John Wilson, 1877
TWENTY-FIRST. "The Epistle to the Galatians recognizes them as not in any sense Israelites; but, on the contrary, the whole argument rests on this, that they, being Gentiles by origin, were returning to the weak and beggarly elements of Judaism [ABCOG: actually to their pagan weak and beggarly elements]. Paul, being himself a Jew, could circumcise Timothy, and be blameless; but he writes to the Galatians, that if they were circumcised [ABCOG: if they should put their trust in circumcision, then], Christ should profit them nothing. Now these Galatians were our kindred, our very cousins german, as all history testifies. See Rollin (ed. 1826, vol. 2, p. 312). Luther recognizes the supposed affinity between the Germans and Galatians in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. 'Some think,' says he on chap. 1:6, 'that the Germans are descended of the Galatians. Neither is this divination perhaps untrue, for the Germans are not unlike them in nature,'" &c.
REPLY. - The writer seems to go upon the supposition that we plead for a conformity to the ceremonial law as the great privilege to be derived from the knowledge of "Our Israelitish Origin." Wherever be got such an idea, it certainly is not to be found in the book known by that name, and which it would be well for him to read if he intends to say any more on the subject. Moreover it does not follow, because the country was called Galatia, and the inhabitants of it were called "Galatians," that therefore the Christians addressed were descendants of the Gauls. Many countries - as, for example, a great portion of the United States of America - are called after tribes which do not now inhabit those countries. The Epistle of Peter recognizes those in Galatia whom he addresses as being "strangers" therein; and yet not of the house of Judah, but of that house upon whom the Lord had not mercy - of the outcast house of Israel, but who now, through grace, had been made "the people of God" (1 Pet. 2:10), They had said when cast away "Our hope is lost; we are cut off for our parts," but they were now begotten again unto a lively hope by the Gospel.
History also states that the race with which we identify Ephraim was very different from that of the Gauls. Hear Prideaux, part ii., book vi., "The country from whence these Cymbrians came was the Cymbrica Chersonesus, the same which now contains Jutland, Sleswick, and Holstein. On their deserting this country, the Asae, coming from between the Euxine [Black] and Caspian Seas, took possession of it, and from these came those Angli who, with the Saxons, after having expelled the Britons, possessed themselves of that part of Great Britain which is now called England."
It is to be recollected that it was to the borders of the Caspian Sea that outcast Israel bad been carried by the Assyrians. The Angli (Heb. Engli), of whom came the English, for whom "the Book of Remembrance," or Gospels, was written, Mal. 4:2, are thus not only in history distinguished from the Gauls, but even from the Cymri who subsequently made a descent upon Italy, correspondent to that which the Gauls had made upon Greece and Asia Minor nearly 200 years before.
Now if the Gauls had come from the extremities of the ocean, and from the same countries as those out of which the Angli came into Britain, then it appears that the Cymri had come in to fill up the interval between the desertion of the extreme north by the Gauls, and the coming thereinto of the Anglo-Saxon race; in the same manner that we find one tribe after another of the North American Indians has been pushed westward by the natural spreading of the English over the American continent. The tribe nearest to the whites, and more leavened by the force of European civilization, takes the place of the one less civilized, which is forced farther backward. Thus it was in Europe. Common sense may show the absurdity of reckoning the North American Indians of the same family of nations with the people of the United States. Although they have proceeded from the same countries as those in which the whites have now settled, they certainly are not of the same people. So were the Angli of a different race from the Gauls, with whom, however, they became intermixed; and still more so with their relations the Cymri. But there is presumptive evidence that both the Galatians and Cymri were of previous deportations of Israel; the former being most likely from the Hebrew Ger "a stranger " (l and r being interchangeable), and the latter from Kymri, or "according to Omri;" i.e., Baal worshippers from Samaria, the city of Omri.
Remnants of other nations having been blended with the Jewish race, have not taken away the origin of the Jewish people generally. Neither can a partial admixture with other races destroy the Israelitish origin of that house of Israel which was made uncircumcised, and which is now found in the places, and in all the circumstances predicted, at the end of the Seven Times during which it was to be cast out among the Gentiles.
TWENTY-SECOND. "I strongly deprecate the idea that science and much human learning of any kind are needful to the right understanding and exposition of the Word of God; for how, then, would the great mass of God's own children, among whom (as His Word tells us) not many mighty, not many wise of this world are to be found, ever be able to understand the greater portion of that Word, which consists of prophecy?"
REPLY. - The Scriptures have many beauties, which those who know Hebrew and Greek are better able to appreciate than others who know them only from a translation, however good. There are many allusions to Ancient History and Eastern manners which persons who have travelled, and are deeply read in such matters, should be prepared to understand better than can the unreading poor who know nothing but about their own immediate neighborhood. There are many references to metals and precious stones, trees, plants, beasts, fowls, and fishes, and to the characteristics of different nations; much is said respecting particular mountains, rivers, seas, and countries; fine and useful arts, city productions, agricultural employments, modes of warfare, forms of government, and sacrificial rites, implying an immensity of knowledge, all of which is very rarely possessed by one individual. It would be flattery, therefore, to tell the ignorant man that he is equally prepared to expound Dan. 11 with another who had studied the history of Syria and Egypt, and the relation of these countries to Palestine at the periods referred to in the prophecy.
It is true that the man who knows not much about former times, nor about foreign countries, may know something about the temptations and trials common to human nature, and may feel strongly the adaptation of Scripture promise and precept, and especially of the glorious Gospel of the grace of God to meet his own case. But even here it may be a disadvantage to him that his knowledge is so limited. His own idiosyncrasy he may be in danger of imputing to human nature generally. That which is only the result of local circumstances he may reckon to be radically innate. It might be of importance that he should be given an understanding of the different powers of the human mind as possessed by all, and of their various combinations, to see still more intelligently the beautiful adaptation of the Word of God to the moral and intellectual wants of humanity; and that in the new creation in Christ Jesus fitting occupation is provided for every particular faculty. God can sanctify all knowledge of His working in Creation and Providence to the better understanding of His Word. The knowledge of what He has done in the formation of body, soul, and spirit is not to be despised. The Word of God makes nice distinctions, which one unacquainted with the study of mind is apt to overlook. It is "sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). Whatever God hath made or done, and recognized in Scripture, is surely worthy of our regard; but especially the human mind which has to come into contact with that Word.
Our Saviour "reasoned" with the doctors whilst as yet He was only a child; Paul could use both Natural Science and Greek Literature in disputing with those who thought themselves wise, and neither the rabble nor the Areopagites were able to come up to the full comprehensiveness of his disputations; but this did not prevent the one or the other from speaking for the benefit of those who either required such teaching or were capable of being benefited thereby. It would have been no small mistake respecting his own importance for any ignorant man, however poor, or however rich, to have objected to their teaching on account of its not being suited to his capacity. Would it not be rather the duty such to pray for a capacity, and at the same time labor to obtain it?
Now we know as a fact that there are matters in the Bible all of which few, if any, do understand. A child may understand the way of salvation. One who knows not much of history may know the great fact that Jesus Christ died for our redemption. But in how many different ways is this truth taught in Scripture, and much connected with it, which we know is not all possessed by every individual of God's children! Indeed, very few profess to have made out a clear idea of any considerable portion of the prophetic Scriptures, or of the purpose of God in giving a great part of that which is historical. But because such knowledge is not attained by Christians generally, are we to say that, it ought to be neglected by those who have the means of obtaining it?
If one should say, "I have arrived at a knowledge of the truth of such a portion of the Word of God, the true meaning of which was previously unknown, and was therefore overlooked or misapplied. Now I find it full of light, and throwing its light not only on other portions of Scripture, previously obscure, but also upon God's working in Creation and Providence. And that this is not a false light, let those who know God's Works and Word most extensively look at them in this light, and see whether it be not God's own view on the subject;" if any one should speak thus, those who were conscious of being partially blind, and did not arrogate to themselves the right to prescribe to God the channel through which He might be pleased to convey light to their minds, would of course attend and examine.
We invite all to do so, with regard to "Our Israelitish Origin," according to their capacity and power. If they know nothing of ethnology or ancient history, perhaps they know something of their own time and people. They may know, for instance, whether God has favored our nation according to the plain meaning of the promises made with regard to Abraham's posterity in the line of Ephraim. If not, they can examine the Scriptures, look immediately around them, and see the Word of God fulfilled in their own case. Another may be able to look farther, and take in the case of other nations; or farther still, to look before and behind, and see the relation of the present to the past and the future.
But others, again, should not reject the Truth because its ramifications are wider than "children in understanding " can comprehend. Let them rather endeavor to comply with the apostolic precept, "IN UNDERSTANDING BE MEN." There is nothing necessary to the knowledge, or even the discovery of "our Israelitish origin" to which a poor man may not actually attain. Knowledge is now more generally diffused and more extensively possessed than some are inclined to think; and if Christians do not avail themselves of that circumstance to promote deeper and more general understanding of Scripture among the masses, Satan will turn it to their disadvantage, while they may be needlessly placing stumblingblocks in the way of the blind. We should not "strongly deprecate" science and learning without some warrant from the Word of God; which, so far as I know, we have not. Rather we are exhorted to "get wisdom and get understanding." Is it not said, "The works of the Lord are great, SOUGHT OUT of all them that have pleasure therein?" "He hath shewed His people the power of His works, that He may give them the heritage of the heathen" (Psa. 111:26). And as regards learning, I should be strongly disposed to think that if a man had the opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and refused to improve this kindness of Providence, to say the least, it is not likely that God would reward his negligence by giving him the ability rightly and fully to expound His Word.
TWENTY-THIRD. "If the promises were sure as to their certain literal fulfillment, the evidence for our Israelitish origin, and of our being the people appointed to minister blessing to all Nations, would he strong indeed; but the CONDITIONALITY of the promises is such that we cannot tell whether they have been or will be fulfilled."
REPLY. - We cannot argue that God will break an unconditional promise, from the fact that He told the children of Israel when He was about to break a conditional one, the terms of which they had failed to fulfil; nor from the fact of His Making, known to them His "breach of promise" (Numb. 14:34) are we to argue that He may break His promise without making known to those concerned whether He will keep His word or no. His truthfulness should be taken for granted and when "by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie," He makes oath, we may be assured He will bring to pass what He hath promised, and should indeed truly trust in God, and act upon His word as upon an accomplished fact. God has been giving forth His word, and accomplishing it both by judgment and mercy throughout all generations, to induce men to exercise faith in His word of promise. And is all this confirmation of His word to be made void by His being faithful to His word of warning against want of confidence in His word of promise?
It is to be observed that when the punishment of Israel in the land, and as being cast out among the Gentiles was foretold, there was a reservation promised of "the covenant made with their ancestors" (Lev. 26:45). This was to be sure to them, even when cast out into other lands. All the evils of which we have been guilty, and the punishments we would consequently have to endure, were foreknown and foretold; and, yet the promised mercy was to be sure in the end. See the last words of both Jacob and Moses (Gen. 49; Dent. 32, 33).
The promises of God are not so conditional as to render their fulfillment uncertain. Prophecy is not to be regarded as a mere may-be, but can certainly be adduced as evidence of that which is most surely to be expected in the cases of the people spoken of, in the time, place, and circumstances predicted. We may be sure that if, on account of man's disobedience, God were to recall His word, He would not leave it in doubt whether or not He would do what He had said.
Although, because of unbelief, the generation who came up out of Egypt were not allowed to enter the land yet their children were. And although the complete fulfillment of the promises to Abraham has been in abeyance for many generations, yet even now it can be seen that after all God has not so cast away Israel, as that He has not for their fathers' sakes remembered "the covenant of their ancestors."
These promises were not made under the law of Moses, and therefore could not be made void by their disobedience to it (Gal. 3:16-19). After Israel had so sinned as to be cast out of the Lord's land and lost among the Gentiles, still there is a recognition of the promised mercy to them (Jer. 30:11, &c.). When the forerunner of Christ was born there was a prophetic recognition of the promises made to the fathers, and their inviolability declared Luke 1:68; and He came as "a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to CONFIRM the promises unto the fathers" (Rom. 15:8).
If facts were not exactly ad foretold, there would be less excuse for doubting, the truthfulness of God; but there is none, for we are actually in possession of the means and opportunities of accomplishing that which was promised. God indicates His will by giving the power of performing it; and "it is accepted according to that which a man hath, and not according to that which he hath not."
The case of Ephraim was to be peculiar: the peculiarities promised to Israel in the line of Ephraim have all been found in the case of the English, who, therefore, are undoubtedly the people contemplated in the promises.
The promises are certainly ours, although we may fail in faithfully laying hold upon them, and so come short of the blessing intended for us. God is faithful, and His promise sure. Not in our own wisdom, power, or goodness let us have confidence, but in the Faithful Promiser. [Emphasis ABCOG: we have failed and come short!]
TWENTY-FOURTH. Do you not think in the present dispensation the middle wall of partition is broken down between Jew and Gentile - "all one in Christ:" -so that whatever view we form of the scattered tribes, their privileges are all for a Future Dispensation?
REPLY. - "There is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus;" both may be alike partakers of His saving grace. Still, both male and female do actually exist, and they have each their several parts to act in society. So with Israel among the Gentiles. We have not now to make a difference between one and another portion of the human race. That is already made, and exists in nature. Scripture clearly recognizes this difference when it speaks of "the wild olive branch, contrary to nature" being grafted into the good olive tree, and of the "natural branches" being much more likely as engrafted again "into their own olive tree" (Zech. 4.; Rom. 11.). The whole world is witness to the relative positions of the Anglo-Saxon and other branches of the human family. When "the wild olive," or Roman "branch" at the Council of Trent cut itself off from "the good olive tree," by forbidding the circulation of the Scriptures, then our nation came into full connection with the Word of God, and showed such an adaptation for the reception and transmission of the Gospel as quite distinguished them from other races.
True, we have not acted up to our privileges. Still they have been continued to us from age to age. Our concentrated energy at home, wide extension over the whole earth, and the power bestowed upon us, not only of handing out an open Bible to all other nations, but also of interference in behalf of the oppressed portions of the human race, and of humbling the most haughty, were all promised to Israel when cast out among the Gentiles; and, notwithstanding our evil deserts, they have been singularly bestowed upon us. Are we wrong in ascribing all this to the free electing grace of God who chose us in our fathers; not that we should be selfishly privileged or presumptuously confident, but that, like Joseph in Egypt, when not known as Israel, we should fulfil the prophecies in being privileged with the ministration of blessing to many? God hath not dealt so with any other people. Soon may we recognize, in His providential working with regard to us, His early purpose, as declared by the Patriarchs, opened up by the Prophets, and confirmed by Him, who came certainly not to abrogate the promises made by the Fathers.
The privileges which have come to us have certainly not been given as an afterthought of God, but according to His original purpose and design: "The Covenant which He commanded to a thousand generations," and the Lord's Covenant with His people, had a special reference to their being entrusted, as undeservedly as our race has been, with the keeping and communication of the Divine Oracles (Isa. 59:21).
We do not plead for self-indulgent privileges, but for the consideration of undeserved mercies, and for a sense of responsibility correspondent to the stewardship with which we have been actually entrusted. We welcome all to a participation of the same blessings we ourselves enjoy. Even in a future dispensation, those of other nations who happen to be among Israel in the land, and who conform to the same rule as the people of God, are to partake of the same privileges as Israel (Isa. 56:3, 6, 7; Ezek. 47:22, 23).
The matter stands thus:- Israel were to be punished by being stripped of what was thought to distinguish them from other nations. They were banished from the Lord's land, and divorced from the Mosaic covenant (Jer. 3.). The very name of "Israel" was to be taken from them (Isa. 63:16). They were to be made Lo-ammi, i.e., not my people, or "Gentiles." (Hos. 1.)
But this outward appearance of things did not alter the reality of their descent from Israel, any more than a child being made a foundling, and brought up as bearing a different surname from that of its father, would be a denial of its parentage when, from sufficient evidence, that was undeniably proved. Having lost the name of "Israel," we were to be found bearing the Name of CHRIST, being called "SONS OF THE LIVING GOD" (Hos. 1:10; Isa. 43:7). In Him the fatherless will find mercy (Hos. 14:3). Hence was to spring our blessing (ver. 5). "FROM ME IS THY FRUIT FOUND" (ver. 8).
TWENTY-FIFTH. Do you imagine that all the English are of "Israelitish" origin? Who then are the Gentiles? And if the Israelites are mixed among the nations, what is your idea of their genealogy?
REPLY. - We are not merely in the place of, but are really descended from "ancient Israel." Yet it is not therefore necessary that every individual in these countries should be undoubtedly descended from ancient Israel. Those of the Gentiles who joined themselves to the people of God were made one people with them. So it was, and so it is to be again (Isa. 56:6-8; Ezek. 47:22, 23). Other nations might be lost in Israel, but Israel were not to be lost in other nations (Jer. 30:11). The case of the individual as being allowed to rejoice with the gladness of God's people, and glory with His Inheritance, does not depend upon his natural descent from the Fathers, but on being remembered with the favor God bears unto His people and visited with His salvation. It is a wonderful confirmation of our faith to see the faithfulness of God in fulfilling, His covenant mercy to the people He foresaw, and with whom He has been dealing from the days of old, in order that we should be a people to show forth His praise. But the ground of our confidence individually and collectively is Christ alone. All other ground of boasting is taken away from either Jews or Gentiles, or the Church of God. [emphasis ABCOG]
The Jews, we certainly know, were most extensively mixed with Canaanites, Edomites, and peoples of the countries in which they were scattered both before and subsequent to the coming of Christ; and they were and are reckoned Jews. What is your idea of the very purest Jew, whose mother appears to have been a CANAANITESS; Or of Joseph's posterity, whose mother was the daughter of an EGYPTIAN priest? They soon began to mix with the people of the land, so that even in our Saviour's genealogy we find both Rahab the CANAANITESS and Ruth the MOABITESS! Moreover one of those who was most employed in furnishing the Temple was the son of a man of Tyre, whose mother was of the daughters of Naphtali (1 Kings 7:13, 14); the Nethinims, who were devoted to the service of the temple, were CANAANITES (Josh. 10:22); and the other inhabitants of Jerusalem down to the time of David were JEBUSITES, or at least Jebusites dwelling "with the children of Benjamin" (Judg. 1:21; 2 Sam. 5-24.).
And it might be well asked, if the Gentiles were thus mixed among the Jews in the Capital, the Temple, and the Royal Race, what do you think of their supposed genealogical purity? We do not certainly know that to any great extent admixture with the Gentiles has been the habit of the outcast house of Israel, but if we may take the case of the Jews for an example, we shall see that Ephraim may have much "mingled himself among the people" without the integrity of the race being lost.
TWENTY-SIXTH. What then is the meaning of "God shall ENLARGE Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem"?
REPLY. - It ought to be considered that the popular interpretation of this passage depends upon giving the meaning of "multiply" to a Hebrew verb which is never elsewhere so interpreted. The true meaning, "persuade," is found in the margin: "God shall persuade Japheth;" that is, He shall invite him to come in; He shall entice him to unite himself to the family of Shem: "and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem." Shem is at the head of the family. He is master of the tents in which Japheth has been induced to become an inmate - a sort of indoor servant - while Canaan is his servant, and thus becomes "the servant of servants unto his brethren," being the servant of Japheth, who is the servant of Shem.
That is to say, the principal people, intellectually and morally, in Europe and our settlements generally all over the world, are descendants of Shem, to whom belong the "tents" and management of affairs generally. And along with them are the descendants of Japheth, whose ancestors had previously come into these countries, but did not truly possess them or develop their resources, and have actually given way to the more modern race who are the ancient people of God brought into the position appointed from the beginning, of "inheriting the Gentiles," so that they should minister good to the whole family, educating and emancipating even the down-trodden children of Ham.
We have too easily taken for granted that this passage refers to the multiplication of the European race as being the descendants of Japheth; and it is, indeed, wonderful how people have stopped here, and refused to go on to the many and undoubted promises of multiplicity to Abraham, Isaac, and the house of Israel, and especially to the descendants of Joseph.
Even in their outcast condition, as Scythians (sukkoth, Lev. 23:43; Zech. 14.16), dwelling in "tents" among the Gentiles, God hath been making them the head of the heathen, and multiplying them as He had said (Isa. 54; Jer. 3:8).
TWENTY-SEVENTH. We are told that the Anglo-Saxons are descended from the Sacae, and that these lived near where "the Jews" must have wandered. But if "the Jews" formed a nation as suggested, the race would have stood out in strong contrast to neighboring races. I am not aware that the Anglo-Saxons very materially differed in their social or religious habits and customs from Scatina Gentium, the north of Asia, and Europe.
REPLY. - The Saxons are indeed supposed to be descended from the Sacae; and as the House of Israel - not "the Jews" - had begun to call themselves by the name of "Isaac" (Amos 7:9, 16), shortly before their removal by the Assyrians to the same neighborhood as that out of which the Saxons, by our best historians, are judged to have come, and as the promise to Abraham was "IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED" (Gen. 21:12; Rom. 9:7), and as that destiny has not been fulfilled in any other people, we of course judge them to be what they are named and appear to be; especially as they are now found in the place and at the time the people lost as "children of Israel" were to be found, "sons of the living God" (Hos. 1:10).
That the Sakai especially were a vigorous, enterprising, practical, self-governing race, and eminently possessed of a progressive character, was proved by their proceedings previous to their embrace of Christianity. But, of course, it is since these "outcast branches" were engrafted by the apostolic ministry "into their own olive tree again," that they have really begun to bring forth the fruit of all the culture they had received from the days of Abraham onwards. It was, however, as ENGLISH (or Engli - Heb.- rendered "calves of the stall" in Mal. 4:2), that they were to "go forth and grow up," and for those among them who feared the Lord's Name "would the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in His wings." Since the great awakening by the marvelous extension of missionary enterprise at the close of last [18th] century, our people have been in many lands truly what Israel was to be in the latter day - "as a dew from the Lord" (Mic. 5:7). But we have not only been employed in the ministry of mercy, frequently have we occupied ourselves in the execution of judgment, and this also was predicted of us (ver. 8).
We must look steadily at God's great purposes with regard to Israel as avowed in Old Testament promise and prophecy from the beginning, and compare with these the great past and present historical facts of our race, and see if we can better account for them in any other way than by saying that THE FRUIT WHICH APPEARS IS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE MADE RESPECTING THE SEED THAT WAS SOWN.
TWENTY-EIGHTH. We have not the same language as the Jews; we do not speak Hebrew.
REPLY. - Shall we say that the Jews were not "Jews" because they spoke Chaldee [Aramaic] when they were in Babylon, and seem to have brought it into the south of Germany, and after their restoration spoke Syriac? Shall we say that the Normans were not Northmen equally with the Danes, because that previously to their coming into this country they had been awhile in France, where they had acquired the French language, which they sought to impose upon the English?
Neither is the language called French the language of the Franks, from whom are descended the people called "French," or at least that portion of them who are the lineal heirs of those after whom that country bears its present name. And yet all the north-western tongues contain much Hebrew; which in the south are frequently rendered by their Chaldee equivalents. The Jews themselves do not ordinarily use pure Hebrew [ABCOG: until their return to Palestine]; but when they have a language of their own, it is a mixture of the languages of the peoples with whom they have intercourse; although they have always had the Hebrew in their hands as a Written language. So far as We know, the Anglo-Saxons had not the latter advantage; but making allowance for the circumstances, they had as large a proportion of words of Hebrew origin in their ordinary speech as the Jews have in theirs. There are 600 Hebrew roots, and there are over 600 Hebrew words in the English language; and it is a curious fact that we still retain the very characteristic which distinguished the Ephraimites so early as the days of the Judges (Chap. 12:5, 6.) The hissing sound of the English speech has been remarked by foreigners: when the Jews say Moshes, we say Moses; and when we say "Monies," the Jews say "Monish." Thus even in the pronunciation of our language, we bear evidence of our Ephraimitish descent.
The English language is so like the Hebrew that it can more easily be made to express the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures than any other; and as regards words, any one who has studied and compared the two languages carefully will be able to say that an immense proportion of especially the vulgar [common] part of our language has a very close affinity with the Hebrew in sense and sound, - making allowance, of course, for the Ephraimitish pronunciation.
TWENTY-NINTH, "Great mistake appears to be made in the use of the name Ephraim," &c.
REPLY. - The supposed misuse of this name, Ephraim, in later prophecy cannot affect the stability of the promise of the birthright to the sons of Joseph, nor frustrate their realization by the children of Ephraim, which name may at least be supposed to include the literal descendants of Joseph's younger son. Great misconception and confusion arises from jumbling together not only the cases of Jews and Gentiles, but also those of Israel and Judah; and from applying to the Jews the predictions respecting Ephraim, and to Ephraim those belonging to the Jews.
THIRTIETH. "There is a great deal in our history contrary to the supposition, of our Hebrew origin, or at least not in favor of it; such as the darkness of our pagan history before the invasion of Julius Caesar, the fact of the Saxons not being our sole originators, but Danes, Scots, Normans, &c. and the whole aboriginal Britons. Besides, the Saxons were fierce pagans, without a trace of Jewish ritualism about them."
REPLY. - Like some of the other objections, this is not very clearly stated. The coming of Julius Camar had little or nothing to do with our Saxon ancestors, who did not arrive till centuries after his invasion, when the Romans had withdrawn their forces from Britain. It is nothing against our Israelitish origin to say that we have sprung from Jutes, Saxons, Angles, Danes, and Normans, or from the Cymri or Welsh; for the "seed" of Israel were to be "in many waters" (Numb. 24:7.) Israel were not only to be cast far off among the nations, but also scattered throughout the countries (Ezek. 11:16;) therefore they might well come from various quarters, and under different names into the place prepared for them, and where the Lord was to be to them what He has been to us, "a little sanctuary" in the countries into which they were to come after being carried into Assyria.
But there is not such a variety in our parentage as has been supposed. The Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Danes were brethren; and the Normans were Northmen originally the same with the Danes, who having settled in France, came thence into Britain with the language and much else belonging, to that country which from them has been called Normandy. The Cymri or Welsh also are said to have come from the neighborhood of the Black Sea by the same route which the Saxons and Goths used at a later period in coming into Western Europe.
from Sixty Anglo-Israel Difficulties Answered. Chiefly from the Correspondence of the late John Wilson, compiled by his daughter. London: S. W. Partridge and Co., 9, Paternoster Row. 1877
John Wilson, 1877. Sixty Anglo-Israel Difficulties Answered