striking. Bethlehem was not a place of much importance; it is not, as we have seen, mentioned in the book of Joshua at the division of the land; it was long afterwards little among the thousands of Judah. (Mic. v. 2.) The house of David had long lost the kingdom, and, at the birth of our Saviour, was represented by a carpenter. Yet was Joseph's position as the representative of the house of David, and of the longer line from Judah, as patent, as incontestibly proved, and as universally recognized, as the lineage of the sovereigns of Europe, though for an antiquity surpassing their loftiest claims.

The same reasons would lead us to expect that Heli, in the genealogy of St. Luke a descendant of the house of David, was possessed of a patrimonial property at Bethlehem also. It is easy to say, These are fanciful conjectures; but that is a rash judgment. There is some reason for the conclusion, both as to Joseph and Heli, without alluding to the going up to Bethlehem to be taxed;—that cannot be denied. And we would ask the question, can we find in heathen antiquity a person in the position of life which Joseph occupied, of whose property there is no account given—and a contemporary like Heli, whose name only is mentioned and produce any such ground of facts or process of reasoning, showing the probability that they or either of them owned land in a certain district; and as to Joseph, in a small village in which he was not residing? Sometimes, in noticing points like these, it is just that we should consider what the chances are. We have always considered such a way of dealing with such questions as truly fanciful; but the facts of this case do really afford a fair argument as to the connection of Heli and Joseph with land at Bethlehem as the owners of it.

But our object is to inquire whether the Virgin Mary were not also, through another branch, descended from the house of David, and proved to be so by the genealogy in St. Luke. And we shall discover many reasons for believing that this was really her position; and that it is so proved, in the strictest conformity with the principles already examined, when we consider the modification which the laws of descent were necessarily and unavoidably subject to in a case which must always frequently happen, and which (as we know) when it did happen at the time of the establishment of the Jewish institutions, was provided for by an express alteration in the law of Moses; the case of the owner of land, and the representative of a family or of a branch of a family, not having a son but having a family of daughters.

The genealogies seem at first to have been made up with some reference to the title to the land in Judæa. In Numbers xxvi., after enumerating those who were numbered, and giving a sort of summary of the families, it is added (v. 53), "unto

these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of the names." And in v. 62, after stating the number of the Levites, it is said, "for they were not numbered among the children of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel." But the names of the males only were numbered; that is plain, as it was the census to show the fate of the males who came out of Egypt, and the land was thus to be divided among the males in the genealogies.

Upon the genealogies being thus made up, with a view to the division of the land as well as tracing the descent of families, the daughters of Zelophehad, of the tribe of Manasseh, a man who had died without leaving a son, perceived that they would have no inheritance, and that their father's name would be lost. And accordingly (chap. xxvii.) they immediately came forward and (v. 4) enquired," Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family because he had no son? Give unto us, therefore, a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought in their cause before the Lord." And provision was made, that when there were daughters and no son, the daughters should inherit. Then another difficulty arose: how was the land to be retained for the tribe to whom it had been allotted at first, if these daughters married husbands of other tribes, and that made the tribe of Manasseh come forward to keep the land?

So strong was the right of the husband, as appears by the alarm felt by the tribe, and still more by the provision made to meet it, that of itself it carried the wife's land to the husband's tribe nothing can more strongly show how completely it rode over every thing interfering even with the territorial distribution of the country, so essential for all the purposes of the Jewish dispensation. The wife's genealogy could not have been transferred into the husband's tribe, nor her name inserted in their registry, even if the land had gone over to them it could not have been inserted there as owner; for the husband was owner; it was his right or ownership which carried it over from one tribe to the other ;-nor as head of the family; for he was the head, and with him was the right to redeem her land, as such head. (Numb. xxxvi. 4.) Take, then, the case of two husbands marrying heiresses, one being of his wife's tribe, the other not. The position and rights of the latter, and of his wife too, are clear. The inheritance, the headship of the family, the place on the registry, and in the genealogy, were his. But the position and rights of the other husband, who belonged to his wife's tribe, would be the same; for the husband's right prevailed over every thing. It seems, therefore, clear enough, that her name would not be retained. in the registry of her own tribe in consequence of her inheriting

land, but that the husband's would have been inserted. For a name would have been necessary on the register in respect of this land; because, otherwise, who was to redeem it? And, as the husband's right was so strong, that it would have carried the land even to another tribe and into his name, it seems a smaller thing to carry it into his own name in the tribe to which the land originally belonged. But the registry was not made up chiefly with a view to land; it was to show the facts relating to descents, and the connection between members of the family in different generations. Here, the wife, whether heiress or not, was not regarded, the husband was still more emphatically the head of the wife. The husband's rights were not at all altered on account of the danger felt by the tribe of Manasseh; on the contrary, they were all preserved; and in order that they might be preserved, and at the same time that the rights of the different tribes might be maintained, the restriction was enacted, that daughters, being heiresses, should marry into their own tribes, by which all conflict of opposing considerations was effectually prevented. The result being that when a man married an heiress, a state of things arose, which led inevitably to his name being inserted in her registry and genealogy, instead of her own in her own tribe; as must have been the case in her new tribe, if her marriage had not been restricted.

Of course, if an heiress and her husband (like any other couple) had more sons than one, each son would be entitled to his own registry and genealogy: and so the son of Zerubbabel in St. Matthew is Abiud, and in St. Luke, Rhesa; though this has been the occasion of difficulty to some. But it really is nothing more than that there were two sons of Zerubbabel.

The principles we have been considering above, will equally apply to the union of the two lines from David in Salathiel at the time of the captivity, and in Joseph just before the birth of our Saviour.

The argument supposes that Mary's father had land in the tribe of Judah, most probably at Bethlehem, and that she had not any brother. There is nothing in the New Testament to show that she had a brother; and the general belief is, from various circumstances, that she had not any near collateral relation. The other points have been noticed already. We do not know of any fact unfavourable to the conclusion, that she was in a position which would introduce Joseph's name into her pedigree. The result seems (may we venture to say?) satisfactorily made out: That adoption did not, among the Jews, influence the genealogies, but that they showed real descents in all cases except where the name of a daughter's husband was introduced as representing her father, the natural descent in her son being most strictly evidenced, though according to

Jewish usage it would be traced through her husband; that the genealogy in St. Matthew is that of Joseph, and the genealogy in St. Luke that of Mary; that the two lines of Solomon and Nathan united in Salathiel and Zerubbabel; that Zerubbabel having two sons, the lines of Joseph and Mary, both traced from Zerubbabel, divide, but are united again in Joseph and Mary: the proof of their union being especially this-that there was one, and only one, case among the Jews in which a man's name could be found in two genealogies. We find Joseph's name in two genealogies; we know that he was the husband of Mary, the chief of the circumstances necessary to his name being on the second pedigree. Though we are not, at the distance of nearly 1900 years, acquainted with the existence of the inferior concomitant facts, yet we know nothing unfavourable to the same conclusion, but every thing we do know is favourable to it. And in common matters, the two important facts of Joseph being Mary's husband, and his name on the second register, would, after a lapse of sixty or one hundred years, be held quite sufficient. We did not expect, when we began the investigation, to find the reasons so very strong, as we now consider they are, to prove that the pedigree given by St. Luke is certainly that of the Virgin Mary. G. S.

THE POEMS OF HOOD AND OF WORDSWORTH.

Poems by Thomas Hood. 15th Edition. London: Moxon and Co. 1862.

The Poems of William Wordsworth.

London: Moxon. 1847.

HOOD's poems have sold largely. These, the more serious of them, were collected by his own desire; and his friends felt that, in publishing them, they were carrying out his last instructions, and were discharging a duty to his memory. He wished to be known (as most men wish to be known) not merely for jest and fun, but for the graver thoughts which a man likes to leave behind when he passes to the world of spirits. There is beauty in many of the poems which compose this volume. In almost all of them, we may pick out lines worthy of a poet. In many of the thoughts and descriptions there is great pathos. The Bridge of Sighs, the Song of the Shirt, the Lady's Dream, the Lay of the Labourer, are poems which will always influence, and may improve, humanity. Among Hood's Odes, that upon Autumn, that on the Departure

of Summer, and the one "I remember," are beautiful. The descriptions in the Haunted House, and the picture of the influ ence of death upon creation in the Elm Tree, form vigorous poetry. We must qualify praise by censure, when we speak of the Ode to Rae Wilson, Esq. It is at once coarse and profane. It ought to have had no place in a volume intended to raise Hood's reputation. But leaving this out of view, and giving all due praise, we cannot speak of Hood as in the higher class of poets. Tried by a canon which, though severe, is just, Hood's poetry is not destined to live. It not merely fails in the highest qualities of genius; it wants the element without which poetry is not vital. It is very true in describing some of the objects of nature, the sufferings and the end of man; but beyond that end it does not penetrate, above the earth it never rises. It does not appeal to the immortal spirit of man, and so we predict it will not itself be immortal.

In this respect the contrast is great between the first and the second volume prefixed to our article. Hood's Poems within a short time have reached the fifteenth edition, have passed into many hands, and are popular. Wordsworth's poetry stuck at one edition for years, rose slowly in public estimation, and are now far from popular among the ordinary circle of readers. Yet we have no hesitation in placing Wordsworth's poetry, with all its defects, in the higher class, and predicting that it will survive. The reasons of this we have before explained. Then we commented upon the poetry, and had no space for the life of the poet; we shall now take up his history, and show how his circumstances, his friends, and the events of his life formed his mind. We shall thus complete an imperfect sketch, illustrate the sources of his genius, and show how the character of the man produced his poetry.

The last vacation which Wordsworth spent during his Cambridge life was passed in a pedestrian tour in France, Switzerland, and the north of Italy; and he then began to write poetry on the banks of the Loire. This poem of descriptive sketches attracted the notice of Coleridge, then a student at Cambridge, and was the foundation of a friendship between them, which continued during their lives. As Wordsworth, though always an earnest philanthropist, was at this time a strong republican in politics, and vague in his religious views, he had no wish to enter the Church, which his friends had destined as his profession. His aversion to drudgery made him unfitted for the Bar. While he was thus afloat and unfixed in his views, an unexpected legacy gave him a provision for some years; and before they had ended, the liberal act of Lord Lowther, who made over to the family some money for which their father had had an unsettled claim, procured for him a competency. In later years, the affection of his friend Sir George Beaumont