Malachi, nearly a century later, when the people in the land had become a prosperous nation, and when, in consequence, the majority was rapidly falling into a state of religious formality and godlessness, addresses them as "Israel" or "Jacob," which surely includes all his descendants, in contrast to Esau and his descendants (Mal. i. 1-3).

THE TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE "JEWS" ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF "ALL ISRAEL."

In the last words of the last of the post-Exilic prophets we have the expression "all Israel" addressed to the people in the land; and then the long period of silence sets in, lasting about four centuries, during parts of which Jewish national history is lost somewhat in obscurity. When the threads of that history are taken up again in the New Testament, what do we find? Is there one hint or reference in the whole book to an Israel apart from "that nation" of the "Jews," to whom, and of whom, the Lord and His apostles speak? There is, indeed, reference and mention of the Diaspora, "the dispersed among the Gentiles" (John vii. 35), forming, as we have seen, the greater part of the nation, and some of them still settled in the ancient regions of Assyria and Babylon; but wherever they were, they are all interchangeably called "Jews," or "Israelites," who regarded Jerusalem, with which they were in constant communication, as the centre, not only of their religion, but of their national hopes and destiny.

The "Israelites" who in the time of Christ were dispersed among the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites (Acts ii.), were as much one with the sojourners in Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as the "Jews" in Bagdad, Persia, or on the Caspian Sea to-day, are one with their wandering brethren in London, Berlin, New York, or Australia, although they then, as now (apart from the Hebrew, which ever remains the sacred tongue, and thoroughly understood only by the minority), spoke different languages and dressed differently, and conformed to different social and family customs.

But let me give you a few definite passages from the New Testament in justification of my statement that the Lord Jesus and the apostles, equally with the post-Exilic prophets centuries before, regarded the "Jews" as representatives of "all Israel," and as the only people in the line of the "covenant, and the promises which God made unto the fathers."

(a) In Matthew x. we have the record of the choice, and of the first commission given to the apostles. "These twelve," we read, "Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Of course, the merest child knows that this journey of the twelve did not extend beyond the limits of Palestine, but the "Jews" dwelling in it are regarded as the house of Israel, although many members of that "house" were also scattered in other lands.

In this charge of the Lord to the apostles, we see also, by the way, in what sense Israel is regarded as "lost." Now Anglo-Israelites are very fond of this word, but they use it in an unbiblical and unspiritual sense. The Ten Tribes, like the other Two, were, in the time of Christ, even as they still are, "lost"; but not because they have forgotten their national or tribal identity, but because they "all like sheep have gone astray, and have turned every one to his own way." Or, as Jeremiah pathetically puts it: "My people hath been lost sheep; their shepherds [their false teachers and leaders] have caused them to go astray; they have turned them away on the mountains; they have gone from mountain to hill; they have forgotten [not their national origin, but] their resting place"—viz., Jehovah, who is the true dwelling-place of His people in all generations. It was this terrible fact of their spiritually lost condition which again and again moved our Lord Jesus to compassion for those multitudes which followed Him, because they were "distressed" or "plagued," and were scattered abroad as sheep not having a shepherd.

(b) On the first day of Pentecost, Peter, with the eleven, addressed the "men of Judæa," and the great multitude from among the dispersed "Jews," as "Ye men of Israel," and wound up his powerful speech with the words: "Let all the house of Israel, therefore, know assuredly that God hath made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 14, 36). In chapter iii. of Acts, as "all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering," at the notable miracle in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Peter said: "Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this Man?... The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified His servant Jesus, whom ye delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate when he had determined to release Him.... Repent ye, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.... Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, 'And in thy seed shall the nations of the earth be blessed.'"

From Acts xiii. onward we find Paul among the "Jews" in the Dispersion; and how does he address them? By the same name as Peter addressed their brethren in Palestine: "Men of Israel, ... the God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exhorted the people when they sojourned in the land of Egypt" (Acts xiii. 16, 17); and when he was at last brought to Rome "and gathered the chief of the Jews" in that city to him, he assured them that he had neither done anything "against the people, or the customs of our fathers," nor did he come to Rome "to accuse my nation," but "because of the hope of Israel am I bound by this chain"—namely, "the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; as he had previously explained before Festus and Agrippa—unto which our Twelve Tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain" (Acts xxviii. 17-20; xxvi. 6, 7).

Paul knew of no "lost Ten Tribes," but on his testimony the "Jews" in Palestine and in the Dispersion were the "Israel" of all the Twelve Tribes, to whom the "hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers" belonged.

(c) And, as it is in the Gospels, and in the Acts of the Apostles, so also in the Epistles. It would be easy to multiply passages, but one more must suffice.

The ix., x., and xi. of Romans form the prophetic, or "dispensational," section of that great epistle, and was written for the special instruction of Gentile believers in the "mystery" of God with Israel. Now I cannot, of course, stop here to give an analysis of that wonderful and comprehensive scripture, which is also a vindication of God's ways with man; but there is not a hint or suggestion in it of a "lost Israel," apart from the one nation whose whole history he summarises from the beginning to the end, and which is now, alas! divided into the small minority—the "remnant according to the election of grace," who believe, and the majority who believe not, until the day of grace for the whole nation shall come, and "so all Israel shall be saved, even as it is written, 'There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.'"

But in the touching introduction to this section (Rom. ix. 1-6), in which the apostle gives utterance to his "great sorrow and unceasing pain of heart" because of the unbelief of his own nation, "his brethren and his kinsmen according to the flesh," for whose sake he had been wishing, if it were possible, even to be himself "anathema from Christ"—how does he call these unbelieving "Jews" who had rejected their Messiah, and were blindly persecuting His servants? Here are His words: "Who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Now I must try to draw this very long letter to an end. I have not followed Anglo-Israelism in all its crooked paths of misinterpretation of Scripture and history; I have only shown you the baselessness of its foundations, and that the premises upon which the whole theory rests are misleading and false. I have also given you a summary of the true history of the tribes, which I trust may prove helpful to you in the study of God's Word; and the conclusion at which you and every unbiassed person must arrive on a careful examination of the facts which I have adduced is, that the whole supposition of "lost tribes," in the sense in which Anglo-Israelism uses the term, is a fancy which originated in ignorance; and that "the Jews" are the whole, and the only national Israel, representing not only the "Two Tribes," but "all the Twelve Tribes" who were "scattered abroad."

EARLY MISCONCEPTIONS AND CONFUSION ON THE QUESTION OF THE TEN TRIBES.

I have thought it necessary to enter all the more fully into this point, because even some otherwise sober-minded teachers and writers, who are not Anglo-Israelites, have fallen into some confusion in dealing with this subject; and no wonder, for already Josephus, who vaguely locates a separate multitude belonging to the Ten Tribes somewhere beyond the Euphrates ("Antiq." xi. 1, 2)—a Jewish tradition which locates a mighty kingdom of the Ten Tribes beyond the fabled miraculous river Sambation, which no one can cross because it throws up stones all the week, and only rests on the Sabbath; and the Talmud (Jer. Sanhedrin, 29, c.), which speaks of three localities whither they had been banished, viz., the district around the above wonderful Sambation, Daphne, near Antioch; and the third locality could neither be seen nor named because it was continually hidden by a cloud—all these show how early people's minds became muddled on this subject.[21]

Coming to the legends about the Ten Tribes in more modern times, Eldad Ben Mahli Ha Dani came forward in the ninth century claiming to give specific details of the contemporary existence of the Ten Tribes and of their location at that time.

"Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher were," according to him, "in Havilah; Zebulun and Reuben in the mountains of Paran; Ephraim, and half of Manasseh, in South Arabia; Simeon, and the other half of Manasseh, in the land of Chazars (?)." According to him, therefore, "the Ten Tribes were settled in parts of Southern Arabia, or perhaps Abyssinia, in conformity with the identification of Havilah. The connection of this view with that of the Jewish origin of Islam is obvious; and David Reubeni revived the view in stating that he was related to the king of the tribes of Reuben situated in Khaibar in North Arabia.

"According to Abraham Farisol, the remaining tribes were in the desert, on the way to Mecca, near the Red Sea; but he himself identifies the River Ganges with the River Gozan, and assumes that the Beni-Israel of India are the descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes. The Ganges, thus identified by him with the River Sambation, divides the Indians from the Jews. The confusion between Ethiopia and Farther India, which existed in the minds of the ancients and mediæval geographers, caused some writers to place the Lost Ten Tribes in Abyssinia. Abraham Yagel, in the sixteenth century, did so, basing his conclusions on the accounts of David Reubeni and Eldad Ha Dani. It is probable that some of the reports of the Falashas led to this identification. According to Yagel, messengers were sent to these colonists in the time of Pope Clement VII., some of whom died, while the rest brought back tidings of the greatness of the tribes and their very wide territories. Yagel quotes a Christian traveller, Vincent of Milan, who was a prisoner in the hands of the Turks for twenty-five years, and who went as far as Fez, and thence to India, where he found the River Sambation, and a number of Jews dressed in silk and purple. They were ruled by seven kings, and upon being asked to pay tribute to the Sultan Salim, they declared that they had never paid tribute to any sultan or king. It is just possible that this may have some reference to the 'Sâsanam' or the Jews of Cochin.

"It is further stated that in 1630 a Jew of Salonica travelled to Ethiopia, to the land of Sambation; and that in 1646 one Baruch, travelling in Persia, claimed to have met a man named Malkiel, of the tribe of Naphtali, and brought back a letter from the king of the children of Moses: this letter was seen by Azulai. It was afterwards reprinted in Jacob Saphir's book of travels (Eben Sappir, 1. 98).

"So much interest was taken in this account that in 1831 a certain Baruch ben Samuel, of Pinsk, was sent to search for the children of Moses in Yemen. He travelled fifteen days in the wilderness, and declared he met Danites feeding flocks of sheep. So, too, in 1854, a certain Amram Ma'arabi set out from Safed in search of the Ten Tribes; and he was followed in 1857 by David Ashkenazi, who crossed over through Suakin to make enquiries about the Jews of Abyssinia."[22]

But all these are legends and fancies. "We in this twentieth century," to quote the words of a Christian writer, "to whom there is no longer any part of the earth unknown, know that in no country whatever, however far from civilisation it may be, do the Ten Tribes dwell. The 'travellers' tales' have been proved to be false; the Ten Tribes, as such, do not exist." In this connection I may quote Professor A. Neubauer, a prominent learned Jew, who sums up his studies in a series of illuminating articles on the subject which will be found in Vol. I. of The Jewish Quarterly Review, with these words:—

"Where are the Ten Tribes? We can only answer, Nowhere. Neither in Africa, nor in India, China, Persia, Kurdistan, the Caucasus, or Bokhara. We have said that a great part of them remained in Palestine, partly mixing with the Samaritans, and partly amalgamating with those who returned from the captivity of Babylon. With them many came also from the cities of the Medes, and many, no doubt, adhered to the Jewish religion which was continued in Mesopotamia during the period of the Second Temple."

Some Christian writers cling to the view that while some of the "Ten Tribes" amalgamated with the "Jews," there is nevertheless a distinct people somewhere, who are descendants of the Israel of the ancient northern kingdom, which is to be brought to light in the future, and, together with "Judah," will be restored to Palestine, and enter into the enjoyment of the promises. Thus the Nestorians, who inhabit the inaccessible mountains of Kurdistan (which is part of ancient Assyria), the Afghans, the North American Indians, and even the Japanese have been variously identified as that people; but this view rests upon what I believe to be a misconception of the meaning and scope of some of the prophecies.

It may be true that the Nestorians, and the Afghans, and some other Eastern tribes are descendants of the original Israelitish exiles in Assyria, but having more or less mixed themselves up by inter-marriage with the surrounding nations, and having given up the distinctive national rites and ordinances, such as circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, etc., they have, like many "Jews" in modern times (who gradually assimilate with Gentile nations), cut themselves off from the hope of Israel, and are no longer in the line of the purpose which God has in and through that "peculiar" and separate people.

THE TESTIMONY OF PROPHECY IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.

In conclusion let me very briefly call your attention to the remarkable prophecy in Amos ix., which will show you that the view which I have enunciated in my letter is the only one in keeping with the sure word of prophecy.

The prophet Amos, though himself a Judean, his native village, Tekoa, being about twelve miles south of Jerusalem, was commissioned by God to prophesy more particularly to the northern or Ten-Tribed kingdom; and for that purpose he went and took up his abode in Bethel, which was the centre of the idolatrous worship set up by Jeroboam in opposition to the worship and service of the divinely-appointed sanctuary in Jerusalem. There his duty was to announce the coming judgment of God on the Israel of the Ten Tribes, on account of their apostasy. The last paragraph of his book (chap. ix. 8-15), uttered not more than about seventy years before the final overthrow of Samaria in B.C. 721, is one of the most remarkable and comprehensive prophecies in the Old Testament, and this is the inspired forecast of the history of the Ten-Tribed kingdom which is given in it: "Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For lo, I will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the house of Israel among all the nations, like as corn is sifted (or 'tossed' about) in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. All the sinners of thy people shall die by the sword, which say: The evil shall not overtake or prevent us."

Here, then, we have the whole subject as to what was to become of the Ten Tribes in a nutshell.

(a) First, as a kingdom, they were to be destroyed from off the face of the earth, never to be restored; for its very existence as a separate kingdom was only permitted of God for a definite period as a punishment on the house of David: and when, after a period of about two hundred and fifty years of unbroken apostasy, it was finally broken up by the Assyrians, there was an end of it, without any promise of a future independent political existence.

(b) But when it was destroyed as a kingdom, what became of them as a people? This prophecy tells us: "Saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord"—that is, they are to return to the house of Jacob. They are to form part of the one family made up of all the descendants of Jacob without distinction of tribes. But as one house of Jacob, or "of Israel" (as the next verse interchangeably calls them), something terrible and unique is to befall them; and what is it? To be "lost" some two thousand six hundred years, and then to be identified with the Anglo-Saxon race? Oh no! this is what was to happen: "For lo, I will command and I will sift (or 'toss') the house of Israel among all nations, even as corn is tossed about in a sieve"—or, in the words of Hosea, another prophet, who spoke primarily to the Ten Tribes, "My God will cast them away" (not for ever, as the whole book shows, but for a time), "because they did not hearken unto Him; and they shall be wanderers among the nations."

I draw your attention all the more to this point, because a good deal has been made by some writers of the expression in Isa. xi., where Israel is called "outcast," from which they infer that "Israel" is to be found somewhere in one place, in contradistinction to the "dispersed of Judah." But this is a fallacy. In Jer. xxx. Judah and Israel are together called "an outcast," but it by no means implies that they are therefore to be sought for and found in one particular region of the world.

It is clear from the prophecies of Amos and Hosea, which, as we have seen, were primarily addressed to the Ten Tribes, that if they were in the first instance "cast out" by force from their own land, as the word in the Hebrew means, it was with a view that they should be "tossed about" and "wander" among "all nations."

Now note, Anglo-Israelism tells you to identify the Ten Tribes with one nation; but if you are on the line of Scripture and true history, you will seek for them "among all nations."

And which people is it that is known all over the earth as "the tribe of the weary foot and wandering breast"? Anglo-Israelites call them "Jews" in the limited sense of being descendants of "Judah"; but God's Word tells us that it is "the house of Israel," or "the house of Jacob"; and, as a matter of fact, since "Judah" joined their brethren of the Ten Tribes on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in B.C. 588, the two have kept on their weary march together, "wandering among the nations." Eastward and westward (only a remnant of all the tribes returning to the land for a time), nowhere finding ease for any length of time, nor do the soles of their feet have rest—even as Moses, at the very beginning of their history, and long before the division among the tribes, prophesied would be their united experience in case they apostatised from Jehovah their God. And thus they will continue ever more mixed up and intermingled among themselves, with all genealogies lost, and not one of them either east or west being able any longer documentarily to prove of what tribe or family he comes—until the day when He that scattered Israel will gather him, and by His own Divine power and omniscience separate them again into their tribes and families.

A SOLEMN WARNING.

My last words on this subject must be those of warning and entreaty. Do not think, as so many do, that Anglo-Israelism, even if not true, is only a harmless speculation. I consider it nothing short of one of the latter-day delusions by which the Evil One seeks to divert the attention of men from things spiritual and eternal. Here are a few of its dangers:—

I. It goes, sometimes to the length of blasphemy (as shown in the extracts I have copied for you at the beginning of this letter), in misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture. One of its foundation fallacies is that it anticipates the Millennium, and interprets promises—which will only be fulfilled in that blessed period, after Israel as a nation is converted—to the British nation at the present time. But by this process it distorts and confuses the whole prophetic Scripture.

II. It fosters national pride, and nationalises God's blessings in this dispensation, which is individual and elective in its character.

Its proud boastful tone, its carnal confidence that Britain, in virtue of its supposed identity with the "lost" tribes, is to take possession of all the "gates" of her "enemies" and become practically mistress of the whole globe, is enough to provoke God's judgment against the nation, and to make the spiritual believer and every true lover of this much-favoured land tremble. It diverts man's attention from the one thing needful, and from the only means by which he can find acceptance with God. This it does by teaching that "a nation composed of millions of practical unbelievers in Christ, and ripe for apostasy, in virtue of a certain fanciful identity between the mixed race composing that nation and a people carried into captivity two thousand five hundred years ago, is in the enjoyment of God's special blessing and will enjoy it on the same grounds for ever, thus laying another foundation for acceptance with God beside that which He has laid, even Christ Jesus."

After all, in this dispensation it is a question only as to whether men are "in Christ" or not. If they are Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, their destiny is not linked either with Palestine or with England, but with that inheritance which is incorruptible and undefiled and which fadeth not away; and if they are not Christians, then, instead of occupying their thoughts with vain speculations as to a supposed identity of the British race with the "lost" Ten Tribes, it is their duty to seek the one and only Saviour whom we must learn to know, not after the flesh, but in the Spirit, and without whom a man, whether an Israelite or not, is undone.

III. Then, finally, it not only robs the Jewish nation, the true Israel, of many promises in relation to their future by applying them to the British race in the present time, but it diverts attention from them as the people in whom is bound up the purpose of God in relation to the nations, and whose "receiving again" to the heart of God, after the long centuries of unbelief, will be as "life from the dead to the whole world."

PART III.
NOTES AND EXPLANATIONS.

"are one people, the Lost Tribes are another.... The Word of God clearly intimates that Israel would lose their identity, their land, their language, their religion, and their name, that they would be lost to themselves, and to other nations lost. 'I will scatter them into corners, I will make the remembrance of them to cease from among men' (Deut. xxxii. 26). 'The Lord hideth His face from the House of Jacob' (Isa. viii. 17). He was not any more to speak to them in the Hebrew tongue; but 'by another tongue will I speak unto this people' (Isa. xxviii. 11). They shall no more be called Israel, He will call them by another name. 'And thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name' (Isa. lxii. 2). 'The Lord shall call His servants by another name' (Isa. lxv. 15). 'The name Israel shall be no more in remembrance' (Psa. lxxxiii. 4). 'And ye shall lose, or leave, your name, and the Lord shall call His servants by another name.' 'Why sayest thou, O Jacob! and speakest, O Israel! my way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?' (Isa. xl. 27).

"'For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy upon thee' (Isa. liv. 8).

"In Hos. i. 4, 7 the Lord says, 'I will cause to cease the kingdom of the House of Israel.... I will no more have mercy upon the House of Israel, but I will utterly take them away.... But I will have mercy upon the House of Judah.' Israel is to be called Lo-Ammi, for 'ye are not My people, and I will not be your God' (Hos. i. 7)."

Now let us look for a moment at the references and quotations here given. The first is Deut. xxxii. 26: "I will scatter them into corners," etc. This occurs in the song which Moses was commanded to put into the mouth of the whole nation at the very commencement of their history, which, besides being a vindication of God's character in His dealings with the nation from the beginning hitherto, is also a prophetic forecast of their whole future history. It is the whole people, which according to Moses was to be scattered into all corners as a special punishment for their apostasy, until such time as the Lord shall turn their captivity and have compassion upon them, and gather them from all the nations (Deut. iv. 25-31; xxviii. 64, 65; xxx. 1-7; xxxi. 16-22). This reference then has nothing whatever in it about a "lost identity."

These forecasts are fulfilling themselves, not in lost tribes, but in the Jews. The second reference, Isa. viii. 17: "The Lord hideth His face from the House of Jacob," is (as is often the case in Anglo-Israel quotations) a sentence broken away from the context, and has not the least shadow of connection with "lost" or found tribes. It is an exclamation of the prophet Isaiah with reference to the condition of things then prevailing in Judah. Because of the wickedness of the people and its king, God's face seemed to be hid from the people. But Israel's prophets always looked beyond the present gloom and darkness, and exercised faith in God even in the most adverse circumstances, so he exclaims: "And I"—whatever the nation whom he sought to bring back to God may do—"will wait upon Jehovah that hideth His face from Jacob (which stands for the whole nation) and will look to Him," i.e., "my hope shall be set on Him alone."

A quotation is made in proof that God would not any more speak to "lost" Israel in the Hebrew tongue. The reference is Isa. xxviii. 11: "By (or with) another tongue will I speak to this people."

This is another instance of breaking away an isolated text from its context, and giving it a meaning which was never intended. In that chapter we read how the leaders, not of the Ten Tribes, but of Judah, perverted the Word of God, which He intended should bring "rest" and "refreshing" to the weary (ver. 12), and turned it into so many isolated "precepts" and commandments. But because the words of grace and salvation He was speaking to them through the prophets were scorned and abused, God threatens that He will speak to them in judgment—"with strange lips and with another tongue"—in which there may be included also a reference to their being carried into captivity, "where they would have to listen to a strange language," which they understood not (Psalm lxxxi. 5; cxiv. 1).

The next references in proof that the "lost" tribes were "no more to be called Israel," but by another name, is a typical instance of the perversion of even the most beautiful spiritual truths of the Bible for mere outward, I was going to say, carnal, ends. The first quotation in proof of this point is from Isa. lxii. 2: "Thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name." This short chapter is one of the most precious and beautiful in the whole Old Testament, and it is like laying hold of an exquisitely delicate and beautiful work of art with a rough and dirty hand to treat it as Anglo-Israel "theologians" do. The chapter begins: "For Zion's sake will I not hold My peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest until her righteousness go forth as brightness and her salvation as a lamp that burneth." The speaker is either the prophet, or very probably the servant of Jehovah, the Messiah, who is the speaker in the preceding chapter. The subject is "Zion" or "Jerusalem," which includes the people. I believe that it includes the whole nation of which Jerusalem is the God-appointed metropolis; but if it is to be limited to any part of the people, then it is certainly Judah, of which Zion or Jerusalem is the capital, and not the Ten Tribes who are here spoken of.

This Zion, for whom the Messiah makes unceasing intercession, is now called עֲזוּבָה—"forsaken," and her land שְׁמָמָה—"desolate"; but when God's light shall again break upon her, and her righteousness goes forth as a lamp that burneth, "Thou shalt be called ‎ ‫חֶפְצִי-בָהּ‏‬ (Hephzibah, i.e., My delight is in her); and thy land בְּעוּלָה" (Beulah, i.e., married). But the new name by which the mouth of Jehovah shall then call her shall not only answer the outward transformation which shall then come over the people and the land, but will describe the inward transformation and the true character of the people. In fact, we are told in this very chapter what the new name shall be. They shall call them—Saxons? Britons? No, "they shall call them the Holy People, The Redeemed of the Lord." This is also the "other name" in Isa. lxv. 15, by which God shall call His true servants in contrast to the ungodly in the nation, who shall be "slain," and leave their name (i.e., their remembrance) as a proverbial "curse" unto His chosen.

The next reference given in proof that the Ten Tribes were to lose their name is Psalm lxxxiii. 4: "The name of Israel shall be no more in remembrance." This is a typical and characteristic specimen of the manner in which Anglo-Israel "theologians" deal with Scripture. It reminds one of the grounds adduced by a certain individual for paying no heed to the Old Testament because it is written, "Hang the law and the prophets" (Matt. xxii. 40). It is certainly most easy to prove almost anything from the Bible by breaking away an isolated sentence from its connection, and attaching to it a meaning which was never intended.

Psalm lxxxiii. is an impassioned cry to God for His interposition and deliverance of His people from a confederacy of Gentile nations, who are gathered with the determined object of utterly destroying them as a people.

This historical occasion of this Psalm may perhaps have been the great gathering of the Moabites, Ammonites, and a great multitude of others against "Judah,"[23] who, in the Psalms belonging to that period, is invariably called Israel. At the same time there is a prophetic element in the Psalm, for all the past gatherings of the nations against Jerusalem foreshadow the final great gathering under Antichrist, when the battle-cry of the confederated armies shall indeed be, "Come, let us destroy them from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance." But note, part of the furious cry of the Gentiles in their onslaught against Jerusalem is broken away from its connection and used by Anglo-Israel writers to prove that the Ten Tribes would lose their identity and that the very name "Israel" would be "lost."

Passing on to the next two references, Isa. xl. 27 and Isa. liv. 8, I would ask the intelligent Bible-reader what relevancy or connection these precious Scriptures have with the subject of the identification of any "lost" tribes? They are glorious words of consolation and promise addressed to the Jewish nation, or rather to the godly remnant in exile, assuring them that God's eye is ever upon them, and though, on account of their sins, His face has been turned away from them, as it were, "for a moment," He will yet return to them with "everlasting kindness and have mercy upon them." It is like sacrilege to misapply such beautiful Scriptures and great spiritual truths to prove a theory which has no basis in fact, and with which they have not the remotest connection.

The last reference is Hosea i. 4-7; the words are plain enough, and if they prove anything in connection with this subject it is the very opposite of what the Anglo-Israel writers assert. Hosea did speak primarily to the Israel of the "Ten Tribes" shortly before its final overthrow by Assyria, and what he announces is that God would cause that kingdom, as a kingdom, "to cease," and that He would no more have mercy upon them. As a people they would be preserved, but, as it were, disavowed of God, and therefore called "Lo-Ammi" (i.e., "not My people"). But what is said here by Hosea of the condition of the people of the "Ten Tribes," after they shall have ceased to exist as a kingdom, is true also, as we know from many other Scriptures, of those who belonged to the southern kingdom of Judah. It is now the Lo-Ammi period for the whole nation of the Twelve Tribes, and they shall continue to be disowned of God nationally (not as individuals) until they as a nation acknowledge and own their long-rejected Messiah. Then, in the final trial, when the spirit of grace and of supplication is poured upon them, and they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, and mourn, God will look down upon them and say, "Ammi"—"It is My people": and they shall say, "Jehovah is my God" (Zech. xiv. 9).

And it is not only the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament which are abused in this manner, the plainest statements in the Gospels and Epistles are also twisted and perverted to mean the very opposite of what was intended. The following is from a booklet, "The Lost Tribes of Israel," by Reader Harris, K.C., "founder of the Pentecostal League," in which all the absurdities and misinterpretations found in all the Anglo-Israel publications are embodied:—

"NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECIES.

"Let us now turn to the New Testament. It is perfectly clear that Israel, who had been dispersed for more than 700 years, was much in our Lord's mind during His three years' ministry upon earth, for many were the references to Israel made by Him. As an example, let us turn to the commission He gave to the twelve apostles in Matt x. 5, 6:—

"'These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.'

"These apostles were not to go to the Gentiles, nor to the Samaritans—who were the descendants of usurpers of Israel—'but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel'; and they obeyed this command as far as was then possible. The only tribe that they could reach which had any connection with Israel was Benjamin, and Benjamin as a tribe was won to allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. Benjamin had gone into captivity with Judah, and had come back with Judah; but in the prophecies of God, Benjamin had been always associated with the Ten Tribes of Israel. It is a remarkable fact that the majority of our Lord's disciples at the time of His earthly ministry were connected with the tribe of Benjamin. It is also of interest that, when Jerusalem was afterwards besieged by the Romans under Titus, the members of what had become the Christian tribe of Benjamin escaped.

"Christ Himself declared, in Matt. xv. 24, this was His own mission: 'He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.'

"Again our Lord says, in Matt. xxi. 43: 'Therefore say I unto you (He was speaking to the Jews), the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation (the Jews had long since ceased to be a nation) bringing forth the fruits thereof.'

"The Jews themselves evidently so understood His statement, for in John vii. 35 we read:—

"'Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will He go, that we shall not find Him? Will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?'

"So the Jew quite understood our Lord to refer to Israel.

"Israel was evidently in the minds of the apostles themselves. On the day of the ascension they asked Him:—

"'Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?' (Acts i. 6.)

"A restoration of the kingdom of Israel with the kingdom of Judah had been promised. The apostles did not confuse the kingdom of Israel with that of Judah, for they said, 'Wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' St. Paul devotes thirty-six verses in Romans xi. to prove that God has not cast away His people, but that "blindness in part is happened unto Israel until the fulness of the nations be come in," so that all Israel shall be saved.

"Lastly, the final word must be that of our Lord. In Acts i. 7, 8 Christ said:—

"'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power, but ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth'—which refers to the 'regions beyond'—an expression that was fully understood to mean the dispersed among the Gentiles."

With much pain one has to say that this reveals either lamentable ignorance of the plainest and simplest truths of New Testament Scripture on the part of an otherwise educated man, or a clever adaptation by which a lawyer would seek to support a preconceived theory.

I have already dealt with some of these perversions in the first part of this pamphlet, so need only refer to them again in the briefest possible manner.

(a) It is indeed "perfectly clear" to any reader of the New Testament that Israel "was much in our Lord's mind during His three years' ministry upon earth"; but as clear and evident is it to any candid reader that the only "Israel" of whom He thought and spoke were the people among whom He lived and moved, and to whom His blessed ministry on earth was confined, and who are alternately called in the New Testament "Jews" and "Israel."

It was to these "lost sheep" in the land of Palestine for whom His own compassions were moved when He beheld them in multitudes, that the Twelve were sent out in Matt. x., and He ascribes to them the term "lost" in a deeper and more solemn and spiritual sense than Anglo-Israelism has evidently any conception of. (See page 41.)

(b) The statement here repeated about the tribe of Benjamin, and that the "majority of our Lord's disciples at the time of His earthly ministry were connected with the tribe of Benjamin," is nothing but a fiction invented by Anglo-Israelites, as already shown in Part I. (See page 17.)

The only thing which is historically true is that the Apostle Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, but he was called after our Lord's earthly ministry was ended, and he was appointed not to the "lost tribes," but to preach Christ's Gospel among the Gentiles (Acts xxii. 21; Rom. xi. 13; Gal. i. 16).

(c) The nation which brings forth the fruits of the kingdom of God during the present dispensation of Israel's national unbelief is not the British Empire, but the Church of Christ—the elected body out of all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues, who are called "a chosen generation (or 'elect race'), a royal priesthood, a holy nation (εθνος), a people for God's own possession" (1 Peter ii. 9).

(d) To state that the Jews themselves understood Christ's statement in Matt. xxi. 43 as referring to some "lost" Israel, because in John vii. 35 they said: "Will He go unto the dispersed (την διασποραν) among the Gentile (or 'Greeks'), and teach the Greeks?" is not true.

The "dispersed" among the Greeks were Hellenistic "Jews" of all the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad, who stood (as already shown in Part II.) in closest connection with the Temple and hierarchy in Jerusalem, and were never "lost"; and the Greeks among whom they were dispersed were "Gentiles."

(e) And what can be said of such a perverted application of the question in Acts i. 6, namely, that when the disciples, immediately before Christ's ascension, asked: "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" it was not their own nation, the "Jews," that they meant, and Jerusalem the centre of God's kingdom on earth—but some "lost" tribes in distant regions of which they knew nothing—I suppose on the same principle of Anglo-Israel interpretation when Peter, with the eleven on the Day of Pentecost, for instance, addressed the people as "Ye men of Israel," and again, "Let all the house of Israel, therefore, know assuredly that God hath made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 22-36)—he did not speak to the assembled multitude of "Jews" before him, but over their heads to some distant regions where there were some wandering "lost" tribes who alone were entitled to the name "Israel." But such assertions are altogether too ridiculous to be treated seriously.

The "Israel" which "was evidently in the minds of the apostles," and to whom Peter spoke, and of whom Paul wrote in that great prophetic section in his Epistle to the Romans (chaps. ix.-xi.), were the "Jews," whether of Palestine or in the "Dispersion," who are the only representatives of all the Twelve Tribes of "Israel" with whom Scripture or prophecy has any concern, and not any supposed "lost" tribes to be identified after many centuries by Anglo-Israel writers as the British and the United States.

(f) "Lastly, the final word," we are told, "must be that of our Lord," and then there follows the quotation of the glorious promise and prophetic forecast from Acts i. 7, 8: "Ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth"; and we are assured that the last sentence refers "to the regions beyond—an expression that was fully understood to mean the dispersed among the Gentiles"—by which, I suppose, we are meant to understand, the "lost" tribes.

But the sentence—και εως εσχατον της γης—means, as it has been properly rendered, "unto the end (or 'uttermost part') of the earth," and has always been "fully" and properly understood by the Church of Christ as a Divine warrant and forecast of the preaching of the Gospel, not to the Dispersed among the Gentiles, but to the heathen world.

Note II.
THE PROMISES OF A MULTITUDINOUS SEED, AND THAT ISRAEL SHALL BECOME A GREAT AND MIGHTY NATION.

A great point is made by all Anglo-Israel writers of the promises which God made to the fathers of a multitudinous seed. The argument is, that since the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were to be a great and mighty and very numerous nation—yea, "a company of nations"—these promises cannot apply to the "Jews," who are comparatively few in number. There must exist, therefore, a people somewhere great and mighty and numerous who are the seed of Abraham, in whom these promises are realised.

Now look at the British Empire, how great and mighty it is in the earth, and what vast numbers it includes, ergo, the British, including the United States of America (which by some wonderful process of divination Anglo-Israelites are able to distinguish and identify as "Manasseh," in spite of the fact that their progenitors, who emigrated from England, were, according to them "Ephraimites," and that those original emigrants have since been mixed up with a flood of emigrants from all other races under heaven), are the descendants of Abraham, and particularly of the "lost" Ten Tribes!

Now the following are the Scriptures on the subject:

(1) "And I will make of thee (Abraham) a great nation" (Gen. xii. 2).

(2) "And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered" (Gen. xiii. 16).

(3) "And He brought him (Abraham) forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the number of the stars, if thou be able to tell them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be" (Gen. xv. 5).

(4) "And God talked with him (Abraham), saying: As for Me, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations; neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee" (Gen. xvii. 4-6).

(5) "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (Gen. xviii. 18).

(6) "In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" (a Hebrew idiom for "shall be victorious over his foes") (Gen. xxii. 17).

(7) "And God said unto him (Jacob), I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins" (Gen. xxxv. 11).

To these passages have to be added Isaac's blessing to Jacob: "God Almighty bless thee and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a company—literally, 'a congregation' קְהַל עַמִּים  of peoples" (Gen. xxviii. 3); and Jacob's forecast of Ephraim in his blessing of Joseph's sons, that his seed shall become "a multitude (or literally, 'a fulness,' מְלֹא הַגּוֹיִם ) of the nations."

Now in reference to all these particular promises and forecasts, I would beg your attention to the following observations:—

I. There are expressions in them which must not be pressed to the extreme of literalness according to our Western ideas. We speak of "nations," and think of them as embracing populations of whole countries, and of "kings" as being sovereigns of States, but in the earlier books of the Bible we are introduced to many "nations" and "peoples" as comprised in one little country of Canaan, and of many "kings" who were no more than chiefs, or rulers of "cities," which in our modern times we would only class as "villages." As a matter of fact, the term גּוֹיִם , goim, generally standing for "nations," and usually for the Gentile nations, is actually used for the tribes or families of the Jewish people. Here is the Scripture: "And He said unto me, Son of Man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to nations ( גּוֹיִם, (goim—the word is in the plural) that are rebellious, which have rebelled against Me" (Ezek. ii. 3).

The "Jews," or "Israel," as they are properly called are being spoken of as "nations," because they comprised different families or tribes.

Already Moses could say of the Israel of his time: "Jehovah your God hath multiplied you, and behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude" (Deut. i. 10; x. 22); and Solomon, in his prayer for wisdom, says: "Thy servant is in the midst of Thy people which Thou hast chosen, a great people that cannot be counted for multitude" (1 Kings iii. 8).

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews knew nothing of a supposed identification of the millions in Britain and America with the "lost" Ten Tribes, but speaking of the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, he could say that because Abraham believed God, and Sarah herself, in spite of natural impossibilities, judged Him faithful who had promised: "Wherefore also there sprang of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of heaven for multitude, and as the sand which is by the seashore innumerable" (Hebrews xi. 12); so that even if we view only the past it is not true to assert that the promises of God that the seed of Abraham should be a multitude which cannot be numbered, and constitute "a company of nations," has not been fulfilled in the "Jews" or "Israel," which has never been "lost."

II. The promises of a multitudinous seed and rapid increase of the seed of Abraham, though in the first instance given to the fathers unconditionally, and therefore will assuredly be fulfilled, were nevertheless made conditional on Israel's obedience. It is with this, as with all the other great promises, given to the Jewish nation. They were conditional as far as any particular generation of Jews are concerned, who may either enjoy them if in obedience, or forfeit them through disobedience; but they are unconditional to the nation because God abides faithful, and in the end all His plans and purposes in and through them will be fulfilled. For this very reason He has preserved them as a people in spite of all their sin and disobedience.

Now at the very commencement of Israel's history—long before there was any likelihood of a schism among the tribes—Moses, speaking in the name of God of the whole nation, says: "If ye walk in My statutes and keep My commandments to do them, ... I will have respect unto you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and will establish My covenant with you" (Lev. xxvi. 3-9).

On the other hand, he solemnly forewarns them that if they shall "corrupt themselves" and fall away from the living God, "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it, ... and Jehovah shall scatter you among the peoples, and ye shall be left few in number among the nations whither Jehovah shall lead you" (Deut. iv. 25-27).

This is repeated with solemn emphasis in Deut. xxviii. 62: "And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude." In the light of the Word of God, therefore, and apart from all the absurdities involved in the Anglo-Israel theory, the very fact that the British and American races are so numerous and powerful among the nations precludes the possibility of their being Israel, for when out of Palestine and in dispersion Israel was to become "few in number," and oppressed and downtrodden among the nations.

III. The underlying fallacy in the Anglo-Israel argument from the promises of a multitudinous seed which God made to the fathers (and this, indeed, is one of the chief errors underlying the whole theory), is that it overlooks the fact that those promises, according to the testimony of the prophets, will be fulfilled in the future, when (as stated above) the Jewish nation, restored and converted, shall become under the personal rule of their Messiah, great and mighty for God on this earth. Then, when Israel shall be spiritually restored to God, and in and through the grace of their Messiah they shall be a nation all righteous and planted by God in their own land, "the little one shall become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation" (Isa. lx. 21, 22); and so rapidly and marvellously shall they increase that even the whole promised land, which is fifty times as large as the portion of it "from Dan to Beersheba," which alone they possessed in the past, shall become too small for them, so that they shall say to the surrounding nations: "The place is too strait for me, give place ('make room') that I may dwell" (Isa. xlix. 19, 20).

Now all this has been, and will be, fulfilled in the "Jews," who, as I have shown, are the people of the whole "Twelve Tribes scattered abroad." In the dispersion among the nations they became reduced to "few in number," but when they are restored and blessed God says: "I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small" (Jer. xxx. 19).

Of the capacity for rapid increase of the Jewish people there is sufficient proof already. The following is from a recent number of The Scattered Nation:—

"The marvellous increase of the Jewish people since their so-called 'emancipation' in the xixth century, is indeed a striking sign of the times. The statement of a recent writer in the Jewish Chronicle that at the commencement of the xvith century there could scarcely have been more than a million Jews left in the entire world after the untold sufferings, dispersions and massacres which they had to endure in the dark and middle ages—is probably true. The historian Basnage, in his 'History of the Jews from Jesus Christ to the Present Time,' calculated that in his time (end of the xviith and beginning of the xviiith century) there were 3,000,000 Jews in the world. Since then, however, the growth of Jewry has been phenomenal. At the commencement of the xixth century there were said to be five millions. Half a century later the numbers reached six or seven millions; and at the end of another half a century—in 1896—the greatest living authority on Jewish statistics gave their number as eleven millions. And now, after the lapse of another seventeen or eighteen years, we are informed that there are no less than 13,000,000 Jews in the world. And the surprising feature of this latest calculation is the officially authenticated fact that, in the country where they are most persecuted, and which during the past three decades has driven forth millions to seek an asylum in other countries, there are more Jews to-day than ever before; and this in spite of pogroms, and baptisms, and overcrowding, and starvation, and the pursuance of a merciless policy of repression which led Pobiedonostsef to prognosticate that, in the end, a third of Russia's Jews would emigrate, a third would die, and a third would join the dominant faith. The old story of Israel in Egypt renews itself to-day in Russia: 'The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied.'"

And if this be so now even in dispersion, we can imagine that in the millennial period, under the fostering care and blessing of God, the favoured nation will increase and multiply so that they will be as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore, innumerable.

Note III.
THE PERPETUITY OF THE DAVIDIC THRONE.

One great Anglo-Israel argument that the British must be the "lost" Israel is based on the promises which God made to David that his seed and his throne shall be established for ever. Sometimes, indeed (as seen in one of the quotations given in Part I., see page 12), and in keeping with Anglo-Israel logic, the argument is used the other way: "If the Saxons be the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, then the English throne is a continuation of David's throne, and the seed on it must be the seed of David, and the inference is clear, namely, that all the blessings attaching by the holy promise to David's throne must belong to England";[24] and since, according to the dictum of the theory, this "must be so," evidence must somehow be found, both "historical" and from Scripture. So on the historical side a genealogical table has been produced in which the descent of the royal house of England (which may God protect!) is directly traced to David and Judah—a table truly strange and wonderful, and which only shows how easy it is to prove anything if wild guesses and perverted fancies be treated as facts. On these genealogical tables and "histories," however, with regard to which we would only apply to the Anglo-Israel "world" the old Latin proverb—Mundus vult decipi et decipiatur—it would be sheer waste of time to enter here. It is the product of a false supposition, supported by a logic which is also false, both in its premises and conclusions. People whose capacity for credulity is large enough to believe the wild romances spun out by Anglo-Israel writers about Jeremiah's journey to Ireland with a daughter of Zedekiah, who brought with them as part of their personal luggage the coronation stone which is now in Westminster Abbey, are very welcome to believe it; and one would not trouble much about them if they would only let the Bible alone and not pervert Scripture.

But it is the supposed Scriptural "proofs" which impose on some simple-minded Christians, with whom alone we are concerned here. The following passages almost all Anglo-Israel writers fasten upon:—

"The Lord hath sworn unto David in truth, He will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne" (Psa. cxxxii. 11).

"I have sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations" (Psa. lxxxix. 3, 4).

"Thus saith Jehovah: If ye can break My covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, in their season, then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne.... Thus saith the Lord: If My covenant of day and night stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David My servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have mercy on them" (Jer. xxxiii. 20, 21, 25, 26, R.V.).

The argument drawn from these Scriptures is: If the British be not Israel, and the English throne be not a continuation of the throne of David, where is the fulfilment of these promises? In answer to this crude logic I would observe:—

I. That it seems to be quite a characteristic of Anglo-Israelism to ignore our Lord Jesus Christ as the centre of all promise and prophecy, just as it ignores the existence of the Church and the future kingdom of God, for all which it substitutes the British people and the British Empire. But Christ is the true Son of David, and the only legitimate heir to the Davidic throne. "The sure mercies of David," which are sure (or "faithful," as the word may be better rendered), because God has sworn to fulfil, or "establish" them, are all merged and centred in Him. Hence, when His birth was announced to the Virgin Mary, the Angel Gabriel said: "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the House of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke i. 31-33).

If Israel had received Him His throne would have been established, and His visible reign on earth commenced then. But He was rejected, and so the promise in reference to setting up again of the Davidic kingdom, which had ceased to exist since the days of Zedekiah, was still deferred until the purpose of God with reference to the Church should be accomplished.

But the promises which God made to David have not failed, for Jesus, the true Son of David, lives, and though He is for the present sitting on the throne of God in heaven, He is coming again to set up the throne of His father David, and then "He shall reign over the House of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end."

II. It was announced in advance that during the "many days" of Israel's apostasy, and consequent banishment from the land, they "shall abide without a king and without a prince," i.e., without the true Davidic king of God's appointment, and without a prince of their own choice, as Jewish commentators have themselves explained, until "the latter days," when restored and converted they shall find in their Messiah the true David, both their King and Prince.[25]

III. The only place on earth where a throne of David can have any legitimate place, either in the sight of God or of man, is on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and it is an absurdity to speak of the continuity of a Davidic throne in England. Thank God that the right of the British Sovereign to his illustrious throne rests on a firmer basis than the fictitious genealogies made out by Anglo-Israelites.

IV. The same Scriptures, which speak of the perpetuity of the Davidic seed and throne, speak also of the unceasing continuance of the priesthood. "Thus saith Jehovah, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the House of Israel; neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before Me to offer burnt-offerings and to burn oblations, and to do sacrifice continually.... Thus saith the Lord: If ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, so that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also My covenant be broken with David My servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, My ministers" (Jer. xxxiii. 17, 20, 21).

Now it would be quite as logical to argue that the ministers of the Church of England must be the lineal descendants of the Levites, else God's promise of the continuance of the priesthood has failed, as to argue from these same Scriptures that there must be somewhere now on earth a throne of David, or else these prophecies have proved false.

The truth is that neither have God's promises in reference to the throne nor to the priesthood failed—for Christ is, in His blessed Person, the Prophet, Priest, and King. He is all this now at the right hand of God, for not only are all the essentials of the Aaronic priesthood fulfilled in Him, but He is "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek"; and when He is manifested again on earth to take up His throne and reign, "He shall be a priest upon His throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."[26]