Chapter 2
Theological Development

1. INTRODUCTION

The period 1864-1914 witnessed considerable theological development "within the Australian Churches of Christ. The most conspicuous development "was concerned with the movement's theology of ministry. In this, as in most areas, theological modification was preceded by changes in style and practice. While not acknowledged as such, changes in doctrine were often the consequence of a kind of theological pragmatism. What were considered doubtful expedients by conservatives tended to be legitimated by their success or by their being accepted by the grass-roots membership.

During these years significant changes occurred within the Australian Churches of Christ which set the scene for and made virtually inevitable considerable theological development.¹

The first of these changes was the advent of American evangelists after 1864.² The Americans were educated, enterprising, and in great demand among the churches. Their success in augmenting the membership of the Australian Churches of Christ was outstanding. The theological influence of the Americans was considerable. It was extended through Adelphian Classes they established to train colonial evangelists, numbers of whom went to America to complete their professional education, and through the Australian Christian Pioneer, which they edited. [62]

Significant organisational changes that occurred in the period 1864-1914 were the development of Colonial/State and Intercolonial/Federal Conferences and the establishment of Foreign Missions work and of an Australian College of the Bible. A publishing house, organized as a private venture by interested members, was also brought into being to service the churches. A further development worthy of mention was the publishing in 1898 of the Australian Christian, which incorporated the two major periodicals which had preceded it, the Christian Pioneer and the Australian Christian Standard.³

Other factors influencing theological development during the period were the revolution in biblical studies, referred to as "Higher Criticism", cultural changes evident in such issues as debate over the use of the organ in worship services,⁴ a slight rise in the socio-economic status of members\5 and in educational standards resulting from the Education Acts of the 1870's,⁶ and the Federation idea which bore on the question of unity.⁷

During most of this period, the Australian Churches of Christ lacked a trained ministry. It was not until 1907 that a college was established in Australia to train evangelists, and the bulk of those who went to America for training prior to this did not return. As a consequence the most [63] influential leaders within Churches of Christ during the years 1864-1914 were the editors of the two major journals.

D. A. Ewers, who edited the Christian Pioneer, was born at Enfield in Adelaide in 1953. David, whose parents were connected with the "Plymouth" Brethren, was baptised in 1867 by H. S. Earl, the first of the American-trained evangelists to arrive in Australia. Ewers was a wheel-wright and blacksmith, and in the early years partially supported himself by working at his trade. Preaching his first sermon at 18, he went on to become a highly successful evangelist. His experience in the Australian Churches of Christ was extensive. He ministered in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. He edited the Christian Pioneer from 1883 to 1898, and was responsible for the editorial notes in the Australian Christian until his death in 1915.⁸

F. G. Dunn, editor of the Australian Christian Standard, attended a Sunday school associated with the Church of Christ meeting in the old Mechanics Institute in Melbourne in the 1850's. He was baptised at 18. His enduring commitments included the work of the Sunday School Union of Churches of Christ in Victoria, the Victorian Conference of Churches of Christ, of which he was at different times Secretary and President, and the Rechabites, among whom he became District Chief Ruler. When the Australian Christian Standard, which he had been editing since 1883 (it was earlier known as the Australian Christian Watchman), merged with the Christian Pioneer to become the Australian Christian in 1898, Dunn was made responsible for the leading article. Dunn received no remuneration [64] for his Christian work, he supported himself from business ventures. Little is recorded of his commercial life, though he advertised in turn as a tea merchant, a bookseller and stationer, and a valuer and accountant. A competent preacher, he was one of the last of the pioneering breed of "speaking" laymen who were committed to lay involvement and authority.⁹

Because they represented a middle of the road tradition within the Australian Churches of Christ, and also gave a lead to the membership of the movement in matters theological, the views of Ewers and Dunn will predominate throughout this chapter. Where other leaders differed from their general approach, and these were mainly strongly arch-conservative, mention will be made of their opinions where they are considered significant or representative enough to notice.

The reason why 1914 has' been considered the cut-off point for the chapter is two-fold. First, it was a major turning point in world history. Second, while A. R. Main took over as Principal of the College of the Bible in 1910, it was several years before he began to markedly influence the movement.

This assessment of theological developments from 1964 to 1914 will follow the order of Chapter 1, with attention being given in turn to the movement's epistemology, plea for unity, theological suppositions and distinctive doctrines.

2. EPISTEMOLOGY

The approach of the Australian Churches of Christ was based on an implicit acceptance of biblical inspiration and authority. Any challenge to this basis threatened, not only the individual beliefs of members, but the legitimacy and the existence of the movement itself. During the period under review Churches of [65] Christ, along with other Christian bodies, were forced to come to terms with the challenge to their epistemology posed by the new approach to biblical scholarship which began to be evident in the final quarter of the nineteenth century. Because they appealed for the rational acceptance of an intellectual position based on an unquestioning biblical authority, Churches of Christ could not avoid addressing the new developments. Their reaction is best traced by graphing comments on Evolution, Secularism, Unitarianism, High Criticism and the New Theology of R. J. Campbell.

From the beginning the conclusions of the Evolutionists were regarded with considerable skepticism, although a distinction was drawn between theistic and spontaneous evolution.¹⁰ Dunn saw no real discrepancy between science and the Genesis account.¹¹ The supposed conflict arose from the fact that Christian apologists had sometimes claimed for the Bible a competency in areas where it made no such claim for itself,¹² and from the fact that certain evolutionists claimed a similar omnicompetence for their discipline.¹³ Several months before his death, Dunn urged Churches of Christ to retain an open mind on the issue.¹⁴ [66]

The Secularists received short shift as their thought was more remote from the inward-looking and convinced Biblicism of Churches of Christ. The latter cheered the Anglican Moorhouse's defence of the Christian position.¹⁵ However, they were not content to rely upon his apologetics. Unable to resist the temptation to enter the fray, and represented by Matthew Wood Green, a convert and disciple of David King, they took on Isaac Selby, a leading Free-Thinker. Against Selby's contention that Secularism was "superior to Christianity as an ameliorator of mankind", Green argued that Selby's defence of Secularism was so broad that he was crediting Secularism with responsibility for everything that is good, no matter in whatever system it may be found". He also claimed that, in defining Secularism as that system of thought which is concerned to promote man's happiness in this present life, they were "ignoring altogether his higher nature", and reducing him to the level of a horse or dog. Furthermore, he argued that, in having "no settled code of morals", Secularism thus taught that "what any man desires for the time being to gratify his animal nature is to that man morality". He went on to claim that the programme of Secularism was necessarily indefinite and changeable and led to contradiction between the arguments of prominent Secularists. Finally, he argued that "the only distinctive principle of Secularism is its atheism, and its opposition to all religion" and that therefore "to take the teachings of the Bible, and appropriate them as the teachings of Secularism", as he claimed was usually the case with protagonists of the [67] Secularist cause, was "the meanest of all thefts that can be committed".¹⁶

The Church's treatment of Unitarianism was little more than an applauding of its steady decline. The attitude of Churches of Christ to Unitarian dogma was that, while its positive emphasis on the brotherhood of man and the Fatherhood of God was innocuous, its denial of Christ's atonement undermined basic Christian doctrine.¹⁷

Churches of Christ responded to the "Higher Criticism" of the Old Testament by defending the concept of inspiration and the historicity of the Old Testament narratives. A. B. Maston published in the 1898 Christian a McGarvey reprint which argued that to substitute for the traditional view of inspiration a Freudian excursus into the question of the nature and extent of prophetic self-awareness was of little value as it was impossible to objectively appraise.¹⁸ In another McGarvey reprint, it was argued that the denial of the historicity of the Old Testament undermined the moral force of its ethics.¹⁹ The methodology and the difference in approach among the critics also came in for comment. What was regarded as the critic's scissors and paste method of literary criticism was applied to Shakespeare, Homer and Bacon in an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.²⁰ Furthermore, it was felt that the unfounded assumptions of the [68] critics would be disproved by archeology,²¹ and it was suggested that an internecine war among the critics would lead to their mutual annihilation.²²

The work of Baur and the Tübingen School on the New Testament was replied to by articles supporting the historicity and authority of the Pauline epistles and the Book of Acts.²³ Sir William Ramsay was appealed to for support.²⁴ It was also argued that the critics' denial of the miraculous destroyed the Bible's credibility. In opposition to their view, it was contended that the gospel miracles were sane, sober and never out of place. According to Dunn, miracles should not be dismissed because they violated nature as most people did this every day.²⁵

The views of R. J. Campbell of the City Temple, London, were also replied to in a series of articles. His views were considered a rejuvenation of the old pantheism, and it was argued that pantheists and atheists were among those acclaiming his New Theology.²⁶

Within Churches of Christ, the role of principal defender of the faith was enthusiastically accepted by F. G. Dunn. While his commonsense approach lacked theological sophistication, Dunn's native insight cut through to the essential issues and he carried the churches with him until his death in 1914. However, while he was praised for the skilful way he [69] parried the critics, Dunn's approach can be seen, in retrospect, to have avoided the challenge to biblical fundamentals posed by the new approaches. This does not mean that his contribution to the debate should be undervalued. Dunn helped the Australian Churches of Christ avoid surrendering, if only in their own eyes, either their biblical conservatism or their claim to intellectual respectability. These factors, which the movement had held in tension from the beginning, were regarded by many biblical scholars outside the movement as incompatible. Dunn's success, however, isolated the next generation of Churches of Christ members from the challenge of the issues raised by the scholars.

3. UNITY

During the period under review the Australian Churches of Christ gave increasing attention to the question of unity. While it had always been part of their plea, a combination of internal and external factors gave it increased prominence during these years.

There were several internal influences. By 1900 Churches of Christ were no longer struggling for existence or clamouring for acceptance. They were in the process of developing Conference organization and had achieved a sense of identity. While they were not widely known, or liked, they were acknowledged as a distinctive body and occasionally were referred to favourably by spokesmen of other communions. Also, by the turn of the century, it was evident that the level of commitment to Restoration ideals within the movement was lower than it had been in the late 1850's and early 1860's. By 1900 a considerable percentage of the membership was made up of second-generation members.²⁷ [70]

Of the external factors encouraging an increasing focus on unity, the most important was the fact that, by 1900, Churches of Christ enjoyed more frequent contact with other Christian groups. This brought knowledge, respect and a desire for acceptance and cooperation with others on interdenominational bodies, such as the British and Foreign Bible Society.²⁸ Churches of Christ also discovered a growing sense of togetherness with other Christians in their opposition to "Higher Criticism", sexual impurity,²⁹ divorce,³⁰ and militarism,³¹ and particularly with Protestants in their opposition to the introduction of the Continental Sunday,³² to the secularization of the school system,³³ the liquor interests,³⁴ and [71] Roman Catholicism.³⁵ They were also aware that disunity on the mission field was retarding evangelistic effort.³⁶

The attitude of the movement to the question of unity at the turn of the century was evident in the writings of Ewers and Dunn. Both were basically agreed on the reasons for considering unity an important theme, the ideal to be aimed at, and the practical steps to be taken to achieve the ideal.

Ewers and Dunn advanced several reasons to support the strength of their emphasis on unity. Several of these were pragmatic. It was obvious to them that division held up the development of the spiritual life and hindered the progress of the gospel. More important, however, was the fact that God desired Unity. The Father commanded it and Christ prayed for it.³⁷ The latter, Dunn argued, [72]

was sufficient motivation "for us to advocate with all our powers the consummation of his ardent desire".³⁸

Ewers could not agree that Christians were already united, as some claimed, like various regiments in an army. Regiments belonging to the one army did not fight each other.³⁹ Nor did he agree that unity could be achieved through the "union of denominations", by which he meant large-scale mergers.⁴⁰ In a similar vein, Dunn argued that Christian communions were wrong to seek negotiated union on the basis of a common liturgy, ecclesiastical polity or creed.⁴¹ For both men the ideal was not reformation, but restoration. Ewers argued that the problem could not be solved by the reformation of existing parties. Unity could only be realized through "the restoration of the primitive church in its life, rule, ordinances and name".⁴² This meant a return to the teachings of the Word of God, to "the faith once delivered to the saints", on which the Spirit-given unity of the first century Church was based. It was a return to the "old paths". The way back was the way ahead.⁴³ This restoration was the goal the sixteenth century Reformers had aimed at, but compromised.⁴⁴ [73]

Dunn argued similarly that a divinely given basis for unity was available in the New Testament. His reason for looking at the matter in this way was the conviction that "the religion given by Christ and his apostles nearly two millennia ago, came as it was, perfect from the hands of its maker".⁴⁵ The unity of the early Church could only be recovered by "a complete return to apostolic precedent and practice".⁴⁶ It was Dunn's view that disunity was the result of a "great apostasy" from simple New Testament doctrines and practices,⁴⁷ a departure resulting in the "monstrous papal system" from which Protestant communions had not entirely freed themselves.⁴⁸

In practical terms, the unity envisaged by Ewers and Dunn, which they believed could be achieved, not overnight, but gradually,⁴⁹ was a spiritual and organic unity centred in Christ.⁵⁰ This Christocentric focus was most marked in the writings of Ewers, who argued that "Christ is the centre of Christianity and it is love of and loyalty to a personal Christ that should influence our lives". He urged fellow members to be careful lest they love their plea or [74] their distinctive peculiarities to the exclusion of the Saviour. There was no virtue in faith, repentance and baptism; the virtue was in Christ. It was not Christianity, whether "Primitive" or "Modern", that they were to love, but Christ himself. Trust in His divine person was not to be replaced by faith in human creeds, whether written or unwritten.⁵¹ Ewers went on to argue that Christ had envisaged the intelligent spiritual unity of all who love his name, which could not be obtained "save by spiritual submission to Christ. He stated that "the union of God's people can best be advanced by the cultivation of the spiritual life". The closer Christians were to Christ the more they would develop "a spirit of unreserved submission and obedience" and the nearer they would "be to all who were like minded".⁵²

According to both Ewers and Dunn, the first step in fostering unity was to accept the believing of other communions as Christians. Dunn argued that the pursuit of unity must proceed on the basis of mutual love.⁵³ Ewers contended that love, together with a strong desire for union, would be sufficient to "cause the leaders of the various religious bodies to seek each other's society".⁵⁴ According to Dunn, face-to-face discussion was also important. Furthermore, it was essential that Church leaders confront, rather than disguise their differences.⁵⁵ Sentimental [75] eloquence was no substitute for facing the real issues.⁵⁶ With this Ewers was in complete agreement. He could see no point in "a mere gush of sentimentalism over the dinner table".⁵⁷ This plain speaking, Ewers commented, should be carried out in an atmosphere of love and humility.⁵⁸ Such consultations would lead in the more immediate future to co-operation in evangelism, welfare and social action.⁵⁹ It was, he argued, "only the narrowest kind of sectarian bigotry that refuses to find common ground here".⁶⁰ Ewers agreed with Dunn that co-operative ventures encouraged the churches to seek a more effective unity. For this reason, he warmly commended association and co-operation in the Y. M. C. A. and Christian Endeavour movements, in evangelistic ventures such as the Chapman/Alexander missions, and on the mission field.⁶¹

The two editors were also convinced that, of all Christian communions, Churches of Christ most nearly [76] approximated the New Testament ideal. They were concerned to defend the movement against what they felt were unfounded criticisms, although neither was blind to the movement's shortcomings.

Ewers argued that, because of their unsectarian position,⁶² and their "remarkable numerical progress", which "had largely been owing to their faithful advocacy of the union of the scattered religious forces by the restoration of the simple Christianity of the New Testament",⁶³ Churches of Christ were "a force to be reckoned with in the settlement of the union problem".⁶⁴ Dunn also expressed unbounded confidence in Churches of Christ, whom he felt had made, and were continuing to make, a significant contribution "to the progress of religious thought and the advancement of the Kingdom of God in the world".⁶⁵ Considering that there was "no religious body in the world in which the individual members are more closely united, or in which the cohesion is more perfect",⁶⁶ than in the body with which he was identified, he contended that Churches of Christ had presented to the world a more perfect illustration of union than it had witnessed since the Apostolic Age.⁶⁷ This did not mean that Dunn regarded Churches of Christ as the only expression of the true church. They were [77] a movement, "a phase in the history of the church".⁶⁸ Their role was to inform a divided church that it was Christ's intention that she be united, and to point out by word and example that the basis for such union had already been given in the New Testament.

Two criticisms levelled against Churches of Christ were that their separate identity belied their professed desire to see a united Church, and that they were not less denominational than other groups. To the first criticism, Dunn replied that Churches of Christ maintained a separate identity because they did not know of any other body "prepared to be ruled by the Bible and the Bible alone".⁶⁹ On the second issue, Ewers admitted that the movement was a denomination "in the sense of a society or collection of individuals called by the same name",⁷⁰ but he denied that Churches of Christ were a "denomination in the party sense.⁷¹ He had to admit, however, that it was exceedingly difficult, "in an age of denominationalism", for some people to understand the "unsectarian position" of Churches of Christ.⁷² This misunderstanding was one of the difficulties they faced in pleading for union.⁷³

While eulogizing Churches of Christ, Ewers was not unaware of dangers facing the movement, the most [78] serious of which he considered to be the ever present temptation to develop a purely "technical Christianity". He argued that "it is possible to be familiar with the truth and ordinances of religion, to advocate them with eloquence, and to contend loudly for 'faith, repentance and baptism' and a restoration of the ancient order of things", and yet miss the spirit of Christ. He warned fellow members that it was 'possible to foster a sectarian spirit even while claiming an unsectarian position". He went on to argue that "Christianity is more than logic, it is not composed of frigid syllogisms, but is a warm breathing life". He advised Churches of Christ to he careful, lest they present primitive Christianity as an intellectual iceberg, beautiful from afar, but cold and lifeless to those who come into contact with it".⁷⁴

Dunn was no less aware than Ewers that the Australian Churches of Christ were far from perfect. He admitted that they had "fallen very far short of realising the New Testament ideal"⁷⁵ and argued that the movement was not entirely free of the sectarianism it criticized in others. The greatest danger it faced, however, was that of forgetting its real objective by wrapping itself "in a mantle of selfishness" and assuming "a semi-hostile position towards the sects".⁷⁶ Further indices of the sectarian spirit, which were a contradiction of the movement's professed principles, were failure to distinguish between matters of truth and opinion, the disposition to insist on party views as tests of [79] soundness, and the lack of unity in its own ranks.⁷⁷ If they allowed themselves to succumb to these tendencies,⁷⁸ Churches of Christ would forfeit justification for their separate existence.⁷⁹

Most leaders within the Australian Churches of Christ were aware that the Restoration plea had proved unattractive to other churches. Dunn suggested several reasons that he considered accounted for the movement's lack of success in sharing its convictions. He spoke of "a faulty exposition of our plea when presented to the world, and our failure to develop it and make it attractive in our church organizations.⁸⁰ A second cause was the opposition of die-hards, who frustrated the development of an effective full-time ministry, without which real progress was impossible.⁸¹ A third reason was that Churches of Christ, in their hostility towards others, were forgetting that unity was their real objective. On this point, Dunn argued that the movement "ought not to regard with indifference those who love the Lord Jesus Christ", even though they "knew they are guilty in certain areas in regard to the truth". He contended that while Churches of Christ ought not to compromise their beliefs or principles,⁸² it was "only the narrowest of minds that cannot see good in others who differ from them, and who refuse to give honour when honour is due because in all things they do not see alike".⁸³ In stressing the point that there was [80] no necessary connection between doctrinal error and the quality of Christian life, Dunn admitted that "it often happens that we find the highest spiritual culture in those whose doctrine we don't agree with".⁸⁴ The factor that most harmed the reputation of Churches of Christ was what others regarded as proselytizing of Christians belonging to other communions. Dunn recognized this, but considered that Churches of Christ would be failing their Lord, and denying their commission, if they refrained from setting forth their "unsectarian position" and encouraging others to join them. He did not disguise the fact that Churches of Christ were determined to win "to the truth those who are in error in t he religious bodies a round" them. He argued that "any other position than this is illogical and absurd".⁸⁵

Both Ewers and Dunn were persuaded that unity was achievable. Ewers was convinced that Churches of Christ should be aggressive in pursuing this ideal by both tongue and pen.⁸⁶ In practical terms, this meant fostering a desire for unity among all Christian groups, urging mutual acquaintance and facilitating courtship.⁸⁷ Like Ewers, Dunn argued that Christians should keep before themselves the ideal of unity.⁸⁸ Attempting to abide by his own advice, he drew to the attention of Churches of Christ the attitude and action of other groups who had committed themselves to the same ideal. He [81] reacted favourably to the suggestion male by the 1892 Lambeth Conference concerning "the coming ideal Church", arguing that, while some of its ideals were open to criticism, the proposal should encourage Churches of Christ to "stand fast to the principles which distinguish the present Reformation".⁸⁹ The suggestion made in 1901, by Methodists and Presbyterians in New South Wales, that a "Federation of the Protestant Churches in Australia" be formed, was also warmly received. His "entire sympathy" went out "to these friends in their evidently sincere desire to secure the union of all the people of God in Australia in church life and work". While Dunn pointed out that Churches of Christ would he unable, because of their immersionist baptismal theology, to unite with paedobaptists, he could see no reason why the latter should continue in a state of disunity.⁹⁰ He commented favourably upon the union of the Presbyterian Churches of Australia, consummated that same year, and stressed that Churches of Christ should make it their "business to be well represented" at a conference of churches called to discuss a broader application of the federation idea.⁹¹ In 1903 he argued that the churches should unify their missionary effort, not only for greater effectiveness, but to encourage efforts at unity beyond the home front.⁹² He saw the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 as a step in this [82] direction.⁹³ While encouraged by a friendly conference between Baptist and Churches of Christ representatives in 1912, which opened the way for greater co-operation in "fighting against the social evils",⁹⁴ he did not lose sight of the wider vision. Commenting on preparatory plans for a World Conference on Faith and Order, he suggested to fellow members of Churches of Christ:

Whatever opinion we may hold in regard to the genesis of the Conference, or the result likely to accrue from it, we can only rejoice in the brotherly spirit which promoted it, and pray most earnestly that its proceedings may be divinely guided in the right direction.⁹⁵

Assuring those within the movement, who were wary of involvement, that the conference was not to be a legalistic body, but a forum where points of difference could be discussed, he went on to argue that, though "the Conference is not all that we could desire.  . . it is bound to he educational". He saw a proposed Congress of Churches in Victoria as having educative value.⁹⁶ He pointed out that, in preparation for this congress, the churches, including Churches of Christ, had been asked for their views on union, which he felt justified the holding of the congress.⁹⁷

While Ewers and Dunn encouraged the movement towards greater ecumenical participation, this did not imply that they were willing to compromise what they considered basic New Testament teaching. Nor [83] were they blind to the fact that arch-conservatives were wary of any sort of involvement. Their own determination not to surrender essential beliefs, and their awareness of the intentions of some to discourage the involvement of the movement in unity forums, was evident in the statement made by Dunn and A. R. Main, at the 1913 Congress. In their submission they pointed out that they would not be prepared to sacrifice truth for the sake of unity. They went on to emphasise that, while Churches of Christ were in broad doctrinal agreement with most other communions, they would not join any united body that did not insist upon the baptism (immersion) of repentant believers, that set down as a test of fellowship any creed other than or later than the Caesarean profession of Peter, or that was governed by an episcopacy.⁹⁸

During the years 1964-1914 the Australian Churches of Christ came to a new consciousness of their role as advocates of Christian Unity. While they made little progress in convincing others that the restoration of New Testament Christianity was the way forward, they were increasingly drawn into the mainstream of Australian Protestantism.

4. THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

a. The Priority of the New Testament

Throughout the period 1864-1914 the leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ continued to argue that it was the New Testament, rather than the Old, that was normative for Christians. While this presuppositional belief was not developed beyond the elementary definition laid down in the previous [84] era, the distinction itself was expressed in different ways by different writers.

One writer who drew attention to the distinction between the Old and New Testaments was Jesse Colbourne. A former Baptist, Colbourne had been tutored for two years by the American-trained evangelists H. S. Earl and T. J. Gore. He was appointed as the first general evangelist of the South Australian Evangelist Committee in 1875. In distinguishing between the Old and New Testaments, Colbourne focussed on the concept of covenant. He argued that the Old Covenant made with Moses was faulty in the sense that it "never did and never could justify, sanctify, or save anyone. The New Covenant, made with Christ, was "far more efficacious in forming the character and controlling the lives of its subjects". Furthermore, while most of the subjects of the Old Covenant were members by birth, membership of the New Covenant was based on personal commitment. Then again, while there was "nothing in the Old Testament that could really take away sin", under the New "the blood of Christ procures for all its faithful and obedient subjects, free, full and everlasting forgiveness". The final point he made was that "the Old Covenant was abolished as a religious institution when Christ was crucified, but the New Covenant will continue while time endures".⁹⁹ While Colbourne's attitude to the Old Testament was radical, when compared with the view adopted by many other Christian groups, he faithfully represented the position of Churches of Christ.

The same could be said of the approach of Allan Price, an engineer turned preacher who graduated B. A. from Trinity College, Dublin, and who served a [85] term as conference president in New South Wales. Price focussed on the moral excellence of the New Era. He argued that the Old Testament worthies, whose conduct was sometimes suspect by Christian standards, were not always speaking the unadulterated Word of God. He argued that a distinction had to be drawn between words spoken under inspiration and those uttered by the same men in the ordinary course of conversation. According to Price, the world of the New Testament represented a more excellent order, in which God spoke through His Son. What Christ said was law.¹⁰⁰

A juridical emphasis was also evident in a sermon preached by H. G. Harward, a foremost evangelist amongst Churches of Christ and the first Principal of the College of the Bible, who argued that the two testaments were governed by different legal codes. His point was that the "two main divisions of the Bible are not only separated by . . . centuries of silence, but they are also separated by standards of authority". His contention was that, while the Old Testament is edifying, it

is not a standard of authority in our religious practice today. We do not go there to learn our obligations to God, our duty to our fellow-men. We have a new law-giver; "God has spoken to us in His Son".¹⁰¹

Through the years 1864-1914 Churches of Christ continued to argue that Christians were not governed by the Old Testament, but by the commands, inferences and precedents of the New. While the way in which the distinction was made varied, spokesmen for Churches of Christ did little more than reiterate the position the pioneers had argued. [86]

b. The Question of Interpretation

The pioneers of the Australian Churches of Christ, following the lead of the British Churches of Christ, argued tat the Scriptures did not need interpreting. They were their own interpreter. During the period 1864-1914 the leadership of the Australian movement continued to argue that, for the most part, the Scriptures could be plainly understood by ordinary people, without the aid of academic scholarship. They did recognise, however, that not all passages, or books, were uniformly intelligible.

Ewers reflected this persistent viewpoint. It was his conviction that the Scriptures were the ipsissima verba of God¹⁰² and that they could he understood "without supernatural aid" by men of "ordinary intelligence".¹⁰³ He did not mean by this that everything in the Bible was easily understood. The point he was making was that there were certain clearly revealed and "practical truths of Christianity",¹⁰⁴ such as the response required of prospective converts, that were so obvious that to interpret them was superfluous, or sometimes misleading, if the interpreter sought to avoid the plain sense of the relevant passage.¹⁰⁵ Dunn took a similar position. He argued that the truth of the Scriptures is capable of being understood by "men of ordinary intelligence and discernment".¹⁰⁶ While he professed [87] liberality, his own interpretations were regarded by others, even within the movement, as over-literalistic.¹⁰⁷ This charge he countered by arguing that he was merely "standing firm to revealed truth".¹⁰⁸

Dunn, while holding to the position of the British Churches of Christ that the Scriptures were their own interpreter, was nevertheless aware of the need to distinguish between literary forms, and between the use of literal and figurative language. In debatable areas he supported his position by appealing to Old Testament precedent, sub-apostolic literature and biblical scholarship.¹⁰⁹

H. G. Harward, who completed his theological education in America, where he had been influenced by Alexander Campbell's approach, was even more explicit in his advocacy of the need for an intelligent approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Drawing attention to the fact that many people "handled the Word of Truth as if it had just dropped from the skies in its completeness", he argued that "we must never forget the progressive character of revelation", which "was adapted to the condition, need and attainment of the people" addressed at the time. He suggested that such factors as the identity and character of the writer or speaker, the time of writing (during the Patriarchial, Jewish or Christian eras) and the purpose for which the book, letter or speech was designed, should he carefully considered. The application of these four questions in studying the Scriptures, he contended, would "solve many problems, answer many questions, explain many [88] difficulties, fathom many mysteries, and throw a flood of light upon every page of the inspired volume".¹¹⁰ The fact that Harward needed to spell out the need for a considered treatment of the Scriptures was evidence of the fact that his approach was not completely typical.

While membership of the Australian Churches of Christ generally followed the lead of the British Churches of Christ, in arguing that there was no need for an external interpreter to understand the mysteries of the Bible, as it explained itself to the man of commonsense, there were men, like Dunn and Harward, who were aware of the need for an intelligent, if not scholarly, approach to scripture interpretation.

c. Essential and Non-Essential

The distinction between essential and nonessential beliefs and practices, first suggested by the Campbells, and taken up by the pioneers of the Australian movement, continued to be made by the leadership of the Australian churches through the period 1864-1914.

Ewers associated the distinction between essential and non-essential beliefs with a further distinction between faith and opinion. According to his definition, "faith rests on testimony, opinions upon inferences". The faith that Christ is returning is a fact to be believed; the question of when he will come is a matter of opinion. Ewers argued that Churches of Christ did "not contend for anything so fanciful or visionary as agreement in matters of opinion".¹¹¹ Opinions are private property, and every man has a right to his own. He argued that the divided state of the Church was largely the result of elevating opinion to the level of revealed [89] truth. What Ewers was urging was unity in matters clearly revealed, and liberty of opinion on those in which there was room for debate, because they were not clearly revealed. To achieve such a unity it was essential that those participating in union discussions refrain from demanding unanimity on non-essential items. This included Churches of Christ. Addressing fellow members, be argued:

No sacrifice, short of the sacrifice of truth, should be too great for us to make in order to the union of the people of God. We should abandon any doctrine or usage which may stand in the way, and which can be consistently sacrificed.¹¹²

Indeed, according to Ewers, Churches of Christ bad already proceeded along this route. They had "already made sacrifices" and "given up the doubtful, the sectarian, the questionable, for the certain, the catholic, the incontrovertible".¹¹³ He argued that their peculiarities consisted of "those things that are admitted as Scriptural but are neglected by other churches".¹¹⁴

Like Ewers, Dunn argued that unity did not imply complete unanimity. As in nature, unity involved a degree of diversity. New Testament unity did not require agreement on theories related to election, the atonement, the millennial reign, the present state of the dead, or the final destruction of the wicked.¹¹⁵ There was also scope [90] for difference on the question of church order and work.¹¹⁶ Dunn went on to contend that the New Testament furnished principles, rather than methods, and that only the former were mandatory.¹¹⁷ The basis of unity advocated by him involved fidelity to fundamental doctrine and tolerance on other matters, especially where these were questions of personal opinion.¹¹⁸

According to Dunn, the essentials on which unanimity was required were the seven unities of Ephesians 4.¹¹⁹ In making this suggestion, he was aware that the major stumbling block was lack of agreement on what constituted the "one baptism". Turning the tables on critics who charged Churches of Christ with fostering division by their minority opinion on baptism, Dunn argued that paedobaptists, rather than Churches of Christ, were responsible for the disunity that existed over this issue. He supported this contention with several arguments. First, he argued that it was Churches of Christ who practised New Testament baptism, from which others had deviated. Second, be contended that, whereas there was universal agreement on the fact that the immersion of penitent believers constituted baptism, not all were agreed that infant baptism was acceptable.¹²⁰ Third, on purely pragmatic grounds, Dunn argued that Churches of Christ, in advocating a restoration of New [91] Testament baptism, were offering an acceptable basis on which all churches could unite.¹²¹

While Dunn agreed that individuals were at liberty to hold private opinions on non-essential items, he argued that extremes should be avoided in the interests of unity. By way of illustration, he contended that Ritualists and Dunkards were equally wide of the mark. The former developed forms of worship which negated basic Scriptural principles, while Dunkard worship "finding expression as it does in uniformity of dress and the exceeding plainness of everything, must destroy the sense of the beautiful and prove destructive of individuality.¹²² Dunn was astute enough to realise that some would find it difficult not to foist their opinions on others. He pleaded with these, in the interests of unity, to avoid debate over non-essential beliefs. He argued:

Would it not be better if the valuable time expended over the identity of Anti-Christ, and the location of "little horn" were spent in preparing for the Advent by showing to the world a Church Uniting in love, co-operating in action and concentrating on brotherhood -to convince the materialism of the age that Christianity is the mysterious and imperishable institution of an unseen Redeemer.¹²³

Dunn also was concerned to help churches avoid controversy over contentious practices. He suggested that expedients should not be forced upon unwilling congregations, and stated that, "seeing that such things are not clearly commanded to be done, there can be no violation of principle in leaving them undone".¹²⁴ [92]

Dunn's suggestion regarding "doubtful expedients" was consistent 'with his theological conservatism. He distrusted rapid change. The majority of the movement, however, were keen to encourage changes that would, without compromising principle, help the movement relate its message more effectively to the times. This was evident in the eventual acceptance of the three innovations that were hotly debated in the final decades of the nineteenth century--Sunday Schools, Christian Endeavour Societies and the use of the organ in worship.¹²⁵

d. Use of Creeds

During the pioneering era, Churches of Christ opposed creeds and theologies being made terms of communion. While this opposition continued through the years 1864-1914, there was evidence to suggest that in the final decades of the nineteenth century the whole issue was being more carefully thought through.

The fact that Dunn's attitude altered slightly over the years was evidence of the fact that some were willing to rethink the issue of creeds. In the early 1880's he was arguing that creeds and theologies "must go as they were the principal cause of division.¹²⁶ By the turn of the century, his attitude had moderated. Writing in 1904, and while still opposed to creeds as tests of fellowship, he argued that creeds themselves, when regarded as summaries of the articles of Christian belief, fulfilled a useful function in safeguarding essential New Testament beliefs.¹²⁷ He also agreed that it was only right that an organisation be expected to give plain and definitive answers to any inquiry as to [93] the nature of its "propaganda" or "those principles that differentiate a particular organisation from another".¹²⁸

A change of attitude was also evident with regard to theology. This can be pointed up by a comparison of the view of O. A. Carr, an American evangelist who wrote a series of articles for the Australian Christian Pioneer of 1868-1869, and those of Dunn in 1905.

Carr, who was more conservative in his day than others of the movement's leaders, nevertheless represented their opposition to "theology". Carr drew a distinction between Christianity and theology. Christianity comprised divinely given facts. Theology consisted of a "combination or series of doctrines representing the thought of uninspired men about what God has taught in his Spirit". Anticipating the charge that Churches of Christ taught doctrine, he went on: "We do not claim that the word of Christ and his apostles put together do not form a theory; but we do claim that their words and the words of the various forms of theology widely differ". One problem with theology was that it was one step re-moved from that which is stated in the Bible". It was also "beyond the reach of the masses and inexplicable even to the doctors of divinity themselves" Furthermore, an acquaintance with theology was not necessary for salvation. By confusing some, it could damn them. Carr then went on to argue that theology divided rather than united Christians "for no-one can conform to the teachings of the various parties around us without materially differing from every other party".¹²⁹ [94]

Dunn, by contrast, drew a distinction between speculative theology (or theology as a science) and biblical theology. On the basis of this distinction, he argued that while he held no brief for the defence of theology found in creeds and confessions of faith", the New Testament did furnish a theology that cannot be ignored nor neglected. He went on to add:

If theology means "the science which treats of God and his relation with men", then we have here the highest and most legitimate object of study that can engage the attention of man.¹³⁰

Throughout the period 1904-1914 Churches of Christ continued to oppose the use of creeds and theologies as tests of fellowship. The Caesarean profession of Peter and/or the seven unities of Ephesians 4 were the only adequate basis on which Christians could fellowship with each other. Despite this continuing opposition, there was evidence to suggest, at least in the writings of Dunn, that the movement was defining more carefully what it was opposing, and that it was becoming less sweeping in its condemnation.

5. DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES

a. Salvation

Through the period 1864-1914 the leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ faithfully reproduced and defended the soteriological emphases of the pioneers. Attention continued to focus on the means of appropriating salvation. The difference between the two eras lay in the fact that the later generation of Restorationists explored the subject at greater depth, spent more time answering the critics, and pointed up the danger the movement faced of holding to a too-intellectual view of faith. During the period under review, the Australian Churches of Christ remained staunchly Arminian.¹³¹ [95]

God had given men free-will and expected them to use it to appropriate the salvation he offered.

Ewers was highly critical of revivalist preachers who insisted that the aroused were unable to experience spiritual enlightenment and salvation without the miraculous intervention of the Spirit, and who were advising converts to wrestle with God for this assistance. Though he regarded such evangelists as sincere, he felt that they were "acting in a way wholly unauthorized". According to Ewers, the gift of the Spirit, as an indwelling presence promised to those who believed, repented and were baptised, was a post-baptismal rather than a pre-baptismal experience.¹³²

In Dunn's view, confusion over the Spirit's role in leading people to salvation resulted from failure to distinguish between His work in the world and in the believer. In the former, he used the "ordinary affairs of life" to appeal to the sinner to turn from evil and to do good, and then presented him with the message of the gospel, which alone had the capacity to evoke faith. Man, created a responsible being and possessed of "the God-given gift of free-will", had the capacity within himself to accept or reject the Word.¹³³ It was Dunn's understanding that the view that individuals were brought to faith solely as the result of the Spirit's miraculous intervention could not be supported from the Scriptures, or from human experience. He asked:

If the Spirit of God operates directly and abstractly on the human soul without the truth and without the gospel, how comes it to pass that there has never been a conversion in any age of the world where the gospel has not been preached or the Bible read? [96]

It was his view that this notion was "a psychological absurdity and a moral impossibility, as the phenomenon of Spirit acting upon spirit without a medium has never been known, and is inconceivable".¹³⁴

Underlining the objection of Churches of Christ to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Spirit' s irresistible impingement, was the belief, propounded by Alexander Campbell, that prior to an individual's regeneration, the Spirit of God worked in his life principally through the Scriptures. Ewers endorsed this view when he argued that "the un-converted should not be taught to expect or pray for any spiritual illumination from the Holy Spirit" and when he suggested that their attention should be directed to the Bible. He contended that "the Spirit inspired the apostles to speak and write the Word of Truth", and that "all who therefore accept this testimony are thus influenced by the Spirit as those who are influenced by this article are influenced by the writer",¹³⁵ Putting it more explicitly, he contended that 'the Spirit strives with men through the written or uttered words of God, given to us by his prophets and apostles, and by rejecting them we resist the Holy Spirit".¹³⁶

If God had given people free-will, and expected them to use it to appropriate salvation, it followed that conversion was something for which the individual, rather than God, was directly responsible. According to Dunn, by believing and repenting, men converted [97]

themselves.¹³⁷ Ewers made the same point. He argued that conversion was not an act of God, but of man, and was not to be confused or equated with forgiveness. When men turn or "convert" to God, he forgives. Forgiveness, then, is not a matter of feelings but of faith.¹³⁸ Ewers contended that no person can tell by his feelings that he is pardoned. He has to accept this upon the evidence of the Scriptures".¹³⁹

Consistent with their emphasis on free-will, and reflecting the opinion of the movement, both Ewers and Dunn rejected the concept of predestination. Dunn argued that this doctrine had a deleterious effect on society by turning men away from God. It "hideously caricatured the divine idea of redemption" and "made God an arbitrary tyrant".¹⁴⁰

While the leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ, through the period 1864-1914, reproduced the emphasis of the pioneers on the need for a commitment of mind and will, the American evangelists introduced two new elements. These were the practice of inviting those wishing to make a public commitment of life to Christ to walk to the front of the meeting at the conclusion of a sermon--they called it an "open confession"--and the use of some emotion in an attempt to secure this result.¹⁴¹ Both were reminiscent of the revivalist preachers the movement had criticised so strongly. The first of these innovations, which substituted for a personal examination of potential candidates by the eldership, was to provoke debate among later generations within the [98]

movement over the question of when it is that the Holy Spirit regenerates individuals--at the public commitment or at baptism. The second innovation had the effect of balancing, with an emotional component, the mental/volitional (almost wholly cerebral) response the pioneers had asked of potential converts.

At the turn of the century Ewers challenged fellow members of Churches of Christ to reconsider their view of faith. He made two points. First, in an editorial in the 1901 Australian Christian, he criticised the movement for equating faith with mere "mental assent to the truth". He argued that Churches of Christ should look again at the writings of the Campbells, which would convince them that the movement had, from the beginning, taught "as distinctly as the Baptists that 'with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and that this faith must be accompanied by unfeigned repentance and whole-souled surrender".¹⁴² The second point Ewers made was that Churches of Christ were not altogether correct in saying that individuals could not be saved by faith alone. He argued that genuine faith was itself sufficient to save because true faith found expression in repentance, and was climaxed in the obedience of baptism.¹⁴³

During the years 1864-1914 there was little debate in the movement, or between Churches of Christ and other Christian groups, over the question of repentance, the conception of which was in line with what the pioneers had taught. During the final third of the nineteenth century, Churches of Christ continued to argue that repentance was "produced by sorrow for sin" and resulted "in a reformed life".¹⁴⁴ [99]

During the years 1964-1914 baptism continued to be the most important aspect of the soteriology of Churches of Christ and as much a subject of debate between them and other groups as it had been in the earlier era.

Churches of Christ continued to argue that the New Testament mode of baptism was immersion. They contended that this should be retained, not only because it was the method practised in the early Church, but also because it symbolised the burial of the old life and resurrection to a new life in Christ, as expressed in Romans 6.¹⁴⁵

During the same period, Churches of Christ continued to argue against infant baptism. Ewers was opposed to the practice on several grounds. First, because infants were incapable of faith and repentance, they were not subjects for baptism. Second, infant baptism substituted "a tradition of man for the distinct command of God". Third, according to Ewers, paedobaptists obliterated "the divinely drawn line between the Church and the world" and compelled "subjects against their wills and, before they believe, to become 'Christians'".¹⁴⁶ Fourth, its legitimacy was contradicted by the paedobaptist attitude to the Lord's Supper. Ewers argued that those practicing infant baptism were inconsistent in refusing communion to infants, if by their "baptism" such became part of the family of God.¹⁴⁷ Dunn also spoke out against infant baptism, only from a different standpoint. He found abhorrent the doctrine of original sin, which he felt underlay the practice of infant baptism--the idea that "children are born [100] into the world with their natures corrupt, totally corrupt from birth"¹⁴⁸ on account of Adam's sin, and that of their parents, he felt to be "opposed to the teaching of God's Word.  . . repugnant to common sense .  . . and a statement which no man practically believes no matter how much he may theorize about it".¹⁴⁹ In rejecting infant baptism, Dunn did not consider that he was leaving children in a perilous condition. He argued that Christ regarded little children as being in a state of innocence. However, me went on to contend that they should "as early as possible.  . . be translated into the Church".¹⁵⁰ This was done by preaching the gospel to them.¹⁵¹

Through the period 1864-1914 Churches of Christ continued to link baptism and salvation. Few, however, were willing to say outright that baptism was essential to salvation. Of the two editors, Dunn was the more uncompromising in his attitude. Despite his protestation that "baptism is not the sun around which the planets of the Christian system revolve",¹⁵² he argued that as the English phrase "in order to" accurately translated the Greek presupposition (eis) in Acts 2:39 Baptism, when associated with genuine faith and repentance, resulted in forgiveness and [101] the gift of the Holy Spirit.¹⁵³ The only concession he was willing to make was that, contrary to the opinion of extremists within the movement, it was not necessary for those being baptised to be aware of the fact that baptism was "for the forgiveness of sins" for the act to be valid.¹⁵⁴ While Ewers asserted that Churches of Christ 'had no hesitation in teaching that "baptism was a condition upon which remission was promised",¹⁵⁵ he was unwilling to say that the unimmersed were not Christians. He was caught between the logic of his position and his desire to accept the pious unimmersed of other communions as Christians. While he did not regard baptism as essential to salvation, he was unwilling to say that it was not essential, for prospective converts could conclude thereby that there was no need to be baptised. He sought to escape this dilemma by arguing that while "baptism is a condition of salvation,.  . . where it is impossible, from lack of knowledge or other inability, we cannot affirm that it is essential".¹⁵⁶ In this he was in sympathy with Thomas Magarey of Adelaide, who, in the pioneering era, had argued against David King over the issue of the Christian standing of the unimmersed of other communions. Ewers' ambiguous position represented the dilemma the movement faced at the turn of the century because of the tension between its baptismal theology and a growing desire to acknowledge the Christian standing of paedobaptists, who were obviously men and women of God. [102]

While the leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ through the period 1864-1914 adhered to and defended the soteriology of the pioneers, there is evidence to suggest that 'their emphases were less one-sided. Furthermore, new elements were introduced, like the "open confession", the "emotional appeal" and the desire to accept the pious of other communions as Christians, that would in time need to be more carefully thought through by future generations within the movement.

b. The Church

In the area of ecclesiology, Churches of Christ in Australia, during the period 1864-1914, were preoccupied with settling on a name for the movement that would be consistent with their plea, with working through the question of the relationship of the Church to the world, and with justifying the establishment of conferences of churches.

In the pioneering period, and even later, those referred to in this thesis as the Australian Churches of Christ called themselves, and their buildings, by a variety of names. Some congregations described themselves as Christians and their buildings as Christian chapels. The most popular name, for both individual members, and the movement as a whole, was "Disciples" or "Disciples of Christ". Towards the close of the nineteenth century the Australian "Disciples" came increasingly to describe themselves as "Christians" and the churches making up the movement as "Churches of Christ". Ewers acknowledged that both sets of names had Scriptural support, but he believed that the terms "Christian" and "Churches of Christ" were the most appropriate. His point was that a name represents authority, indicates character and expresses relationships, and that Restorationists, preferring "the name which is above every name" desired "to be called simply Christians or Churches [103] of Christ". He added that, being "married to Christ", the Christian "can wear the name of no other religious leader".¹⁵⁷ Dunn, agreeing with Ewers on the appropriateness of the choice of name, listed four reasons in support of his preference. First, the name connected the church with its founder. Second it was to be found in the New Testament. Third, the name associated the church with Christ as his bride. Fourth, it gave Christ preeminence.¹⁵⁸

When they began consistently to refer to themselves as Christians and their churches as Churches of Christ, Australian Restorationists were criticised by others for using terms that were the property of the whole Church as denominational tags. To this charge Ewers replied that Churches of Christ, by using such terms, were not claiming that they alone were Christians. He wrote

By calling our members Christians, and our churches Churches of Christ, we simply desire to convey the idea that they are, but we never think of claiming that we are the only Christians in the world.¹⁵⁹

From their beginning, Churches of Christ were concerned to separate the Church from the world. This was particularly evident in two areas, the disciplining of errant members and the refusal of financial support from non-members. In the final decades of the nineteenth century, while discipline began to break down, and congregations continued to refuse offerings from those who were not immersed believers in good standing, there was evidence of a slight breakdown of the earlier rigidity. [104]

The breakdown in discipline was evident, not only from conference discussions, but in the comment of those who, like Dunn, lamented the new leniency. It was Dunn's view that the New Testament required the Church to exercise discipline upon its 'disorderly' members", as such was essential to the purity and health of the Church. He regarded the developing practice of removing names front church rolls as inadequate, and argued that under this system insufficient attention was given to conserving converts. Recognising that the abuses of discipline in the past had been responsible, in part, for its falling into disuse, he suggested what he considered a sensible approach that would avoid both laxity and misuse. First, it had to be recognised that the object of discipline was "not punishment but reform". Second, while

there are some cases of flagrant immorality which demand, when clearly proved, immediate withdrawal from the offenders; there are others again of a less grave nature which require wise and judicious handling, and in which the extreme step of 'withdrawal' should only be resorted to when all possible measures to effect a settlement have been exhausted.¹⁶⁰

Both Dunn and Ewers argued that financial support for the work of the Church from the unimmersed should be refused. In Dunn's view, only Christians should be allowed to support the Church's ministry. He advanced several reasons for this. First, Scripture instructed them to "take nothing from the Gentiles". Second, only thus could the Church maintain her independence from the world. Third, the poor were not debarred from hearing the gospel because of the necessity of contributing. Fourth, preachers would not be in danger of being silenced by wealthy sinners.¹⁶¹ [105]

However, despite the continuing opposition on the part of Ewers and Dunn, the practice of refusing money from the unimmersed began to break down in the Sunday Schools, where the offerings of scholars whose parents were not church members were being accepted.¹⁶² By 1914 a more liberal attitude was well entrenched. Partially responsible for this dramatic change was the influence of the American evangelists, who had argued that the offerings from the un-immersed benefitted the churches by increasing their capacity for doing good and cultivated the grace of giving in those "who had the opportunity of expressing their thanks for the blessings of Christian civilization". They also felt that it would he wrong to repress generous donations or hinder "any act looking in the direction of honouring Christ",¹⁶³ and that "if ungodly men wish to give of their substance to the cause of religion, this, by so much subtracted from the power of Satan to do harm".¹⁶⁴

By the turn of the century a further development, regarded as a temptation to some within the movement, though strongly rejected by the leadership, was the raising of money through church fairs, especially where they involved some form of gambling. Ewers argued that "a religion that has not sufficient vitality to keep itself alive without appealing to the world for help, had better die than enter into such an unholy alliance".¹⁶⁵ While opposed to the general run of church fairs, Ewers was not wilting to "proscribe sales of goods". His hesitation can be gauged [106] in the comment that it was "not clear that there is anything objectionable" in them "provided the buyer receives fair value for his money". He recognised that many Christians were not in a position to give systematically, particularly in the early years of the depression of the 1890's, when he chose to clearly state this exception.¹⁶⁶

The slight blurring of the distinction between the Church and the world, and between the immersed and the unimmersed, evident in the relaxing of discipline and the growing recognition that it was not altogether wrong to accept financial support from those outside the Church, was closely related to the acceptance by Churches of Christ of other Christian groups

During the period 1864-1914 the Australian Churches of Christ established Colonial/State and Intercolonial/Federal Conferences, though not without difficulty. Debate focussed on the question of the degree of authority, if any, conferences were to exercise over local congregations.

Following the lead of the British Churches of Christ, who held their first Cooperative Meeting in 1841, the Victorian Churches of Christ called their first Conference in 1866. It was concerned with receiving schedules from churches and reporting on evangelistic activity and needs.¹⁶⁷ The second Annual Meeting "of the churches in Victoria and the other colonies", at which business was conducted by delegates, raised the additional issue of a book depot for Restoration literature and a Hymn Book.¹⁶⁸ The third [107] Annual Meeting of the Victorian churches "and adjoining colonies, however, stalemated over the question of "how far the resolutions or recommendations passed at the Annual Meeting affected representatives and churches".¹⁶⁹ Unable to resolve the issue, the conference adjourned sine die. Pitted against each other were some of the older brethren" wishing to follow British precedent and others under American influence

very wary of even the appearance of establishing a body of brethren--call it what you may--vested with power to control the activities of the churches, or to legislate for them in matters of expediency, believing such to be wrong in principle, and injurious and evil in its effects.¹⁷⁰

The issue was not finally resolved until November 1873, when it was specifically declared that

no decisions of Conference are or shall be regarded as binding upon the association or individual churches to whom they may be referred, apart from the concurrence of the said churches therein.¹⁷¹

The interests of co-operative evangelism were also responsible for developing in 1875 an embryonic conference structure involving twelve South Australian churches.¹⁷² However, the attempt to inaugurate a broader based Evangelistic Union in 1883 almost miscarried. This was due to the fact that those taking the lead in the new venture wanted to exclude from membership of the union those churches or evangelists who knowingly communed with the unimmersed. This exclusive approach offended the more liberal element among those churches already co-operating. Fortunately, [108] the position of the conservative leadership moderated when they recognized that the issue was not that of "open" as against "closed" communion, but whether or not the matter of opinion was to be raised to essentiality.¹⁷³

Wracked from the beginning by internal dissension, local congregations in New South Wales lay open to the assault of unorthodox dogma to a far greater degree than sister congregations in either Victoria or South Australia. It was, therefore, not surprising that in setting up their conference organization in 1885, they hoped, as well as "extending the interests" and "consolidating the influence" of the movement, to "secure and preserve its purity".¹⁷⁴ Ironically, while the latter phrase was taken from the preamble to the Constitution of the British Conference of Churches of Christ,¹⁷⁵ and was designed to pilot the churches to calm waters, it had the opposite effect--fostering contention by encouraging a minority to pressure conference to legislate on matters of opinion.

While agreeing to co-operate in conferences, local congregations continued to jealously guard their autonomy. This was illustrated in the opposition of the Victorian churches to two suggested developments. To meet the problem of individuals who had been disciplined by one congregation being accepted without investigation by another, the Executive of the Victorian Conference suggested at the Easter Conference of 1882 "on Scriptural grounds, that all congregations in the city or centre of population be consolidated into one organisation under united eldership or independent episcopacy".¹⁷⁶ [109]

Because of an almost total lack of enthusiasm, debate over this issue dragged on until the 1884 Conference, when it was dropped.¹⁷⁷ The attempt to form a building committee in the 1896 Conference encountered similar opposition. It was felt that trustees of church property, with the best of motives, were apt to assume a kind of ecclesiastical lordship and dictatorship which may partly, if not wholly, destroy the church's liberty".¹⁷⁸

Both Ewers and Dunn fully supported the setting up of Conferences. Ewers was convinced of the benefit of such co-operation. He was careful to point out, however, that conferences were not legislative bodies.¹⁷⁹ They were not designed to define doctrines, to settle cases of discipline or to interfere with the autonomous functioning of local churches.¹⁸⁰ They were deliberative gatherings "for discussion of the best means of extending the gospel through these colonies and the region beyond".¹⁸¹ Recognising that Conference resolutions could be interpreted as legislative enactments, he went on to point out that they were binding only in-so-far-as they were voluntarily accepted.¹⁸² For Dunn, conferences offered opportunity for fellowship and were the "best possible agencies for the cultivation of the missionary spirit". He argued:

Those churches which isolate themselves from their brethren on the plea that they have enough to do to look after themselves, are, as churches, barren of the missionary spirit.¹⁸³ [110]

The fierce autonomy, or isolation, of many Churches of Christ created problems. They sometimes failed to support each other in the disciplining of errant members. Members disciplined by one congregation frequently were received without question into another. Furthermore, contention within local congregations resulted in the setting up by seceding or ousted dissidents of small, embittered and ineffectual congregations. Letters of commendation were often given to the unworthy, and it was impossible, at least before the setting up of Advisory Boards in the second decade of the twentieth century, to safe-guard the churches against unworthy preachers. Invited to minister to local congregations, which, in their appointment, acted in sovereign independence, these men had little difficulty thereafter in circulating among other congregations.¹⁸⁴ Another disadvantage of the system was that congregations were reluctant to co-operate in circuits to enjoy the benefits of full-time ministry. This was particularly tragic during the depression of the 1890's, when the circuit system would have helped maintain initiative.¹⁸⁵ One of the advantages of conferences to the churches, according to Ewers, was that they would reduce this ultra-congregationalism.

While Ewers was happy to endorse the development of conferences, in the period prior to 1900, he was chary of setting up conference committees. His opposition, however, dissolved over time. Though reluctant to agree to the formation of building committees on the ground that they would develop into [111] legislative bodies interfering with the autonomy of local congregations,¹⁸⁶ he later changed his mind when he realised that he had exaggerated the danger and under-valued their practical benefit. Ewers, after initial hesitation, also endorsed Church Extension and Building Funds, and later warmly commended the setting up of Advisory Boards, whose responsibility it was to check out preachers' credentials, and, where requested, to help churches and preachers negotiate ministry appointments.¹⁸⁷

During the years 1864-1914 organisational growth forced the Australian Churches of Christ to restate and develop their theology of the church. Ecclesiological issues debated during the period were concerned with practical issues--deciding upon a name for the movement, debate over the question of the degree to which the Church should he associated with the world, and the development and theological legitimation of conference structures.

c. Ministry

The pioneers had argued that the distinction between clergy and laity could not be justified from the Scriptures. Through the years 1864-1914 the Australian Churches of Christ continued to make this point. It was expressed in several ways. First, there was Dunn 's insistence, arising from his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12, that ministry was the business of the whole Church.¹⁸⁸ Second, the denial of the distinction between clergy and laity was also evident in criticism by Churches of Christ leaders [112] of ecclesiastical titles. These were described by Dunn as "relics of a fearful lapse from the liberty which is in Christ".¹⁸⁹ He was particularly incensed with the doctrine of apostolic succession, which he felt had been dragged in to justify clerical privilege and dominance.¹⁹⁰ Ewers was no more happy with "Reverend" or even "Doctor" and commended V. W. Johnson, one of the editors of the American Christian Evangelist, for refusing an honorary D. D. from Drake University.¹⁹¹

The fact that Churches of Christ continued to decry the distinction between clergy and laity did not unduly inhibit the development of the role of the evangelist, whose legitimacy had been admitted in the pioneering era. In fact, by the turn of the century, while the lay leadership of the Churches of Christ continued to exercise considerable influence, the movement's evangelists had become a recognizable and potentially influential body.

The augmentation of the evangelist's role, and the growing recognition of his specialist function, was evident in a number of developments. First, lists of "full-time" evangelists began to be published in the mid-1890's by Ewers in the Christian Pioneer.¹⁹² He also took upon himself responsibility for organising ministry changes by publishing notices from churches advertising vacancies, and by making mention [113] of men who were relinquishing charges and would shortly be available. Second, around the turn of the century, Colonial, and then State, Conference Executives were taking increasing responsibility for vetting potential evangelists.¹⁹³ Third, official accreditation was becoming associated with the possession of a marriage license.¹⁹⁴ Fourth, preachers began to meet together to discuss problems and possibilities common to their calling.¹⁹⁵ Fifth, leaders were urging churches to more adequately support their evangelists. In 1910 Ewers suggested that greater consideration should be given to preachers whose salaries ought to be higher than they were.¹⁹⁶ Sixth, the evangelist was beginning to he called "the pastor" or "the minister" by a sufficiently large group of ordinary members to evoke reprimands from alarmed conservative leaders.¹⁹⁷ Seventh, probably the most significant indication of the growing status of the evangelist was the clamour of those opposed to the development. The strength of an opposition prepared to fight to the end was evident in the debate in the newly established Perth church between the more liberal, American-educated, T. H. Bates, the pioneer evangelist, and Fred Illingworth, an enterprising layman of the old school.¹⁹⁸ Illingworth argued [114] that "the Church is not a democracy, it is a theocracy" and because of this the eldership of local churches had been given paramount authority. Bates, and other evangelists who were wanting to give stronger leadership, were warned that "elders are not servants, they are rulers.¹⁹⁹

A number of factors were responsible for the enhancement of the evangelist's role. Five have been singled out because of their special relevance.

First, despite urging through the journals, and through Conference addresses, there were few effective elderships within local churches at the turn of the century. Early in the pioneering era several local elderships exerted considerable authority. Even as late as 1869, when T. J. Gore, an American evangelist who had been two years with the church in Grote Street Adelaide, endeavoured to remove restrictions elders placed on his initiative, conflict with the latter precipitated a split in his congregation, which disbanded for several years.²⁰⁰ As the years wore on, however, the number of elders per congregation diminished, and few of those appointed were prepared to exert as strong a pressure as their predecessors on evangelists, who were becoming increasingly numerous and important to the growth of the movement. At the turn of the century many articles and addresses were devoted to discovering the reason why there were so few elders, and why so many of these were ineffective. Dunn, who viewed the eldership as the backbone of local congregations, and a bulwark against priest-craft, took an optimistic view of the situation and argued that the eldership within Churches of Christ was not as much a failure as supposed because deacons were frequently acting [115] in the capacity of elders.²⁰¹ He went on to suggest that they be made elders.²⁰² Because of the absence of effective elderships in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, evangelists found themselves needing to take on the pastoral role that had belonged to elders in the pioneering era. They were also staying longer at churches, where those converted by their preaching looked to them as their mentors and "ministers". This trend was not welcomed at first, but in time was seen to be preferable to its alternative--the neglect of the pastoral responsibility of the church. The change of view within the movement on the question of the authority and responsibility of evangelists was reflected in Ewers' editorial comment. In 1889 he had "no hesitation in saying that where a preacher is employed to do the work of the members he becomes a curse rather than a blessing. It is his place to labour with them and not for them'.²⁰³ By 1890, however, while arguing that this was "a distinct and serious departure from New Testament principles", he went on to give his opinion that it was better that the preacher do the pastoring than that it be neglected.²⁰⁴

A second reason for the augmentation of the preacher's role was the fact that, as the nineteenth century drew to a close, mutual edification came in for increasing criticism and eventually fell into disuse. The change occurred in the final two decades of the century. In the late 1870's churches were still unwilling to countenance changes to their style [116] of mutual edification. In 1879, when the Collingwood Church, wishing to retain Thomas Porter, an American-trained preacher, agreed to his "uncontrolled disposition of the platform on Lord's Day mornings", both church and minister were soundly reprimanded by a specially convened meeting of the Melbourne churches.²⁰⁵ Within a decade, however, it was being generally admitted that mutual edification was unsuccessful and an embarrassment. In 1891 J. J. Haley, an American evangelist who had worked in Sydney and Melbourne, and had returned to America, was provocatively outspoken. He argued that the British practice of mutual edification fostered individuality and self-assertion to a great degree. He described it as setting up a "reign of ignorance' and as a "crucifixion of culture". It was boring and butchering, developing conceit, petty ambition, and petty jealousies, and was a brake on evangelistic effort. Outsiders despised it and intellectual members endured it.²⁰⁶ In defence of the practice, Dunn argued that many Melbourne churches would not have been established but for mutual edification, which, unlike the one-man system, was not parasitical, but encouraged self-help.²⁰⁷ His main argument hinged on the belief that, while the evening service was for evangelism, the morning service was "our meeting". To this visitors may come, but should be made to realise that they were visitors and had "no right to partake in the privileges of God's house". He contended that the one-man system, in replacing mutual edification, destroyed the "family [117] or home character of the Christian church" Mutual edification was thus "the guarantee of the preservation of the common priesthood, and of the purity of the home and family life of the Church". Dunn acknowledged that mutual edification caused offence to some, but argued that Churches of Christ had not dispensed with immersion because it was offensive to outsiders. He was convinced that the practice "will be adopted by the churches of the future".²⁰⁸ Despite the vigour of his reply, Dunn was in the minority and was contradicted by Ewers, who came to Haley's defence, arguing that in Melbourne there was no mutual edification worthy of the name.²⁰⁹ The fact that mutual edification fell into disuse in the late 1890's, and early 1900's, was evident from the fact that G. B. Moysey, in reviewing the Australian movement in 1909, needed to explain the practice.²¹⁰

The third factor responsible for adding to the evangelist's responsibilities was the influence of the American evangelists, whose success in building up the membership of the churches had the effect in the long run of legitimating their style. It was partially through their influence that Colonial evangelists were given increasing opportunities, as the nineteenth century drew to a close, to preach at the morning services of local congregations. The agitation at the turn of the century to set up an Australian college was partially the result of the desire of some to counter this practice, by avoiding direct American influence.²¹¹ [118]

A fourth element responsible for the development of the role of the evangelist was the growth of the movement. The larger the movement became the greater was its need for trained evangelists conversant with and committed to the plea of Churches of Christ. Untrained laymen, who had been functioning as evangelists, found their position difficult. They had insufficient time to prepare sermons or visit.²¹² They were pressed by the growing conviction that, if the capable were able, they should devote their whole time to ministry.²¹³ Many were criticized for their poor presentation and "mixed metaphors" by a membership increasing in cultural literacy.²¹⁴ Even if they had been better equipped, and had more time on their hands, there were insufficient of them to staff the churches. As the need for trained evangelists became more urgent, there was a ground swell of opinion calling for more, and more adequately trained, men. This opinion was reflected in Ewers' editorial comment. As early as 1889 he stated that "the social, intellectual, oratorical ability of the minister or evangelist must ever be an important factor in church progress".²¹⁵ In 1892, in pleading for the establishment of an Australian College to train evangelists, he pointed out that, although men of common education had done well, they would have done better with more adequate training. He argued that it was

to be regretted that our Australian brethren are not more alive to the importance of preparing our young men by a sound and liberal education to take up a position abreast of the thought of the age in their advocacy of our noble plea.²¹⁶ [119]

Taking up the same theme in 1898, he offered the opinion that while some churches were blessed with "a man of exceptionable ability", who had the time to devote to the service of the congregation, the success of the movement was proportional to the number of "supported preachers" engaged.²¹⁷ The following year he suggested to fellow members that, if they were "to occupy a position in Australia commensurate with the importance of the plea" they represented, they must "have as leaders men of culture and ability".²¹⁸ After the college had been underway a little over a year, in 1908, he commented:

Perhaps no movement among the Disciples of Christ in Australia has been of equal importance in bearing upon our future progress with that of the recently established College of the Bible.²¹⁹

Dunn, who from the beginning supported the establishment of an Australian college, and advocated a liberal education for preachers that 'would be on a par with that offered by secular institutions,²²⁰ agreed with Ewers that the establishment of the College of the Bible would mark a distinct epoch. He went on to add, more prophetically than he realised, that there would be no turning back.²²¹

A fifth element in the development of the role of the evangelist was the support of the editors of the two major journals, Ewers and Dunn. The acceptance by Ewers of the increasingly professional role of the evangelist was evident in several comments. First, he warmly commended the Melbourne preachers' meeting, [120] which many felt indicated the existence within the movement of a clerical caste.²²² Second, he argued, in 1889, that unless they paid them separate salaries, churches were not to regard ministers' wives as being automatically employed along with their husbands. Reflecting the emerging professional status of "the preacher", as well as the socio-economic level of the membership, he illustrated this with reference to the wives of mechanics and clerks.²²³ Third, in 1902, he pointed out that while he would "not say that a man should not commence to speak unless he is fully qualified", he had to insist that he be at least "partially qualified and taught before he goes out to teach others".²²⁴ Dunn, despite his defence of mutual edification, was no less supportive of evangelists and their new role. As early as 1886, he had argued that "the man who gives himself entirely to the work of the Lord, commands, and has our respect and sympathy".²²⁵ By 1900 he was commenting that there was a recognized need "for setting apart a certain number who will give themselves entirely to the ministry of the Word". He went on to point out that "as the conditions of life become more complex, and the struggle for existence more difficult and arduous, the need for a greater number of preachers.  . . would become increasingly necessary.²²⁶ By 1902 Dunn had come to recognize that the British opposition to "hired evangelists" had frustrated progress. Insisting that a different attitude existed among the Australian Churches of [121] Christ, he went on to stress that they were "prepared to do them justice and to give them that respect which their qualities as men and abilities as preachers demand".²²⁷ It was obvious that he had come to the conclusion that progress resulted from the activity within the movement of "preachers wholly devoted to the work". To encourage those still opposed to a specialist ministry to accept the same, he pointed out that while

these men may not be perfect, . . . hold notions that some cannot accept.  . . (and) may even ape the manners and customs of their ministerial brethren elsewhere, . . . We must take these risks and minimize them as much as we can.

He argued that the movement could not remain overprotective of itself regarding progress. It was "time they got rid of the bug-bear of colleges being 'manufactories for parsons'". Churches of Christ evangelists were

a fine lot of men, earnest, sincere workers and worthy of our respect and esteem. Some of them may be a wee bit "liberal" in their view, but all of them, we are certain, believe the "divine plea" and long for the triumph of New Testament Christianity.²²⁸

The enhancement of the role of the evangelist in the late nineteenth century brought to the fore the question of ordination. The leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ was convinced that elders as well as evangelists should be ordained. Two differing opinions were expressed on the question of ordination during the period 1864-1914, one being offered early in the period, and the other at its close. [122]

In 1870 T. J. Gore commended the practice. It was his view that ordination, as practised in the New Testament, involving the laying on of hands to set "apart to office those who were qualified", ought to he no less the norm for the contemporary church. This command had not been withdrawn, nor the practice abrogated or superseded. He hastened to add, however, that the ceremony did not convey miraculous gifts, that it had to be dissociated from the idea of apostolic succession, and that he was not implying that "persons could not exercise the function of an office without such laying on of hands".²²⁹

Dunn, unlike Gore, was opposed to ordination. He did not see "any particular benefit arising from it". It was a practice that begot sacerdotalism, and it was "by no means clear that the New Testament intended it to be permanent in the Christian Church". There was also a personal element in this rejection, which was evident in a comment relating to a suggested ordination of elders:

As to the "laying on of hands", one might well submit to it from some venerable brother, and at once we think of Bro. Gore, but how few Bro. Gore's there are. One shudders to think of callow youths and others we might mention trying to perform the ceremony. On the whole, we should suggest that we try to make our elections of office more impressive without the ceremony of "laying on of hands".²³⁰

A final comment concerning ministers needs to be made about the attitude of the movement towards the involvement of women in the Church's ministry. From the 1880's women were becoming increasingly involved in Conference business, though their activities were separate from the main Conference, which was the preserve of the men of the churches. In their [123]

response to this development, Ewers and Dunn reflected differing responses within the movement. For his part, Ewers warmly commended the women of the churches for their contribution to the life and ministry of both local congregations and Conference causes and committees. Though he did not explicitly state that women were Scripturally qualified to occupy positions of leadership in local congregations or Conference structures, certain of his comments can be taken as implying that his mind was not closed on the issue. On one occasion, he admitted that he could be taken to task by those anxious to prove the unscripturalness of the role women were playing in the life of the Church,²³¹ while on another he suggested that their management of ecclesiastical business was frustrated solely by domestic duties, which caused them to regard attendance upon their husbands as their first priority.²³² Unlike Ewers, who encouraged the public ministry of women, Dunn was not prepared to release them from "the family altar", and argued that being women disqualified them from becoming deacons.²³³

The period 1864-1914 witnessed the gradual development of a set-apart ministry within Churches of Christ. While the drawing to a close of this era did not see the evangelist/preacher/pastor established in a position of authority over the eldership, nor acknowledged as "the" minister of local congregations, his role was considerably enhanced, and he was able to assume increased initiative. Throughout the issue had been debated largely on pragmatic, rather than biblical grounds, though there were not lacking those who insisted that the pattern that was developing was unscriptural. [124]

d. Worship

During the period 1864-1914 Churches of Christ in Australia contended for the weekly observance of the Supper, and worked at preserving and revitalizing mutual edification.

In line with traditional Churches of Christ beliefs and practices, Dunn argued that the Scriptures and sub-apostolic practice justified the celebration of the Lord's Supper each week. He regarded the "monthly, quarterly, or half-yearly observance of the Lord's Supper as a "relic of the Churches decadence".²³⁴

Ewers and Dunn were both of the opinion that the unimmersed should be excluded from the Supper. Both reflected the continuing opposition of the Australian Churches of Christ to the American practice of neither inviting nor debarring. Ewers maintained that "none but baptised believers" should partake. It was a privilege restricted to members of the church. As one became a church member by being baptised into Christ, "baptism must come before admission to the Lord's table". As the Table is the Lord's, his instructions regarding who should commune are to be observed. To the criticism that such an attitude was uncharitable, he replied that "charity rejoices in the truth". The charity being urged upon him was a "spurious and dangerous charity "which leads us to evade or set aside the Divine order and to countenance disobedience to the express command of Christ".²³⁵ To those who replied that any who were sprinkled in infancy regarded their "baptism" as valid, Ewers replied that "faith in the genuineness of a counterfeit sovereign will not make [125] it genuine". He offered as a final retort:

In these days of false liberality and spineless sentimentalism it behoves us to see to it that we are liberal with our things, and not with the things which belong to God.²³⁶

Being of the same opinion, Dunn argued that Christ had laid down the qualification of those able to partake. There were baptised believers. In rejecting "open communion, Dunn argued that the fence around the Lord's Supper was that which Christ himself had placed there. The fact that

there are millions of earnest devoted souls in the world serving Christ to the extent of their knowledge, is true enough, but that fact ought not to cause us to be worse than they in serving under the limit of our knowledge.²³⁷

Until the mid-1890's mutual edification continued to be generally practised within Churches of Christ. At that time it began to be replaced by the "plan system", in which various brethren were rostered to address morning worshippers, and in which the evangelist took his turn. One of the strongest advocates of the retention of mutual edification was Dunn. A man of independence and enterprise,²³⁸ and enjoying as an elder a position of authority and influence, Dunn urged churches to preserve the practice of mutual edification, which he contended could not be dispensed with because it was part of the "God-given plan". The "one-man system", in replacing mutual edification, was usurping liberties given to the Church of God, and showing itself to be an expression of apostasy.²³⁹ [126]

In the area of worship, Churches of Christ, through the period 1864-1910, continued to stress emphases outlined by the pioneers. The one area in which change occurred concerned mutual edification, which, while continuing to be emphasized in theological discussion, fell increasingly into disuse.

6. EWERS AND DUNN

As the theological approaches of Ewers and Dunn have been treated in relationship to themes, a brief overview is desirable to enable the views of each to be seen.

Ewers' acceptance of the Bible as the "voice of God"²⁴⁰ was uncomplicated, even simplistic. While he was opposed to denominational mergers, he was committed to the ideal of unity. In his open-hearted enthusiasm, he emphasized the need for love, spirituality, devotedness to Christ and the frank discussion of differences as essential to real progress towards unity. Ewers was also keen to encourage co-operation where this did not involve compromise. On the other hand, he had unbounded confidence in the distinct emphases of the Australian Churches of Christ, and saw the restoration of New Testament beliefs and practices as the only way forward. Ewers tended tacitly to accept rather than argue the validity of the theological pre-suppositions of the movement. On the question of interpretation, he accepted the British position that the Bible did not need interpreting, in the sense of learned exegesis. Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture. On occasions, he spoke out against creeds, though without making the distinction between creeds as doctrinal formulations and as tests of fellowship. Ewers endorsed the traditional soteriology of the movement and its anti-predestinarian rhetoric. While he was more accepting of other [127] communions than the pioneers had been, and while he wanted to deny that Churches of Christ regarded baptism as essential to salvation, his belief that the unimmersed should not be invited to partake of the Lord's Supper operated in opposition to this intention. In spite of an initial reluctance to countenance the establishment of building committees, which he felt in time could curtail the autonomy of local congregations, Ewers warmly supported Conference developments. While opposed in the early years to the holding of "fancy fairs" to help raise money for the work of the church, he was prepared to moderate his opinion in the depression of the early 1890's, when he supported "sales of work". The pragmatic strain in his approach, evident here, was also obvious in his support of changes in the movement's practice and theology of ministry, not the least of which was his awkward, if sincere, commendation of his friend C. L. Thurgood on whom was conferred an honorary D. D.

Dunn was more stolidly conservative than Ewers. This was perhaps most evident in his striving for the retention of the practice of mutual edification, and his reluctance to encourage the fuller participation of women in the work of the church. Dunn was also more of a logical thinker than Ewers, and enjoyed written debate. He advocated a reasoned approach to Scripture interpretation, and defended the movement against views expressed in the revolution in biblical studies, which followed in the wake of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. From the 1890's, he encouraged Churches of Christ to concentrate attention on the ideal of unity that had been part of their plea from the beginning. While he was adamant that only the immersed should be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper, and contribute to the work of the church, he encouraged a movement chary of involvement in ecumenical dialogue to welcome the growing interest in unity within the Church at large. He argued that Churches of Christ [128] should use the opportunities afforded by conferences on union to put their view that the unity for which Jesus prayed would only be realised through a restoration of New Testament Christianity. Like Ewers, he endorsed the movement a presuppositional guidelines. Unlike Ewers, however, he drew a distinction between speculative and biblical theology and argued that it was only the former that was to be avoided. Where others had been inclined to condemn creeds outright, Dunn argued that it was only their use as tests of fellowship that was to be avoided. In treating the doctrine of salvation, Dunn opposed, even more strongly than Ewers, what he considered the errors of Calvinistic soteriology, especially the doctrines of total depravity, predestination and irresistible grace. Dunn supported the Conference idea, and, while lamenting the demise of mutual edification, supported the developing enhancement of the preacher's role and status, and argued that the Churches of Christ preachers should be better educated.

While they were not agreed on all points, Dunn and Ewers can be seen to have accurately reflected the views of many within the movement. They also informed and tutored that membership, Ewers in a style that was buoyant and encouraging, and Dunn, whose arguments were more reasoned, in a manner that rarely brooked contradiction.

7. SUMMARY

Within Churches of Christ, the years 1864-1914 were theologically significant. During this period the epistemology of Churches of Christ was faced with the challenge of the Darwinian revolution in biblical scholarship. This challenge was largely avoided. During this period they also began to focus more on unity than had previously been the case. The "open confession" was introduced and the movement adopted [129] a slightly more charitable view of the unimmersed, though they continued to exclude them from the Supper. Conference structures developed, and these required theological justification. Mutual edification fell into disuse. The most significant development, however, was the enhancement of the role of the evangelist, who, no longer wholly itinerant, nor yet "the" minister of a settled congregation, was in a position mid-way between the two. Although those shaping the theology of the movement were sometimes reluctant to endorse all of these changes, it was inevitable that they would be endorsed, as the new practices, which stood in need of legitimation, were vital to the development of the movement. [130]

[OLFB 63]