To revive in the Church a
fuller consciousness of its mysterious dignity, and a truer conception
of its great purpose ; to re-kindle the faith that Christ not only
guides His Church and watches over it, but is actually present in the
midst of it,—this seemed to him at that time the one task to which he
had been set.—From the Biography of R. W. Dale.
THE unique position which Andrew Murray occupied in the Dutch Reformed
Church is clearly apparent from the fact that he was six times chosen as
Moderator of Synod,—the Synod being the equivalent in South Africa of
the General Assemblies of the Scottish Churches. His first election to
this honourable and responsible position took place in 1862, when the
Church was engaged in a life and death struggle with Liberalism,
supported by the secular powers. This episode has been described in
Chapter X. At the two subsequent Synods, those of 1867 and 1873, the
choice of a Moderator fell upon the Rev. Dr. Philip Faure. This
certainly did not betoken any lack of confidence in Mr. Murray, nor did
it cast any reflection, even by implication, upon his great ability as
occupant of the moderatorial chair. It was due perhaps to the feeling
that he had identified himself somewhat markedly with one of the parties
in the Church, and that moderator of more neutral tint was desirable in
order to maintain the balance, and bring about, if possible, the
reconciliation of divergent interests. Dr. Philip Faure, dignified,
able, conciliatory, and yet a staunch supporter of the doctrinal
standards of the Church, was such a man. He is the only Church leader
who can even compare with Mr. Murray in the tenure of the moderatorship,
having occupied the chair at four different Synods.
From 1876 and onwards Mr. Murray was regularly chosen as Moderator by
each successive Synod, with the sole exception of that of 1880, when he
was suffering from relaxation of the throat, and was unable to fulfil
the onerous duties of the office. In 1897, when in his seventieth year,
he definitely declared that if elected he should decline to accept the
nomination, and the choice thereupon fell on his brother-in-law, the
Rev. J. H. Hofmeyr, who was also re-elected at the following Synod in
1903. These were the last two assemblies which Mr. Murray attended, for
before the following Synod met in 1906 he had become an emeritus
minister. He himself was far from expecting that such repeated honours
would fall to his share, for though he knew that he had a distinct
message for the Church, he was uncertain as to the measure of confidence
which his teachings and his attitude on ecclesiastical questions in
general inspired. On the 9th October, 1883, he writes to his wife: “To
my utter amazement I am Moderator again. How or why, I know not. May the
Lord give me grace to act so that any influence I have to exert may be
for His glory, and to testify for a religion that is higher than
organization and work.”
It was customary at that time to invite the Governor, the chief civil
functionaries, and the ministers of other Christian denominations to be
present at the formal opening of the Synod, and on such occasions Mr.
Murray’s bilingualism stood him in good stead. At the conclusion of his
inaugural sermon he would address the Governor in English, assuring him
of the Church’s loyalty to the throne, and of her desire to support the
Government in its endeavours to promote the well-being of land and
people. Turning next to the representatives of the other religious
bodies, he would dwell upon the fundamental agreement which underlay
their superficial differences, invite to closer union and co-operation,
and end upon a solemn note by summoning each and all to a renewed
consecration of themselves and their charges to the service of the
common Master.
In his conduct of the proceedings of Synod Mr. Murray displayed
qualities which would have commanded respect and admiration in any
chairman. He possessed firmness without obstinacy, tolerance without
compliancy, and impartiality without indecision. While resolute to
uphold the dignity of the chair, he was courteous and tactful in public
and readily accessible in private. Among his most outstanding
qualifications for the office he was called to fulfil were his
remarkable insight into the true bearing of the subject under discussion
and his rapid decision as to the best course to pursue. As the words
quoted above will suggest, he was no stickler for the letter of the law,
while at the same time he evinced a thorough knowledge of ecclesiastical
procedure, and perfect loyalty to the regulations of the Church and the
decisions of the Synod.
A fellow-minister who was closely associated with him in the work of the
Synod has given the following instance of Mr. Murray’s ready insight
into complicated questions. A matter affecting a difficult point of
Church law had been introduced, and the Synod, finding itself unable to
reach a decision, appointed a small committee, of which Mr. Murray was a
member, to suggest a feasible solution—their report to be considered at
the afternoon session. The time was brief, and the committee resolved to
meet an hour before the afternoon sederunt. At the appointed hour,
however, only one member of the committee had arrived. The minutes
passed. One or two more put in an appearance, and entered upon a
desultory discussion of the matter laid before them. It wanted but
twelve minutes to the hour when Mr. Murray hurried in.
I am sorry, brethren, that I could not be here sooner; but I hope you
have the report ready for me to sign.” No, was the reply, we have been
waiting for your arrival. However, as there is no time to discuss the
question now, we shalhhave to request the Synod to postpone the
consideration of our report.”
"Not at all,” said Mr. Murray, “there are still twelve minutes, which
are all that we require.” And turning to the youngest committee-member
he asked: “Can you write quickly? then take a pen and write to my
dictation.”
Within the twelve minutes he had dictated a luminous report, setting
forth the nature of the issues and suggesting the procedure that should
be followed. His fellow-members agreed that the report could not be
bettered. It was signed forthwith, presented to the Synod, and adopted
by that body as a solution in every way satisfactory.
It need hardly be said that Mr. Murray displayed great tact in guiding
the discussions, by no means always academical, which took place in the
Assembly. His knowledge of human nature was unsurpassed, as was to be
expected of one who had performed more journeys, backward and forward
across the face of the country, and had been thrown into closer contact
with men of all classes and all colours, than any other minister in the
Church. He knew how to intervene in a debate at the psychological
moment, and to suggest that a matter which was exciting strong feelings,
or which needed to have more light cast upon it, should be referred to a
committee for consideration and report. In the appointment of committees
he exercised great wisdom and the strictest impartiality. It was seldom
indeed that a ruling given by him as chairman, or an appointment made,
was challenged by any member of the Synod. His personality and lofty
Christian character inspired at all times the utmost regard and
confidence. So great were the love and esteem in which he was held that
on one occasion the Synod, creating a precedent which has never since
been followed, presented him with a golden watch and chain, as a mark of
its appreciation of his ability and devotion to duty in the moderatorial
chair.
Andrew Murray was not merely a capable Moderator of Synod. He was a
great Church statesman. He possessed all the qualifications for true and
effective leadership. He recognized both the strength and the weakness
of the Church which he served. He divined with infallible precision the
ailments from which it suffered, and laboured to remove or ameliorate
them. He knew also what the Church was capable of, and strove to call
forth and strengthen the powers which still slumbered unutilized. In
almost all new developments he not merely took the initiative but also
supplied the driving force. He was the acknowledged leader in any
committee on which he sat, being possessed of a mind which firmly
grasped the largest issues without neglecting the smallest minutiae. His
knowledge of details was truly marvellous, and the writer of these
lines, who was associated with him on more than one board, had frequent
cause to remark that Mr. Murray’s acquaintance with any given subject
under consideration was equal to that of all the other members combined.
We may take as an instance of his active interest in all that
appertained to the welfare of the Church his endeavours on behalf of
Sunday-schools and the Sunday-school movement. In October, 1884, he was
chairman of an influential conference, called by the Sunday-school Union
of South Africa, and attended by ministers and Sunday-school teachers of
various denominations. This conference, which was held at the Paarl,
lasted three days, and was characterized by great enthusiasm and
earnestness. No sooner was the gathering over, than Mr. Murray set
himself to spread the spirit of the conference by means of a circular
letter, which was forwarded to every Sunday-school and every
Sunday-school teacher in South Africa. In this letter, under the guise
of reporting the proceedings of the conference, he set forth in pointed
language the purpose and the methods of Sunday-school work. We venture
to give the following abbreviated version—
THE AIMS OF THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL.
1. From the very commencement [of the Conference] the distinction was
emphasized between what belongs to the outward'organization of the
Sunday-school and the inward living power with which the whole work
should be infused. Wherever there is life, we have a body that must
serve the spirit and a spirit that inspires and directs the body. The
best machinery is powerless unless the steam that must set it in motion
be present. But the greatest steam-power is rendered futile unless the
machinery is in forking order. The arrangement, the conduct and the
instruction of the Sunday-school must be in accordance with the best
principles, in order that the work of God’s grace be not hindered. But
on the other hand, we may not let outward prosperity betray us into
forgetfulness of the truth that all blessing flows solely from the
powerful influence of God’s Holy Spirit.
2. The work of the Sunday-school was defined as instruction in the Word
of God—not in books founded on the Word, but in the Word itself. No
greater blessing can be bestowed upon the child for his journey through
life than to teach him to know and love and use his Bible. For this end
it is indispensable that he shall not merely assimilate general truths
and facts, but that he shall memorize the very words of Scripture.
3. The aim of the Sunday-school is nothing less than the conversion of
the child. To impart religious instruction, to assist children to hallow
and love the Sabbath, to draw heart and mind away from earth and set
them on things above—all this is important, but it is not what we must
really aim at. The child must be brought to Jesus. "My whole class for
Jesus” must be the motto and the aim of each teacher.
4. Even this is not all. The child who has given his heart to Christ is
still weak in faith. At home he may possibly find little encouragement
in his Christian life, and during the week he may be exposed to
distraction and temptation. The Sunday-school is often the only place
where he can obtain guidance, instruction and encouragement for the new
life in Christ. Nor may the child be left in ignorance of his calling to
work for Christ. He must be constantly encouraged to engage in
missionary effort—taking that expression in its broadest interpretation.
5. In order that the Sunday-school shall attain this twofold purpose
—the conversion and the Christian training of the children—the first
requisite is a converted teacher. No previous conference has laid
greater stress on this demand—the teacher must himself know the Lord
before he can lead his class to that knowledge. An unconverted
Sunday-school teacher, so said one of the speakers, is an anomaly. Nor
must he be converted merely, he must be a wholly consecrated Christian.
Let us search for such teachers, let us pray for them, let us endeavour
to provide and to train them. The Lord will supply them for the sake of
His lambs.
6. Further requisites for an effective Sunday-school are: the right man
as superintendent, the man who lives for his school, and seeks to
inspire and unite all his fellow-workers ;—the regular visitation of the
children in their homes by the teachers;—the weekly gathering of
teachers for preparation and prayer;—the co-operation of parents with
teachers;—the interest and intercession of the congregation, which must
realize how great is the blessing which flows from the Sunday-school,
and how integral a part of the Church organization it forms.
7. Another fruitful suggestion was the extension of the Sunday-school to
other portions of our land. The Sunday-school teachers of each village
should constitute themselves into a committee for the multiplication of
Sunday-schools in the wards of the several congregations. There should
be no child in the country who does not know that one hour of each
Lord’s Day is devoted exclusively to himself. Christian, who may read
this, see around you if there are not perchance some who need your
assistance in a Sunday-school. Offer yourself to God for this work. He
is a Master who can bless the feeble effort, and who bestows a rich
reward upon the work of faith.
In 1883 Mr. Murray inaugurated a prayer circle which has proved of
incalculable blessing to Dutch-speaking South Africa. This was the Bible
and Prayer Union (Bijbel en Bid Vereeniging). The chief aim of this
Union was to induce the members of the Church to undertake a course of
consecutive daily Bible readings. For this purpose an almanac was
issued, which indicated the portions to be read, and also suggested
subjects for daily intercession. As the number of members increased,
each of whom paid an annual subscription of one shilling, it became
possible to enlarge the scope of the Union. Not only the almanac, but an
instructive and edifying book of 200 or 300 pages, and an ornamental
wall-text, were issued year by year. From small beginnings the Union
soon assumed such dimensions that Mr. Murray, in 1885, handed over the
secretaryship to the Rev. J. J. T. Marquard, who for some months had
been his assistant at Wellington. Under Mr. Marquard’s fostering care
the Union grew until it counted a membership of twenty thousand. The
books distributed by the Union included translations or adaptations of
English and Dutch works, original works on home and foreign missions,
South African classics such as the Life of M. C. Vos, and other books of
an edifying nature. They were eagerly welcomed in all South African
homes, and have done much to kindle a taste for reading among the
pastoral population of the Cape.
The subject of prayer was one which early engaged Mr. Murray’s serious
attention, as his many books on Prayer
sufficiently attest. In 1884 his mind was particularly occupied with
this great question. At the induction service of a young brother (Rev.
G. F. Marais) he delivered the charge, taking as his theme The Pastor as
man of Prayer. At a conference of ministers held at George the subject
was again Prayer, when Mr. Murray preached a powerful sermon from Isaiah
lxi. 6, on the Priestly Prayer-life. In concluding this sermon he
appealed to his brethren in solemn fashion to join with him in the
following confession—
(1) I believe in the holy priesthood of God’s people, and that I too am
a priest, with authority to approach Him as intercessor, and to obtain
by prevailing prayer a blessing for those who are perishing around me.
(2) I believe in the power of the precious blood to remove everything by
which my confidence is impaired, and to cause me to draw near in full
assurance of faith that my prayer is accepted.
(3) I believe in the unction of that Spirit who daily streams forth to
me from my High Priest to sanctify me, to fill me with the sense of my
priestly calling and with love to souls, to teach me what I ought to
pray, and to strengthen me in persevering and believing prayer.
(4) I believe that, as the Lord Jesus Himself is my life, so He will be
surety for my prayer-life, and will unite me to Himself as sharer in His
holy work of intercession.
(5) In this faith I dedicate myself anew to God, in order to approach
Him as one of His anointed priests to lay before Him in prayer the deep
need of the world, and in His name to call down blessings upon it.
Hereunto may God help me!
Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father, to Him be
glory fi/nd dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
As the outcome of much meditation and strenuous thought he published in
1885 a volume called De School des Gebeds, which became known to English
readers under the title, With Christ in the School of Prayer. Towards
the end of his life his thoughts were directed to this subject more
continuously than at any previous period. He entered into correspondence
with Rev. W. A. Cornaby of China, author of Prayer and the Human
Problem. He wrote a preface to Mr. Granger Fleming’s The Dynamic of
All-Prayer. He issued in Dutch many appeals for more fervent prayer and
for more time to be devoted to prayer. A volume of sermons by a
well-known preacher of the day was once placed before him, when he
eagerly scanned the table of contents. “There is not a single sermon on
Prayer,” he said, with an air of deep disappointment, and set the book
aside as one which could have no interest for him. One of his last acts
was the establishment of an Intercessory Union of such Christians as
would bind themselves to devote not less than fifteen minutes daily to
intercession on behalf of others, and for the progress of the cause of
God throughout the world. This Union has since his demise received the
name of the “ Andrew Murray Prayer Union,” and will, it is hoped, be a
lasting memorial to his profound influence as a man of prayer, and his
earnest advocacy of the place and power of prayer in the scheme of
redemption.
During the eighties of last century the D. R. Church was greatly
agitated by a heated controversy over the total abstinence movement. The
question unhappily assumed from the outset a pronouncedly personal
character. This was due to the fact that the movement was championed by
Professor Hofmeyr of Stellenbosch—a man justly revered for his talents,
his eloquence and his piety. The first impulse which he received towards
an active interest in the cause of temperance came, strangely enough,
from Andrew Murray. In 1877 a handsome hall for the use of the
Stellenbosch Young Men’s Christian Association was opened by Mr. Murray,
on which occasion he related his experiences as to the progress which
the temperance movement was making in America. The use of strong drink
was gradually disappearing from Christian circles, and Young Men’s
Christian Associations were putting forth great efforts to combat the
drink evil and promote the cause of total abstinence : and such, added
Mr. Murray by way of application, should be the endeavour of societies
of Christian young men everywhere.
Acting upon this suggestion, Professor Hofmeyr established a Total
Abstinence Society, pleaded the matter he had laid to heart from many
pulpits, and sought by means of numerous pamphlets and letters to the
Press to awaken the Christian conscience on this urgent question. He
maintained that it was the duty of every Christian to deny himself, and
to drink no wine nor do any other thing whereby the weaker brother is
offended or made to stumble; nay more, that " alcohol is a poison, and
that therefore, according to the will of God, its use is forbidden to
the healthy human being.”
His attitude aroused a storm of protest. The farmers of the Stellenbosch
district, engaged almost exclusively in the production of wine, averred
that he was condemning an industry sanctioned by ancient usage, and
introduced in South Africa by pious Huguenots who had fled hither to
escape the fires of persecution. They insisted on the fact—which could
not, indeed, be gainsaid—that the wine-farmers as a class were earnest,
God-fearing men, staunch upholders of the Church of their fathers, and
liberal in their support of foreign missions and home philanthropies.
They pointed out that the Theological Seminary itself, of which Mr.
Hofmeyr was senior professor, had been originally erected and was
largely maintained by the contributions of wine-farmers; and threatened
the withdrawal of their support unless all abstinence propaganda were
relinquished. But Professor Hofmeyr stood firm. Feeling ran so high that
many absented themselves from divine service when it was known that the
Professor would occupy the pulpit; and their opposition so worked upon
the latter that for a time he voluntarily resigned the right, accorded
to him as professor of theology, of preaching from the Stellenbosch
pulpit and dispensing the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to the
Stellenbosch congregation.
The whole question of abstinence came up for discussion at the Synods of
1883 and 1886. Interest was at fever heat. Questions, petitions,
proposals, overtures covered the Moderator’s table. At the Synod of 1886
the discussion lasted for three days. Mr. Murray’s sympathies were
strongly on the side of abstinence, but he occupied the chair, and was
therefore bound to exercise strict impartiality and to moderate between
conflicting views. His position as minister of Wellington and
representative of that congregation in the assembly; no less than his
position as Moderator, was an exceedingly difficult one. The district of
Wellington, like that of Stellenbosch, was for the most part a
wine-producing area. The most faithful and pious members of his flock
were wine-farmers. It was their money that had built both church and
parsonage, both hall and school. Unconditionally to condemn the industry
which they pursued, would be to wound their tenderest susceptibilities,
and to disturb and perhaps destroy the confidence which they had
hitherto reposed in their beloved pastor. The decision at which the
Synod of 1883 arrived, and in which Mr. Murray acquiesced (though he
wished it were more strongly worded), was of the nature of a compromise.
It ran as follows—
1. Wine is a good gift of God, to be received with gratitude and to be
used to His glory.
2. Scripture nevertheless teaches us that the Christian is at liberty to
refrain from the use of such gifts, where such self-denial is exercised
in the spirit of holiness, out of love to others, or to protect oneself
against temptation to sin.
3. Experience has taught us that for those, who are enslaved to drink,
or are in danger of becoming so enslaved, total abstinence is one of the
most powerful means of protection; and for this reason such persons
should be encouraged to undertake it.
4. For those who think that by their abstinence they can encourage and
strengthen the weak it is permissible voluntarily to bind themselves to
help such weaker brethren by their example and in the fellowship of
love.
5. It must be emphasized that, as there is no salvation without faith in
the Lord Jesus, so, too, Biblical Temperance Societies only possess
value for eternity in so far as they seek to pave the way for the
preaching of the Gospel, and aim at leading their members not merely to
a temperate but to a truly godly life.
6. For this purpose it is permissible to enter into a mutual undertaking
to abstain, with God’s help, from the use of all intoxicating drinks,
and to put forth every endeavour to oppose the abuse of strong drink on
the part of others.1
Mr. Murray was unable to agree in all points with the position assumed
by Professor Hofmeyr. The latter attempted to prove that the Bible not
merely permits but enjoins abstinence from the use of wine, and Mr.
Murray believed that this was going beyond the letter of Scripture. But
if he expressed a modified dissent from some of the views held by
Professor Hofmeyr, he dissociated himself in the most absolute way from
the views of those who stood at the other extreme. The protagonist of
the anti-abstinence party was the Rev. S. J. du Toit, who for some years
had been pastor of the D. R. Church at North Paarl, but-had severed his
connexion with the Church and was then engaged in literary labours. Mr.
du Toit gave expression to his views in a volume entitled De Vrucht des
Wijnstoks (The Fruit of the Vine), which was reviewed in De Kerkbode of
19th March, 1886. The review is unsigned, but internal evidence points
pretty clearly to Mr. Murray as the writer. In this paper he controverts
the chief arguments advanced against total abstinence—
The author of De Vrucht des Wijnstoks commences with a wrong
representation of the matter at issue. “Abstainers condemn not merely
the abuse but the use of wine. According to their views no one may
either use wine himself or offer it to others.” This representation is
wholly false. Only some abstainers assume this position. The majority
hold that abstinence is not commanded but recommended (niet bevolen maar
aanbevolen) as an act of voluntary self-denial. . . . Further, the
author attempts to prove that Scripture commands the use of wine.
Moderate drinkers as well as abstainers will demur to this. That the use
of wine is sometimes commanded in the Bible is true, nor is it to be
denied that the use of wine is regarded as permissible; but the text
which our author quotes, "Drink no longer only water, but use a little
wine ” is very far from proving his contention. It is in fact a strong
proof that there is no general commandment to use wine; for else Paul
would have rebuked Timothy for not doing what God had commanded. . . .
The position adopted in De Vrucht des Wijnstoks on the method of
combating drunkenness will hardly approve itself even to moderate
drinkers. "Make an intemperate man temperate without the renewal of the
heart, and you have merely provided Antichrist with a fit instrument.”
In other words, we may only labour for the recovery of the drunkard by
the preaching of regeneration : there is no hope of getting him sober
without conversion. This is a very evil doctrine. Temperance is a social
virtue of great value. The drunkard makes havoc of his own life and of
that of his children. He is nothing but a burden and a loss to society,
because he does not perform his share of work for the benefit of the
community. His example is infectious, and he leads others into the way
of evil. This alone should make us eager to cure him from his drunken
habits. Furthermore, it is not a matter of indifference to God whether
an unconverted man remains a drunkard or forsakes his drunkenness. Mr.
du Toit thinks it better to leave him in his drunkenness until he is
converted. We act very differently with regard to other sins. If my
child or my friend is a liar or a thief, I put forth every effort to
persuade him to forsake these sins, even before he is converted. Many
are engaged in the conflict with drunkenness for the purpose of
furthering the Gospel, so that the poor confused drunkard may recover
his wits sufficiently to listen to the call of God’s Word.
For some years the question of abstinence continued to be hotly debated
in the public Press, and as is usual in such cases the contest evoked
more heat than light. Eventually, however, the embers of controversy
died down, and both sides began to assume a more tolerant attitude.
Christian wine-farmers came to acknowledge that the advocates of
temperance were not actuated by any motives of hostility towards
themselves personally, but held strong convictions as to the necessity
of combating the drink evil by more effective means than words of
encouragement and warning. And abstainers learnt to make allowances for
the attitude of Christian men who believed that wine-farming was a
legitimate industry, and who urged with a measure of truth that, if
their vineyards were uprooted, no other means were left by which they
could derive subsistence from their scanty acres and unproductive soil.
The Synod of the Church, too, made its voice heard with increasing
urgency on the side of temperance. In 1915 a strong resolution was
adopted, petitioning the Government to introduce legislation with a view
to securing stringent restriction, and in some cases absolute
prohibition, of the sale of drink to natives and the coloured classes,
and demanding an extension of the principle of local option and the
introduction of the ballot in the election of members of licensing
boards. That this resolution was adopted by the Synod with practical
unanimity is a sufficient proof of the distance travelled since the
years 1883 and 1886.
The union of the D. R. Churches belonging to the four provinces of South
Africa was a question which greatly interested Mr. Murray. It could
hardly be otherwise, since the first eleven years of his ministry had
been spent in self-denying labours among the farmer populations of the
northern territories. He had witnessed the establishment and the growth,
in the Orange Free State, the Transvaal and Natal, of autonomous
Churches, which were separated from the mother Church of the Cape and
from each other by political boundaries only. But when, after the
Anglo-Boer war, these boundaries were obliterated, and the several
States were reconstituted as provinces of the Union of South Africa, the
unification of the Churches became a scheme of practical politics. It
was but fitting that the first step in the direction of closer union
should be taken on the initiative of Andrew Murray.
At the Synod of 1903—the first which was held after the conclusion of
peace—he tabled a motion, in conjunction with his colleague, the Rev. J.
R. Albertyn, “that the Synod do appoint a Committee to confer with the
Churches of the Orange River Colony, the Transvaal and Natal, in order
to ascertain upon what basis a union can be established.” In speaking to
this motion Mr. Murray pointed out that two kinds of unification were
possible, an organic union, by which all the Churches should become one
body and hold all their properties and funds in common, and a federal
union, which would secure joint action only, leaving to each Church its
autonomy and its material possessions. He declared himself to be in
favour of organic union; and though the Synod did not then seem prepared
to follow him so far, the motion for the appointment of a committee of
conference was carried by a unanimous vote.
The Conference on Union, in the proceedings of which Mr Murray took an
active part, was held at Colesberg in the month of October, 1905. It was
then resolved to lay before the various Synods proposals for a federal
union, under which each Synod should retain its own legislative and
administrative authority, while the visible unity of the federated
bodies was to be represented by a Council of the Churches {Raad, der
Kerken), the decisions of which, however, were not to be binding on any
Church until approved by the Synod of that Church. In the establishment
of this federal union and the creation of a Council of the Churches the
four Synods concurred with not a single dissentient voice; and one of
the first acts of the Council thus called into being was to declare that
the federal bond was after all a very inadequate expression of the real
and fundamental unity of the four bodies, and that they should
immediately advance towards the realization of an organic union. Mr.
Murray had by this time retired from the ranks of active ministers and
could take no further part in the proceedings for union; but the
principles which he had expounded in his address to the Synod in 1903
were clearly seen to point towards organic union as their only practical
and logical conclusion.
In 1909 the proposals for union, devised by the Council of the Churches,
were laid before the various Synods. They comprised five paragraphs. The
first summed up the reasons for union ; the second provided that the
United Church should bear the historic title “The Dutch Reformed Church
of South Africa”; the third dealt with the funds of the Churches which
it was proposed to merge into one; the fourth suggested a working
solution of the vexed question of the so-called “equality” of native
Church-members with white; and the fifth indicated the parliamentary
legislation which would be needed in order to give the proposed union
legal right and authority.
These weighty proposals were debated in the different assemblies with
great earnestness, dignity and enthusiasm. It was abundantly recognized
that an epoch had been reached in the history of the D. R. Churches of
South Africa. A corporate unity, which formerly was a wholly
unrealizable ideal, was now within reach, and the approaching union of
the provinces of South Africa acted as a strong incentive to the
Churches to keep pace with the political movement. In the Synods of the
Transvaal and Natal the proposals were unanimously adopted. In the Free
State Synod there was a small minority, and in the Cape Synod a large
minority against the scheme, the former declaring that "the time had not
yet come for the union of the D. R. Churches of South Africa,” and the
latter desiring that “the matter be referred back to the Council of the
Churches for further enquiry into the questions of the Church’s name and
the right of coloured members.”
*The proposals having passed all four Synods, the way was open to
approach Parliament for the necessary legislation. In the session of
1911 an “enabling Bill ” was placed upon the statute-book as Act No. 23
of 1911. It empowered the Synods of the four Churches to enter into an
organic union after a certain procedure had been iollowed and certain
conditions had been observed. These conditions were by no means easy.
They provided, it ter alia, that at least three-fourths of the members
of each and every Kerkeraad (Consistory) belonging to either of the four
Churches should record their votes for the proposed amalgamation. There
were at that time some 250 established congregations in the four
provinces, and each Kerkeraad would consist on an average of not less
than ten members. At least two thousand five hundred churchwardens,
accordingly, many of whom knew very little about the history of the
union movement and anticipated small advantage from it, would be called
upon to vote in the matter. It was to be expected that if but the
smallest doubt arose in their minds—and such doubts were more easily
kindled than allayed—they would cast their vote for the retention of the
status quo.
These anticipations were unhappily realized. The decisions of the
consistories were taken during the first half of 1912. The result was
surprising. In the Cape Church, where the Synodical voting had shown
only a narrow majority for union, the consistories accorded the measure
considerable support, although that support fell far short of the
requisite three-fourths majority. In the Free State Church, on the other
hand, whose Synod numbered but a few opponents of union, the
consistories vetoed the proposals by a large majority. Similarly in the
Transvaal the consistories refused to follow the lead of their Synod,
which had unanimously declared for union, and recorded an equally
decided adverse vote.
Thus were shattered the expectations of attaining to corporate unity in
the lifetime of the present generation. One disappointed member of the
D. R. Church wrote to the Kerkbode: “I still cherish the feeble hope
that union will some day be consummated, and that our revered father
Andrew Murray, who fifty years ago witnessed the disruption of our
beloved Church,1 may yet enjoy the privilege of seeing the Church united
before his death.” This pious hope was likewise doomed to
disappointment, and Andrew Murray passed away without beholding what he
had so ardently longed for—the re-union of Churches one in faith and
doctrine, one in government and discipline, and one in speech and
nationality.
The high regard in which Mr. Murray was held by the Church which he
served was signally manifested on the occasion of his ministerial
jubilee. The 9th of May, 1898, when Mr. Murray celebrated his seventieth
birthday and the fiftieth anniversary of his ordination, fell upon a
Sunday. The weather, unfortunately, was unpropitious, and rain fell in
torrents, so that the diets of worship were but poorly attended by the
country congregation, who are conveyed to church by the pony trap and
the Cape cart. The sermon was preached by Professor Hofmeyr, who
expressed the hope that the jubilee celebrations of their pastor might
form the commencement of a new epoch for the members of the Wellington
congregation. On the following day, though the weather continued
inclement, a large number of ministers assembled to do honour to Mr. and
Mrs. Murray, and, among other festivities, an address was presented,
accompanied by a gift of study furniture. The address ran as follows—
Wellington, 9th May, 1898.
Right Reverend Sir, Highly-Honoured Brother,—
This day, which for you is so rich in memories of God's love and
faithfulness, constrains us also to assure you, in the name of your
fellow-ministers in the whole of our Church in South Africa, of our
sympathetic association with you in your joy and gratitude. While, as
you look back upon a life of rich and blessed experiences, you readily
appropriate the words of the psalmist, “I will sing of the mercies of
the Lord for ever,” we, too, desire gratefully to acknowledge God’s
mercies towards you.
We may not, on this festive occasion, forget what the Lord has bestowed
upon His Church in you during the half-century that has elapsed since
your ordination, not only for the congregations of Bloemfontein,
Worcester, Cape Town and Wellington, which have successively enjoyed the
privilege of your faithful and blessed ministry, but for the Church in
general, without as well as within this Colony.
The visits which during the first years of your Gospel ministrations you
paid to those of our co-religionists who had emigrated northwards, your
special Gospel services of later years in almost all the congregations
of our Church, in the Colony and beyond, your labours even in foreign
lands, especially in England, Scotland, Holland and America, in the way
of sermons and convention addresses—all bear witness to the extent of
your toil in the great vineyard of the Lord. And then we have not even
mentioned the still wider circle, in which you have promoted the
interests of the Divine Kingdom and served your great Master, by means
of your writings.
We call to mind, likewise, the services you rendered to our Church in
days of struggle and difficulty, when you pleaded her interests with the
utmost ability not merely in ecclesiastical assemblies, but before the
tribunals of the land, and even before Her Majesty’s Privy Council in
England. We remember also your able guidance as moderator of the highest
Assembly of our Church at six of her Synods; your zealous labours as
chairman or member of many different committees in connexion with Church
institutions ; and all that you have been enabled, by the Divine
blessing, to do by way of establishing institutions where our young men
can be trained as missionaries and our young maidens as teachers, as
well as for the cause of education generally.
With you and for you we bless the Lord, who has bestowed on you wisdom
and strength for all these undertakings, and who has crowned your
many-sided labours with such abundant blessing. To Him be ascribed all
the honour! . . . We pray that the Lord may long spare you to continue
these labours; that He would grant you health and strength for your
advancing years; and that at the eventide of your life it may be light.
The proceedings of the third day may be briefly described in words drawn
from the Huguenot Seminary Annual:— "All the teachers of the district
were invited to meet Mr. and Mrs. Murray at tea on Tuesday, and they
with a few friends sat down to the number of one hundred. There was a
wonderful charm in the spontaneity of the tribute laid at Mr. Murray’s
feet. More than one said, ‘ I am what I am because of Mr. Murray’s
interest in me.’ The gathering of the scholars, over a thousand strong,
marked a gala day. They marched in procession, with banners flying, to
the Dutch Church. The young people had embowered an open carriage with
flowers, and in this Mr. and Mrs. Murray sat at the Parsonage gate,
watching the procession, each section giving them the Chatauqua salute
as they passed. When he entered the church, all stood, and there was a
wonderful fluttering of handkerchiefs in greeting from the different
schools. It was a beautiful gathering up of Mr. Murray’s loving interest
in the young people.”
During the birthday week more than two hundred telegrams of
congratulation were received from all parts of the country —from the
Governor, the Prime Minister, the Colonial Secretary, the Commissioner
for Agriculture, and other prominent public men, from ministers and
missionaries, from teachers and farmers, from old and young, who desired
to give expression to their feelings of esteem and gratitude towards one
who had exercised an influence so wide and so beneficent.
In the response which Mr. Murray made to the congratulatory address, he
uttered the feelings which filled his mind on receiving these marks of
joy and devotion. Two thoughts, he said, held possession of his
heart—the one was gratitude to God and to his friends for all their
love, and the other was the desire to speak a word to the glory of God.
After the expression of heartfelt thanks to the brethren, both present
and absent, who had conspired to honour him, he said that he wished to
impress upon his fellow-ministers the truth that God has a work for
every one and desires to use each individual. God’s schemes for us are
much greater than we have any conception of. This had been his
experience. At Bloemfontein, his first love, where he had laboured with
all his soul and strength, the Lord so ordained it that when he had
overstrained himself, he was deputed to England by a committee in the
Free State, and thus secured several months of needful rest. At
Worcester his arrival coincided with a powerful manifestation of the
Holy Spirit’s working in the congregation, and he shared in the
blessings of that revival. There, too, he composed for the edification
of believers his book, Blijf in Jezus (Abide in Jesus). The years of his
ministry in Cape Town were a time of stress and strain, during which God
kindled in him the desire to write and preach against the prevailing
unbelief. At Wellington the way was opened for founding the existing
educational institutions; while the perusal of accounts of Mr. Moody's
labours encouraged him to hold special services, for which purpose the
Wellington congregation generously set him free for several weeks year
after year. During the years of his ministry God had given him an
insight into the needs and weaknesses of the Church, an insight also, on
that very account, into his own weaknesses. He asked earnestly for the
intercession of God’s people, that it might please the Lord to teach him
what he must yet speak and write, and what he dare confidently ask and
expect from God. |