« AnteriorContinua »
The dean expresses great concern at the bishop's charge of calumny; takes comfort from the reasons given for the charge ; repeats the passage on which this charge was fixed; shows, 1. that the instance was proper, and gives his lordship's own account of the occasion of his assertion : this stated to be an instance of those extremes into which the bishop often runs through opposition : 2. that the words quoted are his lordship's own words: 3. that as they make an intire proposition of themselves, so do they contain truly the whole of what he asserts, exclusive of his reasons for it : 4. that there is nothing left out that can alter the proposition. The interpretation given by the bishop to his own words transcribed : the point on which his defence turns shown to be wrongly taken.
He that says, the example of Christ is very fit to be proposed to slaves says what is very true; but he that says, it is more peculiarly fit to be urged to slaves than subjects, says what will appear to be very false and shocking to a Christian : this point enlarged on and explained. Enough has been said to justify the fairness of the dean's quotation; but the bishop has more complaints; is very angry with the dean for saying that his assertion will make the ears of a Christian tingle. The dean goes on to show that the assertion is as bad as those words of his represent it to be. He first shows what the assertion amounts to, by giving the bishop's explication of the terms slaves and subjects. The proposition which his lordship had to answer was, that the example of Christ is more peculiarly fit to be recommended to subjects considered as such, than to slaves. He undertakes to maintain the very contrary. This assertion is declared by the dean to be shocking to a Christian, as being dishonorable to our Saviour. The bishop's reasons for his assertion, viz. that the New Testament represents the humiliation and low estate of Christ by the condition of slaves, are equally bad and dishonorable to our Saviour. His reasons taken in order. First, that which is founded on St. Peter's expressly proposing the example of our blessed Lord to slaves : this refuted at length. Secondly, that in mentioning and handling the duties of civil subjects, neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle ever once proposes the example of Christ's passive submission and non-resistance. This allowed; but if the example of Christ was not proposed to subjects as such, it will not aid his lordship’s assertion. Thirdly, that the New Testament itself represents the humiliation and low estate of Christ in this world, by the condition of slaves, &c.: this shown to be false from St. John xiii. 3. 4. 13. 14. 16. ; from St. Matt. xx. 27. 28.; from Phil, iii. 10.
; It is shown that neither Christ's sufferings, nor his trial, nor his birth and lineage, represent the condition of a slave. Fourthly, that our Lord voluntarily put himself into that low and oppressed condition, accounting it not his infamy, but his glory; and that St. Paul particularly makes it his great reward. The celebrated passage of St. Paul, Phil. ii. 5-10. commented on, and shown not to favor the bishop's assertion. After a careful consideration of this matter, the dean still considers his lordship’s proposition as very shocking, and destitute of all support. The state and condition of our blessed Lord still farther considered. Before he dismisses this subject, the dean notices the author of a letter in the Flying Post, Jan. 18, who taxes his representation of the bishop as hard and cruel. This charge refuted by a farther consideration of bis lordship’s proposition. Examples given of the extremes into which the bishop runs through opposition. Instance of a calumnious charge made by the bishop against the dean, as having acted in Convocation for the purpose of maintaining some private trust reposed in him: this charge indignantly repelled. Conclusion. THE CONDITION
AND EXAMPLE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR VINDICATED:
IN ANSWER TO THE BISHOP OF BANGOR'S CHARGE OF CALUMNY AGAINST THE DEAN OF CHICHESTER.
Should I pretend to say that I received his lordship's denunciation in the newspaper of a Charge of Calumny without concern, I should deny the truth; for though I well knew that I had given no just occasion for so foul an imputation, yet I knew also that his lordship’s kind endeavors to blacken my reputation would not be altogether ineffectual.
Indeed I was much affected with it, and am so still; though 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 say of me is, that I oted a passage out of a book of his, and showed 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 person, much less to his lordship; and instead of returning any such words, I shall content myself with showing that I did not deserve
such. At the close of the Vindication, &c. I observed that his lordship had endeavored 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.
* Answer to a Calumny, p. 9.