Section 5

J. N. Darby's Apprehension of Truth

J. N. Darby wrote:

I have been writing on Colossians with much instruction to myself, so that I am reading it once again. But all one does is so imperfect as to execution. It seems "Matthew" is enjoyed by the saints. I get on enough to be dissatisfied with what I have done before, though the truth into which one has been led by these inquiries retains its value.¹

While Darby labored in Ireland and England, his apprehension of recovered truth increased. In particular, his understanding of ecclesiastical, dispensational and prophetic truths enlarged together.

Darby did not learn the truth of the pre-tribulation rapture and/or prophetic truth from M. Lacunza, E. Irving, the Irvingites, or Margaret MacDonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland (concerning whom we shall have more to say in Section 7 and Appendix 1). His understanding of the pre-tribulation rapture follows from his understanding of the church as a heavenly company, the company distinct from Israel which is a people with whom the history of the earth is concerned regarding the development of God's ways in government. This subject will occupy us in section 8.

An objection raised is that we have no early dated statements of Darby; and his later statements concerning what he believed early in his course are not to be received because some later adversaries of his who supported B. W. Newton in the Plymouth controversy in 1845/1846 said Darby was untruthful. Concerning this charge, I anticipate that when we come to that controversy (volume 2) we will find the opposite to be true. That charge is just as false as we have found concerning W. B. Neatby's, and others, implication that Darby was untruthful (virtually lied) about the beginnings. Their construction of the early history is false. Such do give an appearance of wanting to find Darby untruthful. And, concerning Darby's memory of what he thought in 1827-1830, we shall find it is consistent with a few dated documents that we do have, as well as with the reminiscences of others.

5.1 Ecclesiastical Truth and the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

1827-1830

The Fall of the Church

Previously attention was drawn to the fact that B. W. Newton reminisced that when F W. Newman returned from Ireland in 1827,

Newman also gave me Darby's book on the Fall of the Church, written in his usual involved style and also the subject involved.²

This indicates that already in 1827 Darby understood something about the ruin of the church.³ The evidence indicates that his understanding of the church and its fall was paralleled by his understanding of prophetic truth and the "immediate coming," i.e., the daily expectation.

The First Published Pamphlet: 1828

Darby published a paper, "Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ" (1828).⁴ In it he speaks of:

1. The reformation "was much and manifestly mixed with human agency"

(p. 32).

2. "The true Church of God has no avowed communion at all" (p. 33).

3. The desire for unity (p. 34).

4. The presence of the Spirit of God (p. 40).

5. The Lord's Supper (p. 41).

6. The Church's witness (p. 43).

7. The conduct of Christians (p. 44).

8. The unity of the Church (p. 46).

9. Denominationalism (p. 47).

10. Practical unity (p. 49).

11. The use of worldly aids (p. 50).

12. An appeal (p. 52).

This paper shows that in 1828 the Scripture teaching concerning the Church was basically understood. Of course, he understood this before he published the paper. The evidence is that he had learned these things when in "solitude" in December 1826 -- January 1827.

There is a letter of Darby's concerning which the editor stated "[before 1830, according to a note made by the original copyist -- 'before he came to Plymouth.']."

I cannot enter here into the statement of how I distinguish Christianity from all that preceded it, or is out of it, of which the Jewish system is an imputably defined covenant ....⁵

The Truth of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Is Not an Isolated Truth

The truth of the pre-tribulation rapture is not a truth that stands isolated by itself. It must be seen in its relation to the truths concerning the church of God, the dispensations, the covenants, prophecy, etc. Truth is a wonderful unity and misunderstanding one facet of it has an effect upon understanding other facets. It is no surprise that the post-tribulationist J. B. Payne remarked that "dispensationalism" involves the interpretation of the whole Bible.

Sometimes Christians hold certain truths while denying other truths upon which they are based, or with which they are intimately connected. For example, it is inconsistent to hold the eternal security of the believer while denying election as God's sovereign choice. Both, of course, are taught in the Word, but they are not independent truths. They are interlocked. We stand in danger of accepting just so much of the truth as suits our convenience. The acceptance of truth involves a cost to self. " Buy the truth, and sell it not." We are often unwilling to pay the price.

I recall a Christian once telling me that a clergyman in town said that he would not accept 'Darby's doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture because he did not accept his "ecclesiology"'; and the brother said he didn't understand that. I remarked to him that the clergyman rightly grasped the interlocking nature of these things -- while some who receive both do not understand that inter-connectedness.

Of course, some opposers might not want to understand the inter-connectedness either, especially if it stands in the way of their theory concerning from where Darby obtained the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture.

The connection of the truths of the Church and of future events has been rightly assessed by F. F. Bruce (of Open Brethren) who, note, opposes the truth of the pre-tribulation rapture. He said,

Darby's eschatology and ecclesiology were interdependent elements in a carefully constructed system -- not surprisingly, since in the New Testament itself eschatology and ecclesiology are interdependent. One cannot logically retain Darby's eschatology and reject his ecclesiology, as some schools of thought in our own day attempt to do. (I have never known anyone who accepted his ecclesiology without at the same time accepting his eschatology.)⁶

Accepting "his ecclesiology" involves rejecting much that is accepted practice in Christendom. This many do not want to do. When Darby preached these truths in America in the 19th-century, many accepted much of the prophetic truths and even some measure of ecclesiastical truth, but did not leave their denominations. In his book, The Roots of Fundamentalism, E. R. Sandeen put his finger on the trouble when he said that these men needed the denominations to support their ministerial status and their influence.⁷ We well know that there often is not the requisite spiritual vigor to take the reproach of being gathered together to the Name of Christ, outside of all sect, on the basis (or ground) that there is one body. There is a cost involved in doing this.

Darby has stated exactly the consequence of denying the pre-tribulation rapture. He said:

In denying a distinct Jewish remnant, having Jewish faith, Jewish hopes, and resting on Jewish promises, [during the tribulation period], it reduces the Church to the level of these [by putting the Church in the position of this remnant] the value and power of spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, and the place of Christ's body in union with Him, is denied and lost. It is this which makes the question vital for Christians themselves. The great objective of the enemy in denying the rapture of the saints before the appearing of the Lord, and in the consequent rejection of a distinct Jewish remnant, with Jewish hopes and Jewish piety, is to design and destroy the proper faith of the Church of God, and to set the Church itself aside. Far be it from me to say, that all who have fallen into this system have any such purpose, or are even aware of the effect; but the effect is nothing the less produced, and the loss theirs, though the intention be not. They are deceived by the enemy, though far from intending to deceive with him.⁸

Testimony Concerning the Recovery of Truth in the Early Nineteenth Century

Beginning about 1827, the truth of the nature and the unity of the Church of God as one body, formed by the Holy Spirit sent down at Pentecost (Acts 2; 1Corinthians 12:13) to unite believers to the Head in heaven (1 Corinthians 6:17; 12:12), and His abiding presence in the Church, along with the collateral truth of the distinction (or rather dichotomy) between Israel (connected with God's government displayed in the earth) and the Church (as a system of grace connected with the heavenlies), began to be brought forth from the Word of God. In connection with this understanding, and flowing from it, the heavenly hope of the Christian, Christ's pre-tribulation coming to take them to Himself in the Father's house (John 14: 1-3), which is followed by Daniel's seventieth week, was recovered.

It is a mistake to suppose, as some have, that what happened was that dispensational truth was (merely) systematized;⁹ or that it was only found out that the rapture will occur before Daniel's seventieth week.

As we should expect, historically the truth of the Church and the hope of the Christian were simultaneously lost. Concerning Paul and "the great mystery," H. A. Ironside said:

It occupies much of his ministry, and is clearly the chief gem in the diadem of the truth of Christianity; yet for centuries it was almost entirely lost sight of. In fact, until brought to the fore through the writings and the preaching and teaching of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr. J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon throughout a period of 1600 years! If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the writer has in measure done, the remarks of the so-called Fathers both pre- and post-Nicene; the theological treatises of the scholastic divines; Roman Catholic writers of all shades of thought; the literature of the Reformation; sermons and expositions of the Puritans; and the general theological works of the day. He will find "the mystery" conspicuous by its absence. Of ordinances exalted to the place of mysteries, as in heathen rites, he will find much; but as to the mystery, which to the apostle was so unspeakably precious, rarely a reference.¹⁰

Thus, 1826-1834 marks a discontinuity in understanding the dispensations, the covenants, the body of Christ, the hope of the Christian, prophecy, and other related truths. W. Kelly remarked:

I am thoroughly convinced that the admirable men of the Reformation, though great beyond those who followed in the 17th and 18th centuries, were no more spiritually fit to traverse safely the field of prophecy than their descendants at the present time. It is a thing unknown among Protestants as among Romanists to meet with souls consciously dead to sin and law, standing fast in the liberty wherewith Christ makes you free. Still less do they apprehend aright the union of saints with Christ by the Spirit, and the character of the assembly of God as the body of Christ or even as the house of God. Unacquainted with these truths, as little emancipated individually from every hinderance and bond as their systems are from the Popish leaven of a consecrated caste with its efficacious rites, they habitually gravitate towards Judaism, and this [gravitation towards Judaizing] in a prophetic scheme quite as much as in doctrine and walk.

... I am sure I love the reformers with a hardy affection in the Lord, as I do those who adopt their views as a standard in our day; but I believe that it is no disparagement to either if we, profiting it may be by their footsteps, seek to go on to know the word of the Lord more fully.¹¹

Regarding the oft repeated cavil about dispensational truth being novel, W. Kelly wrote,

He is also surprised that truth so important should only of late have been learnt from scripture. How could Mr. Shackleton expect such a thing in the early fathers, if he is really acquainted with their writings? Which of them escaped the Galatian leaven? Now it is remarkable that this Epistle, which aims at clearing the churches of that country from a misuse of the law -- the bain of the patristic writings generally, is precisely that in which the apostle never speaks openly of the Lord's second coming. What was the use to those who have lost the virtue of His first coming? The Reformers were too absorbed in contending for justification, as well as against Popery, to search into prophecy or the church. And what real advance has been made since? I fear there has been in general a departure from much that was then recovered. Our appeal must therefore be to scripture only. The fathers invented the miserable system of expunging Israel and Judah from Old Testament prophecy: for them, all was "the church"; and so with most Anglicans, and almost all "Dissenters," to this day. Their lucubrations therefore about the antichrist and the great tribulation are worthless. The Protestant scheme went farther astray in denying the individuality of the antichrist, as well as his literal place in the temple at Jerusalem in the consummation of the age, and converting the days into nothing but years. But both alike Judaised the church by blotting out Israel's hopes, through misappropriating Jewish scriptures ....¹²

A. C. Gaebelein gave this judgment concerning the recovery of the truth in the last century:

The midnight cry has been heard toward the middle of the last century, when the Holy Spirit through mighty instruments, though humble, gave a revival of the blessed Hope and all that which is connected with it. And this cry is still heard, "Behold the Bridegroom! go ye forth to meet him." The enemy would silence this blessed word, but he cannot do it. But notice it is not alone the announcement of the fact of the coming of the Bridegroom, but it is more than that. The right reading is to leave out the "cometh" in the Authorized Version and read simply, "Behold the Bridegroom!" The blessed Hope of His coming does not so much put the coming before our hearts as it does Himself. And as we behold the Bridegroom and know He is soon coming, how can we help ourselves but to go forth to meet Him. That means then a return to the true Christian calling, which is separation from the world, separation from all which is false and unscriptural, which dishonors Him, His person, His work or His Word. And this has been exactly the case. The midnight cry has awakened the true believers to a return to the true position and led on to a separation from that which is evil. It is still so. There is of course a preaching and teaching of Prophecy which does not touch the conscience, which is only for the head. Men teach correctly all about the 70 weeks in Daniel, the restoration of the Jews and the millennium, and they go on in their evil ways. This is an evil thing. May the Lord keep us from it. The midnight cry is given that we may go forth to meet Him and be truly separated unto Him, who is soon coming. And if we have heard that cry by the power of the Spirit of God and are gone forth to meet the Bridegroom, we have a responsibility to take it up and sound it forth.¹³

The Rapture Precedes the Manifestation of the Antichrist

In my paper, The Truth of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Recovered, p. 49, I suggested that by the end of 1830 or the beginning of 1831, Darby had understood the pre-tribulation rapture. I now understand that it was earlier than 1830/1831 that he understood a rapture prior to Christ's appearing in glory, -- indeed, a rapture before the manifestation of the antichrist.¹⁴

Furthermore, since Manuel Lacunza's book¹⁵ was published in 1827 by Edward Irving, we can see that Darby, in solitude in December 1826/January 1827, had learned the "immediate coming" before he had opportunity to see the book (see chapter 7.3). Note well an important point here in connection with the allegations that M. Lacunza's book is the origin of the pre-tribulation rapture (which it is not right). Neither E. Irving, the translator of the book, nor the Albury prophetic conferees (sponsored by Henry Drummond, 1826-1830), learned of a pre-tribulation rapture from reading M. Lacunza. Since the pre-tribulation rapture is not found in that book, this is hardly surprising.

His First Paper on Prophecy (1829)

In his "Reflections Upon the Prophetic Inquiry and the Views Advanced in It," Dublin, 1829,¹⁶ he referred to some truth as "new views." Of course, he meant truths which had been lost. He did not refer to merely what he learned (and he was in advance of others) but to numbers of prophetic truths which students of prophecy were seeing. In his next paper (1830) he used the expressions, "new ideas" and "new truth."¹⁷

His first paper on prophecy had much in it which, of course, was developed more fully as time went on. Among other things, he spoke of:

The sanctifying effect of prophecy (p. 2);

History is not the interpreter of prophecy (p. 2);

"The hope of the individual is being with Christ; the hope of the church is His coming; doubtless the individual is deeply interested in this hope likewise" (p. 10).

And here is a statement from Darby that I want to emphasize:

Let no man, however, think that he will be excused from looking daily for the Lord's coming, because other men pursue their own errors.¹⁸

This again shows he was expecting Christ daily. Here is another important remark of his for our inquiry:

One remark I would make; and it is one which struck my own mind long before the detail of millennial views opened themselves to it. There is not an epistle in the New Testament in which the coming of the Lord Jesus is not made the prominent object of the faith and hope of believers, for which they were to wait; and, observe, which characterizes distinctly those who should part take of His salvation. Now the expectation of it is put out of view and depreciated really as much as possible. It was a deliverance here that the church expected, so much so that the Thessalonians seem to have considered those who died before it came to have failed in obtaining it.¹⁹

Note well the words, "struck my own mind long before the detail of millennial views opened themselves to it." Here again is an indication of his daily expectation of Christ -- sometime previously to 1829 when this paper was published.

Obviously, with such views he would have had to reject post-millennialism:

I would suggest, too, that the instrument by which the work is to be accomplished cannot mean the dispersion of scriptural truth. It is not the sword of the Spirit, but one proceeding out of the mouth of Christ, sitting on a triumphal horse, wherewith He should smite the nations. It is treading the vintage of God's wrath. It is a destruction which will give seven years' firing from the weapons cast away. It is an invitation of all the fowls of the air to feast upon the sacrifice which God Almighty was about to make; a taking to Him His great power and reigning; a time when, God's judgment being in the earth, the inhabitants of the world would learn righteousness: and it was by these judgments that the heathen were to be converted. We take the broadest points, because the others may be said to involve interpretation, though to us they are equally plain and perhaps more deeply interesting.²⁰

In reviewing once again what can be gleaned concerning the development of his understanding I have been struck by this: he was well in advance of others concerning many subjects (while willing to learn) and refrained from putting everything into print. This appears especially true concerning certain truths connected with what we call the rapture. It was better to bring that out after others had caught up concerning other elements of truth.

He was aware of E. Irving and Ben-Ezra (M. Lacunza) and the Morning Watch,²¹ the origin of the Irvingites. He was quite abreast of the ideas concerning prophecy, but also quite ahead of them. It may well be that the Irvingites were influenced by him.

As an illustration of how someone may be affected by the order in which he apprehends the truth, and by the interconnectedness of ecclesiastical and prophetic truth, consider this from G. V. Wigram's experience. He said,

The church cannot be in the judgment; and until I saw the truth of the remnant, I thought otherwise.²²

Did Darby Regard the Antichrist As Personal?

Darby did not take up the subject of the antichrist in his 1829 published paper. But we do have something from his notebooks from 1829. In Notes and Comments 2:192-194 there is a paper entitled "Prophetic Map." The map itself is printed on the next page. Let us consider some comments of his concerning the personal Antichrist, keeping in mind that at this time, and into the 1840's, he mistakenly thought that the first beast of Revelation 13 is the Antichrist.

The map (sketched in 1828-29, note well), is part of the notes and indicates he believed in a personal antichrist heading up the Western European power (p. 193). In a fascinating comment he speaks of those who "will be 'at the steps' of Antichrist or the mature apostate body,²³ for they will be judged as Antichrist, Gog and Magog, for coming against the Jews" (pp. 192,193). Here, he says that Antichrist is the head of the apostates. He goes on to say "... we thus readily account for the nations apparently the same in Antichrist's and Gog's army...." (p. 193); and also speaks of, "The French, i.e. Western Europe, under Antichrist...." (p. 193).

This shows that he understood there would be a future, personal Antichrist. Keep in mind that in 1829 he was also in the good of the daily expectation of Christ as he was an 1827 and 1828.

What is the implication if one understands that there is a future, personal Antichrist, and a future apostasy but believes that Christ might come any day?

Darby Held the Pre-Apostasy Coming in 1827

We can go further than saying that he understood the pre-apostasy coming of Christ in 1828/1829; in 1827 he believed that the rapture would occur at some time before the appearance of the future apostasy.

1. Both himself and F. W. Newman stated that in 1827 Darby held the immediate coming.

2. In 1827 he "... saw there would be a David reign, and did not know whether the church might not been removed before 40 years' time."²⁴

3. He wrote,

As for myself, I believe that this apostasy, in its public and formal manifestation, is future. This is what I have thought since 1827.²⁵

4. In 1827 he already understood the nature and unity of the Church and the distinction from Israel -- a truth intimately connected with the Church's hope.

5. According to B. W. Newton's reminiscence, Darby understood the fall of the church in 1827.

6. His 1828/1829 paper shows that he understood that a personal Antichrist would arise, and he was holding the immediate hope.

For calumniators of Darby, who say that he was not truthful, I say this: we have seen that those who would not accept his word that he left the Church of England in 1827 and that he began to break bread in 1827, were wrong. His statements are reliable. I suggest that his statements regarding what he learned in 1827 are also reliable; and as to holding the immediate coming in 1827, the fact was confirmed by F. W. Newman after he became an Arian and Darby had refuted him and the assemblies had rejected him.

So, we have documentation that shows that in 1828/1829 he held both an immediate coming and that there would be a personal antichrist. Also, in 1827 he held that the Lord might come 40 years before the reign of Christ; and that there would be a public and formal manifestation of the apostasy in the future.

He learned these things in the period of solitude (December 1826-Jan. 1827), independently of others. Concerning these things there is one other interesting comment of his connected with an observation he made regarding (probably) a prophetic conference held by evangelicals in New York City in 1878.²⁶

In that congress (at New York) as far as I know of it, the presence of the Holy Ghost was, says ___, wholly left out. But these are the two truths brought out in these days, throwing much light on the truth of the first coming. They have been consciously my theme these fifty years and more. They started me in my path of service; the assurance of salvation came with them, and the Christian character, as of the new creation, "like unto men that wait for their Lord." When man entered into the glory of God consequent on accomplished redemption, the Holy Ghost came down, till He comes to take us up. This connects the hope and the power of life and heavenly calling with accomplished redemption: Christ, Man at the right hand God, he is the central point. What set me free in 1827 is still the theme on which my soul dwells, with, I trust, much deeper sense of its importance -- something much nearer to me, but the same truths. And blessed truths they are; and the hope, what a hope!²⁷

His Views in 1830

The question arises concerning how elements of the historicist year-day theory fit with the daily expectation of Christ and the futurism seen in his holding that there would be a personal antichrist:

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 Jew, there we may look for a plain and direct testimony, because earthly things were the Jews' proper portion.²⁸

Note, that by "Jewish Church" he meant Israel, but was using a conventional expression.

Here we see he held to 'literal interpretation' for the period he designated as the "Gentile parenthesis in their history." This phrase refers to the time from Nebuchadnezzar to the appearing of Christ in glory (the times of the Gentiles; Luke 21:24) and he allowed for the use of symbol during this period. Perhaps he held that there was an application of the prophecies in a historicist sense without affirming the historicist system of fulfillment. At any rate, in closing his paper he said,

I rejoice, however, in the discussion, not merely in that it will throw light on Scripture by consequent research and inquiry, but that I am persuaded that this will lead more (for such I believe to be the truth) to the deep conviction that we are within the verge of the end of all, so as to be daily looking for the Lord, i.e., to be caught up to meet Him in the air in order to His judging of the nations. Amen. Amen.²⁹

At any rate, he held fast the daily expectation, whatever difficulties, regarding prophecy, there may have been in his mind. He also referred to the Antichrist.³⁰ He did not explicate how he understood Daniel's 70th week³¹ in connection with his belief in a future personal Antichrist and his daily expectation of Christ.

It is clear, then, that whatever difficulties were held in his mind, Darby saw in December 1826/Jan. 1827 that the New Testament showed that he should daily expect Christ. He learned the nature and unity of the Church and published on that in 1828. By 1828/1829 we have indications that he believed in a future personal Antichrist. He had also learned in his solitude the distinction between Israel and the Church, etc., etc. We also observed that the thought of a coming separated from the appearing (perhaps by 40 years) was before his mind in 1827.

T. Tweedy Suggested 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 As A Decisive Proof

In my paper on The Truth of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Recovered (1973), I had erroneously concluded that Darby understood the pre-tribulation rapture at the end of 1830 or beginning of 1831. The reason for doing so was that I gave too much weight to the fact that in 1830 he still seemed to hold a few elements of the year-day theory and I wished to avoid overstating the case. But now we have seen that already in 1827 he held a coming of the Lord before the Antichrist. The other reason I had proposed the end of 1830 or beginning of 1831 was the following statement made by Darby in 1850 regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2:

That is, the apostle gives two reasons why they should not believe that the day of the Lord was come: first, the rapture of the saints is not yet; and secondly, the object of the judgment is not revealed. It is this passage which, 20 years ago, made me understand the rapture of the saints before -- perhaps a considerable time before -- that day of the Lord (that is, before the judgment of the living).³²

In the light of what we have reviewed, I now see that 1830 merely marked the removal of some difficulties that had remained in his mind and that he had already previously held that the Lord might come at any time.³³ In the following citation we will see that T. Tweedy was "the one who first suggested, as a decisive proof from Scripture, 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2." The reader who is acquainted with the post/pre-tribulation controversy will recall that post-tribulationists do not tire of calling for "one text" that says that the church will not be in the tribulation -- in spite of the fact that they have never produced one text that says that the church will be in the great tribulation. Apparently Darby's difficulty included the lack of a decisive text though he well understood the pre-tribulation rapture in connection with the Christian's heavenly position and with the nature and unity of the Church. So before 1830, his understanding of the nature of the Church and of the immediate coming led him to the truth of a pre-Antichrist coming. However, prior to T. Tweedy's directing attention to 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 during 1830, Darby had not realized the bearing of that text on the issue. What he learned in 1827 through Isaiah 32 he says, "was brought to my mind from the word." That was not through man's agency. In the last quotation above there is an implication that he did not see the bearing of 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 without someone else. And, indeed, that was the case. The citation indicates that it was during 1830 that he saw the force of 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2; i.e., 20 years before he wrote the 1850 letter quoted above. Even if it occurred during 1831, actually, nothing is materially affected. Let us hear what William Kelly had to say about this:

Now it so happens that, during a visit to Plymouth in the summer of 1845, Mr. B. W. Newton told me that, many years before, Mr. Darby wrote to him a letter in which he said that a suggestion was made to him by Mr. T. Tweedy³⁴ (a spiritual man and most devoted ex-clergyman among the Irish brethren), which to his mind quite cleared up the difficulty previously felt on this very question.³⁵ No one was farther from lending an ear to the impious and profane voices of the quasi-inspired Irvingites than Mr. T., unless indeed it were Darby himself who had closely investigated their pretensions and judged their particular heterodoxy on Christ's humanity as anti-christian and blasphemous. As to this anyone may satisfy himself by the Collected Writings, 15, the first two articles of Doctrine 4, with strictures in six other volumes, to which may be added, in a new addition, a longer paper that has been discovered since....

But I willingly bear my testimony to Mr. N. that he never to me thought of attributing the source of the so-called doctrine, the rapture of the saints, to that seducing spirit. It was new, however, to hear that Mr. Tweedy, who died full of blessed labors in Demarara, was the one who first suggested, as a decisive proof from scripture, 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2. I so implicitly believed in his telling me the truth as conveyed in Mr. D's letter to himself, that it did not occur to me to question Mr. D. about it. I knew the latter to be generous in acknowledging readily any debt of the kind he owned to other brethren, having experienced it in my own case and in that of Mr. Bellett, if not of more still. Indeed it was very touching to observe that one, to whose richly suggestive help so many were indebted, was himself so frank to own any fresh thought of value in another, and to manifest his simple-hearted pleasure, and not only in hailing the accession but in adding to the evidence of its truth, as he so well could and did, while pointing out its importance.

Further, when Mr. N. [B. W. Newton] named to me the disclosure of Mr. D.'s old letter, things had reached a very high temperature, and on no question more than the one before us. Mr. N. had issued the first edition of his "Thoughts on the Apocalypse" in parts, completed in 1844; and Mr. D. was at the time bringing out in parts his "Examination" of it, as able a volume as he ever wrote, not only in my judgment thoroughly subversive of the "Thoughts," but establishing on a sound basis the grand truths which were sought to be undermined. Now B. W. N. was no neutral, but abhorred it in divine things as much as Darby or anyone. Christ's relation to God has not yet come into controversy, nor the righteousness of God; but he was quite right in feeling the immense moment of God's revealed mind as to the Lord's coming, the heavenly calling, the church of God, etc. These truths he opposed through his prophetic system, which was sadly narrow and crude, however assured he might be of its certainty. His antagonism to Mr. D. and his teaching as incompatible had already come out clearly and decidedly, though the open breach did not occur till some months after.³⁶

Attention should be paid to the fact that numbers of translations obscure the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:1. W. Kelly dealt with this text in numbers of articles in The Bible Treasury. We conclude with Darby's translation of it:

Now we beg you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind....³⁷

Section 5.2 Consolidation and Advance

During the years from 1831 through 1840 Darby wrote numerous papers in which he brought out great leading and fundamental principles. He was careful concerning what was said and how much was said since most were far behind him. He allowed time for the thoughts, which were new to people at this time, to work in their souls.

In this chapter we shall call attention, in the text or in the endnotes, to all his publications from 1831-1840 (except for several written in 1839/1840 in Switzerland, which are noted in Section 6). This will assist those readers who wish to read these papers in locating them.

Darby's 1831-1833 Papers

In 1831 Darby published "The Doctrine of the Church of England at the Time of the Reformation...," in which he demonstrated the Calvinistic beginnings of the Church of England. It also shows that he himself held clear views on election, predestination, the perseverance of the saints (or, as we might call it, eternal security) and that he denied the alleged free moral agency (moral free-will) of man.

In 1832 Darby wrote a paper, "Review of 'Lectures on the Second Advent,' and ' The Apocalypse Unfulfilled.'" The reviewed books were written by William Burgh.

In this paper Darby spoke of "the great parenthetic anomaly of the Gentile dispensation" meaning, I think, that the time of the Church has a parenthetic character. Some years previously, he had spoken of the "Gentile dispensation," meaning the Church period (as distinct from the "Gentile parenthesis in their [Israel's] history").

Here he speaks of the Church as a parenthesis. In effect, this means a parenthesis within a parenthesis:

1. The Gentile parenthesis of judgment began in Israel's history in 605/604 B.C. and will end at the Appearing of Christ in glory.

2. The Gentile dispensation began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture.

What I have observed is that Darby was not pressing on people a pre-tribulation/pre-Antichrist coming, though he constantly referred to the daily expectation -- since it is clear that that was the expectation of the saints in the New Testament times. His not pressing it is illustrated in this paper:

"... that Mr. Burgh's views divert the attention of Christians from the present anti-Christian principles, as now deceiving the nations, to some supposed or future actings of a personal Antichrist, with whom they may have nothing to do...."

It is clear that Darby firmly believed that Christians would have nothing to do with the Antichrist, except as the principles actuating him were already at work in the world and in the Church. He also wrote,

For, after the withdrawing of the saints, and giving up of all others to the worshiping of the beast, and therefore to irremediable torment consequent upon the critical test of the everlasting gospel being put to them, we have, upon the judging of Antichrist, the nations converted by another and subsequent preaching of the gospel, as associated with the new dispensation. (p. 5).

His point in this paper is that the spirit of evil will be manifested by Antichrist ("he will use in that day amongst the Jews," p. 9), is at work now, and this is that with which we have to do (see p. 12). This paper shows that he believed the saints would be withdrawn before the worship of the beast begins. Interestingly, it also shows that he expected another preaching of the gospel, associated with the millennial dispensation, would be preached -- i.e., the gospel of the kingdom. The fundamentals of dispensational truth were firmly in place.

In 1832 Darby wrote a very lengthy paper but it was not published until 1872: "Some Observances on the Scripture Lessons of the Board Of Education." The same is true of "A Letter on a Serious Question Connected with the 'Irish Education Measures of 1832.'" The reader who is interested in these papers would also like to examine his "Speech Delivered at a Meeting Hall for the Purpose of Promoting Scriptural Education" (1834). In connection with the subject of education, years later he wrote on the subject in Dialogues on Essays and Reviews: "Christianity and the Education of the World."

In 1833 he published " Thoughts on the Present Position of the Home Mission" wherein liberty in service as immediately responsible to the Lord, rather than the arrogation of it into the hands of the clergy, was discussed. In connection with the Home Mission, laymen of the Church of Ireland had been preaching the gospel in Ireland. He wrote:

Another most important principal developed by the Home Mission is this, that men have their place and agency in the system and the country by virtue, not of their official situations, but of the gifts which God has given them....

There is another point at present of importance. The clergy have taken up the Missions at present. They have taken them up to the exclusion of laymen: their conduct has been marked in this respect. The Missions had been carried on, were established, through the labors of laymen, while the clergy in great measure refused to act because it was irregular. I believe those most conversant in them will admit that they could not, in point of fact, have been carried on without.... During the working of the laymen, it was merely an unofficial preaching of the Gospel, as God gave men ability where there was necessity and God gave opportunity; and clergyman been engaged in it too, it merely became a common work of necessity and love. Now that the clergy have excluded them, it becomes a deliberate rejection by them, the clergy, in their official character, of the control of the Diocesan over his own diocese; its management in the spiritual energies of Christianity is assumed by other hands. The clergy themselves are setting aside the episcopal constitution, as at present subsisting, and acting not only in independence but in defiance of it....

Concerning how the Home Mission began, he said elsewhere:

It was I who suggested the work of evangelization which was called the home mission.

Of course, he was not seeking to help the bishops by these remarks. He is showing the character of clerisy in its suppressing of those whom God would send; and also in this case flaunting authority concerning its principle and the example such men were setting before the public in doing so.

The clergy, by virtue of their office, exclude laymen from any portion of the work which they are carrying on, while their work at the same time sets aside episcopal control. What can we think of this? It is not the first time that the clergy have sought to confine, to their own narrow channels, the working of the Spirit of God, and so grieved and hindered the work. And since they have thus raised the question, What is a clergyman?....

It may be that following this he wrote a paper which, however, was held back at the time and was published many years later, namely, "The Notion of a Clergyman Dispensationally the Sin Against the Holy Ghost." While I understand what he means by the title, I think it would have been well to have had a different title. At any rate, the paper shows how clericalism sets aside the operations of the Spirit. In 1837 he wrote a paper, "The Operations of the Spirit of God."

In 1834 he published, "Parochial Arrangement Destructive of Order in the Church." This is noted here, instead of in the next section, in order to briefly trace its connection with a number of his previous papers that have a ecclesiastical bearing. This paper contains a key sentence which, I believe, ties together these papers:

Now it appears to me that the present circumstances of the church have destroyed order, as well as liberty....

His Ecclesiastical Papers Summarized

Above, we noted Darby's remark about the church in its present circumstances had "destroyed order, as well as liberty." This remark shows the thrust of his previous ecclesiastical papers:

1. Darby's response to Archbishop Magee was the germing of truth that afterwards developed (1826). It exposed the worldliness of the Church of England in its appeal to the secular power. Really, the world was in the church; or, more accurately, the Church of England is no church at all, as he often said. Implicit in this is the destruction of God's order.

2. B. W. Newton reminisced that F. W. Newman had given him a book written by Darby (a book of which we know nothing else) on the Fall of the Church (1827). Implicit in this fall is the destruction of God's order and liberty in the assembly.

3. "Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ" (1828) showed the liberty of communion of believers in the Lord's supper -- separate from the worldly church order. This is God's order.

4. "Thoughts on the Present Position of the Home Mission" (1833) addressed the subject of the liberty of the believer's service, as immediately responsible to the Lord -- and how the clergy sets this aside, even while it may flaunt its own system.

5. "Parochial Arrangement Destructive of Church Order" (1834) deals, as just noted above, with God's order and liberty.

6. "The Notion of Clergyman..." (1834/1835?) also shows how clerisy sets aside God's order and liberty.

Interestingly, in an 1832 letter written to brethren at the Plymouth meeting, he wrote (emphasis mine):

My heart is with you, dear brethren, while you walk in order, and therefore was your letter such a comfort.

While he did not believe in what was called "dissent" (those not conforming to the established order of the Church of England, and who meet on some other non-scriptural basis), his articles had mainly dealt with that Church -- which he elsewhere said repeatedly, is not a church, but the world. In Section 7, concerning his visit in Switzerland, we shall see that he took up the case of the Swiss non-conformists; since they, too, set aside God's order and liberty in another way.

Darby's 1834-1840 Papers

In 1834 Darby wrote,

The two [epistles] to the Thessalonians, are the building of the church in the great doctrine of the Lord's second coming, as an immediate and protracted expectation and hope, and the result of this special apprehension of it in the very helpful state of the church.

The immediate hope is the rapture and the protracted hope is the appearing.

In a short article, "On the Extended Scope of Prophecy" (1834) he confused the Antichrist with the first beast of Revelation 13, as in "Scope of Prophecy" (1835).

In "The Dispensation of the Kingdom of Heaven," (1834), he wrote,

I would remark on this expression, that we are taught to hold the continuing value of the Jewish prophetic expectation, of all that a scribe in the law Moses would have drawn from the Old Testament, and that distinct from the expectation introduced by the gospel.

This distinguishes the coming of the Messiah, when He appears in glory, from our expectation as Christians (though, of course, when He is manifested, we shall be manifested in glory with Him).

This paper also explains the distinction between the Kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God -- a most helpful thing to understand. He also pointed out that the Jew must take prophecy literally. He speaks of the Jewish character of Matthew and as showing the introduction of "the new order of things" (i.e., it is dispensational in character). And, in another paper, "The Melchizedek Priesthood of Christ" (1834), he gave an exposition of the present and future character of Christ's priesthood. He showed also that the name "Most High" speaks of millennial times. He spoke, too, of the seed of Abraham and other matters.

In short, by 1834 the foundations of dispensational truth are all evidenced in his papers. He hardly came to understand all this just in 1834.

The Christian Witness was a periodical begun in January 1834, in which the above articles were printed. The letter of Darby's dated July 24, 1834, indicated some dissatisfaction with the magazine's character.

As to work, I do trust the Lord is surely working there: as to the " Witness," I think we ought to have something more of direct testimony as to the Lord's coming, and its bearing also on the state of the church: ordinarily, it would not be well to have it so clear, as it frightens people. We must pursue it steadily; it works like leaven, and its fruit is by no means seen yet; I do not mean leaven as ill, but the thoughts are new, and people's minds work on them, and all the old habits are against their feelings -- all the gain of situation, and every worldly motive; we must not be surprised at its effect being slow on the mass, the ordinary instruments of acting upon others having been trained in most opposite habits. There is a great effort making in this country to keep the reformation within the church, and not let it go farther than they like; for they are very anxious, as always, to keep God within their own bounds; it will not do in the end, nor, if we are faithful, on the way.

I judge from this that he desired more testimony regarding what we call the pre-tribulation rapture -- in line with the earlier quotation where he spoke of the immediate and the protracted hope (the rapture and the appearing). We must keep in mind that the then editor, J. L. Harris, did not share this view, nor did many others -- at least yet.

In 1835, in "The Covenants" he showed that the new covenant is for Israel, not the church. In this same year he also published "A Letter Addressed to ___, Parsonstown, in Reply to a Tract entitled, Three Considerations Proving Unscriptural the Supposition of the Personal Reign of Christ on Earth During the Millennium." Here, he showed that Christ is not reigning now, but will do so in the future. He also discussed the offices of Christ from a dispensational viewpoint. Additionally, he dealt with the subject of ministry and clerisy. Besides this, his "Brief Analysis of the Book of Daniel" was published. It contained the confusion between the first beast (Revelation 13:1-11) and the Antichrist.

On the directly ecclesiastical side he wrote "The Character Office in the Present Dispensation."

In 1836, in "The Feasts: Lev. 23" we find the feasts of Jehovah understood dispensationally. Also, in 1836 there appeared, "The Apostasy of Successive Dispensations." Therein he rightly said, "The paradisiacal state cannot properly perhaps be called a dispensation in this sense of the word...." He called attention to the fact that dispensations begin with Noah. I would remark upon this point that "innocence" was not committed to man as an administration; nor, for that matter, was "conscience" committed to man as an administration. But, government was committed to Noah, with whom dispensations, properly speaking, begin. The scheme to make seven of them has artificial elements; but not only that, it makes a dispensation out of the Church. Section 8 will explain Darby's doctrine of ages and dispensations. He also showed that "there is no instance of the restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there might be partial revivals of it through faith." Several other papers appeared also.

In 1837 he wrote an article, "Matthew 24, 25," and said, referring to Matthew 24:

During this period, there will not only be false prophets, but false Christs, present promised deliverers from the great tribulation, "Jacob's trouble"; but the elect were told before hand, they were to pray, being Jews, their flight might not be on the Sabbath. This was Jewish tribulation, from which the obedience remnant were exempt....

Of Matthew 25, he said:

The sense of the bridegroom's immediate approach they had lost, they became insensible to this while the bridegroom tarried. Christ the bridegroom tarried in his return to earth. The Church at-large gracious [i.e. having oil] or merely professing [i.e. having lamps but no oil in their vessels], all lost the present sense of this as their calling.

Referring to Matthew 25: 31-46, he wrote:

We come to the Gentiles; hitherto it has been instruction to a remnant on the earth, the Jews previous to His coming. Then how He would deal with the church upon His coming, they being caught up to meet Him, and going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews. Here we have what is consequent on His coming.

On the ecclesiastical side there appeared his "Operations of the Spirit of God." Another study was "Heads of Psalms."

It seems to me that the survey thus far has shown that the truth was essentially at home in his mind and the statement by H. Rowdon that "Darby himself was by no means clear on all points, as he confessed..." could only refer to minor details.

Near the end of 1837 Darby went to Switzerland and in Section 6 we shall touch on that and some papers he wrote while engaged with non-conformists there. For continuity of thought regarding Darby's apprehension of prophetic matters and the pre-tribulation rapture, let us continue our survey through 1840.

In 1838 and he published in " Divine Mercy in the Church and Towards Israel." This is an extremely important paper concerning the great principles of dispensational truth. The principles of "the government of God" and of "calling" are here shown in their importance in understanding God's dispensational ways. The subject of God's ways in the earth in government is central to a right understanding of dispensational truth, mystically we shall see in Section 8. The importance of this was already noted by Darby in 1829.

In 1839 addresses were given and were subsequently printed under the title Collectanea .... This and records an address by Darby, "Revelation 1-20." He distinguished the coming for and the coming with His saints (p. 29). Of course, to allege that this was the first time he made such a distinction would be absurd. Moreover, the distinction is implicit in holding a pre-Antichrist coming, which he held in 1829 at the very latest. On page 31 we read,

There is a clear difference between the Church of God caught up, and those suffering on earth during the time of Antichrist, and caught up too. In Matthew 24, and I do not see anything about the Church; it is entirely Jewish testimony. The gospel of the kingdom, that shall be preached to all nations for a witness, I see to be Jewish too.

Christ cannot be manifested without His body, and therefore the saints are caught up. After they are caught up, Satan, having lost heaven forever, rages on earth for three and half years.

There were addresses by G. V. Wigram and J. G. Bellett at these meetings which also were recorded. G. V. Wigram remarked, "The Church cannot be in the judgment; and until I saw the truth of remnant, I thought otherwise." J. G. Bellett stated: "I believe the Church to be taken up at some undefined moment between chapters 3 and 4 [of Revelation]."

In Darby's "Notes on the Revelation" (1839), there is a chart that shows the Church in heaven starting with Revelation 4.

The reader may also want to refer to an 1839 paper "The Purpose of God." And another paper he wrote is "The Resurrection, the Fundamental Truth of the Gospel."

In 1840 two papers appeared in English: "Psalm 68" and " On the Apostasy." "Hopes of the Church God" were lectures delivered in Switzerland. Dispensational truth and the place of the rapture are clearly enunciated. The reader will not discover any doubts or wavering in Darby. In the next chapter we will return to the 1829-1836 era to glean what we can about the Powerscourt meetings.

When Was Darby's Mind Settled?

I suggest, based on all the evidence we have reviewed up to this point, that Darby's mind was settled on the subject of the pre-tribulation rapture in the 1820s. Some writers are interested in delaying this, and in propagating the notion that he was still not settled in in the early 1840s. I will review a few samples of the way they see to establish their (false) thesis and perhaps that will only strengthen evidence for the truth of the matter.

In Darby's " Notes on the Revelation" (1839), there is a chart shows the Church in heaven starting with Revelation 4. In this book he wrote, concerning his own thoughts, that:

He believes that the book [Revelation] in the body of it, views the Church either mystically, according to Ephesians 2, or really, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, in heavenly places; and that the want of observing this has much obscured the study of it.

Astonishingly, D. MacPherson, a calumniator of Darby wrote:

And as late as 1839 he said waveringly that the Church will be with the Lord either mystically or really during the Tribulation.

Because this person wants to find a late date for Darby's understanding, he claims that Darby was wavering in 1839. At best, this calumniator is ignorant of divine truth. Darby's point is that Ephesians 2 shows the saints (mystically) seated in the heavenlies -- now, of course. 1 Thessalonians 4 speaks of bringing them there bodily, or really, as he put it. In the body of Revelation (chapter 4 ff), the Church is in heaven both mystically and really. At that time the Church saints will still be seated in the heavenlies mystically, and also as a result of the rapture will really, i.e., bodily, be in heaven. The truth of Ephesians 2 will not change because the saints will be bodily (really) with Christ during the Tribulation. At that time both will be true, namely that the saints are seen there either mystically or really.

Writing about the 1833 Powerscourt conference, E. R. Sandeen remarked,

Darby used the third Powerscourt conference in September 1833 to continue his attack upon the apostasy of the churches and to stress the need for all true believers to gather in the name of the Lord alone. In a sense this was the first assembly of the new sect, but it was also the first occasion of disagreement between Darby and Newton. Darby introduced into the discussion at Powerscourt the ideas of the secret rapture of the Church and of a parenthesis in prophetic fulfillment between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel. These two concepts constituted the basic tenants of the system of theology since referred to as dispensationalism.... Neither Darby nor Newton seems to have been estranged at this time. Darby held an open mind on both of these subjects as late as 1843.

There are numerous errors in this citation, but perhaps that is not a surprise in view of his statement that the Collected Writings of J. N. Darby are "almost uniformly unintelligible." While Darby's writings are, confessedly, not always the clearest, I wonder what the many readers of Darby, who have profited by his written ministry, think of such a statement. At any rate, I forebear comment on his misapprehension about the basic tenants, and other points, and merely point out this:

1. What Darby held an open mind about was whether or not the pre-tribulation rapture would be secret (discussed more fully in chapter 5.4).

2. His assertion that Darby introduced the secret rapture at this conference is another statement that adds confusion to the subject.

H. H. Rowdon also claimed that Darby's mind was not settled on these points until 1843. As evidence, he pointed to Letters of J. N. Darby 1:71 (Morrish ed.), p. 58, new ed., where Darby wrote,

My mind has opened out to many wider views and details. I find many more classes of saints and glory in the Apocalypse than heretofore, though all blessed. It may be some will pass through, but I am more than ever confirmed that it is not presented to our faith, but the contrary, and that the faithful will be kept from it.

What I have emphasized states explicitly the opposite of H. H. Rowdon's claim; and of E. R. Sandeen's also. Darby is here saying that Christians "will be kept from it," i.e., from the tribulation. His continued studies "more than ever confirmed" that Christians would not pass through it. There are other classes of persons that will pass through it.

A statement used to support the 'late certainty agenda,' as we may call it, is founded in an undated letter of Darby preserved in the Fry MS, p. 322.

As to any secret coming I have no conviction about it and the proofs to me are certainly very feeble and vague. I attach however no importance to them.

It is the height of absurdity to conclude from this that when things had become somewhat heated up with B. W. Newton in the 1840s that Darby had doubts about the 'pre-Revelation 4' rapture itself. The only thing this referred to was whether or not the pre-tribulation rapture would be secret. Yet writers hostile to Darby use this to support a 'late certainty agenda' regarding the pre-tribulation rapture itself. Is it not absurd to bring all his writings of the 1830s into doubt except his views on apostasy? Well, B. W. Newton replied to Darby, and this reply adds evidence concerning the absurdity of the 'late certainty agenda.'

So highly do I esteem you and your judgment, that I can assure you the first impulse of my mind on receiving such expressions of your disapprobation has ever been to bow to them and retire. This I have again felt on the present occasion: but there are two things which hinder me, first, that your strong expressions of condemnation (which have occurred from time to time during the last ten years frequently) have always been connected with a particular subject -- on that subject I believe you have departed from the truth. The first occasion on which I expressed a judgment different from yourself was in my own room at Oxford in the little reading meeting, & I well remember the character of our interview the next morning -- from that time to the present it has only been when I have been silent on the subject in question that I have escaped the severe expression of your condemnation.

For the last 10 years I have been for the most part entirely silent, until within a few months -- & for your sake & the sake of the Church I would still have continued to be so, if I did not consider the error that has crept into the prophetic and Dispensational teaching of very many to be most fatal....

In the same letter B. W. Newton wrote:

The great hinderance to any approximation of judgment appears to me to be this: that we have severally adopted as an axioms two principles which are entirely counterparts one of another. I believe that it is essential to the existence of Prophecy about the Church that there should be intervening events foretold. You on the contrary say there can be no intervening events for the Church's expectation and refuse to receive any thought from Scripture inconsistent with this main principal. Because you would find nothing consisted therewith in Scripture.

Observe the accusation made by B. W. Newton in this letter: "You...refuse to receive any thought from Scripture inconsistent with this main principal." This last quotation shows what the issue was from which the disagreement arose; the previous quotation shows how early it arose. B. W. Newton gave up his rooms at Oxford shortly after the breaking the bread began in Plymouth in 1832. Therefore it was before that when he first raised an objection. Perhaps it occurred when Darby visited Oxford in May 1830 (see pp. 57, 58 above). But already in December 1826 -- Jan. 1827 Darby saw that there would be no intervening events.

E. R. Sandeen and H. H. Rowdon had access to the Fry MS, and cited from Darby's letter therein which just proceeded this one by B. W. Newton. For myself, I have no confidence in the (miss)representations of Darby and his teaching by his adversaries. It is apparent that those hostile to Darby cannot objectively present history relative to him.

5.3 The Powerscourt Conferences

Introduction

We must now go back again to 1829 for the beginning of the Powerscourt meetings to see what else can be gleaned concerning Darby's activities during the 1830s.

The Irvingites were followers of E. Irving, who, in 1827 published the book by Manuel De Lacunza (Ben Ezra), The Coming of Messiah.... E. Irving had previously translated it from Spanish to English. In 1826 a conference of one week for the study of Prophecy was convened at the residence of Henry Drummond and these continued yearly through 1830. They were called Albury Conferences. It is thought that Lady Powerscourt received the idea of holding conferences on Prophecy in Dublin from the Albury Conferences. (It was from the fact that three large meetings were held at Powerscourt Castle that they derived the name Powerscourt Conferences).

Lady Powerscourt

R. Daly, rector of Powerscourt, who edited her letters, wrote:

She, of all Christians I have been privileged to know, came nearest to that which she has, in such strong, uncommon terms, stated to be her idea of a Christian: "Not one who looks up from earth to heaven, but one who looks down from heaven on earth." She appears to have ascended a high and wholly eminence, and from thence to have looked down upon those earthly scenes, with which too many are entirely engrossed; living up to that high and spiritual requirement of the apostle, "Set your affections on things above, and not on things on the earth, for ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God."

Interestingly, very little appeared in her letters concerning the subject of prophecy though she was so much interested in it. A letter dated September 2, 1832 indicates that she leaned to partial rapturism. A letter dated July 16, 1833, shows that at that point in time she had not yet understood that the rapture would occur before the great tribulation.

She was the daughter of a Colonel Howard and was the second wife of Lord Powerscourt, who died a few months after the marriage in 1823. Darby had thoughts of marrying her. G. H. Lang wrote:

It was understood that Darby had thoughts of marrying her. His family, though not titled, moved in the same social circle, his father being John Darby of Markley, Sussex, and Leap Castle, King's County, Ireland. I am informed that this Castle was destroyed in the 1922 disturbances. My father, who knew Darby well, told me that he did not carry through his desire because his brethren advised him that it was more needful that he should travel among the assemblies.

At some point Lady Powerscourt threw in her lot with those meeting in Aungier Street, Dublin.

The Conferences

B. W. Newton reminisced:

I went to the first [1829] and heard the address that alone would upset all prophetic truth. Darby went on with the meetings annually but I did not attend the second [1830]. Instead I had simultaneously the same subject at Plymouth [1834] which made Darby very angry as it was setting up and opposition meeting... Darby brought in his notes about The Old Testament Church, about the fourth meeting in the series [1832].

The dates that I have inserted seem likely from the fact that he says G. V. Wigram was in Ireland and was influenced by the Powerscourt circle before Henry Bulteel's famous sermon of February 6, 1831 denouncing the Church of England. That put G. V. Wigram in Ireland in 1830 and he probably attended the second conference, which B. W. Newton did not attend. The "opposition meeting" was, however, definitely held in 1834. He somewhat disordered these events.

The first of three more public meetings began in 1831 which seems to be the one noted by the editor of Darby's Letters, p. 5, note, which says that "The first Powerscourt meeting was held on 4th to 7th 1831." The Christian Herald, December 1831, II, p. 287, reported on this meeting, but not on those of 1829 or 1830.

The second Powerscourt meeting (of the more public ones) was held from September 24 to 28, 1832. As in 1831, "the Rev. Robert Daly, Rector of Powerscourt, presided.

Mrs. Madden wrote that R. Daly, who presided at the 1832 meeting, was quite upset by the subject of the Irvingite gifts and that "The Plymouth Brethren also gave expressions to their peculiar views on religious subjects." Darby's report is given in Letters and 1:5,6. In part, he said:

There was, of course, variety of view in so large an assemblage, but scarce anything which did not positively add to the information of all -- subject, of course, to the correction which interchange of views ever brings, where there is unity in the general scope. 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 of "the gifts" and the principles connected with it. Little, however, was said upon it; and while the principles were calmly inquired into by a few, it did not, I think, affect the meeting, otherwise than to direct the earnest desires and prayers of many, for the more abundant presence of that Holy Ghost, by which alone, error can be brought to light, and the believer guided into all truth. On the whole, this part of the meeting was, perhaps, the most practically profitable, from the elucidation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit casually drawn out by it; and the presiding presence of the Holy Spirit most marked, by a careful observer; and several defective and erroneous views prevalent and (to the writer's knowledge) in England, met by what appeared to be scriptural light.

The belief in the coming of a personal Antichrist was common, and that amongst many who, at a former meeting, had not received it at all; in this there was a very distinct and avowed change of opinion on the part of some. The discussion of the subject of Antichrist led to an extensive development of scripture, and to much very profitable detection of the spirit by which he might work in the nations; though no definite conclusion was come to upon this; while the recognition of his actings amongst the Jews, in Jerusalem, was more definitely recognized by those more conversant with the subject.

It is likely that the introduction of the subject of the Irvingites gifts gave an opportunity to Darby and those like-minded to give " expression to their peculiar views on religious subjects," as said by Mrs. Madden. Very likely hearing Darby on the subject of "the presiding presence of the Holy Spirit" would upset the Anglican rector, R. Daly, very much.

A brief sketch of what was taken up each day was given by Darby. On Sept. 24, 1832 there was an examination of quotations from the O.T. in the N.T. The next four days were occupied thus:

Tuesday. -- The Prophetical character of each book in the Bible; including the three great feasts of the Jews, the blessings pronounced on Jacob's sons, the Parables in the Gospel, and the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Revelation.

Wednesday. -- Should we expect a personal Antichrist? If so, to whom will he be revealed? Are there to be one or two great evil powers in the world at that time? Is there any uniform sense for the word Saint in the Prophetic, or New Testament scripture? By what covenant did the Jews, and shall the Jews, hold the land?

Thursday. -- An inquiry into, a connection between Daniel and the Apocalypse.

Friday. -- What light does scripture throw in present events, and their moral character? What is next to be looked for and expected? These there a prospect of a revival of Apostolic churches before the coming of Christ? What the duties arising out of present events [sic]? To what time, and to what class of persons do 1 Timothy iv; 2 Timothy iii; Jude; Matthew xxiv 23, 24; and 2 Peter iii refer?

The last question on Wednesday may have resulted in the publication of "The Covenants" in The Christian Witness, 1835, pp. 328-341.

The subjects for Friday implied that the order of ends in connection with Christ's coming was discussed. Writing from Limerick, Darby said:

In the meanwhile, the meeting at Powerscourt, as it has wrought conscious desires, and inquiry and prayer too, in the minds of many of the evangelical people in this place, there has been a considerable plunge made into the minds of this country by it, and this has partly exercised me, as interested in this country.

It appears that B. W. Newton attended the 1833 Powerscourt meetings. He recollected:

At one of the Powerscourt meetings there were seven of us on one of the days who had the Lord's Supper privately in the garden, Darby, Bellett, Hall, Muller, Craik and myself. She pointed to the castle where all the rest were, and said she had called us out because we word differently minded from the rest, whom yet we nevertheless acknowledged as true Christians -- and indeed they were. They were some four hundred of the elite of the Evangelicals of the three Kingdom's -- But they didn't understand us, and we were of hopes, thoughts and feelings diverse from them; and therefore Lady P. proposed that we should have the Lord's Supper together and had ordered it to be laid in that summer-house yonder. And we partook there.

When was that? It was 1833 I think.

He appears to speak of the same meeting again, mentioning the 400 Evangelicals. He reminisced: "I took a strong view about there being intermediate events before Christ's coming." Surely this implies that an 'any-moment' position had been put forth by some or someone.

G. Muller and H. Craik, the two most prominent leaders at Bethesda in the Bethesda trouble in 1848/1849 also attended the 1833 Powerscourt Conference, though not at this time identified with the Plymouth meeting. The discussions, H. Craik said, were on these subjects:

"Monday, 23rd. September, 1833. -- Arrived at Powerscourt, from Glanmore about 1, and met together for the breaking of bread. Felt united to Lady Powerscourt, who seems a dear, humble saint. In the evening, we considered the difference between the Everlasting Covenant and the Covenant of the Lord.

"Tuesday, 24th. September, 1833. -- It 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 future dispensation?

"Friday, 27th. September, 1833 -- The Temptations of Satan.

"Saturday, 28th. September, 1833 -- Heard Brother Muller expounded in the morning, after which we had the Lord's Supper at Lady Powerscourt's. Took leave, and came to Dublin, where the Lord, through Brother B., provided a lodging for us at his sister's in Bagot Street.

It appears that John Synge of Glanmore Castle presided, not Robert Daly.

As noted, there has been disagreeing testimony as to when the conferences began. There probably was one in 1829 and one in 1830 of a more private character. The 1831-1833 conferences probably were of a much more public character. This would explain the editor's note in Darby's Letters 1:5, that "the first Powerscourt meeting was held on October 4th to 7th, 1831." B. W. Newton held a competitive meeting in Plymouth in 1834. And Darby wrote:

I have what I believe to be a correct statement of the meetings Mr. Newton attended. He did not attend 1834, 1835, but he was at 1836; that is, I believe, the last Irish meeting. He did not attend London or Liverpool, that is, the two last English.

It would seem, then, that after 1833 the meetings again were not as public. This may have been due, among other things, to a change in location. F. R. Coad stated that:

Lady Powerscourt was not able to use Powerscourt castle after 1833 (apparently because her stepson, the heir to the title, had come of age), but she held later conferences in Dublin until her death in December 1836, and these seem to have been largely controlled by the brethren.

J. B. Stony, born in 1814, saved in 1831, left some comments on the Powerscourt conferences:

I was at the meeting Synge Lady Powerscourt's in September, 183_. Mr. John Synge was in the chair. He called on each to speak on a given subject. Mr. Darby spoke last, and for hours, touching on all that had been previously said. Mr. Wigram set next to him. Capt. Hall, Mr. George Curzon, Sir Alex. Campbell, Mr. Bellett, Mr. Thomas Mansell, Mr. Mahon, Mr. Edward Synge were there. There were clergyman present and Irvingites.

The prayer meetings in the mornings at seven o'clock were particularly striking to me, everyone praying that the word would give them light, and grace to act on it.

In summary, we observe that the Powerscourt meetings were an instrument whereby the teachings recovered to Darby were disseminated.

5.4 The "Secret" Rapture

The word "rapture" was in use, to designate the catching up of the saints, long before 1832. For example, Joseph Mede (1586-1638) wrote,

Therefore, it is not needful that the Resurrection of those which slept in Christ, and the Rapture of those which shall be left alive together with them in the air....

In 1967, attention was called to the Fry MS, where B. W. Newton reminisced that very early in Plymouth Capt. Hall preached the "secret rapture" and G. V. Wigram denounced it. In 1973, when I published The Truth of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Recovered, I did not have access to the Fry MS, but based on what was quoted from it, concluded that a rapture at the time of Christ's appearing in glory was meant -- a rapture that was to be secret. That is, I thought it referred to a secret post-tribulation rapture. I have been able to examine the Fry MS in preparation for this present book -- and, while learning a slight bit more about this matter, I continue to think that a secret post-tribulation was meant because of reasons given below. However, even if Capt. Hall had spoken of a secret pre-tribulation rapture, that really alters nothing concerning what we have been tracing regarding Darby.

We must not merely read back from today what one may mean by a secret rapture and say that was what was meant in 1832 by these words. Additionally, we must remember that these reminiscences were taken down many years after B. W. Newton had passed through the Plymouth controversy with Darby; and these reminiscences contain numbers of extremely hostile remarks upon the character of Darby, some of which are absolutely ridiculous. These considerations raise serious questions about his negative assertions regarding Darby and also his recollection of the character of the doctrine of the rapture in 1832.

In Section 4 we saw that meetings began at Providence Chapel at Plymouth in early 1832. Thus this preaching occurred sometime during February 1832. It is clear that Darby understood the pre-tribulation rapture long before this, though he personally may never have thought it to be secret.

B. W. Newton reminisced that:

On the very second Sunday that the Chapel was used, a divergence arose. In the morning the Secret Rapture was preached by Capt. Hall, and in the evening it was denounced by Wigram, and afterwards some discussion was raised and I myself was called in to help settle it. I agreed with Wigram.

He also said Capt. Hall was a "vigorous advocate about the Immediate or Any-Moment Return of our Lord." B. W. Newton's attitude is shown in this remark: "That doctrine of a Secret Coming is as an Angel of Light; yet it destroys the Bible from beginning to end." Not content with that, he said the interest in prophecy in London really resulted from Lewis Way's influence awakening such as Drummond, Marsh, McNeale etc., and "Soon Irving joined, and ruined it all by suggesting the Secret Coming." Too bad he did not tell us when E. Irving suggested that, or explicate what it was. And what was the character of the alleged 'Secret Coming' E. Irving introduced? The implication is that Irving joined the others -- that would be 1827 or before -- and introduced a secret rapture. If he means by this a pre-Antichrist coming as Darby understood that, the history of E. Irving and his followers does not support this allegation (see Appendix 1). If Capt. Hall held what Irving did, then he did not hold a pre-tribulation rapture, secret or not. Observe that B. W. Newton also said:

He [Captain Hall] rushed at once into the prophetic system that Irving set forth.

We can see from this the danger of putting much trust in what he says about this teaching and it does raise a question in my mind concerning the accuracy of his representation of what Capt. Hall said in early 1832 regarding a 'Secret Coming.' What are we to understand by the following startling remark of B. W. Newton?

I put, in a magazine which a Clergyman was editing, an article in which I spoke of a personal Antichrist; and he was angry and controverted it. Hall was "glad that the Clergyman had smashed it" although he too believed to some extent in a personal Antichrist, yet he followed Elliott very much.

It would be interesting to know if the reference is to E. B. Elliott (1793-1875), a premillenarian of the historical school and was, of course, a strong advocate of the year/day theory, and opposed to futurism.

Well these are the facts of the case, to which I may add that he remarked that Darby would not decide. But decide about just what? Let us see.

It is possible that Capt. Hall preached something about a secret coming in connection with Christ's premillenial appearing, to which, sixty years later in his reminiscences, B. W. Newton connected the idea of an immediate coming. At least that is how it appears to me. However, say that in 1832 Capt. Hall preached an immediate coming; well, Darby held that in 1827. At any rate, if there is some substance to what B. W. Newton has said concerning Captain Hall, it would mean that he held a historicist view something like what we have in Appendix 1. He did not hold the pre-tribulation rapture, secret or not secret.

Another point that bears on this issue is B. W. Newton's statement that "the 'Secret Rapture' was bad enough, but this was worse." Listen to what he said:

At last Darby wrote from Cork saying he had discovered a method of reconciling the whole dispute, and would tell us when he came. When he did, it turned out to be the "Jewish interpretation." The Gospel of Matthew was not teaching Church-Truth but Kingdom-Truth -- and so on. He explained to me and I said, "Darby, if you admit that distinction you virtually give up Christianity." Well, they kept on at that until they worked out the results as we know it. The "Secret Rapture" was bad enough but this was worse.

He added that this occurred in 1832 or 1833. He reminisced further:

I lost sight of Darby; he was in Ireland. But when he came back I asked him about the Immediate Coming, and he would not decide either way. I argued with him that it couldn't possibly be sinful to hope for the Lord's return in the way that evidently Paul hoped for it -- namely with intervening events. He wouldn't decide. Two years passed, and he wrote from Ireland saying that he had a scheme of interpretation now which would explain everything and bring all into harmony. And he would tell what it was when he came. When we met I inquired, and it was this elimination of all that could be considered Jewish. I warmly remonstrated.

He seemed to want to portray Darby as vacillating in a number of places in these reminiscences. Interestingly, he said that Darby wrote from Cork saying he had a method of reconciling "the whole dispute." If there was a dispute, why say that previous to Darby's return, Darby would not decide either way? I would make the following observations:

1. Of course there would be a dispute, as we would expect from what we have ascertained concerning Darby's views by 1830. Darby had decided for a daily expectation by, or in, 1827, during the period of solitude in December 1826/January 1827, and we saw that he held a pre-Antichrist coming before 1830.

2. If B. W. Newton "argued with him that it couldn't possibly be sinful to hope for the Lord's return...with intervening events," I wonder if Darby told him the idea was sinful?

3. The implication is that Darby did hold the immediate coming in spite of B. W. Newton's attempt to portray him as vacillating.

4. If B. W. Newton's recollection has some merit then this is evidence that Darby understood the true character of Mathew's gospel this early.

In order to make this chapter complete in itself, I repeat the quotation from an important letter of B. W. Newton written in reply to Darby. B. W. Newton's own letter contradicts the above reminiscences about Darby not being able to decide. This letter appears in the Fry MS. It is not dated but the impression created in that section of the Fry MS points to 1845. First let us hear what he says in this letter that is relevant:

So highly do I esteem you and your judgment, that I can assure you the first impulse of my mind on receiving such expressions of your disapprobation has ever been to bow to them and retire. This I have again felt on the present occasion: but there are two things which hinder me, first, that your strong expressions of condemnation (which have occurred from time to time during the last ten years frequently) have always been connected with a particular subject -- on that subject I believe you to have departed from the truth. The first occasion on which I expressed a judgment differently from yourself was in my own rooms at Oxford in a little reading meeting, & I well remember the character of our interview the next morning -- from that time to the present it has only been when I have been silent on the subject in question that I have escaped the severe expression of your condemnation.

For the last ten years I have been for the most part entirely silent, until within a few months -- & for your sake & the sake of the Church I would still have continued to be so, if I did not consider the error that has crept into the prophetic & Dispensational teaching of a very many, to be most fatal.

In the same letter B. W. Newton wrote:

The great hinderance to any approximation of judgment appears to me to be this: that we have severally adopted as axioms two principles which are entirely counterparts one of another. I believe that it is essential to the existence of Prophecy about the Church that there should be intervening events foretold. You on the contrary say there can be no intervening events for the Church's expectation and refuse to receive any thought from scripture inconsistent with this main principal. Because you would find nothing consistent therewith in Scripture.

Here we have the testimony of B. W. Newton's letter bearing on how early Darby held that there were no immediate events before the Lord's coming for the saints. This indicates that Darby already held the immediate coming before B. W. Newton's gave up his rooms in Oxford soon after the breaking of bread began at Plymouth in 1832. Perhaps this occurred when Darby was at Oxford during May of 1830 (see pp. 57, 58 above).

Also, note well that he said "from that time to the present it has only been when I have been silent on the subject in question...." This subject in question is, quite obviously, the coming of Christ without any intermediate events. And this shows that Darby was not vacillating in 1832 or 1833 as B. W. Newton reminisced. It shows that Darby had his mind firmly made up. Observe the accusation B. W. Newton made: "You...refuse to receive any thought from Scripture inconsistent with this main principle." It shows that the above reminiscences where B. W. Newton asserted that Darby could not make up his mind are humbug, or worse. The only thing that Darby would not make up his mind about was the detail of whether or not the pre-tribulation rapture would be secret. This case also serves as a warning that care must be used in utilizing B. W. Newton's reminiscences.

Evidently at this point in time (1832 or 1833) Darby thought he could help B. W. Newton by explaining Matthew to him. It is essential to posttribulationism to have Matthew 24 describe Christians in the great tribulation, and have the rapture occur after that. It is evident from the above that Darby had rejected that and had told him that the elect in Matthew 24 were Jewish saints (the Remnant). The only point that Darby would not decide about was the minor one about whether or not the pre-tribulation rapture would be secret. I am not aware if Darby ever thought that the rapture would be "secret."

And so, besides all that has been presented (including the testimony of F. W. Newton) to show how early Darby understood the immediate coming (a coming without intervening events), we add the above testimony from a letter written by B. W. Newton.