pofition? Can any one think, that if his Lordthip had been confidering the example of Chrift's fufferings, without an objection drawn from it against his own doctrine, that he cou'd poffibly have come to fay; That Chrift's example is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves-than to Subjects? For my own

part I do not believe this of his Lordship; and as I placed it at first to the account of the extreme oppofition to his Adversary; fo do I ftill place it to the fame account; and it is therefore, as I conceive, a proper instance, and comes up fully to the point for which 'tis mentioned.

2. That the words quoted by mẹ are his Lordship's own words: This is not denied.

3. That as they make an entire affertion or propofition of themselves, fo do they contain truly the whole of what he asserts, exclufive of his reafons for it: The propofition which his Lordship was to confute, as expreffed by himself, was this; That the example of Chrift was more peculiarly fit to be recommended to Subjects, confidered as fuch, than to Slaves—and he fays, that he thinks the very contrary to be evident. The contrary propofition then was what his Lordship was to maintain, and that is fully expreffed in the words by me quoted; and the words which

which I omitted make no part of the contrary propofition. From whence 'tis plain, that I have given the entire affertion and propofition which his Lordship professed to maintain; and entirely in his own words, without adding to, or substracting from, the propofition which he undertook to justify: that propofition which his Lordship laid down at the beginning of Paragraph io. (and is now transcribed into his anfwer) and which he labours to maintain to the end of that long paragraph.

4. There is nothing left out (in my quotation) that can alter the affertion, or make it other than it appears to be.

The words left out in my quotation, contain the reafons given by his Lordship for the affertion. A reafon brought to support a propofition cannot alter the nature of the propofition, or make it other than it is in it felf: and therefore his Lordfhip muft not fay, that the propofition quoted in his own words, is not his propofition, becaufe I did not quote his reafons in fupport of it. The propofition is the fame, and expreffes the fame thing, whether the réafons be added, or not added. I never before heard that there was any Calumny in quoting or reporting a man's principles, or affertions, tho' you did not, at the

fame time, report his reafons for them. Indeed the reasons which his Lordship himself has now produced to the world, are fo far from fatisfying even himself, that he seems not willing to reft the cause upon them; but has given fuch an interpretation of his words quoted by me, as is inconfiftent with the common ufe of language, and with common fenfe. I will infert the paragraph entire where his Lordship comes to the pinch of the cafe.

I hope it is not too fhocking to the ears "of a Chriftian Dean, to affirm that the ex"ample of Chrift is very fit to be propos'd "to Slaves, in order to engage them to bear "the unavoidable evils of their unhappy

condition, with patience and refignation : "because the Apoftles themfelves have done

this. And I beg to know the great diffe"rence between faying that this is fit, and proper, in the pofitive degree; and faying, "in the comparative, that this is more peculiarly fit than to propofe it to Civil Subjects, confidered as fuch."

His Lordship's defence here turns upon this, that there is no great difference between faying pofitively, that the example of Chrift is fit and proper to be propofed to Slaves; and faying, by way of comparison, that it is

(much)

(much) more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves, than to Subjects. His Lordship can fee no great difference, and I profefs I can fee very little fimilitude between the two affertions. He that fays, it is very fit to be propofed to Slaves, fays what is very true; but he that fays, it is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves than Subjects, fays what will appear to be very false; and I must ftill fay, very shocking to a Chriftian. The example of Christ was not purposed to, or fitted for any one fort of men more than another; but it is recommended to all as Chriftians: It was as proper to be urged to King Charles the First, in his days of diftrefs, as ever it was to the meaneft Slave in the Roman Empire; for tho', as his Lordship obferves, our Saviour appeared in a low and afflicted condition, yet he defcended from the higest and most glorious ftate; and confequently, his example is equally fit for the bigheft of the fons of men in their affliction, and for the lowest. How comes his Lordship then, at p. 65. to affirm, That it is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves than Subjects. Is not the Bishop fenfible this cannot be defended, when he tells us, there is no great difference between this affertion, and laying, That the example of Christ is fit to

B 2

be

be propofed to Slaves? I defire his Lordship wou'd try thefe two ways of speaking in any other cafe, and fee whether they amount to one and the fame thing. Let us try them in a cafe in which his Lordfhip is concerned: He tells us often, that every Christian has a right to interpret the Scripture. Suppofe then that I fhould tell his Lordship, that it is his fenfe, That it is fit and proper for the weakest men to interpret Scripture; he wou'd perhaps allow the confequence; but fhou'd I tell him, that he appears to me to affirm, That it is much more peculiarly fit for the weakeft men to interpret Scripture, than for the wifeft and most learned; I am afraid he wou'd complain of very ill ufage; and yet why shou'd he, if there be no great difference between thefe two forms of expreffion? 'Tis plain then, that however his Lordship in his anger charges me with Calumny for quoting his words; yet he himself, after all he can fay for them, is not willing to abide by them: and wou'd have the Reader believe, that there is no great difference between faying, That the example of Chrift is fit to be propofed to Slaves: and, That it is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves-than to Subjects. He that fays it is fit for Slaves, may fay alfo 'tis equally fit for Subjects; but he

that