always done, to palliate insincerity, fraud, intemperance, or lust, the ties of moral obligation are thereby necessarily relaxed? Could you, on great and critical occasions, rely on the integrity of a man who should avow such principles ? Would you be willing to entrust to him the honour and virtue of your families, where he could violate them with secrecy, or with impunity? Would not his passions, his interests, his pleasures be thenceforward the supreme law of his conduct?

But does not dissolution of manners frequently precede, and itself become the cause of the general corruption of principle, in individuals, and in nations? It does.-And this fact places the truth of the proposition which I have assumed to illustrate, in a new light. For so powerful is the force of truth upon the heart, that men cannot preserve the peace of their own bosoms, amidst the conflict of their principles, with their actions. They are obliged, therefore, if they do not reject the law of Christ, to set themselves to corrupt and modify it if possible, to the standard of their inclinations. If the law of Christ has not been able effectually to constrain their obedience, they must shut their eyes against its light, or study, by every subtil artifice, to pervert its spirit.

The efficacy of divine truth early instilled into the mind, and received with a docile temper, is conspicuous, to a candid observer, in the excellent fruits which commonly proceed from a virtuous and pious education, conducted with

prudence, and persevered in with steady and consistent

wisdom.

Remark the youth who have been sedulously and prudently instructed in the principles of religion: compare their sobriety, their temperance, their regular and exemplary manners, with the character and conduct of such as have grown up, like neglected weeds, without culture. Is it not usually, among these that the church finds her future supports, and her future ornaments? If, in the course of life, they should be exposed to temptations which give too strong an action to their passions, how long will their early principles resist the corrupting current? How often will conscience, roused by that secret voice which they awaken in the breast, recal them to their duty? Or when, for a season, like David, or the young Solomon, they have been drawn aside from its path, how often are these secret monitors, recovering force, by some interesting dispensation of divine providence, made the means of bringing them back to their duty, and to God, with humiliation and repentance? Here let me notice, only to condemn, the injustice of a frequent remark, that the most serious and pious education is commonly followed by the greatest dissolution of manners. far is this from being verified by the fact, that it is, on the other hand, the comparative rarity of the example, and its striking incongruity with our most reasonable expectations, which has occasioned its being so much noticed, in a few in

So

stances, that the frequency of the reproach has been mista ken for the commonness of the effect. And the fact, where it does exist, may usually be traced to some gross defect of prudence, or of skill, in the conduct of their education,

I acknowledge, indeed, and it is only a confirmation of our doctrine, that those who have finally broken through the restraints of a pious discipline, like those who have burst the bounds of modest and of decent manners, are usually more profligate than other sinners; harrassed in their evil courses by their early principles, they are often tempted to run to greater excesses than others, that they may, at once, if possible, extinguish the distressing light of truth, and drown the reproaches of their own consciences.

Against the preceding reasonings an objection has been raised from two interesting facts-one that we not unfrequently see men of vicious manners professing the best principles; another, that we find good men among all sects of christians. True it is, that orthodox opinions in religion may be ostensibly avowed by men of very exceptionable morals. They may be merely modes of speaking received by inheritance, or adopted as the distinction of a party; while, at the same time, they have not entered deeply into the convictions of reason, nor taken possession of the sentiments of the heart.

The second fact I do not deny, but rather rejoice in ita existence, that there are found pious men, who are ornaments of their holy profession, among all denominations of christians. But does this prove that there is no distinction in their moral effects between truth and falsehood? or that all principles are equally favourable, or indifferent to true religion, and sanctity of manners? No, it is an interesting proof, to the benevolent and candid mind, that every denomination of christians embraces, in its system, an important portion of evangelical truth. The great and central doctrines of our salvation, from which all the practical principles of piety and morals naturally radiate, are so clearly borne upon the whole face of the sacred scriptures, that they are receiv ed under one form of expression, or another, in the symbols, confessions, and creeds of almost all who assume to wear the name of christian. Yet, along with them, the frailty of the human understanding, or some latent bias of the human heart, has frequently mingled more or less of error, which proportionally impairs their sanctifying influence. As every truth is connected with some right disposition of the heart, and contributes to promote it; so every error, in a similar degree, tends to strengthen some sinful propensity, or to weaken the obligation of some duty. Hence particular sections of the church, according to the purity and extent in which they embrace the truth as it is in Christ, are distinguished above others, for the general sanctity of their manners; for a zeal in religion, at once rational and fervent; and for the

numbers who adorn, by their practice, the doctrine of God their Saviour. But among the truly pious of all denomina→ tions, there is a greater harmony of sentiment, and of faith, than they themselves, in the jealousy of party, in the pride of disputation, and even in the delicate apprehensions for the truth, which some good men, who have moulded all their feelings in religion to certain set forms of words, are willing to allow. In terms they differ more than in spirit.

Unhappily, indeed, there are in our age, as there were in the age of the apostles, those who wear, and who glory in the christian name, who yet remove the basis of christianity, by denying the only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. But as then they were, they still are, known by the coldness of their piety, and the laxness of their moral system. Spots are they in the church, in which should exist only the continual feast of christian love; unfructifying clouds without rain, borne about by the winds of human passions. It would be more honour to the cause of Christ, or rather less dishonour, if they would renounce the name which they abuse.

Having thus far endeavoured to illustrate the connexion between truth and duty; that is, between faith, or the genuine doctrines of the gospel, and holiness of living

67