that passes between them, she invariably addressed her. We never can read either coldness or indifference, much less the harsh mistrust, breathing often more in tone than actual words, which sometimes characterises the manner of an elder towards a younger. All she says, either in persuasion to return, or in advice or inquiry, is with the same caressing love. In her bringing forth on Ruth's return the remains of the day's meal, which she had been compelled to take while Ruth was absent, how touchingly we read the love lingering with her absent child, the thought of saving for her the evening meal, and bringing it with eager haste the moment Ruth appeared, not knowing how she might have fared during the hot and weary day.

Oh! while we would have our young sisters imitate, as they cannot fail to love, the conduct of Ruth, will not their elders do well to ponder on, and imitate, the tenderness of Naomi? Youth will not, cannot love, a pure unselfish love, unless invited so to do; no, not even in the sanctuary of home, not even parents, unless love, not only felt but displayed in confidence and caressing kindness, marks the parental conduct. Duty done on either side is not enough, for it is not according to the spirit of the Lord, and of His word. There love predominates, and so should it predominate in the homes of His children. We do not deny that it does, but we would have it displayed as well as felt, by every member of that hallowed temple, HOME. Brothers and sisters, parents and children, twined together in that sacred silvery link, unbroken even by death; for they know it is immortal. Love not only felt, but breathing in every tone, and actuating every deed; confidence and trust-mutually

-no

given, mutually felt. How thrice blest would such things make home! The parental heart would not then bleed in secret, at what seems like neglect and unkindness, if not an utter want of love. Nor would the young spirit shrink within itself, chilled and sad-yearning for affection spoken, as well as felt; and utterly unconscious how truly and how deeply they may still be loved. How different is that home where no gentle word is heard-n caress asked for, or voluntarily bestowed-no interchange of mutual thought; but each member walks alone, seeking no sympathy save from the stranger, caring not to shed one flower on the parental hearth, and believing they have no place in the parental heart save as a child, words of which, until they are parents themselves, they know not, guess not, the unutterable meaning. How different is such a home to that where love is visible. Where parents and, as its natural consequence, children vie with each other, as to who can prove it most; and by the words and manners of daily life, throw such a beautiful halo even over its cares and sorrows, as inexpressibly heightens its sweetest joys.

There are some to doubt the love that dwells in caressing words and a loving manner. Yet why should it be doubted, till its absence has been proved? Why should the gentle power be despised, which will make daily life happier, and so inexpressibly soothe the sickness and sorrow which ask but love alone. No! It is the icy surface we must doubt, for never yet were there warm and unselfish loving hearts, who could think it necessary to suppress such fond emotions in the sweet sanctuary of home. It is the cold at heart who never give domestic affections vent, and can therefore never hope so to attract

the young, as to rouse them to evince the love they could have felt, or proffer more than the cold dull routine of daily duty. We must love to be loved-we must evince that love, would we so unite young hearts to our own, as, if needed, to sacrifice all of self for us, or to devote life, energy, hope, all to our service. Would we have our daughters Ruths, we must be Naomis; we have no right, no pretence, to demand more than we evince, as well as give. Reserve, coldness, command, may win us duty, but duty in the domestic circle is a poor substitute for love. Even kindness in act is often undervalued, nay, absolutely unknown, if it be not hallowed by the kindness of manner and of word. In the world, words and manner may be deceiving, but not in the temple of home; for the love which would there dictate kindness of manner, must equally incite kind deeds. The latter may exist without the former, and if only one may have existence, we may grant the superiority of good deeds, though there are some griefs, some trials, which kindly words may soothe, where action has no power. Oh let us unite the two as Ruth and Naomi—and however dark and troubled our earthly course, a light will shine within our homes, which no sorrow, nor care, nor even death, will have power to darken or remove. God is Love-the spirit of His word is Love; and would we indeed walk according to His dictates, Love, proved alike in word and deed, must be the Guardian Angel of our homes!

CHAPTER VI.

HANNAH.

In the history of the Jews, by Josephus, the story of Hannah is mentioned as taking place before that of Ruth. We prefer following the arrangement of the Bible, although it is not improbable that Ruth and Hannah lived much at the same time; for we find the son of Hannah, when a very old man, visiting the grandson of Ruth, then in his prime, to choose from his household his youngest born as the anointed of the Lord. The period of the existence of these two beautiful female characters is in itself of little importance; but it is interesting to trace the intimate connection of their descendants, thrown together as they were so closely in after life.

There was a certain man, living in the city of Rama Sophim of Mount Ephraim, an Ephrathite by descent, named Elkanah, who had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. It is a remarkable fact, that this is the the very first mention of a man having two wives, since the days of Jacob. Joseph, Moses, Aaron and his sons, Caleb, Othniel, Lapidoth, Manoah, Elimelech, Chilion, and Mahlon, all had but one wife; a striking confirmation of our former assertion, that though polygamy was permitted, from its being an immemorial usage, it was not, in the early days of Israel, considered a necessary part of their domestic policy; and that almost every great and good man selected by the Eternal to work His will, before the monarchy, had but the one wife for whom

X

the Laws were given; and so evinced, in their own persons, the incipient dawnings of that more refined and elevated state of being and society, which in the natural progression of humanity would undoubtedly ensue.

The abuse of the permission to have more than one wife without transgressing the Law, which grew to such an awful height during the continuance of the monarchy, is no evidence of the degrading nature of the Law, but is the literal fulfilment of the threatened wrath of the Eternal, when the people insisted upon having an earthly king to rule over them, like other nations. That he would not only take unto himself their store and their fields, and their olive-yards and vineyards, but even their sons and their daughters to minister to his service and his pleasures: and, of course, the licentious conduct of the sovereign would be followed by equal licence in his subjects.

But before the monarchy, though the people were ever in rebellion and disobedience, still no such domestic abuses had existence. Even when there were two wives, as in the case we are about to consider, we find the beautiful laws, instituted for domestic equity and peace, entering and guiding a man's household, as the Eternal had intended in their bestowal. Yet even these, while they prevented all injustice on the part of the husband, could not entirely do away with the evils of a divided household, which Sacred Writ never fails to record for our warning.

"And Elkanah, with his wives and household, went up out of his city yearly to worship and sacrifice unto the Lord in Shiloh," then the residence of God's holy ark, and of his priests,-a practical confirmation of the