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 ALLEGIANCE.