BRITISH-ISRAEL

Southland Times, Issue 22758, 7 December 1935, Page 17

BRITISH-ISRAEL

(By

“Briton.”)

That the mantle of ancient Israel has fallen upon the shoulders of the modern “English” speaking peoples, is a matter that comes before the public with increasing frequency nowadays. Writers of force, either in advocacy or opposition perpetuating a conflict that has engaged the attention of controversialists for a century or more. Counsellor Le Loyer, a french magistrate, 1590, issued a large volume, “The Lost Ten Tribes Found. Le Loyer says: “He has found the Israelites, and that to-day they form the English people.” This extract appeared in the “Petit Parisien” of June 24, 1913. British Israel views had an advocate in Rabbi Maimonides, 1131; John Sadler M.A. and M.P., 1609. In 1671 a pamphlet was issued in Nether Dutch, setting forth that the English people are Israel. In 1672 this pamphlet was published in English. Dean Abbadie,. a . renowned D.D. wrote on the subject in 1723. Lieutenant Richard Brothers wrote in 1793; John Perrot in 1796; Nathaniel Brassey Halket, M.P., in 1796; John Finlayson in 1797; Hamilton in 1806; Dr Thomas Moor, in poem, in 1807; Ralph Wedgewood in 1813; the Rev. John Hartley Freer in 1815; the Rev. B. Murphy in 1810; the Rev. Prebendary Waddilove, M.A., in 1820; Dr Pinnock in 1882. To these worthies, who are cited by Professor Edward Odium M.A. as Champions of British Israel views, must be added the great and ever increasing number of scholarly intelligences which have followed . them since those early days. Thus it is seen that the idea is not merely the growth of a night, and that its sponsors are not few nor insignificant. The promulgation of their views concerning the interpretation of p l^- . phecy and the identification of the people with whom it is chiefly concerned have aroused the strongest opposition, thus provoking and calling into existence a controversy which is positively unique in the annals of any country or people. This controversy is confined entirely to the British Empire and the U.S.A. On one side we have those who declare cmphatically that we are literally and racially God's People Israel, while on the other side we have those who. are equally assertive in their repudiations of such an idea. One side of course must be right and the other wrong. But the issue can only be determined by the logical application of the evidences which the Bible and subsequent secular history provides. Now it is more than singular that there is an expression in Hosea (1 v. 10.) which may be regarded as a prophetical forecast, or anticipation of this particular controversy, and this singularity can only be capped by the fact that just such a vexed question is exercising the minds of those now ranged in opposition to each other. “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people, it shall be said unto them, ye are the sons of the living God.” (Hosea 1 v. 10). I have shown in the course of previous articles on the Covenants, that the prophecies concerning Israel, have their corresponding fulfilments in the British Empire and the United States of America. In such degree as to exclude doubt in the unbiased mind regarding the identification of these modern peoples with Israel. Hitherto I have confined myself to the corroborative evidence of Scripture and history inciting those only which were best calculated to give point to, and illustrations of the argument of the moment. It necessarily follows that the larger number of these evidences remain as yet unused. Hitherto I have relied on the convincing cogency of individual points. But the convincing power of the British-Israel argument rests largely though not entirely, upon the cumulation of its evidential points. How often are we told that the evidences adduced in support of the identification of the British with Israel, are nothing more than coincidences or fortuitous similarities, being in themselves of little worth, and valueless as proofs of our case. This could safely be done if it were a matter - of one or two points of evidence only. But when those points are increased then the chances of them being merely coincidental, diminishes out of all proportions to the numbers added, until for all practical purposes certainty is established.

There is a mathematical process known as the permutation of numbers, the application of which is readily understood. By it we may readily arrive at the number of changes which can be effected in the disposition of four objects, say, in a straight line Ix2x3x4 = 24. Suppose we are given four objects to arrange in a certain order which is not revealed, there are 24 chances against it being done at the first attempt. With such a small number to work on, the right order would soon be obtained. But the addition of another object increases five-fold the number of possible changes, Ix2x3x4xs = 120. Add yet one more object and the chances against us have become 720 to one. If the problem, was to arrange ten objects in a given order, the odds against a first successful attempt would be 3,625,800 to one. Now let us take a step onward and change the terms of the" same problem. Suppose our busy archaeologists turned up a papyrus evidently belonging to the period of three thousand years ago, and the writer of it give fifteen evidential points as to a nation which he averred should rise at a fixed time in ( the future—say the time known as “the latter days”; and that in “the latter days” we stood confronted with a nation bearing those marks complete. Most men would say, “Well, it certainly is a very strange coincidence,” and there leave it. But the man who thinks mathematically would recog-

nize it as the very nation of which the forecast was given in the papyrus, because he would know that the “odds” against such an identity being due to blind chance are hundreds of millions —long odds indeed. Incidentally, he would recognize the writer of it as having been inspired by a higher power, for as much as unaided man is not capable of seeing into the future an inch beyond the end of his nose—that, at least, is the cardinal belief. The casual person does not think much of circumstantial evidence, but it may safely be assumed that no innocent man has ever been hanged on fifteen points of evidence, or ever will "bo. In the foregoing I wish to stress the immense force and ponderability of a cumulation of evidential points—perhaps slight in themselves—bearing on any conclusion. It is not an argumentive factor which can be puffed away like thistledown. The Scripture provides many marks by which we may recognize Israel in these latter days. All of them are found to be characteristic of the English speaking peoples, and of them alone. Let us be modest and cite fifteen only as our space is limited, leaving out the Scripture references for the same reason.

(1) Israel was to become a company of nations, (2) With a separated kindred people to complete the racial structure, as found in the U.S.A. (3) A multitudinous people so much so that there should be (4) Insufficient room m the home land thus compelling colonization. (5) As a necessary protection for those colonies they should possess the “Gate” or gates of their potential enemies. (6) They were to be a maritime people and (7) Have “The heritage of the heathens.” (8) To be an undefeated nation or power (9) A Christian and (10) A missionary people. To them was to be given (11) The “power to get wealth in order that God’s covenants should be established” (12) They were to lend to all nations (13) To be an insular people (14) Dwelling in Islands north and west of Palestine and (15) Become “The Chief of the Nations.” The British and kindred peoples carry all these “birth marks.. The cumulative value of them, speaking in mathematical terms; is as billions, of chances to one in favour of them being modern Israel.