While I was at Campheire, towards the end of July 1667, I had occasion to sie the book writ by our banished ministers at Rotterdam and other places, and particularly by Mr. Macquaire[367] put ut in the years 1665, intituled 'An Apologetical Relation of the particular sufferings of the faithful ministers and professors of the Church of Scotland since August 1660, wherein severall questions useful for the tyme are discussed. The Kings praerogative over parliament and peaple soberly inquired into; the lawfulnesse of defensive war cleared; the supreme Magistrats powers in Church matters examined, Mr. Stellingfleets notion of the divine right of the formes of government considered; the author of the Seasonable Case answered: other particulars, such as the hearing of the curates, the appearing before the hy commission court., etc., canvassed, togither with the rise, raigne, and ruine of the former Praelats in Scotland, being a breiff accompt from History of the Goverment of the Church of Scotland from the beginning, and of the many troubles which Praelats have created to hir first and last, for satisfaction of Strangers and encouradgement of present sufferers by a weill wisher to the goud old cause. Then follows some places of Scripture, as Jeremias 50, ver. 34, Micah 7, ver. 9-10, Isay 51, ver. 22-23.
[367] Robert Macquare wrote a postscript to the Apologetical Relation, etc., which was the work of J. Brown. A reprint in the Presbyterian's Armoury, vol. iii. (1843), is in the British Museum.
In this book they traduce Spotswood, Archbishop of St. Androws, endeavoring to make him ridiculous, and empanelling him of falsehood in many places of his History, using to refute him the auctority of Buchanan, a auctor more suspected then himselfe.
In their 4 section they prove the Marquis of Argyle most uniustly to have bein put to death the 27 of May 1661. The ground of his sentence they say in the 78 page to have bein that he was and had bein an ennemy to the King and his interests thesse 23 years or more bypast, which in effect (say they) is as much as give ye would say he had bein an active freind for the interest of Christ, making Gods interest and the Kings interest point blanc contrary, so that a freind to the one could not be but a ennemy to the other.
The thing that more particularly the Parliament adhered to was his compliance wt the English and sitting in their Parliaments. But that this was not treason, and consequently not capable to take his life, they labor to prove by sundry particulars, first that the Lawyers themselfes (who best of any should know what treason is) complied, yea swore fidelity, to that government. They instance to his odium Sir John Fletcher, then Kings Advocate. 2dly, He was not guilty of compliance alon. Many members of Parliament sitting their to judge him war conscii criminis. 3dly, If compliance was treasonable and capable enough to put him to death, whey ware they so anxious to find out other grounds against him wheiron they might walk? 4ly, Whey was never on save this nobleman not so much as empanelled for this fault, much lesse put to death? Whow came it to passe that William Purves, who by complying had almost occasioned ruine to many noblemen, boroughs, and gentlemen, was absolved by a act of Parliament? Then their was never act of Parliament, nether any municipal Law, condemning necessesary compliance for life and liberty wt a conqueror, and for the good of the country conquered, as treasonable. Their was never a practick or praejudicium in Scotland for it since it was a Kingdome. Bruce did never so much as quaestion his nobility that in Balliols tyme had complied wt Edward of England. Nixt the Royalists say conquaest is a just title to a croune. So Baleus[368] in his Sacro-sancta Regum Maiestas, cap. 17; but so be Cromwell conquered our country, ergo, he was our lawful governour and had just title to our croune. If so, whow could compliance and passive obedience to such a on be treason? In this he triumphs so, that he addes, let al the Royalists answer to this wtout contradicting themselfes if they can. No definition out of the civil Law can be brought of treason which wil comprehend necessary compliance; ergo, its no treasonable. Finally, we sie compliance to be the practise of all conquered nations, yet upon the alteration of government no body condemned for it.
[368] John Bale, Bishop of Ossory, died 1563.
In the end they appeal to al governours of states, Lawyers, casuists, politicians, canonists, and Quod-libetists, yea to Royalists themselfes, whither or no when a nation is broken in 3 or 4 battells, so that they can do no more, but are oblidged to take laws from the conqueror, wil it be treason to comply wt the ennemy for life and liberty, and when he is chosen by the country to go and sit in the conquerors judicatories (which priveledge ex gratiâ he grants them), to sie the affairs of the Kingdom regulate, and sie to what wil be best for the good of the country. They persuade themselfes that all wil say this is no treason. Then subsume they, but such was Argiles compliance; ergo, for treasonable compliance he could not be put to death because not guilty of it.
Then ye have a vindication of Mr. James Guthry,[369] execute 1 of June 1661, from the crimes layd to his charge wheirupon his sentence was founded. They say the crime was that some 10 years before, being challenged by the King for somthing spok over the pulpit, he declined his cognizance as a incompetent judge in ecclesiastical spiritual matters, which declinaturs be a act of Parliament, anno 1584, are discharged under the pain of hy treason; but this they contend was afterwards abrogated, so that they conclud him to have died a martyr for the truth against Erastian abomination.
[369] Covenanting minister (? 1612-1661).
In the 6 section ye have the zeal of that minister, who upon the Parliaments casting of the Covenant, pulling out a six pence, took instruments in the hands of the peaple and protested against all courses or acts in preiudice of the Covenant, for which he was banished. None of the banisht ministers could ever obtain a extrait of their sentence, which is a thing no judicatory ever refused. Nixt, because they could not banish them furder then from Scotland, they forged a bond to which they compelled the ministers to subscryve, wheirin they promised not to be found wtin any of his maiesties dominions under the pain of death; which they call cruel and unreasonable.