fashion, which perish with the using-sometimes lavished on dress; when the same money might have been adding books, pictures, bronzes, porcelains, or other articles of beauty or curiosity, which minister to the highest tastes through the owner's life, and are held more and more precious by each succeeding generation.

Again, to obviate misunderstanding on a particular point, I would say that my insisting on accord between the home and the character and position of those whose home it is, does not require that all the inmates should be equally cultivated, or even on the same social grade. Not unfrequently, especially among us, the wife's artistic culture may be superior to her husband's, or the husband's refinement superior to his wife's, or the children growing up around them may, by a higher education, come to have cravings after order, and beauty, and richness, which neither parent ever felt. Of course, it is the wants of the several natures in the family which should constitute the rule of congruity in matters of domestic taste; so that, for example, a very illiterate man may properly have a library in his house, for the use of his children; and objects of art to educate their eyes and imaginations, although he himself fails to appreciate them. But, in all cases, culture ought to come first; home art must grow from within outward, into visible manifestation, not be superimposed. The simplest abode will, by following this principle, be rendered more attractive than a very costly one arranged in violation of it. Indeed, the grat ification of more cultivated friends who may visit one's home can not be secured on any other condition; for, though such may chance to find single objects to admire, something will be sure to offend, or to excite merriment, as contrary to good taste, where all the appointments of the home are not in keeping with the natures and characters domesticated in it.

A work entitled "Hints on Household Taste," by an author of a distinguished name, though not the late President of the Royal Academy, as I think many suppose, but his nephew, has been very widely circulated, and has had a great influence over house-furnishing for some years past, both in England and America, giving rise, even, to forms of manufacture named

from the author. I could, therefore, scarcely conclude this lecture without some notice of it, especially as it seems to call for both commendation and criticism.

In these days of sham, unquestioning subjection to fashion, and consequent sacrifice of principles of good taste, we can not too highly applaud Mr. Eastlake's frequent insisting upon truthfulness, constructive goodness, and adaptation to purpose and material, in all artistic design. Moreover, by showing how use and beauty are not only consistent but interdependent, he has done much towards a real beautifying of our homes. These words of his, for instance, are all-important: "In the sphere of what is called industrial art, use and beauty are, in theory at least, closely associated; for not only has the humblest article of manufacture, when honestly designed, a picturesque interest of its own, but no decorative feature can legitimately claim our admiration without revealing, by its very nature, the purpose of the object which it adorns."

On the other hand, his looking back to periods when, in some good degree at least, the artist and the artizan were one, for examples to be imitated, seems to have somewhat warped his judgment in favor of the precise models there found, although he does deny that he recommends "the readoption of any specific type of ancient furniture, which is unsuited, whether in detail or general design, to the habits of modern life." He takes his stand as an advocate and continuator of the "Gothic Revival," following in the steps of Pugin; and gives a decided preference, throughout his work, to what most nearly approaches the Gothic, both in architecture and in interior decoration and furnishing. This leads him astray. It necessarily involves a certain "rudeness of construction" and finishing, which Eastlake claims as a merit. It also causes incongruity between the house and its furniture, for, in these days, the house itself can have none of the frowning ruggedness of mediæval architecture; and this incongruity the author does not hesitate to sanction, thus giving up what seems to me to be an essential principle of domestic taste. No one need live in such a house that the furnishing of it, if in good taste, must be incongruous with the building itself.

As to intrinsic beauty, the old Greek and Roman forms of furniture, than which nothing has ever been conceived more beautiful, were gracefully curving, yet did not lack soliditythe curves giving, probably, greater strength, just as the shafts of the columns of the Parthenon, by gently swelling outwards, seem the better to sustain the superincumbent weight, or as the human form, without one straight line, is strong with the spring of a strung bow. Straight posts and stiff outlines should be left to the Middle Ages, when tools were rude, and ideas crude, and splendor in living was a half barbaric splendor. The much talked of Elizabethan furniture stood on floors covered with rushes, into the midst of which were thrown the bones and fragments from the table.

Another error into which Eastlake seems to have been led by taking the Gothic style of the Middle Ages for his ideal is this, that he prefers colors which are neutral, or sombre, to those of clear and pure tone-an error, as has been pointed out, not only in view of his climate and ours, but also in respect to the call there is for whatever can contribute to the cheerful aspect of a home.

But, though we freely criticize the deficiences and excesses of our domestic art, let us, after all, comfort and encourage ourselves, my friends. While we are constantly hearing of fresh discoveries of wonderful and beautiful art-treasures of antiquity, read in history and poetry of classic and medieval art, and study, in Europe and the East, rare and precious relics that exist, whose beauty and grace we can not rival, we would not recall those times when art was for the few, and the great multitude lived in the misery and squalor of serfdom. Never since the world began was domestic art, in all nations, so generally enjoyed as in our time; and in no country in the world are tasteful, comfortable and happy homes so abundant as in our own.

ARTICLE V.-THE APOCRYPHAL PERIOD OF HEBREW HISTORY IN ITS RELATION TO CHRIST.*

THE period which we are to consider in this article, in its relations to the Messiah, is the period of about 450 years, between the return from captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah, and the advent of Christ.

During this time, the Jews who came back to Palestine or remained in exile, were under Persian rule for the first hundred years; then the Greek power prevailed for a hundred and fifty years; after this the Jews of Palestine became independent for a hundred years, under the Maccabees, and lastly were subject to the Romans for sixty years before the coming of the Saviour.+ The whole period may be termed the Apocryphal era, because the books that were written in it have not been admitted among the authoritative sacred scriptures of the Hebrews. The last book that has a place in the Old Testament canon, as all know, is the book of Malachi, written probably during the time that Nehemiah was governor at Jerusalem.‡

From this time onward, for more than four centuries, the inspired oracle is silent. God has spoken all that he chooses to speak to Israel, till the "Word" shall come in the flesh. Jehovah has revealed all that the chosen people need to know concerning the Messiah. Now begins a wonderful era of Providential preparation, supplementary to the preceding centuries of direct guidance. It is a period of silence like that

* Works consulted in the preparation of this article: Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v; Hengstenberg, Christology, vol. i, 209 p. et al.; Book of Henoch, (Laurence), Esp., xlviii, 3d Edn., Oxford; Commentary on Apocrypha, Arnald, vii, London, 1748; Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, Chaps. I and II; Bagster, Reference Bible-Summary, Views, etc.; Smith's Dicty., Arts. Apoc., Enoch, Maccabees, etc.; Apocrypha, 14 Books, Old Bible. Rawlinson's Ancient Monarchies.

The Persian rule was 445–334 B. C.; Greek rule, 334–169 B. C.; Independence, 169-65 B. C.; Roman rule, 65 to advent.

Until the date of "Daniel" is ascertained more clearly, we cannot class it among the books of the Apocryphal period. (See Ewald, v, 302.)

which occurred during the sojourn in Egypt; also like the silence before the time of Samuel the prophet. But this period yields to no other in its preparation of the Hebrew mind for the advent of the Messiah. Up to the beginning of this period, God has obviously and directly guided the Hebrew nation for a thousand years. He now withdraws His special direction, that under His general providence the results of the past may be worked out. He now leaves them for a time, that these germs of prophecy may quicken towards the fulfilment of His words. Or rather, after a careful study of this period, in which the Hebrew nation seems in a measure left to itself, we may say that God now institutes a new treatment of his chosen people, in order that they, and through them the world, may be better prepared for the appearance in the flesh of the Messiah. It is on this preparation for Christ, during this period, that our argument at this time will rest.

I. The beginning of this peculiar work of preparation for Christ, has already been made in the captivity at Babylon; God's providence, combined with prophecy, has done something towards this end during the time of the exile of the Hebrews.

Jerusalem was destroyed and Judah carried captive to Babylon nearly 600 years B. C., or about a hundred and fifty years before the time of Nehemiah. The kingdom of Israel was overthrown and the ten tribes carried into captivity by the Assyrians one hundred and thirty years earlier; but as these ten tribes do not reappear in history, and are consid ered "lost," our attention centers wholly upon the tribe of Judah in their Babylonian captivity, and it is of them alone that we can confidently speak. Undoubtedly members of

the ten tribes continued to exist in Palestine and in various quarters of the earth; but henceforward the Hebrew nation is Judean, even as, from about this date, the people are called the Jews.

The compulsory term of the Jewish captivity in Babylon lasted only fifty years; for when the Persians conquered Babylon, Cyrus, king of Persia, immediately issued a decree that all the Jews who wished might go back and rebuild the temple and the walls at Jerusalem. About 40,000 returned