tT 
 
 VCK 
 
 INifiX 
 
 E RETURN TO PALESTINE, 
 
 AND 
 
 HE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 -i-<|e 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 . H. H. Pain, and 'L.T.' & 
 D. Frazer, 
 
 Extending from 
 
 July, 1896 to January, 1897, which appeared in, and is 
 reprinted from 
 
 "THE JEWISH WORLD." 
 
 Published at the Request, and Expense of 
 
 THE BRITISH = ISRAEL ASSOCIATION.
 
 BROMLEY : 
 
 PRINTED BY S. BUSH AND SON, 42, HIGH STREET, 
 BROMLEY, KENT. 

 
 THE RETURN TO PALESTINE. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, I read in last night's Globe an extract from the 
 Jewish World relating to practicability or otherwise, of 
 establishing a Jewish State in Palestine. 
 
 No one doubts and least of all a Stock Exchange man 
 that if it was simply a question of money, that the Holy Land 
 could be run as a financial success by the Chosen People, as 
 represented by the Jews. But after all has been said and 
 written on this interesting topic, from a commercial, financial, or 
 political aspect, no one can get over the fact that the re-settle- 
 ment of Palestine by the Chosen People can only be profitably 
 discussed, by viewing this question from a Scriptural 
 standpoint as laid down by the Old Testament prophets. 
 
 Now whether we are Jews or Christians we can all meet for 
 discussion, on the common ground of a general acceptance of 
 the Old Testament writings, which speak in no uncertain voice 
 as to the conditions of the future return to, and possession of, 
 Israel's promised Inheritance. 
 
 The boundaries of The Land, promised to Abraham and 
 his seed as represented by the twelve tribes of Israel is from 
 the Nile to the Euphrates. Almost the whole of the territory 
 therein included, belongs to the nominal dominions of the 
 Sultan of Turkey. 
 
 The Prophet Ezekiel (in the 36th chapter) predicts, with 
 special reference the future restoration of the Chosen People 
 to their inheritance, and the turning out of its then holders, 
 that the Almighty : " In the fire of his jealousy has spoken 
 against all Edom, who have appointed my land unto themselves 
 for a possession." 
 
 Clearly the people who at the present time, and for 
 centuries past have held the promised land in their possession, 
 are the Ottoman Turks. Obadiah who prophesied after the 
 Lost House of Israel had been carried into the land of 
 Assyria, predicts in terms which have no uncertain application 
 in the light of present day events, that (Turkish) Edom would 
 be " driven out even to the borders " by the various peoples 
 forming her " confederacy." 
 
 This has notably been fulfilled so far as the Turkish 
 possessions in Europe are concerned, for it is a matter of
 
 common knowledge that such States as Roumania, Servia, 
 Bulgaria, etc., etc., have one after another declared their 
 independence, until at the present time there is hardly 
 anything left ot Turkey in Europe. 
 
 The Prophet furthers declares that the house of Esau (or 
 Edom), shall be destroyed by the house of Joseph. 
 
 As one who believes in the Israelitish origin of the British 
 people may I draw your attention, if it has not already been 
 done by previous writers, to the belief that I share with many 
 more of my countrymen, that the blessing of Patriarch Jacob, 
 to his grandsons the sons of Joseph Ephraim and Manasseh 
 that they should respectively become " a nation and a 
 company of nations " and " a great nation," has its fulfilment 
 in Great Britain and her Colonies, and America. 
 
 Grant, for the sake of argument, that this contention is 
 correct, then it is obvious that Great Britain and America are 
 prophetically spoken of by Obadiah, under the collective term 
 of their father's name, as the house of Joseph. 
 
 Balaam predicted that Israel was to take possession of Edom 
 in " the latter days " and " destroy the remnant from the city," 
 i.e., Constantinople. 
 
 Again in the 6oth Psalm we are told that they are to do 
 this alone and unaided, after appealing in vain for help the 
 "isolation" of British Israel. 
 
 Let me draw attention to the rest of the Turkish possessions 
 in Asia and elsewhere, and their position with reference to 
 this country at the present time. It is remarkable that all 
 the remaining territory of the Ottoman Empire is included 
 within the boundaries of the Nile and the Euphrates. At the 
 present time Great Britian, by her occupation of Egypt, is 
 virtually in possession of that country. The re-conquest of 
 Soudan is also in course of progress. Further south, Uganda 
 is ours, while this country claims by its possession of Egypt, 
 the control of the Upper Waters of the Nile. Finally, the 
 British East Africa Territory rounds off our possessions to 
 the Indian Ocean. Thus, one quarter of the Promised Land 
 is already in the possession of British Israel, and acquired 
 without purchase. Truly, in the words of the Prophet Isaiah,. 
 " My people Israel are at hand to come." Our troops " Your 
 valiant men shall be clothed in scarlet " are already 
 quartered in Aden, Suakin, Cairo, etc.
 
 Only quite recently the Sheik ul Islam offered up a prayer, 
 in the Most Holy Place of Mecca, that Arabia might be 
 delivered from the scourge of the Turks, even if in doing so, 
 Mecca and Medina should be taken under the guardianship of 
 England ! 
 
 A few months ago it was within the bounds of possibility 
 judging from the representations of the British and American 
 Ambassadors at Constantinople, that interference would have 
 taken place in Armenia, in response to the popular outburst of 
 indignation in both countries at the horrible atrocities 
 perpetrated by order of the Sultan in that much mis-governed 
 Province of Turkey. Should circumstances at present unfor- 
 seen eventually compel our interference in that Province, we 
 shall thereby gain control of the Upper Waters of the 
 Euphrates, in the same way as we now do those of the Upper 
 Waters of the Nile. 
 
 From the Soudan, Armenia, and Palestine, the one universal 
 cry amongst its most unfortunate inhabitants is, " When are 
 the English coming to deliver us from the scourge of the 
 hated Turks." It is only therefore when the downfall of 
 Turkey has been brought about by England, in accordance 
 with the predictions I have mentioned, that the Promised 
 Land will become a British Colonial possession, and it is then 
 the Jeivs, in company with, but not to the exclusion of, their brethren 
 of the Lost (British) House of Israel, will regain possession of 
 their promised inheritance. 
 
 People may dispute the theory of British Israelism as much 
 as they like, but they cannot get over the fact that we as a 
 Nation, are at the present time in possession of, and actually 
 fulfilling, the promises appertaining to the Chosen People, 
 apart from the Jews, so far as they have been to the present 
 fulfilled. 
 
 In conclusion may I ask, where is the throne and seed of 
 David, and the nation of Israel which was to exist as long as 
 the sun, and the moon and the stars endured ? These promises 
 are not fulfilled in the House of Judah, but they are if my 
 contention is admitted fulfilled in the House of Israel. It is a 
 singular fact that our Royal Family claim descent from David, 
 and that our Royal Arms consist of the Lion of Judah and the 
 Unicorn of Ephraim, with the crowned Lion of David ruling 
 over both. We also " lend money to many nations,"
 
 and never borrow of them, and in many other respects fulfil 
 the promises made to our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and 
 Jacob, 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 H. H. PAIN. 
 The Stock Exchange, July yth, 1896. 
 
 THE RETURN TO PALESTINE. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish Wotld. 
 
 SIR, May I take exception to the statement in your issue 
 of 3ist July, under the heading of " The Anglo-Israelites," 
 that " their latest pamphlets, etc., teem with observations on 
 the near approach, eighteen months hence, of the establish- 
 ment of a Jewish state in Palestine." 
 
 As a founder and member of the British- Israel Association, 
 I should like to be allowed to state, that what we believe is : 
 that when Turkey ceases to hold Palestine, it will become a 
 British colonial possession, by virtue of our Hebrew descent 
 as members of the House of Israel not Judah. No one will 
 dispute that under such condition the Holy Land will become 
 a prosperous country. Business and religious sentiment will 
 combine to bring about such a happy result. Politically and 
 geographically England is in a position to maintain her rule 
 over the country when once it comes into her possession. 
 
 The Jews all over the world, I believe I am right in saying, 
 look to this country for help when they are in trouble, and 
 nowhere do they enjoy such civil and religious freedom as in 
 England and her Colonies. The prophets declare that the Jews 
 are to walk to their brethren of the House of Israel living in 
 the Isles of the Sea N.W. from Palestine, when driven out of 
 other countries by persecution, previous to the return of the 
 two nations or houses as one people. One king is to be king 
 to them all. 
 
 David's throne, and seed, and the nation of Israel, were to 
 last for ever. This will not apply to the Jews, but it does to 
 the House of Israel, if we the British people are identical with 
 them, as I contend on Scriptural grounds we are. The manner 
 of the transfer of the seed of David from the House of Judah 
 to the House of Israel, is detailed in the iyth chapter of
 
 Ezekiel, 22nd to 24th verse. One thing is certain, that if we 
 be Israel, that Her Majesty the Queen, by virtue of her 
 position, must be descended from King David, as indeed she 
 claims to be. The Royal Standard which floats over the Keep 
 of '"Windsor Castle, bears the Royal Lion of Judah. The 
 Royal Arms consist likewise of the crowned Lion representing 
 the Royal Family ; the Supporters are* the Lion of Judah and 
 the Unicorn of Ephraim, the head of the House of Israel, 
 whilst on the Shield is the Harp of David. How do you 
 account for these remarkable coincidences, except on the 
 supposition that we, the British people, are of Israelitish 
 descent. 
 
 All honor to Dr. Herzl for his well-meant efforts on behalf 
 of his oppressed brethren in foreign countries, but with the 
 greatest deference I submit that his well-meant scheme will 
 not meet with any practical success, as neither on prophetical 
 or political grounds, is there any warrant for such hope. I am 
 perfectly well aware that there are numbers of the English 
 clergy and people who pooh-pooh the Anglo- Israel theory, and 
 small wonder if the Jews do so too, but no amount of objection 
 or ridicule will get over the fact that we, as a nation, are doing 
 the work, and fulfilling the destiny, of the children of Israel as 
 foretold by the Prophets. 
 
 That we shall occupy Palestine in ignorance of our origin as 
 the Chosen People, there are Scriptural reasons for believing. 
 Even at the present time we are in occupation of Egypt, the 
 Soudan, Uganda, and British East Africa, which are all 
 within the boundaries of the Promised Land the Nile to the 
 Euphrates in blind pursuit of our destiny. Another proof of 
 our Israelitish origin. The wonder to me is, that people fail 
 to see the connection between prophecy and its fulfilment, 
 when such facts are literally staring them in the face. 
 
 Mr. Shaffer will, in my opinion, very soon " see the flag of 
 Judah once more raised over the ancient Capital," but will he 
 recognise it under the altered conditions ? I hope most 
 sincerely that not only he, but many others of my Jewish 
 brethren will do so ; but according to the Prophet Zechariah 
 that is too much to expect at that early stage of the re-occu- 
 pation of the Holy Land. 
 
 I cannot agree with Mr. Monk's view that " it is by means 
 of the Jews, Christians, and Mahometans (the progeny of 
 Abraham) that all the nations of the earth be blessed," for
 
 8 
 
 that honor is distinctly conveyed to Abraham's elect seed im 
 the line of Isaac and Jacob, or Israel, by whom it was given 
 to the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. The Abra- 
 hamic blessing was so divided that the Sceptre or Chief Ruler 
 came of Judah, but the birthright was Joseph's. It is not to 
 my purpose to show as I could do, that this birthright blessing 
 is enjoyed by Ephraim, in company with all his brethren of 
 the House of Israel not Judah as the head of his father 
 Joseph's house. I merely mention the fact to correct the 
 statement of Mr. Holman Hunt. It is by this elect seed of 
 Abraham that all the nations of the world were to be blessed. 
 It is an admitted fact that wherever the rule of this Empire 
 extends, there prosperity in a commercial, political and 
 religious sense is the rule and not the exception. Of us it may 
 with all humility be said, in the words of the Prophet Isaiah, 
 " All that see them shall acknowledge that they are the seed 
 which the Lord hath blessed," 
 
 Mr. Monk's idea too, of " compensating Turkey by paying 
 the full commercial value of the land of Israel," whilst no 
 doubt prompted by the best of motives, is distinctly at variance 
 with the teaching of Holy Writ, wherein it is promised that it 
 will be given to, and not bought by, the seed of Abraham. It 
 will become ours in the same way we obtained possession of 
 Egypt, etc. the outcome of a political necessity. Anglo- 
 Israelite students of the Bible will see in the accomplishment 
 of this prediction the hand of God, leading His people by a 
 way that they know not. 
 
 Finally, the best answer to the assertion of " L.T." " that 
 the modern Jews are descendants of all the Twelve Tribes," 
 is the fact that the Jews offer up prayer in their Synagogues 
 every week for the recovery and return of their brethren of the 
 House of Israel. Zechariah, who prophesied B.C. 518, over 18 
 years after the Babylonish captivity, speaks of the ten-tribed 
 House of Joseph, as being distinct from that of Judah, which 
 statement and date alone, effectually disposes of the quotations 
 brought forward to prove the contrary. It would, however, be 
 easy on other grounds to disprove the inferences sought to be 
 drawn from the several quotations given by " L. T." 
 
 Thanking you in anticipation for the insertion of this some- 
 what lengthy letter, Believe me, Sir, 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 The Stock Exchange, 5th August, 1896. H. H. PAIN.
 
 The foregoing letter licited the following reply, but under 
 the altered heading of 
 
 YOUR BROTHER ISRAELITE. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SiR,-^Allow me to intrude again on the space ot your 
 valuable paper with the object of telling Mr. H. H. Pain that 
 the Jews do not pray for the return of their brethren of the 
 House of Israel. What they do pray for, is for the return of 
 the House of Israel, under which name they mean themselves 
 and nobody else. In their prayers the Jews style themselves 
 Israel. 
 
 Though Zechariah prophesied about 18 years after the 
 return from the Babylonian captivity, nevertheless, those 
 prophecies which Mr. Pain has probably in mind, refer to a 
 time when Assyria and Egypt strove for the mastery of 
 the ancient world ; at which time the northern tribes had a 
 separate government. But in those prophecies which refer to 
 a time subsequent to the fall of Samaria, the prophet, 
 in speaking of the people ruled from Jerusalem, uses 
 indisciiminately the name of Israel and Judah, as it can be 
 seen from the i2th chapter. Yours obediently, 
 
 L.T. 
 
 YOUR BROTHER ISRAELITE. 
 
 To the -Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, Whilst I fully appreciate the kindly spirit in which 
 " L.T." has noticed my letter to you on the " Return to 
 Palestine," I cannot accept either his correction, or 
 interpretation of the subjects referred to in his letter of last 
 week. 
 
 I am informed by a friend who is a Jew, that the following 
 prayer is offered up in the Synagogue every morning : 
 
 " O Rock of Israel, rise up to the assistance of Israel ; and 
 ransom (as Thou hast said) Judah and Israel. Our Redeemer 
 the Lord of Hosts is His name, the Holy One of Israel. 
 Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hast redeemed Israel." 
 
 Here the two Houses of Judah and Israel are unmistakably 
 mentioned.
 
 IO 
 
 Then again as to Zechariah. In his days the Ten Tribed 
 House of Israel had been carried captive to Assyria some 
 two hundred years previously, and become "wanderers" 
 among the nations, and had not, as " L. T." contends, " a 
 separate government." They had, in fact, become as Hosea 
 predicted they would, " Lo-Ammi," 
 
 " Not My people and I will not be your God." 
 
 They were divorced or cut off from the Mosaic Covenant, and 
 thereby became, like the nations among whom their lot was 
 cast Gentiles. For the distinction in those days between 
 the Chosen People and the Gentiles, was, that one was under 
 the -Mosaic Covenant and the other was not. 
 
 I may briefly observe in connection with this point, that 
 Jeremiah, xxxi. 31-37, foretells that the Lord, 
 " Will majje a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House 
 
 of Judah " ; 
 
 but it is of great importance to notice that in the 33rd verse, 
 where the promise is repeated, that no mention is made of the 
 House of Judah, but only of the House of Israel, the inference being 
 that Israel of the Ten Tribes was to first come under the 
 New Covenant. If the British People be identical with the 
 House of Israel, as I believe, then this is undoubtedly a correct 
 interpretation. 
 
 The 54th chapter of Isaiah shows that the " cast-off wife " 
 (as contrasted with her sister of Judah, who still remains under 
 the Mosaic Covenant) was to be the mother of more children 
 than that of the married wife, whilst Colonial expansion is 
 foreshadowed in the 2nd and 3rd verses, and freedom from 
 their enemies in the concluding portion of the chapter. 
 
 To return to " L.T.'s " contention about Zechariah. The 
 1 2th chapter has not been fulfilled, but awaits its accomplish- 
 ment in the future. It is certain that in the Roman siege of 
 Jerusalem, the Lord did not " save the tents of Judah first " ; 
 on the contrary, they were utterly destroyed. 
 
 If space permitted I could show that the " inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem," upon whom the Jews will, on the future occasion, 
 put their trust, are their brethren of the British House of 
 Israel, but that is beside my present purpose. Zechariah does 
 most certainly draw a marked distinction between the two 
 houses of Israel, e.g. 
 
 " I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house 
 of Joseph."
 
 II 
 Again in the nth chapter, 
 
 "That I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel," 
 a prediction which had its fulfilment at the time of the raising 
 of the Roman siege, when certain Jews who had accepted 
 Christianity made good their escape. These, we Anglo- 
 Israelites believe, were Benjaminite " Jews " of the House of 
 Israel, but who were in political union with the House of Judah 
 for the time being, 
 
 " That David my servant may alway have a lamp before me in Jerusalem."' 
 They belonged, strictly speaking, to the House of Israel, not 
 Judah. These (Benjaminite) Jews, according to Eusebius* 
 escaped to Fella in obedience to the warning contained in 
 Jeremiah vi. i. By accepting Christianity they were 
 naturally ex-communicated by their Jewish brethren, and 
 excluded from the Temple worship, &c. 
 
 " And I took my staff Beauty and cut it asunder, that I might break 
 my covenant (the Mosaic) which I had made with all the peoples." 
 
 " Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break 
 the brotherhood between Judah and Israel." Zech. xi. 10, 14. 
 
 The ultimate result being (chap. xiii. 8, 9) that 
 
 " Two parts therein (Judah and Levi) shall be cut off and die : . . , 
 And I will bring the third part (Benjamin) through the fire, and will 
 refine them as silver is refined, and I will try them as gold is tried ; they 
 shall call on my name, and I will hear them ; I will say, It is nay people ; 
 and they shall say, The Lord is my God." 
 
 These Benjaminites arrived in England as the Normans. 
 
 If any of your readers care to read the arguments on which 
 I lay claim to the distinction of being "your brother Israelite," 
 may I refer them to our official text book, "British-Israel 
 Truth,'" is. (R. Banks and Son). 
 
 In conclusion, may I express to you, Mr. Editor, my heart- 
 felt appreciation of your kindness in permitting me a 
 "Gentile- Hebrew" to enter into a correspondence in your 
 columns on " The Return to Palestine," a subject in which I 
 take a keen interest, as I am justly entitled to do, by virtue of 
 my claim to subscribe myself, 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 
 H. H. PAIN. 
 The Stock Exchange, iyth August, 1896. 
 
 YOUR BROTHER ISRAELITE. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, In my letter of the 315! ult., I brought forward 
 several arguments in support of my statement that the modern
 
 12 
 
 Jews represent all the twelve tribes. Mr. H. H. Pain ignores 
 them all, except those which I base on prophetic utterances. 
 I do not concern myself in the present case with the fulfilment 
 or non-fulfilment of prophecy, but with those historic data 
 which it contains. 
 
 The historical standpoint of Zachariah 9. n, and the 
 allusions they contain clearly point to a time when the 
 Northern Kingdom still existed, that is, to a time antecedent 
 to that of Zachariah by some 200 years. Assyria and Egypt 
 are spoken of as mighty powers, and there is no allusion to 
 Babylon. Tyre and Sidon are still at the height of their 
 prosperity. Gaza has a king of her own. In the time of 
 Zachariah all this had been changed. As regards the prayer 
 Mr. Pain quotes, I do not see how it could prove that the Jews 
 pray for some brethren of theirs. It is clear from the tenor of 
 the prayer that the worshippers mean themselves, under the 
 names of Israel, or Judah and Israel. 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 L. T. 
 
 YOUR BROTHER ISRAELITE. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, May I trespass upon your space once more to reply to 
 *' L. T." The Northern Kingdom of the House of Israel, did 
 not exist in the time of Zechariah, B.C., 520 ; for the simple 
 reason that the people had been carried captive to Assyria by 
 B.C., 721, and " were not a people," by 668, B.C., in accord- 
 ance with the prophecy of Isaiah (chapter vii. 8). 
 
 Until " L. T." recognises the fundamental distinction, "that 
 all Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews," in the 
 same way that " all Kentish men are Englishmen, but not all 
 Englishmen are Kentish men ; " it will be as difficult for him 
 to appreciate the distinction that exists in prophetical passages 
 that apply to the House of Israel, and those that refer to the 
 House of Judah, as it is for me to enter into an argument with 
 him that the Jews do not represent all the Twelve Tribes of 
 Israel. However, I am sorry to add that this confusion of 
 thought exists in the minds of my own clergy and people, 
 quite as much apparently, as it does in that of " L. T." and 
 some of the Jews. 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 The Stock Exchange, 28th August, 1896. H. H. PAIN.
 
 The Correspondence then ceased for a few weeks, when it 
 was renewed by the following letter from Mr. H. H. Pain. 
 
 YOUR BROTHER ISRAELITE. 
 
 Jo the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, Since I had the privilege of being permitted to write 
 letters to your influential paper, I have taken to reading it 
 regularly, and very much pleasure and profit have I derived 
 therefrom. 
 
 I am now induced to seek the favor of admission to your 
 columns once more from reading the Sermon delivered by Dr. 
 Gaster, on the occasion of the opening of the Maida Hill 
 Synagogue. In the course of his remarks the following 
 passage occurs : 
 
 " At the same time show your gratitude to God, for His mercy in 
 that He has caused you to see this day, to open the gates of yet another 
 house of God in this land ; whose gates have been opened wide to 
 receive us, and over whose seas we have crossed like unto the Israelites 
 of old, from persecution to liberty and peace." 
 
 From my former correspondence your readers are doubtless 
 aware that I claim that the British Nation is identical with 
 the Lost House of Israel. For the sake of argument, grant 
 that the claim is correct. Now turn to the 33rd Chapter of 
 Deuteronomy, yth verse, containing the invocation, not blessing 
 of Moses : 
 
 " Hear Lord, the voice of Judah, 
 And bring him in unto his people : 
 Let his hands be sufficient for him ; 
 And thou shalt be an help against his adversaries." 
 The quotation supplies its own commentary in the light of 
 my claim, does it not ? 
 
 Dr. Gaster then refers in terms of gratitude to the reign of 
 Her Majesty the Queen : 
 
 " Unite with the inhabitants of this great Empire to thank Him for 
 the signal grace He has shown to the aged and beloved ruler of this 
 realm, Her Majesty the Queen, who life He has protected and whose 
 rule He has prolonged beyond that of many a king or ruler. Under 
 her bet ign sway liberty and freedom has been ours, and it has been 
 granted to us to share effectively in the duties and privileges incumbent 
 upon the citizens of this land, and to show our loyalty and devotion to 
 our Queen and country. On this day of our rejoicing we think, 
 therefore, of our beloved Queen, and pray to God to lengthen her days 
 in happiness and bliss. May He send His blessing to her and to the 
 whole Royal Family. May He bless the men who stand at the-, 
 head of the Government."
 
 Will my Israelitish Brethren of Judah, call to mind the 
 blessing of our Forefather Jacob : 
 
 " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, 
 Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, 
 Until Shiloh come ; 
 And unto him shall the gathering of the people be." 
 
 As also the prediction of Jeremiah : 
 
 "For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the 
 throne of the house of Israel." 
 
 The Ruler of this mighty Empire upon which the sun never 
 sets, is literally, if my contention is admitted, quite as much 
 the Queen of the Jews, as of the British people. Her Majesty 
 claims descent from King David. Look at the Royal Arms, 
 and can your readers doubt the evidence of their own eyes ? 
 What do these heraldic emblems contain ? The crowned 
 Lion of Judah the Supporters are, the Lion of the House of 
 Judah and the Unicorn represents the House of Israel, whilst 
 the Shield contains the Harp of David. Again I ask : have 
 these no meaning ? 
 
 The articles and correspondence of your widely circulated 
 paper, witness to a widespread desire amongst the Jews to 
 regain possession of Palestine, the home of their forefathers. 
 
 Political events, as I have explained in my previous letters, 
 point conclusively to the breaking up of its present possessor 
 the Ottoman Empire by the hand of British- Israel. 
 
 This will facilitate the accomplishment of the aspirations of 
 the Jewish people, if, as I am fully persuaded will be the case 
 on the disappearance of the Turk from the scene, England 
 takes the Promised Land under her protection. But may not 
 the very fact that the Holy Places will thereby pass under the 
 control of the Gentile (?) English, give rise to a feeling of bitter 
 disappointment to many Jews, and call forth the reproach 
 administered to their forefathers as of old : 
 
 " Son of man, thy (Ezekiel's) brethren, even thy brethren, even the 
 men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel, all of them i.e., the Ten 
 'Tribes are they, unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Jews 
 have said, get ye far from the Lord ; unto us is this land given for a 
 possession." 
 
 Would that I could persuade, not only the Jews, but also 
 my own people, that we are all of one race, by virtue of a 
 common descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then would 
 come to pass the prediction of Isaiah : 
 
 " Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim." 
 
 Again, would that sentiment which I notice invariably runs
 
 15 
 
 throughout all the speeches and writings of the Jews, exist, 
 namely, that they are an alien people, and only dwell among 
 us by sufferance as it were ? But they are not aliens if my 
 claim is correct, as I am prepared to prove it is. 
 
 Do not then ye men of Judah reject the right hand of brother- 
 hood and fellowship when it is held out by an Englishman. 
 Think what my contention means, blood relationship with a 
 free people, who, by the frank admission of Dr. Gaster, admit 
 all Jews " to share effectively in the duties and privileges 
 incumbent upon the citizens of this land." Witness Lord 
 Beaconsfield, and the Lord Mayor-elect of London may he 
 have a successful year of office. 
 
 Whatever difficulties your readers may entertain in admitting 
 my claim that the British people are indeed none other than 
 the lost Ten Tribes of Israel, surely the fact that we, as a 
 nation, are in possession of all the literal blessings promised to 
 our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ought to carry 
 some weight in giving me, in their opinion, the right to sub- 
 scribe myself, as an Englishman, 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 
 The Stock Exchange, H. H. PAIN, 
 
 gth October, 1896. 
 
 The above was replied to by Mr. Frazer in the following 
 letter, and the controversy was then maintained with untiring 
 energy by that gentleman and Mr. Pain, until its close in 
 January, 1897.
 
 i6 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, Your correspondent in your last week's issue on the 
 above subject, like many others of the same school for want of 
 better knowledge of Scripture, claim that the British Nation 
 is identical with the l)st House of Israel, but if he would study 
 more of Moses and less of Hine he would soon see the fallacy 
 of that idea. How does your correspondent square his ideas with 
 the declaration of the Eternal concerning the ten tribes of Israel 
 as recorded in Deut. xxxii. 26 : 
 
 " I said, I would drive them into one corner (and consequently) I would 
 make the remembrance of them to cease from among men." 
 
 This hath really been the case of the ten tribes, whom the 
 King of Assyria cafVied captive to Halah and Habor, by the 
 River Gazan, and of whom we have not to the present day 
 any certain or authentic account as to their real place of 
 abode. Your correspondent calls our attention to that oft 
 mis-translated passage in the 4Qth of Genesis, which has no 
 connection with the British Nation,. or those people claiming to 
 be Christian Israelites, the word H 1 /^, anglicised Shiloh, and 
 which appears thirty-one times in the Hebrew Scriptures, but 
 always as the name of a place, and not once that of an 
 individual, and what can the prediction of Jeremiah : 
 
 " For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the 
 throne of the House of Israel," 
 
 have to do with Queen Victoria, she does not sit upon the 
 throne of David, and she is no more the Queen of the Jews 
 than any other soveieign under whose rule it is the privilege 
 for Jews to reside. As for Her Majesty claiming descent 
 from King David, I am aware that Edward Hine has claimed 
 for her, but he has claimed far too much. Our attention has 
 been called to the Royal Arms, and we are asked if we 
 doubted the evidence of our own eyes, there is nothing in 
 these emblems, though some people may read many things 
 into them that they or any other arms were never meant to 
 convey. And with regard to the Ottoman Empire, we know 
 that many Christians would like to see it broken up, but the 
 religion of Mohammed gets stronger year by year, and has a 
 greater claim upon Abraham than Christianity, which becomes
 
 weaker as education advances. Your correspondent says : 
 " Would that I could persuade, not only the Jews, but also my 
 own people, that we are all of one race, by virtue of a common 
 descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Does he not 
 know that Abraham was only one amongst the millions then 
 existing ; if he had claimed relationship with the Philistines 
 he would have been much nearer the mark ; if he was laying 
 claim to a piece of property with no better title-deed in his 
 possession than he has to put forth for his descent from 
 Abraham, he would never get it. The lost Ten Tribes had 
 the covenant deed sealed in their flesh, which is an 
 everlasting covenant, a title deed not possessed by the above 
 claimants, but even if their ancestors had had that covenant 
 seal in their flesh, their offspring have lost it, and hence all 
 claim to the promised blessing of Israel. 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 
 D. FRAZER. 
 59 & 60, Book Market, 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne, 
 
 i gth October, 1896. 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, I am much obliged to Mr. D. Frazer for noticing my 
 letter which you kindly permitted to appear in your issue of 
 last week. 
 
 In reply thereto, may I tell Mr. Frazer that I have little 
 or no acquaintance with the writings of the late Mr. Hine. I 
 am primarily indebted only to the writings of Pkilo-Israel, 
 Mr. E. W. Bird, an ex-Indian Judge and the leader of our 
 movement, for my knowledge of the theory of Anglo- 
 Israelism. I am, however, well versed in the writings of 
 Moses and the Prophets and from the instruction which I have 
 derived, from a frequent study of them, I venture to reply to 
 the criticisms of your correspondent. 
 
 I admit that the passage contained in Deut. 32. 26 : 
 <( I said I would scatter them afar, I would make the remembrance of them 
 
 to cease from among men," 
 
 is applicable to my people of the Lost House of Israel, and 
 also that they were, " carried captive to Halah and Habor by
 
 i8 
 
 the River Gozan," but I cannot acquiesce in the statement of 
 Mr. Frazer that, "we have not to the present day any certain 
 or authentic account as to their real place of abode." Esdras, 
 Book 2. Chapter 13. 40-46 gives an account of the Ten Tribes 
 crossing the narrow passages of the Euphrates, and after a long 
 journey of a year and a half arriving at a region called Arsareth, 
 which place we believe to be identical with the City of 
 Arsareth, on the River Sereth, a tributary of the Danube, 
 which flows into the Black Sea. In proof of this statement I 
 may mention that tombstones have been discovered in the 
 Crimea which are at present placed in the Museum at St. 
 Petersburg, one of which bears the following inscription : 
 
 " This is the tombstone of Buki, the son of Iszhak the 
 Priest. May his rest be in Eden at the time of the salvation 
 of Israel. In the year 702 of the years of our exile "=A.D. 6). 
 
 This could not possibly refer to the House of Judah or the 
 Jews, as they were at that time in Palestine, it must therefore 
 refer to the House of Israel of the Ten Tribes. Further, it is 
 evident that in order to have crossed over " the narrow 
 passages of the Euphrates " they must have taken a north- 
 westerly direction. 
 
 From Arsareth they passed into the British Isles under the 
 various names of Danes, Saxons, Normans, &c., and are now 
 known as the British people. 
 
 The Prophets declare that they were to be found in the 
 " Isles of the Sea," " North-west" from Palestine, " a multi- 
 tudinous people," " lending money to any nations," &c., (vide 
 Jer. 3. 12, Isaiah 49. 12, 24. 15, Hosea i. 10, Deut. 15. 6). 
 
 Mr. Fiazer alludes to the mis-translation of Gen. 49. 10., 
 which he says, "has no connection with the British nation, or 
 those people claiming to be Christian Israelites, the (Hebrew) 
 word anglicised Sinloh, always applies to a place, and not once to 
 that of an individual." My answer to this objection is, that I 
 never applied the passage to the British nation but to the Royal 
 Family, who must, by virtue of their position, wherever they 
 reign over Israel, be descended from Judah. Whether Shiloh 
 refers to a place or to the Messiah, as some people think, does 
 not effect my argument, as this blessing in any case refers to 
 Judah and his descendants, who were to possess the sceptre, 
 and to no one else. 
 
 Mr. Frazer asks " What can the prediction of Jeremiah (for 
 thus said the Lord. " David shall never want a man to sit upon
 
 19 
 
 the throne of the House of Israel " have to do with Queen 
 Victoria ? She does not sit upon the throne of David, and she 
 is no more the Queen of the Jews than any other sovereign 
 under whose rule it is the privilege for Jews to reside." Ib is 
 here that I again join issue with your correspondent. Mr. 
 Frazer indulges in objections without giving reasons ; I, on the 
 other hand, ask for a reasonable answer to a reasonable 
 question. Where is the everlasting throne of David ? It is as 
 certain as the Bible is true, that the Royal Family, in 
 accordance with the promise declared by Nathan (2 Samuel 7.. 
 10-17) and repeated again by Jeremiah (chap. 33) on the very 
 eve of the apparent destruction of the Royal Family in the 
 person of Zedekiah, that some representative of the seed of 
 David must be reigning over the House of Israel, which House, 
 too, must also exist as a nation at the present time, in common 
 with the ordinances of- heaven, to which a comparison was 
 made, and which are likewise in existence at the present day. 
 Again I ask, where is the throne and seed of David ? It is 
 very certain it does not exist over the House of Judah or the 
 Jews, but if my argument is correct that the British nation is 
 identical with the lost House of Israel, then the prophecy is 
 fulfilled by the fact that Her Majesty the Queen, who, by 
 virtue of her Davidic descent to which she lays claim is at 
 present reigning over the House of Israel, and the promise is. 
 made good. As an Englishman, I am conceited enough to 
 declare that I should have thought Mr. Frazer would have 
 been delighted to welcome such a suggestion, instead of 
 repudiating it. 
 
 I may add that I drew attention to the Arms of our Royal 
 Family as a curious confirmation of the fact of her claim to be 
 descended from King David, and by virtue of which I again 
 assert that Her Majesty is as much the Queen of the Jews as 
 of the British people. 
 
 As a Christian, and a humanitarian, I shall most certainly 
 be delighted to see the Ottoman Empire broken up, and the 
 sooner the better ; though I cannot accept Mr. Frazer's truly 
 surprising assertion, " that the religion of Mohammed gets 
 stronger year by year, and has a greater claim upon Abraham 
 than Christianity, which becomes weaker as education 
 advances " ; but as that is merely a matter of opinion, which 
 every man has a right to express, I need not discuss it, more- 
 over, it does not affect the subject matter under discussion.
 
 20 
 
 What Mr. Frazer intends to convey by his remark, " that 
 Abraham was only one amongst the millions then existing," 
 I am at a loss to understand ; but when he makes the 
 startling assertion that " if I am laying claim to a piece of 
 property with no better title in my possession than I have put 
 forth for my descent from Abraham, I would never get it," I 
 am fairly struck dumb with amazement ! On what other 
 ground, I should like to ask, can any part of the Chosen 
 People, whether they belong to the House of Judah, or the 
 House of Israel, lay claim to, and expect ultimately to come 
 into possession of, either the Holy Land or the Promised 
 Land, except on the promise made to our Forefather Abraham 
 and his seed, in the elect line of Isaac, Jacob and the Children 
 of Israel ? Surely if anyone needs to study Moses and the 
 Prophets it is Mr. Frazer, and not I ! 
 
 Finally your correspondent states that, "the lost Ten Tribes 
 had the covenant deed sealed in their flesh, which is an ever- 
 lasting covenant, a title deed not possessed by the above 
 claimants, but even if their ancestors had had that covenant 
 sealed in their flesh, their offspring have lost it, and hence all 
 claim to the promised blessing of Israel." I thank him for 
 the admission, whilst denying his conclusion, as it is a strong 
 argument in support of my case. We are told by Hosea 
 (chap, i.) that the House of Israel was to be divorced from the 
 Mosaic Covenant and become " Lo-ammi," "not my 
 people," whilst the Jews were to have " mercy " shown them, 
 which they experienced by a return from the Babylonian 
 captivity ; the latter were never divorced, but remain under 
 the Mosaic covenant to the present day. The House of 
 Israel, on the other hand, we are further informed by Hosea, 
 were to be as " Jezreel," i.e., " I will scatter," and then to 
 become like the people amongst whom they were cast 
 " Gentiles," a distinction which implied that they were not 
 under the Mosaic Covenant like the Jews ; and that they had also 
 lost the rite of circumcision. The Prophets Isaiah (chap. 54.) 
 and Hosea (chap. 2.) declare that the House of Israel was to 
 be " allured into the wilderness," " spoken comfortably to," 
 " re-betrothed in righteousness," " to call her Maker ' Ishi,' " 
 i.e., husband ; and that in this new condition, prev ious to the 
 return of the people (Jezreel), accompanied with their brethren 
 of Judah, they were to become " as the sand of the sea," and 
 a spreading, colonizing people.
 
 21 
 
 Jeremiah also predicts : 
 
 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
 
 covenant with the House of Israel, after those days ; I will 
 
 put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it ; 
 
 for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will 
 
 I remember no more." (Chapter xxxi. 31-34). 
 
 From the fact that the House of Israel in the repetition of this 
 promise, is mentioned alone, and not in conjunction with the 
 House of Judah, as in the preceding 32nd verse, it is a fair 
 inference that the House of Israel would come under the new 
 covenant before the House of Judah. This accounts for the 
 British Nation of Israel being Christians, whilst the Jews 
 remain under the Mosaic Covenant ; the latter bear the rite of 
 circumcision in their flesh, whilst we British Christian 
 Israelites bear it in our hearts. 
 
 I trust that my explanation will constitute a further claim, 
 not only upon Mr. Frazer, but also upon the vast number of 
 your Jewish readers, in securing the admission from them that 
 I have the right, as an Englishman, to again subscribe 
 myself 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 
 The Stock Exchange, H. H. PAIN. 
 
 26th October, 1896. 
 
 The following observations from Mr. Macphail, also, like Mr. 
 Pain, an Anglo- Israelite, appeared in the same issue of the "Jewish 
 World " as the above letter. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, In replying to a correspondent, who believes in the 
 British Nation being identical with the lost House of Israel,. 
 Mr. D. Frazer, in last week's issue says that the word Shiloh r 
 mentioned in the 49th of Genesis, is the name of a place and 
 not that of an individual, is to my mind, and reading, perfectly 
 correct. Much has been said and written on the subject of 
 " Until Shiloh come," and many of your readers will recollect 
 the interesting discussion we had in your valued journal 14 
 years ago on the topic. Unfortunately the correspondence 
 ceased rather abruptly at that time, or otherwise I would have 
 developed the argument, and probably have brought to light a 
 beautiful and cogent truth. Later on I may have the privilege 
 and pleasure to expound this interesting subject to your 
 readers.
 
 2 '2 
 
 Meanwhile, I will content myself by touching upon one 
 other point in Mr. Frazer's letter wherein he says, " For want 
 of better knowledge of Scripture the aforesaid correspondent 
 like many others of the same school " claim that, the British 
 Nation is identical with lost House of Israel, but if he would 
 study more of Moses and less of Hine, he would see the fallacy 
 of that idea." Well, if a conversion is ever to take place, it 
 will never come through Mr. Frazer's feeble attempt at Scrip- 
 ture exposition. To tell us that the Eternal would make the 
 remembrance of them (ten-tribed Israel) cease from among 
 men, and that ' ; this hath really been the case of the ten tribes,'' 
 is to exhibit a superficial acquaintance with Moses. If Mr. 
 Frazer will carefully read the whole of Moses' song in that 
 32nd chapter of Deuteronomy, he will see therein an effusion 
 of curses and blessings peculiarly intermingled. For while the 
 Eternal says " I would drive them into corners," not " into 
 one corner," as Mr. Frazer has it, and "make the remembrance 
 of them to cease from among men." He further on says 
 "He will be merciful unto His land and to His people (Ver. 43. 
 National curses and punishments pronounced against Israel 
 and Judah are limited in their duration, and cease with national 
 obedience and repentance. 
 
 Does Mr. Frazer look forward with hope to the " promised 
 blessing of Israel " that he speaks of? Does he really expect 
 a new and blessed era to dawn upon the Jews at the long- 
 looked-for Scripturally-promised Restoration ? If so, then 
 permit me to tell him that that event will never nationally take 
 place until Judah discovers and acknowledges Ten-Tribed 
 Israel. A partial return of Jews to their own land will 
 assuredly take place, but the blessing will only accompany 
 the national restoration. Innumerable Scripture passages can 
 be quoted to prove this. 
 
 If Mr. Frazer wishes to grasp the truth, let him study Moses 
 in conjunction with the Prophets, and then, and not until then, 
 will the scales fall off his eyes, and Light from the Eternal 
 gleam into his mind, which can produce a faith and hope that 
 will be unassailable. 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 
 ALEXANDER MACPHAIL. 
 October 27th, 1896.
 
 2 3 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, Your correspondent, Mr. Pain, said in your last 
 week's issue that he has little or no acquaintance with the 
 writings of Edward Hine, but is indebted to the writings of 
 Philo-Israel, Mr. E. W. Bird, an ex-Indian Judge. But was 
 Mr. Hine not the first promulgator of the theory of the British 
 people with the " Lost House of Israel." We have heard 
 very little of that gentleman since his " three nights debate 
 with Mr. Roberts, of Birmingham," on the above subject. 
 Both your correspondents, Mr. Pain and Mr. Macphail, object 
 to my statement with regard to Deut. xxxii. 26 : "I said I 
 would drive them into one corner (and consequently) I would 
 make the remembrance of them to cease from among men, &c." 
 I find I have the support of such great scholars as David 
 Levi in his "Lingua Sacra, and his Dissertations on the 
 Prophecies of the Old Testament," and Manasseh Ben Israel 
 in his " Conciliator" who says, " From the captivity of the Ten 
 Tribes to the present time, the Hebrews are indiscriminately 
 called D'H'irP Jews as if all were of the tribe of Judah." It is 
 worthy of notice that the Ten Tribes were carried to Lahlach 
 and Habor by Shalmanessei, in order that they might occupy 
 one portion of the country, each tribe still governing itself ; 
 which is confirmed by Benjamin of Tudela and others, who 
 state that the distinction of the tribes was still kept up, but in 
 this Roman and Agavene Captivity of the two tribes, with 
 some of the Priests and Levites, except a few of the nobles 
 who are known to be descendants of the House of David, as 
 the Jahias, Abarbanels, and others, the common people are so 
 intermixed that no one can positively say to which tribe he 
 belongs." Hence it may truly be said that their remembrance 
 has ceased from among men. 
 
 Mr. Pain says the Ten Tribes passed into the British Isles 
 under the various names of Danes, Saxons, Normans, &c., but 
 he gave us no proof to substantiate his assertion, what was 
 the religion of these, and have they changed at all since, and 
 who is it that is lending money to the various nations. Your 
 correspondents may tell us that they are members of the "Lost 
 House of Israel." Yes, but professing Judaism ! 
 
 Mr. Pain says I indulge in objections without giving reasons. 
 I said that Queen Victoria does not sit upon the throne of
 
 24 
 
 David, and she is no more the Queen of the Jews than any 
 other Sovereign under whose rule it is the privilege for Jews 
 to reside ; against this he asks " Where is the everlasting 
 throne of David." My answeris, it is not in England. "And 
 the twelve tribes were scattered over the face of the earth as 
 the messengers of God carrying forth His Holy Law to the 
 people." But when did Her Majesty the Queen of England 
 lay claim to her descent from King David and where is the 
 proof ? 
 
 Mr. Pain said he would be delighted to see the Ottoman 
 Empire broken up, but there is very little humanity in that. 
 The Jews need not share that opinion for they have been as 
 well treated there as in any other kingdom of the Gentiles, 
 and he will, perhaps, be more surprised when I give him my 
 authority for the advance of the religion of Mohammed which 
 he calls in question. The late Emanuel Deutsch, Assistant 
 Librarian to the British Museum in an article on Islam in the 
 Quarterly Review for October, 1869, says, " Few religions have 
 been founded in plain day like Islam, which now counts its 
 believers by more than a hundred millions and which enlarges 
 its domains from day to day. unaided. Most clearly and 
 sharply does Mohammed stand out against the horizon of 
 history." And according to an estimate made by Hassel there 
 were Christians of all denominations 120 millions, Moham- 
 medans 250 millions," National Encyclopaedia, 1886. So you 
 see that the statement I made is fully made out. And if 
 Christianity was placed on the same footing as Mohammed- 
 anism it would die a natural death as it takes thousands of 
 pounds annually to keep it alive. 
 
 Mr. Pain says that he was struck dumb with amazement at my 
 telling him that if he was laying claim to a piece of property 
 with no better title deed in his possession than what he has 
 put forth for his descent from Abraham, he would never get 
 it. Yet he has not made good his claim, he must remember 
 that Abraham was the only acknowledged servant of God 
 amongst the millions of human beings then existing it is 
 evident that Mr. Pain and Co. are the descendants of the 
 idolaters contemporary with Abraham, and to prove that as 
 such they have no claim upon the promises of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob, it is said in Genesis, xvii. 9-14 : 
 " And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep My Covenant, therefore 
 thou, and thy seed after thee, throughout their generations.
 
 25 
 
 " This is My Covenant, which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy 
 
 seed after thee : every male of you shall be circumcised. 
 " And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; And it shall be 
 
 for a sign of the Covenant between Me and you. 
 
 " And at the age of eight days shall every male of you be circumcised 
 throughout your generations, he that is born in the house or bought 
 with thy money must needs be circumcised. 
 
 " And My Covenant shall be in your flesh for a Covenant for ever. 
 "And the uncircumcised male who doth not circumcise the flesh of his- 
 
 foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people." 
 The above is the title deed to the promised blessings, and 
 Mr. O. J. Simon in an articie on " The Mission of Judaism," 
 in the Fortnightly Review for October, says, " The man whose 
 grandfather was a Jew, but whose parents were detached from 
 the Jewish religion, is only called a Jew by violent anti- 
 Semites. He has no more title to the name than the grand- 
 son of a Quaker has to that name, when neither his parents 
 nor himself are members of the Society of Friends. . . And 
 as the religion of the whole House of Israel was one and the 
 same from Abraham till after their dispersion, when the tribes 
 became so intermixed by marriage, up to the present." 
 
 Where does Mr. Pain get his information from, that Israel 
 was to be divorced from the Mosaic Covenant ; it is not in 
 Hosea i. He only shows us that Israel had lapsed into idolatry 
 of which they were forewarned, Leviticus xxvi. But Hosea 
 tells us that Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God 
 and David their King, and shall fear the Lord and his good- 
 ness in the latter days, chapter iii., 4, 5. That is those Israel- 
 ites who have apostatised, will return to their former religion, 
 but Israel never lost the rite of circumcision, for the decree 
 had gone forth from God that it was an everlasting covenant, 
 and no ex-judge can revoke it, And in proof that the twelve 
 tribes have been intermixed since the close of the Babylon 
 Captivity or shortly after, though scattered amongst the 
 different nations, see Ezekiel xxxvii. 21-22 : 
 
 "Thus saith the Eternal God; behold I will take the Children of Israel 
 from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather 
 them on every side, and bring them into their own land ; 
 " And I will make them one nation in the land upon the Mountains of 
 Israel ; and one King shall be King to them all : And they shall be 
 no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two king- 
 doms any more at all." 
 
 At that time God will write His law in their hearts, not on 
 tables of stone as in the days of Moses. But how could that 
 be if the ten tribes were Christians, and the other two Jews.
 
 26 
 
 Where is the circumcision of the heart commanded ? And if 
 the Israelites came into the British Isles under the various 
 names of Danes, Saxons, Normans, &c.,is the following promise 
 applicable to them : " No weapon that is formed against thee 
 shall prosper." Isaiah liv. 17. 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 3rd November, 1896. D. FRAZER. 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, Indisposition and absence from home have prevented 
 my replying before to Mr. Frazer's letter of the 3rd November. 
 
 Your correspondent is the most illogical reasoner I ever 
 came across. What the fact of my being primarily indebted 
 to Philo-Israel E. W. Bird, Esq. the leader of the Anglo- 
 Israel movement, for my knowledge of this theory, has to do 
 with Mr. Hine being " the first promulgator of the theory 
 of the British people with the Lost House of Israel,'' I am at 
 a loss to conceive. 
 
 Deut. xxxii. 26, does not say " 1 said I would drive them 
 into a comer," the rendering as in my Bible, the Revised 
 Version, reads thus : 
 
 " I said I would scatter -them afar, I would make the remeinbrauce of 
 
 them to cease from amoug men." 
 
 Will Mr. Frazer have the hardihood to say that this passage 
 applies to the Jews, w 7 hom everyone knows in whatever land 
 they dwell ? Does it not rather aptly describe the fate of the 
 Ten Tribes, as is evident from the fact that their whereabouts 
 is, and has been for centuries past, a matter of speculation, not 
 only to the Jews, but to Christians as well ? 
 
 Your correspondent quotes learned Jewish scholars in 
 support of his contention that " From the captivity of the Ten 
 Tribes to the present time the Hebrews are indiscriminately 
 called Jews, as if all were of the Tribe of Judah." I will go 
 further, and tell him that most of the great scholars of the 
 Christian Church do the same thing. It is precisely this want 
 of discrimination that we Anglo-Israelites so much object to. It 
 is the cause to which we attribute all the difficulties of 
 Scriptural interpretation of our opponents. Until the funda- 
 mental distinction is recognised that " all Jews are Israelites,
 
 2 7 
 
 but not all Israelites are Jews," it is hopeless either for Mr. 
 Frazer or anyone else to expect to understand the Old 
 Testament prophecies. 
 
 It would occupy more of your space than I have a right to 
 expect to enumerate the various proofs which go to connect 
 " the Danes, Saxons and Normans with the lost Ten Tribes of 
 Israel." Suffice it to say that both Isaiah and Jeremiah 
 declare that they are to be found in the Isles of the Sea, 
 north-west from Palestine, as the following references will 
 prove. (Jeremiah 3. 12 ; Isaiah 49. 12 and 24. 15.) They are 
 not to " profess Judaism," but are to be found under the New 
 Covenant, as I will explain later on. 
 
 With reference to the article on Islam in the Quavtevly 
 Review for October, 1869, I do not dispute the facts therein 
 stated as quoted by Mr. Frazer, but only his inference therefrom. 
 
 Your correspondent's assertion that I " must remember that 
 Abraham was the only acknowledged servant of God amongst 
 the millions of human beings then existing, it is evident that 
 Mr. Pain and Co. are the descendants of the idolaters 
 contemporary with Abraham," is very amusing, but I failed to 
 understand either the drift of the remark, or how he arrives at 
 such a curious and uncomplimentary conclusion. 
 
 The Abrahamic Covenant " is the title-deed to the promised 
 blessings," but I ask Mr. Frazer to give me a plain answer to 
 a plain question : Have the Jews at the present, or in any time 
 past, ever enjoyed one of them ? if so, will he kindly state 
 them in detail. 
 
 It would be unfair for me to assume from the article of 
 Mr. O. J. Simon on the " Mission of Judaism" unless I had 
 an opportunity of reading the context that that gentleman 
 intends to convey, what I presume Mr. Frazer implies by his 
 insertion of an extract therefrom, that anyone, be he Jew or 
 Gentile, who changes his faith, thereby changes his race or 
 nationality. The proposition is too absurd to need discussion. 
 
 Your correspondent asks " Where does Mr. Pain get his 
 information from that Israel was to be divorced from the 
 Mosaic Covenant ; it is not in Hosea i." Mr. Frazer must be 
 a very superficial reader of the chapter in question to arrive at 
 such an erroneous conclusion. The House of Israel of the 
 Ten Tribes is therein figuratively dealt with under the type of 
 an unfaithful wife. In verse 4 she is called " Jezreel : " 
 " For I will cause the Kingdom of the House of Israel to cease."
 
 28 
 
 A prediction which had its fulfilment in B.C. 680, according 
 to Isaiah 7. 8 9. 
 
 Verse g : ^, 
 
 " Lo-Arnmi, (i.e. not rny people) and I will not be your God." 
 
 That is, they became like the people amongst whom they 
 were cast Gentiles. A distinction which implied that they 
 did not remain under the Mosaic Covenant, from which they 
 had been divorced, in contrast to their brethren of the House of 
 Judah, upon whom the Almighty shewed His "mercy" (verse 7) 
 by allowing them to return from the Babylonian captivity. It 
 is stated in verse 1 1 that after the Ten Tribes became Lo-ammi, 
 not my people, but before the return of the two Houses to the 
 land of their inheritance takes place, that " the number of the 
 Children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea," a prediction 
 as obviously inapplicable to the Jews, who are few in number, 
 as it is applicable to the innumerable population of the British 
 Empire. Hosea in the 2nd chapter speaks of this divorcement 
 and reconciliation of the House of Israel, as distinguished from 
 the House of Judah, in the following passages : 
 
 Verse 2. " Plead with your mother, plead ; for she is not my wife> 
 neither am I her husband." 
 
 The succeeding verses shew that on repentance : 
 
 (7) " Then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband." 
 
 (16) " And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call 
 me Ishi : " (i.e. my husband.) 
 
 (19) " And I will betroth thee unto me for ever." 
 
 (23) " And I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy : 
 and I will say unto them which were not my people, Thou 
 art rny people ; and they shall say, Thou art my God." 
 
 Parenthetically, I may observe that chapter iii. refers to the 
 House of Judah. 
 
 Isaiah in chapter 1. asks : 
 
 " Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement?" 
 And in chapter liv. the prophet declares : 
 " For Thy Maker is thine husband : " 
 " For the Lord hath called thee as a wife forsaken . . . even a wife 
 
 of youth, when she is cast off, saith thy God." 
 
 " For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I 
 gather thee." 
 
 The reconciliation having taken place, the prophet then goes 
 on to declare : 
 
 " Sing, barren, that thou didst not bear ... for more are the 
 children of the desolate " (an indirect allusion to Rachel, the 
 mother of Joseph, the head of the House of British-Israel) 
 "than the children of the married wife " (Judah).
 
 2 9 
 
 *' For thou shalt spread abroad on the right hand and on the left ; and 
 thy seed shall possess the nations (i.e. colonial expansion) and 
 make the desolate cities (of Palestine in the near future) to be 
 inhabited." 
 
 It is logically certain that the numerous populous nation of 
 the House of Israel, whether identified with the British 
 Nation, as I am firmly convinced is the case, or with any other 
 nation that Mr. Frazer in his choice may think fit to select, 
 must have come under the New Covenant, from the fact that 
 the Jews are the only people in the world who, outside of the 
 Ten Tribed House of Israel, in the past, or the Gentiles in the 
 present, have been, or remain, under, the Mosaic Covenant. 
 
 The Prophet Jeremiah confirms this statement, for it is 
 recorded in chapter xxxiii. 
 
 "Behold the days come,saith the Lord, that I will make anew covenant 
 with the House of Judah not according to the covenant that I made with 
 their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out 
 -of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they break, although I was an 
 husband unto them, saith the Lord. 
 
 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the House of Israel 
 >(no mention here be it noted of the House of Judah, inferentially proving 
 that the former was to come under it first) I will put My law in 
 their inwards parts, and in their hearts will I write it." 
 
 Finally, the Prophet declares : 
 
 "If these ordinances (of the sun, moon, and stars) saith the Lord, depart 
 from before Me, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation 
 before Me for ever." 
 
 That nation, therefore as the Bible is true must be in 
 existence at the present time. The Jews are not a nation, 
 they have no land, and no king descended from David reigning 
 over them. I maintain and I have given Scripture quota- 
 tions in support of my contention that the British nation are 
 in possession of the Abrahamic blessings, and are fulfilling the 
 destiny predicted by the Lost House of Israel ; therefore they 
 must be the nation of Israel spoken of by the Old Testament 
 Prophets. Further, Her Majesty the Queen, by virtue of her 
 position, must be descended from David, and the Royal Arms 
 are a silent testimony to that fact. Mr. Frazer meets my 
 statements by a blank assertion that " the everlasting throne 
 of David is not in England." Will he be kind enough to tell 
 me where it is, for I do not presume that he will dispute the 
 promise given to David, by the mouth of the Prophet Nathan, 
 and reiterated by Jeremiah, on theeve of the apparent extinction 
 of the Royal family, remains unfulfilled ? The quotation of 
 Ezekiel 37. 21-22 is misapplied to this question, for I do not
 
 3 
 
 dispute that at the time of the second and final re-union of the 
 House of Judah and of the House of Israel, and their return 
 to the land, i.e., Palestine, that there "one king shall be king 
 to them all," but what I do ask is what, in the meantime, 
 has become of the seed and throne of David since Zedekiah's 
 death in 588 B.C. ? 
 
 Finally Mr. Frazer asks "If the Israelites came into the 
 British under the various names of Danes, Saxons, Normans, 
 &c., is the following promise applicable to them : 'No weapon 
 that is formed against thee shall prosper,' Isaiah liv. 17." My 
 answer is yes emphatically yes for under these names we 
 have the tribes of Israel coming to their destined home in the 
 Isles of the West, as prophetically foretold by Ezekiel in his 
 " vision of the valley of dry bones," which the Prophet 
 expressly declares " are the whole House of Israel " not 
 Judah coming together " bone to his bone," previous to the 
 union of the two Houses under the similitude of " two sticks," 
 when they will become "one nation under one King." It must 
 be obvious to anyone who has the most superficial acquaintance 
 with the history of the British Empire, that to us as a nation, 
 the words of the Prophet Isaiah are literally true, "no weapon 
 that is formed against thee shall prosper." 
 
 I must apologise for the length of this letter, but I would 
 ask that you Mr. Editor, your readers, and also Mr. Frazer, 
 to kindly remember that I am fighting for the honour of my 
 Abrahamic birthright, and the consequent privilege to sub- 
 scribe myself, 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 The Stock Exchange, H. H. PAIN. 
 
 Nov. r6th, 1896. 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, I am not surprised to hear that I am the most illogical 
 reasoner that Mr. Pain has had to contend with. He is not 
 satisfied with my rendering of Deut. xxxii. 26, although I gave 
 as authorities for it such erudite scholars and authors as David 
 Levi and Manasseh Ben Israel. I will add to them another 
 of no mean standing. J. Jahn, D.D., a Christian divine, 
 speaking of the return from the Babylonian captivity says :
 
 3' 
 
 " As the invitation of Cyrus to build the temple at Jerusalem 
 was directed to all the people of Jehovah, and proclaimed 
 throughout the Persian Empire, undoubtedly not a few of the 
 Ten Tribes returned to Palestine. . . . However this 
 may be, it is highly probable that most of the Israelites 
 returned early, when they heard of the prosperity of their 
 brethren in Palestine. But whether their return was early or 
 late, it is certain that they did actually return, for the 
 history of later periods mentions Israelites as settled in Galilee 
 and Perea, long before the time of Christ, Mace. ix. 24 ; but 
 connecting themselves with the Tribe of Judah, they finally 
 lost the name of Israelites, and all Hebrews were called 
 Jews." 
 
 " But since many of the tribe of Judah chose to remain in 
 the land of exile, it is reasonable to suppose that still greater 
 numbers of the Israelites who had lived in those countries two 
 hundred years longer, would have little inclination to exchange 
 the happiness they there enjoyed for the prospect ofan uncertain 
 good in Palestine. But as the jealousy between Judah and 
 Israel had now ceased, according to the predictions of the 
 Prophets, those Israelites also remained in exile, joined them- 
 selves to the tribe of Judah, which was in possession of the 
 Temple, and consequently they too received the denomination 
 of Jews. All questions, therefore, and investigation for 
 the purpose of ascertaining what has become of the Ten 
 Tribes, and whether it is likely they will ever be discovered, 
 are superfluous and idle." (Hebrew Commonwealth pp. 65-6). 
 Though such profound Hebrew scholars, their authority is 
 called in question, the Anglo- Israelites are the only reliable 
 authorities, if even they do not know the 3"i$- 
 
 It is quit evident from good authority that the Twelve 
 Tribes are so mingled by inter-marriage, that it may be truly 
 said, that the remembrance of them has ceased from among 
 men, that with few exceptions none can tell to what tribe he 
 belongs ; as is further demonstrated by Manesseh Ben Israel. 
 " R. Judah ben Levi says his father was of the tribe of Judah 
 and his mother of Benjamin, as the tribes were accustomed to 
 intermarry ; for we find David who was of the tribe of Judah, 
 married Michal, the daughter of Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, 
 Ahimaaz, of the tribe of Naphthali, married the daughter of King 
 Solomon (i Kings iv. 15), Jehoiadah, the high priest, a descend- 
 ant of Levi, married Jehosheba, daughter of Joram, King of
 
 3 2 
 
 Judah (2 Chron. xxii. u), the remainder of the tribe of 
 Benjamin intermarried with the others. That such marriages 
 were always lawful, holy scripture proves, as it plainly says, 
 '" And the priest's daughter when married to a strange man 
 (Levit. xxii. 12), that is, of another tribe." (Conciliator vol. 
 2, p- 235). 
 
 The Abrahamic Covenant or title deeds to the promised 
 blessings. We cannot separate the Mosaic Covenant from 
 the Abrahamic Covenant, and in this the Scriptures are the 
 surest guide : (i) On the Passover it says, " It shall be an 
 ordinance to your generations for ever" (Exodus xii. 17.) 
 (2) Circumcision, God told Abraham that it was to be an 
 everlasting Covenant, " Thou shalt keep my Covenant there- 
 fore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations " 
 (Genesis xvii. 9). (3) The Sabbath, " Wherefore the Children 
 of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, &c., throughout their gener- 
 ations for a perpetual Covenant " (Exodus xxxi., 16,) (4) One 
 God, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me " (Exodus 
 xx., 3). And Manesseh Ben Israel, says, " And so it is given 
 in the Decalogue, which is eternal and established for ever- 
 lasting posterity, clearly demonstrating that the observance of 
 these particular precepts will never be discontinued." The 
 above are the title deeds, for it is on the observance of these 
 that entitles Israel to the promised blessings ; does or ever did 
 the Anglo-Israelites observe them, if not, on what do they 
 base their claim. 
 
 If Israel had to be divorced from the Mosaic Covenant, will 
 Mr. Pain be kind enough to tell us when this took place, and 
 under what Covenant the Ten Tribes are now, and what 
 religion they profess ? 
 
 Mr. Pain asked, where is the everlasting Kingdom of 
 David ? But as he professes to know, he will, perhaps, tell 
 us where it was during the Second Temple for during the 
 Second Temple there was no king of the tribe of Judah, or the 
 house of David. Manesseh ben Israel says " The Kingdom 
 of David is everlasting, for it has been given to no other, and 
 will return to his house at the time of the (true) Messiah." 
 There is a similar example with Phineas, to whom the Lord 
 promised the everlasting priesthood (Num. xxv. 13) : " And it 
 shall be to him, and to his seed after him, a covenant of ever- 
 lasting priesthood."
 
 33 
 
 Yet it ceased for a time, as we find Eli, Abimelech and 
 Abiathar, who were descendants of Aaron's second son, 
 Ithamar, officiated as high priest, but in Solomon's reign it 
 was restored to the descendants of Phineas, as it says 
 i Kings ii. 27, " And the king put Zadok in the place of 
 Abiathar," verse 35, because Zadok was a descendant of 
 Phineas, and although it has now ceased for a while, at the 
 time of the (true) Messiah it will again return, as it says, " But 
 the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of 
 My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from 
 Me, they shall come near to me to minister unto Me, and 
 they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the 
 blood, saith the Lord God." Exodus xliv. 15. So that 
 notwithstanding the supreme pontificate of the house of 
 Phineas has temporarily ceased, it is termed everlasting ; the 
 same is the case with the throne of David, which although at 
 present vacant, is nevertheless perpetual, " And my servant 
 David shall be their prince for ever," Ezekiel xxxvii. 25. 
 
 "And the word H31D7 'to the increase,' Isaiah ix. 6, has 
 not accidentally a final and closed D m the middle of the word, 
 contrary to general rule ; for as our sages rightly argued, 
 there it is signified, that for a while, that is, during the 
 captivity, this government and empire of the house of David 
 should be closed and hidden, but when the walls of Jerusalem 
 which are now open, shall be enclosed, it then shall discover 
 itself, which remarkable coincidence the ancients observed in 
 Nehemiah ii. 13, where a Q is also found, contrary to rule, that 
 is, open at the end of a word D^VTS ^^ " they (the walls) 
 open " ; from these two }'s, the only exception contrary to the 
 regular contruction of letters found in the whole Bible, they 
 form this admirable conjecture, that when the walls of 
 Jerusalem, which are now open and exposed to the enemy, 
 shall be rebuilt and closed, then the Kingdom of David will 
 discover and shew itself, as those two events will happen at 
 the same period." (Conciliator, vol. 2, pp. 141-2.) 
 
 We have not got the proof I asked for, viz : " that Queen 
 Victoria claims to be a lineal descendant from David," but we 
 are told, by virtue of her position, must be descended from 
 David. Vague assertions are no proof. If the Danes 
 overthrew the Saxons in England in the sixth century, in a 
 long and bloody war, and oppressed them for a long time till 
 the days of Alfred, how can the Saxons be the people against
 
 34 
 
 whom no weapon was formed to prosper, for the Danes are 
 still a nation. 
 
 I wish to ask Mr. Pain the following plain questions : 
 
 (1) You connect the Danes, Saxons and Normans with 
 " the lost Ten Tribes of Israel," and say they are not to 
 profess Judaism; what are they to profess? You say "they 
 are found in the Isles of the Sea" (Isaiah xlix. 12), but who 
 is the speaker in verse i, and who is spoken to ? 
 
 (2) " The children of Israel shall abide many days without a 
 
 king and without a prince, and without a sacrifice 
 
 Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the 
 Lord their God, and David their king ; and shall fear the 
 Lord and his goodness in the latter days." Will Mr. Pain tell 
 us when are the latter days to commence. 
 
 (3) Turning now to the New Testament, Christ said " I am 
 not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel " 
 (Matthew xv. 24). Does this mean that he was sent to Saxons, 
 Danes, and Normans. 
 
 (4) Christ said to his disciples " Go rather to the lost sheep 
 of the House of Israel " (Matthew x. 6). To whom did they 
 go? 
 
 (5) " The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, 
 have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which 
 is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of 
 righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness " 
 (Romans ix. 30-31 j, are these the Anglo-Israelites. 
 
 (6) " Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the 
 fulness of the Gentiles be come in 'YRomans xi. 25), but when 
 does the fulness come in." 
 
 (j) Jesus said to the women of Samaria, " Salvation is of 
 the Jews " (John iv. 22) ; and Paul who made no difference 
 called all the Jews Israelites said : " For I could wish that 
 myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen 
 according to the flesh, who are Israelites ; to whom pertaineth 
 the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving 
 of the law, and the service of God, and the Promises " 
 (Romans ix. 3-4^. Paul does not claim relationship with the 
 Saxons, Danes, or Normans. 
 
 History proves that the Saxons were never in the least 
 connected with the Ten Tribes of Israel by descent : and it 
 has never been said they were except by distorters of 
 Scripture.
 
 35 
 
 I expect we shall not hear much more about the overthrow 
 of the Ottoman Empire after these able articles of the Rev. 
 Harris Cohen on " The Jews in Turkey," who has proved 
 beyond a doubt, the good treatment that the Jews have 
 hitherto received in that Empire. 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 Nov. 24th, 1896. D. FRAZER. 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, Mr. Frazer instead of giving direct answers to the 
 questions and arguments contained in my last letter, has 
 quoted long extracts from Commentators, both Jewish and 
 Christian, to sustain his objections to the Anglo-Israel theory. 
 As I have already given my explanations in previous 
 letters on points raised during our correspondence, and again 
 repeated by Mr. Frazer, in his letter of last week, I cannot 
 undertake to go over them again. 
 
 Whilst regarding the opinions of the learned scholars, that 
 your correspondent has quoted, with the respect that is so 
 deservedly due to them, I submit with all deference, that it is 
 not a question of "it is highly probable that most of the Israel- 
 ites (i.e., the Ten Tribes) returned," or " that it is reasonable 
 to suppose, that still greater numbers of those Israelites also 
 who remained in exile, joined themselves to the Tribe of 
 Judah " but simply what saith the Scriptures ? They, and 
 they alone are the sure guide in an argument of this kind, and 
 I challenge Mr. Frazer, or any one else, to give me a single 
 passage, either in the Old or New Testament, that will bear out 
 the unwarrantable assertion that the union of the House of 
 Judah, and of the House of Israel since their division under 
 Rehoboam, has ever taken place. I have given Scriptural 
 references for this statement in my previous letters to your 
 influential paper, and now I ask Mr. Frazer to give his, instead 
 of deluging me with quotations from Commentators. 
 
 Your correspondent, as proof " that the twelve tribes are so 
 mingled by intermarriage," quotes several texts dating before 
 the captivities. But what on earth has that to do with the 
 total disappearance of the Ten Tribes which took place 
 subsequently ?
 
 36 
 
 That many of the children of Benjamin should intermarry 
 with those of Judah and Levi is only natural, seeing that 
 these tribes were politically united up to the time of the Roman 
 dispersion, when Benjamin's connection with the House of 
 Judah was severed in accordance with the prophecy of Jeremiah 
 6. i, and Zech. 13. 6 9, and n. 7 14. 
 
 I have endeavoured, Mr. Editor, and I hope it will be 
 admitted, sucessfully, to confine my arguments to the Old 
 Testament, as it is a common ground for belief for both Jews 
 and Christians ; but Mr. Frazer, in submitting seven questions 
 for my consideration and reply, has attacked me in the 
 Christian's stronghold the New Testament. I willingly accept 
 the challenge and I do so with peculiar pleasure, as Mr. Frazer 
 has chosen quotations which answer and defeat his own 
 objections. I think I shall not be far wrong in hazarding a 
 conjecture, that in the prompting of these interrogations, that 
 " the hand is the hand of Judah, but the voice is the voice of 
 Israel." All the same I feel confident of my ability to answer 
 the enquiries to the satisfaction of impartial judges. 
 
 (i). "You connect the Danes, Saxons, and Normans with 
 ' the lost Ten Tribes of Israel.' and say they are not to profess 
 Judaism ; what are they to profess ? " 
 
 The New Covenant or the Christian faith, as I endeavoured 
 to explain in my previous letter. " You say 'they are found in 
 the Isles of the Sea ' (Isaiah xlix. 12) ; but who is the speaker 
 in verse i and who is spoken to ? "-To the Ten Tribed House 
 of Israel. 
 
 (2). " Will Mr. Pain tell us when are the latter days to 
 commence ? " 
 
 \Yith the commencement of the Christian dispensation 
 (Hebrews i. 2, i. Peter i. 20). 
 
 (3). " Turning now to the New Testament Christ said, ' I 
 am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel* 
 (Matt. xv. 24). Does this mean that He was sent to Saxons, 
 Danes, or Normans ? " 
 
 " Christ never left Palestine, but by the instrumentality of 
 the Apostles notably of St. Paul His message was carried 
 to the Ten Tribes of the Dispersion, who, centuries later, 
 appeared in these Isles in the manner described in previous 
 letters, where they subsequently became known by the names 
 above mentioned. 
 
 (4) ." Christ said to His disciples ' Go rather to the lost
 
 sheep of the House of Israel' (Matt. x. 6). To whom did they 
 go? " 
 
 " To the lost Ten Tribes of course ; for obviously the Jews 
 were not lost at that time, on the contrary, they were very 
 much in evidence. 
 
 (5). " The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, 
 have attained to righteousness even the righteousness which 
 is of faith ; but Israel, which followed after the law of right- 
 eousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 
 (Romans ix. 30-31). Are these the Anglo-Israelites ? " 
 
 I explained in my previous letters that the Ten Tribes were 
 divorced from the Mosaic Covenant B.C. 720 and 680, and 
 became like the heathen, amongst whom they were lost 
 Gentiles. St. Paul in this chapter, is there showing that these 
 " Lo-Ammi " Gentiles of the House of Israel, had attained to 
 the righteousness of faith which the Jews, by adhering 
 to that of the Mosaic Law, had failed to attain. 
 
 " Wherefore ? " asks St. Paul : 
 
 " Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works 
 " They stumbled at the stone of stumbling : even as it is written, 
 " Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence : 
 "And he that believeth on Him shall not be put to shame." 
 
 The Apostle goes on to declare of the Jews of that day : 
 " For 1 bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according 
 
 to knowledge. 
 " For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their 
 
 own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 
 " For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness, to everyone that 
 
 believeth." 
 
 If Mr. Frazer will read for himself the context in Romans 9, 
 that he has quoted, he will see that St. Paul refers to a passage 
 from Hosea i., that applies only to the "Lo-Ammi" House of 
 Israel, which, as I said before, was divorced from the Mosaic 
 Co venant, and re-married under the New Covenant (Isaiah 50. i , 
 and chap. 54, and Jeremiah xxxi. 31-37, also Hebrews viii. 8-13). 
 The Apostle also cites Jeremiah 18 and 19, wherein the happy 
 lot of the House of Israel is compared with the sad destiny of 
 their brethren of the House of Judah, but a brighter future is 
 quickly drawing near for them, as the experience of the 
 English Jews, as a body, amply testifies. 
 
 (6.) " Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the 
 fulness of the Gentiles be come in " (Romans ix. 25). " But 
 where does the fulness come in ?
 
 38 
 
 The " blindness in part " that has happened to Israel, here 
 refers to the Jews, as they refuse to see that the Messiah has 
 come, and judging from passages in Zechariah and elsewhere, 
 there seems no reason to expect, that although a few Jews 
 may be converted to Christianity by the missionary efforts of 
 their brethren of the House of Israel, still they will not as a 
 body believe in the Messiah until His second coming, which 
 takes place at the end of this age, when " the fulness of the 
 Gentiles be come in ; and so all Israel (i.e., the twelve tribes) 
 shall be saved." This expression, " the fulness of the 
 Gentiles," is only once used in the Old Testament, Genesis 
 xlviii. 19, where the same phrase is rendered in the Hebrew, 
 " fulness," or " a multitude of nations." This blessing was 
 promised to the seed of Ephraim, the head of the House of 
 Israel or Joseph, i.e., the Ten Tribes. This " multitude of 
 nations " is in course of accomplishment by England and her 
 Colonies, according to the views of the despised Anglo- 
 Israelites, and although the Hebrew origin of the English 
 nation is obscured, and we are " not reckoned up among the 
 nations" as Israel, either in the estimation of Jews, or the 
 foreign nations, or even in the opinion of many of our own 
 people who in many instances are deaf to all explanations on 
 the subject still I believe, and I have Scriptural warrant to 
 bear out my expectation, that this great truth and discovery of 
 the latter days, will be recognised by the nations at large, ere 
 long, as well as those whom I thereby claim as my brethren, 
 the Jews. I sincerely hope that this somewhat lengthy 
 correspondence may be the means of bringing about, this to 
 me and my fellow Anglo- Israelites, much desired recognition 
 of our national relationship. 
 
 (7.) "Jesus said to the woman of Samaria ' Salvation is of 
 the Jews ' " (John iv. 22). 
 
 From the fact that Christ came of Judah this is undoubtedly 
 correct, but if Mr. Frazer intends to imply by this passage 
 that we are in any other sense indebted for Christianity to the 
 Jews, I would ask him by what process of reasoning he arrives, 
 at the conclusion, that the Jews could ever impart what they never 
 accepted ? 
 
 " And Paul, who made no difference, called all the Jews 
 Israelites " 
 
 Yes ! but he did not call all Israelites Jews ? which is a 
 distinction with a very great difference, as I endeavoured to
 
 39 
 
 make clear in my previous letter. 
 
 " For I could wish that myself were accursed from Cnrist for my 
 brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to 
 whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants, and 
 the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." 
 (Romans ix. 3.4). 
 
 "The context of the quotation shows that St. Paul was 
 speaking to the Romans, of the Jews. We know for a fact 
 that the oracles of God were committed to the Chosen People, 
 the Twelve Tribes. 
 " For He showeth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and ordinances unto 
 
 Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation, neither hath the heathen 
 
 knowledge of His laws." 
 
 St. Matthew, xxi. 43, records that Christ said, 
 " The Kingdom of Heaven shall be taken from you (Jews) and given to a 
 nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 
 
 That nation, not church, as our Commentators erroneously 
 teach, is the nation of Israel, of the Ten Tribes, mentioned by 
 Isaiah. 
 
 " In days to come, Israel shall blossom and bud, and they shall fill the 
 face of the world with fruit," 
 
 i.e., Ephraim, the " fruitful " one. " my first-born," who, as a 
 nation, represents " the church of the first-born " (Heb. xii. 23) 
 the so-called Gentile church of Christian Theologians and 
 Commentators. 
 
 The whole teaching of the Bible is this, that a knowledge of 
 God is only to be obtained through the medium of the Chosen 
 People ; for one may search the Bible from Genesis to 
 Revelation, and to no one else will it be found that the Word 
 of God is committed. In short, the propagation of the Gospel 
 and Scriptures generally is committed to Israel, whilst the 
 reception of it is open to the whole world. This explains the 
 purpose of the Almighty in bringing about a division of the 
 Twelve Tribed nation under Rehoboam, for foreseeing, in His 
 infinite wisdom, that both Houses would prove untrue to their 
 allegiance, He retained the House of Judah (or the Jews) to 
 witness for Him in the old Dispensation, as we do for Him in 
 the New. This accounts too, for the fact that we are the 
 missionary people of the world, and although our efforts may 
 not be successful in convincing our brethren of the House of 
 Judah that the First Advent has taken place, still we are in 
 duty bound, in accordance with the Divine command, to 
 proclaim the Gospel "to the Jew first and also to the Gentile."
 
 4 o 
 
 Doubtless some of my countrymen may exhibit want of tact 
 in carrying out what they sincei ely believe it is their duty to do, but 
 I hope that this explanation may be the means of explaining 
 their attitude towards the Jews, and the motive which inspires 
 them to fulfil what they sincerely believe to be their duty. . 
 
 Paul, of course, " did not claim relationship with the 
 Saxons, Danes, or Normans " as such, because the Lost Ten 
 Tribes were not known by those names at the time. 
 
 Mr. Frazer states, " History proves that the Saxons were 
 never in the least connected with the Ten Tribes of Israel by 
 descent." 
 
 I never said that it did, but what I do maintain is that 
 Sharon Turner, the historian of the Anglo-Saxons traces them 
 back to the very place where the House of Israel was lost. 
 Space forbids me to enter into the historical argument by 
 which we connect these Saxons with the Sakai mentioned by 
 Pliny who settled in Armenia, and who were known as 
 Saccassani, or with the Scythnias of Herodotus, who states 
 that " the Persians called all the Scythians Sakai." But for 
 this argument I must refer your correspondent to my lately 
 published book, entitled " Englishmen Israelites, Turks Edomilcs, 
 Politics and Prophecy," particulars of which he will find in your 
 advertisement columns. 
 
 In conclusion, I will briefly observe that Mr. Frazer will 
 find himself very much out in his expectation, that " we shall 
 not hear much more about the overthrow of the Ottoman 
 Empire after these able articles of the Rev. Harris Cohen on 
 * The Jews in Turkey,' " for I believe, and my book above- 
 mentioned contains the expression of that belief, that the 
 Turks are the descendants of Esau, or the House of Edom, 
 whilst, granting that the theory is correct, that England and 
 America are identical with the House of Joseph or Israel, we 
 shall very shortly see the fulfilment of the prediction of the 
 Prophet Ezekiel, 
 
 "I will lay vengeance upon Edom by the hand of My people Israel." 
 (See also Obadiah v. 18, Numbers xxiv. 15-19, Psalms Ix. 
 9-12, Isaiah xxxiv. 1-8). Grant the theory, it does not require 
 very much intelligence in studying the political European 
 news, as contained in our daily papers, to see that everything 
 tends towards the fulfilment of our prophetic destiny ; in blind 
 pursuit of which we have already acquired one-fourth of the 
 Promised Land, by virtue of our occupation of Egypt, the
 
 '4 1 
 
 Soudan, as well as our possession of Uganda and British East 
 Africa. Truly the words of the Prophet Isaiah are now being 
 literally realised, 
 
 " But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches 
 and yield your fruit for my people Israel, for then are & t fMnd to come." 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 
 H. H. PAIN. 
 The Stock Exchange, Nov. 3Oth, 1896. 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, It is presumptuous on the part of your correspondent, 
 Mr. Pain, to set himself up as an authority against such 
 Oriental scholars as I have produced in support of my state- 
 ments. The Israelites were in their captivity to become " an 
 astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word " (Deut. xxviii. 37), 
 and as "the sand of the sea, and the stars of heaven for num- 
 ber." This cannot apply to the self-christened " Anglo- 
 Israelites," whose number is so insignificant that they are lost 
 amongst the Christians, having no temple, they are not recog- 
 nised or heard of except when they seek to vent their claim in 
 some periodical. 
 
 (Jer. vi. i) has no connection with the Roman dispersion as 
 Mr. Pain says; the order given to Benjamin to get out of 
 Jerusalem was given before the Babylonian captivity, and if 
 they had obeyed the command of the Prophet, they would not 
 have been taken captive, for it was a command to the inhabit- 
 ants of Jerusalem to get out of it and go over to the forces of 
 the King of Babylon, with a promise that if they complied they 
 would be exempt from death (Jer. xxxvii. 2). Jeremiah 
 attempted to go, and was stopped by one of the sentinels at 
 the gate (Jer. xxxvii. 12-13). Zech. xiii. 6-9 has reference to 
 the latter days, the days of the true Messiah. 
 
 Mr. Pain says " the latter days " commenced with the com- 
 mencement of the " Christian " dispensation, Mr. Hine, the 
 founder of the " Anglo-Israel " theory, says : " It commenced 
 with the reign of King Henry VIII." D. Levi, Abarbanal, 
 and R. Kimchi say : " wherever the latter times (days) are 
 mentioned in Scripture, the days of the true Messiah are 
 always meant," also Nachmonides on Genesis xlix. i, and
 
 4 2 
 
 Bishop Lowth in his notes on the second chapter of Isaiah, 
 after having cited Kimchi's opinion on these words, "viz." 
 that the latter days denotes the days of the Messiah, adds, 
 " And, in regard to this place, nothing can he more clear and 
 certain." But as what was here predicted by Isaiah has not 
 yet come to pass, it is a proof that the " latter days " have yet 
 to come when the Gentiles will all beat their swords into 
 plough-shares,'' &c. And let me remind Mr. Pain and others 
 that they cannot produce one simple, clear, unequivocal 
 prophecy from the Old Testament, which foretells a two- fold 
 coming of one and the same person as the Messiah. 
 
 Is it not a fact that whenever Israel is mentioned in the 
 New Testament, that the Jews as a whole are referred to, and 
 if not, why did Christ not confine His ministry to the lost Ten 
 Tribes, and if He sent His disciples to the Ten Tribes, how is 
 it that they preached to Jews only, why did they not obey 
 their Master's order? 
 
 Israel was never divorced from the Mosaic or Abraharnic 
 covenants, as is fully testified by the Prophets, for Isaiah 
 informs us that the nation, at no time whatever, was to be 
 considered as absolutely cast off, and bereft of the immediate 
 providence of God, as a woman whose husband was actually 
 dead ; or as a woman divorced from her husband, but only as 
 a woman deeply afflicted at the absence of her husband in 
 foreign lands ; but who nevertheless intends to return to her. 
 
 " For as a woman forsaken, and deeply afflicted, hath the Lord recalled 
 thee ; and as the youthful wife when thou wast rejected, saith thy 
 God " (Ch. liv. 6). 
 
 Hence it is plain that the nation hath never been 
 absolutely cast off by God, and the Gentiles taken in 
 their stead, as Christians would have us believe. In 
 his manner the Prophet Jeremiah also expresses himself, 
 "How is she become as a widow" (Lament, i. i). Not 
 actually and absolutely a widow, but only as one, as he 
 says in another place, " For Israel is not widowed, nor Judah 
 from his God" (Jer. li. 5). Hence it is manifest that the 
 assertion of Mr. Pain that Israel was divorced from the Mosaic 
 Covenant is false and futile, as is further illustrated by Isaiah, 
 D3D8 mrVD 1>D HT ^K Where is the bin of your mother's 
 divorcement (Ch. 1. i); there is not one, she was never 
 divorced, only cast off for a time, as the prophets clearly show. 
 The principle underlying the whole nation of Israel excludes 
 the possibility of the British nation being any section of it, and
 
 43 
 
 I ask Messrs. Pain and others to consider the nature of the 
 transaction by which the Jewish nationality was constituted. 
 It was a covenant of agreement on two sides the nation on 
 the one side, and the God of their fathers on the other. I will 
 refer you to the terms of that covenant, and then ask you to 
 consider the application of those terms in the subsequent 
 history of the nation. In the igth chapter of Exodus, Moses 
 is commanded by God to say, as we read in the 3rd verse, 
 " Thus shalt thou say to the House of Jacob, and tell the children of 
 
 Israel : 
 " Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on 
 
 eagle's wings and brought you unto Myself. 
 
 " Now, therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My 
 Covenant, then je shall be select portion unto Me above all the 
 peoples, for all the earth is Mine. 
 
 " And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom, of priests, and a holy nation." 
 " If ye will hearken unto Me." 
 
 What was their response ? At the 8th verse we find that : 
 " All the people answered together, and said : All that the Eternal hath 
 spoken we will do." 
 
 Upon which Moses took back the answer of the people, 
 and then received an extensive communication of God's 
 requirements, under which they were to occupy the land as a 
 nation." He then said to them (Deut. xxviii.) : 
 
 " It shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of 
 the Eternal thy God to observe and to do all His commandments 
 which I command thee this day, that the Eternal thy God will set 
 thee supreme above all nations of the earth. 
 
 " And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou 
 shalt hearken unto the voice of the Eternal thy God." 
 
 Moses then enumerated a list of blessings that they were to 
 realise contingently upon their observance of what God com- 
 manded them. Many of these blessings Mr. Pain has quoted 
 detached from their context, as if they were absolute promises con- 
 cerning a nation now to be found somewhere amongst the Gentile 
 nations, whereas they are blessings limited to the people who 
 were spoken to by Moses at the time, and expressly conditional 
 upon their obedience ; for we are told what the result would 
 be if they were disobedient. These results are very plainly 
 put in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, verses 14, 16, 17, 25, 33, 
 36, 39. These predictions were delivered at the very beginning 
 of the national existence, and applied equally to the Twelve 
 Tribes. We come now to the " History of the Saxons," 
 which with your permission, I will supply Mr. Pain with. His
 
 44 
 
 authority, Sharon Turner, says in his work (" History of the 
 Anglo-Saxons, "6th edition, vol. i,p. 10) concerning the Saxons: 
 
 " The Saxons were a German or Teutonic that is, a Gothic 
 or Scythian tribe and of the various Scythian nations which 
 have been recorded, the Sakai, or Sacae, are the people from 
 whom the descent of the Saxons may be inferred with the 
 least violation of probabilty. But who are the Scythians ? Mr. 
 Sharon Turner says (History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. i p. 
 93) : " Herodotus, beside the Minor Scythia, which he places 
 in Europe, mentions all the Eastern or Asiatic Scythia beyond 
 the Caspian and Ixartes. These new comers pressed on the 
 Kimmerians, or Kelts, their predecessors. These nations 
 retired towards the western and southern extremities of 
 Europe, pressed still by the Scythian invaders. This new 
 wave of population gradually spread over the mountains and 
 into the vast forests and marshes of Europe, until, under the 
 name of Germans an appellation which Tacitus calls a 
 < recent name ' they had not only reached the Rhine, but also 
 crossed into France. Here Caesar found one great body 
 descended from them firmly settled, about B.C.E. 54." Then 
 let us ask Mr. Sharon Turner when did the Scythians first 
 appear in Europe. His answer is (page 95) : The first 
 appearance of the Scythian Tribes in Europe may be placed, 
 according to Strabo and Homer, in the 8th, or according to 
 Herodotus in the 7th century, before Christ." Who are the 
 Scythians ? Mr. Sharon Turner does not tell us, so we will 
 turn to the Jews for an answer, Josephus the champion of 
 Jewish antiquity, against all the writers of Greece and Rome, 
 his answer is : " Magog (one of the sons of Japheth) founded 
 those that from him were named Magogites, but who are, by 
 the Greeks called Sycthians," (Antiq. B. I. C. 6, Sec. i). Here 
 Josephus tells us that the Scythians are descendants of 
 Japheth, the Ten Tribes were the descendants of Shem. 
 Therefore, how can one be the other. The Information we 
 get in the Scriptures you will find in the loth chapter of 
 Genesis, where, mentioning these very men whom josephus 
 describes, it says : 
 
 " The sons of Japheth, Gomer and Magog, and Madai, and Javan ; and 
 
 the sons of Gomer : Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah "; 
 and then in the 5th verse : 
 
 " By ttiese were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands ; everyone 
 
 after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." 
 Therefore, the Bible and Josephus concur in telling us that
 
 45 
 
 the original inhabitants of Europe were descended from 
 Japheth, whereas the Ten Tribes were descended from Shem. 
 Therefore, that is a complete disproof (if there were no other) 
 to the claim of Israelitish descent for the British People. But 
 it has the support of such authorities as Dr. Kalisch, Levi, 
 and Abarbanel. If there had been a spark of evidence that 
 the British People were descendants from Israel, it would 
 have been mentioned in the Talmud, and hence, the Jews 
 would have been familiar with it, and it would not require any 
 one to come forth in the igth century to tell us. 
 
 Mr. Pain says, the Ten Tribes became lost, but how could 
 they be lost when he knows where to find them. The reunion 
 of Israel and Judah after the return from Babylon is clearly 
 shown by Ezra and Nehemiah, and the prophets who speak of 
 them unitedly as Israelites and Jews, see Jer. 16. 14-15. This 
 I have shown is how it is understood by learned Jews who 
 knew the historic facts of their own race much better than 
 Mr. Pain and his friends. 
 
 Mr. Pain says, I shall find myself very much out regarding 
 the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire, which he calls 
 " Edom," I confess I shall if it be brought about by the two 
 powers he has named, in a short time, but he did not fix any 
 date and what are we to understand by a " short time " or 
 " shortly " does he mean, months, years, or centuries, I think 
 it will be something like " the kingdom of heaven is at hand " 
 in the New Testament, eighteen-hundred years ago, and it has 
 not come yet. Mr. Pain stands alone, he has not a single 
 authority to put forth in support of his statements. 
 
 Abarbanal says, in his comment on the 34th chapter of 
 Isaiah that D*ntf> " Edom," means the Romans, and that 
 MTV 2 " Bozrah," denotes Rome, and D. Levi, says, "It is a 
 received tradition by our sages, and mentioned in the Talmud, 
 Midrashim, &c., and also by Josephus Ben Gorion, that the 
 Romans were descended from the dukes of Esau, or Edom ; 
 namely duke Zepho (Gen. xxxvi. 15-43), whom they called 
 Janus, to whom the month of January was consecrated " 
 (Disser vol. i. p. 207). And I say again, that these great 
 authorities possessed a better knowledge of Scripture than Mr. 
 Pain and thus proving that the " Anglo-Israelite Theory," is 
 nothing but a false and absurd superstition. 
 
 Mr. Pain, has not informed us where the Kingdom of David 
 was during the " Second Temple," or attempted to prove that
 
 46 
 
 the authority I have given of its suspension was wrong. Or 
 supplied us with his authority that Queen Victoria claimed 
 descent from King David. 
 
 Had Mr. Pain been better acquainted with Scripture he 
 would not have told us such nonsense as the Jews accepting 
 the new Covenant, viz., Christianity, which would be a 
 violation of the conditions of God's Covenant made with the 
 whole house of Israel as referred to above. So far from the 
 house of Israel accepting the Christian faith, the Prophets 
 inform us that in the latter days, i.e., the days of the true 
 Messiah, the Gentiles will gladly embrace the Jewish faith, in 
 proof of which Isaiah says : 
 
 " It shall come to pass in the latter days, the mountain of the House of 
 the Eternal shall be established in the top of the mountains, and 
 shall be exalted above the hills ; and all the nations shall flow unto 
 it. 
 
 *' And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the 
 mountain of the Eternal, to the house of the God of Jacob : and he 
 (the Jewish nation will teach us of his ways, and we will go in his 
 path (religion) : for out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word 
 of the Eternal from Jerusalem " (ii. 2-3). 
 
 And the Prophet Micah relates the same prophecy, and 
 
 Zechariah confirms the same saying : 
 
 " In those days, it sliall come to pass that ten men shall take hold of all 
 the tongues of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him 
 that is a Jew, we will go with you (Jews) : for we have heard that 
 God is with you" (viii. 23). 
 
 Yea, Jeremiah informs us that in those days that the Q^J 
 " Gentiles," Anglo-Israelites included, will confess their error to 
 the Eternal, saying, 
 
 " Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there 
 is no profit " (xvi. 19). 
 
 Hence the Jews may go on rejoicing in the God of their 
 fathers, having the satisfaction to know from Scripture that 
 their religion is the true one, and is destined to become univer- 
 sal ; in this they can glory, and with their dying breath sound 
 the yi2V?-> " Hear, O Israel, the Eternal our God, the Eternal 
 is One." 
 
 Yours obediently, 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne, D. FRAZER. 
 
 December 8th, 1896.
 
 47 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, Mr. Frazer, like his Commentators, is somewhat 
 mixed. 
 
 Deuteronomy xxviii does not say a word to the effect that 
 " The Israelites were in their captivity to become as the 
 
 sand of the sea, and the stars of the heaven for number " 
 on the contrary, if they became disobedient, they were to be 
 few in number. The history of the Jews from the time of the 
 Roman Dispersion onwards, shows that this prediction has 
 been fulfilled in them to the letter, as well as the other 
 misfortunes detailed in verses 15-68, and particularly those 
 contained in verses 36-37, 49-50, 52, 62, 65, as their bitter 
 experience has testified beyond all dispute. 
 
 Jeremiah vi. i, has no connection with the event referred to 
 in chapter xxxvii. 2. The former reference is to the " evil" 
 which appeared " from the north" or the Roman invasion, 
 whilst the Babylonian forces came from the east. 
 
 I am glad that your correspondent admits that " Zechariah 
 xiii. 6-9 has reference to the latter days, the days of the true 
 Messiah." 
 
 It is not a fact that " whenever Israel is mentioned in the 
 New Testament, that the Jews as a whole are referred to," 
 for obviously that can only be decided by the context, neither 
 is it a fact that Christ's disciples, " preached to Jews only," 
 the Epistles of St. Paul and also of St. Peter, prove that they 
 fulfilled their Master's order, by preaching " to the lost sheep 
 of the House ot Israel." 
 
 Neither is it correct to state that " Israel was never 
 divorced from the Mosaic Covenant," as Mr. Frazer vainly 
 declares. I showed in my previous letters that Hosea, in 
 chapter i, verse 6, declares, that the Almighty " will no more 
 have mercy upon the house of Israel," as he did " upon the 
 house of JucLih," vide verse 7 ; further Jeremiah hi. 8, states: 
 
 " That backsliding Israel has committed adultery, I had put her away 
 and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister 
 feared not." 
 
 And that subsequently, as declared by Hosea, in chapter ii, 
 the divorced house of Israel is betrothed unto her Maker for 
 ever under the New Covenant, which Covenant was to be 
 made not with the Gentiles, but with the Houses of Judah 
 and Israel, as declared by Jeremiah xxxi. 31-37, and St. Paul
 
 4 8 
 
 in Hebrews viii. 6-13, the Lo-Ammi House of Israel coining 
 under its first (i Peter ii. 9-10) whilst the Jews at present 
 remain under the Mosaic Covenant, from which they were 
 never divorced. 
 
 It is quite evident to me that, in spite of my explanations, 
 Mr. Frazer cannot distinguish the difference between the 
 Mosaic and the Abrahamic Covenants ; the former was 
 conditional, and the blessings or curses therein detailed came 
 into operation, according as the Chosen People were either 
 obedient or disobedient. Prophecy is best understood in the 
 light of its fulfilment. Events show that we, the British 
 People, are in a state of obedience, by the fact of being in 
 possession of the promises and blessings contained in the first 
 portion of Deuteronomy 28. 1-14, whilst the Jews are, on the 
 other hand in a state of disodedience ; the result of their own 
 action in crucifying and rejecting the Messiah. This accounts 
 for the realization in their race, of the curses predicted in the 
 latter portion of this particular chapter, vide verses 15-68. 
 
 Mr. Frazer challenges me to " produce one simple, clear, 
 unequivocal prophecy from the Old Testament, which foretells 
 a twofold coming of one and the same person as the Messiah." 
 In answer thereto I refer him to the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, 
 which details facts connected with the first Advent ; also that 
 for transgression of my people (i.e., Isaiah's) was he stricken, 
 and that by 
 
 " His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, and he shall 
 bear their iniquities." 
 
 The " many " here refers to the multitudinous House of 
 Israel who accepted Christianity, as distinguished from the 
 "few" of Judah who rejected it. Zechariah, on the other 
 hand, declares in the iath chapter, loth verse, of the 
 Jews, that 
 
 " They shall look unto Him whom they have pierced, and they shall 
 mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son." 
 
 How can such mourning be justified as herein described, if 
 the sufferings of the Redeemer of Israel, recorded in the 53rd 
 chapter of Isaiah, had not been realised at the time of the first 
 Advent, as the New Testament so amply testifies. 
 
 The plain teaching of the Bible is this that the Abrahamic 
 Covenant was in the nature of a Will or Testament of no 
 effect until the death of the Testator, the one Seed, Christ 
 (Heb. 9, 15 17, Gal. 3 and 4), and that He having fulfilled 
 the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant which the Ten 
 Tribes by their sins had broken, and were in consequence-
 
 49 
 
 divorced from, besides being exiled from their land our 
 nation has, by the reconciliation which Christ has effected 
 (Isaiah 53. 10-11), ccme into the enjoyment by a process of 
 gradual fulfilment of the promises, both literal and spiritual, 
 made by our forefather Abraham, by an unconditional 
 Covenant. 
 
 Isaiah in his 54th chapter, a chapter which refers exclusively 
 to the House of Israel, as distinguished from the House of 
 Judah, proclaims the blessedness of our redeemed nation in 
 the following most comforting and gracious message : 
 
 " No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper ; and every 
 tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This 
 is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness which 
 is of Me, said the Lord." 
 
 By no stretch of imagination can this declaration be applied 
 to the Jews, as their whole history, past and present, confutes 
 such an idea, whilst our nation, on the contrary, is an emphatic 
 proof of its realisation. 
 
 Mr. Frazer is good enough to quote extracts from Sharon 
 Turner and Herodotus in amplification of my own, but these, 
 instead of disproving my statements, confirm them. Herodotus 
 further, is careful to distinguish between the different tribes 
 known as Scythians, which Mr. Frazer does not, and con- 
 sequently he has got muddled over his reference to Josephus. 
 
 It is eminently satisfactory to me to read the admission of 
 your correspondent that the Ten Tribes cannot be lost when 
 " Mr. Pain knows where to find them." After this declaration 
 I suppose it will not be " presumptions " on my pait if I 
 persist in "setting myself up as an authority against such 
 Oriental scholars" as my opponent has " produced in support 
 of his statements." 
 
 Ezra and Nehemiah do not " clearly show the reunion of 
 Israel and Judah after the return from Babylon," from the 
 simple fact that both Houses were not there carried captive, 
 neither do they make any mention of the captivities, but only 
 of the return of the captivity of the Tribes of Judah, Levi, and 
 Benjamin. 
 
 Jeremiah xvi. 14-15, which Mr. Frazer quotes, refers to 
 events in the near future when will be realised, that : 
 
 " As the Lord liveth, that brought up the Children of Israel from the 
 land of the north." 
 
 And replaced them in Palestine, " no more to be rooted up ; " 
 an event which has not yet taken place, notwithstanding all
 
 50 
 
 that Mr. Frazer and his learned "Oriental scholars" and 
 numerous Commentators, that he is so fond of quoting, may 
 say to the contrary. 
 
 I may add that verses 16-21 refers to the Judenhetze, and is 
 a prelude to the events now gradually taking place as detailed 
 in Jeremiah 3. 18, and Deuteronomy 33. 7, previous to the 
 joint return of the two Houses as foretold by Ezekiel 37. 
 
 Your correspondent will, I firmly believe, seethe commence- 
 ment of " the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire, which he 
 calls Edom," during the few remaining years of this century, 
 and although the Commentators quoted by Mr. Frazer may 
 say that " Edom means the Romans, and that Bozrah denotes 
 Rome," permit me to point out to him that Ezekiel 
 emphatically declares that the Power that is in possession of 
 the Holy Land and the Holy Places for centuries prior to the 
 return of the Chosen People to their destined inheritance, is 
 none other than Edom.. The Turks are in possession, therefore the 
 Turks are Edom ; that is good sound logical argument, is it not, 
 Mr. Editor, even if it emanates from a member of the Stock 
 Exchange, instead of only eminent " Oriental Scholars ? " 
 
 Mr. Frazer observes that, " the overthrow of the Ottoman 
 Empire will be something like ' the Kingdom of Heaven is at 
 hand,' in the New Testament eighteen hundred years ago, and 
 it has not come yet." Perhaps it will astonish your corres- 
 pondent to hear that it has a literal existence at the present 
 time on this earth, and is represented by the British Empire. 
 This statement I am perfectly prepared to demonstrate from 
 logical argument and inferences, based on numerous Scriptural 
 quotations, from the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 If Mr. Frazer is content to explain away the literal promises 
 and the fulfilment thereof, relating to the Throne, and Seed, of 
 David, over the Nation of Israel, which was to endure so long 
 as the sun, moon and stars exist, in the mythical manner given 
 in his previous letter, he is more easily satisfied than I am ; for 
 I believe that the Almighty has kept His promise, and fulfilled 
 it, by perpetuating the Throne and Seed of David over Israel, 
 right from the death of Zedekiah up to the present day, in the 
 manner in which I have described in my previous letters, and 
 as prophetically indicated in Ezekiel xvii. 22-24 and xxi. 25-27. 
 Your correspondent asks for " my authority that Queen 
 Victoria claimed descent from King David." If he will apply 
 at the Heralds' College he will obtain the desired information.
 
 I think it would have been more fair on Mr. Frazer's part,, 
 to have read my correspondence more carefully, before he puts, 
 statements into my mouth which I never made, and bases 
 thereon the erroneous accusation, that " had Mr. Pain been 
 better acquainted with Scripture he would not have told us 
 such nonsense as the Jews accepting the New Covenant, viz., 
 Christianity." Did I not expressly ask Mr. Frazer in my last 
 letter, " By what process of reasoning with reference to this 
 question of our indebtedness to the Jews for Christianity he 
 arrived at the conclusion that they could ever impart what they 
 never accepted ? " 
 
 Mr. Frazer's quotation of Isaiah ii. 3, as referring to the Jews 
 only, is a misapplication, for it refers to the whole Twelve 
 Tribes, and not to the House of Judah alone. 
 
 Your correspondent has quoted so copiously from Jewish 
 Commentators and Oriental Scholars, in his vain attempts to 
 disprove my theory of the connection of the British people with 
 the Hebrews of the House of Israel in any form whatever, that 
 I trust I may be excused if I, for once, bring forward the 
 support of my argument no less an authority than yourself,. 
 Mr. Editor. In your able leading article on " What is an 
 Englishman ? " in your issue of last week, you practically bear 
 testimony to the truth of my contention in the following words : 
 
 "It is perhaps easier for a Jew to become a genuine 
 Englishman than for him to become a member of any other 
 nation, for the ideals, aims, and laws of England are more in 
 harmony with those of Judaism than those of any other people ; 
 while in no country of the world have the whole mental structure 
 of the people and the idioms of the language, as well as the 
 tone of literature, been so influenced by the Bible." 
 
 Why, I may ask ? Is it not because the English, like the 
 Jews, are, by their customs, laws, traditions, and position in 
 the world, undoubtedly of Hebrew origin ? More Commentators 
 if you please, Mr. Frazer ! 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 2ist December, 1896. H. H. PAIN. 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, I wish it to be understood that whenever I have used 
 the term " Israel " in this correspondence, it implies the whole
 
 52 
 
 twelve tribes, unless otherwise stated. Your correspondent, 
 Mr. Pain, has not attempted to prove that Deut. xxviii. 37 
 had any reference to the insignificant self-christened 
 *' Anglo-Israelites," who, not being noticed amongst the rest 
 of Christians, have not become " an astonishment, a proverb, 
 and a by-word," neither have nor are they likely to become as 
 " the sand of the sea or the stars of heaven for number." 
 Hence they may be termed a lost tribe but not of Israel. 
 
 The sixth chapter of Jeremiah, in its application to the 
 Babylonian Captivity does not suit Mr. Pain's " theory," but 
 I wish to remind him that the above prophecy was given a 
 few years before that event, and " the appearance of evil and 
 great destruction " spoken of had its fulfilment at that time, as 
 is fully testified in the last two chapters of 2 Kings. 
 
 We read in Matthew's Gospel that Jesus said to His 
 disciples 
 
 " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel." 
 
 And yet we are told he was continually for ' one year ' 
 (the length of his ministry according to the Synoptic 
 Gospels and the early fathers, while, according to the fourth 
 Gospel, three years) amongst the Jews, without ever making 
 any distinction between them and " the lost sheep of the House 
 of Israel ; and none but these distorters of Scripture to suit 
 their theory does, for when he said to his disciples 
 
 " Go not in the way of the Gentiles " 
 (and these Anglo- Israelites are nothing else) 
 
 " But go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel " (Matt. x. 56). 
 
 Where do we find them ? 
 
 "Now they which were scattered abroad, upon the persecution that 
 arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phcenice, Cyprus, and 
 Antioch,, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." 
 
 Here the word " only " restricts their preaching to one 
 particular class of people, viz., the Jews. Neither Mr. Pain or 
 his friends can point to a single discourse given by Christ or 
 his disciples to the Lost Ten Tribes separate from the Jews. 
 In fact, after the supposed crucifixion the disciples limited 
 their preaching to the Jews. But why did Paul call the Chief 
 ot the jews if his mission was to Israel separate from the 
 Jews ? Paul answers, 
 
 " For this cause therefore, have I called for you, to see you, and to 
 speak with you, because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with 
 this chain " Acts xxviii- 18-20). 
 
 But what had the Jews to do with the hope of Israel 
 according to Mr. Pain's theory. Mr. Pain tries to make 
 capital out of Hosea ch. i. But he must understand this
 
 53 
 
 prophecy was delivered prior to the captivity, true as stated in 
 verse 6, 
 
 " God will no more have mercy upon (the ten tribes) i.e., they will no 
 
 more be a separate nation." 
 
 Nor has God as yet made with them a new covenant as 
 
 Mr. Pain would have us believe. For in chap. ii. 14 God says 
 
 " Therefore behold I will notice her, and bring her into the desert, and 
 
 speak comfortably unto her. 
 " And I will give her vineyards from thence, and the Valley of Achor 
 
 for an entrance of hope " 
 
 (which at one time was a cause of stumbling, when Achor 
 stole the accursed thing) 
 
 " For a door of hope, and she shall sing there, as in the days of her 
 
 youth, and, as in the day when she came up out of the land of Epypt. 
 
 " And it shall be at that day, is the declaration of the Eternal, that thou 
 
 shalt call me "^^> my husband ; and shall call me no more ^/iO 
 my owner." 
 
 For it was as Baali that God was known in Israel 
 (the ten tribes) for Jeroboam set up one calf at Dan, and the 
 other at Bethel, and said : " Behold thy gods, O Israel, 
 which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." For " I 
 will remove the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they 
 shall be no more remembered by their name " in that day. 
 Now, if it means that Israel was no longer to be remembered 
 as Israel, then it would prove Mr. Pain is wrong in applying 
 the prophecy to the present state of things, because the time 
 has not yet come for that prophecy to be fulfilled, for the time 
 has not yet arrived for Israel to have the Valley of Achor, 
 which is on the confines of the land of Israel, for a door of 
 hope, for the tipie is the time of restoration, as the context 
 shows. Mr. Pain and friends have begun the "identity" too 
 soon, and therefore disprove theirownargument. If Mr. Pain's 
 interpretation is right, and this passage means that at any time 
 we are no more to be remembered by the name of Israel, how 
 comes it that when Israel is restored they are restored under 
 the name of Israel, for they are settled in the land according 
 to "the twelve tribes of Israel, "as shown by Ezek.xlviii.ag 35, 
 The names are all given here, and Mr. Pain and his friends 
 cannot deny that in that day they will be known as Israel, 
 
 " For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and 
 without an officer, and without a sacrifice, and without monument, 
 and without an ephod, and without teraphim : 
 
 " Afterwards shall the children return, and seek the Eternal their God, 
 and David their king : and shall dread the Eternal and His 
 goodness in the latter days " (Hosea iii. 4 5).
 
 54 
 The term 3t^> "they shall return" means those Israelites who 
 
 have lapsed into idolatry amongst the nations shall return to 
 Judaism. 
 
 The Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants are so combined by 
 divine command that we cannot separate them without bringing 
 down the divine displeasure, and Mr. Pain must understand 
 that the contents of Deut.xxviii. weregiven to the twelve circum- 
 cised tribesof Israel, and not to theidolatrus uncircumcised Gent- 
 iles,and therefore what he claims has no reference to Christianity ; 
 and I must further inform him that the Jews never crucified 
 Jesus or anyone else : crucifixion was never a mode of capital 
 punishment amongst the Jews, and, what is more, they had 
 not the power of life and death at the time it is said that Jesus 
 was crucified. 
 
 Mr. Pain never committed a greater error in his life (although 
 he has done little else in this correspondence) than he has in 
 referring me to the 53rd chapter of Isaiah as a proof of a 
 two-fold coming of one and the same person as the Messiah ; 
 for it has no more reference to his Messiah Jesus than it has 
 to Brahma, Buddha or Krishna, for how can he reconcile his 
 idea with the plural terms that are to be found in that chapter, 
 the subject of which is a servant and stands closely connected 
 with the preceding chapters from the 42nd onward. We find 
 the whole of Israel spoken of under the figure of a child, 
 
 Hosea 11. 1. " When Israel was a lad (a child) then I loved him, and 
 and called my son out of Egypt," 
 
 Again under the figure of a son. 
 
 *' Thus saith the Eternal, Israel is my son, even my first-born. And I 
 say unto thee, Let my son go that be may serve Me, &c." (Exodus 
 
 4, 2223). 
 
 And here under the figure of a servant, and is understood by 
 such profound Hebrew scholars as Dr. Gesenius, Dr. R. Wil- 
 liams, Dr. S. Davidson, and several other Christian divines. In 
 
 verse 8 ") 7 is plural, and so rendered by all lexicographers, 
 and Ibn Ezra in his commentary says, " the construction of 
 the sentence is, for the transgression of my people plagues 
 
 came IQ/ over them." Again in the next verse we have the 
 plural noun VH/22 " m h* 5 death." And in the loth verse, "he 
 shall see JH] seed (children) ; hence this prophecy can by no 
 means relate to Jesus, from these circumstances : 
 
 i. Jesus certainly was not exalted and magnified, and 
 made very great, as was to be the scene of the exaltation of 
 the Old Testament Messiah ; but was put to a cruel and
 
 55 
 
 disgraceful death. 2. He was not oppressed by pecuniary 
 exactions, as is said of the subject of this prophecy. 3. He 
 was never taken from prison to die, for he was never in one. 
 4. He did not " see his seed," nor prolong his days," since he 
 died childless, and how could he " prolong his days," when he 
 was cut off in his 33rd year. 5. Besides, who were the 
 strong and mighty," with whom he divided the spoil. Were 
 they the twelve fishermen of Galilee, and what was the spoil 
 divided. Ibn Ezra, says, " The best proof however, is the 
 circumstances that this passage is preceded by ' the Eternal 
 will go before you,' etc., which undoubtedly refers to the 
 Israelites, and is followed by ' Sing O barren,' etc., which is 
 likewise addressed to the Israelites. My Servant, the 
 Israelites, who are the servants of the Eternal, and are now 
 in exile." The Gaon R. Saadiah considers it has more 
 relation to Jeremiah than the Christian Messiah, he says, 
 " he shall scatter many nations, by his words, by his prophecy 
 (Comp. Jer. i. 10). As a tender plant. Jeremiah was young 
 when he began to prophecy (Jer. i. 6.). And the Eternal 
 hath laid on him the iniquity of all of us ; he took away the 
 sin of many. Comp. ' Remember that I stood before thee, to 
 speak good for them, and to turn away the wrath from them,' 
 (Jer. 18. 20.). He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter. 'But 
 I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the 
 slaughter' (Jer. u. 19). And he shall divide the spoil with 
 the strong. Jeremiah received presents and gifts from the 
 Babylonian chief of the guard Jer. 40. 5). Zech. 12. 10. 
 
 God is the speaker, through the prophet, Jl^ ^7^ ICD^UrP 
 "HpT ~"lt<'tf ' And they shall cause to look unto me (not him) 
 
 whom they have blasphemed.'" It is erroneously rendered in the 
 Authorised Version to suit the purpose. Mr. Pain says, 
 " That the Abrahamic Covenants was in the nature of a will 
 or testament of no effect until the death of the testator," hence 
 according to this idea it will never be of any effect, for God 
 was the testator, is He dead or will he ever die, poor reasoning 
 this for the Stock Exchange. 
 
 The 54th chapter of Isaiah is addressed to the servant of 
 God, the whole House of Israel, and is in continuation of the 
 previous chapters, and the phrase " No weapon that is formed 
 against them shall prosper," can by no stretch of imagination be 
 torn from the context and applied to any other nation, for 
 what has become of Greece, Spain and Rome. The Jews
 
 56 
 
 must be allowed to understand the meaning of their own 
 Scriptures much better than Gentiles. 
 
 In my last letter I completely proved from history and the 
 Bible that the Scythians were descended from Japheth, and 
 although there were several tribes, yet Herodotus says they 
 were all of one family, and Josephus knows nothing to the 
 contrary, and Dr. Kalisch, another learned Jew, in his 
 commentary on Genesis, says 
 
 "Japheth, representing the nations of the north and west, 
 i. Gomer The Bactrians (XOUAPOI), mountain nations. 
 
 1. Ashkenaz Phaga (PAYAI), in Great Media. 
 
 2. Riphath Riphoean Mountains. 
 
 3. Togarmah Taurica (Crimea). 
 ii. Magog the Scythians. 
 
 iii. Madai the Medes. 
 
 iv. Javan Greece, Maritime Countries. 
 
 1. Elishah YLellas. 
 
 2. Tarshish Tartessas, in Spain. 
 
 3. Kittim Cyprus. 
 
 4. Dodanim The Dounians, in Italy. 
 
 v. Tubal The Tibareni } XT ,, . 
 
 TVT i TU TV/T z.-, in Northern Armenia, 
 
 vi. Mesheck 1 he Moscni ) 
 
 vii. Tiras The Chain of the Taurus. 
 
 The authentic abodes of the Japhethites are, according to the 
 names mentioned in our verses (2-5), in the northern and western 
 parts of the ancient world, comprising the countries from the 
 Mediterranean Sea and the European Coasts to Northern Asia 
 beyond the Taurus. This wide extent of territory is evidently 
 implied in the very name (Japheth), to spread, or extend." 
 Mr. Pain and his friends are so muddled and blind over their 
 gross superstitious theory, that they cannot see when history 
 goes dead against them ; and Josephus is so plain regarding 
 the origin of the Scythians, that he cannot be mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Pain and his friends may prophecy, but, like Mr. Baxter, 
 they will have to alter their dates if they speak of shortly or 
 soon to come to pass several times, and even then not live to 
 see their fulfilment. 
 
 I have to say again that the Jews are the best interpreters of 
 their own Scriptures, and they are agreed that the tribes are so 
 intermixed by marriage that, with few exceptions, it is impos- 
 sible to say to which tribe they belong, and they are also agreed 
 that the throne of David is suspended until the days of their
 
 57 
 
 redemption by the true Messiah, which is a strong proof of the 
 absurdity of the Anglo-Israel theory which Mr. Pain and his 
 friends cannot refute by proving the throne of David to be in 
 existence during the Second Temple. 
 
 Mr. Pain must not take notice of what he reads, and this 
 must account for his absurdities. He misrepresents me in 
 reference to Isaiah ii. 2-3. I said, " So far from the House of 
 Israel accepting the Christian faith, the Prophets inform us 
 that, in the latter days, i.e., the days of the true Messiah, the 
 Gentiles will gladly embrace the Jewish faith," in proof of 
 which Isaiah says (verse 2-3) : " The Jews are Israelites the 
 whole combined." These prophets I quoted at the end of my 
 last letter, prove the absurdity of the theory I have been 
 combating. 
 
 And in conclusion Mr. Editor, in your leading article on 
 " What is an Englishman ? " I believe Mr. Pain has 
 mistaken your remarks as he does the Hebrew prophets, for 
 I cannot believe that when you said " It is perhaps easier for a 
 Jew to become a genuine Englishman than for him to become 
 a member of any other nation, that you implied that it was 
 easier to become a Christian in England, than it was for him 
 to become one or embrace any other faith in any other 
 nation, and now I will leave Mr. Pain and his friends to 
 study a little more of the Hebrew prophets, as I do not feel 
 justified in spending my time in replying to such sophistry as 
 we have been treated to, and greater distortion of Scripture 
 in the name of religion I never read, and as the faith of 
 Israel cannot suffer from such people with their false 
 claims, for that which is not true in itself no amount of 
 distortion of Scripture will make it true. So let Israel 
 
 continue in proclaiming the unity of God mi 
 "THIN fPPP "PiTtf Yours obediently, 
 
 2 9 th December, 1896. D. FRAZER. 
 
 THE ANGLO-ISRAELITES. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, I note Mr. Frazer's wish, that it is " to be understood 
 that whenever he has used the term ' Israel ' in this corres- 
 pondence, it implies the whole twelve tribes, unless otherwise 
 stated." Such an admission on his part, however, taking in
 
 conjunction with the texts and arguments he has made use of 
 only affords another proof, if one were needed, of what a 
 hopeless state of intellectual confusion he is in over the 
 elementary distinction between the two Houses of Israel and 
 Judah, after their respective captivities. He only makes 
 confusion worse than confounded. 
 
 Evidently from his concluding paragraph, he thinks dis- 
 cretion the better part of valor, and his retiring from the 
 contest under cover of a cloud of meaningless expressions, in 
 order to express his contempt for " such sophistory as we have 
 been treated to and greater distortion of scripture in the name 
 of religion " by " Mr. Pain and his friends." But I must 
 remind your correspondent, that abuse is not argument. 
 
 " The 6th chapter of Jeremiah, in its application to the 
 Babylonian captivity as testified in the last two chapters of 2 
 Kings," by Mr Frazer is wholly wrong : the former quotation, 
 as I pointed out before in my previous letter, refers to the 
 Roman invasion from the North, whilst the latter quotation 
 refers to that of the Babylonian from the East. If my opponent 
 will consult a Map, instead of a Commentary, he ought to 
 have no difficulty in realizing that fact. 
 
 Mr. Frazer is quoting Acts xi. 19, says that Christ's disciples 
 "travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching 
 the word to none but unto the Jews only," but had he read on 
 to the following chapters he would have noticed that there 
 were many places where the Jews refused to accept the Gospel 
 message, with the result that they turned to the Gentiles who 
 St. Paul declared would hear it (Acts 15). 
 
 " Symeon hath rehearsed how first God did visit the Gentiles to take 
 out of them a people for His name," (verse 14), 
 
 i.e., not an aggregate of individuals misleadingly called " the 
 Church," but a distinct people scattered amongst them ; even 
 the Dispersion, as mentioned in i Peter i. i, and ii. 7-10, which 
 latter passage is a quotation from Hosea i, which refers to the 
 Ten Tribes in their "Lo- Ammi" Gentilised condition. 
 
 Your correspondent observes, " neither Mr. Pain or his 
 friends can point to a single discourse given by Christ or His 
 disciples to the Lost Ten Tribes separate from the Jews." In 
 reply to this challenge I refer him to : 
 
 Matthew iv. 13-16, " And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in 
 Capernaum, wbich is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, 
 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet 
 saying :
 
 59 
 
 " The land of Zebultm and the land of Naphtali, 
 Toward the sea, beyond Jordan, 
 Gr-lilee of the Gentiles, 
 The people which sat in the darkness, 
 Saw a great light, 
 
 And to them that sat in the region and shadow of death, 
 To them did light spring up." 
 
 A reference to Isaiah ix., from which this quotation is taken 
 shows that the people referred to, are the Ten Tribes of Israel, 
 " even Ephraim," vide verses 8-9. Mr. Frazer may have 
 forgotten that part of "Galilee of the Gentiles" was in 
 Benjamin's territory, which tribe was associated with the 
 House of Judah up to the time of the Roman siege, during 
 which they escaped, Jeremiah vi. i. The Disciples, too, 
 with the exception of Judas Iscariot, were all Galileans, (Acts 
 ii. 71), and the Messiah, therefore, by dwelling in Galilee, and 
 preaching to the representatives of the House of Israel, who 
 accepted his teaching, enabled him to fulfil His mission to the 
 lost sheep of the House of Israel. It must also be borne in 
 mind that the territory of the tribes mentioned in Isaiah ix. 
 1-2, was in close contact with the great commercial nation of 
 Phoenicia, whose worship, manners and language greatly 
 permeated this district, as Mark xiv 70 proves ; moreover it is 
 a fact, easily capable of proof, that wherever you can find the 
 Phoenicians, there you invariably find traces of Dan, one of 
 the first of the Ten Tribes to fall into idolatory in which 
 " darkness they walked " before accepting " the light " of 
 Christianity. Further Christ by dwelling amongst these 
 Benjaminite Galilean "Jews" (for as I observed before Jews 
 and Isaelites were, at that time, synonymous terms, owing to 
 the disappearance seven centuries before of the Lost House of 
 Israel) gave a practical fulfilment of the prediction of Moses 
 that " the Beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Him," 
 Deuteronomy xxxiii. 12. 
 
 Your correspondent asks, " But what had the Jews to do 
 with the hope of Israel, according to Mr. Pain's theory." 
 Surely the obvious answer to such an enquiry is, that they were 
 as much concerned in "the hope of Israel," as their brethren 
 of the Lost Ten Tribes, although the former failed to see the 
 manner by which that expectation was to be accomplished, 
 Isaiah vi. 9-10, and Acts xxviii. 23-27. 
 
 Mr. Frazer in again disputing my interpretation of Hosea i., 
 says that the statement in verse 6, " God will no more have
 
 6o 
 
 mercy upon them," i.e. they will no more be a separate nation, 
 is wholly unwarranted, either by the passage itself, or the 
 context to which it has reference ; what it does mean is, I 
 maintain, that the House of Israel would " no more have 
 mercy " shown to them, during the Mosaic dispensation, as 
 evidenced by the fact that they were divorced from that 
 Covenant, and exiled from their land, in contra-distinction to 
 the declaration in the same chapter of the Jews that " I will 
 have mercy upon the House of Judah," who were allowed to 
 return in peace from the Babylonian captivity Mr. Frazer 
 goes on to state, " For it was as Baali that God was known in 
 Israel, for Jeraboam set up one calf at Dan, &c," but I thought 
 that every schoolboy knew that the Israel here referred to 
 means the Ten Tribes, and not the twelve, as Mr. Frazer 
 "wishes to be understood whenever he uses this term, unless 
 otherwise stated." Oh, what a muddle ! 
 
 Hosea iii., iv., v., which your correspondent quotes, refers 
 as I said before, to the House of Judah, and not that of Israel. 
 He further observes that the " Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants 
 are so combined by Divine command that we cannot separate 
 them." But as he gives no Scriptural reference for this 
 assertion, it is useless for me to attempt to conjecture on what 
 grounds he has made it. 
 
 Mr. Frazer also endeavours to show by extracts from 
 commentators that Isaiah liii. refers to Jeremiah instead of the 
 Messiah, but some of the references and inferences drawn 
 therefrom, which he gives in support of the extraordinary 
 statement, will not bear the interprepation which he has placed 
 upon them. For instance, he quotes Isaiah liv. " Sing oh 
 barren," &c., but the whole of this chapter refers to the 
 divorced House of Israel, of whom it is said, " for more are 
 the childen of the desolate, than the children of the married 
 wife," that is Judah, whose children all told, barely number 
 twelve millions, as contrasted to the innumerable population 
 of (British) Israel. The concluding verse too, declares that 
 " no weapon that is formed against thee, shall prosper," a 
 promise which the whole history of the Jews contradicts, but 
 it has been fulfilled to the letter, in the history of our most 
 happy, blessed, and prosperous nation, as Isaiah foretells 
 (vide chapter Ixi. 9.) 
 
 Jeremiah ii. 19 is quoted in support of his contention but the 
 context from verse 13 onwards shows that it has reference to-
 
 6i 
 
 the House of Judah, " the green olive tree " of Ezekiel xvii. 24 
 whose " branches of it are broken off" vide Jeremiah xi. 16, 
 and Romans xi. 17 ; further I may observe in refutation of Mr. 
 Frazer's statement that Jeremiah is referred to in Isaiah 53 
 that that is also incorrect, for that Prophet was not "cut off 
 out of the land of the living," vide verse 8, but lived to accom- 
 plish his destiny of transplanting "the tender twig" of Ezekiel 
 xvii. 22, in the person of Zedekiah's daughter, whom he 
 conducted to Ireland and married to a Prince of the 
 Tuatha de Danaan, or tribe of Dan, by which the sovereignty of 
 the throne of David, was transferred to the house of Judah to 
 the House of Israel of which latter house that tribe formed 
 part. It will, probably, be. a source of surprise, not only to 
 your correspondent, but also to most of your readers to know 
 that Jeremiah has been proved by a Clergyman of the Church 
 of England and an advocate of the Anglo- Israel theory, to 
 be identical with the great Irish Legislator, Ollambh Fodhla, a 
 medallion of whom, as well as of Moses is placed in the Dome 
 of the Four Courts of Dublin. He established a School of 
 the Prophets at Tara. 
 
 With reference to the Abraham Covenant, I did not say 
 that " Go^ was the testator," but Christ, and, therefore, my 
 statement is not " poor reasoning this for the Stock Exchange." 
 
 Mr. Frazer states " Isaiah liv. is addressed to the servant of 
 God, ' Israel,' and in continuation of the previous chapters." 
 For once I quite agree with your correspondent in his 
 statement, but let me tell him that " the servant " here 
 referred to is not Judah, but Israel of the Ten Tribes. He 
 need not refer to a commentary to verify this statement, but 
 only turn to the 65th chapter of the same prophet, where he 
 will find my explanation confirmed, by reference to verses 13 
 to 15, wherein the temporal welfare of these two people is 
 contrasted in the following words : 
 
 "Behold, My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry"; 
 Behold, My servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; 
 Behold, My servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed ; 
 Behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for 
 
 sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. 
 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen . . . 
 And he shall call his servants by another name." 
 
 I believe that name is British, and can be accounted for in the 
 following manner : B'nY/z covenant ; Ish=mar ; covenant
 
 62 
 
 man, covenant people which we are if descended from 
 Abraham, the man with whom God made a covenant of salt. 
 This quotation alone proves that after Isaiah's day the two 
 Houses were to be separate, and also that the Jews of the 
 House of Judah were to retain their name, whilst their 
 brethren of the House of Israel were to be called by 
 another one. 
 
 Mr. Frazer observes that " the Jews must be allowed to 
 understand the meaning of their own Scriptures much better 
 than Gentiles" : but I would remind him that they were given 
 to the Ten Tribes quite as much as to the Two, and that I, as 
 one of the former, am quite as well qualified as he is to 
 understand their meaning, and I trust that I have given 
 practical demonstration of my ability to do so in the numerous 
 letters you have been so kind as to insert for me in your 
 influential journal. 
 
 Your correspondent again repeats his statement that he " has 
 proved from the history and the Bible that the Scythians 
 were descended from Japheth, but as I have given him my 
 answer to that assertion in my previous letter, I cannot repeat 
 it ; besides, it would occupy more space than I have a right to 
 expect to enter into the historical argument, as it would require 
 two or three of your columns to make it intelligible to your 
 readers not to say Mr. Frazer. 
 
 I have turned up Isaiah ii. 2-3, but I cannot find anything to 
 the effect, as your correspondent states, that " the Jews are 
 Israelites, the whole combined." By what principle he arrives 
 at the conclusion that the Jews, who are only two tribes of the 
 Israelites, are "the whole combined" I am at a loss to conceive, 
 and I can therefore only suggest that he should apply to 
 himself the advice which he has given to me, that he " must 
 not take notice of what he reads, and this must account for his 
 absurdities," as also, no doubt, for the curious inference which 
 he has drawn from your leading article on " What is an 
 Englishmen ?" 
 
 In conclusion, whilst thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your 
 kindness in admitting this long correspondence to your columns, 
 may I express the hope that if I have excited in the minds of 
 your readers any interest as to the identity of the British 
 Nation with their brethren of the lost House of Israel, that 
 they will read some of the numerous publications on this 
 subject, published by Banks and Son, of Racquet Court,.
 
 63 
 
 Fleet Street, and especially two small pamphlets by Dr. Grant, 
 " The Covenants," (2d.) and " Israel in the New Testament" (4d.) 
 which latter work contains " Proofs of the national conversion 
 of the Ten Tribes to Christianity." These small pamphlets 
 contain more argument and information than can be obtained 
 in any number of commentaries, no matter how learned their 
 writers may be. 
 
 Trusting that nothing that I have written has given offence 
 to any of your readers, least of all to Mr. Frazer, who has so 
 kindly come forward and devoted as he must have done so 
 much time and research in combatting my arguments. 
 
 Believe me, 
 
 Your Brother Israelite, 
 January 3rd, 1897. H. H. PAIN.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The following appeared under the head of " Inquiries " in 
 The Jewish, World of September 4th, 1896: 
 
 WAILING FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 J. D. inquires ii any reader could throw light npon the 
 origin of the wailing for the dead, as practised in Ireland at 
 wakes and termed Keenen, as the employment of professional 
 wailing women was customary with the Palestinean Jews as 
 late as the 4th century, C.E. 
 
 The foregoing inquiry was answered as follows by a 
 well-known Anglo-Israelite, under the initials of D.H. : 
 
 WAILING FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 To the Editor of the Jewish World. 
 
 SIR, In your issue of the 1 1 th September your correspondent 
 " Dublinensis," when endeavouring to reply to a query of 
 " J.D." relative to the Irish custom of Keening, or wailing for 
 the dead, gives a very confused statement of the traditions 
 which connect us with the East. 
 
 The one material fact which acts as a historic foundation 
 for those traditions is the Lia. Fail, or stone of destiny. But 
 this was never said to be " the original Table of the Law ; " it 
 was known as Jacob's pillow. 
 
 There is no ancient tradition as to the Tables of the Law, 
 but there is an ancient tradition that "The Jews' Ark" is 
 hidden in the hill of Tara, and modern Bible students have 
 said that if it is there the Tables of the Law are in it. In this 
 connection the change of the name of the hill to Tara almost 
 the same as Torah at the time that the Lia Fail was brought 
 there is not to be overlooked. 
 
 The Tuatha de Dannan, who settled in Ireland long before 
 the name of the hill was changed, bear the name of the most 
 venturesome and unsettled Hebrew tribe. The Fenians were
 
 65 
 
 the Phoenicians, and settled in the south. These were the 
 ancient inhabitants of Canaan, and it is highly probable that 
 the custom of wailing for the dead was common to both 
 peoples. 
 
 Keening is practised amongst the peasantry to-day ; it is 
 usually done by relatives, and is a strange, sad, weird and 
 mournful dirge. It is handed on from generation to generation, 
 and is a natural expression on the part of those who wish to 
 give voice to their grief. The custom of " making this ado 
 and weeping " was practised in Palestine A.D. 31, and it would 
 seem that a " tumultous " and loud expression of grief is of 
 Eastern origin, and has idolatrous associations. 
 
 The antiquarian question as to whether the Torah is 
 hidden at Tara could be disposed of by a little effort and the 
 expenditure of a small sum of money. It is strange that no 
 attempt to explore the Mergech or receptacle there has ever 
 been made. 
 
 I am, Sir, &c., 
 
 i5th September, 1896. D. H.
 
 riiislr- Jsrad |bs0tiattan 
 
 PATRON : 
 
 The RIGHT HONORABLE THE EARL OF RADNOR. 
 
 COUNCIL: 
 
 Dr. ALDERSMITH, F.R.C.S., Upper Wimpole Street, London. 
 
 Rev. MARCUS S. BERGMANN, Burdett Road, Bow. 
 
 E. W, BIRD, ESQ. (" Philo-IsRAEL "), Tyndall's Park, Bristol (Chairman). 
 
 Dr. DYCE BROWN, M.A., Seymour Street, Portman Square, W. 
 
 FREDERICK C. DANVERS, Esq., India Office, Whitehall, W. 
 
 RICHARD FOLKARD, ESQ., Bickley, Kent. 
 
 Rev. CHANCELLOR HANAN, D:D., The Rectory, Tipperary. 
 
 LANDSEER MACKENZIE, ESQ., Bournemouth. 
 
 Rev. W. M. H. MILNER, M.A. (" Oxonian "), All Saints' Parsonage, Lockerbie, 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 DOUGLAS A. ONSLOW, ESQ., J.P., Putney (Vice-Cliairman.) 
 H. H. PAIN, ESQ., Bromley, Kent. 
 J. HOPE-WALLACE, ESQ., J.P., Featherstone Castle, Northumberland. 
 
 EDITOR OF "THE BANNER OF ISRAEL:" 
 
 E. W. BIRD, ESQ., (" PHILO-!SRAEL "), Bristol. 
 
 EDITOR OF "THE COVENANT PEOPLE:" 
 
 REV. W. M. H. MILNER, M.A. ("OXONIAN"), Lockerbie, Scotland. 
 
 HON. TREASURER : 
 
 DR. ALDERSMITH, F.R.C.S., London. 
 
 HON. SECRETARIES : 
 
 REV. CHANCELLOR HANAN, D.D., Rector of Tipperary. 
 
 DOUGLAS A. ONSLOW, ESQ., J.P., 5, Upper Richmond Road, Putney, S.W. 
 
 ( Vice- Chairman.) 
 
 GENERAL SECRETARY: 
 
 REV. FREDERICK ASTON, Vicar of Bushbury, Wolverhampton. 
 
 BANKERS : 
 
 The UNION BANK OF LONDON, Regent Street Branch. 
 
 The Association arranges for Lectures and Drawing-Room Meetings, and 
 undertakes Public Meetings and Conferences in all parts of the Kingdom. It 
 also undertakes to provide efficient Lecturers. The Rules of the Association 
 can be obtained from the Secretary.
 
 A 000137072 5 
 
 SECOND EDITION. Enlarged & "mproired 
 
 and 
 Prophecy. " 
 
 With COLORED MAP, by 
 
 H. HERBERT PAIN. 
 
 The most extensive Resume of the Anglo-Israel 
 Argument yet Published. 
 
 The latter portion of this Work contains a 
 
 Scriptural Solution of the Turkish Problem. 
 
 pp. 184, long 8vo, stiff boards. 
 
 OISTE SH in. H-TINT 
 
 (Postage 3d. extra.) 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 Robert Banks and Son, Racquet Court, Fleet Street, 
 And can be obtained by order, of all Booksellers.