not for their danger?" replied Mr.
Stanley. "I wonder how parents who love their children as I love mine,
can put in competition a temporary indulgence, which may foster one evil
temper, or fasten one bad habit, with the eternal welfare of that
child's soul. A soul of such inconceivable worth, whether we consider
its nature, its duration, or the price which was paid for its
redemption! What parent, I say, can by his own rash negligence, or false
indulgence, risk the happiness of such a soul, not for a few days or
years, but for a period compared with which the whole duration of time
is but a point? A soul of such infinite faculties, which has a capacity
for improving in holiness and happiness, through all the countless ages
of eternity?"

Observing Sir John listen with some emotion, Mr. Stanley went on: "What
remorse, my dear friend, can equal the pangs of him who has reason to
believe that his child has not only lost this eternity of glory, but
incurred an eternity of misery, through the carelessness of that parent
who assigned his very fondness as a reason for his neglect? Think of the
state of such a father, when he figures to himself the thousands and ten
thousands of glorified spirits that stand before the throne, and his
darling excluded--excluded perhaps by his own ill-judging fondness. Oh,
my friends, disguise it as we may, and deceive ourselves as we will,
want of faith is as much at the bottom of this sin as of all others.
Notwithstanding an indefinite, indistinct notion which men call faith,
they do not actually _believe_ in this eternity; they believe it in a
general way, but they do not believe in it practically, personally,
influentially."

While Mr. Stanley was speaking with an energy which evinced how much his
own heart was affected, Miss Sparkes, by the impatience of her looks,
evidently manifested that she wished to interrupt him. Good breeding,
however, kept her silent till he had done speaking: she then said, "that
though she allowed that absolute falsehood, and falsehood used for
mischievous purposes, was really criminal, yet there was a danger on the
other hand of laying too severe restrictions on freedom of speech. That
there might be such a thing as tacit hypocrisy. That people might be
guilty of as much deceit by suppressing their sentiments if just, as by
expressing such as were not quite correct. That a repulsive treatment
was calculated to extinguish the fire of invention. She thought, also