J. N. Darby's Early Years

Dr. Floyd Elmore

How much do youknow about the man who has had the greatest impact upon the study of biblicalprophecy in the last 150 years? Find out more about how God has used one of Hischoice servants to impact His church's understanding of biblical prophecy. Theauthor introduces you to human influences upon the life of J. N. Darby. Godused Darby 'S life and ministry toforinulate the system of theology known asdispensationalism and to recover and develop the pretribulational rapture ofthe church. It has been said of Mr. Darby that he has had the greatestinfluence upon Evangelicalism, and yet he is virtually unknown. This essay willhelp you become one of the few who know J. N. Darby.

JohnNelson Darby (1800-1882) is the acknowledged father of systematizeddispensationalism and a key modern developer of the pretribulational rapture.He conceptualized God's revelation in Scripture as a world and life viewcomprehending all of human history. Within the framework of this woridview,Darby emphasized the uniqueness of the church as a heavenly body, its necessarydisjuncture with history, and its prophetic relationship relative to Israel.Moreover, Darby came to his distinction between Israel and the church veryearly in his Christian ministry, and he later confessed that this opinion neverchanged throughout his career.[1] Formative ideas and forces whichinfluenced Darby's think-ing concerning Israel and the church can be foundquite early in his life.

JohnNelson Darby was born in London of Irish parents on November 18, 1800. His wasan honorable family, relatives and close friends accomplished noteworthy deedsin British history. Darby's uncle was Admiral Sir Henry Darby, who commandedthe Bellerophon in the Battle of the Nile. He was a close friend of LordNelson, who "to the great delight of the parents [J. N. Darby's],consented to be one of the sponsors at the christening of his friend's littlenephew."[2] Thus "Nelson" was given tolittle John as his second Christian name.

In1815, the family returned to Ireland to live in their ancestral castle. In thatyear J. N. Darby was admitted to Trinity College, Dublin. While there he wonpremiums (monetary awards) in science as well as classics, the two streams intowhich premiums, medals, and scholarships were divided. At the finalexamination, when a class "answers for a degree," students may chooseto compete for the highest honors, a science or a classical gold medal. Darbygraduated in 1819 as a Classical Gold Medalist.[3]

AlthoughDarby trained for a career in law for three years, and then entered the IrishChancery Bar in 1822, he abandoned the profession after only one year.Apparently he was in the grip of a deep spiritual struggle from 1818 to 1825,which led to his conver-sion.[4] Almost immediately Darby sought toserve Christ. In dis-cussing this time he wrote, "I longed for completedevotedness to the work of the Lord; my chief thought was to get around amongstthe poor Catholics of Ireland."[5]

Hewas ordained as a deacon in 1825, and as a priest (curate) of the Church ofEngland in 1826, by Archbishop Magee, serving the parish of Calary in thecounty of Wicklow.[6] His devotion to pro- claiming thegospel drove him to neglect his own health and appearance. "He spent hispatrimony in schools and charity... "[7] and thus he endearedhimself to the local people. Moreover, they evidently responded well both tothe man and to his message, such that "Roman Catholics were passing overto Protestantism many hundreds in a week."[8] Certainly this man wasnot a cold, calculat-ing, ruthlessly objective hairsplitter at that time!

After27 months of labor, the young curate faced another crisis. Goddard observed,"Several things bothered him, chief of which were: the absence of a truecatholicity in the Establishment, its unblushing Erastianism [the belief instate supremacy in ecclesiasti-cal causes], and its clericalism."[9]The ecclesiastical crisis Darby was to wrestle with forms the backdrop for the"Great Divide"-his conclusion that the unique calling and nature ofthe church sets it apart from Israel as far as heaven is from earth.

Between1826 and 1828, Darby came to a personally painful decision relative to theestablished Church of England in which he ministered. Although he did notimmediately separate from it, the theological basis for such a separation wasin place. His parting of the ways with the established church corresponded withhis new understanding of the division between Israel and the true church The"Great Divide" for Darby is thus true in two senses. The immediateoccasion for the divide was provided by the very man who had ordained him:Archbishop Magee of Dublin.

TheErastian controversy. Darby loved the church, which for him in 1826 meant theAnglican Church. The established church was a barrier against Popery, and soDarby did not at first despise it. Only after he became convinced that "it[the established church] has ceased to be such a barrier, and, for many, hasbeen the road into it [Popery], and that infidel principles have beenjudicially pro-nounced to be fully permissible in it," [10] didhe make the break.

Theoccasion for Darby's serious doubts about Anglicanism was "The MetropolitanCharge and Clerical Petition." Archbishop Magee denounced the RomanCatholic Church before Parliament, and at the same time claimed special favorsand protection for the Anglican Church[11] Along with thePetition, Archbishop Magee "imposed, within the limits of hisjurisdiction, the oaths of alle-giance and supremacy"[12] andthis caused the evangelistic work Darby maintained to cease.

Darbybelieved it was the duty of Christ's ministers to keep themselves free ofearthly entanglements to minister God's grace. He saw the delivering of soulsfrom Romanism as a way to partially setup the kingdom of God before Christreturned. To counter Rome by adopting its earthly method, of courting the gloryof this world, would be contrary to faith. True believers must identify withJesus Christ in His humiliation while they await His return.

Darby'streatise, "Considerations Addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin and theClergy who signed the Petition to the House of Commons for Protection,"[13]was written in 1827, but it was not published until years later. Three themes,which became central truths of Christianity for him, are already seen in it 1)the purity and heavenly nature of the church; 2) the presence of the HolySpirit in true believers to empower for ministry; 3) the future prospect of thechurch, i.e., the second coming of Christ. It should be noted that these themeswere formulated within the matrix of his evangelistic interests, not because ofmere academic pursuits.

Darby's accident and convalescence. An accidental fall from a horse turned out to beanother event that propelled Darby toward the "Great Divide" as itrelated to the church. His horse was frightened and threw him against adoorpost. Darby's leg was injured and required surgery in Dublin. During part of1827, he was forced into convalescence and relative seclusion. During thisextended period

Darbycast himself upon God and His Word alone for support. Out of that time ofreduced activity, his thinking concerning the basis for personal assurance ofsalvation, the authority of the Scripture, the church as the body of Christ,Christ's second coming for His church, and Israel's place in a subsequentdispensation, became clear. [14]

Sincehe was on crutches, he could not attend corporate worship or immediately makepublic his developing views. Although he could not then work out the details ofhis eschatology, he said:

In my retreat,the 32nd chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly, on God's behalf, that there wasstill an economy to come, of His ordering; a state of things in no wayestablished as yet. The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me thepresent heavenly portion of the glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forththe corresponding earthly part.[15]

Concerninghis belief in the restoration of original truths to himself, Darby stated thatthe "truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action ofHis Spirit, by reading His word." [16] The earthly/heavenlydistinction between Israel and the church had taken form in Darby's thinking.

Separationfrom the Establishment. Darby published his first tract in 1828, titled"Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ."[17]Crutchfield aptly noted, "It is important to observe here that Darby'sdisaffection for the Church of England was not precipitated by propheticteachings." [18]Darby's eschatology grows out of hisecciesiology. He did not publish his first work on prophecy, "Reflectionsupon the Prophetic Inquiry and the Views Advanced in It," until 1829.[19]

Inhis "Considerations" of 1828, Darby expounded his thesis that thereal unity of the church is not in outward form but in inward faith in JesusChrist. Darby reasoned that the Anglican Church had been delivered from thesecular dominion of the Roman Church, but that it had not been delivered fromthe spirit of apostasy that gave rise to Romanism. Instead of rendering awitness of a heavenly Lord and His coming to the earthly system, theestablished church and the dissenting ones were "using the advocacy of.. .unbelievers... to obtain a share in, or keep to themselves the secularadvantages and honors of that world out of which the Lord came to redeemus."[20] The only way Christ's church canavoid the world and be united is by a work of the Spirit, following thetestimony of the Holy Spirit in the Word, and living with a view to the Lord'sreturn.[21] The central-ity of the Lord's tableappears in association with this last theme. Darby summarized his belief:"In a word, we find His death is the centre of communion till His comingagain .... Accordingly, the out-ward symbol and instrument of unity is thepartaking of the Lord's supper..[22] Even in this tract, the church'sheavenly character differentiates it from Israel, whose portion is earthly.

Theexact time of Darby's renunciation of the Establishment is difficult todetermine. Neat by suggested that Darby was not com-fortable in breakingentirely with the Church of England as late as November, 1829.[23] Soonthereafter the Brethren at Dublin "broke bread" together and thusbroke fellowship with the Establishment. Darby could not stay in a system whichwould, in his mind, exclude the apostle Paul from preaching because "hehad no letters of orders."[24] The system was wrong and had to go.

Aspiritual church, joined to a heavenly Christ, indwelt and empowered by theHoly Spirit, and awaiting their Lord's return: This is the heart of Darby'sdoctrine, resulting from his passing through the ecclesiastical crisis.

Theearly Darby. As the details of Darby's new ecclesiological decisions began totake shape in his mind, their impact on his eschatology started to show. Theecclesiological-eschatological synthesis that so characterizes laterdispensationalism became clearer as his thinking progressed. Thus Darby beforethe Powerscourt confer-ences (1831-33) deserves special attention.

Ina letter dated 1863, Darby summarized truths clarified in his mind in thecourse of his conversion experience. Among them are juxtaposed: "thechurch as His body; Christ coming to receive us to Himself; and collaterallywith that, the setting up of a new earthly dispensation, from Isaiah 32."[25]From his earliest statements, Darby recognized the earthly/heavenly distinctionbetween Israel and the church as the key to his ecclesiological-eschatologicalsynthesis.[26]

Fromhis first tract on prophetic themes, "Reflecfions upon 'The PropheticInquiry' and the Views Advanced in It,"[27] dated 1829, Darby isopenly premillennial. What is rarely mentioned is that the early Darby espouseda premillennial historicism before the famous Powerscourt prophetic conferencesof 1831-33. Years later, he added a footnote to his paper "On 'Days'Signifying 'Years' in Prophetic Language," written in 1830, disclaimingthe historicism taught in it, but honestly leaving the paper unedited becauseit "may serve to shew historically the progress made in the apprehensionof truth."[28] Apparently, Darby saw no immediateconnection between futurism, the pretribulational rapture of the church, andhis new synthesis which so differentiated Israel and the church.

Inhis "Reflections upon 'The Prophetic Inquiry" (1829), Darby took totask both the extremists among the premillennial historicists[29] andthe postmillennial historicists. Edward Irving received special criticism atthis early date. It is difficult to see how Darby would have been influenced byhim after making such statements about his work as, "The observations fromthe Apocalypse are a total misapprehension of its force."[30] ForDarby, the extremists refused to submit their own novel ideas to the control ofScripture.[31] He believed that most of the problemsfor these extremists stemmed from "a confusion of the Jewish and Gentiledispensations a hinge upon which the subject and the understanding of Scriptureturns."[32]

Atthis time, Darby was looking, as his hope, for the powerful appearing of JesusChrist to judge the earth, and not for the secret rapture of the church. Inlight of this, when he did speak of the rapture, he most naturally could beunderstood as referring to a posttribulational, yet pre-wrath, rapture. Thus heconcluded "On 'Days' Signifying 'Years" with "I am persuadedthat this will lead more... to the deep conviction that we are within the vergeof the end of all, so as to be daily looking for the Lord, i.e., to be caughtup to meet Him in the air in order to His judging of the nations."[33]Being posttribulational, he saw the entire "Gentile dispensation" asa time of trial, fitting the historicist approach, with the resurrection andrapture occurring after Christ had in power put down evil.[34] Healso understood that, although Israel and the church were distinct, Jewish andGentile saints would share the kingdom bliss, glorified and natural saintstogether on earth. In his mind, the Jews could be restored to their land andthe church could reign with Christ in the kingdom age without a conflict ofconcepts.

Powerscourtdevelopments. Millenarian expectations and spec-ulations were rampant at theturn of the century when Darby was born. The French Revolution gave a powerfulpush to millennial hope, and Napoleon's treatment of Italy and the Pope fueledend-time date-setting fanaticism.[35]

Englishmillenarian traditions from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuriesare of two varieties, following social class structure. Both varieties acceptedthe Bible to be divinely inspired and the unquestionable authority. The popularmillennial move-ments among the lower classes, however, were also characterizedby the following: 1) a distrust of the paid clergy; 2) a belief that God spokedirectly to believers, women as well as men; 3) a use of the Bible as ahandbook to contemporary events; 4) a hope for cata-strophic social changessoon.[36]

Incontrast to this, Hempton described the millenarian ideologies of the upperclasses:

However, thefirst half of the nineteenth century saw the growth of a different type ofmillenarianism. This was not a popular movement led by religious psychoticsclaiming special revelations from God, but a development from within thetraditional churches which proceeded through the perfectly sensible channels oftheological pamphlets, special periodicals, and conferences in aristocratichomes. Far from being an underground movement, by the 1840s it had attractedthe attention of leading Anglican evangelical clergy men like Bickersteth,Marsh, and Wilson, and the parliamentarians, Shaftesbury, Drummond, andPlumptre.[37]

Itis in one such "development from within the traditional churches"that the prophecy conferences which were probably most influential on Darby'searly thinking took place.

TheAlbury Park prophetic conferences of 1826-28 in Surry were hosted by HenryDrummond, an ex-member of the House of Commons and a benefactor of the LondonSociety for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews.[38] Withonly a few exceptions, Drummond invited laymen and clergy from the English andScottish national churches. Concerning the proceedings, Sandeen remarked:

In theconference sessions themselves, the program was about equally divided betweenthe three chief concerns of the day-prophetic chronology, the second advent,and the restoration of the Jews. No appeal to authority or argument was allowedin these sessions except the authority of direct biblical quotation or anargument designed to reconcile scriptural references.[39]

Darbynever attended the Albury conferences, but news of the prophetic revival inLondon was brought to him in 1827 by Bellett.[40]

Threeimportant prophetic conferences were held at Powerscourt House on Irish soil inthe parish next to the one served by Darby when he had been a priest. Theseconvened on October 4-7, 1831, September 24-28, 1832, and September 23-28,l833.[41] (Others of lesser importance wereheld until 1838.) These paralleled the Albury conferences, probably by designof their hostess, Lady Theodosia Powerscourt.[42] She had attended withdelight the Albury conferences, visited with Drummond, and entertained Irving.Irving himself never attended the Powerscourt conferences. A few Irvingiteswere present at least at the second and third conferences, but their ideas werenot warmly received.[43] Bishop Robert Daly, rector of theparish, presided over the meetings until 1833. At that time the anticlericalismand despair over the state of the church was so great that he feared division[44]The Brethren dominated the third conference in 1833.

Thetopics of discussion at the Powerscourt conferences indicate a shift in somedetails of Darby's eschatology. In general, the corrupt state of the church,the 1260 days of Daniel and Revelation, and the imminent return of Christ werefavorite themes. The proceedings of the second conference, however, shedconsiderable light on Darby's shift.[45]

Darby,acting as correspondent, gave a detailed agenda of the second conference to theeditor of the Christian Herald, who apparently refused to mention it because hewas growing disgusted over controversies occasioned by millenarian disputes.[46]Specific agenda topics included the use of Old Testament quotations in the NewTestament, the prophetical character of each book of the Bible, whether apersonal Antichrist is to be expected, the connection between Daniel andRevelation, and what light Scripture gives on present events.

Lackingtranscripts of the discussions at the second Powerscourt conference, one canonly surmise in what direction the thoughts of the participants were headed.The agenda questions listed by Darby, however, do suggest clues concerningcertain points of debate. On September 24, the literalness of the fulfillmentof the Old Testament citations in the New Testament was dealt with.Twenty-three pairs of references were examined, "with their connectionsand explanations," to see if there was "accommodation,' or whetherthey were quoted according to the mind of the Spirit in the Old."[47]This statement suggests that the participants were exploring whether there is asingle-intended meaning of Scripture or whether the New Testament authors weregiving new and expanded meaning to the Old Testament references.

Daytwo of the conference got into the prophetic nature of "the three greatfeasts of the Jews, the blessings pronounced on Jacob's sons, the Parables inthe Gospel, and the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Revelation."[48]A possible connection among these topics relates to the historicist approach toprophecy: does the Bible record the present course of world and church historyahead of time?[49] Darby, having been somewhathistoricist up to 1830, never completely relented of that approach (at least asto church history), as is seen in his interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3.[50]Since Darby's subsequent futurism is well known, one can only guess that indiscussing these topics he began to shift away from his earlier historicism.

On day three, in deliberating on whether toexpect a personal Antichrist, the participants discussed finer points ofprophetic detail surrounding him:

Should weexpect a personal Antichrist? If so, to whom will he be revealed? Are there tobe one or two great evil powers in the world at that time? Is there any uniformsense for the word Saint in the Prophetic, or New Testament scripture? By whatcovenant did the Jews, and shall the Jews, hold the land?[51]

Thequestion over "any uniform sense for the word Saint" is suggestive.Prior to 1830, Darby had come to believe that the church was a heavenly body,and that a remnant from Israel would have a future on earth in a dispensationsubsequent to the church's. It would be a logical step, as he worked throughapplying this cedesiological distinction to the eschatological studies atPowerscourt, to see at least two senses for saint one applies to the church,and one applies to the remnant of Israel. In fact, Darby eventually would seemore than two senses of the word.[52]

Dayfour of the second Powerscourt conference dealt with the relationship betweenDaniel and Revelation. The wording of Darby's note, "An inquiry into, anda connection between Daniel and the Apocalypse,"[53]suggests that a connection was certainly seen. How much of a connection was thebattleground between the historicists and futurists. Besides seeing the eventsof Revelation fulfilled in European history, the historicists "judged thatmuch of Daniel was recapitulated in the book of Revelation and that the twoaccounts could and should be used to interpret each other."[54]

Thefuturists interpreted everything after Revelation 3 as yet unfulfilled. Theyalso rejected the day-for-a-year interpretation of the 1260 days of Daniel andRevelation. Sandeen reported that an announced topic at the first Powerscourtconference was "proof if '1260 days' means days or years."[55]In light of Darby's 1830 defense of the historicist position on this topic, hemost probably shifted his view due to the influence of the first twoPowerscourt conferences. What appeared to be a more consistent reconciling ofprophetic Scriptures could have led him to futurism. Since Darby critiqued andspurned works on futurism before 1830, to seek a direct influence on histhinking from the writings of Lacunza, Mait-land, and Irving before Powerscourtseems inconclusive and un-fruitful.[56]

Thelast day of the second Powerscourt conference was devoted to the relationshipof Scripture to the present evil situation in the world and church. Darby'snote suggests the failure of the church. "What is next to be looked forand expected?"[57] is followed by questions andScriptures considered, which point out the degeneration of the age sinceapostolic times. No revival was anticipated. From consideration of thesepoints, Darby's statement years later, "There is no event between me andheaven,"[58] could easily have been a logicalconclusion at this early date.

Darbyintroduced the doctrine of the secret rapture of the church, and clearlyarticulated the prophetic gap between the sixtyninth and seventieth weeks ofDaniel 9, at the third Powerscourt conference in 1833. Sandeen called these twoconcepts "basic tenets of the system of theology since referred to asdispensationalism."[59] His statement appears misleading,however, since the two concepts are really outgrowths of Darby's more basictenet that distinguished the earthly and heavenly peoples of God. The rapturegathers the heavenly people to glory before God resumes dealings in an officialway (the seventieth week) with His earthly people, the remnant of Israel.

Moreover,Sandeen seems to have mistakenly interpreted Darby's comments about how he cameto believe in the secret rapture of the church.[60] Mostprobably by 1827, Darby came to believe in the fact of a rapture; but it wasnot until 1833 that he worked out the timing of the rapture. This explanationfits with Darby's own testimony about his conversion and enlightenment in 1827,concerning certain great ecclesiological and eschatological truths. "I wasnot able to put these things in their respective places or arrange them inorder, as I can now [1855]; but the truths themselves were then revealed ofGod. "[61] The eschatological conclusions fromthe second conference certainly pointed in that direction, even if Darby hadnot voiced his opinions concerning them at that time. By 1843, B. W. Newtonactively opposed Darby on the same two poiflts.[62] Darbyapparently was not contentious over the pretribulational rapture in his earlyyears but became more convinced of that position from consistently applying hishermeneutical key, which distinguished the heavenly and earthly peoples of God.[63]

CertainlyDarby's thinking was influenced by those students of Scripture with whom hecompanied in his early years. The immediate occasion for fresh theologicalthinking for Darby was the ecclesiastical crisis he went through overErastianism and church corruption. This was followed by a study of eschatologyat Powerscourt, which helped crystallize his position on the earthly andheavenly peoples of God-his new synthesis of ecclesiology and eschatology.

Itseems unwise to assert with any high degree of certitude that forces antecedentto those above had direct influence on Darby's new dispensationalunderstanding. The synthesis represents the framing of a set of ideas in aunique manner. Nevertheless, the individual ideas comprising the set hadhistorical precedents. Darby is an innovator of a system, but not a creator ofthe parts making up the system. That world of ideas which most likely couldhave formed the pool of possibilities in Darby's mind (his theologicalpreunderstanding) will now be explored.

Acknowledgmentsgiven too infrequently. A premium placed on personal Bible study, a consciouseffort to break with the assumptions of the past, and a failure to acknowledgesources from which help was derived, make searching for the extra-biblicalsources of Darby's ideas difficult. Darby is clear as to the priority of theWord and the Spirit to attain to truth. He is equally clear in his disdain forthe fathers of the church and past scholarship. He asserted, "None aremore untrustworthy on every fundamental subject than the mass of primitiveFathers."[64] He confessed that he had profitedfrom others on certain specific points, but that he rejected the system theyhad erected around those specifics. He rarely, if ever, acknowledged whichspecifics and what sources.[65]

Similaritiesperceived too superficially. Out of zeal to defend the historical nature ofDarby's dispensational synthesis, and to downplay its novelty, some modemdispensationalists have sought to show dispensational schemes in selectedwriters since the apostolic period.[66] These well-meaning efforts fail onseveral accounts. Since Darby himself would not seek to demonstrate hissynthesis from the fathers and later theologians, little is gained by trying todo so. Most attempts merely demonstrate that specific ideas used by Darby inhis synthesis were around centuries earlier. But his synthesis was not, and hasnot been shown to exist, before the late 1820s. That Israel and the church aredistinguished in the writings of early church fathers does not point to asource for Darby's synthesis.[67] How they are distinguished(earthly/heavenly) is the concept to be located in the family tree of ideas.Looking for sources long distance is inconclusive at best.

Culturalconcerns related too hastily. Placing Darby in the context of the world oftheological concerns debated in his youth and early ministry would appear to bea better starting point than would the church fathers. A few key concepts mayserve to explain the time period during which Darby came to hisecciesiological- eschatological synthesis. Chadwick summarized "theleading questions before the nation, in the succession by which they troubledEngland" during the Victorian period as follows:

First, whetherrepresentative government was compatible with an established church; that is,how religious inequality could be married to political equality. Second,whether Christian churches, established or dissenting, could adjust themselvesto industrial revolution, speedy growth of population, and empire overseas.Third, whether the Christian church taught the truth.[68]

Ifthese are accurate, Darby's concern over the nature and unity of the church isjust a specific example of a general cultural concern.

Threereligious forces infused the theological atmosphere of this period as well: theHigh Church tradition, the Oxford Movement, and the Dissenters. From Darby'spersonal testimony about his spiritual pilgrimage, it seems that Newman and theOxford Movement had little influence on him. He claimed to have wrestledthrough the issues of their concern before the movement got started.[69]The third religious force-the Dissenters-may have emboldened Darby for hisdecision to break with the Establishment. He respected many dissenters"for their integrity of conscience, and often deep apprehensions of themind of Christ."[70] He abhorred, however, their gloryingin their distinctiveness, which to him contributed to the disunity of thechurch.

SomeDissenters were associated with Trinity College, Dublin, in the earlynineteenth century and may have contributed to Darby's developing ecciesiology.John Walker, for example, was a fellow of the college until 1804. He taught theidea of a gathered church, held to weekly observance of the Lord's supper(which he called the breaking of bread), engaged in teaching and admonishingone another without distinction between clergy and laity, exercised discipline,sought to gather all true disciples together in separation from the world andthe false church, denied that the gospel was intended to improve the conditionof the world, and focused the believers' hope onto the second coming of JesusChrist to earth.[71]

Inspite of whatever influence they might have wielded on Darby's thinking, hedistanced himself from the dissenting bodies. Darby believed that the Brethrenprovided a "third way," avoiding the problems of both the establishedchurch and the dissenting groups. To seek for sources for Darby's ideas amongthe Dissenters is potentially rewarding but difficult to establish withcertainty.

Insurveying the general concerns of the ecclesiastical world of Darby'sdevelopmental years, little of a conclusive nature appears. The closestpossibility for an antecedent that might have contributed to his newecciesiology is found in John Walker. That he was associated with TrinityCollege, Dublin, may provide a clue for more fruitful investigation.[72]

"Tosoil and clime no plant can be indifferent, the seed may fall on good or stonyground, and with good reason, therefore, do the Universities claim a share inthe intellectual victories of their children."[73] Ifthis sentiment be true, then Darby and Trinity College cannot be divorced. Theintellectual climate of this institution most probably sustained an influenceon young Darby's approach to study in general, and very possibly on theconcepts that formed the reservoir of ideas out of which he later developed hisunique formulations. From the college records and from the history writtenabout the college, certain interesting facts emerge.

Aproud heritage. Trinity College was known to be an innovative institution,first "to read the signs of the times, and show the way to her eldersisters,"[74] Oxford and Cambridge. Roman Catholicsand Protestants alike contributed to the endowment of the college. A leader inopen admission policy, Trinity never instituted religious tests for students.It was so open that it was the first university in the United Kingdom to grantdegrees to Jews.[75]

Educationalrequirements. Open access to an educational opportunity at Trinity College didnot lead it to lower its standards. Once admitted, the undergraduate studiedphilosophy, history, mathematics, composition, and rhetoric, besides hisspecialization. Emphasis was placed on debating, a feature which had continuedsince Edmund Burke founded the Historical Club in 1745 as a debating society atthe college.[76]

In1808, Dean Richard Graves (1763-1829) moved the college to include instructionin Bible for all students as a part of their academic education. Saturdaylectures in Scripture "for the first time [were] set on a public andpermanent footing."[77] Dixon explained: "The religiousinstruction of undergraduates was in the hands of the Catechist, while allresident Bachelors were obliged to attend lectures either with the RegiusProfessor of Divinity or Arch-bishop King's lecturer."[78]Graves was the Regius Professor of Divinity from 1815 to 1829, covering the periodin which Darby was a resident student.

Prizes,as incentives to study, were first instituted in 1731, and from 1815 it was"customary to award a gold medal to the best answerer at the degreeexamination in mathematics and classics respectively."[79] Darby,as noted above, graduated Classical Gold Medalist in 1819. Interestingly,Richard Graves tutored classics and was popular among the students.[80]This man most likely had a direct influence on Darby, through lectures in boththe classics and the Scriptures. Further investigation of those professors andtutors whose ideas could have informed Darby's thinking follows.

Darby'sprofessors and tutors. Although Darby studied law, legal and theologicaltraining were not sharply divided during his days at Trinity College. Before1850, the professorship of Civil Law was often held by a clergyman.[81]It was during Darby's early years that the requirements for taking Orders inthe Church of England and Ireland were tightened. The deplorable state of theepiscopacy from the 1790s into the early nineteenth century apparentlymotivated the administrative powers at Trinity College to promote theinnovative and fervent-spirited Dean Richard Graves to Regius Professor ofDivinity in 1815, to try to turn things around.[82]

Inhis first address in his new capacity, Graves outlined reforms andrequirements. He desired to institute an annual examination of graduates whowere preparing for ministry, requiring proof of attendance of a year's courseof divinity lectures and attainment of a level of theological knowledge"suited to the importance of the sacred profession which they proposed toundertake."[83] Darby, who was ordained a priest in1826, must have met these requirements. When he had a crisis of faith in 1822and left the legal profession, "His father disinherited him, but thanks tothe support of his uncle he was able to complete his theological studies."[84]Darby must have come under the instruction of Richard Graves, even though herarely references him in his writings. Darby does indicate, however, afamiliarity with Grave's work on the Pentateuch, in which his professorpresented his clearest teachings on the future conversion and restoration ofthe Jews.[85]

Thedegree of influence a teacher wields over a student is bard to measure. Thefollowing observations about Graves' life and teaching are only meant tosuggest possible sources for Darby's concepts concerning Israel and the church.Darby rejected some elements of Graves' teaching-notably his Arminianism.[86]Nevertheless, he adopted other elements of this man's lifestyle and teaching.

RichardGraves was a favorite with the students, for he cared for their spiritual andtemporal welfare. He "put heart into his sermons... [and] gave unction toacademic preaching."[87] He exemplified missionary zealwithout political considerations for the conversion of Irish Catholics.Moreover, Graves wholeheartedly supported the London Society for PromotingChristianity Amongst the Jews. In 1811, he preached a remarkable sermon to swaypeople from contemporary anti-Jewish sentiments and to incite them to supportJewish evangelism.[88] In these respects, Darby was a modeldisciple of his teacher, whose example of devotion in evangelistic ministry hefollowed.

Ofother professors and tutors who might have influenced Darby during hisformative years of training, the records of Trinity College refer to two whoseem to have had the greatest influence: Edward Hincks, who becamesub-librarian of Trinity College in 1814, and Thomas Elrington, who served asProvost from 1811 to 1820.[89]

EdwardHincks was a brilliant man whose major interests were apologetics and ancientnear eastern languages. The German Pro-fessor Tiele of Leyden, a contemporaryof Hincks, acknowledged him as "that great pioneer in Oriental research anddiscovery."[90] He followed this with a list of ninepublished works by Hincks on Egyptian, Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonianlanguages, customs, and mythologies. Darby's translating skills, familiaritywith the latest Old Testament scholarship of his day, and his penchant forapologetics might be traced back to Hincks. It was at this time also that theGrimms brothers were propounding their linguistics laws and espousinghistorical sensitivity and anthropological awareness for anyone studyingancient texts.[91] Darby's historical sensitivity as heread and interpreted the Old Testament led him to acknowledge the progressivestages in God's self-revelation. This biblical-theological slant is crucial toan understanding of Darby's view of Scriptare. His sensitivity to thehistorical contexts of passages is marked throughout his Synopsis. Perhaps histendency to distinguish among dispensations in order to preserve the historicalintegrity of passages (especially those dealing with unfulfilled prophecies) isdependent upon the linguistic influence of Edward Hincks.

ThomasElrington had a special interest in Old Testament typology. Graves acknowledgedthe help he had received from Elrington on the typology of the Jewish feasts.Both Ehington and Graves stressed the typical character of the Old Testamentfor the gospel, yet they believed in a literal restoration of the Jews toPalestine in fulfillment of prophecy and the typology of the feast oftabernacles![92] Darby's teachings on typology arewell known. Very possibly Elrington was the one who first fired Darby'simagination in this area of biblical interpretation.

Theeschatological climate of 1827-33, previously surveyed, revealed that Darbyarrived at his new synthesis in a time of heightened millennial expectations inthe British empire. The French Revolution, and especially the Napoleonic wars,had stimulated speculation among premillenialist about the exact time of thecoming of Christ. Darby shifted from a more historicist approach, to theinterpretation of the 1260 days of Daniel and Revelation, to a futuristapproach. In doing this he avoided date-setting pitfalls but preserved adoctrine of imminency.

Theway in which Darby conceptualized the Christian's hope was only one of manydifferent varieties of millenarian expectation to which he could have beenexposed. As will be seen, both post-millennialists and premillenialist inDarby's student years expected an imminent change of dispensation. What is ofspecial interest for this study is that the ordering of future events amongpost-millenarians at Trinity College, Dublin, was amazingly similar to theorder of events among pre-millennial futurists. The millenarian ideas of theAnglican divines, and of the Puritans which influenced the intellectual historyof Trinity College, are especially noteworthy.

Inthe first quarter of the nineteenth century, Darby's alma mater became thespawning ground of much prophetic writing, for reasons which remain unclear.[93]Trinity College graduates "were among the earliest and most able defendersof futurism."[94] Although it may be impossible todiscover a direct link between Darby's concepts and those who most probablytaught him at Trinity College, some very interesting eschatological notions arefound in the works of Richard Graves, professor of divinity while Darby was astudent.

ThatGraves was not the originator of most of the eschatological specifics that hetaught is almost certain. Richard Watson (d. 1833) wrote of widely heldopinions with which he disagreed: "It is common with divines to speak ofthe Jewish and Christian churches, as though they were two distinct and totallydifferent things; but that is not a correct view of the matter."[95]In 1844 in America, Alexander reviewed a book on the conversion and restorationof Israel, commenting about those doctrines that "in the Church of Englandit has long been a favorite opinion, and among the Presbyterians of GreatBritain a strong impulse has been given to it by the mission of the ScottishDeputation to the Jews"[96]

ThePuritan influence upon Trinity College was quite marked.[97] Theyhad for a long time taught the future conversion of the Jews, as evidenced inthe annotations on Romans 11 in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible.[98]Toon observed that in the seventeenth century, Moses Wall sought to persuadethe English Parliament to readmit Jewsto England. He provided eight reasons for doing this, one of which was that"God's covenant with the descendants of Abraham is not canceled; rather itis suspended and will begin to operate again in the last days."[99]One is almost startled by a sort of "postponement theory" at such anearly date! Sandeen noted, "The most recent antecedents of the earlynineteenth-century millenarians had been the Puritans, particularly thatradical party known as the Fifth Monarchy Men." [100]Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676), a Dutch theologian, stated that he differed fromCalvin's interpretation of Romans 11:26 and favored the interpretation of themajority of the exegetes, especially "the English theologians-that thetext points toward a general and future conversion of the Jews." [101]Van Den Berg added that "the idea of a general conversion of the main bodyof the Jewish people had become comnunis opinio in the circle of Reformedtheologians in the[102] Therefore, the Anglican theologicaltradition in general, and the influences on Trinity College specifically,indicate that Graves' eschatology was probably within the mainstream in histime.

Graveswas a postmillennialist who rejected the historicism of earlier forms ofpostmillennialism. For example, Voetius believed in a millennium "in whichChrist's reign became clearly visible in the conversion of the nations to theChristian faith-possibly the period between [a.d.] 73 and 1073."[103]Graves, on the other hand, was a futuristic postmillennialist; that is, heexpected a future literal kingdom of Christ universally extended over theearth. "The kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of the Lordand of his Christ" (Rev. 11:15) and would be accomplished "by theextension of the Gospel" and fulfilled "in the fullness of [104]

Theelements of Graves' postmillennial scheme assume a literal approach to theinterpretation of Scripture. Unfulfilled prophecies must yet be fulfilled. Heused Isaiah 11:11 ("the second time to recover the remnant of hispeople") as a key support in his plea for Jewish evangelism.[105]Even the 1260 days, which for him were years, are still literally applied, forthere will be 1260 real years which will come to a close before the Jewsconvert in mass and the millennial age dawns.[106]

Asodd as it may seem to modem dispensational premillennial literalists,postmillennialists in Graves' day were known for their literalism with respectto prophecy. Alexander Keith (1791-1880), a contemporary of Graves, wrote abook in 1828 with "the Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy" as part ofits title.[107] That this book ran through sixeditions in four years (1828-32) testifies to the interest and belief in theliteral fulfillment of unfulfilled prophecies. "It is recognized,"said Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), another contemporary, "in our halls oftheology as holding a high place in sacred literature, and it is found inalmost every home and known as a household word throughout the land."[108]

Keith'swas no obscure work. He not only held out a literal future for Israel, he alsoused a literal hermeneutic on prophecy as a genre. He filled his footnotes withScripture, often emphasizing that "the prophecies... admit of a literal[Keith's emphasis] interpretation," [109] and "in verytruth the prophecy savours not in the least of hyperbole." [110]Certainly for Graves and Keith, unfulfilled prophecy was not to be explainedaway typologically, or interpreted figuratively, as if already being fulfilledin a different sense. Unfulfilled prophecy was yet to take place in space-timehistory.

Gravesused the irrevocable promises of God to Abraham in conjunction with unfulfilledprophecy to defend the future conversion and restoration of Israel toPalestine. At present, explained Graves, the Jews may be experiencingchastisements, but these "were not to terminate in a final andirremediable destruction. "[111] Graves' literal interpretation ofDeuteronomy 28,30:1-6; and Leviticus 26:44 led him to expect a worldwide,protracted dispersion of the Jews, as well as certain reestablishment inPalestine, "secured to them in the original covenant with their greatancestor."' [112] Keith also taught theunconditionality of the Abrahamic covenant: "The Scriptures also declarethat the covenant with Abraham-that God would give the land of Canaan to hisseed for an everlasting possession,-would never be broken ...."[113]

ForGraves, Israel's future national restoration would be her second and finalreturn to Palestine (Isa. 11:10-16). It had been delayed so long in order thatthe fullness of the Gentiles might come in (Rom. 11:25).[114]This fullness would be brought in, and the time of Jewish conversion andrestoration would occur after the 1260 years (he followed the day-for-a-yearinterpretation) of Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled.[115]Graves believed that the Christian could not know the dating of the 1260 yearswith precision, so that he "should pronounce his opinion with greatcaution and reserve." [116] But in 1811, he admitted that"the circumstances of the present time... [indicate] a rapidly approachingfulfillment of prophecy."[117]

Sincethe conversion of Israel (not the personal return of Christ) would mark thefuture change of dispensation to usher in a glorious period of earth history,Graves threw himself wholeheartedly behind the London Society for PromotingChristianity Amongst the Jews. Through the church, the gospel would be"re-echoed back again from us to them... repaying to her parent the meansof existence."[118] Giving an exposition of Romans 11:15,30,and 31, Graves included a gathering of Gentiles into the church after theascension of Christ and the fall of Israel. The Gentile church would then beinstrumental in Israel's rising again as a nation. Thus the conversion andrestoration of the Jews would be "a necessary preliminary to the finalgreat and universal conversion of the Gentile world." [119] Inother words, there would be two ingatherings of Gentiles. The second could beconsidered another "fullness of the Gentiles," in that glorious timeon earth when the Jews, now converted, would be "a multitude of preachers,missionaries already dispersed through every [120]culturally and linguistically suited for future gospel diffusion. This scenarioof Jewish evangelists effectively finishing the job, which the church up tothat point had been unable to do, is often recited by premillennialists. Theyusually relate the 144,000 of the Tribulation period to the picture. [121]

Inhis Sermon, Graves pointed out the "signs of the times which encourage usnow to hope for success in attempting the conversion of the Jews rather than atany preceding period of the world." [122] Then would a newdispensation (a word Graves used quite frequently) be inaugurated on planetearth. Graves anticipated the rapid approach of this time, calling it a"grand era in the Divine dispensations." [123] Theconversion of Israel was imminent, and it was in such a theological atmosphereof expectancy that Darby was schooled!

Gravescalled the evident reciprocity between Israel and the church, which will befulfilled in the "grand era," "a wonderful harmony of thevarious parts of the divine economy." [124] Graves distinguishedbetween "the Jewish scheme" (a phrase Darby would nearly wear out inyears to come!), or dispensation, and the Gentile or Christian dispensation. [125]All the dispensations are:

the schemecarried on under this Supreme Lord and King, according to the Scriptures, withan uninterrupted progress from the creation to this hour, and still evidentlyprogressive; exhibiting the Church of Christ, and the Jewish Nation whichrejects that Christ, as rendered equally subservient to this grand design ofProvidence; by which "the kingdoms of this world will finally become thekingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ:" and the triumph of grace here willprepare for the kingdom of glory hereafter. [126]

ForGraves, one should contemplate "the Jewish and Christian dispensationsunited in one system," [127] yet having distinction and progresswithin the historical outworking of that system. "The Church of Christ"and "the Jewish Nation" will be together in "the grandera."

Gravesapparently followed many Anglican divines in distinguishing the Jewish andGentile dispensations and the Jewish and Gentile (or Christian) churches.Secker,[128] writing before 1771, spoke of thechurch in its largest sense as comprehending "the whole Number of goodPersons, in every Age.. . under whatever Dispensation of true Religion. •"[129]He explained that the Scriptures usually apply the word "church" tothe Christian assemblies after the ascension of Christ. He said, "But theChurch, more especially meant here in the Creed, is the Christian: which,though in some Respects the same with the Jewish, in others differed fromit." [130] Thus distinguishing Israel and thechurch in some respects was customary, while not a few drew the conclusion that"they were two distinct and totally different things." [131]

Thetheological grist for Darby's later synthesis was certainly present at TrinityCollege in his student days. Darby was trained in an atmosphere in which it wascommonplace to refer to "the Church of Christ" and "the JewishNation" fulfilling different but related future roles. He was primed toanticipate a future dispensation in which Israel would play a distinctive partamong the nations of the world, living in prosperity in their ancient land.Believing that the Gentile dispensation interposed between the Jewishdispensation and the future millennium, in which Israel would have her earthlyportion, Darby called the Gentile dispensation "the Gentile parenthesis intheir history." [132] It is a small step from the Gentilechurch and the Gentile parenthesis to the parenthesis church. The impreciselanguage for the church (the Jewish church, the Gentile church) of his Anglicanforebears, and their distinguishing of the Jewish and Gentile dispensationspossibly underlie Darby's earthly/heavenly insight.

Darby'sTrinity College background cannot be discounted when analyzing his laterdoctrinal formulations. The atmosphere of millennial expectancy in which he wastrained certainly affected his eschatology. The postmillennialism of Gravesdealt very literally with unfulfilled prophecy and spawned an attitude ofanticipation for an imminent change of dispensation. Israel would come into herrightful portion at that time. Within such a conceptual scheme, Darby madecertain exegetical decisions. The literal return of Christ to earth, at whichtime Israel would be converted, was imminent for Darby, and not merely theconversion of the Jews. The change of dispensation would be accompanied by therapture of the living saints and the resurrection of the dead saints. Thechange of body occasioned by these events for the saints carried the idea of aheavenly people in glorified bodies and an earthly people in natural bodies asbeing together in Christ's kingdom, the new dispensation.

Howto get these two kinds of saints (heavenly and earthly) into the kingdom keptDarby open to further reflection on Daniel's seventieth week. Abandoning anearlier historicist interpretation for the 1260 days, he moved to a futurismwith respect to Daniel's seventieth week. Here he had the clue as to how bothkinds of saints could be in the kingdom at the same time. The rapture forglorification occurred prior to the 1260 days at least, allowing time for aremnant of Israel to develop and enter the kingdom in natural bodies

Thusexegetical decisions on certain specifics overlay the basic Anglicanecciesiology and eschatology of Darby's mentors. A new synthesis was born.Possible antecedents have pointed to pieces of the new synthesis he arrived atby 1833. These pieces were the raw material with which Darby worked. No one upto Darby, it appears, had espoused the exact finished product as he articulatedit. Darby's ecclesiological decisions led him to emphasize the heavenly natureof the Christian church in the Gentile dispensation over against the earthlynature of the Jewish nation in the Jewish dispensation. The eschatologicaldecisions which followed later moved him toward clearing the way forconsistently holding to two kinds of saints- two peoples of God-in the comingdispensation of the kingdom.

[1] See John Nelson Darby, Letters of J.N. Darby (London: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, n.d.; reprint, Sunbury, Pa.:Believers Bookshelf, 1971), 1:73, 205, 431, 451, and 524. An excellent recentbiography on Darby is by Max S. Weremohuk, John Nelson Darby: A Biography(Neptune, NJ.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1992), 256.

[2] W.G. Turner, John Nelson Darby(London: C. A. Hammond, 1944), 12.

[3] Stuart 0. Seanoir, personal letter,Dublin, Ireland, 26 January 1989. Mr. Seanoir is an assistant librarian in theManuscripts Department at Trinity College, Dublin. He took this informationfrom the Alumni Dublinenses.

[4] See Dathy, Letters, 2:310.

[5] Ibid., 3:297.

[6] Turner, Darby, 13-15.

[7] Ibid., 16.

[8] John Nelson Darby, The CollectedWritings of I. N. Darby (CW), ed. William Kelly, new ed. (London: G. Morrish,n.d.; reprint, Sunbury, Pa.: Believers Bookshelf, 1971),20:288. (Pagination inthe new edition is different from the original.)

[9] John Howard Goddard, "TheContribution of John Nelson Darby to Soteriology, Ecclesiology, andEschatology" (Th.D. russ., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1948), 15-16.

[10] Darby, CW, 1:36.

[11] William Blair Neatby, A History ofthe Plymouth Brethren (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901), 15.

[12] Darby, CW 1:1.

[13] Ibid., 1:1-19.

[14] See Dathy, Letters, 1:344; 3:298.

[15] Ibid., 3:298-99.

[16] Ibid., 3:299.

[17] Darby, CW, 1:20-35.

[18] Larry Vance Crutchfield, "TheDoctrine of Ages and Dispensations as Found in the Published Works of JohnNelson Darby (1800-1882)" (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1985), 10.

[19] Darby, CW, 2:1-31.

[20] Ibid., 2:32.

[21] Ibid., 2:31.

[22] Ibid., 2:27.

[23] Neatby, History, 20. Compare, however,Darby's own statement: "When I left it [the Establish-ment], I publishedthe tract on 'The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ" (CW, 1:36).This tract is dated 1828.

[24] Darby, CW, 1:37.

[25] Darby, Letters, 1:344.

[26] Ibid., 3:298-99.

[27] Darby, CW, 2:1-31.

[28] Ibid., 2:32.

[29] Ibid., 2:7-9.

[30] Ibid., 2:9.

[31] Ibid., 2:4.

[32] Ibid., 2:18.

[33] Ibid., 2:40.

[34] Ibid., 2:23.

[35] See Richard Graves, A SermonPreached in St. Andrew's Church, Dublin, on Sunday, 21st

April, 1811. lAid of the London Society for PromotingChristianity Amongst the Jews (Dublin:

J. Jones, 1811), 38, 40; John in F C. Harrison, TheSecond Coming: Popular Millenarianism (1780-1850) (New Brunswick, N.J.: RutgersUniversity Press, 1979), 78; and D. N. Hempton, "Evangelicalism andEschatology," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 31 (April 1980): 182-83. On the little horn of Daniel 7, even Darby remarked, "Napoleon may serveto give us an idea of this state of things" (CW, 5:147; cf. 11:386-87).

[36] John in F C. Harrison, The SecondComing: Popular Millenarianism (1780-1850) (New Brunswick, NJ.: RutgersUniversity Press, 1979), 6-14.

[37] Hempton, "Evangelicalism andEschatology," 182.

[38] See Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots ofFundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism

1800-1930 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1970), 18-21.

[39] Ibid., 20-21.

[40] Ibid., 32.

[41] See Nearby, History, 39; and HaroldH. Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 1825-1850 (London: Pickering andInglis, 1967), 87.

[42] See Erich Geldbach, ChristlicheVersammlung und Heilsgeschichte bei John Nelson Darby, 2d ed. (Solingen: Herm.Weck Sohn, 1972), 26-27.

[43] Darby, Letters, 1:5-7; Neatby,History, 39; and Sandeen, Roots, 38.

[44] See Turner, Darby, 34.

[45] Darby, Letters, 1:5-7.

[46] Sandeen, Roots, 36.

[47] Darby, Letters, 1:6-7.

[48] Ibid., 1:7.

[49] For a modern historicist approach,see Oral Collins, "Premillennial Historicism," Henceforth 11 (Fall1982-Winter 1983): 29; and the "two-books-in-one" booklet by EdwardC. Whise-nant, On Borrowed lime (and] 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be In1988 (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society, 1988).

[50] See John Nelson Darby, Synopsis ofthe Books of the Bible, new ed. (London: G. Momsh, n.d.; reprint, London: StowHill Bible Tract Depot, 1965), 5:371-72.

[51] Darby, Letters, 1:7.

[52] Ibid., 1:58. See also Daiby's article,"What Saints Will be in the Tribulation?" (CW, 11:110-17).

[53] Darby, Letters, 1:7.

[54] Sandeen, Roots, 36-37.

[55] Ibid., 37.

[56] For a different opinion, see Sandeen,Roots, 37-38.

[57] Darby, Letters, 1:7.

[58] Ibid., 1:330.

[59] Sandeen, Roots, 38.

[60] Ibid., 64.

[61] Darby, Letters, 3:299. See alsoLetters, 1:345, written in 1863.

[62] Rowdon, Origins, 96-97.

[63] Dathy, Letters, 1:58.

[64] Darby, CW, 14:68. See also Darby,Letters, 3:259; CW, 2:166.

[65] See Robert Gundiy, The Church and theTribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973). 186-87; andCrutchfield, "The Doctrine of Ages and Dispensations," 35.

[66] See Charles C. Ryrie, "TheOrigins of Dispensationalism," in Dispensationalism Today (Chi-cago: MoodyPress, 1965), 65-85; Ralph Franklin Potter, "The Historical Development ofthe Doctrine of the Distinction Between Israel and the Church" (Th.M.thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969); and Max Allen Wiley,"Historical Antecedents of Dispensationalism" (Th.M. thesis, DallasTheological Seminary, 1960).

[67] For an opposing opinion, see LarryVance Crutchfield, "Rudiments of Dispensationalism in the Ante-NicenePeriod-Part 1: Israel and the Church in the Ante-Nicene Fathers," BSac 144(July-September 1987): 254-76.

[68] Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church,3d ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1971),1:6.

[69] Darby, CW, 18:146,156.

[70] Ibid., 1:33.

[71] See Harold H. Rowdon, "Secessionfrom the Established Church in the Early Nineteenth Century," VoxEvangelica 3 (1964): 76-78; and Larry Edward Dixon, "The Pneumatology ofJohn Nelson Darby (1880-1882)" (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1985),24-30.

[72] Sandeen, Roots, 90.

[73] W. MacNeile Dixon, Trinity College,Dublin (London: F. E. Robinson and Co., 19(Y2), 234.

[74] Ibid., xii.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Ibid., 131.

[77] The Whole Works of Richard Graves,D.D., compiled with a Memoir by his son, Richard Hasting Graves, 2d ed., vol.1, Memoir-Essay on the Apostles and Evangelists (Dublin: William Curry, Jun.and Co., 1840), lxxvii.

[78] Dixon, Trinity College, 186.

[79] Ibid., 185.

[80] Graves, Works, 1:liv.

[81] Dixon, Trinity College, 194.

[82] Ibid., 123, 186. See also Graves,Works, 1:xcviii.

[83] Richard Graves, The FirstPraelection, Delivered as Professor of Divinity (Dublin: Graisberry andCampbell, 1815), 8. This address has appended to it the regulations for theannual examination of graduates and a list of recommended books to preparestudents.

[84] Assemblies of Brethren,"Ecumenical Review 24 (April 1972): 132-33.

[85] Darby, CW, 6:205-6.

[86] Darby was a moderate Calvinist (seeDarby, CW, 1:252-53). Graves was an avowed Arminian (see Graves, Works, I:cxlix).

[87] Graves, Works, 1 :xxxi.

[88] Richard Graves, A Sermon Preached inSt. Andrew's Church, Dublin, on Sunday, 21st April, 1811. In Aid of the LondonSociety for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews (Dublin: I. Jones, 1811).

[89] Stuart 0. Seanoir, personal letter,Dublin, Ireland, 26 January 1989; and Dixon, Trinity College, 232.

[90] Dixon, Trinity College, 259.

[91] Geldbach, Christliche Versammlung, 9.

[92] Graves, Works, 2:390-92.

[93] See Hempton, "Evangelicalism andEschatology," 185.

[94] Sandeen, Roots, 38.

[95] Richard Watson, A Biblical andTheological Dictionary (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1840), 241 (emphasisadded).

[96] J. Addison Alexander, review of TheValley of Vision: or the Dry Bones of Israel Revived An Attempted Proof (fromEzekiel 37:1-14 of the Restoration and Conversion of the Jews by George Bush,The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 16 (1844): 380.

[97] See Dixon, Trinity College, 27, 30.

[98] See James R. Payton, Jr., "TheEmergence of Postmillennialism in English Puritanism," Journal ofChristian Reconstruction 6 (Summer 1979): 87-106.

[99] Peter Toon, "The Question ofJewish Immigration," in Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel:Puritan Eschatology 1600 to 1660, ed. Peter Toon (Cambridge, England: JamesClark and Co., 1970), 119.

[100] Sandeen, Roots, 4.

[101] J. Van Den Berg, "Appendix III:The eschatological expectation of seventeenth-century Dutch Protestantism withregard to the Jewish people," in Puritans, 141 (emphasis added).

[102] Ibid., 148.

[103] Ibid., 141.

[104] Graves, Works, 2:438.

[105] Graves, Sermon, 37.

[106] Graves, Works, 2:435.

[107] Alexander Keith, Evidence of theTruth of the Christian Religion, Derived fronz the literal Fulfillment ofProphecy, 6th ed. (New York: J. J. Harper, 1832).

[108] Leslie Stephen and Sydney Lee, eds.,The Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922),s.v. "Keith, Alexander (1791-1880)," by George Clement Boase.

[109] Keith, Evidence, 83.

[110] Ibid., 109.

[111] Graves, Works, 2:407.

[112] Ibid., 2:421. Other passages Gravesused to defend the restoration of Israel are Isa. 11:10-11; 14:23; 18:8; 30:18;35:10; 43:l3-16;47:5,6,11; 54:7-11; 60:8-12; 61:1-8;Jer. 23:5-8; 46:28; andEzek. 29:15. (See Sermon, 30).

[113] Keith, Evidence, 78.

[114] Graves, Works, 2:399.

[115] Ibid., 2:435.

[116] Ibid., 2:420.

[117] Graves, Sermon, 35. Graves followedBuchanan's Christian Researches (226), which said that "Mr. Lee, a scholarof enlarged views, who published a tract called 'Israel Redux,' in the year1677, has calculated, from the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse, that inthe year 1811 the times of happiness to Israel should begin" (Works,2:433).

[118] Graves, Sermon, 49-50.

[119] Ibid., 52.

[120] Graves, Works, 2:399. See also hisSermon, 54. Kik quoted H. Witsius' Economy of the Covenants (3:3520, written in1775, in which Witsius laid out a similar scenario. (See Kik, An Eschatology ofVictory, 8).

[121] See, for example, J. DwightPentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958),214,238;and AlvaJ. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books,1959), 458.

[122] Graves, Sermon, 37.

[123] Graves, Works, 2:420.

[124] Graves, Sermon, 52.

[125] Graves, Works, 2:360-61, 436.

[126] Ibid., 2:437 (emphasis added).

[127] Ibid., 2:436.

[128] Graves put Secker on the recommendedreading list for theology students. See Graves, First Praelection, 35.

[129] Thomas Secker, Lectures on theCatechism of the Church of England, 3d ed. (London: John and Francis Rivington,1771), 110.

[130] Ibid.

[131] Watson, A Biblical and TheologicalDictionary, 241. While Watson rejected this conclusion, he declared that it was"common with divines" to speak in such terms.

[132] Darby, CW, 2:35.