Edinburgh, July 15th, 1681.

Mr. Donald Cargill, being interrogate if he owns the king's authority, and the king as his lawful prince, answers, as the magistrate's authority is now established by the act of parliament anent supremacy, and explanatory act, denies the same. Being again interrogate, if he owns the king as his lawful prince, yes or no, he refuses to give any other answer than as aforesaid; confesses, that in October 1680, he preached in the fields in Torwood. Being interrogate, if he excommunicated the king there, answered, that being merely a question about an ecclesiastical matter, he cannot answer it before the council, being a civil judicatory; and that he was content privately to give an account of all the reasons of all his excommunications that ever he made or pronounced; being pressed to a direct answer, refuses to make any further answer. Being interrogate, when he saw any of those who killed the archbishop, or if he knew any thing of the intention of it {280:A} before it was done, declares he knew nothing of the intention before it was done; confesses he knew Balfour, Henderson, and Russel, but thinks he did not see Balfour these two years, but did see the other two within these twelve months, or thereby, to the best of his knowledge. The copy of the sermon alleged to have been by him preached at Torwood, being produced, and he asked if that was the copy thereof, desires a time to consider thereof before he answer. Being interrogate, if he thinks the rising at Bothwell-bridge was a rebellion against the king and his authority, declares he owns defensive arms in case of necessity, and thinks those who rose at Bothwell were not rebels, and thinks they were oppressed, and rose in their own defence. Being interrogate, if he was with those who were in arms at Ayrs-moss, refuses to answer, and desires it may be made out against him. The same answer as to Bothwell-bridge. Being interrogate, if he was at the emitting the paper at Sanquhar, denies he was. Being interrogate, if he had any hand in drawing of that paper, refuses to give answer thereupon, but declares he did not see it till after it was proclaimed. Being interrogate anent that paper, if he owned the principles therein, refuses to answer, and desires a time to consider thereof, not being unwilling, upon time given him, to declare his judgment thereof: gives the same answer as to the paper called Cargill's Covenant, or the Fanatic's Covenant, when read to him. Being interrogate, if, when he preached at Torwood, his lecture was upon Ezek. 21.25-27, confesses it was. Being interrogate where his text to his sermon was, declares he remembers not. Being interrogate, if he thinks the killing of the archbishop of St. Andrews was murder, declares he cannot give his sense thereof; but that the Scripture says, 'That the Lord giving a call to a private man to kill, he might do it lawfully;' and instances in Jael and Phinehas. Being interrogate, if he thinks the king, by his falling from the covenant, hath lost his civil right as king, declares he thinks this an ecclesiastical matter, and cannot answer here, but that he is not obliged to obey the king's government, as {280:B} it is now established by the act of supremacy. Being interrogate, where he was the night before and after he was at Queensferry, declares he does not now remember; but seeing it may concern others, he thinks he is not obliged to answer. Being interrogate when he was in Fife, confesses he was there Friday was a twenty days or month, and preached in Devan-common. Being interrogate, if any of the Hendersons were there, confesses there was one John Henderson, a man about thirty years of age. Being interrogate, when he was in Stirlingshire or Craigmade, declares he was not there these eleven months, and denies he was in Angus these three or four years past.

D. CARGILL.
CH. MAITLAND I.P.D.

[He was again called before the council, July 19th, and his interrogatories and answers are as follow.]

Edinburgh, July 19th.

In council being interrogate, if he owned his sermon at Torwood, in which the king, &c. were excommunicated; answers, if there was an excommunication he could not answer for it, but before an ecclesiastical court, being an ecclesiastical act. Being asked, if he owns the excommunication of his majesty, under the name of Charles Stuart, and as a tyrant, refuses to answer. Being interrogate, if he owns the principles in the Queensferry paper, declares he has not yet had sufficient time to consider it. Being interrogate, if he owns the principles in the paper called the Sanquhar declaration, he will not answer, but declares he did not see it before it was published. The sixth article of the Queensferry paper being read, he refuses to answer about it. Being interrogate, who was the author of that paper, and who wrote it, refuses to answer.