The Condition and Example of our Bleffed Saviour vindicated, &c. S Hou'd I pretend to fay that I received his Lordship's denunciation in the News Paper of a Charge of Calum ny, without concern; I fhould deny the truth: For tho' I well knew that I had given no juft occafion for fo foul an imputa tion, yet I knew alfo that his Lordship's kind endeavours to blacken my reputation, would not be altogether ineffectual. Indeed, I was much affected with it, and am fo ftill; tho' his Lordship's declaration of the Reasons of his Charge, have afforded me a great deal of comfort; and I rejoice to find that the ground of all the bad things his Lordship has to fay of me, is, that I quoted a Paffage out of a Book of his; and fhewed how much I difliked it; which it feems had been quiet and unmolefted for Seven Years*. Calumny, Reproach, Noife, Dirt, Scandal, Defamation, and the like words, require more Art to range them decently in Controverfy, than I am master of; and therefore I never intend to make use of them to any Perfon, much lefs to his Lordship: And instead of returning any fuch words, I fhall content felf with fhewing, that I did not deserve any fuch. my At the clofe of the Vindication, &c. I obferved that his Lordship had endeavoured to write down (or to diminish, as I likewife exprefs it) the Religion of Oaths; and for this only reafon, because it flood in his way. I go on to fay; a reason which has often carried his Lordship into great extremes. Of this I give an instance in these words. 66 "I remember once, when he was urged (in a difpute about Government) with the example of our bleffed Saviour's suffering "as applyed by St. Peter, he made no fcruple to affirm That the example of our 66 "Lord is much more peculiarly fit to be ur than to SUBJECTSt. A ged to SLAVES *Anfwer to a Calumny, pag. 9. Dr. Atterbury, pag. 65. † Answer to "Doctrine 66 66 Doctrine which will make the ears of a read with caution a Writer fo fond of his "own notions, as to take fuch steps to de"fend them. Upon these words his Lordship fixes his charge of Calumny. Now if it fhall appear, that this is a proper instance of the thing charged on the Bishop; that the words quoted from his Lordship are his own words, and make an entire affertion or propofition of themselves; and make the whole of his affertion; that nothing is left out that can alter the affertion, or make it other than it appears to be; then I hope the world will acquit me of the Charge of Calumny; and I trust the warmth of any expreffion used upon this occafion may cufed by the nature of the Propofition I had under confideration, and the dishonour done by it to our blessed Lord and Master. I will fhew the Reader then: be ex 1. That the instance was proper: I shall give his Lordship's own account of the occa fion of his affertion. His words are thefe: "The occcafion of it was this. This Argument from St. Peter's exhorting Slaves "to be fubject to their Masters, not only to the kind but to the froward, was urged "as implying in it the Duty of Subjects, " with 66 1 66 66 "with respect to their Civil Rights; and the example of our Blessed Saviour being by St. Peter propos'd to Slaves, it was declared that this example of Chrift belongs "more, or is more peculiarly fit to be urg'd, "to Subjects, than to Slaves; in order to prefs the Duty of Paffive Obedience upon them. Anf. to Dr. Atterbury, p. 54. After many other confiderations, I add, particularly in answer to this latter allegation, the following passage, p. 64, 65, 66. His Lordship here fays, that after many other confiderations, he added the following paffage: i.e. the paffage which contains the propofition I quoted; and his Lordship's proofs of it. This is in truth the cafe: His Lordship had answered, that the example (of Christ) is very proper to be recommended to Superiors as well as Inferiors, to Kings and Masters, as well as to Subjects and Slaves, p. 63. And that the manner, and not the matter of our suffering is to be taken from the example of our Lord, i. e. That the example of our Lord's fufferings, is proper for all Chriftians in their several tryals and afflictions; that it belongs to them as Christians, and not as confidered under the relations of King and Subject, of Mafter and Servant; and confequently that the example of Chrift can not not be urged to limit or adjust the rights flowing from fuch relations. Thus his Lordship had answered, and had his Lordship ftopped here he wou'd have given no offence; but not content with this, he preffes on, and in the true spirit of oppofition afferts the very contrary (tho' he had no occafion fo to do) to what was objected to him; and affirms, p. 64. It is fo far from being true, that his example was more peculiarly fit to be recommended to Subjects, confidered as fuch, than to Slaves; that I think the VERY CONTRARY to be evident. And after producing some of his reasons which moved him fo to think; he fays, I cannot forbear (I am forry he cou'd not) making the two following obfervations: the fecond of which obfervati. ons is in these very words; And likewife, that the example of our Lord is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves, by whose condition he is pleafed frequently to defcribe his own low estate; than to SUBJECTS whofe condition is never used to that purpose, and whom he is never faid to perfonate in his lowest and most oppressed condition, p. 65. I have stated the cafe, as I truly think, with all fairnefs; and I defire the Reader to judge, whether this be not an inftance of his Lordship's running into Extreams out of op pofition : |