It is often said that “tight-open” assemblies (“gospel halls,” typically, in NA) have a heritage entirely distinct from the wider “Plymouth brethren movement,” and efforts are made to frame their history as independent, in origin and continuance, from those known under the broad designations as “open brethren” and “exclusive brethren.” See, for example, the brief history given by Norman Crawford: https://gospel.fromgravelhill.ca/assets/books/Norman-Crawford-Assembly-Truth.pdf

Now, definitely a certain frame of mind came with some of those mentioned in these histories, which ultimately crystallised in, (a) the Needed Truth cleavage, and (b) the oil-water separation of “open brethren” who practice closed vs. open communion. 

Yet, the fundamental claim that “gospel halls” are a movement of God totally distinct from the pre-existing “Plymouth brethren” seems overly-simplistic in the light of historical evidence. For example, Ironside relates how Christians composing the newer group quite soon made contact with “open brethren” and began to fellowship with them, essentially combining the two in a little while: https://plymouthbrethren.org/article/5137

Looking at the advertisements in the back of early books published by John Ritchie, we find many authors who didn’t have their origins among these Scottish brethren, and in fact, predated them. It seems likely that, while certain distinctive convictions may have been arrived at apart from outside influence of the already well-established “brethren movement,” the further education of the Scottish brethren owed much to reading those who went before; and their establishment to essentially becoming grafted into the greater vine. 

My hypothesis is: that while there may have been a fresh revival of concern about evangelism and assembling “after a scriptural manner” in 1850-60s Scotland, this group became almost immediately amalgamated with the pre-existing “open brethren,” instructed by the writings of both “open” and “exclusive” writers, and as such, is not to be thought of as a historical lineage entirely distinct from the wider “brethren movement.” I would happily have further evidence, to support or to the contrary, pointed out. Thank you.

Rodger,

IMHO your hypothesis is spot on.

Donald Ross disbanded Northern Evangelistic Society in Aug 1871 and started to break bread according to NT simplicity independently of any involvement from OB or EBs (according to Ritchie).

Donald Munro visited Canada for the first time in September 1871. There was a letter from Munro giving an account of his journey in the Nov 1871 ed of The Northern Intelligencer.

During his Canada trip Munro examined the word of God and was convinced on the position of Believers Baptism ( Ross who had got baptized in April 1871 had written to Munro about his excercise of soul about baptism).

After two months stay in Canada , Munro came back to Scotland in Nov 1871 & was baptized by Ross on 31/12/1871.

In 1872 October, Munro went back to Canada.

Ross was in fellowship with the OB as early as Jan 1873. The Jan 1873 Northern Intelligencer has an address by OB preacher from Glasgow, Mr Alexander Stewart. There are links to H Groves from May 1873 Northern Assemblies.

( It is possible that this fellowship may have happened 3 months earlier when Munro was still in Scotland. I haven't come across any reference for this and I could be wrong. Even if it happened only after Munro left for Canada, it is extremely unlikely Donald Munro was unaware of this coming together while staying in N America as both Ross and Munro kept each other informed of happenings on both sides of the Atlantic).

Munro came back to Scotland in June 1876 and by the end of the year Ross accompanied him to the America.

While Mr Ross & his friends' separation from Presbyterianism & subsequent understanding of Church truth and gathering of believers may have happened  independently of so called Brethren, Ross & his co-workers came into fellowship with the Open brethren in Scotland before the start of GHBs in America.

So while GHBs may not be directly connected to original OBs of Bristol and Devon , they are connected to OB by the fellowship of Donald Ross to OBs.

Norman Crawford's premise that they don't have any historical connections is not reliable .

Thank you, Joshua! The timeline of events you give is very helpful, and helps to clarify the obscurity of the other historical hypothesis. 

Someone has asked me whether you are referencing / have access to early documents related to Donald Ross (issues of “Northern Assemblies,” etc.) that are not already available on BA?

Neil Dickson and Tim Grass’ paper, “Transmitting Tradition: Engaging with the McLaren ‘Triple Tradition’ Thesis” (BHR 20) was pointed out to me, and is incredibly helpful to this discussion. 

https://www.brethrenarchive.org/media/357470/the-northern-assemblies-1-1873.pdf

https://www.brethrenhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Dickson.Grass_.TripleTradition.pdf

Concerning Norman Crawford's "premise that they don't have any historical connections is not reliable."

I once commented at Manchester to a leading teacher among the "tight OBs" that George Muller would not have gone along with what he was teaching. His reply was, "I don't go back to George Muller. He received unbaptised believers." I'm not sure whether Mr Muller did or he didn't, nor what was meant by "unbaptised believers." However, the first part of his reply lines up pretty much with Norman Crawford's account of the "assemblies" on the North American Continent. 

I suggest that those converted in the 1859 revival in Northern Ireland and Scotland found the "open brethren" the nearest best fit to their convictions, believer's baptism as a requisite for reception to the "local assembly" being one of theirs. That known Christians who had not left "the denominations" would be received to break bread among "the assemblies" was unacceptable in their view. 

Hence, one reason for the "tightening process" by their influence among many OB gatherings. A notion developed was of many distinctions between "the church, the body" and "an assembly" (Norman Crawford listed 27 in one of his books, though he thought there might be as many as 40!), and that being in "an assembly" was distinct from being in "the body."

A Christian must join a local assembly and be one of its members before being permitted to break bread. He must learn the truth of the assembly, because being "unlearned" he does not know that God is among them! 

There is no universal Christian fellowship, just "local assembly fellowship," and the partaking of the one loaf at the Lord's supper expresses the unity of the local assembly in which they gather, not the whole body of Christ on earth. Indeed, "the body of Christ is not on earth." There is no universal church, no church on earth, just local assemblies! 

(Incidentally, before anyone jumps to conclusions, I do not believe in "open reception" - the expression "known Christians" above meaning those known to be sound in doctrine, manner of life, and associations.) 

Thanks Mark. It's of note that your observations touch quite well with Kelly's points in his exposure of the "Latest Sect" - https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/8_Bt/latesect.html. 

I mention, inter alia, three points (alluded to by Kelly) and mentioned by Mark: (1) "believers baptism as requisite for reception to the local assembly"; (2) "distinction between 'the church, the body' and 'an assembly'; (3) and then what amounts to the "preeminence" of the local assembly!

Interesting that William Bunting, who would have been familiar with all the same source material as Norman Crawford, fellowshipped with like-minded Christians, and also accounts for the origins of "tight-open brethren," designates the beginning as 1825: 

https://www.brethrenarchive.org/archive/open-brethren/fellowship-questions/spiritual-balance-or-the-perils-of-unscriptural-extremes/

See page 32 and following.