schools where plans similar to that of public schools must be adopted.

Our author notices as another advantage of home, as compared with public education, that whereas, in the latter the choice of things taught, and of the method of teaching in each branch, is every where governed, either by actual statutes or by immoveable usages and prejudices, and is moreover overruled, to a great extent, by sundry considerations of expediency, or by a perfunctionary regard to what is the most facile or practicable, and therefore is neither very comprehensive nor well proportioned; neither inclusive of all that should be taught, nor regardful of the several faculties of the human mind which ought to be trained; on the contrary, home education, inasmuch as it is free, or may be so, from every sort of despotism and side influence, may be rendered, * by whoever has skill to do so, in the fullest sense complete, as well in relation to the studies it is made to embrace, as to the faculties it endeavours to cherish.' (p. 9.)

(To be continued.)

ANONYMOUS LETTERS.

IT is a question worth considering, how far the practice of writing anonymous letters may fairly be divested of its otherwise odious character when the individual addressed happens to conduct a publication. It strikes us, and we submit it to our friends, that there is a limit beyond which the privilege ought not to be carried. An editor, it is granted, usually acts behind a scene; and as the writings of such a person are generally viewed as anonymous, it is the undoubted right, then, of others, to address that individual under a like disguise: they must not be required to come forward bare-faced against one who fights with vizor down: but then is it fair to send anonymous letters, freely commenting on the supposed views and principles of the person addressed, yet declaring the communication strictly private,' and alluding to the domestic circumstances and relationships of that person in a way that bespeaks an acquaintanceship sufficient to warrant the conveyance of these friendly remarks in a less exceptionable mode of address? That the particular letter to wuich we refer is friendly, both in its spirit and language, we freely admit; but the mode is exceptionable, inasmuch as no person likes to be taken to task without an opportunity of replying, and, perhaps, of setting the reprover right in some points; and also as it may lead to unfounded suspicions, attaching themselves

to individuals perfectly innocent, and, if the party addressed should feel really aggrieved, possibly separating chief friends. This last consideration would at least weigh with us to counterbalance any possible inducement for writing anonymous letters, excepting for the press; however laudable their object and purport might be.

The unknown correspondent who has recently addressed us will accept our thanks, tendered in sincerity, for the very kind tone of her letter; and will also acquit us of violating its strictly private' character in making a few remarks on its prominent points. We appeal to any number, almost to any page of this periodical, and to every published volume bearing its editor's name, against the implied charge of holding what are improperly called 'High Church' principles, or even of neglecting to point out in the strongest manner, on every incidental occasion, their pernicious tendency. Our correspondent uses the expression, 'The hated dissenters,' as if we hated them: no Christian can hate individuals; but we are not aware of having ever, in public or private, spoken bitterly of dissent. In fact, we are, God be thanked! too fully engrossed by the grand struggle between Protestantism and Popery, to enter into the question otherwise than as the iniquitous conduct of an immense proportion of the dissenting body has proved their religion a mere cloak for political purposes; and that they have so identified their cause with that of their new ally-Popery, that one can scarcely fire a shot at great Babylon without grazing them. In this view, we do not, nor ever will, spare the assailants of our beloved and honoured church, who attack her temporalities because they

covet them, and would use the bible as a mattock to dig up her foundations, if they could make it available to the work. But this is not hating dissenters: it is not hating dissent, only the abuse of it. Had we lived in the days of Flavel, Henry, Baxter, Howe, we would, without quitting the establishment, have sat at their feet to learn: and we rather think we could obtain, from the Rev. Messrs. Evans and Irons, a certificate of good behaviour even in these days. In fact, much as our correspondent deprecates the burning of Guy Faux, we would far rather be lighting a material bonfire, than kindling or fanning any flame of dissention among Protestants, properly so called. We take this opportunity of reminding our readers that the fifth of November is at hand; and that they will do well to refer their respective clergymen to the COMMAND set forth in the rubric, by that royal authority, which, we take it for granted, they all teach their flocks to respect, that the special service appointed for the day, is "to be used yearly on the said day in all cathedral and collegiate churches and chapels, in all chapels of colleges and halls, within both our universities, and of our colleges of Eton and Winchester, and in all parish churches and chapels within our kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed.' Such is the act, enforced by the command of our present Queen; and it rests with those ministers who disobey it, either to prove to their congregations that the breaking of a law, whether man's law or God's, makes it of none effect; or to shew how they themselves stand clear of the rebuke. Matt. xxiii. 3.

But to return: we never acquiesced in the disgraceful sentiment expressed towards the church of Scot

land by the Puseyites and their followers. On the contrary, we have brought on ourselves sundry lectures from friends who considered us as going too far-conceding too perfect an equality-to the Scottish church. We think our anonymous friend does not mean to accuse us of intolerance; she only expresses her own regret at its existence, wherein we heartily agree with her. It is a feature not belonging to the church of England: it is totally contrary alike to the letter and the spirit of her constitution. It exists on either side just in proportion as the one party fall back upon Popery, and the other-we mean the dissenting body-upon infidelity. In resisting these, we do not combat a shadow : they form a substance, as the country will too soon-perhaps too late-discover, against which every energy of body and mind should be directed. We have no reason to suppose that our anonymous friend differs from us in this view: we take no exceptions against this, and similar communications, save the fact of their being anonymous. We have not the slightest objection to receive a lecture: it often produces unexpected good, by bringing to mind what might else have been forgotten. But, for the reasons already specified, we hope to be exempted from receiving anonymous letters, where the private individual is mixed up with

THE EDITOR.