The Plymouth Brethren

Front matter

THE

Plymouth Brethren:

THEIR RISE, DIVISIONS, PRACTICE, AND DOCTRINES.

Prefatory

PREFATORY.

The following Lecture was delivered as one of an ordinary winter course to the Lecturer’s own people. Yielding to urgent representations he now consents to its publication. He does so the more readily, as there is no single publication (as far as he is aware) that aspires, however humbly, to cover the whole ground of Plymouth Brethrenism.

Dr. Carson and many others have done good service in exposing and refuting the heresies and procedures of the system. But the author is not acquainted with any tractate, like the present, which a minister, for instance, could place in the hands of any of his people who might have been disturbed by the insidious assaults of the Plymouth Propaganda―as dealing with the whole question. He is therefore, not without some hopes of its usefulness. Many deficiencies and faults will be observed, but, after considerable deliberation, it was determined to print the Lecture as delivered, excepting a few verbal alterations, in preference to a revision which would have involved considerable labour without any corresponding advantage.

E. D.

March, 1870.

Introduction

THE RISE, DIVISIONS, PRACTICE AND DOCTRINES OF “THE BRETHREN,” COMMONLY CALLED, “PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.”

The subject of my lecture to-night is “The rise, divisions, practice, and doctrines of the Plymouth Brethren.” The object proposed is not to excite controversy, but to give information concerning a denomination of Christians, who, though they have existed nearly forty years, and are most active in the dissemination of their peculiar views, and have, for this purpose, created a special literature of their own, are yet but very little and very imperfectly known. The ground they take throws upon us the responsibility of examination ; for we are told that all denominations have utterly gone astray, that they alone occupy the true Church position, that, in fact, they alone make the Scriptures the foundation of their doctrines and the guide of their practice and worship. Now it was to test these claims that we entered upon the task proposed this evening ; but we had no idea of the labour thereby involved, for there is no single publication which contains their views, and hence we have had to read a host of pamphlets, to wade through shoals of their controversial writings, to sift and winnow the chaff from the wheat, to apply to “Brethren” themselves for information, in fact, to adopt any and all possible means to arrive at an accurate knowledge of the subject.

Whether we have been successful or not the lecture itself must tell. One thing, however, we may premise. We have had but one object―the promotion of the truth; and we can, therefore, venture to give the assurance that not a single statement has been made without a most conscientious investigation of all the means of information placed within our reach. All, therefore, that we ask from your hands is a patient hearing and an unbiassed judgment, for, as the Apostle says, speaking on the authority of Divine inspiration, “we can do nothing against the truth―but for the truth.”

The Rise

The Rise of “the Brethren” is almost, though happily not quite, lost in obscurity. Somewhere between 1828 and 1830 a number of good and devout men became very much dissatisfied with the existing state of things in the Church. Schism was dominant, and lifelessness was almost the normal condition of professing Christians.

The few who were pining after a higher life, and after a brighter manifestation of the power of the Spirit in their practical walk, belonged to no particular denomination, but were scattered through all. They yearned after a closer union, for they saw that the Lord Himself had prayed that His followers “might be one;” but existing ecclesiastical organisations were, as they thought, barriers in the way of this unity. At this time Mr. A. N. Groves, of Exeter, who had been wonderfully taught of the Spirit to renounce all things for the service of Christ, was at Dublin University preparing for “orders” in the Establishment. While in residence, as we gather from his memoirs, “he became acquainted with many sincere Christians, chiefly members of the Establishment, who with him desired to see more devotedness to Christ, and union amongst the people of God. To promote these objects, they met continually for prayer

and reading the Word.” One day, Mr. Bellet―afterwards a prominent “Brother”―said to a lady, “Groves has just been telling me that it appeared to him from Scripture that believers, meeting together as disciples of Christ, were free to break bread together, as their Lord had admonished them, and that, in as far as the Apostles could be a guide, every Lord’s day should be set apart for thus remembering the Lord’s death and obeying His parting command… This suggestion of Mr. Groves’ was immediately carried out by himself and his friends in Dublin… This was the beginning of what has been erroneously termed Plymouth Brethrenism.” There was not the slightest intention, at the outset, of passing condemnation on either the Establishment or the churches outside the Establishment. They carefully abstained from such a question, confining themselves to their right to meet on the foundation of a common faith in a common Saviour. Many of their number, indeed, were clergymen, and all continued to meet for worship at times with those bodies of Christians with whom they were associated, and claimed the right to meet with all. Mr. Groves, for example, distinctly asserts this principle. In 1829 he left England for Persia, in the bonds of the Gospel, and returning, for a time, in 1836, he found, to his sorrow, that the foundation on which “the Brethren” had met before his departure had been subverted during his absence. So keenly did he feel this, that he wrote a letter of remonstrance to Mr. Darby, in which he assures him that he is no way estranged from him, “though,” he goes on to say, “I feel you have departed from those principles by which you once hoped to have effected them (his purposes), and are in principle returning to the city from whence you departed. Still, my soul so reposes in the truth of your heart to God that I feel it needs but a step or two more to advance, and you will see all the evils of the systems from which you profess to be separated, to spring up among yourselves… I ever understood our principle of communion to be the possession of the common life or common blood of the family of God (for the life is in the blood); these were our early thoughts, and are my most matured ones. The transition your little bodies have undergone, in no longer standing forth the witnesses for the glorious and simple truth, so much as standing forth witnesses against all that they judge error, have lowered them in my apprehension from heaven to earth in their position of witnesses.”

He also vindicates his right of worshipping with all Christians. “We were free,” he says, “within the limits of the truth, to share with them in part, though we could not in all their services; in fact, as we received them for the life, we could not reject them for their systems.” He makes the personal application: “Some will not have me hold communion with the Scots, because their views are not satisfactory about the Lord’s Supper; others with you, because of your views about baptism; others with the Church of England, because of her thoughts about ministry. On my principles I receive them all; but on the principle of witnessing against evil I should reject them all.”

Such were the principles of the Brethren at the beginning. Soon after the meeting at Dublin, which had its origin in 1828 or 1829, one was commenced also in Plymouth―the meeting which has given its name to all the rest, and may be regarded as the parent of most of the forms of Brethrenism that now exist.

My authority for this statement, as far as the date is concerned, is Dr. Tregelles. He says:―

“I know something of the early days of the Brethren in this and in other places. I believe that I have a general acquaintance with the facts connected with those who have assembled for communion at Plymouth. I was associated with the Christians meeting here, when they were about eighty in number, in the early part of 1835. From those who were then united in fellowship I received much information as to what had taken place during the four previous years.”

He then gives the principle, as stated above, of their meeting.

“Those Brethren who assembled in Plymouth for communion, in 1831, had the thought prominently before them, that the Word of God gave them the liberty of meeting in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for fellowship, in obedience to His word, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’”

In this simple way “the Brethren” sprang into existence. There are two names connected with the movement that cannot be omitted―Mr. J. N. Darby and Mr. B. W. Newton. Mr. Darby was, we believe, a clergyman, and Mr. Newton was a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. They were both diligent students of the Bible, and being both singularly gifted as expositors or teachers, and taught to regard themselves as responsible to the Lord for the exercise of their gifts, they devoted themselves to the ministry of the Word among “the Brethren.” Mr. Darby seems to have been peripatetic in his labours, though at the outset he was more constantly at Dublin; while Mr. Newton is found, soon after the commencement of the meeting, resident at Plymouth. Both obtained great influence with “the Brethren,” and were, not unnaturally, consciously or unconsciously, looked up to as leaders, as well as teachers. Other prominent names are often found associated with Plymouth, such as Mr. Wigram, Mr. Harris, Mr. Soltau, &c.; but, it must be remembered that all the teachers circulated more or less through the various meetings that were gradually established, and thus are found sometimes in one place and sometimes in another.

We must guard ourselves from supposing that this meeting in Plymouth was conducted after the present type of such gatherings. As we have explained, the foundation of their gathering was their common faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They met, “to break bread,” and certain brethren, acknowledged to be teachers (not any who chose to do so) ministered one or more, as the case might be―in word and doctrine. In addition to this there was one presiding elder, Mr. B. W. Newton, who took the oversight of the ministry and was expected to hinder that which was unprofitable and unedifying. This office Mr. Newton seems to have held for three or four years; and Dr. Tregelles informs us that he saw a letter from Mr. Darby to Mr. Newton, which was addressed B. Newton, Esq., Elder of the Saints, meeting in Raleigh street, Plymouth.

From these statements you will be able to form a tolerable conception of the rise of “the Brethren,” and the mode of their original meetings.

Their Divisions

Their Divisions.—If we now trace their divisions, we shall see how they gradually modified or expanded their first principles, and how it is that their meetings have assumed their present form. With some few slight disputes and controversies, “the Brethren” continued to meet without much alteration, until the year 1845—when the first open division or disruption occurred.

Its cause was the same as that which has operated in every age of the Church—in every schism and dissension which have rent into a thousand fragments its visible unity—viz., divergence of opinion, or diversity of doctrine. Mr. Darby and Mr. Newton occu

, undoubtedly, the most influential positions in the community of the Brethren. But, as in the Church at Corinth, so here there were some who looked upon the one, and some upon the other, as their chosen leader and teacher.

This was of little moment, so long as they were (if they ever were really) in substantial accord. It was, however, soon discovered that they held widely op posed views, especially upon the prophetic Scriptures. Mr. Darby, with his followers, held and proclaimed the secret coming of the Lord and the rapture of the saints before the manifestation of Antichrist: Mr. Newton, with his followers, held and proclaimed the manifest coming of Christ for His people after the development of Antichrist. With these widely divergent views—and their still more widely divergent consequences—entertained and spoken of, there could not be much real harmony between the two sections. Still, with the avowed principles on which the Brethren met, there could be no justification for division, neither could any charge of heresy be fastened upon what was after all only a difference in interpretation. There can be no doubt, however, that this difference of opinion was “the little rift within the lute” that very soon “made the music mute.” The opportunity seemingly sought and waited for came, or was made, at last. In April, 1845, Mr. Newton, alarmed at the progress of error, as he deemed it, amongst the Brethren, published a number of “Propositions” in which he sought to embody the cardinal truths of Redemption, and at the same time to oppose the heresies then being propagated.

This occasioned mortal offence. As early as 1835 Mr. Newton had published a paper in the Christian Witness on the subject of “Our Lord’s Humanity,” with the special design of counteracting and refuting the errors of Irvingism. This paper met with so much acceptance that it was reprinted, with additions, and for ten or twelve years the Brethren, without a note or expression of disapproval, circulated it in hundreds almost throughout the world. But there were some unguarded expressions in that paper. There were two or three sentences which seemed to imply a federal relation on the part of our Lord with Adam. Thus he says, “The Lord Jesus was as free from indwelling sin as from actual transgression; yet, nevertheless, He was a member (so to speak) of the exiled family, and was, therefore, born subject to their penalties. But He was made under the law, and, being essentially holy, He was able to fulfil the law, and so to rise above the penalties to which He had become subject on account of Adam’s guilt.” There is one other sentence of like import. These were now after the lapse of twelve years, and after the publication of the “Propositions”—laid hold of and denounced as heretical. Mr. Newton’s attention being called to the expressions, he at once saw that they had been somewhat carelessly written. He immediately withdrew the papers for re-consideration, confessing that erroneous deductions might have been drawn from his statements, although he himself had never made those deductions. He even went so far as to publish a confession of error, and to confess it as sin—at the same time reiterating his belief in all the doctrines concerning our Lord’s person and work which have ever been held orthodox in the Christian Church. But nothing availed. Separation was determined upon, and it was accordingly effected. Meetings were held to attempt, after explanations, reconciliation—but in vain; and from that day to this Mr. Newton has been considered and denounced as the arch-enemy of the Church of Christ—and of the Brethren in particular. Thus Mr. Darby said in one publication, “I have not the least doubt, from circumstances I have heard lately, of the authenticity of which I have not the smallest doubt, that Mr. Newton received his prophetic system by direct inspiration of Satan;” and, speaking of his teaching concerning our Lord, he says, “I reject Mr. Newton’s doctrine as blasphemy, as I ever did.” I do not propose to lead you through all the controversy—if controversy it can be called, for it all proceeds from one side—for I confess that after some little knowledge of the disputes that have arisen in the Church, I have never met with language so strong and harsh, so uncharitable and rancorous, as is found in connection with this subject. And there is this remarkable feature in the case. Mr. Newton withdrew the expressions complained of, and has never repeated them, yet to this day he is dealt with as if he had stood by them, and declared them to be in accordance with his views. His confession is treated as null and void; and the Brethren have not only refused fellow ship with him, but they refuse to allow any one to break bread with them, unless they repudiate Mr. Newton and his supposed doctrines.

We pass now to the second division. The names of Müller and Craik are familiar to all—as familiar as household words. These saintly men had been led, in the providence of God, to minister at Bristol, and, from the very first, God abundantly blessed their work.

They also—although differing much from Mr. Darby and his followers upon points of doctrine and practice—were regarded as Brethren, and Mr. Darby frequently visited Bristol and ministered at “the gatherings.” In April, 1848, after the condemnation of Mr. Newton, he came and called as usual on Mr. Müller, who asked him to preach on the Lord’s-day evening. Mr. Darby declined, on account of a previous engagement on the way to Exeter, but said nothing to indicate that he was about to separate from the Brethren there. To the surprise of Mr. Müller, therefore, he heard a few days after that Mr. Darby would not come to Bristol again unless they refused fellowship to two Christians who had recently met with them, and unless they condemned Mr. Newton’s views. “The demand made on Bethesda was, that there should be a Church investigation of Mr. Newton’s views, and a Church condemnation of them, and Mr. Darby expressed his determination to remain in separation from them till that was carried out.” The Brethren at Bethesda refused compliance with this demand on the ground that they were not called upon to condemn opinions which had not come before them in their Church capacity. Refusing to obey, they were separated from, and remain outside of, the favoured few until this day. And as another example of the feeling with which Mr. Darby and his followers conduct their controversy, we may cite the following extract from a letter by Mr. Darby to Mr. Spurr, of Sheffield :―

“The evil at Bethesda is the most unprincipled admission of blasphemers against Christ, the coldest contempt of Him I ever came across… All who do not abhor the whole system and all connection with it are already entangled and defiled. It is, I am satisfied, a mere net of Satan (though many Christians be entangled in it). I have found persons unknown to each other, and strangers to our conflicts in England, unite in testimony that they could get nothing honest from those who were connected with it, or who did not openly reject it all.”

Strong enough, you will admit, especially when you remember those godly men, whose praise is in all the churches—Craik and Müller—and also that nothing honest can come from us if we do “not openly reject it all.” Reject it all! God forbid! Mr. Craik was my Hebrew examiner at college. I had opportunities of hearing him preach, and looking upon his saintly piety. And Mr. Müller, too—that man of faith and prayer! Reject it all! Again I say, God forbid! for the one is now before the Throne, and the other is a standard-bearer, who cheers many a faint heart by his simple faith and valiant courage. God has received them ; and who art thou that condemnest another man’s servant? To their own Master they shall stand or fall. Yea, they shall be holden up; for God is able to make them stand.

And, that you may not think the citation we have made a mere casual expression of the moment, I note that in a new edition of one of Mr. Darby’s works the same sentiments are found. He says “I reject Bethesda as wickedness, as I ever did.” Again, “I broke with Bethesda, and I reject it still.” Nor is this condemnation spoken only of the system. Mr. Groves tells us in the pamphlet cited above, that by one of Mr. Darby’s party, Messrs. Craik and Müller were spoken of as “the two blasphemers at Bristol,” that others called the Orphan Houses “a work of the devil;” and that Mr. Craik was said to be “a Socinian.” From another pamphlet published at Bristol, entitled Shibboleth, I might easily collect stronger (!) language, but I forbear. I will only add that the acts of “the Brethren” of the Darbyite party have corresponded with their words; for to this day they refuse fellowship to any who are connected with “Bethesda.” They treat them, equally with those who are in any way connected with Mr. Newton, as publicans and sinners.

The other divisions must be summed up in fewer words.—The next was in connection with a meeting at Peckham. Some “Brethren” there who had families, and found it too far to walk to the meeting at Walworth, commenced one at Peckham. It was known beforehand to be their intention to do so; but still no act of condemnation was passed, and the meeting was formed. But “the Brethren” there had not obtained the approval of the Leaders. They were Christians, and as such, had the right to meet in the name of Jesus―i.e., if the Leaders among “the Brethren” approved, not otherwise.

Still, the meeting was formed, whereupon the following notice was sent simultaneously to all the meetings in London, dated November 2nd, 1862:—

“Some brethren who have long been out of fellowship in spirit with the gatherings in London, although breaking bread at East Street, Walworth, have at length, in self-will, opened a meeting for breaking bread at Hill Street, Peckham; a considerable number in fellowship with us (i.e., those who had met at Walworth) have in consequence with drawn from East Street, and meet this morning for prayer and guidance.”

The explanation of this notice is found in the fact that those who remained at East Street are regarded as one with those at Peckham, because they assented to the course the latter had adopted.

So things went on until one of the recalcitrant “Brethren,” being one Lord’s-day in the neighbourhood of Kennington, went to the meeting in that locality. This was a grievous sin, and the next Lord’s-day the following encyclical was read at all the “gatherings:”―

“Mr. Ogilvie having intruded himself, on the 12th of April, at the Table at Kennington, and having, when remonstrated with, stated his determination to continue to do so, it is judged necessary to give notice that those who composed the East Street meeting, and those associated with Peckham meeting, cannot be accredited at the Lord’s Table till they are humbled for their course.”

Thus a body of Christians were cut off from fellowship,—and for what? Because they thought it more convenient to worship at Peckham than at Walworth. This was a grievous sin, demanding contrition and humiliation before they could be received at the table of the Lord.

Out of this third division the fourth grew, and was consummated. A brother from Peckham went to Sheffield. He was well known to “the brethren” in this place, and highly esteemed, and hence, as they altogether disapproved of the action which their leaders in London had taken, they allowed him, as on former occasions, “to break bread.” Such an act of contumacy could not be tolerated; consequently, that whole assembly was also placed out of communion. “The Brethren” at Sheffield remonstrated, but ineffectually. One of the leaders in London wrote and said that in commencing the meeting at Peckham “the sin of Korah was acted over again.” He adds, “Nothing has appeared in my eyes more deliberately wicked since I have known brethren,” and he cites the Scripture as applicable to the case, “God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.” It was no wonder, therefore, that he upheld the action taken.

Mr. Darby was appealed to, and after mature deliberation he wrote as follows:—“I take part in this act, and hold him to be outside the Church of God on earth, being outside what represents it in London. I am bound by Scripture to count him so. I come to Sheffield. There he breaks bread, and is—in what? Not in the Church of God on earth, for he is out of it in London, and there are not two Churches on earth, can not be, so as to be in one and out of another.” We will not stay to remark upon the assumption and inconsequence of this utterance, as the subject will recur, but we cannot forbear asking whether any loftier claims or pretensions have ever been put forth even by “the Church” of Rome. “The Brethren” at Sheffield were thus declared outside the Church of God on earth because they had harboured one who was said to have acted over again the sin of Korah.

We hasten on to the last division.—Strange to say, Mr. Darby himself, as if proceeding from a lex talionis, was its occasion. Having adopted a peculiar mode of interpreting the Psalms, he endeavoured to force the life and the facts of Christ’s life into accordance with the views at which he had thus arrived. Consequently, he propounded some novel views respecting the sufferings of our Lord. He divided them into three classes, and “the third class sufferings,” as they have been termed, were said to be from the hand of God, but not atoning; they were on behalf of the Jewish remnant that is to be restored towards the end of the age.

The period of these sufferings is said to be from the time He entered the garden of Gethsemane up to the Cross, and on the Cross until the time that he cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Mr. Darby thus says: “Till forsaken of God, the work of atonement, the wrath that worked it out in the forsaking of His soul, was not yet in accomplishment. It is no wonder to us that this new doctrine completely horrified some of his followers. In utter consternation and alarm they now remonstrated with him, but he held to and reiterated his new views. They then called upon “the Brethren” “to judge” this evil. They said, “We judged Mr. Newton, and here is our chief leader propounding similar heresies to those we were taught to believe that he held. In very consistency we ought to judge Mr. Darby.” They did not know what they asked. “To judge Mr. Darby” was to destroy the very existence of that section of Brethrenism, and hence the leaders turned a deaf ear to all their appeals. The result was that many left, and tractate after tractate appeared in justification of the step. Mr. Dorman, until then a prominent man, published one entitled, The Close of Twenty-eight Years of Association with J. N. D., etc. Mr. Harmar Smith wrote another called, The Link Broken; another appeared with the title, Divers and Strange Doctrines Stated and Examined by Tertius; another, Grief upon Grief, by P. F. H., etc. We have read most of these, but we cannot recommend our readers to follow our example, for, unless in pursuit of the truth of the question involved, a minute analysis and discussion of the sufferings of our Lord do not tend to edification. We are bound to add, however, that the tractates just mentioned were a necessity of tho case, and are a most valuable protest against what they deemed, and what we also deem, to be heresy.

We have now followed “the Brethren” in their divisions until the present time, and we see that “Brethren” pure and simple are the Darbyites, i.e., those who hold to the teaching and are in fellowship with Mr. Darby. For they reject as evil the Bethesda section—as they do all Christians who meet in any other way. For the rest of our lecture, therefore, we shall confine ourselves to this supreme section—those who, for the sake of convenience, are called Darbyites.

Their Practices

The next thing, then, that falls for consideration is their Practice. — Under this term we are compelled to include the grounds on which they meet, as well as their modes of worship, and the manner in which they propagate what they consider the truth.

(1.) They claim to be “the assembly of God;” that they alone represent on earth the Church of God. This may seem to many a monstrous assertion; and certainly it is one which needs undoubted proof; and the more because they have not always advanced this claim. At the outset they professed to be witnesses of the low estate of the Church, and they loved to express their view of this low estate by the phrase, “The Church is in ruins.” They then met simply as Christians. But as time advanced, and their numbers increased, they were possessed with another spirit, until they brought themselves to believe that their “gatherings” alone represented the Church of God on earth. This belief has found most distinct expression in a book written by Mr. Macintosh, of Bristol, and circulated by the Brethren in thousands throughout the land, entitled, The Assembly of God. The grounds on which Mr. Macintosh advances the claim are, as far as I understand him, that the Brethren alone meet in the name of Jesus, and in the power of the Holy Ghost. I beg pardon for using the word “meet:” he expressly disclaims it. Let him speak for himself: “As Jesus is the only centre, so the Holy Ghost is the only gathering power. The one is as independent as the other. It is ‘where two or three are gathered.’ It does not say ‘where two or three are met.’ Persons may meet together round any centre, on any ground, by any influence, and merely form a club, a society, an association, a com .”—P. 35. This argument is either true, or not true. If true, it is exceedingly important; and I am not ashamed to confess that I felt its power when I first read it. Judge, then, my surprise on taking my Greek Testament to examine it for myself, when I found that the very same word is used for the assembling of the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, to take counsel against our Lord (See Matt. xxvi. 3, compared with Matt. xviii. 20.) Must we not then conclude that it is not true? Another question presents itself—if the Brethren do not meet, but are gathered (i.e., by the power of the Spirit) how is it that, like other Christian people, they are always “gathered” together at exactly the same time—eleven o’clock on the Lord’s-day morning? A moment’s candid examination of the question shows that for the assumption there is not the shadow of a shade of foundation in the Word of God, or in the facts of experience and observation. The only matter of astonishment is that any one should have ventured to publish such a statement as that we have just read. The point, however, is of so much importance that I venture to quote what another has written respecting it. He says:—