The Plymouth Brethren/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 occupied, 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.[1]
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.”[2] 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.”[3]
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.”[4] 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.”[5] 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.[6]
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.[7] 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.
- ↑ We cannot express too strongly our sense of the injustice with which Mr. Newton has been treated on this question ; or our admiration of the manner in which he has borne his lengthened persecution. Assailed by false charges as to doctrine, maligned on all sides by “the Brethren,” he has never once been betrayed into an angry expression, but has calmly endured for righteousness’ sake. Avoiding all controversy, he has contented himself with expounding the truth on the questions involved. We may refer our readers to his “Suffering Surety,” and “Foundation Truths,” as among the clearest and ablest statements of the verities of the Gospel that have come under our notice.
- ↑ Pamphlet by H. Groves, p. 31.
- ↑ Christian Obedience, etc. p. 23.
- ↑ The Sufferings of Christ, pp. 9-10.
- ↑ Christian Obedience, etc., pp. 7 and 22.
- ↑ The Jersey case, connected with this and that at Peckham, the grossest of all, if we may judge from the pamphlets issued, we purposely omit, as taking place out of England.
- ↑ The Sufferings of Christ, p. 112.