left undone that might and ought to have been done omissions of duty, lost opportunities of usefulness-never to be recalled. Let the heart yield up its testimony respecting "secret sins"-sins which stole by softly without alarming conscience, because conscience was allowed to slumber at her post -sins which seem to multiply as memory recalls them, till irresistibly we are compelled to pronounce them innumerable. Above all, let him consider that sin which is the parent of all other sins,—the disposition of mind from which, as from a fountain, they all proceed and flow-the habitual forgetfulness of God, which utterly ignores the first and great commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart."

Then, sin-convinced and sin-burdenedsensible of the soul's extreme poverty-its need of pardon, peace, and holiness,—the difficulty of the honest inquirer will no longer exist; he will be able to value aright, as be joyfully appropriates, the once Hid Treasure of Divine Grace-the spiritual blessings of the Gospel Kingdom.

It only remains for me to point out what a marvellous influence over the life and conduct is exercised in the case of those who truly find the Hid Treasure.

The man, when he found the treasure in the field, "for joy thereof went and sold all that he had, and bought that field." He gazed upon the newly discovered wealth, and, believing that it was greater far than all that he possessed in the world, or could ever hope to acquire by the ordinary produce of his property, he sold all that he had without hesitation, in order to make sure of this prize. The new and stronger affection neutralized and blotted out all previous predilections for what was his own. "He sold all that he had, and bought the field."

The spiritual parallel presents itself in the recorded experience of St. Paul. "A learned Pharisee, conscious of a power that would one day place the highest dignities at his disposal, he was a man of great and manifold possessions. A curious and interesting inventory of his goods has been preserved like a fossil in the Scriptures (Phil. iii. 5, 6).

These things he highly valued and fondly loved; but another and opposing love came against them, and the strong man succumbed to the stronger." "What things were gain to me, those I counted loss from Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (ver. 7—9).

The treasure which Paul found was "the righteousness of Christ "—a comprehensive term for the Divine provision made in the Gospel for our spiritual need as sinners. Having found Christ's righteousness, his own former righteousness, which was of "the law," is only mentioned to be renounced. He will not for one moment compare the spotless robe with the filthy rags which once were regarded with so much satisfaction. "For joy" of the treasure discovered, he is prepared willingly and heartily to yield up all else, that he "may win Christ." Henceforth he accounts himself "not his own." He makes the entire sacrifice which "the mercies of God" so "reasonably" demand, There is no reservation-no qualification, "As having nothing, and yet possessing all things," his future aim is to "glorify God in his body and his spirit, which are His"his one desire is "to know" still more of "Christ, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death; if by any means he might attain unto the resurrection of the dead" (Phil. iii. 10, 11).

The same result still follows the appropriation of the Hid Treasure. The discovery. of Christ's preciousness-the righteousness and sanctification and redemption which His Atoning Sacrifice make over to the believer -constrains the renunciation of all other grounds of dependence, all other prospects and hopes and expectations which centre in self. There is henceforth no allowed desire, no half-hearted attempt, to "serve" both "God and mammon"-no permitted in

dulgence of easily besetting sins. The selfsurrender, in the purpose of him who makes it, is complete, and it is "joyful."

It will not, it is true, be perfect. The believer will often know what it is to struggle with sin, and sometimes be overcome by sin; but he will never live in league with sin. His honest prayer will be," Sanctify me wholly."

Nor will this life of self-surrender be always joyful. Joy may wane. The sacrifice of "all that he has," required in some new form-when faith is weak, and the love of

the old portion, like an expiring flame, seems to gather a sudden and unexpected strengthmay prompt the thought of "looking back." The hand may, for the moment, be withdrawn from the plough: the happy service of willinghood may seem to falter. But He who has "begun a good work" in the soul, "will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ." The sorrow of partial declension may "endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." A fresh view of the Hid Treasure will be vouchsafed, and the believer will again "go on his way rejoicing."

Ch. Just.--For what sum?

HOME."

HAT a chain of golden recollections

is twined around the mention of House and Home! What sunny memories-though at the same time subdued and sorrowful feelings-spring into the mind when these two words are thought upon!

They are not thus coupled together in the proverb without good reason. There is an inseparable connection between the welfare of both. We employ the expressions in their primary and natural sense, as referring the one to the building and the other to its inmates. And experience proves that both of these mutually affect each other,—that a good house promotes the well-being of its occupants; who, again, if they are systematic, thrifty, and cleanly, will preserve a house in its original repair for a much longer period than persons of extravagant or untidy habits. Nowhere is more forcibly exemplified the truth of the old adage, that "A stitch in time saves nine."

This is in a great measure, though not wholly, a subject for woman's consideration. What relates to the house and the regulation of its tariff is, or ought to be, allocated to females. Fidgety, intrusive men there are who will meddle with what does not strictly con

King Henry IV. cern them; but if they reflected on what made most for their enjoyment, they would acknowledge the incongruity of such cares, as well as, in this case, the advantages of a division of labour. If doubtful on the latter point, let them visit a pin manufactory, or the village nailer's forge. But ordinary language will teach them as much. The expression wife owes its origin to the word "weave," and points, as Archbishop Trench somewhere reminds us in his suggestive Books on "Words," to the stay. at-home duties of the woman; while husband"house-band"-indicates the outdoor duties which are the support and prop of the family.

A house is a necessity that forced itself upon man from the situation in which God had placed him. The comforts and protection which an enclosure of this kind affords are obvious to us now; yet at first it required the aid of our social nature to discover them. One of the heathen moralists illustrates this in words which we shall take the liberty of translating: "As regards houses, by which the violence of cold or the inconvenience of heat might be repelled, in what way could they originally have been bestowed on the human race, or afterwards repaired in case of being thrown down by a storm, or earthquake, or by age,

had not the social life impelled us to look to our fellow-creatures for aid to accomplish ends that could not otherwise be attained ?" Now we are not to think that the house all at once assumed its present form; this was the slow development of even centuries, and progressed the more rapidly as civilisation advanced. The architecture of a country is thus often not a bad index of its prosperity, and always more or less a proof of intellectual growth.

But what was the original form of a house? Some have supposed it was that of huts built of branches and twigs of trees, such as the wigwams in use among the American Indians. Others contend that the natural shelter afforded by caves, scooped for instance by the action of water out of rocks, would in the first instance have suggested the idea of masonry work. Without pretending to decide the point, we may say that the hut, or its natural offspring the tent or moveable house, is to be found among nomadic races, such as the Tartars, who lead a wandering, uncertain life; but where men settle down in any particular locality, collections of houses of a modern type are soon reared above ground.

The history of a modern house is then, after all, not so very difficult to put together. In ancient times, when the globe was covered with enormous, and in some places impenetrable, forests, the human family probably lived in the woods, in the midst of gorgeous sylvan vegetation, during summer, and in caverns during winter. But they must, in process of time, have had their thoughts directed towards the construction of more available dwellings. In this, as in other instances-for example, the art of weaving, suggested to us from the spider,-man may have had his earliest tutor in the birds. These, he would perceive, built their nests of a particular shape, and with a view to the wants of their fledglings. would thus be impelled to enter on the formation of his own domicile. This it is almost evident he first built in the figure of a cone, as being the simplest in structure. In imitation of the feathered tribe, he composed his house of branches of trees. These he laid wide at the base and gathered at the top into an apex. Upon them were strewed reeds, leaves, and clay, to render his tabernacle more of a covering from the rain and wind. But sooner or later the figure of a cone, from the incline in the sides, was found inconvenient, and replaced by that of a cube or square. The mode of building

He

of trees, at intervals, were driven into the earth, and the intervening space filled up by twisted branches, cemented with moist clay; upon these were set large beams, which, being secured at the corners to the upright stakes, not merely rendered the structure compact, but were available as a support for the roof, which was composed of reeds, leaves, and clay. From this it is easy to trace the germ of many improvements. The upright stakes would have the bark removed. To raise them out of the soil, they would be placed upon stones, with which the trunks would be likewise crowned, to protect them from the weather. To throw off the rain, the flat roof would soon give way to one of a triangular form.

Out of these elements we can discover most of the embellishments of architecture. Thus, when men abandoned wooden for stone buildings, they perpetuated in the latter, only in a more durable material, the figure of the former. For example, the house, as just described, contains that which by imitation was fashioned, according as the rind was or was not peeled off, into columns, fluted or plain, with their base and capitals: while the foliage projecting here and there from the clay, suggested the ornamentation of the summits, as well as architraves, friezes, triglyphs, cornices, and so forth. In this manner we can account for the rise of the Egyptian, Oriental, Corinthian, Doric, Ionic, and Tuscan orders of architecture. As years rolled on, and the human mind became more capable of producing a fine and matured conception of an edifice, and as tools were improved and multiplied, and the skill of the handicraftsmen increased, architects' work grew apace. Buildings of a grand and imposing aspect soon rose in splendour upon the surface of the earth. Architecture manifested different characteristics in different countries. Beauty and elaboration were traits uppermost with some; magnitude or utility with others.

It would be interesting to sketch the history of house-building in England. Much, however, of what has been already stated would have to be repeated. The first great impulse was given by the Romans, from whose hints the Britons soon became famous as builders. The invasions of the Picts, Scots, and Saxons dealt destruction to achitecture, from which it was delivered towards the end of the seventh century by the famous Wilfrid, bishop of York, and Benedict Biscop (i.e., the Bishop), founder

of the Abbey of Weremouth.* Without, however, tracing the progress of domestic architecture in England from this period to the present, let us say a few words of our modern house.

It is not intended to treat this subject with any degree of minuteness; nor is this necessary, as there are many books which contain a detailed course of instruction upon it. It will, however, be in keeping with our present purpose to observe, that in the choice of a house proper attention should be paid to its situation and suitableness. We mean this in both a sanatory and pecuniary sense. It is unwise to engage a house that is beyond one's annual income. People sometimes argue that things must go well because they anxiously hope that they will. In this manner they render themselves liable for a rent beyond their resources. Subsequent expulsion is the result. Upon this often follows the total wreck of earthly fortune. On the other hand it is equally unsafe to run into the opposite extreme. Where the means are ready at hand, it is highly imprudent to hire a dwelling unsuited to domestic exigencies. This is decidedly false economy. Very likely the money saved in the house will afterwards be spent in the payment of that most unsatisfactory of all items of expenditure, a doctor's bill.

Once settled in the house, our aim should be to preserve it in proper repair. This is both a matter of good faith with the landlord, and of importance as regards health to the household. We cannot of course entirely, though we may partially, guard against the wear and tear arising from actual occupation, and from the weather; we say partially, because a vast deal may be done to arrest decay. This can, in one sense, be secured by an observance of the old principle already alluded to, that "A stitch in time saves nine." Orderliness and cleanliness are indispensable aids: while ventilation is useful also, because it disperses dust, is an enemy to the accumulation of filth, and is thus the means of promoting permanence in the wood-work of the house. The same precaution applies to the exterior of the building, where the necessity of repair must be closely looked after, and the employment of paint and lime be made at stated intervals.

We now pass on to the consideration of "Home." We leave the structure to itself, and take a peep inside at the little colony that shelters within the enclosure of bricks and mortar. * Bede's "Lives of the Abbots," vol, iv., p. 359, ed. Giles.

If a house is or ought to be a proof of symmetrical arrangement on the part of the builder, no less is this the case with a family. If we look for system in the one, we expect to find it in the other also. If the durability and usefulness of a dwelling depend upon its construction, so does the compactness of the domestic union depend upon its organization.

Here again--as with the house-is something that is peculiarly woman's province. By no means are men to be excluded from share in the government of "the home office," yet probably the greater part of the business devolves on the female. If she manifests a painful inaptitude for her work, a sensible and not indolent man will brace up his nerves for the discharge of another's responsibility in addition to his own. Now to what is this inaptitude traceable? The many causes ultimately terminate in deficiency of education-education in the comprehensive sense of the word. But why should this be? Why not develop the practical powers of women, and encourage the exercise of their minds? Why not enable them to become proficient in many of the arts of life, from which they have hitherto stood aloof? Why not qualify them for taking their proper stations in our great social system? It is folly to argue that the extension of knowledge, and the calling into play her intellectual and active powers, are calculated either to render a woman's notions of duty more misty, or her desire to be ever at her post less steady and strong. If it be said that woman is not capable of undergoing the disciplinary ordeal which we would mark out, we reply that this is a mistake, built upon an imperfect analysis of the female character. There is not, after all, so much diversity in the grain of mind of the two sexes. They both are, though not of course equally, endowed with subtlety, saliency, concentrativeness, and a capacity for work. The difference, probably, may be compared to that existing between their physique. At all events, whatever be the distinction, it is not such as should debar woman from her just rights as a moral, social, and intellectual being.

In the progress of civilization, more especially since the introduction into the world of the Christian religion—a main cause in her elevation,-woman has been rising in the social scale. She is now in a very different position from what she occupied in the time of Lycur gus, Numa, Julius Cæsar, Constantine, or Charlemagne. And if she is to retain her rank and importance, a corresponding change