OWING to the publicity given in the press to the above case, and the erroneous expressions set forth in newspaper reports of it, the above Presbytery takes this opportunity of stating briefly its considered opinion of it, although the case was not brought officially before us, and therefore, we could not pass any formal judgment, as such, on what the Session did.
First, we endeavoured very carefully to ascertain whether there is sufficient reason to conclude that there is any real ground for the charge of unbrotherliness and a lack of courtesy as to the manner in which this case was brought up. It is to be borne in mind that the case was one of public moment, to the Dornoch congregation, and not at all one of private concern only. Bearing this in mind, we conclude that the Kirk-Session have no cause to feel that they acted in any unbrotherly or unchristian way, in this part of the case. We would add that although detailed evidence in favour of our view is not given in this statement, we sought throughout to ascertain the truth as to facts and motives in order to arrive at a just conclusion.
The above statement, which has already appeared in the Northern Chronicle (Inverness), has been sent us by the Rev. D. J. Matheson, Clerk of the Northern Presbytery, for publication in the Magazine.—
Editor.*
Secondly, as to the actual handling of the case by the Session and their verdict thereupon, our opinion of it is that we utterly fail to see why, in the circumstances, fault is found with the verdict at all, especially by these petitioners. The Rev. E. Macqueen pointed out to them at the ex gratia meeting on the 9th of July that Mr. Murray failed, as an Elder, to rule his family well in the fear of God, “having his children in subjection with all gravity, (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?)”. We have no hesitation in stating that the whole reference by Mr. Murray to his resignation and the supposed lack of common sense on the part of the Session, is valueless and worse. He might easily have known that his resignation could not be considered until the question of misconduct as an Elder of the Church was disposed of first. It has also to be noted that Mr. Murray was told that he could appeal. He sent in no appeal. It savours of discourtesy when complaints are set forth at an ex gratia* meeting, which Mr. Murray deliberately refused to set before the Presbytery by way of appeal, when told by Rev. F. Macleod to do so.
We may frankly state that Mr. Murray’s address to the Presbytery at that meeting with the petitioners occasioned pain and grief to all the members of the Court, and we judge that no injustice is done if we let it be known that supposing he were before the Synod and repeated the speech made before the Presbytery, the issue would generally agree with that of the Kirk-Session.
It would prolong our statement unnecessarily to review or refute such point which perhaps ought to be referred to. We would prayerfully and lovingly warn the young against promiscuous dancing, and giving countenance to such Romish practices as that of observing Christmas, etc. Promiscuous dancing is notoriously a means of fostering the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. These things are not of the Father, but are of the world. Such are not the real friends of their immortal souls who can actually stand up and tell us as a Church-court that they themselves retired to rest but left a large number of young men and women to do as they liked until 2 a.m.
We deeply regret how misguided Mr. Murray is and how he has misled his family and many of the young. We believe that false charity moved these petitioners to ask us to tamper with the verdict of their Session. We advise them to seek the forgiveness of their blameworthy conduct. We respectfully suggest to them that the most hopeful move they could make would be to rally round the Minister of the congregation, and to pray most earnestly for the Holy Spirit to rest richly and increasingly on him and on them. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”
Seeing that Mr. Murray has departed gravely from his vows, and has given such trouble to Session, congregation, and to us as a Church, we now leave it to the petitioners to show forthwith, and unfeignedly, whether they are to continue to be partakers of another’s sin, or, on the other hand, to seek to hold by the doctrine and government of the Church of Christ as set forth in His Word, and, by the grace of God, kept intact for us as a Church by the stand made by Revs. D. Macfarlane, D. Macdonald, and others, in 1893. “Thou hast given a banner to them that fear Thee that it may be displayed because of the truth.”