THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE IN HISTORY – NOT OF DEMONIC ORIGIN (Pt.2)

THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE IN HISTORY – NOT OF DEMONIC ORIGIN (Pt.2)

Part II:

A Challenge

I do not expect post-tribbers (at least those who argue the MacPherson theory) to immediately “grasp” my links from Mede to Cuninghame to Albury Park. However, all that I have maintained is that the FOUNDATIONAL elements of the pre-trib rapture view are clearly present in this progression. I have quoted prominent men in the mainstream of prophetic development. However, it is here where I will issue a challenge: Let any post-trib MacPhersonite take any quotes by Margaret McDonald and place them alongside the quotes I have presented thus far in this article. Then, I will simply ask one question: How is it that a post- tribber can SEE a pre-trib rapture in McDonald’s ramblings, but cannot see the FOUDATION for the teaching in the scholars I have presented? Jesus once referred to straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

From Cuninghame to Albury

William Cuninghame (1775-1849) was a premillennial historicist in Scotland. He was a layman, influenced by William Carey and other Baptist missionaries. He built a non-denominational (Congregational) chapel near his home and became its minister. Cuninghame, as a historicist, built upon Mede’s idea of “escape” by adding one more stage to the Second Coming. Cuninghame is called by some the most prolific prophetic interpreter of the early 1800′s! As already noted, Cuninghame participated in the prophetic conferences in Albury Park, Surrey, England in 1826-28. Scholars of every rank and church attended these conferences. In “The Roots of Fundamentalism,” (p.9), Sandeen states:

“After almost two decades of inquiry and exploration by solitary scholars such as Frere and Cuninghame…the leadership and doctrines of the [premillennial] movement had been drawn together and consolidated at Albury.”

Irving attended these conferences. Yet he was only one of many scholars present. This association of scholars was for the purpose of studying the prophecies in detail. There were no manifestations of “tongues” in the world of that day until March 1830 (i.e. Mary Campbell). And this occurred in Scotland (where Margaret McDonald lived). “Tongues” would not break forth in England until April of 1831 (i.e. Mrs. Cardale). These “manifestations” would not actually be found in Irving’s own church until September of 1831. This is after the Albury conferences (1826-28). And most of the wisest scholars that participated at Albury rejected the “manifestations” that later broke out in Irving’s church. Hugh McNeile was the Moderator at the Albury conferences. When the tongues were manifested in Irving’s church, McNeile called them “jargon” (i.e. gibberish). Therefore, the Albury conferences are free from any association with what later became known as “Irvingism”. The Irvingite periodical, “The Morning Watch” did not begin until March, 1829. Again, this was after the Albury conferences. Irving’s views on the rapture were already influenced by the body of scholars which met at Albury, before the controversial articles were presented in the “Morning Watch” (e.g. advocating a return of the Apostolic powers, a two-stage coming of Christ, etc.), and also before any “utterance” or “revelation” was supposedly given on the rapture. What were the early doctrines that Sandeen states were “consolidated” at the Albury conferences? One was the future restoration of literal Israel. William Cuninghame (who was present at Albury), years earlier, had written “Letters and Essays…Connected with the Conversion and National Restoration of Israel,” 1822). Another doctrine was the pre-trib rapture. Fromm writes:

“Out of the Albury Park Conferences…came three volumes of “Dialogues on Prophecy”, in which opinions were expressed that implied a ‘rapture’ before the tribulation…” (“Prophetic Faith,” V. IV, p.421)

Again, it should be noted that the actual Albury conferences themselves were a few years before the “manifestations” in Scotland or in Irving’s church. Where then did this idea of a pre-trib escape and two-stage coming arise? It was ALREADY taught in seed form, even before the scholars ever assembled at Albury Park. Cuninghame’s phraseology (and specific application of certain texts) such as “the 144,000 sealed ones” appears to later show up abundantly in Irvingite material (though with additional “charismatic” embellishments). (See p.54 of MacPherson’s book).

This view of a “double coming” (before and after a period of calamity) was widespread during this time. If Darby’s memory is correct in his later years, he began to develop his own brand of the pre-trib rapture in the confines of his early historicism (like Cuninghame). [Darby argued the year-day theory in a paper called, "On Days Signifying Years..." published in the "Christian Herald," Dec. 1830.] Yet, other historicists were already teaching a two-part coming (and thus a pre-trib rapture) before this date. F.F. Bruce writes:

“Where did he [Darby] get it? The reviewer’s answer would be that it was in the air in the 1820s and 1830s among eager students of unfulfilled prophecy.” (Review of “The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin in The Evangelical Quarterly,” (Vol. XLVII, No. 1; Jan-Mar, 1975), p. 58.)

Sandeen writes:

“Darby used the third Powerscourt conference in September 1833 to continue his attack upon the apostasy of the churches…Darby introduced into discussion at Powerscourt the ideas of a secret rapture of the church and of a parenthesis in the prophetic fulfillment between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel…Darby held an open mind on both these subjects as late as 1843.” (p.38, “Roots…”)

Darby referred to his views on a “secret” rapture in 1845:

“As to any secret coming…I have no conviction about it and the proofs to me are certainly very feeble and vague”. (“Fry Letters”, 1845, folio I; see also “Letters of J.N.D. I. 71 [old ed.], 1843)

Yet, many men clearly AFFIRMED in print (without wavering) the idea of TWO comings long before the above dates. Cuninghame, Tilson Marsh, etc., were already gathering with scholars (Irving included) as early as 1826 to discuss these views. The next decade would abound with pre-trib literature.

After Albury Park

The pre-trib rapture teaching would gain great momentum in the 1830′s. In 1832, Charles D. Maitland (1785-1865), Captain of the Royal Artillery, wrote:

“The foolish virgins are not nominal, but real Christians – yet Christians in a careless, unprepared state…The Holy Ghost doth witness that there is coming ‘a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time.’ They that are ready to enter in unto the marriage when their Lord APPEARS shall ESCAPE these bitter times, but not all shall escape, who yet eventually shall be saved.” (“Noah’s Day,” 1832; also see “The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” 1830)

Tregelles said the “secret rapture” was first taught from an utterance in Irving’s church in 1832. But what about a pre-trib rapture with a two-stage coming? Let one compare the supposed “utterance” to the above clear words of C.D. Maitland!

In the 1840′s and 50′s, the pre-trib view exploded among historicists and futurists, as well as those that embraced a mixture of historicism and futurism. Robert Govett published his absolute futurist, pre-trib (partial rapture) commentary on the Apocalypse in 1843 – at a time when Darby appeared to still be wavering somewhat on the idea of a “secret” coming. Govett was later noted by Spurgeon to be the foremost defender of the futurist view. Govett writes in 1843 (a year before B.W. Newton’s post-trib Revelation commentary in 1844):

“In those words, ‘I am coming quickly,’ is conveyed to us an intimation of the way in which the saint will be taken out of the Great Day of the Lord, and its hour of dread temptation….For the coming spoken of is the thief-like SECRET one, in which the waiting believer is rapt to his Lord, but no hand is seen.” (“Apocalypse,” p.193)

In this same commentary, Govett maintains a clear distinction between Israel and the “Church” (see on Revelation chapter 12). Earlier, in 1841 (when Govett was only 28 years old) he wrote:

“…as…Lot was led forth out of Sodom before the fire and brimstone was rained on those evil cities, so shall the righteous be removed from the world before the wrath descends.” (“Isaiah Unfulfilled,” p. 239, 1841)

Govett and others would later contend against the post-trib view of Newton in the “Rainbow”) without any statement that their pre-trib view originally arose among Irvingites, or even Plymouth Brethren! It appears that Govett considered himself to be the first total futurist to contend for the pre-trib escape in print.

Other Early Examples

Edward Bickersteth (1786-1850) writes in 1844:

“The foolish virgins are not ready to go out into the midnight darkness and meet their returning Lord…It should be very awakening to read of so large a proportion thus counted foolish at the last, and shut out of the heavenly glory; at least at the FIRST APPEARANCE of the Lord. The eastern customs at marriages furnish illustrations of this parable. The bridegroom FIRST comes to the house of the bride…The foolish virgins are not ready, and are shut out of the privileges of the FIRST coming of the bridegroom.” (“The Promised Glory of the Church of Christ,” 1844, p.129)

Thomas Evill writes in 1847:

“It appears clear, that as the 144,000 seen upon Mount Sion describe those who are accounted worthy to escape the Great Tribulation, and to stand before the Son of man, so that vast and innumerable company…represent those who, not having spiritual discernment to perceive the signs of the times…are purified by that bodily suffering that they shall undergo during that terrific conflict…The saints, who are to be translated at the appearing of the Lord, form the exception…”

Colonel Rowlandson writes in 1857:

“We have two contrasted states of the earth at Christ’s second coming, when two distinct and progressive events are to occur, – 1st, the appearing of the Lord…at a time of general peace…and 2nd, his actual decent upon the earth at a time of extended warfare…The watching and waiting people are to be accounted worthy to escape…” (“London Monthly Review of Prophecy,” March 1857)

In the decades that followed, this pre-trib, partial rapture view spread all over Britain (Fry, Pember, R.C. Chapman, A.N. Groves, John Wilkinson, Hudson Taylor, Robert Polwhele, R.A. Purdon, J. Hooper, T. Marsh, etc. etc.). It was later picked up by J.A. Seiss (Lutheran) and G.N.H. Peters (Lutheran) in America. J.R. Graves (Baptist) would later switch from Darby’s system to Seiss’s pre-trib-partial system after being bed-ridden for an extending period with nothing to do but study and write (according to his own testimony).

The total rapture view (i.e. Darbyism), would be embraced in America by J.H. Brookes, and later, C.I. Scofield, Ironside, Larkin, DeHan, etc. It would soon become the dominate rapture view in America. Today, the total pre-trib view is the doctrine set forth in the LaHaye novels. Let’s get back to contending for our particular rapture view on the basis of the Scriptures. It is not wrong to argue that the Devil might be pleased with a particular rapture viewpoint. Yet, it is absurd and malicious to claim that ANY of the rapture views originated from a demonic source.

-By Joey Faust, From, The Kingdom Alert, 117 (6-7-01)