You would think a subject as important as this would be often taught doctrine, common knowledge in the old church, but it isn't.
For instance, Darby did write about it in the 19th century, & apparently he was the only one who wrote about it then.
How many times do we go to the old books written to prove our doctrines? Yet here we are, bickering in frustration about a doctrine that either way should have been in many old commentaries, but isn't. I mean much older books. For instance, Irenaeus mentions it vaguely, but not directly.
So because it wasn't as important to teach directly then as a solid doctrine, here we are halting between two opinions. I can only suppose back then it was so commonly known nobody saw the need to teach it.
This is a good example of how important it is to teach/preach the whole word of God, & not just our favorite subjects.
Darby's own group of brethren, known by others as the Plymouth Brethren, didn't all accept his novel idea. George Muller didn't. I read a brethren comment on his teaching, maybe from Mueller that pointed out that the Lord's coming wouldn't occur until after the man of sin was revealed, referring to II Thessalonians 2.