"The marvellous increase of the Jewish people since their so-called 'emanc.i.p.ation' 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 ma.s.sacres 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 G.o.d, 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 seash.o.r.e, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sages 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. cx.x.xii. II).

"_I have sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations_" (Psa. lx.x.xix. 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. x.x.xiii. 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 G.o.d, for all which it subst.i.tutes 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d with reference to the Church should be accomplished.

But the promises which G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d that the right of the British Sovereign to his ill.u.s.trious throne rests on a firmer basis than the fict.i.tious 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. x.x.xiii. 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d, 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]

Note IV.

THE SO-CALLED HISTORIC PROOFS OF ANGLO-ISRAELISM.

I have stated on page 10 that the so-called Historic Proofs of Anglo-Israelism, by which the theory is supported, are derived from pagan myths and fables. Let the following suffice as a sample:--

"To accomplish this" (_i.e._, that the seed of Abraham should inherit the isles of the west) "some were sent to take possession of the islands long before."

The wrath of man is made to praise Him (Gen. x.x.xvii. 2; l. 15-21), which led to the flight of Danaus, the son of Bela, from _Egyptus_ his brother. Dan is the son of Bilhah and brother of Joseph, who was over all the Egyptians. This was the first secession from Israel. This is probably alluded to in Ezekiel xx. 5-9. Another secession took place (1 Chron. vii. 21-24). A third secession was after the Exodus. When in the Wilderness Num. xiv. 1-4 states that they said, "Let us make a captain." Nehemiah ix. 17 tells us they did so (compare Psa. cvi. 26, 27; Ezek. xx. 21-23).

_Hecatus of Abdera_ (6th century B.C.), quoted by _Diodorus Siculus_ (B.C. 50), i. 27, 46, 55, says:--

"The most distinguished of the expelled foreigners (from Egypt) followed Danaus and Cadmus into Greece; but the greater number were led by Moses into Judaea."

In aeschylus' _Supplicants_ (B.C. 6th century) Danaus and his daughters are represented as a "seed divine," exiles from Egypt, fleeing from their brother Egyptus. Since they feared an unholy alliance, they appear to have pa.s.sed through Syria and perhaps Sidon into Greece.[27]

I will say nothing here about the Scripture references in the first paragraph, but if any intelligent Bible student will look them up he will see that only a perverted fancy can see in them any justification for the theory here propounded. But, as will be noted, the heathen fable about aegyptus and Danaus is here brought into the history of Israel, Danaus being identified as Dan, the son of Bilhah; and aegyptus, I suppose, with Joseph. Now here is the pagan fable, and let the reader judge what connection it has with the history of the sons of Jacob.

aegyptus, who had fifty sons, and Danaus, who had fifty daughters, were twin brothers. Their father, Belus, the son of Poseidon, identified by the Romans with Neptunus, the G.o.d of the Mediterranean Sea, had a.s.signed Libya to Danaus; but, fearing aegyptus, his brother, he fled with his fifty daughters to Argos in Peloponnessus, where he was elected king by the Argives in place of Gelanor, the reigning monarch. Thither, however, he was followed by the fifty sons of aegyptus, who demanded his daughters for their wives. Danaus complied with their request, but gave to each of his daughters a dagger with which to kill their husbands in the bridal night. All the sons of aegyptus were thus murdered, with but one exception. The life of Lynceus was spared by his wife, Hypermnestra, who, according to the legend, afterwards avenged the death of his forty-nine brothers by killing his father-in-law Danaus.

The fifty daughters of Danaus, known as "the Danaides," were punished in Hades for their crime by being compelled everlastingly to pour water into a sieve. Note also that the fable propagated by Manetho that the Jews were _expelled_ from Egypt as lepers, and the legend of Hecataeus, quoted by Diodorus Siculus that, "the most distinguished of these expelled followed Danaus and Cadmus into Greece, but the greater number were led by Moses into Judea," is also accepted as history. Some of these same pagan writers believed that the object of worship in the Holy of Holies was the head of an a.s.s, and other absurdities of the same nature. I wonder if Anglo-Israel "theologians" accept this also as "history."

I may here add that the identification by Anglo-Israel writers of Tea, or Tephi, the heroine of some Irish ballads, with a princess of the royal house of Judah, whom Jeremiah brought to Ireland in one of the ships of Dan, and who married Esincaid, King of Ulster, and so became the ancestress of the royal houses of Ireland and Scotland, and subsequently of England--has just as much "history" for its basis as the identification of Danaus with Dan, or of aegyptus with Joseph.

The value of Irish legends and ballads (upon which the romances of Anglo-Israel writers are largely based), as sources of "history," may be judged from the following introductory statement taken from a standard compendium of the history of Ireland:

"The history of Ireland, like that of almost all ancient countries, 'tracks its parent lake' back into the enchanted realms of legend and romance and fable. It has been said, not untruly, of Ireland that she 'can boast of ancient legends rivalling in beauty and dignity the tales of Attica and Argolis; she has an early history whose web of blended myth and reality is as richly coloured as the record of the rulers of Alba Longa and the story of the Seven Kings.' We cannot now make any effort to get at history in the beautiful myths and stories. We should puzzle our brains in vain to find out whether the Lady Cesair, who came to Ireland before the Deluge with fifty women and three men, has any warrant from genuine tradition, or is a child of fable altogether. We cannot get any hint of the actual truth about Conn of the Hundred Fights, and Fin MacCoul and Oisin. But the impression which does seem to be conveyed clearly enough from all these romances and fables and ballads is that the island was occupied in dim far-off ages by successive invaders who came from the south.

"The Phnicians are said to have represented one wave of invasion and the Greeks another....

"What may be called the authentic history of Ireland begins with the life and career of St. Patrick (5th century)."

Note V.

"THE GATE OF HIS ENEMIES."

One brief note more must be added on a point which all Anglo-Israel writers advance as proof positive in support of their theory. It is the promise that G.o.d made to Abraham, "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." The term "gate" (or "gates" as often mis-quoted) is taken to signify "strait," "port," or strategic maritime position and these writers grow quite eloquent in pointing out the many maritime points of vantage which are in occupation of the British as a fulfilment of this ancient promise to the chosen people.

Thus the writer of "Fifty Reasons" (W. H. Poole, D.D.), with which I have already dealt, asks (page 61) "What nation or people are now the gate-holders of the nations? We hold Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Acre, Suez Ca.n.a.l, Aden, Perim," and many other important maritime points which he enumerates, and concludes triumphantly "_For 500 years Britain has been the gate-holder in the lands of those who hate her_"--a very doubtful compliment this, by the way, to British rule over her acquired possessions.

But like many other Anglo-Israel "proofs" it has no basis in philology or in fact. The word ?????????--Sha'ar ("gate") is used hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible, but _never once_ either literally or figuratively of a maritime "strait" or "port." The "gate" as being not only the entrance to, but as giving control or possession of the oriental (walled) city, often stands for the city itself. It was, moreover, the most public place of the city, where causes were tried and justice administered (Deut. xxi. 19; xxii. 15; Prov. xxii. 22; Amos v. 10-15); and where elders and judges, kings and princes "sat" officially for counsel or often to exercise authority and rule (Dan. ii. 49; Jer. xvii. 19; x.x.xviii. 7).

The promise that Abraham's seed should possess the gate of his enemies is idiomatic figurative language, equivalent to saying that they shall be victorious over their enemies, and take possession of their cities.

This was fulfilled when at the conquest of Canaan the Israelites took possession of the land and thus a.s.sumed the position of lordship over the doomed nations who are spoken of as their "enemies."

We may notice, by way of contrast, that in Jer. i. 14-16 G.o.d threatens that as a punishment on Israel for their sin He would call all the families of the kingdoms of the north, and "they shall set every one his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem," which is equivalent to saying that the Gentiles would possess "the gate" of Israel--which as a matter of fact, they are now permitted to do by treading down Jerusalem and scattering the people until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 23: See 2 Chron. xx. 1-13.]

[Footnote 24: "The Lost Ten Tribes," by Joseph Wild. The Eighteenth Discourse.]

[Footnote 25: See "The Interregnum and After"--the first chapter of my book, "The Ancient Scriptures and the Modern Jew."]

[Footnote 26: One fundamental of the Anglo-Israel theory is that the destinies of Israel and Judah are distinct and separate. Most inconsistent, therefore, is their appropriation of David, the King of Judah, with the promises applying to his royal house _for ever_; their endeavour should rather be to claim, if they can find in Scripture promises made to descendants of Jeroboam's line, or some other King of Israel--with David they can have nothing to do.]