s this work has been considered a chapter in the "Memories of the Disruption," illustrating and commemorating some of the leaders and heroes in the memorable struggle of which it was the culminating point, the retrospect, whether personal or historical, is full of deep interest. The wise man finds it sometimes the "pleasures of memory," sometimes the bitterness of regret, but always grounds for thankfulness and trustfulness, and lessons for the guidance of life.
To intelligent, earnest, and loyal Free Churchmen, Disruption Memories must be unspeakably precious; and dear to them must be the names of those worthies - foremost in the conflict of conscience - who have now passed from the struggles of the Church on earth to the peace and the glory of the upper sanctuary.
As no true Protestant would discard the memory of the Reformation, - as no true patriot would discard the Revolution Settlement, - so no true Free Churchman would part with the memory of the Disruption.
But more than thirty years have now passed since the Disruption. A new generation has arisen, to some of whom ignorance is natural, and to others forgetfulness is easy. Ingenious efforts are made to commend oblivion, to induce indifference, and to enlist selfishness in aid of suggested surrender; and it may not be useless or inappropriate to offer a few brief remarks in explanation of the Origin, the Principles, the Progress, and the Result, of the conflict.
As of a stream winding through a fertile vale, the spring may be discovered far back amid the clefts of the rocks, so of the Free Church, which was the outcome of the Disruption struggle - the source and spring of the movement may be found in the great divisions of the Church more than a century back. The people of Scotland can scarcely require to be reminded of the theology, the policy, the literature, and the preaching of the party in the Church known as " Moderates." The sad results of the reign and the fruits of Moderatism are well known. Yet it was a potent and distinguished party. Its culture was attractive and commendable, and procured for it a general acceptance among the upper classes; but its influence on religious conviction, sentiment, and character, was chilling and withering. Under the ascendancy of this " Moderate " party, the Church of Scotland, as established and endowed by the State, became a great political institution ; and, accordingly, the advantages of State connection rose higher and higher in ecclesiastical estimation. On the other hand, the Church, in its own peculiar and essential character as a Church of Christ, apart from its establishment - the Church, as a witness-bearer, and a message-bearer, and a missionary institution - was lowered and weakened in purity, power, and acceptance, by the prevalence and the influence of the Moderate party.
But there was another party in the Church, called by some in derision " the Wild," and known by the people as the " Evangelical," - a party whose theology was in accordance with the standards of the first and second Reformation, and whose principles were those of the Puritans and the Covenanters, and whose preaching, faithful and fervent, had the scarlet thread through it, and the blood-bought salvation in its freeness and fullness, as its constant and urgent theme. To that party the spiritual liberty and life of the Church was far more important and more precious than its establishment or endowment. Thus it came to pass that the stream of the Church's history flowed, as it were, in two' different channels. To the Moderate party the establishment of the Church - the favour of the State, and the dependence of the Church on the State - was the muniment of her political and social position. To the Evangelical party the spiritual independence of the Church was the muniment of her Christian liberty and her living power. So also in regard to Patronage, the channels of thought and feeling were quite distinct. The Moderate party, desirous to retain the favour of the patrons and the government, naturally supported and enforced the rights of Patronage, quite without consent, and almost without limit or restriction, on the part of congregations; while the Evangelical party, leaning on popular rather than State support, sought to protect congregations from the intrusion of unacceptable ministers. It naturally followed that, so long as the Moderate party retained the ascendancy in the Church, the enforcement of Patronage - the settlement of ministers over reclaiming congregations - was continued and accepted, and no attempt was made to vindicate the separate and independent spiritual jurisdiction of the Church. But it was manifest that, if the time came when the Evangelical and popular party could guide the councils of the Church, the abolition or effectual limitation of Patronage would be attempted, and spiritual independence would be proclaimed. And so it came to pass. Sir Henry Moncreiff, Dr Andrew Thomson, and others, did not live in vain. The Evangelical party - the party whom the people trusted, and through whom the most devout and earnest of the people hoped to see a revival of religion in the land - became the majority in the Assembly; and gradually, but surely, the principles now held by the Free Church were developed, proclaimed, and carried into action. The adoption and practical vindication of these principles of non-intrusion and spiritual independence, was the natural and appropriate result of the transfer of Church influence from the Moderate to the Evangelical party. It was a result expected by intelligent observers on both sides of the Church - expected with desire by the one party, and with apprehension by the other. It was also a result to be anticipated from the progressive earnestness and piety of congregations trained under the influence of Evangelical ministers. It was plain, that those who had been taught and stirred by the full, faithful, and fervent preaching of the gospel of grace and love, would not long submit to the enforced settlement of "Moderate" ministers, and would, when opportunity offered, assert the congregational right to resist Intrusion, and the Church's right to Spiritual Independence. No one could doubt that the people would follow their faithful pastors.
Occasion, fit and urgent, soon appeared. In the case of the parish of Auchterarder, where only two persons out of three thousand signed the call, and in several other cases, the most high-handed and tyrannical patronage was exercised, and was enforced by all the authority and the severity of the law; and the exercise of that patronage was accepted, and the severe interposition of the Civil Courts was craved, approved, and defended, by the Moderate party, then the minority in the Assembly, who afterwards formed the Established Church, when the Evangelical party were compelled by conscience to secede. These Moderates are represented by the Church now established, as the Evangelical party are represented by the Free Church. In the cases of Settlement, - in the Stewarton Case - in the Strathbogie Interdict, - the distinct and independent jurisdiction of the Church in matters spiritual was denied, assailed, and crushed by the judgments of the Civil Courts; while, at the same time, the attempt to impose on Patronage even the mildest restraint, failed, and was pronounced illegal. Revered ministers were called to the bar of the Civil Court, and publicly rebuked. It became impossible, and was authoritatively declared impossible, to maintain the spiritual independence of the Church within a Church established and endowed by the State. The surrender by the Church of power to protect reclaiming congregations, and the surrender by the Church of free and independent spiritual jurisdiction, was felt to be, and was indeed declared to be, the condition and the price of Establishment.
The principle of spiritual independence has been much misunderstood. It has been imagined that our Free Church view of spiritual independence savours of priestcraft. This is a great mistake. There is, on the contrary, no Church in which the lay element has more weight and influence. We hold that no ecclesiastic is, as a citizen, above the law, or beyond the reach of the law. We loyally and respectfully recognise the authority of the law on all questions of civil rights. But, On the other hand, we hold, that of every true man and every true Church our Lord Jesus is the spiritual Head, and that within the sphere of spiritual jurisdiction, His Church has, in her orderly courts, distinct and independent authority. The Free Church principle, when rightly understood and applied, does indeed guard alike the true liberty of the State and the true liberty of the Church, by drawing a clear distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction. The freedom of the State from ecclesiastical usurpation is imperilled by Vaticanism. The freedom of the Church from usurpation by Civil Courts is imperilled by Erastianism. The Free Church protests against both usurpers. She maintains the freedom of both jurisdictions against encroachment from either side, on a jurisdiction distinct and independent - in the one case civil, and in the other case spiritual. Practically the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church was, during the conflict, chiefly exercised to protect congregations from the intrusion of ministers by violent settlements. It was exercised in vain. The violent settlements were enforced by law; and both to the people and to the Church it was, by deed and by word, plainly intimated, that continued connection with the State could only be maintained on the condition of the surrender of congregational liberty, and of spiritual independence.
Separation from the State then became the duty, the urgent and paramount duty, of all who were not prepared to accept that condition and pay that price. Those who remained established at the Disruption of 1843, accepted the condition, and consented to pay the price; and they still enjoy the State favour, and the State endowments, and enjoy them on the condition which they accepted, and at the price which they paid. Those who rejected the condition, and refused to pay the price, of Establishment, seceded, surrendered the advantages of State connection, and formed the Free Church of Scotland. Continued conformity involved the sacrifice of conscience; and that sacrifice being in regard to matters of momentous and sacred principle, Nonconformity became an imperative duty.
If, after the rise of the Evangelical party to influence in the Church, and after the Ten Years' Conflict, there had, in 1843, been no Disruption, all confidence in the power or reality of conscience, and in the sincerity of religious profession, would have been destroyed. It is difficult to conceive anything more injurious to the cause and progress of vital religion than would have been the cowardice or unfaithfulness of the Evangelical party at that crisis. The tone of feeling at the solemn Convocation of Ministers which preceded the Disruption, made it certain that surrender or compromise could not be thought of without dishonour; and the elders, with responding fidelity, resolved to maintain the same great principles, and to adhere to the out-going ministers. The words of the Rev. Mr Stewart of Cromarty made a deep and lasting impression. " When I read that interdict by a Civil Court, which the Church was called and commanded to obey, I felt, as I could imagine a child to feel hanging at the breast of its mother, if that mother had been suddenly shot through the heart. I might cling to the body, but the life has gone out of her." In this state of feeling, with the heart of the Church deeply stirred, with conscience sensitive, and honour pledged, Disruption and continued separation became inevitable. This was felt and appreciated - the serious step was deliberately and prayerfully considered, and bravely taken - and graciously has God guided the Free Church, and has, in her Nonconformist condition, blessed her with peace, liberty, and purity. One part of this gracious dealing has been the gift to the Church of her " Disruption Worthies," whose wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and godliness, have promoted her progress and her usefulness, and sustained her renown. The purity of motive, the unflinching stedfastness of principle, the spiritual elevation and evangelical earnestness of character, by which these leaders of the Exodus were distinguished, have won the admiration of all good men - even of many who honestly differed and remained behind. Another part of God's gracious dealing has been the bringing the Free Church into close and cordial relations with the Evangelical Seceders of an earlier date, with churches - Protestant, Presbyterian, Evangelical - holding, as their forefathers held, all the great principles for which our " Disruption Worthies" contended.
It is, however, now said, that Disruption Memories should be consigned to oblivion, and that, as Patronage has been abolished by Act of Parliament, Free Churchmen should return to the Establishment; and it is indeed obvious that to attract them back is the policy of the hour. It is therefore necessary for Free Churchmen seriously to review the past history, and to consider the present position, of the Church. This they must do, in order to estimate aright the attractions or invitations presented or suggested. Now, no narrow-minded jealousy, no unkind feeling, should actuate Free Churchmen in this matter. There is much worth, capacity, and piety within the Established Church. She has a wide field for usefulness, and she has done, and is doing, much good. In all such good, Free Churchmen rejoice. It is the duty and privilege of Free Churchmen to cherish friendly feelings, and to maintain friendly relations, and to co-operate heartily in Christian work; and all this they can do without compromise of principle. But, for members of the Free Church to ignore or forget the Disruption, and to make, or indicate a readiness to make, any movement in the direction of returning to the Establishment, or resuming connection with the State, is quite out of the question. It would be foolish, and it would be wrong, to think of such a step, or even to dream of returning again to bondage. It is alike the part of wisdom and of duty to hold fast the principles vindicated at such cost in the Disruption, and to maintain the position of Nonconformity; for that is our true position, since Nonconformists all Free Churchmen became, when they quitted the Establishment in 1843. The recent alteration in the law of Patronage does not affect our position. It may, or may not, be satisfactory to the Established Church. Of course, we cannot approve of Patronage. We have never done so. It was not in the Evangelical party that Patronage found support, nor can it find support in the Free Church. But the new Statute, whatever it does, does not remove the causes of separation ; it does not secure, and was not intended to secure, the spiritual independence of the Church ; and after thirty years' experience of Disruption life, all thoughtful Free Churchmen must have been taught, that Evangelical Nonconformity has in it a charm and a power which the State cannot bestow, and must have been taught also, that the Church is freer, safer, and purer, when depending only on the free-will offerings of the Christian people. All our experience has tended to deepen our convictions on these points. Nor can it be overlooked, that return to State connection would painfully rend asunder the ties now uniting us to those older Nonconformists who have done such great service to the cause - the good old cause - of gospel truth and civil and religious liberty. The true part for the Free Church, at once the wisest and the bravest part, is to hold fast our freedom, and to strengthen our alliance with the free.
But it has been recently maintained, on the part of the Established Church, and of those politicians who invite return to State connection, that the spiritual independence of the Church is not in danger, that it has never been authoritatively denied, and that the law has never negatived the Church's claim to such spiritual independence, and, therefore, that the subject need not trouble us or scare us from return. This, after all that has passed, is, indeed, a strange view; but the stating of it at present is not without importance. It seems to be adopted to serve the purpose of the passing hour, and is somewhat rashly adopted, for it cuts away the only excuse which can even palliate the oppressive proceedings that led to the Disruption. To surrender the Church's liberty when the law demanded it, was a weakness and a grave mistake. But to surrender it, when the law did not demand it, would have been an act of treachery and guilt. If it really were the case, as is now alleged or suggested, that the law of the Established Church, and the constitution of the Established Church, never enforced, accepted, or recognised the authority of the Civil Courts, and the subordination of the Church Courts, in matters spiritual, then, how can the actual facts of enforced edicts of the Civil Courts, and the ready submission of that portion of the Church which is now established, be explained ?
That the Civil Courts did actually command and ordain the doing of spiritual acts, and did forbid and prohibit the preaching of the gospel in Strathbogie, and that the command and the prohibition were both obeyed without protest by the Moderate party - the party remaining in the Church - is beyond doubt. The defence or explanation given at the time, and till recently, was, that the Church was, in respect of its establishment, bound in law and in duty to obey the edicts of the Civil Court, even in these matters clearly spiritual, even in the calling and the collation, involving the ordination, of ministers, even in the preaching of the word. The Lord President (Hope) said, on 5th March 1841, "What makes the Church of Scotland, but the law?" Lord Mackenzie said, that the Court did not, in the first Auchterarder case, pronounce " a judgment limited to the effect of determining the right to the stipend only, or the manse and glebe;" and he added, what the Lord President had stated on 18th November 1840, that the obligation to receive and admit a qualified person, implies an obligation to ordain, since ordination is necessary to admission. The Strathbogie Interdicts were recognised by the Moderate party - by those who adhered to the Establishment - as competent and legal, as according to the law of the land and the constitution of the Church. The Non-Intrusionists were accused of disloyalty for not obeying them. Dr Guthrie, Dr Cunningham, and Dr Candlish were denounced in the strongest terms.
Now, on this law, - a law recognising and enforcing authority in Civil Courts, and obedience in Church Courts, even in matters spiritual, - there has been no change. The repeal of the law of Patronage has nothing to do with it. A settlement on a presentation was only an occasion for crushing or for vindicating the principle of spiritual independence. The condition or status of subordination and the relative or emerging duty of obedience, to Civil Courts, remains now exactly as it was in 1841. The facts in regard to violent settlement, and enforcement of the edicts of a Civil Court, are beyond question. The authority, in its most startling form, was exercised, maintained, and vindicated; and was not only distinctly accepted, but was invoked and appealed to, by the party led by Dr Cook - the party who adhered to the Establishment in 1843, and who substantially constituted the Established Church from and after the Disruption.
This, therefore, is the alternative. Either there is no spiritual independence - no distinct and final spiritual jurisdiction - in the Established Church, and the edicts of 1840 and 1841 are still competent, legal, and constitutional, and may be repeated; or the great Moderate party which forced out the Non-Intrusionists, and remained established, were voluntary actors in those violent settlements, and in that acceptance of spiritual subordination, and have been excusing themselves, by laying on the law and constitution of the Church a guilt and a responsibility which were all their own. On the one alternative, the same law may be again enforced, and the Church's spiritual jurisdiction again crushed. On the other alternative, the same surrender of the Church's rights may be again made - the same wrong may be again done by the same party, and done with the same results. In any view, it is plain that the position of the present Established Church is not mended by this suggestion, and is not such as to invite, or justify, or even excuse, the return of any leal-hearted Free Churchman. None but the weak or the unfaithful could think of returning. Those who quitted the Establishment on religious conviction and for conscience sake, may and should feel kindly towards those from whom they have parted ; but they cannot return without compromise of conscience, and cannot resume State connection without surrendering the principles on which they acted. Besides, the invitation of suggestion, such as it is, has been mere talk. No approach to the Nonconforming Churches generally or to any Nonconformist Church as a body, has been made, or is likely to be made. The idea of union between a Church supported by the State and a Church supported by voluntary contributions, is ridiculous; and the device of attracting weak or selfish adherents one by one, in the hope of affecting statistical returns, is too transparently foolish to require remark. Mr Gladstone asked in Parliament if such a course was " fair or generous"? The question was natural. No answer to this question has been given, in Parliament, or in the Assembly of the Church. On the probability of continued permanent Establishment, it is premature now to speculate. Questions now raised in England as to education, and as to burials, and as to ceremonies and services, will not be without influence. The question can wait. Time - it may be a short time - may clear it up. Disestablishment is not directly or specially the aim of the Free Church. Her aim is to convert, and to build up, to instruct and to edify, to proclaim and commend the gospel. But Disestablishment may be the result of the advancing strength and progress of Free Church principles, since these are alike the principles of Evangelical Presbyterianism, and of civil and religious liberty. Duty, faithfulness, conscience - these are our guides. Results are in the hands of God. There are good men in the Free Church, who would regret to see the State Church disestablished. There is no sound and loyal Free Churchman, who, for the sake of supporting the Establishment, would compromise the principles, or imperil the spiritual liberty and independence of the Free Church.
The time has come for friendly co-operation among all earnest Christians, since vice, ignorance, infidelity, and superstition are our common enemies. The time may come - God grant that it may soon come! - when, under general awakening and revival, increased depth of conviction and intensity of devotional feeling may lead to union among all sound and free Evangelical Presbyterians. Meanwhile, let all Free Churchmen maintain their principles and their liberty. Let them resist all temptations to Erastianism, and hold in grateful memory the
" DISRUPTION WORTHIES."
'Aussie Outpost' is pleased to be able to present to you this classic work. Please feel free to print this for reading offline at your leisure.
Outpost Homepage
Library - History
Memorial - Table of Contents
Next Chapter
TOP
03/06/2007
AN OUTPOST PRODUCTION
