Our first inquiry must be, What was the origin of Open Brethren?
Ever since brethren had begun breaking bread in 1827, they had experienced the Lord’s blessing in many ways, and gradually old, forgotten truths had been opened up to them. It was similar to other beginnings where the power of the Holy Spirit had been manifested in blessing. But the same failure that Paul so clearly pointed out in Acts 20:2832 was soon to manifest itself in connection with the practical carrying out of the newly recovered truths.
A period was soon entered during which were deep exercises before the Lord as to how the Lord would have saints conduct themselves so as to maintain the glory and honor of Him to whom they were gathered. A zeal for the Lord in a new way was called for. (See 2 Corinthians 7:912.)
Plymouth, England, had become an outstanding assembly where there had been much blessing, but as in Acts 6, “When the number of the disciples was multiplied,” the enemy was ready to introduce that which would mar and spoil everything.
“One person, Mr. B. W. Newton, of Plymouth, who, if not one of the earliest laborers there, was there soon after the commencement, began, at a very early period, to pursue a course distinct from that of the other brethren” (T. pg. 8).
“The system introduced by Mr. N., and most speciously disguised for a time, was directed to the undermining of all the truth by which God had acted on the souls of brethren, and thus to the setting up afresh in another form of all that had been renounced. The coming of the Lord as an object of present hope or expectation was denied. The real unity of the church as one body, indwelt and governed by the Holy Ghost, was denied; and instead of it the doctrine was asserted of a kind of independent churches” (T. pg. 9).
“For the presence and sovereign rule of the Holy Ghost in the church was substituted the authority of teachers” (T. pg. 10).
“Suffice it to say here that Mr. N.’s course was such as issued in all the other brethren who labored there at the first leaving Plymouth to work elsewhere. Mr. Darby went abroad and Mr. Wigram to London, and Mr. N. was left almost alone at Plymouth” (T. pg. 9).
“Long had J.N.D. and others watched the progress of things at Plymouth with sorrow and apprehension; still no hand was lifted to arrest the evil. At last Mr. D. came over from the continent, and after spending several months in Plymouth laboring within the gathering there, and using what means he could to awaken the consciences of the brethren, he was obliged himself to withdraw from the assembly. He did so on the ground that God was practically displaced and man set up in His stead, and also that there was evil allowed in the assembly without any means of bringing it before the saints for judgment” (T. pgs. 10-11).
“Mr. Darby, after testifying to the meeting of this fact, separated himself from them on his own individual responsibility to the Lord according to His Word. This took place on October 26, 1845” (S. pg. 26). “For some time Mr. Darby stood alone, waiting patiently for God to do His own work, that hearts and consciences might be rightly exercised and that brethren might understand what his action meant” (S. pg. 29).
“In April 1846 a meeting of brethren from all parts was held in London for common humiliation and prayer, where the tokens of the Lord’s presence were graciously vouchsafed to us, and from that time the eyes of the brethren seemed open to the evil. Mr. Newton and his friends were invited to that meeting but they refused to attend” (T. pg. 12).
“Mr. Darby’s ‘Narrative of Facts’ was printed soon after and a series of meetings was held in Rawstorne Street, London, very important in their origin, character and results. They originated in a visit of Mr. N. to certain brethren in the neighborhood of Rawstorne Street and breaking bread there. He held some Scripture readings at the house of one of them, after which he stated that his errand to town partly was to meet any brethren who were wishful of information as to the charges brought against him in the ‘Narrative of Facts’ ” (T. pgs. 12-13). “Most providentially Mr. Darby was in London. The brethren waited on him to detain him until efforts were made to bring about an open investigation of the whole case with the accused and accuser face to face. The brethren to whom Mr. N. had offered to give information proposed to him this open investigation. It was proposed to him again and again by others, but steadily and invariably refused” (T. pg. 13).
“The brethren meeting at Rawstorne Street then assembled, and after united prayer and consultation concluded that Mr. Newton could not be admitted to the Lord’s table there, so long as he refused to satisfy their consciences as to the grave charges alleged against him” (T. pg. 13). This action was taken December 13, 1846.
By 1847 it came to light that Mr. Newton of Plymouth was teaching doctrines concerning the Person of Christ of such heretical character that they undermined the foundations of our faith. When it became clear that Mr. Newton maintained his evil doctrines, in spite of all remonstrance, many who had been associated with him at Plymouth separated from him and the meeting he attended at Compton Street. A considerable number of persons, however, adhered to him, though at the same time putting forth a declaration that they did not hold his false doctrine.
The question then arose: Could assemblies of the Lord’s people in other places receive a person coming from those who met with Mr. Newton at Plymouth? In the light of 2 John 7-11 it was felt by brothers of spiritual judgment that those in association with Mr. Newton, even though they refused his doctrine, were, according to Scripture, “partaker[s] of his evil deeds” and therefore could not be received until they had cleared themselves from their wrong associations.
The evil character of the doctrines in question was clearly demonstrated and the course of those who separated from Mr. Newton fully upheld at a meeting attended by over one hundred brethren, held at Bath in May 1848. Alas, in spite of the judgment of godly brethren, very shortly after the meeting at Bath, a company of believers meeting in Bethesda Chapel, Bristol, received seven persons coming from the meeting with Mr. Newton at Compton Street, Plymouth, and who were still in fellowship with the false teacher, though it was stated they were free from his false teaching. These persons were received in spite of protest from godly persons at Bethesda and warnings from others at a distance. It was felt that they were deliberately receiving persons that Scripture speaks of as “partaker[s] of . . . evil deeds.” It followed that the brethren at Bethesda who had protested in vain (between thirty and forty persons) withdrew from fellowship with those meeting at Bethesda.
The outcome of the action of Bethesda, Bristol, was a general division in which those who defended and remained in fellowship with Bethesda became known as “Open” Brethren, their “open” principle meaning a door open to receive those in association with a teacher holding false doctrine, so long as the person received had not himself imbibed the false doctrine. With this “open” reception there developed among the Open Brethren the principle of “independent” meetings.
Such, briefly, are the historical facts. We may now pursue our inquiry as to the two principles which more particularly characterize the Open Brethren, namely, their method of reception and their independency of meetings.