The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 3

III. Todd-Denies Protestant Interpretation; Clears Rome

JAMES H. TODD (1805-1869), Irish scholar and professor of Hebrew in the University of Dublin, was born in Dublin. After graduating from Trinity College with a B.A. in 1825, he continued as a tutor at Trinity, and edited the Christian Examiner. a Journal on the controversy between the Established Church and Rome. In 1832 Todd took Anglican priest’s orders, and in 1833 made the acquaintance of S. R. Maitland and began writing papers on church history for the British Magazine. PFF3 659.7

In 1838 and 1839 Todd was Donnellan lecturer in Trinity College, and chose äs his subject the prophecies relating to Anti christ. Openly proclaiming himself Maitland’s follower, he boldly attacked the Reformers’ Historical School view-still commonly held by the Protestant clergy in Ireland-that the Pope was Antichrist. He stoutly maintained that the fourth empire is not Rome, that the Church of Rome is not the Man of Sin, and that Protestanism was in gross error in applying these prophecies to the papal church. The lectures for 1838 were afterward published as Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of Daniel and St. Paul (1840). (Title page reproduced on page 540.) PFF3 660.1

The dedication was to Mailland, “as an acknowledgment of the assistance derived” from his writings in the formulation of his lectures. In 1837 Todd was installed as treasurer of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, in 1849 was made regius professor of Hebrew, and in 1852 was appointed librarian of Trinity. This library he built up until it ranked with the chief libraries of Europe. PFF3 660.2

1. PAPAL ANTICHRIST TIIKORV OF “LATE ORIGIN

In his Discourses Todd stresses the early concept of Antichrist äs an individual, to appear at the end of the world, immediately before the second coming of Christ, and connected with the Jewish rather than the Gentile church ¹¹ ponderously documented, and displaying exhaustive research to prove his positions, his large work is in reality but a series of negation. Every major position of the Historical School of Interpretation is challenged and denied, with no constructive alternative presented, no philosophy of exposition. PFF3 660.3

Todd insists that the theory of Interpretation held by Mede and most modern Protestants was given voice by the Waldenses and other heretical groups in the twelfth century - such as the Catharists and Albigenses, who applied the Scriptural Symbols (born of Manichaeism) of beast, harlot, and synagogue of Satan, to the Papacy ¹² he third supporting group for this school of Interpretation was from within the bosom of the Church of Rome itself - the spiritual Franciscans, the Fratricelli, and Joachimites, who applied the same terms to their own church ¹³ PFF3 661.1

2. FOURTH KINGDOM NOT ROME, YET FUTURE

In the only counterinterpretation help offered, Todd plainly declares that “the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision is even yet to come,” and is not Rome ¹⁴ nd again, the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 is not the Roman Empire ¹⁵ and the horns are not fulfilled in the Roman Empire ¹⁶ furthermore, he maintains that the first, second, and third beasts are not identical with the gold, silver, and brass ¹⁷ e reiterates that the fourth kingdom “will at some future period be established upon the earth ¹⁸ Moreover, Daniel 11 is “not a chronological prediction of the events of modern history ¹⁹ PFF3 661.2

3. PROPHETIC DAYS ARE NOT YEARS

The “days” of the prophecies do not stand for years, Todd insists, with specific denial of application to the 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days ²⁰ d the controversy over 2400 versus 2300, in Daniel 8:14, is exploited äs to the difficulties and impossibilities ²¹ PFF3 661.3

4. INDIVIUUAI. MAN OF SIN IN JERUSALEM TEMPLE

Turning to the 2 Thessalonians 2 argument, Todd maintains that the Man of Sin must be a single individual ²² and the temple in which he sits must be the literal temple at Jerusalem ²³ The Roman Empire is now extinct, and no potentate possessing the character and marks of Antichrist has as yet been manifested in the earth ²⁴ One other argument is advanced: that the Roman Empire was not the power that “withholdeth,” but that the reference is rather to the coming of the Lord ²⁵ PFF3 661.4

5. ROME’S ERRORS Do NOT CONSTITUTE APOSTASY

Moreover, Todd maintains that “Romanism [is] not properly an apostacy from the faith ²⁶ And, “the Errors of Romanism do not amount to Apostacy ²⁷ He plainly says, “The Church of Rome [is] a true Christian Church ²⁸ He adds that the supposed criteria of the apostasy are “not peculiar to the Church of Rome,” as the Greek and Oriental churches hold the same positions on many matters ²⁹ o, he continues, Rome “with all her deep corruptions, still maintains and inculcates the great essential truths of our religion ³⁰ PFF3 662.1

6. CAPITALIZES PROTESTANT DIVERSITY IN APPLICATION

The latter third of this large treatise comprises extensive notes-from page 357 to page 526-which challenge the year-day principle among Christians and Jews ³¹ And the disparity among certain Protestant writers on the chronological placing of the various periods is employed as major evidence ³² PFF3 662.2

7. PRESS PRIMITIVE VIEWPOINT ON INDIVIDUAL

Todd capitalizes on the constricted viewpoint of early-century writers who had not yet seen the application of the year-day principle to any other than the seventy weeks of years, and to whom Anti christ was naturally only an individual rather than a succession of individuals forming a system. He Stresses the unwarranted expectations of the appearance of Antichrist at different periods, such as around A.D. 1000. ³³ PFF3 662.3

8. ATTACKS CHARACTER OF THE WITNESSES

The antiquity of the Waldenses teaching on Antichrist is attacked, and the authenticity and reliability of their Treatise on Antichrist is challenged ³⁴ he same is true of the Albigenses ³⁵ And finally, the character and credibility of Joachim and the Joachimites is disparaged ³⁶ and that of the Franciscans ³⁷ particularly John d’Olivi ³⁸ PFF3 662.4

Frequently Roman Catholic authorities are cited by Futurists to counter the Waldensian witness, together with the witness of certain Protestants who have questioned the application to Rome-such as Maitland, who is lauded, and Burton, and Burgh. There is omission of the clearest and most prominent expositors, such as Cuninghame, Croly, Bickersteth, and Re formers and later writers by the score. PFF3 663.1