Merely to build schools
and churches for the poor is to offer them stones for bread. There must
be living, loving Christian workers, who, like Elisha of old, will take
the dead into their arms, and prayerfully clasp them close until they
come to life again.—Andrew Murray.
IN relating the full story of the conflict of the D. R. Church with the
civil authorities, we have considerably outrun the chronological order
of events. The commencement of the struggle saw Mr. Murray still
fulfilling the duties of a country pastor; the close found him settled
as one of the collegiate ministers of an urban congregation.
The year 1864 was the last of his pastorate at Worcester. To the
outstanding events of that year belong a visit from the veteran Dr.
Duff, who after more than thirty years’ labour in Calcutta, was
returning to his homeland in order to occupy a responsible position in
connexion with the Foreign Missions Board of the Free Church of
Scotland. “What a noble old Scot he is,” writes Mrs. Murray, “so grand
in his simplicity and humility, but in very delicate health, and quite
unequal to any excitement. I greatly enjoyed his conversation. He is an
exemplification of the doctrines of Quietism in action—if you understand
what I mean. All those expressions of being dead to self and lost in God
which one finds in Madame Guyon seem to be exemplified in his experience
and life.”
In spite of physical weakness, Dr. Duff undertook a lengthy tour through
South Africa, visiting mission fields and mission stations in various
parts of the country, giving advice, especially on matters of native
education, out of his wide experience, and imparting a stimulus to
mission work which soon manifested itself in many directions. On his
arrival in Cape Town a breakfast was held in his honour in the
schoolroom adjoining St. Andrew’s (Presbyterian) Church. The chair was
occupied by Dr. Abercrombie, the foremost of the Christian physicians of
Cape Town, and among the guests was Bishop Tozer, of the Universities’
Mission, then just proceeding to undertake the duties of his extensive
diocese in Central Africa. At this gathering Dr. Duff related how,
thirty-four years previously, when on his first voyage to India, he had
suffered shipwreck on Dassen Island, within fifty miles of Cape Town,
and had been treated with the utmost kindness by Dr. Abercrombie, their
present chairman, and Dr. Abraham Faure, minister of the D. R. Church.
Three days after this meeting, on the 20th June, Dr. Duff sailed for
Europe, to prosecute for fourteen years longer his work of kindling
missionary zeal in the Churches of Scotland.
Few of Mr. Murray’s letters from the period which now occupies us still
survive. His attention was engrossed, and his strength and time
absorbed, by his duties as Moderator, and by the many anxious labours of
that time of storm and stress. The letters which we possess are brief,
and deal mostly with matters in connexion with the struggle with Free
Thought. On the 26th May, 1864, he writes—
To his Father.
Accept with Mama of my sincere congratulations for your birthday. May
God fulfil all your wishes and grant you your heart’s desires with
regard to the year you are entering upon. May the light of the Home you
are nearing shine more brightly than ever, and may the power of the
world to come enable you to scatter larger blessings around you than
heretofore. . . .
I would be glad of a perusal of Bates on Spiritual Perfection. I cannot
say that I agree in everything with Upham and Madame Guyon. I approve of
their books and recommend them, hecause I think they put our high
privileges more clearly before us than is generally done, and thereby
stir us to rise higher. The incorrectness of certain intellectual
conceptions or expressions becomes a secondary matter, as long as we
have God's Word to try and correct them by. Among the old writers I know
on the subject, the chapter on union with Christ in Marshall On
Sanctification pleases me most.
On Church matters I hardly know what to write. I suppose Burgers will
take the same high tone that Kotze did, and refuse to give the required
explanation. The opportunity afforded him to do so was entirely the
suggestion of his friends. May the Lord guide our Church. What a sad
thing the scarcity of ministers is. I felt it very much at Clanwilliam.
There is Namaqualand, thirty-six hours [216 miles] off, with the salary
of a minister guaranteed and a church built, but no minister to be had.
Is there no prospect of more students from Graaff-Reinet?
On the 5th July, 1864, Mr. Murray was called to fill the vacancy in the
joint pastorate of Cape Town occasioned by the retirement of the Rev. J.
Spijker. For the first time in the history of the congregation,
extending over a period of more than two hundred years, the minister was
chosen by the vote of the accredited electors of the congregation
itself. Heretofore the appointment had always been in the hands of the
Government, and the fact that liberty of choice was now conceded in the
oldest (and most conservative) congregation of the country was a signal
proof of the changed order of things. Mr. Murray must have felt from the
outset that the call could not be lightly set aside, and that, if
stationed at Cape Town, the storm-centre of the prevailing troubles, he
could more satisfactorily do battle for his Church’s cause. On the 21st
July he writes—
To his Father.
I am sure I will have your sympathy during my present time of trial. As
far as my own impressions go, and the advice of friends outside of
Worcester, everything appears to point to Cape Town, but it is difficult
really to bring my mind to say Yes. So much is implied in that little
answer, by which I venture to undertake such a great work. I shall be
glad of your special prayers that I may be kept from going, unless it be
with very special preparation from on high.
You will perhaps ere this have received the announcement of our decision
in the Burgers case, and have seen that you have to preach at Hanover on
the first Sabbath of August. I remembered that it was your aanneming
[confirmation], but it did not appear advisable that we should wait a
week longer. And we did not like to depart from the order of the
Presbyterial list [of congregations]. In the interests of the whole
Church your aanneming could perhaps be postponed for once. All the
members of the Synodical Committee were specially anxious that you
should be the first to go. You are aware that there are many waverers,
like the Vissers, for whom it is of great consequence that they should
be kept right by the presence and advice of one whom they have long
known and respected. May God give you grace and wisdom for the work.
In pursuance of the instructions of the Synodical Committee Mr. Murray,
senior, proceeded to Hanover, with what result we saw in the previous
chapter. The Consistory of Hanover, on the advice and at the instigation
of Mr. Burgers, refused him leave to preach or baptize, and put upon him
the ignominy of returning home with his mission unfulfilled. This action
provoked the following letter from the son (dated nth August, 1864)—
To his Father.
Many thanks for your kind expressions of sympathy in the matter of the
Cape Town call. You will have seen by the papers that I have accepted
it. It is some comfort to me to think that I go in answer to many
prayers, and that it may please God to use me as an instrument for the
hearing of still more prayers, that are laid up before Him, for a
blessing on that congregation. If God wills to bless, no instrument is
too weak, and blessed it is to be the instrument which He condescends to
use.
I received this evening Burgers’ announcement of his intention to
proceed with his work, as well as a communication, signed by five
churchwardens, saying that they had requested him to do so, and had
written to you not to come. I sincerely pray that God may have given you
wisdom and grace to act aright.
What do you think? Is it not our duty now to go to the Civil Court, in
order to get possession of the buildings? The unfortunate churchwardens
are deceived by all sorts of talk, and I think it would be our duty to
give them proof positive that they are bound to obey us as to the
buildings. I fear a great deal of mischief may be done by our allowing
Burgers to take as long a time as he is doing to drag on his case.
I have not for a long time felt so excited at such conduct in an
up-country herkeraad. It shows us how little independent religious
principle there is amongst the mass of our people, and how Liberalism is
gradually growing in power.
Mr. Murray’s Cape Town ministry commenced on the 10th November, 1864.
His two colleagues, Dr. Abraham Faure and Dr. Heyns, were men who had
grown grey in the service of the D. R. Church, the former having
completed forty-two and the latter twenty-eight years of active work.
With Dr. Faure, a man of the widest and most evangelical sympathies, Mr.
Murray found himself in complete accord; but Dr. Faure had already
attained the ripe age of sixty-eight, and was no longer equal to the
tasks of former years. Dr. Heyns, on the other hand, belonged to the
dignified school of ministers, who fulfilled their official duties with
conscientious faithfulness, but had little energy or inclination for the
aggressive work of a city pastorate. He was, moreover, professor of the
Dutch language and literature at the South African College, as well as
tutor in Hebrew—a position which still further circumscribed his utility
as a pastor. Under circumstances such as these it is not to be wondered
at that Mr. Murray found himself plunged into a round of multifarious
duties which made heavy and ceaseless demands upon his strength. Of the
nature of these varied activities more will be said presently.
Upon eighteen months of strenuous and uninterrupted toil followed a
period of welcome relief, when, in obedience to the decision of the
Synodical Committee, Mr. Murray proceeded to England in charge of the
Church’s appeal to the Privy Council. He was accompanied by Mrs. Murray
and the five children with whom their marriage had up to that date been
blessed. They sailed from Table Bay in May, 1866, and one of the
earliest letters which they must have received from the home circle
conveyed the news of the death of the Rev. Andrew Murray, senior, who
passed to his rest on the 24th of June following. Not many months
previously he had obtained leave to retire, on the ground of age and
growing weakness, after having faithfully served the Church for
forty-three years. This sad event caused a grievous gap in the family
circle, and Andrew Murray, junior, gives utterance to his feelings in
the following letter, dated Tiverton, 20th August, 1866—
To his Mother.
The news of our dear father’s departure has just reached us. And you
will not think it strange if I say that I could not weep. I felt that
there was too much cause for thanksgiving. How indeed can we thank God
aright for such a father, who has left us such a precious legacy in a
holy life, so full of love to us and of labour in his Master’s work. May
his example be doubly influential, now that we have him glorified with
his Saviour. For he is still ours. I cannot express what I felt
yesterday in church—we received the tidings on Saturday evening—at the
thought of what his meeting with his Master must have been, and what his
joy in the perfect rest of His presence. It must be a joy passing
knowledge, to find and see One of whom the soul has been thinking for
fifty years, for whom it has longed and thirsted, grieved and prayed,
spoken and laboured—all at once to find Him, and to find everything it
has said or felt or tasted in its most blessed moments but as a shadow
compared with the inexpressible reality. What a joy, what a worship,
what a love that must be when, with the veil of the flesh torn away, the
ransomed spirit recovers itself from its death-struggle at the feet of
Jesus.
Jesus, the very thought of Thee With sweetness fills the breast;
But sweeter far Thy face to see.
And in Thy presence rest:
I feel as if the thought of his being with the Lord, and having entered
into his reward, should work with power to make us look with clearness
and assurance to the time when we too shall receive our eternal
inheritance. The Saviour who hath done it for him will do it for us. He
is ours as well as his. It is this He longs to accomplish in us—to
prepare us for. Surely we should give ourselves up afresh to Him, to
live in the light and the hope of that blessed prospect. May God give
all our dear father’s loved ones grace to do so.
And I feel confident that my dearest mother has tasted in abundant
measure the comfort and support which the Saviour gives. Not but what
there must be some dark and lonely hours ; but they will make the
Saviour’s presence more precious, and help the more to lift the heart
heavenward in the prospect of the eternal reunion. We cannot but be
specially grateful for the kind Providence which has arranged for
Charles taking Papa’s place,1 and keeping unchanged and sacred so many
memories which otherwise would have been lost. May the God of our home
still dwell there and abundantly bless. And I need hardly add that you
must please accept of all the tokens of love and service which Charles
gives as coming from us all. I could envy him the privilege of being the
deputy of the rest to cherish and cheer her whom our dear father has
left behind to us.
From Charles’ letter you will hear what our movements have been and what
our prospects are. I feel almost doubly ashamed at having been in the
midst of enjoyment, while others were not only working hard but
sorrowing too ; but I can only hope, as I do expect, that it will be
sealed of God as the means of greater bodily and spiritual strength.
The absence of the Murrays in Europe lasted for ten months, from May,
1866, to March, 1867. The reasons for so long a detention must be sought
for in “the law’s delays”—the dilatoriness of the Judicial Committee
first in hearing and then in giving judgment upon the case of Murray
versus Burgers. The hearing took place on the 10th and 12th of November,
the counsel for the appellant being Advocate Neil Campbell of the
Scottish Bar and Sir Roundell Palmer, the Attorney-General, and judgment
(adverse to the appellant) was only delivered on the 6th February, 1867.
A member of the public who attended the hearing of the case wrote as
follows : “Mr. Murray was, of course, present. His appearance I found to
be exceedingly prepossessing; and after having read his address to the
Cape Supreme Court, I think he would have pleaded his cause better than
Mr. Campbell did. When the latter was half-way through his reply, Mr.
Murray left the court.” The reason for Mr. Murray’s sudden departure in
the midst of an important and engrossing trial is found by an
examination of the domestic records. On the 10th of November Mrs. Murray
presented her husband with a little son—the second son and sixth
child—who was baptized with the name of Andrew Haldane.
Of Mr. Murray’s movements during his long sojourn we have no certain
record. He preached apparently, with his usual fervour and with much
acceptance, in several London churches ; and the impression made was
such that it led some months subsequently to a call to the pastorate of
the Maryle-bone Presbyterian Church,—an invitation which Mr. Murray felt
compelled to decline. In October he attended a Conference held at Bath,
and the powerful addresses which he delivered on that occasion were
published in the November issue of Evangelical Christendom. He had also
been deputed, together with the Rev. H. van Broekhuizen, to represent
the D. R. Church at the annual gathering of the Evangelical Alliance at
Amsterdam, but owing to the prevalence of cholera on the Continent the
holding of this meeting was abandoned.
Immediately after the delivery of the judgment of the Judicial Committee
Mr. Murray sailed from England, arriving in Cape Town on the 14th March,
1867. On the following Sunday he addressed his flock on the words of
Exodus xviii.: "They asked each other of their welfare, and they came
into the tent.” He returned to an atmosphere of heated, and sometimes
acrimonious, controversy. In 1867 the Liberal Movement at the Cape was
at the height of its power and influence. The Burgers case had drawn
widespread attention and had found sympathizers even from beyond the
boundaries of South Africa. Among those who contributed towards the
legal expenses in which Mr. Burgers was involved we find the names of
Bishop Colenso (himself just emerging triumphant from prolonged legal
proceedings), Professor Benjamin Jowett of Oxford, and Professor Lewis
Campbell of St. Andrews.
During Mr. Murray’s absence the Rev. D. P. Faure1 had arrived in South
Africa ; and in the course of the month of August he inaugurated those
meetings in the Mutual Hall which led to the establishment of the Free
Protestant Church, as already described. In all these years the echoes
of controversy were never silent. The Dutch Press of the day consisted
of the three papers De Zuid-Afrikaan, Het Volksblad and De Volksvriend,
and these newspapers were practically organs of the various forms of
religious opinion. Not an issue appeared but contained an article or a
letter on the subject which engrossed public attention to the almost
total exclusion of all others.
The lectures of Mr. David Faure in the Mutual Hall dealt inter alia with
the following subjects : Human Reason, the Old Testament, the New
Testament, Miracles, Jesus Christ, the Atonement, Eternal Punishment;
and expounded these great themes in strict accordance with approved
rationalistic principles. When the series was concluded they were
published in a volume bearing the title Modern Theology, and issued
early in 1868. This was a direct challenge to the D. R. Church to
examine the foundations and re-state the grounds of its faith, and this
task was undertaken by Mr. Murray in a series of discourses preached in
the Adderley Street church. The opening words of his first sermon,
which, following Mr. Faure’s order, was on the “Human Reason,” were
these—
The occasion for the delivery of the discourses of which this is the
first is plain to you all. Every one knows what has been recently taking
place. We imagined ourselves to be in the possession of a religion
raised, beyond all doubt, of divine origin, whose truth and authority
were proved and assured by divine signs. We felt ourselves at ease in
the possession of complete truth. A little strife there might yet be
concerning the meaning and correct expression of individual doctrines;
we might still have to confess that we did not yet exhibit and
experience their full force; but this was due to our own
unfaithfulness;—the truth as such had been given us from heaven. And lo
! we suddenly hear a voice stating that we have deceived ourselves. And
this voice is not, as in former times, that of enemies outside the
Church and Christianity, who openly confess that it is their purpose to
overturn both. Nor is it the voice of individuals within the Church, who
are merely attacking jingle truths. It is the voice of those who, while
assuring us that they are Christians, reject altogether the confession
of the Christian Church, and preach to us a perfectly new Christianity.
They tell us that what we have considered as the chief question is a
matter of secondary importance ; that what we have confessed and
preached as the essence of Christianity is but of temporary worth; that
the doctrines upon which we insist are dross, and that they will reveal
to us the fine gold, which the Church has possessed without recognizing.
In accents of superiority and with invincible courage Modern Theology
summons us to hearken and follow. Men’s minds are in a state of
disturbance : no one can stand aloof from this struggle. And therefore
we, too, desire to enquire, in this place of our religious gatherings,
into what so closely affects our religion, whose destruction is so
boldly announced. As confessors of the ancient Christianity, we wish to
ask what this new doctrine has to say, in order to persuade us to
forsake or to modify the faith of the fathers.
These discourses of Mr. Murray, delivered in Dutch on successive Monday
evenings, traversed in detail the positions adopted by Mr. Faure in his
Modern Theology. The following were the subjects of the thirteen
lectures : the Human Reason, Revelation, the Old Testament, the New
Testament, Miracles, the Resurrection, Jesus the Son of Man, Jesus
Christ the Son of God, Man, the Atonement, Eternal Punishment, Prophecy,
Truth and Error. Of the great ability displayed in these discourses
there cannot be two opinions. Mr. Faure himself, whose writings were
chiefly assailed, confesses that “ both as regards matter and manner Mr.
Murray’s lectures were far superior to those previously referred to, and
they represent the only serious attempt made to meet argument with
argument.” The general attitude assumed was that of the apologetic of
half a century ago, and in the foreword to the published lectures Mr.
Murray expresses his indebtedness to Luthardt’s Fundamental and Saving
Truths of Christianity. For the benefit of those who understood no
Dutch, Mr. Murray also lectured in English in the Commercial Exchange,
the Advertiser and Mail characterizing his utterance on that occasion as
“keen in thought, scientific in treatment, and as profoundly
philosophical in its essence as it was eloquent in expression.”
During Mr. Murray’s absence in England Dr. Abraham Faure resigned his
charge and became emeritus. At the meeting of the combined consistory,
held on the 18th February, 1867, in order to call a third minister, a
petition was handed in, signed by 527 members out of a total of 3,000,
praying the consistory to elect the Rev. J. J. Kotze, P. son, on the
ground that “ the choice of the minister mentioned will greatly
contribute towards removing the estrangement which has for some time
existed between the consistory and a large portion of the congregation.”
Needless to say, the petition could not be allowed : in accordance with
Church law the election of office-bearers must be by ballot. But the
number of signatures attached to the petition shows the strength to
which the Liberal Movement had attained in the seventh decade of the
century. After one or two fruitless calls, the congregation succeeded in
securing as third minister Mr. Murray’s cousin, the Rev. G. W. Stegmann,
Jr., a man of ability, great eloquence and wide culture.
The newly-established Free Thought Church drew to itself many members of
Christian Churches who were dissatisfied with the old creeds, and
wished, like the ancient Athenians, to tell or hear some new thing.
Among those who notified the consistory of their intention to secede
from the D. R. Church were the mother, sister, and two aunts of Mr.
Faure. On the Sunday following this notification their names, according
to law and custom, were announced from the pulpit; and Mr. Murray on
this occasion delivered a sermon for which he was very sharply
criticized by the Liberals. His discourse was based upon i John ii.
18-23. The words “ They went out from us, but they were not of us ” were
applied by the preacher to the case of those who had given notice of
their secession from the Church. In his special reference to what had
occurred, he said, " We find some suddenly denying Christ who for forty
or fifty years confessed and worshipped Him as the Son of God. We find
some who formerly, when members of the consistory, led and edified the
congregation, now labouring to secure a victory for unbelief. In spite
of all this cry about deliverance from priestcraft, we find the
teachings of a preacher accepted, solely because of attachment to his
person, and by none as readily as by the so-called free-thinkers. In
spite of the boast of independence of enquiry, there are proofs in all
parts of the country that members of the same family, merely because a
man is a son or a relative, readily accept all his utterances.”
Before delivering his
sermon Mr. Murray had read, as the Old Testament lesson for the day, the
passage from Deuteronomy xiii., where Israel is warned against false
prophets. In his running comments he had remarked upon the false
prophet, whose aim it was to seduce men from God (verses 1-5), upon the
influence exercised by relatives and friends, through whose affection
men might be led astray (verses 6-11), and upon the power of numbers to
undermine men's allegiance to the one God (verses 12-18). In the course
of the sermon he referred to the lesson in the following terms: “ Let me
only remind you of the chapter read at the commencement, and of the
various forms of temptation against which we are warned in those
verses.”
These references to the seceders, and to the reasons of their withdrawal
from the communion of the D. R. Church, were certainly pointed enough,
nor is there any reason to deny that Mr. Murray felt deeply aggrieved at
their superficial grasp of the truths of Christianity, and at the ease
and light-heartedness with which they severed their connexion with the
Church of their fathers. But the remarks which Mr. Faure permits himself
on this occurrence are highly exaggerated and in some respects
demonstrably false. “This incident,” he says, “enables the present
generation to form some conception of— I will not say the excitement,
but—the frenzy which had seized upon the defenders of the Faith. It is
simply inconceivable that a man of the stamp of the Rev. Andrew Murray,
who as Moderator of the Synod represented the D. R. Church,1 just as the
Prime Minister represents the Government, could on such an occasion have
read out to his congregation as a divine commandment that they should
put me, the false prophet, to death, and that it was also their
religious duty to stone the four unfaithful sisters with stones till
they were dead!” If there was "excitement amounting to frenzy,” it
seems to have raged in the breast not of Mr. Murray, but of his
opponents.
In 1871 Mr. Murray was involved in another long controversy with the
Liberals, his antagonist on this occasion being none other than Rev. J.
J. Kotze, who had accused him before the Synod of 1870 of departing from
the doctrines of predestination as expounded in the Canons of the Synod
of Dort. Mr. Kotze’s charges against Mr. Murray were specifically four.
“You teach,” said Mr. Kotze, “(i) that it is a man’s own fault if he be
lost, (2) that man is saved or lost by virtue of his own free will, (3)
that man can voluntarily reject God’s love and render nugatory God’s
efforts to lead him to conversion, and (4) that God desires the
salvation of all, and has sent Jesus Christ into the world to secure
salvation for all.” These doctrines he maintained to be in conflict with
the explicit statements of the Canons. In successive issues of De
Volksvriend Mr. Murray set himself to refute these charges. He rebutted
the first by proving through quotations from the Canons themselves that
they distinctly state that impenitent man’s final condemnation is due to
his own fault. With reference to the second accusation he denied
emphatically that he had anywhere taught that man is saved by his own
free will and not by God’s grace, while pointing out at the same time
that the Canons clearly safeguard the doctrine of the freedom of the
will. As regards the third charge, Mr. Murray proved that the words
employed by him were in full accord with the teachings of the Canons.
The last charge was in some respects the most difficult to meet, but Mr.
Murray demonstrated that the Canons are careful not to commit themselves
to the doctrine of a limited atonement. “The fathers of Dort,” he said,
“have refrained from anywhere stating that Christ died only for the
elect, and much less have they ventured anywhere to assert that He did
not die for all.” The aim and purpose of Mr. Kotze’s attack were obvious
enough. He was far from being a defender of the ancient formularies. On
the contrary, he had been condemned and sentenced by the Church for
refusing adherence to one of its creeds. The object of his assault was
to prove that not only he, the heretic Kotze, but Andrew Murray himself,
sometime Moderator of Synod, and champion of orthodoxy, was guilty of
divergence from the accepted doctrines of the Church. This he failed to
prove—that much is certain. But even had he succeeded in showing that
Mr. Murray’s utterances were in verbal (or even real) conflict with the
statements of the Canons, still the difference in the attitude of the
two men was infinite. Kotze had openly declared that he dissented from
the doctrines of the Heidelberg Catechism, had repeatedly refused to
retract, and had taken no trouble to conceal his contempt for all credos
and formularies. Murray, on the other hand, keenly resented the
imputation of disloyalty to the teachings of the creeds, and showed by
word and act in what high esteem he held the formularies of the D. R.
Church.
It is pleasant to escape from the din of controversy, and'to glance at
the subject of these memoirs in his home life and congregational
activities. His Cape Town home was situated in Kloof Street on the
slopes of the Lion’s Head, and bore the name of Craig Cottage. It lay at
that time upon the very outskirts of the city. The house fronted Table
Bay, and the slope before the door had been levelled to form two
terraces, occupied by a garden which contained a variety of fruit trees,
as well as ornamental trees like the following : banyan, Jerusalem
thorn, elephant’s foot, hibiscus, laurestinus, pomegranate, pepper and
cypress. In our day electric trams rush past the door, and the noise and
tumult of the city are never silent; but fifty years ago this abode,
remote and yet accessible, must have been an ideal retreat for the
hard-worked city minister. At the back of the house was a large green
field, which sloped up towards Kloof Road, and was backed by dense fir
plantations covering the lower declines of the Lion. To this open space
the whole family would adjourn on Sunday afternoons, when the children
would be examined by their father on the lessons of the day, or
entertained with stories of missionary heroism. One of the sisters
recalls the fact that they were the first to introduce the game of
croquet into the Colony, and that Mrs. Murray’s sewing-machine was one
of the earliest to be seen in Cape Town.
Before the close of Mr. Murray’s town ministry the number of children
had increased to eight, five daughters and three sons. Besides their own
children the Murrays frequently had other young people sojourning under
their roof-tree. To Hermanus Bosman reference has already been made;
Willem Joubert, afterwards minister at Uniondale and North Paarl, was
for a brief space an inmate of their home; and Mr. Murray’s younger
sister Ellie remained with them for eighteen months to prosecute her
studies under Prof. Noble and Mrs. Wise. Another inmate was Frederick
Kolbe, son of the Rev. F. W. Kolbe, a highly-respected missionary of the
Rhenish Society. Young Kolbe was a lad of many parts, and great
expectations were cherished concerning him, but he subsequently became a
convert to Romanism, and has for many years past been associated with
St. Mary’s (Roman Catholic) Cathedral in Cape Town as the Rev. Dr.
Kolbe. His esteem for Mr. Murray, however, continued undiminished, and
after the lapse of nearly fifty years he penned the following letter—
Rev. F. C. Kolbe, D.D. to Dr. Andrew Murray.
St. Mary’s, Cape Town, 8th June, 1915.
My dear Dr. Murray,—‘When I was leaving you on Saturday you spoke of its
being "kind’’ in me to come. My voice being unfamiliar to you, I found
it a little hard to make you hear, or I should have moved an amendment
on the word at once. From the time, now more than forty years ago, when
you opened to me your own beautiful home-life, with your personal
kindliness and Mrs. Murray’s sweet and gracious motherliness, you
planted in me a reverence, affection and gratitude which have never
withered. Life has put barriers between us, but to me it is always a
privilege and an honour to come and see you, and a keen pleasure. The
word “ kind ” therefore, except in so far as kindness is part of pietas,
was hardly the word to use. May God’s blessings enrich all your
remaining days!
Ever yours gratefully,
F. C. Kolbe.
The congregation of Cape Town, to which Mr. Murray and his two
colleagues ministered, was an immense one, consisting (according to
figures supplied by the Church Almanac of 1868) of some 5,000 adherents
and more than 3,000 communicant members. There were two church
buildings,—the Groote Kerk (Great Church), which was situated in the
chief thoroughfare of the city, Adderley Street, and the Nieuwe Kerk
(New Church), which faced Bree Street and lay nearer the residential
quarter. The former building could seat three thousand, and the latter
about one-third of that number. In these two churches the three
ministers preached in rotation.
Mr. Murray realized very speedily that much more could be done and
should be done for the less privileged classes who lived in the remoter
localities of the city. Schools there already were—in the western
quarter, near the New Church, and in the eastern suburb, at Papendorp
(now Woodstock), as well as at Rogge Bay on the Dock Road; while in 1867
another church-cum-school building was erected in Hanover Street. At
these various institutions from eight hundred to a thousand children of
the poorer classes were under Christian instruction. Weekly services,
conducted by one of the ministers or by a city missionary, were
regularly held at these preaching stations, and thus the Gospel was
brought to the doors of the common people.
But Mr. Murray did more than merely enlarge the scope of his own
activities. He possessed in large measure the gift of inspiring others
and setting them to work. Shortly after his arrival in Cape Town, a
brief article appeared in the KerkboAe, which bears clear evidence of
having come from his hand. Quoting from the Sunday Magazine, then under
the editorship of the famous Dr. Guthrie, he endeavours to explain the
principles upon which slum work was carried on in Edinburgh. Dr. Guthrie
shows how, in order to fill a licensed bar, nothing more is necessary
than to throw open the doors. The longing for drink impels people to
enter. But it is different in the case of a church. It is not enough
that the doors be flung wide open. The poor and the lost must be looked
up and brought in. And this is something which, as Dr. Chalmers used to
maintain, neither the minister nor the city missionary can do
effectively. It is necessary that their labours be reinforced by the
activity of a band of believing men and women, each with a small
district containing so many (or rather so few) families as he or she is
able to visit once a week without neglecting his ordinary duties. Merely
to build schools and churches for the poor, is to offer them stones for
bread. There must be living, loving Christian workers, who like Elisha
of old, will take the dead into their arms, and prayerfully clasp them
close until they come to life again. Is there not a wide field for such
labour in Cape Town, and are there not men and women who will declare
themselves ready to undertake it? God-grant it! ”
Mr. Murray’s interest as city pastor was quickly aroused in the
spiritual and intellectual welfare of young men. He found on his arrival
in Cape Town a Mutual Improvement Society already existing, which met in
the old Town House on Greenmarket Square, and debated public questions
in the English language. Of this Society he was elected president; and
the biographer of the Hon. J. H. Hofmeyr ("Onze Jan”) tells that a
famous discussion was waged between the president and Mr. Hofmeyr on the
question whether gunpowder or the Press were the more potent in its
influence for evil, on which occasion the latter gentleman, who indicted
the Press, carried the majority with him.
Mr. Murray felt, however, the need of an agency to reach young men,
established upon a broader basis and inspired by more definitely
spiritual aims ; and in response to this need there was commenced, in
August, 1865, the Young Men’s Christian Association, of which Mr. Murray
became the first president. For some time the members of the Mutual
Improvement Society stood aloof, but when after two years their leader,
Mr. Hofmeyr, joined the Young Men's, they relinquished their
independence, and formed the nucleus of the Mutual Improvement Section
in the new Association. The meetings were held in the hall of the Mutual
Life Association Society in Darling Street and many years elapsed before
the Association was able to put up its present handsome and commodious
premises in Long Street. Mr. Murray’s connexion with the Association was
long and honourable. The confidence which the original members reposed
in his abilities and their appreciation of his keen interest were shown
by their twice re-electing him as president during his absence in
England. On his return the Association accorded him a public welcome at
a tea-meeting held on the 28th March, 1867.
The interesting address which Mr. Murray delivered on that occasion
dealt largely with two matters which belonged to the burning questions
of the day. The first was the growth of Ritualism in the Church of
England, in discussing which Mr. Murray declared that, though he greatly
deplored the increase of sacerdotal and ritualistic tendencies, he did
not share the gloomy forebodings of those pessimists who maintained that
England would soon be a Roman Catholic country. The other question upon
which he touched was the position of Liberalism in Holland, in which
connexion he recorded his conviction that the general condition was
better than it was when he visited the country nine years previously,
and that the tide of Liberalism which at one time threatened to sweep
all before it, had passed its high-water mark and was now beginning to
ebb.
In 1870 the Synods of both the Anglican and the Dutch Reformed Churches
were in session, the former in June and the latter in October. This
double event, in conjunction with the troubles in which both Churches
had been recently involved, the Anglican Church in the Colenso case, and
the D. R. Church in the Kotze-Burgers case, gave rise to an interchange
of views on the Unity of Christendom. The Synod of the Church of the
Province of South Africa, “deeply deploring the manifold evils . . .
resulting from the divisions among Christians,” expressed itself as
desirous of discussing with the authorities of other Communions “the
principles upon which re-union in one visible body in Christ might be
effected.” To these overtures the Synod of the D. R. Church replied by
adopting a resolution, of which the more important paragraphs read as
follows: “That the Synod especially rejoices in any sign of such nearer
approximation in the case of the English Church, when it remembers the
ecclesiastical inter-communion which existed, in the period immediately
following the Reformation, between the English Church and the Protestant
Churches of the Continent of Europe—an inter-communion of which the
National Synod of Dort, in 1618 and 1619, saw a clear proof in the
deputies of the English Church who took part in the proceedings of the
Synod.” Furthermore, in appointing a Committee to enter into
communication with the Bishops of the English Church, the Synod enjoined
“ that this Committee, in such communications, shall have to consider
the only basis of approximation and re-union—Holy Scripture,—and shall
direct their attention, in the first place, to a unity of spirit as a
preliminary to outward union, and to existing opportunities for common
co-operation.”
The Committee thus appointed by the D. R. Synod consisted of the
Moderator, the Actuarius and the Scriba of that body,— the Revs. P. E.
Faure, A. Murray and Wm. Robertson,—who transmitted to Bishop Gray of
the Anglican Church the resolution at which the Synod had arrived. In a
letter, dated 31st May, 1871, Bishop Gray then endeavoured, as he put
it, “to open out the great question” with some considerations which
might serve as a basis for future discussion. After pointing out the
general agreement of the two Churches on such points as the authority of
Scripture, the use of a liturgy, the vindication of discipline, and the
acceptance of creeds, he passed on to discuss "what sacrifices could or
ought to be made on one side or the other to secure the great blessing
of unity.” This gives him occasion to lay down as axiomatic that "there
ought to be no compromise or surrender of what appears to either party
fundamental truth clearly revealed of God.” “We are persuaded,” he
continues, “that ours is the true and divine Order in Christ’s Church,
with which we may neither part nor tamper,” and that “Episcopacy, in our
meaning of the word, is ordained of God.” Recognizing this as the rock
upon which all proposals for union were likely to be shipwrecked, the
Bishop then endeavours to minimize the objections against this form of
Church government, by the following statements— it became at a very
early period the general rule of the Church throughout the world;
(3) It is wellnigh certain that the re-union of Christendom, which we
believe that God will in His own good time bring to pass, cannot take
place on any other platform;
(4) The leading Continental Reformers—Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin and
others—would have willingly retained it. Your own divines, at Port,
expressed their sorrow that they had from circumstances lost it.
On the 15th of August following the Committee of Three replied at length
to the Bishop’s letter. The arguments for Episcopacy which had been
advanced were one by one examined and refuted. Firstly, the Committee
denied the proposition that “Episcopacy as distinguished from the parity
of Ministers is lawful.” The “bishop” of the New Testament, they affirm,
is no more than primus inter pares, and therefore Episcopacy as
distinguished from the parity of Ministers has no warrant in Scripture.
Secondly, they proceed by quotations from the writings of the Reformers
to show that the latter never acknowledged the divine authority of the
Bishop, but that for the sake of amity and concord they adopted the
position laid down in the Schmalkald Articles, viz.: “If the Bishops
would fulfil their office rightly, we might allow them, in the name of
charity and peace, not of necessity, to ordain our Ministers.” They
further deny that the Dort divines ever expressed regret at having lost
Episcopacy, and finally they quote the principles laid down by Calvin in
his Institutes as representing the views entertained universally by the
Reformed Churches : “ In giving the names of Bishops, Presbyters and
Pastors indiscriminately to those who govern Churches, I have done it on
the authority of Scripture, which uses the words as synonymous.
. . . In each city the Presbyters selected one of their number to whom
they gave the title Bishop, lest, as usually happens from equality,
discussion should arise. The Bishop, however, was not so superior in
honour and dignity as to have dominion over his colleagues ; but as it
belongs to a president in an assembly to bring matters before them,
collect their opinions, take precedence of others in consulting and
advising, and execute what is decreed by common consent, so a Bishop
held the same office in a meeting of Presbyters.”
As to the pretensions of the Anglican Church, as voiced by Bishop Gray,
that it could surrender no portion of what it considered “ fundamental
truth,” Messrs. Faure, Murray and Robertson express themselves in no
uncertain fashion—
We confess that we can hardly see how the proposals submitted can be
called proposals for union. We seek in vain, as we look forward to what
would be found some fifty years hence as the result of what you propose,
for any sign of the "United Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches of
South Africa.” We see an Episcopalian Church enlarged by the
incorporation or absorption of a Presbyterian body. But we miss entirely
in practice what has been so well expressed in theory. While on behalf
of one of the contracting parties the following claims are put in, “Her
divinely constituted Church Order shall not be tampered with"; "her
Prayer-book cannot be parted with”; "our system of Synods is better
suited to the wants of the Colony"; "I much doubt whether alteration in
the language of such of our Articles as treat of Faith would be
sanctioned”;—for the Presbyterian Church nothing less is suggested than
that she should give up everything that now characterizes her, and
simply merge her existence in another body. We think that further
consideration will show that such proposals ensure their own rejection.
Bishop Gray replied to these arguments and criticisms in a long letter,
which was published as a pamphlet of thirty-nine octavo pages under the
title Union of Churches. In this reply he first labours to prove that
Episcopacy, as an ecclesiastical system, cannot be dispensed with, for
(a) there is “ no point upon which all schools of opinion in the
Anglican Church are more nearly agreed,” and (b) the Continental
Reformers repudiated not Episcopacy but the Papacy ; and Calvin, in
particular, speaks with approbation of the system of the ancient Church,
so that (adds the Bishop) “ I cannot but be thankful to find that the
Church of the Province has so much support from so unlooked-for a
quarter.” But, as if he was sensible of a lack of cogency in the
arguments employed, the Bishop then has recourse to an ad hominem. “What
has been the actual working,” he asks, “of the systems established and
the principles laid down by the Continental Reformers as regards the
countries to which their influence extended?” His answer is that “the
general condition of Protestantism on the Continent is not
satisfactory"; and in proof of this indictment he refers to Switzerland,
where “the venerable Malan is living in schism from his brethren "; To
France—“a cage of unclean birds, the hold of every foul spirit " ; to
Holland and its “deplorable religious condition, 1,400 out of 1,500
preachers being Unitarians or Socinians”; and to Germany, whence
“whatever of unbelief that has extended to England has been derived."
“How are we to account for the decay of faith over these particular
bodies? Is it not worth considering whether their state of separation
from the ancient constitution and organization of the Church may not
have somewhat to do with it? ” cries the Bishop. But to countries like
Presbyterian Scotland, Nonconformist England and democratic America, to
which presumably the influence of the "Continental Reformers" also
extended, there is not a syllable of reference in this connexion.
As to the practical suggestion of the Dutch Reformed Committee that the
clergy of both Churches should exchange pulpits and engage in acts of
united prayer, it is swept haughtily aside with the observation: “To
this I am constrained to reply that whatever it is that keeps us apart
and forbids our becoming one Communion unfits us, in my estimation, to
be at once safe and outspoken teachers of each other's people." Upon the
whole incident of the union proposals the son and biographer of Bishop
Gray offers this comment: “It was hardly possible to look for any real
approach to union with a body who reject Episcopacy ; and as to what is
called ‘ exchanging pulpits ’—priests of the Church lowering their
office by preaching in dissenting places of worship, and inviting
dissenters to preach to their people,—the Bishop did not consider that
any advance towards real unity could ever be made by such unworthy
compromises.”
With the temper and attitude displayed by Bishop Gray throughout the
course of these negotiations no argument was possible, and the
Committee, rather than continue a controversy which might engender heat
but could cast no light, refrained from answering the last
communication. Thus ended the first and last attempt to establish a
rapprochement between the Dutch Reformed and the Anglican Churches in
South Africa. In reporting the abortive result of the discussions to the
Synod, the Committee expressed its opinion "that the Assembly had reason
to congratulate itself upon the negotiations, since the D. R. Church had
thereby given proof of its readiness to greet with joy every offer of
the hand of friendship.”
In the Synod of 1870 Mr. Murray’s influence was unimpaired, in spite of
the fact that his arguments failed to convince the majority that it was
the Synod’s duty to disobey the judgment of the Civil Courts, and even
though at a later stage his proposal that Parliament be petitioned to
repeal the obnoxious Ordinance of 1843 was voted down. To the commanding
position which he occupied witness is borne by his bitterest opponents.
The writer of a series of satirical sketches entitled Zakspiegeltjes
(Pocket Mirrors), which appeared during the Synodical meetings in that
organ of undiluted Liberal opinion, Het Volksblad, draws the following
picture—
First let me sketch the men of the ultra-orthodox party, who pose as
watchmen on the walls of Zion. Under this category I begin with the Rev.
A. Murray—a worthy leader. Eloquent, quick and talented, he has an acute
mind and a clear judgment. He instantly divines the weak points of his
opponents’ arguments, and knows how to assail them. He carries the
meeting with him ; he is too clever for the most. He understands the art
of making his ideas so attractive to the elders and the small minds
among the ministers (who all look up with reverence to the Actuarius)
that they very seldom venture to contradict Demosthenes, or, as another
has called him, Apollos. It would be sacrilege to raise a voice against
the Right Reverend the Actuarius, Andrew Murray. There is no member of
the assembly who possesses more influence than Andrew Murray, and
certainly there is no one among the conservatives who better deserves
his influence. He is consistent, and consistency always demands respect.
In after years it was known that the writer of these Zakspiegeltjes was
none other than the Rev. D. P. Faure.
During his Cape Town pastorate Mr. Murray began to devote himself more
or less continuously to literary work. He commenced a series of
devotional studies of the Fifty-first Psalm, which first saw the light
as articles in the Kerkbode under the title, Zijt mij genadig (Be
merciful unto me), and were subsequently published in book form as a
manual for seekers. In 1868 in the same journal he commenced a series of
papers on God’s Woord en de Dwaling (God’s Word and Error), which were,
however, not carried very far. In the following year, when Dr. Abraham
Faure was compelled through serious illness to intermit his labours of
more than five-and-twenty years as editor of the Kerkbode, Mr. Murray
undertook the onerous duty, which he continued to discharge for several
years.
The unsatisfactory nature of the work in Cape Town, divided as it was by
the collegiate system among three pastors, became increasingly apparent
as the years went by. In July, 1871, Mr. Murray received a call to the
congregation of Wellington, forty-five miles from Cape Town, and it
immediately became a serious question whether he ought not, in spite of
the claims of the metropolis, to accept this invitation to a new and
independent charge. To his brother, who apparently tried to dissuade him
from leaving Cape Town, he wrote as follows on 21st July, 1871—
To Professor Murray.
Thanks for your kind note. It shows how each one must at last decide for
himself. Just the things which you would think insufficient for a
decision are those which weigh with me. The first attraction is the
state of the Wellington congregation. The second, a sphere of labour
where I can have people, old and young, under my continuous personal
influence. Perhaps it is my idiosyncrasy, but the feeling of distraction
and pointlessness in preaching and in other labour grows upon me as I
flounder about without a church to preach in, a congregation to labour
among systematically, or the opportunity for regular aggressive work at
those who stay away from Sunday services simply because they have never
been taught better. As to your arguments, I cannot see that either Cape
Town or Wellington throws much into the scale of a possibly more
prolonged life. And though the possession of fixed property here looks,
and I thought might be, an important consideration, it somehow does not
appear to weigh. If it be His will that I go, He will provide in this
matter. Nor does Willie Stegmann’s argument, Huet’s "ik ben onmisbaar"
(I am indispensable)—the position of importance as representing the
Church—appear to reach me. The whole thing is so very vague, and of
course secondary. Your first work, your calling, is to be a pastor, and
where you can be happy in this work thither you feel yourself drawn.
I do think that I have honestly and in childlike simplicity said to the
Father that if He would have me stay here I am ready and willing. I have
waited on purpose to see if from the side of the congregation here there
might be what would indicate His will. But as yet I cannot say I see it.
Pray that He would not leave me to my own devices. I dare not think that
He will.
If you like, send this to Maria and to Professor Hofmeyr to read. I was
half thinking of coming out to show you my notes of an answer to the
Bishop.2 I wish you had business in Town to-morrow to bring you in.
In the course of the month of August Mr. Murray accepted the call, and
on Thursday, the 21st of September, he was installed as minister of
Wellington. The sermon on that occasion was delivered by Professor
Hofmeyr from the words of Acts xiv. i, “And it came to pass that they so
spake that a great multitude believed”; while Rev. G. van de Wall and
Professor Murray also addressed brief words of welcome and encouragement
to minister and congregation. Thus was Andrew Murray inducted to the
charge with which he was connected as minister for thirty-four years,
until his resignation in 1906, and Wellington now became the home in
which he spent the remainder of his life. |