The effect of disruption on Canadian Presbyterianism

Knox College

The effect of Disruption on Canadian Presbyterianism

Geoffrey McLarney

KNH3571 The Presbyterian Tradition in Canada

Dr Macdonald

29 April 2014

The disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843-4 created a breach in the established

Kirk which would not be resolved (for the most part) until the onset of the Great Depression, and

saw the bulk of the evangelical party within the Kirk forming their own body in the form of the

Free Church of Scotland. The presenting issue – the question of right relation of Church and

State – was of immediate relevance only in the mother country, but Canadian Presbyterians,

always wary of the Roman Catholic majority and suspicious of its privileges, had their own

reasons to distrust their government’s evangelical munificence.

As I will demonstrate, two features of disruption stand out as distinctive to the Canadian

context. First, the Free Church became the dominant flavour of Presbyterianism in Canada, and

its political and social influence was evident through the activities of Peter and George Brown,

the Lord’s Day Alliance, and the organized Temperance movement. The Church of Scotland had,

in fact, never enjoyed a monopoly on Canadian Presbyterian polity, and the first Presbyterians in

Toronto met under independent Irish missionary auspices. While members of the Auld Kirk

continued to play a role in public life, the Free Kirk took a leading role in social evangelicalism,

carrying the banner against Popery, Sabbath-breaking, and intemperance in Canadian public life.

Second, the pace of reunion in the United Canadas outstripped that with which the parent

bodies in Scotland themselves reconciled. Whereas Kirk reunion would not be achieved “at

home” until 1929, the Free and United Presbyterian traditions in Canada came together in 1861

after painstaking negotiations, and a reunited Presbyterian Church in Canada would follow after

Confederation, with the 1875 return of the Auld Kirk congregations to the fold. Moreover, these

Canadian reunions were not marked by the abstention of organized and permanent continuing

minorities as in Scotland. The ecumenical spirit of the evangelical Presbyterians would

culminate in the union, albeit partial, with other bodies to form the United Church of Canada,

especially their Methodist allies in the movement for public evangelicalism during the Victorian

era.

The issues which touched off the Disruption were not native to Canada, and as Richard

Vaudry observes, Canadian Presbyterians were able to regard the developments leading up to it

with “a certain measure of detachment”1 if tempered by fraternal concern. Initially, the relevance

of the causes of disruption was not obviously applicable to Canada. The Canadian synod’s

relationship with the general assembly was legally ambiguous, the state actions which provoked

the split confined to Scotland, and the membership of the synod less overtly partisan than was

the case in the parent body. The outbreak of the Disruption itself, however, put an end to that

status quo, compelling members of the Kirk in Canada to nail their colours to the mast, and

widening the gap between previously loose “tendencies” within its ranks. Already sympathetic to

the Evangelical cause, and in an anomalous relationship to the General Assembly, Vaudry

explains, the Canadian synod lost whatever chance of neutrality it might have had.

One significant reason for this shift was the introduction of the Temporalities Bill by the

Canadian provincial government. Intended to tidy up some of the questions of governance that

had vexed Canadian Presbyterianism throughout the clergy reserve disputes, the proposal

threatened to bring the Synod of Canada too close for evangelicals’ comfort to the Erastian

system which was captivating the mother church, by providing for the appointment of property

management boards from among the laity of each congregation2.

In this climate, apologists for the Free Church cause lined up to make its case. Peter

Brown and his son George were far and away the most outspoken and uncompromising

1 Richard W. Vaudry, The Free Church in Victorian Canada, 1844-1861 (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1989) 14-15 2 Ibid.

defenders of the Free Church cause, and the Banner newspaper was the vehicle for their views.

In its pages, an unsigned correspondent took the Auld Kirk supporters to task for the

disingenuousness of their premises. True, all parties could agree on the independence of the

Canadian synod, a fact which ought to insulate it from the Erastian tyranny which had bound

Scotland. Yet as a matter of fact “Subsequent events have proved that the Erastianized Church of

Scotland claims the right”3 to impose similar strictures in Canada. Others made similar points.

Robert Burns, writing to the ministers and elders of the Canadian synod, questioned “[h]ow far it

will be consistent … to fraternise with a church based on principles directly to the reverse” of

those held by Canadian Presbyterians4. Henry Esson called on the faithful not to “reason from

considerations of expediency against the claims of truth and duty”5 and warned that the most

dangerous “disruption” was “that of the flock from their pastors” rather than alienation from

livings6.

Nevertheless, though prevalent, Free Church supporters did not have a monopoly on the

Canadian synod. In addition to firm defenders of the “Residuary” Kirk and its “Moderatism”, a

“mushy middle” of evangelicals who nevertheless hoped to avoid importing the conflict sought

to equivocate, and maintain positive relations with both Scottish bodies.

According to Vaudry, the most enthusiastic support for the Free Church came from the

settlements in Upper Canada west of Toronto, such as London and Hamilton. The most stalwart

support for the established Kirk was centred to the east. Thus, the Presbytery of Bathurst (in

3 The Banner. “Remarks upon the late disruption and present position of the Synod of Canada: addressed to the editor of The Banner newspaper.” (Toronto: The Banner, 1844): 4 4 Robert Burns et. al., “A letter addressed to the ministers and elders of the Synod of Canada on the present duty of the Presbyterian Church” (Montreal: J.C. Beckett, 1844): 6 5 Henry Esson, “An appeal to the ministers and members of the Presbyterian Church, under the jurisdiction of the Synod of Canada, on the question of adherence to the Church of Scotland as by law established” (Montreal: J.C. Beckett, 1844): 14 6 Henry Esson, “Substance of an address explanatory and apologetic, in reference to the late disruption of the Synod of Canada” (Kingston: Chronicle and Gazette, 1844): 9

eastern Ontario) aroused ire within the synod for its support of the “Residuary” Kirk. In

Montréal, Alexander Mathieson led the charge against any dilution of the relationship with the

Auld Kirk, rejecting the claims of the Free Church from the pulpit of St Andrew’s Church just as

he had opposed the 1840 Presbyterian union in Canada. That agreement had seen the entry of the

oldest Presbyterian body in the province, the United Synod of Upper Canada, into the synod

connected to the Kirk. While the United Synod boosted the Canadian Kirk’s numbers, its

secessionist roots7 were anathema to establishment men like Mathieson. At the same time,

Montreal was a centre of activity for prominent lay supporters of the Free Church as well.

The “middle” approach was exemplified by Robert McGill of Niagara. Though an

evangelical favourable on the merits of the question to the Free Church’s position, he

nevertheless hoped to avoid formalizing the split in the Canadian context. Similarly, Mark

Young Stark insisted that the Canadian Kirk was in confessional accord with the Free Church,

while cautioning against the abandonment of faithful evangelicals remaining in the Auld Kirk. In

a lengthy epistle on “The Relation of the Synod of Canada to the Church of Scotland,” McGill

stressed the independence of the synod, which had no need in his view of any link beyond

fraternal goodwill to any Scottish polity. He even went so far as to say that the Kirk in Canada

was not established, though treated as such by the authorities “just as if they had a real and

formal connexion with the parent church.”8 In the wake of bitter disputes over the Clergy

Reserves, this was a daring contention, and a direct rejoinder to the Free Kirk’s aim of a “pure

establishment.” Likewise, Stark’s shabby treatment by the patronage system had necessitated his

7 The United Synod had no formal ties to any Scottish body but had been formed largely by ministers of the secessionist Associate and Relief presbyteries. Nevertheless, hardline voluntarists of the “First Secession,” such as William Proudfoot of London, remained outside of it and constituted their own Associate presbytery for Canada. 8 Robert McGill, “Brief notes on the relation of the Synod of Canada to the Church of Scotland” (Niagara: The Chronicle, 1844) 6

settlement in the colonies9, but his predictable sympathy for the Free Church’s views was

tempered by a strong aversion to schism10. Such positions as these received little traction among

evangelicals who viewed any concession to the “Erastian” Kirk as unprincipled.

“Residuary” supporters, meanwhile, found their mouthpiece at Queen’s College in

Kingston, where professor Peter Campbell “emerged as the most articulate defender of the

Established Church connection”11 before returning to Scotland himself to take advantage of the

glut of vacated livings. Campbell’s defence in the pages of the Kingston Whig-Standard of a

continued spiritual, though not juridical, relationship with the Auld Kirk called forth impassioned

rejoinders by Peter Brown. The Whig-Standard also published the “Draft of an Answer” to the

Free Church protest, authored by committee struck by the synod in connexion with the Church of

Scotland to address the dispute. They denied in the strongest terms that the Canadian synod had

acquiesced to state encroachment, insisting that it was “prepared to resist at all hazards, any

secular interference with matters that are purely spiritual” and that when the mother church had

been under such a threat, the synod of Canada “sympathized with her,”12 a point with Free

Churchmen would make with equal force.

Such was the state of the conflict when the synod met in 1844 to work out its response to

the schism which had become a reality at home. The three “camps” were not formalized to the

same extent as the party structure which prevailed in the Scottish General Assembly but formed

recognizable tendencies of opinion. The choice of paths which lay ahead of the synod was

9 “Prior to leaving for Canada however, he was offered a living in the Church of England but refused the offer expressing his preference for service within the Church of Scotland.” Allan L. Ferris, “Mark Young Stark: Pioneer Missionary Statesman” (paper presented to a joint meeting of the Canadian Society of Church History and the Conference on Scottish Studies, June 6, 1974):55 10 Ferris 59. 11 Vaudry 25 12 Committee of the Synod of Canada, “Draft of an answer to the dissent and protest of certain ministers and elders who have seceded from the Synod of Canada in connexion with the Church of Scotland” (Kingston: Chronicle and Gazette, 1844):4

represented by two motions, one by John Bayne of Galt (Cambridge) and one by John Cook of

Québec City13. Both broadly restated the independence of the Canadian synod from any Scottish

body, but where Cook’s sought conciliation with the Auld Kirk, Bayne’s would remove the

wording “in connexion with the Church of Scotland” from the synod’s name and by extension

sever the connexion itself. Despite the popularity of Free Church ideals, the synod sided with

Cook, prompting the exit of the bulk of the evangelical party. Thus the Free Church began its 17-

year separate existence in Canada. Bayne would go on to publish his apologia for the extension

of Disruption to Canada. In a missive addressed to those wayward Presbyterians who remained

in connexion with the “Residuary” Kirk, Bayne took devastating aim at those “simpleton[s]”

who professed sympathy for Free Church ideals while balking at the call to emulate a schism

centred on a Scots legal dispute. Like the Banner’s unnamed correspondent, Bayne heartily

agreed that there should be no necessary reason for a Canadian Disruption but the want of such a

reason had not prevented unscrupulous moderates, in his view, from forcing one nonetheless by

their dogged allegiance to a body which had “sinned in matters vital and fundamental.”14

The Disruption left Canada with two parallel Church of Scotland apparatuses. The Free

Church retained the same structure of synods and presbyteries which characterized its rival. One

of its first tasks was to establish an educational system to do the same. In this respect, the Free

Church’s evangelical theology afforded it an advantage. Evangelicals favoured a strong system

of common schools and universities – non-sectarian but definitely Christian and not secular in

the contemporary sense – whose graduates could, if so called, go on to train for the ministry at

church-sponsored seminaries. This relieved the new body of having to maintain an institution

13 Vaudry 35-36 14 John Bayne, “Was the recent disruption of the Synod of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, called for?” (Galt, ON: Jas. Ainslie, 1846): 6

like Queen’s University in Kingston, where divinity students and probationers studied alongside

undergraduates still engaged in their classical studies15.

While the Free Church had been born in reaction to perceived confessional laxity, it was

also firmly a part of the wider evangelical movement in the Canadas. As Vaudry says, “there was

room in [the Free Church’s] confessionalism for a warm-hearted evangelical piety, and an

aggressive missionary impulse.”16 This two-pronged identity points to the paradox of the Free

Church’s existence: what began out of a refusal to compromise on an article of the Westminster

Confession would become a major vehicle for Protestant unity in Canada. The first-fruits of this

drive to unity would be seen in the Presbyterian union of 1861.

Free Church supporters had been adamant that in breaking with the structure of the

Church of Scotland of the day, they were not thereby renouncing the principle of an established

Kirk. Rather, they sought Thomas Chalmers’ ideals of a “pure establishment”. But over time,

they had effectively been forced into a position which was increasingly subtle in its distinction

from voluntaryism. The endowment of the Roman Catholic national college in Maynooth under

Sir Robert Peel’s Tory government struck a particular blow to evangelical hopes for such an

establishment. Free Churchmen became increasingly wary of accepting “dirty” money from a

denominationally promiscuous government, equally ready to support the “false” religion of

“Popery” as evangelical Reformed truth. As Michael Gauvreau notes in his aptly titled study

“Reluctant Voluntaries,” Peter Brown “admitted to much of the Seceder critique” in 1842 when

he wrote that establishment carried “a strong tendency to abuse” even as he was unprepared to

15 This pattern was true of evangelicals across denominational lines: thus the Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, which was established by prominent Toronto evangelical Anglican laymen and would evolve into Wycliffe College, was from its inception a purely theological institution, in contrast to the “establishment” Trinity University, which like Queen’s continues to operate both arts and divinity faculties today. 16 Vaudry 49

give up on the project altogether17. Following the Maynooth Crisis, however, the elder Brown

predicted that the demise of establishment was inevitable, regardless of “[w]hatever abstract

opinions may be formed.”18

The narrowing of the gap between the Free Church and Secessionist positions created a

climate where talk of reunion became feasible. After 1855, Union Committees were struck by the

Free and United Presbyterian synods to hammer out an agreement on the duties of the civil

magistrate which might be acceptable to both parties. As the Free Church had begun to show

signs of softening on voluntaryism, so too was John Bayne of Galt satisfied by the negotiations

on this article “that the United Presbyterians had moved closer to the Free Church.”19

Such breakthroughs did not mean that the process was easy-going. Assessing the

negotiations leading to reunion, Donald MacLeod underscores that “the fudging of Chapter

XXIII … was particularly painful for [the Free Church] and a major concession … done with

considerable interpretive flexibility.”20 This flexibility would become crucial to later union

efforts. Still, it was not without its detractors: though Bayne was mollified, an equally

thoroughgoing champion of Free Church distinctives was obstinate in his opposition. Robert

Burns so fiercely refused any concession to voluntariysm that Vaudry concludes “it is clear …

that Burns should never have been appointed to the commission.”21 Another challenge to unity

would come in the form of Andrew Ferrier, whom the Free Church synod tried for heresy and

expelled from the pulpit of Caledonia for his voluntaryist sympathies. Subsequently received into

the United Presbyterian synod, he would be a thorn in the flesh of the project of reunion. As

17 Michael Gauvreau, “Reluctant Voluntaries: Peter and George Brown, the Scottish Disruption, and the Politics of Church and State in Canada,” Journal of Religious History 25 (2001): 147 18 Gauvreau 154 19 Vaudry 122 20 A. Donald MacLeod, “The Union of 1861: Establishing an Authentic Canadian Identity for Colonial Presbyterians” (paper presented to the Canadian Society of Presbyterian History, Toronto, September 24, 2011). 21 Vaudry 118-119

Vaudry explains, “It would be an obvious test of the Free Church’s consistency, to see if they

could unite with a denomination which had just received into full fellowship one of their

‘heretics’.”22

In just 17 years, then, a denomination which had come into existence over a point of

scruple related to the Westminster Confession, a body for whom Vaudry could say “[t]ruth as

they saw it was more important … than organic unity”23 – had found its way to allowing a

measure of liberty of conscience on the very same point of doctrine, in order to effect organic

unity. The impulse toward a united evangelical witness in Canadian society – a common front

against Sabbath-breaking, Popery, and intemperance – had outstripped the emphasis on

denominational distinctives. The “warm-hearted evangelical piety” of the Free Church had

triumphed, tempering its raison d’être of uncompromising confessional orthodoxy. Once this

precedent had been established, there was little remaining in the way of a wholesale Presbyterian

reunion in Canada. John Moir notes that once again “[s]trength through unity was certainly the

theme in 1875” as momentum toward consolidation continued24. As John Alexander Johnston

writes, voices had been raised of a union of all British North American Presbyterians as early as

the 1860 reunion of Free and Secessionist Presbyterians in Nova Scotia25.

Despite this early optimism in some quarters, the 1875 union did not take place without

complications any more than had the earlier one. This time, Johnston observes, it was within the

Auld Kirk ranks that an “active minority sought to delay union”26 Some congregations, notably

St Andrew’s in Montréal, would remain outside of the new Presbyterian Church in Canada for

22 Ibid. 23 Vaudry 130 24 John S. Moir, Enduring Witness: a history of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1987) 144 25 John Alexander Johnston, “Factors in the Formation of the Presbyterian Church in Canada” (PhD diss., McGill University, 1955) 19 26 Johnston 230

some decades. Its minister, Gavin Lang, “was unwilling to separate himself of his church from

the Church of Scotland as established in Scotland.”27 Lang “speaks of the Canada Presbyterian

Church in a way that is nowise justified by facts,” a member of its synod complained in an

anonymous tract28. Nevertheless, as in 1861, such opposition did not suffice to derail the project

of reunion altogether.

Following Presbyterian reunion, the drive toward evangelical unity continued, eventually

taking the form of the negotiations with Methodists (themselves recently united) and

Congregational Christians which would lead to the formation – with a significant Presbyterian

abstention – of a national Protestant church, the United Church of Canada.

Presbyterians in Scotland would struggle to keep pace with the colonial reunions. In

1873, just two years before the reunion of a nationwide Presbyterian Church in Canada was

effected, Scottish Presbyterians abandoned efforts toward emulating even the Free-United

merger of 1861. They would not be vindicated until 1901, with the formation of the United Free

Church of Scotland, and even then only partially: a significant part of the Free Church remained

outside the union as an independent synod after a lengthy legal battle. This residual Free Church,

its base of support largely in the Highlands, remains in existence and entered Canada itself with

the establishment of a Toronto Gaelic Mission in the 1920s, today the Evangelical Presbyterian

Church in Willowdale29. The United Free Church itself would not be reconciled with the Kirk

until 1929, after lengthy constitutional negotiations about the meaning of establishment. Once

again, a remnant of the UF Church continued its own existence and remains today.

27 Johnston 231 28 A member of synod, “Rev. Gavin Lang and Union” No publisher, no date: 7 29 see Tim McCabe, ”A History of the Free Church of Scotland in Toronto,” http://www.epctoronto.org/history/history.html

It would be easy to assume, based on the Free Church’s confessional principles, that the

Canadian movement to organic Protestant unity took place despite them and the Canada

Presbyterian Church which succeeded them. MacLeod forcefully resists this conclusion, insisting

that in the period leading up to 1925 “the still recognizable Free Church heritors in the

Presbyterian Church in Canada were in the vanguard of agitation for a national Protestant

church.”30 The Free Church in Canada was galvanized into action by a point of confessional

principle, but its identity was more complex than its origins, and it became a major player in

carving out a Canadian Presbyterian – and ultimately a Protestant – identity. Its strong

evangelical social conscience meant that the theological scruples which underlay its foundation

would prove not to be implacable when faced with the prospect of a united national vehicle for

that conscience, while the same spirit of conscientiousness ensured that no reunion would be

undertaken without careful theological deliberation. The story of the Free Church and its struggle

for the Gospel – first by countering what it considered unprincipled compromise and then in due

time by its willingness to embrace the beau risque of dialogue in the hope of obtaining a

principled one – is in large part the story of the Canadian evangelical experience, and even of the

emerging Canadian identity itself.

30 MacLeod, “The Union of 1861”

Bibliography

“A member of synod.” “Rev. Gavin Lang and Union.” No publisher, no date. Queen’s University

Library, acc. 29 April 2014 < https://archive.org/details/revgavinlangunio00memb >

The Banner. “Remarks upon the late disruption and present position of the Synod of Canada:

addressed to the editor of The Banner newspaper.” Toronto: The Banner, 1844. CIHM

microfiche series no. 89676

Bayne, John. “Was the recent disruption of the Synod of Canada, in connection with the Church

of Scotland, called for?” Galt, ON: Jas. Ainslie, 1846. CIHM microfiche series no. 54130

Burns, Robert; Cunningham, William; Esson, Henry; and Welsh, David. “A letter addressed to

the ministers and elders of the Synod of Canada on the present duty of the Presbyterian Church.”

Montreal: J.C. Beckett, 1844. CIHM microfiche series no. 41626

Committee of the Synod of Canada. “Draft of an answer to the dissent and protest of certain

ministers and elders who have seceded from the Synod of Canada in connexion with the Church

of Scotland.” Kingston: Chronicle and Gazette, 1844. CIHM microfiche series no. 21962

Esson, Henry. “Substance of an address explanatory and apologetic, in reference to the late

disruption of the Synod of Canada.” Kingston: Chronicle and Gazette, 1844. CIHM microfiche

series no.

— “An appeal to the ministers and members of the Presbyterian Church, under the jurisdiction

of the Synod of Canada, on the question of adherence to the Church of Scotland as by law

established.” Montreal: J.C. Beckett, 1844. CIHM microfiche series no. 34880

Ferris, Allan L. “Mark Young Stark: Pioneer Missionary Statesman.” Paper presented to a joint

meeting of the Canadian Society of Church History and the Conference on Scottish Studies, June

6, 1974. acc. March 2, 2014 < http://www.irss.uoguelph.ca/article/view/691/1130 >

Gauvreau, Michael. “Reluctant Voluntaries: Peter and George Brown, the Scottish Disruption,

and the Politics of Church and State in Canada.” Journal of Religious History 25 ( 2001) 134-

157

Johnston, John Alexander. “Factors in the Formation of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.”

PhD diss., McGill University, 1955.

MacLeod, A. Donald. “The Union of 1861: Establishing an Authentic Canadian Identity for

Colonial Presbyterians.” Paper presented to the Canadian Society of Presbyterian History,

Toronto, September 24, 2011.

McGill, Robert. “Brief notes on the relation of the Synod of Canada to the Church of Scotland.”

Niagara: the Chronicle, 1844. CIHM microfiche series no. 36140

Moir, John S. Enduring Witness: a history of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

Vaudry. Richard W. The Free Church in Victorian Canada, 1844-1861. (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid

Laurier University Press, 1989)