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 gratia 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).