The only other allusion, so far as I am aware, which Law ever made to his early days in his printed works, occurs in the same treatise, where, referring to the bigotry of party spirit, he says: 'When I was a young scholar at the University I heard a great religionist say in my father's house, that if he could believe the late King of France to be in heaven, he could not tell how to wish to go there himself. This was exceeding shocking to all that heard it.'' 1 Besides the classics, Law appears to have studied philosophy and also the so-called mystic writers, of whom in later days he became so ardent an admirer. Law also possessed some knowledge of Hebrew, which he learnt at the University' from his Hebrew master, old Eagle,'3 and his MSS. notes in the library at King's Cliffe show that he had some knowledge of mathematics; his acquaintance with the modern languages was probably made at a later date, with the exception of French, which he certainly learned in his youth. There is a tradition that he acted as curate of Fotheringhay for a short time, but there is no direct evidence of the fact; while there is evidence that after his election to the Fellowship he resided at Cambridge and took pupils.4 Law's tenure of his Fellowship, however, was not destined to be of long duration. It is well known that the last four years of Queen Anne's reign (1710-1714) were marked by a vigorous revival of those doctrines which had led many conscientious men twenty years earlier to demur to the Revolution Settlement. The old watchwords of Appeal to all that Doubt &c., Law's 'Works,' vol. vi. p. 278. 2 See Byrom's Journal, vol. i. part i. p. 23, which shows Law's early acquaintance with the mystic philosopher Malebranche. Ibid. for January 31, 1730. • Ibid. Letter from John Byrom to Mrs. Byrom, vol. i. part ii. p. 512. 'I was to-day,' writes Byrom, 'to call on Dr. Richardson, the clergyman ; he was pupil to Mr. Law at Cambridge.' ... His Tripos Speech. 9 'divine, hereditary, indefeasible right,'' passive obedience,' and 'non-resistance,' began again to be heard. The logical result of such doctrines was, of course, antagonistic to the Protestant succession; but all those who held them were not prepared to follow out their principles to the logical result. There were undoubtedly many, who, without going the whole length of the Vicar of Bray, were inclined to adopt the policy of a contemporary ballad : We moderate men do our judgment suspend For God only knows where these matters will end. And twenty years hence, for aught you or I know, William Law, however, was not one of these 'moderate men, whose principles went as the times varied,' and, as he was the last man in the world to conceal his principles, they brought him into trouble. In the first mention which Byrom, in his amusing 'Journal,' makes of his future mentor, he tells us, there is one Law, a M.A. and Fellow of Emmanuel, has this last week been degraded to a Soph., for a speech that he spoke on a public occasion, reflecting, as is reported, on the Government. All I could learn of the matter is of some queries that he asked the lads in the middle of his speech, to such effect as these, viz. : Whether good and evil be obnoxious to revolution? Whether, when the earth interposes between the sun and the moon, the moon may be said to advocate herself? Whether, when the children of Israel had made the golden calf the object of their worship, they ought to keep to their God de facto, or return to their God de jure? and such like. He is much blamed by some and defended by others; has the character of a vain, conceited fellow.' Byrom wrote this, April 27, 2 Quoted in Mr. Wordsworth's interesting work on University Life in the Eighteenth Century, p. 34. ΙΟ His 'Degradation.' 1713, to his honoured mother, dear brother, and sisters,' and three days later, repeating to another correspondent the story of Law, he added,' On account of a speech that he made at the Trypos, a public meeting of the University.' The account of Byrom (who is generally pretty accurate) is confirmed by the following entry in the annals of the Tripos speeches: April 17, 1713, Mr. Will. Law was suspended for "his speech in the public schooles at the latter act."'1 This same event is evidently alluded to by Hearne, though the news appears to have been somewhat late in reaching him, for it is dated July 30, 1713: 'One Mr. Lawes, A.M., of Cambridge, was lately degraded by the means of Dr. Adams, head of King's College, who complained to the present lord-treasurer (who was zealous for his degradation) upon account of some queries in his speech called tripos speech, such as, Whether the sun shines when it is in an eclipse? Whether a controverted son be not better than a controverted successor? Whether a dubious successor be not in danger of being set aside? With other things of the same nature.'2 Soon after his 'degradation' Law preached the one and only sermon of his which is still extant. As the single specimen we possess of his pulpit powers, it is worthy of attention, but for this reason only. The sermon itself is in no way remarkable. Many a pulpit rang with the same sentiments on the same day. It is simply an energetic and vehement defence of the Peace of Utrecht which the Tory Government had lately concluded, and is about as unspiritual a composition as one can well conceive; in fact, there is not one word of what we should call religion in it from beginning to end. It is entitled, 'A Sermon preach'd at Hazelingfield in the county of Cambridge, on Tuesday, See Wordsworth's University Life in the Eighteenth Century, p. 231. 2 Hearne's Diary, i. 282. His Sermon on the Peace of Utrecht. II July 7, 1713, being the day appointed by Her Majesty's Royal Proclamation for Public Thanksgiving for Her Majesty's General Peace, by W. Law, M.A., Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.' The text is Titus iii. 1, and prefixed to the printed sermon is this very suggestive motto: 'A modest man would never meddle with another's business; a prudent man would never interpose in things above his reach; but least of all would any loyal subject entrench upon Cæsar's rights' (Mr. Chiswell's Sermon at Hertford Assizes). The sermon is mainly directed against those audacious Whigs who ventured to find fault with 'a Peace which nothing but the most consummate wisdom and laborious care, blessed with Providence, could have procured us,' instead of 'giving God thanks and praise for as glorious an affair as ever befel these nations.' 'Man,' says the preacher, 'is equally averse to the government of God and his vicegerents. Our duty to government in most cases must be active, but in all passive.' He divides his subject into four heads: (1) That every good Christian and loyal subject must have a care of examining too nicely the affairs of his Prince. (2) That if a wise man was pretty sure that some parts of the Public Administration would admit of better management, yet should he be very careful how he expressed such sentiments; and in such cases never suffer the wisdom or care of government to be common topicks of Reflexion. (3) The Reason why this Duty is now so much transgressed by us. (4) The application to the Happy Occasion.' The sermon reminds one of the strain in which Queen Elizabeth used to address her Parliaments. We are to have a care of examining too nicely the affairs of our Prince, (1) because of the danger of becoming too wise in our own conceits to be thankful, (2) because of our ignorance, (3) because of our passions, (4) because of our party spirit.' Then follows some violent abuse of those who railed at the ministry: ་ I 2 He becomes a Nonjuror. 'Men are resty and unruly, bold and disloyal in their expressions.' They 'condemn an authority that has no superior but that of Heaven.' It is hard to say whether this practice be more common or more abominable.' The 'meanest Mechanick pretends to be wiser than his Governor and censure the Proceeding of Crown'd Heads.' Then comes what in this day we should consider fulsome praise of the Queen for her fostering care as a nursing mother of the Church. Whilst the State thrives and triumphs under her Protection how does our Church rejoyce in her true Defender, whilst she sees her faithful sons encouraged to be good, whilst to defend her rights is to secure Anna's favour; whilst she sees the Princely heart eager in the cause of God, firm to the Faith as the undaunted martyr's, zealous in devotion, and both in Principle and Practice unchangeably good.' Then the preacher apostrophises her: 'Thou great, dear offspring of great Charles, how do his Royal Virtues shine in thee! Glorious in every excellence that can grace a Christian, adorn Government, and bless a nation! Shame that we should murmur! Let us cast out this evil spirit of discontent, and be thankful to the best of Queens for this happy and honourable Peace!' After some further diatribes against 'our rude, disloyal behaviour to Government,' the preacher concludes by urging his hearers to 'profess with boldness those good old principles of our Religion, concerning the Divinity of our Sovereign's authority and the absolute passive obedience we owe to her.' This sort of language was common enough at the time when it was uttered, but within a few months of the preaching of the sermon 'the best of Queens' was no more. And then how were such extravagant assertions of the divine right and so forth to be reconciled with the recognition of a Sovereign who had obviously no other than a Parliamentary title to the vacant throne? Law hesitated not one |