were, a part of us, or because he is our property. The highest name you can give this is selfishness. We love the child because he bears our image; not because he bears the image of our Father who is in heaven. This sort of love has nothing to do with the idea that the child is a spiritual being.

Much also of the tenderness we feel toward children, is mere weakness. For observe, if you please, what parent has the most of it. Is it the wise, judicious, steady parent? Is it he who can say Yes or No, whenever the occasion requires it? Or is it the delicate, consumptive, nervous, or dyspeptic individual? Or, to judge by fruits, is it the steady, consistent parent, whose children turn out to be men and women of solid attainments, good character, and firm health; or is it the vacillating, tremulous, whimsical parent, whose children prove to be superficial, unstable, delicate, or sickly?

Let us come to a few positive directions about saying Yes and No, for this is a matter of immense importance, if the happiness of ourselves or our children, here and hereafter, is of any consequence. It is so, if the directions of Solomon and Paul, about training up children in the way they should go,' even 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,' are of any value.

I. Let us, if possible, always reply to the first question asked by a child. I say if possible, but it usually is so.

To this it will probably be objected, that some of the questions of children are not worth answering; and shall a parent hold himself bound to answer inquiries which are of no consequence? Or the question may be an improper one, and it were better, in this particular, for the child to remain in ignorance.

Well, then, let these cases be regarded as exceptions to the general rule; but make up your mind, in the outset, whether the inquiry is or is not worth answering. Let your decision in the case, moreover, be final. Do not make up your mind not to reply, and then suffer yourself to be driven from your position by importunity, or sympathy. Learn, at least, to say No to yourself.

But, before we decide not to answer the questions of infancy and childhood, we ought to consider our liability to mistake concerning the importance of these questions. Few of us have the happy tact of judging what is and what is not of importance to the young. We forget how we felt and thought, when at their age, and it is difficult for us to enter into communion, as it were, with the infant

spirit, even when we make an effort. More frequently, however, it is believed, we do not make any attempts to do so.

It will be said, perhaps, that if we answer all their questions, we shall be harassed with them. It may be so; but then you must learn to say No, as well as Yes, when the occasion requires it. Beside, it is the first question, and not every question, of which I am now speaking.

It may also be said, that we shall in this way repress childish curiosity. It would be so, if we were never to say Yes, or if we were always to take no notice of what children say. But if we often answer them, and pay suitable attention to their inquiries, there will be no difficulty. They will soon learn what both our No and our silence mean.

II. Let the reply to a child's question be not only immediate, but hearty. Say Yes as often as you can, and when you say it, let it be a full-hearted Yes, that your child, as well as yourself, may have the whole benefit of it. There is a great difference between a fullhearted Yes, and a half-hearted one; and children, above all others, perceive and feel the difference. Let those who have never been in the habit of saying Yes with all their hearts and many such there are among us— - try it for once. The effects will be as gratifying as they may be surprising.

But your No should be as full-hearted as your Yes. It is more difficult, I know, to have it so; but, if we are sufficiently resolute, it can be done. The trial is heaviest at first, but will be easier as we go And when we have gained the point of having a No received with as much cheerfulness as a Yes, we have gained a great victory, not only to ourselves, but to the child.

on.

I am acquainted with one eminent teacher of a family school, who attaches very great importance to the art of saying Yes and No. He says that much of the insubordination and unhappiness which prevail in our world, have their origin in a neglect on the part of parents, properly to say Yes and No. He has so far gained the confidence of his pupils, as to be able to say Yes and No to them, and have these replies always satisfactory. Or if not satisfactory, no dissatisfaction can be perceived. Of this I have had ample testimony, as in the following example.

A number of the pupils were going one day on a ramble into the woods. One lively little fellow was all alive with the expecta

tion that he should be one of the company, but knew he must first ask permission of his teacher. The reply of the teacher was No. It was quite unexpected, and the boy, for a few seconds, stood motionless. At length he turned on his heel, and ran to his sports as if nothing at all had happened.

III. Your Yes and No must be final. There must be no appendages to it, whether in the form of condition, or distrust. I do not mean by this, that a child should never be placed upon trial, for this were to propose to alter the whole course of things. I only mean, that when there is not meant to be a trial, or positive condition, no trial or condition should be implied, for want of care to avoid it.

Many parents say, 'Yes, you may go, if you will behave well;' 'Yes, I believe so;'Yes, if your mother is willing; Yes, if you will come home in good season;' 'Yes, if you will use it carefully,' &c. Now I dislike all this. I believe it to be entirely wrong to put the young upon trial; for life is wholly a trial, for persons of all ages. But I am opposed to blending any thing with the assent which we give. Let us advise, whether beforehand or afterward, with our whole heart; but when the time comes for saying Yes, let it be said heartily. Let it be Yes, and only Yes; no preliminaries, no conditions, no additions; above all, none of the two latter.

Your No must be as effectually so as your Yes. To say 'No, I am afraid it will make you sick;' or 'No, you are not old enough;' or 'No, it is too hot, or too cold;' or to have your No followed by any thing whatever, is a great mistake. And yet it is a mistake which thousands fall into, and among them are some of the kindest and most reasonable.. Indeed, it is their very kindness and reasonableness which mislead them.

For, in the first place, it is painful to them to say No; and therefore they contrive to avoid saying it alone. Like a physician who gives something after a bitter pill has been swallowed, they vainly attempt to add something which will soften the asperities of a refusal. This is kindness, but it is a mistaken kindness, for it defeats its own intentions.

In the second place, these parents wish to appear reasonable. Instead of being satisfied with being reasonable, they wish to have their children see that they are so. In phrenological language, they have the organ of Love of Approbation either very large, or very

active, or both; and what they wish to be, and appear to be, every where, they are particularly anxious to be and appear to be by those whom they most intimately and dearly love.

But the best way to have those around us see that we are reasonable is to be so. It will not add any thing to make proclamation of our reasonableness; on the contrary, it is, especially to infancy and childhood, worse than nothing at all.

That children should be treated as reasonable beings, is one of the plainest truisms. But this does not prove that our Yes and No should be any thing but Yes and No, either more or less. Nor does it prove that we should be anxious to assign reasons, in their hearing, for every thing we propose or command; above all, that our children should be trained to require us to give reasons for our conduct. And yet thousands and millions are thus trained. · Why must I do it?' 'Why may I not have it?' 'Why must I?' 'Why may I not?' are questions of hourly occurrence in almost all our best families.

Parents may give as many reasons for their conduct as they please, to their more advanced, or older children, provided that, even here, they do not suffer the children to compel them to it. But let them never be urged, or reasoned, or importuned, to a course of this kind. Let it be a free gift, and, if possible, a little unexpected. Let, it, however, never be coupled with Yes or No.

Reasons may be given to very young children, at set times and on suitable occasions; but never when they claim them. They must first be trained to do a thing, or refrain, at the voice of mere authority. They should first be trained to unconditional submission to the parent's will, and to have that submission cheerful and voluntary. No and Yes should be as much the irrevocable law, with very little children, as the law of Chaldea among the Medes and Persians. They should never know any thing about Yes and No but that one is a positive, unqualified, irrevocable permission; and the other as positive, unqualified, and irrevocable a refusal.

It is easily seen, from what has been said, that I would have parents begin to say Yes and No to their children very early. The earlier the better; the later, the more difficult. Better late, however, according to the old adage, than never.

Let the parent who finds himself in the injurious habit I have alluded to, resolve to break from it at once. It is, as it were, for

his life. It is, without qualification, for the life of his children. For the more uncertain your Yes and No become with them, the more unsettled is your authority. The foundation of the whole superstructure, in education, is shaken. 'Give an inch and take an ell,' is an old proverb, which is peculiarly applicable here. Every child will take advantage of your hesitancy. And the more you hesitate, or give reasons, the more you must; and the more you give reasons, the more dissatisfied he will be if reasons are not given.

I have more than once alluded to the importance of saying Yes and No with all possible full-heartedness, on account of its importance to the well-being of the child. Now, one great object of obedience is, that the child may learn to obey himself— his own convictions of duty - his own notions of right and wrong - his own conscience. It is a well-established maxim, that none but those who have learned to obey well, can ever properly command others. But it is equally true, that only such will ever be likely to obey themselves. To be able to say Yes and No to ourselves, and have it as irrevocable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, the Yes and No of our parents must be first regarded in this very manner. We must be trained, in one word, to have Yes mean exactly yes, and no more; and to have No, without qualification, mean no.

One of the greatest faults of modern education, is, that it does not secure a due degree of conscientiousness. We regard, to some extent, external, or outward law; but the law within is heard but faintly, and is but feebly obeyed. This is a truly lamentable state of things, and greatly needs to be removed. The voice of the inward monitor, though it be but a whisper, should be authoritative -the highest authority, except that of God himself.

But this monitory voice has but little influence with us, because it has been but little regarded. We have not been accustomed to Christian decision of character to do with all our might, that which we know we ought to do. Yet thus we ought to do, in all the relations of life, and from the earliest infancy and childhood. And it is by obeying, implicitly, the parental voice-God has so ordered

it

- that we learn to obey the voice within.

Hence the obvious necessity of having the parental voice as definite and certain as possible. The trumpet must not give an uncertain sound; above all, in the family. Reason and Conscience