Volume One - Revival of Truth
1826-1845
by R. A. Huebner
J. N. Darby was born on Nov. 18, 1800. At the age of 15 he went to Trinity college, Dublin, as a Fellow-Commoner, became a classical Gold Medalist, and obtained his degree at 19.
Although it appears that J. N. Darby had spiritual exercises since his 18th year, he had no peace, no deliverance (Romans 7). W. G. Turner cited this incident:
On one occasion, however, in conversation upon deep spiritual experiences with his friend, Mr. William Kelly, he remarked that for seven years he had once practically lived in the 88th Psalm, his only ray of light being in the opening words, "O Lord God of my salvation."
He went through severe trial of soul with his conscience under law. This means that his soul was seeking acceptance with God upon the basis of performance rather than resting fully upon the person and work of Christ for the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins, i.e., the knowledge of being in the forgiven position. He wrote:
... I fasted in Lent so as to be weakened in body at the end of it; ate no meat on weekdays -- nothing till evening on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, then a little bread or nothing; observed strictly the weekly fast, too. I went to my clergyman always if I wished to take the sacrament, that he might judge of the matter. I held apostolic succession fully, and the channels of grace to be there only. I held thus Luther and Calvin and their followers to be outside. I was not their judge, but I left them to the uncovenanted mercies of God. I searched with earnest diligence into the evidences of apostolic succession in England, and just saved the validity for myself and my conscience. The union of church and state I held to be Babylonish, that the church ought to govern itself, and that she was in bondage but was the church.
I would guard this part of what I say. I still think fasting a useful thing in its place, if spiritually used.
He remarked:
The principal of which you speak ... is monasticism, where that is sincere. I gave way to it at the beginning of my conversion. I said to myself, if I fast two days, three would be better, seven better still. Then that would not do to go on, but I pursued the system long enough. It lead to nothing, except the discovery of one's own powerlessness. I took Romans 6, and wondered at it, but I understood nothing of it. One cannot put the flesh to death, except by killing oneself. It is as dead and risen with Christ that we mortify our members (the apostle will not allow that we live in these things) which are upon the earth; and, in order to do it, we must have not only life, but deliverance by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us -- we must be set free. "If ye then be risen... mortify therefore," etc. (Colossians 3).
His exercise of soul led him away from the practice of law into the clergy.
I was a lawyer; but feeling that, if the Son of God gave himself for me I owed myself entirely to Him, and that the so-called christian world was characterized by deep ingratitude towards Him, I longed for complete devotedness to the work of the Lord; my chief thought was to get round amongst the poor Catholics of Ireland. I was induced to be ordained. I did not feel drawn to take up a regular post, but, being young in the faith and not yet knowing deliverance, I was governed by the feeling of duty towards Christ, rather than by the consciousness that he had done all and that I was redeemed and saved; consequently it was easy to follow the advice of those who were more advanced than myself in the christian world.
As soon as I was ordained, I went amongst the poor Irish mountaineers, in a wild and uncultivated district, where I remained two years and three months, working as best I could.
This brings us to the era which we shall examine.
Before December 1826 J. N. Darby had not found deliverance (Romans 7:224). He had been working among poor mountaineers in Ireland at that time and said:
... but going from cabin to cabin to speak of Christ, and with souls, these thoughts sprang up, and if I sought to quote the text to myself it seemed a shadow and not real. I ought never to have been there, but do not think that this was the cause, but simply that I was not set free according to Romans 8. I preached nothing but Christ, and had not peace, and had no business to be in any public ministry.
In February 1825 J. N. Darby was ordained deacon; and in February 1826 he was ordained priest in the Anglican church by Dr. McGee, the Archbishop of Dublin. Perhaps the following remarks apply particularly subsequently to this:
I felt, however, that the style of work was not in agreement with what I read in the Bible concerning the church and Christianity; nor did it correspond with the effect of the action of the Spirit of God. These considerations pressed upon me from a scriptural and practical point of view; while seeking assiduously to fulfill the duties of the ministry confided to me, working day and night amongst the people, who were almost as wild as the mountains they inhabited.
J. G. Bellett has told the story of the charge made by Archbishop McGee of the Church of Ireland to his clergy on October 10, 1826:
It was in the year 1827 [sic] that the late Archbishop of Dublin, in a charge delivered to the clergy of his diocese, recommended that a petition should go up to the Legislature seeking for increased protection for them in the discharge of their ministerial duties as the teachers of religion in these lands.
John Darby was then a curator in the county Wicklow, and often did I visit in his mountain parish. This charge of his Diocesan greatly moved him; he could not understand the common Christianity of such a principle, as it assumed that the ministers in doing their business as witnesses against the world for a rejected Jesus should, on meeting the resistance of the enemy, turn round and seek security from the world. This greatly offended him. He printed his objections to such a principle and in a pretty large pamphlet, and without publishing it or putting it on sale, sent copies of it to all the clergy in the diocese. All this had a very decided influence on his mind, for I remember him at one time as a very exact churchman, as I may speak, but it was evident that his mind had now received a shock, and it was never again what it had been; however, he continued in his mountain curacy, at times as a clergyman visiting distant parts of the county, either to preach sermons or to speak at some meeting of the religious societies.
A prefatory note added to Darby's paper, cited below, some 38 years later says:
It was sent privately to the Archbishop and clergy, having been written sometime before it was printed, and withheld, from anxiety as to the justness of the step; the course of the Archbishop and clergy, with which I had from circumstances nothing personally to do, having greatly tried my spirit, and I was about 26 years old at the utmost, when it was written. I may mention that just at that time the Roman Catholics were becoming Protestants at the rate of 600 to 800 a week. The Archbishop (McGee) imposed, within the limits of his jurisdiction, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and the work everywhere instantly ceased. I remember Mr. R. Daly, since a prelate of the Establishment, saying to me after receiving it, You ought to become a Dissenter. I said, No; you have got into the wrong, and you want to put me there -- but that you will not do. I attach no importance to the paper, which I have never read since, but as the first germing of the truth which is since developed in the church of God.
Regarding his reference to his age, note that he was born on November 18th, 1800 and so turned 26 on November 18th, 1826. In the next chapter we will find that in connection with an accident he experienced, he had a two-month period of solitude in December 1826-January 1827, a period during which he was taught much from the Word of God. The paper responding to Dr. Magee's charge was printed in 1827, therefore after this period of solitude. It was October 10th, 1826 that the charge was delivered and is likely that in, say, Nov. 1826 Darby wrote the reply. In the prefatory note to his reply he stated that it had "been written some time before it was printed" he having withheld at "from anxiety as to the justness of the step." It would not be surprising if what he learned in the period of solitude, which soon followed the delivery of Dr. Magee's charge, emboldened him to print it. In any case, it is probably correct that this paper reflects his understanding prior to that important period of solitude.
Here then, in his own words, is some of what Darby later called "the first germing of the truth which has since developed in the church of God" (see the end of the note cited above):
We have the following public acts -- a Charge from the Metropolitan, stating the ground on which the church stands, and then Petitions forwarded by the instrumentality of the hierarchy, seeking the exercise of civil authority for the protection of that Church as a body in this country. To these I beg attention. It is to be remarked that the charge is stated to be published at the request of the Clergy and the Petition is signed by a numerous body of them to say the least, and ostensibly is the act of them as a body interested in the cause of true religion in this country. As there are, thank God! many in the orders of the Church of Ireland who are zealous ministers of divine truth, and as they might seem included in the above general body, it is to them that I particularly address myself. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Archbishop's charge at all. I purposely decline it. My business is with the principles contained and expounded in it. It amounts to a claim on behalf of the Established Church to protection from the civil Sovereign, founded on these two positions -- that the civil Sovereign is bound and has accordingly the right to choose the best religion for his people, and that the Established Church has every character on which such a choice ought to depend; but, in doing this, the Charge gives a statement of the foundation, nature, and office of the Church, in the principles of which no clergyman zealous in his office as a minister of the Church of Christ, could, I submit, acquiesce.
What is the Church of Christ in its purpose and perfection? And our Lord has taught us to ascribe whatever is inconsistent with this to the hand of an enemy. It is a congregation of souls redeemed out of 'this naughty world' by God manifest in the flesh, a people purified to Himself by Christ, purified in the heart by faith, knit together, by the bond of this common faith in Him, to Him their Head sitting at the right hand of the Father, having consequently their conversation (commonwealth) in heaven, from whence they look for the Savior, the Lord of glory; Philippians 3:20. As a body, therefore, they belong to heaven; there is their portion in the restitution of all things, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. On earth they are, as a people, necessarily subordinate; they are nothing and nobody; their King is in heaven, their interests and constitution heavenly. "My kingdom is not of this world: if it were, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." As such, consequently, they have no power. The result is that they are formed into a spiritual community; they are raised, by their Head and center and source of hope and object of allegiance being in heaven, to be heavenly. They are delivered in spirit out of this present evil world, and become heavenly, spiritual in their connections, interests, thoughts, and prospects; while their habits on earth are those, by necessary consequence, of pilgrims and strangers, adorning (by consistent humility, gentleness, patience, and kindness) the grace of which they have been made partakers, through faith which works by love, while they avow and are in their own persons witnesses of the divine dominion. Their personal and common delights are correspondent, and their activities flow from this spring and have their motive and their order in the interests of this kingdom of divine love and grace.
This will give the reader some idea of the character of this germing of truth in his soul. It does not follow from his thoughts as to state protection that he thought of joining the non-conformists ("dissenters") to the state supported Church of England. That he also rejected, as we can see from his reply to R. Daly in a citation above.
We shall now turn to the period of solitude (December 1826 - January 1827). The Lord had graciously exercised him through Dr. Magee's charge and then in his gracious ways set him in solitude for two months in order that he might undistractedly advance in the teachings of Scripture.
Section two surveys the spiritual gains that J. N. Darby experienced as the result of his spiritual exercises and his study of the Word of God while being laid aside from active service during December 1826 and January 1827. At this time he understood that there would be a change of dispensation after the church and he learned his place in Christ as one of God's heavenly people. Coupled with this he saw that he should wait for Christ as an immediate expectation, i.e., that Christ might come at any time.
Less than two months after Dr. Magee delivered his charge to his clergy on October 10, 1826, God laid J. N. Darby aside through an accident and moved him to read the book of Acts, Isaiah 32 and other Scriptures.
An accident happened which laid me aside for a time; my horse was frightened and had thrown me against the door-post. During my solitude, conflicting thoughts increased; but much exercise of soul to the effect of causing the Scriptures to gain complete ascendency over me. I had always owned them to be the word of God.
F. Gill pointed out that there is evidence that this accident occurred during December 1826. He called attention to the fact that J. G. Bellet wrote a letter dated January 31, 1827, in which he said,
I hope on Friday to see John Darby. You will be grieved to hear that he has been laid up for nearly two months from a hurt in his knee. His poor people at Calary miss him sadly.
This was the time of a great accession of truth to the soul of J. N. Darby, namely December 1826 -- January 1827.
F. W. Newman (who went to Ireland in 1827 and met J. N. Darby there) has also written about his relationship to J. N. Darby at this era. He called J. N. Darby "the Irish clergyman" in the following citation:
After taking my degree, I became a Fellow of Balliol College: and the next year accepted an invitation to Ireland, and there became private tutor for 15 months in the house of one now deceased, whose name I would gladly mentioned for honor and affection; -- but I withhold my pen. While he repaid me munificently for my services, he behaved towards me as a father, or indeed as an older brother, and instantly made me feel as a member of his family. His great talents, high professional standing, nobleness of heart and unfeigned piety, would have made him a most valuable counselor to me: but he was too gentle, too unassuming, too modest; he looked to be taught by his juniors, and sat at the feet of one whom I proceed to describe.
This was a young relative of his, -- a most remarkable man, -- who rapidly gained an immense sway over me. I shall henceforth call him "the Irish clergyman." His "bodily presence" was indeed "weak!" A fallen check, a bloodshot eye, crippled limbs resting on crutches, a seldom shaven beard, a shabby suit of clothes and a generally neglected person, drew at first pity, with wonder to see such a figure in a drawing-room. It was currently reported that a person in Limerick offered him a halfpenny, mistaking him for a beggar; and if not true, the story was yet well invented. This young man had taken high honors in Dublin University and had studied for the bar, where under the auspices of his emminent kinsman he had excellent prospects; but his conscience would not allow him to take a brief, lest he should be selling his talents to defeat justice. With keen logical powers, he had warm sympathies, solid judgment of character, thoughtful tenderness, and total self-abandonment. He before long took Holy Orders, and became an indefatigable curate in the mountains of Wicklow. Every evening he sallied forth to teach in the cabins, and roving far and wide over mountains and amid bogs, was seldom home before midnight. By such exertion his strength was undermined, and he so suffered in his limbs that not lameness only, but yet more serious results were feared. He did not fast on purpose, but his long walks through wild country and indigent people inflicted on him much severe deprivation: moreover, as he ate whatever food offered itself, -- food unpalatable and often indigestible to him, his whole frame might have vied in emaciation with a monk of La Trappe.
Such a phenomenon intensely excited the poor Romanists, who looked on him as a genuine "saint" of the ancient breed. This stamp of heaven seemed to them clear in a frame so wasted by austerity, so superior to worldly pomp, and so partaking in all their indigence. That a dozen such men would have done more to convert all Ireland to Protestantism, than the whole apparatus of the Church Establishment, was ere long my conviction; though I was at first offended by his apparent affectation of a mean exterior. But I soon understood, that in no other way could he gain equal access to the lower and lowest orders and that he was moved not by asceticism nor by ostentation, but by a self-abandonment fruitful of consequences.
The real foundation for J. N. Darby's ministry was that he found deliverance (Romans 7:24) at this time. He was regenerate before this period (having the "inner man," Romans 7:22) but he could not say that he had no more conscience of sins (Hebrews 10:22) as affecting his standing before God. He had not peace in believing (Romans 15: 13) and Christian Liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18 ) . He was captive to the law of sin (Romans 7:23). Having been in the state described in Romans 7 for many years, he now learned Christ as the Deliverer from this standing and state and was set free by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2). Thus, he was brought into the standing and state of Romans 8, though the flesh remains (Romans 7:24) incorrigible as ever (Romans 8:7). This experience had a profound effect on him. Some 50 years later he wrote,
You must be aware that the teaching that Romans 7 is not the Christian state, but that chapter 8 is, has been taught, as I have myself earnestly insisted on it now near 50 years, only I trust with increasing clearness.
The character of his preaching then changed.
When I came to understand I was united to Christ in heaven, and that, consequently, my place before God was represented by His own, I was forced to the conclusion that it was no longer a question with God of this wretched "I" which had wearied me during six or seven years, in presence of the requirements of the law. It then became clear to me that the church of God, as He considers it, was composed of those who were so united to Christ, whereas Christendom, as seen externally, was really the world, and could not be considered as "the church," save as regards the responsibility attaching to the position which it professed to occupy -- a very important thing in its place. At the same time, I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Savior, in order to be set, in fact, in the glory which is already his portion "in Christ"....
The practical difference in my preaching, when once I began to preach again, was as follows: When a parson, I had preached that sin had created a great gulf between us and God, and that Christ alone was able to bridge it over; now, I preached that he had already finished His work. The necessity of regeneration, which was always a part of my teaching, became connected more with Christ, the last Adam, and I understood better that it was a real life, entirely new, communicated by the power of the Holy Spirit; but, as I have said, more in connection with the person of Christ in the power of His resurrection, combining the power of a life victorious over death, with a new position for men before God. This is what I understand by "deliverance."
Somewhere he said that the Lord specially blessed his ministry on the matter of deliverance (Romans 7).
Connected with deliverance, the truth of union with the Head in glory came before his soul. But then this was true of each Christian sealed with the Spirit. The Spirit had come and formed the church to be one body joined to the head in heaven (Acts 2). But how did the church answer to all this in practice? The book of Acts was carefully read and he saw the proper place of gift and that clerisy was not of God.
The careful reading of the Acts afforded me a practical picture of the early church, which made me feel deeply the contrast with its actual present state, though still as ever, beloved by God. At the time I had to use crutches when moving about, so that I had no longer any opportunity for making known my convictions in public; moreover, as the state of my health did not allow me to attend worship, I was compelled to remain away. It seemed to me that the good hand of God had thus come to my help, hiding my spiritual weakness under physical incapacity. In the meanwhile, there grew up in my heart the conviction that what Christianity had accomplished in the world in no way answered to the needs of a soul burdened with the sense of what God's holy governmental dealing was intended to effect....
I said to myself: " If the Apostle Paul were to come here now, he would not, according to the established system [i.e., the Church of England], be even allowed to preach, not being legally ordained; but if a worker of Satan, who, by his doctrine, denied the Savior, came here, he could freely preach, and my Christian friend would be obliged to consider him as a fellow-laborer; whereas he would be unable to recognize the most powerful instrument of the Spirit of God, however much blessed in his work of leading multitudes of souls to the Lord, if he had not been ordained according to the system." ... This is not mere abuse, such as may be found everywhere; it is the principal of the system that is at fault. Ministry is of the Spirit. There are some, amongst the clergy, who were ministers by the Spirit, but the system is founded on the opposite principle, consequently it seemed impossible to remain in it any longer.
Connected with this scope of truth, he saw from Isaiah 32 that there was a different dispensation coming; and it followed, from what he was learning about the church and the immense change in the coming dispensation, that Israel and church were distinct. He wrote:
In my retreat, the 32nd chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly, on God's behalf, a state of things in no way established as yet. The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me the present heavenly portion of glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forth the corresponding earthly part. I was unable to put these things in their respective places or arrange them in order, as I can now; but the truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit, by reading His word.
But I must, though without comment, direct my attention to chapter 32 of the same prophet; which I do the rather, because it was in this the Lord was pleased, without man's teaching, first to open my eyes on this subject, that I might learn His will throughout -- not by the first blessed truth stated in it, but the latter part, when there shall be a complete change in the dispensation, the wilderness becoming the fruitful field of God's fruit and glory, and that which has been so, being counted a forest, at a time when the Lord's judgments should come down, even great hail, upon this forest; and the city, even of pride, be utterly abased. That the Spirit's pouring out upon the Jews, and their substitution for the Gentile church, become a forest, is here averted to, is evidence from the connection of the previous verses.
What was to be done? I saw in that word the coming of Christ to take the church to Himself in glory. I saw there the cross, the divine basis of salvation, which should impress its own character on the Christian and on the church in view of the Lord's coming; and also that meanwhile the Holy Spirit was given to be the force of the unity of the church, as well as the spring of its activity, and indeed of all Christian energy.
As regards the gospel, I had no difficulty as to its received dogmas. Three persons in one God, the divinity of Jesus, His work of atonement on the cross, His resurrection, His session at the right-hand of God, were truths which, understood as orthodox doctrines, had long been a living reality to my soul. They were the known and felt conditions, the actualities, of my relationship with God. Not only were they truths, but I knew God personally in that way; I had no other God but Him who had thus revealed Himself, and Him I had. He was the God of my life and my worship, the God of my peace, the only true God...
The blood of Jesus has removed every spot from the believer; every trace of sin, according to God's own purity. In virtue of His blood-shedding, the only possible propitiation, we may now invite all men to come to God, as God of love, who, for this object, has given His only Son. The presence of the Holy Ghost, sent from heaven to abide in the believer as the "unction," the "seal," and the "earnest of our inheritance," as well as being in the church, the power which unites it in one body and distributes gifts to the members according to His will; these truths developed largely and assumed great importance in my eyes. With this last truth was connected the question of ministry. From whence came this ministry? According to the Bible, it clearly came from God by the free and powerful action of the Holy Ghost.
Important to a right apprehension of dispensation and ages is that each age ends in failure -- and that the present period is no exception. In 1827 J. N. Darby understood the fall of the church. It appears that he had written an early paper on the subject which was not published. There is an intriguing reference to this. B. W. Newton remarked that when F. W. Newton returned from Ireland (possibly in April 1827; see page 19),
Newman also gave me Darby's book on the Fall of the Church, written in his usual involved style and also the subject involved.
This indicates that in 1827 J. N. Darby understood something about "the ruin of the Church." We will speak more of this doctrine in volume 2, if the Lord will. Speaking of the earliest period, B. W. Newton reminisced:
The only person who had any apprehension of all this ruin was Darby; and I felt it too, that was why I so clung to him.
In a letter dated September 24, 1846, J. N. Darby wrote,
For my part, when I found all in ruin around me, my comfort was that, where two or three are gathered together in Christ name, there he would be.
We shall see that it was in 1827 that he began to meet with three others to break bread on this basis. He understood the ruin before he began to break bread near the end of 1827.
During his convalescence J. N. Darby learned that he ought daily to expect to Lord's return. Here's his account:
... I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for, save the coming of the Savior in order to be set in fact in the glory which, is already His portion 'in Christ.'
The coming of the Lord was the other truth which was brought to my mind from the word, as that which, if sitting in heavenly places in Christ, was alone to be waited for, that I might sit in heavenly places Him. Isaiah 32 brought me to the earthly consequences of the same truth, though other passages might seem perhaps more striking to me now; but I saw an evident change of dispensation in the chapter, when the Spirit would be poured out of the Jewish nation, and a king reign in righteousness.
Thus during December 1826/January 1827 J. N. Darby learned he ought daily to expect the Lord. These things were all considerably in advance of what Edward Irving was propounding, and was shown to J. N. Darby by our gracious Lord, through the teaching of the Spirit of Truth, quite independently of man, whether E. Irving, Franciscus de Ribera or Manuel Lacunza. We will consider these persons in section 7.
F. W. Newman was in Ireland (Dublin) during 1827/1828. There he was " tutor in the family of Mr. John Vesey Parnell, later Lord Congleton, for 15 months." However, there may have been times when he visited England. Indeed, there is a letter of B. W. Newton dated April 23, 1827 (Exeter College, Oxford) which seems to place F. W. Newman at Oxford on this date.
F. W. Newman was a friend of J. N. Darby in the years 1827-1833, but became an Arian. His comments, written long after he had become an Arian, testified the fact that both J. N. Darby and he had learned the daily expectation of Christ. This corroborates what J. N. Darby said about holding the daily expectation in 1827. F. W. Newman could not have a partisan motive to lie about, and it is difficult to see how anyone can deny his testimony. Part of what is quoted below took place in 1827. Another point can be fixed and that is F. W. Newman's autumn visit to Oxford in 1828, a date which is documented below in the quotation. Therefore what is here transcribed from him took place before then. There are indications of some of his confusion as to details of prophetic truth. He wrote:
... He [J. N. Darby] had practically given up all reading except that of the Bible; and no small part of his movement toward me soon took the form of dissuasion from all other voluntary study.
In fact, I had myself more and more concentrated my religious reading on this one book: still, I could not help feeling the value of a cultivated mind. Against this, my new eccentric friend, (himself having enjoyed no mean advantages of cultivation,) directed his keenest attacks. I remember once saying to him, in defensive of worldly station, -- " To desire to be rich is unchristian and absurd; but if I were the father of children, I should wish to be rich enough to secure them a good education." He replied: " If I had children, I would as soon see them break stones on the road, as to do any thing else, if only I could secure to them the Gospel and the grace of God." I was unable to say Amen, but I admired his unflinching consistency; -- for now, as always, all he said was based on texts aptly quoted and logically enforced. He more and more made me ashamed of Political Economy and Moral Philosophy, and all Science; all of which ought to be "counted dross for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord." For the first time in my life I saw a man earnestly turning into reality the the principles which others confess with their lips only. That the words of the New Testament contained the highest truth accessible to man, -- truth not to be taken from nor added to, -- all good men (as I thought) confess: never before had I seen a man so resolved that no word of it should be a dead letter to him. I once said: "But do you really think that no part of the New Testament may have been temporary in its object? for instance, what should we have lost, if St. Paul had never written the verse, 'The cloak which I have left at Troas, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.'" He answered with the greatest promptitude: "I should certainly have lost something; for that is exactly the verse which alone saved me from selling my little library. No! every word, depend upon it, is from the Spirit, and is for eternal service"...
In spite of the strong revulsion I felt against some of the peculiarities of this remarkable man, I for the first time in my life found myself under the dominion of a superior. When I remember, how even those bowed down before him, who had been to him in the place of parents, -- accomplished and experienced minds, -- I cease to wonder in the retrospect, that he riveted me in such bondage. Henceforth I began to ask: what will he say to this and that? In his reply I always expected to find a higher portion of God's Spirit, than in any I could frame for myself. In order to learn divine truth, it became to me a surer process to consult him, than to search for myself and wait upon God: and gradually, (as I afterwards discerned,) my religious thought had merged into the mere process of developing fearlessly into results of his principles, without any deeper examining of my foundations. Indeed, but for a few weaknesses which warned me that he might err, I could have accepted him as an apostle commission to reveal the mind of God.
In his after-course (which I may not indicate) this gentleman has everywhere displayed a wonderful power of bending other minds to his own, and even stamping upon them the tones of his voice and all sorts of slavish imitation. Over the general results of his action I have long deeply mourned, as blunting his natural tenderness and sacrificing his wisdom to the Letter, dwarfing men's understanding, contracting their hearts, crushing their moral sensibilities, and setting those at variance who ought to love: yet oh! how specious was it in the beginning! he only wanted men "to submit their understandings to God," that is, to the Bible, that is, to his interpretation! From seeing his action and influence I have learnt, that if it be dangerous to a young man (as it assuredly is) to have no superior mind to which he may look up with confiding reverence, it may be even more dangerous to think that he has found such a mind: for he who is both logically consisted, though to a one-sided theory, and most ready to sacrifice self to that theory, seems to ardent youth the most assuredly trustworthy guide. Such was Ignatius Loyola in his day.... [so speaks an Arian].
When I had returned to Oxford [autumn of 1828], I induced the Irish clergyman to visit the University, and introduced him to many of my equals in age, and juniors. Most striking was it to see how instantaneously he assumed the place of universal father-confessor, as if he had been a known and long-trusted friend. His insight into character, and tenderness pervading his austerity, so opened young men's hearts, that day after day it was no end of secret closetings with him....
My study of the New Testament at this time had made it impossible for me to overlook that the apostles held it to be a duty of all disciples to expect a near and sudden destruction of the earth by fire, and constantly to be expecting the return of the Lord from heaven. It was easy to reply, that "experience disproved" this expectation; but to this an answer was ready provided in Peter's 2nd epistle, which forewarns us that we shall be taunted by the unbelieving with this objection, but bids us, nevertheless, continue to look out for the speedy fulfillment of this great event. In short, the case stood thus; -- If it was not too soon 1800 years ago to stand in daily expectation of it, it is not too soon now: to say that it is too late, is not merely to impute error to the apostles, on a matter which they made of first-rate moral importance, but is to say, that those whom Peter calls " ungodly scoffers, walking after their own lusts" -- were right, and he was wrong, on the very point for which he thus vituperated them.
The importance of this doctrine is, that it totally forbids all working for earthly objects distant in time: and here the Irish clergyman threw into the same scale the entire weight of his character....
I found a wonderful dulness in many persons on this important subject. Wholly careless to ask what was the true apostolic doctrine, they insisted that "Death is to us practically the coming of the Lord," and we were amazed at my seeing so much emphasis in the other view. This comes of the abominable selfishness preached as religion. If I were to labor at some useful work for ten years, -- say, at clearing forest land, laying out a farm, and building a house, -- and were then to die, I should leave my work to my successes, and it would not be lost. Some men work for higher, some for lower, earthly ends; (" in a great house there are many vessels, etc. ;") but all results are valuable, if there is a chance of transmitting them to those who follow us. But if all is to be very shortly burnt up, it is then folly to exert ourselves for such objects. To the dead man, (it is said,) the cases are but one. This is to the purpose, if self absorbs all our heart; away from the purpose, if we are to work for unselfish ends.
Nothing can be clearer, than that the New Testament is entirely pervaded by the doctrine, -- sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes unceremoniously assumed, -- that earthly things are very speedily to come to an end, and therefore are not worthy of our high affection and deep interest. Hence, when thoroughly imbued with this persuasion, I looked with mournful pity on a great mind wasting its energies on any distant aim of this earth. For a statesman to talk about providing for future generations, sounded to me as a melancholy avowal of unbelief. To devote good talents to write history or investigate nature, was simple waste: for at the Lord's coming, history and science would no longer be learned by these feeble appliances of ours. Thus an inevitable deduction from the doctrine of the apostles, was, that " we must work for speedy results only." Vitae summa brevis spem nos vetat inchoare longam. I then accepted the doctrine, in profound obedience to the absolutely infallible system of precepts. I now see that the falsity and mischief of the doctrine is one of the very many disproofs of the assumed, but unverified infallibility. However, the hold which the apostolic belief then took of me, subjected my conscience to the exhortations of the Irish clergyman, whenever he inculcated that the highest Christian must necessarily declined the pursuit of science, knowledge, art, history, -- except so far as any of these things might be made useful tools for immediate spiritual results.
He saw at this point, whatever his Arian sympathies a few years later, that the New Testament's inculcated the "daily expectation" and that J. N. Darby held this at that time, namely 1827.
In B. W. Newton's reminiscences we read this concerning F. W. Newman.
He left Oxford and got 400 pounds a year as private tutor in Ireland where he became acquainted with Darby and with prophetic Truth. After a while he returned to Oxford and sought to interest me in prophecy but did not succeed at first. "Now Newton, you don't see things at all." "No, I don't. It is sufficient for me to attend to the preaching of the Gospel." "Well then, will you lend me your rooms?" So I did that, and a few friends were invited. There were three meetings at first; and I of course attended but took no part. The subject were, 1) Is there any reason to believe the conversion of the world will be effected by the preaching of the Gospel? 2) Babylon, and 3) Anti-Christ. By means of these I saw there was more in Scripture than I thought. Soon after he left Oxford again.
From all we have considered so far we can see that by the beginning of 1827, J. N. Darby, apart from others, had advanced considerably in truth. The groundwork for the development of understanding Dispensational truth was laid.
It should be apparent that this point that J. N. Darby learned these things independently of the Irvingites (see Chapter 7.3 and Appendix 1) and Manuel Lacunza (see Chapter 7.2). Let us now consider a number of quotations that pinpoint exactly (closer than we can tell from F W. Newman, above) when J. N. Darby understood that the rapture would occur a considerable time before the Lord would come to set up the Kingdom. J. G. Bellett had written a letter on Jan. 31, 1827, that he was going to see J. N. Darby shortly. It reads,
I hope on Friday to see John Darby. You'll be grieved to hear that he has been laid up for nearly two months from a hurt in his knee. His poor people at Calary miss him sadly.
J. N. Darby mentioned this visit in a most interesting comment:
Isaiah 32 it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a David reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before 40 years' time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. Darby, knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven. Then what was I waiting for? J. G. B. came up and said they were teaching some new thing in England. "I have it!" I said.
From F W. Newman we learned that he and J. N. Darby held to a daily expectation of Christ before the Autumn of 1828. From B. W. Newton we learned that F W. Newman met J. N. Darby in 1827; and we saw that they both held the daily expectation of Christ. To this we add the evidence from J. G. Bellett. F Gill has called attention to the date of the above letter by G. J. Bellett as giving a definite reference point that enables us to correct the erroneous dates in a letter of reminiscences by J. G. Bellett. Based on this dated letter (and some additional facts) I will insert corrected dates in square brackets [] whenever referring to this reminiscence. Regarding this period, he reminisced,
In the beginning of 1828 [1827] I had occasion to go to London, and then I met in private and heard in public those who were warm and alive on prophetic truth, having had their minds freshly illuminated by it.
In my letters to J. N. Darby at this time, I told him I had been hearing things that he and I had never yet talked of, and I further told him on my return to Dublin what they were. Full of the subject as I then was, I found him quite prepared for it also, and his mind and soul had traveled rapidly in the direction which had thus been given to it.
This indicates that he had not written in his letters to J. N. Darby what was being taught in London. And, his words that the mind and soul of J. N. Darby "had traveled" indicates that this traveling had taken place before he spoke to J. N. Darby and told him what was being taught in London. The direction given to Darby's mind and soul had taken place before J. G. Bellett's visit shortly after January 31, 1827. It took place during the previous period of Darby's solitude (Dec. 1826/Jan. 1827). Darby was "quite prepared" for what J. G. Bellett told him; and, as a matter of fact, Darby was very considerably beyond E. Irving in London.
With the testimony's of F. W. Newman, B. W. Newton and the dated letter of J. G. Bellett, I suggest that the integrity of Darby and his statements of what occurred regarding his advance in truth, concerning the church and the expectation of Christ, during Dec. 1826/Jan. 1827 is fully vindicated. With that fixed point of reference, Jan. 31, 1827, the events of the year 1827 can be ascertained. Thus it was not until after this period of " solitude" during which Darby's injury was recovering, that he found out what was going on in London, but he had already understood those truths upon which the pre-tribulation rapture hinges. It is remarkable that he,
... saw there would be a David reign, and did not know whether the Church might not beremoved before 40 years' time.
In his letter to Professor Tholuck he wrote,
At the same time I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Savior in order to be set free, in fact, in the glory which is already is portion "in Christ."
We have observed that it was during the period of solitude that he learned the daily expectation and that Christ might come 40 years before he would set up the Kingdom. I would hear remind the reader that Scripture does not say that the seventieth of week of Daniel 9 will begin the date after the rapture. There very well may be an interval.
In a short article titled " Even so, Come, Lord Jesus," in The Bible Treasury for July 1, 1857, we find the following, and though unsigned, it cannot be any other than Darby:
It is 30 years ago and more since I first saw the doctrine of the second coming of the Lord. I saw it as the only solution of a thousand and one difficulties which man's mind had created, by attempting to limit the predictions about a glorified Messiah down to the range and circumstances of earth, while in man's hand and responsibility. It threw heavenly hopes and promises open, and also gave consistency to God's past and future dealings with the earth.
Later we shall see that Darby separated from the church of England in mid-1827 and began breaking bread with three others towards the end of 1827.
As we proceed we will more fully see how superficial are statements such as, "from Irving, then, Darby derived his prophetical system...."
In summary, these are among the leading truths that Darby was taught of God at this era.
The cross is the end of the world, and it is the starting-point for the church! The goal before her is the coming of Christ. Between the two we have the Supper which connected the two points. These are the three fundamental principles of the church, which I immediately saw to be laid down when I left Nationalism.
What gave rise to the existence of the so-called Plymouth Brethren is the grand truth, the great fact, of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the date of Pentecost, to form the body of Christ into one; then the coming of the Savior as the continual expectation of the Christian.
What I felt from the beginning, and began with, was this: the Holy Ghost remains, and therefore, the essential principle of unity with His presence for (the fact we are now concerned in) whether to or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them. When this is really sought, there will certainly be blessing by His presence. We have found it so, most sweetly and graciously, who have met separately here.
The importance of these truths, taken as a whole, was later expressed by Darby in the following words:
I am daily more struck with the connection of the great principles on which my mind was exercised by and with God, when I found salvation and peace, and the questions agitated and agitating the world at the present-day: the absolute, divine authority and certainty of the Word, as a divine link between us and God, if everything (church and world) went; personal assurance of salvation in a new condition by being in Christ; the church as His body; Christ coming to receive us to Himself; and collaterally with that, the setting up of a new earthly dispensation, from Isaiah 32 (more particularly the end); all this was then laid aside at E. P.'s in 1827; the house character of the assembly on earth (not the fact of the presence of the Spirit) was subsequently.