3. After Sanquhar declaration, they observed the jesuits rules more exactly, especially that mentioned above, to load the opinions that are most obnoxious with all odious constructions, and to make it both criminal to declare them, and also criminal to conceal and wave their intrapping questions thereupon. For after Mr. Hall was killed at the Queensferry, and Mr. Cameron with several worthies were slain at Airsmoss, and after Mr. Hackston for declining the authority of his murderers, head and tail, and for being accessory to executing judgment upon the arch traitor, or arch bishop of St. Andrew's (though he laid not his hands on him himself, nor was present at the action, but at a distance when it was done) was tortured alive, with the cutting off of his hands, and then hanged, and before he was dead, ripped up, his heart taken out, and carried about on the point of a knife, and thrown into a fire, and afterwards his body quartered. Then, not only such as were with that little handful at Airsmoss were cruelly murdered, but others against whom they could charge no matter of fact, were questioned if they owned the king's authority? which if any did not answer affirmatively and positively, he was to look for nothing but exquisite torments by terrible kinds of tortures, and death besides. And if any declared their judgment, that they could not, in conscience, own such authority as was then exercised; or if they declined to give their thoughts of it, as judging thoughts to be under no human jurisdiction; or if they answered with such innocent specifications as these, that they owned all authority in the Lord, or for the Lord: or according to the word of God, or all just and lawful authority, these underwent and suffered the capital punishment of treason. And yet both for declining and declaring their extorted answers about this, they were condemned as unsufferable maintainers of principles inconsistent with government.