towards them: Other fervitude than this he knew not: Nay, those paffages of his Life which carry the greatest appearence with them of the fubmiffion to humane Power, are particularly guarded against all fufpicions, of what his Lordship now afferts, that he acted the part of a Slave: St. Luke tells us, he was fubject to his Parents, Ch. ii. . 52. And yet when his Mother feemed to complain of his carriage, and faid, Son, why haft thou thus dealt with us; he answered, wift ye not that I must be about my Father's busineß? ✯. 48, 49. intimating plainly a freedom in himself, with refpect even to the fubmiffion due to his Parents, not common to all fons: The fame thing appears again, John ii. 4, §. at the Marriage in Cana of Galilee.

And though our Lord fays of himself that he came to minifter, yet when he is concerned in civil affairs he does not govern himself by this confideration that he is děλ, a fervant; but as a free fubject fubmits to pay tribute to the Temple, (which Slaves in the Bishop's fenfe could not do, for they had no property); but even here, the question he puts to St. Peter, Mat. xvii. 25. fhews, that he looked upon himself not as a fubject of man, but as the Son of God; and yet that he might not give offence, he confented to

pay,

pay with other Subjects, from whom in appearence he nothing differed; had he appeared as a Slave he had given no offence by not paying; but that he might comply with the character of a Subject under which he appeared, he wrought a miracle to answer the demand, and paid that tribute to the Temple, which the Sea first paid him as its great Lord and Master.

The cafe of his washing the Disciples feet, has been already confidered.

If we look to his lowest state, when he seem'd to be in the power of his enemies, and at their command, even there we fhall find that he acted as a fervant of God, and not as a Slave to man: When the officers, &c. came to seize him, John xviii. he offered himself to them; they astonished fell down to the ground: Again he offers himself, and Peter drew the fword in his defence; for which our Lord rebuked him, and faid, The cup which my father hath given me, shall I not drink it? .11. Putting the whole of his fubmiffion on this, that it was the will of God that he should fuffer; and telling Peter, Mat. xxvi. 53. that he could have more than twelve legions of Angels to affift him, if he thought it proper. But how then (fays he, .54.) ball the Scriptures of the Prophets (i.e. the declared will of God) be fulfilled?

G

And

And at his tryal he tells Pilate, John xix. 11. Thou couldeft have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above. Is there any thing in all this like being fubject to the will of a man, as a Slave bought and fold in the market? I have observed before that all the circumstances of his tryal were fuch as denoted his appearance to be that of a Subject, and not of a Slave. And here I rest the argument with refpect to his Lordship, having gone through all he offered in his own defence, and overlooking the bitter reflexions caft upon my self; I have returned him arguments for invectives, reafons for his reproaches, Χρύσεα χαλκείων.

But before I take leave of this fubject; I must add a word with refpect to the author of a letter in the Flying-Poft, Jan. 18. I might very well excufe my felf from taking notice of any thing that appears in a paper, which has used me, and many my betters with the utmost indignity: But as the letter comes from an able hand, and is writ in a spirit very different from that of the Paper in which it appears, and indeed from that of the Bishop's own, I will endeavour to give the Author of it all the fatisfaction I can: And as I must acknowledge that the good he has faid of me, is more than I deferve, fo I hope to fhew him the fame with refpect to his cenfure on me. This

This Writer fays, that my Representation of the Bishop is very hard and cruel; and that I may agree with him as far as I can, I \do own, that if his Representation of the Bifhop's meaning in the passage which I quoted, be juft and fair, that mine is both hard and cruel.

The Bishop of Bangor's Propofition is this: The Example of our Lord is much more peculiarly fit to be used to Slaves than to Subjects. The Author of the Letter fays with refpect to this propofition, that the Bishop's fenfe is, That the example of Christ is more properly urg'd to Slaves than Subjects, in the 2d Chapter of St. Peter. He says again The difpute, as I faid, is, whether this example be more properly urged upon those who are called Subjects, in . 13. or those who are called Slaves, y. 18. He affirms a third time, "This is not the question" -(i. e. whether the Example of Chrift be fit for all) "But this whether in This Chapter of St. "Peter, the example of our Lord Chrift, be "more naturally and properly urged upon, "and applied to the people mention'd in ". 13. who are Subjects, or to those men"tioned . 18. who are Slaves, or Servants? "This is the matter in queftion." Upon this state of the cafe he fays very justly, That G 2 which

which ever way it be determined, no Body's Ears need to tingle at it.

I defire this Writer now to confider, that his expofition is inconfiftent with the Bishop's words, which do not affirm with refpect to St. Peter, That the Example of Christ is more peculiarly urged (by him) to Slaves, than to Subjects, but do affirm with refpect to the nature of the example it felf, That it is much more peculiarly FIT TO BE urged to Slaves, than to Subjects. 'Tis true that the dif pute he is there engaged in begun about the example as urged by St. Peter; but then both fides argue from the nature of the example, in order to limit the Application of it by St. Peter, and not vice versâ; I defire this Writer to attend to the Bishop's own account of his Adverfary's view in arguing from the nature of Chrift's Example, p. 61. (how truly he reprefents it, I enquire not) But the example of Christ, fay you, is more peculiarly fit to be urged to Subjects than to Slaves; therefore CONSEQUENTLY, this Paf fage (in St. Peter) in which that example is urged tho' directed to Slaves, yet was defigned peculiarly for Subjects. Here the Reader cannot but obferve that the nature of the example is urged, (by the Bishop's own account) in order to fix St. Peter's meaning, and there."

fore,