time to the
Council.

Two other indulgences were issued at intervals during the latter part of
the reign of Charles II. All of them by public proclamation denounced
relentless vengeance against the faithful men who refused the royal
boon. They threatened utter extermination to all who pleaded for the
independence of the Presbyterian Church, and who maintained the freedom
of the gospel by holding conventicles, preaching and administering
ordinances in their purity in the fields.

The indulgence unhappily proved a snare in which by far the largest
number of the Presbyterian ministers in Scotland were entangled. We
cannot hesitate to agree with the historian Hetherington, in holding
that "It was offered on a principle clearly subversive of the
Presbyterian Church, and that not one of the ejected ministers ought to
have accepted of it, because it was impossible to do so, without
sacrificing the fundamental and essential principle of the Presbyterian
Church--that which constitutes its glory and its life--the sole
sovereignty of Christ."[1] Three results followed the acceptance of the
indulgence, which proved highly injurious to the Presbyterian Church,
and which were, in all likelihood, foreseen by the contrivers of the
measure, and led them to introduce it. These were--1. The constant
interference of the government with the indulged in the discharge of
their strictly ministerial functions. 2. A rupture between the indulged
and the non-indulged, with many of the best of the people clinging to
the latter; and, 3. The more systematic, virulent, and crushing
persecution of those who, defying the tyrant's rage, bared their bosoms
to the storm; and had the courage at all hazards to plead for the royal
prerogatives of Messiah the Prince, and to contend for the chartered
liberties of the Presbyterian Church. This honour belongs exclusively to
Cargill, Cameron, and Renwick, and the Society people; when the large
majority of the Presbyterian ministers in Scotland, followed by great
numbers of the people, proved recreant to sound scripture principle, and
unfaithful to the sacred engagements of their fathers. However belied
and misrepresented the persecuted covenanters were in their own day,
impartial history has not failed to do justice to their memory, and to
show that their faithful contendings had no little influence in the
nation's deliverance from degrading oppression.

II.--THE LIMITS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY, AND OF A PEOPLE'S