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.

1. "

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 says, it 66 was 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

most helpless part of mankind in their constant condition, and by the very nature of their station; and never once on this occasion mention that which was proper only when I was defining the difference between them and subjects. So that though it be literally true that I do on another occasion describe slaves as bought and sold in the market, yet it is as literally true that the word slave, with this idea peculiarly annexed to it, is not any one of the terms of my assertion which the dean so kindly undertakes to explain; but that the notion of slaves in my assertion about our Lord's example, is the notion of persons, the lowest and most helpless, and most miserable of mankind, by the nature even of their daily and constant condition of life."

5. "The notion (of slaves) which alone he (the dean) produces as mine for his own reader-I never once (N. B.) mention in what relates to our Lord's example."

6. "I have not once (N. B.) annexed this idea to that word in speaking of our blessed Lord's example."

7. “Which I never once (N. B.) made use of for this purpose."

8. "An idea which he (the dean), loves to join to the word slaves in this controversy."

9. "As if, because I once (N. B.) in another part of this dispute described slaves as such (as are bought in markets,) therefore I must always annex this sole idea to that word."

10. "Christ's humiliation may be and is represented in Scripture by the condition of slaves (not considered as bought and sold in the market)."

11. "He did not resemble a slave, in the circumstance of being bought and sold in a market."

12. "I never in this controversy have annexed the two last ideas (bought and sold) to the word slave."

Here you see his lordship affirms five times over (Nos. 4. 5. 6. 7. 12.) that he never once used or annexed to the word slave this notion in speaking of the example of Christ, that it is an idea made choice of by me, and that he constantly chose another, (No. 3.) that it is literally true that the word slave,

with this idea, is not one of the terms of his proposition (No. 4.), but it is the idea which I love (No. 8.), and which I brought into the controversy.

Here then is a plain fact to be cleared, on which his lordship has put the merits of his cause, and on which I am also willing to put them.

And now I will present the reader with another set of passages taken in their order out of his lordship's answer to Dr. Atterbury, beginning at p. 54. where his lordship enters on the consideration of St. Peter's doctrine, and his application of the example of Christ to slaves. The very first thing he does is to adjust the sense of the terms subject and slave.

1. "We must be led into a plausible discourse of what it was fit for St. Peter to say, and what he did say about slaves, into whose condition that of subjects must be now depressed, though neither taken captive by their kings, nor bought in the market into their service."

2. St. Peter" directs his discourse to slaves properly so called."

3. "It can no more follow from St. Peter's exhorting slaves, than it would follow from your advising slaves in the WestIndies."

4. "And then immediately call on slaves properly so called, and tell them they must patiently bear with their masters who bought them, or took them captive."

5. "Might not the subjects properly so called argue thus ? Our condition is very different from that of slaves. We neither were taken captive in a just war, nor bought in the market for the service of our civil governors; therefore it is not at all probable that our teacher should mean to include us in the same discourse with slaves properly so called."

6. " How hard is the fate of subjects, that they must be brought into the condition of slaves; below the state of mercenary servants, into that of servitude properly so called." And a little after

;

7. "Now it seems the yoke of slavery itself is not too hard to be brought on them." Again in the same paragraph

8. "But first, Sir, you

should have shown us the price paid

for subjects by their princes, in what market they were bought into their absolute power, or in what just war they forfeited their lives and were taken captive."

9. "But it being always the contrary, I cannot forbear making the two following observations: that there is so essential a difference between civil subjection to governors instituted for the good of the governed, and the servitude of slaves bought by money for the service of their masters, that the Apostle cannot but be supposed to treat so distinctly of them as not to confound their circumstances, which are very different; 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 personate in his lowest and most oppressed condition."

10. "Slaves bought with money, or taken captive in the war, may be obliged to bear many things from their masters, which subjects, who were not so purchased, may not be obliged to submit to. The foundation of the two relations is so very different."

His lordship shuts up this whole argument just as he began it, by leaving on the reader's mind the difference between subjects and slaves, as the true point on which the whole turned. His words are

"St. Peter cannot with the least show of reason be said designedly to speak to subjects under the notion and title of slaves, or to have it in his view to interpret St. Paul's instructions to subjects by directing his discourse to persons of quite another rank."

I desire the reader now to look back to No. 9. in the former passages, where his lordship intimates that he did once indeed in this dispute describe slaves to be such as are bought and sold; and if he finds himself so inclined, he may, with all my heart, maintain that his lordship gives a very fair and just account of his dispute.

Let the reader also in these last passages consider those marked 4. 5. 6. 10. and he will see to a demonstration what his lordship means by slaves properly so called. In No. 4.

slaves properly so called are those bought with money or taken captive. In No. 5. subjects properly so called are distinguished from slaves properly so called, because slaves are bought or taken captive.

In No. 6. compared with Nos. 7. 8. (which are all in the same paragraph) servitude properly so called is founded in the price paid. In No. 10. the very foundation of the relation between the master and servant is the price paid by the master. And here I cannot but congratulate with myself that once in my life I have got into the true meaning of one of his lordship's properlys; and this too, I think, may help the reader to understand what his lordship means when he affirms, No. 2. that St. Peter directed his discourse (which takes in all he says about the example of Christ) to slaves properly so called. But to do justice to his lordship, I will consider next the point on which he lays the stress of his defence. He owns, you see, very tenderly, that once he did in this dispute consider slaves as bought and sold; (the reader by this time perhaps may be inclined to think he never considered them otherwise ;) but he affirms positively that he never once so considered them in speaking of the example of Christ, but constantly chose another idea, though in truth there is no other idea annexed by him to them in that treatise.

And now let the reader look back to No. 9. in the last set of passages: there he will find that his lordship has fixed and determined this very idea to the word slaves in the very passage,

nay in the very sentence out of which I quoted his famous asser→

tion about the example of Christ, and indeed his argument made it necessary he should do so. Of this passage I shall have occasion to speak again. In the meanwhile I observe that his lordship in his dispute with Dr. Atterbury maintains these three assertions principally.

1. That St. Peter's directions for a passive submission were given to slaves, and not to subjects.

2. That St. Peter urges the example of Christ to slaves, and not to subjects. And to prove this the more strongly, he insists,

3. That the example of Christ is much more peculiarly fit to be urged to slaves than to subjects. And now I ask any rea