Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

128 'Case of Reason' not a Popular Work.

of equity; when the palate can taste the difference between sin and holiness; when the hand can feel the truth of a proposition; then may human reason be a proper arbitrator between God and man, the sole, final, just judge of all that ought or ought not to be matter of a holy, divine, and heavenly religion.'

[ocr errors]

When it is remembered that the title of Locke's famous treatise the 'Reasonableness of Christianity'-gave the keynote to the dominant theology of Law's day, one can hardly be surprised that this vigorous crusade against reason should have been received by the friends of the Christian cause with indifference, if not with actual hostility. At any rate, such appears to have been the fact. Although the Case of Reason' was published when the 'Serious Call' was just in the first flush of popularity, and although the writer had long been recognised as one of the most powerful and successful contributors to the Bangorian controversy, his new controversial piece was certainly not appreciated. Leland barely mentions Law as one of the answerers to Tindal, without one word of commendation, although he can find room for a word of praise for 'the ingenious Mr. Anthony Atkey' (whoever he may have been), and has a panegyrical epithet for almost all the rest of the many replies to Christianity as old as the Creation' which he notices.1 Dr. Waterland gives all the weight of his great name against Law's performance,2 and the majority of contemporary or nearly contemporary writers simply ignore the work. Law has been better appreciated in later years, and few who read the Case of Reason' in the present day will deny that it is a powerful work, fully worthy of the great writer who penned it. It was reprinted at the request of a friend in 1755.3 See Leland's View of the Deistical Writers,' Letter IX., pp. 79-85.

2 See Waterland's 'Works' (Van Mildert's edition), vol. vi. p. 454.

But

3 This is worth noting, because one might perhaps have expected that it would not have accorded with Law's later views. See 'Works,' vii. (2) 10,

11, 15, 16, 17, 29.

Law accused of Romanising.

129

CHAPTER IX.

LAW ON THE ROMAN QUESTION.

DURING the years 1731-32, Law wrote three letters which are worthy of a short separate chapter, among other reasons because they furnish us with almost the only materials which we possess for judging of his attitude towards the Church of Rome. Like other nonjurors, he was constantly charged with a tendency to Romanism. His three letters on the Bangorian controversy, in especial, were accused of leading men in this direction. The Papists,' wrote Gilbert Burnet,' should rejoice in your doctrines, which would do you little service but be of great advantage to them.' ' Mr. Pyle, another antagonist, spoke of Law as 'triumphing over his lordship [Bishop Hoadly], under no banner but that of the Pope;' and, in another work, declared that 'Law's principles can possibly serve nobody but a Romanist.' The same accusation was hinted at, if not actually made, by Mr. Jackson, of Rossington, and others. The charge was

An Answer to Mr. Law's Letter to the Bishop of Bangor in a letter to Mr. Law. By Gilbert Burnet (second son of the Bishop of Salisbury). Published 1717.

Vindication of the Bishop of Bangor in Answer to Law. By T. Pyle, Lecturer of Lynn Regis 1718.

Second Vindication. By the same. 1718.

• See An Answer to Mr. Law's Letter to the Bishop of Bangor concerning his late Sermon and Preservative. By John Jackson, rector of Rossington. 1718; and the literature on the Bangorian controversy, passim. Mr. Jackson was subsequently vicar of Doncaster, and became well known in connection with the controversy between Drs. Waterland and Clarke on the subject of the Trinity.

K

130

Law on Romanism.

utterly unfounded. Law, like the rest of the nonjurors, had no sympathy whatever with the Roman system. His position in the Church of his baptism was perfectly clear and logical. At the same time, his attitude towards Romanism was very different from that of the majority of his contemporaries. He was no Romanist, but he was also no violent anti-Romanist. Though he had no inclination to meddle with politics, he was always a staunch Jacobite at heart; and the religion of him whom he considered the rightful claimant to the throne was, in his opinion, no sufficient bar to his right. But circumstances did not require Law to give his opinion on the Roman controversy, and hence, with the exception of these letters, we have little direct intimation of his views on the subject.

The letters were written to a lady, probably, but not certainly, Miss Dodwell, daughter of the learned but eccentric nonjuror Henry Dodwell. The circumstances of the Dodwell family agree with what is said or hinted in these letters about the personal characters of those referred to in them. But then, so also, to a certain extent, do the circumstances of the Lee family-a name which will come before us again in connection with Law's mystic period.' However, it is not a matter of importance to identify the individual to whom the letters were addressed. It is sufficient to note that, whoever she was, her frame of mind was very similar to that of many, who in the present, and indeed in every, age, have been attracted to Romanism as the shortest way of getting rid of their difficulties. Law's advice is not only pious, sensible, and admirable in every respect, but it is quite applicable, mutatis mutandis, to all

[ocr errors]

Mr. Edward Fisher wrote to Miss Gibbon in 1789, respecting these letters, They were published in 1779 and intituled "Letters to a Lady, &c." This lady, it seems, was of the name of Dodwell, not a member of any sect, but of the Church of England, and daughter to the pious and learned Mr. Henry Dodwell, &c. ;' but he does not give any reason why it seems' so.

[ocr errors]

Letters to a Lady on Romanism..

131

who feel the same attraction in the present day. For their practical utility, therefore, the letters are well worth noticing. They are also noticeable in a life of Law as being thoroughly illustrative of the character of the writer. That curious mixture of severity and extreme tenderness which is conspicuous in Law's intercourse with Byrom meets us again in these letters. They are full of heart; but while they could hardly have failed to make the recipient love the writer, they were also calculated to make her fear him. While she must have felt that Law had a most affectionate regard for her welfare, she must also have felt the sternness of his rebukes. The fault which some perhaps will find with the letters will not be that they are too High Church, but rather that they are too Broad. But the letters, or rather extracts from them, for they are too long to be quoted in full, shall speak for themselves. They are entitled 'Letters to a Lady inclined to enter into the Communion of the Church of Rome, by W. Law, M.A.' They were not intended for publication; and were, in fact, not published until some years after the writer's death, being, as is stated in the title-page, 'now [1779] first printed for H. Payne,' a devoted admirer of Law, and himself the author and editor of several works.

[ocr errors]

The first letter is dated May 24, 1731,' and is a reply to a most curious medley of reasons which the lady appears to have given for desiring to join the Church of Rome. Among these were the licentiousness of the press-which Law not unnaturally terms'an unreasonable complaint;' the old difficulties about the doctrines of predestination and absolute decrees; and the objection that God's grace would attend more sensibly the use of His ordinances if He approved of the Church of England. On this latter difficulty Law dwells more at length than on the rest. He contends-(1) that before the Reformation the same objec

132

Letters to a Lady on Romanism.

seven thousand who And, nowadays, people,

tion might have been made, and therefore the Reformation was not to blame; (2) that there was the same reason to put the question in the Church of Rome; (3) that the fact of the Jews falling into idolatry was no objection to their ordinances; and (4) he administers to his correspondent a grave rebuke on the presumption implied in the objection. 'How,' he asks, can you tell who are receiving benefit from ordinances? The prophet had need to be reminded that there were were not bowing the knee to Baal. who have never been out of the town in which they were born, are apt to think they know the state of the religious world.' But, even supposing the corruption of Christianity to be as great as his correspondent supposed, 'it should only move us to profound humility, zeal, tenderness, charity, and intercession for those who neglect it.' To ask 'how, supposing a sufficiency of Divine grace, men should be in such a state,' is blamable curiosity. 'What is there in the Bible to make us think ourselves qualified to ask or answer such questions, or that any part of our duty depends upon our knowledge of them? It is the end of revelation to silence such inquiries. It tells us of the blindness and disorder of our nature and the depths of Infinite Providence.' He then touches upon the fall of angels, to which his correspondent had probably referred, and finely adds: It is no subject for inquiry ;there is no place in the meek and lowly spirit of the followers of Christ Jesus for such questions; they are all to be buried in a profound resignation to the adorable providence of God; we should resist them, if, through our weakness, they intrude on us, like other thoughts contrary to piety.'

On some points Law agreed with his correspondent's premisses, but demurred to the conclusions she drew from

« AnteriorContinuar »