must be investigated to establish a position;--the first, then, will not apply to the Aborigines of the _north_, for it does not exist; the latter only, or the unwritten history of their race must be had recourse to, to prove their originality and identity; traceable back to time immemorial, from their present customs and traditions. We think that it will instantly be admitted, that all religious ceremonies are the strongest proofs of the characteristics of a people or race, of which no written history exists; for there is something so indescribably sacred in the conscientious actions of man with the Supreme God, that none but the maniac-atheist could doubt, that those actions should be received as the living features of a nation, when seen to be recognised and acknowledged, with as much certainty of identity, as when a mother gazes upon her fondly-cherished child! The customs forming the analogy between the Northern natives and the ancient Israelites, will now be reviewed with as much brevity as the subject will permit, in order to establish an essential point of the present theory--viz., the _separation_ of the Aborigines into _two_ distinct people. The reader, perhaps, will meet us at the threshold of argument by the question, "How can an _Indian_ be of Israel?" We will answer this, and refute the misnomer before the analogies are investigated. The name _Indian_, as applied to the original inhabitants of either, or both the Americas, Canada, the islands in, or adjacent to, the Gulf of Mexico, has no authority founded upon truth. The name was given in error, and has been so continued from the time of the Genoese to the present day. Throughout this work no position will be advanced that cannot be defended. The wrongful appellation originated with Columbus; and for proof of the assertion the following is presented.