egation, who ought
to appoint the teacher by whom they were to be edified. So far, the
party of seceders come forward as martyrs to their democratic
principles. And they drew a colourable sanction to their democracy
from the great names of Calvin, Zuinglius, and John Knox. Unhappily
for them, Sir William Hamilton has shown, by quotations the most
express and absolute from these great authorities, that no such
democratic appeal as the Non-intrusionists have presumed, was ever
contemplated for an instant by any one amongst the founders of the
Reformed churches. That Calvin, whose jealousy was so inexorable
towards princes and the sons of princes--that John Knox, who never
"feared the face of man that was born of woman"--were these great
Christian champions likely to have flinched from installing a popular
tribunal, had they believed it eligible for modern times, or warranted
by ancient times? In the learning of the question, therefore,
Non-intrusionists showed themselves grossly wrong. Meantime it is
fancied that at least they were generously democratic, and that they
manifested their disinterested love of justice by creating a popular
control that must have operated chiefly against their own clerical
order. What! is that indeed so? Now, finally, take another instance
how names belie facts. The people _were_ to choose their ministers;
the council for election of the pastor _was_ to be a popular council
abstracted from the congregation: but how? but under what conditions?
but by whom abstracted? Behold the subtle design:--This pretended
congregation was a small faction; this counterfeit "people" was the
petty gathering of COMMUNICANTS; and the communicants were in effect
within the appointment of the clergyman. They formed indirectly a
secret committee of the clergy. So that briefly, Lord Aberdeen, whilst
restraining the popular courts, gives to them a true popular
authority; and the Non-intrusionists, whilst seeming to set up a
democratic idol, do in fact, by dexterous ventriloquism, throw their
own all-potential voice into its passive organs.

We may seem to owe some apology to our readers for the space which we
have allowed to this great moral _emeute_ in Scotland. But we hardly
think so ourselves. For in our own island, and in our own times,
nothing has been witnessed so nearly bordering on a revolution.
Indeed, it is painful to hear Dr Chalmers, since the secession,
speaking of the Scottish aristocracy in a tone of s