The Sun. — 1840-05-16 (London, England)

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.  We were quite prepared to expect that Lord Aberdeen's Bill would not satisfy the dominant party in the Church. It is far too just and constitutional a measure to please the Non-Intrusionists. Accordingly, the very few Journals that advocate that cause, have lifted up the standard of opposition, and raised the war-cry of resistance to the knife. The Caledonian Mem:7y exclaims " Away with Lord Aberdeen's Bib ! the people of Scotland will not be satisfied, and will not be gullfd by its plausible and moderate provisions." Another Edinburgh paper, a new recruit of the same party, devotes a brace of articles on Saturday, of three columns length, in downright. abuse of the measure ; sounding the horn of " active uncompromising hostility," and telling its readers that the Church of Scotland had far better swim a few years longer in her present sea of troubles, or even cut her cable of State connection, and betake herself to Voluntaryism on the hills, than accept of this " moderate" Bill. We had intended to give the opinions of some others of our contemporaries, but this we must defer till next paper. It will be found, however, that nearly the entire newspaper press in Scotland is in favour of the measure. The Glasgow Constitutional, which the non-iutrusionists reckoned one of their partisans, is delighted with the bill ; and we have little doubt that others will be found to give in their acquiescence to it, seeing in its adoption the only possible chance, not merely for restoriig tranquillity to the country, but for saving the Church of Scotland from committing an act of suicide. We  _ • • have given extracts from- several of the Y London Journals, from which it will be seen that they treat the dispute as a political party question. The Globe is temperate ; but the Chronicle writes absurd nonsense, and has been completely answered in the excellent remarks of the Morning Post. The Times, which has frequently erred in this controversy, takes a sound view of the object and effect of Lord Aberdeen's Bill. The great and important question now is, will the majority of the Church accept of it ; and if not, ' what are they to do ? They cannot get the Lord Advocate's Bill, nor any other that embodies its principles. Government has rejected one and all of these. Will they still cling by the illegal Veto Act, and continue for another year to inflict upen the country the moral pestilence of the Non-intrusion agitation ? This is an alternative which we fondly hope every rational man, every minister of the gospel of peace, every sincere well-wisher to the Church and people of Scotland, will pause before giving it his assent.—Edinburgh Advertiser. The high-flyers have resolved, if they can, to put a veto on Lord Aberdeen's Rill. The Non-intrusion Committee has emitted a series of resolutions condemnatory of its entire principle and provisions, and the Non-intrusion Journals are open-mouthed against it. From this last assertion indeed we mutt except the Constitutional and Guardian of our own city. The former, with an inconsideration which we suspect it has since repented, became an abettor of the Non-intrusion nonsense, in the hope of thereby aiding the cause of Toryism ; but it is now in raptures with Lord Aber- I deen's Bill, and looks upon it, we have no doubt, as a most fortunate occasion for declaring oE from an uncongenial connexion, A very able article, by a Correspondent of the Witness, proves beyond all denial that the Bill of Lord Aberdeen makes no " concession" to the Church, but confirms the supremacy ate; control which the State at present exercises, and, as we think, ought to exercise over it. 'We abstain at present from adding any remarks on this subject, addition to those contained in our last publication.—Glasgow Chronicle. The Earl of Aberdeen brought forward a motion the other day for a compromise between the Intrusion and the Non-intrusion party, which, we confess, we cannot well separate from former attempted arrangements between the people and the Church authorities. It is another scheme to give the ecclesiastical authorities a power, which, in our humble judgment they ought not to possess. It is a plan to quench the spirit of the voluntary principle in Scotland, which they may as well endeavonr to extinguish as to plant the Eildop hills on the top of Arthur's seat. And look at the master in which Noble Lords view the measure themselve,s ; the Duke of Buccicuch says the people arc the peeper judges of their pastors, but they should not be al trod to decide without the authority of the CTlizirch ! new, truly this I allows vast freedom of decision! It is precisely like the celebrated artist who said to Richardson the novellist : " 1 wish to have the most impartial idea of my pictures that men can give me, but if any one says tthat this is not the best picture that. ever was painted, j will knock him down! ihfr. Rwhardsott, what is ,our opinion. • 9" The people arc to he the jetdges, but the Church is to judge the judgment of the people T. Who talks of Catholicism after this ? Compared to this the , Church of Rome is mildness and condestension, meek. ness and kindness of spirit. The Earl of Galloway  hoped their Lordships would never sanction the Church in giving the people "an arbitrary lrt.;trary right I The power of judging who. is or who not fit to be their Minister I If it be a right, bow can it be arbitrary? if it be a right, it most be both inherent and just, which qualities are altogether incompatible with powers conferred, or with privileges unjustly and wrong' fully possessed. The Government are much blamed by some parties in the debate for not having introduced such a measure as this of the Earl of Aberdeen, but Lord Melbourne said "a Ile considered that after a time it would be demonstrated that the Government on tbis question had displayed a proper degree of prudence." We are pretty much of the same feeling with the Noble Lord.—Tyne Afercurv.