CHAPTER VII
A STUDY IN "SCARLET"
In giving further proof concerning that prince of the
scarlet thread, whom historians tell us was married to Tea Tephi, the Eastern
princess, we know of nothing that will be so helpful, satisfactory and
convincing as to give his genealogy; beginning with his fathers, Juda and
Zarah, and come down from father to son until we reach him. We are able to do
this, but only because Prof. Totten has faithfully scanned the pages of ancient
and modern history, and as a result has compiled and given to the world the
genealogy of the Zarah branch of the royal family, which was exalted to the
throne when the breach was made in the line of Pharez in the days of Zedekiah.
Culling from a genealogical diagram found in No. 5 of
"Our Race" we have the following: Judah, begat Zarah; Zarah, begat
Ethan; Ethan, begat Mahol; Mahol, begat Calcol; Calcol, begat Gadhol; Gadhol,
begat Easru; Easru, begat Sru; Sru, begat Heber Scot; Heber Scot, begat
Boamhain; Boamhain, begat Ayhaimhain; Ayhaimhain, begat Tait; Tait, begat Aghenoin; Aghenoin,
begat Feabla Glas; Feabla Glas, begat Neanuail; Neanuail, begat Nuaghadh; Nuaghadh,
begat Alloid; Alloid, begat Earchada, Earchada, begat Deagfatha; Deagfatha,
begat Bratha; Bratha, begat Broegan; Broegan, begat Bille; Bille, begat Gallam
(or William, the conqueror of Ireland); Gallam, begat Herremon, (who married
Tea Tephi) and Heber and Ambergin his
two brothers.
Of course, it is impossible to give Prof. Totten's
argument by which this genealogy can be verified, but we can call attention to
a few straws, which, you know, show which way the wind blows.
First, you will notice that we have italicized some
of these names, two of which are Heber, and one Tait. In giving this genealogy
we have given the direct line from father through only one son, but some of
these men were the fathers of more than one son. Sru, for instance, the father
of Heber Scot, had two other sons. Tait, who begat Aghenoin, had a son by the
name of Heber. The fact that there are three Hebers in this branch of the royal
family is most significant, for that is the name from which comes one of the
national names of their race, i.e., Hebrews.
Also, we have told our readers of the confusion which
most students of history find in trying to straighten out the history of
Ireland, but it is generally conceded that there are two distinct phases to the
Hebrew story of Ireland. The one is
that concerning Jeremiah and the king's daughters, and the other is that which
is told in the Milesian records, in which we have the story of the prince who
married one of Jeremiah's wards. The
Milesian story takes its rise in Egypt and Palestine amid the scenes of
Israel's infancy. Now we are ready to call your attention to two other names
in the genealogy of Zarah's royal house, which we have italicized, i.e., Easru
and Sru, for in the Milesian records the descendants of these men, and some of
their predecssors, were called by a name which to this day means the children of the Red (or scarlet) Branch.
The prince in the Bible story, as given in Ezekiel's
riddle, is called a young twig, and
the highest branch of the high cedar,
and, after Zedekiah's sons were slain, it was not possible to find a prince who
was eligible to sit on that throne unless he belonged to the line of the
scarlet thread, for the other line, from which Christ came, was with the Jews
in Babylon. Hence these children of the
"Red Branch" must have
belonged to the Scarlet-thread branch of
the royal family. The Milesian records
also call them "Curaithe na Cruabh
ruadh," the "Knights of the Red Branch."
"The term Milesian is derived from the medieval
title of Gallam, the conqueror of Ireland, who was called Milesius, or the
Milesian, i.e., the soldier, a term
derived from the Latin miles, whence
we derive our word militia." -- Totten.
"Furthermore, these knights of the Red Branch,
of whom Gallam, the conquering Milesian, was one, called themselves Craunnogs, or 'the crowned.' The true
meaning of their name is 'Tree tops,' for it comes from words common to all
dialects: craun 'a tree,' and og ‘a tuft' or 'termination.' We use the
same word for a ‘crown,' as they did, and the very use of it in common language
would be enough to verify this identity of race were there not other reasons in
their history and legends to establish it conclusively." -- Totten.
One hundred years ago Joseph Ben Jacob, a Celt, and a
Catholic, in a work called "Precursory Proofs," said: "Among the
five equestrian orders of ancient Ireland was one called Craobh-ruadh (the Red Branch). The origin of this order was so very
ancient that all attempts at explanation have hitherto failed. Some suppose that it originated from the
Ulster arms, which are 'luna, a hand sinister, couped at the wrist, Mars.' But
these admit it should in such case be called crobhruadh, or of the bloody
hand."
This man was really proving the Hebrew and Egyptian
origin of the Irish Celts, but was applying all the evidence that he found to
Joseph, knowing nothing of the story of the breach in the royal family of
Judah, and of the exaltation of the Scarlet
Branch, who landed in the plantation of Ulster. Else he would have known
where to place the meaning of that ensignum of the red, or bloody, hand
"couped at the wrist" with a scarlet thread which found its way into
the royal arms of Ulster.
The prophet Nahum, while speaking of "the excellency
of Israel," says: "The shield
of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet." Scarlet is
the characteristic color of the English army, and they certainly wore "red
coats" during the Revolutionary War. We were recently in an English city,
and we took particular note of the scarlet thread, or stripe which ran up the
front, around the neck, down the arms and up the pantaloon legs of the uniform
of the post men of the province.
A British consul once told us that every official
order he received was tied with a scarlet
thread, and showed us one which he had just received. This same thing is
true also with all English officials, to whom written orders are sent, and from
this custom comes that well-known political and diplomatical metaphor,
"Red-tape."
We have also learned, from sources which we deem
authentic, that a scarlet thread is woven into the material from which all
ropes are manufactured, which are to be used in the construction of vessels for
the British government, or navy. This
is done so that under and all circumstances these vessels may be identified as
the property of Great Britain, even though they be sunk in many fathoms of
water at the bottom of the sea.
When Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, he was under
the necessity of crossing his hands in order that he might get his right hand
on the boy that the Holy Spirit was designating as the one whom God had chosen
as the birthright inheritor; and in thus crossing his hands Jacob necessarily
made this sign (X), or the sign of the cross.
This is the pre-Christian cross of which relics are found along the
trail of Israel, as they were being sifted through the nations to the isles of
the Northwest, and which Ignatius Donnelly finds not only in Egypt and Ireland,
but almost everywhere else. Donnelly's object in discussing the pre-Christian
cross is to prove that the cross has been a sacred emblem ever since the
creation of man, and that it originated in the garden of Eden, because of the
four rivers which parted in Eden and became four heads. Donnelly finds that in
Egypt, Assyria and the British Isles, the pre-Christian cross was emblematical
of creative power and eternity. He also finds carved on Egyptian monuments
(see cut) a very ancient sacred emblem, which he says Sir Gardener Wilkinson
says was called "The cross-cake," which is, as you see, a cake with a
cross on it, and as soon as we read this in Donnelly's "Atlantis,"
instantly we associated the Egyptian Cross-cake with the following: "Ephraim is a cake not turned." We
know that Ephraim was associated with the cross that Jacob made, that he came
from Egypt, and if he was not in some way associated with that cake with which
are associated both Egypt and a cross, why should God use the metaphor, "cake," in a prophecy
concerning Ephraim's people? Here is a
question for all grades of skeptics, from the "Higher Critics" up to
the honest infidel, to answer. Thank
God, that, when it comes to this question of critics, there is a superlative degree; i.e., Highest Critics!
This sign (X) has floated in what is known as the
"Union Jack," from the flagstaffs of the United Kingdom, and from the
mast heads of English vessels for as many centuries as the kingdom has any history. It is also in that which is now accepted the
world over as the national flag of the British people, which is described as a scarlet field with the union on a field
of blue, to which are now added certain Christian crosses, one of which is scarlet, and across the others there is
a narrow strip or thread of scarlet.
Ephraim as a cake unturned must mean, whatever else
it may mean, that he has a hidden or unseen side, and that he is not altogether
the fresh young nation that he seems to be. This new side is the Saxon side,
with this sign (SaXon) buried in the very heart of his name, and the other side
is the Ephraim-Israel side, but it is the same old cake, with its name of Saac's sons burnt through until it shows
on this side.
If it be true that the sign of the cross became
sacred in the garden of Eden, then surely, after the giving of the birthright,
it became doubly so to the house of Joseph; but now it is thrice sacred to
them, for on the cross their Saviour made full atonement for sin.
We believe that when Jacob said to Joseph: "I
know it, my son, I know it!" he not only knew he had his right hand on
Ephraim's head, which Joseph thought should have been on Manasseh's, but that
he also knew why he blessed the sons of Joseph with the sign of the cross above
their heads. For while he prayed with
his hands thus crossed he said, "God . . . the Angel, which redeemed me from all evil, bless the
lads," and we know there is no other name given among men whereby we can
be saved, except the name of Him who shed his blood upon the cross to redeem
men.
To us it is indeed significant that the birthright
blessing was given with the sign of the cross.
That the cross was sacred Jacob certainly knew. That God sent his Divine Word unto Jacob, we
Christian Saxons (sons of I-saac) certainly know; and that Judah rejected that
WORD made flesh, we also know. That
Ephraim-Israel would receive that Word, divine prophecy declares; and that the
Saxons did receive that rejected One and the word of his grace, is simply undeniable. Then, surely, that triple cross, together
with one which has a thread of scarlet blood streaming down its rugged side,
must mean more -- yea, much more -- to the people of one certain race, than it
ever can to some other races. For He who shed that blood said: "I
am not sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Our readers now know that the name "House of
Israel" was the Biblical-historic and the prophetic name of the birthright
people, over and against the name "House of Judah," for the Jewish
people. So, if the people, known as the
Jews, and they only, be national Israel -- i.e., "all of it," as has been taught by Christendom for lo!
these many centuries -- then the coming of Christ to the seed of Abraham was a failure in every sense. And if this be so, why should the angel
Gabriel tell Mary, the daughter of Joseph (Mary's father's name was Joseph, as
well as her husband's), that her divine child should "reign over the
house of Jacob forever"? Or why should Mary, after receiving the salutation
of Elizabeth, say: "He [God] hath holpen his servant Israel in remembering
his mercy, as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed
forever?" Or why should Zacharias,
being filled with the Holy Ghost, say:
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath
visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an born of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy
prophets, which have been since the world began; that we should be saved from
our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us, to perform the mercy
promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he
sware to our father Abraham, that be would grant unto us, that we being
delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, ALL
THE DAYS OF OUR LIFE"? (Luke
1:6-75).
We may also further ask, Why should Isaiah say:
"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall
be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The
Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his
government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon
his kingdom to order it, and establish it with judgment and with justice from
henceforth even forever. The zeal of
the Lord of hosts will perform this. The Lord sent a word unto Jacob, and it
hath lighted upon Israel. And all the people shall know, even
Ephraim." -- Isa. 9:6-9.
Mark that! All
the people of Israel-Ephraim-Israel-shall know. Yea, they do now
know. Whether they be in the "High Church," or in the
"Low;" whether they are Catholic or Protestant; whether they attend
service at a costly cathedral, in some great palatial church, or in "the
little church around the corner;" whether they pray in the uptown, or in
the downtown church; whether they listen to the preached word in the
independent mission, or in that little mission, the child of some uptown
church, which they are holding off at arm's length; whether they attend the
revival services of the popular evangelist, or whether they stand on the
streets of our Anglo-Israel cities, and hear all sort of evangelists from very
good to very inferior; yes, surely, whether they listen to any, all, or none
(for they hear it as they go), all the people of Ephraim do know this one
thing, namely: "Unto us
a child is born."
It is conceded by all Christendom that those who
accept the benefits of the new covenant, of which the testator must die before
the testament could be in force, have the law of that covenant written in their
hearts. Indeed, Paul when speaking of the New Testament covenant, which he says
was "established upon better promises" than the Mosaic covenant, the
failure of which necessitated the making of the new, says: "Because they continued not in my
covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,
and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be
to me a people," Heb. 8:10.
Thus we see that the journey of Israel from Lo-ammi
(not my people) to Ammi (my people), is by the way of the blood-stained
cross. But it is literal, fleshly
Israel, that must make this journey. This is why God, by the mouth of the
prophet Isaiah, says: "Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the
people in whose heart is my law," "Hearken to me, ye that follow
after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are
hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that BARE you," Isa.
51:7 and 1-2.
When the house of Judah rejected Jesus, he asked them
if they had read in the Scriptures concerning a stone which was rejected, and
which became the head of the corner; and then he told them that the kingdom of
God should be taken from them and given to another nation. Israel had been rejected, cast out, forsaken,
divorced; but in order to be consistent with the prophecies of the Old
Testament, and many passages in the New Testament, we contend that the other
nation to which Jesus referred could have been none other than the house of
Israel, that other nation of the two nations into which the seed of Abraham
were divided.
"But" says one, "Paul said, I turn to
the Gentiles, I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."
True, and in this he was obeying the order, "To the Jew first," but the Lord certainly sent
him also to the Gentiles. The trouble
with this word Gentiles to the
ordinary English reader is, that to his mind it always excludes God's chosen
people; whereas it only excludes the Jewish portion of the chosen race. There
are three Greek words in the New Testament which are translated Gentile, and
Gentiles. One of them is Hellen, and its various forms, which
means Greek, Greece, or Grecian, but is sometimes used in the sense of
non-Jewish. The other two words are Ethnee,
and Ethnos, from which comes our
word ethnology, which is defined
as: "The science which treats of
the different races and families of men." These two words are simply the
singular and plural forms of the same root word. Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon defines, Ethnos, the singular, as, "A number of people living together,
a company, body of men, a host, a tribe, a people. But, Ethnee, the plural, is, of course, defined by this same authority
as, "The nations, hosts, tribes,
and peoples."
God said to Abraham:
"Thou shalt be the father of many nations."
Also, "The father of a multitude of nations have I made thee."
"I will make nations
of thee, and kings shall come out of thee."
"She (Sarah) shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her."
God also said to Jacob, "That thou mayest be a
company of peoples;" and, also,
"A nation and a company of nations shall be of
thee."
Jacob, by the command of God, said to Joseph:
"Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply
thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people."
God, in turn, said to Joseph, through Jacob, "He
[Manasseh] also shall become a people, and
he shall be great: Howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and
his seed shall become a multitude of
nations."
Indeed, we have neither time nor space to tell of all
the host and hosts, the people and peoples, the nation and nations, that are
involved in these covenant promises; but, surely, these will suffice to show
that these covenant promises are ethnical in the fullest and broadest
sense. Hence when Jesus sent Saul of
Tarsus to the Ethnee; i.e., the
nations, we dare to say that he included, if he did not wholly mean, the nations of the birthright kingdom of
Israel; for he said to Ananias in a vision concerning this same circumstance of
Paul's call and commission: "He is
a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the (Ethnee) Gentiles, and
kings, and the Children of
ISRAEL," Acts 9: 15.
It was that Paul might go to the children of Israel
that the Holy Ghost hindered him from going into Asia, and sent him into
Macedonia, which included the country once known as Mosei, and where many of
the Saacs still lingered. Then Paul pushed on into Illyricum, a
country which lies still further to the northwest. This also is Paul's reason for wanting to go into Spain, whither
he finally went. Ireneus, one of the
early Church Fathers, writing concerning the work of Paul, says: "He established many Christian churches
among the Keltoi (Celts)." Also
Clement, of Rome, of whom Paul speaks as having his name in the book of life,
says of Paul, that he was the "Herald (of the Gospel of Christ) in the
West," and that "he had gone to the extremity of the west." This could not have been said by a
writer at Rome without implying a journey into some countries much further to
the West. Chrysostom, another early Church writer, says: "Paul preached in
Spain," and, according to the testimony of several others, Paul also
preached the Gospel to the Britons. At
all events, they received the Gospel, and Jesus Christ, the son of David,
became a "Light to the nations, and
became the glory of his people Israel,"
who were ruled over by the descendants of the Prince of the scarlet thread; and who put a bloodstained cross, the cross of St.
George, into the heraldry of their nation.
Later they and their brother nation became the evangelistic nations of
the world. Thus through the many
nations of Abraham's seed has the One Seed,
the testator of the new covenant, been a
blessing to all the nations of the earth.
Well, indeed, may Jesus say "If ye believe not his
[Moses'] writings, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?"