considerate and loving in their dealings with it as any; while no one would
be at all surprised to find another, who is very firm in his belief in
the native tendency of childhood to good, showing himself, in practically
dealing with the actual conduct of children, fretful, impatient,
complaining, and very ready to recognize, in fact, tendencies which in
theory he seems to deny. And so, two bank directors, or members of the
board of management of any industrial undertaking, when they meet in the
street on Sunday, in returning from their respective places of public
worship, if they fall into conversation on the moral nature of man, may
find, or think they find, that they differ extremely in their views, and
may even think each other bigoted or heretical, as the case may be; but yet
the next day, when they meet at a session of their board, and come to the
work of actually dealing with the conduct and the motives of men, they may
find that there is _practically_ no difference between them whatever. Or,
if there should be any difference, such as would show itself in a greater
readiness in one than in the other to place confidence in the promises or
to confide in the integrity of men, the difference would, in general, have
no perceptible relation whatever to the difference in the theological
phraseology which they have been accustomed to hear and to assent to in
their respective churches. All which seems to indicate, as has already been
said, that the difference in question is rather apparent than real, and
that it implies less actual disagreement about the facts of human nature
than diversity in the phraseology by which the facts are represented.

_Agency of the Divine Spirit_.

It may, however, be said that in this respect, if not in any other, there
is a radical difference among parents in respect to human nature, in
relation to the religious education of children--namely, that some
think that the implanting of the right principles of repentance for all