II. Compromising Protestants Adopt Preteristic Scheme

This battle of the Protestants with Rome on the prophecies was not, however, without some advantages. It forced an intensified study of the prophecies by the later Reformers, in defense of their positions. Two results followed. With some, it strength ended the true prophetic positions of the past, revealing certain inconsistencies and correcting mistakes. The clearest of all ex positions were brought forth thereafter. But with others there was bewilderment, capitulation, and acceptance of the Roman Catholic counter interpretations and positions. Despite many protests Alcazar’s Preterist scheme gained a strong foothold among certain Protestants, especially among rationalistic scholars. The Preterist view was soon adopted and taught, with various modifications, by the Protestant Hugo Grotius of Holland in his Annotationes (1644), and by Hammond of England in his commentary (1653), whom Le Clerc, his Latin interpreter, followed. Then came the noted Catholic bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, the great antagonist of Protestantism, who capitalized on minor Protestant divisions.PFF2 509.4

1. BRIEF PREVIEW OF LATER DEVELOPMENTS ESSENTIAL

Only in the light of future developments can the real significance of these first counterinterpretations of Rome be sensed and appraised. We therefore again digress briefly to sketch the leading later developments, so that the spreading conflicts, and ultimately the virtual overthrow of the historic Protestant positions, may be watched in the making. The fuller story will unfold in later chapters, in historical sequence.PFF2 510.1

First, as to Preterism’s penetrations into Protestantism, we may note that in 1791 J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827), the noted German rationalist, revived and republished Alcazar’s Preterist interpretation. Soon he was joined by other rationalist scholars, such as G. H. A. Ewald (1803-1875), G. C. F. Lücke (1791-1855), W. M. L. De Wette (1780-1849), Franz Delitzsch (18131890), and Julius Wellhausen (18441918). And since 1830 numerous British and American scholars have followed Eichhorn. In 1830 Prof. Samuel Lee of Cambridge, likewise injected Bossuet’s Preterist interpretation into the discussion. Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover (1780-1852), introduced Preterism into the United States about 1842, and Dr. Samuel Davidson reiterated it in England in 1844. These, and many others, all contended with the Papacy that nothing beyond the destruction of pagan Rome and Judaism was intended by the prophecies concerning Antichrist in the Apocalypse.” ^{14See Volume III of Prophetic Faith.}PFF2 510.2

As to Futurism, for some three centuries this view was virtually confined to Romanists, and was refuted by several masterly Protestant works. But early in the nineteenth century it sprang forth afresh, this time among Protestants—Samuel R. Maitland, William Burgh, J. H. Todd, and more recently it has been adopted by most Fundamentalists. In 1826 Maitland revived Ribera’s Futurist interpretation in England. The Ply mouth Brethren, organized in 1830 by John Nelson Darby, at Dublin and Plymouth, also laid hold of Maitland’s interpretation. And when the High Church Oxford Movement (18331845) gained ascendancy in Britain, it rejected the Protestant Historical School of interpretation and generally adopted Futurism, though some among them swung to Preterism. Bursting into full flame in 1833, it seized upon Maitland’s interpretation as an argument in favor of reunion with Rome. ^{15The introduction of Futurism among English prophetic writers is more fully discussed in Volume III of Prophetic Faith, chapters 28 and 34.} German rationalism, on the other hand, increasingly flouted prophecy and prediction. Thus the Jesuit schemes of counterinterpretation were more successful than their authors had ever dared anticipate.PFF2 511.1

The tragedy of modern Protestantism thus playing into the hands of Romanism is expressed by Tanner:PFF2 511.2

“It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that ‘Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery.’ More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men’s minds.” ^{16Tanner, op. cit., p. 17.}PFF2 511.3

We may rightly conclude that, in the slight division which existed among the Reformation groups regarding the application of the Little Horn of Daniel 7—though all were agreed that the Papacy was Antichrist—lay the foundation of that later hesitancy, confusion, and retrenchment concerning Antichrist and the year day principle that followed the impact of the Counter Reformation systems of interpretation, which were devised to divide, confuse, and defeat the Reformation. Had there been a clear and united concept and conviction on this point, the whole story of the aftermath of the Reformation might have been different. But through this division the Protestants were outmaneuvered and divided, their power curtailed, and their witness enfeebled and broken. This will again come up for discussion in Volumes III and IV of this work.PFF2 511.4