would have changed their course? Whom have we revolted from right by our harshness, when gentleness might have won them to it? Whom have we left to perish, when we might have warned them of a danger we knew, though they did not. Is it thus we would be dealt with? No-there is not a neglect, or a mistake, any more than an injury, which the timely application of this precept might not prevent. And O! how guilty, how guilty do we stand before it!

Yet this is the law-and this the prophets the whole moral purport of God's written word, given from the lips of Deity itself-of the law, because it comprises every social duty in the detail, as required of the people of God

of the prophets, because it describes the spirit and the principle implanted in the heart of the regenerate by the doctrines of salvation, and inseparable from the faithful acceptance of them. It must, as such, become our rule of conduct, if we would walk before God accepted and approved. Admit that it is difficult, that to our selfish nature it is impossible-though whether it be or not, I fear we have not tried-still there is a word in our text, that in thus excusing ourselves on the plea of incapacity, we seem to have overlooked, "Therefore all things whatsoever, &c." Therefore and why? Because beside all the motives of gratitude, interest, and love that have been spoken to induce you to obedience, the power to obey has been freely offered to you in the preceding verses. We need not return to them-we have dwelt sufficiently on the certainty of their fulfilment in answer to our desires. The promise is strong enough, sure enough, full enough, to warrant any demand of obe dience that may follow it; however to our unassisted nature it were too much.

It is strange that in the face of words like these, men will go on pleading their nature, their infirmities, their ignorance; not in palliation merely, but in absolute excuse for their sins; meaning that if God takes account of them as other than accidents of our nature, he will

be unjust-even claiming heaven as the reward of having done their best, under circumstances of so much disadvantage. In the first place they have not done their best; inasmuch as they have not made this precept the ever-present rule of conduct, by which to try their dis-" positions and direct their conduct. And if they had tried and had failed, neither would they be the more excused; unless it should appear, that with honest, earnest, contrite spirits, they have cast themselves at their Saviour's feet, and staid there in perpetual, earnest prayer for help, and have been refused. Suppose one were sent into a distant country to trade for merchandise especially required by his government, and to enable him to purchase, authority to draw for money to any amount had been given him; which forgetting, or fancying that he could not want, he should wisely leave behind him. What should we think of such a commissioner, if, on his return, he pleaded that the commodity was too expensive for his means of payment? The case is similar. We none of us do the best we can with our natural powers, and therefore we are guilty of the deficiency. We may have additional power communicated to us by the divine Spirit, if we seek it, and therefore we are doubly guilty. And Christians, disciples of Christ, children of God, heirs of immortality, who know all this and believe it, and have proved it, seem, in this matter, to be more guilty than all others, in the indulgence of untoward dispositions towards their fellow-creatures, if it can be proved that they have not borne in mind this golden rule of conduct, and made perpetual application for the only strength in which they can fulfil it.

MADAM,

THE LISTENER.-No. XXXVII.

I have been much interested in two of your late listenings on the subject of education. Though rather

highly wrought exhibitions of cases not very frequent among the largest class of your readers, yet there is a truth and applicability in the remarks which are calculated to force them on the convictions of those to whom they especially apply. I cannot but agree with you in thinking that a home education is susceptible of advantages, beyond those which a school can afford. Though I would not pass a sweeping censure on the system maintained in all schools, as, within my limited observation, some pleasing and honourable exceptions have occurred, yet I cannot but think that the system observed in a large majority of them, is alike unfavourable to the manners and dispositions, to say nothing of the minds of the young people who are subjected to its influence. Many parents have no alternative, but are forced by circumstances to part from their children, during the years devoted to their education. For them it only remains to supply, as far as possible, by a wise selection, those advantages which are best secured under the watchful eye of a judicious and solicitous parent. But where opportunities and means are afforded of bringing up children under the parental roof, where the home of a child appears to concentrate all the advantages which that child needs to possess, it is indeed surprising that parents should be found willing to forego the most important claims, and trust to the culture of others that delicate plant, which needs alike the watchful and solicitous eye and the skilful and tender hand. Is it the want of a due appreciation of the end to be secured, or the means which are to subserve this end, that induces parents thus to deprive themselves of their children, and their children of a home, during that period which may be considered as the most important, inasmuch as it bears upon the whole after history of life.

The errors of a home education, though they are less palpable and less dangerous, are not fewer in number, nor less unfailing in their effects. Where the children are totally left to the care of a governess, in the selection

of whom little judgment has been exercised, it scarcely needs description's pen to point out the probable consequences. But except in the highest ranks of society, where the devoted mother is incompatible with the fashionable woman, things are not often so. The mother with whom her children spend a great part of their time, who is accustomed to associate them with most of her daily engagements-who, in the hour of serious occupation, as well as in that of unbending gaiety, still maintains the watchful control-she cannot be accused of resigning her children's education to the hands of others, because to them is committed the task of imparting daily instruction. The superior influence of the parent still remains. The habits and treatment observed by her, must characterise those of the governess, whose power is far from being universal and unlimited. The higher authorities not only control, but are fully accessible, reserving in their own hands the right of appeal, which is the seal of home-chartered privileges.

This system, though combining many and great advantages, has yet a long list of evils in its train, arising chiefly from an excessive indulgence, which breaks down the bounds of necessary discipline, and a partiality of feeling, which does not always leave the judgment free to decide on the relative duties and claims of governess and child. But an extended view of these errors is not the object of this paper-its reference is to one only.

To some errors we know every system must be liable, which, to a certain extent, will exclude or nullify the advantages attendant on that system. Now these advantages must receive their due share of estimation, ere solicitude will be active in detecting and removing the impediments to their successful influence. The bearing of this paper is on an error, by no means of universal admission, the want of general society for the young. We are not speaking of children under the age of twelve and fourteen, to whom the nursery and school

room can offer wherewith to fill up the intervals of regular employment; but of girls who have passed through the regular routine of school-room engagements, and who want direction in their amusements no less than in their studies. It is when their youthful characters are forming-when each day witnesses an addition to their little stock of opinions, and a strengthening of those already possessed—when reflection is awakened, and calls upon judgment to assert her supremacy, and thought her rightful independence-it is then we should be solicitous to supply those aids and influences which may best impart to these faculties a right direction, and fix the impress of truth on their proceedings. Now what will best assist the youthful mind to form a correct estimate of character, and definite expectations of life? Will the dry lectures of the parent and instructress do this? Will the theories of philosophic writing avail? Will the high wrought descriptions of fiction's page suffice? Or will the power of perception and judgment, though existing in a greater degree than is usual at that tender age, will they, can they, unaided by observation and experience, lead to this knowledge, so important in its results? It is true that the opinion of many parents is opposed to this; they, in the first place, deny the importance of this knowledge; and in the second, they affirm that it must be obtained at so great an expense of that which is of higher worth, simplicity of mind, that it renders the trial unwarrantable on the part of the parent. Others, who do not carry their groundless apprehensions quite so far, yet consider it a risk, an experiment, to the chance of which they are ill-content to trust their anxious hopes and fond expectations. But may it not be questioned if these opinions have not their source in a partial, contracted view of the subject? To avoid a possible evil, is not a real advantage sacrificed, and a certain evil incurred? Do we not observe in young people, to whom such exclusive attention has been