in their unnatural pretensions to an absolute property in their poor brethren? or that they "do the will of God
example will seldom fail to produce due respect, and will certainly "adorn the doctrine" or profession of the Christian. Children "may adorn the doctrine of God" by obedience to their "parents in all things for this is well-pleasing," says the text, "unto the Lord." (v. 20.) And again, the reciprocal duty of fathers is plainly pointed out to be a prudent moderation of that paternal authority with which they are entrusted, for they are carefully warned against arbitrary severity. "Provoke not," says the apostle, "your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." Servants are in the very next verse (v. 22) commanded to "obey in all things their masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God:" so that the submission of the servants was also to adorn the "doctrine of God," it being manifestly enjoined only for God's sake, and not on account of any supposed "right of dominion" invested in the masters, which the following verses (v. 23 and 24,) when applied to the servants, sufficiently demonstrat—"And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord, and not unto men: knowing, that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ." And to the same eternal and unerring dispenser of rewards—and not to temporal masters—is attributed the power of punishing the "doing wrong," mentioned in the very next verse; which according to my learned friend's notion, is opposed to obeying in all things the masters—"he that doeth wrong," says the text, "shall receive for the wrong which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons." (v. 25.)
Such strict impartiality in the administration of justice cannot always be attributed, with certainty, even to the best regulated human tribunal, and much less is it applicable to the decisions of uncontrolled will and pleasure, in punishing "wrong doing," under the absolute dominion of slaveholders! No earthly dominion whatever is conducted with such an equal distribution of rewards and punishments, as that it may always with truth be said, "there is no respect of persons," for this is the proper characteristic of the judgments and dominion of God and Christ alone. "For the Lord is judge, and with him is no respect of persons." Eccles. xxxv. 12. "For there is no respect of persons with God." Rom. ii. 11. And, therefore, we may fairly conclude that the punishment, not only of slaves, but that also of masters, that "do wrong," is to be understood in the text which my friend has cited to support his notion of a "right of dominion" vested in the masters; so that the said supposed right has, indeed, but a very "slippery" foundation! Agreeable to my last remark on this text, (Coloss. iii. 24,)
