would not be entirely useless
with children. We cannot expect to get from them what we do not give
ourselves, and it is idle to imagine that we can address them as we
would a disobedient dog, and be answered in tones of dulcet harmony.

Again, what possible harm can there be in sometimes giving reasons for
commands, when they are such as the child would appreciate? We do not
desire to bring him up under martial rule; and if he feels the
wisdom of the order issued, he will be much more likely to obey it
pleasantly. Cases may frequently occur in which reasons either could
not properly be given, or would be beyond the child's power of
comprehension; but if our treatment of him has been uniformly frank
and affectionate, he will cheerfully obey, believing that, as our
commands have been reasonable heretofore, there is good cause to
suppose they may still be so.

Educational opinion tends, more and more every day, to the absolute
conviction that the natural punishment, the effect which follows the
cause, is the only one which can safely be used with children.

This is the method of Nature, severe and unrelenting it may be, but
calm, firm, and purely just. He who sows the wind must reap the
whirlwind, and he who sows thistles may be well assured that he will
never gather figs as his harvest. The feeling of continuity, of
sequence, is naturally strong in the child; and if we would lead him
to appreciate that the law is as absolute in the moral as in the
physical world, we shall find the ground already prepared for our
purpose.

Much transgression of moral law in later years is due to the fatal
hope in the evil-doer's mind that he will be able to escape the
consequences of his sin. Could we make it clear from the beginning of
life that there is no such escape, that the mills of the gods will
grind at last, though the hopper stand empty for many a year,--could
we make this an absolute conviction of the mind, I am assured that it
would greatly tend to lessen crime.

And this is one of the defects of arbitrary punishment, that it is
sometimes withheld when the heart of the judge melts over the sinner,
leading him to expect other possible exemptions in the future. Is it
not sometimes given in anger, also, when the culprit clearly sees it
to be disproportionate to the crime?

Here appears the advantage of the natural punishment,--it is never
withheld in weak affection, it is never given in anger, it is entirely
disassociated