Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

in this instance, the slave of an animal instinct; and, in proportion to the severity of the expected punishment and the strength of his fear, will be the certainty that such a boy will tell a falsehood to protect himself. It is a mere matter of self-defence; a questionable shield no doubt, but the only one his fear can furnish him on the occasion. But why need this shield at all, and this protection? If there were no severe punishment, there would be no necessity for resorting to such a defence. It is the punishment, therefore, that causes the artifice; at least, it is the cause of exciting the boy's fear, and his fear suggests the falsehood. Take away the cause, and the effect will cease. Instead of frightening children of a timid disposition from doing that which is wrong, it is much better on most occasions that they actually be suffered to do the wrong, for the terror of a beating will assuredly lead them to adopt this vice, of almost all others, the most to be shunned. The boy's fear will not allow him to see any greater evil than the punishment, and thus it has upon him a blinding influence to the consequences of his error. He is stunned, as it were, into a sort of moral derangement, and momentary forgetfulness of himself, by the anticipated chastisement. Who does not see, then, that severe measures of correcting faults, especially in timid children, will only strengthen and perpetuate an early developed tendency to falsehood? Nay, they will call forth the tendency where it never before existed. Oppression, it is said, will make a wise man mad; and it will also make a truth-loving child a confirmed deceiver.

The remedy, or at least the first step in the remedy, is simply, as in all other cases mentioned, to remove the cause or the temptation. If a merely timid boy has com

mitted a fault, and has no fear of a punishment for it, he will not thus, without any motive, conceal his offence by a falsehood. Hence there will be no lie, because there was no temptation. And the chances are also in favour even of having the original offence rectified, for the falsehood may be successful in concealing it. But, whether or not, it must have been a serious offence indeed, to call for such severity as would thus jeopardise the offender's character for truth. And again, if detected and flogged, what, after all, is the consequence? the propensity is not thus repressed, but around the same propensity is now thrown an additional degree of cautiousness. The pain felt on one occasion will not so much deter from the re-commission, as prompt to the better concealment of an offence, and the result will only be, in future, a more elaborated falsehood.

But in attempting to rectify the habit of prevaricating and falsehood, the feeling of fear must by no means be kept out of view. It only requires, indeed, to be enlightened, to prove a very powerful auxiliary in eradicating the habit. In the absence of any particular act, a foundation must be laid by means of reason and argument. The vice must be shown in action, pictured out in some familiar illustration, and the fatal consequences of the habit shown. Excite a fear of these consequences, and by a natural gradation, of their cause. Turn thus the feeling into a right channel, so far as earthly means go. But the higher sanctions of religion must also be resorted to. Yet even here most persons certainly commit a great mistake. They transfer their own mode of dealing with offenders to religion, and, fancying how they should feel and act in certain cases, ascribe such modes to the Deity. God is, therefore, represented to children as being

[blocks in formation]

remorse.

Now this is true:

he is said to be angry with the wicked every day; but it is only true metaphorically. One cannot imagine anger literally, to be a feeling in the Divine mind, otherwise it must also be admitted, that its serenity can be ruffled, and a feeling of unhappiness experienced, which is impossible. Children, however, have no other idea of anger, than what they see exhibited on the countenance and in the conduct of a furious and passionate man, while such an ebullition in a human being, is mere animal revenge, and it is this idea they ascribe to God. But such violent displays in a fellow-creature only call forth their own resentment and obstinacy; and how can they feel dif ferently, when God is exhibited in such a character? They feel, of course, afraid for so terrible a Being, but it is not a moral fear. It is the terror of a slave, not filial It is true, indeed, that many of the attributes of God's character are necessarily described in language primarily descriptive of the frail passions of humanity. But, as it is only these passions in their sinful excess that are palpable to the understandings of children, too great caution cannot be taken in conveying an idea of the character of God from such imperfect data. The wounded feelings of a kind and sorrowing parent, however, are certainly the true figure here, and yet only a figure, for regret, no more than anger, can be a feeling in a perfectly happy mind. A representation of anger and resentment against any one, if it does not rouse within him similar feelings, will sink him into a state of moody sullenness, while an exhibition of sorrow and regret cannot fail to inspire a remorseful impression; and this will be increased when the offender sees that such feelings have been called forth in another, at something he has done, only prejudicial to himself, or at least in which he would

be the greatest sufferer. Let the boy's fear, then, be turned in this direction, and it will be legitimately exercised.

Before this can be done, however, it is evident that an enlightening process must have been undergone. As all falsehood, like every other vice, is purely prejudicial to the individual practising it, he only requires to know and to feel that it is so, to endeavour to avoid it. I speak not at present of the constraining influence of habit in such cases, where the will and the conduct are so often in direct opposition to one another, but of the original motives which induce the habit, which are all evidently traceable to some merely intellectual emotions.

I would say, then, morally enlighten a child of his duty and interest, his own duty, and his own interest in refraining from falsehood. Let him feel, by all the higher sentiments of his nature, the prospective misery of an opposite course; remove every needless temptation out of his way, and cause of exciting fear and alarm for punishment on the committing of an offence. Draw out his love and confidence instead, and the basis of a truthful character will thus be laid. "Perfect love casteth out fear, and there is no fear in love." If a child love his master or parent and have confidence in him, he will have no fear of telling him his faults. Thus he will never have this temptation to falsify placed in his way; but if he entertain a mere physical terror or awe of his superior, even though he should not beat him, a constant temptation to prevaricate, on the committing of every offence, will be in his way. His inordinate fear must, therefore, be repressed, or cast out by love, which is the real parent feeling, not only of truth, indeed, but of every other virtue that adorns humanity.

Before concluding these remarks, a question naturally

arises regarding the scriptural warrant for resorting to physical punishment in the training of children. In several parts of the Old Testament the custom is alluded to, and the use of the rod by parents unquestionably has the sanction of some of the inspired writers. It would seem, however, that in this case, as in many others where a too strict adherence is kept to the mere letter of Scripture, its spirit and design are overlooked. And, in passing, it may be noticed, that if such passages are to be taken quite literally and in an unlimited sense, nothing else but a rod ought ever to be used in correction, and no one but a parent ought ever to wield it. Hence the authority assumed by schoolmasters for this purpose, and the use of any other instrument of pain, must be altogether apocryphal. But, such passages certainly admit of a much more liberal interpretation.

Nothing is more evident, than that most of the rigorous injunctions of the Old Testament, where they were not entirely abolished, were vastly softened down in the new dispensation; and in the mild precepts of Christ and his apostles, scarcely anything approaching to seve rity in morals is observable. In the rude ages before Christ, severe punishments of all kinds seemed in harmony with the stern genius of the Jewish people. Their unmoralised natures, so to speak, were not perhaps amenable to a milder treatment. In the absence of this moral sensibility in a people, it may be necessary that some physical and coercive means should be employed. Such individuals can be made to feel only where they are sensible, and that is in their physical nature. Its wants and necessities may therefore be turned to account in legislating for a rude community. But when the "fallow ground" of society has been broken up, and the fruits of morality and virtue become apparent-when the intellect

« ForrigeFortsæt »