A STUDY IN "SCARLET"
In giving further proof concerning that prince of the scarlet thread, whom historians tell us was married to Tea Tephi, the Eastern princess, we know of nothing that will be so helpful, satisfactory and convincing as to give his genealogy; beginning with his fathers, Juda and Zarah, and come down from father to son until we reach him. We are able to do this, but only because Prof. Totten has faithfully scanned the pages of ancient and modern history, and as a result has compiled and given to the world the genealogy of the Zarah branch of the royal family, which was exalted to the throne when the breach was made in the line of Pharez in the days of Zedekiah.
Culling from a genealogical diagram found in No. 5 of "Our Race" we have the following: Judah, begat Zarah; Zarah, begat Ethan; Ethan, begat Mahol; Mahol, begat Calcol; Calcol, begat Gadhol; Gadhol, begat Easru; Easru, begat Sru; Sru, begat Heber Scot; Heber Scot, begat Boamhain; Boamhain, begat Ayhaimhain; Ayhaimhain, begat Tait; Tait, begat Aghenoin; Aghenoin, begat Feabla Glas; Feabla Glas, begat Neanuail; Neanuail, begat Nuaghadh; Nuaghadh, begat Alloid; Alloid, begat Earchada, Earchada, begat Deagfatha; Deagfatha, begat Bratha; Bratha, begat Broegan; Broegan, begat Bille; Bille, begat Gallam (or William, the conqueror of Ireland); Gallam, begat Herremon, (who married Tea Tephi) and Heber and Ambergin his two brothers.
Of course, it is impossible to give Prof. Totten's argument by which this genealogy can be verified, but we can call attention to a few straws, which, you know, show which way the wind blows.
First, you will notice that we have italicized some of these names, two of which are Heber, and one Tait. In giving this genealogy we have given the direct line from father through only one son, but some of these men were the fathers of more than one son. Sru, for instance, the father of Heber Scot, had two other sons. Tait, who begat Aghenoin, had a son by the name of Heber. The fact that there are three Hebers in this branch of the royal family is most significant, for that is the name from which comes one of the national names of their race, i.e., Hebrews.
Also, we have told our readers of the confusion which most students of history find in trying to straighten out the history of Ireland, but it is generally conceded that there are two distinct phases to the Hebrew story of Ireland. The one is that concerning Jeremiah and the king's daughters, and the other is that which is told in the Milesian records, in which we have the story of the prince who married one of Jeremiah's wards. The Milesian story takes its rise in Egypt and Palestine amid the scenes of Israel's infancy. Now we are ready to call your attention to two other names in the genealogy of Zarah's royal house, which we have italicized, i.e., Easru and Sru, for in the Milesian records the descendants of these men, and some of their predecssors, were called by a name which to this day means the children of the Red (or scarlet) Branch.
The prince in the Bible story, as given in Ezekiel's riddle, is called a young twig, and the highest branch of the high cedar, and, after Zedekiah's sons were slain, it was not possible to find a prince who was eligible to sit on that throne unless he belonged to the line of the scarlet thread, for the other line, from which Christ came, was with the Jews in Babylon. Hence these children of the "Red Branch" must have belonged to the Scarlet-thread branch of the royal family. The Milesian records also call them "Curaithe na Cruabh ruadh," the "Knights of the Red Branch."
"The term Milesian is derived from the medieval title of Gallam, the conqueror of Ireland, who was called Milesius, or the Milesian, i.e., the soldier, a term derived from the Latin miles, whence we derive our word militia." -- Totten.
"Furthermore, these knights of the Red Branch, of whom Gallam, the conquering Milesian, was one, called themselves Craunnogs, or 'the crowned.' The true meaning of their name is 'Tree tops,' for it comes from words common to all dialects: craun 'a tree,' and og ‘a tuft' or 'termination.' We use the same word for a ‘crown,' as they did, and the very use of it in common language would be enough to verify this identity of race were there not other reasons in their history and legends to establish it conclusively." -- Totten.
One hundred years ago Joseph Ben Jacob, a Celt, and a Catholic, in a work called "Precursory Proofs," said: "Among the five equestrian orders of ancient Ireland was one called Craobh-ruadh (the Red Branch). The origin of this order was so very ancient that all attempts at explanation have hitherto failed. Some suppose that it originated from the Ulster arms, which are 'luna, a hand sinister, couped at the wrist, Mars.' But these admit it should in such case be called crobhruadh, or of the bloody hand."
This man was really proving the Hebrew and Egyptian origin of the Irish Celts, but was applying all the evidence that he found to Joseph, knowing nothing of the story of the breach in the royal family of Judah, and of the exaltation of the Scarlet Branch, who landed in the plantation of Ulster. Else he would have known where to place the meaning of that ensignum of the red, or bloody, hand "couped at the wrist" with a scarlet thread which found its way into the royal arms of Ulster.
The prophet Nahum, while speaking of "the excellency of Israel," says: "The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet." Scarlet is the characteristic color of the English army, and they certainly wore "red coats" during the Revolutionary War. We were recently in an English city, and we took particular note of the scarlet thread, or stripe which ran up the front, around the neck, down the arms and up the pantaloon legs of the uniform of the post men of the province.
A British consul once told us that every official order he received was tied with a scarlet thread, and showed us one which he had just received. This same thing is true also with all English officials, to whom written orders are sent, and from this custom comes that well-known political and diplomatical metaphor, "Red-tape."
We have also learned, from sources which we deem authentic, that a scarlet thread is woven into the material from which all ropes are manufactured, which are to be used in the construction of vessels for the British government, or navy. This is done so that under and all circumstances these vessels may be identified as the property of Great Britain, even though they be sunk in many fathoms of water at the bottom of the sea.
When Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, he was under the necessity of crossing his hands in order that he might get his right hand on the boy that the Holy Spirit was designating as the one whom God had chosen as the birthright inheritor; and in thus crossing his hands Jacob necessarily made this sign (X), or the sign of the cross. This is the pre-Christian cross of which relics are found along the trail of Israel, as they were being sifted through the nations to the isles of the Northwest, and which Ignatius Donnelly finds not only in Egypt and Ireland, but almost everywhere else. Donnelly's object in discussing the pre-Christian cross is to prove that the cross has been a sacred emblem ever since the creation of man, and that it originated in the garden of Eden, because of the four rivers which parted in Eden and became four heads. Donnelly finds that in Egypt, Assyria and the British Isles, the pre-Christian cross was emblematical of creative power and eternity. He also finds carved on Egyptian monuments (see cut) a very ancient sacred emblem, which he says Sir Gardener Wilkinson says was called "The cross-cake," which is, as you see, a cake with a cross on it, and as soon as we read this in Donnelly's "Atlantis," instantly we associated the Egyptian Cross-cake with the following: "Ephraim is a cake not turned." We know that Ephraim was associated with the cross that Jacob made, that he came from Egypt, and if he was not in some way associated with that cake with which are associated both Egypt and a cross, why should God use the metaphor, "cake," in a prophecy concerning Ephraim's people? Here is a question for all grades of skeptics, from the "Higher Critics" up to the honest infidel, to answer. Thank God, that, when it comes to this question of critics, there is a superlative degree; i.e., Highest Critics!
This sign (X) has floated in what is known as the "Union Jack," from the flagstaffs of the United Kingdom, and from the mast heads of English vessels for as many centuries as the kingdom has any history. It is also in that which is now accepted the world over as the national flag of the British people, which is described as a scarlet field with the union on a field of blue, to which are now added certain Christian crosses, one of which is scarlet, and across the others there is a narrow strip or thread of scarlet.
Ephraim as a cake unturned must mean, whatever else it may mean, that he has a hidden or unseen side, and that he is not altogether the fresh young nation that he seems to be. This new side is the Saxon side, with this sign (SaXon) buried in the very heart of his name, and the other side is the Ephraim-Israel side, but it is the same old cake, with its name of Saac's sons burnt through until it shows on this side.
If it be true that the sign of the cross became sacred in the garden of Eden, then surely, after the giving of the birthright, it became doubly so to the house of Joseph; but now it is thrice sacred to them, for on the cross their Saviour made full atonement for sin.
We believe that when Jacob said to Joseph: "I know it, my son, I know it!" he not only knew he had his right hand on Ephraim's head, which Joseph thought should have been on Manasseh's, but that he also knew why he blessed the sons of Joseph with the sign of the cross above their heads. For while he prayed with his hands thus crossed he said, "God . . . the Angel, which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads," and we know there is no other name given among men whereby we can be saved, except the name of Him who shed his blood upon the cross to redeem men.
To us it is indeed significant that the birthright blessing was given with the sign of the cross. That the cross was sacred Jacob certainly knew. That God sent his Divine Word unto Jacob, we Christian Saxons (sons of I-saac) certainly know; and that Judah rejected that WORD made flesh, we also know. That Ephraim-Israel would receive that Word, divine prophecy declares; and that the Saxons did receive that rejected One and the word of his grace, is simply undeniable. Then, surely, that triple cross, together with one which has a thread of scarlet blood streaming down its rugged side, must mean more -- yea, much more -- to the people of one certain race, than it ever can to some other races. For He who shed that blood said: "I am not sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Our readers now know that the name "House of Israel" was the Biblical-historic and the prophetic name of the birthright people, over and against the name "House of Judah," for the Jewish people. So, if the people, known as the Jews, and they only, be national Israel -- i.e., "all of it," as has been taught by Christendom for lo! these many centuries -- then the coming of Christ to the seed of Abraham was a failure in every sense. And if this be so, why should the angel Gabriel tell Mary, the daughter of Joseph (Mary's father's name was Joseph, as well as her husband's), that her divine child should "reign over the house of Jacob forever"? Or why should Mary, after receiving the salutation of Elizabeth, say: "He [God] hath holpen his servant Israel in remembering his mercy, as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever?" Or why should Zacharias, being filled with the Holy Ghost, say:
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an born of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began; that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us, to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that be would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, ALL THE DAYS OF OUR LIFE"? (Luke 1:6-75).
We may also further ask, Why should Isaiah say: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. The Lord sent a word unto Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel. And all the people shall know, even Ephraim." -- Isa. 9:6-9.
Mark that! All the people of Israel-Ephraim-Israel-shall know. Yea, they do now know. Whether they be in the "High Church," or in the "Low;" whether they are Catholic or Protestant; whether they attend service at a costly cathedral, in some great palatial church, or in "the little church around the corner;" whether they pray in the uptown, or in the downtown church; whether they listen to the preached word in the independent mission, or in that little mission, the child of some uptown church, which they are holding off at arm's length; whether they attend the revival services of the popular evangelist, or whether they stand on the streets of our Anglo-Israel cities, and hear all sort of evangelists from very good to very inferior; yes, surely, whether they listen to any, all, or none (for they hear it as they go), all the people of Ephraim do know this one thing, namely: "Unto us a child is born."
It is conceded by all Christendom that those who accept the benefits of the new covenant, of which the testator must die before the testament could be in force, have the law of that covenant written in their hearts. Indeed, Paul when speaking of the New Testament covenant, which he says was "established upon better promises" than the Mosaic covenant, the failure of which necessitated the making of the new, says: "Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people," Heb. 8:10.
Thus we see that the journey of Israel from Lo-ammi (not my people) to Ammi (my people), is by the way of the blood-stained cross. But it is literal, fleshly Israel, that must make this journey. This is why God, by the mouth of the prophet Isaiah, says: "Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law," "Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that BARE you," Isa. 51:7 and 1-2.
When the house of Judah rejected Jesus, he asked them if they had read in the Scriptures concerning a stone which was rejected, and which became the head of the corner; and then he told them that the kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to another nation. Israel had been rejected, cast out, forsaken, divorced; but in order to be consistent with the prophecies of the Old Testament, and many passages in the New Testament, we contend that the other nation to which Jesus referred could have been none other than the house of Israel, that other nation of the two nations into which the seed of Abraham were divided.
"But" says one, "Paul said, I turn to the Gentiles, I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." True, and in this he was obeying the order, "To the Jew first," but the Lord certainly sent him also to the Gentiles. The trouble with this word Gentiles to the ordinary English reader is, that to his mind it always excludes God's chosen people; whereas it only excludes the Jewish portion of the chosen race. There are three Greek words in the New Testament which are translated Gentile, and Gentiles. One of them is Hellen, and its various forms, which means Greek, Greece, or Grecian, but is sometimes used in the sense of non-Jewish. The other two words are Ethnee, and Ethnos, from which comes our word ethnology, which is defined as: "The science which treats of the different races and families of men." These two words are simply the singular and plural forms of the same root word. Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon defines, Ethnos, the singular, as, "A number of people living together, a company, body of men, a host, a tribe, a people. But, Ethnee, the plural, is, of course, defined by this same authority as, "The nations, hosts, tribes, and peoples."
God said to Abraham: "Thou shalt be the father of many nations."
Also, "The father of a multitude of nations have I made thee."
"I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee."
"She (Sarah) shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her."
God also said to Jacob, "That thou mayest be a company of peoples;" and, also, "A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee."
Jacob, by the command of God, said to Joseph:
"Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people."
God, in turn, said to Joseph, through Jacob, "He [Manasseh] also shall become a people, and he shall be great: Howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations."
Indeed, we have neither time nor space to tell of all the host and hosts, the people and peoples, the nation and nations, that are involved in these covenant promises; but, surely, these will suffice to show that these covenant promises are ethnical in the fullest and broadest sense. Hence when Jesus sent Saul of Tarsus to the Ethnee; i.e., the nations, we dare to say that he included, if he did not wholly mean, the nations of the birthright kingdom of Israel; for he said to Ananias in a vision concerning this same circumstance of Paul's call and commission: "He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the (Ethnee) Gentiles, and kings, and the Children of ISRAEL," Acts 9: 15.
It was that Paul might go to the children of Israel that the Holy Ghost hindered him from going into Asia, and sent him into Macedonia, which included the country once known as Mosei, and where many of the Saacs still lingered. Then Paul pushed on into Illyricum, a country which lies still further to the northwest. This also is Paul's reason for wanting to go into Spain, whither he finally went. Ireneus, one of the early Church Fathers, writing concerning the work of Paul, says: "He established many Christian churches among the Keltoi (Celts)." Also Clement, of Rome, of whom Paul speaks as having his name in the book of life, says of Paul, that he was the "Herald (of the Gospel of Christ) in the West," and that "he had gone to the extremity of the west." This could not have been said by a writer at Rome without implying a journey into some countries much further to the West. Chrysostom, another early Church writer, says: "Paul preached in Spain," and, according to the testimony of several others, Paul also preached the Gospel to the Britons. At all events, they received the Gospel, and Jesus Christ, the son of David, became a "Light to the nations, and became the glory of his people Israel," who were ruled over by the descendants of the Prince of the scarlet thread; and who put a bloodstained cross, the cross of St. George, into the heraldry of their nation. Later they and their brother nation became the evangelistic nations of the world. Thus through the many nations of Abraham's seed has the One Seed, the testator of the new covenant, been a blessing to all the nations of the earth.
Well, indeed, may Jesus say "If ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?"