Page:Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission.djvu/52

 it will be aked, “HOW far are we obliged to ubmit? If we may innocently diobey and reit in ome cries, why not in all? Where hall we top? What is the meaure of our duty? This doctrine tends to the total diolution of civil government; and to introduce uch cenes of wild anarchy and confuion, as are more fatal to ociety than the wort of tyranny.”

this manner, ome men object; and, indeed, this is the mot plauible thing that can be aid in favor of uch an abolute ubmiion as they plead for. But the wort (or rather the bet) of it, is, that there is very little trength or olidity in it. For imilar difficulties may be raied with repect to almot every duty of natural and revealed religion.—To intance only in two, both of which are near akin, and indeed exactly parallel, to the cae before us. It is unquetionably the duty of children to ubmit to their parents; and of ervants, to their maters. But no one aerts, that it is their duty to obey, and ubmit to them, in all uppoable caes; or univerally a in to reit them. Now does this tend to ubvert the jut authority of parents and mater? Or to introduce confuion and anarchy into private familie? No. How then does the ame principle tend to unhinge the government of that larger family, the body politic? We know, in general, that children and ervants are obliged to obey their parents and maters repectively. We know alo, with equal certainty, that they are not obliged to ubmit to them in all things, without exception; but may, in ome caes, reaonably, and therefore innocently,