Luke's list is composed of the following twenty names: "Zorobabel, Rhesa, Joanna, Juda, Joseph, Semei, Matthias, Maath, Nagge, Esli, Naum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph." Here the scheme of surnames fails again, because of the difference of numbers; and that both these can be genealogies of Joseph is impossible. Commentators have perceived this so clearly that they have presented enquirers with various hypotheses to solve the difficulty. Augustine conjectured that Joseph was an adopted son, and that one Evangelist gave the name of his real, and the other that of his adopted father. Julius Africanus supposed that a Levirate marriage had taken place between the parents or Joseph, and that the one genealogy belonged to the natural, the other to the legal, father of Joseph. But the most favourite hypothesis is that one genealogy is that of Joseph and the other that of Mary. Yet, if we demand which is the genealogy of Mary, we receive different answers-some replying 'Matthew's;' others, 'Luke's.' And the replies are as diverse, if we put questions respecting the hypotheses of Augustine and Julius Africanus. But setting aside the fact that both Matthew and Luke profess to give the genealogy of Joseph, suppose we were to admit that one of the genealogies is really that of Mary, albeit Joseph's name is inserted in accordance with some peculiar Jewish custom, as it is allegedwhat shall we do with the difficulty of Salathiel's contradictory descent from Nathan and Solomon? Lastly, why have we either one or two genealogies of Joseph, if Joseph were not the actual father of Christ? How could Christ be descended from David through Joseph, if the latter were not Christ's father? The account of the miraculous conception cannot have been written by either of the writers of these genealogies. And yet, neither can we admit either genealogy as historical; for on every scheme of interpretation we are involved in difficulties; and it is not credible, as Strauss observes, that the pedigree of an obscure family, like that of Joseph, extending through so long a series of generations, should have been preserved during all the confusion of the exile, and the disturbed period that followed. The source of these genealogies is evidently mythical. According to the legendary belief of the people of Palestine, founded on the writings of their ancient bards or prophets, the Messiah could only spring from David: "When therefore," proceeds the intelligent Strauss, "a Galilean, whose lineage was utterly unknown, and of whom consequently no one could prove that he was not descended from David, had acquired the reputation of being the Messiah, what more natural than that tradition should, under different forms, have early ascribed to him a Davidical descent, and that genealogical tables, corresponding with this tradition should have been formed? which, however, as they were constructed upon no certain data, would necessarily exhibit such differences and contradictions as we find actually existing between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. "If, in conclusion, it be asked, what historical result is to be deduced from these genealogies? we reply: a conviction, (arrived at also from other sources,) that Jesus, either in his own person, or through his disciples, acting upon minds strongly imbued with Jewish notions and expectations, left among his followers so firm a conviction of his Messiahship, that they did not hesitate to attribute to him the prophetical characteristic of Davidical descent, and more than one pen was put in action, in order, by means of a genealogy which should authenticate that descent, to justify his recognition as the Messiah." 2. The 'Miraculous Conception,' being the next point in the narratives, now claims our investigation. Here, again, let us compare the supposed Matthew and Luke, and see if there be an accordance in their relations. (To be continued in next number,) IMPROVABILITY OF GOVERNMENTS.-Who will be hardy enough to assert that a better constitution is not attainable than any which has hitherto appeared? Is the limit of human wisdom to be estimated, in the science of politics alone, by the extent of its present attainments? Is the most sublime and difficult of all arts-the improvement of the social order, the alleviation of the miseries of the civil condition of man-to be alone stationary, amid the rapid progress of every other art, liberal and vulgar, to perfection? Where would be the atrocious guilt of a grand experiment, to ascertain the portion of freedom and happiness that can be created by political institutions.-Sir James Mackintosh. ADVERTISEMENTS. NOW READY, ITS WOMEN, MEN, AND MANNERS. On the First of February will be published, The following Penny Pamphlets are by the same THE FOUR Ps., (P. P. P. P.) Third Edition. DAVID'S SLING at Priestcraft Goliath. Second Edition. SHAMS, Dedicated to the Queen. Second Edition. London: W. STRANGE, and of all booksellers and newsmen by ordering. HE DEMOCRATIC REVIEW of BRITISH and Edited by G. JULIAN HARNEY. The Democratic Review is now published by Mr. JAMES WATSON, 3, Queen's Head-passage, Paternoster-row, London. Arrangements have been made to ensure the publication of each number in ample time to reach all parts of the United Kingdom, `(if ordered by the local booksellers,) by the first day of each month. Improvements-both political and literary-were commenced in the number for January, 1850, which includes in its contents the first of a course of HISTORICAL LECTURES from the pen of that inimitable writer and Champion of Labour, LOUIS BLANC. ALSO LETTERS FROM FRANCE AND GERMANY, reviewing the progress of events in those countries the Continent generally, particularly as regards the movement for Democratic and Social Reform. Just Published, No. 8, for January, 1850. CONTENTS: I. The Editor's Letter to the Working Classes.- 2. Newspaper Stamp Abolition Committee. 3. The Infamous "Times." 4. The French Exiles. 5. Pictures of the Poor. THE PEOPLE; A WEEKLY PERIODICAL, PRICE ONE PENNY, THE PEOPLE is thoroughly Democratic. It is, in It is published by JAMES WATSON, 3, Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster Row, London; and ABEL HEYWOOD, Oldham-street, Manchester; and may be had of all liberal booksellers. On the First of February, 1850, will appear, THE PEOPLE'S REVIEW: DEVOTED TO PROGRESS. EDITED BY FRIENDS IN COUNCIL. Though the People have long been stirred with the spirit of improvement, no Literary Magazine has been issued at a price which they could compass. The few have their critical Monthlies and Quarterlies, while the many, who more need it, have no such Guide to Books. The People's Review purposes to supply the deficiency, and in this day of many Books to indicate which are the useful ones. A person reading twelve hours every day, would be able to read only one-fortieth part of the new books issued every year, exclusive of newspapers. To trace a short path through this labyrinth, and to relieve the ever multiplying class of thinkers from 6. The History of Socialism.-A course of Lec- the difficulty which Hobbes felt when he said 'If I tures by Louis Blanc. Lecture 1. 7. The Hungarian Struggle. Part 4. 8. Poetry: "The Song of the Cossack."-"Fallen Hungary." 9. Literature: "Works of Rabelais."-"Brand's Popular Antiquities." 10. Letter from France. 11. Letter from Germany. FORTY PAGES (in a coloured wrapper), PRICE London: Published by J. Watson, 3, Queen's Head-passage, Paternoster-row. should read as much as my neighbours I should be That elongated genius, 'Bob Thin,' will make London Printed by WILLIAM HORSELL, 190, High OR, UNFETTERED THINKER AND PLAIN SPEAKER FOR TRUTH, FREEDOM, AND PROGRESS. "AND though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple! Who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"-Milton's Areopagitica. No. 2 Vol. I.] FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1850. [Price One Penny. TO LORD NUGENT, M.P. "Perseverance, dear my lord, Keeps Honour bright. To have done, is to hang In monumental mockery. Take the instant way; Where one but goes abreast: keep, then, the path." -Troilus and Cressida. MY LORD,—You, and those who are associated with you, have it in your power to lead a successful struggle for the greatest and most imperative of reforms: that on which the real amelioration of our institutions, and of the condition of the People, depends. The new party whom you have joined still hold forth the narrow banner of Household Suffrage; while you, and a few others, declare you would prefer to hoist, at once, the flag of Manhood Franchise. There is a crook and a mystery in this procedure, which all the voluble attempts to make it look fair or politic, can never clear from doubt and suspicion in the minds of working men. They do not understand, nor ever can be made to believe, how men can say one thing and do another,—have an avowed and a reserved purpose,—and yet be fully and fairly entitled to confidence. They have made no secret of their own purposes, for years; but, in asking for the franchise defined in the People's Charter, have always put forth their views, broadly, respecting the progressive reforms to be effected by obtaining that franchise, and thereby creating a House of Commons which should really represent the People. They have dared to maintain their convictions to their detriment-some by loss of employ, and others by imprisonment; and they cannot comprehend the virtue of that cautious respectability which marks so many middle-class reformers,-nor the due consistency of men like yourself, in abetting the equivocal enterprize of these same hesitating patriots. To a mind like yours,-stored with a deep acquaintance with history, and enlarged by observation of mankind in various countries, this doubt and suspicion of working-men cannot seem strange and unreasonable. Policy and stratagem may win admiration for a leader among statesmen ; but the confidence and enthusiasm of a whole people can never be so won: justice, and all that justice demands, must be openly and unreservedly advocated, or the many cannot be moved. The people the English people above all others (and your lordship knows this well, from your sound knowledge of their history) -do not understand stratagem: they disdain to acquire a knowledge of it, and have ever proceeded openly and manfully in their opposition to privileged power. Working men do not throng to the banner which the new party have un furled, not only on account of their dissatisfaction with its inscription, but because of the half-heartedness manifested by some who are nominally gathered under it. When one redoubted captain sends a message to a central gathering, intimating the heroism with which he will head the reserve in a future year, and prophesying that it will take many years to win the victory—who can expect the common rank and file to show zeal in swelling the available force? Much less can it be expected that general confidence should be shown in the declaration that a real fight is intended, when instead of a union of all the leaders for the main battle,—a distraction of purpose is devised and warmly followed up, by some of the chief lances in the roll of enlistment. Mr. Cobden stands Vice President' of the new association; but all the help he has been known to render it was the sending of his valorous and prophetic message to the great central meeting,-while he displays all his usual zeal in aiding the Freehold Land' scheme-a plan which inflicts sickness of the heart on tens of thousands, whose irremediable poverty under the present system forbids all hope of their joining it, and raises just and natural indignation in others, who feel that it is an insult to be told they must buy the inalienable right of which they have all their lives been robbed. Of such leaders'-for the truth must be told-the 'masses' in the manufacturing districts are now speaking out their opinions with a bitterness which can only increase in strength till it amounts to open hostility,—if some decided course be not taken by men in your own position. You, my lord, have no connection with the manufacturing interest, and could, therefore, head a determined movement for the Franchise, without any possibility of your sincerity and disinterestedness being doubted by the millions. You have not paltered with the question of Manhood Suffrage: you have spoken plainly out for it. It only remains that you use your influence with the Council of the new party, for their adoption of it, and, if you cannot move them, that you leave them, and plant the flag yourself. Do this with all the energy of your character, and you will, even before the opening of Parliament, find yourself surrounded with a host that will outstrip in numbers, a thousand times, the companions and adherents of Hampden, the immortal hero of your eloquent history. You were instrumental in erecting a monument to his memory-(dearer to the hearts of our order, my lord, than to any of yours)— on the field of Chalgrove where he so gloriously fell; but if you step forth and head this enterprize for giving every toiler a share in electing those by whom the laws are made, you will build yourself an enduring monument in the grateful love of a whole People. I am, my lord, with real respect, yours, THOMAS COOPER. THE "TIMES" PUTTING ON ITS SPECTACLES. WITH all its raving against Red Republicanism; its vile pandering to the crimes of foreign tyrants; its calumniation of such men as Mazzini and Kossuth -the two highest models of political virtue existing; and its characteristic sycophancy towards titled power-the "Times," now and then, does make admissions which set Reformers a-wondering. Three days before the close of 1849, it put forth these thoughts in a 'leader': What can be done with half a million a-year? It is high time to ask the ques With tion, for we are annually expending upon a certain hobby this identical sum. such means at our command we could provide 50,000 persons every year with a new home in our transatlantic colonies, thereby releasing so many of our fellow countrymen from want and misery, and lessening to a proportionate extent the pressure on those who remained behind. We could complete, on the largest scale and with the most liberal details, the great work of charity on which Mr. Sidney Herbert is now engaged, nor need there after such a subsidy remain in London one unbefriended sempstress to sink under penury and toil. We could carry out the benevolent project of Lord Ashley with such effect that at least 10,000 poor families might be annually provided with cheap and wholesome lodgings, and a corresponding diminution effected in those crimes which domestic wretchedness originates. We could snatch from the street every young or redeemable outcast, and supply him with the means and the motives for mending his ways. We could establish and maintain exactly as many industrial and ragged schools as the exigencies of the population demanded. If we pleased to distribute the sum over the kingdom at large we might endow 500 grammar schools with an income of £1,000 each-a sum sufficient to secure 500 of the very best masters who could thus gratuitously convey the very best instruction to at least 25,000 scholars. We might establish in every single county of England and Wales a hospital with an endowment of £10,000 ayear-a sum abundantly sufficient to provide for every sanitary want of its population, to protect them all in sickness, to maintain them in convalescence, and even to carry to each private door the aids and comforts of medical science. We might build asylums for the deaf, the dumb, the lame, the blind, and the superannuated. What is now scantily and poorly done by scrapings and subscriptions might be then done with a medieval grandeur and profusion. We might recover all the spoils of the church and the inheritance of the poor. The sum of half a million a-year would be no sorry representation of all the charities which perished under King Henry VIII. It would enable us to redeem all impropriated tythes, to build churches wherever they were required, to reconstitute almonries and hospitals, and to place Protestant England above all the Catholic countries of the continent. Any one of these objects might be effected with £500,000 å year.” "We are sure that any person acquainted with the sufferings of the metropolitan, or manufacturing, or agricultural poor would unhesitatingly acknowledge that a Government grant of £500,000 a-year, judiciously appropriated and employed, would keep 10,000 families, of five members each, above the starving point at which they now linger; and that, too, without establishing any preposterous rights of labour,' or infringing any principle of sound economy." 6 66 Again, this yearly sum represents a present available capital of 15 millions, and what could not 15 millions do for us? It would supply every house in London with abundant streams of fresh water, would purify our river, would take off our drainage, and would still leave millions undisposed of. Carried abroad, it would cover Canada with railways, would call forth all the wealth of India, and would secure Manchester in a certain and unlimited supply of its staple material. Is there any project of charity or benevolence, or national duty or imperial grandeur, which could not be executed for 15 millions? It is as much as was asked for regenerating Ireland. It is twice as much as was paid for saving it. We are accustomed to deal with large sums, and our very obligations, unhappily, habituate us to formidable arrays of figures; but half a million a-year would be no inappreciable contribution towards even the reduction of our national debt. It is almost as much as we get from the Post-office, and four times as much as we get from the Crown lands. It is considerably more than the whole civil list, twice as much as the total of public salaries and allowances, more than the whole of all annuities and pensions for civil, naval, military, and judicial services, charged on the consolidated fund, and more than all the miscellaneous charges on this fund taken together. Such an annual sum far exceeds the aggregate income of all the metropolitan hospitals, and we believe we may throw into the scale even Chelsea and Greenwich. It exceeds the funds of any twenty charitable institutions in the kingdom, however Royal, magnificent, or useful. Such are some of the capabilities of half a million a-year; and now what is the object on which we choose to expend it? |