Who was George Mueller?

The Plymouth Brethren, called by others Darbyites or Exclusive Brethren, and by themselves “Brethren,” are to be distinguished from Bible Christians and Disciples of Christ (qq.v.). They took their origin in Ireland about 1828 after a movement under the leadership of John Walker which was a revolt against ministerial ordination, and in England the origin is connected with the interest in prophecy stimulated by Edward Irving (q.v.). Conferences like those under the Irving movement were held from 1828 at Powerscourt Mansion, County Wicklow, Ireland, at which John Nelson Darby (q.v.) was a prominent figure. Prior to this, from 1826 private meetings had been held on Sundays under the leadership of Edward Cronin, who had been a Roman Catholic and later a Congregationalist, for “breaking bread,” at which Anthony Norris Groves, John Vesey Parnell (second Lord Congleton), and John Gifford Bellett, a friend of Darby, were attendants. In 1827 John Darby resigned his charge and in 1828 adopted the non-conformist attitude of the men named above, prompted by the Erastianism of a petition of Archbishop Magee to the House of Commons, and issued a paper on The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ (in vol. i. of his Collected Writings, London, 1867). This served to swell the ranks of the Brethren, so that in 1830 a public “assembly” was started in Aungier Street, Dublin, which emphasized “the coming of the Lord as the present hope of the Church and the presence of the Holy Ghost as that which brought into unity” and “the heavenly character of the Church,” and used as the golden text Matt. 18:20. Through Francis William Newman (q.v.), Darby had become acquainted with Benjamin Wills Newton (a lay fellow of Exeter College) and George Vicesimus Wigram at Oxford. He also visited Plymouth (whence the name for the Brethren), where Robert Hawker had been active in Evangelical ministry, and held meetings there, the outcome of which was the first English gathering of the Brethren (1831). The basis of communion was the acceptance of “all that are on the foundation” and rejection of “all error by the Word of God and the help of his ever present Spirit,” recognizing that “claimed service, and not departure.” Before the appearance of Darby’s Liberty of and Teaching (1834), the Brethren had taken their stand upon a free ministry, while other weighty papers by Darby and Newton appeared in the new magazine, The Christian Witness, edited by J. L. Harris. Recruits of note were Henry Craik and Georg (Friedrich) Mueller (q.v.), coming from the Baptist denomination. The latter had been in the service of the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews, but became convinced that assemblies should consist only of the converted and joined the Brethren, beginning pastoral work at Bristol in 1832 on the lines of their policy, and developing the other activities for which he became famous. Other noted converts to the denomination were Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (q.v.) and Robert Chapman. Darby continued his work in London, then went to the continent, where in French Switzerland he promoted the movement by personal and literary activities, opposing a regular ministry as ignoring the privilege of every believer to direct access to God. While there he became aware of a tendency toward isolation manifesting itself in Newton, shown in his revival of restricted ministry together with doctrinal divergencies, e.g., Newton’s adherence to the Reformation teaching of justification, inclusion of the Old Testament saints in the apocalyptic Church, and belief that the second advent would not precede the “great tribulation,” to which the Church would be subject. Failing to secure satisfaction from Newton and his adherents, in 1845 Darby started a separate assembly.

Mr. Müller's was a close Baptist church: when the brethren began to make progress in Bristol, he gave this up, and took in a measure the form of the brethren. These were transferred I think unadvisedly, though with the best intention, to his meeting. Since 1848 he has returned to, not close Baptist principles, but open Baptist principles, and his is a regular dissenting church with slightly modified forms. Mrs. G.'s account is in no way accurate, and had a special object. She was not born when the work took place.

As the question of fellowship was first raised at Bristol, and from thence extended to almost every place on the face of the earth where there happens to be an assembly of Brethren, it may be well to look for a moment at the antecedents of this meeting. It was simply what is known as a Baptist congregation, presided over by Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik, and meeting for worship in a chapel called "Bethesda" in Bristol. Some years previous to this testing time, this entire congregation was received into fellowship with Brethren — received as a body. "The whole assembly," says Mr. Mackintosh, "professedly and ostensibly, took the ground occupied by Brethren. I do not mention names or descend into minute details; I merely give the great leading fact, because it illustrates a most important principle.

Actually the facts in this matter are doubtful and Henry Groves in his account of the matter published in 1860 (approx) states that Messrs Muller and Craik started renting an empty Baptist Chapel, the congregation having dispersed, and that the assembly they built up as co-pastors was never called a Baptist congregation.

Another with whom John Nelson Darby came for a while into association was Mr. George Muller of Bristol. At one time we find Mr. Muller writing of "two Swiss brethren who have learned the way of truth more perfectly through our brother John Darby"; and during the winter of 1843-44 there occurs in his correspondence the following: "There is one brother among us, who through dear John Darby learned the way of GOD more perfectly in Switzerland"; showing thereby the fellowship in and appreciation of Mr. Darby's labours felt by Mr. Muller at that period. Would that it might have so continued. But alas history repeats itself in the ecclesiastical sphere as surely as in the secular; hence, before many months passed we find, if we may be allowed so to say, Paul again withstanding Peter because he was to be blamed. In apostolic times it was pretty evident who was at fault, and if CHRIST Himself and His honour had been equally paramount in His servants' lives, this sad spectacle would not have been exhibited either at Antioch in the first, or Bristol in the nineteenth century.

It has been well remarked that both were men of GOD in their respective spheres. For to charge Mr. Darby with selfish ambition and the spirit of Diotrephes is as sinful and absurd as to question Mr. Muller's love for CHRIST and desire to glorify GOD. What in the retrospect clearly stands out is that Darby had CHRIST before him, and Muller, Christians. Also it is well to remember that "the best of men are only men at the best," and national characteristics complicate matters often. Darby was an Irishman, and Muller a Prussian, and both typically so. Their differences were as sad as those that separated John Wesley and George Whitefield a century earlier, but were fraught with even more disastrous consequences the repercussions of which are still felt on the Continent, and all over the English-speaking world.

Benjamin Wills Newton, who was a native of Plymouth brought about a visit by Darby to that town, strongly evangelical through the ministry of Dr. Hawker, and influenced by the "separation" principles of John Walker, another Irish ex-clergyman. By the year 1832 a "gathering" of believers "to the name of Jesus," the first of its order in England, was definitely formed there. James L. Harris, resigning his local incumbency of Plymstock, united with the brethren, and started their first organ, The Christian Witness, to which J.N.D. contributed. S. P. Tregelles, the textual critic, who was Newton´s brother-in-law, was "received" in 1836; after R. Chapman, at Barnstaple, and H. Craik with G. Muller, at Bristol, had taken a like position. Great simplicity and devotedness marked the company in those golden days.

Meanwhile the Baptist brethren at Teignmouth had migrated to Bristol, and, after giving up their peculiar principles, had at length professed to own the great truth of the presence and free action of the Holy Ghost in the assembly; so that a little company of brethren previously separate were induced to be with them on the common ground of saints gathered to Christ's name. In 1848 partisans of Mr. N., now all but universally regarded as anti-christian, were received at Bethesda, their meeting-room, and this, as Mr. Darby's circular states (not Mr. T.), "with a positive refusal to investigate the Plymouth errors." (C. W. Doctr., iv., 254.) "A paper was read, signed by Messrs. Craik and Müller and eight others, to the body at Bethesda in which they diligently extenuate and palliate Mr. Newton's doctrine, though refusing investigation of it, and blame as far as they can those who have opposed it." (Ib. 255.) And these avowed partisans, who would have been everywhere rejected among us on the word in 2 John, were deliberately received and kept in so as to drive out a considerable number of godly brethren whose remonstrance was set at nought. "The Letter of the Ten" is the paper in question, which is far from repudiating those blasphemies, but rather an elaborate excuse for a very flagrant defiance of unity and indifference to fundamental error. Mr. T. seems not aware that Bethesda subsequently was so roused by the remonstrance of their friends as to hold seven meetings in which they did publicly judge the errors to be as blasphemous as Brethren had affirmed. But even so they got rid of the Newtonian partisans privately! so that two of the Ten leaders went out, in avowed dissent from that theoretic judgment, and set up a cause of their own and had Mr. N. to help at the Music Hall. The movement failed however; the other Newtonians left Bristol; and the two leaders (who had thus joined in open support of an anti-christian teacher on Bethesda's own showing) were allowed to come back on their owning that they should not have left Bethesda, without one reference to the real wickedness of supporting an Antichrist! Those who make much of Mr. Darby's over-sanguine visit to Mr. Müller after the seven meetings, take care to hide this overwhelming proof of treachery to Christ, as well as Mr. Craik's declaration in 1857 that the judgment expressed in the Letter of the Ten had never been repudiated.

This I shall now proceed to. It is the answer, most unwillingly given, to the question raised by Mr. Jukes of Hull, and by many others, who love and desire to honour George Müller for his past service in the Lord — Why is not George Müller to be received? To examine George Müller as an individual, and accredit him for his confession of faith and moral walk, — if he stands connected with an immoral spiritual system, and if his name stands signed to a paper full of guily pretexts and containing untruths, a paper which at once sanctioned in Bethesda the presence of the emissaries of a heresy, cast out many saints and raised a mound against others (that is, was the power by which an heretical schism was accomplished) — and if, too, it was he whose influence led to the body's adopting that paper — would be impossible until he has confessed his error and removed the evil.

1881 361 "Extracts from the Memoir of the late Mr. Anthony Norris Groves, brother-in-law of the venerable George Muller, one of the chief originators of the movement which has since developed into 'Brethrenism,' showing how very far many of his followers, especially novices, have diverged from his spirit and practice, in relation to other Christians." — [As this paper was sent me, I add a brief but sufficient refutation. — Ed. B. T.]