as to Bethany, and was there parted from them and carried up into heaven.*-Hundreds of other traditions, both in the mouths of the people and on the pages of ecclesiastical history, are of a like character; and indeed nothing is so difficult, in searching out historical facts respecting the primitive churches, as the sifting of the materials, in order to determine what is true and what legendary. The Nestorians have also their ecclesiastical traditions; which, in common with those of other oriental churches, ascribe to the apostle Thomas, the planting of Christianity in Parthia, Persia, and even India. This refers to themselves, not as Nestorians, but as a portion of the great oriental church universal; and is nothing more nor less, than the tradition preserved throughout that church by writers of an early age. Indeed, so early was the story current, that we find among the apocryphal books of the New Testament not only a " Gospel of Thomas," and also the "Acts of Thomas;" but also in the "History of the Apostles" ascribed to Abdias, we have apparently the first trace of the traditions of later ages. These writings are now universally regarded as spurious and legendary; and the tradi tions which they and other writings record respecting Thomas are also at variance with each other ; so that even if we admit a foundation of truth, in supposing that the apostle Thomas may not improbably at some time have gone eastward, yet these traditions certainly cannot and do not avail, with any sound critic, for proof of that or any other historical event. It is not surpris ing, indeed, that these traditions should still be current among the Nestorians; since they have been repeated by Syrian writers down to Bar Hebraeus in the the thirteenth century; and have become incorporated into the literature and faith of all who use that language.§ Still less does the argument respecting the early gathering of these churches, raised by Dr. G. upon the basis of these traditions, and, as he thinks, upon the testimony of Scripture, bear the test of examination. After the death of Stephen, and be * Ibid. II. p. 77. † See Fabricius Codex Apocr. Nov. Test. P. I. II. Acta Thomæ, ed. J. C. Thilo, Leipz. 1823. 714. Thilo in Acta Thomæ, c. 1. Winer Bibl. Realw. II. p. § See Assemani Biblioth. Orient. Tom. III. fore the conversion of Cornelius, the disciples had been "scattered abroad," and went "everywhere preaching the word," to none of course but Jews. Hence, Dr. G. argues, that they probably went also to the Jews (of the ten tribes as he supposes in Assyria, Parthia and Media, some of whom had been at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. He asserts, that "if we had no other proof, these considerations should satisfy us, that the ten tribes had the gospel preached unto them almost immediately after the great pentecostal assemblage at Jerusalem." But he finds still further proofs, and that "beyond a doubt," in the traditions above mentioned, which give the very names of Thomas and the other disciples who thus preached the word in these parts; pp. 257, 258. Unfortunately, however, St. Luke affirms only, that after the death of Stephen "they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles."* Of course the apostle Thomas could not at this time well have gone to Assyria. Besides, although it is said that they went " everywhere," yet this again is afterwards qualified: "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only."+ The implication is here certainly very strong, that they did not at this time go to Mesopotamia. Let all this be as it may, we have seen the nature of all these early traditions; and when we now turn to the tradition of the Nestorians claiming a descent from the ten tribes, we are first struck with the somewhat remarkable fact, that there is no evidence of its antiquity. Dr. G. and the Nestorians themselves admit that there are now no "written documents in support of these traditions ;" p. 145. We may say further, that apparently none have ever existed; for in all the long series of Syrian and Nestorian writers enumerated and referred to by Assemani, there appears not to be the slightest hint of any claim or tradition of the kind. This affords at least a strong presumption, that the tradition in question is of a later date. We find, further, similar traditions among tribes in other parts of inner Asia. The Afghans have in former years been brought into notoriety, in consequence of their supposed resemblance to the Jews in features and customs; and because † Acts 11: 19. * Acts 8: 1, 4. too (according to Mr. Wolf), they have a "tradition of their being descendants of the Jews," though this is not general; while, according to others, they claim to be the posterity of king Saul.* The ferocious Tamerlane boasted, that he was descended from the tribe of Dan; and the present deposed king of Georgia, who is a pensioner of Persia, in like manner considers himself and family to be descendants of the Danites. The Lesghy tribes, to whom allusion has already been made, a bigoted Muslim race of banditti on the west of the Caspian, derive also their lineage from the tribe of Dan, and acknowledge the Jews to be the original inhabitants of their mountains. Now the prevalence of all such traditions, proves one of two things. If one is unfounded and of late origin, then all are liable to be equally unfounded and modern. If one is well founded, ancient and authentic, then all may equally claim to be well founded, ancient and authentic. There is no good reason for singling out the Nestorians and yielding evidence to their tradition, and not to those of the rest; while there exist various circumstances among the former, which would lead us to expect that such a tradition, when once it had obtained footing among them, would be wrought into a more probable and historical form than elsewhere. A secluded and Christian people, having the Scriptures before them, and dwelling in their ignorance and credulity upon the suggested affinity, would find no difficulty in carrying out the parallel and adorning the tradition with all the requisite circumstances. How often are we ourselves, as Christians, addressed as "the seed of Abraham," "children of the covenant," "sons of Israel?" And how natural would it be, among a simple and ignorant people, in times of deep darkness, if not to pass over at once from this figurative sense to a literal acceptation, yet to convert such an idea, once planted in their minds, by degrees into an article of traditional belief. But the argument from this tradition of the Nestorians is strengthened, in the apprehension of the author, by the fact, that the Jews who dwell among them acknowledge the relationship;" and also "some of the learned Muhammedans * See Dr. Grant, p. 136. Rennell, Geog. Syst. of Herodot. p. 390. Samuel, the Remnant Found, p. 16. SECOND SERIES, VOL. VII. NO. I. 4 testify to the Hebrew origin of the Nestorians; pp. 147, 152. As to the Muhammedans, Dr. G. himself says, that "they are not all informed on the subject," and assigns several reasons why" we cannot expect the Persians generally to be in possession of definite information respecting the ancestry of their Christian neighbors." He might have given many more good reasons; for to one in any degree acquainted with the character of Muhammedan mind and learning, there will be little room for question, that this Muhammedan testimony is merely reechoed from that of the Nestorians themselves. 66 In regard to the admission of the resident Jews, Dr. G. lays upon it a more decided and confident stress. They admit that the Nestorians are as truly the descendants of the Israelites as themselves. Do they not know?" p. 147. "Such testimony, and from such a source, requires no comment. What court of justice would reject it?" p. 151. We, nevertheless, incline to think, that almost any court of justice would be disposed to ask a few questions before they even admitted these witnesses to the stand,-questions which Dr. G. has entirely overlooked. But taking the testimony just as he presents it, what is its amount? Simply, that one dark and benighted people yields credence to an idea (not an ancient tradition) current among another people almost equally benighted. The human mind, in this dark state, we know, is prone to credulous superstition and legendary invention;* and what one asserts, another is not very likely to contradict. But what, after all, is such testimony worth? Let it be, that some of these Jews may perhaps have been grubbing after the lost ten tribes beyond the Euphrates, and may have taken up the conceit that both they and the Nestorians are descended from them; what does this prove? Because M. M. Noah and other Jews in this country admit and maintain the American Indians to be the posterity of the ten tribes, we are not aware that their testimony, as Jews, adds any thing to the force of the rest of the evidence. * See an instance of this in an anecdote of the life of our Saviour, among the Nestorians themselves, Miss. Herald, Aug. 1840, p. 308. In like manner, the worthy Peter Parley came near being regarded by the Nestorians as a saint; because, "as they thought, such boundless knowledge as his book displays could be possessed by no mortal less than a saint." Ibid. Sept. 1838, p. 324. But we too have further one or two questions to ask. This assent of the resident Jews,-is it traditional on their part, or is it merely that of individual opinion? If the latter, it is of course worth nothing. If it be traditional, then, in order to be of any value, this tradition must be shown to go back to an early age; and in that case there probably would be some trace of it in the many volumes of Jewish writings and traditions, which have come down to us from the interior of Asia. But nothing of all this exists, or is pretended to exist. Again: Who are these Jews themselves, and whence their lineage? They are doubtless to be regarded as descended from that people, who from the fourth to the eleventh century flourished and had celebrated schools in Mesopotamia and Persia. This is the natural inference from their locality, and also from the fact that they follow the ordinances and traditions of the Talmud and the other Jews. But who were then these ancestors? Hitherto, all history, and the Jews themselves, have supposed them to be Jews; that is to say, descendants of Jews of the same stock with those of the Palestine of the New Testament; of whom Josephus says there were in his day great multitudes living in Babylon, Mesopotamia and beyond the Euphrates; and whom neither he nor any one else seems to have regarded, as having any special connection with the ten tribes of the earlier captivity.* Yet Dr. G. at once assumes it as a fact not to be questioned, that these modern Jews in and around the country of the Nestorians, are the posterity of a part of the ten tribes carried away by the kings of Assyria; p. 148. Now, if this be a fact, we should like to have seen at least some evidence in support of it. None however is brought forward, except the incidental remark, that these Jews themselves claim to be thus descended from the ten tribes. This circumstance, too, rests solely on the authority of Dr. Grant; the other missionaries appear to make no allusion to it, and the testimony of Messrs. Smith and Dwight goes rather to contradict it. We *Joseph. Ant. XV. 2. 2. ib. 3. 1. XVIII. 9. 1. In speaking of the region of Salmas, Mr. Smith says: "The Jews of Persia generally are the most ignorant, demoralized and oppressed part of the community. They are said to have neither tradition nor history to inform them when their ancestors came into the country. We naturally look among them for the remains of the ten tribes; but if such were their origin, all traces of it have been effaced. They now resemble |