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