with some moralists, that the rights of parents result from their duties, because they originate in the Divine institution; but I will say, that a parent who neglects his duty to his offspring, ought not to be surprised if they fail in their duty to him, and has no right to complain either to God or to men.

The duties of husbands and wives are understood to be comprehended in this precept, and a detail of them usually constitutes one part of a commentary upon it. I do not say that this is wrong; but I should think that they occur more regularly under the seventh commandment, which, according to the rules of interpretation formerly laid down, by forbidding the violation of the marriage vow, inculcates the duties arising from the conjugal relation.

I proceed therefore to speak of the duties of servants to their masters. These consist in respect for their masters as their superiors, submission to their authority, attention to their interests, honesty, diligence, and fidelity. The extent of their obedience is limited by their previous stipulation, whether expressed in words or established by custom. A general servant is bound to execute all the orders of his master; but a servant engaged for a particular purpose, is bound only to it, and is guilty of no breach of contract when he declines to interfere with another department. There is, however, another limitation of the duty of both a general and a particular servant. A master has no right to command him to do any thing contrary to the laws of the land, and still less to do any thing which the law of God has forbidden; for example, to tell lies, to assist him in injustice or debauchery, to perform any unnecessary work on the Sabbath. With these exceptions, the subjection of a servant to his master is absolute, during the time of their connexion. The Apostle Paul makes use of strong language upon this subject, and it is worthy of attention, that, in his days, servants among the Greeks and Romans were slaves: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not unto men."*

Masters are bound to fulfil their part of the stipulation, by requiring nothing from their servants but what is just; by exercising their authority with mildness, avoiding every thing harsh in the matter or manner of their commands; by paying their wages, and bestowing the commendation which they have merited by their fidelity; by protecting them from injury and caring for them in sickness; by guarding against entertaining uncharitable suspicions of them, listening to calumnious reports of them, speaking hastily to their disadvantage, and showing an unrelenting, unforgiving spirit when they have committed a fault; and, in a word, by treating them as inferiors who at the same time are their fellow-creatures and Christians. To these may be added the religious duties of masters, who are bound to instruct their servants as well as their children, to excite them to observe the ordinances of grace, to reprove them when they are guilty of sin, and to encourage them in piety and virtue.

In the next place, The duty of subjects to their civil rulers claims our attention. It is evident that the duties of this class, like those of servants, are founded on convention or compact; because, with the exception of parents and children, between whom nature itself has established an inequality, all men possessed of reason are naturally equal in respect of personal rights, and become subject to others, either by violence, which establishes no moral obligation to submission, or by their own consent virtually or explicitly given. It is worthy of attention, that although the Scripture gives its general sanction to civil government, as necessary to the existence and good order of society, it still calls it an ordinance of man;t signifying that it is a human institution, and consequently, that as in the government of masters, its claim to obedience is not established by force but by law. The jus divinum of governments, when ration† 1 Pet. ii. 13.

Col. iii. 22, 23.

ally explained, can only mean that lawful governments have a right to demand the obedience of the subjects, and that it is the will of God that the subjects should submit to their authority. "The divine right of kings," says Paley, "like the divine right of constables, is founded on the law of the land."

There is a considerable difficulty in determining how far the moral obligation of submission extends, because cases may be supposed and questions may be put, with respect to which it is not easy to come to a satisfactory and consistent conclusion. In general it may be said, that no government is lawful which does not exist with the formal or virtual consent of the people. The world has been so long accustomed to look upon civil government as independent of the people, and the notion of legitimacy, as attached to a particular form and a particular family, has been so carefully instilled into their minds, that they are slowly brought to assent to what appears one of the plainest propositions, that a despotic government is an usurpation. Farther, the obedience of subjects is defined by the laws of the land. No man is morally bound to submit to the arbitrary will of an individual, because he is called a king any more than because he is called a master; or to the will of a lawful magistrate when he orders any thing contrary to the law of the land. The moment he steps beyond the boundary of law, he loses his official character, and becomes a private man or a tyrant. Lastly, the obedience of subjects, like that of servants, is restrained by the law of God. When civil rulers presume to command what he has forhidden, or to forbid what he has commanded, they become rebels against the King of kings, and have no claim to our homage.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."* These words have been understood to favour passive obedience, but in my opinion they have been grossly perverted. How could any man in his senses suppose, that a messenger of truth would teach us to submit tamely to be plundered, and tormented, and destroyed, by persons who, with the titles of royalty, were worse than common robbers and murderers; to surrender to them all that is dear to us as men, all that renders life worth preserving; to abstain from making a single effort to secure to ourselves, and our friends, and our country, the blessings of liberty and equal laws? Is it to be supposed that the God of justice and beneficence has commissioned a few ruffians to pillage and oppress their fellow-creatures, and called upon the latter, under pain of his displeasure, to submit like lambs to the butcher's knife? No; we will make no such supposition, any more than we will suppose that he has forbidden us to use means to stop the ravages of fire, pestilence, or flood, or to employ force to restrain and punish the private ruffians, who with a title equally good, attempt to rob us of our property or our lives. In the passage quoted, the Apostle, without referring to any existing government, or any form in perference to another, lays down the general duty of Christians to their superiors in the state. They are bound to submit; but that it is not blind submission is evident from the reason assigned: "For rulers are not a terror to the good, but to the evil." Again, "he is the minister of God to thee for good." So far, then, as a government patronizes good works, and punishes such as are evil, so far as it answers the end of its institution by maintaining order and peace in civil society, it is entitled to submission; but when, instead of protecting, it oppresses the people, we can be no more bound in conscience to recognize it as lawful, than we are to acknowledge as a minister of Christ, the man who teaches error in doctrine, and licentiousness in practice.

The duty of subjects is to obey "every ordinance of man for the Lord's † Ib. 3, 4.

* Rom. xiii. 1, 2.

sake," to "render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour."* The duty of civil rulers is to enact just laws, and to execute them impartially; to be the guardian of the rights of their subjects, to maintain order and peace, to patronize arts and sciences, to encourage virtue and discourage vice, so far as their lawful influence extends; to be the fathers of their people, and thus merit their respect and willing obedience.

The duties of the members of the church to those who are over them in the Lord, and the duties which the latter should perform, might be here introduced; but they are so well known, as to render a detail of them unnecessary. The precept now before us, is called "the first commandment with promise;" that is, the first in the second table of the law. The promise is contained in these words: "That thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." It is better, I think, to consider this promise as peculiar to the Jewish dispensation, than to attempt to transfer it to the Christian. The law promulgated from Sinai was enforced by temporal rewards, among which long life in Canaan is here held out as the recompense of those who should duly honour their father and mother. It does not appear from the present history of Providence, that the promise is applicable to other countries and nations. Of this our Church seems to have been sensible, when it called it "a promise of long life and prosperity, as far as it shall serve for God's glory and their own good, to all such as keep this commandment." This is, in other words, to say, that the keepers of it will live long or not as God shall determine, and, consequently, to acknowledge that the promise is not now attached to the precept. The attempts which have been made to show that the promise is still in force, are unsatisfactory, and usually sum up the matter in the same indeterminate manner with our catechism.

The Sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill." Its design is to guard human life against violence, to render it a sacred thing, which is not to be touched but by Him whose gift it is, and who has a right to resume it at his pleasure. A distinction is made between it and the life of the lower animals, in one of the precepts delivered to Noah. Man holds a higher rank in the scale of being; his life is therefore of much greater value, and to take it unjustly away is a crime which ought not to pass with impunity. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man."§

It is plain from the words now quoted, and from other passages of Scripture, that, although the precept is absolute, it is subject to certain limitations. It does not forbid the taking away of the life of a man who has forfeited it by his crimes. The murderer may be put to death; and, by the law of Moses, the same punishment was inflicted upon other transgressors. It is generally agreed that murder should be subjected to a capital punishment; but many doubts have been expressed whether it should be extended to any other of fence. The reasoning, indeed, which some employ, goes to abolish all capital punishments; for if the power of civil rulers consists in the surrender which their subjects have made of a portion of their rights for the preservation of the rest, and if no man has such power over his own life as to commit it to the disposal of another, it follows that the jurisdiction of magistrates does not reach the life of their subjects, and is confined to what may affect their personal liberty, their property, and, in general, their state in society. This question is not now before us; nor the question, what end human governments propose by the infliction of punishment, whether they are intended as retributions, or merely as examples in terrorem.

1 Pet. ii. 13. Rom. xiii. 7. † Eph. vi. 2.

+ Sh. Cat. Q. 66. § Gen. ix. 6.

The precept does not forbid the taking away of life in self-defence. When a man is attacked, he is at liberty to defend himself; and if in the conflict the intended murderer shall fall, no moralist would say that the defender was guilty of murder, provided that no means of saving himself were left but the taking away of the life of the aggressor. Surely he was not bound to be more careful of the life of his enemy than of his own. In such a case, the law can afford him no protection; he must use the power which God has given him, to preserve the most valuable of all his possessions, to ward off an injury which can never be repaired. Human laws accord the same right in defence of our property, when an attempt is made to take it from us by violence.

It may be inquired, how far wars, in the course of which there is a loss of many lives, are consistent with this precept? The plain answer is, that they are justifiable only on the plea of self-defence; that we may make war and destroy our enemies when we are unjustly attacked, for we are acting the same part, on a more extended scale, with the individual who resists the house-breaker, the highway-man, and the assassin; but that wars of aggression, wars which have no just cause in the conduct of our antagonist, are unlawful; and that, in the sight of God, every life which is taken away in the prosecution of them is a murder. How much guilt is accumulated upon all the nations of the world! and how dreadful will be the reckoning with the rulers of the earth, when God shall make inquiry after blood!

The precept is justly understood to forbid suicide; and for this reason, that we have not absolute power over our own life, but are bound to retain and employ it to the ends for which it was bestowed, till the gift is resumed by the Giver. Disgust at life will not justify self-murder, because it can exist only in an ungrateful and vicious mind; nor severe affliction, which coming from the hand of God, it is our duty to bear with patience; nor the apprehension of evil, which may not befall us, and to which, if it did come, we should be bound to submit without a murmur. Life is an appointed time, measured out to us by the wisdom of God; it is a race which we must run till we arrive at the goal; it is a conflict which we must sustain till we have obtained the victory.

The prohibition of murder implies a prohibition of all the causes which lead to it; as, envy, malice, revenge, secret wishes of evil to others, and imprecations of it, unjust and excessive anger, duels, and fighting of every kind between man and man. “Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not kill: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.”* An Apostle, speaking in the spirit of his Master, declares, that he who "hateth his brother is a murderer." The command, not to take away our own life, binds us to avoid not only direct suicide, but every thing which has a tendency to bring it to an untimely end; as, peevishness, and fretfulness, and discontent; immoderate grief; anxious care about our worldly af fairs, and labour unnecessarily submitted to beyond our strength; neglect of our bodies, by withholding due nourishment and clothing, and carelessness about our health; intemperance in eating and drinking, and exposing ourselves to danger without a lawful call.

The positive duties are implied in the negative. We ought to use all proper means of preserving our life, for our own sakes, and for the good of those who are dependent upon us, and to whom we may be useful in temporal and spiritual things. We are bound also to endeavour to preserve the lives of others, by warning them of dangers, by rescuing them from perilous circumstances, by ministering to their necessities, by doing what will contribute to render life desirable and comfortable to them.

Matth. v. 21, 22.

† 1 John iii. lb.

4

As there is a life of far greater importance than that of the body, the precept may be understood to comprehend the duties which relate to the salvation of our own souls, and those of our brethren: "He that findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death."* In these words our duty to ourselves is pointed out; and with respect to others who are connected with us, it is only when we endeavour, by our instructions, our example, and our prayers, to turn them from the path of destruction, that we can say with Paul, that "we are free from the blood of all men.'

LECTURE CV.

ON THE LAW OF GOD.

Commentary on the Seventh, the Eighth, the Ninth, and the Tenth Commandments.-Conclusion from a Review of the Law.

THE Seventh precept is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." As it forbids a sin which can be committed only by married persons, and according to the rules laid down for the interpretation of the law, not only forbids all the sins comprehended under this general term, but enjoins the opposite duties; a detail of the duties of the conjugal relation is more properly introduced in this place, than under the fifth commandment, to which they are commonly referred.

Marriage is an ordinance of God for the increase of the human race, and for other important purposes connected with the comfort and moral improvement of the species. It was instituted in Paradise, where our first parents were united as husband and wife by their Creator himself, and an example was given to be imitated by their descendants. As such it was considered by Adam, who, instructed no doubt by a divine revelation, said on that occasion, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."†

As only a single pair was created, it appears to have been the intention of their Maker that a man should have only one wife, and a wife only one husband. In this manner Malachi explains the fact, when he says, " And did not he make one?" namely, one woman; "yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? that he might seek a godly seed." Yet we know that Dolygamy was introduced at an early period, that it was practised by the patriarchs and other pious men, and that it was recognized by the law of Moses, and subjected to regulation. If it was not properly approved, it was tolerated; and we must conclude, that at that period there was not such moral evil in it, if it was at all sinful, as was inconsistent with a state of salvation. The case is finally decided by our Saviour, who has forbidden polygamy. It now admits of no apology; and if a man, professing to be a Christian, should take to himself more wives than one, he would not only incur the penalty of human laws, but expose himself to the displeasure of heaven.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. It is founded on mutual consent, and binds the parties to each other for life. As the relation is of great importance, not only to the individuals, but to society at large, † Gen. ii. 24.

Prov. viii. 36.

+ Mal. ii. 15.