The Plymouth Brethren

The Plymouth Brethren are one of the clearest examples of Restorationist movements that emerged in the 19th Century Ireland. They developed in the late 1820s and early 1830s in Dublin and later became closely associated with the English port city of Plymouth, from which the movement took its popular name. Leaders like John Nelson Darby, Anthony Norris Groves, George Müller, and Benjamin Wills Newton were seeking to restore what they believed was the purity of the apostolic New Testament church. They were dissatisfied with established denominations so they rejected formal church structures/organizations, clerical hierarchies, and denominational labels in favor of autonomous local assemblies governed by the authority of Scripture. Worship centered on a simple weekly observance of the Lord's Supper and congregational participation in the form of extemporaneous prayer and lay preaching rather than an ordained clergy. Sound familiar?

The Plymouth Brethren emphasized the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice (known as Sola Scriptura), the priesthood of all believers, salvation by faith alone, and the importance of personal conversion and holy living. Many Brethren, particularly under the influence of John Nelson Darby, were focused on the imminent return of Christ, and so also became known for developing the system of dispensational theology, which popularized the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture.

Although there was no fixed structure or order of worship during a service (meeting?), there were 3 main components - observance of the Lord's Supper, open participation by the laity and singing of hymns. In the communion ritual bread and wine (emblems?) were shared among the congregation as they commemorated Christ's death and anticipated His return. Through open participation a member could read a Scripture and offer some sort of spiritual exhortation (testimony?) as well as offer a prayer. Hymns were suggested and everyone sang, usually unaccompanied by an instrument. Overall, the service was often described as a meeting conducted under the immediate leading of the Holy Spirit rather than according to a predetermined program. The overall atmosphere was simple and reverent. There was no altar or pulpit, no priestly vestments and there were few religious decorations.

The similarities between the William Irvine’s movement and the Plymouth Brethren go even further. In his book The Apostles’ Doctrine and Fellowship, Cornelius Jaenen acknowledges that the Plymouth Brethren preceded the 2×2 Fellowship in their use of itinerant ministers starting with Anthony Groves and George Müller “in the early stages of the movement” (512).‍ ‍He seems reluctant to call them by name, choosing instead to refer to them more often as “the Brethren” and calls them the Dublin Revival of 1825. He also admits that the Plymouth Brethren’s beliefs “directed individuals to assemble in homes” (509)

Possibly seeking to diminish the Plymouth Brethren, Jaenen is critical of their group, writing that “From the beginning, Brethren assemblies were dominated by a few individuals conscious of their role and jealous of their office. Women and neophytes were held in subordination.” (511) He points out that they were “influenced by the various contemporary prophetic and apocalyptical movements” (511) and mentions that John Nelson Darby’s “rigourist views” caused a schism by 1845, and eventually they lost their “aristocractic [sic] cachet” as it became “increasingly fragmented by obtuse doctrinal controversies and leadership rivalries” (508). Ultimately they splintered into the Open Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren who as Jaenen points out “splintered into Darbyites, Kellyites, New Lumpists, Ramsgate division, Grant division, Stuart division, Bexhill division, Glanton division and Needed Truth faction” (508)

One gets the sense that Jaenen is seeking to distance the 2×2 Fellowship from the Brethren by discrediting them. Implying that they were not led by “the Spirit” because of the personality conflicts and listing all the groups they split into (showing lack unity as proof of error)

By the late nineteenth century, the Plymouth Brethren had become a prominent force throughout Britain and Ireland, advocating many of the same Restorationist ideals that permeated evangelical circles. The similarities to the 2×2 Fellowship are inescapable. They both rejected a formal priestly class. They both chose simple meeting places where they celebrated weekly communion and lay preaching with the stated goal of restoring Christianity back to the “church of the New Testament” and espoused an anti-denominational sentiment. Even if William Irvine had little or no formal association with the Plymouth Brethren, prolonged exposure to this Restorationist climate would have normalized many of the assumptions that later characterized the 2x2 Fellowship.

Obviously there are limitations to the comparison, since William Irvine created the 2×2 Fellowship with a more centralized authority structure centered on its itinerant Workers, and he adopted the Living Witness doctrine.