Article from "Our Banner: October, 1971

"On October 10, 1846, the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia was officially constituted. To understand the reason for this it is necessary to see it in the light of two other events; the formation, in 1840, of one Presbyterian Church under the name "The Synod of Australia in connection with the established Church of Scotland", and the Disruption in the Church of Scotland of 1843 with the subsequent formation of the Free Church of Scotland. There were a number in the Synod at that time who endorsed strongly the stand taken by the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 over against the Established Church. They felt, that in order to retain the testimony of the Australian Church pure, there must also be a decided break with the Established Church and the elimination of reference to it in the Title of the Church. William McIntyre, for example, argued that it was the highest object of the Gospel ministry to exhibit Christ and His claims and this could not be consistently accomplished while ever the Church even appeared to be in sympathy with the denial of His Headship, a fact that characterized the Established Church of Scotland. The following article recounts this controversy in the Church which ultimately issued in the division in October 1846.

The question of continued connection with the Established Church of Scotland first came before the Synod of 1844 (October). Within the Synod there were three main groups, namely those who wanted to maintain friendly intercourse with both the Established Church and the Free Church of Scotland; those who did not favour any change, and those who favoured a change of name that was "calculated to misrepresent them." Naturally enough, William McIntyre was a member of the latter group. It might be noted too that one of the first acts of this Synod was to adopt an overture from Dr. Forbes of the Port Phillip District which clearly set out the position of the Free Church. In this statement of principle1 all but one of the Synod concurred and, in their concurrence, indicated their opposition to the position of the Established Church. In the light of the subsequent difference of opinion over the change of name this suggested to one writer "that there were a number of the Synod whose consciences were somewhat elastic...and were...more Erastian than generally believed."2

The course finally adopted at this Synod was that the Australian Church should maintain communion with both Churches "if consent should be given on their part," and that "steps shall forthwith be taken to procure an Amendment of the Temporalities Bill3 to ratify and sanction such a change" of designation that "might give rise to the misapprehension that the Synod holds exclusive communion with the Church of Scotland."4 The principle underlying such a resolution was "that it was the first duty of this Synod to use all lawful means to preserve its own unity and peace and avert a disruption of the colonial Presbyterian Church."5

During the following year after this resolution was adopted there were two important occurences that prolonged the debate. First, the Moderator duly sent to the Established Church as well as to the Free Church copies of these resolutions for approval. Both Churches, far from expressing approval, expressed disapproval in no uncertain terms. The Established Church refused to maintain communion with it on the basis given and the Colonial Committee of that Church threatened to state the case to the Secretary of State for Colonies in order that he might not sanction the change in the Temporalities Act. They were according to them, "offensive resolutions."6

The Free Church, too, was equally decided in opposing the resolutions, refusing to "recognise it as a sister church...and...the assistance which it announced its readiness to receive."7 Dr. Candlish, speaking in the Free Church Assembly of 1845, while mentioning the attitude of the Church of Scotland to what it termed "a milk and water resolution" declared that "this resolution will not do us either, they will have to reconsider their position when I have no doubt that another disruption may be expected."8 In fact, this same Assembly stated that it was extremely anxious to strengthen and encourage those who might be prepared to maintain the principle of the Free Church.9 Secession, according to the Free Church appeared the only way for the minority to maintain their distinctive principles.

Second, the other occurence at this time was the failure of the Presbyteries to ratify the draft of the Bill to Amend the Temporalities Act. Two Presbyteries approved and two disapproved and consequently "the draft prepared by the committee was virtually rejected and the arrangement to procure the necessary amendment of the Temporalities Act became ineffectual."10

At the Synod of 1845 (October) William McIntyre endeavoured to force the issue by putting to the House a resolution to the effect that the name should be changed to the "Synod of New South Wales" and, at the same time, securing the appointment of a committee to prepare an amendment to the Temporalities Act. This committee was to "take all proper and necessary steps to ensure the passing of such a Bill during the next session of the legislative Council."11 This resolution was, in fact, adopted and the committee was duly appointed to prepare the Draft Bill. The Free Church fully concurred with this position but it was apprehensive about the prospects of obtaining civil sanction for the Bill and regarded that only a few would seperate from the Synod if it did not gain the Council's approval.

However, another event precluded the possibility of the Bill reaching the Council. This was the pro-re-nata meeting convened in the May of 1846. Its purpose was to make necessary amendments before the Bill went before the Council. Now, pro-re-nata meetings are limited "to the business specified by the Moderator in calling them and thus this meeting could not legally do more than make or refrain from making legitimate amendments."12 William McIntyre, realising this, opposed a resolution to the effect that the committee be relieved of its task of preparing the amendment. This was defeated in favour of McIntyre's amendment, namely, to continue with the object of the meeting. Accordingly, those opposed to change fell to the task of breaking the Draft Bills' "backbone" by deleting most of it. Finally =, they resolved to consider it at the next Annual Meeting. From this McIntyre, along with six others dissented, McIntyre warning the Synod that..."if the resolution that the designation should not be changed...be confirmed, or any resolution to the same effect adopted, at the ensuing annual meeting, he should be under necessity, that he might not be partaker of other men's sins, of withdrawing instantly from the body...".13

The same lines of cleavage were apparent in the Synod of 1846 as were exhibited in the Synod of 1844. McIntyre again forcing the issue, moved a comprehensive resolution including disapproval of the pro-re-nata meeting together with an immediate amendment of the Bill by the Synod and the forwarding of the amended Bill to the Legislative Council.14 Opposed to this was the resolution that it was not necessary to change the designation as well as a similar one to that adopted in1844. After a prolonged discussion the Resolution for no change in the designation was carried. McIntyre's resolution was thus defeated and, in accordance with the warning issued in the May of that year, he, together with those adhering to him subsequently laid their protest15 on the table and withdrew from the body. They then, in an upper room in Hunter Street, Sydney, constituted themselves, in the name of Christ, a Court of His Church belonging to the "Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia." The Disruption was thus completed in the Australian Church and the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia was born.

Footnotes

1Robinson, J. C., The Free Presbyterian Church of Australia. Appendix V.
2Ibid, p.67.
3For the Church Temporalities Act, see Robinson, J. C., pp.38-39.
4McIntyre, W., Narrative, 1859, Appendix B., Sect.6, p.67.
5Ibid, Sect. 1, p.66.
6Ibid, p.32.
7Ibid. p.33.
8Proceedings, 1845 p.167.
9McIntyre, W., Narrative, 1859, p.34.
10Ibid. p.37. Had the Church stood out, as it later did (after 1846) against Indiscriminate Endowment this situation may not have arisen or at least not in this form.
11Ibid. p.39.
12Ibid. p.48.
13Ibid. p.51.
14Ibid. p.52.
15Robinson, J. C., op. cit. Appendix VI.