through him or her, the master's interest, or property, or character, nay, or the beloved children, may sustain.

There is one expression in Sacred Writ, which, though only incidentally employed, is powerfully descriptive of the connection which God has instituted between a master or mistress and the household servant. "The heir," says Paul," as long as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all, but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father." But the connection between parent and child, while he is a minor, or even an infant, involves all the responsibility which we have already considered. Surely, then, the converse of this expression must hold true, and illustrate the legitimate or divinely-revealed connection between måster and servant, as proceeding to a far greater extent than many imagine. Surely, if the child differeth nothing from a servant, the servant should differ nothing from a child in the substantial part of care,-the care of the soul. The care will differ in degree, but assuredly it must be the same in kind.

I have thought that any master or mistress may be convinced of the nature and extent of this connection, by observing only the extent of duty which they expect from a servant. It is true, that your connection began with little more than a covenant for labor, in return for wages; but if once your servants come under the roof, do you not expect them to be trustworthy, and blame them if they are not? Do you not expect them, or say, only wish them, to act without hypocrisy and dissimulation? to avoid sowing discord, or fomenting jealousy? not expect them to feel some interest in your welfare and reputation, as well as to care, in some degree, for your children?

Do you

If you do not entertain any such expectations, then do not by any means blame them, if they should fail in all

these and some things else. But if you do express your dissatisfaction, then be assured you did expect all this; and if you do, is there nothing in correspondence to be expected by the servant from you? Certainly there must

be, and the connection between you and your household servant is not only mutual, but more serious and extensive than you have hitherto supposed.

Complaints from masters and mistresses, in regard to servants, I am well aware, have been heard in all ages. Some persons occasionally have said, that they were the plague of their lives, or at least the principal interruption of their domestic comfort. Far from exaggeration, this may be precisely true; but is there not a cause? Let us for a moment only observe the substance of these complaints. Do these persons engage our ear with complaint, respecting their profanity or lewdness, their indifference to divine truth, or their ignorance of God? or are they even concerned about these evils? No, but they dwell at large on their idleness or falsehood, their pilfering, or their want of interest in the family. Now these complaints, when thoroughly examined, will be found, in most cases, to be the most unjust and foolish in the world. Unjust, because a previous and high obligation is neglected by them; and foolish, because they are vainly expecting obedience to their commands, without exacting any to those of God. They are actually expecting the effect without its cause, and that their servants should be dutiful to them, and attentive to their interests, though forgetful of God. Of Abraham it was said, in his praise, that he would command, not his children only, but his household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord, and so he secured his own authority and interest: but not so the masters or mistresses to whom we have referred. See then the nature of this connection, for see how Nature rises up and seeks her revenge. The neglect of the souls

consequences;

of such servants is punished by the sloth or dishonesty of these very dependants; and thus, too, the Almighty chastises righteously, the master's or mistress's neglect of his assistance, and contempt of his honor, by the inevitable for so, it seems, it not only is, but so it must be. Yes, servants, though unwittingly, will take a speedy revenge, if their masters consider Christianity and the fear of God as forming no part of the obligation between themselves and their domestics. Not only will they perplex, but, it may be, defraud those who have deprived them, by their neglect of family worship and family instruction, of the only principles which can produce a sense of duty. As soon might they hope for the labor of these servants, without allowing them food and wages, as expect integrity and interest in their families, without taking any steps to implant or promote the principles of either.

It has been justly remarked, that "all authority over others is, in fact, a talent with which we are intrusted,” for their benefit as well as our own; and so the discharge of our duty to them is only, in other words, securing our own interest as well as theirs. This, however, is especially manifest in the case of servants dwelling under our roof, as members of the same family. There, by how much our care over the souls of our servants contributes to their knowledge of God and themselves, so far have we secured their conscientious regard to our interests, and furnished them with principles which will not only augment the stock of domestic happiness, but certainly contribute towards the divine favor resting on our dwelling, as well as on all that we possess. Thus, then, is the fear of God, in master and servant, found to be at once the only foundation of relative duty, and the only effectual security for the discharge of it.

This connection, in short, once formed between master

and servant, and reciprocal duties implied in it, the duty and the care of a master is no longer optional, any more than a parent's duty to his children, and his care over them. Duty and care are imposed upon us by God, and they rise out of the very relation in which we stand to our servants.

SUPERIOR AND INFERIOR SERVANT.-Independently, however, of the connection between master and servant, there is one of no small moment between the servants themselves, which must not be forgotten. In a large family, wherever there are more than two servants, instead of their forming, as with many, a separate and separated community, they should form, though in some sense a distinct, yet an intimate branch of but one family. If they do so, the connection between the servants themselves will not be neglected. This is the more necessary, from the system of tyranny, among servants in a large family, which proceeds occasionally to great excess, unknown to the master. Let not such a man feel surprised, if he is informed, that, without the slightest occasion for it, there dwells under the same roof with himself, one human being, perhaps more, who is degraded into a mere fag, and drags out a miserable existence. The blame is his. Insight is incumbent, and access to him, at certain periods, should be open to all. True, subordination is absolutely necessary to domestic happiness: a general principle of deference from the inferior to the superior, analogous to that among children from the younger to the elder, must exist; but to the superior servant say, "So live with your inferior, as you would wish your superior to live with you." The size of the establishment is here no apology; for the task, far from being insuperable, is, in the end, its own reward, and brings along with it many gratifications. The late King of Great Britain, in his own

family, is said to have been most exemplary in this duty, to the great benefit of his domestic servants. There are, indeed, many men, and even men of war, who have excelled in it. They have compared their army to a family, and, acting accordingly, have shown to us the duties incumbent on its master. Witness the behavior of the late Emperor of the French, when proceeding on his fatal expedition into Russia. Napoleon's inspections then were frequent and systematic. "He overlooked not even the youngest soldier; it seemed as if everything which concerned them was to him a matter of deep interest. He interrogated them. Did their captain take care of them? Had they received their pay? Were they in want of any requisite? He wished to see their knapsack-in short, all particularities which delighted the soldier. They told each one how Napoleon occupied himself with their minutest details, and that they composed his oldest and real family. If he happened to meet with convoys of wounded, he stopped them, informed himself of their condition, of their sufferings, of the action in which they had been connected, and never quitted them without consoling them by his words, or making them partakers of his bounty. On his guard, he bestowed particular attention : he himself daily reviewing some part of them, lavishing commendation, and sometimes blame; but the latter seldom fell on any but the administrators.”*

What an example! yet what a melancholy misapplication of talents! And the crowning misery is, "The paths of glory lead but to the grave." But let the master of a family proceed on similar principles; instead of leading those under him to ruin, both children and servants may, by him, as an instrument, not only be prepared for enjoying this life, but be conducted to immortality.

* Segur.