CHALMERIANA.

PART I.

EDINBURGH, 9TH MONTH, 13TH, 1830.

WE had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Thomas Chalmers, (author of "Evidences of Christianity, Civic Economy of Large Towns, Astronomical and Commercial Sermons, &c., &c.," and now Professor of Divinity at Edinburgh,) at Samuel Hoare's, soon after the last Yearly Meeting; and I now purpose to record some few particulars of our communications with him there and in this city, not excluding some other persons in whom we have been interested, and with whom we have enjoyed some profitable mental and intellectual intercourse, since my confinement here with an inflamed leg, at the house of our truly benevolent friends, Alexander and Ann Cruickshank.

On the first day of our meeting at S. Hoare's we walked together for an hour before dinner in the garden, and soon found that we were led, by a feeling of con

geniality, into familiar intercourse. He had just been presented by a friend with a copy of my Essays, which he was reading with attention, and was kind enough to approve. This circumstance led to much interesting conversation on the Evidences of Christianity, on which we had both written-their cumulative and harmonious character, and the enlargements which had been made in this branch of theological knowledge of late years. It was a noble encouragement to a good cause to find that these evidences were better understood, and more fully appreciated, eighteen hundred years after the introduction of our religion, than at any period of Church history, since the days when men were brought into actual contact with miracles.

We talked over the subject of a moral law universally, written by the Moral Governor of the universe on the hearts of mankind. He allowed the existence of this principle, and its universality, although we were both aware that the light though pure, is often faint. The darkness of fallen human nature comprehendeth it not. I remarked the distinction which exists between this law and the natural faculty of conscience, the law being the light, the conscience the eye; the law the guide, the conscience the presiding judge. He admitted this distinction; but when, after the example of Butler, I misnamed this law the moral sense, he corrected me, and said, “No, the moral sense is identical with the conscience: the law you speak of is that which the moral sense perceives."

I argued, that the law thus written on the hearts of all men, although faint, and although perpetually misread by an obscured and perverted conscience, is in itself perfectly pure and holy, an efflux of the divine character. When therefore I reflected on the utter corruption of human nature, and the apostolic doctrine, "In me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing," I could not but conclude that this universal law is a work of the Spirit.

CHALMERS. "I have no objection to admit that it is a work of the Spirit." This was, as I thought, a noble conclusion, worthy of the breadth and liberality of Dr. C.'s mind, and of the simplicity which he displays in admitting Truth, from whatever quarter it may come. It reminded me of the broad assertion twice made to me, in private conversation, by William Wilberforce, that according to his full belief, an effective offer of salvation was made to every man born into the world. I am inclined to think that some of the greatest luminaries in the evangelical world, in the present day, are essentially anti-predestinarian. Or if they hold the doctrine of predestination, they hold it in great moderation, as forming part of the balanced adjustment of Scripture, and not as subversive of the freedom of all mankind, to stand or to fall. I will just add, that since Christ is expressly declared to have died for all men, and since the law of God—a principle, when obeyed, in its nature saving—is, we believe, universally communicated to men, it is only

reasonable to believe that our fallen race has obtained this blessing through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus our Lord.

At dinner we had an interesting party,-Dr. Bird Sumner, Bishop of Chester; Dr. Lushington, the Civilian; Buxton; and a family party including our sister E. Fry. The conversation during dinner turned to the subject of capital punishments. Lushington, in the warmest terms, expressed his abhorrence of the system, and declared his opinion, that the poor criminal was thus hurried out of life, and into eternity, by means of the perpetration of another crime, far greater, for the most part, than any which the sufferer himself had committed. He even indicated a feeling, that the worse the criminal, the more improper such a punishment. Buxton rallied him, and restated his argument with great pleasantry. "The Dr. assures us, that if your Lordship was condemned to the gallows, or you, Dr. Chalmers, were about to suffer the ultimum supplicium, he would be the last man to prevent the execution of the law, or prevent the translation of the virtuous to a happier state; but to terminate the probationary existence of the most degraded of our race—the worst of robbers, or the most outrageous of murderers-was opposed at once to all the feelings of humanity, and to all the principles of religion." After all, however, there is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lushington's statement, and substantially we were all agreed.

After dinner a brisk discussion arose respecting the comparative religious condition of the long parliament, and of our representatives in the present day of latitudinarianism and laxity. Lushington contended that the advantage lay on the side of our modern senate, and that the looseness of the present was a less crying evil than the hypocrisy of past times. The bishop and Chalmers took the other side, and not only demonstrated the religious superiority of the Puritans, but strongly insisted on the great principle, that it is godliness which exalteth a nation, and which can alone impart true strength and stability to human governments. Chalmers stated the points of the argument with great strength and clearness, and the bishop confirmed what he said. In the evening Joanna Baillie joined our party; and after the bishop and others were gone, we formed a sociable circle, of which Chalmers was the centre. The evidences of Christianity became again the topic of conversation. I rather think the harmony of Scripture, and the accordance and correspondence of one part with another were adverted to. This evidence of accordance is one to which Dr. C.'s mind is obviously much alive. He knows how to trace, in the adaptation between one branch of truth and another, and especially between God's religion and man's EXPERIENCE, the master-hand of perfect wisdom and goodness.

CHAL. "The historical evidences of Christianity are abundantly sufficient to satisfy the scrutinizing re