[3.] If parents, by refusing to comply with the desire of their children, plainly, in the judgment of the wisest of men, obstruct their happiness, and the glory of God herein. Or, if they have no reason for their not complying, or the reason given is contrary to the laws of God, or the common sense of all impartial judges; especially if the affair took its first rise from them, and afterwards they changed their mind, without sufficient ground. This, without doubt, lessens, or it may be so circumstanced, that it wholly takes away the charge of sin in the child, in acting contrary to the will of his parents, and fastens the guilt on them.
[4.] The case is vastly different, when applied to children who are so far from being dependent on their parents, that they depend on them. Nevertheless, in this case, some deference and respect ought to be paid to them; and as it is the children’s duty, it may be their interest so to do; since we can hardly suppose, that parents, who depend on their children, would oppose their happiness, in an affair that is apparently contrary to their own interest, if they did not think that they had sufficient reason for it; which ought to be duly weighed, that it may be known, whether their advice is expedient to be complied with, or no. And if in this, or any other instance, children are obliged to act contrary to the will of their parents; they ought to satisfy them, that it is not out of contempt to their authority, but a conscientious regard to the glory of God; and that it is conducive to their happiness, in the opinion of the wisest and best of men.
2. We shall now consider the duty of servants to their masters. This depends upon, and is limited by the contract, which first brought them into that relation, the not fulfilling whereof, renders them guilty of unfaithfulness. And it is no less an instance of immorality, for them to rob them of that time, which they have engaged to serve, than it is to take away any part of their estate. But more particularly,
(1.) Servants ought to behave themselves, in their calling, with industry, being as much concerned for their masters interest as their own. Thus Joseph, though a foreigner, and one who does not appear to have expected any reward for his service, but a maintenance, served Potiphar. In the like manner Jacob served Laban, though an unjust, severe and unrighteous master. This may lead us to enquire concerning the duty of servants, when their masters are froward, passionate, and unreasonable in their demands, which renders their service very irksome and unpleasant; but let it be considered in this case,
[1.] That, the master’s passion, which is his sin, ought not to draw forth the corruption of his servant; for, sin indulged by one, is no excuse for its being committed by another. The apostle Peter supposes the case under our present consideration, and gives this advice; Servants be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, 1 Pet. ii. 18.
[2.] If the master’s demands are unreasonable, the servant must know the extent of his contract and obligation, which he must, in justice, fulfil as unto Christ, Eph. vi. 5,-8. And, as for those services that are reckoned unreasonable, and not agreeable to the contract. These, if demanded, are rather to be referred to the determination of others, since persons are apt to be partial in judging in their own cause.
There seems, indeed, to be an exception to this, in some instances, which we find in scripture, of the unlimited obedience of servants under the ceremonial law, which was not founded in, nor the result of any contract between their masters and them; accordingly we read, that persons became servants,
1st, Through poverty; by reason of which, they sold themselves for the payment of debts. In this case there was a kind of contract, indeed; and the service to be performed ought, (pursuant to the law of God and nature,) to have been agreeable to, and adjusted by the value of the debt contracted.
2d, Prisoners taken in war, were treated as servants, and, as such, sold to others. In this case, all the children that were born to them, during their servitude, were the property of the master; and these are called home-born servants, who had not so much liberty allowed them as when they were servants by mutual compact, as is most common among us; in which case both parties are bound by this agreement.
3. We proceed to consider the duty of the members of a common-wealth, or body-politic, to their lawful magistrates, as the apostle says, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1. Here we may observe,