than to make out any theory of the future, and find the proof of it in prophecy. Witness the many theories of the present day, respecting the prospects and destiny of the Jews.

As to the other arguments adduced by Dr. Grant, we regard the main strength of his position as resting upon these two, viz., the tradition prevalent among the Nestorians themselves and admitted by the resident Jews; and the probability that their country is one of the places to which the ten tribes were carried away. These, we admit, if the reports made are entirely correct and not over-colored, are important facts; and as such we shall hereafter give them a more particular examination. Besides these, however, Dr. Grant has thrown together a mass of what he probably would regard as cumulative evidence, drawn from the consideration of their language, their names, their reputed observance of parts of the Mosaic ritual, such as sacrifices, vows, and the like; their physiognomy and proper names; their tribes and government; their custom of blood-revenge; their social and domestic habits, hospitality, marriage rites, and general occupations. All these are brought forward with great confidence, as being identical with, and derived from, the similar characteristics and customs of the Hebrews; and as therefore affording decisive proof that the people in question are of the race of Israel. But in the exhibition of all this evidence, we regret to perceive too often the air rather of a special pleader, than of the accurate historian and sound critic.

Thus, then, we have here another added to the multitude of theories, according to which, in turn, the ten tribes of Israel have been lost and found throughout all the northern half of the globe,-in every country of Europe, Asia and North America. Is the new theory better than the old? Since the publication of Dr. Grant's book, we have heard the remark made in various parts of the country, that admitting all its statements to be true and well founded, he would appear to have established his position. For this reason, it seems to be a duty towards the Christian public, to examine somewhat closely the evidence adduced, in order to judge both of its intrinsic value and of its bearing on the point in question.

Of the previous theories, that which recognizes the lost tribes of Israel in the aborigines of North America, is perhaps at the present day the most popular. It has been sustained with a good deal of acuteness and much zeal by Dr. Boudinot, Ethan

SECOND SERIES, VOL. VI. NO. II.

19

Smith and M. M. Noah; and to it, after their example, Mr. Silk Buckingham has recently given in his adhesion. As a refutation of this theory, Dr. Grant thinks it sufficient to remark as follows, p. 135: "The evidence which has been adduced to identify the American Indians with the lost tribes is entirely circumstantial, and based chiefly upon customs, etc., which are primitive rather than peculiarly Jewish; customs similar to those found among the Arabs and other eastern nations." ask the reader to bear this remark in mind.

We

It would lead us too far to follow out in detail all the minor points of evidence adduced by the author; nor is this essential. If we can succeed in showing the true character and force of the more important portions of his argument, the reader will then be in a situation duly to appreciate the remainder. Nor do we think it necessary to follow the precise order of the book; but shall reserve the consideration of their language, their traditions, and their country, till the last.

We begin with Chap. VI. From the names applied by the Nestorians to themselves, Dr. Grant derives an argument for their Hebrew descent. Now, so far as they are called Syrians, Chaldeans, or Nestorians, we know the origin of these names, and that they have in themselves no bearing on the point at issue. The term Beni Israel, by which they are further said to call themselves, is obviously connected with the tradition of their descent, which will be considered afterwards. But the name Nazareans, which is likewise very commonly employed by themselves and others, Dr. Grant thinks, may be, " as evidence of their Hebrew descent, in some respects even more satisfactory than the expressive appellation, Sons of Israel." This appears, as he supposes, from the fact, that this term was originally applied to "Christians converted from Judaism;" in other words, all Nazareans were at first "Jews, or Israelites converted to Christianity." He cites the remark of Mosheim, that "those who have the title of Christians among the Greeks, were among the Jews called Nazareans;" and after an argument of some length, sums up his conclusion thus: "It is quite clear, that the Nazareans were converted Jews; and the Nestorians, being Nazareans, must be converted Jews." p. 198.

Now on all this it is sufficient to make two remarks. First, because the name Nazareans may, in its origin, have had this limited signification, it does not follow that it must retain the same now, after the lapse of nearly eighteen centuries. And

further, Dr. Grant appears to have overlooked the fact, or perhaps was not aware of it, that in the wide-spread Arabic language this same term Nazareans is the only current name for Christians. From the western coasts of Africa to the eastern shores of Arabia Felix; from the Mediterranean to the mountains of Kurdistan; wherever an Arab has occasion to speak of Christians, he knows them solely as Nazareans.* Now the great body of the Chaldeans (papal Nestorians) on the west of the mountains speak the Arabic wholly or occasionally; and we therefore need not go back to antiquity to account for its introduction or its meaning among the Nestorians. They have adopted it, just as they have adopted their title for Dr. Grant himself, Hakim,t from the Arabic.

In Chap. VII, several things are brought forward in regard to the rites and customs of the Nestorians, which the author refers directly to an hereditary observance of the Mosaic ritual. Among these are sacrifices; which, in the form of "peaceofferings," are found among this people. "They are usually offered to return thanks for God's benefits, or to obtain new favors from him; as, for instance, the recovery of sick friends, or their own restoration to health. The animal is then usually slain before the door of the church, when a little of the blood is often put upon the door or lintels." p. 207. The flesh is then usually eaten. But Dr. Grant admits, that "sacrifices are common also among heathen nations, and are practised by the Muhammedans, and even by the Armenians." As to the Muhammedans, similar offerings are frequent among them. The writer was once present, when his Bedawîn guides offered such a sacrifice in the midst of the desert between Sinai and Palestine.

* Sing. Nusrany; Plur. Nusara and Nusarah. See Freytag's Lex. Arab. IV. pp. 287, 288. In Acts 11: 26, the Arabic version has for Christians a word derived from Messiah, much as if we should speak of Messianites. But this is very unusual. The Syriac in the same passage adopts the Greek word Xooriavol.-Mr. Smith remarks, that in using the term Nusrâny, the Nestorians "seemed to feel that it is a generic. term, and sometimes added Siriany to make it distinctive of their sect; which was equivalent to calling themselves Syrian Christians." Researches, Vol. II. pp. 214, 215.

66

In the letters of the Patriarch, etc. Zeitschr. für die Kunde des Morgenl. III. p. 222. Hakim signifies properly “a wise man ;" but is in common use for "physician, doctor."

A kid was killed as a " redemption," in order that its death might redeem their camels from death; and also as a peace-offering for the prosperity of our journey. With the blood they smeared crosses on the necks of their camels, and on other parts of their bodies.* But how then are we to know, that the sacrifices of the Nestorians are so "peculiarly Jewish," as to prove that people to be of Hebrew origin, and not also to prove the same of the Muhammedans and Armenians? To this Dr. Grant replies, that "in all these (latter) cases, no proof can be furnished from the attendant circumstances, or the people themselves, by which either they or their sacrifices can be traced to a Hebrew origin." p. 210. It is only in connection with other evidence of the Hebrew descent of the Nestorians, that these sacrifices" afford the strong proof of their Israelitish origin." This we must regard as verging closely upon that species of logic sometimes called " begging the question." The argument drawn out, is as follows:

The Nestorians are of Hebrew descent.

They have sacrifices.

Therefore: Their sacrifices are

of Hebrew origin, and prove them to be of Hebrew descent.

The Armenians are not of He

brew descent.

They have sacrifices. But Therefore: Their sacrifices are not of Hebrew origin, and prove nothing.

The occurrence of vows among the Nestorians is adduced by Dr. Grant as going to prove also their Hebrew descent. Strangely enough he brings this topic forward, as if vows among Christians were peculiar to the Nestorians; without the slightest allusion to the very extensive prevalence of vows of various kinds, not only among the Greeks and Romans, as well as the primitive Christians, but also throughout the most of modern Christendom and the Muhammedan world. Yet the temples of the Christian and the mosks of the Muslim to this day everywhere

* Biblical Researches in Palestine, etc. I. p. 269. See also Lane's Modern Egyptians, I. pp. 58, 110, 111, 306. II. pp. 251, 293, 303. The Coptic Christians have also sacrifices at their marriages and at the tombs of their relatives; Lane, ibid. II. pp. 331, 335.

See also the account given by the Nestorians themselves of their sacrifices to Smith and Dwight; where they are represented merely as 66 a good work." Researches II. p. 216.

exhibit votive offerings; besides the multitudes of vows made and fulfilled in private, that have left no trace behind.*

The first-fruits of the fields, gardens, vineyards, and flocks, according to Dr. Grant, are to this day presented to the Lord by the independent Nestorians, as they were among the Jews of old. p. 213. They are carried to the principal church, and are consumed by attendants and visitors at the church, or in public festivals. Such was indeed the ancient Hebrew custom. But so obvious is the idea of such an offering of gratitude, that among nearly all nations who had, or have, an established system of sacrifices, the offering of the first-fruits has rarely been omitted; so that the custom may be regarded as one of the very earliest institutes of worship. It prevailed among the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians ;† and at the present day, we have little doubt, that traces of a similar custom may be discovered among other oriental Christians. At any rate, the custom has been found prevailing among the American Indians to such an extent, as to form one of the principal arguments of those who advocate the descent of the latter from the ten tribes. "Their most solemn worship was the sacrifice of the first-fruits, in which they burnt the first and fattest buck, and feasted together on what else they had collected." Among the tribes north of the Ohio, twelve old men were selected, who held up the venison and the first-fruits (of corn), and prayed with their faces to the east; after which the offering was eaten.§ This indeed is one of the instances which Dr. Grant pronounces to be "primitive rather than peculiarly Jewish ;" but what is there in the first-fruits of

* Dr. Grant relates the instance of a priest, who was trying to lead a very holy life, and had therefore taken the vow of a Nazarite, letting his hair and beard grow, and eating no meat nor milk nor oil. pp. 92, 212. Such instances are said to be uncommon; and are obviously nothing more nor less than the ascetic vows so frequent in the history and practice of all the churches. There is nothing more Jewish in the one case, than in the other.

† See the References in Winer Bibl. Realw. I. p. 404. Compare Spencer Legg. Ritt. p. 716.

Smith's Hist. of New Jersey. See also the testimony of William Penn, Adair, and others, collected by Boudinot, Star in the West, pp. 209–229.

§ Beatty, quoted by Boudinot, ib. p. 211.