« 上一頁繼續 »
position? Can any one think, that if his Lordfhip had been considering the example of Christ's sufferings, without an objection drawn from it against his own doctrine, that he cou'd possibly have come to say ; That Christ'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 opposition to his Adversary; fo do I still place it to the same 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 mę are his Lordship's own words: This is not denied.
3. That as they make an entire assertion or proposition of themselves, fo do they con, tain truly the whole of what he asserts, exclusive of his reasons for it: The proposition which his Lordship was to confute, as ex, pressed by himself, was this ; That the example of Christ was more peculiarly fit to be recommended to Subjects, considered as such, than to Slaves—and he says, that he thinks the very contrary to be evident. The contrary proposition then was what his. Lordship was to maintain , and that is fully expressed in the words by me quoted; and the words
which I omitted make no part of the contrary proposition. From whence 'tis plain, that I have given the entire assertion and proposition which his Lordship professed to maintain; and entirely in his own words, without adding to, or substracting from, the proposition which he undertook to justify: that proposition which his Lordship laid down at the beginning of Paragraph io. (and is now transcribed into his answer) and which he la. bours to maintain to the end of that long paragraph,
4. There is nothing left out (in my quota; tion) that can alter the assertion, 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 assertion. A reason brought to support a proposition cannot alter the nature of the proposition, or make it other than it is in it self and therefore his Lordship must not fày, that the proposition quoted in his own words, is not his proposition, because I did not quote his reasons in support of it. The proposition is the same, and expresses the same thing, whether the reafons be added, or not added. I never before heard that there was any Calumny in quoting or reporting a man's principles, or assertions, tho' you did not, at the
same time, report his reafons for them. Indeed the reafons which his Lordship himself has now produced to the world, are so far from fatisfying even himself, that he seems not willing to rest the cause upon them; but has given such an interpretation of his words quoted by me, as is inconsistent with the common use of language, and with common sense. I will insert the paragraph entire where his Lordship comes to the pinch of the cafe.
“ I hope it is not too shocking to the ears " of a Christian Dean, to affirm that the exis ample of Christ 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 resignation : " because the Apostles themselves have done " this. And I beg to know the great diffe“ rence between saying that this is fit, and
proper, in the positive degree ; and saying, " in the comparative, that this is more pecu
liarly fit than to propose it to Civil Sub. jects, considered as such.”
His Lordship's defence here turns upon this, that there is no great difference between faying positively, that the example of Christ is fit and proper to be proposed to Slaves; and saying, by way of comparison, that it is
(much) more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves, than to Subjects. His Lordship can see no great difference, and I profefs I can see very little similitude between the two asserti
He that says, it is very fit to be proposed to Slaves, says what is very true; but he that says, it is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves than Subjects, says what will appear to be very false ; and I must still say, very shocking to a Christian. 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 Chri. ftians : It was as proper to be urged to King Charles the First, in his days of distress, as ever it was to the meanest Slave in the Roman Empire; for tho', as his Lordship observes, our Saviour appeared in a low and afflicted condition, yet he descended from the higest and most glorious state; and consequently, his example is equally fit for the highest of the sons of men in their affliction, and for the lowest. How comes his Lordlhip then, at p. 65. to affirm, That it is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves than Subjects. Is not the Bishop sensible this cannot be defended, when he tells us, there is no great difference between this assertion, and laying, That the example of Christ is fit to
be proposed to Slaves? I desire his Lordship wou'd try these two ways of speaking in any other case, and see whether they amount to one and the same thing. Let us try them in a case in which his Lordship is concerned: He tells us often, that every Christian has a right to interpret the Scripture. Suppose then that I mould tell his Lordship, that it is his sepse, That it is fit and proper for the weakest men to interpret Scripture ; he wou'd perhaps allow the consequence; 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 wisest and most learned; I am afraid he wou'd complain of very ill usage ; and yet why shou'd he, if there be no great difference between these two forms of expresiion? '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 say for them, is not willing to abide by them : and wou'd have the Reader believe, that there is no great difference between saying, That the example of Christ is fit to be proposed to Slaves: and, That it is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves--than to Subjęztş. He that says it is fit for Slaves, may say also 'tis equally fit for Subjects; but he