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