The great interest which we are called upon to defend, which we should die in defence of, but which in these humane days we must live in the defence of, is the freedom of the Church of Christ to obey her Master only, according to her conscience, and not according to any other conscience than her own.—Robert Rainy.

The great defect of Liberal Christianity is that its conception of holiness is a frivolous one, or, what comes to the same thing, its conception of sin is a superficial one. In religious matters it is holiness which gives authority.

WE now approach a momentous epoch in the history of the D. R. Church in South Africa, during which Andrew Murray first assumes the leading role, which for more than forty years he continues to fill. The quinquennial Synod of the Church was due to assemble in Cape Town in October, 1862, and thoughtful minds had already recognized that the gathering was likely to prove a critical one in the history of the Church. Assaults were expected both upon the doctrine and the constitution of the Church. The doctrines of the faith were imperilled by the rise of the Rationalistic or “ Liberal ” Movement, which at this time was all-powerful in Holland, and exercised a subtle but profound influence over the minds of the young South African ministers who had received their theological training in the universities of the Netherlands. “ Liberal ” propaganda, moreover, were being sedulously carried on in South Africa, especially by anonymous contributors to a monthly journal, Ve Onder-zoeker, and by a section of the public Press of Cape Town. The constitution and government of the Church, on the other hand, were open to assault by virtue of its position as an Established Church, deriving its powers and legal authority from its connexion with the State. On this latter point a few words of explanation will not be out of place.

When in 1806 the Cape passed finally into the hands of the British Government, the articles of capitulation provided inter alia that “public worship, as at present in use, shall be maintained without alteration.” A "Church Order” promulgated by Commissary-General De Mist on behalf of the Batavian Republic was accordingly upheld and enforced by the new Government, which thereby undertook the financial support, and reserved to itself the right of appointment, of the ministers of the Church thus established by law. In 1843 the "Church Order” of De Mist was rescinded, and replaced by an “Ordinance,” which described the stipendiary support of the Government as voluntary and not compulsory, and by which larger liberties were accorded to the Church, and in particular the right to frame and enforce its own rules and regulations, without the necessity, hitherto obtaining, of previously securing the assent of the Government. This substitution of the “Ordinance” for the “Church Order” relieved, though it could not wholly remove, the disabilities under which a State Church must necessarily labour. We shall presently see into what dire troubles the Ordinance, even as amended, was soon to plunge the Church.

Summoned under circumstances such as those we have described, the meeting of the Synod of 1862 was awaited with tense expectation on the part of the general public, coupled with much anxious foreboding in the minds of the earnest few. The locale of assembly was the Great Church in Cape Town, and here, during the months of October and November, upwards of one hundred ministers and elders, representing some sixty-two congregations situated in Cape Colony and beyond, deliberated on questions affecting the welfare of the Church at large. Most of the members from congregations in the far east and north put in an appearance only after the Synod had been in session for several days. Their detention was due to one of the many dangers which encompass travellers by land and by sea. A considerable number of ministers and elders, all bound for the Synod in Cape Town, had embarked on board the steamship Waldensian, hoping thus to escape the long and wearisome journey by land. When in the neighbourhood of Cape Agulhas, the most southerly point of the African continent, the vessel ran upon a shelf of rock, and threatened soon to become a total wreck. The weather was fortunately calm, and a spot was discovered where a boat could be run? on to the beach with a certain measure of safety. The steamer was crowded with passengers, and the .whole night was spent in getting them ashore by boatloads. As dawn broke the last boatful, with the captain among its occupants, was landed without mishap. Not many minutes later a large wave was seen to strike the doomed vessel, which broke in two and immediately vanished from sight. When the rescued ministers and elders reached Cape Town and took their seats in the Synod, a wave of deep feeling passed over the assembly; and the Moderator called upon the Rev. Huet of Pietermaritzburg, one of those who had escaped from the wreck, to rise and describe the disaster to the brethren. This Mr. Huet did, and at the end of his recital, prayer was made and devout thanksgiving rendered to Almighty God for this marvellous deliverance from the jaws of death.

At the very commencement of the proceedings, the Synod signalised its sense of the grave importance of the issues which it was called to decide by electing as Moderator the most able and outstanding, of its younger members—the Rev. Andrew Murray, Jr. We fortunately possess a vivid description of this notable Synod, and of those who took the most prominent part in its deliberations, from the graphic pen of the Rev. F. Lion Cachet, from whose interesting volume Vijfiien Jaar in Zuid Afrika (Fifteen Years in South Africa) we take over the following—

Let me now introduce you to the Synod as it assembled in 1862. We enter the Great Church by a door which leads from the consistory-room, and—I see it in your countenance !—you admire the erection of your fathers, that large, airy, neat church building, which can contain three thousand hearers, and possesses a ceiling, sustained by no pillars, which stands in a class by itself. In front of the artistic pulpit, which rests upon carved lions, stands a platform upon which the members of the Moderamen have taken their seats. The Moderator, Rev. Andrew Murray, you recognize as a well-known and beloved brother. He studied in Holland, returned to the Colony while yet quite young, and after having served the Church of the Free State as minister of Bloemfontein during her most trying period, has now been stationed for some time at Worcester in the Colony. He is one of our youngest veterans, and the Synod honoured itself when it elected him as Moderator.

Next to him sits Dr. Philip Faure, the Assessor, one of those who fought in the Ten Days’ Campaign,1 and has been decorated with the cross. He has been for more than twenty-five years minister of Wyn-berg, near Cape Town. To the left of the Moderator sits Dr. Robertson, minister of Swellendam, a Scotsman by birth, an Africander by adoption, and thoroughly equal to the difficult office of Scriba Synodi (Clerk of Synod), which he has filled with honour for many years. Next to the Assessor is seated his brother, Dr. Abraham Faure, the Actuarius Synodi, the most influential man in the Church. Many members of Synod call him "father Faure,” and not a few have had reason, at some time or other, to wish that those great heavy eyebrows had contracted less suddenly, and those firm lips had uttered what had to be said in less ironical fashion. Honourably has the Actuarius served the Church, and honour has not been withheld from him. When the Synod is over, he purposes asking for demission on the score of his great age and his many bodily infirmities. Beside Dr. Robertson sits the Assistant Clerk, Rev. J. H. Hofmeyr of Murraysburg, who has studied at Utrecht. These men constitute our Moderamen, nor could the guidance of the gathering be entrusted to better hands.

And the meeting itself? It consists of fifty-three ministers and about the same number of elders—more than one hundred in all There, immediately in front of the Moderator, sits Rev. Andrew Murray, senior, who counts three sons and four sons-in-law as ministers and members of the Synod. Did you observe that when he rose a while ago to address the Moderator, his son, with the customary “Right Reverend Sir” the latter, too, rose, and remained standing until his father had finished speaking? Facing his father the “Right Reverend Gentleman” is a child. Alongside of Rev. Murray are seated the Revs. Smith, Thomson and Pears, old Scotsmen, who for twenty or thirty years have served the Church of the Colony, and who, like ourselves, have just been rescued from the Waldensian, which was wrecked upon the rocks at Struispunt. All honour to the English Government, through whose mediation men like these have become ministers in our Church, and all honour to the men who ministered with so much readiness and faithfulness to what were then border congregations.

Near the pulpit are seated our professors, N. J. Hofmeyr and John Murray, who, together with Rev. Neethling of Stellenbosch and Rev. Albertyn of Caledon (in addition to their other important duties) administer and control the missions of our Church in their capacity as members of the Synodical Mission Board. You already have some acquaintance with Rev. van der Lingen of Paarl; while with Rev. van Velden, a Hollander, and others you may become acquainted later on. Can you spare a moment more to look at our elders, some of whom have had to journey with their ministers for 700 or 900 miles by cart or by waggon, and have had to bid farewell to wife and child, to house and garden, for full three months, in order to attend the Synod. That surely amounts to something.

Why does so much excitement prevail in the gathering? Let me tell you. This morning at roll-call, when the Moderator called upon the minister of Pietermaritzburg to hand in his credentials, Elder LoedolfE of Malmesbury rose and protested against “the sitting in the Synod of deputies from congregations lying beyond the boundaries of the Cape Colony.” Hitherto it had been supposed that the Church was at liberty to extend itself beyond the Colony, and that extra-colonial congregations, although not under the political authority of the Colony, might yet remain under the spiritual authority of the Synod. But the ministers and elders from beyond the Orange River are almost all orthodox; wherefore the modems and liberals in the Colony flatter themselves that they will count a considerable majority in the Synod, if they are able to drive back the extra-colonials beyond the border.

"Liberals and Modems,” I hear you ask, “are they to be found at the Cape, too?” Certainly; thanks to the seed so freely scattered in Holland in the hearts of our Cape students—seed which has found, in the case of many, a soil well prepared for its reception. Liberals, half-Groningers and such-like we have had for a long time already at the Cape, and these have prepared the way for Modernism. The Cape Church has been sometimes described, but incorrectly described, as ultra-orthodox. What is here called orthodox-reformed would by no means be acknowledged as such in certain circles in Holland. Here we are, generally speaking, conjessional. The formularies of tire Reformed Church are accepted because they are in accord with the Word of God (the Bible). Christ is not merely the Son of God, but truly God. Faith is confessed in the Holy Spirit as a Person. But Election and Reprobation, the two articles of faith upon which so many orthodox people in Holland lay supreme stress, are not placed in the foreground by the Church of South Africa, and rightly so. . . . Some Cape students have gone to Holland as semi-liberals, and have returned to the Colony as thorough liberals or as modernists of full blood, while here they have been impatiently awaited and received with open arms by the "enlightened” and the “men of progress.”

The Rev. J. J. Kotz6, now minister at Darling, who sits yonder opposite to us, is the accredited leader, among the ministers, of the modernist party. Not far from him is seated Rev. T. Burgers of Hanover, more copious of speech than Kotz6, but lacking the latter’s dignity and learning. Rev. Naud6of Queenstown, and some other lesser lights among the ”enlightened,” sit scattered here and there (some of them alongside of truly orthodox brethren), and will soon take to flight or else resign their charges. At present, however, they have no such intentions. They arm themselves for battle against the “orthodox" and boast great things; and though they are devoid of the learning of some of the moderns of Holland, they make so much commotion that no one enquires too closely after their knowledge. Of modern elders there are not many in the Synod ; but some few there are. When it comes to voting, the orthodox party has a bare majority. You will allow, my friend, that this Synod, which is to witness a struggle between faith and unfaith—a life-and-death struggle such as can hardly take place in Holland, and a struggle resulting from the unbelief which is proclaimed as truth in Holland and in Dutch academies—is well worth a few moments’ attention.

The incident which, according to Cachet, occasioned such great excitement in the Synod,—that is, the protest registered by Elder Loedolff against the credentials of the Pietermaritzburg delegates—was the first move on the part of the Liberal party, and indicated their determination to dispute the right to a seat in the Synod of ministers and elders from beyond the confines of Cape Colony. The admission of extracolonial delegates, they held, was in conflict with the terms of the Ordinance of 1843, which was framed to define the rights and duties of a Church situated solely within the Colonial boundaries. The Synod, after giving serious consideration to the protest of Mr. Loedolff and to the grounds upon which it was based, refused to uphold it, but declared by a great majority that it considered itself to be legally constituted.

Defeated in the Church Assembly, the Liberals carried their case to the Civil Courts. Since the Civil Power had bestowed upon the Church an “Ordinance” to regulate its actions, it lay within the province of the Civil Courts to interpret that Ordinance, and to decide whether the Church was abiding by its provisions. A test case was accordingly introduced, in which Messrs. Loedolff and Smuts summoned before the Supreme Court of the Colony the Rev. Andrew Murray, as Moderator of Synod, and the Rev. A. A. Louw, as representing the extra-colonial congregation of Fauresmith, to show cause why a decision of the Synod of 1852, incorporating the congregations beyond the Vaal River in the Church of Cape Colony should not be declared null and void, and why the said Rev. A. A. Louw should not be declared incapable of sitting, deliberating and voting in the Synod of the D. R. Church. On the 26th of November the Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs on the second claim, and declared that the Rev. A. A. Louw was not entitled to a seat in the Synod.

This judgment, though not wholly unexpected, caused the greatest consternation to the orthodox majority, and was hailed as a signal victory by the Liberals. For it excluded from the highest Assembly of the Church not merely the Rev. A. A. Louw, but all ministers and elders from beyond the Orange River, and by implication denied the Church the right of extending itself outside the limits of Cape Colony. Serious though this effect of the judgment was, it was by no means the worst of the evil. For the judgment cast grave doubts upon the legality of the proceedings of three distinct Synods—those of 1852, 1857, and 1862—since in each of these three Assemblies members had sat and voted who by the terms of the present pronouncement had no claim to a seat in the Synod. The 26th of November, 1862, must be regarded as the Disruption Day of the D. R. Church in South Africa, since the Order of Court rent the bonds which united the congregations of the north to the mother Church, and created a breach which remains unhealed to the present day.

In announcing to the Synod the terms of the judgment, the Moderator voiced the grief of the gathering at the decision which severed them from their brethren cm the distant frontiers, and before requesting the latter to withdraw, commended them in fervent prayer to God. The Revs. G. van de Wall of Bloemfontein and P. Huet of Pietermaritzburg then delivered brief valedictory addresses, whereupon the delegates from Trans-Orangia took their departure. Doubts were also ventilated as to the legality of the seats of the two professors from Stellenbosch, and rather than continue a tenure which appeared to be very uncertain, Messrs. John Murray and N. J. Hofmeyr voluntarily withdrew from the Synod. Thus purged and reduced by the order of the Court, the Synod sat down to deliberate as to the legality of its own proceedings and of those of the two previous Synods. The decision to which it came—the only decision to which it could come— was: “the Synod views all its resolutions as legal, so long as their illegality is not proven.”

So much for the first collision between the Church and the Civil Courts. In the meantime another and no less serious matter was engaging the attention of the Synod. From the very outset a breach between the orthodox and the modernist sections of the Synod was seen to be unavoidable. Matters came to a head in the following way. The Heidelberg Catechism—one of the three formularies to which the D. R. Church requires its ministers to subscribe—is divided into fifty-two sections, so devised in order that one section should be expounded on each Lord’s Day. The custom of preaching “on the Catechism” has always been enforced in the Cape Church. In answer to a question put, the Synod decreed that by preaching "on the Catechism” it understood an exposition of the Catechism and a defence of its doctrine on the ground of God’s Word. In the discussion which took place, the Rev. J. J. Kotze, minister of Darling, protested against being compelled to defend the language of the Catechism at all points; and declared in particular that the answer to Question 60, which affirms that man is “continually inclined to all evil,” comprised language which would not be fitting in the mouth of a heathen (unless he were a devil), far less in the mouth of a Christian. Were he to preach on that section of the interpret that Ordinance, and to decide whether the Church was abiding by its provisions. A test case was accordingly introduced, in which Messrs. Loedolff and Smuts summoned before the Supreme Court of the Colony the Rev. Andrew Murray, as Moderator of Synod, and the Rev. A. A. Louw, as representing the extra-colonial congregation of Fauresmith, to show cause why a decision of the Synod of 1852, incorporating the congregations beyond the Vaal River in the Church of Cape Colony should not be declared null and void, and why the said Rev. A. A. Louw should not be declared incapable of sitting, deliberating and voting in the Synod of the D. R. Church. On the 26th of November the Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs on the second claim, and declared that the Rev. A. A. Louw was not entitled to a seat in the Synod.

This judgment, though not wholly unexpected, caused the greatest consternation to the orthodox majority, and was hailed as a signal victory by the Liberals. For it excluded from the highest Assembly of the Church not merely the Rev. A. A. Louw, but all ministers and elders from beyond the Orange River, and by implication denied the Church the right of extending itself outside the limits of Cape Colony. Serious though this effect of the judgment was, it was by no means the worst of the evil. For the judgment cast grave doubts upon the legality of the proceedings of three distinct Synods—those of 1852, 1857, and 1862—since in each of these three Assemblies members had sat and voted who by the terms of the present pronouncement had no claim to a seat in the Synod. The 26th of November, 1862, must be regarded as the Disruption Day of the D. R. Church in South Africa, since the Order of Court rent the bonds which united the congregations of the north to the mother Church, and created a breach which remains unhealed to the present day.

In announcing to the Synod the terms of the judgment, the Moderator voiced the grief of the gathering at the decision which severed them from their brethren on the distant frontiers, and before requesting the latter to withdraw, commended them in fervent prayer to God. The Revs. G. van de Wall of Bloemfontein and P. Huet of Pietermaritzburg then delivered brief valedictory addresses, whereupon the delegates from Trans-Orangia took their departure. Doubts were also ventilated as to the legality of the seats of the two professors from Stellenbosch, and rather than continue a tenure which appeared to be very uncertain, Messrs. John Murray and N. J. Hofmeyr voluntarily withdrew from the Synod. Thus purged and reduced by the order of the Court, the Synod sat down to deliberate as to the legality of its own proceedings and of those of the two previous Synods. The decision to which it came—the only decision to which it could come— was: “the Synod views all its resolutions as legal, so long as their illegality is not proven.”

So much for the first collision between the Church and the Civil Courts. In the meantime another and no less serious matter was engaging the attention of the Synod. From the very outset a breach between the orthodox and the modernist sections of the Synod was seen to be unavoidable. Matters came to a head in the following way. The Heidelberg Catechism—one of the three formularies to which the D. R. Church requires its ministers to subscribe—is divided into fifty-two sections, so devised in order that one section should be expounded on each Lord’s Day. The custom of preaching “on the Catechism” has always been enforced in the Cape Church. In answer to a question put, the Synod decreed that by preaching "on the Catechism” it understood an exposition of the Catechism and a defence of its doctrine on the ground of God’s Word. In the discussion which took place, the Rev. J. J. Kotze, minister of Darling, protested against being compelled to defend the language of the Catechism at all points; and declared in particular that the answer to Question 60, which affirms that man is “continually inclined to all evil,” comprised language which would not be fitting in the mouth of a heathen (unless he were a devil), far less in the mouth of a Christian. Were he to preach on that section of the and thus be deposed from his Ministry.” The resolution was voted on with great solemnity, and when the result had been announced the Moderator rose amid the profoundest silence, and spoke somewhat as follows—

If ever there was a moment when I could have desired that another were occupying my place, it is the present moment. We have now to proceed to the fulfilment of a most solemn duty—a task which, if I mistake not, has never yet been performed in the Church of South Africa. After long and prayerful deliberation the Synod has arrived at the conclusion that one of the brethren has been guilty of holding erroneous doctrine, and that he has been unfaithful to the solemn promise passed at his legitimation. In Christ’s name we are now about to deprive him for a time of the right which was bestowed upon him in the name of the Lord of the Church. Having been found guilty, he has been adjudged by the Synod as unworthy longer to fulfil his sacred office. It remains the bounden duty of each and of all to offer earnest and continual prayer that it may please the Lord to convince the erring brother of his error, and to visit him with the spirit of true penitence. It behoves us, moreover, one and all to humble ourselves before the Almighty in this solemn hour, and to remember the injunction of the Apostle, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”

The Moderator thereupon pronounced the sentence as contained in the latter paragraphs of the resolution, and led the gathering in prayer. And so ended the first chapter of one of the most remarkable and painful incidents in the history of the D. R. Church in South Africa.

Since Kotze was under sentence of suspension, the congregation of Darling was to all intents and purposes a vacant charge, and the duty therefore devolved upon the Presbytery of Tulbagh (under which Darling fell) to make due provision for the fulfilment in that parish of the ministry of the Word and the sacraments. To each minister of the Presbytery were assigned certain Sabbaths, upon which he was instructed to visit Darling, in order to preach the Word and, if necessary, administer the sacraments. The trustees of the congregation of Darling, however, with a devotion worthy of a better cause, determined to stand boldly by their suspended minister, and addressed a letter to each of the presbyterial ministers, informing him that, should he appear at Darling, he would be refused access to the pulpit. To one minister only were they prepared to grant permission to officiate in their church, namely to the Rev. J. C. le Febre Moorrees, minister of Malmesbury, who was assumed to be in sympathy with the Liberal movement. When, in spite of this notification, Mr. Murray, as one of the ministers of the Tulbagh Presbytery, arrived at Darling on the 22nd November, he found the church door locked in his face. Endeavours to obtain another hall in which to preach were fruitless. He thereupon announced that divine service would be held at the house of his host, Mr. Basson, but at the appointed hour the congregation was found to consist only of the Basson family (who were present out of courtesy) and Mr. Jacob Cloete, a former member of the congregation of Wynberg. Cloete informed Mr. Murray that he was the sole member of the Darling congregation who approved of the action of the Synod in the Kotze case. Mr. Murray was compelled to forgo his intention of remaining in the parish of Darling for a couple of weeks, and paying pastoral visits from farm to farm ; and he returned to Worcester with the purpose of his mission unaccomplished..

Events now began to move with increasing momentum towards their appointed end. Mr. Kotze carried his case to the Civil Courts, with the claim that the decree of the Synod should be set aside as null and void. On the 19th April, 1864, was held a fateful meeting of the Synodical Committee, and since no retractation was received from Mr. Kotze, the full sentence of the Synod was put into force, and the suspended minister declared to be deposed from his office. Mr. Kotze, for his part, persisted in his refusal to withdraw or modify his words, and addressed to the Synodical Committee a letter, in which, after stating the reasons for the Court’s delay in hearing his case, he concludes with the following words—

I have earnestly considered the matter, and after due deliberation have arrived at the decision that, in case the Synodical Committee should enforce the instructions given to it by the Synod, I shall assume an attitude of open defiance towards the Synod’s sentence (however unwillingly I do so), and proceed as of old to exercise my ministry as the legal incumbent of Darling.

These words were no empty threat. On the ist May following Mr. Kotze did in fact resume his ministry, as though no sentence of suspension and deposition hung over him, and several months before his suit against the Synod had been heard and adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts.

The suit J. J. Kotze, minister of Darling, versus Andrew Murray, Jr., Moderator of Synod of the D. R. Church, came up for trial before the Supreme Court on the 23rd of August, 1864. The Bench was composed of Judges Bell, Cloete and Watermeyer,—the Chief Justice (Sir William Hodges) being absent at the time. The counsel for the plaintiff were the Attorney-General, Mr. William Porter, and Advocate P. J. Denyssen. Advocate Fred. S. Watermeyer, who had been briefed for the defence, was seized with a severe and (as it proved) fatal illness shortly before the trial commenced, and at very short notice, Mr. Murray was called upon to conduct his own defence. The plaintiff claimed nullification of the sentence of suspension and deposition passed upon him by the Synod on the following grounds:—(1) Because the Synod was not a court before which charges of unsoundness in doctrine or life could in the first instance be tried, but merely a court of appeal from sentences passed by the Presbytery; (2) because the Synod had not, in conducting the trial, observed the principles and usages which its own laws demanded as requisite for an impartial judicial examination; and (3) because the words employed by the plaintiff did not in point of fact assail the doctrines or formularies of the Church; but were such as, tested by the Word of God and by other portions of the formularies, the plaintiff was fully justified in employing. The plea of the defendant, on the other hand, was summed up under three heads. Under the first he denied the competency of the Court to decide whether the words of the plaintiff were in conflict with the doctrines of the Church or no; under the second he denied that judicial usages had not been observed nor judicial impartiality displayed by the Synod in the trial of the plaintiff; under the third, he claimed in re-convention that the Court should declare the sentence passed by the Synod to be legal and binding.

The whole of Tuesday, 23rd August, was occupied in listening to the pleas on both sides, and hearing the argument of the Attorney-General on behalf of the plaintiff. On Friday, the 26th August, the hearing of the case was continued, and in a court-room that was crowded to the doors with interested auditors, who were for the most part members of the D. R. Church, the presiding judge called on the Right Reverend Moderator of the Synod to argue the case for the defence. Mr. Murray then rose and commenced his speech with the following words—

My Lords,—It is not without a large measure of diffidence that I venture to appear before you. I address you under very unfavourable circumstances. The language which I most commonjy employ, and the subjects which constitute my usual study, are not the language and the studies which stand connected with the administration of justice among men. The style of debate of which in my present position I must make use is directed not solely to the intellect, but chiefly to the heart and to the inward emotional nature of mankind. I am therefore not without fear that I shall not be able to do justice to the important cause that has been placed in my hands. Circumstances have, however, left me no choice. Circumstances which it is hardly necessary for me to refer to in this Court, and which are deplored by all present as deeply as by myself, have deprived us of the invaluable services of our legal counsel. May God spare him for the good of this Court, of his country, and of the Church whose cause he has advocated in so noble a fashion. Under such circumstances I desire to appeal to the kindly forbearance of the Court, should my language or arguments not always be in accordance with the practice of a civil tribunal; while on the other hand I trust that nothing will escape my lips that is derogatory to the respect due to this Court, or that can dishonour the cause which has been entrusted to my poor defence.

The argument of the defendant lasted for four and a half hours—two hours in the morning and two and a half in the afternoon. At its conclusion Judge Bell complimented Mr. Murray in the following terms : “ There can be but one opinion as to the ability and conscientiousness with which you have pleaded your cause. Few advocates could have done it equally well.” To this encomium Mr. Porter, the Attorney-General, himself no mean orator, added further words of commendation, saying that he had listened with interest and admiration to the earnest and eloquent speech of his reverend friend.

Judgment was delivered on the 2nd of September, and was in favour of the plaintiff, with costs. As to the first reason put forward by the plaintiff in support of his claim, there was some difference of opinion between the judges, Justice Bell being of the opinion that the Synod was entitled to try Kotze’s case in the first instance, while Justice Cloete (and apparently also Justice Watermeyer, who delivered no judgment) were of the contrary opinion. But on both the other grounds adduced by the plaintiff the Court held that he had proved his claim, and that the rebutting arguments of the defendant had failed of their object. The sentence of the Synod was accordingly quashed, and Kotze re-instated in his rights and privileges as minister of Darling. The principles upon which this judgment was based were thus enunciated by Justice Cloete— justice, then on all these grounds judgment should be for the complainant in convention, and the claim in re-convention must be dismissed.

This then was the end of the great conflict which had agitated the public mind and stirred the deepest religious feelings of the Church for a period of nearly two years—a victory for the friends of Liberalism, and a flinging open of the floodgates, as it must have appeared, for the invasion of heterodoxy, unitarianism and blatant rationalism. There are victories, however, in which the victors suffer greater loss than the vanquished, and there are defeats from which the vanquished reap greater profit than the victors. The judgment of the Supreme Court, with the full report of the trial, were diligently studied by members of the D. R. Church throughout South Africa. Brochures and pamphlets on the burning subject of the day poured from the press. Interest in matters ecclesiastical was greatly stimulated. And in this manner public opinion was steadily educated to grasp the points of the real question at issue, and to distinguish clearly between the divergent and antagonistic principles of Liberalism on the one hand and Orthodoxy on the other.

The attention of the Church was now focused upon another important investigation, which, for a period at least, ran a parallel course to the Kotze case. This was the trial of the Rev. T. F. Burgers of Hanover for making use of expressions which were asserted to be at variance with the doctrines of the Church. Before the Synod of 1862 the Elder of Colesberg, Mr. P. J. Joubert, had formally charged Mr. Burgers with being “tainted with Rationalism”; and, more definitely, that he had on certain specified occasions denied the existence of a personal devil, the sinlessness of Christ’s human nature, the resurrection of the dead, and the personal existence of the soul after death. The examination of these charges not being concluded when the Synod adjourned in 1862, the Synod of 1863 continued the investigation, and ultimately appointed a Committee to meet at Hanover, and to take the depositions of the witnesses in whose presence the obnoxious expressions were alleged to have been employed. This Committee duly met on the 8th February, 1864, examined the necessary witnesses, and forwarded their evidence to the Synodical Committee, notifying at the same time both the complainant (Mr. Joubert) and the defendant (Mr. Burgers) that their written pleas must be sent to the Clerk of the Synodical Committee before a specified date.

On the 19th March the Synodical Committee assembled in Cape Town—it was the same meeting which proceeded to make absolute the sentence of deposition passed by the Synod on the Rev. J. J. Kotze—and deliberated on the pleadings and evidence submitted. As the result of these deliberations it found some of the expressions employed by Mr. Burgers on the points in question to be of dubious import, and demanded of him "a clear statement of what he believed with reference to the doctrines specified in the four points of accusation.” This “clear statement” Mr. Burgers declined to give, on the ground that the demand of the Synodical Committee was “out of order and repugnant to acknowledged principles of justice.” The Synodical Committee thereupon, on the 19th July, dismissing as unproven the third and fourth counts of the indictment, found Mr. Burgers guilty on the first and second charges, and passed upon him the following sentence: "That, since the Rev. T. F. Burgers has been guilty of denying both the personality of the devil and the sinlessness of Christ’s human nature, he be therefore suspended from his sacred ministry till the next meeting of the Synodical Committee in 1865, which will be prepared to relieve him of his suspension if he shall before 1st March, 1865, have forwarded to the Moderator an explanation of his views, and a retractation of the errors of which he has been found guilty, and shall testify his full assent to the doctrine of our Reformed Church as regards the two aforesaid points.”

Of this sentence of suspension Mr. Burgers took not the slightest notice, but continued, at the formal request of the Consistory of Hanover, to exercise his ministerial functions.

Not only did he ignore the sentence passed, but, immediately after the publication of the judgment of the Supreme Court, by which Kotze was re-instated in his rights and privileges as minister of Darling, he addressed a communication to the Rev. Andrew Murray, declaring his intention of carrying his case to the Supreme Court, unless Mr. Murray, as Chairman of the Synodical Committee, procured the rescission of the sentence passed by that body on the 19th July. To this Mr. Murray, as was to be expected, replied with a decisive non possumus.

The case T. F. Burgers versus Andrew Murray and others, as members of the Synodical Committee of the D. R. Church, was heard on the 26th May, 1865. The plaintiff was represented by the Attorney-General, Mr. Porter, assisted by Advocate Buchanan; and Mr. Murray appeared, as in the Kotze case, in his own defence. At the close of his argument on the preliminary exception, which runs to more than forty pages octavo in the printed report, Acting Chief Justice Bell spoke as follows—

Before I deliver my opinion on this case, I beg to offer to the reverend defendant an expression of my sense not only of the lucid way in which he brought forward his arguments on this portion of the case, but also of the tone and manner in which he addressed the Court—so very different from the pretensions he was sent here to maintain on the part of the Church. That tone and manner require from me a tribute of respect, which, if he will accept of it, I beg to offer him.

The plaintiff in this suit prayed that the sentence of the Synodical Committee might be declared void on certain grounds, of which the chief were the incompetency of the Synodical Committee as tribunal, the irregularity of the procedure and the insufficiency of the evidence. In the counter-plea of the defendants it was claimed that the D. R. Church possessed spiritual authority which was “beyond the control, cognizance and supervision of the Honourable the Supreme Court”; and that this authority was acknowledged by the ninth section of the Ordinance of 1843, which stated: “nor shall any action, suit or proceeding at law be instituted for the purpose of preventing any such judicatory [i.e. Church Court] from pronouncing, in the case of any scandal or offence which shall be brought before it and proved to its satisfaction, such spiritual censure as may be appointed by the said Church, or for the purpose of claiming any damages or relief in regard to such censure, if the same shall have been pronounced."

It will be observed that the defence in the Burgers case was similar to and yet different from that in the Kotze case. In the latter case the defendant denied the competency of the Supreme Court to decide on the interpretation of points of doctrine, on which, he maintained, it was solely for a Church Court to pronounce. In the Burgers case the position assumed towards the Civil Courts was a bolder one. The defence here came to grips with the civil power on the real matter at issue— the authority of a Secular Court to interfere at all with the proceedings and sentence of a Spiritual Court. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the exception raised on the score of its competency, and denied that the D. R. Church, or any one of its Courts, possessed "inherent rights,” quoting the eighth section of the Ordinance, which provided "that no rule or regulation of the said [D. R.] Church shall have or possess any inherent power whatever to affect, in any way, the persons or properties of any person whomsoever.” The exception being dismissed, the decision of the Court on the main question was that the plaintiff must succeed, and the sentence of the Synodical Committee be set aside as null and void.

There were thus two ministers of the D. R. Church, placed under sentence of suspension and deposition by Church Courts, who had been restored to ministerial status and endowed with all their official rights and privileges by the highest Court of Law in the country. The result was dire confusion. For, first of all, when the Presbytery of Tulbagh assembled for its annual meeting in October, 1864, Mr. Kotze appeared upon the scene, and attempted to take his seat as representative of the congregation of Darling. The Presbytery, however, by an overwhelming majority, refused him permission to sit, affirming, with perfect justice, that it could take official cognizance of no authority other than the Synod, which had decreed Kotze’s deposition. Mr. Kotze thereupon obtained an interdict from the Supreme Court (dated 17th August, 1865) prohibiting the eleven members of Presbytery who had voted for his exclusion from questioning his right to take his seat. At its following meeting in October, 1865, the Presbytery again resolved, by a majority of 10 votes to 7, to abide by the sentence of the Synod and refuse admission to Mr. Kotze. The latter, relying upon the interdict of the Supreme Court, persisted in his refusal to leave the meeting unless removed by violence. Having arrived at this impasse, the Presbytery wisely resolved to adjourn sine die.

The same story was repeated in the case of Mr. Burgers. The Presbytery of Graaff-Reinet, to which the congregation of Hanover belonged, excluded Burgers by an almost unanimous vote from its meeting in October, 1865 ; and after a prolonged and unseemly wrangle, the latter withdrew under protest. After his departure the Presbytery took further action. Since Burgers was suspended, the congregation of Hanover was declared to be temporarily vacant, and the minister of the neighbouring parish of Richmond was appointed consulent, or acting minister. And when it appeared that certain members of the Consistory of Hanover—the names of Elders Visser and van Eeden were mentioned in this connexion—continued to recognize Mr. Burgers as minister, permitting him to preach and administer the sacraments, while refusing the same privileges to the Rev. Andrew Murray, senior, who had been requested' to visit the congregation in an official capacity, the Presbytery felt itself compelled to place Messrs. Visser and van Eeden under ecclesiastical censure. This step gave rise to another suit at law, in which the Church party was, as usual, worsted, and the interdict prayed for by Burgers cum suis was granted.

No sooner was this action over than Burgers was involved in further litigation. On the 21st June, 1866, he applied for an interdict to restrain the Presbytery of Graaff-Reinet from disputing his right to sit and vote as a member of that body. Three months slipped by before the Court delivered judgment on this question. It then appeared that the three judges were divided in opinion, Chief Justice Hodges holding that the plaintiff ought to fail in his action, because he had not appealed to the Synod before laying his suit in the Supreme Court, and Judges Cloete and Watermeyer holding that he was entitled to judgment in his favour, with the costs of the suit. The opinion of the majority was, of course, entered as the judgment of the Court.

Armed with this judgment Mr. Burgers appeared at the next meeting of the Presbytery of Graafi-Reinet, in order to vindicate his claim to the seat to which the mandate of the Court entitled him. But the Presbytery immediately decided to follow the example of the Presbytery of Tulbagh, and to adjourn until such time as the Synod itself should assemble, and instruct the distracted presbyteries as to the action they should pursue amid the welter of confusion created by the adverse decisions of the Courts at Law.

Matters were now rapidly approaching their final denouement. In April, 1866, the Synodical Committee decided to carry the case Burgers versus the Synodical Committee in dppeal to the Privy Council, and Mr. Murray was requested to proceed to England in his capacity as Moderator, in order to impart to counsel there certain necessary advice and information. On the 14th May following, Mr. Murray, together with his wife and children, embarked on the steamship Roman, in order to fulfil this mission. The grounds upon which the appeal was based were five : (a) The Civil Court has no jurisdiction in matters spiritual, (b) the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court conflicts with section nine of the Ordinance of 1843, (c) the Synod possesses jurisdiction in the first instance over its ministers, (d) the respondent (Burgers) has forfeited his right of protest by not objecting at the outset to the jurisdiction of the Synod, and (e) the judgment of the Supreme Court is not in accord with law and is therefore wrong.

Several months elapsed before the case came on for hearing and judgment was delivered. Finally, on the 6th February, 1867, Lord Westbury, Sir James Colvile and Sir Edward Campbell, on behalf of the Judicial Committee of- the Privy Council, gave judgment, in which they first declared (most incomprehensibly) that no appeal had been lodged on the score of the incompetency of the Supreme Court of Cape Colony to try the case (though the first two objections raised by the plea of the Synodical Committee expressly disputed that Court’s competency). On the main question the Judicial Committee found for the defendant Burgers, and mulcted the Synodical Committee in the costs of the action. The appeal had failed.

Such was the situation when the quinquennial Synod of 1867 assembled. It was opened by Mr. Murray as retiring Moderator, and after the preliminaries were over, the Rev. Dr. Philip Faure, minister of Wynberg, was elected as the new Moderator. It was, however, a short-lived gathering. The ministers of Darling and Hanover, both still under sentence of the Church Courts, took their seats among the assembled brethren. The Synod found itself upon the horns of a serious dilemma. It was morally unable to rescind the sentences passed upon the two erring brethren, and it was conscientiously unwilling to set at defiance the judgments of the Civil Courts. Mr. Murray, who had been elected to the office of Actuarius, and was consequently entrusted with the special care of all legal and documentary matters pertaining to the Synod, now rose to propose the following resolution (somewhat abbreviated)—

Seeing that it appears from the judgment of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council that the exception to the competency of the Supreme Court was not dealt with in appeal, and the confirmation of the judgment of the Supreme Court by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council therefore rests upon a misapprehension ;

Seeing that it is impossible for the Synod to arrive at a decision both reasoned and secure, so long as its relation to the Supreme Government is not perfectly clear, since it does not know whether the Judgment with the misapprehension attached to it will be enforced;

Seeing that the Synod conceives it to he in conflict with the reverence due to Her Majesty, not to give her the opportunity to correct such misapprehension, to listen to the claims of the Church, and to do her justice;

Seeing that finally it is not possible to arrive at a decision regarding the credentials of the representatives of Darling and Hanover before the above-mentioned relation shall have been defined and decided— the Synod decides to adjourn until greater light and relief shall have been received, and directs the Synodical Committee to summon it, as soon as the latter shall deem it desirable.

This unsatisfactory state of affairs continued for three years longer. Neither the Synod nor the Presbyteries of Tulbagh and Graaff-Reinet assembled during that long period. Frustrated by the Civil Courts, the Church had proved powerless to expel from its communion the two representatives of Liberalism upon whom sentence of suspension and deposition had been passed. The attempt to get the Judicial Committee to revise its judgment on the competency of the Cape Supreme Court failed. By no manner of means could Kotze and Burgers be ousted from their pastorates. At Darling, as we have seen, the congregation, almost to a man, stood staunchly by their pastor. At Hanover a large portion of the congregation seceded and established itself as a separate and independent charge, ministered to by an orthodox minister of their own choice.

In the course of these three years it became evident to the observant student of current opinion that the Liberal Movement had spent its force, at any rate so far as the D. R. Church was concerned. To this effect several causes contributed. The first was the exclusion from the Church of young ministers who held neologian views. This was secured by the institution of a colloquium doctum with the Board of Examiners, before all who desired legitimation as ministers of the Church must needs appear. This “ learned colloquy ” was originally an inquiry into the measure of theological knowledge which the candidate for licence possessed; but the Synod of 1862 enlarged its scope by enacting: “At the colloquium doctum a special enquiry shall be instituted as to the opinions on regeneration by the Holy Spirit and the personal experience of God's grace, and also as to fidelity to the doctrine of our Church, which the Synod desires to be understood as being indispensable requirements in all who offer themselves as ministers.” It was thus made impossible for the Unitarian and the rationalist, unless he violated the dictates of conscience and the principles of common honesty, to assent to the doctrines and subscribe to the formularies of the D. R. Church.

Again, the force of Liberalism within the Church was broken by the admission to the ministry, in increasing numbers, of young men who had undergone their training in the Theological Seminary at Stellenbosch, at the feet of those two eminent and devout professors, John Murray and Nicolaas Hofmeyr. Between 1862 and 1870 the ranks of the orthodox party in the Church were strengthened with between thirty and forty ministers, the majority of whom received appointments to Colonial congregations, though some went to serve the more needy Churches beyond the Orange and Vaal rivers. The Liberal party, which seemed so powerful and influential in the Synod of 1862, had shrunk to a shadow of its former self in 1870, and could muster on critical questions only eleven votes in a Synod of over one hundred members.

And, finally, the ranks of the Liberals were divided by the establishment in Cape Town of what was designated “The Free Protestant Church.” This body owed its origin to the Rev. David P. Faure, who after completing his theological studies at the university of Leiden, returned to the Cape in 1866. Shortly after his arrival Mr. Faure was invited by Dr. Heyns, first minister of the Cape Town congregation, to officiate in the Great Church in Adderley Street on a certain Sunday evening. Mr. Faure has given us, in his very interesting Autobiography, the following account of what transpired on that occasion—

In order to make it clear that I intended to preach the Religion of Jesus—though it would afterwards appear that I could not preach the Worship of Christ—I spoke on, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thine understanding: this is the first and great commandment. And the second, like unto it, is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” I am sure that there was not a single word in the sermon which need have given offence to anyone. Yet very serious offence was taken, and, of course, the heresy hunters were specially scandalized at what I did not say. Speaking of Jesus Christ without mentioning either His divinity or His blood, was considered an unpardonable outrage. This in itself was taken as ample proof of my hostility to the creed of the Church.

Quite contrary to the usual custom, when after the conclusion of the service I descended from the pulpit and went into the vestry, I was left there by myself. Neither Dr. Heyns nor his colleague, Dr. Robertson, nor any of the churchwardens entered the room. They remained in the church, and when it became clear to me that I was preventing them from reaching their hats, which were in the vestry, I left, and went home, thus relieving them from the necessity of spending the night in the church. Need I add that this was my last, as well as my first, sermon in any Dutch Reformed church in the city of Cape Town.

Finding admission to the D. R. Church barred by the colloquium doctum, and the congregations all on the side of orthodoxy, Mr. Faure decided to seek a sphere of labour outside the D. R. Church. "Even during the last years of my university life,” he writes, "it had become abundantly clear to me that, if I succeeded in obtaining a congregation at the Cape that was willing to accept me as its minister, it would have to be one outside my Mother Church.” He therefore gathered an audience in the Hall of the Mutual Life Assurance Society in the Cape metropolis, and to this audience he expounded Sunday after Sunday the doctrines of Unitarianism. The congregation thus assembled formed the nucleus of the “ Free Protestant Church,” which, though the numbers have greatly dwindled since Mr. Faure’s time, has continued in Cape Town down to the present day. This Church gradually absorbed those individuals who found the atmosphere of the D. R. Church uncongenial, and thus the conflict between Liberalism and Orthodoxy was transferred from the forum to the pulpit and the lecture-hall, and took the shape of controversy rather than of litigation.

A paragraph or two must suffice to bring to a close this narrative of the Eight Years’ Struggle with the Civil Courts. The principal question with which the Synod of 1870 was faced was this : how best to escape from the impasse in which it found itself in consequence of the contradictory judgments on Kotze and Burgers passed by the Church Courts and the Civil Courts respectively. There were, generally speaking, three streams of opinion. The first party said in effect, “Submit to the judgment of the Civil Power: you have acted irregularly and incurred censure; accept the situation, and pass on to the next question.” At the other extreme stood those who maintained, “Resist to the utmost every infringement of your rights by the Civil Power: uphold steadfastly the sentences of the Church Courts, and refuse to acknowledge Messrs. Kotze and Burgers as fellow-ministers of the D. R. Church.” A third party adopted a via media, and said, “Submit to the authority of the Civil Courts, but submit under protest: rescind of your own accord the sentences passed against Kotz6 and Burgers, and grant them leave to sit and vote.” A historic debate upon these proposals ensued. The Moderator’s table was covered with amendments, many of which were moved only to be quickly withdrawn, as the insuperable difficulties by which they were surrounded were perceived. The conviction grew that the choice lay between the opinions of the second and third parties above described. The party of resistance embodied its views in a proposal (moved by the Revs. A. I. Steytler and A. McGregor) which, after a preamble reciting the grounds upon which it rested, concluded as follows—

The Assembly is convinced that the reinstatement of a suspended minister on the strength of the judgment of a Civil Law-court is a practical surrender of the spiritual independence of the Church, for which our fathers sacrificed their all, and a practical departure from the conscientious conviction of the Church, which confesses (founding upon God’s Word) that only the Church Courts have been ordained by the Head of the Church for the purpose of ruling the Church and administering ecclesiastical discipline.

The more moderate party submitted a proposal of the following import, which was moved by the Revs. J. H. du Plessis and A. D. Liickhoff—

The Synod, called to decide whether it shall acknowledge the minister of Hanover as a member of this Assembly on the strength of the judgment of the Civil Court now submitted, declares :

(1) That, in accordance with the spirit of section eight of the Church Ordinance, it acknowledges the right of the Civil Court to enquire into an ecclesiastical sentence for the purpose of preventing damage to the person and property of the complainant;

(2) That it cannot grant the Civil Court the right of nullifying the spiritual effect of an ecclesiastical sentence, and of thus deciding on the spiritual status of the members and ministers of the Church;

(3) That, whatever the decisions of the judges may have been in this matter, it is of opinion that no real injustice has been done to the minister of Hanover by the ecclesiastical sentence;

(4) That nevertheless, under existing circumstances, rather than assume an attitude of defiance towards the Civil Court, or submit meekly to its judgments, the Synod decides voluntarily to rescind the ecclesiastical sentence in this matter, as it hereby does.

When the matter was brought to vote, no less than five resolutions were tabled, but only the above-named two secured any large measure of support. The former proposal was rejected by 74 votes to 29, and the latter resolution was then carried, but only by a majority of eight votes—52 as against 44. On the following day the Synod adopted a similar resolution, withdrawing its sentence against Kotze.

In the voting on this important question Mr. Murray gave his adherence to the rejected motion, and was found in opposition to the resolution which found favour with the majority of the Synod. The minority felt so strongly upon the subject that on the 2nd November they handed in the following protest—

The undersigned, who voted in the minority in the discussion on the Burgers case, hereby protest against the rejection of the proposal of the minister of Uitenhage [Rev. Steytler], which aimed at refusing a seat in this Synod to the minister of Hanover, . . on the following grounds :

Firstly, because in English law the principle is acknowledged that the Civil Court has to do solely with the temporal and not with the spiritual results of an ecclesiastical sentence, and the Court here, through disregard of this principle, has encroached upon the most precious rights of our Church ;

Secondly, because the doctrine of the independent judicial competency of the Church is a life-principle for us, as it was for our fathers, and the Church cannot disown it without endangering her dearest interests ;

Thirdly, because we fear that the reinstatement of a minister suspended for unsoundness in doctrine, even though this reinstatement results from an ecclesiastical resolution, will have the effect of allowing the Court to persist in the course it has adopted, permitting Unbelief to raise its head with greater boldness, and causing our testimony against error to lose much of its force.

This protest was signed by these ministers: R. Shand, A. I. Steytler, J. H. Neethling, H. son, Andrew Murray, A. McGregor, Chas. Murray, A. B. Daneel, E. de Beer, P. D. Rossouw, S. Hofmeyr, W. P. Rousseau, J. Roos, W. Robertson, Jr., W. P. de Villiers, A. H. Hofmeyr, J. S. Hauman, Geo. Murray, G. W. Stegmann, Jr., and Prof. N. J. Hofmeyr, sitting as Elder of Stellenbosch.

The apprehensions expressed in the last paragraph of the above protest were happily not realized. The two censured ministers, it is true, succeeded in maintaining their connexion with the Church. Mr. Kotze continued to fill the pastorate of Darling until compelled by age and increasing infirmity to resign his charge. Mr. Burgers remained minister of Hanover for two years longer, when he was elected President of the Transvaal, and severed his connexion with the D. R. Church. Of the other ministers within the Church who held Liberal views—and they were not many—some withdrew from a communion in which they felt themselves to be out of sympathy both with their ministerial brethren and with their own congregations, and others either openly renounced their Liberalism or approximated gradually to the doctrines of the Church. Writing in 1875 Mr. F. Lion Cachet—a well-informed observer—expresses himself as follows on the outcome of the long struggle—

At present the “moderns" are in a complete minority in our Church. Outside the Church they may extend themselves, but within the Church they have for the time being no say at all. Their shout of victory was raised too soon. They set about their destructive work in too highhanded a fashion, and took too little account of the power of the Truth which the Cape Church confesses and vindicates. Since 1870 they have no position in the Synod. They talk, and are allowed to talk, but small attention is paid to what they say. And this they find to be a deathblow.