stephen. 2004. Christian Zionism: road map to Armageddon. Leicester: Inter-Varsity.
Wagner, Donald E. 2003. Dying in the land o f promise: Palestine and Palestinian
Christianity from Pentecost to 2000. London: Mclisendc.
Weber, Timothy P. 2004. On the road to Armageddon: how evangelicals became Israel's best
friend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

2
but it was also conventional at the time. He was also influenced by the
eschatology of those contemporary with him as well as earlier thinkers.
After presenting a biographical sketch of Darby and his family, 1will
turn my attention to those persons, organizations, and conferences that
inspired and shaped his eschatological system in the formative years. In
chapter two, I will show how Darby’s system first took shape while at Trinity
College, Dublin. This was a highly complex phase of Darby’s life as he
wrestled with the future direction of his life. Having trained in law, he found
his deep religious convictions drawing him to the priesthood of the Church of
Ireland.6 At the same time, he felt at odds with the Established Church and
sought solace in Bible studies with those of like mind at Trinity College.
These Bible studies, discussions, and the breaking of bread were the basis of a
new emerging church called the Plymouth Brethren. Darby was not alone in
seeking a form of Christianity more in line with the New Testament church. A
religious revival had taken hold of many other individuals as they had studied
biblical prophecies and had become excited about the prospect of Christ’s
Second Coming. In this chapter, I will present the key revivalists, together
with two prophetical conferences that met for a number of years, and I will
show how these helped to shape Darby’s thinking.
In chapter three, I will address one of Darby’s key doctrines, “the ruin
of the church.” This will in part answer the question of why he vacillated at
the same time between being a priest in the Established Church and a
functionary in the emerging Plymouth Brethren. The doctrine is important in
understanding some of Darby’s other central ideas, such as the “rapture of the
church” and just who would be included in the rapture.
Chapter four addresses Darby’s doctrine of the “two peoples of God,”
namely, national Israel and the Church. This doctrine is absolutely essential to
Darby’s dispensational system and its main defining feature. Since Darby
believed that the Abrahamic Covenant was “unconditional,” it followed that
Israel—today’s Jews—represents God’s chosen people in perpetuity. Darby
was then faced with the dilemma of reconciling the two people groups within

6 Also known as the United Church of England and Ireland.

3
God’s redemptive plan. His dispensationalist system had to take into account
the nature of national Israel in the past and present and at the future Second
Coming, as well as the destiny of the church.
Chapter five addresses Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy. By assuming,
as many other interpreters had done, that this period of 70 weeks was really
“weeks of years” and by using a “day for a year” principle, Darby posited that
the prophecy concerned 490 literal years. He had already formulated his “two
peoples of God” doctrine and concluded that though the parenthetical church
began with the stoning of Stephen, it would be completely fulfilled at the
Second Coming, when the church is raptured away. Obviously this required
more than 490 literal years. He resolved the problem by incorporating a gap of
an indeterminate number of years between Stephen’s stoning and the Second
Coming of Christ. Thanks to the “gap theory,” Darby was absolved of
calculating a date for the Second Coming, as so many historicists had tried and
failed to do. Thus Darby rejected a historicist approach to biblical prophecy in
favour of a relatively new approach—futurism, which allowed for no date­
setting and taught that Christ’s Second Coming could be at any moment.
Neither futurism nor the gap theory was a new doctrine since, contrary to
popular belief, they had existed prior to Darby. 1 will show the earlier usage of
these doctrines and present them in the light of Darby’s own interpretation;
this will shed more light on his dispensationalist system.
Chapter six deals with the pre-tribulational rapture of the church, a
doctrine that was required by Darby’s other doctrines of the two peoples of
God and the gap theory. Put simply, the church occupies the “great
parenthesis” of prophetic time between the stoning of Stephen and the rapture.
As long as God concentrated on his heavenly people, the Church, in the great
parenthesis, his dealings with national Israel remained “on hold.” Thus God
must first remove the Church, hence the need for the pre-tribulational rapture.
Since Darby’s dispensationalist system is convoluted and highly
confusing, in chapter seven I put the pieces together to show how his system
works by considering the whole rather than the parts. After summarizing his
system, I will evaluate the two arguments for the origins of Darby’s

4
eschatology, and I will show why they are both erroneous and why the
“adaptive” approach is the more scholarly answer to the continuing debate
over Darby’s originality.

The methodology of the study

While the study of Darby’s dispensationalism is exciting and
challenging,7 it is at the same time problematic. Just a cursory perusal of his
writings is enough to convince the reader that Darby’s thoughts and doctrine
are haphazard and disorganized. His prose style is tortuous, to say the least.
Yet here was a churchman whose dispensationalism has done much to shape
and mould premillennialism from the 19th century to our modern day. His
writings are best described as a jigsaw puzzle, unorganized and in many
unrelated pieces, but with apparent related colours and shapes. This then is the
challenge that I plan to tackle, to assemble out of the disorganized mass of
doctrinal pieces the final assembled picture that truly represents Darby’s
dispensational millenarianism. Once the pieces are assembled it will be
possible to understand how he formulated his system by adapting much earlier
eschatological thinking.
Anyone who has ever assembled a particularly complex jigsaw puzzle
with many pieces usually has a picture to act as a guide to the finished
product. With Darby the analogy breaks down, since there is no picture to
guide the assembler. The reason for this is simple: Darby never cites his
sources. The challenge that I am faced with is twofold: to assemble the puzzle,
that is, Darby’s dispensationalist system, and to provide the picture derived
from thinkers prior to Darby. Put simply, I have to show the sources that more
than likely influenced Darby as he constructed his complicated system. In the
past, this would have been an almost impossible task. However, with the very
recent digitization of much bibliographic material, the task is easier and more

7 This is not to accord any academic credibility to Darby. His writings are best considered as
banal, bizarre, and outside the realm of academic respectability. However, since bis
writings have done much to influence American evangelicalism, it is both “exciting and
challenging” to uncover the sources that would have influenced Darby and thus understand
in greater detail the more modem forms of dispensationalism and, indirectly, the teaching
of much of American evangelicalism.

5
systematic. This then was my methodology: to examine a large number of
books extant prior to the time of Darby and to assemble the strands of thought
that match Darby’s. In short, I have read both Darby’s writings plus pre-
Darbyite works to form a coherent picture of the origin of his system of
dispensationalism.

The outcomes of the study

By the end of the 20lh century, modern scholars had expressed
radically different views of Darby’s dispensationalism, especially on the
question of its origins. There has been a strong tendency among non-
dispensationalist scholars to accuse Darby of inventing his system, of creating
it out of thin air. Clearly, those who charged him with novelty sought to
discredit dispensationalism. Modern followers of Darby have argued the
opposite: that he simply articulated a later version of a dispensational system
that could be traced back to patristic times. Such an argument clearly
attempted to establish historical and theological credibility for the movement,
even as defenders found it necessary to modify it in light of more recent
biblical scholarship and for the sake of greater clarity. My study will attempt
to clarify these different perspectives. I will show that neither point is correct
by presenting my “adaptive” view. Darby took earlier concepts and put his
unique spin on his own system of dispensationalism.

Darby: bionraphy and lasting influence

John Nelson Darby was the youngest son of John Darby of Markley,
Sussex, and Leap Castle, King’s County, Ireland. He was bom in London on
18 November 1800, educated at Westminster School and Trinity College,
Dublin,8 where he graduated with a B.A. in 1819 as gold medalist.9 Darby
died at Bournemouth on 29 April 1882.10 Grayson Carter adds that his mother,
Anne, was the daughter of the wealthy London merchant Samuel Vaughn and

81 will expand on Darby’s education and early Bible study meetings at Trinity College in the
subsequent chapter.
9 Smith, George, Leslie Stephen, Robert Blake, Christine S. Nicholls, and Edgar T. Williams.
1888. The dictionary o f national biography: from the earliest times to 1900 14 Damon -
D'Eyncourt. London u.a: Smith & Elder u.a., 43.
10 Ibid., 44

6
that Darby’s second name, Nelson, celebrated . . the arrival in England in
the month of his birth of the great admiral under whom his uncle, Sir Henry
D’Esterre Darby, served with distinction at the Battle of the Nile in 1 7 9 8 .1
Other authors state that Darby was actually related to Lord Nelson: “It is not
generally known that Mr. Darby was a nephew to the great Lord Nelson, and
I9
was said to possess the ‘Nelson eye,’—the eye of a leader of men.”
According to Frank Turner, . . John Nelson Darby [was] the son of well-to-
do parents and godson to Lord Nelson . . . ” Hugh Partridge also notes that
“Darby received his middle name from Admiral Lord Nelson.” 1234
Darby came from a large family. He was the sixth son and eighth
child.15 After he graduated from Trinity College and after about a year’s law
practice, he abandoned law in favour of the church and was ordained as a
deacon in the Church of Ireland in 1825 and as a priest in 1826. He ministered
to his poor parishioners but became troubled over the direction that his church
was taking, particularly with issues regarding Archbishop Magee. Darby
records this period of his life:
As soon as I was ordained, 1 went amongst the poor Irish mountaineers
in a wild and uncultivated district, where I remained two years and
three months, working as best I could. I felt, however, that the style of
work was not in agreement with what I read in the Bible concerning
the church and Christianity; nor did it correspond with the effects of
the action of the Spirit of God. These considerations pressed upon me
from a scriptural and practical point of view; while seeking assiduously
to fulfil the duties of the ministry confided to me, working day and
night amongst the people, who were almost as wild as the mountains
they inhabited. An accident happened which laid me aside for a time;
my horse was frightened and had thrown me against a door-post.
During my solitude conflicting thoughts increased; but much exercise
of soul had the effect of causing the scriptures to gain complete
ascendancy over me. 1 had always owned them to be the word of God.
. . . The careful reading of the Acts afforded me a practical picture of

11 Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant secessions from the via media, c.
1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 210.
12 Prophetic News and Israel's Watchman, The. January 1882. London: S. W. Partridge, 223.
13 Turner, Frank M. 2002. John Henry Newman: the challenge to evangelical religion. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 48.
14 Partridge, Christopher H. 2002. Encyclopedia o f new religions: New religious movements,
sects and alternative spiritualities. Oxford: Lion Hudson Pic., 35.
15 Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant secessions from the via media, c.
1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 210.

7
 the early church; which made me feel deeply the contrast with its
actual present state; though still as ever beloved by God.16

As a result of a horse riding accident, Darby moved around on crutches for a

while and was unable to attend any worship service. Apparently it was during
this period that he began to formulate his ideas of the church.
It then became clear to me that the church of God, as He considers it,
was composed only of those who were so united to Christ, whereas
Christendom, as seen externally, was really the world, and could not be
considered as “the church” . . . 7

In 1825, Darby struck up a friendly relationship with others of like mind at

Trinity College, and the ideas that he had begun to formulate during his
convalescence bore fruit in the Bible studies that eventually led to the
formation of the Plymouth Brethren.
The influence that Darby has exerted upon evangelicalism is profound.
Richard Hughes provides the following insightful summary:
The life and work of conservative Protestant giants like Dwight L.
Moody (1837-99) and Reuben A. Torrey (1856-1928) show the
influence of Darby, as do also the ministries of Nathaniel West,
William J. Erdman, James H. Brookes, Henry M. Parsons, Arthur T.
Pierson, and many others.. . . Perhaps the most influential single force
in millions of homes has been the Reference Bible prepared by one of
Moody’s young followers: C. I. Scofield (1843-1921). By red-lettered
passages and footnoted commentaries, the Reference Bible explains
how the various texts appertain to the several periods (“dispensations”)
of holy history. The Scofield Bible was published by Oxford
University Press in 1909 and has been a best-seller ever since.. . . The
popular influence of dispensationalism, which cuts across
denominational lines, can be judged by the fact that Hal Lindsey’s The
Late Great Planet Earth has sold over twenty million copies since
1970 and is still going strong. Every crisis in the Middle East launches
a new flood of popular books on Bible prophecy. 18

Darby’s lasting influence was developed in the crucible of the failed

historicism of advent movements such as the Millerites.19 Darby avoided date­

16 Darby, John Nelson. My dear brother, 297.

17 Ibid.
I!i Hughes, Richard T. 1995. The primitive church in the modern world. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 66-67.
The Millerites were not the first to experience failed dates, especially for the years 1843 and
1844. Early historicism can be traced to the Fifth Monarchist Movement, circa July 4,
1653. William Miller’s 1844 prediction, according to Hiram Edson’s “vision,” was

8
setting and firmly placed apocalyptic fulfilment in the future. However, it is
how this “fulfilment” would take place that clearly separated him from the
historicists. Apocalyptic fulfilment for Darby and the futurists entailed the
imminent Second Coming, but without a specific date or time. Fulfilment
involved the “two peoples of God” and hence the need for the “secret rapture”
to ensure that the church was removed so that God could continue his work
with his earthly people, the Jewish nation. This eschatology was radically
different from the historicist hermeneutic cantered very much on the “one
people of God,” the Church. In summary, Darby ushered in a new and radical
way of thinking about the end of the world, a view that has modified the
eschatological hermeneutic of an influential segment of American
evangelicalism. It is the understanding of how he shaped his eschatology that
makes his contribution so relevant to understanding his “system” today.

fulfilled to the letter, with the exception that Christ did not come to earth, as expected, but
entered the “heavenly sanctuary.” In other words, the date was correct but the hermeneutic
was wrong. Correct or not, many members of the Millerite movement were incensed at the
failed dates, thus providing fertile ground for the new Darbyite futurism, as the following
comment illustrates: “Portland, November 10, 1843. To the people called Milleritcs:- This
is to show that 1 am in want of help. 1 have been a believer, and spent all my money in
promulgating the doctrine. 1 did as I thought would be for the best good of the cause; some
of the brethren thought 1 was giving too fast, but 1 did not. The end of the world looked so
near to me that 1 was afraid to have any money - so 1 got rid of it as fast as my wife would
let me. She was opposed to my doing as 1 did, and is now at work in a Lowell Factory.
She thinks that she should have some of the money back, which 1 gave away while not in
my right mind; and those that took it thought 1 was not. .. . The end of the world has not
come - but the end o f my money has come.'” Reuben H. Brown. The Western Midnight Cry.
E. Jacobs, cd., Vol. II, No. 2. Cincinnati, December 16, 1843, 13.

9
2. The Prcmillcnnialist Revival: Origins, Leaders, and Groups

In this chapter I intend to discuss Darby’s role in the fonnative years of

the Plymouth Brethren, even while he was a cleric with the Church of Ireland.
This will involve consideration of Dr. Magee’s charge and its relationship to
Darby’s secession from the Established Church. I will then discuss the Albury
and Powerscourt prophetical conferences, with an emphasis on the content and
outcomes of these two seminal events, drawing conclusions from both.
There were three Albury conferences, in 1826, 1827, and 1828, and
three Powerscourt conferences, in 1831, 1832, and 1833. A number of minor
and subsequent conferences were not held at Lady Powerscourt’s residence
but at different venues. The Plymouth Brethren arose out of initial meetings in
Dublin circa 1825, having been initiated by Anthony Norris Groves, brother-
in- law to George Muller and a personal friend of both John Nelson Darby
and Edward Bickersteth.

The Plymouth Brethren

In discussing the Plymouth Brethren, I will set out to establish that the
roots of the movement can be located at Trinity College, Dublin in 1825, when
Anthony Norris Groves, John Nelson Darby, and George Bellett gathered in
the drawing room for an informal Bible study. Other key contributors,
including Benjamin Wills Newton, will also be discussed. I will examine the
revivalist and separatist doctrines of the Brethren, as they were later to be
called.
In 1814, Anthony Norris Groves opened a dentist’s office in Plymouth,
shortly after graduating from studying chemistry and dentistry in London. He
was now nineteen and successful in establishing a thriving dental practice. But
dentistry occupied only part of Mr. Groves’s attention. He showed a keen
interest in the church and became an active participant in the local religious
life. He developed strong Christian connections that would influence his life in
the days ahead. Joseph Richards and a Mr. Hitchins were instrumental in20

20 Also known as George Mueller.

10
bringing Groves into the church, and Miss Paget, a Christian lady, became a
spiritual mother to him.21 Edward Bickersteth developed into a trusted friend
and close confidante who would visit Groves on regular occasions. In a letter
addressed to William Caldecott—who was about to become a curate of the
Church of England in Claybrook—Groves related the fact that Bickersteth had
planned to visit him in a month’s time and that he, Groves, was looking
forward to the meeting for an opportunity to establish his future.22 The
friendship with Bickersteth inspired Groves to develop a passion for a
Christian ministry to the Jews. His first converts were a Mr. Alexander, a
young man of about twenty-five years of age and a former Jewish rabbi,
together with his wife. Groves was pleased to announce to Caldecott that,
following a series of Bible studies together, they were being baptized that day,
June 22, 1825.23 In another letter dated January 21, 1826, Groves was pleased
to inform Caldecott that two more Jews had been baptized on Christmas day
and he hoped that they would become “members to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel.”24
In 1825, Groves at the age of thirty decided that the time had come for
him to take holy orders, and with this in mind he entered Trinity College,
Dublin to study further, with a view to eventually taking holy orders with the
Established Church.25*It wasn’t long before he had struck up an acquaintance
with John Nelson Darby, who had begun studies at Trinity College at the age
of fifteen and had graduated as a Classical Gold Medalist when little more
than eighteen, in the summer of 1819. He had trained as a barrister and was
called to the bar in 1822, but it appears that he never practised this profession.
Being a churchman, he found that his interest lay elsewhere, in bringing the
light of God’s Word to a lost world.

21
Groves, Anthony Norris. 1869. Memoir o f Anthony Norris Groves, compiled chiefly from
his journals and letters; to which is added a supplement, containing recollections o f Miss
Paget, and accounts o f missionary work in India, etc. London: James Nisbct, 3.
22
Ibid., 12, concerning a letter dated June, 22nd, 1825, to Mr. Caldicott.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid., 16.
25
Littell’s Living Age. Fifth Series, Volume LII. Boston: Littell and Co., 1885; 348.
26
Ibid.

11
 Beginning in 1825, Darby and Groves, together with George Bellett,
gathered in the drawing room at Trinity College to study God’s Word, and the
following account by Miss Paget suggests that this was possibly the start of a
group that would later become the Plymouth Brethren.
Mr. Bellett, a dear friend of Mr. Groves, said to her [Miss Paget],
“Groves has just been telling me, that it appeared to him from
Scripture, that believers, meeting together as disciples of Christ, were
free to break bread together, as their Lord had admonished them; and
that, in as far as the practice of the apostles could guide, every Lord’s
day should be set apart for thus remembering the Lord’s death, and
obeying his parting command.” This suggestion of Mr. Groves was
immediately carried out by himself and his friends in Dublin. .. . This
was the beginning of what has erroneously been termed, “Plymouth
Brethrenism.”27

George Bellett was the younger of two sons, born in Frederick Street,
Dublin.272829In 1821, he graduated from Trinity College, was ordained, and later
became vicar of St. Leonard’s Bridgnorth from 1835 to 1870.2l> Both George
Bellett and his brother John Gifford Bellett were intimately acquainted with
Sir Edward Denny, a keen expositor of biblical prophecy, and Edward Cronin,
M. D.30 Dr. Cronin was a homeopathic doctor who was born near Cork in
180land died on February 1, 1882.31 His residence became the second
meeting place following the initial gathering between Darby, Groves, and

27 Groves, Anthony Norris. 1869. Memoir o f Anthony Norris Groves, compiled chiefly from
his journals and letters; to which is added a supplement, containing recollections o f Miss
Paget, and accounts o f missionary work in India, etc. London: James Nisbet, 38-39. Note:
A similar account is to be found in Littell’s Living Age, 348.
28 Bellctt, L. M., and J. G. Bellett. 1895. Recollections o f the lateJ.G. Bellett. London: A.S.
Rouse, n.p.
29 Kirk, John Foster, and S. Austin Allibone. 1897. A supplement to Allibone's Critical
dictionaiy o f English literature and British and American authors: containing over thirty-
seven thousand articles (authors), and enumerating over ninety-three thousand titles.
Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 127.
30 “Sept. 21. Dr. Cronin came home from an evening prayer-meeting just in time to draw his
wheel-chair (which had been my mother’s) into his room .. . . Soon after Dr. C. left my
uncle [George Bellett] returned (he had gone home for Sunday) and Sir E. Denny came
from London to see my dear father [John Gifford Bellett]. As they were both sitting with
him he looked sweetly at my uncle, and said he should like not to have been so weak this
evening that he might have talked a little. While Sir E. Denny sat opposite to him he said,
‘1 love to look at you,’ and at parting threw his arms around his neck.” Bcllett, L. M., and
J. G. Bellett. 1895. Recollections o f the lateJ.G. Bellett. London: A. S. Rouse, n.p.
31 Homeopathic world: a monthly journal o f medical, social, and sanitary science. 1882.
London: Homoeopathic Pub. Co, 125-126.

12
Bellett at Trinity College. The narrative of this and subsequent meetings is as
follows:
About 1827 an ex-Romanist, the late Edward Cronin gathered some
sympathizers ultimately at his residence in Lower Pembroke Street,
Dublin, for “breaking of bread” every Sunday morning. Shortly
afterwards another company was formed, which Cronin joined, at 9
Fitzwilliam Square: in this group nucleus of the Brethren, the most
prominent figure was the Rev. J. N. Darby.32

Dr. Cronin was formerly of the Roman Catholic persuasion but converted to
the Protestant faith, as narrated in his obituary.
Dr. Cronin was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church, but left it
and became a Protestant. About the year 1829 he became acquainted
with the Honourable John Parnell, now Lord Congleton, and Mr. Frank
Newman, better known to the world as Professor Newman, and Dr.
Kitto. These gentlemen, and the subject of this notice, were much
dissatisfied with the then existing state of things in the Established
Church, and hence separated from it, and met together to study the
Scriptures. Thus began the body of Christians now generally known as
the Brethren, or the Plymouth Brethren.33

On October 10, 1826, Dr. Magee, Archbishop of Dublin, delivered a

Charge at his Triennial and Metropolitan Visitation in St. Patrick’s Cathedral,
Dublin.34 Darby was particularly incensed with the Archbishop’s Erastian35
tone, and this prompted him to respond vigorously to the charge, embarking
on a publishing endeavour that would become a lifelong enterprise. His first

32 Herzog, J. J., Philip Schaff, and Samuel Maeauley Jackson. 1889. A Religious
encyclopaedia: or dictionary o f Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology.
Based on the Real-Encyklopcidie o f Herzog, Plitt, and Ilaiick. New York: Christian
Literature Co. Vol. Ill: 1856.
33 Homeopathic World, 125.
34 Daunt, William J. O’Neill. 1844. Saints and Sinners: a tale o f modern times. Dublin: J.
Duffy. Note: The “charge” referred to has reference to: A Charge delivered at his Triennial
and Metropolitan Visitation in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, in Oct. 1826. By William
Magee D. D. &c. Archbishop of Dublin. The British Critic Quarterly Theological Review.
Vol. II. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1827, 131: “In his episcopal charge of 1826, Magee
dismissed with contempt the notion that a religious establishment possessed any interest
distinct from the State as ‘a sort of incorporated craft, seeking its own ends through the
power of its temporal associate.’ He decried the claim that religion was a concern between
the individual and his God . .. The bold Erastian claims contained in Magee’s episcopal
charge outraged Darby, who believed that the archbishop had failed to address the
historical origins and political traditions of Anglicanism, and had opened the door for
unwarranted State intrusion.” Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant
secessions from the via media, c. 1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 212.
35 The view that the State is supreme over ecclesiastical affairs.

13
unpublished work, written in 1827 and entitled Considerations addressed to
the Archbishop o f Dublin and the Clergy, who signed the petition to the House
o f Commons for Protection, was sent privately to the Archbishop and clergy.
The issues raised in Magee’s charge and Darby’s reaction to the charge are
important if we are to understand why Darby eventually resigned from the
Church of Ireland, becoming a major functionary in the formation of the
Plymouth Brethren. The importance of Magee’s charge and the response by
Darby are both central to an understanding of the formation of the Plymouth
Brethren, and this will subsequently be treated in greater detail. In 1828,
Darby, again prompted by Magee’s charge, published a pamphlet entitled
Considerations on the Nature and Unity o f the Church o f Christ. The result of
this tract was that it “disturbed many minds in the Protestant churches, and
swelled the Brethren’s ranks; so that in 1830 a public ‘assembly’ was started
in Aungier Street, Dublin.”36
George Russell discusses the move from the small house churches to
Aungier Street.
John Parnell, afterwards second Lord Congleton, played an important
part among the Brethren. He had transferred the religious gatherings in
which Bread was broken from a private house to “a large auction-room
in Aungier Street, Dublin and by 1830 this meeting had become the
recognized centre of the movement.. . . 1830 may be taken as the year
from which Brethrenism, as a permanent institution dates.”37

John Parnell had joined the Brethren in 1829, establishing the meeting room in
Aungier Street a year later in May 1830.38 Hence, what Darby had discussed
in his 1828 tract39 about establishing a visible union of believers and what
Groves had posited in 1825, that believers in Christ were free to break bread
together as their Lord had admonished them, had been realized in the founding

36 Herzog, J. J., Philip Schaff, and Samuel Macauley Jackson. 1889. A Religious
encyclopaedia: or dictionary o f Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology.
Based on the Real-Encyklopcidie o f Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck. New York: Christian
Literature Co., 111:1856.
37 Russell, George William Erskinc. 1903. The household o f faith: portraits and essays.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 258.
38 Smith, George, Leslie Stephen, Robert Blake, Christine S. Nicholls, and Edgar T. Williams.
1895. The dictionaiy o f national biography: from the earliest times to ¡900 43 Owens -
Passelewe. London u.a: Smith & Elder u.a., 345.
39 Considerations on the Nature and Unity o f the Church o f Christ.

14
of the Aungier Street institution.40 The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a
common rite among all true Christians, together with the preaching of the
gospel and the separating out from apostasy, would become hallmarks of this
emerging church named the Plymouth Brethren.
Groves hardly found time to be with the early Brethren at Aungier
Street. On Friday, June 12, 1829, just one month after opening the meeting
hall, Groves, together with John Parnell and others, set sail for St. Petersburg
aboard Parnell’s yacht, the Osprey. They reached their destination on July 9,
and while Parnell returned with his boat back to England, Groves pressed on
to reach Baghdad, where he began the Plymouth Brethren’s first foreign
mission.41 Less than a year later, on September 18, 1830, a second party left
Dublin by steamer to join Groves in Baghdad. That party consisted of Mr.
Parnell, “Mr. Cronin, Mrs. Cronin (mother of the former), and her daughter
Miss Nancy Cronin, and Mr. F. W. Newman (now known as Emeritus
Professor), together with a Mr. Hamilton [who] returned to England before
reaching Bagdad [sic].”42
With representation in both Dublin and Baghdad, the Brethren were
now ready to establish a mission on British soil. This was achieved by J. N.
Darby making contact with Benjamin Wills Newton in Oxford.
To promulgate his views, Darby in 1830 visited Paris, afterwards
Cambridge and Oxford. At the last place he met with B. W. Newton, at
whose request he went to Plymouth. “On arriving,” Darby writes, “1
found in the house Capt. Hall, who was already preaching in the
villages. We had reading-meetings, and ere long began to break
bread.” Their first meeting-place was called “Providence Chapel;” the
Brethren, accordingly, “Providence People;” but, preaching in country
places, they were spoken of as “Brethren from Plymouth;” hence
elsewhere, “Plymouth Brethren.” The largest number ever in regular
communion at Plymouth was a thousand or less. Amongst those that
here embraced the “testimony” was the late S. P. Tregelles.43

4(1 “Accordingly, the outward symbol and instrument of unity is this partaking of the Lord’s
Supper.. . ” Groves, Henry Charles. 1884. Memoir o f Lord Congleton. London: John F.
Shaw & Co., 16.
41 Ibid., 18.
42 Ibid., 24.
43 Herzog, J. J., Philip Schaff, and Samuel Macauley Jackson. 1889. A Religious
encyclopaedia: or dictionary o f Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology.

15
 The question over who founded the Plymouth Brethren is commonly
raised. When B. W. Newton invited Darby to the Providence Chapel, there
were a sizable number of members in the congregation. This may have been
an independent congregation or part of a larger brotherhood, since there were
other Providence Chapels which were fairly well established at this time. The
Rev. William Huntington was a minister of the Gospel at Providence Chapel,
Gray’s Inn Road, London, as recorded in his book dated 1814.44 Previously he
was minister at Providence Chapel, Little Tichfield Street and the City Chapel,
both in London. He records two other Providence Chapels, at Monkwell Street
and Richmond Surrey.45 John Ashton comments on the Rev. Huntington:
“Though self-styled as William Huntington, his proper name was Hunt and the
S. S. after his name referred to ‘sinner saved’ as he liked to call himself.46 He
was a revivalist preacher.”47 The first Providence Chapel was built by Rev.
Huntington in 1788 in Margaret Street, London,48 followed by the chapel in
Gray’s Inn Road.49 It is uncertain whether or not the Huntington’s chapel was
connected with that in Plymouth, or whether members from London also set
up a similar chapel in Plymouth. We do know that they both bore the name of
Providence Chapel.
The Providence Chapel in Plymouth was built in 1831, as recorded by
Timothy Stunt:
When, later in the same year, the enthusiastic George Wigram, who
had just returned from Ireland, arrived in Plymouth at Newton’s
invitation, he soon began work with Hall. Early in December 1831,
Wigram, for whom it will be recalled, there were few financial

Based on the Real-Encyklopadie oj Herzog, Plitt, and Hanck. New York: Christian
Literature Co., 111:1856.
44 Huntington, William. 1813. Gleanings on the Vintage; or Letters to the spiritual edification
o f the Church o f Christ. Part VI. London: Huntington.
45 Huntington, William. 1808. The law established by the faith o f Christ, a sermon preached
at Providence Chapel on January 1, 1786. London: Printed by T. Bensley.
46 “As 1 cannot get a D.D. for want of cash, neither can 1 get an M.A. for want of learning,
therefore I am compelled to fly for refuge to S.S., by which I mean Sinner Saved.”
Statement by Rev. Huntington. Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain). 1892. The
numismatic chronicle and journal o f the Royal Numismatic Society. London: B. Quaritch,
318.
47 Ashton, John. 1890. Social England under the regency: Ward and Downey, 175.
48 Also given as Tichfield Street, Oxford Market, which in 1810 was burned to the ground.
Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain). 1892. The numismatic chronicle and journal o f
the Royal Numismatic Society. London: B. Quaritch, 318.
49 Ibid.

16
 restraints, bought for £750 the recently completed Providence Chapel
in Raleigh Street, and a week later the building was licensed for public
worship.50

According to Stunt, “Newton recalled that for ‘the first few weeks (three 1
think) it [Providence Chapel] was used, on Mondays, but that on Sundays he
and Darby attended, somewhat irregularly, Established places of worship.”51
This would accord with Darby’s account: “By invitation I went to Plymouth to
preach. My habit was to preach wherever people wished, whether in buildings
or in private houses. More than once, even with ministers of the national
church, we have broken bread on Monday evening after meetings for Christian
[,s7c] edification . . . Some months afterwards we began to do so on Sunday
morning, making use of the same liberty, only adding the Lord’s supper . . .”52
According to Darby, Anglican ministers (of the Established Church) were
present at the Lord’s Supper on Monday nights.53
Darby records his sentiments from this period: “. . . and at Plymouth;
there you should stay. I feel daily more the importance of the Christians at
P.”54 Writing from Dublin on July 24, 1834, Darby notes: “The Lord has
shewn me many pleasant services; still, the opening out to so much brotherly
kindness, and love, and fellowship was, I believe, first at P; and my heart
continually turns there with the fondest recollection of it, though a better place
is still before us.”55
What does appear highly likely is that Darby found an already
independent Providence Chapel congregation at Plymouth and became

50 Stunt, Timothy C. F. 2000. From awakening to secession: radical evangelicals in

Switzerland and Britain, 1815-35. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 290. Note: The author cites:
Embley, ‘Early Development’, 219, with the following comment: “The chapel had been
built in early 1831 for the growing congregation of an independent minister, Mr. Cawcott,
but, possibly owing to his death, had been put up for sale (Plymouth and Devonport
Weekly Journal (20 Jan., 3 Feb. 1831). Ibid.
51 Ibid., 292.
52 Darby. My Dear Brother, 304.
53 “. .. there is no reason to question Darby’s claim that Anglican ministers took part in their
meetings. Indeed an important element in the aspirations of the reluctant seccders was the
hope that they could establish a supra-denominational fellowship which would give some
visible recognition to an evangelical unity which transcended their ecclesiastical labels.”
Stunt, Timothy C. F. 2000. From awakening to secession: radical evangelicals in
Switzerland and Britain, 1815-35. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 292.
54 Darby. Dearest brethren and sisters at Plymouth, 18.
55 Ibid., 24. Note: P. is Darby’s shorthand for Plymouth.

17
accepted as one of the leaders, bringing into the congregation those teachings
that had been formulated at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1825. Thus the
Providence Chapel, Plymouth effectively became an extension of Aungier
Street, Dublin. This view finds support in this comment by Robert Howard:
The “Brethren,” . . . as they preferred to be called, existed as a society
first at Dublin, and then at Plymouth, between the years 1820 and
1830. They were known for a long time, from the fact of their meetings
at Providence Chapel in this latter town, as “Plymouth Brethren.” . . .
But the principal founder of the “Brethren,” as a select group, was a
clergyman who had been a barrister, by name Darby.50

Dr. Maizce's Charge

John Nelson Darby addressed his issue concerning Dr. Magee’s
Charge in a letter dated 1827, sent privately to the Archbishop and clergy. The
letter was not published but was made available thirty-eight years later by
Darby, under the title, “Considerations addressed to the Archbishop o f Dublin
and the Clergy who signed the petition to the House o f Commons.” Darby’s
central argument in this letter was that Magee’s Charge, given at his Triennial
and Metropolitan Visitation in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, on October 10,
1826, amounted to a clear case of Erastianism. A secondary argument, while
not related, should be considered if we are to understand Darby’s notion of the
Established Church: it involved an attack upon Magee over the authority to
translate Scripture.
The charge of Erastianism is quoted by Darby directly from Magee’s
Charge, as follows: “The Sovereign cannot prescribe in favour of a system that
maintains a spiritual supremacy independent of the civil government.”5657
Darby responded that the church was not a department of the State;
consequently, the clergy were not civil servants beholden to the State but were
answerable directly to the risen Christ and therefore had supremacy
independent of the civil government. Darby is emphatic in his reply to
Magee’s assertion:

56 Howard, R. J. 1885. The Church o f England and other religious communions : a course o f
lectures delivered at the parish church ofClapham. London: Regan, Paul, Trench, 131.
57 Darby, John Nelson. Considerations addressed to the Archbishop o f Dublin and the Clergy
who signed the petition to the House o f Common, n.p., n.d., 7. Note: This has reference to
pp. 29, 30 of Magee’s Charge.

18
 There is a spiritual supremacy independent of civil government, the
spiritual supremacy of Christ, of which the Clergy are ministers - not
an earthly dominion, but the very contrary. But when our Lord was
brought before Pilate and charged with being a king, He did not affirm
the harmlessness of His religion, by stating its amalgamation of
interests with the State, or that it was merely “another aspect of the
same body,” but unqualifiedly assented to the position “witnessed a
good confession,” that it was a king, but not of this world. The state­
ment of the Charge is in plain hostility to the view of our Lord .. .58

It has been suggested that Darby took issue with the “impending emancipation
of the Roman Catholics.”59 It appears that an issue regarding Roman
Catholicism was central to the Charge being given in the first place, but
whether the word “emancipation” is the right word is debatable. Trying to
understand the Charge from Darby’s somewhat convoluted letter of reply is
far from easy but can be construed from the following events.
Archbishop Magee sensed a growing encroachment of Roman
Catholism in Ireland. This much can be understood by Darby’s remark that
“Roman Catholics were becoming Protestants at the rate of 600 to 800 a week.
The Archbishop [Magee] imposed, within the limits of his jurisdiction, the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and the work instantly ceased.”60 Magee’s
imposition of the Act of Supremacy upon converted Catholics appears to have
been a cautionary measure fully in line with his Charge in that the Papacy was
indeed a “spiritual supremacy independent of the State.” Therefore, while the
State was free to choose between Protestantism and Catholicism, according to
Magee, only the former is the correct choice, since to choose the latter
amounts to the State giving spiritual power to an ecclesiastical body that sees
itself above and separate from the State.61 But in effect this was Darby’s whole
argument—that the church should not be answerable to any state, only to
Christ.

58 Ibid.
59 Contemporary Review, The. Volume XLVIII, July-Dccember, 1885. London: Isbisterand
Company, 1885, 537.
60 Darby, Considerations addressed to the Archbishop o f Dublin and the Clergy, 1.
61 “It amounts to a claim on behalf of the Established Church to protection from the civil
Sovereign, founded on these two position - that the civil Sovereign is bound and has
accordingly the right to choose the best religion for his people, and that the Established
Church has every character on which such a choice ought to depend.” Darby,
Considerations addressed to the Archbishop o f Dublin and the Clergy, 4.

19
 A secondary argument by Darby equates Magee’s right to interpret
Scripture with that of Roman Catholicism.
The Sermon of the Archbishop, as reported, speaks of “the scriptures
as rightly interpreted.” This, I conceive, is an unperceived
acquiescence in Popery; for if there must be an interpreter, he must, if
anything, be an authorised one; which is Popery. The assertion of an
interpreter is exactly contrary to the testimony of the Spirit, manifested
in scripture and asserted by Protestantism .. .62

Darby’s response to Magee’s charge is highly problematical in that Darby

charged Archbishop Magee with Erastianism while being a priest under
Magee’s jurisdiction. When Darby was initially presented with a copy of the
charge, he dismissed it as being unimportant.63 That Darby can state the
charge to be “unimportant” yet secede from the Church of Ireland a few years
later in order to be a functionary with the emerging Plymouth Brethren
highlights his highly convoluted ecclesiology.
The reaction to Magee’s charge reflects more of Darby’s own mindset
of being highly confused and a reactionary against authority. This goes a long
way to understanding that, while Darby was incensed at Magee for being an
authority in the interpretation of Scripture (a charge he labelled as popery), he
too saw himself as an authority on Scripture, particularly with those in
disagreement with him.
The problem with Darby’s response to the charge can be traced back to
his studies at Trinity College, Dublin, where he trained as a lawyer. As such,
he was patently aware of the nature of “Establishment and the Supremacy
Act.” The nature of church establishment had been documented in a work
published in 1597 by Richard Hooker, entitled, The Laws o f Ecclesiastical
Polity.64 Darby was acutely aware of Hooker’s work, citing him often. “But

62 Ibid., 16.
63 “The Archbishop (Magee) imposed within the limits of his jurisdiction, the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy . . . I remember Mr. R. Daly, since a prelate of the
Establishment, saying to me after receiving it, You ought to become a Dissenter. 1 said,
No; you have got into the wrong, and you want me there but that you will not do. 1 attach
no importance to the paper, which I have never read since .. .” Ibid., 2.
64 “The same conformity is not less opposite unto reason first - , inasmuch as contraries must
be cured by their contraries, and therefore Popery being Antichristianity, is not healed but
by establishment of orders thereunto opposite.” “A declaration of the proceedings of the
Church of England for the establishment of things as they are.” Hooker, Richard. 1888.
The laws o f ecclesiastical polity, books 1-IV. London: G. Routledge, pp. 239, 231.

20
we are told of absolute law, and referred to Hooker. Hooker, as is known,
pleaded the cause of Episcopalian Establishment against Travers.. .”65 Darby,
however, did not agree with Hooker. In reference to the authority of Scripture,
he comments that “Hooker uses them to vindicate those things in the English
Establishment, for which there is no warrant in scripture . . . but the doctrine
of Hooker is low and dangerous.”66 “1 have read some of Hooker, too; but (he
was) one whose mind rested in human order, and not on scripture, but a
reverend, godly man; but while a standard work with the clergy it is really
intrinsically not worth reading.”67 Darby’s Collected Writings were written
much later than Magee’s charge and it could be argued that his reading of
Hooker was also much later. However, it is hard to conceive, from a reading
of Darby, how he could have had such an intimate knowledge of The Laws o f
Ecclesiastical Polity and at the same time find him “low and dangerous and
not worth reading.” It appears more plausible that Darby had read Hooker
while at Trinity College as required reading. In any case, it reveals a sinister
side of Darby as a person who had a problem with authority and was willing to
excommunicate those in disagreement with him. It also portrays a person with
a troubled mind who, while fully aware of the nature of Establishment,
consented to becoming a priest under Magee only to secede a short time later
to form the Plymouth Brethren.
The response by Darby to Archbishop Magee’s Charge, together with
the challenge that Magee himself claimed to be the authority to interpret
Scripture, may provide an answer to the question as to why Darby, being
deeply religious, gave up a law profession to take holy orders with the Church
of Ireland, only to leave shortly thereafter to help form a separatist movement,
the Plymouth Brethren.68 This raises the issue regarding Darby’s involvement

65 Darby, John Nelson. Collected Writings, vol. 10: Doctrinal No.3, 99.
66 Ibid., 107.
67 Ibid., My Dear Brother, 70.
68 Note: Henry Groves gives a fuller explanation with the following regarding a letter written
by J. G. Bellett: “He [Bellett] mentions how, in 1827, a charge given by the then
Archbishop of Dublin to his clergy had stirred up the mind of the then curate of
Enniskerry, J. N. Darby, leading him to write a pamphlet condemning the principles
contained in the charge. This charge gave a great shock to Mr. D’s opinions in regards to
the Establishment, for of him Mr. B. says, T remember him at one time a very exact
clergyman.’ But it is this very exactness that characterises an honest mind, that holds what

21
with the Established Church while at the same time facilitating the formation
of a separatist movement. To address this issue, 1 now turn to Darby and his
relationship with the Established Church.

Darby’s relationship with the Established Church

A question arises concerning J. N. Darby being on the one hand an
ordained minister of the Church of Ireland, having been ordained deacon in
1825 “and in February, 1826, priest, by the celebrated Dr. Magee, Archbishop
of Dublin .. ,”69 while on the other hand he was meeting with Groves and
Bellett at Trinity College in 1825, meetings that would eventually result in the
formation of a separatist movement. Grayson Carter provides a further
understanding of Darby’s somewhat convoluted ecclesiology with the
following narrative:
During his legal studies in 1820 or 1821, Darby passed through some
kind of religious conversion. Against his father’s wishes, he then
abandoned the law in order to prepare for a career in the Church. He
was ordained in August 1825 to serve as curate in the parish of Calary,
near Enniskery, County Wicklow. In December of the following year
he was injured in a riding accident. While convalescing at the home of
his sister, Susanah Pennefather, he underwent something akin to a
second spiritual conversion, experiencing (as he later referred to it) a
‘deliverance from bondage’ and a powerful sense of the reality of his
‘union with Christ.’70

Shortly after the publication of Darby’s tract,71 rumours began to

circulate that he might be on the verge of seceding from the Church.
Later that same year, he simply resigned from his curacy without
formally seceding, while continuing to wear his clerical robes and
engaging in both Anglican and non-Anglican ministry. When a
puzzled Robert Daly inquired of him: ‘Well, John, have you left us:
what church have you joined?’, he received a characteristic reply:
‘None whatever; I have nothing to do with the Dissenters, and am as
yet my own church.’ Darby made it clear to one and all that he had
neither resigned his holy orders nor abandoned the practical care of

it holds tenaciously, and when it can no longer do that, it gives up.” Groves, Henry
Charles. 1884. Memoir o f Lord Congleton. London: John F. Shaw & Co, 13. Note: “Mr.
D” refers to Darby and “Mr. B” refers to Bellett.
69 Littell's Living Age, 345.
70 Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant secessions from the via media, c.
1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 211. Note:
Carter gives further information on the Penncfathers as follows: “The Pennfathers lived at
Temple Carig, Delgany, Co. Wicklow and at 20 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin.” Ibid.
71 Considerations on the Nature and Unity o f the Church o f Christ (1828).

22
 souls. Like Wesley a century earlier, he had taken the world as his
parish. Initially, it appears that Darby was reluctant to join those, like
Groves and Bellett, who began ‘breaking bread’ informally, either in
Dublin or in Plymouth.. . .The question of whether Darby ever
formally seceded from the Church (and, if so when) remains
unanswered. His rather anomalous relationship with the Irish
Establishment seems to have continued until 1832, when the
introduction of a new system of education brought about something
close to a complete rupture between the two. 72

If we take the initial Bible study meetings between Darby, Groves, and
Bellett in 1825 to be beginnings of the Plymouth Brethren, then we are left
with the following historical narrative. In 1825, the Plymouth Brethren
meetings began at Trinity College. On August 7, 1825, Darby was ordained a
deacon and on February 19, 1826, a priest. In October 1826, Archbishop
William Magee gave his Charge that was to arouse hostility with Darby and
his response by letter both to the Archbishop and clergy. Meetings began in
1827 to “break bread” at Dr. Edward Cronin’s house in Lower Pembroke
Road, to be followed by those at 9 Fitzwilliam Square, which was in close
proximity to Darby’s sister, Susannah Pennefather, living at 20 Fitzwilliam
Square. In 1827, Darby wrote an unpublished letter to the Archbishop and
clergy in response to the Archbishop’s Charge. In 1828, Darby published his
first pamphlet entitled, Considerations on the Nature and Unity o f the Church
o f Christ. In May 1829, the Aungier Street institution was established.
The question “When did J. N. Darby resign as a curate of the Church
of Ireland?” has provided fertile ground for many an active imagination. A
number of sources give the date as 1827. An encyclopaedic entry records the
following: “In 1827 John Darby resigned his charge and in 1828 adopted the
non-conformist attitude of the men listed above,7273 prompted by the
Erastianism of a petition by Archbishop Magee . . .”74 The Churchman’s
Guide supports this date: “J. N. Darby, who, resigning his curacy, in 1827

72 Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant secessions from the via media, c.
1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 215-216.
73 Anthony Norris Groves, John Vessey Parnall (second Lord Congleton), and John Gifford
Bellett.
74 The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia o f religious knowledge 12. 1912. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls, 95.

23
 . . .”75 The Rev. Thomas Croskery, who had written a monumental work on
the Plymouth Brethren76 and thus possessed a reasonable knowledge of the
Brethren, gave a date circa 1830. “It was about the year 1830 when Darby
resigned his curacy to become the leader of a new movement outside of all
churches.”77 Floyd Elmore favours the year 1831. “By 1831, he had left the
Church of England and had joined others in Plymouth, England.”78 A later
date of 1833 had also been proposed, but the accuracy has to be questioned
when the writer, T. Escott, provided the wrong initials for Darby. “In 1833, an
English clergyman at Plymouth, J. L. Darby, left the National Church and
founded the sect of ‘Brethren’, who take their name from the Western seaport
where he had officiated.”7980
The one available authoritative source is Lord Congleton (John
Parnell), who was intimately associated with the Brethren and who facilitated
the first Plymouth Brethren’s overseas mission in Baghdad. Henry Groves
quotes John Parnell as follows: “In the close of 1828 . . . while 1 [Parnell] was
still going to Sanford Chapel, and J. N. Darby was still in County Wicklow as
a clergyman. .. .”8<) If Darby was still a clergyman in late 1828, as Parnell
suggests, then there is every good reason to place the date when Darby left the
Church of Ireland circa 1829 to 1830, and the latter date given by Thomas
Croskery appears to be the most probable. In the final analysis, Grayson
Carter’s assertion that the question of when Darby left the Established Church
bears merit, the question “remains unanswered.” Carter concludes his
synopsis of Darby with the following account:
Though for some time Darby continued to regard the Established
Church as an effective prophylactic against popery, the rise of the
Oxford Movement convinced him that Anglicanism had become for

75 Reynolds, Arthur. 1912. The churchman’s guide: a handbook fo r ad persons, whether

clerical or lay, who require a work o f reference on questions o f church law or
ecclesiology. New York: Longmans, Green, 252.
76 Croskery, Thomas. 1879. Plymouth-Brethrenism; a refutation o f its principles and
doctrines. London: W. Mullan.
77 Croskery, Thomas. 1882. “John Nelson Darby” In The Catholic Presbyterian, W. G.
Blaikie, ed. London: James Nisbet & Co., 441.
78 Floyd Elmore. “Darby, John Nelson.” Dictionaiy ofpremillennial theology, 1997, Mai
Couch ed. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel Publications, 82.
79 Escott, T. H. S. 1897. Social transformations o f the Victorian age: a survey o f court and
country. New York: C. Scribner's, 404.
80 Groves, Henry Charles. 1884. Memoir o f Lord Congleton. London: John F. Shaw & Co, 15.

24
 many the road to Rome instead of the road from Rome. 81 Despite these
various protestations, there is no evidence that Darby ever renounced
his Anglican orders or formally seceded. In April 1832, the Plymouth
papers were still referring to him as ‘the Revd Mr Darby’. In the
following year, Darby admitted that he was still ‘no enemy to
episcopacy abstractedly, if it be real and done from the Lord’.8182 During
1834 Bellett claimed that he had by now become ‘all but detached
from the Church of England’.8384

The ecclesiolotzv of the Plymouth Brethren

In discussing the ecclesiology of the Plymouth Brethren, we will
consider those doctrines held in general by the Plymouth Brethren in their
formative years. This will prove useful in our attempt to determine Darby’s
ecclesiology, the degree to which his belief system was adopted by the
Plymouth Brethren, and furthermore how much was original to Darby. The
section will examine the Brethren movement under the following categories:
The Brethren and the nature of the church, The Brethren and the mission of
Christ, The Brethren and soteriology, The Brethren and the work of the Holy
Spirit, and The Brethren and eschatology.

The nature o f the church

According to James Grant, an acquaintance of Edward Irving,83 the
Plymouth Brethren were exclusive with regard to the church. Grant has very
few good words to say regarding the Brethren as a whole and commented on
the “persecuting spirit of the Darby section . . . [and that] The Plymouth
Brethren have no feeling whatever, either of humanity or justice .. .”85 Grant
then affirmed that the group “recognizes no other denomination, whether the
Church of England, or either of the Nonconformist denominations, as a
Church of Christ.”86 Thomas Croskery provides further insight into the

81 Darby, ‘The Notion of a Clergyman’, CW i.36-51.

82 Letters o f John Nelson Darby, ed. J. A. Trench, i. 17.
83 Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant secessions from the via media, c.
1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 217.
Authors note: See Embley, ‘The Origins and Early Development of the Plymouth
Brethren’. 66 (italics added).
84 “It was my privilege to be personally acquainted with Mr. Irving . . . ” Grant, James. 1875.
The Plymouth Brethren: their history and heresies. London: William Macintosh, 1.
85 Ibid., 84.
86 Ibid. Note: Grant further discusses Darby’s personal view: “Mr. Darby has again and again
said in print, as well as written in private, that those who belong to his party in the

25
 exclusivist nature of the Brethren in his reference to the “unity of the church.”
“The Brethren hold that they—and they only—are gathered simply as
members of the one body, without respect to the distinctions which prevail
among the sects. .. . They say the churches have no divine unity. The unity of
the Anglican Establishment is the unity of the creed; the unity of Dissent is a
unity of difference .. .”87 Croskery also discusses the Brethren’s view of the
invisible nature of the church as God sees it and the visible nature of the
church as man sees it and the fact that these are not two churches, but one.88
William Blair Neatby observes that the claims that “they alone were the
exclusive visible church” were repudiated by the Darbyite leaders.89 However,
the author then qualifies that statement with the following insightful remark:
The credit that we might be disposed to give to Darbyism for its
moderation in not claiming to constitute the Church of God on earth
must be seriously qualified by the extraordinary circumstance that it
claimed the power to exclude from the Church of God by excluding
from its own ranks. The theory was that any acknowledged Christian,
though he had nothing to do with the Brethren, was inside the Church
of God; but that the Brethren had the disciplinary power of the Church
of God committed to them because they alone met “on Scriptural
ground.” Consequently, any person on whom they pronounced
sentence of excommunication was by that act cast forth outside the
Church of God on earth.90

That Darby was familiar with both discipline and excommunication is evident
in his writings:
2 Thessalonians 3, like 2 Timothy 3, does not contemplate church
discipline, but private duty. If no one else so acted I ought. The Church
might for a time, neglect its duty, be in so low estate to carry it out; but
I am to act on the Apostle’s precept if it be so. I add excommunication
by the church is not the only discipline exercised, towards saints.91

metropolis constitute the only Church of Christ in London. In fact, the Plymouth Brethren
are as intolerant as Popery itself. They will have no communion with any but those who
belong to their own body.”
87 Croskery, Thomas. 1879. Plymouth-Brethrenism; a refutation o f its principles and
doctrines. London: W. Mullan, 24.
88 Ibid., 22.
89 Neatby, William Blair. 1901. A history o f the Plymouth Brethren. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 99.
90 Ibid., 99-100.
91 Darby, John Nelson. Collected Writings. Vol. 13c. Critical, 373.

26
W. B. Neatby discusses Darby’s method of discipline and excommunication
that in the 1860s was meted out from a Central Meeting held in London,
remarking that discipline and excommunication were related to his thesis of
the “church in ruins.”9293It was at these meetings that considerable discipline
was exercised on those in disagreement with Darby. “In 1860 the Priory
meeting in Islington . . . excommunicated Alexander Stewart, a former
minister of a Presbyterian Church and a man of considerable pulpit gifts. The
ostensible ground of excommunication was that Stewart had ‘grievously
violated the Lord’s presence at His table .. .”’9:I Because a Mr. Spurr was a
member of an excommunicated church in Sheffield, Darby “would not so
much eat with a man who remained contumacious in the presence of the fiat of
his Central Committee.”94
A central figure in the Plymouth Brethren who was deeply influenced
by Darby was Charles Henry Mackintosh.95 He has been described as one of
the best of Plymouth Brethren writers96 and one of the best known leaders.97
He discussed the “ruin of the professing church”989 and the corollary that God
had an assembly on the earth, namely, the Plymouth Brethren. For Mackintosh
the answer was simple: flee the church in ruins and become a member of the
Plymouth Brethren. “Why should the regenerated seek any ground beyond, or
different to, that of the Assembly of God? Is not that sufficient? Assuredly.
Should they rest satisfied with aught else? Assuredly not. We repeat, with
emphasis, 'Either that or nothing. Rev. Field Flowers Goe, Rector of St.
Georges, Bloomsbury, London, puts it more bluntly: ‘“ Whither, then, shall I

92 Neatby, William Blair. 1901 .A history o f the Plymouth Brethren. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 109.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid., 110. Note: A letter referencing the disciple with Mr. Spur is lodged at Ryland’s
Library under the following: 4472 DARBY (John Nelson) 93 1 discipline enacted in
London, with replies on behalf of Sheffield brethren. Sheffield, S.W. Spurr, (1866). 36p.
8.5”. (G59879) ELLIS (Benjamin) A T CBA DISCIPLINE ENACTED IN L093 1.
95 Grant maintained that Mackintosh was Darby’s disciple. Grant, James. 1875. The Plymouth
Brethren: their history and heresies. London: William Macintosh, 48.
96 Notes and Queries: Literary Men, General Readers, Etc. London: John C. Francis, 1905, 97.
97 Rogers, J. Guinness. 1881. The church systems o f England in the nineteenth century. The
sixth Congregational Union lecture. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 518.
98 Mackintosh, Charles Henry. 1900. The assembly o f God: or the all-sufficiency o f the name
o f Jesus. Treasury of truth, no. 121. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 11.
99 Ibid.

27
fly?’ asks the distracted and terrified occupant of some chamber in
Christendom, as he gazes through Plymouth spectacles at its rent walls and
tottering gables. ‘Whither shall 1 fly?’” 100
Both Neatby and Mackintosh have raised the issue of the “ruin of the
professing church,” a subject that will be discussed subsequently. It is
sufficient to note that the ruin of the church was a central doctrine held by the
Plymouth Brethren, and Thomas Croskery credits this view with the “peculiar
attitude toward [other] churches .. .”101 It was because of the general apostasy
of the other churches within this dispensational period that members of these
churches were challenged to “at once withdraw from them and join the
communion of the Brethren.”102 Thus, by separating from existing churches in
ruin the Brethren could maintain their purity of the gospel, or at least of the
gospel as they understood it.

Christology and the mission o f Christ

The Brethren’s view of the divinity and humanity of Christ is unusual;
in part this may be due to reliance on lay persons with very limited theological
training, who were expounding Christology. Croskery’s discussion of C. H.
Mackintosh and his interpretation of Galatians 4:4 is a case in point.103
According to Plymouth Brethren member William Kelly, the Brethren
affirmed that “the humanity of Christ was not that of man, fallen or unfallen,
but ‘the glorified resurrection-humanity of the redeemed.’”104 Kelly further
states: “It is a blunder to suppose that the reality of the incarnation involves
the condition of either Adam fallen or of Adam unfallen.. . . There are thus
three distinct phases of humanity here below—innocent, fallen, and holy.
Christ’s manhood was in the condition of Adam neither before nor after the

10(1Goc, F. F. The Validity o f the Ministry Itself, with Reference to the theories o f the Plymouth
Brethren. Published in The Islington Clerical Meeting, 1878. London: William Hunt and
Company, 17.
11)1 Croskery, Thomas. 1879. Plymouth-Brethrenism; a refutation o f its principles and
doctrines. London: W. Mullan, 35.
102 Ibid.
1113 Mr. Mackintosh speaks of the ‘Divine Man,’ and o f ‘His heavenly humanity,’ as though the
Holy Ghost had introduced Divine elements into His human nature.” Ibid., 84.
104 Ibid.

28
fall.” 05 Croskery explains that “The Brethren base their doctrine on 1
Corinthians xv, 47: ‘The first Adam was of the earth, earthy; the second man
was from heaven.’ (Greek.) But this refers to our Lord’s person, not to His
humanity. Brethren confound the two. It is not said that the Second Man, as to
His humanity, was from heaven.” 10506
James Grant states that much of the dispute between Darby and Wills
centred on the humanity of Christ.107 Peter Mearns echoes thoughts similar to
Croskery’s regarding the humanity of Christ. “The Brethren do not admit that
our Saviour possessed a human nature altogether like ours, sin only excepted.
They speak indeed, of His human nature somewhat like ours. He was ‘the
divine man,’ ‘the heavenly man;’ and some deny that His body received
anything of the substance of his mother.” 108 That Christ received nothing of
his mother’s substance is precisely the point that Mackintosh made with the
following remark: “‘The first Man is from heaven.’ (1 Cor. xv.47) The first
Adam, even in his unfallen condition, was ‘of the earth;’ but the second Man
was ‘the Lord from heaven.’”109 Since Mackintosh was a disciple of Darby, as
James Grant has maintained, this raises the question of whether he was merely
reiterating Darby’s own Christology or had formulated his thesis independent
of Darby. This chapter does not allow that question to be answered, but it will
be addressed subsequently.
In closing this section on the Christology of the Plymouth Brethren, it
is worth quoting the remarks of Dr. James Carson, who is credited with being
an expert on understanding the Brethren:
Many parties imagine, because the Plymouths have no Confession of
Faith, that they have no regular system of belief, but this is a great
mistake. They not only have a very complete system, but they are as
tyrannical as Rome in keeping their followers to it. Although the
Christian public cannot divine what their system is, it is all perfectly

105 Kelly, William. 1871. Christ tempted and sympathising. London: R.L. Allan, 17, 13.
106 Croskery, Thomas. 1879. Plymouth-Brethrenism; a refutation o f its principles and
doctrines. London: W. Mullan, 85
107 Grant, James. 1875. The Plymouth Brethren: their history and heresies. London: William
Macintosh.
108 Mearns, Peter. 1874. Christian truth viewed in relation to Plymouthism. Edinburgh:
William Oliphant, 68-69.
109 Mackintosh, Charles Henry. 1880. Notes on the book o f Leviticus. New York: Loizeaux
Brothers, 38.

29
 understood by those who are thoroughly initiated into it. The great
difficulty of getting at it, arises from the fact that it is always put forth
in a completely Jesuitical form. It is entirely to this it owes its success.
It is so thoroughly “guarded,” that Mr. Darby seems to be surprised 1
was able to unfold i t . . . ' 10

That both Kelly and Mackintosh reflected similar Christological doctrines

would appear to give credence to Carson’s reflection on the Plymouth
Brethren as having been “thoroughly initiated into it.” If Christ was not of the
same nature as fallen man and received nothing of the substance of his mother,
this raises another major soteriological problem: If Christ did not have a
thoroughly human nature, how could he redeem man? This question will be
addressed in the following section.

Soteriology
The Brethren’s understanding of Christology—that Jesus Christ did not
have the fallen nature of man—is further complicated in that justification was
seen “not on the ground of Christ’s righteousness, but on the ground of His
death and resurrection. They deny that God imputes to believers the
righteousness of Christ, but say that God imputes righteousness when He
accounts a believer righteous on the ground of Christ’s death and resurrection.
. . . He was not, in fact, a sin-bearer in life: and even all His sufferings on the
cross were not vicarious.”*111 Carson is thus in agreement with Croskery in
affirming that the Plymouth Brethren “admit the imputation of righteousness,
but deny there is such a thing at all of the righteousness of Christ. . . their total
denial of the righteousness of Christ as a doctrine.”11213This denial receives
further explanation in a review of a pamphlet written by the Rev. Duncan
Macintosh regarding the doctrines of the Brethren. ' The following reference
concerns the imputed righteousness as taught by Charles Stanley, a leading

1111Carson, James C. L. 1883. The heresies o f the Plymouth Brethren. London: Houlston &
Sons, preface.
111 Croskery, Thomas. 1879. Plymouth-Brethrenism; a refutation o f its principles and
doctrines. London: W. Mullan, 87.
112 Carson, James C. L. 1883. The heresies o f the Plymouth Brethren. London: Houlston &
Sons, 45.
113 The Special Teachings, Ecclesiastical and Doctrinal, o f Brethren, or Plymouth Brethren;
compiledfrom their own writings. With Strictures. By the Rev. Duncan Macintosh,
Dalkeith. Edinburgh: James Kerr.

30
member of the Brethren: “The Righteousness of Christ—The Scriptures never
use the expression the righteousness of Christ, or the imputed righteousness of
Christ, but always the righteousness of God, as in Romans iii. 26; and the
righteousness of God is evidently the righteousness of His Godhead, an
essential attribute of Deity. The thought of Christ’s having kept the law for us
for righteousness would be utterly wrong.”114
According to Carson, it is the “righteousness of God” as a divine
attribute rather than “the righteousness of Christ” that makes the sinner right
with God, a doctrine he attributes to Darby. “Now, inasmuch as they [the
Plymouth Brethren] hold the imputation of the righteousness of God, if this
righteousness be, as Mr. Darby says ‘the quality or character that is in God
Himself,’— if it thus be one of the attributes of the Almighty, I demand to
know how this attribute of the Godhead is to be imputed to man.” 115 That
Darby denied the righteousness of Christ is reinforced by Croskery. “Mr.
Darby says: ‘If the righteousness imputed to the believer is Christ’s fulfilment
of the law, it is after all human, legal righteousness, by whomsoever done.’” 116
Darby’s soteriology, like his Christology, was a radical departure from
that of the Established Church. The next section will be concerned with the
Plymouth Brethren and the work of the Holy Spirit. This will prove useful in
understanding Edward Irving and the gifts of the Spirit, as well as Darby and
the work of the Holy Spirit.

Eschatology
The subject of the rapture will be treated in greater detail subsequently
when considering Darby’s notion of the “secret rapture.” 117 William Reid
provides an insightful understanding of the Plymouth Brethren’s view of the
secret rapture by quoting a passage from Dr. Tregelles, “one who had the best

114 Quarterly Journal o f Prophecy. Vol. XXV. London: James Nisbet and Co. 1873, 182.
115 Carson, James C. L. 1883. The heresies o f the Plymouth Brethren. London: Houlston &
Sons, 49.
116 Croskery, Thomas. 1879. Plymouth-Brethrenism; a refutation o f its principles and
doctrines. London: W. Mullan, 95.
117 Darby. The Rapture o f the Saints.

31
means of knowing their views, owing to his many years’ association with
them, and intimacy with their leaders.” 11819Says Dr. Tregelles:
“The doctrine held and taught by many is,” says Dr. Tregelles, “that
believers are concerned not with a public and manifested coming of
Christ in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory - not with
His appearing when every eye shall see Him, and when He shall sever
the wicked from among the just, but with a secret or private coming,
when the dead saints shall be secretly raised, the living changed, and
both caught up to meet the Lord in the air; that the shout, the voice of
the archangel, and the trump of God, do not indicate anything of
publicity, for the ear of faith alone shall hear them; that the Church
shall meet the Lord, not at His visible coming, but in order to remain
with Him, at least for years, before His manifested advent; that after
this secret coming there shall be in the earth a full power of evil put
forth amongst both Jews and Gentiles; that there shall be a time of
unequalled tribulation and great spiritual perils (with which the Church
has nothing to do) and that this condition of things shall end by the
manifest coming of the Lord . . . In 1863 1 heard it publicly and
definitely maintained that the secret coming is the second coming
promised in Scripture, and that the manifest appearing is His third
»119
coming.

The Plymouth Brethren distinguished between the coming of Christ and the
day of the Lord. Rather than seeing similarity in the two terms, they
differentiate between the two, the former referring to the secret coming/or his
saints and the latter with the public coming in glory with his saints. Benjamin
Wills Newton was clearly opposed to the doctrine of the secret rapture, which
would possibly explain his antipathy for Darby. In a lengthy article entitled,
“The Second Advent of our Lord not secret but in manifested glory,” Newton
maintains the following: “We have not the test of Truth except the Scripture.
Nevertheless, a doctrine so truly new as the secret coming of the Lord, and the
secret removal of His saints, must by its very novelty, awake suspicion, and
should therefore be jealously tested by the Scriptures of Truth.” 120 In speaking
of 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Newton commented, “Can we, after reading these
words, affirm that the coming of the Lord will be secret? Do such expressions

118 Reid, William. 1880. Plymouth Brethrenism unveiled and refuted. Edinburgh: W. Oliphant,
186.
119 Ibid., 187.
I2<) Newton, Benjamin Wills. 1861. Occasional papers on Scriptural subjects. London:
Houlston and Wright, 45.

32
as ‘shout,’ ‘voice of the archangel,’ and the ‘trump of God,’ imply
secrecy?” 12112
The Gospel Magazine of 1866 provides an interesting understanding of
the secret coming in relation to Edward Irving with the following remarks:
“Certain recent developments of Millenarianism are calculated to startle all but
the most bigoted advocates of this theory. It is now common for Millenarians
to believe what is called a secret coming of Christ, and a secret rapture of the
saints .. . Until the time of Edward Irving it was, so far as my acquaintance
with Millenarianism extends, wholly unknown. But, through his preaching and
writings, it made no inconsiderable progress in his day.” The doctrine of the
secret rapture, accepted by the Plymouth Brethren and by Edward Irving but
vehemently denied by B. W. Newton, underscores the complexities of
revivalist doctrine in the 19,h century. In order to understand these
complexities and such leaders as Edward Irving, I now turn my attention to the
other great revivalist movements of the 19th century, the Albury and
Powerscourt prophetical conferences.

The Alburv prophetical conferences

There were three Albury conferences, in 1826, 1827, and 1828. While
all three were important, the focus will be on the 1826 conference and the
personalities involved, together with the ecclesiology arising out of these
meetings. This section will provide a biographical sketch of the members in
attendance. This will necessitate being brief with regard to those members
who neither contributed much to these revivalist movements nor provided
further insight into Darby’s ecclesiology. For members such as Edward Irving
the sketch will be in far greater depth. Subsequent to the biographical sketches
I will focus on the issues that were dealt with at 1826 Albury conference.
Henry Drummond, writing in 1828, recounts conversations that he and
a number of friends had concerning the “future destinies of the Church, their

121 Ibid., 46.

122 Gospel Magazine and Protestant Beacon, The. Vol. X. London: W. H. Collingridge, 1866,
649.

33
country, and the world.” 123 He observed that they felt it expedient to unite
themselves to other brethren that had published or were interested in the
prophetic Scriptures. This resulted in the first Albury prophetical conference,
held in 1826. Sandeen records the following:
Although publication of the Albury conference proceedings was
withheld by common consent, Henry Drummond did publish three
volumes entitled Dialogues on Prophecy which summarized, to some
extent, the substance of those meetings. Since Drummond chose to
present this material in the form of dialogues between personae
identified only by pseudonyms and seems to have exercised
considerable editorial freedom, it would be rash to treat these volumes
as a kind of stenographic report of the conferences.124

Though we are lacking conference proceedings, we do have two lists of the

subject matter discussed at Albury, 1826. The first is provided by Drummond
in his Dialogues and the second by Irving in his preface to his translation of
The Coming o f Messiah, by Lacunza.
According to Drummond, a list of six subjects for discussion was
drawn up, and this found universal acceptance, as follows:
1. That the present Christian dispensation is not to pass insensibly into
the millennial state by gradual increase of the preaching of the Gospel;
but that it is to be terminated by judgments, ending in the destruction
of this visible Church and polity, in the same manner as the Jewish
dispensation had been terminated.
2. That during the time that these judgments are falling upon
Christendom, the Jews will be restored to their land.
3. That the judgments will fall principally, if not exclusively, upon
Christendom and begin with that part of the Church of God which has
been most highly favoured, and is therefore most deeply responsible.
4. That the termination of these judgments is to be succeeded by that
period of universal blessedness to all mankind, and even to the beasts,
which is commonly called the Millennium.
5. That the second Advent of Messiah precedes or takes place at the
commencement of the Millennium.
6. That a period of 1260 years commenced in the reign of Justinian, and
terminated at the French Revolution; and that the vials of the
Apocalypse began then to be poured out; that our blessed Lord will

123
Drummond, Henry. 1828. Dialogues on prophecy. London: Nisbet, preface.
124 Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1970. The roots o f fundamentalism; British and American
millenarianism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 20-21.

34
 shortly appear, and that therefore it is the duty of all, who so believe, to
press these consideration on the attention of all men.125

Sandeen notes that the Dialogues were written by Drummond in 1828 possibly
“after the third conference in 1828. The six points appear to be conclusions
rather than prerequisites for participating.” 126 Edward Irving, writing from the
Caledonian Church on January 17th, 1827, provides what appears to be the
impetus for the first prophetical conference: “There arose, in the beginning of
last summer, amongst certain students of prophecy in London, a desire to
compare their views, with respect to the prospects of the Church at this present
crisis. . .”127128Irving does not inform us as to what this “present crisis” referred,
but stated that “about twenty men of every rank and church and orthodox
communion . . . met at Albury Park, in Surrey.” There were six subjects to
be discussed at the 1826 Conference, with a day devoted to each subject.
1. The doctrine of the Holy Scripture concerning the times of the
Gentiles.
2. The duties of Christian ministers and people, growing out thereof
towards the Gentile Churches.
3. The doctrine concerning the present and future condition of the Jews.
4. The duties growing out of the same towards the Jews.
5. The system of the prophetic visions and numbers of Daniel and the
Apocalypse.
6. The scripture doctrine concerning the future advent of the Lord. Lastly,
the duties to the church and the world arising out of the same.129

It will be noted that there is a considerable difference between the two

lists. However, Irving does inform us that “These things I write from

125
Drummond, Henry. 1828. Dialogues on prophecy. London: Nisbet, ii, iii.
126 Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1970. The roots o f fundamentalism; British and American
millenarianism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, 22.
127 Lacunza, Manuel, and Edward Irving. 1827. The coming o f Messiah in gloiy and majesty.
London [England]: L.B. Seeley. 1:123.
128 Ibid. Note: Ernest Sandeen provides a list of nineteen of these participants. Henry
Drummond, Edward Irving, Lewis Way, Joseph Wolff, Charles S. Hawtrey, William
Cuninghame, James Hatley Frere, George Montague (Lord Mandeville), Rcvd. William
Marsh, Revd. Hugh McNeile, Revd. Daniel Wilson, John James Strutt (later Baron
Rayleigh), Spenser Percival, Revd. Robert Story, Revd. James Haldane Stewart, Revd,
James Stratton, Revd. Edward Vaughn, John Bayford, and John Tudor. Sandeen, Ernest
Robert. 1970. The roots o f fundamentalism; British and American millenarianism, 1800-
1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 20.
129 Lacunza, Manuel, and Edward Irving. 1827. The coming o f Messiah in gloiy and majesty.
London [England]: L.B. Seeley. 1:123. Note: The list is presented in a tabulated form to
make an easy comparison with the list by Drummond.

35
recollection, not caring to use the copious notes which I took, for it was a
mutual understanding that nothing should go forth from the meeting with any
stamp of authority, and that the church might not take offence, as if we had
assumed to ourselves any name or right in the church.”130 While the content of
the meetings is sadly lacking, Edward Irving in his preliminary discourse to
the work of Ben-Ezra, dated 1827, entitled The Coming o f Messiah in Glory
and Majesty, provides a limited insight into the discussions. An identical
transcript appeared four years later as an anonymous entry in Millennial
Tidings, but appearing with an epistle by Joseph Wolff, the Jewish delegate to
the 1826 Conference, together with a declaration that the glorious Advent
would occur in 1847.131132
There is clearly a dearth of factual information arising out of the
prophetical conferences because of the “common consent that nothing should
go forth from the conference with any stamp of authority.” In other words,
there were no notes or proceedings taken. However, we do have four sources
available to us. First, the outside sources and biographies that provide
commentary on the conferences. Second, the evidence of a change in the
ecclesiology of the churches subsequent to the conferences. An example of the
second point occurs in Drummond’s Dialogues concerning a discussion
regarding postmillennialism, with the following comment by Sophron: “I once
thought that Messiah’s second advent did not take place till the end of the
millennium, but as soon as that opinion was brought to the test of Scripture, I
found it perfectly untenable.” Why Sophron should find postmillennialism
“untenable” is that Anastasius had earlier commented on the advantages of
premillennialism: “One of these intervening things is a reign of blessedness
for a thousand years; whereas I conceive, it is very evident from Scripture, that
this reign of blessedness succeeds, and not precedes the second coming of the
Lord.”133 If premillennialism was dominant at Albury, it should be supposed
that this eschatology would take hold of the churches subsequent to Albury.

130 Lacunza, Manuel, and Edward Irving. 1827. The coming o f Messiah in glory and majesty.
London [England]: L.B. Seeley. 1:124.
131 Millennial Tidings. No. 1. Philadelphia: Harriet Livermore, publisher, 1831, 27 f.
132 Drummond, Henry. 1828. Dialogues on prophecy. London: Nisbet, 182.

36
Drummond’s Dialogues could be considered a third source of information
arising out of Albury 1826, but the content and pseudonyms make a factual
record less than available. A fourth source is the writings of those that
attended the Albury conference.
The outside sources and biographies, while not primary
documentation, do throw considerable light on the nature of the conferences
themselves. Daniel Taylor’s treatise, dated 1882, is a work edited by H. L.
Hastings; the preface, however, is dated 1855, which is reasonably close to the
Albury conferences and thus provides a valuable insight into their scope:
The assembling together of Christian ministers and laymen in large
numbers, without regard to denomination, for the purpose of studying
the sacred Scriptures, and conferring with one another concerning the
prophetic word, the signs of the times, the nature of the solemn future,
and the pre-millennial and near advent of our blessed Lord, was
perhaps never witnessed until the present century. In 1826, the first
conference of this kind was called, and held in the county of Surrey,
England at the residence of Henry Drummond, Esq., then the high
sheriff of the county, subsequently a member of the British Parliament.
Minister of all denomination were invited, and twenty persons, men of
every rank and church and orthodox communion in the realm, met in
session for eight days.13134

Taylor’s summary is insightful and agrees with several of the main points,
including the twenty laymen and clergy that attended Albury 1826. That he
mentions the “pre-millennial and near advent of our blessed Lord” agrees with
Drummond point 5 and Irving point 6. The “prophetic word” agrees with
Drummond point 6 and Irving point 5. Taylor has more to say regarding
Albury 1826. “The times of the Gentiles, the destiny of the Israelites, the
doctrine of the future and last advent, and the duties of the ministry and church
as related thereto, were the themes discussed.”135 “The times of the Gentiles”
received extensive discussion in Drummond’s Dialogues, 136 as did the
“destiny of the Israelites”; these both correspond to Drummond point 2 and
Irving point 3. The “future and last advent” corresponds to Drummond point 5

133 Ibid., 159-160.

134 Taylor, Daniel T., and H. L. Hastings. 1882. The reign o f Christ on earth: or, The voice o f
the church in all ages, concerning the coming and kingdom o f the Redeemer. London: S.
Bagster & Sons, 346.
135 Ibid., 347.

37
and Irving point 6. The doctrine of imminence was universally accepted:
“There was a great agreement, sweet charity, and a strong conviction that the
end of the gospel dispensation and return of the Bridegroom ‘was,’ writes
Irving, ‘hard at hand.”’136137 Taylor notes that “No full report of this remarkable
gathering was ever made at the time; the believers disclaimed putting the
stamp of authority upon their conclusions.” 138
George Russell, another secondary source, provides a general overview
of all of the Albury conferences:
The first of these Prophetical Conferences was held at his
[Drummond’s] house at Albury, in Advent, 1826, and the same
gathering was repeated annually for five years. Forty-four people in all
took part in these conferences, of whom nineteen were English
clergymen, three were Dissenting ministers, four were ministers of the
Scotch Kirk, eleven were lay-members of the Church of England, and
seven were laymen of various denominations. . . . The general
conclusions at which the conferences arrived may be summarized thus:
—The Christian Dispensation was shortly to be terminated by Divine
judgments, ending in the destruction of the visible Church and polity.
These judgments were to be succeeded by that period of universal
blessedness which is called the Millennium.139 The last of the
Prophetical Conferences was held in July, 1830. The Reform Bill, the
cholera, and the Revolution in Paris were regarded as heralding the end
of the world.140

Of interest is the author’s mention of a number of factors that “were

regarded as heralding the end of the world,” including the July Revolution of
1830. According to John Hair, Charles Hatley Frere, who was to become
Irving’s prophetical mentor, saw the July Revolution to be pivotal in his
prophetical interpretation. “With Frere everything in Daniel and the
Apocalypse and even in Second Esdras, led up to Napoleon. The great
Continental revolutions marked the expiration of the times of the Gentiles, and

136 Drummond, Henry. 1828. Dialogues on prophecy. London: Nisbct, 12, 55, 160.
137 Taylor, Daniel T., and H. L. Hastings. 1882. The reign o f Christ on earth: or, The voice o f
the church in all ages, concerning the coming and kingdom o f the Redeemer. London: S.
Bagster & Sons, 347.
138 Ibid.
139 “A great period of 1,260 years commenced in the reign of Justinian, and terminated at the
French Revolution; and the vials of the Apocalypse began then to be poured out. Our
Blessed Lord will shortly appear, and therefore it is the duty of all who believe to press
these considerations on the attention of all men.”

38
there was immediately impending the Advent of our Lord and the winding up
of human affairs.” 14041 This appears to reflect a historicist rather than a futurist
hermeneutic as evidenced by a comment on the views of Edward Irving. After
discussing a chance meeting between Frere and Irving, the biographer notes
the following: “An accidental walk in the fields with this gentleman had put
Mr. Irving in possession of his [Frere’s] views, and subsequent study
determined his adoption of them. Compressed into a single sentence, they may
thus be stated-the visions of Daniel and St. John authorize the belief that with
the French Revolution a new epoch in the providential government of the
world was opened, and that the millennial period will commence about the
year of our Lord 1868, a visible, decisive struggle between the powers of good
and evil occupying the latter portion of the intervening years.”142
That Irving was considered the leader “of the school of Albury
prophets,” 143 coupled with his close association with Frere, suggests a tension
between the Frere/Irving historicist interpretation and the rising futurist view
of imminence. This argument finds support from Bernard McGinn. “But the
historicists continued to be strong with such figures as Edward Irving (1792-
1834) and Henry Drummond (1786-1860).”144 However, asserting that Irving
was a historicist is problematical, according to Daniel Almonz, who observes:
“Irving’s views would probably have to be classified as a combination of the
continuous-historical school and the rapidly increasing quantity of futurism in
the continuous-historical approach which was already partially an integral and
basic part of that position as presented by some.”145 Already, seeds of division
can be observed between the predominantly historicist view at Albury and the

140 Russell, George William Erskine. 1903. The household o f faith: portraits and essays.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, pp. 265-266.
141 Hair, John. 1899. Regent Square: eighty years o f a London congregation. London: James
Nisbet, 62,
142 Lives o f the illustrious (the Biographical magazine). 1852. London: J. Passmore Edwards,
321.
143 Ibid.
144 McGinn, Bernard. 2000. Antichrist: two thousand years o f the human fascination with evil.
New York: Columbia University Press, 245.
145 Almonz, Daniel E. 2008. The Apocalyptic Rapture Exodus. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press,
73.

39
predominantly146 futurist view, particularly of Darby, at Powerscourt—
“futurism rejecting the idea that historicism’s identified events are the
exhaustive fulfillments of the Scriptural predictions.”147
The Christian Observer (1863), though concerned very much with the
beauty of the surroundings of Albury, does provide useful information: “The
autumn of 1826, the year in which Irving had taken an enforced rest, saw a
knot of able men, students of prophecy, collected under the roof of Henry
Drummond.” 148 Of interest is the comment regarding Edward Irving that “The
belief that our Lord’s second advent was near, coloured his thoughts. He saw
in the Church a community soon to be led, like the Israelites, by a present
Deity; he saw in the State a body to be separated from the world by outward
tests, and to stand out as the visible impersonation of the right and just and
good.”149
The London Review ( 1861) chronicles the account from James Haldane
Stewart’s biography. Stewart attended Albury 1826. “In October, 1826, he
made a short journey to Hereford, Gloucester, Worcester, &c., for the Jews’
Society; and in the beginning of December, he attended the meetings held at
Albury, by the invitation of Mr. Drummond, for the consideration of several
questions relating to unfulfilled prophecy.”150 After reiterating that twenty
persons attended Albury 1826, Stewart then provides his list of subjects
discussed:
1. The Gentile dispensation and the practical results of the scriptural
doctrine respecting it.
2. The present and future dispensations of the Jews.
3. The prophetic chronology.
4. The Second Advent of Christ.151

Stewart declined to attend subsequent conferences at Albury, and there is a

hint that he viewed premillennialism with suspicion, remarking that he

146 I say “predominantly” since certain historicists did populate Powerscourt, as for example
Edward Bickersteth.
147 Almonz, Daniel E. The Apocalyptic Rapture Exodus. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2004,
125.
148
Christian Observer, The. For the Year 1863. London: Hatchard and Co., 1863, 411.
149
Ibid., 412.
150London Review volume xv. The. Published in October, 1860 and January, 1861. London:
Hamilton, Adams and Co., 1861, 279.

40
“afterwards associated much with the Pre-Millennialists; it taught him to hold
his views on the subject in subordination to others, in regard to which greater
152
certainty was attainable.”
Robert Story, while not present at the first Albury conference, did
attend subsequent ones. “He was a member of the Prophetical Conference held
at Albury Park under the auspices of Mr Henry Drummond, and a close
associate of Mr Campbell of Row, his nearest neighbour, whom he defended
in elaborate speeches before the Presbytery.” *153 Story first attended the 1827
Albury conference, which appears to have been held in November.154 He says
very little about the conferences, considering them speculative and of such a
nature that they “do not seem to have produced a very salutary effect on the
religious thought of England and Scotland, and have too often run into most
foolish and profane extravagances.” 155 That Robert Story perceived the Albury
conferences as having little effect upon English and Scottish religious life
might be attributed to the fact that he was an ordained minister of the Church
of Scotland, but his views were not universally held. An observation by Daniel
Taylor demonstrates the very reverse, that indeed there was clear evidence of a
change in the eschatology of the churches subsequent to the conferences. In
the absence of conference proceedings, it is this change in eschatology that
forms my second approach for evidence of what must have been debated at the
conferences. According to Taylor’s elaboration of the changes, the post-
Albury effect was profound:
At this time, the comprehension of the advent of Christ had died out in
many hearts, and its imminence was scarcely dreamed of. Few were
watching for the Coming One; most of the pulpits were silent on the
theme, and there was but little pre-millennia/ literature in circulation.
But henceforth the Lord’s advent was to take a front place on human
lips, and in thoughtful hearts; a great cry went forth that was never to
cease. Pulpits rang with the alarm, pens were busy, the awakening was

151
Ibid., 280.
152
Ibid.
153 United Presbyterian Magazine, The. New Series, vol. VIII. Edinburgh: William Oliphant
and Co., 1864, 198.
154
Story, Robert Herbert. 1862. Memoir o f the life o f the Rev. Robert Stoiy ...: including
passages o f Scottish religious and ecclesiastical histoty during the second quarter o f the
present century. Cambridge [England]: Macmillan, 109.
155
Ibid., 102.

41
 wide and great. In 1829, 1830, 1831, 1833 and 1834, no less than six
prophetical journals were established at London, Dublin and
Edinburgh, conducted by able pens and cultured minds. Between the
years 1828 and 1834, some forty or fifty different volumes on
prophecy were issued in Great Britain. Besides these, over thirty well-
known and godly men put forth full sixty works in defense of the pre-
millennial advent. The agitation of the grand question was intense.
Irving wrote a dozen books on prophecy, and discoursed with rare
eloquence to audiences estimated at 6,000 and even 12,000 persons, in
the open air, in the towns of England and Scotland. Wolff fearlessly
uttered the advent cry in the wide East, and McNeile thundered the
message from his pulpit in great London. Within fifteen years after the
first conference at Albury, three hundred ministers of the Church of
England alone were proclaiming the speedy end and the historian
Macaulay asserted that the believers in the ancient faith, looking for
the appearing and kingdom, equaled in number the entire population of
the Jews in Great Britain.. . . Since the day of these Albury
conferences, pre-millenarian views have spread very much.156

The author makes a major claim to the effects of the fifteen years
subsequent to the Albury Conference, drawing from a number of sources to
substantiate his claims. One of his primary sources was A Dictionary o f
Writers on the Prophecies, 157 one of whose contributors was the Rev. E.
Bickersteth, a member of the Plymouth Brethren and close associate of
Darby.158 The Dictionary o f Writers on the Prophecies catalogues numerous
writers and periodicals dealing with prophecy and the pre-millennial advent.
Taylor based his analysis of the years between 1828 and 1834 on the sources
cited below.159 The same contributor to the Dictionaiy (namely Bickersteth)

156 Taylor, Daniel T., and H. L. Hastings. 1882. The reign o f Christ on earth: or, The voice o f
the church in all ages, concerning the coining and kingdom o f the Redeemer. London: S.
Bagster & Sons, 347-348, emphasis supplied.
157 Brooks, J. W. 1835. A dictionary o f writers o f the prophecies, with the titles and occasional
description o f their works. Also an appendix containing lists o f commentators, annotators,
etc., on the Holy Scriptures. London: Simpkin, Marshall.
158 Ibid., preface.
159 Authors together with publication dates included: 1828 - G. H. Ewaldus, John Fry, Edward
Irving, Thomas Keyworth, August F. Lilienstern, J. W. Niblock, John Riland, John
Woodhouse; 1829 - Alfred Addis, John Hooper, T. Parkin; 1830 - John Jones, Samuel Lee,
William Ward, J. King; 1831 - James Begg, H. T. Burne, Caisson, Erwin, I. Haughton,
Ernst W. Hengstenberg, Philip Hirschficld, Alex M’Caul, Pierre Mejanel, Wm. A. M.
Pym, Joseph Tyso, Philip Herschell; 1832 - John Cox, Henry Gipps, Hewlett, T. Milner, F.
Nolan, Platt, 1. E. Sabin, Matson Vincent: 1834 - George Faber, James Hatley Frere, Henry
Girdlestonc, John Hamblcton, Fred Sergent, Ann Sherwood, Ridley Herschell; 1834 - Wm.
Anderson, M. Habershon, Emanuel Lacunza, S. R. Maitland, G. S. Porter, T. T. Biddulph.
Prophetical journals included: The Christian Herald, a quarterly magazine, chiefly on

42
also became a close confidante to Anthony Ashley Cooper, Seventh Earl of
Shaftesbury, thus bringing the doctrine of premillennialism into the political
arena, as Finlayson narrates:
Ashley became increasingly preoccupied with such matters160 in the
second half of the thirties, and of great importance in this respect was
his meeting with Edward Bickersteth in 1835. A former secretary of
the Church Missionary Society, Bickersteth had become ordained and
was a leading evangelical; he firmly belonged to the pre-Millennial
school. His book a Practical Guide to the Prophecies, first published
in 1823 and re-issued as an enlarged edition in 1835, set out his ideas
on the Second Coming, in addition to various other prophetical
matters. Ashley became very friendly with Bickersteth, whose teaching
had a great influence on him, and he, too, became a convinced pre-
Millenarian.161

Ashley’s connection to Lord Palmerston, English statesman and Prime

Minister, occurred with the marriage of Palmerston to Lady Cowper on
December 16, 1839. Thus, Lady Palmerston became the mother-in-law to
Lord Ashley.162
Recent scholars agree with Daniel Taylor on the spread of
premillenarianism following Albury. “Between 1827 and 1833 it was Irving,
Albury and the Morning Watch that determined the essential doctrinal tenets
of pre-millenarianism that Darby received, creatively adapted, and
disseminated... In the end, and at the very least, Irving must be considered the
paladin of pre-tribulational premillennialism and the chief architect of its
cardinal formulas.” 163
A third source of information regarding the Albury conferences is
Drummond’s Dialogues', however, as previously mentioned,164 the content and
pseudonyms used make a factual record less than acceptable. The only

subjects connected with prophecy, The Watchman, a monthly periodical published in Paris,
and The Christian Record and Monthly Expositor.
160 The millennium and the Second Coming.
161 Finlayson, Geoffrey B. A. M. 1981. The seventh Earl o f Shaftesbury’, 1801-1885. London:
Eyre Methuen, 104.
If’2 Battiscombe, Georgina. 1974. Shaftesbury: A biography o f the seventh earl, 1801-1885.
London: Constable, 119, 120.
163 Hunt, Stephen. 2001. Christian millenarianism: from the early church to Waco.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 115.
164 That “Drummond chose to present this material in the form of dialogues between personae
identified only by pseudonyms . . . ” Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1970. The roots o f

43
pseudonym that has any real significance is Basilicas, and when Drummond
states that “the most enlarged view of those unfulfilled prophecies which
pervade the whole Bible, is Mr. Lewis Way, in his Letters under the signature
of Basilicus,” 165 it must be assumed that both Lewis Way and Basilicus of the
Dialogues are one and the same person.166 However, even if this were true,
there are at least sixteen other pseudonyms to unravel, and there are no clues
as to their identity. Keeping in mind the comments by Sandeen, there are still
pearls of wisdom to be gained from the Dialogues, as suggested by a
discussion between Anastasius and Aristo in reference to Luke 21:24, that “it
would appear that the fulfilment of the times of the Gentiles is also the time
for the restoration of the Jews.” 167
Much could be written on the subject of the “times of the Gentiles,”
but such a study would be outside the scope of this thesis. In speaking of the
“times of the Gentiles,” Pentecost does have an interesting comment on the
subject that relates to the mid-tribulation interpretation: “In Luke 21:24 the
Lord indicates that Jerusalem will continue in Gentile dominion ‘until the
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ Zechariah 12:2; 14:2-3 indicate that this
will not be until the second advent, when the armies of the Beast are destroyed
by the Lord, as He is seen to do in Revelation 19:17-19.”168 Pentecost then
comments that a correct understanding of the various texts makes a
midtribulation “view untenable.” 169 The discussion by Aristo170 of the parable
of the tares amongst the wheat finds in Matthew 13 a fuller discussion in
relation to the events following the rapture. Postmillennialism appears to be
denied by Evander, and the doctrine of imminence supported, in his comment
that “the end of this dispensation is revealed, as to be brought about suddenly,

fundamentalism; British and American millenarianism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 21.
165 Drummond, Henry. 1828. Dialogues on prophecy. London: Nisbet, 3.
166 Way, Lewis. Thoughts on the Scriptural expectations o f the Christian church. Catholic
Apostolic Church collection. London: Printed for A. Panton, 1826. Note: This work is also
known as the Thoughts on the scriptural expectations o f the Christian Church by
Basilicus.
167 Dialogues, I, 12.
168 Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1964. Things to come: a study in Biblical eschatology. Grand Rapids,
Mich: Zondervan, 213.
169 Ibid.
I7I) Dialogues, I, 24.

44
 which is entirely opposed to the idea of a gradual improvement.” 171172Anastasius
also rejects postmillennialism when he says that “this reign of blessedness
succeeds, and not precedes the second coming of our Lord.” The comments
by Aristo into the ways in “which the church has at present fallen” finds a
comparative view in the “ruin of the church,” and he lists these points of
failure as follows: “First, that there are to be no judgments at the period when
the times of the Gentiles are said to be fulfilled. Second, that a period of great
blessedness is about to brought in immediately, and third, that the millennial
state is to be brought about by natural means: such as the diffusion of
knowledge, commerce, peace, civilization, improved views of political justice,
jurisprudence, political economy, arts, &c. &c.” 173 Crito discusses the nature
of being “caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” and sees this to
be the deliverance of the church from destruction.174
The topics in the Dialogues are many and varied, and the few that have
been cited do demonstrate extremely scattered thoughts; nothing can be
attributed to any particular person or assumed that the thoughts pertain to
Drummond alone. As Sandeen has commented, the Dialogues are perhaps
useful reading but shed little light on the agenda of the Albury prophetical
conferences. It is then to the fourth source that I now turn in order to derive an
insight into the Albury conferences, namely, those who were in attendance.
First we will present James Hatley Frere, mentor to Edward Irving.

James Hatley Frere

Harriet Livermore, amidst tears of joy, rapturously voiced her reaction:
“When my eyes surveyed his declaration concerning the glorious Advent of
King Jesus in 1847,1 was filled with sensible rapture, and sincerely echoed to
the tidings ‘Come Lord Jesus,’ come in triumph, and reign in great power and
glory.”175 With these words, she was indirectly providing the link between
Joseph Wolff, James Hatley Frere, Edward Irving, and the 1826 Albury

171 Ibid., 26.

172 Ibid., 160.
173 Ibid., 55.
174 Ibid., 70.
175 Millennial Tidings. No. 1. Philadelphia: Harriet Livermore, publisher, 1831, 3.

45
prophetical conference. Ms. Livermore also established a historicist
interpretation of the three by emphasizing that “ 1847 is the very period
declared by Joseph Wolff’176 and by quoting a letter from Wolff that
“appeared to me [Harriet Livermore] at that time more precious than all the
mines of Peru, as it contained the proclamation of my Redeemer’s second
advent in 1847.”177 That Ms. Livermore received the prophesied date from
Wolff is without doubt; however, the date ostensibly came not from Wolff but
from Frere. Harriet Livermore’s certainty regarding the date of Christ’s
Second Advent presupposes that Wolff s knowledge evidenced more than a
mere passing interest in prophecy.178 However, W olffs interest lay in
missionary endeavours, particularly amongst the Jews rather than in a highly
complex system of prophetical interpretation.
By researching the person of James Hatley Frere, I will set out to
establish that the prophetical interpretation regarding 1847 belonged primarily
to Frere, not Wolff. Edward Irving was requested to preach for the Continental
Society in 1825, and through this speaking engagement he chanced to meet
Frere. The latter saw in Irving a ready disciple for his prophetical
methodology and encouraged him to study prophecy. Frere’s importance is
due not merely to the large numbers of prophetical books that he published,

176 Ibid., 45
177 Millennial Tidings. No. 2. Philadelphia: Harriet Livermore, publisher, 1839, 14. Note:
Harriett Livermore provides numerous pages citing the year 1847, including this cryptic
remark. “In the summer of 1831,1 read the glad tidings of our Lord’s second Advent to
take place in the year 1847, according to a chronology of Jewish dates, elicited by that
eminent Hebrew Christian and scholar, JOSEPH WOLFF, Missionary of the holy cross to
Jews, Mahomedans, Pagans and Christians, of every name under heaven.” Millennial
Tidings. No. 3. Philadelphia: Harriet Livermore, publisher, 1838, 3. Emphasis in the
original.
178 Kennedy provides interesting insight into the character of Harriet Livermore that would
suggest that Joseph Wolff made a considerable impact on her. “She made four of five trips
to Jerusalem, the first in 1836. In 1841 she was living in part of a house owned by a
Gibralter Jew, near Hezekiah’s Pool. She was given food by the Protestant missionaries.
Dr. Selah Merrill, American Consul in Jerusalem in 1883 (who got his information from
those who had known her there), wrote that ‘she was very irritable and exacting, and
would often insult people in their houses or in the streets.’ She was well known to be
crack-brained, and was not allowed to preach in Jerusalem. Dr. Van Dyke, who was living
in Jerusalem, says she told him one day that she had spent the previous Sunday in an olive-
tree on the Mount of Olives. She also thought that she and Joseph Wolff were the two
witnesses of Revelation XL, and identified Bonaparte with Mchemet Ali.” Kennedy,
William Sloane. 1892. John G. Whittier, the poet offreedom. New York [etc.]: Funk &
Wagnalls Co., 32-33.

46
 nor for the depth of his interpretation, but for the simple reason that he has
been considered Edward Irving’s mentor. To understand Frere is to throw light
on the prophetical method of Irving. Thus, while Alexander J. Scott in 1828
became Irving’s mentor in spiritual gifts,179 Frere earlier in 1825 became
Irving’s mentor in prophecy.180 Couched between those dates was the Albury
conference of 1826, where Frere, Wolff, and Irving were to meet, and it is
highly likely that W olffs knowledge of the 1847 prophecy came from Frere at
this meeting. However, W olffs connections with the Frere family were far
more involved. James Hatley Frere had a brother, John Hookham Frere, who
was bom on May 21, 1769. In his diary, Joseph Wolff records an event that
happened in 1822. “One of the most interesting acquaintances we made was
the Right Honourable John Hookham Frere, late British Ambassador in
Spain.”181 Wolff then related the story of a little girl of about three years of
age who was found in an oven and concluded that this event “was in the year
1822 ”182 Years later, on January 29, 1835, Wolff wrote a dedication that
would appear in a book entitled Researches and Missionary Labours. In this
dedication to the Right Honourable J. H. Frere, Wolff makes the following
comment: “A complete stranger to you, I came to your house and you not only
granted me the rites of hospitality . . . and during the time of my absence you,
your sister and Miss Jane Frere treated me with utmost kindness.”183 Thus
John Hookham Frere received Wolff into his house in 1822, establishing a
relationship between Wolff and the Frere family. That Wolff was intimate
with James Hatley Frere’s brother John and sister Jane suggests that there was
communication between Joseph Wolff and James Hatley Frere quite a few
years prior to the 1826 Albury conference; thus the knowledge of the 1847
prediction pointing to Frere rather than Wolff becomes more plausible.

179 Brown, David. Personal Reminiscences o f Edward Irving. Published in The Expositor. No.
XXXIII, September 1887. London: Hodderand Stoughton, 219.
180 Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett, 221.
181 Wolff, Joseph. 1838. Journal o f the Rev. Joseph IVolJf..in a series o f letters to Sir Thomas
Baring, Bart, containing an account o f his missionaiy labours from the years 1827 to
1831: and from the years 1835 tol838. London: J. Burns, 78.
182 Ibid.
183 Wolff, Joseph. 1837. Researches and missionaiy labours among the Jews, Mohammedans,
and other sects. Philadelphia: O. Rogers, v.

47
 James Hatley Frere remained an enigmatic figure. “He was born in
1779. He seems to have been a gentleman of independent fortune who devoted
his time to the study of prophecy. The Dictionary o f National Biography says
very little about him beyond a list of his publications. He died in 1866.” In
1826, the same year as the first Albury conference, J. H. Frere published a
seminal work entitled “A Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Ezra
and St. John.” This was first published in 1815 and contained 476 pages, as
contrasted with the 1826 publication containing 508 pages. In this later book
the author added the following note: “A corrected Edition.—The Author
having availed himself of the advantages for perfecting the subject, which
have been afforded by the expiration of a second grand prophetic period, the
ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY years of Daniel.”184185 It
is in this work that Frere developed his historicist interpretation of the year
1847, with a novel twist relating to the Islamic faith. “. .. [T]he grounds of an
opinion, formerly given, that Daniel’s vision of the Ram and the He-goat,
relating to Mahometanism, would terminate in the year 1847.” 186
Returning to the first Albury conference, it is significant that Joseph
Wolff and another participant, William Cuninghame, together with Frere, were
in a prophetical discussion well before 1826. Frere’s 1815 publication had the
following appended to the title of the book: “—together with critical remarks
upon the interpretation of preceding commentators, and more particularly
upon the systems of Mr. Faber and Mr. Cuninghame.” In his 1826 publication
he again discusses extensively the prophetical works of Cuninghame: “Again,
Mr. Cuninghame observes, that Mahometanism was ‘an opposing superstition
WITHOUT the Church, and cannot therefore be an abomination o f desolation
IN the Church.”’187 As for Wolff, Mahometanism188 would become part of his

184 Hunt, John. 1896. Religious thought in England in the nineteenth century. London:
Gibbings & Co., 371.
185 Frere, James Hatley. 1826. A combined view o f the prophecies o f Daniel. Ezra, and St.
John: shewing that all the prophetic writings are formed upon one plan, accompanied by
an explanatoiy chart, also, a minute explanation o f the prophecies o f Daniel. London:
Printed for J. Hatchard, frontpiece. Emphasis in the original.
186 Ibid., Postscript.
187 Ibid., 296. Emphasis in the original.
188 The term is spelt variously as Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan, or Mahometan
and pertains to the Islamic faith.

48
 life’s endeavours, as the title of his 1837 publication implies: Researches and
Missionary Labours Among the Jews, Mohammedans, and Other Sects. It is
highly plausible that just as Frere met Irving in 1825 and became a mentor to
him in the area of prophetical interpretation, so Frere became the mentor to
Joseph Wolff at a time prior to the 1826 Albury conference.
There is a similarity of thought between Frere and Darby regarding the
nature of the church in relation to the Second Advent, and this will have
considerable import when researching the eschatology of John Nelson Darby.
Frere held to the “Church as a Spiritual Establishment. . . So the Holy Place
or INNER COURT of the Temple, mentioned in chap. xi. of the Revelations,
also represents the Spiritual Church on Earth .. .” 189 The true believers in
Christ constitute the church which is visible,190 spiritual,191 and illuminated by
the Holy Spirit.192193At the Second Advent “the Jews are particularly spoken of,
9193
as repenting and turning to Christ.”
In electing the date of 1847, Frere was espousing the view that the
2300 days of the prophecy in Daniel 8:14 had proved incorrect.194 Taking the
longer view, he combined this with a start date of 553 BCE, as he explains:
“. .. or the ‘sanctuary will be cleansed,’ at 2400 years from the year A.C. 553
[j/c], being the ‘third year of Belshazzar,’ king of Babylon; in which year the
vision was seen; which answers to the future year 1847, when some event
must be supposed to occur of such a decided nature, as shall precisely mark
the expiration of this long period . . . Which event there is no reason to think,
can be no other that the restoration of true and spiritual worship in Jerusalem,
and perhaps in the re-edified Temple .. ,”195 It could be argued that the reason

189 Frere, James Hatley. 1826. A combined view o f the prophecies o f Daniel, Ezra, and St.
John: shewing that all the prophetic writings are formed upon one plan, accompanied by
an explanatoiy chart, also, a minute explanation o f the prophecies o f Daniel. London:
Printed for J. Hatchard, 7.
190 Ibid., 26.
191 Ibid., 86.
192 Ibid., 88.
193 Ibid., 214.
194 “The common version of our Bible reads 2300 years, the Septuagint 2400: the course of
events has proved incorrect: the latter corresponds with the other periods of Daniel,
dividing his last period of 45 years’ Progress of the Kingdom of Christ into two periods of
25 and 20 years each. Ibid., 43 (footnote entry).
195 Ibid., 43-44.

49
he chose a longer period of 2400 years was simply to accommodate a failed
prophecy based upon the 2300 years. There were certainly divergent and
conflicting views regarding the two periods, as Maitland points out: .. Mr.
Cuninghame makes the period 2300 years, Mr. Faber and Mr. Frere make it
2400.”196
John Waugh, in discussing prophetical interpretations, provides a non-
cited source that he attributes to Edward Irving: “. . . I shall before I dismiss
the subject, advert once more to the date of 2400 days .. . But the question
being of the vision generally, without any such interposition of a commencing
time, must, as hath been said, be taken from the time then present: that is, from
the time at which the vision was seen - that is, before Christ 553. From which,
reckoning 2400 years, we arrive at the year after Christ, 1847, at which time
the angel declares, ‘The temple shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’”197198Thus,
Irving mirrors very much the prophetical historicist interpretation of James
Hatley Frere, and it is to Edward Irving that I now turn to review his
contribution to the revivalist movement of the early 19th century.

Edward Irving
Edward Irving was born in 1792 and died in December of 1834. His
lifelong friend was Thomas Carlyle, both being born within a few miles and a
couple of years of each other. It was, however, not until May 1808 that they
met for the first time. Carlyle documents much of Irving’s childhood and
family history in his Reminiscences. David Brown, who on January 3,
1830, would replace Alexander Scott as Assistant to Edward Irving at the
Regents Square Church, provides further insight regarding Carlyle and Irving.
“It was in Kirkcaldy that their close intimacy began. They were both teachers,
but Irving had been two years there before Carlyle . . . Carlyle, as well as
Irving entered the Divinity Hall, with a view to the ministry of the Church of

196 Maitland, Samuel Roffey. 1834. The twelve hundred and sixty days: in reply to the
strictures o f William Cuninghame, Esq. London: Printed for J.G. & F. Rivington, 31.
197 Waugh, John S., and William Cuthbertson. 1833. Dissertations on the prophecies o f sacred
scripture which relate to the Antichristian powers. Annan, [UK]: Printed for the author by
Win. Cuthbertson, 71.
198 Carlyle, Thomas, and James Anthony Froude. 1881. Reminiscences. New York: C.
Scribner's Sons.

50
 Scotland; but he soon tired of it and gave it up—from incipient dissatisfaction
.. Carlyle comments that Irving was at this time “licensed—probably
through Annan Presbyteiy . . . From the first Irving read his discourses, but not
in a servile manner; of attitude, gesture, elocution there was no neglect. His
voice was fine; melodious depth, strength, clearness, its chief characteristics
.. . We were all taught at the time by Coleridge, etc. .. .”*200 It was while in
Edinburgh that Irving was invited to preach at Dr. Andrew Thomson’s church,
St. George. Present in the congregation on that day was Dr. Thomas Chalmers,
who was in need of an assistant for his church in Glasgow and extended an
invitation for Irving to preach for him in Glasgow.201 Margaret Oliphant dates
the preaching of this sermon to August 2, 1819.20'
Irving was accepted as Dr. Chalmers’ Assistant and began his ministry
in October 18 19.203 It was two years later, in the winter of 1821, that Irving
was to receive a call to minister to a small church in Hatton Garden, London.
According to Irving, “The Caledonian Church had been placed under the
pastoral care of two worthy ministers, who were successively called to
parochial charges in the Church of Scotland; and by their removal, and for
want of a stated ministry, it was removed to a great and hopeless state.”204
Irving decided to visit the chapel with a view to ministry the day before
Christmas 1821.205
The Caledonian Chapel had originally been formed to minister to the
orphan children of soldiers and sailors, and Irving found to his dismay that he
was required to preach in the Gaelic tongue. In a letter to the gentlemen
connected with the Chapel, Irving agreed to fulfil this requirement. “I pledge
myself to study Gaelic; and if I cannot write it and preach it in six months, I

199
Brown, David. Personal Reminiscences o f Edward Irving. Published in The Expositor, ed.
W. Robinson Nicoll. No. XXXIII, September 1837. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
200
Carlyle, Thomas, and James Anthony Froude. 1881. Reminiscences. New York: C.
Scribner's Sons., 115, 119.
201 Brown, David. Personal Reminiscences, 224-225.
202
Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett,
(First Edition), 92.
203
Ibid., 99.
204
Ibid., 131.
205
Ibid.

51
give them my missive to be burdensome to them no longer.”206 Fortunately tor
Irving and for the landed gentry of London, the requirement was waived, due
in part to the intervention of the Duke of York. Irving’s ministry at the
Caledonian Chapel flourished in a powerful way. In fact, it was not long
before Irving became the talk of the town and the Chapel was populated with
dignitaries. David Brown, who would become an assistant to Irving, had the
opportunity in 1827 to visit the Caledonian Chapel. He recorded the
experience as follows: “Admission to his humble place of worship
(Caledonian Chapel, Cross Street, Hatton Garden) was by ticket only—a step
to which his office-bearers reluctantly resorted to prevent worse consequences,
and even ticket-holders had to come long before the hour of service if they
would find a seat. . .. Coming early the first day, I found the whole of the
street lined with carriages, and the church even then filling rapidly.”207
The life of Edward Irving reads like a tragedy. His ministry in
Glasgow with Dr. Chalmers was nothing out of the ordinary. In the words of
Chalmers, “When Irving was associated with me at Glasgow he did not attract
a large congregation, but he completely attached to himself, and to his
ministry, a limited number of persons, with whose minds his own was in
affinity.”208 At the Caledonian Chapel, Irving’s style of oratory captured an
audience that included “the Duke of Sussex, Mr. Canning, Lord Brougham,
Sir James Mackintosh, and others of aristocratic look . . .”209 Two events were
to transform his ministry radically and eventually led to Irving’s being ousted
from the Caledonian Chapel. The first was his meeting with James Hatley
Frere in 1825, and the second was his meeting with and hiring of Alexander J.
Scott in 1828. These two individuals, together with the first Albury prophetic
conference in 1826, shaped Irving’s entire theology, bringing his premillennial
views very much into alignment with those of John Nelson Darby. The
formation of the Catholic Apostolic Church was to complete his transition
from a Presbyterian ministry with the Caledonian Chapel into a prophetic,

206 Ibid., 138. This letter, signed by Edward Irving, was dated February 21, 1822.
207 Brown, David. Personal Reminiscences, 216.
208 Hanna, William, and Thomas Chalmers. 1857. Memoirs o f the life and writings o f Thomas
Chalmers, D.D., LL. D. New York: Harper, 275-276.

52
 premillennialist ministry, focused very much on speaking in tongues. As a
result, he became a key functionary in the Albury conferences and the
revivalist milieu of the early 19th century.
Much has been said about James Hatley Frere and his prophetical
interpretation and the fact that Irving’s invitation to preach for the Continental
Society in 1825 led to his meeting with Frere. However, he had previously
developed a communication with Henry Drummond that a year later would
materialize into the first Albury conference. In the words of Oliphant, “This
Society was held up and maintained from its commencement by the nervous
strength of Henry Drummond, a man already known to the preacher, over
whose later course he was to exercise so great an influence.”20921021It was perhaps
Irving’s great weakness that he was open to new and innovative aspects of
eschatology; therefore, his chance meeting with Frere was to develop in him a
hankering after prophetical interpretation and premillennialism. Oliphant
continues:
Mr. Hatley Frere, one of the most sedulous of those prophetical
students .. . had propounded a new scheme of interpretation, for
which, up to this time, he had been unable to secure the ear of the
religious public .. . When Irving, all ingenuous and ready to be taught,
was suddenly brought into contact with him, the student of prophecy
identified him by an instant intuition. - “Here is the man!” he explained
to him self... and the result was that Mr. Frere gained a disciple and
expositor; and that an influence fatal to his future leisure, and of the
most momentous importance to his future destiny . . . took possession
of Irving’s thoughts.“

Edward Irving’s publication Babylon and Infidelity Foredoomed o f God was

published in 1828. In the Preface, Irving stated that “we are within forty years
of the millennium.”212 He dedicated his book to his “beloved friend and
brother in Christ, Hatley Frere . .. ashamed at my [Irving’s] own ignorance,

209 Brown, David. Personal Reminiscences, 216.

2111Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett,
(Second Edition), 220.
211 Ibid., 221-222.
212 Irving, Edward. 1828. Babylon and infidelity foredoomed o f God: a discourse on the
prophecies o f Daniel and the apocalypse, which relate to these latter times. Philadelphia:
Church Missionary House, preface. Note: This work was extracted from a larger work in
two volumes containing a dedication to James Hatley Frere.

53
 and again resolved to consider the matter; after which I had no rest in my spirit
until I waited upon you and offered myself as your pupil, to be instructed in
213
prophecy according to your ideas thereof.”
If Hatley Frere was Irving’s mentor in prophecy then Alexander J.
Scott can be considered his mentor in spiritual gifts. A critique of A. J. Scott
presents a considerable problem. Margaret Oliphant discussed him extensively
in the “First Edition” of her work The Life o f Edward Irving, dated 1862. That
same year she published a “Second Edition,” with a retraction in the Preface
and the narrative on Scott removed. The Preface to the First Edition was dated
April 1862 and that of the Second Edition October 1862. Mrs. Oliphant
explained the reason for the deletion of the narrative pertaining to Scott. “1
was not conscious that I had said anything of Professor Scott of Manchester,
which might not be said of a public man with offence or wrong; but as it
appears that many competent judges think otherwise, 1 take the earliest
opportunity of withdrawing every expression of my own opinion of his
character from these pages.”213214 Such a retraction would be understandable for
a biographer to make were it not for a similar incident that occurred in the
Expositor.
David Brown, who succeeded Mr. Scott as Assistant to Irving at
Regents Square Church, wrote an article in the Expositor entitled: “Personal
Reminiscences of Edward Irving.” This article was dated September 1887, and
it too referenced the work of Margaret Oliphant regarding Scott.215 However,
it must be supposed that as the replacement for Scott who worked intimately
with Irving, he would have had firsthand knowledge of Scott. In the
subsequent issue of the Expositor, Brown also made a retraction of what he
had said about Scott.216 The text that had aroused so much opposition
regarding his character was as follows:
Alexander Scott, now of Manchester, the son of Dr. Scott, of
Greenock, a licentiate of the Scotch Church—man whose powerful,

213 Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett,
(Second Edition), 226.
214 Ibid. Preface to the Second Edition.
215 Brown, David. Personal Reminiscences, 219.
216 Brown, David. The Expositor. Vol. VI. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1887, 472.

54
 willful, and fastidious mind has produced upon all other capable minds
and impression of force and ability which no practical result has yet
carried out. A Scotch probationer, but character recalcitrant and of
accordance with every standard but his own, this remarkable man, then
young, and in a position in which any great thing might be prophesied
of his visible powers, attracted, I cannot tell how, notwithstanding his
total dissimilarity and accordance, the regard of Irving.2172189

In the summer of 1828, Irving made a trip to Scotland and preached a

sermon in the town of Row. There he met Alexander J. Scott, who impressed
him immensely. Irving invited Scott to join him in his ministry in London
“entirely unfettered by any pledge as to doctrine . . . ” Scott’s doctrine that
was to remain “unfettered” was that the charismata of the early church had not
died but should be enjoyed by the church of all ages. Irving would date his
introduction into the ministry of the gifts of the Spirit to 1828 and his meeting
with Scott: “And as we went out and in together, he used often to signify to
me his conviction that the spiritual gifts ought still to be exercised in the
Church; that we are at liberty, and indeed bound, to pray for them as being
baptized into the assurance of the ‘gift of the Holy Ghost,’ as well as of
‘repentance and remission of sins.’” Scott became Assistant to Irving.
However, “Mr. Scott’s influence did not end here,” continued Mrs.
Oliphant.220 Mr. Campbell of Row had developed a considerable ministry in
Scotland and through this ministry had come in contact with a “young woman
who was lying ill of a consumption, from which afterward, when brought to
the very door of death she was raised up instantaneously by the mighty hand
of G od.. . . By this young woman it was that God, not many months after, did
restore the gift of the speaking with tongues and prophesying in the
church.”221 Irving explained that he was present with Scott on this occasion
and was witness to the events that occurred at that time. Thus, Edward Irving

217 Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett,
(First Edition), 312.
218 Ibid., 362.
219 Facts connected with recent Manifestations o f Spiritual Gifts, published in Fraser's
Magazine for January, 1882, quoted by Oliphant. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister
o f the National Scotch church, London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence.
London: Hurst and Blackett, 363.
220 Ibid.

55
 embraced the ministry of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including speaking in
tongues, through the meeting with Scott in 1828 and this occurrence through
Campbell’s ministry in Scotland. Though there is no record of Irving himself
speaking in tongues, this decisive turn in his ministry would eventually lead to
his expulsion from the Caledonian Chapel in London.
Irving’s ecclesiology had become moulded by those he had put his
trust in, but some of these very persons had themselves been deluded over the
gifts of the Holy Spirit. In speaking of the prophets and prophetesses that had
informed and influenced Irving’s doctrine, “Mr. Baxter and Miss Hall soon
retired, and pronounced that they had been under a delusion.”221222 Miss Hall had
first “sung in the Spirit” on April 30, 1831, at the home of a Mr. Cardale223
and then at the Caledonian Chapel on Sunday, October 16, 1831, leading to
“the confusion in the congregation of some 1500 or 2000 persons, as they
listened to the ‘sudden doleful, and unintelligible sounds’ . . . the news of the
scene in the church in the morning ran rapidly through London. In the
evening, a large crowd assembled, and, on the opening of the doors, rushed
into the church.”224 This new ministry with an emphasis on the apostolic gifts
was to lead to the expulsion of Irving by the London Presbytery on May 2,
1832.225 However, Irving was also ordained by the Church of Scotland in
Annan, and on March 13, 1833, the Annan Presbytery revoked his ordination.
Mrs. Oliphant records the two events:
Before the hasty and reckless Presbytery of London he had defended
himself against the imputation of having suffered unauthorised persons
to speak in his church. The Presbytery of Annan, who had ordained

221 Ibid.
222 Miller, Edward. 1878. The history and doctrines ofIrvingism: or o f the so-called Catholic
and Apostolic Church. London: C. Kegan Paul, 75.
223 Ibid., 66.
224 Ibid., 69-70.
225 “On May 2, 1832, sentence of expulsion was pronounced on Irving by the Presbytery of
London, partly on a charge of heretical doctrine, partly on account of the manifestations
which he had allowed in his church, and on the following Sunday the doors of his church
in Regent Square were closed against him by the trustees. For a time his adherents found a
refuge in a room in Gray’s Inn Road, where Robert Owen had been used to lecture. Soon
they removed to a more commodious building in Newman Street, which was opened on
October 24, 1832, as the first Irvingite Church, and continued to be their head-quarters till
the dedication of the magnificent edifice in Gordon Square on Christmas Eve, 1853.”
Church Quarterly, The. October 1878 - January 1879. Vol. VII. London: Spottiswoode &
Co., 1879, 39.

56
 him, now called him to their bar to answer the charge of holding
heretical doctrine: viz., the sinfulness of our Lord’s humanity.226

Mrs. Oliphant also records in her biography of Irving that with the exception
of Dr. Duncan, “a man of universally acknowledged eminence and high
character,”227 the Annan Presbytery was made up of “homely old men, half
fanners, half ministers . . . without a single qualification for deciding any
question which required clear heads and practiced intelligence. . . .”22829Irving,
allowed to defend himself against the charges brought against him, delivered a
lavish speech quoting from the 40th Psalm, but the Presbytery had already
reached their verdict that he was guilty of heresy.
Irving had moved his family into a house on Newman Street, London,
and this became the centre for his new church, which was to bear the title of
the Catholic Apostolic Church. Irving’s Christology was radically different
from that of the Plymouth Brethren, who held that “the humanity of Christ was
not that of man, fallen or unfallen.” According to Edward Irving, “Christ took
our fallen nature.”230 Christ, in becoming man, “submitted Himself to the very
condition of a sinner,”231 taking “Himself the substance of fallen Adam .. .”232
“But if, on the other hand, Christ took not our substance in its fallen, but in its
unfallen state, and brought this unto glory, then nothing whatever hath been
proved with respect to fallen creatures such as we are.”233 Christ took on our
fallen nature, yet did not sin. “But Peter is not ashamed to say of the man Jesus
Christ, ‘He did no sin.’”234 According to Irving, Christ took on the sinful flesh
of the sinful nature of Adam and lived within sinful humanity to redeem
humankind.

226 Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett,
11:339.
227 Ibid., 341.
228 Ibid.
229 Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett,
(Second Edition), 316.
230 Irving, Edward and Edward Irving. 1865. Miscellanies from [his] collected writings.
London: A. Strahan. 115.
23' Ibid., 28.
232 Ibid., 59.
233 Ibid., 158.
234 Ibid., 36.

57
 Irving’s eschatology was premillennial, with a “personal reign of
Christ” during the millennium. He explained: “And an earlier father, I think
Justin Martyr, says, that those in his time who were altogether orthodox
believed in the Millennium, during which Christ’s kingdom was to be set up,
and Christ personally to reign on earth. Papias, also, to whom the opposers of
the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s personal reign are pleased to trace what they
call the absurdity of Millenarianism... .”235

The Catholic Apostolic Church

The formation of the Catholic Apostolic Church occurred as follows.
In 1832, “as a result of the ‘prophetic revelations,’ certain men were regarded
as called to the office of apostle. Others were added from time to time, until, in
1835, twelve in all had been chosen, corresponding to the original Apostolate.
. .. Among them were men of some prominence, including Henry Drummond,
Esq., a banker and distinguished member of Parliament; the Rev. Nicholas
Armstrong, a clergyman of the Church of England,. . . and Mr. Percival, son
of a prime minister of England.”236 The Church Quarterly Review of 1878-
1879 provides the full list of the Apostles of the Catholic Apostolic Church; it
is worth noting that Drummond, Tudor, and Percival all attended the 1826
Albury conference and that Thomas Carlyle was Irving’s boyhood friend from
Annan, Scotland.
“The following is a list of the Apostles237 and of the districts to which
they were called, answering to the twelve tribes of Israel.”238

235 Irving, Edward. 1829. Exposition of the book o f Revelation, in a series o f lectures. Catholic
Apostolic Church collection. London: Baldwin and Cradock, 28-29.
236 Religious Bodies: 1906. Department of Commerce and Labor Bureau of Census. Part II.
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1910, 180.
237 “The restoration of the office of apostle was the characteristic feature of the movement.
After many unsuccessful attempts they [the Catholic Apostolic Church] succeeded by the
divine illumination of the prophets in calling twelve apostles, as chief rulers, and stewards
of the church, evangelists and pastor (or angels, Rev. ii. 1, 8, etc.) were ordained in
accordance with Eph. iv. 11; and subordinate to the pastors, there were appointed six
elders and as many deacons, so that the office bearers of each congregation embraced
thirteen persons, after the example of Christ and His twelve disciples.” Kurtz, J. H., and
John Macpherson. 1890. Church history. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, III, 440.
238 Church Quarterly, The. October 1878 to January 1879. Vol. VII. London: Spottiswoode &
Co. 1879,39.

58
John Bates Cardale, Esq. England & Wales Judah
Henry Drummond, Esq. Switzerland & Scotland Benjamin
John Tudor, Esq. India & Poland Ephraim
Spencer Percival, Esq. Italy Manasseh
Rev. John Armstrong, Esq. Ireland & Greece Zebulon
Rev. H. Dalton France Asher
Francis Sitwell, Esq. Spain & Portugal Naphtali
William King Church, Esq. Denmark & Holland Issachar
Thomas Carlyle, Esq. North Germany Simeon
Francis V. Woodhouse, Esq. Austria Reuben
Rev. W. Dow Russia Dan
David Dow, Esq. Norway & Sweden Gad

The Catholic Apostolic Church embraced the gifts of the Holy Spirit in
line with Irving’s ministry and the role of the apostle as the chief ruler was to
authenticate the gifts. According to Columba Flegg, .. the Catholic
Apostolics accepted the words spoken ecstatically by their prophets and
authenticated by their apostles to be directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Two
particular forms of ecstatic speaking were a regular feature of the Catholic
Apostolics in their early days: speaking in unknown tongues, and
interpretation of tongues and of passages of Scripture; both were regarded as
an activity of the Holy Spirit.”239 By what authority and qualification the
apostles were able to validate the gifts of the Holy Spirit has to be questioned,
since they were called upon to keep records of all “words spoken
ecstatically.”240 As Flegg remarks, the “majority of the apostles and other
writers had had a secular training rather than a theological one.”241 One is left
with the impression that the apostle had an onerous task in that, while not
being either theologically or linguistically trained, they were required to
record the speaking of tongues, which by definition were unknown
phenomena in records containing known phenomena. Such confusion is
reflective of the ministry accepted and perpetuated by Irving.
The strong Jewish tendency is manifested not only in the twelve
apostles who mimic the twelve tribes of Israel but also in the Eucharist, since

239 Flegg, Columba Graham. 1992. “Gathered under apostles”: a study of the Catholic
Apostolic Church. Oxford [England]: Clarendon Press, 30.
240 Ibid.
241 Ibid., 29. Flcgg qualifies the nature of “secular training” as being well versed in the
Classical languages, as well as being familiar with contemporary theology.

59
 the “Elements are kept in Tabernacles, with a light burning in front. . . [and]
Tithes is, as a moral duty, rigidly enforced. Each member is expected to
contribute one-tenth of his income to the purposes of the Church.”242
The limited amount of factual information that proceeded from the
1826 Albury conference precludes our having any definitive understanding of
the exact nature of what was discussed and the tone of the meetings. However,
much can be understood of the content of the meetings through the
ecclesiology of the attendees. Regarding Edward Irving, he did leave his
ministry with the Caledonian Chapel and hence the Church of Scotland, but
this cannot be said to be a mark of secession. The action of the London
Presbytery and the revocation of his ordination by the Annan Presbytery
necessitated his leaving their ministry. For all his gifts of ministry, Irving must
be considered somewhat naive, particularly in his relationship with Alexander
J. Scott. Should Irving, in choosing Scott to be his assistant, have given him
free reign with regard to his doctrines? Would Irving’s ministry have
continued to expand and be mightily used by the Lord had he not been
introduced to the spiritual gifts through Scott? His greatness in oratorical skills
and his charisma as a person, together with his education, won him an
enormous and powerful congregation at the Chapel. Did this create in his mind
the idea that God was working powerfully through his ministry to the point
that he could embrace novel ecclesiology that included speaking in tongues
and a prophetical dispensational millenarianism? The evidence suggests that
this was the case. While Irving may be considered naive and infatuated with
his ministerial success, he did not voluntarily secede from the Established
Church.243 Unlike Darby, he was not a secessionist.
The 1826 Albury conference can best be understood in the context of
the ecclesiology and eschatology of Edward Irving, who was present. The

242 Miller, Edward. 1878. The history and doctrines oflrvingism: or o f the so-called Catholic
and Apostolic Church. London: C. Kegan Paul, 324, 325.
243 James Morgan expands on this thought. In speaking of Edward Irving, he remarks: “He
was delivering mighty and majestic discourses on the great doctrines and duties of the
Gospel; but, whether intoxicated by popularity, or only following his erratic though noble
genius, he began to drift away from the full channel of truth, and got in among many
dangerous shoals and breakers.” Morgan, James. 1874. Recollections o f my life and limes;
an autobiography, with selections from his journal. Belfast: William Mullan, 21.

60
 eschatology embraced the prophetical and historical timing and chronology of
the Second Advent, meticulously worked out in fine detail and adjusted, as in
the case of the 2300 or 2400 years, by Irving’s mentor, James Hatley Frere.
But Frere had been in dialogue with William Cunninghame, the former
choosing a 2400-year period and the latter, 2300 years. Henry Drummond, the
banker and supporter of Irving, would become one of the apostles,
representing the tribe of Benjamin in the Apostolic Catholic Church. The
future condition of the Jews was one of the subjects discussed at Albury. The
Reverend Hugh McNeile echoed a common thought: “To the study of
prophecy, we are thus indirectly indebted for the re-examination of many
important doctrines which had been allowed to fall into comparative
neglect.”244 Irving presented a similar argument regarding spiritual gifts: “. ..
just as the verdure and leaves and flowers and fruits of the spring cease in
winter, because, by the chill and wintry blasts which have blown over the
Church, her power to put forth her glorious beauty hath been prevented,”245
so spiritual gifts may have gone through winter in the church, but summer
would come when these gifts would be revived.246 Tragically for Irving, he
thought that summer had indeed come for speaking in tongues. For McNeile,
winter and summer pertained to prophecy, while for Irving the metaphor
applied to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The 1826 Albury prophetical conferences were important in their own
right, but they gave birth to others, including the Powerscourt prophetical
conferences that were to reflect very much the ecclesiology of the Plymouth
Brethren and John Nelson Darby.

244 McNeile, Hugh. 1840. Prospects o f the Jews; or, A series o f popular lectures on the
prophecies relative to the Jewish nation. Philadelphia: O. Rogers, preface.
245 Irving, Edward and Edward Irving. 1865. Miscellanies from [his] collected writings.
London: A. Strahan, 421.
246 “The Church of Christ is recovering from a long sleep . . . ” Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life
o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church, London. Illustrated by his
journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett, (Second Edition), 148.

61
 The Powerscourt prophetical conferences
Lady Theodosia Anne Powerscourt was a deeply religious person. Her
letters247 reflect little of her own life but demonstrate a simple reliance upon
the Bible. Baroness Nairne was very much impressed with The Letters and
Papers o f the Late Theodosia A. Powerscourt, remarking: “We read a letter of
Lady Powerscourt daily, and generally a hymn of Miss Fry’s. She [Baroness
Nairne the writer] liked these books because of the boundless love to His
people, His choice of them from all eternity, and the certainty of forgiveness
of sin . . ,”248
Lady Powerscourt was born of an aristocratic family. Her father was
Hugh Howard (Viscount Wicklow), and she herself was the second wife of
Richard Wingfield, the fifth Viscount Powerscourt. Her marriage was on June
29, 1822, and she died a widow in Dublin on December 31, 1836.249 Thus the
Powerscourt prophetical conferences occurred toward the latter part of her life.
By nature Lady Powerscourt was highly eclectic. Her minister and biographer
was the Rev. Robert Daly, Rector of Powerscourt and later Bishop of Cashel;
however, she later seceded from the Established Church, becoming a member
of the Plymouth Brethren at Aungier Street.250 She was deeply immersed in
biblical prophecy, looking for the end of the world and the restoration of the
Jewish nation. A year before her death, she wrote her missive entitled Lady
Powerscourt’s Questions for 1835. The narrative included the following rather
precise remarks: “Monday, 5 o’clock, September 7th, 1835.—What will be the
history of the remnant after the return of the Jews? what the measure of
renovation of the earth in the millennium? . . . Wednesday.—Does each
dispensation end in apostasy only? or, is the dispensation revived in a remnant,
the rejection of which consummates the apostasy?”251

247 Powerscourt, Theodosia A., and Robert Daly. 1845. Letters and papers o f the late
Theodosia A., viscountess Powerscourt. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley.
24tt Naime, Carolina Oliphant, Caroline Oliphant, and Charles Rogers. 1905. Life and songs o f
the Baroness Nairne: with a memoir and poems o f Caroline Oliphant the younger.
Edinburgh: J. Grant, 77.
249 Howard, Joseph Jackson, and Frederick Arthur Crisp. 1897. Visitation o f Ireland.
[London]: Priv. print, 57.
250 Madden, Hamilton. 1875. Memoir o f the late Right Rev. Robert Daly, D. D.,Lord Bishop o f
Cashel. London: J. Nisbet & Co, 157.
251 British Magazine, The. Vol. X. London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1836, 481-482.

62
 What prompted Lady Powerscourt to establish an Irish prophetical
conference appears uncertain. One source states that she attended an Albury
conference: “Among the devout and honourable women who attended the
Albury conferences in great numbers, was the Countess of Powerscourt. She
was so delighted with them that she established a similar series of meetings at
Powerscourt House .. .”252253Unfortunately, there are questions as to the
reliability of this source. The author puts the start date of the Albury
i n

conferences at 1827 instead of the correct year of 1826. He also places “a

great number of women” at this conference, when it has been established that
there were only around twenty men in attendance. Hamilton Madden, the
biographer for Robert Daly, presents a conflicting argument, stating that Lady
Powerscourt attended one of the Albury conferences, but then adding that the
first prophetical conference at Powerscourt House was in 1827.254 It would be
fair to say that Lady Powerscourt may have attended an Albury conference,
but support for this argument is not conclusive.
It is generally agreed that the date for the first Powerscourt conference
was October 4-7, 1831; this is on the strength of an article in the Christian
Herald following the second conference from September 24-28, 1832. On
October 15, Darby wrote a letter from Ireland to a brother in Plymouth,255 in
which he says, “It will be impossible to give you any sketch of the matter here
”256 j] ie consensus view is that “here” has reference to the second
Powerscourt conference, which was followed by a letter addressed to the
editor of the Christian Herald that is understood to be from Darby. The letter

25~ Littell’s Living Age. Fifth Series, Volume LII. Boston: Littell and Co., 1885, 348.
253 “Thus in the year 1827 a series of prophetical meetings were established at Albury Park in
Surrey . . . ” Ibid.
254 “An interesting account is given in the memoir of the Rev. Edward Irving of some
meetings which were held in the year 1826, at Albury, the seat of Henry Drummond, Esq.
Lady Powerscourt was present at these meetings, as appears from a letter to Mr. Daly, of
which the following is an extract: ‘I am going to the prophets’ meeting at Mr.
Drummond’s . . . No arguments are to me stronger than yours, so much so that I always
conclude I have strong grounds for an opinion if it is not shaken by your arguments to the
contrary.’ They appear to have suggested to her the idea of holding similar ‘discussions’ at
Powerscourt House, which she did in the autumn of the year 1827 . . . ” Madden, Hamilton.
1875. Memoir o f the late Right Rev. Robert Daly, D. D, .Lord Bishop o f Cashel. London:
J. Nisbet & Co, 150.
255 Darby, John Nelson. Writings, letters, Vol. 1. Number 2.
256 Ibid.

63
 certainly reflects the tone of a prophetical meeting, and there is no reason to
doubt the authenticity of the dates given for the conferences. However, there is
a conflict with another letter dated October 13, 1830, and sent from London by
Edward Irving to his sister. In this letter Irving states that he had just been to
Ireland and stayed with Lady Powerscourt. “When the Countess of
Powerscourt, after her noble and Christian entertainment of us, thought it good
to bring us in her own carriage to the waterside at Kingstown .. ,”257 Since
Irving wrote a letter to his wife from Albury on July 2, 1830, we conclude he
was with Lady Powerscourt between July 2 and October 13, 1830. While with
Lady Powerscourt, Mrs. Irving wrote an undated letter to her sister in which
she discussed her husband: “On Wednesday he attended a clerical meeting;
upward of thirty clergymen, some laymen, and a few ladies present.”258
If the view generally held by most scholars was that the first
Powerscourt conference was held October 4-7, 1831, Irving’s letters
demonstrate that he was at Powerscourt a year earlier, in 1830. Either the first
Powerscourt conference was held not in 1831 but in 1830, or Irving and his
family were merely on holiday in Ireland in 1830 staying with Lady
Powerscourt. The evidence suggests that the latter is more plausible, for a
number of reasons. In the letter sent from Powerscourt by Mrs. Irving to her
sister, she makes the following comments:
We landed about 10 P.M. on the Dublin quay; so we went to a hotel for
the night, and next forenoon proceeded to Powerscourt. Here we met a
kind, hearty welcome . . . Next morning we drove out a few miles to
visit a waterfall. . . On our return at three o’clock, there was a great
gathering to hear Edward preach. After dinner, Lady Powerscourt and
Edward set out to a Mr. Kelly’s, near Dublin, where he met many
clergymen. On Sabbath he preached twice in Dublin; on Monday he
again preached twice, and came here to a late dinner; there were
several clergymen to meet him. Tuesday he preached at Bray. On
Wednesday he attended a clerical meeting; upwards of thirty
clergymen, some laymen, and a few ladies present. . . . On Thursday

257 Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National Scotch church,
London. Illustrated by his journals and correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett,
(Second Edition), 152.
258 Ibid., 150.

64
 morning we went together and attended a meeting of the Bible society
at Wicklow. Edward preached thirteen times in eight days.259

That there was a clerical meeting is quite obvious, but it is also apparent that
Irving was not attending a four-day conference at Powerscourt, but was simply
going out to preach each day. Since the conferences occurred for two
successive years, the dates 1831 and 1832 are sustainable.
Returning to the question of why Lady Powerscourt initiated an Irish
prophetical conference, it appears highly likely that Edward Irving was
acquainted with her prior to 183 0.260*Already enraptured with the prophesied
nearness of the end of the world and encouraged by Irving’s thirteen preaching
engagements, Lady Powerscourt then felt the need to develop a prophetical
conference along the lines of Albury. As for Irving, motivated by his
successful speaking engagement in the fall of 1830, he returned the following
year and attended the first Irish Powerscourt conference October 4-7, 1831.
Mrs. Irving’s letter records that Edward preached twice in Dublin in 1830.
This appears plausible since Powerscourt House, situated in Bray, was little
more than ten miles from Dublin, the location of the Aungier Street Brethren
assembly. Did Irving preach at Aungier Street, and if so did he meet Darby?
With the expansion of the Plymouth Brethren, along with Irving’s successful
preaching tour in 1830, it seems natural that these would be followed by a
prophetical conference in 1831 similar to Albury. It is to the content of that
first prophetical conference that I now turn.
The Powerscourt conferences were organized much like the Albury
conferences. They were attended by clergy and laity, as well as dissenters.
Irving, Darby, Bellett, C.V. Wigram, Percy Hall Henry Craik, Mr. Synge of
Glanmore Castle, Mr. Muller, and Edward Denny were among the members

2<’° Mrs. Hamilton Madden makes the following comment: “An interesting account is given in
the Memoir of the Rev. Edward Irving of some meetings which were held in the year
1826, at Albury, the seat of Henry Drummond, Esq. Lady Powerscourt was present at
these meetings, as appears from a letter to Mr. Daly, of which the following is an extract:-
‘I am going to the prophets’ meeting at Mr. Drummond’s . . . No arguments are to me
stronger than yours, so much so that I always conclude I have strong grounds for an
opinion if it is not shaken by your argument to the contrary.’ They appear to have
suggested to her the idea of holding similar ‘discussions’ at Powerscourt House . . . ”
Madden, Hamilton. 1875. Memoir o f the Right Rev. Robert Daly, 150.

65
 that attended one or more of the conferences. At the first Powerscourt
conference, which appears to have been organized in 1831, the moderator was
Robert Daly, who took the chair. “A subject was arranged for consideration
each day, and a copy of the proceedings given to each person. The meetings
were begun and concluded with prayer.”261 The subjects that were discussed
included the soon-expected Second Advent, the nature of the Antichrist,
unanimously regarded as “a personal antichrist,”262 the nature of the Jewish
nation, the restoration of spiritual gifts, and prophetical interpretation, with
particular emphasis on Daniel and to a lesser extent Revelation. The views of
Edward Irving were held in high esteem, particularly his prophetical
contribution to the understanding of the impending Second Advent. He
strongly opposed dissent, favouring support of the Established Church.263 His
views of the restoration of spiritual gifts, however, were divisive. Daly was
particularly vociferous concerning his doctrines and expressed his concerns in
a letter to a Christian friend sent from Dublin, dated April 20: “I feel a great
deal for the state the Lord’s Church is in, yet 1 cannot think that really
Christian people will be long left in the fundamental errors of Irvingism.. . . I
ought first to know your doctrines before 1 enquire even into your pretensions
to gifts.”264 The same sentiment was shared by the article that has been
attributed to J. N. Darby: “There was but one individual who introduced
anything which could have given pain to any on these subjects; and that was a
reference to the reception o f ‘the gilts’ and the principles connected with
„265

The second Powerscourt conference that convened September 24-28,

1832, tended to be more divisive. Robert Daly’s speech given at the end of this
conference hinted at extreme controversy, with reference made to the
Plymouth Brethren: “I must say in truth that 1 do feel my mind so harassed

262 Christian Herald, The. 1831.

261 Morgan, James. 1874. Recollections o f my life and times; an autobiography, with
selections from his journal. Belfast: William Mullan, 21. Note: The author adds the
following comment regarding Irving and members at the first Powerscourt conference:
“They found his views on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper kindred to their own. He went
much farther than many of them did or yet do.” Ibid.
264 Madden, Hamilton. 1875. Memoir o f the Right Rev. Robert Daly, 152.

66
 with all that his passed, that instead of saying anything more, 1 think it best to
ask forgiveness for all the evil that has crept in among us through our
defilement and infirmity . .. and if, in the various observations which have
been made (this evening particularly), there have been great differences of
opinion upon what appear to be fundamental points of doctrine . . . when 1see
before me the prospect of such divisions in the Church, when I think of those
being separated upon earth . . . Better to depart and be with Christ.”265266 The
Rev. Peter Roe, rector of Odogh and St. Mary’s Kilkenny, found that “. .. the
consideration of prophetical subjects . . . upon the whole was unprofitable.
Many of the subjects were evidently difficult to be understood.”267
The record of the third and last conference to be organized at
Powerscourt House268 is covered in greater detail in the letters of Henry Craik
( 1805- 1866). Bom in Scotland, Craik was associated with George Midler and
the early Brethren movement and was a tutor for the family of Anthony Norris
Groves. Henry Craik’s diary entries for the third Powerscourt conference,
which convened September 23- 28, 1833, are far more illuminating and are
given here in full:
Monday, 23rd September.—Arrived at Powerscourt from Glanmore
about 1, and met for the breaking of bread. . . . In the evening, we
considered the difference between the Everlasting Covenant and the
Covenant of the Lord. Tuesday, 24 September, 1833.—Is the visible
Christian Church founded on the basis of the Jewish: What is the
nature of the ministry and ordinances of the former? Are the promises
to either, or both, conditional? Wednesday, 25th September, 1833.—
The analogy between the close of this dispensation and the former.
What is Mystic Babylon? Is the call out of her to be a Divine call at a
set period, or is it a perpetual call? Thursday, 26th September, 1833.-
What is the connection between the present and the future
dispensation? Friday, 27th. September, 1833. The Temptations of
Satan. Saturday, 28th. September, 1833.— Heard Brother Muller
expound in the morning, after which we had the Lord’s Supper at Lady
Powerscourt’s. Took leave and came to Dublin.269

265 Christian Herald, The. 1831.

266 Madden, Hamilton. 1875. Memoir o f the Right Rev. Robert Daly, 154.
267 Madden, Samuel. 1842. Memoir o f the life o f the late Rev. Peter R o e... with copious
extracts from his correspondence, diaries, and other remains. Dublin: W. Curry, Jun. and
Company; [etc.], 445.
268 Subsequent to this date a number of conferences were held at another venue.
269 Ibid., 168, 169.

67
 It now remains to draw conclusions from the two conferences.

Conclusions from the Albury and Powerscourt conferences

One of those that attended Albury 1826 was S. R. Maitland. Such
delegates as Frere, Irving, and Drummond were still maintaining historicism;
however, as David Bebbington points out:
[In] 1826 there appeared a book arguing strongly for a futurist
interpretation of Revelation in order to undermine all millenarian
notions. The unintended effect of this work by S. R. Maitland, the
future historian, was to inspire an alternative tradition of millennial
thought. At Albury, Maitland’s theory that Revelation was yet to be
fulfilled, was already being canvassed, and by 1843 half a dozen other
writers had taken the field in favour of the same principle.. . . But the
most significant figure to adopt a form of futurist premillennialism was
J. N. Darby . . . He steadily elaborated the view that the predictions of
Revelation would be fulfilled after believers had been caught up to
meet Christ in the air, the so called ‘rapture.’

Irving himself was greatly influenced by his translation of Lacunza’s

The Coming o f Messiah in Glory and Majesty (1827) and shifted his view
from historicism to futurism.*271 Thus at Albury there was a tension and
division along two distinct lines of interpretation, namely, historicism and
futurism. Powerscourt tended to follow more along the line of futurism, as
explained by George Eldon Ladd: “It was in these Powerscourt meetings that
some of the characteristic doctrines of ‘Darbyism’ can be discovered for the
first time. Out of this revival of interest in prophetic truth came two new
interpretations: futurism and ‘Darbyism.’”272 Ladd is also in agreement with
Bebbington in ascribing futurism to Maitland: “The rediscovery of futurism is

210 Bebbington, D. W. 1989. Evangelicalism in modern Britain: a history from the 1730s to
the 1980s. London: Routledge, 85, 86.
271 “After this the family tree of the futurist view is easy to follow. Edward Irving (1792-1834)
was the man who translated Lacunza’s book into English. He was a Church of Scotland
minister, he was involved in the Albury Park prophecy conferences. He taught extensively
the ideas found in Lacunza’s book. The Plymouth Brethren supported these views and one
of their leaders, J.N. Darby (1800-1882), further promoted these ideas with a splash of his
own ideas added.” Molles, Brad. 2004. The Beast and the Bride. Interpreting Revelation in
the light o f history. Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press, 8. “Edward Irving, an influential pastor
within the Church of Scotland . . . Unfortunately, he accepted Ribera’s futurism and even
translated the of book of a Spanish Jesuit Scholar.” Weber, Martin. 2002. Desecration,
danger, deliverance: what the Bible realty says about the Rapture. Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald Pub. Association, 47.
272 Ladd, George Eldon. 1956. The blessed hope. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 37.

68
 associated with the names of S. R. Maitland, James Todd, and William
Burgh.”273 Bebbington adds his thoughts to those of Ladd: “But the most
significant figure to adopt a form of futurist premillennialism was J. N. Darby,
the fertile mind behind another adventist sect, the Brethren.”274 Herbert
Douglass offers insight into futurism at Powerscourt: “Hard as it is to believe,
several scholars of the famous Powerscourt meetings (much to the protest of
their colleagues) advocated this new position as an important ingredient in
their developing outline of a brand new premillennialism. It seemed to be the
incentive that two other struggling ideas needed: (1) futurism, the concept that
the seventieth week of Daniel 9 and the prophecies of Revelation 4 to 22 were
yet future events to be completed during the seven years immediately
preceding the return of Jesus in judgment and (2) Darby’s
dispensationalism.”275 David Faust, quoting from the Dictionary o f
Premillennialism, states that “The Powerscourt Conferences of 1831 to 1833
most probably moved Darby from his earlier historicist premillennialism to
futurist premillennialism.”276
Whereas Ladd prefers to use the phrase “new interpretations: futurism
and ‘Darbyism,’” Richard Landes understands Darby more in the light of
promoting futurism. “Besides promoting these standard futurist doctrines,
Darby’s main accomplishment was the introduction of a new method of
dividing history into ‘dispensations,’ or eras marked by changes in God’s
revelation to humanity, and analyzing scripture and prophecy within the
9^277
framework of the dispensations.”
The subject of spiritual gifts in general was highly controversial
especially speaking in tongues, which was divisive. Edward Irving, mentored
by Alexander C. Scott, popularized the matter of gifts, maintaining that they
were part of the New Testament church but had lain dormant only to be

273 Ibid.
274 Bebbington, David W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain. A History from the 1730's to the
1980’s. New York: Routledge, 1989, 85.
275 Ibid.
276 Faust, J. D. 2002. The Rod: Will God Spare It? Haycsville, N.C: Schocttle Publishing Co.,
361. Note: see also: Floyd Elmore. “Darby, John Nelson.” Dictionary ofpremillennial
theology, 1997, Mai Couch, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 83.

69
 resurrected in latter times. The divisiveness ultimately fractured Irving’s
ministry with the presbytery of the Caledonian Chapel and led to the
establishment of the Catholic Apostolic Church. There is no record of any
contention over spiritual gifts at the first Albury conference, partly attributable
to the fact that Irving received support from Henry Drummond, Spencer
Percival, and John Tudor, three of the attendees at Albury 1926 who would
later become Apostles in the Catholic Apostolic Church. The gifts of the Spirit
and speaking in tongues caused far more reaction at the first Powerscourt
conference and among churchmen in general. Robert Daly and J. N. Darby
were particularly critical of Irving at Powerscourt. Peter Roe met Irving in
London in September 1830 and recorded his sentiments in his journal: “He
[Irving] expressed his decided opinion that the miraculous gifts which were
conferred upon the Apostles would never have been taken from the Church,
but for her unfaithfulness.. . . How a man of education, understanding, and
piety, could sanction such enthusiasm appears very strange.”27278 Roe, in
another journal entry dated December 31, 1831, with an obvious reference to
Irving, commented on tongues and miracles which were so distracting: “I
believe the whole to be a delusion, and a work highly approved by the Prince
of Darkness.”279
In a letter to a Lady dated November 12, 1831, Roe is particular and to
the point: “I have no hesitation in saying, that the miracles so called, and the
boasted gift of tongues, are the result of an awful delusion . . . I have no
hesitation in saying, that the proceeding in Mr. Irving’s Chapel are
dishonouring to the Christian name and character.. . . The whole from
• „280
beginning to end, is a delusion.” Edward Irving defends his view of spiritual
gifts: “Therefore it is nothing to be doubted that tongues are a great instrument
for personal edification, however mysterious it may seem to us; and they are
on that account greatly to be desired, altogether independently of their being a

277 Landes, Richard Allen. 2000. Encyclopedia o f millennialism and millennial movements.
Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society. New York: Routledge, 348.
278 Madden, Samuel. 1842. Memoir o f the life o f the late Rev. Peter R o e... with copious
extracts from his correspondence, diaries, and other remains. Dublin: W. Curry, Jun, and
Company; [etc.], 443.
279 Ibid., 444.

70
 sign unto others.. . . It is not material to the question whether these tongues
were tongues of men or of angels . . .”280281 Others too are defensive of the use of
spiritual gifts. E. P. Barrows in speaking of Irving asked why we should be so
“perplexed with the Pentecostal gift of tongues . . . [since this] enabled his
apostles to speak in foreign tongues, both as a sign of their Divine
commission, and as a help in the work of propagating the Gospel.”282
Unfortunately for Irving, tongues, far from being a help in “propagating the
Gospel,” was detrimental to his ministry with the Caledonian Chapel. Because
J. N. Darby did not subscribe to the gifts of tongues, this became one of the
main dividing factors between the two. Darby had debated with Irving both on
the nature of spiritual gifts and whether there was continuance in the church
today, as Irving had maintained. Darby’s response was succinct and to the
point:
There are two kinds of gifts entirely distinct; I said so thirty years ago
to Irving. Those in 1 Corinthians 12 are gifts of power, so much so that
often when there was positive power nobody was to use it; it was all
under the rule and authority of Christ’s order in the house. And so,
therefore, I get no promise of the continuance of gifts; but when 1 come
to Ephesians 4 , 1 get no gifts that are signs at all; but, after the
foundation of apostles and prophets, I get evangelists, pastors and
teachers, those which the Lord uses to build up His church, “until we
all come.”283284

As Witness Lee notes, not only Darby but many other regenerated
saints did not speak in tongues, including Martin Luther, D. L. Moody, C. H.
Spurgeon, and Hudson Taylor. “All these great men, although they did not
speak in tongues, were regenerated.” However, whether or not one speaks in
tongues is really not the issue. Both Irving and Darby parted company with the
church but for different reasons. Irving was ousted by both the London and
Annan presbyteries because of his acceptance of speaking in tongues by
others, whereas Darby’s secession was due to his understanding of the ruin of

280 Ibid.
281 Irving, Edward and Gavin Carlyle. 1865. The collected writings o f Edward Irving.
London: A. Strahan & Co., 548.
282 Barrows, E. P. The Indivisible Nature o f Revelation. Bibliotheca Sacra. Vol. X. Andover:
W. F. Draper and Brother, 1858, 769.
283 Darby, John Nelson. The Acts o f the Apostles, 94.
284 Lee, Witness. 1986. The divine economy. Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 101.

71
 the church. Scott Gibson, in speaking of both Darby and Irving, supports this
thesis: “Irving was the rejected Church of Scotland minister who advocated
premillennial views and the regaining of apostolic gifts of
tongues .. .”285 While there was much ecclesiology that found mutual
acceptance between Irving and Darby, the apostolic gift of tongues remained a
source of division. In speaking of the rapture of the saints, Martyn Lloyd-
Jones comments: “Only J. N. Darby and certain of his followers accepted it,
though they entirely disassociated themselves from Edward Irving when he
began to talk about the tongues, the visions, the apostles and so on.”286
The views of the apostasy of the church tended not to be divisive at
Albury 1826, and the creation of the Catholic Apostolic Church was more
contingent on Irving’s trial and his dismissal from the Caledonian Chapel,
ostensibly for his acceptance of spiritual gifts within his ministry. Powerscourt
was different, and the secessionists were allied to the Plymouth Brethren. The
anonymous contributor to an article in the Millennial Harbinger is in error
when stating that Irving seceded from the Church of Scotland.287 The same
erroneous sentiment is shared in The Life o f Benjamin Joxvett that “J.
Campbell of Row . . . had been ousted from the Church of Scotland on account
of his opinions shortly after the secession of Edward Irving.”288 Washington
Wilks provides a more informed analysis: “At the same time, the cast of his
intellect and the fervour of his patriotism made him averse to secession from
the National Church .. .”289 In his discussion of Irving, James Morgan
supports the view of Wilks: “His denunciations of Dissent and applauding of

285 Gibson, Scott M. 2001. A.J. Gordon: Americanpremillennialist. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 30.
286 Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. 2003. Great doctrines o f the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 138.
287 “Who has not heard of Edward Irving - the eloquent, the gifted, the pious, the erratic
Irving? It was my fortune while in London frequently to hear him preach, both before and
after his secession from the Church of Scotland; and never shall l forget the man, his
matter, and his manner.” Millennial Harbinger: Series III. Vol. II Article entitled Edward
Irving. Bethany; 1845,500.
288 Jowett, Benjamin, Evelyn Abbott, and Lewis Campbell. 1897. The Life and Letters o f
Benjamin Jowett, M.A. Master o f Baliiol College Oxford. Vol. 1. London: John Murray,
266.
289 Wilks, Washington. 1854. Edward Irving: an ecclesiastical and literary biography.
London: W. Freeman, 9.

72
 Established Churches had naturally strong attractions for them.”290 These
sentiments are shared by Irving himself: “But they should be careful to give no
provocation to the ruling powers, lest they should drive them headlong into
error; to establish no principle of secession or dissent, but simply to build up
the church of Christ in the land . .. and wait for the Lord’s coming.”291
The topic of the apostasy of the church and secession will be examined
more fully in the chapter devoted to Darby’s views of the church. Suffice it to
say at this juncture that it was at the Powerscourt conferences that the seeds of
dissent were sown, the first fruits of that harvest being Lady Powerscourt
herself who, seceding from the Church of Ireland, joined the Plymouth
Brethren at Aungier Street.
There was a general agreement both at Albury and Powerscourt that
the Second Advent292 was, if not imminent, certainly within the lifetime of
those that attended the conferences. There was a clear tension between the
historicists and the futurists, the former being dominant at Albury and the
latter at Powerscourt. However, with the Second Advent near, it was obvious
that it had to occur at the commencement rather than the conclusion of the
millennium; hence, premillennialism was the one doctrine that found common
agreement. The literal interpretation of prophecy naturally led to a literal
rather than a figurative hermeneutic applied to the millennium. Post-
millennialists were still to be found outside of Albury and Powerscourt, as in
the case of a Mr. Wardlaw, a well-known anti-millenarian,293 but this
eschatological positioning had by 1830 become a minority view. Of
importance was the nature of the Second Advent, whether it was to be
spiritual, figurative, or literal. Irving, while acknowledging the variety of
interpretations, admits to the confusion surrounding the subject: “. . . and
whether there be such a thing as the coming of the Lord in glory and majesty,

290 Morgan, James. 1874. Recollections o f my life and times; an autobiography, with
selections from his journal. Belfast: William Mullan, 21.
291 Irving, Edward. 1831. Exposition o f the book o f Revelation, in a series o f lectures. Catholic
Apostolic Church collection. London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1053.
292 Or the “appearing,” which will be discussed subsequently.
293 Madden, Samuel. 1842. Memoir o f the life o f the late Rev. Peter Roe ... with copious
extracts from his correspondence, diaries, and other remains. Dublin: W. Curry, Jun. and
Company; [etc.], 441.

73
 mentioned in all the Scriptures; and whether there be ever such a thing as a
spiritual coming of the Lord (which I confess 1never heard of, or read of, till
within these half-dozen years .. .)”294 The Millennia! Harbinger attempted to
bring understanding to the subject: “Conjecture is let loose with law, lines, or
landmarks to define this spiritual coming, its manner, design, or tim e -
varying with every imagination, dubious, indefinable, and baseless. . . with
spiritualizes originated the doctrine of this figurative coming .. .”295 The
subject of the Second Advent will find further treatment in a discussion of the
conferences and prophecy, as well as the eschatology of John Nelson Darby.
The restoration and conversion of the Jewish nation was central to the
eschatology of both Albury 1826 and the Powerscourt conferences. The topics
set for Albury included “the present and future conditions of the Jews [and]
the duties growing out of the same towards the Jews.” The topics for
Powerscourt 1833 focused on the nature of the Christian church, whether it
was founded on Judaism and the conditionality of the promises.296
Joseph Wolff, who attended Albury 1826, was paradoxical. He has
been described as an “eccentric, enterprising, ambitious and conceited
man,”297 yet he proved invaluable at Albury. “No appeal was allowed but to
the scriptures, of which the originals lay before us, in the interpretation of
which, if any question arose, we had the learned eastern scholar perhaps in the
world to appeal to, and a native Hebrew, I mean Joseph Wolff.”298 W olffs
father was a rabbi with a strict Jewish education, but he was also schooled in
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and German.299 Wolff was converted to Christianity at
the age of twelve and suffered severe persecution from his family and the

21,4 Irving, Edward. 1850. The last days: a discourse on the evil character o f these our times,
providing them to be the "perilous times" o f the "last days". London: J. Nisbct, 340.
295 Millennial Harbinger. Vol. VI., Alexander Campbell, ed. Bethany: Campbell, 1835, 583.
296 Craik, Henry, W. Elfe Tayler, and George Müller. 1866. Passages from the diaiy and
letters o fllem y Craik. London: J.F. Shaw & C o., 168.
297 Christian Examiner, The. Volume LXXI, Edward Everett Hale, ed. Boston: J. Miller, 1861,
422.
~98 Lacunza, Manuel, and Edward Irving. 1827. The coming o f Messiah in gloiy and majesty.
London: L.B. Seeley. 1:125.
299 Wolff, Joseph, and John Bayford. 1824. Missionary journal and memoir o f the Rev. Joseph
Wolf: missionaiy to the Jews. New York: E. Bliss & E. White, 1, 2, 7.

74
 Jewish community. Only his uncle stood by him in his new faith.300 Central to
Joseph W olffs ecclesiology was the restoration and conversion of the Jews.301
Other members of Albury 1826 besides Wolff, who made the restoration and
conversion of the Jewish nation central to their eschatology, included Lewis
Way,302 Edward Irving,303William Cuninghame,304 Hugh Me Neile,305 and
James Hatley Frere.306 Wolff, like Frere, was a historicist, as LeRoy Froom
explains: “Whether I [Wolff] am right or wrong in regard to my literal
interpretation of prophecy must be determined, not by any letter written at
Calcutta . . . but the corresponding physical, historical and literal meaning.”307
The restoration of the Jews was a pivotal doctrine of the Catholic
Apostolic Church and the twelve Apostles of this church. Henry Drummond,
John Tudor, and Spencer Percival all attended Albury 1826. The restoration
and conversion of the Jewish nation was a central theme at Powerscourt, as
typified by Edward Bickersteth308 and the Plymouth Brethren.309 As the latter
embraced the eschatology of J. N. Darby, this will be the focus of further
analysis in the following chapter. Given the emphasis on the restoration and
conversion of the Jewish nation prior to the Second Advent, it must be
asserted that the general consensus at both Albury and Powerscourt was the

300 Ibid., 5.
301 Wolff, Joseph. 1838. Journal o f the Rev. Joseph Wolff...in a series o f letters to Sir Thomas
Baring, Bart, containing an account o f his missionary labours from the years 1827 to
1831: and from the years 1835 tol838. London: J. Burns, 94. 96.
31,2 Wolff, Joseph, and John Bayford. 1824. Missionaryjournal and memoir o f the Rev. Joseph
Wolf: missionary to the Jews. New York: E. Bliss & E. White, 111.
303 Irving, Edward. 1828. Sermons, lectures, and occasional discourses. London: R.B. Seeley
and W. Burnside, 1094.
304 Cuninghame, William. 1817. A dissertation on the seals and trumpets o f the Apocalypse
and the prophetical period o f twelve hundred and sixty years. London: Printed for J.
Hatchard, 266.
305 McNeile, Hugh. 1828. The times o f the Gentiles. London: J. Hatchard and Son, 30.
306 “In the later editions of Scott’s widely-circulated Commentary, the restoration of the Jews
occupies a prominent place in the notes on the prophets. Faber, Cunninghame (Lainshaw),
Frere, Irving, Fiy, Me Neile, Bickersteth, Burgh, Brooks, Birks, Elliott, Brown, Bonars,
Wood, Milyneux, and others, all make the conversion and restoration of the Jews one of the
main turning-points in transition of the world from its present to its millennial state.” The
British and Foreign Evangelical Review, and Quarterly Record o f Christian Literature.
Vol. IV. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1855, 167.
307 Froom, Le Roy Edwin. 1948. The Prophetic Faith o f our Fathers: the historical
development o f prophetic interpretation. Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 480.
308 Bickersteth, Edward. 1841. The restoration o f the Jews to their own land: in connection
with their future conversion and the final blessedness o f our earth. London: R.B. Seeley
and W. Burnside.

75
 unconditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant, which meant that the land of
Palestine belonged to the Jewish nation in perpetuity.
Since both Albury and Powerscourt were prophetical conferences, any
consensus would rest ultimately on the prophetical hermeneutic applied by the
attendees. But there were dissenting views of prophecy, as for example Robert
Daly at Powerscourt, who felt that whereas the whole subject of prophecy was
interesting and perhaps edifying, it was the last thing to be spouted from the
pulpit.309310 Daly also noted that there was considerable disagreement over minor
points of interpretation, and indeed this was the case with Charles Hatley
Frere’s long historicist prophecy of the 2400 days to mitigate errors in William
Cunninghame’s short prophecy of 2300, as adopted by Albury 1826. This was
considered “The system of the prophetic visions and numbers of Daniel and
the Apocalypse,”311 which also occupied the prophetical discussions at
Powerscourt. How this was interpreted by John Nelson Darby remains for
analysis in the subsequent chapter.
Of central importance is the way that the Albury and Powerscourt
conferences shaped Darby’s eschatology. The main character at Albury was
Irving, and while a direct dependence of Irving upon Darby cannot be
demonstrated, both Irving and the Albury conference were efficacious in the
development of the Powerscourt conference. There is considerable debate as
to whether Lady Powerscourt ever attended Albury; however, she was well
acquainted with Robert Daly, rector of Powerscourt; Daly’s biographer, Mrs.
Hamilton Madden, does state that Lady Powerscourt attended Albury.312 It has
also been demonstrated that Irving stayed with Lady Powerscourt in 1830
when he was on his preaching tour, this being a year before the first
conference. It therefore appears highly likely that Irving and Albury moved
Lady Powerscourt to convene a similar conference at her home in Ireland.
Since the Powerscourt conferences were dominated by Darby and the

309 Eclectic Review, The. January - June 1841. Vol. IX. London: Jackson and Walford, 296.
310 Madden, Hamilton. 1875. Memoir o f the Right Rev. Robert Daly, 20.
311 Lacunza, Manuel, and Edward Irving. 1827. The coming o f Messiah in gloiy and majesty.
London: L.B. Seeley. 1:123.
312 Madden, Hamilton. 1875. Memoir o f the Right Rev. Robert Daly, 150.

76
 Plymouth Brethren, it can be argued that Irving and Albury were causal
factors in the establishment of the Plymouth Brethren and hence Darby’s
eschatology. In the formative years of the Brethren, when George Bellett,
Anthony Norris Groves, and Darby had gathered in the drawing room to have
Bible studies together, Irving’s doctrines were well known. Both George
Bellett and his father found Irving’s doctrines divisive.313 Groves too appears
to have been familiar with Irving’s doctrines in his mention of “miraculous
gifts” and conversion.314 If Irving is to be seen as divisive in his embracing of
miraculous gifts and the use of speaking in tongues in particular, he was not a
secessionist like Darby. Divisive doctrines aside, Irving, Darby, Groves, and
Bellett all turned to the primitive church as the ideal and for the Brethren. This
included the breaking of bread every Sunday as a rite instituted by Christ and
not a political test of conformity. Equally important for all was the subject of
unfulfilled prophecy and the soon-to-be-expected Second Coming of Christ.
Albury prepared the way for a new generation of “believers” to be immersed
in an eschatology of premillennialism, prophecy, and futurism, thus enabling
Powerscourt to communicate eschatological values to an already prepared
audience. Thus, the influence of Irving and hence Albury can be seen to have
had a direct influence on Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the formative
years, when a small group of “believers” were seeking direction and identity
in being in line with the New Testament church. There was also a negative
side to both conferences, in that sound biblical scholarship gave way to
speculative prophetical interpretations, in which the overt preaching style of

313 “I do not remember hearing what effect his [Bellett’s] preaching had on his first going to
Bridnorth. As he tells us, he found his parish sadly upset by the new doctrines of Irving,
and his first work was to try and undo the mischief of his predecessor who had imbibed
these false notions, and had done his best to draw his people into the like snare.” Bellett,
George, and Samuel Bentley. 1889. Memoir o f the Rev. George Bellett: autobiography ami
continuation by his daughter. London: J. Masters and Co., 99.
314 “Many minds are still exercised about the miraculous gifts being the necessary warrant to
go and preach to the heathen or Mohammedan nations. I cannot but feel the help they
might be; but that they are not needed is plain', for all who have been converted during the
last 1500 years, have been converted without them. I have had a kind note from an
Irvingite friend, condemning us for disorderly walking; and yet, surely, those of his views
are examples of the same.” Groves, Anthony Norris. 1857. Memoir o f the late Anthony
Norris Groves, containing extracts from his letters and journals. London: James Nisbet,
313-314.

77
 Irving and the dogmatism of Darby excelled.315 Thus much of modern
American speculative eschatology can be traced back to the Albury and
Powerscourt conferences.
In summary, both Albury and Powerscourt paved the way for a new
and revolutionary eschatology, shifting the balance from post- to pre-
millennialism, from historicism to futurism, and factoring in the importance of
national Israel as precursory to the Second Advent. Thus, Albury and
Powerscourt can be seen as the battleground where the old historist and post-
millennialist hermeneutic waged war with the new and innovative ideas of an
imminent Second Advent, rooted in pre-millennialist futurism. This futurist
premillennialism would be further developed by Darby to incorporate his
notion of the secret rapture and to form an eschatological framework for
dispensationalist millenarianism that has shaped and moulded eschatology up
to the modem period of the church.

315 “Try these meetings by this test - can such a character, (and such, on the very lowest
estimate is essential to those who meet to examine the mysterious subjects proposed,) can
such a character be affirmed of the Powerscourt meetings for prophetical discussion? . . . Is
it, in a meeting where the rapid talker, the imaginative speculatist, the bold affirmer, must
always have, from its constitution, an apparent triumph, and the dogmatist may, nay, must
produce an impression perhaps the most injurious, and which, from the number present,
and their ignorance, it is impossible the sober and thinking can remove? Inquiry implies
competency, and time and sobriety . . . ” Church of Ireland. 1835. The Christian examiner
and Church o f Ireland magazine. Dublin, Ireland: W. Curry, Jun. and Co., 639.

78
 3. Secession and the Ruin of the C hurch

In this chapter I will address Darby’s complex doctrine of the “ruin of

the church.” After a brief introduction to the subject, I will present this notion
within a historical narrative to answer the question of how and why Darby
chose to use this particular phrase and what sources he might have drawn
upon. I will then briefly look at the ruin of the church with respect to
eschatology, unity, and revelation before presenting Darby’s understanding of
the term. Subsequently I will demonstrate that his application of the “invisible
church” in association with the “ruin of the church” completely overturned the
commonly held doctrine of the church invisible.
The nature of the church is central to an understanding of Darby. His
ecclesiology is profound—though at times highly confusing—but devastating
in its application, and it explains why there was a divide between the anti­
secessionists at Albury and the secessionists at Powerscourt. Dominant at
Powerscourt were the Plymouth Brethren who had become infected with
Darbyite ecclesiology regarding the state of the church. Darby’s ecclesiology
provides at least one explanation as to why Lady Theodosia Powerscourt
departed with all haste from her church and her minister Robert Daly, to join
the Brethren at Aungier Street, Dublin.
In the years between leaving Trinity College and the formative years of
the Plymouth Brethren movement, Darby proclaimed a national apostasy
which he termed the “ruin of the church,” together with a way out of apostasy
namely, the Brethren movement. Various opinions are offered for his
seemingly unusual ecclesiology. According to A. H. Newman, “Darby
maintained that just as the old economy had fallen by the unfaithfulness of the
covenant people and as a whole had apostatized, so Christians wholly
apostatized in the apostolic age. The whole Christian system depended upon
continuance in God’s goodness. Failure in this involved the ‘ruin of the
church.’”316 A similar view is shared by Johann Herzog: “If Christendom

316 Newman, Albert Henry. 1903. A manual o f church history. Philadelphia: American Baptist
Publication Society, 711.

79
depart from the divine path for this dispensation, his goodness is abandoned.
This is the ‘ruin of the church.”’317318Grayson Carter offers his understanding of
the term by comparing the ecclesiology of Irving and Darby:
Though in some ways Darby’s ecclesiology resembled that of the
Irvingites, it contained several important differences. Most especially,
he opposed the close association of the visible and invisible church so
prominent in Irvingism. The ‘true’ church was not visible and worldly,
he argued, but invisible and spiritual: a mystery of which only Paul
speaks; Christ’s mystical body will be completed only at the ‘rapture’.
Those converted before Christ’s first coming, or after his second, are
not part of the true church: ‘the assertion this his mystical body is the
universal family of the redeemed is unscriptural; all the declaration is
founded on this gross and unscriptural terror, that all the saved belong
to the church.’ The church, therefore, is in ruins, the Advent still
impending. 3 18

Joel Carpenter understands Darby’s notion of “the ruin of the church”

to be an “alienating power,” and what “dispensationalists meant by this was
that in the years immediately preceding Christ’s second coming, deviations
from orthodox Christian belief would infect the major branches of
Christianity. Thus corrupted, these churches would become the chief
promoters of the false religion that was to accompany the rise of a satanically
inspired ruler, the Antichrist.”319 These are strong words to insinuate that post-
Reformation Christianity had departed from the gospel, but these same
sentiments are shared in the publication 131 Christians Everyone Should
Know. “Echoing the lamentations of Protestant reformers three centuries
earlier, he [Darby] believed that the Church of England had lost any notion of
salvation by grace and that it had forsaken biblical ideas of what church
should be. For Darby it was time to start afresh with a new church and prepare
for Jesus’ imminent Second Coming.”320 George Marsden understands that the

317 Herzog, J. J., Philip Schaff, and Samuel Macauley Jackson. 1889. A Religious
encyclopaedia: or dictionaiy o f Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology.
Based on the Real-Encyklopddie o f Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck. New York: Christian
Literature Co., IL: 1856.
318 Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant secessions from the via media, c.
1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 220.
319 Carpenter, Joel A. 1999. Revive us again: the reawakening o f American Fundamentalism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 38.
320 Galli, Mark, and Ted Olsen. 2000. 131 Christians evetyone should know. Holman
reference. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 98.

80
 term “the ruin of the church” had little effect in America and that “John
Nelson Darby was puzzled by this when he first brought his teaching to
America. Many Americans were interested in his approach to prophetic
studies, yet few took seriously the Brethren teaching of the ‘ruin of the
church.’ The reason for this lack of concern was no doubt related to American
evangelicals’ characteristic lack of strong views about the nature and authority
of the church.”321 This lack of interest in the “ruin of the church” is
paradoxical in light of a remark by Dana Robert that “Scofield followed
Darby’s view of the ‘ruin of the church.’”322

Pre-Darbvite notion of the ruin of the church

Though not necessarily used as a mark of national apostasy, the term
“the ruin of the church” had a wide and diverse usage prior to the time of
Darby, who had a habit of taking terms in common usage and then applying to
them his innovative and novel understanding. For this reason, a brief glimpse
into the secular usage of the term will shed light on the question of whether
Darby was being adaptive or original. Historically, the secular use of the term
can be dated at least to the year 1721, as seen in the following remark: “All in
Diana’s Temple met, decreed The Ruin of the Church, and both agreed; Those
by Possessions, these by potent Charms, To work the faithful flock destructive
Harms: The Catechumens they with Ease surpriz’d .. .”323 Darby relied very
much on Milner’s Church History, as evidenced by the fact that he references
his writings at least 179 times. It must be assumed that he read in Milner his
account of the secular use of “the ruin of the church” in the sense of the
destruction of the church at the hands of the enemy.324

321 Marsden, George M. 1980. Fundamentalism and American culture: the shaping o f
twentieth centiny evangelicalism, 1870-1925. New York: Oxford University Press, 70.
122 Robert, Dana Lee. 2003. Occupy until I come: A.T. Pierson and the evangelization o f the
world. Library of religious biography. Grand Rapids, Ml: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 277.
323 Ken, Thomas. 1721. The works o f the Right Reverend, ¡earned, and pious, Thomas Ken,
D.D. late Lord Bishop o f Bath and Wells;... Publishedfrom original manuscripts, by
William Hawkins, Esq. London: Printed for John Wyat, 35.
324 “The interposition of Divine Providence is ever to be acknowledged in hastening the death
of so formidable an enemy to his people, whose schemes scented only to require length of
time to effect the ruin o f the church. But he was left to aim at too many objects at once, the
restoration of idolatry, the ruin o f Christianity, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the
conquest of Persia. That he should have pursued this last with such avidity, is an instance

81
 The ruin of the church within the context of dispensationalism finds an
early usage with Jean Claude in 1801. The work was then quoted by a number
of other editors in various publications. The work by Claude contains the
following statement: “Why so? because the apostle speaks here of an essential
corruption of the gospel, which the false apostles aimed at in the churches of
Galatia; they were annihilating the grace of Christ by associating it with the
Mosaic economy, they aimed at the entire ruin o f the church by debasing the
purity of the gospel.”32532678The work Composition o f a Sermon by Jean Claude
was printed again in 1819 in a work entitled The Young Preacher’s Manual,™
as well as in 1820 in a work entitled The Christian Preacher,™ and in 1834 in
The Preacher’s Manual™ It is worth noting that the subject of the ruin of the
church within the context of the Mosaic dispensation was widely understood
and used in the instruction of homiletics between 1801 and the 1850s, since
Claude’s own work was reprinted in 1849.

of the opposition of two parties to each other, both equally bent on the ruin o f the church, a
thing very common in history, by which the Lord frequently saves his people.” Milner,
Joseph, and Isaac Milner. 1827. The history oj the church o f Christ. London: Printed by
Luke Hansard & Sons, forT. Cadell, in the Strand, 140-141, emphasis supplied.
325 Simeon, Charles. 1801. Claude's essay on the composition o f a sermon ; with alterations
and improvements. Cambridge: Printed by M. Watson., 91, emphasis supplied. Note: the
term Mosaic economy is widely used synonymously with the Mosaic dispensation, e.g.,
John Edwards (1637-1716). Darby uses the terms economy and dispensation
interchangeably: “.. . that it is according to the will of God to re-establish the economy or
dispensation on its original footing after it has failed” (Collected Writings, vol. 1:
Ecclesiastical No. 1, 141). “If the economy or dispensation of God . . (Ibid., 144.) “We
apprehend that dispensation, or economy, for the words are identical in meaning, is
generally used as a theological term, with greater latitude than the scripture application of
it warrants.” (Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 13c: Critical, 156). “Then came the Son, and
the whole economy and dispensation of the law closed.” (Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 26:
Expositoiy No.5b, 181). “Are we under the Jewish dispensation? Is it not true that God has
substituted the Christian dispensation for the Jewish economy, or the dispensation of the
law?” (Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 4: Ecclesiastical No. 2, 272).
326 Porter, Ebenezer. 1819. The Young preacher's manual, or, A collection o f treatises on
preaching comprising Brown's Address to students in divinity, Fenelon's Dialogues on the
eloquence o f the pulpit, Claude's Essay on the composition o f a sermon, abridged,
Gregory on the composition and delivery o f a sermon, Reybaz on the art o f preaching :
with a list o f books. Boston: Published by Charles Ewer, and for sale at his bookstore, cf.
318.
327 Williams, Edward. 1820. The Christian preacher, or Discourses on preaching. London:
Printed for W. Baynes and Son, Paternoster-Row, cf. 219.
328 Sturtevant, S. T. 1834. The preacher's manual, or, lectures on preaching: containing all
the rules and examples necessaiy for every species o f pulpit address. London: Richard
Baynes, cf. 358.

82
 Because Jean Claude is not a well-known author, his writings might be
considered of lesser importance; but this cannot be said of John Calvin and his
treatment of the ruin of the church. The Institutes o f the Christian Religion
contain the fundamentals of Reformed theology and need no introduction.
Calvin makes the following observation in the Institutes: “But as soon as
falsehood has made a breach in the fundamentals of religion, and the system of
necessary doctrine is subverted, and the use of the sacraments fails, the certain
consequence is the ruin o f the Church, as there is an end of a man’s life when
his throat is cut, or his heart is mortally wounded.”329 The text is from a
chapter comparing the true and the false church, and in this respect there is
some similarity with Darby’s notion of the apostasy of the church. Calvin
returns to the subject of the sacraments, citing Augustine extensively on the
nature of the sacrament, as seen, for example, in the following comment:
“Hence that distinction, if it be well understood, which is frequently stated by
Augustine, between a sacrament and the matter of a sacrament.”33031Calvin then
clarifies the relationship between the sacrament being taken by those of the
faith and those not of the faith. “What is a sacrament, taken without faith, but
the most certain ruin of the Church?” For Calvin the sacrament has the
power to impart both life and death: life to the man of faith but death to those
not of the faith. “For the morsel of bread given by the Lord to Judas was
poison; not because Judas received an evil thing, but because being a wicked
man he received a good thing in a sinful manner.”332 This then appears to be
the usage by Calvin of the ruin of the church: the dual nature of the sacrament
concerning the person of true faith, to whom the sacrament imparts life, and
the person of unbelief, to whom the same sacrament imparts death.

The ruin of the church and eschatology

Having discussed the ruin of the church within the context of
dispensationalism, homiletics, and the sacraments, we now turn to the context

329 Calvin, John. Institutes o f the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1816, 40,
emphasis supplied.
330 Ibid., 312.
331 Ibid.
332 Ibid., 313.

83
 of eschatology. John Jortin sees the ruin of the church as occurring with the
reign of Antichrist. “They pretended that the desolation and ruin of the church
was the genuine effect of ignorance, and that the reign of antichrist and the
mystery of iniquity grew and prospered under the protection of darkness.”' '
James Thomson develops a similar but expanded theme in that the ruin of the
church occurs when “. . . wickedness has reached its height.. . When
Antichrist shall be finally destroyed, the Jews introduced into the Christian
church, and the fulness of the Gentiles brought in .. . the visible church will
then belong to the invisible.”33334
The term “ruin of the church” had been widely used both prior to and
during the life of J. N. Darby. As early as 1687 Peter Jurieu had made the
statement that the “. . . ruin of the Church was to happen under these seven
Trumpets... .The 144 thousand signify the Church, the pure Church under
Antichrist’s reign.”335 The title of Jurieu’s work, together with the prophetical
and eschatological usage of the term “ruin of the church,” all antedated Darby
by well over a century before he used the phrase. In fact, the term was used by
Jonathan Swift in 1735,336 John Strype in 1738,337 James Peirce in 1717,338*
and numerous other writers of that period. Since it was extant in secular,

333 Jortin, John. 1805. Remarks on ecclesiastical history. London: Sold by Lackington, Allen,
206.
334 Thomson, James. 1808. Theological discourses on important subjects doctrinal and
practical. Paisley: Young, 297.
335 Jurieu, Pierre. 1687. The accomplishment o f the Scripture prophecies, or, The approaching
deliverance o f the church proving that the papacy is the anticliristian kingdom ... that the
present persecution may end in three years and-half after which the destruction o f
Antichrist shall begin, which shall befinisht in the beginning o f the next age, and then the
kingdom o f Christ shall come upon earth. London: [s.n], 56.
336 Swift, Jonathan. 1735. The works of J.S., D.D., D.S.P.D. in four volumes; containing, I.
The author's miscellanies in prose ; II. His poetical writings ; III. The travels o f Captain
Lemuel Gulliver; IV. Ilis papers relating to Ireland, consisting o f several treatises, among
which are, the Drapier's letters to the people o f Ireland against receiving Wood's half­
pence; also, two original Drapier's letters, never before published. Dublin: Printed by and
for George Faulkner, printer and bookseller, 46.
337 Strype, John, and Edward Symon. 1738. Brief annals o f the church and state under the
reign o f Queen Elizabeth: being a continuation o f the annals o f the Church o f England and
o f the religion there established... : and to which is added a supplement o f several records
suiting with the years o f the former volumes. London: Printed for Edward Symon, 176.
338 Peirce, James. \1 \1 .A vindication o f the dissenters: in answer to Dr. William Nichol's
Defence o f the doctrine and discipline o f the Church o f England. In three parts. London:
Printed for John Clark, 187.

84
 eschatological, and dispensational writings, Darby would have adopted a
similar sense of a familiar phrase in his reference to the ruin of the church.

The ruin of the church with respect to unity

The aspect of “unity” proved to be a central feature of the Plymouth
Brethren, as previously noted by Thomas Croskery.339 For Darby, this sense of
unity, which is not found in the professing church but is found within the
Plymouth Brethren, takes on fuller meaning when linked to the ruin of the
church. “Now what do I mean by the ruin of the church? A simple question
will answer this. Who will show me the manifestations of the unity of the body
of Christ? 1 cannot find it; but 1 can find saints that will be saved.”34" Darby
asserts that the church has unity in its normal state, but not when it goes
astray, as is the case with the ruin of the church.341 The problem for Darby is
that too often unity is maintained by organization and not through the work of
the Holy Ghost, again leading to the ruin of the church.342

The ruin of the church with respect to revelation

Closely related to unity is the doctrine of revelation. Darby appears to
suggest that just as a church in ruin cannot possess unity except through
organization, so the professing church cannot possess revelation. “. . . [W]e
have found our weakness, and the poverty and ruin of the church; but we have
found marvellous and abundant light in the Lord . . ,”343 It is this revelation so
important at the Second Advent that is lacking with the church in ruin, which
he contrasts with the true church. “There is a positive revelation that the thing

14,1 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 32: Miscellaneous No. 1, 399. Emphasis supplied.
341 “Hence when I say that the church is ruined, or when I speak of the ruin of the church, it is
saying that the church is not at all in its normal state; it is as if, for example, I said that the
health of a man was ruined. Those who oppose this, not being willing to acknowledge the
state of misery, in which we all are, yet feeling that if the Church in its unity was at the
beginning the depository of the glory of Christ it is no longer, boldly deny that it ever
was.” Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 3: Doctrinal No. 1, 273.
342 “There is an attempt to keep up unity by mere organisation. There was organisation at the
first, but that too is a failure---- It has not stood. I believe in the ruin of the church, but I
believe that where two or three are gathered together in His name.” Darby. Dearest G.
Gaitsby, 334.
343 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 14: Ecclesiastical No.3, 199.

85
 that wakes them up is the testimony that the Lord is coming.”344 It is the hope
of the Second Advent that has been lost by the professing church. “The hope
of the coming of Christ was the first thing lost in the ruin of the church,
leading to the practical state of Christendom at present.”345

The ruin of the church with respect to Darby

There is one oblique reference in which Darby states that he is the
author of the phrase: “As to the ruin of the church, the theory came for me
after the consciousness of it, and even now, the theory is but a small thing to
my mind.”346 However, in light of the historical narrative, the phrase had seen
common usage for over a century, and the notion that Darby invented the term
is in error.
Darby’s use of the term stems from his primary concern that the
visible, professing church had failed, thus negating the Corinthian model of
the church, which has ceased to exist along with the failed dispensation.
Darby contrasts two different churches, namely, the true apostolic church and
the professing church, which is purely an imitation of the true apostolic
church.
Again, I fully recognize that there was an organisation in apostolic and
scriptural times, but affirm that what exists now is not the scriptural
organisation at all, but merely human invention, each sect arranging
itself according to its own convenience, so that as an external body, the
Church is ruined; and although much may be enjoyed of what belongs
to the Church, I believe from scripture that the ruin is without remedy,
that the professing Church will be cut of f . . . The true body of Christ is
not this. It is composed of all who are united to Christ by the Holy
Ghost, who, when the professing church is cut off, will have their
place with Him in heaven.347

Darby applied the term “ruin of the church” to the “visible” entity:
“But besides this, the ruin of the visible church itself is contemplated.”348
“They can enjoy, according to God, all that God has given them, without
denying the state or ruin of the visible church—a state that has brought ruin on

344 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 21: Evangelical No. 2, 250.

345 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 21: Ecclesiastical No.4, 249.
346 Darby, Dearest Brethren and Sisters, 42.
347 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 14: Ecclesiastical No.3, 274, 275.
348 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 15: Doctrinal No.4, 354.

86
 every side .. ,”349 “I do affirm, that the church has been placed on earth to
display, as a body, in a visible unity, the glory of its Head, by the Holy Ghost.
This it no longer does; it is responsible for it, and regarded as a dispensation, it
will be punished on that account.. . The fact that its ruin is an opportunity for
marked faithfulness on the part of individuals .. .”350
The professing churches might argue that though the visible church
may have failed, there still remained the invisible church. For the Calvinist
these would be the elect, and for the Arminianist these would be those who
had made a profession of faith. Darby recognized this distinction but argued
otherwise: “The Lord knoweth them that are his. This supposes, in a great
measure, at any rate, that the true church, the members of Christ, are invisible.
The Lord knows them.”351 “There is, therefore, an invisible church, 1 doubt
not; but mark that when the true church is invisible, then the visible church is
treated like the world.”352
Darby then draws a comparison between the visible and the invisible
churches:
To escape from this anomaly, believers have sought to shelter
themselves under the distinction between a visible and an invisible
church. But I read in Scripture, “Ye are the light of the world.” Of
what use is an invisible light? “A city set on a hill cannot be hid.” To
say that the true church has been reduced to the condition of being
invisible is at once to decide the question, and to affirm that the church
has entirely lost its original and essential standing, and departed from
the purpose of God, and the constitution that it received from Him.353

The tension that Darby poses regarding the “visible” and the
“invisible” churches raises the question regarding the validity of the church
itself. In simple terms, if the invisible church is the true called-out body of
saints, then what happens when these saints interact? Do they not constitute a
visible entity? William Reid addresses this dilemma directly: “We are also
told by Mr. Darby that ‘a member o f a church is a thing unknown to Scripture.

349 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 4: Ecclesiastical No. 2, 280.

350 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. I, 236.
351 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 14: Ecclesiastical No.3, 274, 275.
352 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 335.
353 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 140.

87
 All Christians are members of Christ, and there can be no other membership’
(‘What the Christian has amid the ruin of the Church’). Now, all this is a
simple play upon words. If we do not find in Scripture the phrase ‘a member
of a church,’ we find there, that which the phrase designates. If any of the
churches mentioned in Scripture did not consist of ‘members,’ of what did
they consist?”354
Reid’s argument is cogent, particularly with reference to the Plymouth
Brethren, who would appear, according to Darby, to be a visible assembly of
the saved. Reid continues: “And yet in the face of all this, we are expected to
believe that the visible and invisible are identical! Of course the Brethren will
deny to existing organisations, called churches, any right to be so
recognized.”355 Reid discusses the book of Corinthians and asks: “To whom
were the words addressed, ‘Now ye are the body of Christ,’ but to the church
of Corinth?”356 The Quarterly Journal o f Prophecy (1855) in discussing the
subject “Art. Ill - Is the Church in Ruins?” poses a question similar to Reid’s:
“We had maintained that, if this new theory were true, the Epistles to the
Corinthians and other such were really useless.”357 The contributor to this
article had received a twenty-page anonymous tract that might well have been
disregarded were it not that, in discussing the “church in ruins,” the tract
appeared to attack the writer or writers of the Journal. As a rebuttal and with
direct reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians, the following comment is
made:
The writer of the above tract calls this a “hardy charge.” He thus writes
- “It has been supposed that the assertion of the failure of the Church
forces us to say that we, in these last days, cannot have recourse to the
Epistle to the Corinthians, &c.; and do fall back upon the promise -
‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am 1 in the midst.’
The present pamphlet, of itself, is a sufficient answer to as hardy a
charge as could well be made.”358

154 Reid, William. 1880. Plymouth Brethrenism unveiled and refuted. Edinburgh: W. Oliphant,
53.
355
Ibid., 54.
356
Ibid.
357
Quarterly Journal o f Prophecy, The., vol. VII. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1855, 22.
358
Ibid.

88
 The Journal, finding the argument perplexing, then quotes from a tract entitled
On the Present Ruin o f the Church, supposedly written by Darby:
Recent circumstances have forced on the attention of many saints the
question of the competency of Christians, in these days, to form
churches after the model of the primitive churches and whether such be
now the will of God. Brethren respected, and personally beloved by
those who differ from them, insist, that to form or organise a church, is
the only way, according to the will of God, to find blessing in the midst
of confusion which is recognised to exist. To others, this attempt seems
altogether human.. . It cannot be denied that this fact, recorded as
subsisting in Scripture, - for it is a fact and not a theory, - this fact has
ceased to exist, and the question is, How is a Christian to judge, and
what to do, when the state of things described in Scripture has ceased
to exist?359

The Journal emphasizes the fact that the tract is stating very clearly
that “the state of things described in Scripture has ceased to exist” and that the
church is in ruins, “the dispensation has failed, and that we must not return to
the primitive model. Thus he writes: ‘Your reply to me supposes two things.
First, that it is God’s will to re-establish the dispensation after it has failed;
and secondly, that you are able, and are sent to do it. I doubt both these
assumptions.’”360 However, Darby does discuss the church in the light of
Corinthians with the following comment: .. as 1 Corinthians 12 bears
witness, and that it has sunk down into popery, divisions and infidelity. No so-
called church can pretend to be the body of Christ now; the one universal
Church as described in scripture was then. They have no pretensions to be an
unfallen body.”361 Again: “The responsible church has totally failed. In 1
Corinthians 3 you get three cases: first, a wise master builder, who did his
work well; then you get persons who build badly .. . and lastly, if a man
corrupt the church of God, him will God destroy.”362 “In 1 Corinthians it is
different; God has put into the hands of man the responsibility of building, and
this has failed like everything else.”363

360 Ibid.,’ 24-25.

361 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 14: Ecclesiastical No.3, 278.
362 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 27: Expository’ No.6, 136.
363 Ibid., Matthew 16:13-28, n.p.

89
 The question that naturally arises from Darby’s assertion regarding the
“ruin of the church” is the cause of the ruin. Darby offers a number of
suggestions that have contributed to the “ruin.” In fact, in his eagerness to
show that the dispensation has failed, Darby does not hesitate to place blame
on the twelve apostles themselves.
This was their special commission from Him, as risen and having all
power in heaven and earth. The principle and value of the dispensation
could not be altered. But where is the fulfilment of the twelve
apostles? Scripture affords it not. There is no account of the twelve in
Scripture going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every
creature: nothing which Scripture recognises as the accomplishment of
this command. This in itself would be sufficient to show the command
on which the dispensation hung was, in the revealed testimony of God,
unfulfilled by those to whom it was committed.364

A second reason that Darby offers for the “ruin of the church” is found in the
existence of an ordained ministry, which he states is wrong and is a chief
source of corruption. In a section entitled The notion o f a clergyman
dispensationally: The sin against the Holy Ghost, Darby comments as follows:
. . . the dispensational standing of the church in the world—a statement
that depends wholly on the power and presence of the Holy Ghost, and
the notion of a clergyman contradicts His title and power, on which the
standing of the church down here depends.365

These are strong words from someone who was ordained in the Church of
Ireland, but Darby is adamant that the existence of an ordained ministry has
become “the lever of apostasy against the children of God.”366 Carl Olson adds
this pertinent comment regarding Darby and the “ruin of the church.” .. it
was, he claimed, being destroyed by hierarchy, institutionalization, structure,
ritual, ceremony, and the ordained clergy. So pessimistic was Darby .. ,”367
Darby’s answer to the “ruin of the church” is the Lord’s admonition:
“Wherefore, come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord,

364 Darby. Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No.I, 128.

365 Ibid., 37.
366 Ibid., 123.
367 Olson, Carl E. 2003. Will Catholics be "left behind"?: a Catholic critique o f the rapture
and today's prophecy preachers. Modem apologetics library. San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 158.

90
 and touch not the unclean thing; and 1will receive you.” 68 “Separation is the
first element of unity and union.”*369*
Darby clearly had in mind two facets of the gospel that embrace God’s
purpose for the church and man’s testimony regarding the church. The former
cannot fail, but the latter can do so. Should the Christian be content with a
failed witness, a church in ruin, questions Darby? His answer is emphatically
no, for to do so would deny the power of God and to suggest that God’s plan
^70
of redemption could be thwarted. Thus the theological dilemma for
Darby—that a true believer could be cut off because of the failure of the
church in ruins, thus compromising the faithfulness of God—is resolved. The
members of the remnant church, the true believers in Christ as opposed to the
national apostasy of the church in ruin, will be raptured away before Christ
returns with vengeance and judgment upon the wicked. The Quarterly Journal
o f Prophecy’s narrative concerning the tract that they attribute to Darby
provides a succinct synopsis of his ecclesiology regarding the “ruin of the
church.” But the writer enlarges upon the illustration:
Apply this to the Church - to the whole dispensation. While men
slept, the enemy has sowed tares. It is a state of ruin, plunged and lost
in the world; invisible, if you will, when it should hold forth, as a
candlestick, the light of God. In a state of ruin. If it is not, I say to the
dissenting and separating brethren, why have you left it? If it be, you
must recognise this ruin - this apostasy, - this departure from its first
estate. .. . First, to recognise this position, - to be conscious and
humbled as to this state of ruin. And what then? To assume that we,
who are guilty, can repair it all again? No! That would be a proof that
we are not humbled. But to seek - humbly to seek what God has told us
in his Word of such a state of things; and not as a child who has broken
some precious vase, try to patch it together, or make it new, in order
that the mischief may not be seen.371

The contributor to the Journal summarizes thus. “Strange teaching this! Our
Lord predicts apostasy; the Church is not to hinder it! ‘The evil would not be
remedied;’ therefore it ought not to be remedied! Antichrist is to arise;
therefore we ought not to oppose him! We do not often meet with such sad

368
Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No.l, 277.
369
Ibid., 357.
370
Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 32: Miscellaneous No J , 393.
371
Quarterly Journal o f Prophecy, The, vol. VII. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1855, 25, 26.

91
 perversions of the Word of God—such turning, not of the grace, but of the
judgements of God into lasciviousness. Surely this is fatalism—and of the
372
worst kind:- fatalism founding itself on the prophetic Word!”
Darby’s concept of the “invisible church” differed considerably from
what was commonly understood by the term. James Vaughan, who was an
incumbent member of Christ Church, Brighton, England, summarizes his
thought about the visible and invisible churches:
“The visible Church” means what we can see. Now I can see that you
all come to church; I might have seen that you were all baptized; 1
might have seen that you read your Bibles. Then 1 see that you are a
“visible Church”? Can 1 see whether you love God? No. Some in this
church love God, and some do not: can I say for certain who these are?
Nobody can say that. The heart is invisible. Whether you are, or are
not, a real Christian, is an invisible thing. That is “the invisible
Church,” - those who really love Christ.372373

Keith Ward discusses the invisible church with respect to Reformed theology:
Calvin begins by making a clear distinction between the visible and the
invisible church—a distinction familiar to Augustine. The invisible
church is “the church as it really is before God”,374 consisting of all
those who are adopted as sons of God and sanctified by the Spirit the
elect of God. “They are a small and despised number, concealed in a
vast crowd.”375 . . . There is also, however, a visible and external
church, of which Calvin says, “beyond the pale of the church no
forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for.”376 God’s
redeeming love does not extend to the whole of the human race.377

Clearly, Calvinism and Arminianism both recognize that there is a distinction

between the visible church, which is known by the physical building and the
body of people that constitute Christ’s institution on earth, and the invisible
church. For the Calvinist the invisible church is comprised of God’s elect, and
for the Arminianist it is those that belong to Christ by grace and through the
profession of faith.

372 Ibid., 28, 29.

373 Vaughan, Janies. 1874. Addresses to children delivered in Christ Church Brighton, on
Sunday afternoons in 1873. Second series. Accurately transcribed from shorthand notes,
164.
374 Calvin, Institutes o f the Christian Religion, bi. 4, ch. I, para. 7, trans. Henry Beveridge
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), ii., 288.
375 Ibid., 4.1.2 (ii., 282).
376 Ibid., 3.24.12 (ii„ 251).
377 Ward, Keith. 2000. Religion and community. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 268, 269.

92
 Darby’s view differed radically from both the Calvinist and
Arminianist doctrines. Frank Turner traces Darby’s notion of the invisible
church to an early period in his ministry: “During the debates over Catholic
emancipation, Darby abandoned briefly held high-church views, composed
tracts championing the concept of the invisible church, and then in 1828 or
1829 resigned his curacy to become an itinerant clergyman.”378 The Calvinist
view was rejected by Darby: “Darby did not believe, however, that the church
was just a spiritual entity. He rejected the Augustinian distinction between the
‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ church. He rhetorically asked, ‘What is the value of an
invisible light?’ Darby believed that the local assembly, as the habitation of
God, still acted as an earthly vessel of truth, corporately manifesting the body
of Christ with a full complement of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.”379 Darby
expressed his views as follows: “Men have comforted themselves with the
thought of an invisible church, forgetting that it is said, ‘Ye are the light of the
world.’ Of what value is an invisible light? It is said, ‘let your light so shine
before men’; that is, let your profession of Christianity be so distinct ‘that they
may see your good works, and glorify your Father which art in heaven.’”380
Far from declaring the traditional Calvinist and Arminianist doctrine that the
invisible church was the party of the “saved,” Darby disagreed vehemently,
stating that invisible church was the apostate church or the church in ruin.
What is the value of an invisible light? A church under a bushel? There
is no community in the invisible church. That the church is become
invisible, 1 admit fully; but I admit it as the fruit of man’s sin.381

“1 will build my church,” says Jesus . . . This is yet unfinished, and still
goes on; and though at first a public and evident body (the Lord adding
daily to the church such as should be saved), it is become what is
called the invisible church. It is invisible: though if it was to be the
light of the world, it is hard to tell the value of an invisible light. If it is

378 Turner, Frank M. 2002. John Henry Newman: the challenge to evangelical religion. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 48.
379 Utzinger, J. Michael. 2006. Yet saints their watch are keeping: fundamentalists,
modernists, and the development o f evangelical ecclesiology, 1887-1937. Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 114.
380 Darby., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 301.
381 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 10: Doctrinal No.3, 12.

93
 acknowledged to have fallen for ages into corruption and iniquity, a
very Babylon in character, that has not been the light of the world.38238

Darby felt fully justified in his unique doctrine of the “invisible church in
ruin” since this had no biblical authority. “The church invisible is no scriptural
or tangible idea. It is an invention particularly of St. Augustine, to conciliate
the awful iniquity of the professing church with the truth and godliness
383
necessary to the true Christian.
Darby’s contention was that the visible entity called the church had
now become invisible since it no longer had the light of the gospel. The
corollary was that salvation was possible with the Plymouth Brethren, albeit
that they themselves could be classed as a visible church. But this too is
problematical in that there still must be an invisible entity because the “saved”
are known only to God; otherwise it must be assumed that Brethren subscribed
to perfectionism. William Reid, commenting on Darby’s convoluted
ecclesiology, remarked: “And yet in the lace of all this, we are expected to
believe that the visible and the invisible Church are identical.”384385According to
David Buschart, “Influenced by his experience with what he perceived to be
the apostate institutional church, Darby came to view the genuine church as a
heavenly, essentially invisible reality—thus distinct and separate from the
385
corrupted earthly ‘church.’”
In summary, the ruin of the church was for Darby a biblical
understanding of a non-biblical and Augustinian notion of the invisible
church, which he endeavoured to correct. Commenting on Matthew 16, Darby
stated, “There was nothing established on earth when He said, ‘I will build my
church;’ but he did establish a church on earth responsible in its place, which
has failed altogether—that is why we speak of ruin.”386
Having probed the mind of Darby for what he understands by the
invisible church in contradistinction to the visible church in ruins, it now

3X2 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 20: Ecclesiastical No. 4, 318.

383 Ibid.
3X4 Reid, William. 1880. Plymouth Brethrenism unveiled and refuted. Edinburgh: W. Oliphant,
54.
385 Buschart, W. David. 2006. Exploring Protestant traditions: an invitation to theological
hospitality. Downers Grove, IL: 1VP Academic, 204.

94
 remains to compare this true church, faithfully manifesting God’s witness to
the gospel and classed as God’s heavenly church, with another group, God’s
earthly people.

38<>Darby. The spirit o f Christ and spiritual intelligence, n.p.

95
 4. The two peoples of God and dispensations! theology

For Darby the problem of how to resolve the complex relationship

between the Christian Church and the fate of the Jewish nation were both
perplexing and paradoxical. His starting point that the Abrahamic covenant
was inviolable and therefore unconditional meant for him that the Jewish
nation was still God’s chosen people. This presented a dilemma in that the
Genesis narrative predicated three endearing factors that were inextricably
linked to the Covenant. The ecclesiology that he needed to resolve concerned
the nation of Israel and their relationship to a land, a seed, and a blessing,
factors enunciated in the book of Genesis.
Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to
Abram and said to him, I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be
blameless. And I will establish My Covenant between Me and you, and
I will multiply you exceedingly.38738

Indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your
descendants as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on
the seashore. 388

Darby now had to factor in the position of the Jewish nation in its relationship
to the church. This was to test his ingenuity in deriving a seamless
interpretation that embraced both Christianity and the Jewish nation. Darby
was not new to this type of ecumenicity, as attested by his reaction to Dr.
Magee’s Charge of Erastianism and the issue relating to Catholicism. But to
incorporate the Jewish nation into Christian ecclesiology and eschatology
would test the skills of the most dedicated expositor, and this was the
challenge that Darby faced. And face them he did: his interpretation became a
powerful eschatology in American fundamentalism and Pentecostalism, thanks
to the influence of the Scofield Reference Bible, which incorporated Darby’s
interpretive perspective.

387 Genesis 17:1,2.

388 Genesis 22:17.

96
 Darby’s understanding of unfulfilled prophecy
Aside from the Abrahamic Covenant, there was a second factor central
to understanding Darby’s prophetical interpretation: that all unfulfilled biblical
prophecy pertained not to the church but to the Jewish nation. Darby outlined
his understanding of the role of prophecy: “It is on this account that the subject
of prophecy divides itself into two parts: the hopes of the church, and those of
the Jews.”389 While evangelicals may understand that Matthew 24 portrays the
signs of the Second Coming, Darby insisted that the unfulfilled biblical
prophecy of the Olivet discourse finds fulfilment not in the church but in the
Jewish nation. “And as to the prophetic discourses in Matthew 24 and 25 it
carries on its front and within its own compass, the clearest evidence of its
distinctions. For in the early part the Lord speaks of the Temple and its
destruction, of the abomination of desolation, with express reference to
prophecy which professedly relates to the Jews and to the remnant up to the
last days.”390 Darby further states: “Secondly, we shall equally fail in
understanding prophecy if we forget that the Jews are the habitual object of
the thoughts of God.”391
Regarding Jesus’ Farewell Discourse, this too is applied by Darby to
the Jews: ‘“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and
receive you to myself, that where 1 am you may be also,’ John 14. This is not
prophecy, which is concerned with the government of this world, and is
connected with the Jews, who are the centre of prophecy.”392 Darby rejected
the notion that unfulfilled biblical prophecy regarding the Jews applied to the
church. “Prophecy refers to the government of this world, and the Jews are the
centre of that; but as for the Christian, he is predestined to be conformed to the
image of Christ, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”393
Pauline theology regarding the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant as
delineated in Galatians 3 has created two fairly distinct camps. One group of

389 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic No. 1, 372.

390 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No. 4, 179. Note: Darby clarifies this
elsewhere with the following comment: “.. . until the end of Revelation you never find the
church revealed in prophecy, except in connection with Christ.” Ibid., 246.
391 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No. 2, 151.
392 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 32: Miscellaneous No. I, 242.

97
 scholars understands that Paul’s use of “the seed” refers to the Christian
church; while the other affirms the inviolability of the Covenant by creating
“two peoples of God,” the Christian church and national Israel.

d'he Abrahamic Covenant and Galatians

The contentious issue that has divided scholars into various camps is
found in Galatians: “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and
heirs according to the promise.” (KJV)393394 Commenting on Galatians 3, Darby
states that the church comprises the children of God by faith,395 and Israel
were heirs to the promise through the flesh.396 Darby asserts that the term
“heirs” cannot apply to the church, only to Israel.397 Charles Ryrie offers a
slightly different interpretation. Commenting on the same text, Ryrie asserts:
“It is quite obvious that Christians are called the spiritual seed of Abraham (v.
9) ”398
J. Dwight Pentecost expands on the views of Darby and Ryrie: “In
Romans 9:6-7 Paul drew a distinction between those who are related to
Abraham by physical descent and those who are related to Abraham by
faith.”399 Pentecost supports his argument by observing that in the Old
Testament “the seed of Abraham” always “refers to the physical descendants
of Abraham.”400 After discussing the fact that Israel can refer to those who are
related to Abraham by “faith as well as physical descent,”401 he then notes:
“They are ‘spiritual Israel’ and would be considered seed of Abraham, but this

393 Ibid., Notes and Jottings b. 178.

394 Galatians 3:29.
395 “In the Christian system, faith, as it is here called, does not refer to a name, nor a party of
any kind, but to Christ alone. They were Christians, and nothing else. Now if they were of
Christ, the only true Seed of Abraham according to the promise, through whom the nations
were to be blessed, they were of the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise.”
Darby., Collected Writings, vol. 34: Miscellaneous No.3, 80.
396 “The children of Israel were heirs of promise according to the flesh.” Ibid., Collected
Writings, vol. 32: Miscellaneous No. 1, 402.
397 “The natural branches are looked at as having been in the position of heirs of promise
down here on the earth, and God is able to graft them in again (these Jews who were
broken off) into the position on earth as heirs of promise. It is impossible to apply all this
to the church.” Ibid., 404.
398 Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. 1995. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 138.
399 Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1995. Thy kingdom come: tracing God's kingdom program and
govenantpromises throughout history. Grand Rapids, MI: Krcgel Publications, 80.
400 Ibid., 79.

98
 spiritual seed would be distinct from the physical seed. Paul referred to a third
seed of Abraham in Galatians 3:29 and Romans 4:11. There he made reference
to Gentiles who were not the physical seed of Abraham but possessed
Abraham’s faith.”402 According to Pentecost, apart from a vague notion of a
third seed, there are just two seeds to consider: those who are the physical
descendants and those who are either “spiritual” or of the “faith,” thus
combining the thoughts of Ryrie and Darby. John Walvoord echoes similar
sentiments: “Again in Galatians 3:29 . . . these passages teach beyond doubt
that there is a spiritual seed of Abraham, those like Abraham of old believe in
God, and are children of'f aith.”403
Conservative scholars like R. C. H. Lenski disagree with the notion of
the “two peoples of God” and thus with Darby, Ryrie, Pentecost, and
Walvoord. Lenski sees just one people of God, the redeemed through Christ;
thus, the doctrine of supersession or replacement theology. Commenting on
Galatians 3, Lenski observes: “God granted the inheritance to Abraham by
promise (v. 17). So, then, as Abraham’s seed we are heirs with Abraham,
Abraham and we belong to Christ by faith alone.”404 Just to reinforce his
interpretation, Lenski further comments that “the Mosaic law does not make
sons of God, does not make us Abraham’s seed, does not constitute us heirs. It
is the promise alone which was fulfilled in Christ; it is faith and baptism and
not works of the law. Here is the answer to the Judaizers.”405 Hank
Hanegraaff, while sharing the views of Lenski, is far more vociferous and less
constrained. Concerning John Hagee, Hanegraaff said, “As noted at the outset,
Hagee’s text-twisting tactics extend far beyond his Word of Faith message. As
a leading Christian Zionist, he routinely castigates those who do not share his
‘two-people of God’ theory as ‘Replacement theologians’ who are ‘carrying
Hitler’s anointing and his message.’”406 Thus, there is a clear division between

402 Ibid., 80, emphasis supplied.

403 Walvoord, John F. 1959. The millennial kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House,
pp. 144, 145, emphasis supplied.
41)4 Lenski, R. C. H. 1961. The interpretation o f St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, to the
Ephesians and to the Philippians. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 190.
405 Ibid., 191.
406 Hanegraaff, Hank.2009. Christianity in crisis: 21st century. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas
Nelson, p. 47. Note: Hanegraaff offers the following explanation: “In 1888 Scofield

99
 Darby and his supporters on the one hand, and other scholars who disagree
with Darby’s notion of the two people of God on the other. The latter assert
that there is only one people of God, the church, established through the
redemptive work of Christ at the cross.
Darby’s insistence that there are two peoples of God, not just one,
became a foundational idea in the development of his dispensationalist system.
According to Rodney Decker, “Although not exclusively a dispensational
view, the two people-of-God position is perhaps best known from classic
dispensationalism’s contention of an earthly and a heavenly people with
differing purposes and destinies.’’407

Darhv’s understanding of the two peoples of God

Darby used his notion of the two peoples of God to argue that all the
promises made to Abraham must be fulfilled by the patriarch’s natural
progeny so that the Second Advent can occur.408 We are then left with two
distinct covenants, the Abrahamic Covenant established with Abraham’s
physical descendants and the New Covenant established by faith with the
church.409 As Darby explained, the new covenant has been founded through
the redemptive blood of Christ, the Mediator, and will be fulfilled when Christ
returns to establish his earthly kingdom.410
The privilege of the church is to have its portion in the heavenly
places; and later blessings will be shed forth upon the earthly people.
The church is something altogether apart—a kind of heavenly

published Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, which became a primary defense of
Darby’s two people of God theory.” Hanegraaff, Hank. 2008. The apocalypse code: find
out what the Bible really says about the end tim es- and why it matters today. Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson, 46.
407 Decker, Rodney. “The People of God.” \[Link] o f premillennial theology, Mai
Couch, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregcl Publications, 1997, 298.
408 “He took up the cause of the seed of Abraham. This applies to us, we know, but in
language which leaves application open to others too, who are according to flesh and
faith.” Collected Writings, vol. 15: Doctrinal No.4, 233.
409 “This, then, is our portion in the new covenant, so far as we have any ordered interest in its
being sealed in the blood of the Mediator. That Mediator, being gone into the heavens, into
the holiest of all, has not accomplished the actual new covenant formerly with Israel and
Judah, as it shall surely be fully and distinctly accomplished.” Ibid., Collected Writings,
vol. 3: Doctrinal No.l, 52.
410 “In all this, it will be evident that the church of God does not at all enter. The scene had for
a time closed, in which these various principles were developed on earth, to be resumed in
power when Christ returns there to whom all the title and blessings belong.” Ibid.,
Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 387.

100

_• n• ------ W--u a u U'

UVSgU
Learning3 Resources Centre!
Ce
 economy, during the rejection of the earthly people, who are put aside
on account of their sins. . . the Lord, having been rejected by the
Jewish people, is become wholly a heavenly person.411

Darby’s “two peoples” approach rejected the more commonly held

view that God’s covenant with Israel (i.e., Abraham’s physical descendants)
had been transferred to the New Israel (i.e., Abraham’s spiritual descendants,
the church) when Israel rejected Messiah Jesus at the first Advent. Such a
view was known as “supersessionism.” Darby was therefore a strong anti-
supersessionist.412413As Stephen Spector affirms:
Darby rejected the long-standing belief that God is finished with the
Jewish people, that all of His promises of good to Israel have been
transferred to the Church. Christian Zionists refer to that belief as
“Replacement Theology” and they consider it a profound theological
error. They believe that God’s plan for the Jewish people is eternally
valid and that to say otherwise is to assert that the Lord reneges on His
promises. 413

According to Gabriel Fackre, “Anti-supersession is the belief that with Israel

God ‘has commanded his covenant forever’ (Psalm 111:9). ‘Israel’ is
understood as the Jewish people. While land claims may be entailed, the
covenant promise is not seen, as such, to include them .. . . anti-supersession
runs the gamut from conservative evangelical to radical pluralist points of
view. In each case, the noetic as well as the soteric role of the Jewish people is
underscored by the declaration of a permanent place for Israel in Christian
faith.”414 Thus, in researching the early usage of any terms relating to the two
peoples of God, one must distinguish between extant terminology with a
supersessionist interpretation and the use by Darby as an anti-supersessionist.

411 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic no.l, 376.

412 “Supersessionism is the belief that Christianity replaced Judaism as heir of the promise of
God to Israel.. . . The most overt expressions of supersessionism include the following:
the Jews rejected Jesus; The Old Testament shows the Jews as disobedient and
unrepentant.” Salmon, Marilyn J. 2006. Preaching without contempt: overcoming
unintended anti-Judaism. Fortress resources for preaching. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 37. Darby was clearly opposed to this view in his hermeneutic of the two peoples of
God, hence he was an anti-supersessionist.
413 Spector, Stephen. 2008. Evangelicals and Israel: the stoiy o f American Christian Zionism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 21.
414 Fackre, Gabriel J. 1997. The doctrine o f revelation: a narrative interpretation. Edinburgh
studies in constructive theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Ecrdmans Pub., 108, 109.

101
 Early usage of the terms relating to the two peoples of God
That the term had common usage prior to the time of Darby can be
understood by referencing the work of John Barrington, who, in 1728, made
the following insightful remark within his work on dispensationalism:
Though that earthly kingdom continued, and the Jews remain’d the
subjects of it for near forty years after Christ’s ascension to his throne;
God affording them that time and opportunity to enter into his spiritual
and heavenly kingdom . . . and then the idolatrous Gentiles to be his
people, and subjects of this heavenly kingdom . . . and having a great
part of that time been kept separate from God’s people (or the people
of his earthly kingdom) and the children of his family, by the
ceremonial law, the wall of partition, which immur’d or enclos’d the
Jews, and kept out the Gentiles from them, Gal. iii.23.415

Barrington is not alone in his use of the phrase “earthly and heavenly.”
Henry Dodwell in 1706 drew a comparison between sons of Abraham’s flesh
and those of his faith and averred that the latter “had the true seal of the
circumcision, not of the flesh, but of the spirit.” In speaking of those of the
faith, Dodwell continued: “They did not rival the Jews in their title to the
Earthly, but the Heavenly Canaan; not the Earthly but the Heavenly
Jerusalem.”416 John Venn in 1820 noted: “Ours is the heavenly Jerusalem. The
Jews were permitted to dwell in the earthly Jerusalem; but in the new
dispensation every thing earthly becomes heavenly, every thing carnal is
changed into spiritual.”417 Archibald M’Lean, clearly a supersessionist, in
1823 observed: “Further, the earthly Jerusalem was peculiar to the Jews; they
only could be free citizens and partakers of its privileges; but the heavenly
Jerusalem is the mother of all God’s children, Gentiles as well as Jews, who
are made fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God.”418 It is

415 Barrington, John Shute. 1728. An essay on the several dispensations o f God to mankind, in
the order, in which they lie in the Bible: or, a short system o f the religion o f nature and
scripture: with a Preface, shewing the causes o f the growth o f infidelity, and the likeliest
method to put a stop to it. And an Appendix, proving, that God adopted Abraham to the
inheritance o f eternal life, Gen. xii. 2, 3. xxii. 17, 18. London: Printed for J. Grey, at the
Cross Keys in the Poultry, 59, emphasis supplied.
416 Dodwell, Henry. 1706. An epistolary discourse, proving, from the scriptures and the first
fathers that the soul is a principle naturally Mortal;... By Henry Dodwell, A.M. London:
printed for R. Smith, 210.
417 Venn, John. 1822. Sermons. Boston: R.P. & C. Williams, 345, emphasis supplied.
4IS M'Lean, Archibald. 1823. Works; with a memoir o f his life, ministry, & writings. London:
Jones, 199, emphasis supplied.

102
 of interest that Edward Irving as early as 1831 made a comparison between the
earthly and heavenly things in his Exposition o f the Book o f Revelation: . . in
that earthly blessedness, every where prophesied of in the Old Testament
which concerneth not earthly and natural, but spiritual and heavenly things,
there were to be nothing distinctive of Jew from Gentile.”419 Irving further
noted the following: “And why? because the spiritual_is above the earthly, and
the church is the spiritual body of Christ, is the head of angels, and
principalities, and powers.”420
In summary, the terms pertaining to an earthly and heavenly kingdom
existed well before the time of Darby; therefore, he cannot be classed as
original in their usage. The uniqueness of Darby’s doctrine was to apply an
anti-supersessionist interpretation, and this much can be attributed to him. In
this sense, he was adaptive in the use of an extant nomenclature, and by
putting a unique spin on the terms, he created a new and revolutionary
hermeneutic. Unlike supersessionism, which argued that God transferred the
Covenant from the Jews to the church, dispensationalism taught that God
never abrogated the Old Covenant, just suspended it, while he created a
completely new people of God based on an entirely New Covenant.

Darby’s concent of “dispensations”: test, failure, and judgment

One of the major features in Darby’s dispensational system was the
division of biblical and subsequent history into various periods. As we shall
see, while he was not the first to use periodization, his use of “dispensations”
was essential to the creation of his interpretation. Thus, two questions present
themselves: How did Darby define the term “dispensation,” and how did he
use it within his system of periodization?

Darby defines “dispensations ”

Crutchfield proposed the following definition of the term
“dispensation” as used by Darby:

419
Irving, Edward. 1831. Exposition o f the book o f Revelation, in a series o f lectures. Catholic
Apostolic Church collection. London: Baldwin and Cradock, 995, emphasis supplied.
420
Ibid., 1012.

103
 A dispensation, age or economy, is any order, state or arrangement of
things established by the authority of God, whereby He governs or
administers the affairs of humankind during a given period of time on
the basis of distinct principles which place humankind in a specific
relation of responsibility to Him. These dispensations, also called the
ways of God and His government of the world, are marked o ff and
distinguished by the declaration of some new principle, with an
attendant new responsibility, which is distinctive to each.421

Darby uses the word “dispensation” some 1,490 times422 throughout

his entire works, but he also uses the words “age,” “economy,” and “period”
interchangeably, as demonstrated below. He thus makes the total references to
the subject of dispensationalism far higher than the figure above (emphasis
supplied in the following passages): “.. . that it is according to the will of God
to re-establish the economy or dispensation on its original footing after it has
failed”423; “If the economy or dispensation of God .. .”424; “We apprehend that
dispensation, or economy, for the words are identical in meaning, is generally
used as a theological term, with greater latitude than the scripture application
of it warrants.”425; “Then came the Son, and the whole economy and
dispensation of the law closed.”426; “Are we under the Jewish dispensation? Is
it not true that God has substituted the Christian dispensation for the Jewish
economy, or the dispensation of the law?”427; “. . . and the characteristic
features of the period which it designates . . . The Greek word, here rendered
dispensation, literally signifies stewardship .. ,”428429;“Is it not then after all this
dispensation, ‘the church period, ’ the church dispensation?',429; “This will
make the reader see why 1 enquired into these terms at the beginning, and the
important effect of identifying the kingdom and the church, and this age or
dispensation.”430; “ . . . which is the end of this dispensation or age.”431

421 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 47.
422 The figure was arrived at by physically counting the term “dispensations” throughout
Darby’s entire writings.
423 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No.l, 141.
424 Ibid., 144.
425 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 13c: Critical, 156.
426 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 26: Expositoiy No.5b, 181.
427 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 4: Ecclesiastical No. 2, 272.
428 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 13c: Critical, 156.
429 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 8: Prophetic No.3, 122.
410 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 8: Prophetic No.3, 122.

104
 Darby, in using the word dispensation interchangeably with a number
of other words, is at the same time pedantic as to its etymology. With
reference to his communication with a certain Mr. Oliver, Darby remarked:
“Economy, or dispensation, he [Mr. Oliver] says, means law of the house; but
economy means nothing of the kind. It signifies the administration of a house;
and, taken in an extended sense, it means any order of things that God has
arranged .. ,”4
31432 This sense of the meaning of dispensation accords with
Darby’s notion of stewardship. He relates his understanding of a dispensation
to the Greek word aionios (aitovio? ): “I turn to the word ‘eternal.’ The word
used in the Greek Testament, as it is well known to those familiar with it, is
aionios, formed from aion. This latter word is used in classical Greek writers
for ‘man's life,’ and in scripture for ‘a dispensation’ (or course of events in this
world ordered of God on some particular principle), as well as in the sense of
‘for ever.’”433
One thing seems clear; using the term “dispensation” is not equivalent
to the system of ‘dispensationalism.” As we shall see in chapter 7, many
theologians before Darby utilized the term as a synonym for “ages and stages”
without any of the other essential features of Darby’s intricate system.
I will continue to refer to the ordering of these ages and stages, or
dispensations, as “periodization,”434 leaving the word “dispensationalism” to
the eschatological system unique to Darby that contains his doctrine of the two
peoples of God, the secret rapture, and the ruin of the church.

Darby’s reason f o r periodization

Crutchfield points out that besides the primary characteristics of
Darby’s dispensational philosophy, what I term periodization, there were three
secondary characteristics, namely, the test, failure, and judgment.435
The test. According to Darby, “Every dispensation has some special
deposit, so to speak, entrusted to it, by which its fidelity is tried.”436 “It would

431 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic No.3, 300.

432 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 33.
433 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 7: Doctrinal No.2, 41.
434 Except for quotations wherein the author uses the term “dispensation.”

105
 be extraordinary in a dispensation for man not to be subject to trial and
temptations in the ways of God.”43546437 “Then God who foreknows all that He
purposes to accomplish, substitutes another dispensation in which man is
placed in another kind of trial, and thus all the ways of God are manifested,
and His manifold wisdom shines in its true brightness even in the
heavenlies.”438
The failure. The sense of “failure” is central to Darby’s
dispensationalism, as indicated by the following: “A dispensation is any
arranged dealing of God in which man has been set before his fall, and having
been tried, has failed, and therefore God has been obliged to act by other
means... . There has always been a dispensation, and always immediate
failure, and consequently there has necessarily been a remnant all through.”439
“It is not my intention to enter into any great detail, but to shew simply how,
in every instance, there was total and immediate failure as regarded man,
however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on by grace the
dispensation in which man has thus failed in the outset;”440 “Man has failed in
every dispensation of blessing from the hand of God.”441
The judgment. The failure of man leads to judgment by God; however,
the believer is spared through the judgment, as Darby explains: “This dealing
of God being on responsibility and injustice, it is according to the professing
mass (the body at large of their leaders) that the judgment takes place; the
security of the saints being untouched by it. Moreover, the refuge of the saints
is out of the system judged, because an untoward generation; and their place of
blessing, the dispensation that supervenes on the judgment of that from which
they may have been delivered.”44“ “All is connection with the judgment of the
Jews, which would close the dispensation .. .”443 “At the end of the Christian

435 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darbyfactor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 58-60.
436 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 114.
437 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 93.
438 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 29.
439 Ibid., Collectanea (6 The Dispensations and the Remnants).
440 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. I, 124.
441 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 16: Practical No.l, 102.
442 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No.l, 116.
443 Ibid., 197 Luke, 229.

106
 (sic) dispensation the faithful will be taken to heaven, and judgment will put
an end to the system in which they were previously.”444

Darby’s dispensationalism ami the two peoples o f God

Two central arguments have been presented by Darby. First is the test
by God, the failure by man, and judgment, which necessitate God’s obligation
to act by other means, namely, a new dispensation. Second is what Darby
terms “the confusion of the Jewish and Gentile dispensations.” It is this sense
of failure in the case of Israel that, in rejecting Christ, necessitated the
institution of the church to fill the parenthesis between the rejection and the
appearing of Christ at the rapture.
I believe it to be the most important point for the church to consider
now. Looked at as an earthly dispensation, it merely fills up, in
detailed exercise of grace, the gap in the earthly order of God’s
counsels, made by the rejection of the Jews on the covenant of legal
prescribed righteousness, till their reception again in the new covenant
in the way of grace on their repentance; but, though making a most
instructive parenthesis, it forms no earthly part of the regular order of
God’s earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a
fuller character and meaning to them.445

You get the sixty-nine weeks, and then a long parenthesis in which
Christ is set aside and the Jews on the earth “desolations being
determined,” which goes on until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
During this period the church, the heavenly thing, is called.446

This radical distinction between the two peoples of God, national Israel and
the church, is noted by Crawford Gribben: “Darby’s dispensationalism
differed from historic premillennialism in sharply contrasting the place and
purposes of Israel and the church in its scheme of redemptive history.”447
Darby expands on this radical distinction in the following comments on 1
Thess. 4:13-18 and 1 Cor. 15:
The substance of I Corinthians 15 applies to believers only. There is,
therefore, no ground of difficulty from the existence of death during

444 Ibid., Dearest G. Gausby, 94.

445 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. I, 94.
446 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 320.
447 Gribben, Crawford. 2008. Evangelical eschatology' and the ‘Puritan hope,' in The Advent
o f Evangelicalism, cds. Michael Haykin, Kenneth Stewart and Timothy George. 13 & II
Academic, 390.

107
 the millennium, as to the application of the above cited passage. And it
is remarkable that in the next page, the language of it is put into the
mouths of the risen saints, as spoken on the day of first resurrection, to
which in this page the writer says it is wholly inapplicable, because
death remains. In fact, it appears to me a confusion of the Jewish and
Gentile dispensations - the hinge upon which the subject and the
understanding of Scripture turns.44

Thus we find, in the Jewish rejection of the apostles, the instantaneous

cessation of derivative arrangement, and the whole dispensation, as
carried upon earth, assuming a new character. This was the actual
breaking of the earthly order, as the former scene with Stephen was the
closing of the Jewish possibility of the dispensation. But a new scene
now opens—the regular Gentile form and order of the dispensation in
the hands of the apostle Paul, the apostle of uncircumcision, and the
apostle of the Gentiles.448449

This “new scene” that Darby refers to is the dispensation of the church that is
parenthetical in nature and that fills the gap between the rejection of Christ by
the Jews and the time of the rapture. At that time the church will be in heaven,
leaving God to continue his work with the Jews. “It will be the same with the
Gentile world; all those who have professed the name of Christ, except the
elect, will be cut off—the others will be in heaven—and the dispensation of
the promises upon earth will again take the Jewish form . . ,”450 The clear
distinction between Israel and the church is at the heart of Darby’s
dispensational system. However, he also uses a system of periodization, and
this has led some scholars to assume that periodization and dispensationalism
are synonymous terms, hence the need to define Darby’s understanding of
each.

Darby’s system o f periodization

Ehlert provides a periodization for Darby as follows:
(I. Paradisiacal state), to the flood
II. Noah
III. Abraham
IV. Israel: (a) under the law; (b) under the priesthood; (c) under
the kings
V. Gentiles

448 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic No. 1, 17.

449 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 97, 98.
450 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 308.

108
 VI. The Spirit
(VII. The Millennium)451

1. The paradisiacal state—from Creation to the Deluge

According to Darby, since there was no rule or government, this
cannot typically be called a dispensation.
But (to enter a little more into the succession of dispensations, and also
into that which concerns the character of God in this respect) the first
thing that we would remark is the deluge, because until then there had
not been, so to speak, government in the world. . . . In Noah’s time
there was government in the world.452

I pass over the time before the flood whose general character offers a
sad contrast to the time when righteousness dwells in the new heavens
and the new earth, without a government to maintain i t . . . Neither one
nor the other can be properly called a dispensation. They are both
another world from that in which we live.453

In comparing the antediluvian world with the new heavens and the new earth,
Darby appears to draw a comparison between the two in that both did lack and
will lack, a government, which is central to the notion of a dispensation.

2. The dispensation of Noah—from the Flood to the Call of Abraham

Government is centra! in this dispensation.454 Features of this
government included the nature of “rule by man,” as Darby explains. “There
was no government before Noah. After the deluge, God makes a promise to
bless the earth, and He sets man in power with the sword to rule and repress
evil.”455 According to Crutchfield, “In this new world which begins with
Noah, says Darby, there are two great principles: rule placed in humanity’s
hands and separation from the world by God’s call (the latter comes from
Abraham).”456 Darby discusses this notion of rule and the repression of evil

451 Ehlert, Arnold D. 1965. A bibliographic history o f dispensationalism. BCH bibliographic

series, no. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 50. Note: Both Ehlert and Crutchfield
arc in agreement with Darby’s seven dispensations and the names supplied to the
dispensation; cf. Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darbv
factor. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 9, 50-54.
452 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic No. 1, 374, 375.
453 Ibid., 384.
454 Ibid., 101.
455 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 14.
456 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 76.

109
 with the following comment: “After the deluge, God makes a promise to bless
the earth, and He sets man in power with the sword to rule and to repress
evil.”457 Darby also interprets Noah as a type of Christ. “The reader may, in
passing, remark Adam as an image of Him who was to come, of the last
Adam; and Noah, as also a figure of Christ, inasmuch as the government of the
world and the repression of evil, were now entrusted to man.”458
The test. According to Crutchfield, the ability to rule by the sword was
the test imposed by God. “Darby refers to the effective administration of this
new government with its power of the sword as the ‘new trial’ under which
humanity was placed. The implication is that God placed the power of the
sword in the race’s hands to see if it could in fact govern effectively.”459
Darby explains succinctly: “In Adam rule; in Noah, the sword; in Sinai; the
law; in Aaron the priesthood .. .”460
The failure. Clearly, the fact that the law replaced the sword indicates
that rule by the sword failed in the dispensation of Noah. Darby presents a
catalogue of failures: “The first that Noah does is to get drunk. The children of
Israel make a golden calf even before they had got the law, though they had
just promised obedience. It was the same thing for the priests, Nadab and
Abihu: they offered strange fire the first day; and then Aaron was forbidden to
go into the most holy place in the garments of glory and beauty.”461 “Noah
gets drunk: this is not exercising authority. Afterwards comes in the
wickedness of Ham .. .”462
The judgment. Crutchfield again explains: “God’s judgment descended
upon humankind in the form of confusion of tongues. The projects of
rebellious humankind were confounded and the people themselves were

457 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 14.

458 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 22: Doctrinal No.6, 340.
459 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 77.
46() Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 19: Expository No. 1, 88.
461 Ibid., 67.
462 Ibid.

110
 dispersed... . The second great principle to grow out of the judgment at Babel
is the introduction of idolatry.”463
Darby discusses the judgment in term of the Abrahamic dispensation
that was to follow that of Noah. “Israel had been the centre and keystone of
the system that was established after the judgment upon Noah’s descendants
for their pride at Babel.”464 He summarizes this dispensation as follows: “Thus
we have man (ha-Adam) and the end of all flesh—Noah, and the new world,
and his failure—government of the world based on this failure by calling the
judgment (on Ham’s family). . . and then further—Babel and violent power,
beginning the subsequent history and then the family of the owned seed. The
call of Abraham begins all on a new basis.”465 This dispensation ended with
Abraham. The sign was the “covenant of the rainbow.”466

3. The dispensation of Abraham—his call by God

The substance of Abraham’s call is given in Genesis 12:1-2a: “Now
the Lord said to Abram, Go forth from your country, and from your relatives
and from your father’s house, to the land which 1 will show you; and I will
make you a great nation, and 1will bless you, and make your name great.”
According to Darby, the call demanded faithfulness to God with separation
from the idolatry of the world and from that of his family. The call specified
that Abraham leave his country for a land that God would show him. It was
also an unconditional covenant between God and Abraham that included a
land, a seed, and a blessing; and it is here that Darby interjects the term
“earthly blessings” in relation to Abraham and his seed.
It is the first time that we find God marking the existence of idolatry.
When it first made its appearance, God calls Abraham; and thus for the
first time, appears the call of God to an outward separation from the
state of things here below.467

463 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 77-78
464 Darby. 186 Proverbs, 16.
465 Ibid., Notes and Comments, vol. 1: 123.
466 Darby, John Nelson. 1849. The hopes o f the church o f God; in connection with the destiny
o f the Jews and the nations as revealed in prophecy. London: J. Nisbet., 69.
467 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic no.l, 347.

Ill
 Let us begin our citations upon this subject out of Genesis 12. The
chapter is the call of Abraham, who was in the midst of his idolatrous
family. The terms of the promise are very general; but they contain
earthly blessings as well as spiritual ones. The two kinds are found in
the same verse equally without condition. The spiritual part of the
promise is only once repeated (chap. 22) and that to the seed; not so
the temporal ones. In chapter 15 we have a promise founded upon a
covenant made with Abraham, also without condition. It is an absolute
gift of the country.468

Calling is central to this dispensation,469 and attached to that call is the

unconditional covenant.
The test. The test was for Abraham to leave his country and family and
to make the journey to the land that God was to show him.
The failure. Both the test and the failure are not entirely clear,
according to Crutchfield, who comments on both:
Darby says nothing directly about a test during this period either.. . . In
almost every categorical discussion of the failure of humanity under
responsibility, Darby omits the name of Abraham. Yet if one digs long
enough he will find that indeed there was failure on Abraham’s part
and by his descendants. According to Darby, Abraham’s personal
failure is seen in the fact that he went down into the land of Egypt and
while there, he lied to the Pharaoh about Sarah’s relationship to him.470

Darby discusses Isaac as a test of obedience, and in this sense there was no
failure. “God had placed the promises in Isaac in a positive manner; and God
puts Abraham to the test, to show whether he had such entire confidence in
Him, that he would give up all the promises as possessed (raise up Isaac again,
for in him God had said that the promises of a seed should be accomplished),
and obey God in an express command . . ,”471

4“ Ibid., 348.
469 Ibid., 101.
470 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 81.
471 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 6: Apologetic No. 1, 128. Note: It was Abraham’s
faithfulness and willingness to sacrifice Isaac that became the subject for Soren
Kierkegaard’s notion of the “teleological suspension of the ethical” in Fear and
Trembling. Abraham was faced with a moral dilemma in that he was faced with two ethics.
First, was the ethic of the father to his son that he should not kill, and second, the ethic that
he should obey God. Kierkegaard’s notion was that duty to God was a superior ethic to
that between father and son, hence the latter was not abolished but found fulfillment in the
higher ethic to God; hence his phrase the “teleological suspension of the ethical.”

112
 The judgment. Crutchfield comments that “Darby discusses the
judgments pronounced upon humanity for its failures in this period only in an
oblique way. With regard to Abraham’s untruth about Sarah, the families of
the earth (in this case represented by the house of Pharaoh), which were to
have been blessed because of him, are recipients instead of plagues (Gen.
12: 17).” 472

4. The dispensation of Israel

This dispensation, which began with the Abrahamic Covenant and
applies to Israel as a nation, was put “on hold” at the stoning of Stephen, but
will be restored at the time of the “fullness of the Gentiles.” This dispensation
is also termed by Darby the Jewish dispensation,473 the dispensation of the
Jew,474 the dispensation of Judaism,475 and a national dispensation.476 Darby
discusses three aspects of this dispensation: that under the law, under the
priesthood, and under the kings, and one is at a loss to know whether Darby
has in mind three separate dispensations or three aspects of one dispensation.
Crutchfield offers the following explanation:
One is hard pressed to determine whether the period from Moses to
Nebuchadnezzar is one dispensation or three in Darby’s analysis. Is it
the single dispensation of Israel or the dispensations of Israel under the
Law, Israel under the priesthood, and Israel under the kings? The
rationale for the threefold division is the fact that all three periods have
their own system under which Israel is placed with a different
responsibility and subsequent failure. On the other hand, Darby tends
to lump all three divisions together as the “Jewish Dispensation” or
“Jewish System” when comparing Israel’s history to other
dispensations.477

Jeffrey Thayer, while counting the paradisiacal state to the flood as a

dispensation, agrees with Crutchfield that the fourth dispensation, namely
Israel, encompasses the law, the priesthood, and the kings under one and not

472
Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins ofdispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 82. Note: The author references Darby, Collected
Writings, vol. 20: Ecclesiastical No.4, 331.
473
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 139, 181, 187, 208, 269.
474
Ibid., Notes and Comments, vol. 7: 83.
475
Ibid., 5.
475
Ibid., 187.

1 13
 three separate dispensations.47478 Floyd Elmore prefers to treat “Israel under the
law (prophet),” “Israel under the priesthood,” and “Israel under the kings” as
three separate dispensations rather than one, thus increasing Darby’s
dispensations to a total of eight.479
Israel under the law. Darby discusses two principles: the first is the
“government under Noah,” and the second is the “calling and election under
Abraham.” Under “Israel and the law” these two principles are combined.480
Darby elaborates on the subsumption of these two principles: “The history of
the union of these two principles, whether under the responsibility of man or
in the efficacy of the supremacy of God, is the history of the Jewish people.
The law is the directing principle of it, as being the expression of actual terms
of God’s government.”481 In a true Hegelian dialectic, the synthesis both
cancelled and preserved the two principles of government under Noah as
calling and election; the thesis and the antithesis were subsumed under the
Law. The handing down of the Law at Mt. Sinai is recorded in Exodus 19 and
20 .
The test. Darby makes the following comment: “The law, says the
apostle,482483was ordained by angels in the hands of a Mediator___ That which
was promised unconditionally to Abraham, was accepted at Sinai under
condition of the people’s obedience. ‘Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice
indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me
above all people.’ Exod. 19:5.” The test, according to Darby, was to keep
the Law.

477 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 86.
478 Thayer, Jeffrey. 2004. ReGencsis, a Galilean manner of speech. Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press,
358.
479 Elmore, Floyd. “Darby, John Nelson.” Dictionary ofpremillennial theology, 1997, Mai
Couch, ed. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel Publications, 84.
480 “We have seen the principle of judgment and daily retribution introduced under Noah, as a
constitution of the new world. This is the principle of government. We have also seen the
principle of the calling of God marked out in the history of Abraham. This is the principle
of grace, holiness, and the supremacy of God. But the union of these two principles is also
presented to our view in the Scriptures .. Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic
no.I, 135.
481 Ibid.
482 Paul.
483 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 34: Miscellaneous No.3, 77.

114
 The failure. According to Darby, the test, failure, and judgment go
very much hand in hand. The people had sworn obedience to the covenant, yet
even as the covenant was being ratified in the form of the Decalogue the
people had made themselves a golden calf. “Then it was (Exodus 19:8) that
they put themselves of their own will under the law. ‘All that the Lord hath
spoken we will do.’ But they failed under this law as the sin of the golden calf
(Exodus 32) witnessed.”484485
The judgment. According to Darby, the sin of the golden calf
demonstrated that the people turned away from God, thus abrogating the terms
of the covenant.
Read Deuteronomy 4:23-31; chap. 8:19,20; chap. 28:63-68; chap.
29:28; chap. 30:17,18. All these passages show plainly that judgment
has fallen upon Israel by reason of their sins. By this judgment the
relationship formed between God and Israel under the law, these
relationships, the existence of which depended expressly on the
people’s obedience (Exod. 19:5), have been entirely interrupted and
even terminated. The first covenant, that of Sinai, has been
suppressed—abolished, as the Epistle to the Hebrews says, in order to
give place to another.

Israel under the priesthood. Under the priesthood, a different form of

government was instituted, namely, rule by God through judges. In discussing
Psalm 132, Darby remarks that it concerns “. . . the restoration of the ark of the
covenant to its resting place . . . It is founded on David’s bringing the ark up to
Zion.”486 He then further commented on the Psalm: “The three principles of
government had been brought out in Israel. First, direct responsibility to God
under priesthood. That had failed under Eli, and that was Ichabod. It was over
with Israel on the ground of their own responsibility. Then God intervened by
a prophet.”487 Darby expands on his theme: Israel under the priesthood with
God as their king:
Under the priesthood (when God was their King, and there were only
judges raised up from time to time to preserve them in their inheritance
from the occasions of misery produced by their unbelief), they were
connected with God through the medium of the priest. .. . Samuel was

484 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 117.

485 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 4: Ecclesiastical No. 2, 276.
486 Ibid., 33 Psalms (Introduction), 312.
487 Ibid.

115
 the representative of the prophetic line, a judge also, governing the
people by the witness of God—a witness given as we have seen,
against the actual state of the priesthood. It is for this reason Peter says,
in Acts 3, “All the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after.”
This then was God’s government by prophets.488

The test. It would appear that Darby’s notion of the test, though not
entirely clear, did rest on the people being faithful to God their king, through
the medium of the prophet. “Let us now turn to some passages which detail
the transgression of Israel under every form of government. 1 Samuel 4:11. Eli
was the high priest... . After this God who raised up Samuel, the first of the
prophets . . . governs Israel by him, but Israel soon rejected him. 1 Sam. 8:6-
7.”489 Rejection of God is always followed by judgment.
The failure and judgment. The failure followed the test, since Israel
had not listened to the prophets but had rejected them, as Darby explains with
reference to Samuel: “. . . for they have not rejected you but they have rejected
me [God], that I should not reign over them .. .”490
Israel under the kings. Government passed from a theocracy to a
monarchy as the people rejected God as their king who ruled through the
prophets, wanting instead an earthly king to rule over them. “. . . this then was
the government by prophets; yet the people were not yet satisfied with it, but
desired a king: and God gave them ‘a king in his anger, and took him away in
his wrath,’ Hos. 13:11. A king chosen according to the flesh, when God was
their King, served only to shew the weakness of all that man did, the folly of
all that he desired.”491
The test. Again, faithfulness to God though the kingly line instead of
the priesthood established the relationship between God and Israel.
The failure. According to Darby, Israel rejected a theocracy in favour
of a monarchy. Darby compares the kingship of Israel with the kingship of
Christ. “Nevertheless, the kingship of Christ over His people was ever in
God’s designs. And He gave them a king after His own heart, and David and

488 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic no. 1, 139.

489 Ibid., 354, 355.
490 1 Sam. 8:7
491 Darby, ibid., 139.

116
 Solomon furnished the type of the kingship of Christ: one in suffering and
overcoming all his enemies, after complete obedience; the other, as in reigning
in peace and glory over a happy, obedient and prosperous people.. . . The
repose and glory which Solomon enjoyed were the cause of his fall. He kept
not his uprightness in the midst of the gifts of God, but drawn aside by his
wives, he followed after other gods.”492 Darby portrays an extramarital affair
and failure with David and Bathsheba: “This history shews how far sin can
blind the heart. . . God chastened David by the child’s death; it is another son
of Bathsheba who was the elect of God, who became king and the head of the
royal family, the man of peace and blessing, the beloved of Jehovah.”493 Saul
also failed. According to Darby: “After Israel had failed under Moses, under
the judges and under Saul, David became the king chosen of God .. ,”494
The judgment. Solomon’s son Rehoboam, unlike his father, did not
walk in the ways of the Lord and sought to rule despotically, with the result
that the monarchy split into the Northern and Southern kingdoms. Darby
comments on the outcomes and the judgment by God: “Judah, having walked
in all sorts of iniquity also, during the reign of Rehoboam, Jerusalem is taken,
and all the riches which Solomon had amassed became the prey of the
Egyptians. Abijam, his son, follows no better course. There was constant war
between the two kingdoms—the sad story, so often renewed, of man placed in
the enjoyment of God’s blessing, and the effects of his fall.”495 First occurred
the Assyrian captivity of the Northern kingdom in 722 BCE and then finally
the Babylonian captivity of the Southern kingdom in 586 BCE, as recorded by
Darby, in contrast to the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE: “. . . the
temple is allowed to be cast down, as indeed it was at the captivity of Babylon;
and this must be the case, in order that God may show that He has completely
abandoned His people to the fruits of their ways.”496 “The question then is of
His government, and we can now ask, ‘When is it that God, in His government
of the people of Israel, executes upon that people the sentence of ‘Lo-ammi’?’

492 Ibid.
491 Ibid., Synopsis o f the Books o f the Bible, 47.
494 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 45
495 Ibid., Synopsis o f the Books o f the Bible, 50.

117
 I am about to show my reader that it was at the time of the captivity of
Babylon.”*
497

5. The dispensation of the Gentiles

Israel under the Gentiles. In the dispensation of Noah, government was
central. In the dispensation of Abraham, the calling and promise of God were
central. At the fall of the Jewish nation with the captivity of the Southern
Kingdom in 586 BCE, “God transferred the right of government to the
Gentiles; but with this difference, that this right was separated from the calling
and promise of God.”498 “With Nebuchadnezzar begins the times of the
Gentiles.”499 That right (calling and promise) remained with the Jewish nation
that formed God’s earthly people. The dispensation of the Gentiles extends to
the time of the millennium. “This still continues, and will continue, Jerusalem
being trodden down, till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, in the close of
the Gentile dominion begun in Nebuchadnezzar.”500 “When God set up a head
of Gentile power in Nebuchadnezzar .. .”501
Crutchfield is of the opinion that the Gentile dispensation started at the
time of Nebuchadnezzar with the transference of government from Israel to
the Gentiles. This is certainly the view of Darby. However, the complexity of
Darby’s dispensationalism is demonstrated when he also asserts: “In fact the
Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of Stephen
.. .”502 It might be more proper to say that this dispensation began with
Nebuchadnezzar but was ratified with the stoning of Stephen.503 This would
appear correct since, if the Gentile dispensation began with Nebuchadnezzar,

4% Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 153.

497 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 4: Ecclesiastical No. 2, 255. Note: Darby defines “Lo-ammi”
as God’s pronouncement of being “not my people.” Cf. Collected Writings, vol. 33-
Miscellaneous No. 2, 400, where Darby references Hosea 1:6, 9.
49S Darby, The hopes o f the church o f God; in connection with the destiny o f the Jews and the
nations as revealed in prophecy. London: J. Nisbet, 101.
499 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 30: Expository No. 2, 236.
500 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 13C: Critical, 365.
501 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 9: Apologetic Nod, 290.
502 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 130.
503 Crutchfield offers this explanation: “If the death of Stephen was the pivotal event which
inaugurated the Gentile dispensation, then Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles was its head
and chief representative.” Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the
Darby factor. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 108.

118
 typically at the captivity of the Southern Kingdom in 586 BCE, it would then
encompass the work of Christ, ending in the fullness of the Gentiles. However,
Darby remarks that “outwardly, all goes on without the intervention of Christ,
from the sowing of the seed until the harvest. Well, the time which elapses
from the seed-sowing till the harvest is what is generally called the present
dispensation. I have called it ‘the church dispensation,’ because it is the time
during which the church is called, and exists here below, in contrast with the
Jews and the legal system.”504 Clearly, the text would accord with the previous
text referring to the stoning of Stephen.
The test. The test is not specifically enunciated by Darby, except that
the failure of Nebuchadnezzar would seem to intimate that Darby has in mind
the fact that the king was God’s appointed agent of government, as can be
understood by Darby’s comment on his failure.
The failure and judgment. The failure occurred with Nebuchadnezzar,
who turned to pagan gods, as described by Darby: “God made the son of
David to sit on the throne of Jehovah; but, idolatry having been introduced by
him, the kingdom was divided, and the throne of the world was given of God
to Nebuchadnezzar, who made a great image of gold and cast the faithful into
a burning fiery furnace. In every case man was faithless; and God, having long
borne with him, interposes in judgment and substitutes a better system.”505
“But Nebuchadnezzar casts the faithful into the fire, and got in every sense a
beast’s heart. Gentile power is corrupt, ambitious, and violent—cannot, as
scripture speaks, stay at home, what he describes by likening them to ravening
beasts.”506

6. The dispensation of the Spirit

The role o f the Holy Spirit. In a discussion of the dispensation of the
Spirit, a number a problems arise. Darby’s system appears to be a series of
overlapping dispensations. Crutchfield identifies the first overlap: “The reader
will note that here, Darby seems to characterize the entire period from the

51,4 Darby, ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 289.

505 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 14: Ecclesiastical No.3, 87.
51,6 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 18: Doctrinal No. 5, 253.

119
 giving of the Law to the coming of Christ as a single dispensation—‘the
Jewish dispensation,’ the ‘dispensation of the law.’ . . . If the ‘Christian
dispensation’ immediately followed the ‘Jewish dispensation . . . of the Law,’
one wonders what became of the Gentile dispensation and those of Israel
under the priesthood and the kings.”507 The second overlap occurs from
Nebuchadnezzar to the time of the millennium, what Darby calls the “Gentile
dispensation.” With this in mind, Darby now presents the “dispensation of the
Spirit,” but perhaps a more appropriate term would be the “Church Age” that
began with the stoning of Stephen and will extend to the pretribulational
rapture. Darby comments on this dispensation with the following remark: “In
fact the Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of
Stephen, the witness that the Jews resisted the Holy Ghost: as their fathers did,
so did they.”508 Further: “When the church, viewed as a dispensation on earth
has come to an end, the throne of God becomes again the centre of relation
with the earth, and God begins again to intervene directly in the world,
without having yet replaced His son on the earth.”509
Darby’s notion of the two peoples of God begins with the stoning of
Stephen, the Jewish rejection of Christ, and the inauguration of the
parenthetical church and start ot the “dispensation of the Spirit.” “Thus we
find, in the Jewish rejection of the apostles, the instantaneous cessation of
derivative arrangement, and the whole dispensation, as carried upon earth,
assuming a new character. This was the actual breaking of the earthly order, as
the former scene with Stephen was the closing of the Jewish dispensation. But
a new scene now opens—the regular Gentile form and order of the
dispensation in the hand of the apostle Paul, the apostle of the uncircumcision,
the apostle of the Gentiles.”510 In his discussion concerning Christ in His
relation to the churches, Darby comments: “We are arrived at a most
important subject, where, if ever, we may find something of the spiritual and

507 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanhain,
MD: University Press of America, 107.
508 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 75, 92, 135.
51,9 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 14.
51(1 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 97, 98.

120
 heavenly character of the church of God during this dispensation.”511Thus, the
“dispensation of the Spirit” marks the distinction between the Jews, who now
become God’s earthly people, and the church, as God’s heavenly people.
Crutchfield, aware of the complexities of Darby’s thoughts, proposed the
following explanation: “Perhaps Darby’s point is this. From the death of
Stephen through Paul’s life, the church was united in its heavenly calling and
earthly arrangement. However, at the apostle’s death, the church in its earthly
character (the ‘professing church,’ Christendom) and the church in its
heavenly character (the true church, the Body of Christ) would become two
distinctly different things.”512
The test. The goal of the church was to fulfil the great commission and
to preach the gospel. “The Lord Jesus has, then, received these gifts to
Himself, a man, and has given them to men, for the effectuating the work of
the gospel and of the Church; those therefore who have received these gifts
must needs turn them to their full profit, according to God, to Will (sic) souls,
to edify Christians, and to glorify their heavenly Master.”513
The failure a n d judgment. The failure of the church is one of Darby’s
key doctrines concerning “the ruin of the church,” which I have covered
extensively in chapter three. Darby saw evidence of the church’s ruin in his
own day and believed it would culminate in the great apostasy of the church
before the Second Coming of Christ, under the Antichrist and the False
Prophet of Revelation, thus ushering in judgment.

7. The Dispensation of the millennium

The events leading up to the millennium include the pretribulational
rapture of the saints, the judgment of the saints, and the Marriage Supper of
the Lamb in heaven. Following these events, the saints (church) accompany
Christ back to earth, where there will be the Battle of Armageddon. Then
follows the millennium during which time the government will be directed by
the Lord himself in conjunction with His saints. Its earthly centre of

511 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 8: Prophetic No.3, 21.

12 Crutchfield, Larry. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 109.

121
 administration will be Jerusalem. Thus God’s heavenly people, the saints, will
rule with Christ over God’s earthly people, Israel.
The millennium, as regards the saints on earth, will be judicial; now in
grace. The Jewish economy was not of grace, but law. The Church
cannot depart from its standing with God, and therefore cannot have to
do with a judicial economy, which must have reference therefore to an
earthly people.513514

As to the difference of the saints’ calling, therefore on earth during the

millennium, it will be quite different from that of the saints now on
earth, for the obvious reason that the millennial dispensation, as
regards the saints on earth will be a dispensation of judgment.515

We have in one sense come to the end of the Book of Revelation. Here
it is that events of the prophecy are closed. What follows is a
description of the holy Jerusalem, of the joy of the saints during the
thousand years, and the relations of the heavenly Jerusalem with the
earth. Everything is centred [s/c] in Christ.516

Darby comments: “In the beginning of the sentence, Ephesians 1:10 is applied
to the millennial state of the Jews. In the end of the passage it is said to be a
dispensation which is not then yet come, and in which the millennial
arrangements cease.. . . 1 do not believe that the passage applies to the post-
millennial state, which cannot be called a dispensation, for it is eternity .. ,”517
Thus Darby affirmed that the “millennial dispensation” is the last and final
dispensation within his system.
Thus far, Darby’s dispensationalism included a highly complex system
of periodization, with some dispensations overlapping others, incorporating
six stated dispensations in addition to the paradisiacal state, which Darby did
not consider a dispensation. Darby constructed his periodization with the
belief that there were successive periods in which relationships between man
and God appeared to change. Typically God imposed a test, and man failed
and received judgment. God then instituted a new dispensation or period. This
is the only way to make makes sense of his doctrine of the two peoples of

513 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 14: Ecclesiastical No.3, 6.

514 Ibid., Collectanea, n.p.
515 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 32: Miscellaneous No. I, 276.
5,6 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 96.
517 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 8: Prophetic No.3, 222.

122
 God. In this case, the Jews, in not accepting Christ, failed the test, forcing God
to institute a new dispensation or period: the church age or the dispensation of
the spirit.

Darby's hermeneutical principle

Darby provides a fairly comprehensive explanation of how he
interprets Scripture:
First, in prophecy, when the Jewish church or nation (exclusive of the
Gentile parenthesis in their history) is concerned, i.e., when the address
is directly to the Jews, there we may look for a plain and direct
testimony, because earthly things were for the Jews’ proper portion.
And, on the contrary, where the address is to the Gentiles, i.e., when
the Gentiles are concerned in it, there we may look for a symbol,
because earthly things were not their portion, and the system of
revelation must to them be symbolical. When therefore facts are
addressed to the Jewish church as a subsisting body, as to what
concerns themselves, I look for a plain, common sense, literal
statement, as to a people with whom GOD had direct dealings upon
earth, and to whom He meant His purposes concerning them to be
known___Secondly . . . that wherever Scripture affords the history of
a fact, there we may expect it to be distinctly and literally declared or
predicated in prophecy. When the Scriptures do not extend to the
giving the history (which is evidently the case after the fact of the
restoration of the Jews from Babylon, save the fact of the Lord’s
coming to offer Himself, and perhaps we may add the outpouring of
the Spirit), then we must expect it to be declared only symbolically,
i.e., approximately in its moral character; and hence partly, the partial
obscurity of the seventy weeks ol Daniel, because they were no regular
recognized portions of the Jewish history, but a sort of anomalous
period for the coming of the Lord.518

In short, despite Darby’s claim that he used a literal interpretation of

Scripture, such literalism was at times overwhelmed by his conviction that all
prophesied earthly events must apply to the Jews and that the church had no
earthly prophecies of its own. Later on, even dispensationalists would question
this “rule of thumb.” Nevertheless, there is interconnectedness between
Darby’s entire dispensational doctrines concerning: The unconditionality of
the Abrahamic Covenant; the seventy-week prophecy which pertained to
national Israel; the sixty-ninth week which culminated in the stoning of

518 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic No. I, 35-36.

123
Stephen; the two peoples of God; the pretribulation rapture; and the gap in
Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy.

124
 5. The 70 W eeks of Daniel and the G ap Theory

The seventy-week prophecy has provided fertile ground for numerous

historicist interpreters involved in “date setting,” and it has also been widely
used within futurism with regard to the gap between the 69th and 70th weeks.
In this chapter I will present the arguments for historicism and futurism in
conjunction with the seventy-week prophecy, followed by Darby’s “gap
thesis.”
It is widely held that the “gap thesis” was original to Darby, in that he
invented it. I would argue otherwise. Darby’s “gap thesis” was not original to
him, and for this reason I will present the early usage of the notion of a gap in
the prophecy, together with what 1believe to be Darby’s source, namely,
Newtonian futurism. The seventy-week prophecy is recorded in Scripture in
Daniel 9:24-27:
Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city,
to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement
for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and
discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty
two weeks; it will be built again with plaza and moat, even in times of
distress. Then after sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and
have nothing . . . And he will make a firm covenant with the many for
one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice
and grain offering .. .5I

Darby’s belief in the inviolability of the Abrahamic Covenant, which he

believed applied to the Jewish nation and provided the background for his twin
concepts of God’s earthly and heavenly people, undergirded his attempt to
develop a hermeneutic for Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy. In doing so, he
used a gap of an indeterminate number of years between the sixty-ninth and
seventieth weeks, thus amputating the prophecy. Darby applied a futurist
interpretation to the prophecy very much in line with that of the Roman
Catholic Church.519

519 Daniel 9:24-26a and 27a.

125
 There was, however, another dominant historicist view that saw the
prophecy as a composite whole without any gap. These then were the two
major interpretations of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy: the Darbyite futurist
view that placed a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks, and
the more traditional historicist interpretation that typically saw the fulfilment
of the entire prophecy at the time of Christ. To understand Darby’s
interpretation of the prophecy, it is perhaps best to provide the rationale for the
historicist interpretation first, thus laying the groundwork for the gap thesis.

The Millerite historicist hermeneutic

The scholars who agree that the seventy weeks lead up to the time of
Jesus’ crucifixion and find no gap in the prophecy are typified by the Millerite
movement, which would later become the Seventh-day Adventist church. The
late Frank Moran, who was a professor at the Seventh-day Adventist Loma
Linda University, provides a prophetical interpretation that links the 70-week
prophecy to the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8,520 thus supplying the rationale
for the Great Disappointment of 1843/1844. The starting date for both
prophecies was the same, 457 BCE. In both prophecies a literal year-for-a-day
interpretation was used, based upon the texts of Ezek. 4:6521 and Num.
14:34.522 Thus, the prophecies literally represent 490 and 2300 years
respectively. It was conjectured that the supposed validity of the 70-week
prophecy ensured the validity of the 2300-day prophecy, since both were
given in the book of Daniel and both used the same starting date. The failure
of the Millerite expectations circa 1843/1844 was later reinterpreted in the
light of the “heavenly sanctuary thesis.”

520 “And he said to me, ‘For 2300 evenings and mornings, then the holy place will be properly
restored.’” Dan. 8:14.
521 “ . . . I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year.” Ezek. 4:6b.
522 “According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day
you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you shall know My opposition.”
Num. 14:34.

126
 The chart above, reproduced from Syllabus fo r Personal Evangelism, depicts
how Frank Moran explained his eschatological scheme and hence that of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church and the early Millerite movement.523 Moran
adds the 7 weeks and 62 weeks,524 making 69 weeks or 483 weeks of years,
and subtracts 457, the date the prophecy began, making 26. Since there is a
crossover from BCE to CE (there being no year 0), he adds a year, making 27
CE (AD) on the chart for “Messiah the Prince.”525 Moran understands that the
prophecy found fulfilment in the baptism of Jesus. “The 483 years, ending in
27 AD, were to reach to the Anointed One. In that very year Jesus was
anointed with the Holy Ghost. Though centuries had passed since the
prophecy was made, He fulfilled it exactly on time. In this fact we have
conclusive evidence that He was the One sent of God to be our Savior.”526
Moran then turned to Daniel 9:27,527 in which the author saw the fulfilment in
the passion: “Christ confirmed the ‘New Covenant’ with as many of the
Jewish people as would accept Him for 7 years after 27 A.D. During that time
he preached to the Jews for 3 Vi years, and after His ascension the disciples

523 Moran, Syllabus for Personal Evangelism, II, 19. Note: Moran includes the 2300-day
prophecy in conjunction with that of the seventy-weeks.
524 Daniel 9:24-26b.
525 Moran also adjusts for the fact that the decree, according to Ezra 7:9, was not issued until
the fifth month; II, 16.
526 Moran, ibid., II, 17. The author cites a number of verses to support his argument, including
John 1:41; Acts 10:38; Matt. 3:16; Mark 1-9-15.
527 “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the
week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering.” Daniel 9:27b.

127
 preached exclusively to the Jews for another 3 A years ending in 34 A.D. In
the midst of that week Jesus was crucified, or ‘cut o ff (verse 26).”528
Moran then considered the events that happened at the termination of
the 70-week prophecy, which he asserted were fulfilled in the stoning of
Stephen. “But in 34 A.D. the Sanhedrin, the highest official body in the Jewish
nation, confirmed their national rejection of Christ by stoning Stephen, and
launching a great persecution against Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9 to
8 : l ).”529530
The following arguments are proposed by Moran:
1. The 69 weeks found fulfilment in the baptism of Jesus.
2. The 3 'A week prophecy found fulfilment in the crucifixion of Jesus.
3. The 70-week (remaining 3 'A weeks) prophecy found fulfilment in the
stoning of Stephen.
4. The entire 70-week prophecy is “composite” and is not split up, and
there is no gap.

Moran’s fourth point (there is no gap) is of great significance and finds

support in the observations of George L. Rose: “All the evidence of the New
Testament, and of Christian experience, agrees with the greatest teachers of
the Christian church, that the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy has all
been fulfilled more than 1900 years ago. This leaves no future seventieth week
yet to be fulfilled in ‘the great tribulation after the rapture.’”531
Moran’s argument affirms a literal interpretation based upon his thesis
that in prophetical interpretation, a week in prophecy really means a year in
real terms. Moran is not alone in this interpretation but is supported by many
other interpreters. John Cumming, a Scot, states that “. .. if the period of
Daniel were seventy literal weeks, there would be nothing to correspond with
its termination. 1 therefore conclude, I think justly, that the seventy weeks of
Daniel are seventy weeks of years, each day being taken for a year. . . i.e., 490

Moran, ibid., II, 17.

529 Ibid., II, 18. Moran supports his argument by citing Acts 8:1-5.
530 Futurism and later dispensationalists (to be discussed) would disagree with the composite
nature of the seventy-week prophecy, and understand that the seventieth week (or part of
it) applies to the future.
531 Rose, George L. Tribulation Till Translation (Glendale, CA: Rose Publishing Company,
1943), 62, qtd. in Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1964. Things to come: a study in Biblical
eschatology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondcrvan, 171.

128
 years.”532 Samuel Sharpe has similar thoughts: “Hence our commentators take
no liberty whatever in understanding the week in this chapter to mean a week
of years, and the seventy weeks spoken to mean 490 years.”533 Jonathan
Edwards is of like mind: “. . . in the 9th chapter of his prophecy; who foretold,
that it should be seventy weeks, i.e. seventy weeks of years, or seventy times
seven years, or four hundred and ninety years, from the decree to rebuild and
restore the state of the Jews, till the Messiah should be crucified.”534 It is
important to note that whereas Moran affirms that the Messiah was crucified
in the middle of the last week, Edwards puts the crucifixion 3 '/2 years later, at
the termination of the seventy weeks.
If we are to believe Samuel Sharpe’s assertion that “our commentators
take no liberty .. .” we are left in a quandary by what is understood by the
word “liberty.” George Stanley Faber, an English scholar and rector,535 is in
disagreement with the sentiments of Sharpe, and his remarks would suggest
that the commentators have indeed taken great liberties with their
interpretation. “Yet, if we find upon computing this smaller period that we are
brought to no event which will in any manner quadrate with the expression
unto the Messiah, we shall undoubtedly have reason to suspect, that the 490
years between the edict of Artaxerxes and the crucifixion are not the intended
period of seventy weeks, but that their numerical correspondence with each
other is purely casual.”536 This brings us back to the argument by John
Cumming that the seventy weeks, if they are literally that period, then there is
no corresponding event that the prophecy relates to. The commentator,
contrary to the sentiments of Samuel Sharpe, is then forced to take liberties
with his interpretation if he is to derive any meaningful interpretation.

532 Cumming, John. 1854. Prophetic studies. Lectures on the book of Daniel. Philadelphia:
Lindsay and Blakiston, 380.
533 Sharpe, Samuel. 1868. The chronology o f the Bible. London: J. Russell Smith, 38.
534 Edwards, Jonathan, and Samuel Austin. 1808. The works o f President Edwards. Worcester
[MA]: Isaiah Thomas, Jun., 149.
535 “Faber, George Stanley (1773-1854), controversialist: scholar of University College,
Oxford, 1790; fellow of Llincoln, 1793; M.A., 1796; Bampton lecturer, 1801; B.D., 1803;
vicar of Stockton-upon-Tees, 1805-8 . . . ” Lee, Sidney. 1903. Dictionary o f national
biography. Index and epitome. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 414.
536 Faber, George Stanley. 1811.4 dissertation on the prophecy contained in Daniel IX 24-27:
generally denominated the prophecy o f the seventy weeks. London: F.C. and J. Rivington
411.

129
 However, as suggested by Faber, supposed foretold events may be
coincidental or, as he remarks, “casual.” Herein lies the dilemma: if there are
problems in determining whether the seventy weeks should be treated as
“weeks of years” or not, how then are the component parts of the seventy-
week prophecy to be determined? This will become more relevant in the light
of Darby’s gap thesis.

The Darbvite futurist hermeneutic

The historicist interpretation of the seventy-week prophecy can be
easily understood, but the same cannot be said about Dai by s interpretation.
Faced with the fact that this was a prophecy that pertained to the Jews and one
with a definite starting date, Darby was then in a dilemma over the termination
of the prophecy. In his endeavour to reconcile all the variables, there appeared
to be only one solution—to place a gap of an indeterminate number of years
somewhere in the prophecy. Where to place the gap occupied his thoughts for
a long period of time, oscillating between a three-and-a-half-year or seven-
year period that was to be fulfilled at the Second Advent, not the time of
Christ. He did resolve this eschatological issue but not before committing
himself to the view for a number of years that alluded to a three-and-a-half-
year period or half-week to be fulfilled at the Second Advent. He also
interpreted the remaining period to be a full week, or seven years, of the
seventy-week prophecy, also reserved for the time of the Second Advent.537
Thus, Darby asserted a futurist interpretation upon which his entire
eschatology hangs and without which his entire dispensationalist system falls
apart. Regarding the final week of the seventy-week prophecy, Darby made
the following comment: “The remaining week remains still to be fulfilled. We
have here the history of this last week. At that time, God will resume with the
Jews His laws, His judgments, and His terrestrial government.”538

537
“Darby initially held to a three and a-half year (1260 days) tribulation; only later did he
accept a seven year tribulation.” Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant
secessions from the via media, c. 1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford-
Oxford University Press, 224.
Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 31.

130
 Darby understood that Israel was the chosen people of God up to their
rejection of Christ and the “martyrdom of Stephen; and at this point the Jewish
successional order closed.”53y At this juncture, the church was called to fulfil
the parenthesis between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel, as Darby explains:
“This lapse of time, this parenthesis in the ways of God, is brought in, in the
most distinct way at the end ol Daniel 9 . . . to what I was calling a
parenthesis, or lapse of time, during which the Jews were all set aside.
Darby then discussed extensively the seventy-week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-
27 and remarked that “.. . there is still a week left, we have had only sixty-
nine weeks.”53954041 He understood that God had stopped the prophetical clock
with the martyrdom of Stephen, and this coincided with the completion of the
69"' week of the seventy-week prophecy. The great tribulation marks the
beginning of the 70th week, but this is all in the future, and an indeterminate
number of years make up the period between the close of the 69 week and
the start of the 70lh week. This gap between these two weeks is what Darby
refers to as the “parenthetical period,” this being outside the dispensational
stages of history, awaiting the time for the secret rapture of the saints and the
subsequent Great Tribulation. Darby explains this as follows.
The tribulation in Matthew 24:21 is more particularly connected with
what will take place in Judea, or rather in Jerusalem, under Antichrist,
and is applied to the Jews. Those who have come out from the “great
tribulation ” or of “a great tribulation,” are not the church properly so
called, for as is seen in Revelation 3:10, she will be kept out of it. I do
not mean either, that they are the same persons of those spoken of in
connection with the great tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:15, 22,
for in Matthew those persons are evidently Jews: whereas, in the
chapter before us, they that came out of the great tribulation are
Gentiles.542
Thus, Darby understood that the prophetical clock had stopped for the
Jews following the upper room discourse and was actualized after the giving
out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.543 This begins the period that he calls the

539 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 1: Ecclesiastical No. 1, 112.

540 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. II: Prophetic No. 4, 243.
541 Ibid.
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No. 2, 25.
543 Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1995. Thy kingdom come: tracing God's kingdom program and
govenantpromises throughout history. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 133

131
 “parenthetical church,” during which time we see the clear distinction between
Israel and the church, the “two peoples of God.” This parenthetical church was
not a dispensation per se but the interlude between the martyrdom of Stephen
and the future removal of the saints that will occur in the secret rapture. The
distinction is maintained that unfulfilled prophecy pertains to the Jews and not
to the church and that the Jews constitute God’s earthly people and the church,
God’s heavenly people. Thus by adopting the two people of God thesis, Darby
supported a futurist interpretation of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy.

The Jesuit futurist apologetic

The question as to why Darby and other dispensationalists should
adopt a Roman Catholic Jesuit doctrine of futurism is of particular interest.
The post-Reformation assertion that Rome and the papacy constituted the
Antichrist544 was met with the Counter-Reformation apologetics of preterism
and futurism. Preterism, advanced by the Jesuit Alcazar of Spain, reasoned
that the Papacy could not be the Antichrist since the prophecies concerning the
Antichrist were fulfilled prior to there being any Papacy. Futurism, the
doctrine advanced by Francisco Ribera and Robert Bellamine, both Jesuits,
asserted that Antichrist had yet to appear and that his coming was in the
future. This convenient argument of preterism and futurism placed the
Antichrist either before the Papacy or sometime in the indefinite future, thus
nullifying the assertion that Rome was the Antichrist. When Darby stated that
“The remaining week remains still to be fulfilled,”545 he appears to be in
agreement with the Roman Catholic doctrine of futurism.
A number of scholars are patently aware of Darby’s affirmation of
futurism. “Thus, in spite of the positive features of his ministry, Darby
followed Irving (and probably Margaret), Newman, Todd, Burgh, Maitland,
and Ribera by inserting the virus of futurism into his theology, now a pre­

544 Wyckliffe, Conradus Grascrus, Edward Leigh, Johann Heinrich Alsted, Henry Barrow,
Thomas Becon, William Bradshaw, John Brinsley, Edward Burrough, William Cowper,
Thomas Cranmer, William Dell, George Downamc, Patrick Forbes, William Fulke,
William Guild, Henry Moore, William Perkins, Samuel Rutherford, Patrick Simson,
Nathaniel Stephens, Thomas Manton, Martin Luther, the Albigcnses and the Waldcnsians,
all affirmed the Papacy to be the Antichrist.
545 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 31.

132
 tribulation rapture theology. This created a link between John Nelson Darby,
the father of modem dispensationalism, and Francisco Ribera, the ancient
father of modern dispensationalism.”546 Thomas D. Ice adds to the thoughts of
Wohlberg with the following comment: “The Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-
1591) was one of the first to revive an undeveloped form of futurism around
1580. Because of the dominance of historicism, futurism made virtually no
headway in Protestantism, until the 1820’s; futurism began to gain converts
and grow in the British Isles, often motivated by a revived interest in God’s
plan for Israel; during this time it gained one of its most influential converts in
John Nelson Darby.”547*Colin Standish offers an explanation of the revival of
futurism within the genre of ecumenism in the early part of the 19th century.
According to Standish, the re-establishing of relations between the Anglican
Church and Rome was stymied, since the Roman Church was seen as Babylon
and Antichrist by the Established Church, thus arousing opposition from the
Oxford Movement. Standish explains that this opposition was to a large extent
mitigated by adopting a futurist interpretation.
Brad Molles presents an insightful comment regarding Emmanuel
Lacunza’s work, The Coming o f Messiah in Glory and Majesty. “Another
Jesuit, Emmanuel Lacunza, was influential in further promoting the futurist

546 Wohlberg, Steve. 2005. Eml time delusions. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image Publishers
129.
547 Thomas D. Ice. “Revelation, interpretative views of.” Dictionaiy ofpremillennial
theology, 1997, Mai Couch, cd. Grand Rapids, MI: Krcgel Publications, 370. Note:
Similar thoughts are offered by Dwight K. Nelson. “Ribera devised a new method of Bible
interpretation called ‘futurism,’ which (just as it sounds) is all about the future. What the
Spanish priest did was to take all of Revelation’s prophecies (except the earliest chapters)
and apply them to the end-time rather than to the history of the Church. Included in his
relegating to the future were the prophecies about the Antichrist, who would appear,
Ribera calculated, during the last seven years of earth’s history.” Nelson, Dwight ic ' 2001
What "Left Behind" left behind. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Association

,4,< “The futurist view was revived by the efforts o f the leaders o f Anglo-Catholicism in
England in the early part of the nineteenth century. There was a determined effort by some
to facilitate the re-unification of the Church of England with the Church of Rome Many
earnest Anglicans rose up against such efforts, pointing out that the Church of Rome was
the antichrist. One of the leaders of the Anglo-Catholic movement at Oxford University
Professor Morford, dusted off the thesis of Ribera and declared that the antichrist was yet
to come, thus directing attention away from the papacy. Many students of theology
uncritically accepted this erroneous theology. Prominent among them was John Darby
who was later to found the Plymouth Brethren Church. Standish, Colin D. And Russell’ R
Standish. 1989. Deceptions of the new theology. Hartland, VA: Hartland Publications 97

133
 view .. .. Lacunza took Ribera’s ideas and expanded on them, originating
dispensationalism by teaching that Jesus would ‘rapture’ his church to save
them from a future antichrist. This book was very influential in bringing
attention to the futurist view when it was published in English in 1827.”549
There are clear distinctions between Lacunza and Darby regarding the rapture
event, in particularly the view of Lacunza that the judgment of the wicked is
contemporaneous with the rapture of the saints, whereas the seven-year
tribulation period separates the two events for Darby. However, the 1827
publication date of the event might well have influenced Darby’s thoughts,
allowing him to be adaptive in his own interpretation.

Pre-Darbvite usage of the gap thesis

Futurism aside, Darby’s use of the gap was hardly original, since other
expositors prior to him had made a similar interpretation; hence my assertion
that Darby did not invent the gap thesis. An early reference to the gap thesis is
found in a work edited by Henry Clissold, dated 1828, with the following
explanation: “The seventy weeks are broken into three parts; seven weeks,
sixty-two weeks, and one week, the last week is divided into two halves___
At the end of the sixty-ninth week, or at the beginning of the seventieth week,
John the Baptist began his ministry; and in the middle of the seventieth, when
Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, (Luke iii.24), he resisted with
effect the temptations of Satan .. .”550 In a footnoted entry, the author then
discussed his understanding of the term “consummation,”551 remarking: “‘The
consummation,’ &c, i.e. (probably) until that period shall arrive, when the
times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled; when the Israelites, shall have suffered
what God shall have thought right; and when they shall come into and
embrace the Christian faith.”552 This early work that places an indeterminate

549 Molles, Brad. 2004. The Beast and the Bride. Interpreting Revelation in the light o f history’.
Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press, 8.
550 Clissold, Henry. 1827. Prophecies o f christ and Christian times, selected from the Old and
New Testament, and arranged according to the periods in which they were pronounced.
London: Printed for C.J.G. & F. Rivington, 122.
551 Daniel 9:25b.
552 Clissold, Henry. 1827. Prophecies o f christ and Christian times, selectedfrom the Old and
New Testament, and arranged according to the periods in which they were pronounced.
London: Printed for C.J.G. & F. Rivington, 123.

134
period of time between Jesus’ commencing his work in middle oi the week
and the termination at the times of the Gentiles would appear to predate
Darby. It would seem to be unique were it not for another work written by
Rev. S. Lee, a professor at Cambridge, in 1830: .. Messiah is to be cut off:
that is, at the end of sixty-nine weeks of the seventy, the Messiah is to suffer
. . . that is, at a period termed midst of the (last) week (i.e., of this last week);
and, after the expiration of the sixty-ninth, according to the preceding verse,
sacrifice was to cease, probably with the destruction of the temple and city, as
there also stated.”55354The author, like Clissold, then discussed the
“consummation,” a period .. extending beyond the destruction of Jerusalem,
and still farther beyond the death of our Lord... How long this period is to
continue, circumstances alone must inform us . . .

Newtonian futurism
Sir Isaac Newton ( 1642- 1727) , as early as 1733 in his discussion of the
prophecies of Daniel, made an important contribution to the gap thesis.
Newton applied what appears to be a double meaning to the prophecy, which
he first attempts to explain. “This prophecy, like all the rest of Daniel’s,
consists of two parts, an introductory Prophecy and an explanation thereof.”555
Newton then applied his double interpretation and then a futurist interpretation

to the prophecy.
The former part of the Prophecy related to the first coming of Christ,
being dated to his coming as a Prophet; this being dated to his coming
to be Prince or King, seems related to his second coming. There, the
Prophet was consummated, and the most holy anointed: here, he that
was anointed comes to be Prince and reign. For Daniel’s Prophecies
reach to the end of the world; and there is scarce a Prophecy in the Old
Testament concerning Christ, which does not in something or other

553 Lee, Samuel. 1830. Six sermons on the study o f the Holy Scriptures: their nature,
interpretation, and some o f their most important doctrines; preached before the University
o f Cambridge, in the years 1827-8. To which are annexed two dissertations: the first on
the reasonableness o f the Orthodox views o f Christianity, as opposed to the rationalism o f
Germany; the second on the interpretation o f prophecy generally, with an original
exposition o f the Book o f Revelation; shewing that the whole o f that remarkable prophecy
has long ago been fulfilled. London: James Duncan, xxxii-xxiii.
554 Ibid., xxxiv.
555 Newton, Isaac. 1733. Observations upon the prophecies o f Daniel and the Apocalypse o f
St. John: in two parts. London: Printed by J. Darby and T. Browne. Chap. 10:129.

135
 relate to his second coming. If divers of the antients, as Irenaeus,556
Julius Africanus,557 Hippolytus the martyr,558 and Apollinaris Bishop
of Laodicea, applied the half week to the times of Antichrist; why may
not we, by the same liberty of interpretation, apply the seven weeks to
the time when Antichrist shall be destroyed by the brightness of
Christ’s coming?559

The contribution by Hippolytus needs special mention. After first

discussing the seventy-week prophecy in detail and providing his
interpretation for the first seven weeks, Hippolytus then added his
understanding of the remaining sixty-two weeks plus one final week, with the
following comment:

556 Irenaeus interpreted the “time, times and half a time” prophecy in Daniel 7 as three and a
halflitcral years. .. and he [Antichrist] shall speak words against the most high God,
and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand
until a time of times and a halftime,’ [Dan. 8:23, etc.] that is, for three years and six
months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.” Against
Heresies 5:25. Irenaeus, while he does not discuss Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy, does
equate the three and a half years above with the last week of the seventy-week prophecy.
He docs not inform us, however, whether the entire seventy-week prophecy was composite
or whether it had a gap. [Dan. 9:27] “Now three years and six months constitute the half­
week.” Ibid.
557 Julius Africanus (200- c. 245) discusses the Seventy Weeks o f Daniel with the following
comment: “That the passage speaks then of the advent of Christ, who was manifest
Himself after seventy weeks is evident.” He also adopts the “year for a day” principle: “the
seventy weeks which make up 490 years . . . ” His start date is from Artaxerxes, although
he fails to mention which one. “From Artaxerxes, moreover, 70 weeks arc reckoned up to
the time of Christ, according to the numeration of the Jews.” He docs not appear to extend
the conclusion of the seventy-week prophecy to the time of Antichrist; however, Julius
docs refer to another work of his entitled On the Weeks and this Prophecy, where he
claims to have discussed the seventy-week prophecy “with greater exactness.” Roberts,
Alexander. 1995. Ante-Nicenefathers 6, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great,
Julius Africanus, Anatolius and minor writers, Methodius, Arnobius / ed. by Alexander
Roberts. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 134-137.
558 Anthony Garland offers his own contribution and that by Knowles (Knowles, Louis E. May
1945 The interpretation of the seventy weeks of Daniel in the early fathers. Westminster
Theological Journal. 7 (2): 136-160), with the following comment: “As early as Irenaeus
(130-200) and Hippolytus (170-236), basic futuristic concepts such as the remaining week
of Daniel’s seventy weeks . . . had already become evident: When Knowles deals with the
next major contributors - Irenacus (130-200) and his disciple Hippolytus (170-236) - he
describes their views as ‘undoubtedly the forerunners of modern dispcnsational
interpreters of the Seventy Weeks.’ Knowles draws the following conclusion about
Irenaeus and Hippolytus: ‘. .. we may say that Irenaeus presented the seed of an idea that
found its full growth in the writings of Hippolytus. In the works of these fathers, we can
find most of the basic concepts of the modern futuristic view of the seventieth week of
Daniel ix.’” Garland, Anthony C. 2004. A Testimony o f Jesus Christ, volume I: A
commentary on the Book o f Revelation. Camano Island, WA: Spirit and Truth Publishers,
123.
559 Newton, Isaac. 1733. Observations upon the prophecies oj Daniel and the Apocalypse o f
St. John: in two parts. London: Printed by J. Darby and T. Browne. Chap. 10:132.

136
 For when threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come,
and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then
accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last in which Elias
will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of
desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation
to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be
removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the
nations.560

Since Hippolytus uses the “year-for-a-day principle,” there remains a final

week of seven years. Hippolytus established two clearly defined
interpretations. First, the former part of the prophecy began prior to the time of
Christ.561 Second, it will terminate with the Antichrist. Since the prophecy for
Hippolytus occupies 490 literal years, it is impossible to begin its inception
prior to the time of Christ and its termination with Antichrist without a gap.
Hippolytus does not mention any gap, but a gap is certainly implied, and Isaac
Newton was patently aware of such an implication.
That Newton, well known within scientific circles, should also be
interested in prophecy and eschatology would seem unusual were it not that
the Fifth Monarchist movement had created a profound historicist view of
Christianity that became politically charged circa 1650-65. Bernard McGinn

560 Roberts, Alexander. 1995. Ante-Nicenefathers 5. Hippolytus, Cyprian. Cains, Novation

Appendix / ed. by Alexander Roberts. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 180.
61 “Having mentioned therefore seventy weeks, and having divided them into two parts in
order that what was spoken by him to the prophet might be better understood, he proceeds
thus, ‘Unto Christ the Prince shall be seven weeks,’ which make forty-nine years It was in
the twenty-first year that Daniel saw these things in Babylon. Hence, the forty-nine years
added to the twenty-one, make up the seventy years, of which the blessed Jeremiah spake-
‘The sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years from the captivity that befell them under
Nebuchadnezzar; and after these things the people will return, and sacrifice and offering
will be presented, when Christ is their Prince.’ 14. Now of what Christ does he speak but
of Jesus the son of Joscdech, who returned at that time along with the people, and offered
sacrifice according to the law, in the seventieth year, when the sanctuary was built? For -ill
the kings and priests were styled Christs, because they were anointed with the holy oil
which Moses of old prepared. These, then, bore the name of the Lord in their own persons
showing aforetime the type, and presenting the image until the perfect King and Priest ’
appeared from heaven, who alone did the will of the Father; as also it is written in Kings-
‘And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do all things according to my heart ’ 15
In order, then, to show the time when He is to come whom the blessed Daniel desired to
see, he says, ‘And after seven weeks there arc other threescore and two weeks ’ which
period embraces the space of 434 years. For after the return of the people from Babylon
under the leadership of Jesus the son of Josedech, and Ezra the scribe, and Zerubbabel the
son of Salathiel, of the tribe of David, there were 434 years unto the coining of Christ in
order that the Priest of priests might be manifested in the world, and that He who takc’th

137
comments that “Sir Isaac Newton, one of the originators of modem science,
belonged to a long line of great thinkers who were obsessed with calculating
the time of Antichrist and the approach of the end.”562 A clue to Newton’s
interest in eschatology is given by the authors Cohen and Smith:
Shortly before matriculating at Cambridge on 8 July 1661, Newton had
acquired a Greek-Latin dictionary and an edition of the New Testament
in Greek and Latin. In his first year at Cambridge, Newton acquired
only one book from the curriculum, the Logicae Artis Compendium
(Summary of Logical Art) by Robert Sanderson,563 which exerted, as
we shall see, a notable influence upon Newton’s methodological ideas.
Yet he bought as many as four theological books. In a pocket book,
Newton also noted the purchase, for a shilling, of a second-hand
edition of De Quatuor Monarches (The Four Kingdoms) by J.
Sleidan.564

Sir Isaac Newton was born just eleven years prior to the establishing of the
Fifth Monarchist Government,565 a religio-political movement that was to
exert great influence Newton’s eschatology.566*The book that Newton
purchased for a shilling, De Quatuor Monarchiis, was the very book that
expounded a similar eschatology that undergirded the Fifth Monarchist’s
interpretation, as Cohen and Smith observe:
Sleidan interpreted the dream of the king of Babylon (Daniel 2): a
colossal statue was broken into four pieces, each made of a different
metal. The four kingdoms (Babylonia, Persian, Greek and Roman)
would correspond to the four parts of the statue. Sleidan, drawing upon
arguments in Luther, held that the fourth kingdom had not yet ended,
and that it would endure until Christ’s return, represented by the rock
which, independently of man, detached itself from the mountain,

away the sins of the world might be evidently set forth, as John speaks concerning Him:
‘Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!’” Ibid.
562 McGinn, Bernard. 2000. Antichrist: two thousand years o f the human fascination with evil.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1.
563 Sanderson, Robert. 1664. Logicae artis compendivm. Oxoniae: Excudebat L.L. & H.H.
564 Cohen, I. Bernard, and George E. Smith. 2002. The Cambridge companion to Newton.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 388.
565 July 4, 1653.
566 Philip. G. Rogers wrote one of the two seminal works on the Fifth Monarchy movement.
He has this to say regarding Newton: “On the other hand, in an age when the Bible was
interpreted literally, there were not wanting many educated and intelligent men, who,
whilst not necessarily subscribing to any particular Fifth Monarchist theory about the time
of the end, nevertheless believed that a careful search of the Bible would enable this to be
ascertained. Even such geniuses as Napier of Merchiston and Sir Isaac Newton devoted
themselves to prolonged studies of the Bible in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution of
the mysteries contained in them.” Rogers, P. G. 1966. The Fifth Monarchy Men. London:
Oxford U.P., 138.

138
 destroyed the colossus, and became in its turn a great mountain.
Newton’s reading of Sleidan probably served to strengthen his interest
in the relations between prophecies and history.567

Brodetsky’s biography of Sir Isaac Newton provides a colourful narrative of

Newton’s early childhood during the Cromwellian Protectorate, which gave
rise to the Fifth Monarchist Parliament.568 Paul Boyer portrays a graphic
illustration of England during the formative years of Newton’s early life.569
Thus Newton’s childhood was moulded in the crucible of a radical political
environment of the Protectorate, the apocalypticism of the Fifth Monarchist
Parliament with which Newton was very familiar,570 and the Great Fire of

" Cohen, I. Bernard, and George E. Smith. 2002. The Cambridge companion to Newton.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 388.
“This child was Isaac Newton. When Charles 1 was executed by his indignant subjects and
the monarchy gave way to a military commonwealth, this little boy was learning in
primitive country schools the first elements of what was considered to be a suitable
education for a small farmer. When Cromwell had expelled the Long Parliament and had
been declared Lord High Protector with almost all regal powers, young Newton went to
Grantham in order to continue his studies at the King’s School.. . . In 1660, the year of the
Stuart restoration and the complete subjection of the nation’s will to the prerogative of its
refound (sic) royal idol, Newton was preparing for entry upon his studies at Cambridge.”
Brodetsky, Sclig. 2007. Sir Isaac Newton: a brief account o f his life and work. London:
Upton Press, 2.
569
“The accession of Charles II in 1660 cooled this orgy of apocalypticism. Nevertheless, the
portentous year 1666 brought widespread uneasiness, worsened by the great London fire
of that year. Indeed, wrote the Quaker leader John Fox, every thunderstorm in 1666
produced expectations of the end. And it was in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries that Isaac Newton pursued the exhaustive studies that ultimately supplanted his
work on mathematics and optics.” Boyer, Paul S. 1994. When time shall be no more:
prophecy belief in modern American culture. Studies in cultural history. Cambridge, MA.
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 65, 66.
" Newton cites Joseph Mcde for example: “The four horsemen which appear at the opening
of the first four seals, have been well explained by Mr. Mede. Newton, Isaac. 1733.
Observations upon the prophecies o f Daniel and the Apocalypse o f St. John: in two parts.
London: Printed by J. Darby and T. Browne. 11 Chap. 10:129. “Mr. Mede hath explained
the Prophecy of the first six trumpets . . . ” Ibid., 171. Joseph Mcdc was perhaps the
foremost scholar and expositor of the Fifth Monarchist movement. McCalman remarks
that “since the seventeenth century these ideas [that the millennium would be immediately
preceded by the conversion and restoration of the Jews to their former homeland and
glory] had been taken up both by Puritan scholars like Joseph Mede and by Fifth
Monarchists like Robert Maton . . . ” McCalman, Iain. 1996. Mad Lord George and
Madame La Motte: Riot and Sexuality in the Genesis of Burke's Reflections on the
Revolution in France. The Journal o f British Studies. 35 (3):358. According to Ernest Lee
Tuveson, “. . . Doctor Joseph Medc, fellow of Christ’s College Cambridge . . . was one of
the greatest Biblical scholars the English Church has produced .. .’’Tuveson, Ernest Lee.
1949. Millennium and Utopia: A Study in the Background o f the Idea o f Progress.
Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Pr., 76. Capp contrasts Mcdc with the general highly
speculative and militant body of Fifth Monarchists and comments on “the calm and
academic speculations of Mede . . . ” Capp, B. S. 1972. TheJifth monarchy men; a study in
seventeenth-century English millenarianism. London: Faber, 39.

139
 London in 1666 that appeared to portend a soon-coming end of the world, as
proclaimed by the Fifth Monarchists.

The Fifth Monarchist Parliament

By purchasing the book by Sleidan571 in 1661, Newton was cognizant
of his interpretation of Daniel 2. The Fifth Monarchists were historicists, but
by 1665 their prophetical system was collapsing very quickly and a transition
occurs at this time in Newton’s life, from the Fifth Monarchist historicist view
to Newton’s futurist interpretation, which incorporated the gap between
Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. Alexandra Kess discusses Sleidan’s
thesis:
In the Four Empires, Sleidan showed himself very much rooted in
traditional historiography, offering a more theological than political
interpretation of man’s history from Fall to the apocalyptic end.. . . In
the Four Empires, Sleidan viewed history through a theological prism,
highlighting the apocalyptic preoccupation which was so common for
the Protestants of that time.572

On April 20, 1653, Cromwell dissolved the Rump Parliament573 in what

amounted to a coup d ’etat.574 On July 4, 165 3,575 Cromwell inaugurated the

571 De Quatuor Monarchiis (The Four Kingdoms).

572 Kess, Alexandra. 2008. Johann Sleidan and the Protestant vision o f history. St Andrews
studies in Reformation history. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub., 84. Note: The “Four
Empires” was a synonymous term for the four monarchies.
573 The Parliament of Charles 1 was reduced from the Long to the Rump Parliament by Pride’s
Purge, 1648.
574 “Wednesday 20th April 1653. .. The Parliament sitting as usual, and being in debate upon
the Bill with the amendments, which it was thought would have been passed that day, the
Lord General Cromwell came into the House, clad in plain black clothes and gray worsted
stockings, and sat down, as he used to do, in an ordinary place. For some time he listens to
this interesting debate on the Bill; beckoning once to Harrison, who came over to him, and
answered dubitatingly. .. ‘Come, come!’ exclaims my Lord General in a very high key,
‘we have had enough of this,’ - and in fact my Lord General now blazing all up into clear
conflagration, exclaims, T will put an end to your prating,’ and steps forth into the floor of
the House, and ‘clapping-on his hat,’ and occasionally ‘stamping the floor with his feet,’
begins a discourse which no man can report! He says - Heavens! he is heard saying: ‘It is
not fit that you sit here any longer!’ You have sat too long here for any good you have
been doing lately. ‘You shall now give place to better men! - Call them in!’ adds he briefly
to Harrison, in word of command: and ‘some twenty or thirty’ grim musketeers enter, with
bullets in their snaphances. . . . the Long Parliament is dissolved!” Cromwell, Oliver, and
Thomas Carlyle. 1899. Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches: with elucidations. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, III, 34-36.
575 Ibid., 39.

140
 Fifth Monarchist Parliament576, whose platform was the “restoration and
conversion of the Jewish nation” in the face of the soon-expected return of
King Jesus (the Second Coming). Chancery was to be abolished, and the
Jewish Sanhedrin of Seventy was to replace the law courts.5775789The Fifth
Monarchist Parliament was finally dissolved on January 22, 1655, but not
before irreparable damage had been inflicted on Christianity in general and the
578
historicist interpretation in particular.
What was started principally in the universities by such divines as
Joseph Mede, William Prynne, Thomas Good, Johann Heinrich Alsted, and
others, including John Corbet, a minister of the Established Church, Henry
Killigrew, and Sir Peter Pett, a Cambridge graduate, then spilled over to a
“mobocracy,” fuelled by the artisans and working class. The latter had very
little knowledge of eschatology but were informed by the “intellectuals” of the
Fifth Monarchy that the reign of King Jesus was imminent. The Fifth
Monarchist interpretation was based upon adding the 1,260 years57'7 to the date
for the fall of Rome, and this would be the day that Jesus would historically
return. The general consensus was that this event would occur sometime
between 1655 and 1670.580
Newton was then faced with a dilemma. It appeared that the underlying
interpretation of Daniel 2 was correct but the interpretation was very wrong.581
Newton’s answer was to deny the Fifth Monarchy understanding of the
Second Advent from a historicist view and to modify the Fifth Monarchist

576 Also called the Barebone’s Parliament after a member called “Mr. Praisegod Barbone, 'the
Leather merchant in Fleet-street.’” Ibid., 41
577 Clarke, William, and Charles Harding Firth. 1899. The Clarke papers: selections from the
papers o f William Clarke, Secretary to the Council o f the Army, 1647-1649, and to
General Monck and the Commanders o f the Army in Scotland, 1651-1660. Camden
Society, 61. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., II: 4.
578 Cromwell was not unduly influenced by the Fifth Monarchists: “But, I say, there is another
error of more refined sort; ‘which’ many honest people whose hearts are sincere, many of
them belonging to God, ‘have fallen into:’ and that is the mistaken notion of the Fifth
Monarch.” Cromwell, Oliver, Thomas Carlyle, Mrs. S. C. Lomas, and C. H. Firth. 1904.
The letters and speeches o f Oliver Cromwell. London: Methuen & Co., II, 346.
579 Rev. 11:3 using a “year for a day” prophetical hermeneutic.
580 The view of Nathaniel Stephens an English Puritan and Presbyterian and the pastor of
George Fox before the latter founded Quakerism.
581 “Newton largely accepts Sleidan’s interpretation of the four Kingdoms of Daniel’s vision
. . . . ” Cohen, I. Bernard, and George E. Smith. 2002. The Cambridge companion to
Newton. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 394.

141
 interpretation, positing a gap in Daniel’s seventy weeks, thus adopting a
futurist view. Crediting Darby as the inventor of the gap thesis has two major
problems. First, there was no historical impetus to do so, and second, Darby
was to all intents and purposes a street preacher. Although a scholar versed in
Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, he lacked, I would maintain, the systematic
theology to arrive at the gap thesis. Sir Isaac Newton, on the other hand, stood
at the nexus of a failed historicist interpretation, a complete discrediting of
Christianity as taught by the Fifth Monarchists, and the theological skill to
interpret previous progenitors of the gap theory, principally in the Patristic
writings. Thus, the gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks, far
from being an invention by Darby, was more than likely purloined from
Newton, along with the concept of the remnant church. Darby, schooled in
Latin, would have been able to read the Latin text of De Quatuor Monarchiis
without much difficulty.
A general consensus view credits Darby with the “gap theory,” but in
the light of Newton’s Observations upon the Prophecies o f Daniel and the
Apocalypse o f St. John, it is difficult to conceive of Darby as being the
originator of the “gap theory.” Indeed, to be thoroughly pedantic, it might be
claimed that originality might be ascribed to Newton’s sources582 rather than
Newton himself. But suffice it to say that Newtonian futurism would involve
Darby’s borrowing his gap theory and weaving this into his own
eschatological framework, thus again we see Darby’s concept of adaptation.

Darby’s familiarity with Isaac Newton

Whether Darby was familiar with the works of Irenaeus or Hippolytus
or had read Newton’s work on the Prophecies5*3 is not verifiable, but he was
certainly familiar enough with Newton to quote him,584 and here we are faced

582 Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus the martyr and Apollinaris Bishop of Laodicea.
Newton, Isaac. 1733. Observations upon the prophecies o f Daniel and the Apocalypse o f
St. John: in two parts. London: Printed by J. Darby and T. Browne. Chap. 10:132.
583 Newton, Isaac. 1733. Observations upon the prophecies o f Daniel and the Apocalypse o f
St. John: in two parts. London: Printed by J. Darby and T. Browne.
584 “. . . but to take such men as Mr. N., Sir Isaac Newton, Pascal, Paul, Justin Martyr . . . I beg
the reader to remark, I am not here supposing Sir Isaac Newton or Paul to be right. . ..
Suppose a biographer of Sir Isaac Newton, after narrating his sublime discoveries . . . ”
Darby., Collected Writings, vol. 6: Apologetic No. 1, 13, 14, 61.

142
 with a dilemma. Newton purchased De Quatuor Monarchiis in 1661, just eight
years after the British parliamentary system had been terminated with a
Cromwellian coup d ’etat585 in favour of a political party, established to herald
the Second Advent of Christ.586 Darby was fully cognizant of this event and
discussed it at length:
The doctrine of the Lord's second coming fell into the hands of real
fanatics, who would have set up what they called the fifth monarchy by
the sword; and in Germany did attempt it, and held a city they called
their Zion for some time under Munzer.587

Darby’s prose does indicate more than a cursory understanding of the events at
this time, which would appear to suggest, that he would also have been more
than familiar with the works and eschatology of Sir Isaac Newton. Other
scholars were patently aware of Newton’s interpretation, and it appears odd
that Darby, a classical scholar well versed in the works of Newton, should
have been unaware of Newtonian futurism. Bicheno was one scholar who had
read Newton and who states his view of Newton’s futurism: “It is (says Sir
Isaac Newton) a part of this prophecy (of the Apoc.) that it should not be
understood before the last age of the
world .. .”588
Darby’s eschatology included, first, the inviolability of the Abrahamic
Covenant, and second, the concept that all prophecy, both fulfilled and
unfulfilled, pertained to the Jewish nation.589 For Darby, the Abrahamic
Covenant being unconditional meant that they were and are God’s chosen
people in perpetuity.590 While the historicist interpretation, which Frank

585 April 20, 1653.

586 July 4, 1653.
587 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 3: Doctrinal No l, 342. Also, Collected Writings, vol. 22:
Doctrinal No. 6, 28.
Note: “He signed himself ‘Munzer with the hammer,’ and ‘with the sword of Gideon.’”
Schaff, History o f Christian Church (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1995), VII, 442.
588 Bicheno, J. 1808. The signs o f the times: in three parts. London: J. Adlard, 187.
589 “Prophecy refers to the government of this world, and the Jews are the center of that; but as
for the Christian, he is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, that he might
be the firstborn among many brethren.” Darby, Notes and Jottings /;., 178. ‘Seventy weeks
are determined upon thy people.’ There is no reference here to us as Christians; the verse
refers to the people of Daniel, and the holy city of Daniel. The seventy weeks are only
applicable to them.” Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No.2, 172.
590 “Israel, as His people and the assembly of His chosen ones, are commanded to remember
these things, for He is Jehovah their God, and His judgments are in all the earth. Israel is

143
 Moran exemplifies, saw the fulfilment of the entire seventy weeks of Daniel’s
prophecy without a gap, others—notably Henry Clissold, the Rev. S. Lee,
Isaac Newton, and J. N. Darby—apply a futurist interpretation and in doing so
were forced to place a gap within its time frame. The reasons for an
indeterminate period of time are generally vague, as witnessed by Edward
Denny, a futurist, who made the following comments regarding the seventy-
week prophecy and in particular the last week: “I believe,”591 “we may
imagine,”592 “it seems clear,”593 “I am told,”594 “.. . at the close of a period of
Seventy Weeks it struck me as likely th at.. . ,”595*“Now I confess that I take a
different view of this passage from either of these, believing that all this will
occur after this dispensation . . . ,”5% “and then by assuming (as I here venture
to d o ). .. ,”597 “Here we must imagine an interval between this last cited
verse, and those which precede it,”598 “A thought has struck me while
considering this chapter, as to a method by which the Lord may shorten the
days without interfering at all with his purpose as to one week . . . ”599
Denny might well have been reading Newton’s interpretation when he,
Newton, remarked: “. . . why may not we, by the same liberty of
interpretation, apply the seven weeks to the time when Antichrist shall be
destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming?”600
It appears that futurists apply a literal interpretation to prophecy but are
willing to apply “liberty of interpretation” when a literal explanation fails;
therein lies the weakness of their argument. The indeterminate period of time
inserted in the prophecy, while not sound exegesis, does become a necessary

called to remember, not Moses and the conditional promises given to the people through
him, but the covenant made with Abraham unconditionally - an everlasting covenant to
give the land to his seed.” Ibid., Synopsis o f the Books o f the Bible, 424.
591
Denny, Edward. 1850. The seventy weeks o f Daniel. London: J Nisbet, 13, 74, 76, 80, 132,
et al.
592
Ibid., 13.
593
Ibid.
594
Ibid., 23.
595
Ibid., 68.
596
Ibid., 36.
597
Ibid., 80.
598
Ibid., 51.
599
Ibid., 43.
600
Newton, Isaac. 1733. Observations upon the prophecies o f Daniel and the Apocalypse o f
St. John: in two parts. London: Printed by J. Darby and T. Browne, 106.

144
 construct to maintain the inviolability of the Abrahamic Covenant, together
with the notion that all prophecy pertains to the Jews. But it must be said that
any liberty of interpretation flies in the face of a literal hermeneutic. An
inconsistent interpretation of prophecy inevitably leads one to question the
validity of prophetical interpretation using the gap thesis.

Darby’s hermeneutic concerning the gap

Darby has more to say on the reasons for the gap, which he blamed on
the Jews, the gap being God’s answer to their rejection of Christ, as he notes.
“The seventy had very nearly elapsed when Christ came. If the Jews, and
Jerusalem in that her day, had repented, all was ready for her re-establishment
in glory. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could have been raised up, as Lazarus had
been.”601 Darby offers no reason why the patriarchs could have been raised up
but places the gap almost as an afterthought by God. “The seventy weeks, or
490 years, include the great gap which has already lasted more than 1800
years—these coming in between the end of the 483rd and the 490th—only
Christians know that half the seventieth week was really fulfilled in Christ’s
ministry; therefore we get a half week in Daniel 7 and the Revelation.”602 At
this stage, however, Darby is not sure whether it is the full or the half week
that pertains to fulfilment by the Jewish nation. “I see two distinct halves of
the last week of the seventy weeks of Daniel; and I think that it is in the last
half week that this particular testimony is given.”603 The clue to understanding
Darby’s convoluted eschatology appears to lie in the phrase “we get a half
week in Daniel 7 and the Revelation.”604 Apparently, Darby has in mind the
1,260-day prophecy of Rev. 11:3605—also referred to prophetically as 42

601 Darby., 186 Proverbs, 337.

602 Ibid., 220.
603 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 85. Note: A comment was added to this
text as follows: The phrase here is altered, as the writer then followed the division into two
half weeks in chapter 11; now he sees ground for seeing here only the last, as in Matthew
24.” “Are there two half-weeks spoken of in the Apocalypse? 1 do not reason on i t . . . ”
Ibid., 169.
604 Ibid., 220.
605 “And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophecy for twelve hundred
and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.”

145
 months606 or 3 Zi years or the half week—as pertaining to the Jews, a point lie
comments on: “When the twelve hundred and sixty days are made years of
(save as a general possible analogy) all is false. The three times and a half are
the half week of the seventy weeks of Daniel.”607 He further observes: “And
there is a clear earthly period running on, which it is admitted is not yet
accomplished, and in which a gap takes place, to let in the events spoken of in
this Psalm, that is, the seventy weeks of Daniel. It is admitted that, at any rate,
half a week is yet unfulfilled, which must close before the new age comes
in.”608
Having given support for the half week, Darby then has a distinct
change of mind in view of the failed mission of Christ, stating that his three-
and-a-half-year ministry was ineffectual and therefore a full week or seven
years remain of Daniel’s prophecy. ‘“And he shall confirm a covenant with
the many for one week.’ This is the week which still remains; for Christ was
cut off, it is said, after the sixty-nine weeks. .. . We are to leave off counting
from the time the Messiah was cut off, viz., at the end of the sixty-nine weeks.
After this period, time, so to speak, does not go on, God does not take count of
it; it is indefinite. But the seventieth week still remains to be fulfilled.”609
How we are to understand two different interpretations, one pertaining
to half a week and the other to the full week, or seven years, remains
paradoxical. C. I. Scofield attempts to shed light on the interpretation, first
alluding to the gap in Daniel’s prophecy and then to the final week: “Then
‘unto the end,’ a period not fixed, but which has already lasted nearly 2000
years. . . . When the Church-age will end, and the seventieth week begins, is
nowhere revealed.”610 This then would appear to be the best understanding of

606 “ And there was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies; and
authority to act for forty-two months was given to him.” Rev. 13:5.
607 Darby., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 344.
608 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 8: Prophetic No.3, 13.
609 Ibid., 1864. Notes on the Book o f Daniel. London: J.B. Bateman, 75.
610 Scofield, C. I. 1945. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. Authorized
King James version, with a new system o f connected topical references to all the greater
themes o f Scripture, with annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries,
definitions, chronology, and index, to which are added helps at hard places, explanations
o f seeming discrepancies, and a new system ofparagraphs. New York: Oxford University
Press, 914.

146
 Darby’s thoughts regarding the last week, which remains to be fulfilled at the
Second Advent. Thus we have remaining one week or seven years and not the
earlier interpretation pertaining to the half-week or 3 'A years.
It is now possible to construct Darby’s interpretation of the last week
of Daniel’s prophecy. The period of seven years was partially fulfilled by the
ministry of Christ, which lasted 3 'A years,611but this was ineffectual, thus
nullifying half of the last week After this period, Christ was “cut off,” was
rejected, suffered on the cross, and while He got the glory in heaven, He failed
in His mission.612 The Jews, having rejected Christ but still governed by the
inviolability of the Abrahamic Covenant and remaining God’s earthly people,
are now placed “on hold” while God deals parenthetically with the Gentiles,
God’s heavenly people.
Numerous expositors well before the time of Darby had posited a gap
in Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy, but unique to Darby’s system is the
manner in which he “stopped the clock” at the end of week sixty-nine and
moved the week or the seven-year period to the Second Advent, where it
would be resumed and the clock would once again start ticking. The rule by
the saints during the Millennium will be preceded by the Great Tribulation of
Matthew 24. The Tribulation will be this period of seven years, the final week
of Daniel’s prophecy, when the Antichrist is given full power to rule.
However, the saints will have nothing to fear because they do not go through
the Great Tribulation, since they will be secretly raptured prior to that event.
Thus Darby, by assuming the inviolability of the Abrahamic Covenant
and the application of Daniel’s prophecy to the Jews, was able to construct an
eschatology that embraced both the Jewish nation and the Gentiles, the
Christian church.

Current views regarding Darby and the gap

Modem scholars have much to say regarding Darby’s interpretation of
Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy, but the waters are often muddied, in part
because of the complexity of Darby’s writings and thoughts. Wayne Rohde is

ftli Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 28: Expository No. 7, 366.

612 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 243, 244.

147
 correct in stating that the “flawed link involves ‘the gap' between the sixty-
ninth and seventieth week of Daniel. . . ,”613 which is foundational to Darby’s
entire doctrine. “Remove it and the whole dispensational house of cards falls.
You will see clearly from the scriptures that, just as in mathematics, seventy
follows immediately after sixty-nine."6™However, Rohde’s assertion that “he
invented a ‘gap’ (which at this time has spanned almost two thousand years)
where none exists”615 is partially correct for the period of time involved but
understandably incorrect regarding Darby’s invention of the gap. As has been
demonstrated, Newtonian futurism predated Darby by about two centuries;
hence, it would be more correct to say that he borrowed and adapted the use of
the concept.
Colin Standish offers further insight into Darby’s thesis that Christ’s
ministry on earth was ineffectual, thus nullifying the first half of the last week
of Daniel’s prophecy. Commenting on what would have happened if Christ’s
ministry had been effectual, he states: “Had the Jews accepted Christ, His
millennial kingdom would have been established then on earth. These
dispensationalists believe that when John the Baptist preached ‘The kingdom
of heaven is at hand,’ Jesus was then ready to set it up; but the Jews rejected it,
so God had to extend time to give the gospel to the Gentiles before He could
set up His kingdom.”616
Gershom Gorenberg notes that Darby’s futurist interpretation of
Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy was radically different from the historicist
interpretation: “The field was open to John Darby—whose new theology, in
sharp contrast to the Millerites, put the Jews at center stage, in their land.”617
Gorenberg discusses Darby’s thesis of the failed ministry of Darby: “At the
end of the sixty-ninth week, Jesus arrived—and the Jews rejected him. That
disrupted the prophetic plan. So God began a new dispensation, in which he

013 Rohde, Wayne. 2002. A future, a hope, an unexpected end; the inevitable conquest o f
Christianity. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 7.
614 Ibid.
615 Ibid.
616 Standish, Colin D., and Russell R. Standish. 1996. The evangelical dilemma. Rapidan, VA:
Hartland Publications, 208, 209.
617 Gorenberg, Gershom. 2002. The end o f days: fundamentalism and the struggle fo r the
Temple Mount. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52.

148
 built a new, heavenly people; the Church, Christianity . . . a parenthetical
clause between Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.”618 Thus Gorenberg
also affirms that the period of time set off from the rest of the weeks amounts
to the last week of the prophecy.
Having presented Darby’s gap thesis involving the last week of
Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy, I will now show how the gap thesis applies
to Darby’s secret rapture. In this respect, the last week of the prophecy became
the seven years of tribulation following the rapture, a doctrine known as
pretribulationalism.

6,8 Ibid.

149
 6. The Secret Pretribulation Rapture

In this chapter, I intend to review the arguments claiming that the

secret pretribulational rapture can be ascribed to Darby. This will involve
researching both the term rapture and the doctrine surrounding its usage. It is
commonly understood that Darby was the progenitor of the whole notion of
the rapture, but such a view negates the fact that Darby had at his disposal
doctrines and nomenclature antedating the nineteenth century. An
understanding of his use of these terms and doctrines will reveal whether he
was being original or innovative in his rapture thesis.
The belief that Jesus would return a second time is not something new.
Christians throughout the centuries had expected an imminent Second Advent,
but Darby’s ideas were different in that Christ would come not just once but
twice, in what is commonly called his two-stage return. The Second Advent
would be his appearance to gather, or rapture, the saints.619 But then at the end
of seven years Christ would return again with the saints to defeat the
Antichrist and establish his millennial reign. The idea of the rapture was novel
in that this would be a “secret” affair in which the saints are whisked off to
heaven. The unrighteous would remain behind, to go through seven years of
the Great Tribulation, at the end of which would be the “Glorious
Appearing,”620 when a Jerusalem-based kingdom replete with the third Temple
would be established on earth. The seven years of tribulation, preceded by the
rapture, would occur during the last week of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy.
Since God could only work with one people at a time, according to Darby, the
rapture of the church was needed so that He would be free to carry on His
redemptive work with the Jewish nation.
Darby’s eschatology, known as premillennialism, was also pre­
tribulational, in that the secret rapture would occur prior to the Great
Tribulation, which directly precedes the millennium. The message to the saints

619 Some expositors including Darby differentiate between “the translation” and the “Glorious
Appearing,” the first when Jesus comes fo r his saints and the latter when he comes with
the saints.

150
 was simple: they would escape the ordeals that were predicted to happen
during the tribulation. During the 18lh and 19,h centuries, the dominant view
was postmillennial, in that there would be a thousand years of improved
conditions on earth and that Christ would return after the millennium. The
historicist interpretation, based upon the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation,
had predicted the rise of the Antichrist, which was widely held to be the
Roman Catholic Church. Darbyite futurism reinterpreted the notion of
Antichrist to be a man of intense evil who would arise just prior to the Second
Advent. Closely connected with postmillennialism were two views, namely
midtribulationism and posttribulationalism; thus, Darby’s eschatology of pre-
millennialism and pretribulationalism radically transformed current thinking.
The Albury and Powerscourt prophetical conferences that occurred on
British and Irish soil respectively, found their counterparts in America during
the last half of the I9lh century. According to Ernest Sandeen, the “Niagara
Bible Conference was the mother of them all—the Monte Cassino and Port
Royal of the movement.”620621 Richard R. Reiter states, in his contribution to the
book Three Views on the Rapture, that there were three hotly contested views
present at the 1878 Niagara Conference. The discussions centred on the
imminence of Christ’s return. The historicists, represented by A. J. Gordon,
maintained the view that “a long period of apostasy separated the First and
Second comings—a period concealed from believers in former ages but
revealed to believers in modern times by the symbols and chronology of
Daniel and the Revelation.”622*According to this interpretation, only the last
generation would know that the apostasy, amounting to some two thousand
years, was nearing its end, and therefore they were scripturally justified in
holding to the imminent return of Jesus. A second group accepted the view of
“futurist premillenarians, defining ‘imminent’ in the context of their debate
with postmillennialism, believing the imminent return of Christ meant that the

620 “Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior,
Jesus Christ.” Titus 3:13.
621 Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1970. The roots o f fundamentalism; British and American
millenarianism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 132.
622 Reiter, Richard R. “The Case for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.” Three Views on the
Rapture. Ed. Gleason Edward Archer. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996,14.

151
 signs could be fulfilled and that He could return ‘within the lifetime of any
individual generation of believers.’” The third group was represented by
futurists, who held to the pretribulation rapture, asserting that the occurrence
of the secret rapture could happen at any moment, this being their
understanding of imminence.

The imminencv and parousia of the Second Advent

Reiter explains that consistency regarding imminency, in accordance
with the 1878 prophetic conference resolutions, was only maintained by the
historicists. The futurists were unaware of the tensions that were building up
regarding the time of the rapture. “In this case the posttribulationists would
modify the definition o f ‘imminent’ as possible at any moment and the
pretribulationists would maintain the Rapture to meet the Lord in the air, not
the later glorious return of Christ to the earth, was the event that was possible
at any moment.”624 The nature of the rapture continued to be a hotly debated
subject after the 1878 Niagara Conference, as the pretribulational versus post-
tribulational interpretations were contested. Robert Cameron, a Baptist who
attended the Conference, spent time restudying the nature of the rapture and
eventually abandoned the pretribulational view in favour of post-
tribulationism.625
Success for the “any moment rapturists” came in 1896 when C. 1.
Scofield gave support to the futurist views of Daniel and Revelation by
incorporating his views in his Scofield Reference Bible, which was to become
the de facto Bible for thousands of Protestant evangelicals.626 Gary Dorrien,
commenting on the contribution made by the Scofield Reference Bible, first
published in 1909, said that it “provided an accessible guide to scripture from
a Darbyite standpoint. Featuring an extensive system of annotations and cross-
references, the Scofield Reference Bible made the case for a dispensationalist

624 Ibid., 14, 15.

625 Ibid., 15.
626 “In 1896 C. I. Scofield, Congregational pastor and protege of Brookes, said that specific
events, such as the division of the Roman Empire into eastern and western kingdoms,
fulfilled part of the prophecies of the four empire in Daniel 2 and 7 . . . . He sensed no

152
 division of biblical and Christian history, the doctrine of the any-moment
rapture, and the pretribulationist secret rapture in a manner that made
dispensationalism seem self-evident to millions of Bible readers afterward.”627
However, the rapture doctrine was also spread by other means, including
many “turn-of-the-century publications like The Truth and Our Hope', popular
books like Brookes’s Maranatha, [and] William Blackstone’s Jesus Is Coming
”628 Notable Bible expositors who also spread the rapture doctrine included
Harry Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chafer, A. J. Gordon,629 James M. Gray, and
Arno Gaebelein, as well as C. 1. Scofield.630
According to Gary Wills, looking back from a 21st-century perspective,
the doctrine of imminence was beneficial to the pulpiteer: “The imminent
Second Coming lets some preachers, who no longer dwell on the horrors of
hell, dwell on the horrors of the Tribulation.”631 Revivalist preachers still
preached about hell, but the any-moment rapture eliminated the argument that
“1 still have time.”
In discussing the rapture, Gleason Leonard-Archer notes that his
colleague Paul D. Feinberg
. . . claims, for instance, that “There is no clear indisputable reference
to a Rapture in any Second Advent passage.” But I argue in my
chapter that precisely such a reference is found in Matthew 24:31. To
be sure the reference is not “indisputable,” but can any argument in
this tangled debate be put in such a category? .. . Likewise, 1
Thessalonians [Link], which clearly describes the Rapture, is
directed to a church undergoing severe tribulation (cf. 2:14, 3:3-4). In
other words, Paul does not need to specify in the immediate context of
1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18 that tribulation is to precede the Rapture
because he and the Thessalonians are already suffering tribulation. The
persistent tendency on the part of pretribulationists to confine

tension between the historicism expressed here and the any-moment Rapture doctrine,
which also held.” Ibid., 20.
627 Dorrien, Gary J. 1998. The remaking o f evangelical theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press, 31.
628 Thomas D. Ice. “Rapture, Biblical study of the.” Dictionary o f premillennial theology,
1997, Mai Couch, ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 347.
629 He later changed his mind.
630 Ibid.
631 Wills, Garry. 2007. Head and heart: American Christianities. New York: Penguin Press,
366.

153
 tribulation only to a climactic seven-year period at the end of history
seriously distorts the New Testament perspective.

Archer highlights the controversy regarding the Rapture and whether it is to be

pre-, mid-, or posttribulational. Clearly, whether the rapture was scriptural or
not was not an item for debate. The author, well known in evangelical circles,
is adamant that the narrative is found in both Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians
4, clearly demonstrating the validity of the rapture. J. Dwight Pentecost
provides his contribution with the following comment: “Therefore, it is
concluded, this is the resurrection of the church mentioned in 1 Thessalonians
4:16. This view is supported by a reference to the word coming (parousia),
which is often applied to the rapture.”632633 Witness Lee observes: “During the
Lord’s parousia, the majority of believers will be raptured to meet the Lord in
the air (1 Thes. 4:17).”634635George Eldon Ladd affirmed that
“Dispensationalists hold that Christ will come before the Tribulation begins to
raise the dead saints and to catch up the living saints (the Rapture) to be with
him in heaven.. . . Furthermore, the parousia of Christ will occur not only to
rapture the church and to raise the righteous dead but also to destroy the Man
of Lawlessness, the Antichrist.” According to John Walvoord, “The use of
parousia in these passages636 proves it is not a technical word. The same word
is used of the coming of the Lord at the translation (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess.
2:19; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1; James 5:7-8; 1 John 2:28).”637 It would appear
that dispensationalists get “real mileage” out of a number of New Testament
passages, in particular 1 Thessalonians 4. For that reason, Darby’s doctrine of
the nature of the rapture becomes central to understanding dispensationalism
today.

632 Archer, Gleason L. 1996. Three views on the Rapture: pre-, mid-, orpost-Tribulation ?
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 98, 99.
633 Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1964. Things to come: a study in Biblical eschatology. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 403.
634 Lee, Witness. 2001. Life-study of 1 & II Thessalonians, Anaheim, CA: Living Stream
Ministry, 14.
635 Ladd, George Eldon. 1978. The last things: an eschatology fo r Laymen. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 49-50.
636 1 Cor. 16:17 KJV; 2 Cor. 7-6-7; Phil. 1:26 KJV; 2 Thess. 2:9; 2 Peter 3:12 KJV.
637 Walvoord, John F. 1979. The rapture question. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 172.

154
 Several problems arise in a discussion of Darby and the rapture. There
is the widely held belief, by both the informed and the uninformed, that Darby
invented the rapture doctrine. In making such a generalized statement, one has
to ask whether commentators are suggesting that Darby invented or coined the
“term” rapture or simply supplied the “content” or “doctrine” of the rapture? If
the latter, we should perhaps understand that he applied a unique eschatology
to a term that might or might not have been in common usage. This presents a
dilemma: first, there is the need for an etymological understanding of the term,
and second, there is the need to understand Darby’s unique spin on the term.

Pre-Darbvite notions of the rapture

From an etymological perspective, the doctrine of the pretribulation
rapture, though not a chronological event, finds support principally from two
verses, I Thessalonians 4:16638639and 2 Corinthians 12:2.634 Of interest is the
etymology of the word “rapture” as it relates to the phrase “caught up” (2 Cor.
12:2), as used by John Bale, Bishop of Ossory, in 1570: “. . . and thought my
selfe rapt vp with Paul vnto the thirde heaven.”640 William Perkins had a
similar usage: “Of this Paul speaketh, when he was rapt vp to the third heaven,
2 Cor. 12. It is called Paridise, because it is a place of pleasure . . ,”641 William

638 “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” Scofield, C.
1. 1945. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. A uthorized King James
version, with a new system o f connected topical references to all the greater themes o f
Scripture, with annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries, definitions,
chronology, and index, to which are added helps at hard places, explanations o f seeming
discrepancies, and a new system o f paragraphs. New York: Oxford University Press.
Note: Scofield adds the following comment to this verse. “Not church saints only, but all
bodies of the saved, of whatever dispensation, are included in the first resurrection (see 1
Cor. 15, s2, note), as here described, but it is peculiar the ‘blessed hope’ of the Church.”
Ibid.
639 “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell: or
whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third
heaven.” Ibid.
640 Bale, John. 1570. The image o f both Churches after the most wonderfull and heauenly
Reu elation o f sainct lohn the Euangelis t, contayning a very fruitfull exposition or
paraphrase vpon the same. Wherin it is conferred with the other scriptures, and most
auctorised histories. Compyled by lohn Bale an exyle also in thys lyfe, fo r the faithfull
testimony oflesu. Printed at London: By Thomas East, no page number.
641 Perkins, William, and Robert Hill. 1604. Lectvres Vpon The Three First Chapters O f The
Revelation: Preached In Cambridge Anno Dom. 1595. To which is added an excellent
Sermon penned at the request o f that noble and wise Councellor, Ambrose, Earle o f

155
 Bradshaw’s treatise dated 1620 also used the term “rapt vp” within a similar
context.642 By 1650, the Middle English form of “rapt vp” had given way to
the modern usage of “rapt up,” as demonstrated by Richard Baxter in the
following comment: .. rapt up in Revelations into the third heaven, and seen
things unutterable?”643 A similar usage is found in the works of Alexander
Ross (1655),644 John Everard (1657),645 and Humphrey Hody (169).646 George
Downame’s contribution647 to the etymology of the word “rapture” is
significant and expands on the thoughts of Bale, Perkins, and Bradshaw:
If in the celestial! Paradise, that is the third heauen as Paul speaketh, it
may first be doubted, whether they be there in body: because it may be
thought that Christ was the first that in body ascended into heauen: or
if their go there, we must hold that in the translation they were changed
into immortal and incorruptible bodies, as theirs shall, who shall be
found liuing vpon the earth as the second comming of Christ, and shall
be rapt vp into the aire.648

Warwicke : in which is proued that Rome is Babylon, and that Babylon is fallen. London:
Burbic, 162.
642 “. . . that had been rapt vp in the third heauen . . . ” Bradshaw, William. A plaine and pithy
exposition o f the Epistle to the Thessalonians. London: Thomas Pavier, 1624, 149. Note:
English and spelling as per the original text.
643 Baxter, Richard, and George Herbert. 1650. The saints everlasting rest, or, A treatise o f the
blessed state o f the saints in their enjoyment o f God in glory wherein is shewed its
excellency and certainty, the miseiy o f those that lose it, the way to attain it, and
assurance o f it, and how to live in the continual delightful forecasts o f it by the help o f
meditation : written by the author fo r his own use in the time oj his languishing when God
took him o ff from all publike imployment and afterwards preached in his weekly lecture.
London: Printed by Rob. White for Thomas Undcrhil and Francis Tyton, 329.
644 “. . . rapt up into the third heaven.” Ross, Alexander, Henriek van Haestens, and John
Davies. 1655. Pansebeia, or, A view oj all religions in the world with the several! church-
governments from the creation, to these times : also, a discovery o f all known heresies in
all ages and places, and choice observations and reflections throughout the whole.
London: Printed by T.C. for John Saywcll, 425.
645 “.. .rapt up into the third Heaven . . . ” Everard, John, Thomas Brooks, and Matthew
Barker. 1657. The Gospel treasury opened, or, The holiest o f all unvailing discovering yet
more the riches o f grace and gloty to the vessels o f mercy unto whom onely it is given to
know the mysteries o f that kingdom and the excellency o f spirit, power, truth above letter,
forms, shadows. London: Printed by John Owsley for Rapha Harford, 352.
646 “. . . being rapt up into Heaven . . . ” Hody, Humphrey. 1694. The resurrection o f the (same)
body asserted, from the traditions o f the heathens, the ancient Jews, and the primitive
church with an answer to the objections brought against it. London: Printed for Awnsham
and John Churchill, 215.
647 “George Downamc (also Downham) was born at Chester, where his father was a bishop.
He studied at Cambridge and was elected fellow of Christ College in 1585. Later lie was
appointed professor of logic and granted the D.D. degree. In 1616 lie became bishop of
Derry.” George Downame. [Link] [Link].
64t< Downame, George. 1603. A treatise concerning Antichrist divided into two bookes, the
former, proving that the Pope is Antichrist, the latter, maintaining the same assertion,
against all the objections o f Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit and cardinal! o f the church o f Rome.

156
 This text is again from 2 Cor. 12:2, written in terms of the Second Advent, and
speaks of the saints being “rapt vp” into the air to ascend to the celestial
paradise or third heaven. That the term “rapt vp” is used interchangeably with
the word “rapture” is suggested by a comment of Gregory Nazianzen: “If it
had been permitted to Paul to utter what the Third Heaven contained, and his
own advance, or ascension, or assumption thither, perhaps we should know
something more about God’s nature, if this was the mystery of the rapture. But
since it was ineffable we will honour it by silence.”649 That Downame uses the
term “rapt vp” and Nazianzen the term “rapture” for the same biblical text
would suggest that the terms “caught up,” “rapt up,” and “rapture” are
synonymous. The term itself in 2 Cor. 12:2 (in Greek, apTtayevm650) is
commented on by Lenski: ‘“ Such a one’ is added; he was nothing but a human
being in connection with Christ who was ‘snatched’ or removed by a raptus
‘as far as the third heaven.’”651 Bert Peerbolte is one expositor who uses the
term rapture in place of “caught up” in 2 Cor. [Link] “. .. of the rapture
experience he offers in 2 Cor. 12:2-4 suggest that Paul not only shared the
language of apocalyptic Judaism, but also its practice of ecstasis.”652

At London: Imprinted for Cuthbert Burbie, 62. Note: English and spelling as per the
original text.
649 Nazianzen, Gregory. The Second Theological Oration. XX. NPNF 7: 295.
650 apra^oa ace. sing. masc. part. aor. 2 pass.
651 Lenski, R. C. H. 1963. The interpretation o f St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians / by [Link]. Lenski. Minneapolis, MI: Augsburg, 1293. Note: Kittel offers the
following comment with reference to the use of apTia^m in the Matthew account: “Since
apna^w does not mean either to bring in by force or to plunder, only three alternatives are
open in the difficult saying in Mt. 11:12.. .It may mean that the kingdom of God is stolen,
i.e., taken away from men and closed to them; it may mean that violent men culpably try to
snatch it to themselves; or, it may mean that men forcibly take it in the good sense.
Linguistically all three are possible.” Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament Voi 1.
Editors Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964,
472. Bauer offers the following interpretation: To “snatch, seize, i.e., take suddenly and
vehemently away, or take away in the sense of.” Arndt, William, F. Wilbur Gingrich, John
R. Alsop, and Walter Bauer. 1957. A Greek-Eng/ish lexicon o f the New Testament and
other early Christian literature; a translation and adaptation o f Walter Bauer's
Griecliisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den SchriJ'ten des Neuen Testaments und der
iibringen urchristlichen Literatim, 4th rev. and aitgm. ed„ 1952. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. 108.
652 Pecrbolte, Jan Lietaert. “Paul’s Rapture: 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 And the Language of the
Mystics.” Experinta, Vol. 1: Enquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and
Christianity (Symposium). Eds. Colleen Shantz, Rodney W. Werline, Frances Flannery.
Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 159, 168.

157
 The rapture and the invention thesis
It can thus be established that an early use was made of the word
“rapture” by Saint Gregory of Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople, bom
circa 325 CE,653 and subsequent usage by Bale and others of “rapt vp or rapt
up” from 1570 onwards. Any argument that Darby invented the rapture as a
term to describe his eschatology is clearly in error. Yet this is the argument of
Tony Campolo, who states: “The word rapture does not appear in the Bible. It
was invented by Darby. That is not to say that the doctrine does not have
biblical support. The passage most commonly cited to undergird belief in the
rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.”654 Campolo’s contribution has reference
to both the term and the doctrine of the rapture, the latter suggesting the
possibility of biblical support.
There is also the question whether the doctrine of the rapture, perhaps
without use of the term, was extant either prior to or during Darby’s early
years. Edward Irving translated and published Emmanuel Lacunza’s work The
Coming o f Messiah in Glory and Majesty in 1827, and this gives a graphic
account that, while not mentioning the word rapture per se, does reflect the
doctrine very closely:
Then the Lord being come to the valley of Jehoshaphat, and being
seated upon a throne of majesty, not upon the earth, but in the air,
though very near the earth, and all the just being in like manner
stationed in the air, according to their orders, after the manner of an
amphitheatre, the books of the consciences of men shall be opened,
and all the good and evil of every one published abroad; whereby the
cause of God being justified, the Judge shall pass the final sentence, on
some eternal life, on others of eternal death: whereupon instantly the
sentence shall be executed, which casteth down to hell all the wicked
to dwell with devils, and Jesus Christ shall return once more to heaven
carrying all the good along with him.655

There are clear distinctions between Lacunza and Darby regarding the rapture
event, particularly Lacunza’s view that the judgment of the wicked is
contemporaneous with the rapture of the saints, whereas the seven-year

653 Nazianzen, Gregory. Prolegomena. NPNF 7: 188.

654 Campola, Tony. Letters to a Young Evangelical. New York: Basic Books, 2006, 107.
655 Lacunza, Manuel, and Edward Irving. 1827. The coming o f Messiah in glory and majesty.
London: L.B. Seeley. 1:164, 165.

158
 tribulation period separates the two events for Darby. However, the narrative
of the event being published in 1827 might well have influenced Darby’s
thoughts, allowing him to be adaptive to his own interpretation.
Howard Peth continues the notion of the invention thesis: “The theory
of the pre-tribulation Rapture was invented by John Nelson Darby .. .”656
Barbara Rossing echoes similar thoughts in a chapter of her book entitled “The
Invention of the Rapture”: “A British preacher named Darby invented this
point of view centuries after the Bible, and the Left Behind authors and other
dispensationalists are using it to further their particular social and political
agenda.”657 Archibald Cameron ascribes originality not only to Darby but also
to James Hall Brookes: “The Reader will please remember that this thing
called ‘a rapture.’ has no place in the Holy Scriptures. Neither Christ nor His
apostles ever mention a seven years’ rapture in cloud-land. It is an invention of
Darby, Brookes & Co.”658 Michael Byron comments: “Dispensationalism’s
founder, John Nelson Darby, in the early 1840’s, invented the notion of the
pre-tribulation rapture of the Church. Darby claimed that seven years before
Christ returns to Earth, all believing Christians (apparently this applies only to
Dispensationalists) will be suddenly ‘raptured,’ that is, they will be made to
disappear forever from Earth as they will have been transported directly to
Heaven to spend eternity with God.”659 Byron poses numerous eschatological
problems in that he ascribes both the “founding” of dispensationalism and the
“invention” of the rapture to Darby. Dispensationalism is a subject to be
presented later in this dissertation; however, it is insightful that the author
essentially ascribes originality of both doctrines to Darby. The author’s
assertion that the saints will be “raptured forever from Earth” is contrary to
Darby’s eschatology, which claims that, following a period of seven years,
Christ returns to earth with the saints at the Glorious Appearing, something he

656 Peth, Howard A. 2002. 7 mysteries solved: 7 issues that touch the heart o f mankind;
investigating the classic questions o f faith. Fallbrook, CA.: Hart Books, A Ministry of Hart
Research Center, 537.
657 Rossing, Barbara R. 2004. The Rapture Exposed. Boulder: Westview Press, 39, 40.
658 Cameron, Archibald Alexander. Protestantism and its relation to the Moral, Intellectual
and Spiritual Development o f Modern Times: A Lecture. (1872). Whitefish, MT:
Kessingcr, 2009, 10.
659 Bryon, Michael P. 2007. Infinity’s Rainbow. New York: Algora Pub, 152.

159
 could not do if, according to Byron, they were made to “disappear forever
from Earth.”
Hank Hanegraaff s contribution borders on the originality thesis when
he comments that “Darby’s innovative invention gave birth to the notion of a
pretribulation rapture.”660 A novel by Catherine Arslanian provides an
interesting perspective on the rapture being invented by Darby as a term and a
doctrine; it is geared more for the popular market than for an informed
approach, but the content is interesting if not insightful: ‘“ Were y’all aware
that the word ‘rapture’ does not occur anywhere in the Bible?’ he told me
once. ‘Really? You’re kidding, Phil,’ I answered. ‘No, I’m not. I know that for
a fact because I went looking for it. Thessalonians four thirteen said something
about people being sucked up into the air for some reason. I don’t remember
what it was, but it wasn’t no rapture. That whole idea was invented by some
looney preacher named John Nelson Darby in the eighteen thirties, probably
because he’d been eating too much moldy bread.’”661 The “lunacy thesis” is
also taken up by Brian Marshall: “The Rapture for example, invented by a
lunatic in England named Darby.”662
Banality is taken to its logical conclusion with a remark by Herbert
Stollorz that states the impossible:663 “Today, many gullible Christians still
adhere to a pre-tribulation rapture invented 150 years ago by a little girl in
England that was later elevated to the highest degree by a British scholar John
Nelson Darby. The pre-tribulation rapture dogma was really finalized by a
brilliant engineer Clarence Larkin who was talented in making drawings of

660 Hanegraaff, Hank. 2008. The apocalypse code: find out what the Bible really says about
the end times-and why it matters today. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 55.
661 Arslanian, Catherine. Email from Camp Khatar. Lincoln: iUnivese, Inc: 2006, 88.
662 Marshall, Brian Leonard Golightly. 2006. Mayan Calendar found in the Great Pyramid
and Christ’s return. Walla Walla: Dixie Press, 618.
663 Stollorz cites his source as: MacPherson, Dave. 1973. The unbelievablepre-trib origin: the
recent discovery o f a well-known theory's beginning, and its incredible cover-up. Kansas
City, MO: Heart of America Bible Society. According to John Walvoord: “In the attempt
to discredit pretribulationism, however, numerous assertions have been made that Darby
did not get his view from his own studies, as seems to be the case, but rather from several
erratic individuals, including such characters as Edward Irving and a woman by the name
of Margaret MacDonald. This charge has been made for years but has been especially
advanced by Dave MacPherson, the son of Norman MacPherson, also a posttribulationist.”
Walvoord, John F. 1979. The rapture question. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House,

160
 dispensational charts published in the 1920’s. You can check it out on the
Internet.”664 The most insightful remark on the rapture comes from an unlikely
quarter, namely, the authors of the Left Behind series of books that have done
much to popularize Darbyite eschatology:
For several years opponents of the pre-Trib position have argued that it
was invented by John Darby in the mid-1800’s and was never
mentioned before that. Quite simply, this argument is false—a fact that
cost one post-Trib writer a bundle of cash. This author offered five-
hundred dollars to anyone who could prove that the pre-Trib Rapture
theory was known before John Darby began to popularize it in the
1840’s. When it was discovered that the Reverend Morgan Edwards
saw it back in 1742, the writer had to pay off his costly challenge. He
has since had to admit his error and withdraw his offer.665

LaHaye and Jenkins offer the most informed opinion on the origin of the term
“rapture,” indicating that Darby did not “invent” the word. However, the
authors are not entirely alone in their thesis. Paul Bortolazzo also alludes to
this in his narrative of Drew Henley, a somewhat confused student, who
thought Pastor Mark’s eschatological teaching was bogus. In reply to Drew’s
question about the secret rapture, Pastor Mark gave the following reply:
“‘Drew, no one really knows who invented it. We do know a minister from the
Church of England named John Nelson Darby popularized this teaching in the
1800’s___ John Nelson Darby taught the coming of the Lord in 1
Thessalonians 4:15-17 is a secret rapture that could happen at any
moment.’”666 The author clearly understands Darby’s eschatology of
imminence and the notion of the secret rapture, while at the same time
drawing the correct conclusion that Darby not only did not invent the term and

151. See also: Walvoord, John F. 1976. The blessed hope and die tribulation: a Biblical
and historical study o f posttribulationism. Grand Rapids: Zondcrvan Pub. House, 43.
664 Stollorz, Herbert R. Asteroid Answers to Ancient Calendar Mysteries. Charleston:
BookSurge Publishing, 2007, 272. Note: The author states that this little girl was Margaret
MacDonald, who attended one of Edward Irving’s sessions in 1830 and fell into a trance.
“After several hours of visions and prophesying, she revealed that Christ’s return would
occur in two phases, not just one. Christ would come secretly, being visible only to the
righteous, then He would come a second time visible to all in order to execute God’s wrath
on the unrighteous nations.” Ibid., 274.
665 LaHaye, Tim F., and Jerry B. Jenkins. 2000. Are we living in the end times?: current events
foretold in scripture —and what they mean. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 112-123.
666 Bortolazzo, Paul. 2007. The Coming o f the Son o f Man After the Tribulation o f Those Days.
Mustang, OK: Tate Pub & Enterprises Lie., 141.

161
 that the jury is still out. This point is supported by Steve Stephens, who
attributes the source to Margaret MacDonald, a matter that I would dispute:
“Many people have thought that John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth
Brethren, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine; Darby only popularized
it.. .. The fact is, however, John Darby received the knowledge of the
doctrine from someone else. The source was Margaret MacDonald.”667
Clearly, there are numerous opinions as to the origin of the term and
the doctrine of the rapture, and the uniformed opinions that rely on the
“internet for support” can be clearly rejected out of hand. These opinions only
serve to disturb the already muddied water and do little to clarify Darby’s true
eschatology. Faced, then, with the two alternatives regarding Darby as an
inventor of the rapture, there has to be an acceptable answer that can
accommodate both opinions. It has already been determined that Darby did not
invent the term “rapture”; that much is certain without further proof. However,
Darby did create a wholly different rapture doctrine that was innovative and
different from what had previously been understood.
Since the assertion that Darby “invented” the rapture is contentious668
and the etymology of the term “rapture” can be traced back to Gregory
Nazianzen, there is still an argument concerning the doctrine of the rapture. It
could be construed that Darby’s view of the “secret rapture,” while not
referred to by that name, was certainly evident prior to his time. For that
reason, it behooves us to examine sources prior to the 19,h century to
understand the interpretation applied to 1 Thess. 4:16, 17669 and 1 Cor.

667 Stephens, J. Steve. The Rapture Event. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2008, 30.
668 “Darby’s use of the word rapture was derived from the Latin Vulgate translation of the
Greek text of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 . . . In the Vulgate translation, ‘caught up’ was
translated rapiemur, from the Latin verb rapio. In medieval Latin, rapio became a noun,
raptura, which then became in English ‘rapture.’ For Darby, rapture designated the event
of the ‘taking up’ of the true church to heaven in the Last Days combined with the
religious and emotional ecstasy that the word implied.” Frykholm, Amy Johnson. 2004.
Rapture culture: left behind in Evangelical America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16,
17.
669 “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who
are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord
in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

162
 15:52.670 An understanding of how these texts were interpreted is important,
since Darby’s doctrines of imminence and the secret rapture would appear
nonsensical if there is a general announcement to all and sundry by the
“trumpet of God and the voice of the archangel” prior to the rapture. This
raises the question of how these texts were understood prior to Darby, by
Darby himself, and finally in a post-Darbyite period.

The events surrounding the rapture, trumpet, and call

Examining first those scholars prior to Darby to gain an understanding
of the “trumpet of God and the voice of the archangel,” we find that an early
interpretation is provided by John Flavel, who was an English Presbyterian.
“He studied at Oxford and in 1650 became curate of Diptford, in
Devonshire.”671 Here is Flavel’s understanding of the Thessalonian narrative:
Christ shall come forth out of heaven, with the shouts of angels, above
all which shall the voice of the archangel be distinctly heard. And after
this, the trump of God shall sound. The dead being raised, shall be
gathered before the great throne in which Christ shall sit in his glory;
and there by the angels they shall be divided exactly to the right and
left hand of Christ. Here will be the greatest assembly that ever met;
where Adam may see his numerous offspring, even as the sand of the
sea-shore, which no man can number---- The saints shall meet the
Lord in the air; the Judge shall sit upon the throne, with the saints
round him; the wicked remaining below upon the earth, to receive their
final doom.672

Unlike Darby’s interpretation, the event will not be secret, since the “voice of
the archangel will be distinctly heard.” Second, the division is not between the
two peoples of God, the church and the Jewish nation, but between the
righteous and the unrighteous. Third, the event will be a universal judgment of
both the righteous and unrighteous. “It will be a universal judgment. ‘We must
all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ.’ 2 Cor. 5:10. ‘Every one of us
shall give an account of himself to God.’ Rom. 14:12.”673 The result of this

670 “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound and
the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”
671 The new Schaff-llerzog encyclopedia o f religions knowledge 12. 1912, New York: Funk
and Wagnalls, ix:327.
672 Flavel, John. 1671. The fountain o f life; or, A display o f Christ in His essential and
mediatorial glory. New York: The American Tract Society, 523.
673 Ibid., 525.

163
 universal judgment will be twofold: The unrighteous “shall go into everlasting
punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. This is the judgment of the
great day.”674
Flavel states that the voice of the archangel “shall be distinctly heard.”
William Sherlock understands the shout to be similar to “when the signal is
given for battle.”675 While not too sure of the correct interpretation for the
“trump of God,” Sherlock remarks that “it is such a trumpet, at the sound of
which the Dead shall rise . .. this last Trump seems to be what our Saviour
calls the voice of the Son of God .. .”676 Ebenezer Erskine draws a distinction
between Christ’s ascension and his coming again for judgment: “Why, as he
went up with a shout, and the sound o f a trumpet; so in like manner he will
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with
the trump of God: but with this difference, that the shouts and sounds were not
heard in this lower world when he went up; but when he descends or comes
down to judge the world, the shouts of the Redeemer’s voice, and the trump of
God will be so loud, as not only to startle them that are alive, but to awaken
the dead that have lain in their graves for many thousand years.”677
Joseph Perry understands the shout to have global significance. “He
will come with a Shout so loud as will be heard all the World over, yea and
those that are in the Grave, or at the Bottom of the Sea .. ,”678 According to
Robert Russel, “The sound of this last trumpet shall be so loud, that it shall be
heard all over the world; it shall pierce even to the bottom of the sea, and to
the bowels of the earth.”679 There is general agreement among a wide

674 Ibid.
675 Sherlock, William. 1704. A practical discourse concerning a future judgment: By William
Sherlock. London: Printed by M. R. for W. Rogers, 259.
676 Ibid., 261.
677 Erskine, Ebenezer. 1798. The whole works o f the late Rev. Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, ...
consisting o f sermons and discourses, on the most important and interesting subjects. In
three volumes. Edinburgh: printed by D. Schaw and Co., for Alex. M'Leran, 276.
678 Perry, Joseph. 1721. The glory o f Christ's visible Kingdom in this world asserted, proved,
and explained, in its tw ofold branches; first spiritual, secondly personal: ...By Joseph
Perry. Northampton: printed by R. Raikes and W. Dicey, for the author, 122.
679 Russel, Robert. 1784. Seven sermons, viz, I. O f the unpardonable sin against the Holy
Ghost; or, The sin unto death. II. The saint's duty and exercise: in two parts, being an
exhortation to, and directions fo r prayer. III. The accepted time and day o f salvation. IV.
The end o f time and beginning o f eternity. V. Joshua's resolution to serve the Lord. VI. The

164
 spectrum of scholars that the “trumpet of God and the voice of the archangel”
would be literal, verbal and loud to the point that the entire world would be
aware of the announcement. There is, however, a marked change in the
understanding of the trump of God and the voice of the archangel among
scholars after the 19th century, as explained by Leon Wood: “Sometimes
Christians use the designation ‘secret rapture.’ The term is somewhat
misleading, however, for, though the time is unknown beforehand, these
audible signs will occur. Certainly all saints will hear them, and it is likely that
the unsaved will as well. The signs would let the unsaved know of the
significant occurrence and that they have indeed been left out.”680
Charles Taze Russell, better known as the founding father of the
Jehovah Witnesses, disagrees that the sound of the trumpet has any literal
meaning. ‘“THE TRUMP OF GOD.’ Many seem thoughtlessly to entertain the
idea that this trumpet will be a literal sound on the air. But this will be seen to
be an unreasonable expectation, when it is noticed that Paul here refers to what
the Revelator designates ‘The Seventh Trumpet,’ the ‘Last Trump’ in a series
of symbolic trumpets (Rev. 11:15; 1 Cor. 15:52).”681 Lewis Sperry Chafer
discusses the last trumpet but is unwilling to say whether this is an audible
sound that everyone will hear or not: “Respecting the resurrection of the
bodies of believers, there are no more revealing Scriptures than 1 Corinthians
15:42-50 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, in which contexts the one trump of
God is said to raise the bodies of the saints and to summon living saints to
meet the Lord in the air. This trump of God is designated in 1 Corinthians
15:52 as the last trump.”682 Apart from a comment that the last trump of 1 Cor.
15:52 has no connection to the last trump of Revelation, Chafer declines to
comment further on its nature.

way to heaven made plain. VII. The future state o f man: or, A treatise o f the resurrection.
Glasgow: J. and M. Robertson, 118.
68(1 Wood, Leon James. 1973. The Bible & future events; an introductoiy survey o f last-day
events. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Pub. House, 44.
681 Russell, Charles Taze. The Time is at Hand. New Brunswick, Bible Students Congregation,
2000, 148, 149.
682 Chafer, Lewis Sperry. 1993. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Krcgcl Publications,
376.

165
 John Walvoord, in speaking of the events in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,
comments: “The expression here, ‘the trump of God,’ must therefore be
considered a parallel to the last trump of 1 Corinthians 15:52, but should not
be confused with other trumpets in the New Testament. In contrast to the
seven trumps of angels in Revelation 8:2-9, 21; 11:15-18, this is a trump of
God, a trump of grace, a trump of triumph, and a trump pertaining to the
righteous dead and living saints.”683684Clearly, Walvoord’s interpretation has
departed considerably from the earlier understanding of a trump that is a
literal, verbal pronouncement to both the righteous and the unrighteous and is
heard globally even to the depths of the sea. J. Dwight Pentecost provides a
more understandable notion by first subscribing to a verbal call but then
limiting that call to just the saints. “In 1 Thessalonians 4 the voice associated
with the sounding of the trumpet summons the dead and the living and
consequently is heard before the resurrection.. .. The trumpet in l
Thessalonians is distinctly for the church.” Here is the dilemma: if, as
Pentecost asserts, the trumpet is a verbal call that is only heard by the church
and that at the end times there will be both saints and sinners alive, then he
must be talking cogently about a secret rapture, because sinners will not hear
the trumpet of God, only the church! John Phillips disagrees with Pentecost’s
view that the trumpet is “distinctly for the church.” According to Phillips,
“The voice and the shout are accompanied by the trump of God. The trump is
primarily for Israel.”685
Newman Smyth’s allegorical interpretation departs entirely from the
literalism of the pre-Darbyite period, as indicated by the following: “For why
should we Christians ever think of that great voice, and that last trump, as a
wild alarm resounding through space—an awful voice of doom? Shall it not be
the full, joyous melody of grace made audible everywhere at last, and not one
discord left? that archangel’s voice the harmony of all sweet voices of peace

683 Walvoord, John F. 1999. The church in prophecy: exploring God's purpose for the present
age. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel Publications, p. 80.
684 Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1995. Thy kingdom come: tracing God's kingdom program and
covenant promises throughout history. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregcl Publications, 190.
685 Phillips, John. Exploring the Future. Grand Rapids: Kregcl, 2002, 250.

166
 and good will on earth?”686 Lynn Hiles also provides an allegorical
interpretation. In commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:16, he remarks: “The Lord
is descending into our very lives today. He is descending in the trumpet of
God. He’s coming in the message He’s bringing to our hearts.”687
Darby’s interpretation of the “last trump” and the “voice of the
archangel” departs considerably from expositors previous to him. Nowhere
does he maintain that the last trump is a distinct, audible sound of the trumpet
heard by both saints and sinners alike. Instead, he interprets this to pertain
more to a military call, as he explains in a section entitled “The allusion ‘in the
last trump of 1 Corinthians 15:52’”:
After all the grave and wise speculations on the last trump, I strongly
suspect it is merely an allusion to military matters. Somewhere we
have in Josephus’ War, and perhaps in other books, we have the order
of the breaking up of a Roman camp, and at the last trump they all
break up and march forward. Now I acknowledge that scripture
interpretation is not to be borrowed from without; but 1 have only seen
tortured linkings with other passages within. 1 am content to take the
general idea of the last public call of God relating to the church, and
leave it there; but what suggested the image, I suspect, was what 1 say;
just as the Greek for ‘assembling shout’ in 1 Thessalonians 4, beyond
controversy, is a similar military term used to a similar purpose.
Matthew 24:31 (‘And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a
trumpet’), 1 have not the smallest shadow of doubt, applies to the
assembling of the Jews (elect, as in Isaiah 65) after Christ is come.688

Darby’s reference to the “Great Trumpet” of Matthew 24:31 as applying to the

Jewish nation is understandable in that Darby applies the whole prophetic
chapter to the Jews and not the church. His vague reference to Josephus does,
however, complicate his interpretation of the trumpets. The passage that Darby
is referring to is taken from Josephus’ War on the Jews, in a chapter headed
“A description of the Roman armies and Roman camps and of other
particulars for which the Romans are commended.”
Now when they are to go out of the camp, the trumpet gives a sound, at
which time nobody lies still, but at the first intimation they take down
their tents, and all is made ready for their going out, then do the
trumpets sound again, to order them to get ready for the march, then do

686 Smyth, Newman. 2008. The Reality o f Faith. Charleston, SC: Bibliobazaar, 264.
687 Hilcs, Lynn. 2007. The Revelation o f Jesus Christ. Shippcnsburg, PA: Destiny Image, 96.
688 Darby. Collected Writings, voi. 5: Prophetic No.2, 229.

167
 they lay their baggage suddenly upon the mules, and other beasts of
burden, and stand, as at the place of starting, ready to march .. . Then
do the trumpets give a sound the third time, that they are to go out, in
order to excite those that on any account are a little tardy, that so no
one may be out of his rank when the army marches.689

If Darby has in mind this passage from Josephus, then his reference to
“military matters” is certainly indicated. However, there are numerous trumpet
calls to awake sleeping and tardy soldiers, and these together with the
trumpeters “made a terrible shout.”690 But Darby is insistent that Josephus is
providing the illustration for the rapture:
When we learn that “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump,” we shall be changed. The last trump among the Romans, was
the signal for all to start from the camp. They sounded one trumpet,
then pulled down their tents; then a second; and put themselves in
order; and when the last was sounded they all started. It is the same
idea in 1 Thessalonians 4; it is there the military technical shout when
they were all called into the rank again from standing at ease
(originally it was the sound given to the rowers to pull together). We
have three there: the Lord first; then the archangel carrying it on; and
then the trump of God that completes all.691

For Darby, the trumpet is a summons or a call for action. “The last trump of 1
Corinthians 15 means the final summons when the heavenly saints leave their
earthly sojourn to join the Lord—a figure like others in the chapter, taken from
familiar military matters.”692 The recurring theme for Darby is that the trumpet
call has reference to the military:
Dr. Rossier, the “last trump” is but a military allusion, neither more nor
less. There were three trumpets for breaking up the camp among the
Romans. At the first, they folded the baggage; at the second, they fell
into rank; at the third they all started together. The trumpet of 1
Corinthians 15:52 is simply that of the resurrection of the dead, not of
the change of the living. 1 Thessalonians confirms the above
explanation.693

It could be argued that Darby, in finding an analogy between the trump

of God and the breaking up of the Roman camp, as recorded by Josephus, is

689 Josephus, Flavius, and William Whiston. 1981. Complete works. Lynn, MA. Hendrickson -
War o f the Jews, 111:5, 506.
690 Ibid., 111:7,512.
691 Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 26: Expository No. 5, 297.
692 Ibid., My Dear Brother, 337.

168
 suggesting a trumpet call which in the latter case would be heard not just by
the Romans but also by their enemies. It would be hard to conceive of an army
that did not take prisoners, and if that is the case, then the prisoners in the
Roman camp would surely hear the trumpet as easily as the Romans. But this
is where Darby’s analogy breaks down. He is insistent that while the trumpet
call and the voice of the archangel are given, not everyone will hear the call.
“But the only persons who hear it are the ‘dead in Christ,’ Christ being
represented as in this way gathering together His own troops.”*694 Darby
continues with his explanation that this call is not a resurrection o f the dead
but from the dead.695
So the call is a specific call of the righteous dead, not the unrighteous
dead, who will have to wait until the end of the millennium. “There will be a
thousand years between the two resurrections.”696 Darby emphasizes his point:
“And not only does the voice of the archangel and the trump of God minister
to the raising of the dead in Christ at what this statement would call His first
coming .. ,”697 Whether the trumpet of God is limited just to the raising of the
dead or is a signal for the entire church is a point of debate. John Alifano
subscribes to the latter view with the following comment in connection with 1
Thessalonians 4:16-17: “Of importance is the fact that the text reads that
Christ shall return from heaven to the air and not to the earth, it is from the air
that the church will hear the trump of God and be caught up or raptured.”698
Darby appears to endorse the view that only the righteous dead hear the
trumpet of God and not the righteous living or, as stated by Alifano, “the
church.” Darby also presents an analogy of the way the God spoke to Saul of
Tarsus, both at the death of Stephen and when on the Damascus Road.
According to Darby, this presents a sort or “regulating sound” in that not
everyone heard the voice of God. In like manner, not everyone will hear the
trump of God and the voice of the archangel, just the dead in Christ:

693
Ibid., Dear F. Cavenaugh, 417.
694
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No A, 235.
695
Ibid.
696
Ibid., 260.
697
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 2: Prophetic No.1, 14.

169
 Of course, on the other hand, He did regulate in a hidden way, as when
he let Saul of Tarsus be at the death of Stephen, and when he spoke to
Saul out of the glory. In a quiet way He regulated them, but He will
speak in quite a different way in the day that is coming. The “shout”
spoken here is a regulating sound, such as a call to men to present
arms; and its tones will be heard as announcing that the time is
come.698699

In summary, Darby’s view of the trump of God and the voice of the
archangel differs considerably from those of his predecessors. The declaration
for Darby was limited just to the dead in Christ, not to a general call or a call
to be heard globally throughout the world. In this sense, the idea of a “secret
rapture” becomes understandable, since only the righteous dead will hear the
trump of God and the voice of the archangel and will be raised to meet the
Lord in the air. These would be joined by the righteous living, and the two
groups will meet Christ at his appearing and will be raptured to heaven. The
unrighteous living will only know that the rapture has occurred when loved
ones are suddenly found missing.

The post-, mid-, and pretribulation hermeneutic

Darby’s views of the nature of the trump of God and the voice of the
archangel were not the only distinguishing features of his eschatology.
Premillennialists, including futurists and historicists prior to Darby, subscribed
either to a midtribulation or a posttribulation rather than a pretribulation
rapture; thus, for the posttribulationist the rapture would occur not at the
beginning but at the end of the tribulation at Christ’s Second Advent.
Alexander Reese clarifies this interpretation:
The Church of Christ will not be removed from the earth until the
Advent of Christ at the very end of the present Age; the Rapture and
the Appearing take place at the same crisis; hence Christians of that
generation will be exposed to the final affliction under Antichrist.700

698 Alifano, John A. The Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine and the Progressive Dispensational
System: Are they Compatible? Boca Raton, FL: [Link], 2002, 2.
699 Ibid., The Lord Himself Shall Descend, n.p.
700 Reese, Alexander. The Approaching Advent of Christ, 18, qtd. in Pentecost, J. Dwight.
1964. Things to come: a study in Biblical eschatology. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan, 164.

170
 This final affliction under Antichrist finds fuller understanding within the
parable of the wheat and tares.701 Those that rejected the pretribulation
explanation generally felt that the church was composed of wheat and tares,
and that the function of the church was to be a witness until the harvest when
the wheat would be separated from the tares. The general feeling was that the
church would not be taken out of the world during the tribulation, since the
church was to be called upon to maintain its witness.
Larry Pharr discusses the importance of the parable with regard to the
pre- and posttribulation views: “It must be emphasized that the Lord deals
with the tares at the same time that the wheat is gathered by rapture, and this is
impossible with pre-tribulation rapture doctrine yet is consistent with post­
tribulation rapture teaching.. . . With pre-tribulation rapture teaching, no
judgment is given at this time to the wicked and no one is cast into hell.”702
Roy Anderberg supports the posttribulation interpretation and admits to being
“a dispensationalist to an extent.” He then clarifies his thinking by stating that
“the treatment of Israel and the Church are somewhat different; but when it is
held that the Church cannot be present in the 70,h week, that presents a
problem___and to suggest that the ‘Church age’ ends at the beginning of the
week, in light of the revealed scripture would be a difficult notion to accept;
especially since there will be millions of Christians present during the
tribulation who won’t take the mark, name, or the number of the
Antichrist.”703
James Bennett supports the posttribulation position, arguing against the
pretribulation interpretation: “Now comes the fact which is conclusive against
the secret rapture. That doctrine, it will be remembered, is, that the Church or
‘wheat’ shall be taken away to heaven at a coming of Christ which is to
precede the end of the age by several years. The wheat are to be removed

701 Matthew 13.

702 Pharr, W. Larry. 2007. The Rapture Examined, Explained and Exposed. Longwood, FL:
Xulon Press, 80, 81.
71,3 Anderberg, Roy W. 2008. Post Tribulation Rapture. Tucson, AZ: Wheatmar, 25, 26, 31,
32.

171
 some years, therefore, before the tares. And how does this theory tally with the
teaching of this parable: It flatly contradicts it.”704
John Walvoord provides a helpful insight into the posttribulation
support of the wheat and tares parable:
The position of dispensational posttribulationalism is stated briefly by
Gundry in what he calls “Excursus on the Consummation of the
Age” . . . Gundry follows other posttribulationists, however, in singling
out the parable of the wheat and the tares as evidence for post-
tribulational rapture. As Matthew 13:30 states clearly, at the time of
harvest the tares are gathered first, and then the wheat is gathered into
the barn. Gundry, like most other posttribulationalists, makes much of
the fact that the wheat is gathered after the tares - which fact, he holds,
corresponds to the second coming of Christ to set up His kingdom.
This contradicts the order of the pretribulational rapture, in which
believers are gathered out first. Like other posttribulationalists,
however, Gundry ignores the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:47-
50 in which the exact opposite order is indicated. There, according to
verse 48, the good fish representing believers are gathered into vessels,
and then the bad fish are thrown away.705

The parable of the wheat and tares advanced by the supporters of post­
tribulationalism finds a similar argument in that the tribulation period is
essential for the “purification of the church,” as explained by John Cumming:
But we must not overlook, in the midst of the coming tribulation, those
rays of glory stricken through the clouds, which relieve the density of
the night, and indicate, beyond the sunshine that sleeps unbroken on
the everlasting hills of the heavenly Jerusalem. However sure the
tribulation, there are those that “come out of it,” and stand resplendent
“in white robes,” who “shall be purified and made white and tried,”
who “shall rest and stand in their lot at the end of days.”706

Elsewhere, Cumming explains what this purification during the tribulation

consists of: “Then we shall be purified from unbelief, purified from the alloy
of sin, purified from all the remains of corruption; purified more and
more .. .”707 According to James Smith, quoting the book of Revelation,

704 Bennett, J. 1878. The second advent. London: J. Nisbet, 162.

705 Walvoord, John F. 1976. The blessed hope and the tribulation: a Biblical and historical
study ofposttribulationism. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Pub. House, 83.
706 Cumming, John. 1863. The great tribulation: or, the things coming on the earth. New
York: Rudd & Carleton, xv.
707 Cumming, John. 1860. The great tribulation: or, the things coming on the earth. New
York: Rudd & Carleton , xv, 103.

172
 . .. during the great tribulation, before ever they could stand thereupon
(xv., 1, 2) and those who reign with Christ ‘are those who during the
great tribulation had been beheaded by the beast because they would
not worship either him or his image’ &c. (xx, 4). From actual
experience then, it seems clear as noon-day that the saints - the
Church, the bride, the Lamb’s wife - will surely pass through, suffer
in, be purged, purified, and prepared for the marriage during the great
tribulation.708

Contrary to the view of pretribulationalism and according to Smith, during the

tribulation Christ reigns on earth and not in heaven, the Church is on earth and
not in heaven, and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is on earth and not in
heaven. The Church is to suffer the torment of the tribulation period rather
than being raptured to meet Christ at his appearing prior to the Great
Tribulation. Thus, there is a considerable difference between the views of
post- and pretribulationalism. It was deemed essential for the post-
tribulationists that the saints should go through the tribulation and not be
raptured prior to the tribulation period.
Darby’s advancement of pretribulationism rather than post-
tribulationism has considerable import.
The rapture of the saints and the character of the Jewish remnant:
shewing the position which the scriptures give to the remnant in Israel,
in the latter day, in prophecy, in the Psalms and in the New Testament;
and the rapture of the saints, gathered by the Holy Ghost, sent down
from heaven, before the tribulation of the last days.. . . The rapture of
the saints before the appearing of Christ, connects itself with the
existence of a Jewish remnant waiting for a deliverance after the
rapture and before the appearing.709

Several scholars present the view that the pretribulation interpretation can be
attributed to Darby: “. . . the Pre-Tribulation rapture of the saints; a visible
reign of Christ in Jerusalem during the millennium; and a restricted view of
what constitutes the true church. It is in large part, the work of an Irish cleric,
John Nelson Darby (1800-82).”710 According to Larry Pharr, “The debate over
pre-tribulation rapture as opposed to post-tribulation rapture might never have

lm Smith, James. 1872. Plain thoughts on the seated book. London: Houlston & Sons, 309.
709 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 11 : Prophetic No.4, 118.
710 Landes, Richard Allen. 2000. Encyclopedia o f MiUennialism and Millennial Movements.
New York: Routledge, 125.

173
 occurred except for the fact of John Nelson Darby coming to America and
teaching pre-tribulation rapture to ministry that was very immature in
prophecy. Darby, a brilliant, yet eccentric theologian who authored over
seventy books, first taught pre-tribulation rapture to the Plymouth Brethren in
1832.”711Not all scholars are in agreement that originality can be ascribed to
Darby. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins would disagree, as evidenced by the
following:
For several years opponents of the pre-Tribulation position have
argued that the position was invented by John Darby in the mid-1800s
and was never mentioned before that. Quite simply, this argument is
false. The Reverend Morgan Edwards was a Baptist pastor in
Philadelphia who described a pre-Trib return of Christ for his church in
his 1788 book Millennium, Last Days Novelties. Although he saw only
a 3 '/S year tribulation, he definitely saw the Rapture occur before the
Tribulation.712

However, the views of the authors are not conclusive, and as Carl Olson points
out, “LaHaye admits Edwards ‘saw only a three and a half year tribulation’,
meaning Edwards’ writings would better support midtribulationism, a view
LaHaye strongly opposes. Even it Edwards did envision some type of Rapture
prior to a time of tribulation, his explanation is ambiguous and only gives
pretribulationists another fifty years or so of history to claim as their own. In
the context of two thousand years, this is hardly persuasive, especially since
Edwards’ views are not clear or fully formed.”713
There are other views as to who originated the doctrine of pre­
tribulation besides that of Morgan Edwards. Stephen Hunt presents the case
propounded by Mark Patterson and Andrew Walker that suggests that “Irving
and the Albury circle predate Darby’s mature view on the pre-tribulation
Rapture.”714 Robert Van Kampen suggests that Edward Irving is a possible
candidate as the originator of the pretribulation doctrine: “Although John

711 Pharr, W. Larry. The Rapture Examined, Explained and Exposed. Longwood, FL: Xulon
Press, 2007, ix.
712 LaHayc, Tim F„ Jerry B. Jenkins, and Sandi Swanson. 2005. The authorized Left Behind
handbook. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 76.
713 Olson, Carl E. 2003. Will Catholics be "left behind"?: a Catholic critique o f the rapture
and today's prophecy preachers. Modern apologetics library. San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 327.

174
Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement, apparently never
claimed to have originated pretribulationalism, many have credited him with
the idea. Most historians believe, however, that the idea of a pre-seventieth
week Rapture was first popularized by Edward Irving. Because of his low
view of Christ, Irving was thrown out [.v/c] of the Presbyterian Church and
started the Apostolic Catholic Church.”714715

Darby’s hermeneutic
The pretribulation rapture, like his doctrine of the two peoples of God,
was absolutely central to Darby’s eschatology. That the relationship of the
church to the tribulation occupied his mind, with the church avoiding the
tribulation, is evident in the following comments:
And first, as to our being in the tribulation: How do I know there will
be a tribulation? I must get some revelation of it. He who would place
the church in it will answer me, I am sure, that the Scriptures are clear
on the point.. . . There will be a tribulation. The other part of the
question still remains: Shall we, who compose the church, be in this
tribulation? . . . We have found that the passages which speak of the
tribulation first apply it directly to the Jews on one side and then
exclude the church from it on the other. 1do not see how such a point
as this could be made clearer by scripture.716

The church is associated with Christ already gone, it is not of this

world as He was not, it is risen with Him, has its life with him in God.
There is no earthly event between it and heaven. It must have been
gathered, and Christ rise from the Father’s throne to receive it: that is
all. It is this conviction that the church is properly heavenly, in its
calling and relationship with Christ, forming no part of the course of
events of the earth, which makes its rapture so simple and clear; and on
the other hand, it shews how the denial of its rapture brings down the
Church to an earthly position, and destroys its whole spiritual character
and position. Prophecy does not relate to heaven. The Christian’s hope
is not a prophetic subject at all.717

For Darby, the pretribulation rapture is a doctrine not derived from Scripture
perse but from the doctrine of the two peoples of God, which requires it.
Stanley Grenz understands this argument clearly:

714 Hunt, Stephen. 2001. Christian miUenarianism:from the early church to Waco.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 98.
715 Van Kampen, Robert. 2000. The Sign. Wheaton, 1L: Crossway Books, 17.
6 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 110, 113.

175
 Finally and most important, the pretribulation rapture is demanded by
the dispensationalist system itself. This is readily evident in the
classical expression of the system. If there are two peoples of God and
two phases of God’s program in the world, and if the Israel phase has
been placed in abeyance during the church age, then the pretribulation
rapture follows logically.717718

Of interest are the views of those that understand the rapture as an

invention by Darby. If, as Grenz insightfully remarks, the rapture was the
“logical conclusion of the two peoples of God,” then Scriptural support would
be lacking, since Darby’s doctrine would have been predicated upon the
separation of the two peoples of God and not from any passage of Scripture.
Darby’s eschatology embraced the doctrine of imminence or “at any
moment coming” of Christ—what is commonly termed the “secret rapture.”
This any-moment return of Christ he expressed succinctly: “There is no event
between me and heaven.”719 By abandoning historicism and its prophetical
timetable, Darby established a futurist interpretation of the secret rapture.
Before the end of the current dispensation and prior to the beginning of
Daniel’s last week, Jesus would remove his faithful remnant, while the rest,
the unrighteous including the professing church, would go into the Great
Tribulation. The faithful remnant includes both the righteous dead as well as
the righteous living. Grace and faith had made the separation between the
saints, the church, and the unrighteous.720 By adopting a literalist
interpretation to 1 Thessalonians 4:18-17, Darby reasoned that Christ would
come back twice at the Second Advent. The first coming would be fo r his
church and the next coming, seven years later, would be with the church.
Pentecost disagrees with applying the Second Coming to the time of
the rapture and is thus in agreement with Darby, insisting that the Second
Advent pertains to the end of the seven-year period when Christ appears with
the bride.721 The rapture or translation is the event during which Christ comes

717 Ibid., 155.

718 Grenz, Stanley J. 1992. The millennial maze: sorting out evangelical options. Downers
Grove, 1L: InterVarsity Press, 107.
719 Darby, Dearest G. Gaitshy, 330.
720 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 10: Doctrinal No.3, 358.
721 Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1995. Thy kingdom come: tracing God's kingdom program and
covenant promises throughout history. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel Publications, 206.

176
 to claim his bride and the saints are caught up in the air. Such semantics do a
disservice to those who hold to the single and not double coming of Christ and
see the Second Advent as the time when the saints are translated.722 According
to Herbert Lockyer, the term “Second Advent” should be treated as a general
and not a specific term.723 Pentecost’s argument appears central to his
eschatology, particularly with this remark: “The translation results in the
removal of the church and the inception of the tribulation, and the second
advent results in the establishment of the millennial kingdom.”724 Lockyer’s
comments are insightful, and one wonders whether such eschatological
gymnastics are to detract from the central argument that Christ actually comes
back twice. Pentecost does, however, point to helpful distinctions between the
two events. “At the translation believers are judged, but at the second advent
Gentiles and Israel are judged. . . . The translation leaves creation unchanged,
while the second advent entails the change in creation.”725
These then are the events that Darby sets forth at the rapture. First, the
“translation” of the church to meet Jesus in the air, when Christ comes for his
saints both living and resurrected, followed by the appearing when Christ
comes back to earth for judgment, as follows: .. so that these three things,
the presenting of the Son of man to the Ancient of days, the rapture of the
church to meet Jesus in the air, and the appearing of Jesus with all the saints to
judge the world .. .”726 The rapture is commensurate with the start of the last
week of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy.727 With the church removed, God is
able to continue His redemptive work with the Jewish nation and in particular

722 Bill Hamon subscribes to this view with the following comment: “Christ’s first coming was
when God sent His only begotten Son to Earth to become the perfect sacrifice for the
redemption of mankind. Jesus shed His life’s blood for the purchase of His Church.
Christ’s first coming birthed the age of the Mortal Church. His second coming will end the
age of the Mortal Church by translating and resurrecting the Saints into the Immortal
Church.” Hamon, Bill. 2005. The Day o f the Saints. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image,
419.
723 “The term ‘the Second Advent’ is a general one covering many events that are associated
with our Lord from the time of His return for His church right on until the end of the
millennium when he surrenders the kingdom to God.” Lockyer, Herbert. 1973. All the
messianic prophecies o f the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 186.
724 Ibid., 206, 207.
725 Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1995. Thy kingdom come: tracing God's kingdom program and
covenant promises throughout history. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 207.
726 Darby. Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, p. 64.

177
 the 144,000 of Revelation, who are natural Jews from the twelve tribes who
will be present during the tribulation period. The 144,000 will receive Jesus
possibly through the work of the two witnesses, who will then lead the
victory over the Antichrist.**729 Darby understands that the Great Tribulation
concerns the wrath of God against the Jews for their rejection of Christ, as he
explains with reference to the book of Matthew:
But then we have the additional truth that this Gospel of the Kingdom
must be preached to all the nations (Gentiles) and then the end shall
come. This gives the full general history consequent on the rejection of
Christ. . . Then, as I have said, the special portion of Jerusalem who
had rejected Him, and the great tribulation, when the abomination of
desolation has been set up, is brought in.730

He further states: “In a word it is the final and terrible tribulation of the Jews,
guilty of having rejected their Messiah, but whose deliverance will then take
place in grace, those who are written in the book, for God has an elect people
.. .”731 This then appears to be the nature of the Great Tribulation according to
Darby. First, it is against the Jewish nation for their rejection of Christ, and
second, it is to prepare the Jewish nation for their Messiah, Jesus Christ. “.. .
after the great tribulation, He appears in glory, and gathers all Israel.”732 It
appears that the period of the Great Tribulation is for half the final week, or 3
y2 years: “Now we learn from the gospels His ministry was as nearly as
possible three years and a half, so for intelligent faith there is only half a week
left, and in fact, only that of the great tribulation.”733 “It is a peremptory sign
of the great tribulation, the beginning of the last week of Daniel’s people.”734
Out of the Jewish nation 144,000 are set aside by God, as Darby
explains: “The difference, I apprehend, in their character, is this. The vision of
the 144,000 sealed ones is their being marked by God, so as to secure them for
Himself in grace through the coming trials.”735 The question as to whether the

727
Ibid., My Dear Brother, 423.
728
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 8: Prophetic No. 3, 121.
729
Ibid.
730
Ibid., Notes and Comments, vol. 5, 168.
731
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 24: Expository No.3, 183.
732
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 19: Expositoiy No.l, 15.
733
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No. 2, 31.
734
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 24: Expositoiy No. 3, 183.
735
Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 30: Expository No. 2, 361.

178
 144.000 in Revelation 7 and 14 refer to the same group is answered by Darby,
who discusses the opening of the sixth seal of Revelation 6 and then proceeds
with a discussion of the 144,000. “First, the perfect number of the remnant of
Israel is sealed, before the providential instruments of God’s judgments are
allowed to act; 144,000 = 12 x 12 x 1000.”™ A page later Darby states: “The
144.000 of chapter 14 are a similar class from among the Jews, coming out of
their special tribulation.”736737738
Darby appears to see the two references as synonymous, but other
expositors take a different view. William Kelly understands the two groups to
be different: “. . . not merely sealed as the servants of God (like a similar band
out of the twelve tribes of Israel chapter vii), but brought into association with
the Lamb in Zion, that is, with God’s royal purpose in grace. These seem to
me sufferers of Judah, who pass through the unequalled tribulation, which it is
not said the other remnant do.”73KJohn Walvoord is in disagreement with
Kelly and sees the two groups to be the same, thus concurring with Darby:
“Scholars have had difficulty determining whether the 144,000 of chapter 14
is the same as that of chapter 7. Though various explanations have been
given, it is preferable to regard them as the same group, as it would be most
unlikely to have two different groups of 144,000 each, especially when the
original 144,000 is based on 12 tribes of 12,000 each in order to arrive at this
number.”739
The saints who have been raptured at Christ’s appearing do not spend
the seven-year period idly wandering between the clouds, meeting friends and
conversing with Christ. Rather, they now face judgment. This is not judgment
regarding their standing with Christ, inasmuch as their faith in Jesus Christ has
been established; if it were not, they would be part of the professing church or
the Gentiles that would have been left behind to go into the tribulation. The
saints, facing judgment, “give account of themselves to God.”740 That they

736 Ibid., 283 Ephesians, 395.

737 Ibid., 396.
738 Kelly, William. 1903. Lectures on the Book o f Revelation. London: T. Weston, 318.
739 Walvoord, John F. 1999. Every prophecy o f the Bible. Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot
Victor Pub, 588.
740 Darby., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No.4, 155.

179
 have received Christ as Lord and Saviour is one thing, and how the indwelling
Spirit has been manifested in a changed life for God is another, and this for
Darby is what the judgment is all about.741 He alludes to saints being rewarded
for displaying meritorious work as “receiving crowns differing each from each
[other] .. .”742 Following the judgment, the saints will then join Christ in the
“Marriage supper of the Lamb.” Darby states: “Babylon being judged, the
Lord celebrates the marriage supper of the Lamb. We see the contrast between
Babylon, the glory of the world, and the church of God that has suffered with
Christ, which has been persecuted in the world, but which is now glorified
with Jesus.”743
Back on earth and just prior to when Christ comes back to earth with
the church for judgment, there is the battle of Armageddon. This then is what
some expositors term the Second Coming. “The nations are gathered to
Armageddon, and then comes the judgment.”744
It may be argued that Darby’s doctrine of the pretribulational rapture is
inconsequential. John Hannah presents such an argument in his review of
Joseph Canfield’s book The Incredible Scofield and His Book. According to
Hannah, Canfield produced “false assumptions, ad hominem arguments,
innuendos, [and] unfounded allegations”745 in his attempt to discredit the
Scofield Reference Bible and dispensational premillennialism. Hannah
concludes his argument by noting that “the truth of this system of theology
(dispensationalism) is determined not by the life of an individual but by its
biblical mooring.”746 If we take this line of reasoning, it could be construed
that the doctrine of the rapture is all-important irrespective of who was the
progenitor of the doctrine, because the eschatology rests solidly on biblical

741 “Where the coming of Christ is spoken of elsewhere, it is spoken of as the time of
judgment; or the display of the effect of righteousness and glory in the saints .. .The
judgment connected with Christ’s coming includes the judgment of, and retribution to, the
saints .. .” Ibid., 186.
742 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 21: Evangelical Nod, 32. Note: see 1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Thcss.
2:19; Js. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pt. 5:4. See also Collected Writings, vol. 16: Practical No. 1,
345.
743 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 5: Prophetic No. 2, 70.
744 Ibid., Collected Writings, vol. 11: Prophetic No. 4, 298.
745 Hannah, John. D. A Review o f The Incredible Scofield and his book. Bibliotheca Sacra 147
no. 587JI-S 1990,364.
746 Ibid.

180
 grounds, namely 1 Thess. 4:16. I would like to argue otherwise, for a number
of reasons, because my principal aim is to determine Darby’s contribution to
dispensational premillennialism. To investigate the historicity of the rapture
and the etymology of the term is not to discredit either Darby or his doctrine,
nor should it undermine its “biblical moorings.” What such a study should
reveal is how Darby made use of terms such as “the rapture” that were in
common use before his time and fashioned them into a new, systemized
eschatology, resulting in a completely new explanation. In this sense, Darby is
adapting old ideas into a revolutionary eschatological framework, giving it his
unique spin. Hence, I would have to disagree with Hannah’s assertion that “the
truth of this system of theology is determined not by the life of an individual
but by its biblical moorings,” though at the same time I am sympathetic to
Hannah’s views. Again, Hannah’s argument is that the rapture doctrine derives
its credibility from being Scripture based. It would be more correct to say that
Darby’s rapture doctrine is not based upon Scripture, but upon his doctrine of
the “two peoples of God” which requires it.
In a discussion of the interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4 and the
parousia, it is important to note whether the text points to a chronological
event or not. Ladd comments in general terms, and not specifically to
Thessalonians, that .. the fundamental meaning of the nearness of the
Kingdom is not chronological, but it is the certainty that the future determines
the present.”747 David Luckensmeyer has a similar argument that refers
specifically to Thessalonians 4:13-18: “On the other hand, the various
elements of the apocalyptic scenario (e.g. descent, resurrection, translation,
meeting) may be telescoped into the ultimate goal of being with the Lord
(v.l7d); the adverbial pair 7tpoTov/e7ieiTa has qualitative not chronological
significance. On the other hand, the Thessalonians may not require an outline
of the parousia with the associated occurrences as much as they need
assurance that those who have died will take part in the parousia. That is, Paul
reassures them that the resurrection is temporally before the translation to

747 Ladd, George Eldon. 1993. A theology o f the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 209.

181
 meet the Lord.”748749However, as Mai Couch notes, Darby’s eschatology was
strictly chronological: “Darby clearly laid out an eschatological pattern: (1) the
rapture and first resurrection; (2) postrapture events in glory; (3) postrapture
events on earth; (4) the return of Christ and the millennial kingdom; (5)
postmillennial events; and (6) the eternal state.”74g A similar outline is also
given by Stephen Travis: “A chronological scheme for the future was not
known before Darby thought of it.”750751
It is now possible to summarize Darby’s eschatology surrounding the
rapture:
a) A period of apostasy before Jesus comes.

b) Jesus will come in secret, and will take both dead and living
Christians to be with himself—the so-called “secret rapture.”

c) A seven-year period known as the tribulation, in which

Antichrist will rule the earth.

d) Then Christ will appear from heaven openly and will

overthrow Antichrist at Armageddon. This will usher in
Christ’s thousand-year reign at Jerusalem, and the Temple and
sacrificial worship will be restored.

e) After the thousand years, Satan will be loosed again and will
stir up rebellion against God. His defeat will be followed by the
resurrection, the judgment of the wicked, and the final, eternal

748 Luckensmeyer, David. 2009. The eschatology oj First Thessalonians. Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 253.
749 Couch, Mai. 2000. An introduction to classical evangelical hermeneutics: guide to the
history and practice o f biblical interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
1 12.
750 Travis, Stephen H. 2004. Christ will come again: hope fo r the second coming o f Jesus.
Toronto: Clements Pub., 149.
751 Ibid. Note: George Eldon Ladd notes the following: “Thus the church will escape the Great
Tribulation; the persecution against the ‘saints’ will be directed against Israel - the living
Jews. At the end of the Tribulation Christ will return, this time accompanied by the church
(IThess. 3:13), to rescue Israel and to bring them into his millennial Kingdom. These two
comings of Christ have been called the Rapture - when he comes to catch up the church -
and the Revelation. The Rapture will be a secret coming, known only by the church. The
Revelation will be a public, visible coming where he comes with power and glory to
establish his Kingdom.” Ladd, George Eldon. 1978. The last things: eschatology for
Laymen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 49, 50.

182
 7. D arb y ’s Dispensationalism in R etrospect

Putting the nuzzle together

Summarizing Darby ’s dispensational system

Darby had a number of unique eschatological doctrines: the
unconditionality of the Abrahamic covenant, the gap in Daniel’s seventy-week
prophecy, the ruin of the church, the pretribulational rapture of the church, and
the two peoples of God. These doctrines, combined with Darby’s system of
periodization, become an integrated eschatology that can properly be called
“dispensationalism.” I would argue that, by removing any one of Darby’s
cardinal doctrines, his eschatology, far from being “integrated,” actually falls
apart and becomes “disintegrated.”
To support my thesis, I call to mind the nature of the Abrahamic
Covenant. According to Darby, this was an “unconditional” agreement
between Israel and God, with the logical conclusion that the Jewish people are
God’s chosen people in perpetuity. Darby argued that the first coming of
Christ was part of God’s redemptive plan for Israel, but because the Jews
rejected Christ, salvation was then offered to the Gentiles. Darby was now
faced with the dilemma of how to resolve the relationship between the church
and Israel as part of God’s redemptive plan.
Another problem concerned Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy, which
began with the Jews. According to Darby, the 69th week ended with the
stoning of Stephen, with the final week being concluded at the Second
Coming, and no amount of juggling with prophetic years was going to resolve
the fact that this was a prophecy with a fixed duration. Darby resolved the
problem of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant and the termination of the
seventy-week prophecy by placing a gap between the 69,h and 79th weeks. He
reasoned that when the Jewish people rejected Christ, God’s redemptive plan
continued with the Gentiles, and therefore the redemptive plan for Israel was
placed in abeyance until the Second Coming of Christ. The Gentiles or the
church filled the parenthesis between the stoning of Stephen and the Second
Coming, when God would resume His redemptive plan with Israel. The

183
 problem for Darby was to find an event that would allow God’s redemptive
plan for the church to cease and for the Jews to continue. He resolved this
issue by incorporating the pretribulational rapture into his eschatology. At the
time of the rapture, God would remove his true church from the earth, but not
the church in ruin, thus allowing him to continue His redemption with Israel.
Thus far Darby’s eschatology included national Israel/the Jews and the
church, with a separate redemptive plan for both. For Darby, the Abrahamic
covenant concerned “a land, seed, and the promise.” Since it was obvious to
him that the Jews were part of a land issue, they therefore were God’s earthly
people. That being so, Darby then posited that the church must be God’s
heavenly people, leading to his key doctrine of the “two peoples of God.” This
entailed two different people groups, namely, Israel and the church, with two
different redemptive plans. It is within the framework of the two peoples of
God, together with an earlier system of periodization, that Darby constructed
his system of dispensationalism.
Darby’s dispensationalism resembles a “house of cards.” Remove one
unique doctrine and the remainder collapse into a heap. 1 will argue that the
pretribulation rapture is inextricably linked to the two peoples of God. If there
is only one people, not two, the secret rapture is no longer required. But the
pretribulational rapture was vital to Darby, since the removal of the church
was a prerequisite for God to continue his work with national Israel. It should
be noted that progressive dispensationalism’s view of the church and Israel
will determine whether the modern form of dispensationalism supports or
negates Darby’s scheme.
Here then is my argument. Darby took ancient periodization and added
to this his unique facets of the two peoples of God and the pretribulation
rapture, thus creating a whole new eschatology properly termed
“dispensationalism.” Thus Darby was both innovative and unique in his
thinking. He took older concepts and put them together in new ways to create
a new system, which made him in reality an adapter, not an originator.

Perpetuating Darby’s vision: classical dispensationalism

184
 Classical dispensationalism began with Darby and continued up to and
including Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952). The Scofield Reference Bible,
first published in 1909, contained thousands of cross references and easy-to-
read footnotes. It thus popularized classical dispensationalism and provided an
easy study guide for the layman. The study and reference system was
incorporated into the King James Bible, which gave it authority and immense
popularity. It was logical for laypersons to reason that anything contained
within the covers of the Bible must be as authoritative as the Bible itself. The
influence of classical dispensationalism was not limited to the Scofield
Reference Bible. Dispensationalism soon found a home in a new kind of
educational institution—the Bible Institute. Starting with the founding of the
Moody Bible Institute (Chicago) in the mid-1880s, dozens of such institutions
sprang up by the early 20,h century. They were neither colleges nor theological
seminaries, but practical training schools for urban ministry, foreign missions,
and various specialized ministries. Dispensationalism took root in such
schools, which supplied an enthusiastic corps of Christian workers well-versed
752
in Darby’s eschatology.
Classical dispensationalism was also incorporated in a number of
theological seminaries. The most important was begun in Dallas in 1924.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, with the assistance of Scofield, founded the Evangelical
Theological College, which was later to become Dallas Theological Seminary
(DTS). Chafer remained President of DTS until his death in 1952. His
influence continued through his publications, which included his eight-volume
Systematic Theology, published in 1947. Thus classical dispensationalism is
typified by Darby, Scofield, and Chafer.752753 While remaining true to Darby’s
teachings, the classical dispensationalists clarified a few issues where Darby
was obscure, for example, the number and descriptions of dispensations. In

752 Brereton, Virginia Lieson. 1990. Training God's army: the American Bible school, 1880-
1940. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Mai Couch includes Charles C. Ryrie as a classical dispensationalist. “In order to evaluate
the writings of the fathers for dispensational concepts, it is necessary to set forth the main
features of ‘classic’ or ‘normative’ dispensational theology as presented by men like C. I.
Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Charles C. Ryrie.” Couch, Mai. 2000. An introduction
to classical evangelical hermeneutics: a guide to the history and practice o f biblical
interpretation. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel Publications, 88.

185
 this section I will present the key doctrines that supported or clarified Darby’s
dispensational system.
Dispensations. Scofield identified a sevenfold periodization system
that largely mirrored Darby’s: (1) Innocency; (2) Conscience; (3) Human
government; (4) Promise; (5) Law; (6) Grace; (7) The Millennium.754 Scofield,
like Darby, sees that each dispensation presents a test with a corresponding
failure. “Each of the Dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the
natural man, and each ends in judgment—marking his utter failure.”755756
According to Lewis Sperry Chafer, “A dispensation can be defined as a stage
in the progressive revelation of God constituting a distinctive stewardship or
rule of life.. . . Each dispensation, therefore, begins with man being divinely
placed in a new position of privilege and responsibility, and each closes with
the failure of man resulting in righteous judgments from God. ”75(S Chafer
identifies seven dispensations: (1) innocence, (2) conscience, (3) government,
(4) promise, (5) law, (6) grace, (7) millennial kingdom,757 thus mirroring
almost word for word Scofield’s system of periodization.
The two peoples o f God. Scofield, like Darby, made a clear distinction
between Israel and the church. According to Scofield,
Whoever reads the Bible with any attention cannot fail to perceive that
more than half of its contents relate to one nation, the Israelites___It

754 Scofield, C. 1. 1961. Rightly dividing the word o f truth (II Timothy 2:15): being ten outline
studies o f the more important divisions o f Scripture. Findlay, OH: Dunham Pub. Co., 13-
16. Scofield and Darby periodization are summarized thus:
Scofield lnnoccncy - from the creation of Adam to the expulsion of Adam
Darby (Paradisiacal state), to the fo o d
Scofield Conscience - a basis right moral judgment following the fall of Adam & Eve
Scofield Human government - from Noah to the call of Abraham
Darby Noah
Scofield Promise -the covenant relationship with Abraham
Darby Abraham
Scofield Law - from Sinai and theDecalogue toChrist
Darby Israel: (a) Under the law; (b) Under the priesthood; (c) Under the kings.
Scofield Grace - from the substitionary atonement of Christ to the pre-trib. rapture
Darby The Gentiles
Darby The Spirit
Scofield The Millennium
Darby The Millennium
755 Ibid., 13.
756 Chafer, Lewis Sperry, and John F. Walvoord. 1974. Major Bible themes; 52 vita! doctrines
o f the Scripture simplified and explained. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondcrvan Pub. House, 126,
127
757 Ibid., 128.

186
 appears also, that all the communications of Jehovah to Israel as a
nation relate to the Earth. . . . Continuing his researches, the student
finds large mention in Scripture of another distinct body, which is
called the Church. This body also has a peculiar relationship to God,
and, like Israel, has received from Him specific promises. . . . In the
predictions concerning the future of Israel and the Church, the
distinction is still more startling. The Church will be taken away from
the earth entirely, but restored Israel is yet to have her greatest earthly
splendor and power.758

According to Chafer,

The distinction between the purpose for Israel and the purpose for the
Church is about as important as that which exists between the two
Testaments. Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is
earthly, and they continue as a nation with the earth when it is created
new. Every covenant or promise for the Church is for a heavenly
reality, and she continues in heavenly citizenship when the heavens are
recreated.759

Chafer provides twenty-four “contrasts between Israel and the Church.”760

Dwight Pentecost in his book Things to Come summarizes these points.761 Of

75!i Scofield, C. I. 1961. Rightly dividing the word o f truth (II Timothy 2:15): being ten outline
studies o f the more important divisions o f Scripture. Findlay, OH: Dunham Pub. Co 6-9
759 Chafer, Lewis Sperry. 1993. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregcl Publications
47.
760 Ibid. 47-53.
761 “The distinctions between Israel and the church. Chafer has set forth twenty-four contrasts
between Israel and the church which show us conclusively that these two groups can not
be united into one, but that they must be distinguished as two separate entities with whom
God is dealing in a special program. These contrasts may be outlined as follows: (1) The
extent of Biblical revelation: Israel-nearly four-fifths of the Bible; Church-about one-fifth
(2) The Divine purpose: Israel-the earthly promises in the covenants; Church-the heavenly
promises in the gospel. (3) The seed of Abraham: Israel-the physical seed, of whom some
become a spiritual seed; Church-a spiritual seed. (4) Birth: Israel-physical birth that
produces a relationship; Church-spiritual birth that brings relationship. (5) Headship:
Israel-Abraham; Church-Christ. (6) Covenants: Israel-Abrahamic and all the following
covenants; Church-indirectly related to the Abrahamic and new covenants; (7) Nationality
Israel-one nation; Church-from all nations. (8) Divine dealing: Israel-national and
individual; Church-individual only. (9) Dispensations: Israel-seen in all ages from
Abraham; Church-seen only in this present age. (10) Ministry: Israel no missionary
activity and no gospel to preach; Church-a commission to fulfill. (11) The death of Christ'
Israel-guilty nationally, to be saved by it; Church-perfectly saved by it now. (12) The
Father: Israel-by a peculiar relationship God was Father to the nation; Church-we are
related individually to God as Father. (13) Christ: Israel-Messiah, Immanuel, King;
Church-Saviour, Lord, Bridegroom, Head. (14) The Holy Spirit: Israel-catne upon some
temporarily; Church-indwells all. (15) Governing principle: Israel-Mosaic law system;
Church grace system. (16) Divine enablement: Israel-none; Church the indwelling Holy
Spirit. (17) Two farewell discourses: Israel -Olivet discourse; Church-upper room
discourse. (18) The promise of Christ's return: Israel-in power and glory for judgment;
Church-to receive us to Himself. (19) Position: Israel a servant; Church-members of the

187
 interest is Chafer’s point 9, where he states that “Dispensations: Israel—seen
in all ages from Abraham; Church—seen only in this present age.”762
Thepretribulational rapture. C. I. Scofield, like Darby, had a solid
belief in the rapture. Commenting on 1 Thess. 4:17, Scofield says, “Not
church saints, but all bodies of the saved, of whatever dispensation, are
included in the first resurrection . . .”763 Scofield confuses the events
happening at the rapture. Darby’s view was that Christ comes first fo r His
saints and second with His saints after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb at the
close of the seven years— the last week of the seventy-week prophecy. For
Darby, the Second Coming is when Christ comes with His saints. Scofield’s
nomenclature is different, though the events are the same: “By these Scriptures
it abundantly appears that the second advent will be personal and bodily . . .
but that it is the ‘blessed hope’ of the Church, the time when sleeping saints
will be raised, and, together with saints then living, who will be ‘changed’ (1
Cor. 15:51,52), caught up to meet the Lord;”764 For Scofield, the “translation”
when Christ comes in the clouds of glory is the Second Coming.
Lewis Sperry Chafer shares the views of Darby with regard to the
rapture. In a section entitled “Contrasts Between Christ Coming For His Saints

family. (20) Christ's earthly reign: Israel-subjects; Church-co-reigners. (21) Priesthood:

Israel-had a priesthood; Church-is a priesthood. (22) Marriage: Israel-unfaithful wife;
Church-bride. (23) Judgments: Israel -must face judgment; Church-delivered from all
judgments. (24) Positions in eternity: Israel-spirits of just men made perfect in the new
earth; Church-church of the firstborn in the new heavens. These clear contrasts, winch
show the distinction between Israel and the church, make it impossible to identify the two
in one program, which it is necessary to do if the church goes through the seventieth week.
These distinctions give further support to the pretribulation rapture position.” Pentecost, J.
Dwight. 1964. Things to come: a study in Biblical eschatology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 201, 202.
762 “This would imply that the church did not exist in Old Testament times, a point
highlighted by Clarence Larkin in his summation of what the church is. “The ‘Mystery’ of
the church was first revealed to Paul.’’For this cause I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for
you Gentiles, if ye have heard o f ‘The Dispensation of the Grace of God’ which is give me
to you-ward; how that by revelation He made known unto me ‘The Mystery’ which in
other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the
same body and partakers of His promise in Christ by the Gospel.. . according to the
‘eternal purpose’ which He purposes in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Eph. 3:1-11. Cited in:
Larkin, Clarence. 2005. Dispensational truth, or, God's plan and purpose in the ages.
Whitcfish, MT: Kessingcr Publishing, 74.
763 Scofield, C. I. 1945. The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1269.

188
 and His Coming With His Saints,” Chafer makes these observations: “The
view that the rapture occurs before end-time events is called the
pretribulational view in contrast with the posttribulational view which makes
Christ’s coming for His saints and with His saints one event.”764765 Chafer
discusses the importance of the pretribulational rapture. Aside from the
benefits to the church who go to meet Christ in the clouds of glory, the rapture
provides the necessary construct for God to continue his work with national
Israel. “His return ushers in the earthly kingdom and ends the long night of
Israel’s afflictions.”766
In summary, classical dispensationalism is the term that is applied not
only to Darby’s dispensationalist system, but also to those who are supportive
of his teachings. Scofield and Chafer, though reflecting slight differences
either in nomenclature or in the way periodization is classified, do support
Darby’s cardinal doctrines, particularly the distinction between Israel and the
church. The importance of the rapture and the two peoples of God will form
the benchmark when considering post-Darbyite dispensationalists.

The continuing debate over Darby’s originality

Darby as inventor
From Darby’s time to the present, classical dispensationalists have
been accused of theological novelty. Critics have charged that
dispensationalism originated with Darby in the nineteenth century and thus
had no legitimate place in the long history of Christian theology. It was new
and therefore could not possibly be true. The “invention” thesis requires
careful consideration because it too misconstrues Darby’s dispensationalism. I
have demonstrated that dispensationalism properly begins with Darby, but
care needs to be exercised in defining terms.

764 Scofield, C. I. 1961. Rightly dividing the word o f truth (II Timothy 2:15): being ten outline
studies o f the more important divisions o f Scripture. Findlay, OH: Dunham Pub. Co., 20.
765 Chafer, Lewis Sperry, and John F. Walvoord. 1974. Major Bible themes; 52 vital doctrines
o f the Scripture simplified and explained. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 79.
766 Chafer, Lewis Sperry. 1915. The kingdom in history and prophecy. New York: Fleming H.
Rcvcll, 151.

189
 Those who use the invention thesis claim that Darby invented all
aspects of his dispensationalism, including periodization, but this is simply not
true. In his discussion of Harry Emerson Fosdick, Bruce Brawer makes the
following comment: “But if Fosdick was being a law unto himself, then so
was Darby when he invented dispensationalism.”767 Barbara Rossing notes
that “A British preacher named Darby invented this point of view centuries
after the Bible, and the Left Behind authors and other dispensationalists are
using it to further their particular social and political agenda.”768 She further
comments: “Darby refrained from predicting a specific date for Christ’s
return. Instead, he invented ‘dispensations’—that is, intervals of time ordering
God’s grand timetable for world events. From this expression came
‘dispensationalism,’ a particular system or school of thinking about the end-
times reflecting Darby’s premise.”769 Wayne Rohde, in his discussion of
“Darby & Dispensational Premillennialism,” is more dogmatic, stating that
“The currently popular eschatology is the system invented in the 1830’s by
John Nelson Darby . . . Most of these adherents would be shocked (as I was)
to find out there is absolutely no question that this system was introduced by J.
N. Darby in the 1830’s. It had never been heard o f in the early, Roman,
Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant church prior to Darby’s introduction.”770
Nancy Koester provides her definition of dispensationalism with the following
comment: “Dispensationalism: a system of biblical interpretation that claims
to match biblical prophecy with events in modem history, making it possible
to know the timetable for Christ’s return. John Nelson Darby (1800-1883)
invented the system eventually popularized in American Christianity.”771 But
the author’s statement that Darby made it possible “to know the timetable for
Christ’s return” is not only erroneous but fails to understand that this is a
historicist argument, and Darby was not a historicist but a futurist. And since

767
Bawer, Bruce. 1997. Stealing Jesus: bow fundamentalism betrays Christianity. New York:
Three Rivers Press, 122.
768
Rossing, Barbara R. 2004. The Rapture Exposed. Boulder: Westview Press, 40.
769
Ibid., 23.
770
Rohde, Wayne. 2002. A future, a hope, an unexpected end; the inevitable conquest o f
Christianity. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 20, 21.
771
Koester, Nancy. 2007. Fortress introduction to the history o f Christianity in the United
States. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 219.

190
 futurism is concerned with the “imminent” return of Christ, there are no dates
to set.
Revisionist dispcnsationalist John Walvoord illustrates this
misconception with the following insightful comment:
The widespread prejudice and ignorance of the meaning of
dispensationalisin was illustrated when I was asked by a prominent
Christian publication to write an article on dispensational
premillennialism. In my manuscript I referred to The Divine Economy,
written in 1687 in which the author, Pierre Poiret (1646-1719),
discussed seven dispensations. The editor omitted this from the
manuscript, and when I protested, he said, “That is impossible because
John Nelson Darby invented dispensationalism.” It would be difficult
to find a statement more prejudicial that that.772

In summary, the thesis that purports that dispensationalism was

invented by Darby is a widely held misconception that is simply in error. It
has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that a system of periodization
existed prior to Darby, and while the term dispensationalism can properly be
attributed to Darby, the system made full use of earlier notions of
periodization in conjunction with Darby’s unique contribution. Through his
astute adaptation, Darby took an early form of periodization and used it to suit
his eschatology.

In defense o f Darby: the Ehlert thesis

By the mid-20th century, dispensationalist teachers were making some
significant adjustments to Darby’s system, primarily because they felt
constrained to make some concessions to conservative biblical scholarship that
was beginning to utilize more mainstream methodology. The most prominent
dispensationalist teachers of the mid-century—Walvoord, Ryrie, and
Pentecost—were classed with the revisionists. Among their concerns was to
counter the old charge that Darby had created his system out of thin air. Such
charges were levelled at the onset of dispensationalism, but by the 1940s there
was a special urgency to answer them. Arnold Ehlert accepted this challenge
and presented an historical argument that became the standard

772 Walvoord, John. Ap-Jc 2001. Reflections on dispensationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra 158
(630): 134.

191
 dispensationalist “proof’ for the system’s historicity. Ehlert’s thesis was that
“ancient dispensationalism” predated Darbyite dispensationalism, which he
attempted to prove by establishing a history of “periodization.” He ignored
Darby’s fundamental doctrines of the two peoples of God and the unifying
theme of God’s glory in history.
Ehlert's argument presented
Ehlert published his Bibliographic History o f Dispensationalism in a
s e r ie s o f n in e m o n o g r a p h s in Bibliotheca Sacra fr o m J a n u a r y /M a r c h I 9 4 4 773

to January/March 1946.774 It appeared in a slim book form in 1965.775 The

Bibliographic History contains his evidence that dispensationalism can be
traced back to sources that predate Darby. He thus distinguishes between
“ a n c ie n t ” a n d “ m o d e r n ” d is p e n s a t io n a lis m .

The current use of the term “modern dispensationalism” carries two

possible inferences: either that the doctrine of dispensationalism as
such is modern, or that the particular type of dispensationalism styled
“modern” is quite different from ancient dispensationalism. Those who
use the term, however, do not always indicate definitely which
inference they mean to imply, beyond that of animadversion. Neither
do they indicate the history or the features of ancient dispensationalism
and related doctrines, if they admit such. This so-called “modern
dispensationalism” is usually dated from Mr. John Nelson Darby
(1800-1882) and the Plymouth Brethren of England, or from Dr. Cyrus
Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), who popularized the doctrine in his
preaching, teaching and Bible notes.776

Ehlert maintained that though Darby contributed his eschatological doctrines,

the dispensational system existed in one form or another in very early writers
(typically from the Patristic Writings) to the modern period. Despite his
assertion that dispensationalism predated Darby, Ehlert admitted that
“Theologically speaking, an adequate definition of dispensationalism probably
remains to be written. As soon as the suffixes are added to the word the

773 Elilert, Arnold D. Ja-Mr 1944. A bibliography of dispensationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra. 101
(401 ):95-101.
774 Ehlert, Arnold D. Ja-Mr 1946. A bibliography of dispensationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra. 103
(409):57-67.
775 Ehlert, Arnold D. 1965. A bibliographic history o f dispensationalism. BCH bibliographic
scries, no. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
776 Ibid., 5.

192
 subject is transferred immediately from Biblical to theological grounds.”777
Such a lack of definition did not prevent him from identifying a list of early
writers beginning with Clement of Alexandria and Augustine as early
proponents of his system. By doing so, he hoped to disprove the common
assertion that Darby “created dispensationalism” in the early 19th century. If
Clement and Augustine were dispensationalists, then the system has a patristic
pedigree and Darby’s teachings are absolved of the charge of novelty. Ehlert’s
most important examples of pre-Darbyite dispensationalism were Isaac Watts
and John Edwards. I will examine Ehlert’s argument as outlined in his
Bibliographic History by making a comparison with the writings of both
Watts and Edwards.
Ehlert 's use o f Isaac Watts to support his thesis
Ehlert supports his thesis that Isaac Watts (1674-1748) was a
dispensationalist with the following comment:
Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the great hymn writer, was also a
considerable theologian. His collected works fill six large volumes. He
wrote an essay of some forty pages entitled, “The Harmony of all the
Religions Which God ever Prescribed to Men and all his Dispensations
towards them.” Due to the comparative inaccessibility of his works to
the general public, it seems to be in order to quote here his definition
of dispensations.778

Ehlert presents the following excerpt as his prima facie case that Watts was a
dispensationalist: “The public dispensations of God toward men, are those
wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way
manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world
wherein are contained the duties which he expects from them .. .”779 Having
provided the rationale for classifying Watts as a dispensationalist, namely, his
usage of the terms “dispensations of God” and “ages of the world,” Ehlert then
provides a summary of Watts’ periodization:
Each of these dispensations of God, may be represented as different
religions, or, at least, as different forms of religion, appointed for men
in the several successive ages of the world.

777 Ibid., 25.

778 Ibid., 39.
779 Leed ed., n.d., Vot. II, p. 625; London ed. o f 1753, Vol. II, p. 543 ibid 39

193
 H i s o u t l i n e f o llo w s :

I. The Dispensation of Innocency; or, the Religion of Adam at

first
II. The Adamical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace; or, the
Religion of Adam after his fall
III. The Noachical Dispensation; or, the Religion of Noah
IV. The Abrahamical Dispensation; or, the Religion of Abraham
V. The Mosaical Dispensation; or, the Jewish Religion
VI. The Christian Dispensation780

This constitutes Ehlert’s entire argument, which can be summarized as

follows: Watts used such terms as “dispensations” and “ages and stages” of
the world and divided history into six periods. Consequently, he may serve as
an early proponent of a dispensationalist system. Thus to qualify as an
“ancient dispensationalist,” all one had to was to do was use the right terms
and some form of periodization. Ehlert completely ignored the criteria that
Darby made absolutely foundational to his own dispensational system: First,
the clear distinction between Israel and the church, namely, the two peoples of
God; second, the unifying theme of God’s glory;781 and third, a literal and
plain hermeneutic. Upon further examination, it becomes clear that Watts not
only rejected what became Darby’s distinctive approach, but actually used
periodization to support covenant theology, which Darby identified as the
arch-foe of dispensationalism. Simply put, both dispensationalists and
covenant theologians used the term “dispensation,” and both employed some
form of “periodization.”
The following texts taken from The Works o f Isaac Watts clearly
demonstrate that Watts did not accept this clear distinction between Israel and
the church as the “two peoples of God”:
And indeed Judaism was but a sort of infant Christianity (sic), a veiled
gospel. The Christian (sic) religion is Judaism fulfilled, or the gospel
standing in open light---- Besides, is should be observed here also,
that since the Christian (sic) religion has received its full authority and
divine establishment, the Jewish dispensation ceases, and is no longer

780 Ehlert, Arnold D. 1965. A bibliographic history o f dispensationalism. BCH bibliographic

series, no. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 39-40. Note: see Watts, Isaac. 1812.
The works o f the Rev. Isaac Watts. London: Printed by Edward Baines, 111:57 ff.
781 Covenant theology would disagree with this definition, understanding the unifying theme
to be sotcriological.

194
 owned, or aided by the Spirit of God, to produce these wonderful
effects---- So that the doctrine of Christ is the only religion which we
know of, that is practiced in the world, that has the stamp of divine
authority above sixteen hundred years . . . so there is no other religion
ever since can produce and shew such divine testimony; for there is
salvation in no other name; Acts iv. 12.782

We have glory in our religion, that distinguishes it from, and advances

it above the Jewish dispensation .. ,783

The Jewish dispensation was the childish or infant state of the church
of God, as it is described, Gal. iv. 1-3, &c.784

The Christian dispensation is an extension of the Mosaic, or rather the

Abrahamic covenant. It abolishes the Jewish peculiarity, the law of
ordinances, and the rite of circumcision. It includes in its capacious
inclosure all of every country, whether Jew or Gentile, who believe in
Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah . . . 785

But the Christian (sic) dispensation is and shall be conveyed through

the world, to all the heathen nations, as well as to the Jews, and that by
a multitude o f messengers . . . nor shall any other dispensation succeed
it----- 1 might add here some characteristics o f the Christian (sic)
dispensation, which the apostle gives in 2 Cor. iii. 6-18 whereby lie
exalts it above all the religion of the Jews, and especially the Sinai-
covenant.786

The awful and glorious scene o f the day o f judgment is spread out at
large in Christian (sic) dispensation, together with the decision o f the
eternal states o f the righteous, and the wicked according to their work
when everlasting joy, or everlasting sorrow shall be the portion o f
every son and daughter o f Adam.787

7ii2 Watts, Isaac. 1812. The works o f the Rev. Isaac Watts in nine volumes. London: Printed hv
Edward Baines, 1:23-24. y
783 Ibid., 26.
784 Watts, Isaac. 1822. A short view o f the whole scripture history: with a continuation o f the
Jewish affairs from the Old Testament, till the time o f Christ; and an account o f the chief
prophecies that relate to Him: represented in a way o f question and answer. London-
Printed for F. C. and J. Rivington [and 11 other publishers], 56.
785 Watts, Isaac, David Jennings, and Philip Doddridge. 1754. The posthumous works o f the
late Reverend Dr. Isaac Watts, containing the second part o f The improvement o f the
mind. Also A discourse on the education o f children and youth... Publishedfrom his
manuscript by D. Jennings and P. Doddridge. London: Longman, 93.
786 Watts, Isaac. 1812. The works o f the Rev. Isaac Watts, D.D. in nine volumes. London-
Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, by Edward Baines, 11:64
787 Ibid., 65, 66. Note: The Jews and Gentiles would be included in the phrase “son and
daughter of Adam.” According to Watts, all mankind is subsumed into one and will be
judged according to their works in line with the covenant of grace.

195
 It is not confined to one sex only, or to one age. The children are called
as well as the fathers, and men and women are invited to partake of
this blessing in Christ. There is neither male norfemale, neither young
nor old, neither Greek nor Jew, that they have any distinction put upon
them, to exclude them from this grace, they are all one in Christ Jesus,
Gal. iii.28.788

In the Christian (sic) dispensation the gospel or covenant of grace is

revealed more perfectly and plainly than before . . . 789

Watts cites Gal. 3:28 to reinforce his conviction that far from there
being two peoples of God, the “Jewish dispensation” has ceased and been
replaced by the “Christian dispensation,” whereby the covenant of grace is
extended to Jew and Gentile alike. Thus in Christ Jesus the two peoples are
made one.
The second defining feature of dispensationalism concerns the unifying
theme of God’s glory, but this too is negated by Watts in favour of the
“covenant of grace,” thus providing the soteriological hermeneutic of covenant
theology.
Hence it comes to pass, that in describing the several religions of men,
or the public dispensations of God, we do not so much enter into his
eternal designs, or the secret and inward transactions of grace, either
with, or concerning the children of men, in order to bring them into his
covenant of grace, nor do we search into his early and divine
transactions with Christ Jesus, his Son, in the covenant of redemption,
in order to the salvation of men:”790

Thus it was also, in the jewish (sic) law, or Sinai covenant, which was
not the gospel, but an additional constitution, relating only to the
jewish (sic) nation, to be governed by God as the peculiar king. And it
was really distinct from the covenant of grace or gospel of salvation,
whereby Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the Israelites themselves were to
be saved. .. It is true, indeed, the jewish (sic) law had much of grace in
it as well as much of terror, and in many parts of it, it represented,

788
Watts, Isaac. 1811. Sermons, on various subjects, divine and moral: designedfo r the use o f
Christian families, as well as fo r the hours o f devout retirement; with a hymn, suited to
each subject. Macnhcrson: Published by F. Wright, 401.
™ Ibid., 60.
79" Watts, Isaac. 1812. The works o f the Rev. Isaac Watts. London: Printed by Edward Rainnc
111:333.

196
 typified, witnessed and held forth the gospel or covenant of grace,
whereby all believers in all ages are to be saved .. ,791

It may be granted, indeed, there was much grace and mercy mingled in
this political law or covenant of life, between God as a civil king, and
Israel as his subjects in this world; but still this was not the gospel or
covenant of grace and salvation, whereby the pious Jews were saved
from the wrath of God . . .

Thus Ehlert’s argument that Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist is clearly

negated by the fact that Watts subscribed to the covenant of grace, the central
doctrine of covenant theology. It is true that Watts had a system of
periodization, and his nomenclature included such terms as “dispensations” or
“ages and stages,” but to call him an example of ancient dispensationalism is
clearly in error. Watts, by his rejection of the two peoples of God in favour of
only one people of God under the covenant of grace, undercuts Ehlert’s

argument entirely.
[Link] 's use [Link] Edwards (1637-1716) to support his thesis
Ehlert comments that “John Edwards793. . . wrote the first extensive
treatment on the subject of dispensations that has come to our attention.”794
Ehlert cites Edwards’ A Compleat History or Survey o f all the Dispensations.
Ehlert made the following comment on this work; “It is not possible to go into
detail here as to the great mass of material contained in this work. One can
only recommend its perusal to any who would attempt to understand the
beginnings of dispensationalism in its larger sense.” ‘ I will use this source in
order to demonstrate the fallacy of Ehlert’s argument and to show that
Edwards’s writings negate the very basis of dispensationalism.
Having made the remark that the scheme provided by Edwards is
“rather involved,” Ehlert then provides a periodization for Edwards as follows:

791 Watts Isaac, David Jennings, Philip Doddridge, and George Burder. 1810. The works o f
the reverend and learned Isaac Waits. D.D. containing, besides his sermons, and essays
on miscellaneous subjects, several additional pieces. London: J. Barfield, 111:599.
792
l o tu ., o i-z
793 Ehlert is incorrect in his dating for Edwards, which he gives as 1639-1716. It should read
1637-1716. Ehlcrt, Arnold D. 1965. A bibliographic history ofdispensationalism. BCH
bibliographic scries, no. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 36.
794
Ibid.
795
Ibid., 38.

197
 I. Innocency and Felicity, or Adam created upright
II. Sin and Misery, Adam fallen
III. Reconciliation, or Adam recovered from Adam’s redemption to
the end of the World, “The discovery of the blessed seed to
Adam”
a. Patriarchal economy: (1) Adamical, antediluvian. (2)
Noachical. (3) Abrahamic.
b. Mosaical
c. Gentile (concurrent with c and b)
d. Christian or Evangelical: (1) Infancy, primitive period,
past. (2) Childhood, present period. (3) Manhood, future
(millennium). (4) Old age, from the loosing of Satan to
the conflagration.796

Like Watts, Edwards did not teach the notion of the two peoples of
God, as the following texts demonstrate:
Therefore the Apostle saith, the law was our school-master to bring us
to Christ; which shews the inferior nature of the law, and that it was to
indure but for a time, for the authority of a school-master over those
whom he teacheth is but temporary. The legal pedagogy was to cease
and Christ was to be the end of the law to every one that believeth
Rom. 10.4.797

Thus he [God] plainly erases and abolishes the Mosaic service, and
calls those that worship God in the Evangelical manner the true
worshippers.798

Christ came to exprobrate to them [Jews] the want of more perfect

fruit, and to put a period to the dispensation of the Jews, so that it
should quite wither away and be null’d.799

. . . of the Jewish Church; them also I must bring, and they shall hear
my voice; they shall be converted, and become obedient Christians;
and there shall be one fold, one church, agreeing in the same faith, and

796
Ibid., 37, 38.
797
Edwards, John. 1699. Polpoikilos sophia, a compleat history or survey o f all the
dispensations and methods o f religion, from the beginning o f the world to the
consummation oj all things, as represented in the Old and New Testament shewing the
several reasons and designs o f those different administrations, and the wisdom and
goodness o f Godin the government o f Ilis church, through all the ages o f i t : in which
also, the opinion o f Dr. Spencer concerning the Jewish rites and sacrifices is examin'd,
and the certainty o f the Christian religion demonstrated against the cavils o f the Deists,
&c. London: Printed for Daniel Brown, Jonath. Robinson, Andrew Bell, John Wyat, and E.
Harris, 433.
798
Ibid., 434.
799
Ibid., 513.

198
 worship, and religious practice; and one Shepherd, they shall
acknowledge to be their head, and pastor.800

. . . the Jews in the last times shall obtain mercy, justified with us by
Grace in Christ. The Jews, saitli another Godly Father, shall turn unto
God, and believe in Jesus, at the end of the world and be saved.801

This might convince them that Judaism was to give place to

Christianity, which is large and fitted for all the World, which hath
God, the Church, Religion, and Salvation all in common. This is a
great Prerogative of Christianity that it is Universal, and excludeth no
People or Nations, whereas the Religion and Worship of the Jews was
narrow and scant, and confined to themselves; which is a
Demonstration that it was Temporary, and that there was to be a
change of the Mosaik Law and Administration.802

So, i.e. in this Manner and Method all Israel shall be Saved, the whole
Body of the Jews shall be received into the Church.803

Far from supporting the doctrine of the two peoples of God, Edwards supports
the opposite thesis that both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ. Regarding the
second defining feature of dispensationalism, namely, the unifying theme of
God’s glory, Edwards makes the following comments:
The Covenant made with the Israelites at the giving of the Law on
Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Grace, though it seem’d to resemble
the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Grace was completed and
perfected by Christ’s Coming, and not before. The Mediator, the
Terms, the Seals of this Covenant now fully manifested. It is proved
that according to the Stile of the Scripture the Old and New Covenant
are the same Covenant of Grace.804

The Christian Institution and the New Covenant of Grace therein

contained, are the Will and Testament of our Saviour, wherein he hath
set down what he would have done after his death (for that is the true
notion of a Testament.) Christ the Testator died, and bequeathed to us
the Gospel.805

John Edwards subscribed to the covenant of grace, and this, together with the
Jews and Gentiles being one in Christ, negates the principal doctrines of
dispensationalism as Darby taught them.

800
Ibid., 684.
801
Ibid., 692.
802
Ibid., 423.
803
Ibid., 719.
804
Ibid., 340.

199
 Flilert’s definition o f periodization

Clearly, in A Bibliographic history ofDispensationalism Ehlert gives

too much significance to the use of periodization to prove his thesis. As just
shown, two of his best examples of “ancient dispensationalism” used
dispensations to prove covenant theology. This is diametrically opposed to
Darby’s dispensational system. In a second work entitled Early periodization
o f redemptive history, Ehlert again addresses the subject.805806807In this work,
Ehlert misinterprets a work by Karl Lowith to support his own thesis about
periodization. According to Ehlert:
Karl Loewith in his Meaning o f History807 develops a definition of the
term “Philosophy o f history” to mean “a systematic interpretation of
universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical
events and successions are unified and directed toward an ultimate
meaning. Taken in this sense,” he says, “philosophy of history i s . . .
entirely dependent on theology of history, in particular on the
theological concept o f history as a history of fulfillment and salvation.”
He says further that the “ancients did not presume to make sense of the
world or to discover its ultimate meaning.” He contends that
“philosophy o f history originates with the Hebrew and Christian faith
in a fulfillment and that it ends in the secularization [we presume he
means here periodization or division into ages] of its eschatological
pattern . . . To the Jews and Christians . . . history was primarily a
history o f salvation, and, as such, the proper concern of prophets,
preachers, and teachers . . . ” {Meaning in History, Chicago, 1958, p. 1-
5 passim).808

By presuming that Lowith meant periodization when he wrote secularization,

Ehlert radically changed the meaning of Lowith’s argument. Ldwith uses the
term “secularization” eleven times in his book and is very precise in his
definition of the word. He uses it in its normative sense, which has nothing
whatsoever to do with the notion of “periodization.” I give as my examples the
following passages: “Christianity might ultimately be ‘responsible’ for the
possibility of its own secularization, including its non-Christian consequences,
but the original proclamation of a Kingdom of God certainly did not intend to

805 Ibid., 582.

X0AThe system of ages and stages or dispensations.
807 Ehlcrt has the title wrong. It should read Meaning in History.

200
 make the world more worldly than it was for the pagans.”808809 “The modern
world is as Christian as it is un-Christian because it is the outcome of an age­
long process of secularization. Compared with the pagan world before Christ..
. our modem world is worldly and irreligious and yet dependent on the
Christian creed from which it is emancipated.”810 . . the secularization of the
world which became increasingly worldly .. .”8" Lowith consistently uses the
term “secularization” to refer to the historical process by which Christianity’s
supernatural orientation gave way to a more “worldly” perspective, which
makes Ehlert’s “translation” of the concept for his own purposes completely
unwarranted.
It remains then to return to Ehlert’s monograph to derive further
understanding of his notion of periodization. Ehlert attempts to show
historically that the use of ages and stages developed from an ancient period,
through the Jewish tradition, apocalyptic literature, the Qumran scrolls,
pseudepigraphic literature, and the church fathers.812*Ehlert’s closing remark
states that his Bibliographic History o f Dispensationalism . . . brings the story
813
up to the present.
In summary, it must be concluded that while Ehlert is able to show that
various forms o f periodization were common throughout the history of
theology, the mere use o f “dispensations” or “ages” does not validate his claim
that the dispensationalist system existed before Darby—especially when those
who divided history in this way did so to prove concepts that were completely
at odds with Darby’s system. As can be seen in his misrepresentation of
Lowith’s views, sometimes Ehlert twisted the evidence to support his point of
view. The comments of John Gerstner seem judicious: “Unfortunately, Ehlert
views anyone who used the term dispensation as a dispensationalist and thus
his bibliography (which cites such foes of Dispensationalism as Jonathan

808 Ehlert, Arnold D. Spr 1971. Early periodization of redemptive history. Journal o f the
Evangelical Theological Society. 14 (2):95-102, 95, 96.
809 Ibid., 213.
810 I b id . , 2 0 1 .
811 Ibid., 158. Note.
812 Ehlert, Arnold D. Spr 1971. Early periodization of redemptive history. Journal o f the
Evangelical Theological Society. 14 (2):95-102.
8,3 Ibid., 8.

201
 Edwards and Charles Hodge) is almost worthless as a prior bibliography of
Dispensationalism.”814 Ehlert’s argument supports covenant theology, not
dispensationalisin. We are then left with the correct conclusion that a system
of periodization existed prior to Darby, but that dispensationalism itself has its
origin in the person of John Nelson Darby.

Ehlert 's Ioval supporters

Other dispensationalists and thinkers are appreciative of Ehlert’s
argument and often cite him as a source for early forms of dispensationalism.
Clarence E. Mason815 is one person who found Ehlert useful in his debate with
John Wick Bowman. Mason adopted Ehlert’s thesis in his apologetic to
Bowman’s monograph, The Bible and Modern Religions,816 Bowman’s
opening paragraph stated: “Dispensationalism is a term descriptive of a
fantastic type of interpretation of the Scriptures which originated toward the
beginning of the last century among certain groups of people in England who
later became organically related and have since been styled ‘Plymouth
Brethren.’”81781Bowman’s argument was against both dispensationalism and
the Scofield Reference Bible.m Mason’s reply to Bowman was fully
supportive of Ehlert’s line of reasoning:
Not only is it evident that the multiple-age thesis had its roots deep in
the past, but it can be demonstrated that there were well-developed
multiple-age systems being projected in the postreformation, pre-
Darby period. Arnold Ehlert cites fifteen lists of more or less

K'4 Gcrstncr, John H. 1991. Wrongly dividing the word o f truth: a critique o f
dispensationalisin. Brentwood, TN: Wolgeinuth & Hyatt, 8.
815 Dr. Clarence E. Mason was former Dean of Philadelphia College of Bible and part of the
editorial committee which spent 14 years revising and updating the Scofield notes for the
New Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1967. Bateman, Herbert W., and Darrell L
Bock. 1999. Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalisin: a comparison o f
traditional and progressive views. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 27. '
816 Bowman, John Wick. Ap 1956. Bible and modern religions, pt 2: Disncnsatiomlkm
Interpretation. 10 (2): 170-187. *
8,7 Ibid., 170,
818 “The writer had intended to dwell at some length on the genuine excellencies to be found
in the Scofield Bible, for there are such. But as the present reading and meditation
proceeded with a view to writing this article, the fact was so overwhelmingly borne in
upon him afresh that this book represents perhaps the most dangerous heresy currently to
be found within Christian circles that his first intention was abandoned___ To say that
there is much true Christian teaching in the Scofield Bible is merely what may as truly be
said of Roman Catholic theology, of Christian Science, and of Mormonism Ibid 112

202
 extensiveness taken from writers in the two hundred years prior to
Darby, i.e., 1625-1825 (Bibliotheca Sacra, 101:447-69, October-
December, 1944). Three of the most interesting of these were produced
by John Edwards (1639-1716), Isaac Watts, the noted hymn writer
(1674-1748), and Pierre Poiret, a French writer (1646-1719).819

This writer does not believe that the prominence of Darby should be
confused with the dominance of Darby, and he believes the facts cited
in the foregoing paragraphs are adequate proof that dispensationalism
was not invented approximately 125 years ago by Darby.820

In summary, Clarence E. Mason used Ehlert’s Bibliographic History o f

Dispensationalism as primary source material in his response to John Wick
Bowman. If Bowman was in error in his ad hominem argument against
dispensationalism and Scofield, Mason was in error in his choice of Ehlert to
support his thesis.
Roy Zuck also found Ehlert’s Bibliographic History useful:
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was the first to give systematic form
to the doctrine of ages and dispensations. But he was by no means the
first to recognize and employ the basic principles on which this
doctrine stands. Ehlert’s valuable work, A Bibliographic History o f
Dispensationalism, show that this doctrine has a history almost as old
as the church itself. In every major area of importance in the early
church one finds rudimentary features of dispensationalism that bear
striking resemblance to their contemporary offspring.821

Zuck falls into the same trap as Ehlert. Fie states that the “basic principles” of
dispensationalism predate Darby. His “rudimentary features” refer to
“periodization,” thus missing the whole point of Darby’s doctrine of
dispensationalism concerning the two peoples ol God and the unifying theme
of God’s glory in history.

Conclusion: Darby as adapter, not inventor

By graphically putting together the various notions of
dispensationalism as propounded by Ehlert and those who maintain the

819 Mason, Clarence E. Ja 1957. A review of "Dispensationalism" by John Wick Bowman. [1],
Bibliotheca Sacra. 114 (453): 10-22, 17.
820 Ibid., 19.
821 Zuck, Roy B. 1995. Vital prophetic issues: examining promises and problems in
eschatology. Vital issues series, v. 5. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel Resources, 58.

203
 invention thesis, it can be shown that there is a considerable difference
between these and the dispensationalist system developed by Darby. Ehlert, in
attempting to show a historical precedence for dispensationalism, has
presented an argument that supports dispensationalism’s archrival, covenant
theology. The invention thesis is in error by not understanding that ancient
periodization preceded Darby and that Darby, far from inventing
dispensationalism, was simply adaptive of earlier forms of periodization.
Darby’s dispensationalism can be demonstrated as follows:
Ancient periodization + the two peoples oj God + the unifying theme o f God's
glory + a plain, literal hermeneutic = Dispensationalism

Although Ehlert argues otherwise, by examining two of his best

examples of “ancient dispensationalism” namely, Watts and Edwards, the
scholar reaches the conclusion that his thesis is as follows:
Ancient periodization + the one people o f God (the church) + the covenant o f
grace = Dispensationalism

The invention thesis that Darby originated dispensationalism is also in

error. This is summarized as follows:
Darby’s periodization + the two peoples of God + the unifying theme o f God’s
g/oiy + a plain, literal hermeneutic = Dispensationalism

204
 Conclusion

I have stated in my introduction that I would assemble the puzzle that

constitutes Darby’s dispensationalist system, to provide an overall picture of
his eschatology as it related to his contemporaries and to demonstrate that he
was “adaptive” in forming his doctrine of dispensationalist millenarianism.
My thesis presents a different view from that of other scholars, for
several reasons. A number of dispensationalist thinkers, to counter the charge
that Darby’s dispensationalism is novel and unique, have argued that his
system was rooted in writers and thinkers dating from the Patristic Writings.
But, as 1 have shown, this argument is flawed, primarily because of a
misunderstanding of the accepted definition of dispensationalism and what
amounts to mischaracterizing what the sources actually say. The arguments
presented by Ehlert, for example, appear highly convincing and evince sound
reasoning, were it not for the fact that the sources he cites support not
dispensationalism but Covenant theology, by using a system of periodization
that did not contain key Darbyite characteristics. This study has also
challenged the opposite perspective—that Darby invented dispensationalism
in the early nineteenth century. This common but unscholarly approach is also
in error, since it fails to take into account Darby’s usage of earlier ideas and
terminology, which he adapted and incorporated into his own system of
periodization and his notion of the two peoples of God.
I have researched the key tenets of Darby’s eschatology and have
shown that each p a rt has its own unique facets. Darby’s doctrine of the “two
peoples of God” was rooted in the inviolability of the A b r a h a m ic C o v e n a n t,

which u n d e r s ta n d s that the “land, seed, and the blessing,” as promised by God,
belong to national Israel in perpetuity. Darby found a way to accommodate the
two peoples of God to His redemptive plan. The “two peoples of God”
doctrine would appear to be unique to Darby; but he used terminology
r e g a r d in g God’s earthly and heavenly kingdoms that existed well before his
time. So while the doctrine was unique to Darby, he adapted terms already in
use.

205
 Darby’s interpretation of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy was very
much in line with other thinkers both prior to and contemporary with him. He
used the commonly accepted “year for a day” principle to arrive at 490 literal
years. What was different about his interpretation was the insertion of an
indeterminate gap between the 69th week, which ended with the stoning of
Stephen, and the 70th, which would usher in the Second Coming. Unlike other
scholars, I have shown that the gap theory actually originated with Isaac
Newton, who developed a similar view in his book Observations upon the
prophecies o f Daniel and the Apocalypse o f St. John a full century prior to
Darby, who was fully aware of Newton’s thesis and borrowed the doctrine to
suit his eschatological interpretation. As stated in my introduction, the gap
theory absolved Darby of calculating a date for the Second Coming, as many
historicists had tried but failed to do. The ramification of my argument is that
Darby assimilated the Jesuit futurist hermeneutic as propounded by Ribera and
Bellarmine and his gap theory from Newton.
The pretribulational rapture of the church was a doctrine very much
allied to the two peoples of God. It allowed God to remove the parenthetical
church in order to carry on his redemptive work with national Israel. There are
aspects of the rapture that would appear unique to Darby, namely, that it
would be “secret.” However, 1 also demonstrated that the notion of the rapture,
though not pretribulational, had been extant in “terms” well before Darby. It is
my contention that the pretribulational rapture of the church was not unique to
Darby but that he was adaptive of much earlier nonpretribulational
nomenclature that finds its roots in the middle English of being “rapt vp.”
The “ruin of the “church is central to understanding Darby; the
doctrine is rooted in his reaction to Dr. Magee’s Charge in 1826. As I have
shown, this launched Darby on a ministry that embraced both the Plymouth
Brethren and an extensive publishing career. I have demonstrated that the term
the “ruin of the church” and its meaning can be traced to writers and thinkers
prior to Darby’s day. In particular, his extensive reliance upon Milner’s
Church History and the fact that Milner discusses the term extensively would
alone negate any originality on the part of Darby. Besides Milner, I have also

206
 shown that both Jean Claude and John Calvin used the term. Once again,
Darby adapted his use of extant terminology of “the ruin of the church” for his
particular brand of eschatology.
In summary, I contend that very little of Darby’s eschatology was
unique to him. I would rather portray him as “adapting” earlier concepts to suit
his own particular version of dispensationalism. 1 have demonstrated that
Darby’s eschatology is highly convoluted and that the argument that his
doctrines are outside the realm of academic respectability is a valid one.
Equally valid is that Darby’s dispensationalism remained peripheral to
mainstream British Christianity but became central in America towards the
latter half of the 19lh century following the Niagara Bible conferences. Darby
continues to shape and mould much of American dispensationalism, as
witnessed by the continuing popularity of novels such as Hal Lindsey’s The
Late, Great Planet Earth and Timothy LaHaye’s Left Behind series. The
conundrum to date concerns the validity of much of the popular eschatology as
portrayed in the Left Behind series. The two current but erroneous arguments
presented in this dissertation do little to clarify how Darby put together his
eschatology. The options are either that Darby formulated his
dispensationalism “out of thin air” (the invention thesis) or that it was
grounded in much earlier writings (Ehlert’s thesis). These do little to affirm or
disavow dispensationalist millenarianism as propounded by Darby. Indeed, if
we are to accept Ehlert’s thesis, then Darby is accorded credibility that is not
due him. This dissertation, while demonstrating why these arguments are in
error, has also established that Darby “adapted” extant doctrines to suit his
eschatological doctrines. The question is no longer simply the validity of
Darby’s eschatology, but also the sources he used.
It is too easy to dismiss Darby as being “outside the realm of academic
respectability.” This assertion does little to defuse the influence of Darbyite
thinking among a large section of American evangelicalism. It may be true
that this form of evangelicalism is driven by unchallenged subjectivity,
together with the influence of popular works on eschatology. While an
academic approach may do little to diffuse this popularity, this dissertation has

207
at least provided that groundwork. In short, the affirmation or disavowal of
dispensationalism need no longer rest on erroneous ideas about how Darby
may or may not have put together his eschatology, but on the clear
understanding of his adaptive process.

208
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPY

I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Ehlert, Arnold D. 1965. A bibliographic history o f dispensationalism. BCH

bibliographic series, no. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

------. Ja-Mr 1944. A bibliography of dispensationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra.

101 (401 ):95-101.

------. Ja-Mr 1946. A bibliography of dispensationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra.

103 (409):57-67.

II. PRIMARY SOURCES

A. John Nelson Darby

Darby, J. N., and William Kelly. 1971. The collected writings ofJ.N. Darby.
Sunbury, Pa: Believers Bookshelf.

------. 1971. Notes and comments on Scripture. Sunbury, Pa: Believers

Bookshelf.

------. 1971. Notes and jottings from various meetings with J.N. Darby.
Sunbury, Pa: Believers Bookshelf.

------. 1979. Synopsis o f the books o f the Bible. Sunbury, Pa: Believers
Bookshelf.

-. 1971. Letters o f J.N.D. Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf.

1900s. Miscellaneous writings o f J.N.D. Oak Park, 111: Bible Truth

Publishers.

-. 1839. Notes on the book o f Revelations to assist inquirers in searching

into that book. London: Central Tract Depot.

-. 1849. The hopes o f the church o f G od; in connection with the

destiny o f the Jews and the nations as revealed in prophecy.
London: J. Nisbet.

. 1862. Nine lectures on the first epistle o f John. London: W. H. Broom.

. 1863. Dialogues on the essays and reviews. London: W. H. Broom.

209
------. 1864. Studies on the book o f Daniel: a course o f lectures. London: J.
B. Bateman.

------. 1866. Analysis o f Dr. Newman's Apologia pro vita sud: with a glance at
the history o f popes, councils, and the church. London: W. H. Broom.

------. 1869. Notes on the gospel o f Luke. Glasgow: Robert Allan, 1869.

------. 1898. Weighty words from the writings oJJ.N.D. London: G. Morrish.

------. 1868. Notes on scripture. Glasgow: R.L. Allan.

------, and Francis William Newman. 1853. The irrationalism o f infidelity:

being a reply to "Phases o f Faith". London: Groombridge and sons.

------. Considerations addressed to the Archbishop o f Dublin and the Clergy

who signed the petition to the House o f Common, n.p., n.d.

B. C.l. Scofield

Scofield, C. I. 1945. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.
Authorized King James version, with a new system o f connected
topical references to all the greater themes o f Scripture, with
annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries, definitions,
chronology, and index, to which are added helps at hard places,
explanations o f seeming discrepancies, and a new system o f
paragraphs. New York: Oxford University Press.

------. 1961. Rightly dividing the word o f truth (II Timothy 2:15): being ten
outline studies o f the more important divisions o f Scripture. Findlay,
OH: Dunham Pub. Co.

------. 1967. The new Scofield reference Bible; Holy Bible, authorized King
James version, with introductions, annotations, subject chain
references, and such word changes in the text as will help the reader.
New York: Oxford University Press.

HI. SECONDARY SOURCES

1. Books

Alifano, John Anthony. 2002. The pretribulation rapture doctrine and the
progressive dispensational system: are they compatible? Thesis
(M.C.S.)—Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2002.

Almonz, Daniel E. 2004. The Apocalyptic Rapture Exodus. Longwood, FL:

Xulon Press.

210
 Anderberg, Roy W. 2008. Post Tribulation Rapture. Tucson, AZ: Wheatmark.

Archer, Gleason L. 1996. Three Views on the Rapture: pre-, mid-, or post-
Tribulation? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Arndt, William, F. Wilbur Gingrich, John R. Alsop, and Walter Bauer. 1957.
A Greek-English lexicon o f the New Testament and other early
Christian literature; a translation and adaptation o f Walter Bauer's
Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen
Testaments und der übringen urchristlichen Literatur, 4th rev. and
augm. ed., 1952. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Arslanian, Catherine. 2006. Email from Camp Khatar. Lincoln: iUnivese, Ine:

Ashton, John. 1890. Social England under the regency. London: Ward and
Downey.

Bale, John. 1570. The image o f both Churches after the most wonderful1and
heauenly Reuelation o f sainct lohn the Euangelist, contayning a very
fruitfull exposition or paraphrase vpon the same. Wherin it is
conferred with the other scriptures, and most auc/orised histories.
Compyled by lohn Bale an exyle also in thys lyfe, fo r the faithfull
testimony o f Iesu. Printed at London: By Thomas East.

Bale, John, and Henry Christmas. 1849. Select works o f John Bale, D.D.
Bishop o f Ossory. Cambridge: Univ. Press.

Barrington, John Shute. 1728. An essay on the several dispensations o f God

to mankind, in the order, in which they lie in the Bible: or, a short
system o f the religion o f nature and scripture: with a Preface, shewing
the causes o f the growth o f infidelity, and the likeliest method to put a
stop to it. And an Appendix, proving, that God adopted Abraham to the
inheritance o f eternal life, Gen. xii. 2, 3. xxii. 17,18. London: Printed
for J. Grey, at the Cross Keys in the Poultry.

Barrows, E. P. O 1853. The indivisible nature of revelation. Bibliotheca Sacra

and American Biblical Repositoiy. 10 (40):764-788.

Bateman, Herbert W., and Darrell L. Bock. 1999. Three central issues in
contemporary dispensationalism: a comparison o f traditional and
progressive views. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Battiscombe, Georgina. 1974. Shaftesbury: A biography o f the seventh earl

1801-1885. London: Constable.

Bawer, Bruce. 1997. Stealing Jesus: how fundamentalism betrays Christianity.

New York: Three Rivers Press.

Baxter, Richard, and George Herbert. 1650. The saints everlasting rest, or, A
treatise o f the blessed state o f the saints in their enjoyment o f God in

211
 glory wherein is shewed its excellency and certainty, the misery o f
those that lose it, the way to attain it, and assurance o f it, and how to
live in the continual delightful forecasts o f it by the help o f meditation :
written by the authorfor his own use in the time o f his languishing
when God took him off from all publike imployment and afterwards
preached in his weekly lecture. London: Printed by Rob. White for
Thomas Underhil and Francis Tyton.

Bebbington, D. W. 1989. Evangelicalism in modern Britain: a history from

the 1730s to the 1980s. London: Routledge.

Bellett, George, and Samuel Bentley. 1889. Memoir o f the Rev. George
Bellett: autobiography and continuation by his daughter. London: J.
Masters and Co.

Bellett, L. M., and J. G. Bellett. 1895. Recollections o f the lateJ. G. Bellett.

London: A. S. Rouse.

Berkhof, Louis. 1996. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: W. B.

Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1963. Karl Marx: his life and environment. Time reading
program special edition. New York: Time.

Bennett, J. 1878. The second advent. London: J. Nisbet.

Bicheno, J. 1808. The signs o f the times: in three parts. London: J. Adlard.

Bickersteth, Edward. 1841. The restoration o f the Jews to their own land: in
connection with their future conversion and the final blessedness o f
our earth. London: R.B. Seeley and W. Burnside.

Blaising, Craig A. Ap-Je 1988. Developing dispensationalism: pt 1, Doctrinal

development in orthodoxy; pt 1, Development by contemporary
dispensationalists. Bibliotheca Sacra. 145 (578): 133-140.

------. Jl-S 1988. Developing dispensationalism: pt 1, Doctrinal development

in orthodoxy; pt 2, Development by contemporary dispensationalists.
Bibliotheca Sacra. 145 (579):254-280.

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. 1992. Dispensationalism, Israel and
the Church: The Search for Definition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. 1993. Progressive dispensationalism.

Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint.

Blaising, Craig A., Kenneth L. Gentry, Robert B. Strimple, and Darrell L.

Bock. 1999. Three views on the millennium and beyond. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan.

212
Bloesch, Donald G. 2006. The Last Things Resurrection, Judgment, Glory.
Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Pr.

Bock, Darrell L., Walter C. Kaiser, and Craig A. Blaising. 1992.

Dispensationalism, Israel and the church: the search for definition.
Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Pub. House.

Bock, Darrell L. 2006. The Bible knowledge word study: Acts-Epliesians.

Bible knowledge series. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Victor.

------. S 1998. Why I am a Dispensationalist with a Small "d”. Journal o f the

Evangelical Theological Society. 41 (3):383-396.

Boettner, Loraine. 1984. The millennium. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and

Reformed Pub. Co.

Bortolazzo, Paul. 2007. The Coming o f the Son o f Man After the Tribulation o f
Those Days. Must ang, OK: Tate Pub. & Enterprises Lie.

Bowman, John Wick. Ap 1956. Bible and modern religions, pt 2:

Dispensationalism. Interpretation. 10 (2): 170-187.

Boyer, Paul S. 1994. When time shall be no more: prophecy belief in modern
American culture. Studies in cultural history. Cambridge, Mass:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Bradshaw, William, and Thomas Gataker. 1620. A plaine and pithy exposition
o f the second Epistle to the Thessalonians. By that learned & judicious
diuine Mr William Bradshaw, sometime fellow o f Sidney Colledge in
Cambridge. Published since his deceasse by Thomas Gataker B. o f D.
and paster o f Rotherhith. London: Printed by Edward Griffin for
William Bladen, and are to be sold at his shop at the signe of the Bible,
at the great north dore of Paules.

Brereton, Virginia Lieson. 1990. Training God's army: the American Bible
school, 1880-1940. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Brodetsky, Selig. 2007. Sir Isaac Newton: a brief account o f his life and work.
London: Upton Press.

Brooks, J. W. 1835. A dictionary o f writers o f the prophecies, with the titles

and occasional description o f their works. Also an appendix containing
lists o f commentators, annotators, etc., on the Holy Scriptures.
London: Simpkin, Marshall.

Brown, David. “Personal Reminiscences of Edward Irving.” Published in The

Expositor. No. XXXIII, September 1887. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.

213
Bryon, Michael P. 2007. Infinity’s Rainbow. New York: Algora Pub.

------. The Expositor. Vol. VI. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1887.

Buschart, W. David. 2006. Exploring Protestant traditions: an invitation to

theological hospitality. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Calvin, Jean. 1816. Institutes o f the Christian religion. Philadelphia: P.H.

Nicklin.

Calvin, Jean, and Henry Beveridge. 1989. Institutes o f the Christian religion.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Cameron, Archibald Alexander. Protestantism and its Relation to the Moral,

Intellectual and Spiritual Development o f Modern Times: A Lecture.
(1872). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2009.

Capp, B. S. 1972. Thefifth monarchy men; a study in seventeenth-century

English millenarianism. London: Faber.

Cardale, John Bate. 1851. Readings upon the liturgy and other divine offices
o f the church. London: Printed by G. Barclay.

Carpenter, Joel A. 1999. Revive us again: the reawakening o f American

Fundamentalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carlyle, Thomas, and James Anthony Froude. 1881. Reminiscences. New

York: C. Scribner's Sons.

Carson, James C. L. 1883. The heresies o f the Plymouth Brethren. London:

Houlston & Sons.

Carter, Grayson. 2001. Anglican evangelicals: Protestant secessions from the

via media, c. 1800-1850. Oxford theological monographs. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Cary, Philip. 1690. A just reply to Mr. John Flavell's arguments by way o f
answer to a discourse lately published, entitled, A solemn call, &c.
wherein it is further plainly proved that the covenant made with Israel
on Mount Sinai, as also the covenant o f circumcision made with
Abraham, whereon so much stress is laid for the support o f infants
baptism ... : together with a reply to Mr. Joseph Whiston's reflections
on the forementioned discourse, in a late small tract o f his entituled,
The right methodfor the proving o f infants baptism. London: Printed
for J. Harris.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. 1915. The kingdom in history and prophecy. New York:
Fleming H. Revell.

214
 . 0-D 1936. Dispensationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra. 93 (372):390-449.

------, and John F. Walvoord. 1974. Major Bible themes; 52 vital doctrines o f
the Scripture simplified and explained. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan
Pub. House.

------. 1993. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

------. 1915. The kingdom in history and prophecy. New York: Fleming H.
Revell.

Church Quarterly, The. October 1878 - January 1879. Vol. VII. London:
Spottiswoode & Co., 1879.

Clarke, William, and Charles Harding Firth. 1899. The Clarke papers:
selections from the papers o f William Clarke, Secretary to the Council
o f the Army, 1647-1649, and to General Monde and the Commanders
o f the Army in Scotland, 1651-1660. Camden Society, 61. London:
Longmans, Green and Co., II.

Clissold, Henry. 1827. Prophecies o f christ and Christian times, selected from
the Old and New Testament, and arranged according to the periods in
which they were pronounced. London: Printed for C.J.G. & F.
Rivington.

Cohen, I. Bernard, and George E. Smith. 2002. The Cambridge companion to

Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Couch, Mai. 2000. An introduction to classical evangelical hermeneutics: a

guide to the histoiy and practice o f biblical interpretation. Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

------. 1997. Dictionaiy o f premillennial theology. Grand Rapids, Ml:

Kregel Publications.

Craik, Henry, W. Elfe Taylor, and George Müller. 1866. Passages from the
diaiy and letters o f Henry Craik. London: J.F. Shaw & Co.

Cromwell, Oliver, and Thomas Carlyle. 1899. Oliver Cromwell's letters and
speeches: with elucidations. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Cromwell, Oliver, Thomas Carlyle, Mrs. S. C. Lomas, and C. H. Firth. 1904.

The letters and speeches o f Oliver Cromwell. London: Methuen & Co.

Croskery, Thomas. 1879. P/ymouth-Brethrenism; a refutation o f its principles

and doctrines. London: W. Mullan.

------. 1882. “John Nelson Darby.” In The Catholic Presbyterian, W. G.

Blaikie, ed. London: James Nisbet & Co.

215
Crutchfield, Larry V. Jl-S 1987. Rudiments of dispensationalism in the ante-
Nicene period, 2 pts. Bibliotheca Sacra. 144 (575):254-276.

------. O-D 1987. Rudiments of dispensationalism in the ante-Nicene

period, 2 pts. Bibliotheca Sacra. 144 (576):377-399.

------. 1992. The origins o f dispensationalism: the Darby factor. Lanham,

MD: University Press of America.

------. 1854. Prophetic studies. Lectures on the book o f Daniel. Philadelphia:

Lindsay and Blakiston.

Gumming, John. 1854. Prophetic studies. Lectures on the book o f Daniel.

Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston.

------. 1860. The great tribulation: or, the things coming on the earth. New
York: Rudd & Carleton.

------. 1863. Great tribulation: or, things coming on the earth. New York:
Carleton.

Cuninghame, William. 1817. A dissertation on the seals and trumpets o f the

Apocalypse and the prophetical period o f twelve hundred and sixty
years. London: Printed for J. Hatchard.

Daunt, William J. O'Neill. 1844. Saints and sinners: a tale o f modern times.
Dublin: J. Duffy.

Denny, Edward. 1850. The seventy weeks o f Daniel. London: J. Nisbet.

Derakhshani, Tirdad. December 23, 2008. Updates put the Bible in Vogue.
The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Desrosiers, Gilbert. 2000. An introduction to Revelation. Continuum Biblical

studies series. London: Continuum.

Dodwell, Henry. 1706. An epistolary discourse proving, from the scriptures

and the first fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal;... By
Henry Dodwell, A.M. London: printed for R. Smith.

Dorrien, Gary J. 1998. The remaking o f evangelical theology. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press.

Downame, George. 1603. A treatise concerning Antichrist divided into two

bookes, the former, proving that the Pope is Antichrist, the latter,
maintaining the same assertion, against all the objections o f Robert
Bellarmine, Iesuit and cardinal! o f the church o f Rome. At London:
Imprinted for Cuthbert Burbie.

216
Drummond, Henry. 1828. Dialogues on prophecy. London: Nisbet.

Douglass, Herbert E. 2001. The End. Brushton, New York: Teach Services,
Inc.

Dunlap, David. 2008. Written aforetime. Longwood: Xulon Press.

Edwards, John. 1699. Polpoikilos sophia, a compleat history or survey o f all

the dispensations and methods o f religion, from the beginning o f the
world to the consummation o f all things, as represented in the Old and
New Testament shewing the several reasons and designs o f those
different administrations, and the wisdom and goodness o f God in the
government o f His church, through all the ages o f i t : in which also,
the opinion o f Dr. Spencer concerning the Jewish rites and sacrifices is
examin'd, and the certainty o f the Christian religion demonstrated
against the cavils o f the Deists, &c. London: Printed for Daniel Brown,
Jonath. Robinson, Andrew Bell, John Wyat, and E. Harris.

------. 1706. The preacher. The second part. A discourse, shewing, 1.

What particular doctrines ought to be preached... To which is
annexed, The hearer:... By John Edwards, D.D. London: printed for J.
Robinson, J. Lawrence, and J. Wyat.

Edwards, Jonathan, and Samuel Austin. 1808. The works o f President

Edwards. Worcester [MA]: Isaiah Thomas, Jun.

Erskine, Ebenezer. 1798. The whole works o f the late Rev. Mr. Ebenezer
Erskine, ... consisting o f sermons and discourses, on the most
important and interesting subjects. In three volumes. Edinburgh:
printed by D. Schaw and Co., for Alex. M'Leran.

Escott, T. H. S. 1897. Social transformations o f the Victorian age: a survey o f

court and country. New York: C. Scribner's.

Everard, John, Thomas Brooks, and Matthew Barker. 1657. The Gospel
treasury opened, or, The holiest o f all unvailing discovering yet more
the riches o f grace and gloiy to the vessels o f mercy unto whom onely
it is given to know the mysteries o f that kingdom and the excellency o f
spirit, power, truth above letter, forms, shadows. London: Printed by
John Owsley for Rapha Harford.

Faber, George Stanley. 1811. A dissertation on the prophecy contained in

Daniel IX 24-27: generally denominated the prophecy o f the seventy
weeks. London: F.C. and J. Rivington.

Fackre, Gabriel J. 1997. The doctrine o f revelation: a narrative interpretation.

Edinburgh studies in constructive theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Pub.

217
Faust, J. D. 2002. The Rod: Will God Spare It? Hayesville, NC: Schoettle
Publishing Co.

Finlayson, Geoffrey B. A. M. 1981. The Seventh Ear! o f Shaftesbury, 1801-

1885. London: Eyre Methuen.

Fineman, Howard and Tamara Lipper. “A Very Mixed Marriage. Evangelical

Christians lining up to fight for Israel maybe an immovable obstacle to
Bush's 'Roadmap'. ” Newsweek, June 2, 2003.

Flegg, Columba Graham. 1992. ‘Gathered under apostles ’: a study o f the

Catholic Apostolic Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Froom, Le Roy Edwin. 1948. The Prophetic Faith o f our Fathers: the
historical development o f prophetic interpretation. DC: Review &
Herald.

Frere, James Hatley. 1826. A combined view o f the prophecies o f Daniel, Ezra,
and St. John: shewing that all the prophetic writings are formed upon
one plan, accompanied by an explanatoiy chart, also, a minute
explanation o f the prophecies o f Daniel. London: Printed for J.
Hatchard.

Frykholm, Amy Johnson. 2004. Rapture culture: left behind in Evangelical

America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Galli, Mark, and Ted Olsen. 2000. 131 Christians everyone should know.
Holman reference. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Garfinkle, Adam M. 2009. Jewcentricity: why the Jews are praised, blamed,
and used to explain just about everything. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.

Garland, Anthony C. 2004. A Testimony o f Jesus Christ, volume 1: A

commentary on the Book o f Revelation. Camano Island, WA: Spirit
and Truth Publishers.

Gerstner, John H. 1991. Wrongly dividing the word o f truth: a critique o f

dispensationalism. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt.

Gibson, Scott M. 2001. A.J. Gordon: American premillennialist. Lanham,

MD: University Press of America.

Gifford, Paul. 2002. Christianity and politics in Doe's Liberia. Cambridge

studies in ideology and religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Goe, F. F. The Validity o f the Minishy Itself, with Reference to the theories o f

218
 the Plymouth Brethren. Published in The Islington Clerical Meeting,
1878. London: William Hunt and Company, 1878.

Gorenberg, Gershom. 2002. The end o f days: fundamentalism and the struggle
for the Temple Mount. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grant, James. 1875. The Plymouth Brethren: their history and heresies.
London: William Macintosh.

Grenz, Stanley J. 1992. The millennial maze: sorting out evangelical options.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

Gribben, Crawford. 2008. Evangelical eschatology and the ‘Puritan hope,' in

The Advent of Evangelicalism, eds. Michael Haykin, Kenneth Stewart
and Timothy George. B & H Academic, p. 390.

Groves, Anthony Norris. 1869. Memoir o f Anthony Norris Groves, compiled

chiefly from his journals and letters; to which is added a supplement,
containing recollections o f Miss Paget, and accounts o f missionary
work in India, etc. London: James Nisbet.

------. 1857. Memoir o f the late Anthony Norris Groves, containing

extracts from his letters andjournals. London: James Nisbet.

Groves, Henry Charles. 1884. Memoir o f Lord Congleton. London: John F.

Shaw & Co.

Grudem, Wayne A., and Jeff Purswell. 1999. Bible doctrine: essential
teachings o f the Christian faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hair, John. 1899. Regent Square: eighty years o f a London congregation.

London: James Nisbet.

Hamon, Bill. 2005. The Day o f the Saints. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image.

Hanegraaff, Hank. 2008. The apocalypse code: Jind out what the Bible really
says about the end times—and why it matters today. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson.

-----. 2009. Christianity in crisis: 21st century. Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson.

Hanna, William, and Thomas Chalmers. 1857. Memoirs o f the life and
writings o f Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL. D. New York: Harper.

Harbin, Michael A. Jl-S 1986. The hermeneutics of covenant theology.

Bibliotheca Sacra. 143 (571):246-259.

Helyer, Larry R. 2008. The witness o f Jesus, Paul, and John: an exploration in

219
 biblical theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Henzel, Ronald M. 2003. Darby, dualism, and the decline o f

dispensationalism: reassessing the nineteenth-century roots o f a
twentieth-century prophetic movement for the twenty-first century.
Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books.

Herzog, J. J., Philip Schaff, and Samuel Macauley Jackson. 1889. A Religious
encyclopaedia: or dictionary o f Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and
practical theology. Based on the Real-Encyklopddie o f Herzog, Plitt,
and Hauck. New York: Christian Literature Co.

Higton, Mike. 2004. Christ, providence, and history: Hans W. Frei's public
theology. London: T & T Clark.

Hiles, Lynn. 2007. The Revelation o f Jesus Christ. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny
Image.

Hody, Humphrey. 1694. The resurrection o f the (same) body asserted, from
the traditions o f the heathens, the ancient Jews, and the primitive
church with an answer to the objections brought against it. London:
Printed for Awnsham and John Churchill.

Hooker, Richard. 1888. The laws o f ecclesiastical polity, books I-IV. London:
G. Routledge.

Howard, Joseph Jackson, and Frederick Arthur Crisp. 1897. Visitation o f

Ireland. [London]: Priv. print.

Howard, R. J. 1885. The Church oj England and other religious communions :

a course o f lectures delivered at the parish church o f Clapham.
London: Kegan, Paul, Trench.

Hudson, Deal Wyatt. 2008. Onward Christian soldiers: the growing political
power o f Catholics and evangelicals in the United States. NY:
Threshold Editions.

Hughes, Richard T. 1995. The primitive church in the modern world. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.

Hunt, John. 1896. Religious thought in England in the nineteenth century.

London: Gibbings & Co.

Hunt, Stephen. 2001. Christian millenarianism: from the early church to

Waco. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Huntington, William. 1808. The law established by the faith o f Christ: a

sermon preached at Providence Chapel on January 1, 1786. London:
Printed by T. Bensley.

220
___ . 1813. Gleanings o f the vintage; or, Letters to the spiritual edification
o f the Church o f Christ... Part 1 [-part IX]. London: Huntington.

Irving, Edward. 1828. Babylon and infidelity foredoomed o f God: a discourse

on the prophecies o f Daniel and the apocalypse, which relate to these
latter times. Philadelphia: Church Missionary House.

------. 1828. Sermons, lectures, and occasional discourses. London: R.B.

Seeley and W. Burnside.

___ . 1829. Exposition o f the book o f Revelation, in a series o f lectures.

Catholic Apostolic Church collection. London: Baldwin and Cradock.

------. 1831. Exposition o f the book o f Revelation, in a series o f lectures.

Catholic Apostolic Church collection. London: Baldwin and Cradock.

___ . 1850. The last days: a discourse on the evil character o f these our
times, providing them to be the "perilous times" o f the "last days".
London: J. Nisbet.

-----. and Gavin Carlyle. 1865. The collected writings o f Edward Irving.
London: A. Strahan & Co.

-----. and Robert Cruikshank. 1823. Trial o f the Rev. Edward Irving, M.A.: a
cento o f criticism. London: E. Brain.

------. and Edward Irving. 1865. Miscellanies from [his] collected writings.
London: A. Strahan.

Jortin, John. 1805. Remarks on ecclesiastical histoiy. London: Sold by

Lackington, Allen.

Josephus, Flavius, and William Whiston. 1981. Complete works. Lynn, MA:
Hendrickson.

Jowett, Benjamin, Evelyn Abbott, and Lewis Campbell. 1897. The Life and
Letters o f Benjamin Jowett, M.A. Master o f Balliol College, Oxford.
Vol. 1. London: John Murray.

Jurieu, Pierre. 1687. The accomplishment o f the Scripture prophecies, or, The
approaching deliverance o f the church proving that the papacy is the
antichristian kingdom ... that the present persecution may end in three
years and-half after which the destruction o f Antichrist shall begin,
which shall be finisht in the beginning o f the next age, and then the
kingdom o f Christ shall come upon earth. London: [s.n.].

Kelly, William. 1871. Christ tempted and sympathising. London: R.L. Allan.

------. 1903. Lectures on the Book o f Revelation. London: T. Weston.

221
Ken, Thomas. 1721. The works o f the Right Reverend, learned, and pious,
Thomas Ken, D.D. late Lord Bishop o f Bath and Wells;... Published
from original manuscripts, by William Hawkins, Esq. London: Printed
for John Wyat.

Kennedy, William Sloane. 1892. John G. Whittier, the poet o f freedom. New
York [etc.]: Funk & Wagnalls Co.

Kess, Alexandra. 2008. Johann Sleidan and the Protestant vision o f history. St
Andrews studies in Reformation history. Aldershot, England: Ashgate
Pub.

Kirk, John Foster, and S. Austin Allibone. 1897. A supplement to Allibone's

Critical dictionary o f English literature and British and American
authors: containing over thirty-seven thousand articles (authors), and
enumerating over ninety-three thousand titles. Philadelphia: J.B.

Kittell, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 1983.

Theological dictionary o f the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans. Lippincott Co.

Knowles, Louis E. May 1945. The interpretation of the seventy weeks of

Daniel in the early fathers. Westminster Theological Journal. 7
(2): 136-160).

Koester, Nancy. 2007. Fortress introduction to the history o f Christianity in

the United States. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Kraus, C. Norman. 1958. Dispensationalism in America: its rise and

development. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press.

Kurtz, J. H., and John Macpherson. 1888. Church history. New York: Funk &
Wagnalls.

Lacunza, Manuel, and Edward Irving. 1827. The coming o f Messiah in glory
and majesty. London: L. B. Seeley.

Ladd, George Eldon. 1956. The blessed hope. Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans.

------. 1978. The last things: an eschatology’for Laymen. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.

------. 1993. A theology o f the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

LaHaye, Tim F., and Jerry B. Jenkins. 1995. Left behind: a novel o f the earth's
last days. Wheaton, 1L: Tyndale House Publishers.

------. and Jerry B. Jenkins. 2000. Are we living in the end times?: current
events foretold in scripture — and what they mean. Carol Stream, 1L:

222
 Tyndale House.

LaHaye, Tim F., Jerry B. Jenkins, and Sandi Swanson. 2005. The authorized
Left behind handbook. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

Landes, Richard Allen. 2000. Encyclopedia o f millennialism and millennial

movements. Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society. New
York: Routledge.

Larkin, Clarence. 2005. Dispensational truth, or, God's plan and purpose in
the ages. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Lee, Samuel. 1830. Six sermons on the study o f the Holy Scriptures: their
nature, interpretation, and some o f their most important doctrines;
preached before the University o f Cambridge, in the years 1827-8. To
which are annexed two dissertations: the first on the reasonableness o f
the Orthodox views o f Christianity, as opposed to the rationalism o f
Germany; the second on the interpretation o f prophecy generally, with
an original exposition o f the Book o f Revelation; shewing that the
whole o f that remarkable prophecy has long ago been fulfilled.
London: James Duncan.

Lee, Sidney. 1903. Dictionaiy o f national biography. Index and epitome.

London: Smith, Elder & Co.

Lee, Witness. 1986. The divine economy. Anaheim, CA: Living Stream
Ministry.

------. 2001. Life-study o f 1 & 1 Thessalonians. Anaheim, CA: Living

Stream Ministry.

Lenski, R. C. H. 1961. The interpretation o f St. Paul's Epistles to the

Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg.

------. 1963. The interpretation o f St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Lind, Michael. 2003. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern
takeover o f American politics. A new America book. New York: Basic
Books.

Lindsey, Hal, and Carole C. Carlson. 1970. The late great planet earth. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan.

Lives o f the illustrious (the Biographical magazine). 1852. London: J.

Passmore Edwards.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. 2003. Great doctrines o f the Bible. Wheaton, IL:

223
 Crossway Books.

Lockman Foundation (La Habra, CA). 1963. New American standard Bible;
New Testament. La Habra, CA: Foundation Press, publisher for the
Lockman Foundation.

Lockyer, Herbert. 1973. All the messianic prophecies o f the Bible. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House.

Longenecker, Richard N. 1999. Biblical exegesis in the apostolic period.

Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Lowith, Karl. 1949. Meaning in history; the theological implications o f the

philosophy o f history. [Chicago]: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Luckensmeyer, David. 2009. The eschatology o f First Thessalonians.

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Mackintosh, Charles Henry. 1880. Notes on the book o f Leviticus. New York:
Loizeaux Brothers.

------. 1900. The assembly o f God: or the alt-sufficiency o f the name o f Jesus.
Treasury of truth, no. 121. New York: Loizeaux Brothers.

MacLeod, David J. Ap-Je 1996. Walter Scott, a Link in Dispensationalism

between Darby and Scofield. Bibliotheca Sacra. 153 (610): 155-178.

Madden, Hamilton. 1875. Memoir o f the late Right Rev. Robert Daly, D.D.,
Lord Bishop o f Cashel. London: J. Nisbet & Co.

Madden, Samuel. 1842. Memoir o f the life o f the late Rev. Peter R oe... with
copious extracts from his correspondence, diaries, and other remains.
Dublin: W. Curry, Jun. and Company; [etc.]

Marshall, Brian Leonard Golightly. 2006. Mayan Calendar found in the

Great Pyramid and Christ’s return. Walla Walla: Dixie Press.

Marsden, George M. 1980. Fundamentalism and American culture: the

shaping o f twentieth century evangelicalism, 1870-1925. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Mason, Clarence E. Ja 1957. A review of "Dispensationalism" by John Wick

Bowman. [1], Bibliotheca Sacra. 114 (453): 10-22.

------. Ap 1957. A review of "Dispensationalism" by John Wick Bowman.

[2]. Bibliotheca Sacra. 114 (454): 102-122.

MacPherson, Dave. 1973. The unbelievable pre-trib origin: the recent

discovery o f a well-known theory's beginning, and its incredible cover-

224
 up. Kansas City, Mo: Heart of America Bible Society.

McAvoy, Steven L. 1996. “Abrahamic Covenant.” Dictionary o f

Premillennial Theology, Mai Couch, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel,

McCalman, lain. 1996. Mad Lord George and Madame La Motte: Riot and
Sexuality in the Genesis of Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in
France. The Journal o f British Studies. 35 (3):343.

McGinn, Bernard. Mr 1971. The abbott and the doctors: scholastic reactions to
the radical eschatology of Joachim of Fiore. Church History. 40 (1):30-
47.

-----. 2000. Antichrist: two thousand years o f the human fascination with
evil. New York: Columbia University Press.

McNeile, Hugh. 1828. The times o f the Gentiles. London: J. Hatchard and Son.

-----. 1840. Prospects o f the Jews; or, A series ofpopular lectures on the
prophecies relative to the Jewish nation. Philadelphia: O. Rogers.

Maitland, Samuel Roffey. 1834. The twelve hundred and sixty days: in reply
to the strictures o f William Cuninghame, Esq. London: Printed for J.G.
& F. Rivington.

Meams, Peter. 1874. Christian truth viewed in relation to Plymouthism.

Edinburgh: William Oliphant.

Miller, Edward. 1878. The history and doctrines o f Irvingism: or o f the so-
called Catholic and Apostolic Church. London: C. Kegan Paul.

Miller, Timothy. 2009. Poisedfo r harvest, bracedfo r backlash. Longwood,

FL: Xulon Press.

Milner, Joseph, and Isaac Milner. 1827. The history o f the church o f Christ.
London: Printed by Luke Hansard & Sons, for T. Cadell, in die Strand.

M'Lean, Archibald. 1823. Works; with a memoir o f his life, ministry, &
writings. London: Jones.

Modes, Brad. 2004. The Beast and the Bride. Interpreting Revelation in the
light o f history. Raleigh, NC: [Link].

Molloy, Michael. 2008. Experiencing the world's religions: tradition,

challenge, and change. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Moran, Frank A. 1975. Syllabus for Personal Evangelism. Unpublished

syllabus. Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA.

Morgan, James. 1874. Recollections o f my life and times; an autobiography,

225
 with selections from his journal. Belfast: William Mullan.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. 1954. He that cometh. New York: Abingdon Press.

Naime, Carolina Oliphant, Caroline Oliphant, and Charles Rogers. 1905. Life
and songs o f the Baroness Nairne: with a memoir and poems o f
Caroline Oliphant the younger. Edinburgh: J. Grant.

Neatby, William Blair. 1901. A histoiy o f the Plymouth Brethren. London:

Hodder and Stoughton.

Nelson, Dwight K. 2001. What "Left Behind" left behind. Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald Pub. Association.

Newman, Albert Henry. 1903. A manual o f church history. Philadelphia:

American Baptist Publication Society.

Newton, Benjamin Wills. 1861. Occasional papers on Scriptural subjects.

London: Houlston and Wright.

Newton, Isaac. 1733. Observations upon the prophecies o f Daniel and the
Apocalypse o f St. John : in two parts. London: Printed by J. Darby and
T. Browne.

Newton, Isaac. 2008. Observations upon the prophecies o f Daniel and the
Apocalypse o f St. John. [S.l.]: Filiquarian Pub.

Notes and Queries'. Literary Men, General Readers, etc. London: John C.
Francis, 1905.

Oliphant, Mrs. 1862. The life o f Edward Irving, minister o f the National
Scotch church, London. Illustrated by his journals and
correspondence. London: Hurst and Blackett.

Olson, Carl E. 2003. Will Catholics be "left behind"?: a Catholic critique o f

the rapture and today's prophecy preachers. Modern apologetics
library. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

Partridge, Christopher H. 2002. Encyclopedia o f new religions: New religious

movements, sects and alternative spiritualities. Oxford: Lion Hudson
Pic.

Pate, C. Marvin. 1998. Four views on the Book o f Revelation. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Peerbolte, Jan Lietaert. “Paul’s Rapture: 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 And the

Language of the Mystics.” Experinta, Voi. 1: Enquiry into Religous
Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity (Symposium). Colleen
Shantz, Rodney W. Werline, Frances Flannery, eds. Society of Biblical

226
 Literature, 2008.

Peirce, James. 1717. A vindication o f the dissenters: in answer to Dr. William

Nichol's Defence o f the doctrine and discipline o f the Church o f
England. In three parts. London: Printed for John Clark.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1964. Things to come: a study in Biblical eschatology.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

------. 1965. Things which become sound doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications.

------. 1995. Thy kingdom come: tracing God's kingdom program and
govenantpromises throughout history. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications.

Perkins, William, and Robert Hill. 1604. Lectvres Vpon The Three First
Chapters OJ The Revelation: Preached In Cambridge Anno Dom.
1595. To which is added an excellent Sermon penned at the request o f
that noble and wise Councellor, Ambrose, Earle o f Warwicke : in
which is proued that Rome is Babylon, and that Babylon is fallen.
London: Burbie.

Perry, Joseph. 1721. The glory o f Christ's visible Kingdom in this world
asserted, proved, and explained, in its two-fold branches; first
spiritual, secondly personal. . . Northampton: printed by R. Raikes and
W. Dicey, for the author.

Peth, Howard A. 2002. 7 mysteries solved: 7 issues that touch the heart o f
mankind; investigating the classic questions o f faith. Fallbrook, CA.:
Hart Books, A Ministry of Hart Research Center.

Pharr, W. Larry. 2007. The Rapture Examined, Explained and Exposed.

Longwood, FL: Xulon Press.

Phillips, John. 2002. Exploring the Future. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Plant, Stephen. 2001. Christian ecologists need not worry about the end o f the
world. London: London Times.

Powerscourt, Theodosia A., and Robert Daly. 1845. Letters and papers o f the
late Theodosia A., viscountess Powerscourt. London: Seeley, Burnside,
and Seeley.

Porter, Ebenezer. 1819. The Young preacher's manual, or, A collection o f

treatises on preaching comprising Brown's Address to students in
divinity, Fenelon's Dialogues on the eloquence o f the pulpit, Claude's
Essay on the composition o f a sermon, abridged, Gregoiy on the
composition and deliveiy o f a sermon, Reybaz on the art o f preaching:
with a list o f books. Boston: Published by Charles Ewer, and for sale at

227
 his bookstore.

Poythress, Vern S. 1987. Understanding dispensationalists. Grand Rapids,

MI: Academie Books.

Reid, William. 1880. Plymouth Brethrenism unveiled and refuted. Edinburgh:

W. Oliphant.

Reiter, Richard R. 1996. “The Case for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.” Three
Views on the Rapture. Gleason Edward Archer, ed. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.

Reynolds, Arthur. 1912. The churchman's guide: a handbook for all persons,
whether clerical or lay, who require a work o f reference on questions
o f church law or ecclesiology. New York: Longmans, Green.

Robert, Dana Lee. 2003. Occupy until I come: A.T. Pierson and the
evangelization o f the world. Library of religious biography. Grand
Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.

Rogers, J. Guinness. 1881. The church systems o f England in the nineteenth

centiuy. The sixth Congregational Union lecture. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.

Rohde, Wayne. 2002. A future, a hope, an unexpected end; the inevitable

conquest o f Christianity. Longwood: Xulon Press.

Rose, George L. 1943. Tribulation Till Translation. Glendale, CA: Rose

Publishing Company. Quoted in J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come,
A study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964,
62.

Ross, Alexander, Henrick van Haestens, and John Davies. 1655. Pansebeia,
or, A view o f all religions in the world with the severall church-
governments from the creation, to these times : also, a discovery o f all
known heresies in all ages and places, and choice observations and
reflections throughout the whole. London: Printed by T.C. for John
Saywell.

Rossing, Barbara R. 2004. The Rapture Exposed. Boulder: Westview Press.

Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain). 1892. The numismatic chronicle

and journal o f the Royal Numismatic Society. London: B. Quaritch.

Russel, Robert. 1784. Seven sermons, viz, I. O f the unpardonable sin against
the Holy Ghost; or, The sin unto death. II. The saint's duty and
exercise: in two parts, being an exhortation to, and directions for
prayer. III. The accepted time and day o f salvation. IV. The end o f time
and beginning o f eternity. V. Joshua's resolution to serve the Lord. VI.
The way to heaven made plain. VII. Thefuture state o f man: or, A

228
 treatise o f the resurrection. Glasgow: J. and M. Robertson.

Russell, Charles Taze. 2000. The Time Is at Hand. New Brunswick, Bible
Students Congregation.

Russell, George William Erskine. 1903. The household o f faith: portraits and
essays. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. 1965. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody

Press.

------. 1995. Dispensationalism.. Chicago: Moody Press.

Salmon, Marilyn J. 2006. Preaching without contempt: overcoming

unintended anti-Judaism. Fortress resources for preaching.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1970. The roots o f fundamentalism; British and

American millenarianism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Saucy, Robert L. 1993. The case for progressive dispensationalism: the

interface between dispensational & non-dispensational theology.
Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Pub. House.

Sawyer, M. James. 2006. The survivor's guide to theology. Grand Rapids, Ml:
Zondervan.

Scofield, C. 1. 1945. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.
Authorized King James version, with a new system o f connected
topical references to all the greater themes o f Scripture, with
annotations, revised marginal renderings, summaries, definitions,
chronology, and index, to which are added helps at hard places,
explanations o f seeming discrepancies, and a new system o f
paragraphs. New York: Oxford University Press.

------. 1961. Rightly dividing the word o f truth (II Timothy 2:15): being ten
outline studies o f the more important divisions o f Scripture. Findlay,
OH: Dunham Pub. Co.

------. 1967. The new Scofield reference Bible; Holy Bible, authorized King
James version, with introductions, annotations, subject chain
references, and such word changes in the text as will help the reader.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Sharpe, Samuel. 1868. The chronology o f the Bible. London: J. Russell Smith.

Sherlock, William. 1704. A practical discourse concerning a future judgment.

London: Printed by M. R. for W. Rogers.

229
Simeon, Charles. 1801. Claude's essay on the composition o f a sermon ; with
alterations and improvements. Cambridge: Printed by M. Watson.

Sizer, Stephen. 2004. Christian Zionism: road map to Armageddon. Leicester:

Inter-Varsity.

Sleidanus, Johannes. 1705.1. Sleidani De quatuor summis imperiis lihri ires.

AmstelEedami: Apud Joannem Wolters.

Smith, George, Leslie Stephen, Robert Blake, Christine S. Nicholls, and Edgar
T. Williams. 1888. The dictionary o f national biography: from the
earliest times to 1900 14 Damon - D'Eyncourt. London u.a: Smith &
Elder u.a.

Smith, George, Leslie Stephen, Robert Blake, Christine S. Nicholls, and Edgar
T. Williams. 1895. The dictionary o f national biography: from the
earliest times to 1900 43 Owens - Passelewe. London u.a: Smith &
Elder u.a.

Smith, James. 1872. Plain thoughts on the sealed book. London: Houlston &
Sons.

Smyth, Newman. 2008. The Reality o f Faith. Charleston, SC: Bibliobazaar.

Spector, Stephen. 2009. Evangelicals and Israel: the story o f American

Christian Zionism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stephens, J. Steve. 2008. The rapture event. Longwood, FL: Xulon Press.

Sturtevant, S. T. 1834. The preacher's manual, or, lectures on preaching:

containing all the rules and examples necessary fo r every species o f
pulpit address. London: Richard Baynes.

Standish, Colin D., and Russell R. Standish. 1989. Deceptions o f the new
theology. Hartland, VA: Hartland Publications.

------. 1996. The evangelical dilemma. Rapidan, Va: Hartland Publications.

Stollorz, Herbert R. 2007. Asteroid Answers to Ancient Calendar Mysteries.

Charleston: BookSurge Publishing.

Story, Robert Herbert. 1862. Memoir o f the life o f the Rev. Robert Story...:
including passages o f Scottish religious and ecclesiastical history
during the second quarter o f the present century. Cambridge
[England]: Macmillan.

Stunt, Timothy C. F. 2000. From awakening to secession: radical evangelicals

in Switzerland and Britain, 1815-35. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Strype, John, and Edward Symon. 1738. Brief annals o f the church and state

230
 under the reign o f Queen Elizabeth: being a continuation o f the annals
o f the Church o f England and o f the religion there established... : and
to which is added a supplement o f several records suiting with the
years o f the former volumes. London: Printed for Edward Symon.

Swift, Jonathan. 1735. The works o f J.S., D.D., D.S.P.D. in four volumes ;
containing, I. The author's miscellanies in prose ; 11. His poetical
writings ; 111. The travels o f Captain Lemuel Gulliver; IV. His papers
relating to Ireland, consisting o f several treatises, among which are,
the Drapier's letters to the people o f Ireland against receiving Wood's
half-pence; also, two original Drapier's letters, never before
published. Dublin: Printed by and for George Faulkner, printer and
bookseller.

Taylor, Daniel T., and H. L. Hastings. 1882. The reign o f Christ on earth: or,
The voice o f the church in all ages, concerning the coming and
kingdom o f the Redeemer. London: S. Bagster & Sons.

Thayer, Jeffrey. 2004. ReGenesis, a Galilean manner of speech. Raleigh, NC:

Lulu Press.

The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia o f religious knowledge 12. 1912. New

York: Funk and Wagnalls.

The Western Midnight Ciy. E. Jacobs, ed., Vol. II. No. 2, Dec. 16, 1843.
Cincinnati, OH.

Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament Vol. 1. Editors Gerhard Kittel

and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964.

Thomas, Robert L. 2003. Evangelical hermeneutics: the new versus the old.
Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel.

Thomson, James. 1808. Theological discourses on important subjects

doctrinal and practical. Paisley, [UK]: Young.

Toussaint, Stanley D. 2005. Behold the King: a study o f Matthew. Grand

Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Travis, Stephen H. 2004. Christ will come again: hope for the second coming
o f Jesus. Toronto: Clements Pub.

Turner, Frank M. 2002. John Hemy Newman: the challenge to evangelical

religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tuveson, Ernest Lee. 1949. Millennium and Utopia: A Study in the

Background o f the Idea ofProgresss. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

United Presbyterian Magazine, The. New Series, vol. VIII. Edinburgh:

231
 William Oliphant and Co., 1864.

Utzinger, J. Michael. 2006. Yet saints their watch are keeping:

fundamentalists, modernists, and the development o f evangelical
ecclesiology, 1887-1937. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Van Asselt, W. J. 2001. The federal theology o f Johannes Cocceius (1603-

1669). Studies in the history of Christian thought, v. 100. Leiden: Brill.

Vaughan, James. 1874. Addresses to children delivered in Christ Church

Brighton, on Sunday afternoons in 1873. Second series. Accurately
transcribed from shorthand notes.

Venn, John. 1822. Sermons. Boston: R.P. & C. Williams.

Wagner, Donald E. 2003. Dying in the land o f promise: Palestine and

Palestinian Christianity from Pentecost to 2000. London: Melisende.

Walls, Jerry L. 2008. The Oxford handbook o f eschatology. Oxford

handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walvoord, John F. Ja 1953. A review of "crucial questions about the kingdom

of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra. 110 (437): 1-10.

------. 1959. The millennial kingdom. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Pub.
House.

------. 1976. The blessed hope and the tribulation: a Biblical and historical
study o f posttribulationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House.

------. 1979. The rapture question. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House.

------. 1999. Every prophecy o f the Bible. Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot
Victor Pub.

------. 1999. The church in prophecy: exploring God's purpose for the present
age. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

------. Ap-Je 2001. Reflections on dispensationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra. 158

(630): 131-137.

Ward, Keith. 2000. Religion and community. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Watts, Isaac. 1811. Sermons, on various subjects, divine and moral:

designedfo r the use o f Christian families, as well as for the hours o f
devout retirement; with a hymn, suited to each subject. Macpherson:
Published by F. Wright, 401.

------. 1812. The works o f the Rev. Isaac Watts in nine volumes. London:

232
 Printed by Edward Baines, I.

------. 1812. The works o f the Rev. Isaac Watts, D.D. in nine volumes.
London: Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, by
Edward Baines, 11.

------. 1812. The works o f the Rev. Isaac Watts in nine volumes. London:
Printed by Edward Baines, III.

------. 1822. A short view o f the whole scripture history: with a

continuation o f the Jewish affairs from the Old Testament, till the time
o f Christ; and an account o f the chiefprophecies that relate to Him:
represented in a way o f question and answer. London: Printed for F. C.
and J. Rivington [and 11 other publishers].

Watts, Isaac, David Jennings, and Philip Doddridge. 1754. The posthumous
works o f the late Reverend Dr. Isaac Watts, containing the second part
o f The improvement o f the mind, also A discourse on the education o f
children and youth... Publishedfrom his manuscript by D. Jennings
and P. Doddridge. London: Longman.

Watts, Isaac, David Jennings, Philip Doddridge, and George Burder. 1810.
The works o f the reverend and learned Isaac Watts, D.D. containing,
besides his sermons, and essays on miscellaneous subjects, several
additional pieces. London: J. Barfield.

Waugh, John S., and William Cuthbertson. 1833. Dissertations on the

prophecies o f sacred scripture which relate to the Antichristian
powers. Annan [UK]: Printed for the author by Wm. Cuthbertson.

Weber, Martin. 2002. Desecration, danger, deliverance: what the Bible really
says about the Rapture. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub.
Association.

Weber, Timothy P. 2004. On the road to Armageddon: how evangelicals

became Israel's best friend. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic.

Webster's third new international dictionary o f the English language,

unabridged: with Seven language dictionary. 1966. Chicago:
Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Wilks, Washington. 1854. Edward Irving: an ecclesiastical and literacy

biography. London: W. Freeman.

Williams, Edward. 1820. The Christian preacher, or Discourses on preaching.

London: Printed for W. Baynes and Son, Paternoster-Row.

Wills, Garry. 2007. Head and heart: American Christianities. New York:
Penguin Press.

233
------. 2007. Under God: religion and American politics. New York: Simon
and Schuster Paperbacks.

Wohlberg, Steve. 2005. End time delusions. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image
Publishers.

Wolff, Joseph. 1837. Researches and missionary labours among the Jews,
Mohammedans, and other sects. Philadelphia: O. Rogers.

------. 1838. Journal o f the Rev. Joseph Wolff...in a series o f letters to Sir
Thomas Baring, Bart, containing an account o f his missionary labours
from the years 1827 to 1831: and from the years 1835 to 1838.
London: J. Bums.

Wolff, Joseph, and John Bayford. 1824. Missionary journal and memoir o f the
Rev. Joseph Wolf: missionary to the Jews. New York: E. Bliss & E.
White.

Wood, Leon James. 1973. The Bible &future events; an introductory survey
o f last-day events. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House.

Zuck, Roy B. 1995. Vital prophetic issues: examining promises and problems
in eschatology. Vital issues series, v. 5. Grand Rapids, Ml: Kregel
Resources.

2. Periodicals

British and Foreign Evangelical Review, and Quarterly Record o f Christian

Literature, The. Voi. IV. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1855.

British Critic Quarterly Theological Review, The. Voi. II. London: C. & J.
Rivington, 1827.

British Magazine, The. Voi. X. London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1836.

Christian Examiner, The. Volume LXXI, ed. Edward Everett Hale. Boston: J.
Miller, 1861.

Christian Herald, The. 1831.

Christian Observer, The. For the Year 1863. London: Hatchard and Co., 1863.

Church of Ireland. 1835. The Christian examiner and Church o f Ireland

magazine. Dublin, Ire: W. Curry, Jun. and Co.

Contemporaiy Review, The. Volume XLVIII, July-December, 1885. London:

Isbister and Company, 1885.

234
Eclectic Review, The. January-June 1841. Voi. IX. London: Jackson and
Walford.

Gospel Magazine and Protestant Beacon, The. Voi. X. London: W. H.

Collingridge, 1866.

Homeopathic world: a monthly journal o f medicai, social, and sanitary

science. 1882. London: Homoeopathic Pub. Co.

LitteU’s Living Age. Fifth Series, Volume LII. Boston: Littell and Co., 1885.

Millennial Harbinger. Voi. VL, Alexander Campbell, ed. Bethany, VA:

Campbell, 1835.

Millennial Harbinger. Series III., Voi. II. Article entitled Edward Irving.
Bethany, VA: Campbell, 1845.

Millennial Tidings. No. 1. Philadelphia: Harriet Livermore, publisher, 1831.

Millennial Tidings. No. 2. Philadelphia: Harriet Livermore, publisher, 1838.

Millennial Tidings. No. 3. Philadelphia: Harriet Livermore, publisher, 1839.

London Review, The. Volume xv. Published in October, 1860 and January,
1861. London: Hamilton, Adams and Co., 1861.

Prophetic News and Israel’s Watchman, The. January 1882. London: S. W.

Partridge.

Quarterly Journal o f Prophecy, The., voi. VII. London: James Nisbet and Co.,
1855.

Quarterly Journal o f Prophecy, The., voi. XXV. London: James Nisbet and
Co., 1873.

3. Unpublished Work

Ward, John Percy. “The Eschatology of John Nelson Darby.” Ph.D.

dissertation. London University, 1976.

235