As to the Jews, quite a different history and destiny is marked out for them. They, as the descendants of Judah, are still under the curse. In fact, the Anglo-Israelite, by another and more mischievous method, is doing exactly what the allegorising, or so-called spiritualising, school of interpreters did. The method was to apply all the _promises_ in the Bible to the "spiritual" Israel, or the Church, and all the curses to the literal Israel, or the Jews; but by this new system, while the curses are still left to the Jew, all the blessings are applied not even to those "in Christ," but indiscriminately to a nation, which, _as a nation_, is like the other nations of Christendom in a greater or lesser degree in a state of apostasy from God, though I thankfully recognise the fact that there are in proportion more of God's true people in it than in any other professing Christian land. I shall endeavour later on to show you the baselessness of the distinction which Anglo-Israelism makes between the ultimate fates of Israel and Judah, but let me first say that the supposed historical and philological "proofs" by which the theory is supported, most of which have no more basis in fact than fairy tales, are utterly discredited by competent authorities. "Philology of a somewhat primitive kind," writes a prominent and learned Jew, "is also brought in to support the theory; the many Biblical and quasi-Jewish names borne by Englishmen are held to prove their Israelitish origin. An attempt has been made to derive the English language itself from Hebrew. Thus, 'bairn' is derived from _bar_ ('son'); 'berry' from _peri_ ('fruit'); 'garden' from _gedar_; 'kid' from _gedi_; 'scale' from _shekel_; and 'kitten' from _quiton_ (_katon_ = 'little'). The termination 'ish' is identified with the Hebrew _ish_ ('man'); 'Spanish' means 'Spain-man'; while 'British' is identified with _Berit-ish_ ('man of the covenant'). Perhaps the most curious of these philological identifications is that of 'jig' with chag (_hag_ = 'festival').