Unfortunately, the church's growth was retarded by internal tension, which led eventually to division.

While the available sources do not offer a great deal of information on precise issues, major developments can be traced in the minute books, written in copperplate handwriting, that tell an unexpurgated story.

Picton and Martin

What began as a conflict between the two pastors, resulted in open division, the establishment of a rival congregation and the excommunication of the Dawson Street congregation. The charge against the latter was that they held certain Christadelphian doctrines.

The two protagonists, Picton Picton and Martin, were both strong personalities,

Picton had pioneered the church in Melbourne. When he came to Ballarat he found employment as a clerk with Henry Cuthbert, a solicitor.¹ No sooner was he settled than he helped establish the small church. A forthright preacher, Picton was soon involved in the development of the cause at Mt. Clear. He was conscious of his position as pastor, i.e. as lay elder, and even went so far on occasions as to describe himself as a "minister of religion".²

Martin was born in Islington, London, on December 23rd, 1827. He migrated to Victoria in 1852, when he became a reporter for the Age. He was afterwards appointed to a school at Point Nepean. He came to Ballarat in 1857 to take charge of the first National School, afterwards known as State School 33. He was originally associated with a small company of Closed Communion Baptists. He joined the Disciples in 1862, shortly after the latter began meeting.³ When the congregation was more formally ordered, in August of that year, he was elected one of the three deacons.⁴ In October, 1863 he was elected an elder.⁵

Martin was centrally involved in the purchase of land and the construction of the chapel. In 1864 he drew the attention of the congregation to the availability of a block of ground in Dawson Street.⁶ Two months later the land was purchased in his name, and, when plans for a building were under discussion, he offered an interest free loan for £100 for twelve months.⁷ The minutes indicate church business meetings had been held in his home from the beginning. For most of this period they were chaired by him. Later, during the construction of the chapel, when the Temperance Hall became too dilapidated to be used, Martin offered the use of a

large room for services.⁸ Like Picton, he was a man of initiative and vision.

Early Tensions

The first evidence of disharmony, discoverable in the minutes, was in March, 1864, when the church was informed that Long had absented himself from the breaking of bread because of a disagreement with Martin.⁹ Long was a friend and supporter of Picton. The relationship between Long and Martin must have been patched up, because, a month later, Long mentioned that the reason for his absenting himself no longer existed.¹⁰

In July, 1864 a long-standing disagreement between Picton's wife and Mrs. Martin was brought before the church. The deacons reported that they had attempted to reconcile the two women, but that "Mrs. Picton positively refused to be reconciled". The meeting decided that Picton's wife be excluded from fellowship because she refused to "be reconciled to one of the sisters of the church". This meeting was chaired by Martin.¹¹

At the first church meeting held in the chapel in Dawson Street on 19th July, 1865, Long and Reid suggested that Picton preach at the evening Gospel service on three out of four meetings in the month. This proposal was hotly debated. As the numbers were equally divided, it was to be brought up for consideration the following Wednesday evening.¹² When the question was considered on that occasion, it was agreed that Picton "supply every other Lord's Day evening". Neish, Wright and Jenkins were to share the alternative nights.¹³

As was indicated in the previous chapter, Wright was dissatisfied with the infrequency of his preaching appointments. After discussion of this issue in May, 1866, it was decided to abide by the initial decision.¹⁴

In September Neish withdrew "his services in connection with the proclamation of the Gospel" at Dawson Street. What it was that "deeply wounded" his feelings was not mentioned. Though the church regretted that Neish had been hurt, and "earnestly and unanimously" requested that he reconsider his decision, it was obvious that he was upset.¹⁵ Neish had been earlier criticised by Picton for dividing his loyalties between the Disciples and the United Methodist Free Church.¹⁶

With two of the brethren upset by the way arrangements were working out, it was decided to hold monthly preachers' meetings.¹⁷

Further trouble erupted on February 7th, 1867, when a meeting was called "for the purpose of receiving a statement from Bro. Picton with regard to his son Alfred

Lester Picton".¹⁸ There is no record in the minutes of what his son had done. What is certain is that there were those who felt that Picton ought "to resign the office of pastor". The meeting, however, expressed its sympathy "with our pastor Bro. Picton in this deep affliction", and assured him of its prayers to sustain him in his work as pastor. Further discussion was put off until the following Thursday.¹⁹ At this adjourned meeting the battle lines were more finally drawn up. Martin "made a statement with regard to certain remarks passed upon him by Bros. Smith and Picton" but "expressed himself willing to let matters rest as they were". There wasn't the time to discuss the matter further and the meeting unanimously agreed to drop it. In an endeavour to heal the breach, the church decided to put aside the first Wednesday of every month "for prayer for the officers of the church and all matters concerned with the progress and development of the kingdom of Christ".²⁰

Division

Before prayer meetings commenced, an open breach occurred. At a church meeting on February 28th, 1867, two critical issues were brought up.

A letter was read from Long resigning his membership. He was asked if he would withdraw the letter. Martin next accused Long of slander. When the latter acknowledged his error, Martin expressed himself satisfied. The letter was then withdrawn. This was not the end of the matter, however. As a sequel, Long was charged with heresy. Martin moved, and Cathcart seconded, a motion that Long be reproved in accordance with Titus 3:10. As the motion was carried by a small majority, 16 for and 13 against, the reproof was not carried out.

The second issue concerned a motion on the books that required those who wished to speak "on Lord's Day mornings to give previous notice to that affect to the brother who presides". The original motion had been suggested by Earl when he was in Ballarat to open the chapel, and was designed to arrest the disorderliness of morning worship services. This was the fourth time a proposal to rescind the motion was put. As on other occasions, it was lost. There were only four out of the forty-four present willing to vote in its favour. It was hoped that this issue was now closed.²¹

On the following day a special church meeting was held at the request of Picton. It was chaired by Divers.

Picton tendered his resignation from the church to allow him opportunity of replying to charges made against him. He did not at that time offer any reason for resigning. Neish and Porter suggested that the resignation not be accepted. At this point in the proceedings, Divers chairmanship came in for criticism. He was accused of partiality. He vacated the chair and Neish took his place. An amendment to the

previous motion was then moved by Wright, who had resigned from the diaconate at an earlier meeting, "that the motion should refer only to his position as a member, and not as a pastor". The original motion was withdrawn and the amendment, becoming the motion, was carried unanimously. How someone could remain as an officer of the church without being in membership did not seem to bother those present. The debate did not end here, however. A further motion, moved by Bardwell and seconded by Long, urged "all those who wished to co-operate with Bro. Picton" to meet at the church the following evening at half-past seven. It was protested that such a motion was "schismatical." A good deal of discussion followed and the motion was not put. Because of the uproar, it was decided to adjourn the meeting for a week.

Those supporting Picton decided to meet in the Mechanics Institute on April 3rd, "to take into consideration the propriety of withdrawing" from the Dawson Street Church "and of forming another church among themselves".²²

Negotiations

The majority of the officers sided with Picton. Of the original Board, only Martin and Barrett remained. Both men offered to resign from their offices if this would prevent division. They informed those who were to meet at the Mechanics Institute of their intention. Their resignation, however, was conditional. The letter read:

Ballarat

3rd April, 1867

To the Chairman of the meeting of the Disciples of Christ, Mechanics Institute

Dear Brethren,

Referring to the abrupt termination of the meeting on Monday evening, we beg to remind you that dividing the church in this town ought to be by no means entertained, and that if by our resignation as pastor and deacon in this church a division could be prevented we are quite prepared to do so, on the consideration that Bro. Picton also resign; and that the morning meetings be conducted by the deacons for the time being, such arrangement to continue until a more definite one can be agreed upon. As to all past unpleasantness we are willing to let by-gones be by-gones, or to meet any charge that you may have against us. We are prompted to this from the consideration of the injury which must necessarily ensue if a division occurs under present circumstances.

We are dear brethren
Charles Martin, B. J. Barrett.

Picton's supporters, however, were unhappy with the proposition suggested by Martin and Barrett. They listed five conditions of their own.

At a meeting of the Dawson Street group on the 8th, when Picton and his supporters were absent, it was decided to inform those meeting at the Mechanics Institute that the conditions they laid down were unacceptable.

To give continuing leadership to the Dawson Street church, in the absence of the majority of officers, Wright and Davey were elected deacons on April 17th.²⁵

At that meeting a letter was received from the break-away group, indicating that they were only willing to negotiate on the basis of the conditions they laid down. They presented those at Dawson St. with the ultimatum that "unless the conditions of said letter be complied with before Friday next at 6.00 o'clock pm. the church will commence to worship in the Mechanics Institute on the Sabbath lst". On receiving this letter, Martin read a "full statement of the circumstances" which had led to the division and suggested that it be sent, along with the correspondence that had passed between himself and Picton, to the Annual Meeting of the Victorian Churches, which was to be held in Melbourne on Easter Monday.²⁶

On the 1st May the Dawson Street Church received a letter from the church at Lygon Street in which they were asked to submit the question to arbitration. They unanimously agreed to do this. At that meeting several letters were received from the church at Mt. Clear, informing Dawson Street that they were able to arrange for their own supply and wouldn't be calling on them for assistance. This could indicate that Mt. Clear felt themselves drawn into the conflict, through their contact with Picton, and they wanted to remain neutral. The second letter was from Picton, who suggested that four from each party confer together to arrange an interchange of speakers. However, as the offer from Lygon Street was being acted on, Picton's suggestion was not followed up.

Those meeting in the Mechanics Institute "refused to submit their case to arbitration". As a consequence, the Dawson Street brethren felt it their "painful yet bound duty to deal with them as schismatics and erase their names from the

church books until they are willing to return acknowledging their error and yielding themselves to the will of their Lord". They also decided that they would conduct no further correspondence with them as they felt this would widen the breach. What hurt most was that the division had estranged former friends.²⁷

The church was split down the middle. The numbers were almost equally divided.

It may well be that the reason why Picton shifted out was that the Dawson Street property was registered in Martin's name.

To avoid the problem of his being the sole trustee, Martin suggested that a document be drawn up, which he would sign and which specified "for what purpose and under what conditions" he held the church property. It was also to specify "when and to whom he shall give up his trust". His trusteeship of the property was obviously a bone of contention. To obviate the difficulty Martin, Barrett, Wright, Divers and Davey were elected trustees.²⁸

The initiative in breaking the deadlock, and achieving a re-union, lay with the church at Mt. Clear, and, in particular, with Anderson and Cogleman. These informed Martin that Picton was "willing to retire from office and to become a private member". They also urged him to speak privately with Picton. It was suggested to both pastors that they "allow no obstacle of a personal nature to prevent a re-union from taking place". The meeting between the two men was followed by meetings of representatives of both the groups and then "of the whole of each party". The propositions eventually agreed upon were:

That Brethren Picton and Martin resign and become private members. That the two deacons now in office remain and that the brethren at the Mechanics add three other. That the morning meetings be conducted by the deacons in the way that may seem to them the best advisable. Bro. Cogleman to preside for the time being, and that he also be deputed to receive new members.

That should Bro. Cogleman be unable for any reason to be present, the Deacons select from among themselves brethren to conduct the morning services.

That the preaching brethren have equal right to immerse.

That Bro. Picton be allowed to retain his marriage licence.

That whatever arrangements may be arrived at on the above or other questions that may in this matter be raised, shall not be altered unless by a majority of three-fourths.

That should any Deacon require to be elected, it shall be by three-fourths of those present at a meeting that has been convened for that purpose and of which due notice has been given.

That two of the present trustees resign and that the brethren at the Mechanics appoint two others in their place.²⁹

On December 12th the two factions met together. The meeting was chaired by a Melbourne representative, G. L. Surber, one of the American evangelists. The two groups decided to worship together on December 22nd. Evangelistic services at the Mechanics Institute were to be kept up. Before leaving, Surber "took the opportunity to offer some advice" for the future guidance of the church.³⁰

When the representatives from the Mechanics Institute reported the decision of the combined meeting to their people, some of the group "were very dissatisfied", and let it be known that "they would not come back if they should be carried out".³¹

To deal with these dissenters, a meeting was scheduled for the 17th. At this meeting it became clear that the bone of contention was the stipulation that Deacons would require a three-fourths majority vote to be elected. Those at Dawson Street, however, were unwilling to yield and maintained "that the treaty made respecting a re-union having been agreed to after legitimate and careful discussion of each subject by both parties, will be maintained in its entirety".

The meeting later returned to the subject of the three-fourths vote and a new motion was moved by Chas Morris that the brethren of Dawson Street "give up the matter of majority of three fourths" and that they

heartily and willingly receive all who will declare that they are willing to abide by New Testament principles and no other, and that they have no intention of altering any of the present arrangements.

This meeting next went on to require that Picton "sign an agreement in accordance with his promise that he will not accept of any office for the next twelve months".³² Picton was back moving motions at a church meeting held in January 1868, it was evident that a re-union had been achieved.

While the two groups were now back together, a further issue arose, which required attention. For how much longer should the evening meetings be continued at the Mechanics Institute? It was decided to continue with them until June.³³

New Tensions

The basis of the accommodation, that had been worked out between the two groups, was fragile. Matters were put to the test again in March, 1868, when Picton was again under fire. On this occasion the church deeply regretted that:

Bro. Picton should have applied for exemption from municipal rates because of his being a minister of the Gospel, for they hold it to be in contravention of the principles held by the Disciples of Christ, and they

- 41 -

sincerely hope and trust that Bro. Picton will withdraw the said application.³⁴

Martin also came under fire. It would appear that he had made what some thought were offensive remarks from the pulpit. On April 1st he was taken to task. Some wanted to exclude him from the pulpit altogether. The majority opinion prevailed, however, and he was asked "to avoid as much as possible speaking so as to offend".³⁵ Nevertheless, Martin was not to be reigned in. The issue was brought up again by Picton on the 22nd April. He suggested that Martin be told "to abstain from speaking on Lord's Day mornings in as much as his addresses do not build up but are calculated to scatter the church". The opinion of the meeting, however, was that Martin's attention be drawn to the previous decision of the church cautioning him against injurious remarks. Should he disregard this advice, he was to be prohibited from addressing the church on Lord's Day mornings.³⁶

Despite the continuing conflict between Picton and Martin, it appeared that the two groups were settling in together again. On June 24th it was decided to bring to an end evening services at the Mechanics Institute. With Picton no longer in action at the Institute, it was suggested that he take evening services at Dawson Street during July, August and September. This motion scraped in on a vote of eight for to six against.³⁷

At the conclusion of the three months, the question of evening services was again raised. It was proposed by his supporters that Picton continue for a further three months. An amendment, suggesting that "the preachers that have hitherto been employed preach alternatively," was lost. Some, however, certain that they had the numbers to carry it, protested by leaving the meeting.³⁸ When the issue was brought up again a week later Picton won the day.³⁹

While Picton had the numbers, 34 to 21, it was evident that the groups were again lining up behind their leaders. At the church meeting on September 23rd, that had re-affirmed the appointment of Picton as evening speaker, Martin mentioned "that he had a matter to bring forward between himself and Bro. Reid", but urged that it would need to be held over to the next meeting as there was insufficient time to deal with it." Thereupon Reid gave notice of a motion that he would be bringing to the church the following Wednesday, to "take into consideration the conduct of Brethren Martin and McGowan towards Bro. Picton, as he had reason to believe they had malice in their hearts towards him". The meeting broke up with a number indicating that they were resigning membership in the church.⁴⁰

The issue raised by Martin and Reid was referred to a committee of three, which included Cogleman, Cathcart and Barrett. It concerned an accusation Reid made against Martin, charging that he, "while a member of the Baptist Church meeting in

Yuille St., absented himself from the Lord's table and only attended at certain times in order to retain his membership". This was denied by Martin and the meeting regretted that those spreading this rumour had been misinformed. Reid, who was deeply committed to Picton, was obviously out to discredit Martin. Undeterred by this set-back, he argued that "Martin should be publicly admonished for his disorderly conduct during the past two meetings".

At this stage in the debate it was obvious that something would need to be done in a hurry to prevent Picton's group breaking away a second time. Hoping to ease tensions, Cathcart suggested that a committee "be appointed to take into consideration the present deplorable state of affairs in the church and the best means to be adopted for its future prosperity and well-being". Time ran out for discussion, however, and the meeting was adjourned.⁴¹ Cathcart later withdrew his suggestion.⁴²

At a church meeting held the following week, stricter ground rules for debate were laid down. Each speaker was allowed no more than 15 minutes on any subject or motion. They were permitted to speak only once--with the exception of the mover of an original motion, who would have the right of a 15-minute reply before his motion was put.

With the battle lines firmly drawn Reid brought forward a motion to publicly admonish Martin for the way he had behaved during the last two meetings. It was carried by a slight margin. Where motions of this nature in the past had been carried by a bare majority, they had not been acted upon. Martin's supporters argued that this precedent be followed. Reid, not wishing to be out-foxed, moved a motion that was seconded by Long, that "the Chairman now proceed to admonish our Bro. Martin". In reply, Jenkins argued that there was a minute on the books that all matters of importance brought before the church for decision be carried by a majority of two-thirds of those present before being acted upon". Not willing to see the prey escape, a further motion was moved by Bro. Quillim, and seconded by Picton, "that the majority shall rule and that the minute referred to be rescinded". The votes were counted and the motion carried. The Chairman then pointed out that he would first ask Bro. Martin if he was prepared to acknowledge his fault, "because if not the admonishing would be perfectly useless". To this Martin replied "that he was not, for he did not yet know what was the charge laid against him". Reid then moved that "the church withdraw from Bro. Martin until such time that he shall acknowledge his fault". The debate could be carried no further at this point. Tempers were too inflamed and the time had run out.⁴³

Further Adjudication

News of the uproar in Ballarat reached Melbourne. At a meeting held on October 21st, Surber, who was engaged by the church at Lygon Street, and McGregor, a

leading layman among the Melbourne churches, were present.

Early in the meeting Cathcart suggested that the only solution to the tension was for the church to divide and for a second congregation to be formed.

After considerable discussion the two groups agreed to a suggestion, made by Surber and Cogleman, that a committee be formed, made up of three members chosen by the church and three by Martin and McGowan. It was to include an umpire chosen by the six. Surber and McGregor were appointed by the church and Neish, Hutchinson and Barrett by Martin and McGowan.

The committee was to meet at 4.30 the following afternoon and to report to the congregation on Friday evening. Surber promised to deliver a short address before the findings were presented to the congregation.

When the committee met, Picton objected to those Martin and McGowan had chosen. To avoid delay, the latter agreed "to allow the matter to be investigated by the three brothers whom the church had appointed and to abide by their decision". To this Picton consented. When the committee reported to the church on the 23rd, they stated that they were unanimously agreed that neither of the charges, against Martin or McGowan, had been sustained.⁴⁴

Unwanted Publicity

The drama, however, continued. On December 16th Picton called a special meeting of the church to "lay a matter of complaint against Bro. McGowan". He argued that McGowan had publicly slandered him and "sought to bring him into public disgrace and odium". This accusation arose out of a case in the district court in which Picton was incidentally involved.

A Mary Ann Love had brought an action against her husband, Alfred Love, for maintenance. They had been married two months before by Picton. After beating his wife, Love had gone off with another woman.

Alfred Love's counsel, in his client's defence, argued that Picton did not possess authority to marry. Picton, however, claimed that he had such a right in view of the fact that "he was a minister of religion and had the permission of the Register General". He pointed out that he was a Christian, rather than a member of one of the sects and he considered himself in the same position as any other Christian, who had a right to celebrate marriage providing the permission of the Register General was obtained. As documentary evidence of Picton's authority to perform marriages was not available on the day of the trial, the case was adjourned for a week to allow him to procure evidence.

In the meanwhile, a letter to the editor appeared in the Ballarat Star under the pen name of Elijah. It was written by McGowan and made two points that Picton found offensive. First, commenting on the fact that "Picton based his claim to marry, chiefly upon his being a minister of religion", McGowan argued that it was not the intention of the act to extend such permission to local preachers. Second, McGowan commented that "twelve months ago Mr. Picton" had lost "his office as pastor, and seceded from this body on that account".

When the matter came before the District Court on the 8th, Picton produced documentary proof of his being a certified marriage celebrant. This settled the issue for the judge. However, Alfred Love's defence council, Townsend McDermott, asked leave to say a few words. His "few words" stretched into three-quarters of an hour, during which time he "delivered a running fire on all things in general, and dissenting religion in particular, calling a large part of his audience loafers, and placing Mr. Picton on a par with his client, for whom he did not say much".

While amused, the judge was "not persuaded by his eloquence" and "rewarded the theological council by ordering his client to pay ten shillings per-week maintenance, and find sureties to do so".⁴⁵

While Picton's right to celebrate marriages had been publicly vindicated, he felt that he had been unnecessarily slandered by McGowan, who had brought the disruption within the church before the public gaze.

Reid wrote the Ballarat Star in defence of Picton and was replied to by McGowan.⁴⁶

Picton brought further charges against McGowan on December 18th, relating to the same matter. He was, however, sufficiently restrained by a motion put by Martin

That Bro. McGowan's last letter in the Star newspaper is sufficient proof that he had no intention to mislead the public and although it would have been wiser not to have referred to the late schism in the public prints we think that he has made ample apology for that, and ought to be forgiven and welcomed as a brother.

His motion was carried by a majority of two and the meeting closed. Afterwards, however, "Bro. Elliott broke out into a violent fit of passion and denounced us as a lot of hypocrites". It was an unfortunate episode, fuelled by continuing tensions, and served only to widen the breach between the two groups.⁴⁷

Two Congregations

By January 1869, those siding with Picton were convinced that their only acceptable option was to establish another congregation in Ballarat. It was

unfortunate that this had to be so. But it does appear to have been the best, and most face-saving way of resolving the problem.⁴⁸

On the 13th it was moved that another cause be commenced "in the most favourable place in Ballarat East". While there were those who argued that "this movement was simply another division, that it was consequently decidedly contrary to the plain teaching of the Word of God", the motion was carried and those interested in being part of this new work were invited to meet at the church at 7.15pm on the following Tuesday.⁴⁹

At this meeting Cogleman was thanked for the excellent way in which he had chaired the meetings of the church and coped with the turbulence of the past year. A committee of seven was appointed to arrange for the establishment of a church in Ballarat East. This committee reported on Wednesday 27th January that they had hired the Temperance Hall for meetings, the first of which would be held at 11am the following Sunday, 31st January.⁵⁰

With the exodus of the Ballarat East nucleus, those remaining were faced with two decisions. First, they needed to work out how they would act towards those who had separated from them. Charles Morris, who had transferred to Dawson Street from Lygon Street on the 10th April 1867,⁵¹ gave a positive lead when he moved that "we allow every brother to act in this matter, as he may deem right, and we allow any of those brethren to fellowship with us here".⁵² Second, they needed to elect further officers and reconstitute their board. Brethren Neish, McGowan and Hutchinson were elected deacons. While the church meeting held on the 18th February decided against electing "a pastor or pastors",⁵³ their decision was reversed on the 10th May, when a unanimous invitation was extended to Martin "to again take the office of pastor".⁵⁴

While those remaining at Dawson Street were relieved when Picton and his supporters had gone, they were critical of them for not honouring their pledge to establish themselves in Ballarat East. They had set themselves up in the Mechanics Institute,⁵⁵ which, being located so close to Dawson Street, would be seen as a standing denial of the unity and other New Testament principles that the Disciples were publicly advocating.

While some wanted to call on "the metropolitan churches" to arbitrate, the majority were content to write to the group meeting at the Mechanics Institute to remind them that they were breaking faith "by acting in opposition to their own motion to establish a church in Ballarat East".⁵⁶

Receiving no reply from the Mechanics Institute, the church at Dawson Street officially withdrew from the other group, on the basis of II Thessalonians 3:6 and advised the Melbourne churches of what they had done.⁵⁷

When they received word of what had happened, the Melbourne churches dispatched G. L. Surber and M. W. Green to Ballarat to call together representatives of both churches to try to resolve the situation.

A joint meeting was held on Friday 14th March, 1870. The group at the Mechanics Institute confessed that they had acted wrongly in "refusing to confer with Dawson Street concerning the charge made that they had broken faith". The result of the conference was that the church meeting in the Mechanics Institute expressed its regret for acting in the way that it had in not replying to the correspondence and, for their part, the Dawson Street representatives agreed to recommend to their congregation the rescinding of the motion of withdrawal.⁵⁸

Had matters been allowed to rest there the two churches may well have gathered strength and each pursued a vigorous policy of outreach and evangelism, maintaining at least a tenuous cordiality. This did not happen.

James Hamill

Following the establishment of Ballarat East, the Dawson Street congregation invited J. A. Hamill, from the Prahran Church, for a three-month ministry in the area.⁵⁹ Hamill was to be drawn into the conflict and to become Martin's chief opponent.

Because of the conflict between Martin and Hamill, it was inevitable that a break would come. This was complete by May 1871, when the church at Buninyong wrote to the congregation at Ballarat East, pointing out that Dawson Street was no longer able to support Hamill and suggesting that Buninyong and Ballarat East form an evangelistic committee "to devise the ways and means for his support".⁶⁰

Hamill entered the fray when it came to his attention that Martin had mentioned in a sermon that the wicked would not suffer eternal torment, but be annihilated. For Hamill, eternal punishment "was not an opinion but a matter of faith, being part of the religion of Christ". While Martin claimed that, for him, the issue was a matter of opinion, and that he would not push it, Hamill was incensed that he "was circulating book after book among Young converts" on the subject. Martin was apparently also presenting his views to the young church at Durham, which later told him that he wasn't welcome if he continued to retail his heresies. One individual claimed that, on the afternoon on which he was baptised, Martin pressed him for about three hours to induce him to believe that the wicked would cease to exist.

Hamill, now employed by other churches in Ballarat, continued his crusade against Martin and Dawson Street. He did not need to arouse a supine Ballarat East. Smarting over earlier issues, antipathy towards Martin still ran high. The issue

came to a head when Ballarat East and four other Churches of Christ congregations in the area, those at Cardigan, Durham, Mt. Clear and Buninyong, met at Mt. Clear on the 21st July 1871, and agreed to the following resolutions.

Dawson St. Excommunicated

The delegates met at Mt. Clear again on the 4th August and unanimously recommended that the Dawson Street Church be withdrawn from.⁶² Before leaving the area, Hamill sought to persuade Dawson Street members to separate themselves from those preaching annihilation. He had little success.⁶³

Hamill, the prime mover in the action against Dawson Street at this stage, was supported by church leaders in Melbourne.

A further consequence of the issue was the development of a running debate between Martin and Surber in the pages of the Pioneer.⁶⁴

The church at Lygon Street, where Surber was engaged, endeavoured to affect a change of view on the part of Dawson Street through correspondence. Dawson Street, however, had adopted a siege mentality, and, after a deluge of letters, refused to answer further correspondence.⁶⁵

In July, 1872, a letter, written by Neish to Martin, in which the latter was asked to resign his office as pastor, was brought to a church meeting. The congregation was against Martin resigning. Their response was to take Neish off the preaching plan. Martin and McGowan were commissioned to preach on alternative Sunday evenings.⁶⁶

While Martin had the general support of Dawson Street members, not all were happy with his views. This was evident from the fact that, throughout this period, a considerable number were erased from the roll through non-attendance. The congregation was also having to cope with being an excommunicated church.

In December, 1872 Neish resigned from the church. At the same time Charles Morris was appointed secretary.⁶⁷ On the 23rd, however, Neish withdrew his letter and the charges he had made against certain of the brethren and reported that he had decided to meet with Mr. D. I. Quillham in Albert Street. His resignation had not achieved the desired result. But he had had enough.⁶⁸

Ballarat East

During these years the church at Ballarat East continued to grow.

Its reputation also spread. The congregation was consulted by the church at Richmond on how it should conduct itself towards the brethren in the Manchester Unity Hall, who had received into fellowship a disaffected group from Richmond who were on the point of being disciplined. Ballarat East suggested that Manchester Unity be written to and asked to have nothing further to do with the dissidents, at least until the matter of their discipline had been settled. In the event that the brethren at Manchester Unity did not agree to this, they suggested that a meeting be called of representatives of all the Melbourne churches to excommunicate the Manchester Unity congregation.⁶⁹ The Richmond Church wrote to those meeting at the Manchester Unity Hall, but were disappointed with their response. They wrote to Ballarat East for further support. Ballarat East replied that it was a matter for the Melbourne churches to take action on.⁷⁰

Dawson Street, in the early 1870's, found itself, because of the views of its pastor, excommunicated by sister churches in Ballarat and Melbourne. The evangelistic initiative, evident in the early months of Hamill's stay in Ballarat, was completely dissipated and continued to reduce under the pressure of the ostracism. It was a sorry state of affairs.

[BCOC 34-48]