The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 3

III. Maitland-Projector of Futurism Among Protestants

We now come to the first Protestant to accept the Riberan interpretation of Antichrist, SAMUEL R. MAITLAND (1792-1866), historical critic and author of some fifty books. Born in London, the child of nonconformist parents, he was mainly self-educated, though he attended St. Johns and Trinity College. He then studied law at Inner Temple. Though he abandoned the profession, his legal studies left, an indelible impress upon his mind and method. In 1821 Maitland was admitted to deacons’ orders, and in 1823 he became curate of Christ Church, Gloucester. PFF3 541.1

Toward the close of his incumbency at Christ Church, religious circles throughout England became deeply moved by Irving and others who were proclaiming an interpretation of prophecy based on the year-day principle. So in 1826 Mait land published a seventy-two-page pamphlet entitled An Enquiry into the Grounds on which the Prophetic Period of Daniel and St. John, Has Been Supposed to Consist, of 1260 Years. This attracted considerable attention and initiated a “paper war” between the two schools of interpretation that continued for years. ³⁴ (Title page reproduced on page 540.) PFF3 541.2

This was followed by A Second Enquiry (1829). Maitland also wrote An Attempt to Elucidate the Prophecies Concerning Antichrist (1830). As the issue involved the orthodoxy, or Protestantism, of the Waldenses and Albigenses that the historian Milner had claimed among the prophesied “Heavenly Witnesses” of the Middle Ages, Maitland produced an elaborate work, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses (1830). It may be well to note that attacks on the Historical School of interpretation, with its year-day principle, have often been conpled with attacks on the Waldenses. ³⁵ Meanwhile. Maitland had become deeply interested in the’ conversion of the Jews, and in 1828 he made an extensive journey throughout France, Germany, Prussia, Russia, and Poland to study their condition. PFF3 541.3

In 1835 Maitland began contributing monthly to the Brit ish Magazine, which articles eventuated in two volumes, one in 1844 entitled The Dark Ages, and the other The Reformation in England. In 1838 Archbishop Howley appointed him librarian and keeper of the manuscripts at Lambeth. This office afforded him opportunity for research, which resulted in his having the honorary degree of D.D. conferred upon him. He edited the British Magazine from 1839 to 1849. PFF3 542.1

Maitland incurred the deep dislike of the Evangelical party by his severe handling of their leaders and his merciless criticism of the historian Milner, ³⁶ the martyrologist Foxe, and many others. He was often attacked in print, ³⁷ and in turn took up the cudgels with William Cuninghame and others. ³⁸ A. W. Hutton declared that his “keen critical instinct sometimes led him to an excessive historical scepticism.” ³⁹ It was inevitable that he should gain the ill will of the Evangelicals; he was also oddly the “object of suspicion to the Tractarians.” ⁴⁰ It should be noted that he had contempt for much of the general concept of the “Reformation as a religious movement.” ⁴¹ His reactionary interpretations of prophecy follow. PFF3 542.2

1. CONVINCED THE 1260 ARE NATURAL DAYS

In his 182(i Enquiry, Maitland took his stand against the vital year-day principle and flatly declared: PFF3 542.3

“After much consideration, I feel convinced that, ‘the time, times, and dividing of time; Daniel 7:25:’ ‘Time, times, and a half;’ Daniel 12:7: ‘Time, times, and half a lime;’ Revelation 12:14: ‘Forty and two months;’ Revelation 11:2, Revelation 13:5; ‘The thousand two hundred and threescore days; Revelation 11:3: are not mystical phrases relating to a period of 1260 years; but, according to their plain meaning, denote a period of 1260 natural days.” ⁴² PFF3 542.4

2. ROME’S DIVISIONS AND MOHAMMEDANISM Nor INVOLVED

Maitland maintains the position that the difficulties had arisen from treating the prophecies of Daniel and St. John as “chronological” prophecies, fulfilling through the centuries. He asserts: “It appears to me that these predictions relate to things which were still future,” particularly the predictions of Antichrist. ⁴³ He elaborates: PFF3 543.1

“I have no faith therefore in the applications of prophecy to the ten Gothic kingdoms, or the delusions of Mahomet, the overthrow of the French Monarchy, or the Turkish Empire. I believe that the Scripture prophecies do not (unless it may be incidentally) throw any light on the state of things either in the Church or in the world, before the breaking out, or to say the utmost, the introductory circumstances, of the Apostasy. The main subject is, I believe, the great and final conflict between the God of heaven and the god of this world-between the Redeemer and the Destroyer of man-between Christ and Antichrist.” ⁴⁴ PFF3 543.2

3. SAYS TERMS OF PROPHECY NOT MET BY POPE

Maitland capitalizes upon the admitted variations among prophetic interpreters on these time periods, and other details, and then rejects them all. His favorite device is to play Faber against other writers, thus to bring a question upon all. His Second Enquiry, in 1829, includes remarks on an adverse review in the Christian Guardian, and maintains that the pope does not meet the terms of the prophecy. ⁴⁵ PFF3 543.3

4. HOLDS FOURTH EMPIRE NOT ROME

His Attempt to Elucidate the Prophecies Concerning Antichrist was directed against J. H. Frere. In this he plays the expectation of the early church-which had no concept of the year-day principle for the longer time periods-over against the Protestant Reformation interpretation, and rejects the application to the pope. ⁴⁶ “Maitland denies that the fourth empire of Daniel 2 is Rome. ⁴⁷ And he makes the 2300 days literal time. ⁴⁸ PFF3 543.4

But no sooner had this alien note been sounded than challengers arose, and stanch defenders of the old view took the field. Conflicts increased and cleavages became more pronounced with the passing years. It should be borne in mind that Futurism among Protestants was unknown in the Reformation and post-Reformation centuries. Only Catholics, who had introduced it, held it until now. PFF3 543.5