veto law did; and this is a consideration which should not only stimulate the movement of such a measure, but, more encouraging still, will, in all likelihood, enlist others to support him, on purpose to avert what they think a great evil. In my eyes, so far from being an evil, I look forward to it as our final and most secure landing-place; but, whether you will agree with me in this or not, you will at once perceive that this anti-patronage movement, fairly viewed, should be hailed as an auxiliary, and looked upon not as a conflicting but as a conspiring force upon your side, and all this without prejudice to the opinion of, an opinion which I myself expressed in my correspondence with Lord Aberdeen, that the obtimum of this matter were a Church whose ministers were paid by the state and chosen by the people.

I am most thankful, and I am sure that in this I am sympathized with by thousands, for the true Christian patriotism of your efforts on the side of the Church's independence, and enlargement out of her present difficulties. Ever believe me, &c., THOMAS CHALMERS.

No. CCCVIII. TO JOHN C. COLQUHOUN, Esq.

1842.

MY DEAR SIR-I yesterday saw your letter to Mr. Hamilton. You wish the Church to declare publicly that it I would be satisfied with the liberum arbitrium. Should it not be enough for legislators to know that this is the lowest measure under which the great proportion of our clergy, I hope the majority, could conscientiously minister in the Church as an Establishment? We can not say more, and for two reasons; first, the use made of such a declaration by our unprincipled enemies, would be to hold forth the Church to the country as having abandoned the people, satisfied with power to itself; but secondly, and chiefly, it is a declaration which the Church could not honestly make. For my own part, I should greatly prefer such a bill as that set forth by Mr. Hamilton, and still more would I prefer the total aboli

tion of patronage; yet, for the sake of the immense benefit to the people, which is conferred by an Establishment that is at all tolerable, I would keep by it with the liberum arbitrium alone, determined, at the same time, that as far as possible this said liberum arbitrium should be so exercised in every one instance, as that no minister should in any case be intruded on a parish contrary to the will of the congregation.

For what purpose should more be required of us than this? Is it that the odium of having sacrificed the people should be shuffled off by members of Parliament and laid upon the Church? Let each party bear their own burden; and I for one am very glad that an alternative between the liberum arbitrium and the popular dissent should be left with the Legislature. Our unequivocal preference is for the latter. If their preference is for the former, let this be brought above boards, that the public may estimate at its real value the profession, not of Liberals only, but of all denominations. I rejoice to think that our majorities promise to be unbroken, and that the modern fines and rebukes of the Court of Session will tell about as little on our noble-hearted Church, as did the boots and halters and thumb-screws of their worthy predecessors before them. I am, yours, &c.,

THOMAS CHALMERS.

No. CCCIX.-To ALEXANDER GORDON, ESQ., LONDON.

EDINBURGH, 3d January, 1843.

MY DEAR SIR-It is my earnest and anxious desire that you may not be annoyed after so much trouble, if I frankly state to you the difficulties which I feel in complying with the requisition by which I have been so much honored, and that, too, at the hands of so many high and estimable men.

My greatest objection lies in this, that it is more of a Scotch than of an English or London requisition. I would not like to lecture in London because I was set to it by people here, but because I was drawn to it by people there; what would be influential with me were a requisition sufficiently

numerous, and the more so the better, by men of course possessing weight in society, but still by men desirous of such lectures for themselves, and that because they really want to become informed on the subject of them. It is with this view that I should defer more to a requisition signed by literary and ecclesiastical than by merely official men. Το make plain my meaning, I would lay greater stress on any one of such names as those of James Hamilton, or Isaac Taylor, or Joseph Bunting, or Christopher Benson, or Hallam, or Thomas Carlyle, &c., &c., than for any half dozen members of Parliament, merely as such. I do not say this to the disparagement of those few who have subscribed your requisition; for, apart from their situation, I can recognize some of great mental power and great Christian worth among them. But I want to make it plain to you that the chief recommendation of names in my eyes would be, that they were such names as afforded a sufficient guarantee for a desirous and intelligent audience. In this view, such names as those of William Hamilton and Alexander Gillespie and first and foremost of all, allow me to specify your own-are to me of far greater influence than the names of hundreds at a distance from London; neither do I see that there is any virtue in the names of whole corporations, such as kirk-sessions and others. The most powerful of all requisitions were one subscribed by respectable citizens, among whom one could discern men of literature, and ecclesiastics of all denominations.

And then, as to our Church question, I should like you to know how very little desirous I am of enlightening mere statesmen and politicians on the subject. After the repeated disappointments of the years that are past, it is very natural for statesmen to magnify their office, and to imagine that all which is said or done bears a reference to them. The truth is, that in all my future treatment of these topics, my converse will be with secular and Christian philanthropists rather than with statesmen; indeed, I would shrink from a position or character which I should feel so utterly grotesque

as that of an expedition to London for the purpose of schooling the Parliament; and for doing away every aspect of aught so ridiculous, I feel relieved, as if by the removal of an obstacle in the way, by the recent deed of our Convocation, which will probably bring our whole matter to an issue before I can possibly go to London, which certainly can not be sooner than the month of April; and if I do go, it will be for the purpose of addressing those who take an intellectual or Christian interest in the grave ecclesiastical question. The doings and state of the Church of Scotland may supply preface and illustrations for my argument, but it will be an argument not intended, not perhaps fitted for, the apprehension of statesmen, but which, with the blessing of God, might serve, in these extraordinary times, to unite and direct the energies of those who have the Christian good of our people at heart, and who, either with or without establishments, are ready to co-operate in whatever might best conduce to the spread of truth and righteousness in our land.

Let me entreat that you will take no more trouble in this matter. Forgive all that may appear harsh or ungrateful to you in this letter. If I do go to London, it can only be on a very clear and imperative call of duty, for all my personal tastes and inclinations would forbid the movement-a movement, therefore, which would require a much louder call, and a much clearer and opener path than I yet see before me. I can not let this letter go without expressing the high esteem and value in which I hold such names as those of Sir John Pirrie and Mr. Plumptre. With kindest regards to Mrs. Gordon and your family, I ever am, &c.,

THOMAS CHALMERS.

No. CCCX.-To ALEXANDER GORDON, Esq.

EDINBURGH, 2d February, 1843. MY DEAR SIR-Your requisition has now assumed such a shape, both in its substance and in the signatures which are appended to it, that I am now greatly more disposed to enter

tain it than I was at the earlier stages of our correspondence on the subject.

1

You are aware that I have all along deprecated the idea of a lectureship in London on the Scottish Church question, and that from the very first I have shrunk from the possibility of any such construction being put on any such lectureships being delivered there, as a presumptuous and futile attempt to influence the decision of that question; and the question had not commenced, at least so as to attract public notice, when I delivered my lectures in 1838 on national establishments of religion, and the proposed supplement to these will naturally partake of the same general character, being intended for an audience not of statesmen but of scholars, who take a literary or professional interest in the subject— a subject of paramount importance, and which will outlast all the fluctuations of this world's restless politics.

I feel the utmost possible respect both for the noble and parliamentary requisitionists whose names were in the first presentation, transmitted some weeks ago, but not without the apprehension that the very appearance of these should foster an erroneous notion of the real design and character of the proposed undertaking. They are the literary and ecclesiastical names, both in the first and subsequent presentations, which have decided me in its favor, and I now look forward in good earnest to the probability of my sooner or later visiting your metropolis for the fulfilling of the task which you have put into my hands.

But lest in any quarter there should be a lurking expectation of my appearance there either before or during the discussion of our Church question in Parliament, let me state, once for all, that I can not possibly attempt the delivery of these lectures till the month of June, or after the rising of our General Assembly, by which time it is to be hoped that the decision of the Legislature, whatever that may be, on the wrongs complained of by the Scottish Church, will be no longer a matter of anticipation, but a matter of history.