A curious reading of Esay. 7:14-16 was found upon considering the perpetuity of a Davidic line with Britain. As we might recall, the Rt. Rev. Jon Titcomb essentially rejected this view as too conjectural, requiring more belief in Legend than Scripture. So no Messiah is mistaken other than Jesus, Dr. Adam Clarke dislikes a secondary rendering. However, Mr. Joseph Benson is less restrictive, admitting with other 18th-century commentators a verse which speaks of two figures– the Christ-child, born of Mary, but also the son of Isaiah, leaving his infancy during Ahaz’s reign. Other commentators like Thomas Scott invite a double-meaning but leave more mystery. In so far as Clarke’s estimates David’s progeny extinct by reason of their diffusion among late-Jewry applicable, we may dismiss Clarke’s more rigid reckoning.
Though not the Cambridge scholar as the Rt. Rev. Jon Holt Titcomb, Mr. Edward Hine was likely the greatest Victorian exponent of British Israelism, popularizing Identity teachings to large audiences and societies both in England and touring extensively in the States. Note: Hine’s Forty-seven Identifications of the British Nation with the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel (1874) is an exhaustive example of the Evidental method later used by Titcomb.
Evidently, among some Identitarians and neo-reactionaries there’s a wish to return America, or the United States, to a political (rather than merely cultural and emotional) Union with Britain. In other words, these critics would abandon, if not disparage, American Patriotism. Countering such criticisms, Hine viewed America’s continued Independence as necessary to the Identity account of Anglo-Saxon history, fulfilling Bible prophecies given to Manasseh. Defending the importance of America’ s Republicanism and her Sovereignty, Hine asserts the gravity of this particular identifier,
This is a second part in a series on Jon Holt Titcomb’s Message to the Nineteenth-Century. The Rt. Rev. Titcomb served as the first Anglican bishop of Rangoon (British Burma) in 1878 and later coadjutor to English chaplaincies across Europe in 1885. He was a late-Victorian and great advocate of the Israel-Identity teaching.
Titcomb begins chapter 1 with a certain caution respecting Identity methodology. Titcomb’s warnings remain relevant, and might be marked-well even for today’s BI milieu. Quoting Dr. Wright– while speaking as a Cambridge don himself– Titcomb says,