154

THE RELATIVE DUTIES OF MANKIND. [Part III.

“ Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is oldhe will not depart from it,” # implies both the right and the dutyof parents to train him up in the right way. In truth, the fatherof a family is made responsible for all the sin, which it is in hispower to prevent, within his domestic circle. Abraham is com-mended for “ commanding his children and his household afterhim to keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.” fJoshua resolved, both for himself and his house , to serve theLord ; j: and the house of Eli was destroyed with an overwhelm-ing destruction, “ for the iniquity which he knew” says thesacred historian, “because his sons made themselves vile, and*

(Idem, Tom. I. p. 62.) The enforcement of the parent’s or the tutor’s author-ity, and the obedience of the child, is generally supposed the most essential andprimary step to be gained. ‘ No,’ says Rousseau ; * authority and obedience areservile principles, fitted only to make slaves and tyrants. Never cross your pu-pil in any thing, and then you will be sure to see him such as he is; when yousuffer children to act as they please, their own mistakes will sufficiently correctthem; — Sans lui defendre de mal faire, n’offrez jamais a ses volontes indis-crettes que des obstacles physiques, ou des punitions qui naissent des actionsmemes, et qu’il se rapelle dans l’occasion.’ (Idem, Tom. I. p. 110.) It has beencrenerally supposed, that the surest hold of the mind of a child is gained, bypersuading him, that your precepts are reasonable. ‘ Never reason at all with achild,’ says Rousseau ; ‘ he cannot understand you; if he were capable of rea-soning, he would have no need of education; by using argument, you onlyteach him to be satisfied with words instead of ideas, and make him disputatiousand self-sufficient; — C’est commencer par la fin. Si les enfins entendoient rai-son, ils n’auroient pas besoin d’etre 61ev£s. C’est les accoutumer a se payerde mots, a controler tout ce qu’on leur dit, a se croire aussi sages que leurs mai-tres.’ (Idem, Tom. I. p. 120.) As our early impressions are the most lasting,it has been usually thought of consequence to instil into the infant mind thefirst great principles of religion ;— i What,’ says Rousseau, 1 would you makeyour son the creature of prejudice ? Leave his mind to its own operations; and,when he is capable of distinguishing between truth and error, he will choose areligion for himself. At fifteen, my pupil does not know that he has a soul;and perhaps it is early enough, if he gains that piece of knowledge at eighteen.’(Idem, Tom. II. p. 215.) It might naturally be supposed, that the bare state-ment of such paradoxes were sufficient to expose their absurdity ; if experi-ence did not prove, that there is no doctrine too wild and extravagant for thecaprices of the human intellect; and the opinions of Rousseau, defended withthe most ingenious sophistry, and varnished with the most fascinating elo-quence, have had an extensive and pernicious influence on vain and superficialminds.

“ But to the public in general, Rousseau had shown, that the subject of edu-

* Prov. xxii. 6. t Genesis xviii. 19. t Joshua xxiv. 15.