In the beginning the Brethren absolutely eliminated sectarianism and maintained the testimony of oneness. The matter of leaving the denominations began with them. In the beginning many of them were believers who came out of denominations. They came together to maintain the testimony of the oneness of the church. This point also was stressed very much among them.
The Brethren were freed from organization. They had no branch churches or headquarters.
The Brethren absolutely allowed Christ to be the Head and the Holy Spirit to rule among them because they were freed from any form of organization. In the first thirty years of their history, their situation was truly wonderful. If we read their history and letters, we must say that Christ was truly their Head and the Holy Spirit was truly their authority. They returned to the original condition of the church.
Even though the Brethren had a good recovery at the beginning, it was not maintained for very long. It is not easy to maintain a high peak or a high water level for a long time. In the first twenty or thirty years after the Brethren began in 1828, they had the original condition of the church. Regrettably, this situation did not last long. Around 1850, after they had met for approximately twenty years, some problems arose among them which led to their failure.
What kind of problems arose among them? In the beginning they forsook sectarianism and left the denominations. When they began to meet in various places, there was one assembly in one locality. There was no problem. After a while, many of the Christians in the Protestant denominations admired their situation and wanted to join their meetings, but they could not break away from their denominations and wanted instead to meet with both groups. When these ones came into their midst, the brothers among the Brethren had different attitudes toward them. One group of brothers held the view that they should not accept Christians who were meeting with both groups. They seemed to say, “Although these Christians are brothers, they have not left the sects, the denominations. Therefore, they are ‘evil companions’ and cannot be accepted. If they want to be received by us, they need to leave the denominations because denominations are wrong. We can receive them only when they have completely left the denominations.” Another group of brothers, however, had a different opinion and seemed to say, “This should not be so. Although these Christians are still remaining in the denominations, this sin is not sufficient for us to cut them off from the fellowship of the church. We can only say that they have made a mistake, but we cannot reject them.” Thus, there was a split among the Brethren into two large groups. The group that did not agree with receiving Christians who were still joined to a denomination was strict in this matter and later became known as the exclusive Brethren. The group that was in favor of receiving such Christians was more lenient and later became known as the open Brethren. Thus, the division among the Brethren began; not only was one locality divided from another, but brothers in the same locality were also divided into an exclusive and an open group.
After a while, the Brethren became more and more sophisticated in their study of the truths, and they became increasingly different in their views. At the same time, they also had many differences in their opinions and practices concerning meeting and service. In response, they said that those with different opinions were preaching “evil doctrines” and should not remain in the group. Thus, the Brethren further splintered into many small groups. These divisions took place among the exclusive Brethren and also among the open Brethren. The exclusive Brethren were divided mainly because of arguments concerning doctrines, and the open Brethren were divided mainly because of differences in opinions. Furthermore, the open Brethren had a particular characteristic of not quarreling when they had a difference in opinion; rather, they adopted a seemingly civil way of simply leaving and setting up another assembly. In this way they could boast that they never fought with each other. In actuality, they did fight; it only looked as if they did not fight because they would leave and set up another assembly. As a result, there could be several open Brethren assemblies in a locality. This was regrettable. As a result of so many divisions, they lost both the nature of oneness and the ground of oneness.
On one hand, the Brethren were divided into many small assemblies in a locality; this was not according to the principle of one city, one church, and it also damaged the ground of the oneness of the church in a locality. On the other hand, they also went beyond the boundary of a locality and joined with brothers in various localities who shared the same opinions and same views, thereby producing an “extra-local” union. This also damaged the local nature and ground of the church. These two practices—having an “extra-local” union and having many assemblies in one locality—completely damaged the orthodox oneness of the church on the local ground. When the Brethren deviated in this manner, they failed. This caused the high level of the recovery among the Brethren to decline.