that fays 'tis peculiarly fit for Slaves, does imply that there is fome degree of unfitnefs in it with refpect to Subjects. And what can I do in this cafe, but appeal to the common fense of mankind. I am willing to put the caufe upon this iffue, upon which his Lordfhip has put it: If there appears no great difference between the two affertions, then am I to be charged; but, in truth, rather with. want of fenfe than with the guilt of Calumny: But if these two expreffions do greatly differ, then let others judge what his Lordfhip is guilty of in charging me with Calumny for reminding him of his own words; words, which, he has too much fenfe, to defend, and, too little ingenuity, to retract.

What his Lordship confeffes at p. 16. That he has affirmed, that our bleffed Lord's example is more peculiarly fit to be propofed to the low, poor and diftreffed part of mankind, than to the fortunate and rich, may be true, and yet it will be very wrong and fhocking in any one to affirm, that the example of Chrift is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to a Beggar than to a Gentleman. But in truth this confeffion of his Lordship appears to me to be a mere fallacy; if he means that an example of patient fuffering is more fit to be urged to those who do fuffer,

than

than to those who do not; he speaks a great truth, but nothing to the prefent purpose: If he means that our Lord's example is more proper to the poor in their fufferings, than to the rich in their fufferings; he speaks to his purpose indeed, but the affertion is what every Christian must reject. So in the fame Page, when he says, this is more peculiarly fit to be propofed to perfons in a low con dition; he impofes on his reader, for the greatest perfons may be in a low condition, as well as the meaneft: He ought to have faid (not in but) of a low condition; and then the affertion would have been fairly to his purpose, but falfe in itself; for the example of Chrift is fit for perfons of all condi tions, and equally fit for Kings, Subjects, and Slaves; when they fuffer wrongfully. For with refpect to Slaves themselves, when they are kindly used by their Mafters, and treated with equity and humanity, and suffer nothing by ill usage whilst they do their duty, fo long the example of Chrift's Sufferings is not peculiarly fit for their condition; and when they do fuffer wrongfully, the example belongs to them not as Slaves, but as Chriftians fuffering for Righteousness fake.

As to what his Lordship says, p. 17. of his having in his answer to Dr. A. explained the example

example of Christ in a proper manner; I never faid he had not; nor do I now fay it. But this I have faid, and this I ftill say, that not content to explain it properly and justly, he was carried in the heat of his oppofition to a great extreme; and could not leave the caufe when he had made (as he fays) a proper anfwer; but would go on till he came to the very contrary (to use his own words) to what had been objected to him: And because it had been faid that the example of Chrift (as his Lordship reprefents his Adverfaries words, which I have not before me) belongs more to Subjects than to Slaves, therefore his Lordfhip would not leave the argument until he had affirmed; That the example of Chrift is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves than to Subjects. And this, I think, was, being carried into a very great extreme.

I do not pretend here to confider the argument of his Lordship's learned Adversary, or the reasons given by him for the fupport of his opinion: I take the whole upon the Bifhop's own reprefentation of the cafe; and find enough to juftify what I faid, that he was carried into great extremes, through oppofition.

I prefume I have said enough to justify the fairness of my quotation; but his 'Lordship

has

has more complaints; and is very angry with me, for faying, that his affertion will make the ears of a Chriftian tingle: To do justice therefore to my felf against his Lordship's violent recrimination; I will go on to fhew that his affertion is as bad, as those words of mine represent it to be, and that he has neither Scripture nor Reafon to fupport him in it.

And first I will fhew the Reader what the affertion amounts to, by giving his Lordship's explications of the terms of his propofition: By Slaves then he means Slaves properly fo called*; i. e. fuch as are bought in the market, or taken captivet. By Subjects, he means, fuch as have Civil Rights and Properties, and are not bound by the mere will of their Kings; as Slaves are, who are bought and fold in the market. I fuppofe I need not refer to any particular paffages to prove this to be his fenfe of the word Subject.

The propofition which his Lordship had to answer was, according to his own account this. The example of Chrift is more peculiarly fit to be recommended to Subjects, confidered as fuch, than to Slaves: He undertakes to maintain the very contrary to be true: The pro

* Anfwer, to Dr. A. p. 55. & 59• . + Pag. 64.

Ibid. p. 54, 59.

pofition

pofition then which he affirms is this: That the example of our Lord is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves (confidered as fuch) than to Subjects confidered as fuch. i.e. The example of our Lord is much more fit for fuch as are bought and fold in markets, than for fuch as have Civil Rights and Properties. This affertion is very shocking to a Christian, as being highly dishonourable to our blessed Saviour. And one of the Bishop's reasons for this affertion; viz. That the New Teftament represents the humiliation and low eftate of Chrift- by the condition of Slaves: i.e. of fuch Slaves as are bought and fold in the market, is equally bad, equally dishonourable to our bleffed Saviour, as will foon appear.

But to take his reafons for his affertion in their order, as they are now fet forth in his Anfwer. The firft is: That St. Peter exprefly proposes the example of our blessed Lord to Slaves *. To which I anfwer, that this may be true, and yet nothing to his Lordship's purpose: For 'tis one thing, exprefly to propofe the example of Christ to Slaves, and another to propose it as much more peculiarly fit for Slaves, than for

Answer to Calumny, P. 13.

C

Subjects.