« 上一頁繼續 »
The Condition and Example
of our Blessed Saviour vindicated, &c.
Hou'd I pretend to say that I received S his Lordship's denunciation in the
News Paper of a Charge of Caluma
ny, without concern; I should deny the truth: For tho' I well knew that I had given no just occafion for so foul an imputaz tion, yet I knew also 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 déclaration of the Reasons of his Charge, have afforded me a grear deal of comfort ; and I rejoice to find that the ground of all the bad things his Lordship has to say of me, is; that I quoted a Passage out of a Book of his; and shewed
how much I disliked it ; which it seems had been quiet and unmolested for seven Years*.
Calumny, Reproach, Noise, Dirt, Scandal, Defamation, and the like words, require more Art to range them decently in Controversy, than I am master of; and therefore I never intend to make use of them to any Perfon, much less to his Lordship: And instead of returning any such words, I shall content my self with Thewing, that I did not deserve any
such. At the close of the Vindication, &c. I obferved that his Lordship had endeavoured to write down (or to diminish, as I likewise express it) the Religion of Oaths; and for this only reason, because it stood in his way. I go on to say; a reason which has often carried his Lordship into great extremes. Of, this I give an instance in these words.
" I remember once, when he was urged (in a dispute about Government) with the example of our blessed Saviour's suffering as applyed by St. Peter, he made no scru. ple to affirm
That the example of our Lord is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to SLAVES than to SUBJECTS T. A
† Answer to
Answer to a Calumny, pag. 9. Dr. Atterbury, pag. 65.
do Doctrine which will make the ears of a
Christian tingle; and ought to make him
read with caution a Writer fo fond of his “ own notions, as to take such steps to de"fend them.
Upon thefe words his Lordship fixes his charge of Calumny. Now if it shall
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 assertion or proposition of themselves, and make the whole of his affertion; that no? thing is left out that can alter the assertion, 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 expression used
I will shew the Reader then:
1. That the instance was proper : I shall give his Lordship’s own account of the occafion of his assertion. His words are thefe:
“ The occcasion of it was this. This Ar“ gument from St. Peter's exhorting Slaves “ to be subject to their Masters, not only ta “ the kind but to the froward, was urged as implying in it the Duty of Subjects,
(6) “ 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 Christ belongs “ more, or is more peculiarly fit to be urg'd, “ 'to Subjects, than to Slaves; in order to
press the Duty of Pasive Obedience upon “ them. Ans. to Dr. Atterbury, p. 54. After many
other considerations, I add, particularly in answer to this latter allegation, the following passage, p. 64, 65, 66.
His Lordship here says, that after many other considerations, he added the following passage : i.e. the passage which contains the proposition I quoted; and his Lordship’s proofs of it. This is in truth the case: 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 sufferings, is proper for all Christians in their several tryals and afflictions; that it belongs to them as Christians, and not as considered under the relations of King and Subject, of Master and Servant; and consequently that the example of Christ can
not be urged to limit or adjust the rights flowing from such relations. Thus his Lordship had answered, and had his Lordship stopped here he wou'd have given no offence; but not content with this, he preses on, and in the true spirit of opposition afferts the very contrary (tho' he had no occasion fo to do) to what was objected to him ; and affirms, p. 64. It is so far from being true, that his example was more peculiarly fit to be recommended to Subjects, considered as such, than to Slaves; that I think the VERY CONTRARY to be evident. And after producing some of his reasons which moved him so to think; he says, I cannot forbear (I am forry he cou'd not) making the two following observations: the second of which observati. ons is in these very words; And likewise, that the example of our Lord is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to Slaves, by whose condition he is pleased frequently to describe his own low estate ; than to SUBJECTS whose condition is never used to that purpose, and whom he is never said to perfonate in his lowest and most oppresed condition, p. 65.
I have stated the case, as I truly think, with all fairness; and I desire the Reader to judge, whether this be not an instance of his Lordfhip’s running into Extreams out of
op position :