A first gathering of believers along the lines that have marked the Brethren Movement from the very beginning, occurred in Ireland, in the winter of 1827-1828. This “first meeting of “the Brethren” was held in Fitzwilliam Square,”1 in the city of Dublin, Ireland. Those present included, among others, John Nelson Darby, of whom we have already spoken, and John Gifford Bellett. Both had read for the Bar and practiced, though only for a short time.2
Enter Anthony Norris Groves from Exeter, England, “one of the most famous Brethren.”3 He was a successful businessman, a dentist with a fine practice which he would eventually give up in order to serve the Lord. He is often considered the “Father of the Brethren Movement.” In Dublin, where he was studying for the ministry at Trinity College, Groves enjoyed a particularly close friendship with Bellett, staying in his home on his visits to the city in the fall and spring of 1826-1827. There he was introduced to one of the most gifted of the circle of Christians who were accustomed to meet for private prayer and discussion: a young curate from Wicklow, John Nelson Darby. JND was destined, through his voluminous writings and extensive correspondence and travels, to become known as the Apostle4 of the Brethren Movement. Key players in the beginning of the Brethren Movement were now coming together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Following Groves return from his 1827 visit to Dublin, Bellet confided in a friend that Groves “had just been telling him, that it appeared to him from Scripture, that believers, meeting together as disciples of Christ, were free to break bread together as their Lord had admonished them; and that, as far as the practice of the apostles could be a guide, every Lord’s day should be set aside for thus remembering the Lord’s death, and obeying his parting command.”5 It is undoubtedly for this that it has been said of him that “he dropped the pebble in the pool.” Equally important, according to Bellett, “Groves was the first to propose that simple practice of union, the love of Jesus, instead of oneness of judgment in minor things, things that may consist with a true love of Jesus.”6
At this point, we discover several additional strands of Brethren DNA. The Scriptures alone being our authority, the practice of the apostles should serve as a guide for how we are to gather as disciples of Christ. No ordained minister being mentioned as necessary, this resonated with the truth of the priesthood of all believers, held and practiced among us today. Then, too, we see the weekly occurrence and principal object of such gatherings; namely, the remembrance of our Lord’s death in the breaking of the bread and drinking of the cup as He commanded in the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.”(See Acts 20:7). Finally, love for Christ rather than full agreement on secondary matters was to be the modus operandi. Or, as Groves reportedly said, life rather than light should be the guiding principle. Would to God that some early Brethren had not so soon lost sight of this.
Within two years, on June 12, 1829, Groves sailed for Saint Petersburg on his way to Baghdad. More on this later. The following year, Darby would meet another key player, Benjamin Wills Newton who, sometime in 1831, “invited Darby to visit him at his home”7 in Plymouth, England. In December of that year, a chapel had been secured and in January 1832 both Newton and Darby were present for the first public celebration of the Lord’s Supper at Plymouth. The latter would soon make Plymouth his home, testifying that “in Plymouth, rather than in Dublin, he had found his ideals realized.”8 At one time, “Plymouth had a meeting of a thousand members, ever to be known as the headquarters of the movement.”9 Thus the name, Plymouth Brethren.
Unfortunately, the coming together of these two men was destined to provide the flashpoint for an event that forever marked the Brethren Movement. Their falling out due to “their difference of views on prophecy and the Second Advent of Christ”10 along with Darby’s withdrawal in 1845 from communion with Plymouth, resulted in people and eventually entire assemblies taking sides. With Newton’s own departure from Plymouth in 1847, the Brethren lost a most capable scholar and Bible teacher, of whom James M. Gray, President of Moody Bible Institute, said, “he excels all expositors.”11
In all the upheaval that followed, “one notable church remained content to pursue its own course in quietness.”12 Bethesda, in Bristol, England, was in happy fellowship and had connections with almost every gathering throughout the country due to their support for George Müller’s orphan houses. When in 1848 the assembly was cut off for refusing to bend to the dictates of Darby and to disfellowship the Plymouth assembly,13 the Brethren Movement suffered a schism from which it has never recovered. Henceforth, Exclusive and Open Brethren would go their separate ways. This, too, is part, a sad part of our ancestry. While through the years we have read the same Brethren authors, believed and taught the same Bible doctrines and sung many of the same worshipful and theologically rich hymns, it is only in glory that we shall join together as one in Christ to praise the Lamb forever. Maranatha!
Comparing the subsequent developments of these two branches, “what we see on the one hand is independent churches enjoying evangelical freedom and liberality of communion; on the other, a system of religious bondage … the result of pressing to its logical conclusion a preference for ‘separation from evil’ over ‘the common life of the family of God’ as the principle of Christian unity.”14
Bethesda, under the spiritual leadership of Henry Craik and George Müller, men of the highest Christian character, will forever stand as a testimony to the practice of an open table, open to all true believers in Christ and to the principle of the autonomy15 and interdependence of the local church, both of which have characterized the Open Brethren ever since.
To be continued.
ENDNOTES:
- Andrew Miller, “The Brethren” (Commonly So-Called) A Brief Sketch, slightly revised and abbreviated by G. C. Willis, Hong Kong, 1963, p.11-17
- Hy Pickering, Chief Men Among the Brethren, London: Pickering & Inglis, 1968, p.10
- Timothy Grass, Gathering to His Name: The Story of Open Brethren in Britain and Ireland, BAHN, 2021, p.1
- Peter L. Embley, The Origins and Early Development of the Plymouth Brethren, p.96
- Harold H. Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren 1825-1850, London: Pickering & Inglis, 1967, p.40
- F. Roy Coad, A History of the Brethren Movement: Its Origins, its Worldwide Development and its Significance for the Present Day, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, p.20
- Weremchuck, Max S., John Nelson Darby, Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers,1992, p.102
- Grass, p.36
- George H. Fromow: B. W. Newton and Dr. S. P. Tregelles: Teachers of the Faith and the Future, Second Edition, The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, London, 1969, p.46
- Ibid., p.5. Timothy Grass (p.76) suggests instead that “overall the conflict seems to have been precipitated primarily by divergent leadership styles and a personality clash.”
- Ibid., p.23
- Coad, p.154
- W. Trotter, The Whole Case of Plymouth and Bethesda, London, Gospel Book Depot (1849), p.32. While Bethesda is here exonerated for having finally judged as error the teachings of Newton, she is at the same time criticized for having taken so long in doing so and judged for not refusing fellowship to any believer from Plymouth or other assembly who might be suspected of having imbibed these teachings.
- F. F. Bruce in his Foreword to Rowdon, p.xi
- E. K. Groves, Conversations on “Bethesda” Family Matters, London: W. B. Horner, 1885, p.156,157