our advantages to make manifeft the favour of his knowledge. Nor may we confide in our choice of religion any further, than we have taken it up from cool reflection and examination, and are perfuaded that it accords with the discoveries which God hath made of himself. In religion we may not confult with flesh and blood-with our prejudices,connections and worldly interefts. We should take pains to feparate the chaff from the wheat; and ask wisdom from the Father of lights.

Great allowances are to be made for thofe, who, having been educated in ignorance and fuperftition, know not what or why they worship, and are unable to extricate themselves. But thefe allowances are inapplicable to fuch as have been educated in a country vifited by the beams of the fun of righteousness, and who are allowed full religious liberty: It is therefore the indifpenfible duty of parents to take all their inftructions in religion ultimately from that uncorrupted fource, the oracles of God.

These things being kept in mind, can it be faid that religious inftruction favours of bigotry, and is only adapted to fuperftition? Will the neglect of fuch inftruction be a guard against bigotry? When has it proved fo? When has it favoured freedom of enquiry, or liberality of fentiment? Licentiousness of thinking, fcepticism, or an entire want of reflection have often been the iffue.

Some training up of children all must allow to be neceffary. What must this be, if religion and morals are wholly excluded? These preclude nothing ornamental or useful---no valuable improvement of any kind. What reason is there to prefume that they will be educated in errour? or that, if educated in the truth, they will never after examine fairly and impartially the things in which they have been inftructed? that the force of education will of course lead them to believe precisely as they have been taught; and for no other reason

than that their teachers or ancestors thus believed? Would you have them enter on life with no principles? or with bad ones? Is the firft poffible? Can the latter be commended?

An intelligent creature can but have some principles and ends of action: These must be either virtuous or vicious. There is no middle character. The powers of reafon and reflection render every creature accountable to him whose inspiration giveth understanding to man. Would you have children grow up without remembrance or knowledge of God? Or will they acquire this knowledge without a guide? If they need a guide, who fo proper to take them by the hand, and lead them into the way of truth, as parents? These naturally care for them. From affection, if not from a fense of duty, they will be difpofed to give them the best inftruction they are able to impart. Placed under their care at the dawn of reason, and having every advantage to obferve its progrefs, will you not allow them to impart fuch counsel as the tender mind can bear, and they may be capable of imparting. If they may not imbue the minds of their children with any principles of religion, left it should give them a bias to fuch principles-if they may not give early cautions against the corruption in principle and practice, which every where abounds-if children must be left to themselves in this respect, what will they be when they reach years of majority? Would you have them, at that period, wholly unprincipled? wholly opposed to piety and found morals? without any guard against the fnares and enticements of the world? If fuch is your wish, you are an atheist, and we have nothing to fay to you while we are on the prefent fubject. If fuch is not your wifh, how can the evil mentioned be prevented, but by early education in religion ?—the thing which your objection ftates to be nothing but bigotry, the fource of mental flavery, hoftile to every liberal and generous fentiment?

What is your own example before your children? For this has more influence than precept. If virtuous, must it make them bigots? If vicious, will it do no injury to their principles and morals? Or would you, by your behaviour, cause them to err from the words knowledge? to live in the errour of the wicked? Does it become you to object against a pious and virtuous deportment of parents before their children, which, more than any inftructions, will influence young minds? Muft it needs excite a partiality for pious paths? a prejudice unfavourable to liberal enquiry? Strange indeed muft prejudices on the fide of religion and virtue be in this age of diffipation and infidelity. The examples are fo rare, that they need give but little concern to free thinkers.

Apply the objection before us to the concerns of this life; for it is as applicable to these as to the subject of religion. It will be admitted that parents may, without any hazard, inftruct their children in the arts and business of life-in what concerns their health, usefulness and reputation-in the choice of an employment, having regard to their genius and rankin what may contribute to the comfort, enjoyment and real convenience and ornament of life--that they may, according to their ability, furnish them with means for the cultivation of their minds; the means of a liberal and polite education. Yea, it may be granted that parental care, in fuch inftances as these, is a duty owing to their children, and to the community. Education in these points may, however, give them a predilection for, and attachment to, particular arts, occupations, modes of life and pursuits in ita fondness for induftry, for the conveniences of life, for the acquifition of a good name, or of fcience, or of eminence in fome useful art or profeffion. Now why should they not be felf-taught in these things, rather than aided by education? Who ever talked in this manner on education as it refpects the things of this

life? Who ever supposed that education in these matters is unneceffary, ufelefs, and even prejudicial? that children would be better without it?

The things of the foul and another world are of far higher moment. What good reafon can be given why they should not be as much the objects of education? At the opening of the capacity for moral action, and in the first stages of its progrefs, children as much need directions for their moral conduct, as they do in worldly purfuits. Shall parents take pains to form them to habits conducive to bodily health and vigour; habits of application to fome laudable bufinefs; habits of dif cretion and frugality? Shall they guide and affift them in the attainment of human knowledge? in the course which may conciliate favour and efteem, and make them regarded, useful and comfortable in life? Shall they caution them against companions who would tempt them to waste their time and fubftance; to forfeit their honour and good name; to engage them in courfes fruitful of forrow and mifery, perhaps fatal, as to this world? Is all this care of parents to be commended? Do the parents, who wholly neglect it, harden themselves against their offspring? And fhall they yet be excufed and justified in taking no care of the fouls of their children? in withholding from them all inftruction in religion-their chief and eternal concern? Shall all information be withheld as to the divine art of living to God, of doing his work, of cultivating the virtues, perfonal, focial, divine and Chriftian, which in the fight of God are of great price? which, through his abundant grace and the Saviour's merits, are a foundation of the peace that paffeth understanding?-of joy unspeakable, and the lively hope of an heavenly inheritance?

The ftrength of the parental affections is an inftance of our heavenly Father's goodness, prompting parents to do and fuffer thofe things for their offspring, which abftract confiderations could not perfuade them to do

and fuffer. Religion co-operates with affection, and with every worldly motive, to enforce the fame.Diligence, temperance, frugality, juftice, truth, fidelity, are virtues more firmly founded in religion, than in any confideration of worldly advantage. Their reasonableness in themselves, their being enjoined by the example as well as authority of the Chriftian Lawgiver, and the expectation of future recompence, are incentives which strengthen every other motive to them. The force of Chriftian motives will be felt, when all worldly ones are overbalanced by the temptations in the other scale. What objection can lie against education in this religion?

Religion is highly advantageous to fociety: It teaches fubjection to natural and civil fuperiours. Neither of these is to be expected, where children and youth are not educated in the fear of God, to whom all other fuperiours are accountable, and from whom they derive all their authority. He who objects to religious education, would deftroy the order and foundations of fociety. Would it be highly prejudicial, to the rifing generation and to the world, to neglect their inftruction in civil and fecular concerns? much more to neglect it in religion, which alone fecures a regular and uniform discharge of the duties of life. Good morals greatly depend on religious education. Very few will appear as advocates for bad morals. Few; for a few there are, who are fo loft to a fenfe of virtue and good breeding as to plead for all excefs in vice.

The objection we are confidering does not exprefsly undertake to vindicate the caufe of grofs immorality, whatever its real defign or tendency may be. Can profligate morals be prevented, but by inftruction in religion? Any of my hearers may call to mind what has fallen under their own obfervation. Have thofe children, who have been brought up in families where little or no attention has been given to education in religion, where irreligious examples have been con