LESLIE, CHARLES, a
celebrated non-juring divine, was the second son of the bishop of Clogher.
He was born in the year 1650. He commenced his education at Inniskillen,
Ireland, and was admitted a fellow-commoner in Trinity college, Dublin, in
1664. Here he continued till he commenced master of arts, and during this
period acted as tutor to Mr Michael Ward, afterwards bishop of Derry. After
the death of his father, in 1671, he came over to England, and entered
himself in the temple at London, and for some years studied the law. Finding
this an uncongenial pursuit he relinquished it, and applied to
divinity. In 1680 he was admitted into holy orders, and in 1687 became
chancellor of the cathedral church of Connor, and also acted as a justice of
the peace. Soon after his appointment he distinguished himself in a public
religious controversy, with Patrick Tyrrel, a Roman catholic, who had been
appointed to the see of Clogher. The disputation was numerously attended by
persons of the persuasions of both the champions, and each assigned the
victory to the defender of his own faith; but it is beyond doubt, that
Leslie had greatly the advantage of his antagonist. He afterwards held
another public disputation with two eminent popish divines in the church of
Tynan, diocese of Armagh. The controversy was maintained in the presence of
a large assembly, composed, as in the former case, of persons of both
religions; and here again the talents of Leslie brought him off
triumphantly. He was now become exceedingly popular in the country for his
theological acquirements, and a circumstance soon afterwards occurred which
procured him equal celebrity for his political knowledge, and for his
intrepidity of character. A Roman catholic high sheriff having been
appointed for the county of Monaghan, the gentlemen of the county, in great
alarm at this indication of catholic ascendency, hastened to wait upon him
for his advice, as to how they should act with regard to the newly appointed
officer, whose religion disqualified him, by law, for the situation. Mr
Leslie told them, that it would be equally illegal in them to permit the
sheriff to act, and in him to attempt it; that though appointed by the
authority of the crown, he, being of the Roman catholic persuasion, could
not have taken the oaths necessary to qualify him for the office, and that
therefore his nomination was illegal. This doctrine he afterwards held at
the quarter sessions, where the case came to be decided, and so effectually
did he urge his objections, and that in the presence of the sheriff himself,
that the bench unanimously agreed to commit the pretended officer for his
intrusion. Mr Leslie thus placed himself in conspicuous opposition to the
dominant party, and openly declared that he no longer considered James as
the defender of the faith.
Notwithstanding, however, of
his hostility to the papists, he continued a staunch supporter of the exiled
family at the revolution in 1688, and refused to take the oaths to king
William and queen Mary. The consequence of this fidelity was the loss of all
his preferments.
When Ireland became disturbed
in 1689, Mr Leslie removed with his family to England, where he employed
himself in writing political pamphlets to serve the cause which he had
embraced; but, though opposed to the existing government he continued a
zealous and active supporter of the church of England. About this time he
entered into a controversy with the quakers, which is said to have arisen
from the circumstance of his lodging with a family of that persuasion. This
family he converted. The first of the several treatises which he wrote
against the quakers is entitled, "The Snake in the Grass." It appeared in
1696, and soon ran into a second edition. It was answered by George Whithead
in a pamphlet entitled, "An Antidote to the Snake in the Grass." In his
second edition Mr Leslie noticed this answer; but he was again assailed in a
production called, "Satan dissolved from his Disguises of Light," which also
appeared in 1696. To this, and several other attacks, Mr Leslie replied at
great length in "A Defence of a book entitled the Snake in the Grass." This
again provoked a host of answers, amongst which was one by the quakers,
entitled "A Switch for the Snake." To this Mr Leslie again replied in "A
Second Defence, or the third and last part of the Snake in the Grass."
The most celebrated works of
Mr Leslie, though these just enumerated discovered singular ability, were
those which he wrote against the deists. The first of these was published,
in 1697, in a letter to a friend, and was entitled "A Short and easy Method
with the Deists." The friend alluded to in the title was a lady,
though the work bears that it was a gentleman. Having been thrown
accidentally into the company of infidels, she applied to Mr Leslie for
"some short topic of reason, without running to authorities and the
intricate mazes of learning." The treatise was effectual, and Mr Leslie,
although it was not his original intention, was prevailed upon to publish
it. This work he enlarged considerably in a second edition. No answer
appeared to the Short and Easy Method till 1710, when it was replied to in a
treatise entitled "A detection of the true meaning and wicked designs of a
book entitled," &c. Mr Leslie replied to this attack in "The Truth of
Christianity Demonstrated," to which was prefixed, "A Vindication of the
Short Method with the Deists." These works against deism produced a powerful
effect, and amongst others the conversion of a person of the name of Gildon,
who had acquired considerable celebrity as a member of that persuasion. This
man not only professed himself convinced of his errors, and publicly
retracted them, but wrote a book against the opinions which he had formerly
entertained, entitled "The Deist’s Manual, or a rational Inquiry into the
Christian Religion."
Encouraged by the success of
his attack on deism, Mr Leslie, in 1699, produced his "Short Method with the
Jews," a work which was first suggested by a similar circumstance with that
which had given rise to his Short Method with the Deists. An eminent Jew had
been converted by his reasoning, and had intimated his intention of publicly
owning his conviction. The convert, however, died during Mr Leslie’s
absence, without exhibiting the recantation which he had proposed.
The next controversy in which
Mr Leslie was engaged, was with the Socinians. It began in 1694. In 1697 he
published the first of the six dialogues, entitled "The Socinian Controversy
Discussed." This was answered in a short tract, entitled "Remarks on Mr
Charles Leslie’s First Dialogue on the Socinian Controversy." Mr Leslie
replied, and was again answered by his opponent in "A Vindication of the
Remarks." Mr Leslie now published "A Reply to the Vindication," and with
this ended the first part of the controversy.
His principal works against
the papists were, "The True Nature of the Catholic Church, in answer to the
Bishop of Meaux’s letter to Mr Nelson," printed in 1703; "The Case Stated
between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, published in 1713;
and "Of Private Judgment and Authority in Matters of Faith." These works are
said to have made several converts from popery.
Although thus earnestly and
laboriously employed in the cause of religion, Mr Leslie did not neglect the
interests, so far as any efforts of his could serve them, of the exiled
family. He wrote several political tracts during this period, and made
several journeys to Bar le Duc to visit the Pretender, who was then residing
there. These journeys, however, and his political treatises, especially one,
entitled "The Good Old Cause," published in 1710, gave such offence to the
ruling party, that it is said a warrant for his apprehension was actually
issued against him. However this may be, he found it necessary to quit the
kingdom in 1713, when he proceeded to Bar le Duc, and took up his residence
by invitation with the Pretender, who procured a room to be fitted up for
him in his own house. While here, Mr Leslie was permitted to officiate in a
private chapel after the manner of the church of England, and it is even
said, that the Pretender had promised to listen to his arguments concerning
his religion, and that Mr Leslie had in vain endeavoured his conversion.
This, however, is contradicted by lord Bolingbroke, who asserts, that he not
only refused to listen to Mr Leslie, but forbade all discussion on religious
matters. Notwithstanding of this, however, and of several other subjects of
dissatisfaction with the chevalier, whose conduct towards him does not
appear to have been altogether adjusted to his deserts, Mr Leslie continued
to remain with him, and in 1716 accompanied him into Italy, after his
unsuccessful attempt upon England. Here he remained till 1721, when he found
his situation so exceedingly disagreeable, that he determined on returning
to his native country. This he accomplished, but died in the following year,
on the 13th April, in his own house, at Glaslough, in the county of
Monaghan.
The list of Mr Leslie’s
works, political and theological, is exceedingly voluminous. The theological
works in seven volumes were printed in 1832 at the Oxford university press. |