It would be prodigal of the reader's time, and inconsistent with the studied brevity of this work, to expose the fallacy of what is pretended in regard to the origin of this new method.

Suffice it to say, that the anonymous and questionable account of the "Productive System of Instruction," which the author has borrowed from a "valuable periodical," to save himself the trouble of writing a preface, and, as he says, to "_assist_ [the reader] in forming an opinion of the comparative merits of _the system_" is not only destitute of all authority, but is totally irrelevant, except to the whimsical _name_ of his book.

If every word of it be true, it is insufficient to give us even the slightest reason to suppose, that any thing analogous to his production ever had existence in either of those countries; and yet it is set forth on purpose to convey the idea that such a system "_now predominates_" in the schools of both.

(See _Pref._, p.

5.) The infidel _Neef_, whose new method of education has been tried in our country, and with its promulgator forgot, was an accredited disciple of this boasted "productive school;" a zealous coadjutor with Pestalozzi himself, from whose halls he emanated to "teach the offspring of a free people"-- to teach them the nature of things sensible, and a contempt for all the wisdom of _books_.