portunity which we must seize upon now, or the cause of the Church might be irrecoverably gone, unless it be that unless the wishes of Lord Aberdeen in London, and his adviser in Edinburgh, shall be consulted by making his bill the groundwork of an arrangement, the best and greatest of our national institutes must be sacrificed to the vanity or doggedness of the two men. The very thought of this makes my blood boil with indignation. Sir Robert calls out for time and leisure (and most rightly) to mature his civil and economical measures. But there must be an instant soldering, it would appear, of the affairs of the Church, and so as to lay the irritated humors of a mortified peer and an impracticable lawyer. The thing is beyond endurance.

But let me explain myself in reference to a former letter. Should we get no more than the liberum arbitrium, it will be the clear duty of the Church to work it in the best way possible; and most happy should I be, if it so turned out, that because of its efficacy in securing a succession of evangelical and efficient clergymen, it superseded all further demand for any ulterior changes or reformations. Ever believe me, my dear Sir George, yours most truly, THOMAS CHALMERS.

P.S.-On reading over this letter I find I have been making myself hot by the imagination of a possibility. You, however, must know better, and can perhaps say whether the possibility be a truth.

No. CCXCVIII.-To SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR.

T. C.

BURNTISLAND, 30th September, 1841. MY DEAR SIR. GEORGE-Since writing you this morning, I have seen the report of Sir William Rae's speech at Rothesay; and I must say that I look far more hopefully to a measure wherewith he has to do than to aught which may be grafted on Lord Aberdeen's bill, or concocted between his lordship and the Dean of Faculty. I do think that, after this announcement, the most graceful and becoming thing for

both the dean and the earl would be to retire from the concern. The dean did us great mischief by conjuring up the Strathbogie case, which I have no doubt was gotten up mainly under his auspices and by his encouragement, and which I fear will prove far the most serious obstacle in the way of an adjustment. I ever am, my dear Sir George, yours most respectfully, THOMAS CHALMERS.

No. CCXCIX.-TO SIR GEORGE SINCLAIR.

EDINBURGH, 6th October, 1841. MY DEAR SIR GEORGE-I return you many thanks for your very kind letter, all the more grateful to my feelings that I had the apprehension of having been somewhat too stout and controversial in my former communications.

I have heard through another channel of the good you are doing. Be assured that if we had but the reasonable prospect of a fair and well-principled adjustment, all my efforts should be on the side of peace and charity. I never was a friend to agitation for its own sake, and would infinitely rather that the circumstances of the Church allowed its ministers to remain quietly at their respective homes, and prosecute the labors of their high vocation in their own parishes.

Since writing the last page, I have seen some friends of the Church, both lay and clerical. Their feeling seems to be, that it will be impossible, after the attempt of the opposite party to disestablish us, to stop the progress of Defensive Associations but by a definite measure, Iwith the character and certainty of which the bulk of the Church and country might be satisfied. I have the honor to be, yours, &c.,

THOMAS CHALMERS.*

No. CCC.-TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.

EDINBURGH, 27th October, 1841.

MY LORD—There should, I think, be such a freedom of the

* For the remaining letters of this series, see “Selections from the Correspondence," &c., edited by Sir George Sinclair, Bart.

Church from civil coercion, that she should be at liberty to apply her own tests on every appointment by the patron for the determination of the question, Is it for the Christian good of the people that this presentee should be inducted in a given parish as their minister? This we have had since the Revolution till the recent usurpations by our Court of Session. It is true that the congeniality of a man's preaching with the popular conscience has been regarded by the suffering party in Scotland as the element of fitness; and this because of the adaptation between the subject-matter of Christianity and the human conscience. I could say much in defense of this peculiarity of ours, which, till now, has never been invaded from without, though overborne for a century by Moderatism within. But I will not detain your lordship further than by saying, that I should hold it an immense improvement on the ecclesiastical system in England, as well as on ours, not that you should adopt all our views on the element of the popular will, but that you should have the benefit of the principle which, if conceded to us, would set our question at rest—“that the power of the patron and of the civil courts should cease from the moment that the presentee is handed over to the Church courts." This would leave the ecclesiastical power clear for the determination of its own proper questions, that is, for sitting in judgment on all the likelihoods of usefulness on the part of such a presentee to such a parish. The majority of our Church are at this moment willing to endure the deprivation of all their temporalities rather than have the authority of the Court of Session, as exercised within these four last years, forced upon us by the Legislature. It will in fact prove the suspension, if not the breaking up of a religious Establishment in this country. I am, my lord, yours, &c., THOMAS CHALMERS.

No. CCCI. TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.

18th January, 1842.

MY LORD-I am glad to observe from your lordship's let

ter that we are like to be protected from the civil courts; but we must be protected from them when giving effect to our own views on the subject of Non-intrusion. We do not ask the Church of England to adopt that principle; but we ask her to act upon it as our principle, just as a self-regulating body should not be disturbed in the execution of its own by-laws, these not being inconsistent with the order of civil society. Our contest is not for the specific object of Nonintrusion, but for the greater and comprehensive object of independence in spiritual things, so well advocated by the Archbishop of Dublin. I am, yours, &c.,

THOMAS CHALMERS.

No. CCCII. TO THE HONORABLE AND REV. DR. WELLESLEY. EDINBURGH, December, 1841.

MY DEAR SIR-I beg to send you the inclosed statement, with such marks and observations of my own as occurred in reading it. The only thing better than the Duke of Argyle's bill, which I shall mention at present, were the following up of a suggestion made by the Duke of Wellington, that we should frame a measure of our own and send it up for the sanction of Parliament. We may be said to have as good as done this when we approved, by a great majority, of the Duke of Argyle's bill, though I have no doubt that we could frame another motion for giving effect to our principle, if this were preferred.

Would the British government think it justifiable to propose that the priesthood of Hindostan shall either renounce their idolatrous religion or be stripped of their endowments, both the religion and the endowments having been long in subsistence at the time that their country was acquired by us? And the parallel question to this is, Would it be justifiable to force from the Church of Scotland the surrender either of presbytery or any one of what the Church holds to be its essential principles, on the pain of losing her endowments if she refuse, seeing that both presbytery and its pri

ciple of Non-intrusion were in full operation along with the endowments at a time when this country was annexed to England? In other words, are Scotchmen to be treated worse than Hindoos? I may send another memorial on the subject; but this, as being the latest, is the worthiest of your THOMAS CHALMERS.

attention.

P.S.-It is of prime importance to remark, that the passing of the Duke of Argyle's bill would not alienate a single clergyman from our Church; the forcing of another bill might occasion such a disruption as would lead to our overthrow.

T. C.

[The distinguished talent and Christian patriotism displayed by the youthful Marquess of Lorne, in a publication entitled a "Letter to the Peers," not only awakened Dr. Chalmers's liveliest admiration, but filled him with the highest anticipations of the powerful influence which, in his after life, might be exerted by one so gifted and so good, not only upon his own order, but upon society at large. On receiving this publication, Dr. Chalmers addressed the following letter to the marquess.]

No. CCCIII. TO LORD LORNE.

EDINBURGH, 28th January, 1842. MY DEAR LORD LORNE-I have read your work with the most profound interest and satisfaction, insomuch that I fear to incur the semblance of insincerity by telling you all I think of its merits. Let me, therefore, copy a sentence which I have just written to Lord Galloway, after having entreated him to read your letter: "It is a truly admirable and far the best pleading in favor of the Church, on the grounds of constitutional law, that has yet appeared. Heaven grant that it may open the eyes of our rulers, and take them out of that false position which they now occupy-having the names of Conservatives, yet undermining the best and most truly Conservative of all our national institutes." As an address to statesmen, we have had nothing half so good, or that promises to be half so influential during the whole controversy;