man; and we pretend to educate a child by the means of reafon! This is beginning where we fhould leave off, and making an implement of the work we are about. "If children were capable of reafoning, they would stand in no need of Education: but, in talking to them, so early, a language they do not understand, we ufe them to content themselves with words, to cavil at every thing that is faid to them, to think themselves as wife as their Mafters, and to become petulant and captious: at the fame time, whatever we hope to obtain of them by reasonable motives, is effected only by thofe of covetoufnefs, fear, or vanity, always annexed. "We may reduce almost all the leflons of morality that have, or can be, formed for the ufe of children, to the following formula, Mafter. You must not do so. Child. And why must not I do so. Mafter. Because it is naughty. Child. Naughty! what is that being naughty? Child. And what harm is there in doing what one is forbid? Mafter. The harm is, you will be whipped for disobedience, Child. Then I will do it fo that nobody fhall know any thing of the matter. Mafter. O, but you will be watched. Child. Ah! but then I will hide myself. Mafter. Because it is naughty, &c. "Thus we go round the circle; and yet if we go out of it, the child understands us no longer. Are not these very useful inftructions, think you? I fhould be very curious to know what could be fubftituted in the place of this fine dialogue. Locke himself would have certainly been embarrassed had he been asked so puzzling a question. To diftinguish between good and evil, to perceive the reafons on which our moral ob-' ligations are founded, is not the bufinefs, as it is not within the capacity, of a child. "Nature requires children to be children before they are men. By endeavouring to pervert this order, we produce forward forward fruits, that have neither maturity nor taste, and will not fail foon to wither or corrupt. Hence it is we have fo many young Profeffors and old children. Childhood hath its manner of feeing, perceiving, and thinking, peculiar to itfelf; nor is there any thing more abfurd than our being anxious to fubftitute our own in its ftead. I would as foon require an infant to be five foot high, as a boy to have judgment at ten years of age." The judicious Reader will probably allow that our Author hath fome fhew of argument on his fide, refpecting the incapacity of a child, for entering into the nature of moral obligations. We are apprehenfive, however, that few fathers will very readily give into his opinion concerning the impropriety of exacting obedience of their fons; which hath been too long efteemed an effential point in the education of children, to be eafily given up. Mr. Rouffeau is, nevertheless, for confining it folely to the girls. Boys, he fays, fhould not be made too docile and tractable, as by fuch means they acquire an eafe and pliability of difpofition incompatible with that refolution and spirit of independence which it becomes them to entertain, as Beings formed to judge, and act, for themselves. For this reafon it is, that he directs the Preceptor, never to command his Pupil to do any thing. "Let him (fays he) not even imagine you pretend to have any authority over him. Let him only be made fenfible that he is weak, and you are ftrong; that, from your fituation and his, he lies neceffarily at your mercy; let him know, let him learn to perceive this circumftance; let him early feel on his afpiring creft the hard yoke Nature hath impofed on man, the heavy yoke of neceffity, under which every finite Being muft bow: let him fee that neceffity in the nature and conftitution of things, and not in the caprices of mankind. The bridle of his reftraint fhould be force, and not authority. As to doing those things from which he ought to abftain, forbid him not, but prevent him, without explanation or argument: whatever you indulge him in, grant it to his first requeft, without folicitation or entreaty, and particularly without making any conditions. Grant with pleafure, and refuse with reluctance; but, I fay again, let all your denials be irrevocable; let no importunity overcome your refolution; let the no! once pronounced, be as a brazen wall, against which when a child hath fome few times exhaufted his ftrength, without making any impreffion, he will never attempt to overthrow it again. "By By this method you will render his difpofition patient, equal, refigned, and peaceable, even when he is not indulged in the pursuit of his own inclinations: for it is in the nature of man to endure patiently the abfolute neceffity of his circumstances, but not the capricious and evil difpofition of his fellow-creatures. It is all gone, is an answer against which a child never objects, at least if it believes it true. After all, it must be observed, there is no mean to be preferved in our conduct in this particular: we muft either exact nothing of children at all, or fubject them, at once, to the most perfect obedience. The worst education in the world is that which keeps a child wavering between the will of the Tutor and its own; and eternally disputing which of the two shall be Mafter: I had an hundred times rather mine fhould be always mafter." As our Author, by this apparent conceffion, feems to give up the point he contends for, it may be thought needless to ftart any objection to it: a very ftriking and convincing argument might otherwife be brought in fupport of a father's exacting obedience of his fon, if not as a moral duty, at least as a rule of behaviour; in following which the child might eafily be made to fee its own intereft: the plea of age and experience is fo obvious, and fo good a fubftitute for the phyfical neceffity contended for, that if a child be to take any thing on truft, it certainly may be very naturally required to obey the dictates of its father. The most important and moft ufeful rule of Education, Mr. Rouffeau tells us, is not to gain time, but to lose it: the first part of it, therefore, ought to be purely negative: that is, it fhould not confift in teaching either virtue or truth; but in guarding the heart from vice, and the mind from error. We should not tamper with the mind, he fays, till it hath acquired all its faculties; for it is impoffible it should perceive the light we hold out to it, while it is blind but if we could bring up a robust and healthy boy to the age of twelve years, without his being able to diftinguish his right hand from his left, the eyes of his understanding would be open to reason, at our first leflon; and he might become, under proper instructions, the wifeft of men. We must here take the liberty alfo, to fay we differ entirely from our ingenious Author; being rather apt to conceive, that a boy, who might be brought up without knowing his right hand from his left, till he fhould be twelve years old, would never be capable of knowing it as long as he lived. What What can our Author mean by infinuating, that the mind acquires faculties, or even that its faculties are perfected, merely by time? If the mind be, as he fuppofes it, fomnething of a distinct and different nature from the body, its perfection cannot be effected by that of the corporeal organs; it must have some kind of growth or progrefs peculiar to itfelf. And why should he fuppofe the mind capable of being perfected merely by time, any more than the body. Exercife, fays he, the corporeal organs, fenfes, and faculties as much as you pleafe; but keep the intellectual ones inactive as long as poffible. Now, we will venture to fay, that the intellectual faculties are as likely to reap the fame benefit from the proper exercise of them, as the corporeal, from the like exercise of theirs; and we fee no reason why a boy fhould be restrained from making use of his understanding, till he be twelve years old, any inore than from making ufe of his hands. As we cannot reafon but from what we know, and as our knowlege is acquired immediately through the corporeal organs, there is doubtless an abfurdity in bewildering the understanding with objects that are beyond the capacity or experience of the fenfes; and in our endeavouring to accelerate the progrefs of the mind beyond that of the body: but nothing appears more evident to us, than that the cultivation of both fhould be undertaken at the fame time; and, indeed, the ufe of reafon, or the exertion of the understanding, is abfolutely neceffary to the exercife of the corporeal faculties, in any tolerable degree of perfection. Our Author tells us, indeed, elfewhere, that he is far from thinking children capable of no kind of reafoning, but that he hath obferved, on the contrary, they reafon very well as to things they are acquainted with, and which regard their prefent and obvious intereft: that it is only in the depth of their knowlege we deceive ourfelves, in attributing to them what they do not poffefs; and fetting them to reafon about things they cannot comprehend. This being the cafe, we can fee no good caufe for neglecting to cultivate the rational faculties children; Mr. Rouleau's important injunction amounting to no more, than that we ought not to perplex them with reafoning about things above their knowlege or capacity an injunction that holds equally good respecting perfons of every age, fex, or condition. The fame may be faid alfo of his directions to engage their attention by fubjects that are immediately interefting. There can be no doubt, that that the reafon of a child fhould be exercifed on topics different from fuch as we fhould prefer for grown perfons. If they are not rendered interesting also, it is in vain that we expect to engage the attention of either the one or the other. The only leffon of morality proper for children, fays our Author, is never to do an injury to any one. Even the pofitive precept of doing good, if not made fubordinate to this, is dangerous, falfe, and contradictory. "Who is there, continues he, that doth not do good? All the world, even the vicious man, does good to one party or the other: he will often make one perfon happy, at the expence of an hundred that he renders miferable: hence arife all our calamities. The most fublime virtues are negative. O, how much good must that man neceffarily have done his fellow-creatures, if such a man there be, who never did any of them any harm !" In confequence of thefe negative maxims, it is, that Mr. Roufleau advises us to be very fparing in laying on children any pofitive injunctions to virtue. By preaching up virtue, fays he, we make them in love with vice; and encourage them to practice, by forbidding, it. In order to render them pious, we tire out their patience at church; and by making them mutter their prayers perpetually, compel them to figh for the liberty of praying no longer while to teach them charity, we make them give alms, as if we were above doing it ourselves. The obfervations our Author goes on to make on the subject of giving alms, and the liberality of children, are fhrewd and pertinent. "To give alms is the action of a man, who may be sup pofed to know the value of what he bestows, and the want his fellow-creature has of it. A child, who knows nothing of either, can have no merit in giving alins give what he will, it is without charity or beneficence; indeed, he will be almost afhamed to give, when, judging from your example, he muft think it is the bufinets of children, and that he fhall do fo no more when he grows up. "It is to be obferved alfo, that we generally ufe children to give thofe things only of which they know not the value. What are to them the round pieces of metal they carry in their pockets, and which ferve to no other purpofe but to give away? A child would fooner give a beggar an hundred guineas than a cake: but require the little prodigal to give away 8 |