Open Brethren: Their Origin, Principles and Practice
Hamilton Smith
Table of Contents
Introduction
The writer of the following paper has no quarrel with those known as Open Brethren. Their gospel zeal and missionary labors are well-known and matters for thankfulness. That they meet on principles that the writer believes to be unscriptural is a matter that he regrets, and if anything put forward in the following paper leads some to a clearer apprehension of scriptural principles, it will be to him a cause of thankfulness. At the same time, he deprecates anything that might have the appearance of an attack upon a company of the people of God. If, then, by chance, this paper falls into the hands of any Open Brethren, let such be assured that the fact that the writer sharply differs from them as to scriptural principles of gathering would not, in itself, have called forth the following paper.
One reason alone has led to this paper, namely, a few individuals have arisen among so-called Exclusive Brethren who advocate and seek to put into practice independent principles akin to those of the Open Brethren.
Such have arisen from time to time in days past, but, feeling it was inconsistent to continue with those whose principles they could no longer accept, they quietly withdrew and ceased to trouble their brethren.
Today new methods have been adopted. Those who advocate these independent principles seek, at all cost, to maintain their links with the so-called Exclusive Brethren, while seeking, by their principles and practices, to break down the barriers and establish intercommunion with any Open (or other) meeting which in their individual judgment is free from evil, and thus they bring together the Lord’s people on what they judge to be scriptural ground.
Very naturally this movement, on the part of a few individuals, has aroused protest from those who refuse the Open and independent principles as contrary to Scripture. In spite of protest, and notwithstanding individual and collective appeals, these individuals have persisted in their course without consideration for the consciences of their brethren and in spite of the fact that wherever this movement has manifested itself, confusion has followed, brethren have been distressed and disintegration has taken place.
In the course of the resulting exercises inquiries have been raised by many of our younger brethren as to wherein the principles and practices of the Open Brethren differ from those of the so-called Exclusive Brethren. The following paper is an attempt to answer these inquiries.
The questions we would seek to answer are the following: What was the origin of the Open Brethren system? What are the principles and practices of the Open Brethren? Wherein do they differ from the principles which the so-called Exclusive Brethren believe to be scriptural?
At the outset of our inquiry let it be understood that it is no question of Exclusive versus Open Brethren. It would be a very poor thing to seek to belittle Open Brethren in the endeavor to exalt Exclusive Brethren. This would be party work of the worst kind. In a day when all have so lamentably failed, it ill becomes any to seek to belittle others or make much of themselves. Moreover, it is not a question of inquiring who has failed in carrying out the principles of God. In the application of divine principles all have failed. Nor is it a question of seeking to discern where there are devoted or gifted men. Such can be found in every orthodox sect of Christendom.
It is solely a question of the truth of God and what God’s principles are for the guidance of His people in these days of ruin. Are the principles of the Open Brethren according to Scripture or not?
In facing these questions we desire to banish from our minds all extraneous details and keep to the main issue. For this reason, we deprecate, and shall therefore seek to avoid, recounting stories of things that have been said and done by individuals, which only create prejudice and have little or no bearing on the issue. Above all, we desire that these questions may be faced in a spirit free from all bitterness.
1. the Origin of the Open Brethren
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.
2. Open Reception
Inquiry makes it very evident that the Open Brethren have adopted the principle that association with those holding evil doctrine does not defile unless the evil doctrine is imbibed, and therefore they are free to receive individuals, believed to be sound in the faith, without reference to their associations. The earliest evidence that this is their principle of reception is contained in what is known as “The Letter of the Ten.” This was a letter drawn up and signed by ten leaders of Bethesda, in July 1848, in which they sought to justify the course they had pursued. In this letter we find this principle clearly stated. They say, “Supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth.” Here they plainly assert that they were prepared to receive those still in association with a heretic.
This principle, to which the Open Brethren owe their origin, first asserted in 1848, has been maintained throughout their history. In 1864 Lord Congleton, a leading Open Brother, said as follows: “Every dear child of God that is walking consistently with such a profession, come he from whatever quarter he may, would be received.”
In 1872 Mr. Muller, another highly respected Open Brother, asserted this principle in no uncertain language. He wrote as follows: “All who love the Lord Jesus and are fundamentally sound in the faith we receive, though they may not be able, as we could wish, to forsake certain persons or views or systems. In this way we purpose to persevere, because we consider it God’s order (Rom. 15:7).
“Again we have received persons, these sixteen years, who came from persons preaching damnable heresies. But we examined them, and as we found them, sound or not in foundation truths, so they were received or rejected.”
In 1883 Mr. James Wright, another leader among the Open Brethren, stated that it was still the principle which guided the Open Brethren in their practice as to reception. He wrote as follows: “In reply to your inquiry, the ground on which we receive to the Lord’s table is soundness in the faith and consistency of life of the individual believer. We should not refuse to receive one who we had reason to believe was personally sound in the faith and consistent in life, merely because he or she was in fellowship with a body of Christians who would allow Mr. Newton to minister among them.”
In 1921 the writer of “The Principles of Christians called ‘Open Brethren’ ” admits this principle. Describing the origin of Open Brethren, he says, on page 93, “The Bethesda Church, in which Messrs. Muller and Craik ministered, refused to admit any who were convicted of holding the evil doctrine themselves, but did not exclude those who came from Mr. Newton’s meeting.” Here then we have the fact admitted, without a word of disapproval, that while the Open Brethren would not receive anyone convicted of holding evil doctrine, yet they would not exclude those who came from the meeting where the error was taught.
Finally, an Open Brother, in a 1929 pamphlet entitled “The Local Assembly,” says that the Open Brethren have strictly adhered to the “important principle” that in the matter of reception the only responsibility of an assembly is “to deal with the actual beliefs and practices of any individual who might seek fellowship.” Further this writer quotes with approval the extracts already given from “The Letter of the Ten,” as well as the letter written by Mr. James Wright.
Thus we have a chain of evidence from 1848 to 1929 proving that in the matter of reception the Open Brethren do not take into consideration the association of the one they receive, or, to put this principle of reception quite plainly, they hold that association with those holding evil doctrine does not defile unless the evil doctrine is imbibed.
Such then is the “open” principle of reception. Is this principle false or true? In attempting to answer this question we must ask, not, What does an Exclusive Brother say? nor, What does an Open Brother say? but, What does Scripture say?
The Question at Issue
In turning to Scripture, let us keep clearly before our minds the question at issue. Does association with a teacher known to teach false doctrine defile, or must the false doctrine first be imbibed before defilement is contracted? In 2 John 1011 we read, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This passage clearly contemplates two persons, one holding false doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the other a person who wishes him Godspeed. The passage does not say, or imply, that this second person holds the false doctrine but that he identifies himself, by an act of fellowship, with the man that does, and, so doing, God calls this person a “partaker of his evil deeds.” If then God calls this man a partaker of evil deeds, he is surely a defiled man, and that, not because he has imbibed the evil doctrine, but because he is knowingly associated with a man that holds the false doctrine.
In the light of this scripture how solemn is the statement, made by Mr. Muller, that the Open Brethren receive those “who come from persons preaching damnable heresies” providing they are found to be personally sound in foundation truths. Whether fully realized or not, this means, as a matter of fact, that the Open Brethren received persons that God calls “partaker[s] of . . . evil deeds.”
Again we find this principle of the Open Brethren contradicted by 1 Corinthians 5:6, in the case of defilement by association with an evildoer. In this passage the Corinthian assembly is warned that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Does this mean that the Corinthian saints, having remained in association with a man known to be incestuous, had therefore all become incestuous? This indeed would be truly absurd. The clear meaning is surely that having remained in association with an incestuous man, they had thereby become defiled. In like manner, as we have seen, association with one holding evil doctrine caused defilement. It was not necessary for the Corinthians to commit incest to contract defilement, nor for evil doctrine to be imbibed in order to be defiled. See also Galatians 5:79. In both cases it was the deliberate association with known evil that defiled.
Again, the Apostle writing to the Corinthians, in his second epistle, after they had dealt with the incestuous person, can say, “Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11). Obviously, then, until they had dealt with the matter, they were not clear. But again we ask, Does this mean that they had all been guilty of incest? Surely not, but rather that they were all defiled, and having dealt with the man they were clear of defilement as far as his case was concerned.
These questions may well suffice to establish the principle that association with known evil defiles. But the principle is of such importance that we may be permitted to “ask now the priests concerning the law.” What will they tell us? The Lord instructs us how to put our question to the priests: “If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean” (Hag. 2:11-13).
Here we have two questions. First, will that which is holy sanctify that with which it comes in contact? And the priests answer, “No.” Then we have a second question: Will that which is unholy defile that with which it comes in contact? And the priests tell us it will defile it. This second question is the one that immediately concerns us. One is unclean by a dead body, and whatever he touches becomes unclean. It is not first necessary for the thing touched to come into contact with the dead body in order to be defiled, for as soon as it comes into contact with the man who has touched the dead body, it is defiled.
Is it possible for a simple soul, unprejudiced by the theories of men, to arrive at any other conclusion than that these scriptures plainly teach that association with a teacher known to teach false doctrine defiles, even though the doctrine itself has not been imbibed?
Alas! The force of these plain scriptures has apparently been ignored in the Open Brethren system, as a method of reception has been adopted which opens the door to defilement by receiving persons without reference to their associations.
In actual practice their system of independent meetings probably leads to very different methods of reception in different meetings. More godly care is exercised in some than in others. Doubtless in some meetings letters of commendation would be strictly required. In others strangers are invited to break bread. The extreme limit of the “Open” reception is seen in some meetings where all Christians present are invited to break bread. In such cases all godly care and Scriptural order are abandoned. In our private homes none would dream of inviting people of whom we know nothing to sit down at our tables. In a house of public resort no inquiry is needed, or made, as to the person who sits next to us at the table. We are there simply as individuals and strangers to one another. How different when, in the presence of the Lord of glory, we sit down at His table under conditions suitable to and enjoined by Himself to remember Him. In meetings where all present who profess to be Christians are invited to break bread, is not the table of the Lord reduced, in this respect, to the level of the table of a house of public resort? In the face of these things we may well ask, Have not the Open Brethren exposed themselves to the charge of having sunk, in this matter, below the level of every orthodox sect in Christendom? Do not all other sects erect some barrier, however slight, around that which they reverently, even if erroneously, consider the table of the Lord?
Before leaving the matter of reception, it may be well to refer to Romans 15:7, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” It will be noticed that in the extract given from Mr. Muller’s letter (page 8) he gives a reference to this passage as if it supports his views. Many others have attempted to use this scripture in a similar way. Is not this, however, a thoughtless perversion of Scripture to support particular views? Of this passage another has truly written, “I am convinced that the quotation of this passage (Rom. 15:7) as a warrant for promiscuous assembly reception is totally irrelevant. The Epistle to the Romans is not dealing with assembly order at all. It is a question of individual blessing through the gospel and of whom we are to recognize in our individual walk as Christians (see verse 1). Even the one whose faith is weak and who may practically put himself into bondage (ch. 14) is not to be ostracized. Moreover, how did Christ receive us? To the glory of God is the answer. It is no warrant for indiscriminate reception in any sense, but that in receiving we are exhorted to do so in view of all that suits the glory of God.”
3. Independency of Meetings
Independency of meetings is a second characteristic of the Open Brethren. We find this principle plainly avowed in their writings and constantly acted upon in their practice. In a pamphlet recently written by an Open Brother, of which one of the main objects is the endeavor to justify this independency of meetings, he states the Open Brethren view to be as follows: “Open Brethren hold that the Lord intends each assembly to stand and to act for itself, according to His Word, directly responsible to Himself, having to deal only with individuals presenting themselves for communion, neither responsible for nor bound by the church action of another assembly, but testing this by the Word when an individual presents himself, otherwise leaving it alone.” It is plain therefore that the meetings connected with this system are so many separate meetings each acting for itself independently of any other assembly. They may indeed, as Mr. Darby said, “respect one another and mutually accept each other’s discipline from each other, provided it be judged expedient, otherwise not.”
It is constantly affirmed by those who seek to defend this independency of meetings that the only other alternative is a federation of assemblies, or a circle of meetings, controlled by a central authority. As a matter of fact, neither alternative is true. There is, however, the truth of God as to the assembly, and this is found neither in independent assemblies nor in a confederation of assemblies. A confederation of assemblies is the principle that largely governs the great religious denominations of Christendom and, in principle, is pure sectarianism. The principle of independent assemblies leads to latitudinarianism, which allows of everybody’s will and tries nobody’s conscience.
What then, we may inquire, is the truth of Scripture? Turning to the first epistle to the Corinthians we find divine instruction for the ordering of the local assembly. This instruction is based upon two great truths: the truth of the fellowship into which believers are called and the truth of the one body.
As to “the fellowship” we read, “Ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). The Apostle is going to instruct the Corinthian saints as to dealing with certain evils that had arisen in their midst. He lays the foundation for all his instruction by reminding them, and ourselves, that, in Scripture, as believers, we are viewed, not as members of a local meeting or a local fellowship, but, irrespective of locality, nationality or social position, as being called into the fellowship of which Jesus Christ our Lord is the bond. It is in the light of this fellowship that the Apostle associates with the church of God in Corinth “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (ch. 1:2). Such a fellowship has its privileges and responsibilities, to be carried out in dependence upon the Lord — the One who is the bond of the fellowship. The Lord is not simply the bond of a local meeting, nor is it only to such we receive nor from such we put away. The Lord is the bond of the fellowship, and into this fellowship we receive and from it we put away, if the sad necessity arises. When, in the end of chapter 5, the Apostle speaks of the “within” and “without,” he does not merely mean “within” or “without” of the local assembly at Corinth. The “within” was the whole assembly of God on earth, and the “without” was the whole world system.
It is obvious that a system of independent meetings has lost sight of the fellowship into which we are called and, more serious still, very largely ignores the Lordship of Christ in practice. Such may plead they are acting locally under the authority of the Lord, but if so, how can they ignore the fellowship of which the Lord is the bond? If we recognize a company of saints as walking in the truth of the fellowship and under the authority of the Lord, we cannot disregard their acts, whether in reception or discipline, without ignoring the Lord. If their act is bound in heaven, it is surely bound on earth in other assemblies.
Those who take this independent ground have little else before them but local fellowship, viewing themselves as members of a local meeting. Scripture, however, never so speaks: We are called into “the fellowship” and are members of the one body. The local meeting may cease or be unable to come together; the fellowship to which we are called remains, whatever the vicissitudes of the local meeting.
Moreover we learn from 1 Corinthians 12 that there is one body, formed by one Spirit, which embraces every true believer, as we read, “As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Cor. 12:12-13). Then, having shown that the one body includes all saints and the very practical results flowing from this truth, the Apostle says of the local assembly, “Ye are Christ’s body, and members in particular” (vs. 27 JND). He does not say, as in the Authorized Version, “Ye are the body of Christ,” as if they formed the whole body of Christ, but simply, “Ye are Christ’s body.” That is to say, the local assembly was characteristically and representatively “Christ’s body.” A general might say to a local company of soldiers, “Remember you are Coldstream Guards.” He would not say, “You are the Coldstream Guards,” because they do not form the whole regiment. But he reminds them that they are the local representatives of that famous regiment and are expected to act and behave in view of the whole. So with a local assembly: If acting according to the light of Scripture, it does so as representing the one body. It is perfectly true that the local assembly is directly responsible to Christ as the Head of the body, but whether acting in reception or discipline, in the name of the Lord Jesus, their act is not independent of all other assemblies, but is in view of the whole assembly and has a bearing which extends to the whole. So, too, when the local saints come together, in the exercise of their privileges, to break bread, they do so, not as members of a local meeting but as members of the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17). In this epistle the local assembly at Corinth is called upon to perform an act of discipline, in putting away a wicked man, but in this solemn act, as in all else, they were linked up “with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (ch. 1:2).
In the light of these scriptures it will be seen that the truth of the church as the one body of Christ does not consist in a federation of assemblies, or a circle of meetings, on the one hand, or of independent meetings on the other. The truth is that the assembly is one body, formed by one Spirit, Christ Himself being the Head and all believers the members. And the local assembly, whether in its privileges or responsibilities, acts not simply for itself, or for a circle of assemblies, but as representing the whole assembly viewed as the body of Christ.
It may be asked, Cannot mistakes be made in assembly action, and, if so, are we bound to accept some manifestly wrong judgment simply because it is the judgment of an assembly professing to act in the light of the church under the direction of the Head? Admittedly serious wrongs have been done, and may be done, but, we may ask, are we to meet failure in the application of a divine principle by abandoning the principle or seek to avoid difficulties by adopting a human principle? Have we no resources in the presence of such failure? Seeing we are members of one body, can we not plead with those who have acted wrongly, to put the matter right? Have we not Christ the Head of the body to whom we can turn and seek to reach our erring brethren through the Head? One has well written, “It is admitted that the assembly being a spiritual formation (for we have all been made to drink into one Spirit), it is incumbent that we be in a right spiritual state either to receive those who are scripturally commended or to exclude those who should be scripturally excluded.
“Yet even where the principle is generally recognized, there will always be forthcoming instances of failure, where saints have allowed human influences to warp their judgment. The occurrence of rare cases where mistakes are made will remind us that no claim can be put in of infallibility in the church; and these instances require much patience, and the ministry of grace and truth from the Lord to put a wrong right. In all such matters He Himself is the one Resource to whom we can turn. Where He has permitted a brother to be misjudged or misrepresented, it is best for him to be submissive before the Lord and to wait with a weaned and self-judging spirit for the Lord to clear him. To defy the decision and to escape the exercise by slipping into another company is to miss the blessing the Lord has for him behind the trouble.”
4. Concluding Remarks
Having briefly considered the two distinguishing principles of the Open Brethren system, we may ask ourselves, What must be the effect of the adoption of these principles?
It is obvious that where these principles are carried out in an extreme way, people are received on their personal responsibility without any test. Where more care is exercised, it does not go beyond a personal test in the matter of reception, nor beyond a local meeting when it is a matter of excision.
Hence a principle of reception is adopted which opens the door to any evil, and a principle of independent meetings which prevents evil from being adequately dealt with. One principle lets in evil; the other makes it impossible to effectually put it out. Mr. Darby truly said this system of independent meetings “entails the consequence that I might participate in the exclusion of a wicked person in one meeting, and take the Lord’s supper with him in another” (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 33, pg. 47).
Thus one of the most serious consequences of a system of independent meetings is the loss of true scriptural discipline. Instead of the discipline of the church according to the promised presence of the Lord and the guidance of the Spirit, such a system has only the discipline of a voluntary association which makes rules for itself and either accepts or rejects the discipline of other meetings, according to circumstances.
Where a scriptural discipline cannot be maintained, the order of the church of God is set aside, leading ultimately to the loss of the truth of the church. Mr. Darby has clearly shown how this loss must take place by an apt illustration. He says, “Supposing we were a body of Freemasons, and a person were excluded from one lodge by the rules of the order, and instead of looking to the lodge to review the case, if it was thought to be unjust, each other lodge were to receive him or not on their own independent authority, it is clear the unity of the Freemason system is gone. Each lodge is an independent body acting for itself. It is vain to allege a wrong done, and the lodge not being infallible; the competent authority of lodges and the unity of the whole is at an end. The system is dissolved. There may be provision for such difficulties. All right if it be needed. But the proposed remedy is the mere pretension of the superiority of the recusant lodge and a dissolution of Freemasonry.” On this Mr. Darby further remarks, “The church is not a voluntary system. It is not formed (or rather unformed) of a number of independent bodies, each acting for itself. It was never dreamed, whatever the remedy, that Antioch could let in Gentiles and Jerusalem not, and all go on according to the order of the church of God. There is not a trace of such independency and disorder in the Word. There is every possible evidence of, in fact, and doctrinal insistence on there being one body on earth, whose unity was the foundation of blessing in fact, and its maintenance the duty of every Christian. Self-will may wish it otherwise, but certainly not grace and not obedience to the Word” (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 14, pgs. 464465).
Is it not only too plain that, as a result of the adoption of these false principles, the truth of the church has been largely obscured among the Open Brethren and increasingly they tend to become simply a gospel mission?
In the light of the foregoing statements we judge that any assembly that acts on the principle of independency has forfeited its title to be owned as walking in the light of the church.
It may be there are those in fellowship with Open Brethren who have little knowledge of the origin of the movement, even of the principles that distinguish it, still less of the bearing of these principles. Moreover the adoption of the principle of independency has doubtless led to very great diversity in their meetings, so, it may very well be true, that there are individual meetings who have in measure abandoned the above principles, but apparently they still maintain a link, by commendation and reception, with meetings that do maintain these principles.
In spite of much evangelical zeal, is it not painfully evident that in the Open Brethren movement, the gracious recovery of truth in the nineteenth century has been largely neutralized by the introduction of an easygoing system of free will and independency? By mainly confining their efforts to evangelical activity in proclaiming a gospel — largely reduced to meeting man’s need and which appeals to the general run of Christians — the Open Brethren appear to have let slip the distinguishing truths of Christianity which unfold our present heavenly association with Christ and God’s purposes for the glory of Christ in the assembly. Moreover, their system of independent meetings tends to exclude the authority of the Lord in the practical administration of it by the Spirit and very largely confines “fellowship” to the local meeting. The Lordship of Christ and the “fellowship” into which all saints are called must lose their true significance in a system of independent meetings.
We may well ask, How can those whose eyes have been opened to see the truth have any fellowship with a system where the above principles hold sway, whether it be by the reception to the breaking of bread of those still identified with the Open Brethren or by individuals going back to minister in their meetings?
Those seeking to walk according to the truth of Scripture would surely exclude any thought of “membership of Brethren” and would be ready to receive all Christians sound in the faith and free from evil in their associations, even though they may not have sufficient light or faith to sever their links with some ecclesiastical system. This surely is right, though, on account of the increasing corruptions of Christendom, the practice of this principle may become very limited and increasingly difficult. In the case, however, of the Open Brethren, their origin, their principles and their practice make it very difficult to apply this principle in the matter of receiving to the breaking of bread one still associated with them, except perhaps in the very rare case of an absolutely ignorant person.
To return to them again under the plea of ministry is surely building again the things that we have destroyed. To say the least, it shows that the one so doing sees no great evil in the system, has but little appreciation of divine principles, and has forgotten that, even if such a course be considered lawful, it may not be expedient. Moreover, it is possible, on the plea of service under the direct authority of the Lord, to be simply doing what is right in our own eyes, without consideration for the conscience of others — in other words, doing our own will.
We may conclude with the words of another: “Satan wants God’s people to walk either with a narrow heart in a narrow path, which is sectarianism, or with a broad (that is, large) heart in a broad way, which is latitudinarianism. . . . No man on earth ever walked in such a narrow path as the Lord Jesus Christ, and none had such a large heart as He. May He give us grace to walk with a large heart in a narrow path.” May we too be able to say with yet another, “We humbly submit to His Word, confident that God will never abandon those who seek to obey Him, and that the Word of God and the grace of the Church’s Head suffice, and ever will suffice, at all times, for those who are satisfied to walk in littleness and unappreciated by the world.”
Appendix a the Doctrinal Errors of B. W. Newton
As there appears to be some misapprehension as to the errors in B. W. Newton’s teaching, and even attempts at palliation, it seems advisable to give a summary of these false doctrines.
Mr. Darby summed up these errors in the following words:
“Mr. Newton has taught that Christ was, from the position He was in by birth as a man and an Israelite, under the curse of the exiled family, not vicariously on the cross, but in His own relation to God; that He was under the doom of death, under the curse of the law, and had to work His way up to a point where God could meet Him; that He had the experiences which an unconverted elect man, if he felt rightly, would have. These are not deductions, but the statements of Mr. Newton himself ” (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 15, pg. 182).
Mr. J. E. Batten, who was for a time associated with Mr. Newton at Plymouth, and therefore well acquainted with his views, has also summed them up in the following statement:
1. That the Lord Jesus at His birth, and because born of a woman, partook of certain consequences of the fall, mortality being one, and because of this association by nature, He became an heir of death, born under death as a penalty.
2. That the Lord Jesus at His birth stood in such relation to Adam as federal head that guilt was imputed to Him and that He was exposed to certain consequences of such imputation — as stated in Romans 5.
3. That the Lord Jesus was also born as a Jew under the broken law and was regarded by God as standing in that relation to Him, and that God pressed upon His soul the terrors of Sinai, as due to one in that relation.
4. That the Lord Jesus took the place of distance from God, which such a person so born and so related must take, and that He had to find His way back to God by some path in which God might at last own and meet Him.
5. That so fearful was the distance and so real were these relationships by birth and so actual were their attendant penalties of death, wrath and the curse that until His deliverance God is said to have rebuked Him, to have chastened Him, and this in anger and hot displeasure.
6. That because of these dealings from God, and Christ’s sufferings under them, the language of Lamentations 3 and Psalms 6,38,88, as well as others, has been stated to be the utterance of the Lord Jesus while under this heavy pressure from God’s hand.
7. That the Lord Jesus extricated Himself from these inflictions by keeping the law, and that at John’s baptism the consequent difference in Christ’s feelings and experience was so great as to have been illustrated by a comparison of the difference between Mount Sinai and Mount Sion, or between law and grace.
8. That, beside all these relations which Christ took by birth and their attendant penalties and inflictions, and His sufferings under the heavy hand of God, it has been further stated that He had the experience of an unconverted though elect Jew.
Appendix B the Facts As to the Acknowledgment of Error by Mr. B. W. Newton in 1847-1848
In two recent pamphlets by an Open Brother, there is a reprint of “A Statement and Acknowledgment Respecting Certain Doctrinal Errors” by B. W. Newton. Apparently this Statement has been reprinted to prove, in the judgment of the writer, that Mr. Newton confessed and abandoned his fearful errors touching the Person of Christ. He speaks of this Statement as a “humble document” and asks, “Why so thorough a confession and withdrawal did not end the controversy?” He then gives what he judges to be the only answer. He says that it “must be that Mr. Newton’s opponents had ceased to walk in love, and therefore certain carnal influences, such as bitterness, ambition, a party spirit, overcame them.”
The conclusion reached by this writer, at this late date, is so contrary to what Brethren have believed for eighty years that it is well to refresh our memories by recalling the facts. They are as follows:
In the early part of 1847 it came to light that notes of a lecture on Psalm 6 by B. W. Newton were being privately circulated, which contained fundamentally false doctrines concerning the Person of Christ and the cross. (See Appendix A.)
The matter having become public, Mr. Newton issued two further pamphlets, in which he elaborated and defended the doctrines in question. One paper was called, “Remarks on the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus,” and the second, “Observations on the Doctrines of Notes of Lectures on Psalms 23,31,38, Concerning the Sufferings of Christ.” The second paper was a vindication of the views expressed in the first tract against the charges of false doctrine.
These tracts called forth two pamphlets by J. N. Darby: one entitled, “Observations on a Tract Entitled, ‘Remarks on the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus,’ ” and the other entitled, “A Plain Statement of the Doctrine on the Sufferings of Our Blessed Lord, Propounded in Some Recent Tracts.” (Both pamphlets will be found in Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 15.) In these pamphlets Mr. Darby gave copious extracts from Mr. Newton’s tracts and thoroughly exposed the terrible character of his false teaching.
These papers by Mr. Darby opened the eyes of many who had been adherents of Mr. Newton. By them Mr. Newton was pressed to make a confession of his errors, the result being that he put forth a paper dated November 26, 1847, entitled, “A Statement and Acknowledgment Respecting Certain Doctrinal Errors.” This is the paper that has recently been reprinted. To anyone unacquainted with the facts, as must be the case with the majority of people today, this Statement might indeed appear to have been a very thorough confession and withdrawal of his erroneous views. However, on closer examination it will be seen that this statement only confesses his false application of Romans 5 to the Lord Jesus. As to the two tracts above referred to — which it must be remembered contained the major part of his false teaching — he merely states, “I also request that they may be withdrawn for reconsideration.” It is plain that he did not confess the errors of these tracts. Let it be clearly noted that the only false doctrine he confessed is that found in the second article in J. E. Batten’s statement printed in Appendix A.
The true character of this “Acknowledgment of Error” was exposed in a paper written by Mr. Darby entitled, “Notice of the Statement and Acknowledgment of Error by Mr. Newton” (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 15).
Furthermore, many of the followers of Mr. Newton, among them Mr. Soltau and Mr. Batten, who were in fellowship with him at Plymouth and who must therefore have been fully acquainted with all the details of this sad controversy, were so thoroughly dissatisfied with this confession that they refused to associate any longer with Mr. Newton and withdrew from his meeting at Plymouth.
Some months after Mr. Newton’s withdrawal of his two pamphlets for reconsideration, he published a further paper in July 1848 entitled, “A Letter on Subjects Connected With the Lord’s Humanity.” This paper was criticized in a pamphlet written by J. N. Darby entitled, “Remarks on a Letter on Subjects Connected With the Lord’s Humanity” (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 15), in which he shows that the evil doctrines of Mr. Newton’s previous tracts were fully maintained, and he exposes the worthless character of Mr. Newton’s “Acknowledgment of Error.”
Finally, we must remember that this “Acknowledgment of Error” by Mr. Newton was not only refused by Mr. Darby, but it was also repudiated by Mr. G. Muller, a prominent leader among the Open Brethren. In answer to a letter from Mr. J. Deck, Mr. G. Muller wrote as follows:
Bristol, Dec. 12, 1848
My dear Brother,
I thank you for the loan of the three letters which I return. I have never written to you on the subject of Mr. Newton’s fearful errors on account of the great pressure of work, but as your letter calls for it, I just desire to tell you, dear brother, that not only have my eyes been opened long to the fearful errors contained in those two tracts but I have stated twice before the assembled church — in June and the beginning of July — this my judgment, as also before the laboring brethren the early part of June.
My hope, however, was that poor Mr. Newton might recover himself out of the snare of the devil as he had confessed the fearful error concerning the federal headship of Adam and had withdrawn those two fearful, erroneous tracts for reconsideration. When, however, the reconsideration came out and I found that, notwithstanding all the filing and polishing with regard to expressions, this last tract was nothing but a defense of those two former ones, I felt it my duty to change my way of acting and at full length did I expose, many weeks ago, these fearful errors which touch the very foundations of our holy faith.
And since then I have perhaps ten times or more, before the assembled church, denounced in the strongest terms these fearful errors, and not only have I done so but eight or ten leading brothers besides. I only add that Mr. Newton’s errors have few more decided opposers than myself and that Mr. Newton’s friends are not a little displeased with me.
Ever yours affectionately in the Lord,
(Signed) G. Muller
The consideration of this brief history of the facts will make it abundantly clear, to any unprejudiced mind, that the “Acknowledgment of Error” by Mr. Newton was repudiated by sober brethren in his own meeting, by leading brethren among the so-called Exclusive Brethren, such as Mr. Darby, and by responsible brothers among the so-called Open Brethren, such as Mr. Muller.
It seems impossible to deny the fact that leading and responsible brothers, living at the time of controversy and fully acquainted with all the details, whether among Exclusive or Open Brethren, were agreed that in spite of Mr. Newton’s professed acknowledgment of error, he still maintained the evil doctrines of his two tracts. In further corroboration of this, it may be stated that we are informed that in an article written by Mr. Newton so late as 1867, entitled “Christ Our Suffering Surety,” there occurs the following passage concerning the Lord: “Although it is true that the fires that burnt at Sinai did not envelop Him in their full devouring power until Calvary, yet those fires burnt against Him as the sinner’s surety, always, and from time to time sent forth as it were, their lightning flash, scorching though not consuming.” This blasphemous utterance concerning our Lord would show that after twenty years’ reconsideration of his tracts, he still held his false doctrines as to our Lord.
It is difficult to imagine that the Open Brother who has recently reprinted Mr. Newton’s “Acknowledgment” would deliberately suppress the facts, and therefore we can only judge he is ignorant of them or has forgotten them. We judge that the facts plainly show that Mr. Newton’s “Acknowledgment” was rejected on all sides, in 1847-1848, not, as this Open Brother now suggests, in 1929, from lack of love or from any carnal influences such as bitterness, ambition or a party spirit, but out of loyalty to Christ and love to His people.
Appendix C Interview Between Mr. Darby and Mr. Muller
For many years there has been in circulation the story of a conversation, reported to have taken place at an interview between Mr. Darby and Mr. Muller in July 1849.
The facts of this story do not appear to be known, for it is generally told with the omission of material facts, and, as thus presented, appears very much to the discredit of both Mr. Darby and Mr. Muller. As it has again appeared in this partial form, in a recent pamphlet by an Open Brother, it may be well to give the full story.
After the interview between Mr. Darby and Mr. Muller, in July 1849, a report was put about by a Mr. W.H.S., a leading brother in the Bethesda fellowship, purporting to give the conversation that took place between these two brothers. It was said that Mr. Darby, speaking of B. W. Newton’s tracts, remarked to Mr. Muller, “As you have now judged the tracts, the reason why we should not be united no longer exists.” To this Mr. Muller is reported to have replied, “I have only ten minutes now free, having an engagement at one o’clock, and therefore I cannot now enter on this subject, for you have acted so wickedly in this whole affair, that many things have to be looked into before we could be really united again.” With this, it is said, the interview closed.
This conversation has been taken to prove that, in Mr. Darby’s judgment, all ground for separation was removed in 1849, and that henceforth it was only personal feeling between leaders that kept up the breach. From this it is argued that we can safely ignore the personal element and act upon Mr. Darby’s reported statement that “the reason why we should not be united no longer exists.”
It may well be said, in reply to such an argument, that even if no reason existed in 1849 for the continuance of the separation, it does not follow that no reason exists for its continuance eighty years afterwards. If, however, the argument is perfectly sound, it manifestly all turns upon the truth of this reported conversation. The following part of the story, which is not generally told, absolutely denies the truth of the report. The letter from Mr. W.H.S., giving this report, was sent to Mr. Darby, to know if it was true. Here is Mr. Darby’s reply:
Dear Brother,
I send back S.’s letter. It is all of apiece, the same egregious self-sufficiency which has always misled him. As regards the statement of my interview with Mr. Muller, I had heard it before, and I have only to say that it is a total and absolute falsehood in every part and parcel of it. I do not attribute it to Mr. S., but being given as coming from Mr. Muller and having no reason to think it a pure invention of the relater, Mr. Muller and I having been alone, I can only esteem it, as I do, a deliberate falsehood on the part of Mr. Muller. It is too precise and totally contrary in everything to the truth to be anything else. You are at liberty to repeat my judgment if you wish. I am afraid sometimes that things are a great deal worse than I ever was inclined to think. The less you have to do with personal questions with them, the better.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
J. N. Darby
From this letter it is plain that Mr. Darby treated this report as “a total and absolute falsehood in every part and parcel of it.” Moreover it is clear that there is no independent witness of what was said — no third person being present at the interview. We are dependent upon Mr. Darby or Mr. Muller for any information as to the conversation. If their report of the conversation unfortunately differs, we are compelled to leave the matter, as obviously no one can prove which is the correct version, whatever our private judgments may be.
The only effect of the story, even if believed, can be to create prejudice against Mr. Darby, for it must be obvious that no conversation that took place between two brothers in 1849 can have any bearing on the principles and practices of the Open Brethren in 1929 nor of our judgment as to these principles and practices.
Appendix D Reception From Open Brethren
In order to countenance the reception of a person wishing to break bread, who is still associated with Open Brethren, a letter written by Mr. Darby in November 1878 has often been quoted. It is suggested that this letter shows that under certain circumstances Mr. Darby would have received such.
Now it is obvious that in the matter of reception, as in other matters, we must be guided by the principles of Scripture under the direction of the Lord and the guidance of the Spirit, and not act simply upon the ipse dixit of Mr. Darby or any other servant of Christ. However, we should rightly give weight to the judgment of Mr. Darby. Therefore we will give the letter in full as printed in Letters of J. N. Darby (Vol. 3, pg. 447; second edition, pg. 561), so that the reader may judge if it supports reception from Open Brethren meetings. Mr. Darby wrote as follows:
Nov. 1878
Dear Brother,
I have no wish to keep the Bethesda question, not that I judge the evil as less than I thought it, but that from the length of time many there are mere dissenters and know nothing of the doctrine, so that they are really in conscience innocent, though gone in there as they would into any dissenting place. If this brother had never had anything to do with Bethesda as such, I should have asked him nothing about it, as happens every day. But your account is that his separation was on account of looseness in discipline. What I think I should do would be not to discuss Bethesda, but show him, say, J. E. B.’s confession, where he states what they taught, and ask him simply if he held any of these, as they were the things that had made the difficulty. I should not ask anything about Bethesda. If he does not hold them, I should not make any difficulty. I should gladly have patience with a godly brother who had seriously a difficulty. If it were merely willful, I do not feel that an assembly is bound to satisfy his willfulness. This principle is recognized in 1 Corinthians distinctly. Otherwise one perverse person might keep evil in the assembly perpetually.
He would allege his conscience being governed by the Word of God and not yours.
J. N. Darby
It is quite clear that this letter refers to the reception of a brother who had already separated from Bethesda on account of looseness in discipline. The letter therefore does not touch the question of receiving one still associated with Open Brethren.
The letter refers to the reception of two classes of persons: First, those who have “never had anything to do with Bethesda as such”; with such Mr. Darby would raise no question about Bethesda — their doctrines or principles. Second, those who (like the brother referred to in the letter) have been associated with Bethesda but have separated from Bethesda. In such cases Mr. Darby’s judgment was that, by reason of the lapse of time, it would be unnecessary, in ordinary cases, to trouble them with all the details of the Bethesda matter, but simply show them J.E.B.’s confession (Appendix A), which states what B. W. Newton taught, and see if they are clear of these errors.
The Facts Restated: a Criticism of Recent Pamphlets Defending the Principles of Open Brethren
The following letter was written in reply to a communication from a brother in the Open Brethren fellowship, inquiring if I had issued an answer to Mr. W. Hoste’s pamphlet, “Rejudging the Question,” and Mr. H. P. Barker’s pamphlet, “Why I Abandoned Exclusivism.”
It is now printed, not for the sake of fighting opponents, but in the hope that it may help to steady any who, through lack of knowledge of the facts, may be shaken in their convictions by misleading statements in the above papers.
At this late date comparatively few possess the documents necessary in order to obtain the facts relating to the 1848 division. I have therefore sought to record, in an orderly way, the events that led to this sad division. I may, however, mention, for the sake of those who have it in their power to verify the facts, that these facts have been mainly drawn from the following books and pamphlets:
1. “The Letter of the Ten,” 1848.
2. “The Whole Case of Plymouth and Bethesda,” W. Trotter, 1849.
3. “A Letter on Bethesda Fellowship,” J. S. Oliphant, 1865.
4. “Darbyism,” H. Groves, 1866.
5. “History of the Plymouth Brethren,” W. B. Neatby, 1901.
6. “The Doctrine of Christ and Bethesdaism,” W. Kelly, 1906.
7. “Bethesda Fellowship,” J. S. Oliphant, 1907.
In citing this list it may be well to add that I do not agree with all the opinions expressed in some of these papers, but it is felt they can be trusted for the bare facts.
One has written to me as follows: “There are many who do not want to be convinced, and I suppose with deep sorrow of heart that we may have to lose such, in the way of their secession from what we humbly believe to be the Lord’s path for faithful souls in the maintenance of the truth of Christ and the church. The difficulty is great when those are found among us who have not the candor to adopt the uniform and join the ranks of those who are Open Brethren out and out, but claim the liberty to associate with us in ‘fellowship’ (sic) and profess to make a stand for the truth while daily undermining it. They seem to see no inconsistency in it; yet whenever there is an occasion to press the principles of divine order and discipline in the assembly, they are active at once in opposing themselves. Open Brethren have at least the honesty of their convictions and can be usually met as honest men, even if wrong, but it is difficult to avoid very, very strong feelings about those who use their inside privileges among us to belittle and counteract the principles which have given us the path we tread.”
I feel the solemn truth of this extract. Apparently the great effort of the enemy is to rob us of the truth by misstating the facts, misrepresenting the principles and emphasizing details of mistakes made by individuals in difficult cases, and thus lead us to abandon the path of separation in which alone the full truth can be maintained and enjoyed. One can only trust that the following letter may help those who have to meet this specious form of opposition to the truth.
November 25, 1930
Dear Brother,
Your letter to hand with enclosures, for which accept my thanks. You ask me for my thoughts on the papers by Mr. H. P. Barker and Mr. Hoste, so I will venture to give you my convictions for what they are worth.
As to Mr. Barker’s paper, I am not surprised that you read it “with astonishment and regret.” Many others share these feelings with you. I judge you refer to his paper, “Why I Abandoned Exclusivism.” He has, however, written an article in the Open Brethren magazine “The Witness” entitled, “Supposing Exclusivism Were Right.” May I briefly refer to both?
First, as to the article, “Supposing Exclusivism Were Right”: There is that about this paper which might well lead one to say, “It carries its own condemnation, and therefore calls for no answer.” However, Mr. H. Pickering evidently approved the paper and thought it worthy of publication, and, having given it wide publicity in the pages of “The Witness,” it calls for some comment.
The object of this paper is apparently to prove that the principles held by the Exclusive Brethren are wrong and, in practice, lead to absurd situations. Mr. Barker has not attempted to show exclusive principles are wrong or that the open principles are right by bringing before us statements of Scripture. He has chosen another way and sought to condemn what he calls exclusivism by supposing a case which he considers makes it look ridiculous and impossible. In a word, he has chosen the dangerous expedient of opposing what he considers wrong by ridicule.
For the Christian, ridicule is a dangerous weapon, and he who resorts to it may find himself in strange company, for it has been ever the favorite weapon with the infidel who sets himself to oppose Christianity. In Matthew 22:2333, the infidel Sadducees come to the Lord attempting to prove the impossibility of the resurrection by supposing a case which, they imagined, made resurrection absurd. They did not attempt to prove it false by Scripture, but they opposed it by ridicule. In the same manner Mr. Barker supposes a scene at Philippi in which the assembly refuses to receive Trophimus because he comes from the assembly at Ephesus, where Mr. Barker supposes there are those who teach error concerning the resurrection.
Further, he supposes that Trophimus is told that he can go and sit outside by an immoral man. This latter supposition has nothing to do with the principles that Mr. Barker is opposing and would seem to be merely added as a gratuitous insult to Exclusive Brethren and shows to what depths we can sink when we want to disparage one another.
When I turn to Scripture, I find not a line to say that those who taught this false doctrine, as to the resurrection, were in the assembly at Ephesus. The Scripture implies exactly the contrary, for we read that Hymeneus had been delivered to Satan by the Apostle to learn not to blaspheme. Are we then to imagine that a blasphemer, and one committed to Satan, was still in the assembly?
However, Mr. Barker does imagine that in the assembly at Ephesus there was a man of whom Scripture speaks as a blasphemer, who was delivered to Satan, who taught fundamental error, whose word worked like a gangrene, and who overthrew the faith of some. Then, having supposed this man to be in the assembly at Ephesus, Mr. Barker proceeds to condemn the assembly at Philippi for refusing to receive those who came from Ephesus. For, be it remembered, the whole point of his paper is to pour ridicule on what he supposes took place at Philippi.
The only conclusion we can come to is that Mr. Barker thinks it right to receive from a meeting in which there is a blasphemer who teaches fundamentally false doctrine — though, I presume, he would add, provided the person coming from the meeting has not imbibed the error and protests against the blasphemer.
Mr. Barker has indeed gone far from what he professed to hold in 1922, when he wrote, “As to Bethesda principles — by which I presume you mean the reception of persons, themselves sound in the faith, who maintain a link with a meeting where heretical teaching is tolerated — I am as far from them as ever. I would be no party to the reception of such persons.” What he was far from in 1922 he now, in 1930, ridicules if not done.
Mr. Barker, in his paper, reasserts the principle of “The Letter of the Ten” with this difference that, whereas the Ten set forth this principle in the sober language that becomes divine things, Mr. Barker has done so with a levity that many of us judge to be little short of profanity.
We come now to Mr. Barker’s second paper, “Why I Abandoned Exclusivism” with appended notes by H. St. John. In this paper, after not very happily dismissing the pamphlets written by those who oppose his views as being “more or less a hash-up of the usual misrepresentations,” he proceeds to give us his own views and experiences.
Instead, however, of facing, in a sober spirit, the differences that separate Exclusive Brethren from Open Brethren, he repeats foolish things that have been said and isolated incidents that have occurred; he dwells upon divisions and falls back upon ancient history.
What, however, is all this but evasion of the real issue? After all, we are not separate because of foolish things that have been said on either side, nor because of isolated incidents that have occurred on either side, nor because of divisions on either side, nor simply because of what took place in 1848.
Today the Exclusive Brethren are in separation from Open Brethren for two main reasons: because of certain principles maintained or acted upon by the Open Brethren which Exclusive Brethren believe to be unscriptural and destructive of the church in its practical administration, and because of the condition — such as loss of much truth and worship (which Mr. Barker admits) and adoption of worldly methods in service — which has been the outcome of the adoption and practice of these principles.
This issue Mr. Barker almost entirely evades and contents himself with repeating things which, even if true, have no bearing on the issue and appear to have been repeated with the deliberate purpose of attempting to raise prejudice against Exclusive Brethren.
I am surprised to read the remarks by H. St. John. My acquaintance with him is of the slightest, but it was sufficient to lead me to expect something different from his pen.
Others, besides Mr. Barker, have changed their fellowship from Open Brethren to Exclusive Brethren or vice versa and altered their views, but almost without exception, a right Christian feeling has led such to do so without causing trouble or saying things that would hurt the feelings of those they have left. Mr. Barker is a sorrowful exception.
While still professing to be with Exclusive Brethren, he advocated principles and adopted practices (such as breaking bread and preaching in Open Brethren meetings) which he knew troubled the consciences of his brethren and brought confusion into meetings. At that time (1923), appeal after appeal was made to him, it being pointed out that his only righteous course was either to cease doing things that ignored the consciences of others or else withdraw. Alas! Every appeal was in vain, and as a result he found that the meetings of the Exclusive Brethren were shut to him.
Thus by force of circumstances, rather than any principle on his part, I fear, Mr. Barker found himself with the Open Brethren. And, the meetings of Exclusive Brethren being closed to him, he writes a paper to tell us why he abandoned Exclusivism. Moreover, he has used his missionary circular, his magazine “Marching Orders,” “The Witness” (the Open Brethren’s monthly), and this last pamphlet (“Why I Abandoned Exclusivism”) to belittle and hold up to ridicule those with whom he walked for thirty or forty years, from whom he learned what truth he possesses, whose hospitality he accepted, and to whom he was so largely beholden for the meeting of his temporal needs.
If it were only a matter of changing his fellowship and changing his views, however much we might regret it, nothing could be said. In such matters each must act before the Lord. The way, however, in which he has made this change appears to me to be unworthy of a Christian and, I feel, must be condemned by every spiritually minded person, whether among Open or Exclusive Brethren. He could, as others have done, have changed his fellowship and gone on with his work without hurting anyone’s conscience.
I am sure, in the light of Scripture, that those who take a course in which they act in defiance of the consciences of their brethren enter upon a perilous path. Have you noticed the solemn stages of this road as marked out by the Apostle in 1 Corinthians? In chapter 8 he warns the Corinthian saints against wounding the consciences of their brethren. In chapter 10, the warning becomes more solemn, for he reminds them that it is possible to “provoke the Lord to jealousy.” In chapter 11 the final stage is reached, when we read, “Many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” To provoke the saints is serious; to provoke the Lord may be fatal, as far as this life is concerned. The Lord is very tender and long-suffering with us, or where would any of us be, but let us take heed lest we provoke the Lord to jealousy.
What makes the course that Mr. Barker has taken all the more sad is the fact of his undoubted zeal and usefulness in his own particular line of service. I am sure God will not be unrighteous to forget his work and labor of love, and I do not want to forget it, nor the happy times we spent together in little bits of service in the past. Nonetheless, I am not prepared to let past friendships hinder me from raising my voice on behalf of those he has deeply wronged and whom I deeply love. Doubtless the Exclusive Brethren, like the Open Brethren and all others, have broken down most grievously and, in one sense, deserve all the stones that will be thrown at them. Nevertheless I am sorry for the man that throws the stones, and more especially when that man has received more than usual kindness from their hands.
Coming now to Mr. Hoste’s paper, “Rejudging the Question,” the greater part of it, as the title would suggest, is taken up with an appeal to history. In the main he bases his defense of the Open Brethren system on history which he maintains has been misrepresented by Exclusive Brethren. In the presence of this charge, it may be well to review the facts.
We all know the difficulty of obtaining the exact details of events that take place today. This difficulty must be greatly increased in regard to events that occurred over eighty years ago. Mr. Hoste evidently recognizes this, for he admits the use, in such a case, of the “principle of probability.” There is, however, in existence ample documentary evidence to enable us to arrive at a definite conclusion on the main facts, which can be strengthened by keeping “probability in view,” as Mr. Hoste suggests.
All admit that the division was brought to a head through the circumstances under which certain individuals, who came from Mr. Newton’s meeting at Plymouth, were received by the Bethesda meeting at Bristol.
From the somewhat disconnected way in which Mr. Hoste refers to this history, it would be difficult for anyone to glean from his paper exactly what took place. But the conclusion he arrives at is quite definite. He says, of these persons who were received, that they “were one and all candidates for permanent fellowship, and it was in no way contemplated that they should ever return to break bread at Plymouth.” This plainly means that Mr. Hoste contends that Bethesda viewed these people as having severed their ties with Mr. Newton and his meeting.
Here then is a plain issue. Do the facts and probabilities support this conclusion?
The evidence shows that in February 1847 it came to light that Mr. B. W. Newton of Plymouth was propounding views concerning the Person of Christ of such a character as to dishonor the Lord and undermine the foundations of Christianity.
When it became clear that Mr. Newton maintained his errors, many left his meeting at Ebrington Street, Plymouth, in December 1847.
In April 1848, four persons from Compton Street, Plymouth (the meeting in fellowship with Mr. Newton at Ebrington Street had moved to Compton Street) applied for fellowship at Bethesda, Bristol, namely Col. Woodfall and his brother, a Mrs. Brown and a Miss Hill.
On May 10, 1848, a meeting was held at Bath, attended by over one hundred brothers from all parts, at which the errors of Mr. Newton were examined and confessed and renounced by some who had been in association with him at Plymouth.
Soon after this meeting at Bath, in June 1848, the above four applicants from Plymouth were received by Bethesda at Bristol.
Mr. Trotter, writing in 1849, describes these persons as “Mr. Newton’s devoted friends and partizans.” Lord Congleton, according to Mr. Hoste, describes them as “four persons known as friends of Mr. Newton and as disallowing that he held the doctrines laid to his charge.” Mr. Neatby, in his book on these events, speaks of Col. Woodfall and his brother as being “well-known friends of Newton’s” who “had been in the habit of communicating at Bethesda Chapel whenever they passed a Sunday at Bristol.” Further, it is reported that they circulated the tracts which contained Mr. Newton’s anti-Christian doctrines.
Mr. George Alexander, in fellowship at Bethesda, besought the Bethesda meeting to examine the charges of error against Mr. Newton before receiving these four applicants. Others, outside the meeting, warned them of the character and views of the persons they were proposing to receive. In spite of all warnings, Bethesda persisted in its course and received these persons from Plymouth, while refusing to make any investigation as to whether the charges made against their avowed friend, Mr. Newton, were true.
May I pause here, in the history of these events, to make some remarks on this reception. Mr. Hoste’s conclusion, drawn from his reading of these events and what he considers probable, is that these four persons “were one and all candidates for permanent fellowship, and it was in no way contemplated that they should ever return to break bread at Plymouth,” and, further, “were all required to give proof as to their soundness in the faith.”
I judge that such a conclusion might be true in terms, as far as it goes, and yet give a totally wrong presentation of the actual case. It may be true that these people had permanently left Plymouth as a place of residence, and when tested by the general truths of Christianity they were found to be sound in the faith. But the question still remains: Had they cleared themselves from association with the one who taught error of a deadly character and who was the cause of all the trouble?
Did not the fact of four known friends of Mr. Newton coming from his meeting and applying for reception at Bethesda make two things incumbent upon Bethesda: first, to enquire if Mr. Newton was guilty of holding the specific errors charged against him, and second, if found guilty, to assure themselves that these four persons had severed their connection with Mr. Newton?
Is it not notorious that at the time these persons were received, Bethesda persistently declined to examine these errors or take any steps to discover if Mr. Newton was guilty of holding and propounding these alleged errors?
Do not the facts clearly show that before the date of the reception of these persons, the errors of Mr. Newton had been exposed, that numbers had left his meeting in consequence of these errors, that a meeting had been held at Bath at which these errors had been confessed and renounced, and that warnings and appeals had been made from within the Bethesda meeting and without?
Yet knowing these things — as Bethesda must have done, for these things were not done in a corner — and in spite of warnings and appeals, they deliberately received the avowed friends of Mr. Newton without any investigation of the charges made against him. Those whom they received, on Mr. Hoste’s showing, disallowed that Mr. Newton held the doctrines laid to his charge, while those who received them declined to make any investigation as to whether the charges against Mr. Newton were true or not.
In the face of these facts, we are asked to believe by Mr. Hoste that they were received as those who had permanently severed their connection with Plymouth, as he says, “It was in no way contemplated that they should ever return to break bread at Plymouth.”
We may well ask, Why should they decide not to return if they refused to admit that Mr. Newton held error? And why should Bethesda object to their returning if Bethesda refused to investigate the charges against Mr. Newton or pass any judgment as to his guilt?
I submit that the facts are entirely opposed to Mr. Hoste’s conclusion and that the probabilities make his way of reading history so highly improbable that it becomes impossible to accept his conclusion. I judge both facts and probabilities clearly show that the charges made against Bethesda by leading brethren at the time of the events, and believed ever since by Exclusive Brethren, are alas true, namely, that Bethesda deliberately received persons coming from a meeting in fellowship with one who was charged with blasphemy, knowing that these persons were the friends and partizans of the one charged with blasphemy, and that these persons had not separated and had no intention of separating from this blasphemer.
The after history, which we may now briefly resume, will only further confirm this conclusion.
As the result of Bethesda’s action many, who had protested, left the meeting. (Mr. Darby says 30 or 40; Mr. J. S. Oliphant, 50). Mr. Hoste says it is very improbable that they left for this reason. We may well ask, Why then did they leave? Are we to imagine that 30 or 40 persons left that meeting because four persons were received who had permanently cleared themselves from Mr. Newton and his meeting? This is too highly improbable to be believed.
Following upon the reception of these four persons in July 1848, a letter was written and signed by the ten leading brothers at Bethesda. In this letter the Ten disclaim holding the evil doctrine imputed to Mr. Newton, while definitely declining to find out if Mr. Newton held those views. That is to say, the examination that was the main thing necessary — seeing they were receiving people coming from his meeting — they refused to make. For their refusal to investigate these charges against Mr. Newton they offer sundry excuses, such, for instance, as the “variableness” of the views held by Mr. Newton, the fact of there being a difference among brethren as to the amount of error contained in his tracts, the ambiguous style in which they were written, the lack of leisure time to investigate, and the little probability of the Bethesda brethren coming to a unanimous judgment if they did investigate. These excuses appear very paltry, when we consider that the errors in question were touching the Person of Christ and so far justify the charge of indifference to the glory of Christ brought against Bethesda.
The final reason given for making no investigation is that such investigation was absolutely unnecessary, for they had all agreed that “touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting an individual coming from Plymouth. For supposing the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth.”
This letter was read and adopted by the Bethesda meeting on July 3, 1848. Thus it came to pass that (1) there were a few who supported Mr. Newton at Compton Street, Plymouth, (2) there were a large number of brethren at Plymouth and elsewhere who judged his views to be blasphemous and refused to be associated with him, and (3) there were those at Bethesda who took up a neutral position between those who supported and those who separated from Mr. Newton. Mr. Craig, a leader at Bethesda, acknowledged that the meeting had taken a neutral position, for he wrote, “According to the light I have, both parties are so far wrong that I have no wish to be identified with either,” and again he writes, “Since we have been separated from both parties [that is, Mr. Newton’s and Mr. Darby’s] there has been much quietness among us.” Seeing that these errors had reference to that which touched the Person of Christ, it was felt that this neutrality was really indifference to the glory of Christ.
Between November and December 1848, about five months after “The Letter of the Ten” was presented to Bethesda, the investigation of Mr. Newton’s errors which had hitherto been refused was undertaken by Bethesda. The reason for making this investigation is not very apparent. Mr. Neatby says, “Bethesda found the pressure too strong.” It is not, however, very clear what the pressure was. Probably it was, as Mr. Groves suggests, to clear themselves from the charge of indifference to the honor of Christ. The result of this examination was that Bethesda condemned Mr. Newton’s views and arrived at the following conclusion: “That no one defending, maintaining or upholding Mr. Newton’s views or tracts should be received into communion.” It will be noticed there is not a word in this resolution “about excluding the friends of a false teacher or those in fellowship with him. The reception of such persons is not barred at all so long as they do not defend, maintain or uphold Mr. Newton’s doctrine” (J.S.O.).
About the end of January 1849, Col. Woodfall went to Mr. Newton’s old congregation at Compton Street, Plymouth, and took the communion there.
As to the result of this judgment, Mr. J. S. Oliphant writes as follows: “By July 12, 1849, ‘Mr. N.’s friends’ had sent in their resignation. That this step was the result of the judgment is most questionable — at least it had no effect on some of them till two months after it had been passed; and the Messrs. W. stated, ‘This step of ours has been finally determined on from a conversation with one of your pastors, who seems to think it would relieve them of some of their difficulties.’ Still they said they could not deny Mr. N. the right hand of fellowship, and the true character of the persons received by Bethesda in June 1848 is plainly declared by themselves.”
I submit that the consideration of the events after the reception of the four makes it still further impossible to accept Mr. Hoste’s conclusion.
“The Letter of the Ten” clearly shows that not only Bethesda took no steps to see that the four they received were clear from association with Mr. Newton, but they saw no necessity for doing so.
Finally, the conclusion they reached, when they do at length find Mr. Newton guilty, shows that they do not see the necessity of excluding a person coming from his meeting, if clear of his errors.
The fact that Col. Woodfall returned to break bread at Compton Street, Plymouth, in January 1849 and that both he and his brother left Bethesda, when it owned that Mr. Newton was guilty, proved clearly, whatever their motive might have been, that they had no intention of severing their links with Mr. Newton.
From beginning to end of this sad history I judge that the facts and probabilities are, on the one hand, entirely opposed to Mr. Hoste’s conclusion, and, on the other, entirely confirm the conclusion reached at the time and held since by Exclusive Brethren, namely, that Bethesda did, as a matter of fact, receive persons who were still in association with one holding blasphemous views as to the Person of Christ, and having received them they sought to justify their act by “The Letter of the Ten” and their subsequent resolution when they had found Mr. Newton guilty.
This, I believe, is the history of the events that led to this division. Having reviewed the history, may I again repeat that while the division was brought about by events that took place in 1848, and that doubtless principles held and practiced by the Open Brethren have their roots in the past, yet the main reasons for so-called Exclusive Brethren maintaining separation from the Open Brethren system are not simply because of what took place in 1848, but because of principles held and practiced in this system at the present day.
As to these present-day principles, Mr. Hoste seeks to deny the charges of “independency” and “open reception” brought against the Open Brethren system.
In seeking to meet the charge of “independency” (pages 59), Mr. Hoste draws a very exaggerated, and therefore untrue, picture of what Exclusive Brethren hold: He passes over the plain instruction of 1 Corinthians and draws entirely wrong conclusions from the addresses to the seven churches, through failing to see that these addresses were not written to instruct the assemblies in church order — already given to them in 1 Corinthians—but to give them the Lord’s judgment as to how far they had departed from these instructions.
Moreover, Mr. Hoste does not make it very clear what the Open Brethren do hold. I may, however, remind you that another Open Brother, Mr. G. H. Lang, in his recent paper, “The Local Assembly,” very definitely lays down what the Open Brethren hold as to the independency of meetings. He says, “Open Brethren hold that the Lord intends each assembly to stand and to act for itself, according to His Word, directly responsible to Himself, having to deal only with individuals presenting themselves for communion, neither responsible for nor bound by the church action of another assembly, but testing this by the Word when an individual therefrom presents himself; otherwise leaving it alone.”
This statement, while presenting a good deal of partial truth, I entirely reject as being according to the teaching of 1 Corinthians. If it accurately represents the principles of Open Brethren, I judge the charge of independency of meetings must remain against the Open Brethren system. It may be only fair to add that I have heard a hint that Open Brethren do not agree with Mr. Lang’s paper. This may be and I hope is so as to much that is in this paper, but I should judge the above statement fairly sets forth what Mr. Hoste and Open Brethren generally hold as to independency of meetings. At any rate, it shows that the principle of independency of meetings is among the Open Brethren either to be defended or opposed.
As to Mr. Hoste’s statement that “open reception is more imaginary than real,” I can only remind him that he himself told me of an Open Meeting at which he was present where, at the commencement of the meeting, a leading brother publicly announced that all Christians present would be welcome to break bread. Another leading Open Brother told me that he himself had invited all Christians present to join in taking the Lord’s supper. Moreover, the details are so well-known of strangers being invited to break bread that, I fear, the “open reception” is something more than a “bogey” as Mr. Hoste suggests.
I am sorry that Mr. Hoste has revived the charges made against Mr. Darby of teaching Newtonianism or what could not be distinguished from it. It is not quite clear whether Mr. Hoste believes these charges himself, but, as he speaks with evident approval of those who separated from Mr. Darby on account of these charges, I can only imagine that he has accepted them as true. If so, I can only think that he has done so without examining the papers on the subject. If, however, any seriously wish to know what Mr. Darby really held and wherein his views differed from Mr. Newton’s blasphemous teaching, let them read the introduction to the second edition of Mr. Darby’s article on the sufferings of Christ. It can be found in Volume 7 of the Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, pages 217250. Also, it would be well to read the Appendix of this paper, pages 336338. A perusal of these pages should definitely settle the matter for any intelligent mind, free from bias. If, however, Mr. Hoste wishes us to understand that it is the judgment of Open Brethren that Mr. Darby taught blasphemous views like those of Mr. Newton, then, I can only say, he has furnished an additional reason for very many of us declining to be linked up with the Open Brethren system.
I confess that the perusal of these different papers only strengthens me in the conviction that the Exclusive Brethren are right in refusing to be drawn into intercommunion with the Open Brethren system. At the same time, I have no wish to attack Open Brethren. I must also wholly dissociate myself from the views of Mr. Hoste, as set forth on the first page of his paper. There he commends those who have made trouble in some Exclusive meetings by persisting in going “in and out” among Open meetings. Mr. Hoste is thankful that wherever this has been done “disintegration has taken place,” for he evidently judges that the time has come to “break down.” Doubtless he means the walls. I ask, however, what is the use of breaking down the walls if you disintegrate the house inside? It may be, of course, with any body of Christians, as with Israel of old, that a time may come when God sees such a low condition that He will no longer tolerate it, and He allows it to break up. But woe betide the instrument used of God to do the breaking up. I would rather not be that man. Can it possibly be following righteousness, faith, love and peace to remain in a house, accept its hospitality, and, at the same time, act in a way that disintegrates the household? If Mr. Hoste’s sentiments rightly express the attitude of the Open Brethren towards those known as Exclusives, they cannot be surprised if Exclusive Brethren firmly decline to receive those coming from Open Brethren. No one can blame people for declining to receive into their houses those who avowedly rejoice in the disintegration of the household.
As I am writing to one still in association with the Open Brethren, may I add that, as far as I am concerned, I have, on the one hand, no wish to attack or disintegrate Open Brethren meetings, while, on the other hand, I do not desire to exalt Exclusive Brethren as against Open Brethren. I do not believe that any body of Brethren, so-called, form any exception to the general course of the breakdown of man in responsibility. I recognize that all have broken down, that every principle, however Scriptural, can be and has been abused, and that our only hope is to own our failure and cast ourselves upon the Lord. We may well take up the language of the godly remnant in Israel and say, “We are become a reproach to our neighbors, a scorn and derision to them that are round about us” (Psalm 79:4). And, again, we can say, as in that same psalm, “We are brought very low” (vs. 8), and even say we “are appointed to die” (vs. 11). But taking this place, shall we not find the “greatness of the Lord’s power” to “preserve those appointed to die,” there to discover that in spite of all failure we are His sheep, and He is the Shepherd (vs. 13; Psalm 80:1)?
However, while owning failure, I cannot admit that any amount of failure would justify us in surrendering divine principles, and hence, feeling as I do in regard to the Open Brethren system, I am not prepared for intercommunion with that system, whatever fellowship I may be able to enjoy with individuals apart from their system.
Exclusivism, or that which the word rightly stands for, namely separation from iniquity and vessels to dishonor, I believe to be a great truth of Scripture and the first step in the path that God has marked out for His people in the midst of the ruin of these last days. It stands in contrast to the “looseness,” “indifference” and “independence” that the self-will of our flesh so dearly loves. Like every other principle of God, it can be and has been greatly abused. Nonetheless, I believe we owe the great recovery of truth in this last century to the maintenance of this principle. And only as this principle is rightly maintained will these truths be retained, while the abandonment of this principle is invariably followed by the loss of truth and the absence of worship in its true character. The late J.B.S. said, speaking of separation from evil, “In every age of the church any little effort to obey this injunction has had its reward, whether observed by one or more, and whoever will take the trouble to investigate the course of any distinguished servant of the Lord or company of believers, he will find that separation from surrounding evil was one of the leading characteristics, and that service and honor was proportionate thereto, but declined and waned as this key to service was neglected or unused.”
Feeling as I do, you will understand why I cannot commend, as Mr. Hoste does, those who “have refused to retire quietly over ‘the’ wall and perpetuate the ancient division, but have had the spiritual energy to ignore ‘the wall’ altogether, and go in and out wherever they believed the Lord had set before them an open door.” So far from leading to unity, such action has only led to further division, and therefore I can only treat those who take this course according to the scripture which enjoins us to “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). That any continue in such a course, in spite of all appeals and the evident confusion they make, convinces me that such are acting in self-will, not that they would own this. Alas! for a hundred persons that confess their sins, there will hardly be found one who will confess to self-will. Yet there is no more potent force to scatter the sheep than the self-will of sincere men. Self-will can at times hide itself under fair names such as the insistence on divine principles, the liberty of the servant and the service of the Lord, but wherever it is at work, it will make for the scattering of the flock of God.
I believe that if the efforts of a few to break down the barriers were to succeed, no people would rue the day more than the Open Brethren. It would lead to their complete disintegration. I have no confidence in the efforts to bring about any general coming together of Brethren. I doubt if it would be according to the mind of the Lord. He has allowed us to break up and our wisdom will be to bow under His chastening hand, waiting for the moment when at His coming He will bring, not only Brethren so-called, but all His people together. We “shall be caught up together” is an encouraging word. Then, indeed, to use the words of the prophet, “With the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye” (Isa. 52:8). Until then, I desire to make a straight path for my feet and do nothing that will bring further confusion among the people of God.
With Christian regards,
Yours affectionately in Christ,
H. Smith
Addendum by the Editor
In consistency with their practice of independency, Open Brethren have in recent years developed a doctrine to support the practice. As in Revelation 2 we have first the “deeds of the Nicolaitanes” mentioned in the address to Ephesus (vs. 6), followed by the “doctrine of the Nicolaitanes” in the address to Pergamos (vs. 15), so now Open Brethren are seeking to justify their independency of meetings by an appeal to Scripture.
In the Open Brethren magazine, “Light and Liberty,” published by Walterick of Fort Dodge, Iowa, we find under date of May 1944 on page 96 an article entitled, “Notes on Second Timothy” by W. E. Vine, M. A. In commenting on verse 20 of chapter 2, Mr. Vine says, “Some have interpreted the house as representing the world, others what is mistermed ‘the church on earth’ (an entirely unscriptural and misleading phrase — the church is never viewed as ‘on earth’; there are churches on earth)” (italics ours).
Now it would be charitable to charge Mr. Vine’s blunder to ignorance, but when one uses an “M.A.” he can hardly plead ignorance. If Mr. Vine is playing with words in saying that Scripture never speaks of “the church on earth,” he is technically correct. But neither does Scripture use the expression “the church in heaven.” Would Mr. Vine conclude with equal logic that the church will never be in heaven?
But can anyone who is familiar with the Acts and Paul’s epistles doubt that in Paul’s mind, at least, there was such a thing as “the church on earth”? Witness his confession in Galatians 1:13, “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God [not ‘churches’], and wasted it [not ‘them’].” That the persecution was not confined to any one locality is clear from Paul’s defense before Agrippa when he says, “And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities” (Acts 26:11). (See also Philippians 3:6: “Concerning zeal, persecuting the church.”)
That the church in its universality is often alluded to in the New Testament is clear from the following Scriptures. Christ is said to be “head over all things to the church [not ‘churches’]” (Eph. 1:22). Compare also Ephesians 3:10, “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church [not ‘churches’] the manifold wisdom of God.” Is the church “on earth”? If not, where is it? See also Ephesians 5: “As the church is subject unto Christ” (vs. 24); “Christ also loved the church” (vs. 25); “cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church” (vs. 29); “I speak concerning Christ and the church” (vs. 32). “He is head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18); “His body’s sake, which is the church” (vs. 24).
Take the expression in 1 Corinthians 12:28, “God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers.” Now we know that apostles and teachers are gifts-at-large to the church — never local.
Must we not conclude, then, that only blind infatuation with an unscriptural position can ever lead one to defend the strange postulate that “the church is never viewed as ‘on earth’; there are churches on earth.” God’s Word recognizes emphatically two parallel truths: First, there is a divinely constituted entity upon the earth which is many times referred to in Scripture as “the church of God,” and second, there were numerous local groups referred to in Scripture as “the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4).
In the Word of God these two terms are used discriminatingly, and there is a special line of truth connected with each. To either deny them or reduce them to a common denominator is to parade our lack of confidence in the exactness of divine revelation. But to what length will not error go in wresting the Scriptures to defend an unscriptural position. May our gracious Lord keep us humble in spirit as we handle His Word, for has He not declared, “But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word” (Isa. 66:2)?