The Disciples of Christ, or Christian Churches regard themselves as a 'congregationalist' body of people, and in ecumenical circles they are listed, along with Baptists and Congregationalists, as being 'congregational' in polity. They claim to have no conventions nor societies with legislative authority over the whole brotherhood, as is the case with Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians. They even list these things as 'undemocratic' and 'un-American' and often use that meaningless and recently invented phrase 'local autonomy' and even boast about it. A recent article in The Christian Century describes their plight, along with that of the Baptists, when faced with the ecumenical situation. ⁽¹⁾

      Further, amongst certain 'Independents,' alarmed at the growing tendency to general organisation, it is often assumed that standing for 'local autonomy' and resisting what they call 'the growing ecclesiasticism,' they are not only standing firm by New Testament Christianity, but following in the footsteps of the pioneers, especially in those of Alexander Campbell. So far as Alexander Campbell is concerned the purpose of this article is to examine the question and to see where this pioneer stood on the matter of polity.

      The matter is dealt with most clearly in his Christian System, in Chapter 24 on 'The Body of Christ.' The first edition of this work appeared in 1835. Though it did not bear the title, Christian System, the substance was the same in all subsequent editions. It is the third edition I have before me, published shortly after in 1843. My copy was printed in London, England, by Simpkin, Marshall & Co., and page numbers will refer to this copy. But first I wish to repudiate a criticism which is often heard. It runs like this, "There were two Alexander Campbells, the one of the early period, the iconoclastic period, and the one of the later period," as if Alexander Campbell was a kind of schizophrenic creature. No less an historian than Miss Eva Jean Wrather rightly repudiates this calumny.⁽²⁾ On the point of the Christian System, the accusation is repudiated by the fact that Alexander Campbell republished the book and without alteration shortly before his death in 1866.

      The chapter on 'The Body of Christ' is the main source of discovering what Alexander Campbell taught on the matter of 'congregationalism,' but I shall further discuss a series of articles which he wrote for The Millennial Harbinger in 1841-43, on 'The Nature of the Christian Organisation.' These subsequently appeared in The Christian Messenger and Reformer, in Britain, 1842-44, and had a tremendous effect in producing the congregational-presbyterian polity of our British churches, later spreading to Australia and New Zealand, so different from that of our churches here.

      First of all, it must be clearly recognised that Alexander Campbell was a high-Churchman. There are three kinds of congregationalism: (1) that polity which conceives of the local congregations as together making up the One Great Church; (2) that polity which emphasises the spiritual competence of the 'gathered Church' in the local community to carry on its work not interfered with by any synod or body of overseers; (3) that policy which regards the local church as an outcrop of the one Church at that particular place and time. These three positions can and do often intermingle, except that the first is quite incompatible with the third; for the first has little or no conception of the One Church except as a congery of local churches, even though some local churches remain independent and out of co-operation with the others.

      Now, it is clear from his essay on 'The Body of Christ' that, if Campbell was a congregationalist, it was the third kind he held to. He believed, quite rightly, that in point of time the Church was before the churches, and that in the New Testament the very word is used in the singular before it appears in the plural, and he further believed most strongly that a church which was out of cooperation with other churches was not Christian at all. He spoke of local churches as "under obligation [italics by W. R.] to co-operate with one another in all measures promotive of the great ends of Christ's death and resurrection."⁽³⁾ His point is that the relationship of the local churches to the One Church is the same as the relationship of each single member to the other members of his local church. Speaking of the local church, he could say it "is to all other communities as an individual disciple is to every other individual disciple in any one particular community."⁽⁴⁾

      Of the particular congregations he says, "though equally independent of one another as to the management of their own peculiar affairs, [they] are, by virtue of one common Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one common salvation, but one kingdom or church of God."⁽⁵⁾ Beginning with district organisations he sees Christians co-operating "to the ends of the earth."⁽⁶⁾ The districts are "a part of the circumstances of Christ's kingdom, as well as the manner of maintaining correspondence and co-operation among them, and the occasions and incidents requiring concert and conjoint action."⁽⁷⁾ He sees that for such organisation "the Apostles gave no specific directions."⁽⁸⁾ It was impossible that they could, for the circumstances would vary at different times and places. These arrangements are necessarily left to the wisdom and discretion of the whole community "as the peculiar exigencies and mutations of society may require."⁽⁹⁾ He could see no inconsistency in this so long as there was no "interference with a single item of the Christian institution."⁽¹⁰⁾ He draws a clear distinction between essentials and non-essentials, though he disliked this way of stating the matter and preferred to say, "between the family of God and its circumstances."⁽¹¹⁾ In other words, Campbell is not even rigidly stuck to a congregational polity, though at one time he may have preferred it as being more democratic. He would equally have tolerated a Presbyterian, Methodist or even an Episcopalian polity, providing it had not struck at what he calls essential Christianity.

      "The Christian institution has its facts, its precepts, its promises, its ordinances [sacraments], and their meaning or doctrine. These are not matters of policy, of arrangement, of expediency, but of divine and immutable ordination and continuance. Hence the faith, the worship, and the righteousness; or the doctrine, the

- [3] -

piety, and the morality of the gospel institution are not legitimate subjects of human legislation, alteration, or arrangement. No man or committee can touch these and be innocent."⁽¹²⁾

      He then goes on to list many incidental things which are subject to arrangement.

      As to co-operation, he thinks of it as essential, but the manner of cooperation is not fixed. He points out that, from the days of the Apostles the organisation of the Church has followed the political divisions of the earth, and if this is convenient it should still be followed:

      One hundred churches, well disciplined, acting in concert, . . . frequently meeting together in committees of ways and means for building up Zion, . . . would, in a given period, do more than twice the same number acting in their individual capacity, without concert, without cooperation, and that united energy, always the effect of intelligent and cordial combination.⁽¹³⁾

      To do this Christians must regard the Church, or Body of Christ, as one community, though made up of many small communities, each of which is an organised member of this great national organisation which, under Christ, has the conquest of the whole world in its prayers. "On this principle only can any number of independent and distinct communities of any sort . . . act in concert with mutual advantage to themselves, and with proper reference to the general good."⁽¹⁴⁾ He points out that while in Rome there were many churches or congregations, they are all addressed by Paul as a single community. He claims that all the general or catholic Epistles (such as I and II Peter, James, and Jude) "are unequivocal proofs that co-operation is of the very essence of the Christian institution . . . The very basis of such general or universal letters is the fact, that all the communities of Christ constitute but one body, and are individually and mutually bound to co-operate in all things pertaining to a common salvation."⁽¹⁵⁾

      It is almost unbelievable that churches, ostensibly paying lip-service to this great teacher, could have devised a system of church polity so loosely congregational and have escaped a modified presbyterian polity, which all this seems to foreshadow!

      Thus far had Campbell gone when he wrote the Christian System, but the days of the expansion, in the Middle West, of the movement he had inaugurated had not gone very far at this time. When he wrote the articles for The Millennial Harbinger in 1841-43 it had gone much further and apparently, much to its confusion and to his regret, it had developed on loose congregational lines. He speaks sharply and in contemptuous tones of the length to which this congregationalism had gone in Baptist Churches. After pointing out the many ways in which they were already modifying their 'independency' he says, "still in their fierce democracy of their congregational movements and disciplinary proceedings, they have been the most disputatious, feeble, and factious people on earth."⁽¹⁶⁾ He even claims that they now live under a gunarchy (female rule). This is to speak scorn, for at that time Campbell was an anti-feminist.

      These articles are the most unclear of anything I have read of Campbell's. No doubt at this time there was confusion in the Churches and this confusion registered in his own mind. During the course of the articles he had a long discussion with an episcopalian whose full name is not divulged; but it becomes fairly clear that what kept Alexander Campbell from favouring an episcopal system of organisation--as it does many Protestants today--was the doctrine of episcopal succession. He

knew there were doubts on the historical question, but more, he found such a system as alien to the Gospel. During this correspondence he was further troubled by the fact that the New Testament itself gave no clear guidance on the organisation of the Church as a whole. At that time congregationalism, episcopacy and presbyterianism all claimed that the New Testament favoured their different polities. Alexander Campbell claimed that the most that could be said for the New Testament evidence was as follows:

      1. It inculcates the necessity of co-operation and specifies instances.

      2. It inculcates the necessity of two distinct classes of officers in every particular community.

      3. It indicates the necessity of a third class of public [Italics by W. R.] functionaries, and gives examples of diverse ministries.

      4. It exemplifies the utility and the need for special deliberations, and of conventions on peculiar emergencies.

      5. It allows not persons to send themselves or to ordain themselves to office; but everywhere intimates the necessity of choice, selection, missions and ordination.

      6. It inculcates a general superintendency of districts and cities by those who preside over the churches in those districts; that is, it makes it the duty of the Christian ministry, by whatever name it may be called, to take care of the common interests of the kingdom in those places and districts in which it is located and resident.

      7. It claims for every functionary the concurrence of those portions of the community in which he labours, and, holds him responsible to those who send, appoint, or ordain him.⁽¹⁷⁾

      Whatever this means, it is not consistent with 'congregationalism' as we understand it. He is particularly scathing about 'independent' missionaries who send themselves abroad, calling them 'their own messengers!' Farther he does not seem to have been in favour of a single congregation appointing ministers without concurrence of other congregations and warns that many are the "Apostles of irresponsible communities--without piety, moral character or intelligence, worthy of the countenance, esteem, support, or affection of the Christian communities."⁽¹⁸⁾ This is not congregationalism with 'local autonomy' added and he stresses this by adding in ironical vein,

      There must, then, be some great mistake lurking in the minds of those who imagine that Christ's kingdom is a collection of ten thousand particular communities, each one being wholly absolved from any respect, co-operation, inspection, or subordination in reference to any work or purpose necessary to the carrying out and perfecting that grand system of sanctification and conversion which began in Judea under the rich effusion of the Holy Spirit.⁽¹⁹⁾

      Alexander Campbell finishes these articles by imagining a hypothetical case of Christianity being established in the island of Guernsey, a British island off the northern coast of France.⁽²⁰⁾ As a result of this hypothetical situation, he constructs what I think is what he thought would be a suitable organisation for his brethren, and submits it to them for judgment Needless to say, it is not a congregational pattern. It consists of the following six items:

First. That they should act as one body, regarding all the existing congregations of the island, and any others that might be formed by their instrumentality, or that of others labouring under their auspices, and thus connected

with them, as constituent and component communities of one body, but holding in their private capacities, as Christian families, certain reserved and intransferable rights, duties, and privileges, which are individual and private, and not to be interfered with by the body as such.

      Amongst these they enumerated the election and appointment of their congregational officers. That each church should have its own eldership and diaconate, and at least one president elder, whose whole time should be sacred to the calls and supervision of the church; for which services he shall be supported by the brethren so far as his needs require, and their abilities allow.

Second. That every individual community shall respect the private acts and rights of every other community, and not at all interfere with them.

Third. That in all cases where public officers, such as messengers of any general character and especially evangelists, who are to be regarded as officers of the whole body [virtually, Bishops], a concurrence of a plurality of churches by their officers be regarded as necessary, if not to empower them to discharge official duties in a single congregation, at least necessary to give them general acceptance, and to constitute them public and responsible agents of the whole body.

Fourth. That when any community shall have any case of great difficulty, beyond its ability satisfactorily to dispose of, reference may be had to other communities for a council or committee to assist in such case, whose decision shall be final--an end of all further litigation or debate on the premises.

Fifth. That whenever any great question of finance, or the means of successfully prosecuting any great public object, or any other event of great public interest shall require it, a special general meeting of messengers from all the congregations shall be called by the person who presided at the last general meeting; and that the eldership and diaconates of all the congregations, or so many of them as can attend, shall always be at least a portion of the messengers who attend on such occasions.

Sixth. Finally, that all public duties of the Christian church shall be attended to as though it were, what it is in fact, one body, under the head--the Messiah: and therefore arrangements and provisions shall always be made in general meetings for the most faithful, prompt, and satisfactory discharge of all these duties.⁽²¹⁾

      I fail to see what such a system is, unless it is some modified presbyterianism. Certainly Alexander Campbell was opposed to 'independency' as the term is now being used amongst us. It can be argued also that he was against 'societies' so far as they were not the Church as such. Three things he cherished: (i) He had such a veneration for the One Body, the Church, that for him 'independency' could have no meaning except that the local church was an outcrop of the One Church at that point and place. (ii) He had such a veneration for democracy that he could see no 'society' acting for the Church unless it was democratically representative of the One Church. (iii) He so understood the Church as the Body of the Faithful that he could not have tolerated any representation of the Church as an Hierarchy of priests or clergy without representation of the laity.

      1. See 'The Dilemma of the Free Church Liberal,' Sept. 23, 1953. See also The Christian-Evangelist, Oct. 15, article by Dean Blake more.
      2. See her recent publication, Alexander Campbell and His Relevance for Today, Disciples of Christ Historical Society.
      3. P. 77.
      4. P. 77.
      5. P. 77.
      6. P. 77.
      7. P. 77.
      8. P. 77.
      9. P. 78.
      10. P. 78.
      11. P. 78.
      12. P. 78.
      13. P. 80.
      14. P. 80.
      15. P. 81.
      16. Millennial Harbinger, 1842, p. 61.
      17. Millennial Harbinger, 1842, pp. 62, 63.
      18. Ibid., p. 63.
      19. Ibid., p. 64.
      20. I have been unable to find this material in the twenty-five articles in The Millennial Harbinger, which are reduced to twelve in The Christian Messenger and Reformer. In that magazine the material is found in the twelfth and last article of the series. Presumably Campbell wrote these articles for both magazines, his own and that of Wallis, for Wallis nowhere gives any indications of having copied the articles from The Millennial Harbinger, as he usually does elsewhere. Why this article of the whole series was omitted by Campbell from his own publication I cannot say, but that he wrote it is clear enough for, like all the others, it is signed 'A. C.' and, as Wallis indicates, in his own editorial notes, it is from Campbell himself. It may be re-called that all this time Campbell was under invitation to visit the British Churches and his visit was eagerly awaited, These Churches had given £100 (about 500 dollars) to his College at Bethany. Their first Annual Conference had been held in Edinburgh in 1843 and they actually kept back the second until Campbell's visit to the country. It was held in the city of Chester in 1847 when Alexander Campbell was President of it.
      21. Christian Messenger and Reformer, 1842, p. 367.

WILLIAM ROBINSON, M. A., D. D., S. T. D.

was for many years Principal of Overdale College, Selly Oak, Birmingham, England. As an editor of the British Christian Advocate and an author of numerous theological discussions, he is well known by his writings, chief of which is The Biblical Doctrine of the Church. The subject matter of this current Provocative Pamphlet formed the basis of a paper read before the faculty of the School of Religion, Butler University, U.S.A., at one of its meetings.

To members of the Pamphlet Club.

      You will be interested to know that the Club is continuing to grow and we look forward to an increasing usefulness in the brotherhood. To make sure that there is no doubt about your financial membership of the Club, we are boxing the section below. If it is blank, then you will know that you are a financial member. If it is marked with the amount payable we would appreciate your prompt remittance.

Literature Department

      This Department shall be entrusted with the publication and distribution of Literature designed for:

      1. The spreading of the Gospel;

      2. The deepening of the spiritual life of the church;

      3. The promotion of the aims of the Restoration Movement.

(Victorian-Tasmanian Constitution.)