beyond the bounds of the land "into the way of the Gentiles," nor even within the bounds of Palestine to visit "the cities of the Samaritans," but to confine themselves exclusively "to the lost sheep of the House of Israel"—that is, to their own Jewish people, who (as we shall see) are throughout the New Testament called alternately "Jews" and "Israel." This is all plain and obvious; and we know, as a matter of fact and history, that the ministry of John the Baptist, and of our Lord Jesus, and of the Twelve Apostles, until after His ascension, was confined to the "Jews" in Palestine. Anglo-Israelism, however, is able by some fiction to transform the Twelve Disciples into the tribe of Benjamin, and "the lost sheep of the House of Israel" into a medley of Gentile nations located "in Central Asia," and other specified regions, who, though unknown to themselves to be Israelites in origin, and mistaken by the Apostles in their subsequent missionary journeys for "Gentiles," were really the "lost Ten Tribes," alias "the Saxons," and progenitors of the English! And these are only a few typical samples of the so-called "historical proofs" and Bible interpretations on which the whole theory rests. I must now pass on to another part of the subject, but let me, before doing so, earnestly commend to you whenever you come across Anglo-Israel literature to keep in mind the good advice of a well-known Bishop to his clergy—"Always verify your references"—and I would add, "study the context"—and you will find that the Scriptures quoted in them are either misapplications or perversions of the true meaning of the text. In fact, there is not a Scripture, however sublime and glorious its import, and however plain and obvious its meaning, which does not become distorted and perverted in Anglo-Israel hands.[12]

Here are one or two samples. Anglo-Israelism is based for the most part on the false supposition of a separate calling and destiny of the Ten Tribes from that of Judah:—

"The natural seed of Abraham," we are told, "is divided in the Bible, the word Israel standing generally for the Ten Tribes, and Judah for Two Tribes. These divisions have separate paths appointed them to walk in through the centuries. 'All the House of Israel wholly,' 'the whole House of Israel,' 'all the House of Israel,' have a special work. The Ten Tribes are especially called in the Scriptures the seed of Abraham. Sometimes 'My chosen'; again, 'Mine inheritance,' and 'My servant.' God, in referring to them in their scattered state, and of His gathering them together, says (Isaiah xli. 8): 'But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen; the seed of Abraham My friend—thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art My servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.'"[13]

I shall show later on that it is not true to say that the word Israel stands "generally" for the Ten Tribes, and Judah for the Two Tribes. "Generally," the name Israel stands for all the descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed by God Himself to "Israel," though in the historical books, especially in 1 and 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles, and in a few passages in the Prophets, it is used to describe the northern kingdom of the Ten Tribes in contradistinction to the southern kingdom of Judah. But its use in the more limited and temporary sense as applied to the Ten Tribes can always be clearly discerned from the context. But in order to support the assertion that "these two divisions have separate paths appointed them to walk through the centuries," it is affirmed that the designations "All the House of Israel wholly," "the whole House of Israel," "My chosen," "Mine inheritance," and "My servant," are especially applied in the Scriptures to the "Ten Tribes" in contradistinction to Judah. Now this is utterly baseless, as any intelligent Bible-reader will find if he takes the trouble to look up all the passages where these expressions are used.[14]