L.-Yet people say, and I am inclined to believe it, that no great performance can be brought about without enthusiasm.

C.-Ardour is generally necessary in the practical difficulties which men have to overcome. But ardour is of the nature of passion; and it is well known that a calm determination is more to be depended upon than a fiery vehemence. This is true of practical undertakings: how much more true must it be in regard to the investigation of truth? Observe, nevertheless, what efforts are made on all sides to give people the Religious fever as a preparation for their choice of religion.

L.-I do not know what efforts you mean.

C.-You may observe them on every side. In the first place, what is called Education consists chiefly in taking possession of the young minds, and binding them to some set of priests, or parsons, or ministers. The most unquestionable and perfect infallibility on the side of the parents or guardians could hardly authorize them to impress the children so absolutely in favour of their religious sect, as the most narrow-minded and ignorant do in regard to the helpless creatures who fall under their control. Add to this, the connection which exists between the various relations of life and the various religious denominations. Follow the children to school, and to the Universities or Colleges, and you will see the most powerful influences employed in removing the subject of religion from the jurisdiction of judgment and reason, to that of passion and feeling.

L.-But what would you have people do with their children? Are they to be brought up without Religion,

till they can decide for themselves on that most intricate subject?

C.-If Religion consist in doctrines and creeds, and if, provided they be the Parents' doctrines and creeds, Heaven will approve of them in the children,-in that case, nothing is to be done but to declare all parents and guardians infallible in regard to their offspring and their wards. But if either religion does not consist in doctrines and creeds, or these are wrong doctrines and absurd creeds, I do not know how the present universal practice can be defended.

L.-Then you think that children should be brought up without Religion?

C.-That does not follow from what I have said. If you said that, according to my statement, children should be brought up without metaphysical doctrines and creeds, I would grant it.

L.—But what is religion without such creeds?

C.—Let me ask, in my turn, what is religion with such doctrines and creeds? It must be a matter of mere agreement among a party called Church.

L.—At all events, you will grant that children should be taught the essential doctrines of Christianity?

C.-Yes, when we have separated them from the nonessential. But who is to decide that point?

L.—I have heard Divines say, that since Providence has not given to children a higher authority than that of Parents, the parents must make the distinction.

C.-I think that the true inference from that fact is this: that since parents have not been enabled by Providence to agree upon such points, it is the Divine will that they do

not meddle with them.

L. So then the children are to be allowed to grow up like heathens ?

C. By no means: on the contrary, if parents did not teach their children the traditional religion of their families or countries, there would be little or no heathenism in the world. Heathenism has its creeds, which, were it not for the early parental instruction, would not present the insuperable obstacles they do to the propagation of true Christianity. You know how vain are the efforts of the Missionaries.

L.-I conclude then, that, in your opinion, our children should receive no religious instruction till they were grown

up.

C.-Say no catechetical instruction, and I will confirm your assertion. I believe, however, that the only true religion can and should be taught from the earliest childhood.

L.-But whatever that religion may consist in, is it not assuming infallibility to teach it to those who cannot judge for themselves?

C.-No. The tyranny and presumption implied in the present education consists in giving children to understand that what they are taught admits no doubt. This is a downright falsehood. All parents are aware that their own Church tenets are opposed by most learned and excellent men. To conceal this fact from their children is dishonest.

L.-But how could a child, three or four years old, be informed that the Catechism he is made to repeat is opposed in controversy ?

C. That difficulty is avoided very easily by teaching no Catechism. You may teach a child numerous important things which are not contradicted at all, or are opposed

only by men who have lost the respect of their fellow-men. You may easily awake the idea of God in the infant.

L.-You surprise me. How can an infant form any idea of God?

C.-Surely neither the infant nor the ablest adult can form that idea; but I firmly believe that every child may acquire all whatever we can know of God. We deceive ourselves when we imagine that the usual definitions of God give us any knowledge of what passes all knowledge. The notion of God is in the conscience. A child may be easily led by reflection to perceive his own dependence. He may also perceive the dependence of his parents, and so forth. This notion of dependence is the notion of God. A child's moral conscience is easily awakened: that internal voice is the voice of God. Build morality upon these grounds, and you will have given your child a religion which cannot be rationally opposed.

L.-I cannot bring myself to believe that the early religious education you propose would lay a fit foundation for any of the Christian systems which now unite the various nations.

C.-You might as well have said disunite. There was a time when a vast party called Christendom existed, but as it derived its union by contrast with, and opposition to, Mahometanism, no sooner did the followers of Mahomet cease to be formidable, than even the word Christendom fell into disuse. But I grant you, that were it not for our method of seizing upon the infant mind, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism would make many proselytes among adults. This, however, utterly condemns our system of Education; for do you conceive that any system which equally promotes all manner of Religions, not only those

which bear the common denomination of Christianity, but also the most horrible and disgusting, can be right? Now this is unquestionably the case all over the world. Parents

and national Priesthoods make the children under their influence be whatever they please. The attachment to what they are thus taught is equal, though the instructions may be contradictory. Add to this the bribery of honours, emoluments, advantages of all kinds, which tempt one generation after another as they grow up, and you will agree that truth cannot gain by the existing state of things.

L.-I confess that the subject, theoretically examined, leads to your conclusion.

C.-You lay a stress on the word theoretically, as if wishing to give, by that means, an exclusion to the theoretical method in point of religion. But examine for a few moments whether the truth or falsehood of a religion can be treated any way but theoretically.

L.-Why should it not be treated practically?

C.-Because all the contending religions are theories, and theories of that peculiar character, that they all proceed upon the ground, not only of theoretical, but exclusive truth. The religious theories in which we are concerned are reduced to these questions:-1st. Has God made some particular discoveries to some men in early times ?—2nd. Have these discoveries been transmitted with accuracy and authenticity to all subsequent ages?-3rd. Which of the religious sects who claim the exclusive possession of these divine communications, is entitled to our acceptance? Are not these theoretical questions?

L.-I am not learned enough to say whether the name theoretical applies properly to such questions; but common sense tells me they are not practical.