"1. The imposed form of it (which as it is found in the original from whence it is taken, is only paraphrastically expounded, God save the king; and catechrestically applied to tyrants, being in the native sense of the words of this signification, Let the king live; which is a very improper wish for men of death, of whom God says they shall die, and the law says, they shall die for their murders and capital crimes) must be taken either as an adulatory compliment; or a congratulatory honour; or a precatory benediction. The first as it is extorted most illegally, so it can be tendered neither civilly, nor sincerely, nor christianly; but all ingenuous men would think it a base imposition, to be forced not only to subject themselves to their tyrannical oppressors, but to flatter them as if they were not such. Whatever they may force the mouth to speak dissemblingly, they can never compel the heart to think such wishes are due to them; and so they can never be cordial, nor consistent with candor, and to interpose the holy and dreadful name of God, in a dissembling compliment, to flatter base men, is a horrid mocking of God, and a heinous taking his name in vain, contrary to the third command. If it be a congratulation (as always it is used in scripture, and in cases formerly; being never imposed on men, by way of compulsion, before this set of tyrants started up, that know they can get no deference of honest men, but by extortion) it is the more abomiaable; not only for the hypocrisy that is in it, but the blasphemy, in giving thanks for the promoter of the devil's interest, and the destroyer of Christ's, and the liberties of mankind. What have we to congratulate him for, but for overturning our laws and liberties, and oppressing us in most grievous tyranny? Besides, to give the vilest of men, when exalted, any congratulatory honour, is contrary to the fifth command, as is shewed above. "And it were a forsaking of the law, thus to praise the wicked, since they that keep the law, will contend with them," Prov. xxviii. 4. If it be a benediction, we cannot bestow it upon one whom our father curses, our mother curses, and all our brethren. It is no less preposterous to bless whom the Lord declaredly curses, than to curse whom he blesses. "The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked," Prov. iii. 83. We cannot then bless that house. Nor can we bless them that our mother curses, and eries for vengeance against, as she did against Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. li. 34, 35. Nor them against whom the blood of our dead brethren bath a mortal cry. How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood?" Rev. vi. 10. And the vexed spirits of our brethren, yet howling under the same yoke, are putting up before the throne of grace, the same continued cry, with incessant importunity. "How long, how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they break VOL. X. 66 in pieces thy people? O God, to whom vengeance belongeth?" Psalm xciv. 1-4. Yea God hath said it, and we must not contradict it in our practice, against all tyrants that wrest judgment, and say unto the wicked, "Thou art righteous: him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him," Prov. xxiv. 24. And this must stand registred, as the everlasting clause of all Zion's haters, to which all her lovers must say, Amen, that they shall be as the grass upon the house tops, and never have the benefit of the Church's benediction, Psal. cxxix. 8. “Neither do they which go by say, the blessing of the Lord be upon you: we bless you in the name of the Lord." This one word may be a sufficient supersedeas from blessing any of the enemies of God, or of the Church, while acting in a declared opposition to God for the destruction of his people and interest. 2. Either this, Save the king,' as they mouth it, and demand the repetition of it, is a prayer, or it is not. If not, it must be a dreadful profanation of the name of God, to be commanded to speak to him, and yet not to pray. If it be a prayer, we would expect another way of dealing with us, if they really desired the benefit of our prayers, than a threatning us with death, if we did it not. And if they did desire it, as Darius did, "that we might offer sacrifices of sweet savour unto the God of Heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons," Ezra, vi. 10, we could not refuse to pray for him, so far as might consist with that prayer of the same Darius, in that same decree, verse 12, "that God may destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and destroy the house of God." We can pray no prayer inconsistent with this; and to pray that God would save this king, and yet destroy all kings that put to their hand against his house, were to pray contradictions. But they know they deserve no prayers, and must force them, if they get them. And all the world knows, that compelled prayers are no devotion; and if they be no devotion, they must be sin; imposed prayers are not the prayers that God will hear and accept; and if we have not the faith of acceptance in them, they must be sin; for whatever is not of faith is sin, Rom. xiv, last verse. All prayers which God will hear, must proceed from the heart voluntarily and fervently, in spirit and in truth, with the whole heart; but imposed and compelled prayers cannot be such, especially when they are not only by them im posed, but prescribed as to the form of them: which sets and forms prescribed by men, and such men as usurp a supremacy over the Church, cannot be submitted to, according to the word of God, and principles of our re formation. "Sd. That infallible proposition of the Apostle, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, must be urged yet a little further: and that with a reference, both to the person required to be prayed for, and to the matter of the duty more ge 3 N the Lord reprove his servant, for mourning for a king whom he disowned, then we may not pray for such a king whom the Lord disowns, as he disowns all tyrants, for they are set up and not by him; but the antecedent is true in that example of Samuel; therefore also the consequent, that we may not pray for them as kings, whom the Lord disowns. nerally. First, if we cannot pray for this man, neither as a Christian, nor as a king, then we cannot satisfy this imposed demand; for it will not satisfy for him as a heathen: but we cannot in faith pray for him, either as a Christian or as a king. Not as a Christian, for besides that he is an excommunicate apostate (by a sentence which we believe stands yet ratified in heaven, pronounced by a faithful servant of "4. Moreover, to confirm this yet further; Christ) and a Papist, which, as such, can no that prayer is not of faith, and so sin, which is more be prayed for, than the pope as pope; contrary to the precepts of God, and his profor whom, and all the limbs of Antichrist, the mises, and the practices of the saints; but only prayer that Protestants can pray, is, that praying for wicked kings, their preservation, the Lord would consume him with the spirit of is contrary to these precepts, promises, and his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of practices, &c. Ergo-It is contrary to some his coming. 2 Thess. ii. 8. (we cannot reconcile divine precepts, both affirmative and negative. the prayers of some, that pray against the pope There is an affirmative precept, prescribing and his supporters, and upholders of his tot- what prayer should be used under the dominatering kingdom, and yet for this his Antichris- tion of tyrants, that they should weep and say, tian vassal) his rage and resolution in prose- Spare thy people, O Lord, give not thine hericuting a war against Christ and his followers, tage to reproach, that the heathen should rule is such, that if we may make comparisons, over them, wherefore should they say among our faith will have little more ground to pray the people, where is their God? Joel ii. 17. for James, than Christians of old could find If it be a reproach to be under heathen rulers, for Julian the apostate. Nor as a king, for and if we should pray that they may not rule, that we cannot do, because he is none with but that our God may shew himself where he God's approbation, and may not do, for a very is, and who he is, in delivering his people from heathen could teach us to pray, that God would their domination: then it is contrary to this, destroy all kings that put to their hand to alter to pray for the preservation of tyrants, that do and destroy the house of God. Ezra, vi. 12. rule over them to their destruction and reAnd besides, in the second place, with respect proach; for it is contradictory to pray, that to the matter of the duty in general, that can- they may not rule, and that they may be prenot be in faith, which wants a warrant in the served in ruling. There is a negative precept, word, either by precept, promise, or practice; probibiting the salutation of heretics and enemies but to pray for wicked tyrants and enemies of of the gospel, which will condemn this salutation God, wants a warrant in the word, either by of heretical kings: for in the original, God save precept, promise, or practice: there is no pre- the king, is no more than a solemn salutation, or cept for it, either general or particular, neither apprecatory wish that he may prosper, 2 Epist. express, nor any to which this is reducible; John ver. 10. 11. "If there come any. and who dare add without a precept in the and bring not this doctrine,.... neither bid him worship of God, either for matter, manner or God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed, end, what he hath not commanded? For such is partaker of his evil deeds." God speed, in the presumption, Nadab and Abihu were destroyed. Greek, is the same with God save in the Levit. x. 1. 2, because they did that which the Hebrew. Ifthen we must not say, God save Lord had not commanded. What command a heretic; neither must we say, God save an ean there be for praying for that, which is heretical king, or a popish tyrant, a sworn against the preceptive will of God, but it is enemy to the gospel of Christ, and the coming against the preceptive will of God that there of his kingdom. This is also inconsistent should be tyrants: therefore to pray that these with that rule and directory of our prayers, may be preserved in the world, cannot fall commonly called the Lord's prayer, not only under a command of God. There is no pro- because it cannot be reduced to any of its pemise for it, which is the foment and foundation titions (which are comprehensive of all that we of prayer: we can pray for nothing that we are warranted to pray for) but because it is conhave not a promise for, either general or par-tradictory to the second, which is, Thy kingticular; but we have none, nor can have any, for the preservation of a plague to us, as ty rants are. "There is no practice for it in scripture, to pray for kings that put to their hand to destroy the house of God. Samuel did indeed mourn for Saul, but the Lord proved him for it, "how long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel?" 1 Sam. xvi. 1, belike this reproof was for his praying for Saul's preservation as king, for otherwise we may mourn for wicked wretches, for their sin and misery both. But hence, if dom come. The coming of Christ's kingdom in our land cannot consist with the preservation of the tyrant's reign, which is Satan's rule, for Antichrist's and Satan's kingdom, and Christ's cannot be promoted both at once. It may be also demonstrated, that it is inconsistent with all the petitions of that perfect form of prayer. With the first, hallowed be thy name; for when they who rule over his people make them to howl, then his name continually is blasphemed. Isa. lii. 5. yea much profaned in the frequent repeating that imposition. With the second, thy kingdom come; for when he takes unt❤ him his great power and reigns, then is the Psal. vii. 6. and that he would break the arm See As also it is against Saul that be prays, that the Lord would not grant his desires, nor further his devices, and as for the head of them that compassed him about (which was Saul). Let the mischief of their own lips cover them, Psal. cxl. 8.9. There is also a prayer, that the saints may execute vengeance, and the judgment written upon tyrants, and bind them with chains, Psal. cxlix. 6. 8. 9. The church is brought in praying for vengeance against the Babylonian tyrant, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me,.... the violence done to me and my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitants of Zion say, Jer. li. 34, 35. Paul imprecates any man that does not love the Lord Jesus, let him be Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and sure no tyrant, persecutor, subvertor of Christ's kingdom, can be a lover of Christ. The Martyrs, under the fifth seal slain for the word of God, and the testimony which they held, are brought in crying against the tyrants that murdered them, "How long! O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood, Revel. vi. 9, 10. Which though it be to be understood of a mortal cry of blood, as Abel's blood cried against Cain: yet ought to be a pattern of our prayers against such bloody enemies, imbruing their hands in the blood of our brethren, for which we ought to pray that the Lord would haste to make inquisition. Durham observes from this place, that God's people, in a holy way, may pray for vengeance upon persecutors. 5. Let us consider the person and matter, for whom and for what this prayer is extorted. Either it is for the personal salvation of James the Papist, or the royal preservation of James the tyrant. It will not satisfy to pray, that if it be possible, and if it were the Lord's will, he might be taken to heaven, that so we might be quit of him. Neither were it lawful, to pray that, except we prayed first, that he might repent of this his wickedness, if perhaps it might be forgiven him, as Peter directed Simon Magus to pray for himself. Acts viii. 22, for it is unlawful to pray for the salvation of a papist, except upon supposition of his repentance and relinquishing popery. We must pray nothing but according to the will of God and it is not the will of God, that they that have and keep, and will not part with the mark of the beast, should be saved, for he is adjudged of God to drink of the wine of his wrath. Revel. xiv. 9, 10. So we cannot pray for him as a Christian, which he is not, nor as a papist, except that he may get repentance. Nor can we pray for him as a king, which he is not; nor as a tyrant, except that he may repent of and relinquish his tyranny and usurpation for tyrants as such cannot be saved, no more than papists as such; for Tophet is ordained of old, yea for the king it is prepared. .... Isa. xxx, 33. We cannot then pray for his salvation, except we pray for his repentance, and relinquishing all his sins, and so we must pray for his relinquishing his kingship, and that he ray cease to be king; for that is his sin, that he hath made himself king without God, and against the laws of the land. "And now, while he continues such, we must complain in prayer, not for his misgovernment only, but for that he governs, and desire to be delivered from him. See Gee's Magistrate's Original, pag. 258. But now considering what a man, and what a king he hath been, guilty of murder, adultery, idolatry, under sentence of the law both of God and man; we can pray no otherwise for him, than for a murderer, adulterer, or an idolater. We cannot pray for him as cloathed with authority, or that the Lord may bless his government, for that is his sin and our misery, that he is a governor and his throne is a throne of iniquity, which we dare not pray may have fellowship with God. Can we pray that God would bless him on a throne of iniquity? Could we pray, that the Lord would bless a drunkard in his drunkenness, abusing his enjoyments? Or a thief in his stealing, though he used his purchase never so soberly? What if prevailing robbers by land, or pirates by sea, preying upon all passengers, should require this as the sign of subjection to them, and only condition whereupon such, as they apprehend and overcome, should be suffered to live, that they should pray for preservation and prosperity to them? Would not this be wickedness thus to pray for thieves and robbers? And are not tyrants the greatest of thieves, that rob and destroy twenty for one of private robberies? And do they not require this as such a sign on such a condition. "6. Lastly, then the plea will be reduced to this, that it, is exacted as a badge of loyalty, and sign, Tessera, Shibboleth of owning the authority. Which I have at this length endeavoured to prove, cannot be conscientiously owned by us, in these circumstances. And even by this argument: that authority which we cannot pray for, we cannot own; but we cannot pray for this tyrannical authority: therefore,.... the minor I trust is in some measure made manifest, by what is said above. And so I conclude this head, with that form of prayer, that I use for the king. "O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself; lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth, render a reward to the proud. Lord, how long shall the wicked? how long shall the wicked triumph? shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, that frameth mischief by a law? The mighty and terrible God destroy all kings and people, that put to their hand to alter and destroy the House of God. Overturn, overturn, overturn this throne of tyranny, and let it be no more, until he come whose right it is." 318. Proceedings against Sir HUGH CAMPBELL, Laird of Cesnock, for Treason: 36 CHARLES II. A. D. 1684. [Wodrow's History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland.* Records of Privy Council, and Records of Justiciary of Scotland.] August 16, 1683. THE Council appoint the King's Advocate to raise a process of Treason against the earl of Lowdon, lord Melvil, sir John Cochran of Ochiltree, John Cochran his son, sir Hugh Campbel of Cesnock elder —— Campbell of Crawford younger of that Wodrow's work not unfrequently exhibits indications of credulity, and an inclination to the notion of particular providential judgments. * Mr. Laing, in his History of Scotland, deservedly places great reliance on Wodrow's work, and upon different occasions gives proofs of its authenticity and bears testimony to the merits of the author. Lord Hailes does not speak with very great reverence of the saga-proceedings against the Campbells: The following is Burnet's account of the city of any of the Ecclesiastical Historians of Scotland. See his Historical Memorials concerning the Provincial Councils of Scottish Clergy, &c. At p. 29, of that tract, he says in a Note, "Keith was as incapable of deceiving as he was of judging. I can make no better excuse for this useful labourer in the History of Scotland. When I say more for Calderwood and Wodrow, let me be termed partial and prejudiced." It must be admitted, "When Castairs was put to the torture, and came to capitulate in order to the making a discovery, he got a promise from the council, that no use should be made of his deposition against any person whatsoever. He in his deposition said somewhat that brought sir Hugh Cambell and his son under the guilt of treason, who had been taken up in London two years before, and were kept in prison all this while. Denholm of Westshiels, who being cited before the late Justice-air, upon several points of Treason, it was made appear to them that at the time of their citation they were out of the kingdom. Nov. 3. The procedure of the Scots council at London in this matter, is read at Edinburgh, and insert in the registers. At Whitehall October 22, 1683, present the king's majesty, his royal highness the duke of York, the earls of Murray, Middleton, Sunderland, Mar, Airly, Aucrum, Broadalbin, the treasurerdepute, justice clerk, advocate, and John Wedderburn of Gosford; his Majesty, with advice of his privy council, orders the laird of The earl of Melfort got the promise of his estate, which was about 1,000l. a year, as soon as he should be convicted of high treason. So an act was brought in, which was to last only six weeks; and enacted, that if within that time any of the privy council would depose that any man was proved to be guilty of high treason, he should upon such a proof be attainted. Upon which, as soon as the act was past, four of the privy council stood up, and affirmed that the Cambells were proved by Castairs's deposition to be guilty. Upon this both father and son were brought to the bar, to see what they had to say, why the sentence should not be executed. The old gentleman, then near eighty, seeing the ruin of his family was determined, and that he was condemned in so unusual a manner, took courage, and said, the oppression they had been under bad driven them to despair, and made them think how they might secure their lives and fortunes: upon this he went to London, and had some meetings with Baillie, and others: that one was sent to Scotland to hinder all risings: that an oath of secrecy was indeed offered, but was never taken upon all this. So it was pretended, he had confessed the crime, and by a shew of mercy they were pardoned; but the earl of Melfort possessed himself of their estate. The old gentleman died soon after. And very probably his death was hastened by his long and rigorous imprisonment, and this unexampled conclusion of it; which was so universally condemned, that when the news of it was writ to foreign parts, it was not easy to make people believe it possible." I believe that Margaret, the daughter and heiress of sir George Campbell of Cesnock, who appears to have been involved with his father in this charge of Treason, married Alexander Hume, who assumed her name of Campbell, and became, in 1704, a lord of session by the title of lord Cesnock. He was second son of sir Patrick Hume, first earl of Marchmont, whom he succeeded in that title. In 1714, he resigned his seat in the court of session to his brother sir Andrew Hume. Mention is made of him in lady Murray's Narrative, printed in the Appendix to Mr. Rose's Observations on Fox's Historical Work. Cesnock and his son, Rowallan elder and younger, Crawfordland, Brunsfield, Alexander Monro of Beaucrofts, Jerviswood, Mr. William Carstairs, Hepburn son to Major Hepburn, Spence servant to the late earl of Argyle, prisoners at London suspect of high treason, and some of them accused, to be sent prisoners to Edinburgh, to be tried according to law, being Scotsmen. The English law could not answer the view they had against them, and our Scots law is far more arbitrary, at least the procedure used at this time would not have gone down in Eng land. Accordingly, those named were sent. down, several of them I meet with no more in the registers, and can say no further of them; but these who were chiefly levelled at, we shall meet with in their order. By a letter from the king, the advocate is ordered to prosecute the above named persons for treason. Dec. 10, 1683. The council remit it to the bishop of Edinburgh, treasurer-depute, advocate, and colonel Graham of Claverhouse, to consider the several papers sent down from London, and to put together what they find concerning every prisoner, and to begin with what concerns Spence, and to endeavour to decypher the letters. Feb. 21, 1684. The advocate reports to the council, that he hath found matter, as he conceived, to insist against sir Hugh Campbel of Cesnock for Treason. The council February 14th ordain him to insist; and appoint sir George Lockhart to concur in the said process with the King's Advocate. The design of this was plain enough, to hinder that able lawyer, who had vexed them so much in the earl of Argyle's process, to be employed by Cesnock. Accordingly, upon Cesnock's petition, Feb. 21, "he is allowed to employ any advocate he pleases, and they are warranted to plead, still excepting sir George Lockhart, he being already ordered to assist the king's advocate. +” * The order of the Privy Council ordaining the Lord Advocate to insist in the trial, is dated the 14th February 1684, and not the 12th as Wodrow has it. It is in these words. "The lords of his majesties privy council having heard and considered a representation made by his majesties advocat, that he had got probation against sir Hugh Campbell, of Cesnock, elder, sufficient, as he conceaved, to prove him guilty of treason, or airt and pairt thereof, doe give order and warrand to his majesties advocat, to raise and insist in a process of treason against him before the justices, and doe ordain and require sir George Lockeart advocat, to concur with the king's advocat in the said process. Privy Council Records, p. 253. As to this, the entry in the Privy Council Records, is as follows. "February 21st 1684. Anent a petition presented by sir Hugh Campbell of Cesnock, prisoner, within the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, shewing that where the petitioner being informed, that there is a process of treason raised against him at the instance of his |