[514] From the original among the Wodrow MSS. vol. xxvii. fol. No. 42.
[MR. JOHN MURRAY was one of the Protesters (see Baillie's
"Letters"); and was committed prisoner to the Castle of Edinburgh
for meeting with a few of his brethren to draw up a
congratulatory address to Charles II. upon his restoration,
expressing their loyalty, and reminding him of the obligation of
the Covenant. He was summoned to appear before the Parliament on
the charge of high treason, but at length was liberated. About
1672 he was apprehended and imprisoned in the Tolbooth of
Edinburgh for alleged house-conventicles. When set at liberty, he
was confined to the parish of Queensferry, and ordained to wait
upon ordinances and abstain from keeping conventicles, and to
attend the parish church. (Wodrow's "History," vol. ii.)]
(_A SYNOD PROPOSAL FOR UNION--BRETHREN UNDER CENSURE._)
REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER,--I would gladly know the issue of your
Synod. We did profess we could not be concluded[515] by the Synod of
Fife's [overtures] of union, but upon condition of the taking off the
censures of our brethren, which we think injuriously are inflicted.
Much is promised to us for the remedying of these censures. I shall
believe when I see their performances. I hope you will see that the
brethren get no wrong, or the house of God in their persons; and send
me a line of the conclusion of the Synod in that business. The paper
of union is very general, and comes to no particulars: it only tells
the good of union, and contains some obtestations to us that insinuate
the unsavouriness of irregular courses; yet we thought it not safe to
yield to any union of that kind, so long as our brethren are under the
censures.[516] I much doubt of their honest meaning, and that
barriers in the way of entrant ministers and elders be revived. And I
see no engagement, so much as verbal, for purging; but the contrary
practice is here. Mr. Robert Anderson[517] is as much opposed as if he
were the most corrupt sectary or Jesuit.
[515] Determined finally.
[516] Murray, and the other Protesters in the Synod of Perth, acted
upon a similar principle. As an instance of this, we may adduce the
following extracts from a paper entitled, "The desires of the brethren
of the Protesting judgment in the Synod of Perth under-subscribing,
unto the Moderator and remanent members of the Synod." They desire,
"1st, That the Synod will declare and enact, that none of the Acts
made by the two controverted Assemblies at St. Andrews, Dundee, and at
Edinburgh, in the years 1651 and 1652, appointing censure upon such as
will not acknowledge the constitution of these Assemblies, and will
not submit unto the Acts thereof, shall hereafter be of force within
the bounds of this Synod.... 3. That the Synod will declare and enact,
that notwithstanding of the supposed censures inflicted upon Mr. James
Guthrie, minister at Stirling, and Mr. James Simpson, minister at
Airth, by the pretended Assembly at St. Andrews and Dundee, and of the
approbation or intimation thereof by the Synod, that the said Mr.
James Guthrie and Mr. James Simpson are lawful standing ministers of
the Gospel in the respective charges of Stirling and Airth, and
capable to sit and vote in the Synod and in their own Presbytery, and
of every other ministerial privilege and employment" (Wodrow's MSS.
vol. xxvii.).
[517] A minister who is mentioned again in Letter CCCLXV.
My wife remembers her to you. Remember me to your own bed-fellow.
Grace be with you.
Your own brother,