lordship has inserted in his large Answer at second hand from Mr. Sykes, without taking the least notice of what I had published in my own vindication, he is a very hard taskmaster, and I must complain of him in the words of the slave in Terence, who had been sent on a long fruitless errand only to keep him out of the way—

Edepol næ meam herus esse operam deputat parvi precî.

SUMMARY.

THE bishop is charged with being now engaged in a cause of self-defence, and of reckoning nothing unlawful in such a cause. The dean does not follow him step by step, but goes directly to the points on which his lordship labors to justify his proposition. In the first place the bishop denies his own explication of the word slaves, and proposes a new one. Being sensible that if his explication were suffered to stand, his assertion about the example of Christ must appear shocking to Christians, he labors to get rid of it. Twelve passages produced from the bishop's work to this effect. Ten other passages produced from his lordship's answer to Dr. Atterbury, in which he adjusts the sense of the terms subject and slave. These shown to agree with his explication of the word slaves, and not with the new sense now given to it, and by which he would merely signify the lowest and most helpless part of mankind in their constant condition. This sense shown not to have been, though his lordship affirms it was, in his mind when he made the assertion about the example of Christ, nor when he wrote his answer to Dr. Atterbury, but has been since invented, and first appeared in his Charge of Calumny. This new idea shown not to be a very happy one for his lordship's purpose: for 1. it contradicts St. Peter's notion in the text, which gave occasion to the dispute: 2, it was never true in fact, that slaves were in virtue of their constant condition the lowest and most helpless sort of mankind. Their condition in ancient times is not to be determined by that of slaves in the West Indies. It having been shown how the bishop has mollified one of the terms of

his proposition, it is next shown how he endeavors to clear his whole assertion from having in it any thing offensive to a Christian. His lordship's strength in this case shown to lie in misrepresenting the dean, and the author of a letter before mentioned in this controversy. On the passage of St. Peter there might be the three following points debated: 1. that in fact he applies the example of Christ to slaves: 2. that it is by him properly so employed: 3. that it is more properly so applied than if he had applied it to subjects. The two first take in all that the letter-writer meant and the dean consented to as inoffensive; but the third is the bishop's own sense, which he has put on the dean. Farther arguments against his lordship's doctrine, that the example of Christ belongs to slaves, not merely considered as Christians suffering for righteousness, but as slaves, considered in their slavish capacity in this world. It is shown that neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle proposes the example of Christ thus to slaves. Case of St. Paul in Acts xvi. 37. xxii. 25. considered. The bishop stated to maintain that the way to ascertain the peculiar and proper application of Christ's example is, not by considering what he really, truly, and properly was, but what is said of him by way of figure, allusion, or metaphor. The impropriety of this reasoning shown, particularly with regard to the expression, form of a servant, in Phil. ii. An answer to the bishop's argument taken from his own words. Statement of his lordship, that the dean's reproof would fall on the Bishop of Rochester, considered. The learning of this controversy still remains to be considered. Signification attributed by the dean to the words οἰκέτης, δοῦλος, δεσπότης, κύριος, &c. vindicated. Attack on Mr. Sykes. Return to the bishop. His lordship thanked for one explication which he has given; requested to make one Conclusion.

more.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR'S

DEFENCE OF HIS ASSERTION,

NAMELY, THAT THE EXAMPLE OF OUR LORD IS MUCH MORE PECULIARLY FIT TO BE URGED TO SLAVES THAN TO SUBJECTS, CONSIDered.

DID controversies of this sort deserve the reader's attention, so far as to examine carefully the Bishop of Bangor's representations by comparing them with his own former writings and with mine, I should have no occasion to trouble the world any farther.

His lordship is now in a very extraordinary method; he reckons himself engaged in a cause of self-defence, and writes as if he reckoned nothing unlawful in such a cause.'

I shall not follow his lordship step by step, but will go directly to the points on which he labors to justify his proposition.

In order to this, he

1. Denies his own explication of the word slaves, which he had given in the book from whence I produced his proposition; and he proposes a new one, as that which he constantly made choice of in treating of the example of Christ in that Book, which yet is not there so much as once mentioned. In order to give the true import of his proposition, I laid down his own explications of the terms of it, and said, "by slaves he means such as are bought in the market, or taken captive; by subjects such as have civil rights and properties, and are not bound by the mere will and pleasure of their kings."

* Vindication of the Condition, &c.

What now says his lordship to this? Why he tells his reader that I undertake to give his own explications, but in reality do no such thing. This reality is the first and main thing now to be tried, and I wish it could be done without trying some other realities at the same time.

His lordship is sensible that if this explication of his term slave stands good, his assertion about the example of Christ must appear shocking to every Christian; and he owns as much, and says that I have indeed made it appear shocking by this explication of his terms; the consequence of which is, that if the explication be really his lordship's own, and not mine, then his lordship's proposition was really what I represented it to be, and he must be content to take his calumny home again. To avoid this plain consequence, his lordship labors with all his might to get rid of this explication; but it cannot be-hæret lateri lethalis arundo.

The reader will best judge what stress his lordship lays on this point by seeing in one view his many pains to be delivered of it. Hear him then.

.

66

By slaves, the dean says, I mean slaves properly so called, that is, such as are bought in the market, or taken captive; this seeming very odd when joined with the great name of our blessed Lord, he preserves this particular idea, and puts it at full length, by way of interpretation, into my assertion about our Lord's example; and by the help of it he makes me to have asserted, that the example of our Lord is much more fit for such as are bought and sold in markets, (as if I had spoken of slaves considered under that notion particularly) than for," &c.

2. This his lordship calls a partial definition of his term, 3. And 66 it was says, choosing that idea which was most for the purpose, instead of that which the asserter (his lordship) himself constantly (N. B.) chose."

4. "This is the case here. I do indeed, in opposing slaves to subjects, and in stating the difference of their conditions, speak of slaves as bought and sold in the market, or taken captive. But in my assertion relating to the example of Christ, I speak of slaves under the notion of the lowest and