PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

as s/lIled in the Scriptures.
SSI
tions and limitations, which were olnitted or UD·
thought of then; that this difference arose naturally
from the two occasions, such exceptions being as
necessary to the subject of our present conference, as
they would have been superfluous and unseasonable
in the former.
N ow the difference in these two conversations is
precisely the distinction to be taken in interpreting
those passages of scripture, concerning which we are
debating. They inculcate the duty, they do not describe
the extent of it. They enforce the obligation
by the proper sanctions of Christianty, without intending
either to enlarge cr contract, withou t considering
indeed the limits by which it is bounded.
1'his is also the merh()d, in which the same Apostle~
enjoin the duty of servants to their rna ters, of children
to their parents, of v;ives to their husbands.
~, Servailts, be ~lll)ject to your masters." -" Children,
obey yoor parents in all things/' -" 'Vives, submit
yourselves unto your own hu~bands."
The same
COl1cise al1d absolute form of expres-ion occurs in all
these precepts; the sam·e silence, as to any exceptions
or distinctions; yet no one doubts, but that the com·
lllands of masters, parents, and husbands, are oftl.-'n
so imll1oderatc, UIljust, and illconsi~tent with atlier
obligations, that they both may and ought to be re ..
sis ted. In letters or dissertations written professedly
!.!pon separate articles of morality, we might with
nl0re reason have iooKeJ fc::- ~ !)r,:"'ri~e
.. delienation of
our duty, alld some degree of modern accuracy in
the rules Wllich were laid down for our direction;
but in those short collections of practical nlaxitns~
which compo~c the COI1Clu~io11, or some ~ma)l portion",
of a doctrinal of perhaps controversial epibtle, we
cannot be surprised to find the authc)r luore s()licitotl~
to imprese the duty, than curious to enumerate exceptions.
'!'h e cons} ·d· era.'llOn 0 f t h· IS d-· lstlllction .'. IS a 1 one 8tl!ndent
to vindicate these passages of scripture
n~
from
any cxplanatbn, which may be put upon them, in
favour of an unlimited passive obedience:. But if WG