went forth; and if at all found, whether in larger or smaller numbers, it must be in circumstances of isolation, offering few temptations to merge themselves into the body of the Jews, or into the nations of the Gentiles. In the revolutions of kingdoms, the obscurity of localities from change of name, the vicissitudes which have occurred in the great Jewish family in the east, and the exaggerated testimony of the modern Hebrew history, it would be more curious than profitable to follow the changes, alleged and real, which occurred to the various Jewish colonies of the dispersions and captivities. The Jews of Persia are doubtless, more or less, descended from the tribes. The Affghans, Circassians, and others, may or may not be related to the dispersion. But what is wanted, and has long been sought, is a body entitled from incontrovertible internal proof to be considered as the nucleus and representatives of those tribes. It remains to be proved whether those proofs which follow, referring to the Jews of Daghistan, fulfil the expectation in question. They are satisfactory to my own mind; and I have no doubt they will prove so to those who look beyond the surface, and who are not fettered by prejudice and foregone conclusions.

In this brief sketch I have limited myself to a simple statement of facts: nor can I afford time at present to apply these to the demolition of various theories which have been propounded by successive writers on the subject; but shall leave these facts to their legitimate effect on those who have given attention to the subject one way or another. Those who take an interest in the Talmudic controversy, and in the efforts which are making to detach the Jewish mind from the influence of the rabbins, will immediately perceive, in the perfect ignorance of the Jews of Daghistan of the precepts and authority of that celebrated code, the irresistible proof how much modern Judaism is opposed to the views and practice of the early Jewish church.

CONJECTURES CONCERNING THE TRIBES.

*

BISHOP Newton has remarked, "that the difficulty of finding out the habitations of the Ten Tribes has induced some to maintain, that they returned into their own country, with the other two tribes, after the Babylonish captivity." The decree of Cyrus extended, it is true, "to all the people of God," (Ezra i. 3,) and that of Artaxerxes to all the people of Israel, (vii. 13 ;) and no doubt many of the Israelites took advantage of these decrees, and returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra to their own cities; but still the main body of the Ten Tribes remained behind. Ezra, who should best know, says that "there rose up of the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin," (i. 5;) and he calls "the Samaritans the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin;" these two tribes were the principals, the others were only accessories. And if they did not return at this time, they cannot be supposed to have returned in a body at any time

*On the Prophecies.

after this; for we read of no such adventure in history; we know neither the time nor occasion of their return, nor who were the generals and leaders of such an expedition. "The entire body of the people of Israel," says Josephus, "remained in that country, where they were carried captive; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the Ten Tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers."*

Indeed, it is natural to suppose, and what evidences history furnishes confirm it, that the Jews of the various captivities spread themselves and took root in the lands of their captivity, and throughout Media, Parthia, Mesopotamia, Ethiopia, and India; indeed, throughout the whole east. I think it a question upon which it were vain to speculate, whether the Jews of those regions are not largely descended from the Ten Tribes. The point which remains to be proved is, whether, amidst the amalgamation of the tribes, and the destruction of genealogies, any portion may be pointed out, incontrovertibly and exclusively a remnant of those tribes, the escaped of Israel. The evi* Antiq. b. xi. c. 5.

† Orosius, b. ii. c. 7.

dences are numerous and curious, which have satisfied various travellers and inquirers of the general existence of descendants of the missing tribes. In the fifth century Jerome writes, "Unto this day the Ten Tribes are subject to the kings of Persia, nor has their captivity been ever loosed.' ""* He adds, "The Ten Tribes inhabit at this day the cities and the mountains of the Medes."† "In Samarcand," says Benjamin of Tudela, "the city of Tamerlane, there are fifty thousand Jews under the presidency of Rabbi Obadiah; and in the mountains and cities of Nubor, there are four tribes of Israel resident; namely, Dan, Zebulon, Asher, Naphtali."

A writer, who published his travels in the beginning of the last century, says, "that many of the Turks came from Tartary, and that the Tartars are the descendants of the Ten Tribes, which tribes were brought into Tartary by Shalmaneser." "The capital of Tartary," he adds, "is called Samargan, which is very little different from Samaria, once the great capital of Israel's monarch. They have another town called Jericho, a mount named Sion, and another mount distinguished by the name of Tabor, with a river Yordan, (from the Vol. vi. p. 80.

* Vol. vi. p. 7.