And first with regard to Commission No. 1. The findings of the Commission were as follows: It was unanimously agreed that an effort be forthwith made to raise the standard of theological education and unite the forces available towards this end by adopting a system of co-operation in theological education such as now prevails in Montreal. This means that the students of the various theological colleges may now have common training in all great subjects, such as Old and New Testament language and literature, Church History, Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, Philosophy of Religion, Apologetics, Comparative Study of Religion, Homiletics, Sociology, Missions, etc. For this purpose it was suggested that a common hall should be erected, or, failing this, that the largest available room in any of the existing colleges should be used for the purpose of giving common lectures on the subjects specified. A full and complete time-table was drawn up by the Chairman of the Commission. The wisdom of this arrangement is apparent to all. Each student will now have the advantage of the very best instruction given by the very best available professors. In place of paddling in a shallow pool, each man may now swim in the deep water. Nothing better than this will break down that provincialism which has been for too long the curse of small colleges. Australia, in particular, needs that broader outlook which a more generous education of the type proposed alone can give. In pioneering days simpler teaching was ample; now that the times have changed, and Australia is sharing the culture of the old world, the highest ministerial equipment is demanded.
There was no difficulty with regard to Commission No. 2. Everybody had recognised in a general way the scandal of overlapping in Home Mission districts. But the evidence collected by the Commission determined the Congress to insist upon the immediate cessation of this scandal. We heard of small “townships” (there are no “villages” in Australia) consisting of 200 people, in which two or three churches were struggling for less than a bare existence. We realised the enormous waste of energy and of money which this scandalous state of things entails. The report of the Commission was heartily endorsed that this overlapping “constitutes a problem of the most serious order, and is a reproach which the Churches are bound in honour to efface.” Pending the coming organic union in which the entire question would be immediately settled, the Commission suggested the forming of an Advisory Committee of the Churches, to which all proposals of denominational extension shall be referred, as also all questions relating to overlapping and co-operation. There is no need to enumerate the details of the scheme; it is sufficient to state the general principle.
The most serious work of the Congress was reserved for the last day, when “the difficulties and possibilities of organic union” were discussed. Each of the Churches supplied a statement of what it regarded as essential to real union. These statements were subsequently amended (save in one case) so as to narrow the issue. Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians were seen to be in practical agreement upon all main things, and the opinion was openly expressed that there was no valid reason why they should remain apart. The real difficulties in the way to union seemed to come from the Anglican and the Baptist Churches: the one in its doctrine of Orders, the other in its doctrine and practice of Baptism. And yet in both cases the olive branch was generously held out. The Anglican representatives so modified their statement regarding the Historic Episcopate and Orders as to bring it within reasonable approach to the Free Church doctrine of the ministry. The Baptist representatives committed the following statement to writing:
“The committee think they are warranted in saying that our people generally would be prepared to leave the question of baptism quite open—for each person to receive according to his conscience—and not to make it a test of Church membership. That is to say, in the interests of a great movement towards unity, they, on their part, would not make baptism a test question, one way or another. While firmly believing that the baptism of intelligent believers in Christ is the best safeguard of spiritual Church membership, inasmuch as the candidate of his own will yields to the yoke of Christ, yet they believe that the majority of Baptists would consider the question of the unity of the Churches to be the major question, hence they would be willing ... to cease to demand the immersion of intelligent believers as a sine qua non of Church membership. They could not surrender the truth of believers’ baptism, yet they would be prepared to admit the broader basis of Church membership.... Is it too much to ask those Churches which practise infant baptism to so reconsider their position as (while guarding the ideas of infant and parental dedication) to throw greater emphasis upon that later personal dedication to Christ which the Baptist rite expresses?”
The total result of this Commission is thus summarised: “The formal obstacles to union have been more clearly defined than ever before, and the Commission believe they will be regarded as smaller than they were supposed to be.”
Such was the Congress. Without doubt it accomplished a world of good. It cleared the air, it brought us all closer together. And what now remains to be done? First of all a Continuation Committee was appointed to further the next work of the Congress, to meet in further conference, to grapple with the few remaining obstacles that lie in the path to union, and to bring the whole subject before the various Church Courts. The Congress represented the élite of the Churches, the most thoughtful, the most advanced, the most influential. The difficulty may lie with the rank and file of the Churches, those in whom prejudice is most firmly established, and from whom it is with greater difficulty dislodged—the ill-informed, the uncharitable, the stubborn. To conquer these may not be easy, but it will be finally sure if we have patience. In a land like Australia, with its keen problems, its democratic life, its great future, and its freedom from hampering traditions, there should easily be established one great United Australasian Evangelical Church.
CHAPTER XXIX
IN VAN DIEMEN’S LAND—AN IMPRESSION
The sight of a map such as this map of Tasmania which lies before me causes an Englishman who beholds it for the first time to deal severely with himself, to interrogate himself concerning his habits, to assure himself beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is really temperate. For it is a study in topsy-turvydom, and the contrariness of the thing lies either in the remarkable map itself or in the man who reads it.
Imagine a nice fat slice of the middle of the map of England, clearly cut out and converted into a separate chart, with a new disposition of the counties thus: To the north, Dorset, Devon, and Cornwall together; below these, Westmorland; by the side of Westmorland, Lincoln; below Westmorland, Somerset, by the side of which is Glamorgan; and at the bottom of all, Kent. Now, think of a country with a map like that. Surely it is not superfluous to reaffirm the correctness of one’s personal habits, in declaring that this map really exists. And, looking into it a little farther, one sees marked a river Jordan, and the towns of Jericho, Tiberias, and Bagdad, while in a footnote the information is conveyed that “Sheffield enjoys an exhilarating climate, being situated in a high altitude.” Sheffield, of all places!