THE first point which a parent should aim to secure, in the moral education of his children, is the subjugation of the will, and, as a necessary consequence, a habit of prompt and cheerful obedience. Christian parents are not always sufficiently impressed with the necessity of enforcing this salutary discipline. A defect of resolution in this respect, probably arises, in some measure, from that kindly affectionate feeling and gentleness of manners, which usually result from the operation of christian principles. But it should be recollected, that meek and gentle as was the SAVIOUR of the world, his resolution in the discharge of duty, and in fulfilling the will of his hea venly Father, was inflexible; and we well know how much stress is laid on the observance of this duty, under the divine economy both of the old and new dispensations. The precept which enjoins obedience to parents occupies the first place in the second table of the moral law; and ST. PAUL, when enforcing the duty, observes, that it is the first command. ment with promise. The parent, therefore, who connives at the breach of this precept in his child, becomes accessary to the guilt incurred by its violation. By the disobedience of our first parents sin came into the world, with all its fearful consequences; and by the obedience of the Second Adam was man raised from the ruins of the fall, and placed in a condition to recover the image and favour of DEITY. Corrupt nature is ever averse to the yoke of legitimate authority; and hence submission to parents may be considered in the light of a preparatory discipline, which, under the influence of divine grace, is directly calculated to subdue the perverse and froward will of man, and bring it under subjection to the FATHER OF SPIRITS, that he may live. Now, to the attainment of this most important object, the exercise of those

moral qualities, to which I have already adverted, will prove highly conducive. Unrestrained indulgence will inevitably disarm parental authority of its rightful ascendency, and convert a child into a petty tyrant, the pest and annoyance of all around him. If a parent have not resolution to enforce a command once issued, he cannot reasonably expect a ready and uniform submission on the part of the child. On the other hand, a system of stern severity, may, it is true, extort that kind of compulsory acquiescence, which a slave would render to a hard task-master; but it will not be the prompt and well-principled obedience of a willing and affectionate mind. When at any time released from the immediate inspection and control of his austere preceptor, the young pupil will, too often, compensate himself for the irksome restraint to which he has been usually subjected, by indulgence in sallies of extravagant and unbounded license. Of the two extremes, I should incline to the indulgent plan, as likely, on the whole, to be attended with consequences ultimately less prejudicial than that of undue severity. The evil arising from insubordination may, by afterdiscipline, in some measure, at least, be corrected; but a broken and depressed spirit, it has been well observed, "is one of the most serious and least curable evils which ill-management, on the part of those who govern, can occasion."* No restraint, beyond what is necessary for the purposes of salutary discipline, should be imposed; because it has a tendency to generate an uncontrollable love of self-will, and a propensity to the indulgence of wayward and unruly appetites. Children should see that we wish to make them happy; and hence bodily exer

See an excellent little publication, entitled, "Hints for the Improvement of Nursery Discipline, &c."

cise in particular, and harmless gratifications of the senses, should never be unnecessarily prohibited. When children perceive that a parent is willing, even at the expense of his own convenience, to consult their little pleasures, wherever he can do it without interfering with more important engagements, they will submit with fortitude, and even with cheerfulness, to necessary privations and disappointments, more especially if the refusal be accompanied with a manner at once kind and decisive.

It will be obvious, that parental authority should be early established, in order to render obedience habitual; and while we thus early and steadily inculcate a habit of submission, we should be forward also to encourage a spirit of confidential freedom; and a dread of offending should be so tempered with a feeling of attachment, as to produce that affection of the mind, which is usually designated by the term reverence. As it is desirable that a habit of obedience should, as much as possible, be associated with pleasurable feeling, parents will do well to take advantage of any opportunity that may occur, consistently with convenience and propriety, of desiring a child to do something which they know will gratify him. Thus, if we tell a hungry boy to eat plum-pudding, or a shivering girl to occupy a snug seat near a cheerful fire, we may be sure of their ready compliance; and what is more, these agreeable injunctions will tend to connect a sentiment of grateful pleasure with acts of obedience.

Parental authority should never be exercised from motives of selfgratification, from temper, from the impulse of the moment, or from a love of rule. Most careful indeed should parents be, not to use the power vested in them in a peevish, irritating, or capricious manner. The good of those entrusted to their care should be the ruling motive that actuates their conduct towards their tender charge; and this should, as much as possible, be made apparent in their actions and demeanour.

As a threat should never be made, unless, in case of non-compliance, it

be put into execution, so a command should never be given, unless it can be enforced. Thus, if you desire a child to leave the room, you can, if he refuse, carry him out, or desire a servant to do it for you. But if you require him to learn a certain lesson by a given time, and threaten him that, unless he comply with the rẻquisition, he shall go supperless to bed, he may, by determined obstinacy, reduce you to the dilemma of either foregoing your threat, or of suffering him to remain longer without food, than, perhaps, the state of his health would render expedient. In order that the authority of a parent may be exerted with more effect, his interference should be reserved, as much as circumstances will allow, for important occasions : Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus. A female writer of great, and, in many respects, deserved celebrity, MISS EDGEWORTH, very judiciously recommends to parents to "issue as few edicts as possible, and to be sparing in the use of the imperative mood." Our prohibitions, too, should be absolute; but neither should they, by their frequency and minuteness, be rendered irksome or vexatious. We should ever study to render obedience both easy and natural. Errors, which are those of the age, rather than of the individual, should be regarded with a lenient and indulgent eye, while reproof and correction should be administered chiefly on those occasions which bear on fundamental principles and moral habits. Thus, if a child happens to be rather more noisy, or talkative, or troublesome, than we know how to endure with comfort, it will be much better either to divert his attention by contriving for him some less disturbing method of amusement, or to offer him some inducement to leave the room, than to harass both him and ourselves with frequent and peevish exclamations like the following,"Don't make so much noise, child!"

"Have done, I tell you!"&c. &c. But, if we detect, in any action, a disposition to falsehood or duplicity, to passion or cruelty, no time is to be lost in administering reproof, or inflicting punishment, and in such a

Magazine.

PERHAPS it would not be uninteresting, or unedifying, to a large number of sincere Christians, to see certain particular duties relative to the proper observance of the LORD'Sday, clearly and scripturally set forth. The various forms which the sin of Sabbath-breaking assumes, to the great danger of mankind, loudly call for such an exposition. It is not enough that we use direct means for the conversion of sinners to GOD, and for the building up of his church; but hinderances to the success of those means must also be discovered, and speedily removed, lest those who plant and those who water should alike labour in vain, and spend their strength for nought, The particular violation of christian principle to which, at present, I wish to invite attention, is that of Public Baking on the Lord's-day. This is thought by many to be but a small crime, and by some to be no crime at all. But if it be a crime to break any of God's laws, then why is it not a crime to break the fourth Commandment,-a commandment so explicit and comprehensive in its requisitions, and so merciful in its design and tendency? If our blessed LORD came not to destroy the Law, or the Prophets; if he would not suffer the seventh commandment to be weakened in its force, or contracted in its import, by the glosses of carnal men; why should we suppose that he will allow the fourth commandment to be practically contemned with impunity?

The argument usually adopted in vindication of the practice of the Public Baking of meat, &c. on the LORD'S-day, is, "That it enables many more persons to attend public worship than otherwise could." But does not this argument take for granted what requires proof? Is it really NECESSARY that those who send their provision to the public oven on the LORD'S-day, should have baked or roasted meat? Cannot they and their families dine comfortably without it? Would not any one, upon

Supposing it to be true that Public Baking on the LORD's-day does, in fact, afford an opportunity of attending worship to some, who would otherwise absent themselves, still, I ask, can such persons really draw near to GoD with a true heart, and with bodies washed with pure water? Is it possible that they can have made such unnecessary and unseasonable provision for the flesh, and given such countenance to the crime of Sabbath-breaking in others, and yet, have proper intercourse at the house of prayer with the FATHER of their spirits? We will pass over the want of inclination to worship GoD in the afternoon, which, in some cases, is thus produced; for those who "love their belly," and lay so much stress on the gratification of appetite, seldom love or practise unfeigned devotion. But, in the evening, they go as usual to the house of GOD; they sing; they join in prayer; they hear the privileges of Christians set forth, and the terms of discipleship stated, viz. self-denial, the daily taking up of the cross, a renunciation of the world, and universal submission to the precepts of GoD. Can they then be satisfied that they have complied with those ternis? Or are they so blind, when their own self-indulgence is assailed, that they will not see the evil of it? Or have they felt the evil, and fled to CHRIST for mercy, and returned home with a heart sprinkled from an evil conscience? And are they thereby prepared to commit the same crime, or countenance it, the very next LORD's-day? Ah! is it not such, and similar indulgences, that cause so much leanness in the souls of many Christians? The generality of a sin may make it less odious in the eyes of inen, and custom and pride may make the sacrifice of it difficult; but God sees it as it is, and he will not let the sin go unpunished.

Moreover, every man, by countenancing this practice, violates a primary duty of Christianity, viz. that

of loving his neighbour as himself. It is said "one provides for many." Who, then, of those that plead for it, would like to take his turn with that one, and to spend the best part of every other LORD'S-day in the confinement, &c., of a dusty bake-house? Is not the soul of a Baker as precious as the soul of another man? But it is not true that one only thus provides for many. There is first the master. Can he satisfy his scruples, by counting his gain on that day godliness, and make it a cover for his guilt? Can he directly or indirectly follow a part of his daily and regular business, during the best part of the LORD'S-day, and then suddenly turn his attention to spiritual things, so as to worship GoD without distraction? -And then, is there no evil likely to result from such an example to children?—for a Baker may have children; and they are as liable to be corrupted as others.-There is also the servant employed. If he be ungodly, the employment cannot make him otherwise. Iniquity may become established in his mind as by a law;-by the force of custom, the power of example, and his subjection to his master. The moment he is free, it is not likely that he will hasten to his closet, or to the house of GOD; but rather that, like the horse freed from the bridle, he will turn aside to breathe the fresh air, and feed upon the first pasture that may suit his animal appetite. If he be at all enlightened, will he not sometimes think hardly of his master who requires him thus to serve, and of those who are said to make it necessary? If he should be convinced of the sin, will he not be in danger of struggling between duty and sacrifice? Will he not be tempted to discipline his conscience, so as to make it submit to his convenience, and to conform to the low standard of practical Christianity which is held by many professors in the present day? Often, alas! has the heart of many a Baker groaned, whilst employed in the bakehouse on the LORD'S-day ;-often has the soul of his servant been smitten with reproach, whilst carrying the unhallowed dish to its destined home! Think of this, ye Christians of England, and ask ተ

yourselves, with what pleasure you can eat the morsel that has been prepared at the spiritual loss and peril of several immortal souls!

Ask a Baker to give up this practice, and he will tell you "his livelihood depends upon it; "-he would gladly give it up, but then his worldlychristian customers tell him, they will not deal with him on other days, if he will not bake for them on the LORD'S-day! Surely it becomes consistent Christians to give their support to such Bakers as will abandon this evil. Thus, perhaps, many would be led to see the crime in its true light, would forsake it, and would find an ample recompense for any loss they might sustain, by the blessing of GOD upon them, in their acknowledgment of his authority and providence.

[The respectable Correspondent, to whom we owe the preceding Paper, will excuse us for suggesting, that on the first point of his argument, (that which denies the existence of any real NECESSITY, such as could alone palliate the practice which he condemns,) we think he might have advantageously enlarged. He should have distinctly shown, (and the proof, in our opinion, would not have been difficult,) that, without turning the blessed Sabbath into a Fast-Day, every object of legitimate domestic comfort, and moderate provision for the actual wants of a christian family, may ordinarily, by a little contrivance, be accomplished at home, without recourse to the Public Baker, and without imposing on any member of that family, excepting such as may be unavoidably detained for the care of young children, and other similar purposes, the great spiritual privation of absence from forenoon worship. In the houses of persons accustomed to fare comfortably, perhaps sumptuously, on every other day of the week, that small measure of selfdenial which may be requisite on the LORD'S-day, for the purpose of fully securing, to all their inmates, the high and holy ends of the Sabbatic Institution, ought to be conscientiously practised without a murmur. An unnecessary occupation even of