The Rev. K. Macrae, Kilmuir, Skye, charges me in the June issue of the “Free Church Record” with “prevarication, sophistry, and illogical reasoning,” along with other epithets in which I forbear to follow the example he sets before me, in the explanation which appeared in the “Free Presbyterian Magazine” for May.
When I wrote that explanation, I was under the impression that Mr Macrae could act like a Christian or even like a gentleman. He has now proved, if vituperation, of which he is a master, can prove it, that he has only one aim, and that that aim is to gain a victory should that vilify the Church with which he is identified and the character of one who has dealt with him in fairness.
In the explanation referred to I showed (1) that, taking the terms of the petition in question at their face value, and Mr Macrae’s statement at the Assembly—that he did not plead for legislation—I held that my comment on his conduct was just, fair, and unbiased. I held the same still. I do not perceive any prevarication, sophistry, or illogical reasoning in this. (2) When Mr Macrae wrote me that his Session agreed, before the petition was got up, that he should not move for legislation, notwithstanding they prayed for it in their petition, I saw that the whole show was only a farce. The reasons he gave for their conduct was that:—”Being convinced from experience that pleading for legislation was hopeless, and owing to the intensity of the feeling displayed by the opposition would in my judgment prove disastrous to the Church, not to myself, I intended to move in the House [Assembly] by way of Christian appeal to the congregations of the Church.” In describing this crooked method of the Kilmuir Session Mr Macrae has placed very suitable terms at my disposal, viz.—”prevarication, sophistry, and illogical reasoning.” When I saw this, I withdrew my comment—that Mr Macrae forsook his congregation—taking then for granted that all the petitioners and the congregation knew that the object aimed at was not what was set down in the petition but something quite different—”a Christian appeal to the congregations of the Church.” Let it be distinctly observed that the petition did not set forth
what was in the minds of these men. (3) As there were 49 signatures to the petition, and only Mr Macrae and his five elders were involved in the above double dealing, so far as has hitherto been revealed, it would be uncharitable on my part to charge definitely all the petitioners with having been in this secret plot. In the event of any of said petitioners assuring me that they signed the petition with the expectation that Mr Macrae would move for legislation at the Assembly to have the things complained of—social gatherings and sales of work—removed, I will consider it my duty to apologise in the “Free Presbyterian Magazine” for having withdrawn my comment on Mr Macrae’s conduct at the Assembly; for in such a case he did forsake them. I trust the readers of the “Magazine” will see that there is no “prevarication, sophistry, or illogical reasoning” in the above.—N.C.