the Assyrian captives; for, as with regard to the strictness of their accordance with the Mosaic ritual, he forgets that the Assyrian captives had revolted from its observance for many generations previous to the captivity, when, if they had not returned to their own land, they could not possibly be supposed likely to have attained to it again. Many of those stricter observances, also, grew into use only after the return from Babylon, so that the fact of their possessing them is in reality a proof of their being descendants of those who had, after that return, given a stricter obedience to the Mosaic law than their fathers had done.
Again, with regard to their language, which he states to be Syriac, the same as that used by the Jews in their neighbourhood, we must remember that this was the language of Judæa in the time of our Saviour, and we have therefore much more reason from this to conclude, that they are descendants of the Christianized Jews, to whom St. James addressed his Epistle, than descendants of the Israelites taken away by the Assyrians. These, in the course of so many centuries, may certainly be presumed to have adopted the language of their masters, the Modes and Persians, as their brethren in Babylon adopted that of the Chaldees. If these, then, in seventy years, forgot the use of their language, as we know they did, to learn the language of their masters, we must presume that their brethren, who had exceeded them so long in captivity, would have adopted the language of their conquerors also, which language was very different from the one in use in Judæa after the restoration.
We must not forget that the Assyrians, in taking away their captives, took them away not as distinct independent people, but as slaves, whether individually or in families. We cannot suppose that these slaves would ever have been allowed the free exercise of their own institutions, but rather that they would have been compelled to submit to those of their masters. When, therefore, the permission was given by Cyrus and his successors to all of the race of Israel to return, it was in fact a manumission and a boon of which they would be glad to avail themselves. In proportion as they felt the bondage of the heathen galling in their captivity, they would be anxious to return to their own land. If any of them preferred remaining in the land of their captivity, we may presume it would be from a willingness to succumb to the customs of the heathen, in accordance with the proneness to idolatry they had always shown. In so doing, they would thus, in every succeeding generation, retain less and less knowledge of their ancient law, until at length
