Chapter 1
Theological Origins

1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this chapter is to outline the beliefs and practices of the pioneering membership of the Australian Churches of Christ. The period of the pioneers stretched from the beginning of the movement in Adelaide in 1846 to the arrival of the first American-trained evangelists in 1864.

Churches of Christ in Australia are a product of the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ. They originated in the late 1840's and early 1850's, due largely to the initiative of British immigrants, the majority of whom had been in membership with Churches of Christ congregations in the Home Country.¹ [1]

While the colonial congregations were relatively homogeneous, there were differences between the colonies. The Adelaide nucleus, which gave vigorous leadership in South Australia, developed from a split in a local Scotch-Baptist congregation. The bulk of those who made up the early Sydney membership were former Wesleyan Methodists, a number of them local preachers. The Victorian membership was largely made up of former members of the British Churches of Christ. The first Colonial conference in 1866 was a Victorian initiative that invited the participation of the leadership in New South Wales and South Australia.²

To trace the development of the theology of the pioneers is extremely difficult. There is an almost complete lack of source material. The theology of the movement has to be pieced together from incidental comment in news items from Australia that were published in the journal of the British Churches.

There are, however, two factors that partially compensate for the lack of material. The first is the fact that the colonial churches in organization and worship differed little from the British Churches of Christ. Both groups were serviced by the British Millennial Harbinger. The second compensating factor is the fact that the Australian Churches of Christ were deeply influenced by the approach of Thomas and [2]

Alexander Campbell.³ In fact, though colonial congregations were so closely associated with the British Churches of Christ as to be almost indistinguishable from them, they were, theologically, deeply indebted to the Campbells. Apart from individuals who had had personal contact with the Disciples, account has to be taken of the fact that the wide dissemination of the writings of Alexander Campbell considerably influenced the theological formation of the British Churches. The frequent inclusion of Campbell reprints in the British Millennial Harbinger, which circulated in Australia as the umbilical cord between the British and Australian movements, and the popularity in Australia of Campbell's publications, have also to be taken into account. Thus, while the Australian pioneers sided with the British Churches on issues on which the parent movements were divided, their theology was essentially Campbellian. [3]

Because the Australian Churches of Christ owed so much to the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ it is possible to compensate for the lack of primary source material on the Australian movement by outlining the commonly held beliefs and practices of the three groups.⁴

In this study the theology of the Campbells will be given the greatest prominence. This is both necessary and appropriate. It is necessary because the British material is mostly thin in content and in many areas does little more than reiterate the position arrived at by the Campbells. It is also appropriate that the material from the American movement should predominate as it was the Campbells who first and in greatest detail articulated what all three groups regarded as the main thrust and particulars of their plea and because of the extent of their influence on the theological formulation of the movement in Britain and Australia.

This first chapter, which will concentrate on an analysis of factors common to the three movements, will be concerned with Epistemology, Unity, Theological Presuppositions and Distinctive Doctrines.

2. EPISTEMOLOGY

Most Christian communions in the early eighteenth century accepted the Christian Scriptures as authoritative for the Church and normative in matters of doctrine and practice. To highlight this conviction [4] as the distinctive feature of any one communion, or group of related communions, could appear superfluous or contradictory. Justification for its inclusion in a treatment of the theology of the American Disciples and the British and Australian Churches of Christ is threefold. First, the three groups claimed to be restoring the Christianity of the New Testament. Second, they argued in debate with other Christian bodies that they alone accurately understood what the Bible taught. Third, it is important in this first chapter to lay a foundation for the later consideration of the effect upon the movement of the revolution in biblical interpretation that resulted from the work of Charles Darwin.

Thomas Campbell, a native of Northern Ireland, graduate of the University of Glasgow and minister of the Anti-Burgher Seceders⁵ was distressed by the sectarian bigotry that he felt inhibited unity. He called on Christians of all denominations to return to the simplicity of the Scriptures.⁶ Speaking to a group of sympathisers drawn from different denominational backgrounds, who had formed themselves into the Christian Association of Washington, Campbell urged "the entire abandonment of everything in religion for which there could not be produced a Divine warrant". Crystallising their approach, Campbell said: "Where the scriptures speak, we speak; and where the scriptures are silent, we are silent'.⁷ For Campbell this "Divine book", the only inherent source of truth, was eternally relevant and all were under obligation to be bound by it.⁸ [5]

Alexander Campbell agreed with his father that the Bible, normative for Christians, contained "a full and perfect revelation of God and His will".⁹ It was his view that "the writings of Prophets and Apostles contain all the divine and supernatural knowledge in the world".¹⁰

Alexander, like most churchmen of his day, believed the Scriptures were inspired. He advanced several reasons in support of this conviction. First, his primary argument was based on the fact of "the Divine wisdom and knowledge contained" in them.¹¹ Second, he contended that the Bible was the most credible history ever written. His point was that the original eyewitnesses "were plain, common-sense, ordinary, matter-of-fact men" who could trust their senses. For Campbell, as for Locke, the senses were the primary vehicle of knowledge. A third argument was that those who wrote up the records were prepared to die for them. He went on to contend, fourthly, that men of learning and talent were among the Bible's greatest admirers. His fifth point was that the Bible had lifted to heights of excellence those regarded as "the most humane, benevolent, public-spirited, philanthropic and virtuous" of men. His sixth and seventh arguments were that the Bible made sense of this enigmatic world and that "no living man has either oral or written testimony contradicting the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets". His final point was [6] that the Bible had proven itself to be true in the experience of those who had "believed it to the salvation of their souls".¹²

While Alexander gave scant attention to theories of inspiration, he did argue that the original and supernatural ideas were directly given, while those responsible for the writing up of historical material from tradition and personal experience enjoyed "such a superintendency of the spirit of wisdom and knowledge as excluded the possibility of mistake in the matters of fact which they recorded".¹³ Tacitly endorsing a concursive view of inspiration, in which human and Divine initiatives operate concurrently and in accord with each other, he contended that

while this inspiration precluded the selection of incorrect or unsuitable words and sentences, the inspired men delivered supernatural communications in their own peculiar modes of expressing themselves.¹⁴

It ought to be noted that while Alexander contended that the beliefs and practices he preached were plainly revealed in Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, his interpretation of scriptural teaching can be seen to have been deeply influenced by the ideas of Locke, Reid and the democratic spirit of the frontier.¹⁵

The British Churches of Christ agreed with the American Disciples that "the place which the Bible occupies in the history of the world knows no parallel.¹⁶ This "system of objective truth,"¹⁷ they argued, "dignifies, ennobles, enriches, and blesses all who heed its teachings and practice its precepts".¹⁸ They regarded the Scriptures [7] as inspired, not as ordinary writings are inspired, nor in the Spiritualist sense, but by God Himself through His Spirit.¹⁹ As the "Word of God", the Bible will endure. "Its principles are too hard for the teeth of time", while "its consoling influences will be felt when the shore of time recedes and we launch upon the ocean of eternity".²⁰

The leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ, like their American and British counterparts, placed their faith "in the plain and simple declarations of the Word of God". "Laying aside the traditions of men", they accepted the Scriptures as their unerring and all-sufficient guide in matters of faith and practice".²¹ They argued that, as other communions continued to regard tradition, explicitly or implicitly, as a second authority, the reformation was only half completed. They felt that they had been raised up to climax the movement by returning the Church to a view of the Bible as "wholly and solely really and truly . . . sufficiently alone, and alone admissible, as a rule of faith and bond of union".²²

The American Disciples, the British Churches of Christ and the Australian Churches of Christ were agreed that the Scriptures were the fundamental authority for Christians. They determined that the Bible, and the Bible alone, would be the basis of their approach. Furthermore, they considered that they were called to alert all Christians to this fundamental premise. [8]

3. UNITY

The vision of a reunited church dominated Thomas Campbell's life. It was the burden of his preaching and the pivot of his theology. He argued that no one could avoid the fact that Christ had enjoined unity upon his followers²³ and prayed fervently for its maintenance.²⁴ To work for the unity of the Church was a duty owed to God and one from which no Christian could escape without gross culpability.²⁵

This vision, however, while supported by an appeal to the Bible, was less a result of scriptural illumination than of Campbell's personal background and experience in the ministry.

His personal and family background contributed in several ways. First, Campbell, introspective and given to careful self-examination, was temperamentally irenic.²⁶ Second, his family background was ecumenical. His father was a Roman Catholic turned Anglican and his mother a Huguenot. Thomas, finding the cold formality of the Church of England unappealing, was drawn to the stricter and more devotional Seceder Presbyterians.²⁷ Finally, the fact that his ministry in Ireland coincided with the period of civil commotion helped germinate the conviction that the need of the hour was the promotion of peace and unity.²⁸

This conviction was reinforced by experiences associated with his ministry with the Seceders. One experience was his failure to convince the Associate Synod of Scotland that the Burgher issue should not be [9] allowed to divide Irish Secessionists.²⁹ The point be argued was that, as there were few Anglicans in Ireland, and as Northern Ireland was almost exclusively Presbyterian, the Burgher issue had little relevance and should not divide Irish Secessionists. Thomas was sickened by the sectarian spirit he encountered in the Synod. He described it as "thwart with the awful consequences of distracting, disturbing and dividing the flock of the Lord's heritage, and of sowing discord among the brethren.³⁰

A second factor influencing the young Secessionist minister was the heightened sectarianism he discovered in the New World. This was the reverse of what he expected and it resulted eventually in his declining ministerial connection with the Associate Synod of North America in September 1808. He had been licensed to preach by this body a little over a year previously, [10] shortly after arriving in America from Northern Ireland.³¹

Campbell's gentle and irenic temperament abhorred the "horrid evil of division".³² In one of the more emotional passages in the Declaration and Address he described schism as "sheathing its sword in the very bowels of His Church, rending and mangling His mystical body to pieces".³³ It is little wonder that he occasionally equated unity with "rest" and "peace".³⁴

The unity he envisaged was that which the Church enjoyed in the beginning.³⁵ While he recognized that the churches of the New Testament were not perfect, the style and quality of their life was "pure" in the [11] sense of representing the original pattern.³⁶ In Campbell's view the pattern of unity outlined in the New Testament was visible³⁷ and constitutional,³⁸ a permanent unity³⁹ involving all the Churches.⁴⁰

Campbell recognized that "the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another". However, while he realised that because of geographic situations, cultural differences and local adaptations, each congregation would possess unique features, he did not feel that this would inhibit the expression within the Church universal of a unanimity in thought, judgement and utterance.⁴¹

Those eligible for membership in this united church were "all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity".⁴² More specifically it consisted

of all those in every place that rest their faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct.⁴³ [12]

The unity of the New Testament churches was pre-eminently a unity centring in Christ. He was its head and centre. His word, revealed in the Scriptures, was its rule, and His name was the insignia on its banners.⁴⁴ Those making up its membership were to be distinguished by the Christ-like love they demonstrated.⁴⁵

Campbell argued that the original unity could only be recovered through reformation.⁴⁶ This reformation would involve Christians of all denominations voluntarily conforming "to the original pattern laid down in the New Testament ".⁴⁷ In this the unity of the Apostolic church had consisted. Consequently, this restoration was not merely a possible solution, but the "Divine" and only "adequate basis of union".⁴⁸

To achieve this restoration of "simple, evangelical Christianity,⁴⁹ associations of Christians drawn from "all the churches"⁵⁰ should be formed to consult together in an atmosphere of mutual acceptance. It would be important in these consultations that denominational bias be set aside to enable all to come freshly to the Word.⁵¹ Campbell did not see the original unity restored through top-level denominational association, but through individual Christians associating⁵² to discover in the Scriptures the pattern of Apostolic belief and practice that both comprised and included this unity.⁵³ [13] This was why he generally spoke of it as "Christian unity" rather than "union", for the latter implied the merging of existing denominations.

Campbell admitted that the task was formidable. However, it had to be attempted. Furthermore, as God was in it, it would succeed.⁵⁴

Thomas Campbell's plea for unity was enshrined in his Declaration and Address, a statement of purpose prepared for the Christian Association of Washington.⁵⁵ Described by Donald Yoder as "one of the great milestones on the path of Christian unity in America",⁵⁶ Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address was the charter of the new movement.

Alexander was no less convinced than his father that the church needed to regain a divinely-willed but lost unity. Where he differed from Thomas, was that he concentrated, not so much on setting forth the ideal, as his father had done, but on attempting to determine what doctrines and practices needed to be universally restored to achieve it. According to Alexander, the divinely-given means of achieving an ecumenical unity was through a revival of the faith, life, devotion and zeal of the New Testament Church--the restoration of "Original Christianity".⁵⁷ He could not accept the idea that unity could be founded on "a system of orthodox opinions".⁵⁸ This sort of approach [14] inevitably resulted in fresh divisions. Arguing that what the New Testament described as heresy resulted not from erroneous doctrine but from attachment to particular leaders,⁵⁹ he contended that the resulting factions or sects could only be done away with and the churches achieve a visible unity through Christians of all persuasions focussing attention on Christ. He regarded "faith in Jesus as the true Messiah and obedience to Him as our Lord and King", as "the ONLY TEST of Christian character, and the ONLY BOND of Christian union, and co-operation".⁶⁰ For Alexander, the Christian millennium, which in his thinking was compounded of a belief in progress, the Puritan concept of the Holy Commonwealth, confidence in the national mission and the expectation of Christ's kingdom,⁶¹ could not be realised without the recovery by the church of its unity and the evangelistic successes this unity would help achieve.

The British Churches of Christ did not share Alexander Campbell's vision of a new Eden. David King, one of their leaders, expressed dissatisfaction with Campbell's gradualist version of the millennium. Things would not get progressively better, but rather worse, and would culminate in the cataclysmic intervention of God.⁶²

This did not mean, however, that the British were not concerned with unity. As one writer put it, with a clear Christocentric focus:

Our mission is a plain one, and one on which there can be no compromise--to restore Jesus, our Lord and King, to the hearts of [15] the people of this generation, and to induce them to unite in him as their only head and leader, under His name and law, in His body the Church, to be His and be governed by Him.⁶³

The difference between the two movements was one of emphasis. While both coupled the concepts of restoration and unity, the Americans were fired by a vision of unity and the British by the need for restoration. The British restoration emphasis was evident in the comment of David King that

the primitive union of believers in Christ can only be restored by means which brought it about at the beginning and by which it was continued till the Apostasy--i.e. complete submission to the Apostles of Christ, in faith, order and discipline.⁶⁴

The influence of the American Disciples, and particularly the approach of the Campbell's, upon the Australian Churches of Christ was most evident in the concern of the Australian movement for the unity of the Church. While they cared little for other elements of Alexander's millennial vision, this aspect of his millenarianism they did endorse.

However, while concerned for unity, the British-born pioneers of the Australian movement were unhappy with the way the "denominations" were approaching the issue. They felt that divisive issues were not being faced and could see no point in organizing special prayer for union when the Scriptures already contained instruction on how it was to be achieved.⁶⁵ Reiterating [16] the position first outlined by Thomas Campbell, they argued that the "denominations" should repudiate their credal theologies and return to the simplicity of the Scriptures.⁶⁶ In offering advice to the Anglican Bishop of Adelaide on the formulation of a church constitution, Henry Hussey emphasized the need for

a return to the original Gospel, the ancient faith, and Apostolic simplicity, as the only safe ground for a useful, happy and permanent union of Christians.⁶⁷

The vision of unity set forth by Thomas Campbell was taken over by his son Alexander, who focussed on restoration as the Divinely-given means of achieving it. The British Churches of Christ, who placed more emphasis on correct doctrine than unity, were even more intent on restoring the "old paths". The emphasis of the Australian Churches of Christ lay somewhere between Alexander Campbell and their British mentors. While they spoke frequently of unity, their persistent theme was the restoration of New Testament Christianity.

4. THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

There were several theological presuppositions underlying the approach of the Campbells and of the British and Australian Churches of Christ. It is not easy to document these in the theology of the British and Australian Churches of Christ, as they were tacitly accepted rather than argued. This was partly because of the fact that many were integral to the Independent tradition from which Churches of Christ sprang in Britain, and certainly to the approach of the Scotch-Baptists. However, while basic beliefs may not have received explicit treatment, they were present implicitly in articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects. It has also to be remembered that many of Campbell's articles, and those of other Disciples, were reproduced, [17] particularly in the early years when they constituted the substantial content, in successive British Restoration journals. In addition, Alexander Campbell's books were themselves popular and his Millennial Harbinger deeply influenced the British movement at the time of its formation. The British felt that there was no need to duplicate Campbell's treatment of the issues because he had said it all so well. That his theological presuppositions were in accord with the approach of the British Churches of Christ is evident in the fact that future exponents of the theology of the British Churches drew attention to his attitudes, owning them and pointing out that they were integral to the approach of the British movement.⁶⁸

a. The Priority of the New Testament

While the Bible was regarded by Thomas Campbell as the principal source of spiritual knowledge, he clearly distinguished between the Old and New Testaments. It was the latter which was normative for Christians. The New Testament contained details of the "simple, original form of Christianity",⁶⁹ the restoration of which would enable the Church to regain her lost unity.

In emphasizing the theological priority of the New Testament over the Old, Campbell was influenced by the covenant theology of Cocceius, who viewed God's association with man as a covenant relationship which altered with a change of dispensation.⁷⁰

Alexander was in thorough agreement with his father on the issue of the priority of the New Testament. While he more widely published his views,⁷¹ he basically [18]

did not add to what his father had already set out in the Declaration and Address. In a sense there was no need to. The conviction that the New Testament was normative for Christians was more of a hermeneutic principle than the sort of doctrine that invited extensive exploration. After it was formulated, it was taken for granted. This was true also of the British and Australian movements, which regarded the distinction as beyond debate--a sort of a priori assumption. It was their view that "the Old Testament writings were placed on record by Moses and the prophets, for the instruction and guidance of those who lived under a former dispensation". Since God "in these last days has spoken to us by His Son", it followed that "the positive institutes of that dispensation which are not embodied in the New Testament, are abrogated by a far more glorious revelation from heaven".⁷²

b. The Question of Interpretation

The New Testament Scriptures, while normative, needed interpreting. Thomas Campbell recognised that it was difficult to avoid interpretative bias. He therefore advocated keeping doctrinal statements as close as possible to the actual words of scripture.⁷³

Like his father, Alexander recognized that the New Testament needed to be interpreted. To assist those depending on him for guidance, he set out basic rules of interpretation. Arguing that "when God spoke to man in his own language, he spoke as one person converses with another in the fair, stipulated, and well-established meaning of the terms",⁷⁴ he pointed out that the same rules of interpretation that applied to other ancient writings could be applied to the Bible. The "historical circumstances of the book" (the order, title, author, date, place and occasion) were to be taken into account. The age or dispensation (patriarchal, Jewish, Christian) to which the reference applied, [19] needed to be considered. Philological principles were also important, and it ought to be decided whether the literal or figurative sense was intended. In the latter case, it was essential that the type be identified. Anticipating a twentieth century emphasis, he stated that it was necessary to "ascertain the point to be illustrated; for comparison is never to be extended beyond that point--to all the attributes, qualities and circumstances of the symbol, type, allegory, or parable". Finally, he argued that to interpret correctly any passage it was necessary to "come within the understanding distance", to humbly seek the guidance of God.⁷⁵

From the available evidence, few British or Australian Restorationists gave a great deal of attention to Alexander's views on interpretation. More simplistic in approach, they argued that the basics of the New Testament message did not need interpreting. They contended that the Catholic Church, in interpreting the Bible by its tradition, and Protestants, in laying down the rule that "everyman has the right to interpret the Bible for himself", were both subverting scriptural authority. In their view "God's book contains all the interpretation of His mind necessary for faith and practice.⁷⁶ Attempting to follow their own advice, they used the language of the Bible to set forth their position and answer critics. This position, however, was unsound, as it is impossible to approach the Scriptures without interpretative bias, which they themselves were displaying in their selection and arrangement of verses in addresses and published articles. Nor was the appeal of the movement to the [20] naked Word entirely free from difficulty. It sometimes created internal tensions. In Adelaide, for instance, the freedom of each individual to determine what he felt to be the literal sense of certain scripture passages sapped evangelistic vigour. Magarey complained:

One great cause of our lethargy here is, that many of our brethren are looking for the restoration of miracles; also, shortly, for the personal appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to convert the nations, and gather together His people Israel; and they imagine that little can be done till all these things be fulfilled. I always find that men who think they are not able to do a work, never succeed in that work; it is not surprising that those who believe it necessary that Jesus should come in His glory to make known His own name, give themselves but little trouble to make it known for Him.⁷⁷

Following the lead of the British Churches of Christ, rather than that of Alexander Campbell, the Australian Churches of Christ argued that the Scriptures were their own interpreter. Because of this, they gave scant, if any, attention to considering precise rules of interpretation.

c. Facts and Opinions

Recognizing that individual interpretation of passages varied and that insistence on the acceptance of one interpretation to the exclusion of others promoted division, Thomas Campbell argued that Christians should seek unity on the basis of the facts of the Gospel,⁷⁸ and regard interpretation of those facts as a private matter.⁷⁹ No man had the right to judge his brother on the basis of opinion.⁸⁰

In line with his father, Alexander contended that New Testament Christianity was based upon facts rather than opinions. He distinguished between facts and truth, arguing that while all facts are truth, not all [21] truths are facts. For him, facts were equivalent to deeds, or things done. He therefore equated salvation history with the mighty acts of God, and argued that the "facts" upon which Christianity was based were the recorded "sayings and doings of Jesus Christ from His birth to His coronation in the heavens".⁸¹ It was the acceptance of the facts of the biblical record by Christians of all persuasions that would return the Church to her original unity.

This distinction between facts and opinions carried through into the theologies of the British and Australian Churches of Christ, though the distinction was rarely mentioned by them. It was more in the nature of a tacit assumption. This was probably related to the fact that they were more ready than the Disciples to debate rival opinions, which, in the heat of the argument, were not always seen as opinions. The majority of the early membership, particularly in Britain, had been in membership with the Scotch-Baptists, who were noted for their contentiousness.⁸² The fact that both the British and Australian Churches of Christ accepted the view that the Bible needed no human interpreter, which in fact meant that each person was their own interpreter, must also have contributed to the tendency of the movement in both countries to confuse fact and opinion, and therefore to play down the distinction between the two.

d. Essentials and Non-Essentials

It was obvious to Thomas Campbell that one important prerequisite for a reunited Church was the acceptance by its members of certain basic doctrines. He also was aware that there would not be agreement on all issues of faith and practice. He therefore drew a distinction between essentials and non-essentials. [22]

The former were doctrines and practices "expressly taught and enjoined in the word of God, either in express terms or approved precedent".⁸³ These "essentials" contrasted with non-essential matters, on which there was scope for differences of opinion.⁸⁴ In advocating a non-sectarian Christianity, which centred unity on a few essentials, and suggested tolerance on matters of opinion, Campbell was deeply influenced by John Locke.⁸⁵ [23]

The distinction between essentials and non-essentials, which Thomas Campbell enunciated in his Declaration and Address, like the distinction between fact and opinion, received little attention in the British Millennial Harbinger.

e. Use of Creeds

While Thomas Campbell argued that all Christians ought to be agreed on essential beliefs and practices, he was opposed to confessions of faith being made terms of communion. He argued that, while all denominations justified their beliefs and practices by appeal to the Scriptures, denominational statements of faith were composed of an amalgam of Scripture and human interpretation or tradition. This foreign element was responsible for the divided state of the Church.⁸⁶ Because they contained inferences that went beyond the teachings of Scripture itself, Campbell was opposed to creeds or other theological formulations being made terms of communion.⁸⁷ He argued:

Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith or required of them as terms of communion but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything be admitted as a divine obligation in their church constitution and managements, but what is expressively enjoined by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles upon the New Testament Church, either in express terms, or by approved precedent.⁸⁸

In arguing that creeds and other theological formulations should not be made terms of communion, Campbell was not advocating a creedless latitudinarianism, but a universal recognition of what was clearly revealed in the New Testament.⁸⁹ Nor was he dismissing theology as a useless discipline. "Doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of divine truth and [24] defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors" had their place.⁹⁰ But such formulations should not be made tests of fellowship. Anticipating the charge that his Declaration and Address, particularly the thirteen propositions, was itself a creed, he argued that it was

merely designed for opening up the way, that we may come fairly and firmly to original ground upon clear and certain premises and take up things just as the Apostles left them.⁹¹

While Alexander Campbell, though not uninfluenced by his father, had come independently to the view that creeds frustrated the realisation of Christian unity,⁹² he appeared less concerned than Thomas to emphasize his opposition to creeds. What the older Campbell had said did not need recasting, or a sustained emphasis. The British Churches of Christ were also less concerned than Thomas Campbell had been to advertise their opposition to creeds. They were, however, not averse to publishing articles by leading American Disciples on the subject. In 1866 one such article appeared in the British Millennial Harbinger from the pen of W. K. Pendleton, who argued that creeds were "the great obstacles now in the way of a very general and true union among professing Christians". They obviously were in agreement with Pendleton, who contended that creeds represented the "victory of the intellect over the heart". The point Pendleton made was that creeds

put piety and brotherly love in a straightjacket. They forbid us to worship except under the shadow of their doctrine; they anathematize our fellowship, if it steps out of the corridor of their rescript; they [25] damn us to infamy if we dare the dignity of free and manly thought.⁹³

The resultant reluctance of the Australian Churches of Christ to formulate doctrinal statements exposed the movement to the influence of ideas alien to its theological ethos. This was evident in Eliza Davies comment about the Newtown congregation in New South Wales, which she visited in 1858:

They had Swedenborgians, and soul-sleepers, and those who believed in the annihilation of the soul after death among them. They also had those who did not believe in paying a preacher, nor in building a house to worship God in, nor in having family worship.⁹⁴

The American Disciples and the British and Australian Churches of Christ were united in their opposition to the use of creeds as tests of fellowship. They were convinced that denominational creeds were one of the greatest barriers in the way of the achievement of Christian unity.

f. Pure Speech

Individuals, congregations and denominational bodies could not avoid public expression of their faith. Furthermore, granted that there were essential beliefs and practices, these needed to be publicly proclaimed. To avoid the disunity that would result from a clash of interpretation, and allow for the public expression of basic doctrine and practice, Thomas Campbell [26] suggested that those proclaiming the message of the Bible, as far as possible, use scriptural language. Alexander took up this point. Believing that

the fiercest disputes about religion are about what the Bible does not say, rather than about what it does say about words and phrases coined in the mint of speculative theology,⁹⁵

Campbell argued that, for the sake of union, Christians should use pure speech", by which he meant "speaking of Bible things in Bible words".⁹⁶ He pointed out that he was always suspicious that, if the word was not in the Bible, "the idea which it represents is not there". He went on to argue that

the things taught by God are better taught in the words and under the names which the Holy Spirit has chosen and appropriated than in the words which man's wisdom teaches.⁹⁷

Alexander's remarks about the use of "pure speech were in accord with the emphasis of the British and Australian pioneers on the fact that the Scriptures did not need interpreting but spoke for themselves. In Australia, the phrase "pure speech", as was the case with the distinction between fact and opinion and between essentials and non-essentials, was given greater prominence within the apologetic of the Australian Churches of Christ with the advent of American evangelists after 1864.

g. Summary

It was the aim of the Campbells and of the Disciples, whose teachings they directly influenced, as well of the British and Australian Churches of Christ, to reunite the Church on the basis of a restored New Testament Christianity. To accomplish this, they considered it [27] necessary to lay down certain guidelines. These theological presuppositions were designed to assist Christians of all persuasions to unite on the basis of a common acceptance of the simple beliefs and practices of the New Testament Church.

5. DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES

The distinctive doctrines of the American Disciples and the British and Australian Churches of Christ were concerned with Salvation, the Church, Ministry and Worship. While they refrained from formulating written creeds, the American Disciples, British Churches of Christ and Australian Churches of Christ can be identified as sister movements on the basis of certain commonly held doctrines. This does not mean, however, that the distinctive beliefs of the three groups were identical. In fact, the American and British Movements were far from agreed on several key doctrines. In areas where the beliefs of the Disciples and the British Churches of Christ differed, the Australian Churches of Christ generally followed the British lead.

a. Salvation

There was least disagreement in the area of soteriology, where Alexander Campbell's influence predominated.

Thomas Campbell, consistent with his conviction that plainly stated biblical facts, rather than theories about those facts, should be emphasized, concerned himself, not with theories of the Atonement, but with setting out what he saw as the clearly revealed means of appropriating its benefits.

For Thomas, whose soteriology was unabashedly Arminian, salvation was appropriated by faith. Faith, in his view, was nearly equivalent to the rational [28] acceptance of testimony.⁹⁸ This testimony, the acceptance of which constituted faith's foundation, was concerned, not with sophisticated theological doctrines, but with simple biblical understandings. It was Campbell's belief that

as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the church, neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge; but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in and obedience to Him in all things according to his Word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into His Church.⁹⁹

Just as faith, elicited through the display of God's grace in Christ, enabled individuals to appropriate the benefits of the Atonement, its continuance was necessary to ensure their final salvation. One's place in the saved community could be forfeited if faith, expressed in obedience to Christ's commands, was no longer exercised. To remain within [29] the Church it was necessary for individuals to "continue to manifest the reality of their profession by their tempers and conduct".¹⁰⁰

While Alexander Campbell agreed in principle with his father's soteriology, his rejection of infant baptism and his acceptance of believer s baptism led to a major reformulation of the movement's doctrine of salvation.¹⁰¹

Alexander Campbell divided the process of salvation into four stages. The first involved a change of view or enlightenment. This led on to a change of affection, to reconciliation. The third phase involved a change of state, a quickening, or rebirth. The final element was a change of life or conversion.¹⁰²

The central element was the change of state. The first two led up to it and the fourth was its consequence. Explaining himself, Campbell argued:

To be in Christ or under Christ then is to stand in these new relations to God, angels and men; and to be out of Him, or not under His mediatorship or government, is to be in or under Adam only. It is to be in what is called 'the state of nature: unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled and an alien from the family of God, lost in trespasses and sins.¹⁰³ [30]

Because he argued that up until rebirth the Spirit of God worked with the prospective convert through the Word, rather than directly on the heart,¹⁰⁴ the moment of rebirth was crucial. This understanding had two implications. First, the initial approach to God was something the individual was capable of without prevenient and supernatural assistance.¹⁰⁵ Second, baptism, which culminated the human response, was the point at which the sinner, in a change of state, became a part of the family of God, and received His Spirit.¹⁰⁶

Campbell had difficulty with the term "regeneration". On one occasion he stated that it referred neither to the whole process of salvation, nor to any separate element.¹⁰⁷ At other times, he regarded it as equivalent to rebirth, or its consequence, conversion.¹⁰⁸ The reason for this confusion was that he was anxious to scotch the Calvinist notion that saving faith was a divinely infused potential, together with its corollary, that every aspect of the process was the result of the Spirit's impingement.¹⁰⁹ This belief lessened the import of baptism, and, in Alexander's view, contradicted the scriptural evidence. Pointing out that there were only two places where "regeneration" was used in the New Testament, Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5, he argued that if the passage in Matthew referred to "a new state of things, not of persons", the Titus passage alone referred to the latter.¹¹⁰ He went on to insist that "the bath of [31] regeneration" to which Titus referred was Christian baptism, on which interpretation all the ancients were agreed, and which was equivalent to Jesus' comment to Nicodemus about being "born of water".¹¹¹ It was thus through a figurative and literal burial (water being the element), and resurrection, that the change of state into the family of God, and into His kingdom, was effected. This did not mean that the act of baptism itself 'procured life". The rebirth in water and Spirit was for the purpose of "enjoying" the life of which the individual was possessed through the preceding phases of the process.¹¹² Such an interpretation is confusing, unless it is remembered that Campbell regarded rebirth, not so much as a psychological change, as a legal or constitutional change of state. The Spirit, entering the individual at the moment of rebirth, was thought of as assisting the post-baptismal life.¹¹³

Campbell argued that, to appropriate salvation, the individual must exercise faith. Faith was based on belief in testimony. The New Testament was primarily a record of what God had done, the remembrance, interpretation and accurate recording of which was the bequest of the Spirit. Apostolic testimony was confirmed and made credible by "demonstrations of the Holy Spirit" which included "the extraordinary and miraculous power possessed by the Apostles and their converts".¹¹⁴

While Campbell frequently argued that faith was based on belief in testimony, he was careful to distinguish between faith and belief. Faith, based on belief, involves personal trust. Belief that did not result in trust was a dead faith. However, while separable in theory, they were for the Christian [32] indistinguishable, for, with reference to Christ, "to believe what He says, and to believe or trust in Him, are in effect one and the same thing".¹¹⁵

Campbell did not regard faith as a supernatural endowment. The "saving efficacy of faith" was not in "the nature" of our faith or in "the manner of believing the truth", but in the truth believed. The power of faith is "the power or moral meaning of the testimony, or of the facts which the testimony represents". The more potent the facts, the greater the impact and potential transformation.¹¹⁶

Campbell argued that genuine faith led inevitably to repentance or a change of mind. This involved, in order, sorrow for sins committed, restitution, and reformation of life. Two qualifications were made to this definition. First, genuine sorrow for sins did not always lead to reformation, as in the case of Judas. Second, while true repentance included the idea of reformation, it was not equivalent to it. The former was seen to be complete when it led to the latter.¹¹⁷

Faith, finding its initial expression in repentance, culminated in the baptism of the repentant believer.¹¹⁸ Candidates, either responsible children or adults, were immersed, as this was considered the New Testament mode.¹¹⁹ This human response, regarded as a figurative yet real identification with Christ's death, burial and resurrection, was coincident with God's taking the individual through the final and crucial phases of rebirth. As Campbell regarded rebirth as a change of state, this meant that he saw baptism as the means of entrance into the kingdom of [33] God and of adoption into His family.¹²⁰ Forgiveness, according to Alexander's exegesis of Acts 2:38, in which he argued that baptism was "for the forgiveness of sins,¹²¹ accompanied this change of state. However, while Campbell suggested that submission to this one institution was required for admission into the church,¹²² he was quick to point out that faith was the principal essential to the personal application of salvation, and the ordinance only the means of its enjoyment.¹²³ The expression of an obedient faith, baptism was the response required by direct command of the Saviour and Apostolic precedent.¹²⁴

While others saw his position as implying that the unimmersed were not Christians, Campbell explicitly denied this. He would not state that baptism was essential to salvation. It was a command to be obeyed and the universal experience of the Apostolic church. In 1837, replying to a querist in what became known as the Lunenburg Letter, Campbell argued:

Should I find a Paedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on profession of the Ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, how do I know that anyone loves my Master but by his obedience to His commands? I answer, in no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one command, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Paedobaptist more spiritually minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory and practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former, rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian [34] looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known.¹²⁵

Candidates were baptised on confession of their faith in Jesus as "the Messiah, the Son of the living God". A continuing confession of Jesus' Messiahship and of allegiance to Christ was required.¹²⁶

Campbell contended that salvation could be forfeited through neglect or apostasy. It was therefore necessary for Christians to work at maintaining their faith and position within the kingdom.¹²⁷

While Campbell rejected the Calvinistic doctrines of predestination, irresistible grace, and the idea that salvation could not be lost, he interpreted rather than did away with the biblical concept underlying Calvin's thesis.

He attributed salvation to the grace of God, which he argued furnished both the motive and power for personal transformation. This grace was exercised preveniently towards potential converts in the sending of His Son to die for their sins and in furnishing them with an accurate record of the event and its interpretation. But this was no mere record. The spoken or written testimony had the power, when understood, to "delineate the image of God upon the human soul".¹²⁸ Those choosing to respond in faith to the grace of God elected themselves into the company of the chosen [35] through a response culminating in the obedience of baptism. Once among the saved they needed to work at making their election sure. God had predetermined that those making up the new community of His people would live "holy and without blame before Him in love", and he expected that their continuance in faith and holiness would be a result, not of compulsion, but of personal initiative.¹²⁹

Concentrating on the need for individual decision in appropriating salvation, Campbell overlooked the role of education in preparing children of church parents for decision. This was jointly the product of his stress of the importance of New Testament precedent and the fact that he was himself pioneering a new movement. Both instances were concerned primarily, though not exclusively, with first generation adherents, mostly adults, who had made responsible decisions.

This did not mean, however, that he thought of salvation in wholly individualistic terms. He developed a healthy ecclesiology that emphasized the role of the congregation in the nurture of new Christians and their continuing growth.

The British Churches agreed with Campbell's soteriology. Their rejection of the Calvinistic bias that underlay the theology of the Scotch-Baptists, particularly as it related to the doctrine of the Spirit's work in conversion, had resulted from the dissemination of Campbell's views among the latter. The point at which the British Churches of Christ differed from Campbell was in their reluctance to accept the unimmersed as Christians. In this they claimed to be more consistent than the pioneer Disciple. This difference will be highlighted in the section of this chapter dealing with Worship. [36]

Like the British Churches of Christ, the Australian Churches of Christ were happy with Campbell's formulation of the doctrine of salvation, and relied on his exegesis. His published debates on the question of baptism were in considerable demand. In letters to James Wallis, editor of the British Millennial Harbinger, colonials frequently requested copies of the debates, and indicated how they had helped to win over Paedobaptists to the Churches of Christ position.¹³⁰

b. The Church

Thomas Campbell argued that "the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church" as the Old Testament was for the "Old Testament Church".¹³¹ That which was mandatory for the government of the Church was that which was expressly enjoined "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles", either in "expressed terms" or "approved precedent".¹³² However, despite the vigour with which he expressed himself, Thomas did not clearly define the substance of what he considered revealed.

Alexander, like his father, regarded the New Testament as the Church's constitution. However, he went further than Thomas in arguing that the Church was a form of constitutional monarchy. While he referred to the Church as the "mystical body of Christ",¹³³ "the congregation of the Lord", "the congregation of God", his preference was for the term "kingdom of God".¹³⁴ Christ, as ruler of His kingdom, chose to legislate for this kingdom, His Church, not directly but through the Apostles. They set it in order and, while dead, [37] retained, through their writings, "the sole right of legislating, ordering and disposing of all things".¹³⁵

The constitution of the Church is thus determined by a written document. Its precepts must be obeyed and its precedents followed in every generation. The only initiative allowed succeeding generations of Christians was within the "circumstantials of Christianity", where there was the ability to decide "what is expedient, orderly, decent, and of public and practical utility".¹³⁶

Early in his career, Campbell, arguing that the autonomy of each local congregation ought to be jealously guarded, rejected the idea of any formal co-operation between local congregations. His opinion changed, however, as the movement grew and it became necessary to train, accredit and support those volunteering for service, which was beyond the competence of local congregations.¹³⁷

In support of ultra-congregational structures, Campbell argued that "co-operation, so much as the intercommunion of Christians, is part of the Christian institution".¹³⁸ The nature of co-operative structures, however, was not governed by specific direction, but left flexible so that it could be suited to local particularities.¹³⁹

However, while allowing for cultural differences, Campbell did emphasize what he regarded as one universally applicable factor, that this co-operation should be organized within districts.¹⁴⁰ The nature of the organization he envisaged was far from clear. On one occasion, he argued that local congregations, while united in co-operation, retained a high degree of autonomy.¹⁴¹ On [38] another, he envisaged a more tightly-knit organizational unity.¹⁴² The first national convention of the Disciples of Christ was held in Cincinnati in October 1849. While Campbell had hoped that it would be a gathering of elected "messengers" of local congregations and districts, a strong undercurrent of suspicion against "ecclesiastical authority" resulted in it being more in the nature of a mass meeting.¹⁴³ The British Churches of Christ, encouraged by co-operative experiments among the Disciples, decided in August 1842 to call a co-operative meeting of those churches influenced by the writings of Alexander Campbell. At this gathering, fourteen churches were represented by messengers and eleven by letter. The basic purpose of this, and future co-operative meetings, was "to co-operate for the maintenance of evangelists to proclaim the gospel".¹⁴⁴

While the British Churches of Christ were agreed on the necessity for closer co-operation, and, unlike the Disciples, were persuaded that business should be conducted by appointed delegates of local congregations, there was debate over the precise nature of the cooperation envisaged. One issue causing contention related to the degree to which churches rent by schism, or acting improperly, should be brought under the jurisdiction of neighbouring or sister congregations.¹⁴⁵

James Wallis, who gave leadership in the early years, was unhappy with the suggestion of intervention, as he was aware that the tendency of former Scotch-Baptists to divide over minor issues could abort the co-operative experiment altogether.¹⁴⁶ In time, the British Churches of Christ achieved consensus on the nature of the [39] co-operation desired. The 1851 Conference laid down the principle that future conferences would concern themselves primarily with evangelism, and that they would not be responsible for hearing or settling "matters of discipline, or differences existing between brethren or churches".¹⁴⁷

The extent to which conferences were to be allowed to influence the churches was clearly outlined in 1862 by David King, who wrote:

Two, or two-thousand Christians are at full liberty to meet for the purpose of devising measures by which, in their local or national circumstances, the things concerning the name of the Lord Jesus and the kingdom of heaven be made known. They are also competent to pass resolutions declarative of their convictions and recommend the churches to carry out the same. In this there is no approach to legislation. They make no law, publish no edict, and hold no church bound to accept their recommendations . . . such meetings can be held, and are, without an approach to legislation, and without casting a shade of restriction over the liberty of churches or individuals. Influence the churches generally they may, and they should seek to do so. Every individual and every assembly of Christians should desire to influence the churches to the utmost, but that influence is not the influence of law, controlling whether they will or no, but that of persuasion, based on wisdom and love. May such meetings greatly influence but never rule the churches.¹⁴⁸

Unlike the Americans, who were influenced by the experience of the Campbells and the frontier tradition of strident individualism, the British were not wholly opposed (despite King's disavowal of such an intention) to conferences of the churches legislating on matters of mutual concern. They even went so far as to argue that one of the functions of co-operation between churches was to preserve their purity.¹⁴⁹ [40]

The Australian Churches of Christ did not meet together in conference in the period up to 1864. However, while congregations functioned autonomously, association between the churches within the three colonies was assiduously cultivated.¹⁵⁰

Because churches jealously guarded their local autonomy, disallowing any legislative control beyond the local congregation, authority in each colony came to reside in those individuals whose initiative and forthright presentation of the restoration message put them in positions of influence in larger congregations and led to their being sought after as tea-meeting speakers.¹⁵¹

Basically, the difference between the ecclesiological emphases of the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ related to the degree to which both groups were willing to countenance the existence of delegate conferences. The Americans were unwilling to bring into existence extra-congregational bodies capable of diminishing the autonomy of local churches. The British accepted the conference idea. The sympathies of the Australian Churches of Christ, though they conducted no conference up to 1864, which is the upper limit of the period under review, were with the British.

c. Ministry

The Australian Churches of Christ, following the lead of the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ, argued that there was no scriptural justification for distinguishing between clergy and laity. This did not mean, however, that they discounted specialist ministries. In their view the New Testament allowed for the appointment of deacons, elders and evangelists.

Alexander Campbell, early in his career, argued [41] that the New Testament did not support the distinction commonly made between clergy and laity. He considered the former the bane of the Church. He attacked their "sovereign dominion over the Bible, their consciences, and the religious sentiments of all nations professing Christianity", their avarice as hirelings and their concern for preferment.¹⁵² Alexander's tirades against the clergy reflected an anger at the way his father had been treated, frustration over the fact that the professional ministries of the denominations held up the progress of the movement that it was hoped they would champion, and hurt over their rejection of his ordination.

The British Churches of Christ, like Alexander Campbell, considered the distinction made between clergy and laity unwarranted. David King, outlining their position, wrote:

God's people are His priests and His priests are His clergy. The word clergy comes from the Greek cleros, and is by Peter applied to the whole Church. Clerisy has no existence in the Christian system. Laity and clergy with all their distinctions, titles, honours, and emoluments, are of the Apostasy.¹⁵³

The Australian Churches of Christ, which were considered a lay movement by others, reflected the attitude of the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ, in arguing that there was no justification in the New Testament for the establishment or perpetuation of a clerical caste. The American Disciples, the British Churches of Christ and the Australian Churches of Christ were agreed that the diaconate was an ancillary office, concerned principally with administration. Alexander saw deacons [42] acting as "treasurers, almoners, stewards, doorkeepers, or messengers.¹⁵⁴ Wallis, who drew up an almost identical job list, argued that "the office of the deacon is that of managing the temporalities of the body of Christ".¹⁵⁵ The Australian Churches of Christ were in agreement with this view of the diaconate.

The American Disciples, the British Churches of Christ, and the Australian Churches of Christ were agreed also that local congregations were to be governed by elderships. The American Disciples, however, differed from the British in that their elders were neither as assertive nor as sure of their authority as were their British counterparts. The Australian Churches of Christ, while agreeing with the British Churches of Christ on the need for a strong eldership, failed to develop such in practice. According to Alexander, ultimate authority within local communities of Christians lay, under God, with the whole congregation.¹⁵⁶ The congregation, however, contracted to invest an eldership, selected by the local church, with responsibility for governance and leadership. Ordained by the laying on of the hands of the congregation (usually through representatives who were already elders) the elders remained accountable to the congregation by whom they could be dismissed.¹⁵⁷

Campbell emphasized that in each congregation there was to be a plurality of elders or bishops (he regarded [43] the terms as interchangeable) whose responsibility it was

to preside over, to instruct, and to edify the community, . . . and to watch for their soils as those who must give account to the Lord at His appearing.¹⁵⁸

The eldership of the British Churches of Christ was staffed largely by older men.¹⁵⁹ They were responsible for "ruling" local congregations. This involved presiding over morning worship services, taking the lead in business meetings, and disciplining errant members.¹⁶⁰

British elders were not backward in asserting their authority. They argued that while the Scriptures gave general direction on the regulation of conduct, specific advice was to be handed down by the eldership. Since wisdom resided in the few, the church, as plenary authority, committed to appointed elders power of execution. They were "answerable to Christ and His church in their due discharge of their duties", but were "not accountable to any individual, whereas every individual is accountable to them". Their authority, however, was not to be arbitrary and in "setting before anyone the will of God as derivable from general principles" they were "to endeavour to convince and enlighten him, so that he may then act with understanding".¹⁶¹

Among the Australian Churches of Christ, as in Britain, authority resided, in theory, with the local eldership. In practice, however, local elderships, particularly in the many small congregations that made up the Australian membership, had not been appointed, and in those where elders had been elected it was [44] sometimes lamented that the eldership role, instead of involving the rulership of the local congregation, was reduced to the chairmanship of public meetings.¹⁶² Because of the lack of effective elderships there were not lacking those, like John Lawrie, who argued that greater authority should be given to evangelists to allow them to pastor local congregations.¹⁶³

The American Disciples, the British Churches of Christ and the Australian Churches of Christ, despite their anti-clerical rhetoric, were agreed that the church required evangelists.

In his early years Alexander Campbell gave little attention to the evangelistic mission of the church. This was largely due to the strength of his opposition to what he regarded as clerical pretension and his concentration on the task of restoring the doctrines, practices and unity of the New Testament church. However, in 1827 this lack was redressed with the appointment of Walter Scott as the evangelist of the Mahoning Association, with which the Campbells were then associated. Further, with the growth of the movement, Campbell became aware of the need for an educated ministry well informed on the position of the Disciples.¹⁶⁴

Campbell justified the development of a full-time ministry by arguing that preachers of the Word belonging to the movement were the equivalent of New Testament evangelists. Their role, as discovered from the New Testament, was

to proclaim the word intelligently and persuasively, to immerse all the believers, or converts [45] of his ministry--and to plant or organize churches wherever he might have occasion; and then teach them to keep the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.¹⁶⁵

This work was largely itinerant. They would first gather together a congregation through their preaching and they would continue to have oversight until the appointment of elders. Having set it in order, they would move on to establish other causes.¹⁶⁶ To those who asked whether preaching, and baptising, and even teaching, was not the common privilege of all disciples, Campbell replied that, while "it is the privilege of all the citizens of Christ's Kingdom to preach, baptize and teach", once churches were constituted and

persons appointed to office, then whatever rights, duties, or privileges are conferred on particular persons, cannot of right belong to those who have transferred them; any more than a person cannot both give and keep the same thing.¹⁶⁷

The British Churches of Christ, like the American Disciples, accepted the validity of an evangelistic ministry. The evangelist, under the British system, like his Disciple counterpart, was largely concerned "with winning converts and establishing churches".¹⁶⁸ He was, however, more poorly paid. Little was offered to the evangelist to financially compensate him for the time and [46] effort invested in proclaiming the gospel.¹⁶⁹ The Australian Churches of Christ agreed with the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ on the need for and scriptural justification for appointing evangelists.

While the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ were convinced that the diaconate, the eldership and the role of the evangelist could be justified from the Scriptures, and elected individuals to these responsibilities, there was considerable debate within the British Churches of Christ and between the British Churches of Christ and the American Disciples over the question of the role of evangelists vis a vis local elderships. [47]

Within the British Movement there was debate on the question of the degree to which elderships and local churches supervised the work of evangelists. On the one hand, elders, keen to assert their authority, argued that "evangelists are so far from having authority over bishops, deacons and old churches, that they are under them, sent out by them, and amenable to them".¹⁷⁰ On the other hand, evangelists, disagreeing with this emphasis, argued that they were answerable only to God. David King, putting their view, argued that

putting proclaimers, which the churches may be able to support, as hirelings under a committee, whose work is arranged by their employer and to whom they must give account, has not a shadow of support from any part of the sacred book.¹⁷¹

The debate within the British movement between elders and evangelists concerning their relationship to each other paled into insignificance alongside the controversy that developed between the British and American movements over the development among the Disciples of what the Britishers termed the "one-man system". Increasingly the Americans were making evangelists responsible for the edification of local congregations and were looking to them for strong leadership.

The British Churches of Christ were opposed to the development of the "one-man system" on several [48] counts. First, they could see that if this trend spread to Britain it could curtail their practice of mutual edification. Deriving from the Scotch-Baptists, mutual edification substituted for the sermon and offered an opportunity for any male member to address the gathering. It was generally supervised, if not dominated, by the eldership. Second, the one-man system would also give governing authority, and that even over the elders, to one "pastor".¹⁷² Such a state of affairs the British Churches of Christ regarded as unscriptural. Putting their view, King argued that

the church which pays a pastor to preach, pays him to do what belongs not to his office, and the pastor who fills the pulpit every Lord's Day, keeping teaching and exhortation in his own hands and administering the Lord's Supper as a kind of appendage to his sermon, is as unknown to the New Testament as holy-water and the worship of images.¹⁷³

The Britishers were also concerned that graduates of American colleges, if not fully fledged "reverends", were encouraged through their training and situations to "carefully avail" themselves "of every opportunity to gain that honourable and holy designation". The formation of "Preacher's Associations" filled them with horror.¹⁷⁴

It needs to be pointed out that the British reaction was not wholly due to theological divergency. Personal factors were also evident. The British leadership shied away from the prospect of being led by youthful graduates, and the jealousy of the self-taught for the college-educated was also evident.¹⁷⁵ [49]

In addition there was criticism of the liberal arts orientation of the American colleges. David King contended that "the young men come out thoroughly drilled in the elements of science and literature, with a high literary ambition, but with extremely little knowledge of the Word of God". King, who led the British opposition, was also riled by the statement that the Disciples had sired the British movement.¹⁷⁶

In defence of their position, the Disciples argued that there was scarcely a church in America that was not planted by evangelists and "that such persons are sustained, and must be sustained, or the churches will die out . . . as many of the Scotch-Baptist churches have done in Scotland and nearly all in America". They contended that criticism of "college bred" men reflected against the Campbells and other American Restoration leaders.¹⁷⁷

The Australian Churches of Christ, while they followed the debate in the British and American periodicals, were relatively untroubled by this issue. In only a few congregations had official elderships developed, and, even as late as 1864, there were but a handful of evangelists working with the colonial churches. While denying that there was any warrant in the New Testament for the distinction between clergy and laity, they argued that there was scriptural justification for specialist ministries such as deacons, elders and evangelists. They did not enter into the debate between the British and American movements over the role of the evangelist. [50]

They were to work out their own uniquely Australian synthesis of the two experiences with the advent of American evangelists after 1864.

Another issue, connected with ministry, but more specifically related to the movement's theology of membership, was concerned with the attitude of the Australian Churches of Christ to the question of the financing of the church's ministry. On this issue, as with the debate over the evangelist's role, there were differences of opinion between the leadership of the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ. The Disciples were happy to accept contributions from the unimmersed. The British came increasingly to reject this view.

Early in the history of the British Movement, James Wallis argued that the church was not justified in rejecting the free-will offerings of any who wished to give. He contended that although the system of pew-rents and other "begging practices", adopted by the popular sects, were both "objectionable and un-scriptural", he questioned whether the church was justified "in rejecting the free-will offerings of any person". Paul and his companions had "received unsolicited alms at the hands of the barbarians" and "the example of an inspired Apostle is satisfactory evidence that what was approved then would not be disapproved now".¹⁷⁸

When King took over from James Wallis, he rejected the latter's more liberal attitude, arguing that only the offerings of immersed believers in good standing should be accepted.¹⁷⁹ The church was to be supported by the free-will offerings of the regenerate.¹⁸⁰ [51]

Referring to the "begging sermons and public collections" that some churches used to "loosen the purse strings of the unconverted", he argued that such ought to have no place in churches modeled after the New Testament order. The latter was to replenish "its treasury, not from the coffers of the world, but by its weekly free-will offerings".¹⁸¹ While King later moderated his opinion, and turned from an argument based on appeal to Apostolic practice to one of expediency, in which he argued that acceptance of money from the unimmersed would create discord within the churches,¹⁸² he remained opposed to the practice. The British Churches of Christ, unlike the American Disciples, who were more liberal in their attitude, followed King's lead and accepted only the offerings of immersed believers in good standing.

The Australian Churches of Christ sided with the British Churches of Christ in the latter's conflict with the Disciples. They refunded money received from the unimmersed, boasting that their action would appeal to thoughtful individuals.¹⁸³

In their theology of ministry the Australian Churches of Christ followed the lead of the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ. Where these disagreed, they tended to side with the British Churches of Christ. This was most obvious in their [52] attitude towards accepting money from the unimmersed for the church's ministry.

d. Worship

Major elements in the distinctive approach of the American Disciples, the British Churches of Christ and the Australian Churches of Christ to worship were their beliefs and practices relating to the Lord's Supper, and, in Britain and Australia, the practice of mutual edification.

Early in the history of the British Churches of Christ there was debate over the question of whether or not Sunday was the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath. The majority was against this view and agreed with Wallis that "the keeping of the Sabbath" was a command "given exclusively to the people of Israel". His point was that "the institutions of the former dispensation belong exclusively to the Jews".¹⁸⁴ Sabbatarianism, however, died hard. Even as late as 1859, Wallis felt it necessary to include a Campbell reprint in the British Millennial Harbinger to help those new to Churches of Christ understand "the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord's Day".¹⁸⁵ While the leadership of the British Churches was anxious to distinguish between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, they were nevertheless keen to discourage the secularization of Sunday.¹⁸⁶ This meant that, while they were anti-Sabbatarian in theory, they were Sabbatarian in practice. A similar situation existed in Australia, where one correspondent argued that worshippers who travelled distances to church in public conveyances were acting contrary to the principle of keeping the Lord's Day holy.¹⁸⁷ [53]

For Campbell, the Lord's Supper was a simple service of remembrance in which bread and wine, representing the body and blood of Christ, were distributed to the faithful. It was presided over by members appointed from the congregation. Preferring to speak of the Supper as "breaking the loaf", Campbell pointed out that the unbroken loaf symbolized the unbroken physical body of Jesus and the ideal oneness of His spiritual body, the Church. Furthermore, the Supper was to be celebrated weekly, as had been the case in Apostolic times.¹⁸⁸

For the British Churches of Christ, as for the American Disciples, the Lord's Supper was a simple service of remembrance.¹⁸⁹ Much was made of the fact that it was to be celebrated weekly.¹⁹⁰ They argued that, while the Lord had given no instruction regarding the frequency of the Supper, from the record of the early church in Acts it could be learned "that the commemoration of the Lord's death is an instituted part of the worship of all Christian congregations to be observed every first day of the week".¹⁹¹ They went even further than this and contended that not only did the early churches attend to this institution every Lord's day, but they assembled for that purpose; it was the primary object for which they came together.¹⁹²

The pioneers of the Australian Movement, most of whom had had association with British Churches of Christ, were keen not to neglect the Supper. Although often only a handful were able to assemble, the table was [54] spread. It was in this way, in the absence of a professional ministry, and often of speaking brethren, that many Australian Churches of Christ congregations came into existence.¹⁹³

While the three movements were agreed on the fact that the Supper was a simple service of remembrance, disagreement developed over the question of who were able to partake.

In America the churches came to the position, which they tenaciously held to, that, while the privilege of partaking of the Lord's Supper belonged to immersed believers, it was not the responsibility of local churches to "invite or debar" the unimmersed. Responsibility for partaking, or not partaking, rested with the individual.¹⁹⁴

James Wallis, who offered guidance to the infant movement in Britain, agreed with this position.¹⁹⁵ The point he made was that, while privileges associated with the Supper belonged "exclusively to immersed believers", nevertheless, "if an unimmersed believer enter any meeting house, without its invitation, when the disciples are engaged in the observance of this institution, and partake with them", he is not to be discouraged. The "responsibility rests with the individual and not with the church".¹⁹⁶

When David King took over as editor of the British Millennial Harbinger, the attitude of the British churches towards the participation of the unimmersed in the communion altered, hardening in favour of excluding them. The point he argued was that, while "the table is the Lord's", it was "in the charge and keeping of the church" and it thus became [55] "the duty of the church to refuse a place at the table to those who do not have faith or who have not been baptised".¹⁹⁷ The strength of this attitude, which was more in accord with the Scotch Baptist traditions of the British churches than Wallis' view, is explained by the fact that King did not regard the unimmersed as Christians.

Considerable debate between the leadership of the British and American movements developed on the communion question. In this debate, the Australian Churches of Christ sided with the British Churches of Christ. Alluding to the correspondence that passed between Alexander Campbell and Gilbert Tickle of Britain, Thomas Lyle, writing from Adelaide, set out what he felt to be the attitude of the Australian Churches of Christ. He wrote:

From what I have heard from the brethren here, they do not feel perfectly satisfied with Brother Campbell's reply, there being a kind of reservation in connection with the words invite or debar.

He went on to add that the Australian Churches of Christ invited to the Lord's Supper only those who had been invited into the church by Peter on the day of Pentecost, those who had repented and been baptised. D. Willder, of Maryborough, Victoria, agreed with Lyle, pointing out to King that

letters respecting the admission of un-baptised persons to the Lord's Table are supported by all the brethren in Australia. The law is so plain and positive, that we must look close to the teachings of the Book.¹⁹⁸

Reflecting the position of the Australian churches even more strongly, Lyle concluded:

I think I can vouch for all the churches in the colonies of this great continent, that they thoroughly disapprove of such unwarrantable fellowship.¹⁹⁹ [56]

However, while the Australian Churches of Christ supported the British Churches of Christ in their debate with the American Disciples on the question of who qualified as participants at the Lord's Supper,²⁰⁰ they were not unambiguously behind King in his conviction that the unimmersed were not Christians. There were some, like Thomas Magarey, who thought King's position untenable, and were not afraid to tell him so. Pointing out that there were two kinds of Christianity, ancient and modern, Magarey argued that while Restorationists were making "a considerable approximation towards the Ancient model", there were Modern Christians belonging to a Modern Christianity, and it was "idle to deny that associations of these Christians, meeting statedly for worship, constituted Christian churches".²⁰¹

That characteristic that most distinguished the British Churches of Christ from the American Disciples was the practice of mutual edification, which they inherited from the Scotch-Baptists. This practice, which was entered upon following the Supper, threw the meeting open for comment from those considered competent to edify. Whereas American Disciple congregations were preached to either by elders or evangelists, and increasingly the latter, as time went on, the British argued that such a "one-man" monopoly of the platform was a mark of the Apostasy. King, explaining the position of the British Churches of Christ, contended that in New Testament times, when the Church assembled for worship, while [57] "apostolic teaching had its place, preaching had none.²⁰² According to King, the modern church had departed from "the old paths", the effect of which was that "the mass of chapelgoers are worshippers of men" and "the sweetmeats of the orator are sought instead of the pure food of the sanctuary".²⁰³

The practice of mutual edification, while justified on the ground that it represented the "Apostle's doctrine" of Acts 2: 42, was productive of much strife. Debate raged over the question of who were qualified to edify. Some felt that the opportunity should be open to all males, while others sought to restrict it to those with obvious ability.²⁰⁴ The latter view predominated. While liberty of speech was recognised as "the birth-right of man", it could be used for evil, when there was no "edification and discipline". Because of this

each individual ought to ponder seriously his own capacity for edifying the body, and how often he can prepare for the exercise. Christian learning and experience are essential to profitable teaching.²⁰⁵

General concurrence on this point, however, did not mean that the issue was closed. It was affected by the further question of who judged of a man's qualification, himself²⁰⁶ or the local congregation.²⁰⁷ Both claimed divine guidance. The worst abuses however, related to the competitiveness and contentiousness the practice fostered. One perceptive [58] member commented that if the abuses were not corrected, the system would result in congregations preferring the "one-man" or "oratorical" system,²⁰⁸ which the movement so sternly reprobated.²⁰⁹

The British practice of mutual edification was early adopted by the Australian Churches of Christ.²¹⁰ However, while Australian Restorationists were "convinced that mutual edification, properly conducted, works considerably better than the pulpit system",²¹¹ there were few colonials competent enough to effectively sustain the practice, particularly in isolated areas. In such instances it was sometimes argued that it was better for one person to do all the teaching, if he was the only one qualified, than for there to he no teaching at all.²¹² The lack of qualified speakers had a second effect. It led to the emphasis, in Australia, being placed, not on the edification, as was the case in Britain, but on the Supper. This distinctly Australian feature was alluded to by Henry Hussey in August 1855, when he mentioned that

the breaking of bread is considered by the brethren here the most important object for which they meet on the Lord's Day; it is, therefore, done before the exhortations are given.²¹³

Australian Churches of Christ regarded the Lord's Supper as a simple service of remembrance over which any competent male member was qualified to preside. [59]

They agreed with the British Churches of Christ that the unimmersed should be excluded; though not all were agreed that the latter were not Christians. Australian Churches of Christ also followed the British lead in adopting the Scotch-Baptist practice of mutual edification.

e. Summary

The distinctive doctrines of the Australian Churches of Christ derived from the beliefs and practices of the American Disciples and British Churches of Christ. Alexander Campbell's influence predominated in their soteriology and figured prominently in their ecclesiology and their theology of ministry. It was less evident in their doctrine of worship. They adopted the British practice of mutual edification and sided with the churches in the Home Country in insisting that the unimmersed were not qualified to partake of the Supper. While they were agreed with their British brethren, that authority within local congregations lay with the eldership of the churches, the failure of effective elderships to materialise, and the fact that those elderships that were in existence exercised lesser authority than their British equivalents, left the way open for the development of a distinctively Australian theology of ministry.

6. CONCLUSION

The Australian Churches of Christ were a product of the American Disciples and the British Churches of Christ. From these they inherited their epistemology, theological presuppositions and distinctive doctrines. They shared with them the belief that God was working behind the scenes to reunite the Church, and that they were a prophetic voice called into existence to point the way forward. They believed that it was through a restoration of New Testament Christianity that the Church would rediscover its lost unity. Their numbers were small, their beliefs relatively unsophisticated and their intentions often misunderstood. But they [60] were stayers. The years that followed witnessed numerical and theological development. [61]

[OLFB 1-61]