The Brethren were now two camps. Those who remained firm on the ground originally occupied by Brethren were more decided in their testimony than ever. Pamphlets full of strong feeling and strong expressions, rapidly appeared. The rulers of Bethesda were gravely charged with having ensnared the congregation into a course of neutrality with regard to the heresy, with independency as to the church, and, consequently, with indifference as to the Person and glory of Christ. Having made these charges the Brethren could not consistently receive to the Lord's Table from the Bethesda gatherings without being satisfied as to repentance on these points. But much grace and compassion are needed in dealing with such applications now, as many are honestly ignorant of what took place thirty years ago. The paper of "The Ten," however, on which the charges were founded, has never been withdrawn. Hard terms were used on both sides; but the designation, "The Brethren," justly and only belongs to those who remained faithful to their principles, or rather, who maintained the truth of God, as they had hitherto preached and published it, at all cost. Still, the cry of exclusivism was raised against them. While this term was no doubt meant as one of reproach, and intended, or used, to frighten the timid, as it is to this day, it is unquestionably in accordance with the word of God. In 1 Corinthians 5 we learn that the assembly must be exclusive if it would maintain a wholesome discipline, and keep the house of God clean enough for His presence. Surely the church is solemnly responsible to judge the doctrine and ways of all who present themselves for communion, and to refuse those who would bring evil into the assembly; and to put away those who have fallen into error or immorality, though their faith in Christ may not be doubted. This is exclusivism. This was the principle on which the Brethren acted from the beginning; so that they were not more exclusive after the division than before it. The change was all on the other side. The new motto on the standard of the Open Brethren was, "The blood of the Lamb is the union of the saints." Certainly there could be no union without the precious blood of God's spotless Lamb, but scripture teaches that the blood is the ground of peace, not the centre of union: the roasted Lamb, the Christ that had passed through the holy fire of divine justice for us, now risen and glorified, is the centre of union. (Ex. 12.) And are there not many who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb that are unfit for the Lord's table from their evil associations and ways? But were this motto to be thoroughly carried out, then, on no ground, and for no reason whatsoever, could anyone be excluded from the Lord's table who is believed to be a child of God and washed in the blood of Christ. Discipline would be at an end, and, as it was in Israel when there was no king, every man doing that which was right in his own eyes. Because of this wide and open door to the Lord's table, the Bethesda gatherings have been called "The Open Brethren." So that for the sake of distinction, and to give the least possible offence, we will adhere to the terms, "The Brethren, and "The Open Brethren." THE TESTIMONY. From this time the path of each has been perfectly distinct and widely apart. The Open Brethren have fraternised with the denominations and in many things come so near to them that they have escaped persecution. Indeed the bitterest attacks against the Brethren have come from them, so that in this they are one with the denominations, and have helped them on in their opposition. Comparatively little in the way of a written testimony has issued from the press of the Open Brethren; but, thank God, they have been zealous in the work of the gospel; and by this means many of their meetings have been increased by simple believers who know nothing of the past troubles, or the present ground of fellowship. May their hearts in simplicity be nourished with Christ and with the truth as it is in Him! But while the division seems to have silenced nearly all spiritual testimony from one side of Brethren, it increased the ministry of the other tenfold. Their books and tracts on the most important and vital truths of scripture were widely spread over this country, and indeed, over all Christendom, carrying divine light and blessing to thousands of precious souls. It was also observed that there was more clearness, fulness, and definiteness in their teaching after the division than before it, especially as to the heavenly relations of the church, the union of Christians with Christ in the glory, the rapture of the saints before the tribulation, etc., etc., for although the Brethren may have held all these truths in principle, they had never been preached with the same freshness and power as now. THE RESULTS OF THE TESTIMONY. The effect of this testimony was felt everywhere. Many earnest Christians in various places, feeling the dead state of things around them, were led to read these books and to search the scriptures as to whether the new doctrines were in accordance with the word of God. Numbers were convinced of their soundness, left their different denominations, and united with the Brethren. And as it was generally the most spiritual, earnest, and intelligent members who did so, their secession was the more conspicuous, and the more irritating to their ministers. This has been the real source of so many bitter attacks against the Brethren from that day even until now. They were publicly denounced from the pulpit as a most dangerous people, and as holding and teaching the most erroneous doctrines. Pamphlets were also written and widely circulated in which the Brethren are grossly misrepresented. These we have before us, and they speak for themselves. It is quite evident in calmly reading these attacks, that they were written in haste, in anger, and without due information on the subjects which are referred to. Nearly all that we have seen are most incorrect as to mere dates and facts, and even as to persons and authors. What should we think of an historian who attributed the "Babylonish Captivity" by Luther to the pen of Melancthon, or the sermons of John Wesley to George Whitfield? And we have read a lengthy paragraph in one of these attacks, exposing a well-known preacher of the gospel to the ridicule of the truly orthodox, on account of the way he conducted his meetings, supposing him to belong to the Brethren: whereas he is a member of the Church of England, and never even occasionally broke bread with the Brethren. But all these mistakes are of very little consequence, provided the Brethren are thoroughly abused, and the people prevented from going to hear them. The ministers were alarmed. An interest in the truth had been awakened, which they could not meet: rest of soul was found with Brethren, not because they were better than others, but because the Holy Ghost was owned as working sovereignly in their midst; members dropped off from the old congregations, and Brethren's meetings sprang up in their immediate neighbourhood. To all who are in any measure acquainted with the Brethren, such pamphlets and books, and similar articles in magazines, have no weight whatever. To designate a respectable community of Christians living amongst us by the most unseemly names — such as we should be ashamed to repeat here — to heap upon them unmeasured abuse, and to denounce them as the worst of heretics, can have no moral weight with any unprejudiced mind, and generally defeats its own object by awakening a spirit of inquiry and increasing the number of seceders. And we know that all such unworthy efforts to arrest inquiry have utterly failed, from the steady and marvelous increase of Brethren in nearly all parts of the world. The work is of God and vain is man's puny arm stretched out against it. It is His own special testimony in these last and evil days notwithstanding the failure of those who carry it; and we deeply grieve for Christians who speak against it, knowing certainly thereby that they do not understand it, and are not in the enjoyment of it. But amongst the many assailants of Brethren during the last thirty years, there have no doubt been some who were honest in their convictions and earnestly contended for what they believed to be the truth of God. We refer to those who have disputed with Brethren on such subjects as an ordained ministry, on what is the church, on the Holy Ghost in the assembly as distinct from being in the individual Christian; whether there is a first and a second resurrection with a judgment of the quick and the dead, or only one general resurrection and one general judgment; whether as Christians we are under the law as a rule of life; the nature and object of the law; and the difference between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of God. On all these subjects the Brethren have met their opponents in the most fair and scriptural way. And no one can read their writings with a desire to know the mind of God without being deeply edified. (Most of the tracts in question may still be had. Many of them will be found in the Collected Writings of J. N. D.) THE WORK OF THE GOSPEL. Another accusation which has often been brought against Brethren is their want of zeal for the conversion of sinners. This charge may be brought against any community of Christians if we estimate their zeal by the Saviour's love and the value of immortal souls. But we cannot admit that they are at all behind other Christians in this blessed work. They have been spoken of from an early period as open-air preachers, when that practice was more rare than now. We have heard of their preaching on the race-course, and near the grand stand, and in fairs, and markets, in streets, lanes, and courtyards, or wherever they could reach the people. But the charge has generally been made by those who know nothing of the operations of Brethren, except that some of their members had left and united with them. It might be well for Brethren, however, to accept the reproof, and seek to be still more zealous for the salvation of precious souls. For several years after the division, the Brethren seem to have been more occupied with practical truth for Christians than with the gospel for lost souls outside. This, we believe, was of God. Like the apostle who "went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia, in order, strengthening all the disciples," they believed it was their bounden duty to strengthen the souls of the disciples after the shaking and unsettling through which they had passed. Still the gospel was preached, and souls were blessed, and the open-air work went on as well. Mr. Darby still speaks with pleasure of his preaching in the open air, in barns, and in any available space, until he was pressed with the care and instruction of the saints. Mr. Kelly, whom we know chiefly as a teacher, used to preach in the open air in Guernsey, where a large meeting was gathered; and Mr. Stanley in the north and west of England. About the year 1854-5, a very blessed work of God's Spirit began in the conversion of the children of His saints in London. There had been prayer for this special work for some time, and the Lord answered it in manifested blessing. In some cases the household was converted, both children and servants; and many young people in many families were brought to know the Lord. The reality of the work at that time is most happily proved by not a few of those who were then converted being now earnest preachers of the gospel and much owned of God in their work. The number of conversions seems even more now than it did then, so many have turned out hearty workers, sisters as well as brothers, and have thereby brought others into the field. With the Brethren, as with all others, the work of the gospel was greatly revived in 1859, and from that day to this, the number of evangelists has steadily and greatly increased. We pity the heart that does not rejoice with great joy in seeing the number of young evangelists who now occupy town-halls and public rooms of every description throughout this country, as in Canada, the States, and other places. Many from the age of twenty-two to thirty-five have of late years joined this gospel band, and are carrying the glad tidings of a full and free salvation to every class of lost souls. Indeed, one of the pleasing features of the Lord's work in the present day is the care and labour bestowed on children, and on the neglected children of the poor; and we thank God with a full and an overflowing heart, many both young and old, are brought to Jesus. In no denomination that we know, or have ever known, is there anything like the proportion of preachers to be found as among the Brethren; and this is to be expected, seeing others do not give the same opportunity or encouragement to lay preaching. We must now leave the reader to judge, whether a want of zeal for the conversion of sinners is a true or a false accusation which some have brought against the Brethren. THE OPINIONS OF LESS PREJUDICED WRITERS. Mr. Marsden, incumbent of St. Peter's, Birmingham, in his "Dictionary of Christian Churches and Sects," says, of the Brethren, "The influence which the Plymouth Brethren undoubtedly possess upon English Christianity, is to be ascribed rather to their position in society, their zeal and earnestness, than to their numbers. Still, their principles are adopted by a considerable body of our countrymen in India and the Colonies, and we believe they have made some progress in America. (This article was written not later than 1854.) "There is some difficulty in laying before the reader in a simple form the principles of this body. It puts forth no standards of faith, nor publishes any forms of worship or discipline. It professes to practice Christianity as Christianity was taught by the Lord and the apostles in the New Testament. It regards all churches as either corrupt in practice, or partial and exclusive. The tracts, which are issued in great numbers by the Brethren, are either of a practical nature, or they consist mainly of attacks upon the constitution and church government of other bodies. . . . Professing neither to teach nor practice anything but the religion of the gospel in its primitive simplicity and purity, their aim is, naturally, to show that other churches are more or less in error, trusting chiefly for the defence of their own peculiarities to the letter of the New Testament. "The Brethren equally object to the national church, and to all forms of dissent. Of national churches one and all of them, they say, 'that the opening of the door to receive the whole population of a country into the most solemn acts of worship and Christian fellowship, is a latitudinarian error. Dissenters, on the other hand, are sectarian, because they close the door on real Christians who cannot utter the Shibboleth of their party. In a word, the characteristic evil of the latter is, that they do not treat as Christians many who are known to be such, whereas the equally characteristic evil of the former is, that they do treat as Christians many who are known not to be such at all.' The one system, they affirm, makes the church wider, the other narrower than God's limits; thus, in either way, the proper scriptural idea of the church is practically destroyed, dissent virtually affirming that it is not one body but many, while nationalism virtually affirms that this one body is the body of Christ. "That which constitutes a church is the presence of the Holy Spirit. 'It is the owning of the Holy Ghost as Christ's vicar — the really present, sole, and sufficient sovereign in the church during our Lord's absence, which is our special responsibility, and ought to be a leading feature in our testimony.' Scripture, say the Brethren, never prescribes a human commission as necessary for the Christian minister. Doctrine, not ordination, is the divine test of rejecting or receiving those who profess to be ministers of Christ: and every Christian man who can do so is not only at liberty, but is bound to preach the gospel. The parable of the talents, in Matthew 25, teaches the danger of waiting for other warrant than the possession of the necessary gift; 'and to doubt the grace of the Master, or to fear because one has not the authentication of those who presumptuously claim and trifle with this right is to bury his talent in the earth, and to act the part of the wicked and slothful servant.' For the Lord of the harvest alone has the title to send forth labourers. "We have only to add that the doctrines held by the Plymouth Brethren agree in all essentials with the Church of England and other churches of the Reformation. Their worship is conducted in the simplest manner. Circumstances apart, any brother is competent to baptize or to 'break the bread,' that is, administer the Lord's Supper. They deny, however, that all Christians are ministers of the word, or that they undervalue a Christian ministry. 'So far,' say they, 'from supposing there is no such thing as ministry, Brethren hold, and have always held, from Ephesians 4: 12, 13, that Christ cannot fail to maintain and perpetuate a ministry so long as His body is here below.' Their printed books and tracts, their teachings in private and in public affirm this as a certain settled truth; insomuch that it is as absurd to charge them with denying the permanent and divine place of ministry in the church on earth, as it would be to charge Charles I. with denying the divine right of kings. Wherever it has pleased God to raise up pastors after His own heart, they gladly, thankfully own His grace, and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. "We infer, that a minister is received as such when the Brethren are satisfied of his fitness for the office; but that he then obtains no other distinction or authority than that of a teacher or exhorter. It has been recently said that they neither pray for the pardon of sin, nor for the presence and influence of the Spirit, and carefully exclude such petitions from their hymns; but this statement, which we transcribe from a recent account of 'Christian Sects in the Nineteenth Century,' is extremely unjust. It is only true, so far as this: the Brethren, regarding themselves as, in theological language, in a state of grace, do not ask for blessings they have already received, but rather for an increase of the gifts of which they have already a portion." The reader will do well to put himself in possession of a tract, entitled, "One Body and one Spirit," by W. K. It is from this paper that Mr. Marsden has gathered all his thoughts and information respecting the Brethren. And though we may not agree with all he says in the article as a whole, we cannot fail to notice the great contrast between his account of the Brethren, and the false statements and envenomed style which have characterized the papers of his brethren in the Establishment, but more especially of dissenters. It stands as a witness against them all, and as a testimony to the fairness, candour, and sobriety of Mr. Marsden as an ecclesiastical writer. We marvel at men of education and high status in society, yea the ministers of the meek and lowly Jesus, hazarding their own reputation and the honour of Him of whom they are the professed ambassadors, by an unrelenting persecution of their Brethren in Christ for a difference of judgment! May we not forget the divine exhortation, "Let brotherly love continue:" and, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth." (Heb. 13: 1; Rom. 14: 4.) If the judgment of Brethren be sound and scriptural, where is the discernment, where the love of their adversaries? "THE SOUTHERN REVIEW." We will now glance at an article on "Plymouth Brethrenism," in The Southern Review, Baltimore, by the editor, Dr. Bledsoe, an Episcopalian Methodist. "The Society, or Order of Christian Men," he says, "usually styled the Plymouth Brethren, has already, and almost without observation, spread over the face of the civilized world. It seems, in fact, to have stolen a march on Christendom, and must now, whether for good or for evil, be acknowledged as a power in the present awful crisis in the world's history, or tremendous conflict between the powers of light and of darkness. That it is felt to be such a power, is evident from the fact of the controversy about Plymouth Brethren coming up all over the Protestant world just now, and by the innumerable articles, pamphlets, and volumes which this wide spread controversy has called forth. We have placed at the head of this article only three references to the literature connected with the controversy; but, if we had so chosen, we might easily have embraced in our list the titles of more than a hundred volumes of the same literature. Meagre as it is, however, it is sufficient to answer our present purpose; which is merely to discuss the following question: Who are the Plymouth Brethren? and what is the character of their theology and religion? . . . . . "It is the duty, as it has seemed to us, of every watchman on the watch-towers of Zion, to qualify himself to return true answers to these questions. We have endeavoured to discharge this duty as honestly as possible, by going to the fountain-head for information, instead of catching up and repeating, as so many have done, the hasty, unfair, and false assertions of unscrupulous sectarians. While engaged in this study, we have encountered many statements, even in religious journals, which, for unscrupulous and reckless mendacity, can vie with the most shameless assertions of a corrupt secular and partisan press. This has filled us with an inexpressible sadness; for alas! what chance has justice in this little world of ours, when our religions guides and teachers can so far forget the sacred claims of truth, as to allow carelessness, or indifference, or prejudice, or malignity, to preside over the formation and publication of their opinions?" In speaking of the rashness of Brethren's critics, he discusses at some length a most unfortunate mistake which was made by Dr. Dabney of the Union Theological Seminary of Virginia; and as it illustrates the mistakes of the Brethren's reviewers in general, we will briefly notice it. Dr. Dabney supposing that a periodical, published in New York, and entitled, Waymarks in the Wilderness, was conducted by a Plymouth brother, and its papers supplied by his brethren, wrote what was called at the time a most powerful article against "The theology of the Brethren." It appeared in The Southern Presbyterian Review, for July, 1872. It is characterized as "bitter and hasty," and by "his well-known ability in hurling fierce polemics against books of which he knows next to nothing." He speaks of Mr. James Inglis, the editor of Waymarks, as "the chief doctrinal representative of the Brethren in the United States." The calm and meek reply, of Mr. Inglis, who was a well-known Baptist minister, ought to have covered the doctor with shame — shame for his utter carelessness, to say nothing of his groundless malice. "In the personalities of the Review," says Mr. Inglis, "there are mistakes which are the result of misinformation regarding the editor of Waymarks. . . . But injustice to our contributors on the one hand, and to the Plymouth Brethren on the other, it is proper to say that no one connected with that sect ever wrote a line for our pages. Our contributors are chiefly pastors of our Reformed Churches; most of them well known, though they do not claim consideration for what they write on ecclesiastical grounds." Dr. Dabney, it appears, had never read the writings of the Brethren, but having read Waymarks in the Wilderness, and "taking it for granted that it was the organ of the Brethren, he gives them the benefit of his most particular thunder. But, as it turns out, all this hot and heavy thunder of his falls, not on the Brethren at all, but only on the very pastors of our Reformed Churches, in whose defence he entered upon his crusade against the Brethren. It falls, in other words, not on the adversaries whom he had marked for destruction, but upon the very friends he had undertaken to defend against these adversaries." We will only notice Dr. Dabney's accusations against the theology of the Brethren, as it calls forth a just remark from the editor of the Review, and a most edifying extract from one of the Brethren's books on the subject. It is difficult, we confess, to account for the head of a theological seminary of the present day publicly asserting that "the teaching of the Brethren depreciates the dispensation of the Holy Ghost." Dr. Bledsoe affirms that all who have read their books must know that, "their appreciation of the Holy Spirit's presence, power, and guidance, is the grand and distinctive peculiarity of their theology, whereas, it is the peculiar deficiency in the teaching of all our theological seminaries, as well as in the theological literature of the Christian world." The following impeachment of that literature, by Mr. Kelly, appears to us as true as it is terrible, as sad as it is solemn. He says: "This at once leads me to feel how solemn is the sight which everywhere meets our eyes in Christendom. If there be one truth more than another that has been abandoned, it is the personal presence of the Holy Ghost. There is no adequate testimony to it whatever; and this is not said unadvisedly. I say it not merely of that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth, but of smaller cities which kings have built for themselves to reign over, or those yet smaller cities their subjects love to reign over as rivals and an improvement on both. I say it of the Protestant bodies, no matter what, no matter where, national or dissenting. It is a remarkable fact, that if you look at their confessions of faith, many of which were drawn up when men, no doubt, were far more simple and thorough-going than they are now — at the time of the Reformation, or at any subsequent great crisis — if there be any truth more especially absent from every one of these confessions that has come under my own observation, it is the testimony to this truth. You will find other truths; the necessity of being born again, the value of the work of Christ, the glory of His person as God and Man. Not that they deny that the Holy Ghost is a divine person — surely they do not. But I am not speaking of His personality, or deity either, but of His personal mission to the earth, and of His presence now with Christians both individually and collectively — the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Is it to be found anywhere acted on or confessed? Where is it set forth? I have never met with any approach to it even in my reading; and of course I do not wish to give anyone the impression that I have not read a good deal upon the subject. I have searched diligently for it, and I have desired to learn what is really held by Christians universally; but never, in any one confession, creed, article of faith, or rule, have I discovered the smallest expression of that which is evidently the great characteristic truth of Christianity — that truth which ought to be continually sounding out, and continually in practice within the church. Is it not, then, a solemn consideration, that this, the glory of the Christian, the strength of the church of God, and the essential privilege for which it was expedient that even Christ should go away, is never attested in any one system of Christendom known to us?" (Lectures on The New Testament Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, pp. 97-99. See also Mr. Darby's work on The Operations of the Spirit, one of his early books which has been greatly blessed to many.) In this way the editor of the Review exposes several of the unfair critics of the Brethren. He gives his own independent judgment, having read their books, and then quotes from them in refutation of the false assertions made against their authors. But of all such writers, he speaks most strongly and severely of Dr. Reid, a Presbyterian minister in Edinburgh. "There is a class of critics," he says, "who have examined, more or less extensively, the voluminous literature of the Brethren, but not with a view to form a fair and just estimate of its value, or of the theology therein set forth. The worst of this class have, indeed, searched their writings only to draw thence, by means of great perversions and misrepresentations, the weapons of their destruction. At the head of this class of venomous critics Dr. Reid deserves to be placed; for no one, perhaps, who has ever pretended to write an account of a religious society, has exhibited greater unfairness, or perpetrated greater injustice, than has this learned doctor of divinity in his attack on the Plymouth Brethren. His work is entitled Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted, but it is, in fact, Plymouth Brethrenism veiled in misrepresentation, as gross as pestilential damps and dark as night, and then beaten with his theological club. We know of nothing worse of the same kind connected with the early history of Methodism." Several pages are occupied with the discussion of Dr. Reid's charges against the Brethren, but it would be out of our line to follow them. We would only add, that, having read the book when it appeared, we then thought that the doctor could have taken no pains to look into the Brethren's books before he wrote his own. We were deeply grieved to see such gross misrepresentations published by a Christian minister against his Brethren in Christ whom he had never seen. We were also disposed to think it had been written hastily, without proper information, under strong prejudices, but with a measure of honest conviction that the Brethren were not safe religious guides; therefore he felt that it was his duty to raise his warning voice and acquaint his people with the dangerous character of their new neighbours. But such productions, generally speaking, defeat their intended object; and none ever more so than Dr. Reid's. Brethren's meetings have sprung up in Scotland, "like the grass, and as willows by the water-courses." Twenty years ago there were only two or three small meetings in private houses, and now there are something like eighty; and nowhere throughout the country has the Spirit of God been more manifestly at work than in the immediate neighbourhood of Dr. Reid's congregation. Many have been gathered out from the world by the preaching of the gospel in-doors and out-doors, and not a few have been emancipated from the bondage of a legal system. |