FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[116]... "It is a gratifying proof of progress that the President of the Magyars (Kossuth) has promised freedom to those who equally with himself are struggling for the independence of their country, since it is said that there are no less than 35,000 Israelites in the Hungarian army."Extract from a French newspaper reprinted in "The Occident," August, 1849. Phila.; Edited by Isaac Leeser.... "It cannot be denied that already at that time the majority of the Magyar Jews were patriotically inclined towards the country which they called their home. As by magic, they felt themselves drawn towards the man who preached liberty and equality, and at whose hands they were expecting redemption from the Ghetto and from civil and political degradation. As a matter of fact, thousands of Jews, among them a general, fought in the Magyar army.... The contribution which the notorious Haynau levied upon the Jewish congregations was but a consequence of the loyalty to the man of the New Era, attributed to the Jews."Dr. Adolph Kohut on "The Relations of Kossuth to the Jews," in the American Hebrew, N. Y., March, 1894.To the above may be added the following testimony of General Julius Stahel, one of the active participants in the Hungarian Revolution, and who subsequently made a distinguished military record in our civil war.New York, May22d, 1895,Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,Dear Sir:I know from personal knowledge that many Jews fought in the battles for the independence of Hungary in 1848, with as much bravery and gallantry as the American Jew fought here during the late strife between the North and the South, and I also know that the late humane and illustrious apostle of liberty, Louis Kossuth, always fully appreciated the patriotism, loyalty and devotion of the Jews to the cause of Hungary during that great struggle for freedom.Patriotism and bravery are not the birthright of one nation or race, but of all mankind.Very sincerely yours,J. Stahel.[117]Referring to a newspaper item regarding the rumors of a duel between Capt. Cremieux Foa, a French cavalry officer, and a certain anti-Semite editor of a Paris newspaper, General Franz Sigel wrote as follows:The part played by the Jews of Europe in all the various avenues of progress need not detain us here. The recurrent ebullitions of unreasoning prejudice against them which become manifest from time to time, are ultimately traceable as but distorted expressions of the unrest which the European social organism is suffering under its abnormal political and economic conditions. What there is left of this spirit on American soil is but a reflex of that of Europe, but there, as here, the record made by the Jewish people in politics and in war, in commerce and in industry, in science, art and literature, has placed beyond question their position as patriots, soldiers and citizens.New York, May31st, 1892.Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,Dear Sir:Not knowing whether you have seen or will see the inclosed item, I send it to you. It shows at least that there are no less than 300 Jewish officers serving in the French army, probably the highest number in any of the great European armies, which speaks well for France and her republican government.Hoping that you are well, I am,Truly yours,Franz Sigel.

[116]... "It is a gratifying proof of progress that the President of the Magyars (Kossuth) has promised freedom to those who equally with himself are struggling for the independence of their country, since it is said that there are no less than 35,000 Israelites in the Hungarian army."Extract from a French newspaper reprinted in "The Occident," August, 1849. Phila.; Edited by Isaac Leeser.... "It cannot be denied that already at that time the majority of the Magyar Jews were patriotically inclined towards the country which they called their home. As by magic, they felt themselves drawn towards the man who preached liberty and equality, and at whose hands they were expecting redemption from the Ghetto and from civil and political degradation. As a matter of fact, thousands of Jews, among them a general, fought in the Magyar army.... The contribution which the notorious Haynau levied upon the Jewish congregations was but a consequence of the loyalty to the man of the New Era, attributed to the Jews."Dr. Adolph Kohut on "The Relations of Kossuth to the Jews," in the American Hebrew, N. Y., March, 1894.To the above may be added the following testimony of General Julius Stahel, one of the active participants in the Hungarian Revolution, and who subsequently made a distinguished military record in our civil war.New York, May22d, 1895,Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,Dear Sir:I know from personal knowledge that many Jews fought in the battles for the independence of Hungary in 1848, with as much bravery and gallantry as the American Jew fought here during the late strife between the North and the South, and I also know that the late humane and illustrious apostle of liberty, Louis Kossuth, always fully appreciated the patriotism, loyalty and devotion of the Jews to the cause of Hungary during that great struggle for freedom.Patriotism and bravery are not the birthright of one nation or race, but of all mankind.Very sincerely yours,J. Stahel.

... "It cannot be denied that already at that time the majority of the Magyar Jews were patriotically inclined towards the country which they called their home. As by magic, they felt themselves drawn towards the man who preached liberty and equality, and at whose hands they were expecting redemption from the Ghetto and from civil and political degradation. As a matter of fact, thousands of Jews, among them a general, fought in the Magyar army.... The contribution which the notorious Haynau levied upon the Jewish congregations was but a consequence of the loyalty to the man of the New Era, attributed to the Jews."Dr. Adolph Kohut on "The Relations of Kossuth to the Jews," in the American Hebrew, N. Y., March, 1894.

To the above may be added the following testimony of General Julius Stahel, one of the active participants in the Hungarian Revolution, and who subsequently made a distinguished military record in our civil war.

New York, May22d, 1895,Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,Dear Sir:I know from personal knowledge that many Jews fought in the battles for the independence of Hungary in 1848, with as much bravery and gallantry as the American Jew fought here during the late strife between the North and the South, and I also know that the late humane and illustrious apostle of liberty, Louis Kossuth, always fully appreciated the patriotism, loyalty and devotion of the Jews to the cause of Hungary during that great struggle for freedom.Patriotism and bravery are not the birthright of one nation or race, but of all mankind.Very sincerely yours,J. Stahel.

New York, May22d, 1895,

Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,

Dear Sir:

I know from personal knowledge that many Jews fought in the battles for the independence of Hungary in 1848, with as much bravery and gallantry as the American Jew fought here during the late strife between the North and the South, and I also know that the late humane and illustrious apostle of liberty, Louis Kossuth, always fully appreciated the patriotism, loyalty and devotion of the Jews to the cause of Hungary during that great struggle for freedom.

Patriotism and bravery are not the birthright of one nation or race, but of all mankind.

Very sincerely yours,

J. Stahel.

[117]Referring to a newspaper item regarding the rumors of a duel between Capt. Cremieux Foa, a French cavalry officer, and a certain anti-Semite editor of a Paris newspaper, General Franz Sigel wrote as follows:The part played by the Jews of Europe in all the various avenues of progress need not detain us here. The recurrent ebullitions of unreasoning prejudice against them which become manifest from time to time, are ultimately traceable as but distorted expressions of the unrest which the European social organism is suffering under its abnormal political and economic conditions. What there is left of this spirit on American soil is but a reflex of that of Europe, but there, as here, the record made by the Jewish people in politics and in war, in commerce and in industry, in science, art and literature, has placed beyond question their position as patriots, soldiers and citizens.New York, May31st, 1892.Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,Dear Sir:Not knowing whether you have seen or will see the inclosed item, I send it to you. It shows at least that there are no less than 300 Jewish officers serving in the French army, probably the highest number in any of the great European armies, which speaks well for France and her republican government.Hoping that you are well, I am,Truly yours,Franz Sigel.

The part played by the Jews of Europe in all the various avenues of progress need not detain us here. The recurrent ebullitions of unreasoning prejudice against them which become manifest from time to time, are ultimately traceable as but distorted expressions of the unrest which the European social organism is suffering under its abnormal political and economic conditions. What there is left of this spirit on American soil is but a reflex of that of Europe, but there, as here, the record made by the Jewish people in politics and in war, in commerce and in industry, in science, art and literature, has placed beyond question their position as patriots, soldiers and citizens.

New York, May31st, 1892.Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,Dear Sir:Not knowing whether you have seen or will see the inclosed item, I send it to you. It shows at least that there are no less than 300 Jewish officers serving in the French army, probably the highest number in any of the great European armies, which speaks well for France and her republican government.Hoping that you are well, I am,Truly yours,Franz Sigel.

New York, May31st, 1892.

Hon. Simon Wolf, Washington, D. C.,

Dear Sir:

Not knowing whether you have seen or will see the inclosed item, I send it to you. It shows at least that there are no less than 300 Jewish officers serving in the French army, probably the highest number in any of the great European armies, which speaks well for France and her republican government.

Hoping that you are well, I am,

Truly yours,Franz Sigel.

As already noted by the author in the introduction to this work, it was in December, 1891, that another of the numberless public vilifications of the Jewish people which have appeared from time to time had demanded a no less public refutation of its falsities. It has furthermore been noted that this refutation was dictated not by anything specially remarkable in the nature of the slander itself, nor of its source, inasmuch as the former was commonplace and the latter obscure, but that the reply had been called forth wholly by reason of the extraordinary condition of the public mind with regard to the subject at that particular juncture. It was the time and the occasion that gave the slander prominence, rather than any peculiarity of its own.

It has been so for a long time past. From the time, nearly 1900 years ago, when Philo of Alexandria appeared before Caligula in defence of his people, down along the centuries to the date of Menasseh ben Israel's appeal to Cromwell in 1656, there were repeated occasions for such defenses and appeals, and there have been many since. These contingencies have repeatedly arisen in the course of the slow process of popular enlightenment which makes up the history of Man, and as that process is yet far from accomplishment it is not at all unlikely that they may be repeated in the future.

It is, however, more than passingly remarkable that in the closing decade of the 19th Century, when "the thoughts of men have widened with the process of the suns," an occasion of this nature should have arisen. That such exigencies occur but rarely in the midst of our Western civilization, and that rare as they are, their occurrence is always traceable to foreign impulses, only renders more apparent the liberalizing influences of our free American institutions, while on the other hand further emphasizing the lessons taught usby the spectacle of Monarchic Europe. There the remnants of the mediæval system, political, ecclesiastic and social, that remained as historicdebrisafter the cataclysm of the French Revolution, still clog the advance of true enlightenment. In Germany and in Austria a considerable portion of the populace is still affected by a taint of monkish fanaticism, and in Russia only a comparatively few individuals appear to be free from it. Schools are numerous in Austria and universities flourish in Germany, but the prejudices which form the obverse side of folly find still some teachers in the schools and preachers in the pulpit.

"Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers,"

and the dictates of reason, the teachings of political and economic science, the lessons of history, will have to be yet more than once repeated before that umbra of the Dark Ages, the so-called "anti-Semitism" of Slavic and Teutonic Europe, and its penumbra in America, will have been lost in historic space.

These lessons have been learned and these teachings taught by the foremost minds of every epoch and latterly of every generation. From the time of Reuchlin's defense of the Talmud and Jewish literature generally against the fanatics of his day, a defense which caused a religious and political agitation that became the prelude to the Reformation, down to our present time, there have not been wanting Christian men of learning and of understanding who strove successfully in the defense of Jewish polity against the prejudices of ignorance. The great Renaissance of German letters in the latter half of the 18th century afforded numerous instances of men of this character, among whom need but be cited Lessing, Herder, Schiller, and Goethe. These writers and thinkers carried on their polemics in the domain of idealism, in poetry and philosophy, and their thoughts were soon re-echoed in the out-givings of the succeeding generation of scientists, students and statesmen. We will not attempt here to adduce all the great array of leading minds who have been impelled to express themselves on this theme, but will limit our citations to a few of the most authoritative thinkers and a quotation of the most positive utterances on the subject.

In marked contrast with the accusation of the passing school of anti-Semitic writers against Judaism as materialistic in its tendencies, there may be cited an expression by the great German and cosmopolitan philosopher, ALEXANDERvonHUMBOLDT. In a letter to a Jewish friend regarding the natural idealism expressed in Hebrew literature, he refers him to the following passage in hisCosmos(Vol. III, p. 44), and closes his letter as below.

"It is a characteristic sign of the natural poetry of the Hebrews, that, as a reflex of Monotheism, it always comprises the whole of the universe in its unity, both life on earth and the bright realms on high. It seldom dwells upon single phenomena, but rejoices in the contemplation of great masses. Nature is not described as self-existent, or glorified by a beauty of her own; to the Hebrew singer she always appears in connection with an over-ruling spiritual power. Nature to him is ever a thing created and ordained, the living utterance of God's Omnipresence in the works of the world of matter. Therefore, the lyrical poetry of the Hebrews, by reason of its subject, is grand and grave in its solemnity.""Stand fast by your brethren who have accomplished so remarkable a course of martyrdom through centuries and now stand on the threshold of their liberation; devote all the energies of your intellect to the spiritual labor wherewith your millennial history is instinct; success cannot, will not fail you and the rich results that you, my young friend, will obtain from the mines of science, will calm and comfort you in many a sad experience in the dull and cloudy present, that is but the precursor of the bright dawn of the day of liberty."

"Stand fast by your brethren who have accomplished so remarkable a course of martyrdom through centuries and now stand on the threshold of their liberation; devote all the energies of your intellect to the spiritual labor wherewith your millennial history is instinct; success cannot, will not fail you and the rich results that you, my young friend, will obtain from the mines of science, will calm and comfort you in many a sad experience in the dull and cloudy present, that is but the precursor of the bright dawn of the day of liberty."

Another world-famous scientist, ALPHONSE L. P. PYRAMEDeCANDOLLE, in hisHistoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siécles, Geneva, 1873, makes the following very remarkable observations:

"If Europe had been peopled by Jews only we might have witnessed a curious spectacle. There would no longer be any wars; hence the moral sensibility would be violated much less and millions of people would not be torn away from useful occupations. Public debts and taxes would decrease. The cultivation of science, of literature, of fine arts, especially music, for which the Jews have a great predilection, would be furthered to the highest extent. Industry and commerce would flourish. Few crimes of personal violence would be committed, and those against property would but seldom be accompanied by violence. The wealth of the community as a whole and of individuals would largely increase by the effect of intelligent and regular labor, combined with economy. This wealth would have abeneficent effect. The clergy would not come in collision with the State. Perhaps there would be less corruption among the officials and greater firmness."

The above passage is approvingly quoted by another great leader in the world of science, Professor Carl Vogt, in an article published inWesterman's Monatshefte, wherein the writer, treating of the habits and qualities acquired by European peoples through hereditary transmission, speaks of the Jewish people as having attained the highest civilization notwithstanding their having lived for ages under oppression.

On the occasion of the centennial anniversary, in 1891, of the political enfranchisement of the French Jews, the celebrated leader of the French Liberal Catholics, PERE HYACINTHE, addressed to the Grand Rabbi of Paris the following expressive communication:

"Monsieur le Grand Rabbin:—You will have seen from the papers that our Gallican Catholic church intends to commemorate the centenary of the emancipation of the Jews by the Constituent Assembly. The 27th of September, 1791, is a date of even greater glory to France than it is to the Jews. It was a day that witnessed the reparation of a long and cruel injustice; it inaugurated for the whole world an era of liberty and brotherhood from which no evil disposed person has since been able to make us swerve. We are too enlightened and too liberal-minded to become anti-Semites. Besides, we are Christians, and as such we must not forget that it is from Israel's bosom that we have sprung. Israel, the grand old olive tree from which we have been grafted. For the French Jews the interregnum which commenced with Sedecias ended with Napoleon. Napoleon it was, who boasted of being the King of the Jews, and the Jews accordingly treated him as their political Messiah. Than him they could not have had a greater."But Napoleon's empire, like the kingdom of David, is no more, and the French Republic now has the keeping of these two illustrious necropoles, that at Jerusalem wherein reposes the race of David, that at Paris wherein rests the hero who was in himself his own sole dynasty."But none the less, France has remained, as Bonaparte remarked, the new tribe of Judah, where Frenchmen and Jews constitute one people."Republicans by virtue of the Mosaic legislation, I would almost say socialistic, in the best sense of the term, before they became monarchists by Samuel's dispensation, the traditions of the Jews comprise all the essentials for the service of France."'Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah and bring him unto his people; let his hands be sufficient for him, and be Thou a help to him from his enemies.'"These are my wishes, Monsieur le Grand Rabbin and may the God of the Jews, who is also the God of the Christians, cause them to be fulfilled speedily."Accept, monsieur, the assurance of my fraternal friendship.Hyacinthe Loyson,Priest."

"But Napoleon's empire, like the kingdom of David, is no more, and the French Republic now has the keeping of these two illustrious necropoles, that at Jerusalem wherein reposes the race of David, that at Paris wherein rests the hero who was in himself his own sole dynasty.

"But none the less, France has remained, as Bonaparte remarked, the new tribe of Judah, where Frenchmen and Jews constitute one people.

"Republicans by virtue of the Mosaic legislation, I would almost say socialistic, in the best sense of the term, before they became monarchists by Samuel's dispensation, the traditions of the Jews comprise all the essentials for the service of France.

"'Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah and bring him unto his people; let his hands be sufficient for him, and be Thou a help to him from his enemies.'

"These are my wishes, Monsieur le Grand Rabbin and may the God of the Jews, who is also the God of the Christians, cause them to be fulfilled speedily.

"Accept, monsieur, the assurance of my fraternal friendship.

Hyacinthe Loyson,Priest."

As focussing effectively the most salient aspects of this general subject, we will here cite a thoughtful statement from a strictly orthodox Roman Catholic source, the French clerical journal,Le Monde:

"The immortality of the soul has been repudiated by the Academie des Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres. The Jews had to serve as the occasion. The Old Testament, however, was vindicated. But in how many feeble minds was not an uncertainty left? How many will take the trouble to read over the Sacred Books, when the reading of the daily papers absorbs all their time? Voltaire knew well enough that to sustain his iconoclastic views he had to discredit the Jewish people, to falsify their history, and to take up again the pagan theory of presenting them as the most degraded of people."Such, indeed, was the opinion of the Greeks and Romans in regard to the Jews. The Greeks, given over to all conceivable turpitude and tyranny, to an anarchy without bounds and without end, incapable of even simulating a defence against Rome, despised the Jewish people, and the Romans entertained the same feelings. They despised them for the same reason that the economists, the capitalists, the modern free-thinkers, despise the Catholics. The Jews did not worship idols; they alone did not prostrate themselves before nature; they condemned, despised that pantheism, that idol-worship, which sanctified the vices and the passions and which the Greeks and Romans embraced with such ardor. The dignity and regularity of their habits formed a striking contrast to pagan dissipation. They opposed in their individuality, the beauty of their rigorous law to the impure teachings of paganism. They never presented a disgraceful spectacle in the time of their prosperity; they never participated in the bloody games of the ring; they held human sacrifices in horror."The Jews did not profess the principle of equity, of which the Greeks and Romans boasted so much—themselves absolute partisans of Slavery. They simply upheld the institution of family hierarchy, the paternal authority. Their habits and institutions, inspired by the parental sentiment—were they not full of kindliness and foresight? Could they overlook the feeble and the poor? Amongst thembrothers could not know contention and strife, because they were equals in reality. Without the parent, fraternity would disappear."In order to subsist it is necessary that children should always have before them the image, the memory, the principle of the paternity from which they emanated, which formed the bonds of their friendship. Their unity proceeds from thence, a unity, sweet, lively, inculcated in infancy, formed by the heart before the mind could grasp it. The lawgiver had no occasion, therefore, to enjoin fraternity, but needed only to submit it to that law of nature which organizes the paternal authority. The Jews were ignorant of those social ideas that desolated the ancient cities and that spring up again in modern times. The poor had no demands to make upon the rich. The Jews never forget, and had they done so, the law reminded them that the earth belongs to the Lord and that in God they are all brothers. The constitutional wars between the poor and the rich in Rome and Athens were caused by extortion. This question of extortion fills Roman history with its pale shadow; it is at the bottom of all the troubles, dissensions, periodical massacres and revolts. It has again taken possession of society with the reform of the Nineteenth Century. Only in 1789 France passed from under the yoke of extortion. The Jewish fraternity condemned extortion as a principle of tyranny."This fraternity, so powerful a principle, led the Jews to love their fellow-beings, to see in them colleagues and brothers; they received the stranger willingly, extended to him their hospitality, even a share in the benefits of their law—something that was foreign to all other nations. With these other nations the stranger was regarded simply as an enemy; "enemy" and "stranger" were expressed by one and the same word. Pantheism, denying the principle of unity, as indicated in the Divine origin, left men in a continual state of war. And war never ceased; the cities fought with each other, until the strongest had subdued the others, and in their turn were conquered and absorbed by a greater. This is the invariable history of Greece and Rome. The dogma of Divine creation exhibited to the Jews all men as brethren. They did not treat the stranger therefore as a barbarian. They, the Israelites, alone of all the nations of antiquity, did not carry on aggressive wars; once established upon their soil, they had no other desire than to live in peace by living out their laws. This is the object of all their institutions. They do not make war upon the stranger, because they had no hate against him."Their God, greater than the gods of the Olympus, neither flattered nor served their passions. He was a jealous God, who exacted the submission of the heart. He chastised his rebellious children. And this people purified by persecution and misfortune, returned to the laws of their fathers, to the observance of their precepts. No city in ancient, no people in modern times could have passed through likevicissitudes and recovered again. It is not through progress that they endured and were capable of resistance, but by holding fast to the past; by rallying around the law, which they had never abandoned and which they never modified, hard as it was. It often became irksome, it never bargained with its conscience. What else existed, before the laws of Moses, than that paganism which legalized all vices? The Jews defended their law with their lives; they fought for it against the Greek kings of Syria; they preferred to be buried under the ruins of Jerusalem to making a compact with Roman paganism. The Greeks and Romans never had the idea that one can die for one's religion."By their habits in the government of the State the Jews were separated completely from Greece and Rome. They never brooked the insults of the ancient or modern mobocracy, because they respected the principle of the family, the foundation of their political, judicial, administrative and military organization. They alone in antiquity repudiated slavery. They practiced a national brotherhood which the Christian people are hardly capable of comprehending; it is so sublime, and almost beyond human nature. The institution of the jubilee, of the seventh year, the seventh day, was the perfection of social order; but even with Christianity these institutions could not maintain themselves. Dispersed, reduced to direst need and to the humiliation of exile, the Jews have never abandoned these first principles. Tacitus remarked the close ties of brotherhood that united them in his time.Inter ipsos obstinata fides. Since then and up to this time is it not the same sentiment? Are there many dissensions amongst them? This moral greatness of the Jewish people made them the target of pagan enmity. The policy of Rome was to be enforced upon all nations. The Jews share with the Christians the honor of having been singled out as the victims of utter extermination."The Jewish nation has survived all its victors; it alone, says Jean-Jacques Rousseau, withstood the power of time, fortune and defeat. Greece and Rome were enveloped in a system of superstition which weighed heavily upon the actions of public and private life. The Jews lived beyond the pale of that ignominy. The causes of this intellectual and moral superiority became the subject of jealous depreciation generally."

"Such, indeed, was the opinion of the Greeks and Romans in regard to the Jews. The Greeks, given over to all conceivable turpitude and tyranny, to an anarchy without bounds and without end, incapable of even simulating a defence against Rome, despised the Jewish people, and the Romans entertained the same feelings. They despised them for the same reason that the economists, the capitalists, the modern free-thinkers, despise the Catholics. The Jews did not worship idols; they alone did not prostrate themselves before nature; they condemned, despised that pantheism, that idol-worship, which sanctified the vices and the passions and which the Greeks and Romans embraced with such ardor. The dignity and regularity of their habits formed a striking contrast to pagan dissipation. They opposed in their individuality, the beauty of their rigorous law to the impure teachings of paganism. They never presented a disgraceful spectacle in the time of their prosperity; they never participated in the bloody games of the ring; they held human sacrifices in horror.

"The Jews did not profess the principle of equity, of which the Greeks and Romans boasted so much—themselves absolute partisans of Slavery. They simply upheld the institution of family hierarchy, the paternal authority. Their habits and institutions, inspired by the parental sentiment—were they not full of kindliness and foresight? Could they overlook the feeble and the poor? Amongst thembrothers could not know contention and strife, because they were equals in reality. Without the parent, fraternity would disappear.

"In order to subsist it is necessary that children should always have before them the image, the memory, the principle of the paternity from which they emanated, which formed the bonds of their friendship. Their unity proceeds from thence, a unity, sweet, lively, inculcated in infancy, formed by the heart before the mind could grasp it. The lawgiver had no occasion, therefore, to enjoin fraternity, but needed only to submit it to that law of nature which organizes the paternal authority. The Jews were ignorant of those social ideas that desolated the ancient cities and that spring up again in modern times. The poor had no demands to make upon the rich. The Jews never forget, and had they done so, the law reminded them that the earth belongs to the Lord and that in God they are all brothers. The constitutional wars between the poor and the rich in Rome and Athens were caused by extortion. This question of extortion fills Roman history with its pale shadow; it is at the bottom of all the troubles, dissensions, periodical massacres and revolts. It has again taken possession of society with the reform of the Nineteenth Century. Only in 1789 France passed from under the yoke of extortion. The Jewish fraternity condemned extortion as a principle of tyranny.

"This fraternity, so powerful a principle, led the Jews to love their fellow-beings, to see in them colleagues and brothers; they received the stranger willingly, extended to him their hospitality, even a share in the benefits of their law—something that was foreign to all other nations. With these other nations the stranger was regarded simply as an enemy; "enemy" and "stranger" were expressed by one and the same word. Pantheism, denying the principle of unity, as indicated in the Divine origin, left men in a continual state of war. And war never ceased; the cities fought with each other, until the strongest had subdued the others, and in their turn were conquered and absorbed by a greater. This is the invariable history of Greece and Rome. The dogma of Divine creation exhibited to the Jews all men as brethren. They did not treat the stranger therefore as a barbarian. They, the Israelites, alone of all the nations of antiquity, did not carry on aggressive wars; once established upon their soil, they had no other desire than to live in peace by living out their laws. This is the object of all their institutions. They do not make war upon the stranger, because they had no hate against him.

"Their God, greater than the gods of the Olympus, neither flattered nor served their passions. He was a jealous God, who exacted the submission of the heart. He chastised his rebellious children. And this people purified by persecution and misfortune, returned to the laws of their fathers, to the observance of their precepts. No city in ancient, no people in modern times could have passed through likevicissitudes and recovered again. It is not through progress that they endured and were capable of resistance, but by holding fast to the past; by rallying around the law, which they had never abandoned and which they never modified, hard as it was. It often became irksome, it never bargained with its conscience. What else existed, before the laws of Moses, than that paganism which legalized all vices? The Jews defended their law with their lives; they fought for it against the Greek kings of Syria; they preferred to be buried under the ruins of Jerusalem to making a compact with Roman paganism. The Greeks and Romans never had the idea that one can die for one's religion.

"By their habits in the government of the State the Jews were separated completely from Greece and Rome. They never brooked the insults of the ancient or modern mobocracy, because they respected the principle of the family, the foundation of their political, judicial, administrative and military organization. They alone in antiquity repudiated slavery. They practiced a national brotherhood which the Christian people are hardly capable of comprehending; it is so sublime, and almost beyond human nature. The institution of the jubilee, of the seventh year, the seventh day, was the perfection of social order; but even with Christianity these institutions could not maintain themselves. Dispersed, reduced to direst need and to the humiliation of exile, the Jews have never abandoned these first principles. Tacitus remarked the close ties of brotherhood that united them in his time.Inter ipsos obstinata fides. Since then and up to this time is it not the same sentiment? Are there many dissensions amongst them? This moral greatness of the Jewish people made them the target of pagan enmity. The policy of Rome was to be enforced upon all nations. The Jews share with the Christians the honor of having been singled out as the victims of utter extermination.

"The Jewish nation has survived all its victors; it alone, says Jean-Jacques Rousseau, withstood the power of time, fortune and defeat. Greece and Rome were enveloped in a system of superstition which weighed heavily upon the actions of public and private life. The Jews lived beyond the pale of that ignominy. The causes of this intellectual and moral superiority became the subject of jealous depreciation generally."

The essential spirit of the Jewish polity has seldom, if ever, been more effectively portrayed than byRev. Dr. HENRY M. FIELD, in his scholarly work,On the Desert, published by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1883. It deals with the system of law instituted by Moses, which became ingrained in the Jewish people through long centuries of victorious contentionagainst barbarism in all its historic forms, and which remains to-day the guiding principle of Jewish life in all the relations of man to man.

We quote from Dr. Field's work as follows:

Theocracy and Democracy."Perhaps it does not often occur to readers of the Old Testament that there is much likeness between the Hebrew Commonwealth and the American Republic. There are more differences than resemblances, at least the differences are more marked. Governments change with time and place, with the age and the country, with manners and customs; yet at the bottom there is one radical principle that divides a republic from a monarchy or an aristocracy; it is the natural equality of men—that "all men are born free and equal"—which is as fully recognized in the laws of Moses as in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed the principle is carried further in the Hebrew Commonwealth than in ours; for not only was there equality before the laws, but the laws aimed to produce equality of condition in one point, and that a vital one—the tenure of land—of which even the poorest could not be deprived, so that in this respect the Hebrew Commonwealth approached more nearly to a pure democracy."Of course the political rights of the people did not extend to the choice of a ruler, nor did it to the making of the laws. As there was no king but God, it was the theory of the State that the laws emanated directly from the Almighty and his commands could not be submitted to a vote. No clamorous populace debated with the Deity. The Israelites had only to hear and to obey. In this sense the government was not a popular, but an absolute one."But how could absolutism be consistent with equality? There is no contradiction between the two, and indeed, in some respects, no form of government is so favorable to equality as a theocracy. Encroachments upon popular liberty and the oppression of the people do not come from the head of the State so often as from an aristocratic class which is arrogant and tyrannical. But in a theocracy the very exaltation of the Sovereign places all subjects on the same level. God alone is great and in His presence there is no place for human pride. Divine Majesty overawes human littleness, and instead of a favored few being lifted up above their fellows, there is a general feeling of lowliness and humility, in the sight of God, in which lies the very spirit and essence of equality."As the Hebrew law recognized no natural distinctions among the people, neither did it create any artificial distinctions. There was no hereditary class which had special rights; there was no nobility exempted from burdens laid on the poor, and from punishments inflicted on the peasantry. Whatever political power was permittedto the Hebrews belonged to the people as a whole. No man was raised above another; and if in the making of the laws the people had no voice, yet in the administration of them they had full power, for they elected their own rulers."Moses found soon after he left Egypt that he could not administer justice in person to a whole nation, so he directed the tribes to choose out of their number their wisest men, whom he would make judges to decide every common cause, reserving to himself only the more important questions. Here was a system of popular elections, which is one of the first elements of a republican or democratic state."In the administration of justice a Theocracy is an ideal government, for it is Divinity enthroned on earth as in Heaven, and no other form of government enforces justice in a manner so absolute and peremptory. In the eyes of the Hebrew lawgiver the civil tribunal was as sacred as the Holy of Holies. The office of the judge was as truly authorized, and his duty as solemnly enjoined, as that of the priest. The judgment is God's, said Moses, and he who gave a false judgment disregarded the authority of Him whose nature is justice and truth. The judgment seat was a holy place, which no private malice might profane. Evidence was received with religious care. Oaths were administered to give solemnity to the testimony. Then the Judge, standing in the place of God, was to pronounce equitably, whatever might be the rank of the contending parties. 'Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God's.' He recognized no distinctions, all were alike to him. The judge was to know no difference. He was not to be biased even by sympathy for the poor. 'Neither shall thou countenance a poor man in his cause. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.' Magistrates were not allowed to accept a gift; 'for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.'"The humanity of the Hebrew code is further seen in its mitigation of slavery. This was a legal institution of Egypt, out of which they had just come. They themselves had been slaves. Their ancestors, the patriarchs, had held slaves. Abraham had over three hundred servants born in his house. The relation of master and slave they still recognized, but by how many limitations was this state of bondage alleviated! No man could be subjected to slavery by violence. Man-stealing was punished with death. The more common causes of servitude was theft or debt. A robber might be sold to expiate his crime, or a man overwhelmed with debt might sell himself to pay it; that is, he might bind himself to service for a term of years: still he could hold property, and the moment he acquired the means might purchase back his freedom, or he might be redeemed by his nearest kinsman. If his master treat him withcruelty; if he beat him so as to cause injury the servant recovered his freedom as indemnity. At the longest his servitude came to an end in six years. He then recovered his freedom as a natural gift; 'If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.' A Hebrew slave was therefore merely a laborer hired for six years. Nor did the law permit the servant to go forth in naked poverty, and with the abject feeling of a slave still clinging to him. He was to be loaded with presents by his late master—sheep, oil, fruits, and wine—to enable him to begin housekeeping. Thus for a Hebrew there was no such thing as hopeless bondage. The people were not to feel the degradation of being slaves. God claimed them as his own, and as such they were not to be made bondmen. Every fiftieth year was a jubilee, a year of universal emancipation. Then 'liberty was proclaimed throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof.' This was the time of the restitution of all things. Though a man had sold himself as a slave, his right in the land was not alienated. It now returned to him free of encumbrance. At the year of jubilee all debts were extinguished. His native plot of ground, on which he played in childhood, was restored to him in his old age. Again he cultivated the paternal acres. He was not only a free man but a holder of property. Says Michaelis: 'The condition of slaves among the Hebrews was not merely tolerable, but often extremely comfortable.'"That the sympathies of the law were with the oppressed appears from the singular injunction that a foreign slave who fled to a Hebrew for protection should not be given up: 'Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.' No Fugitive Slave Law remanded the terror-stricken fugitive to an angry and infuriated master and to a condition more hopeless than before.Such was the democracy of Theocracy—a union in which one sprang out of the other. Men were equal because God was their Ruler—a Ruler so high that before him there was neither great nor small, but all stood on the same level. But the Hebrew Law did not stop with equality; it inculcated fraternity. A man was not only a man, he was a brother. That law contains some of the most beautiful provisions ever recorded in any legislation, not only for the cold administration of justice, but for the exercise of humanity. The spirit of the Hebrew law was broader than race, or country, or kindred. What liberality, for example, in its treatment of foreigners. Against race hatred Moses set up this command, 'Thou shalt not oppress a stranger,' which he enforced upon the Israelites by the touching remembrance of their own bitter experience, 'for ye know the heart of a stranger seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.' But not only were foreigners to be tolerated; they were to receive the fullestprotection. 'Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger as for one of your own country.'"In several requirements we discern a pity for the brute creation. Long before modern refinement of feeling organized societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, Moses recognized dumb beasts as having a claim to be defended from injury. Birds' nests were protected from wanton destruction."But perhaps the most beautiful provision of the law was for the poor."'When ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvests. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt have them for the poor and the stranger.' If the reaper dropped a sheaf in the field, he might not return to take it. Whatever olives hung on the bough, or clusters on the vine, after the first gathering, were the property of the stranger, the fatherless and the widow. Under the shelter of this law came many a Ruth, gleaning the handfuls of golden corn to carry home to her mother, who was thus saved from utter destitution. By these means the law kept the poor from sinking to the extreme point of misery. At the same time, by throwing in their path these wayside gifts, it saved them from theft or vagabondage. As a proof of its successful operation, it is a curious fact that, in the five books of Moses, such a class as beggars is not once mentioned. The tradition of caring for those of their own kindred, remains to this day and it is an honorable boast that among the swarms of beggars that throng the streets of the Old World or the New, one almost never finds a Jew."The law took also under its care all whom death had deprived of their natural protectors; 'Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child.' They were sacred by misfortune. God would punish cruelty to them. 'If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless.'"Thus the Hebrew law took the poor and the weak under its special protection; death, sorrow, widowhood, orphanage, all threw a shield of protection over the desolate and the unhappy. By this spirit of humanity infused into the relations of life, all the members of a community—the rich and poor, the strong and the weak—were united in fellowship and fraternity. One sacred tie bound them still closer; not only were they of the same race and nation, but they had the same religious inheritance; all were fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God."

Theocracy and Democracy.

"Perhaps it does not often occur to readers of the Old Testament that there is much likeness between the Hebrew Commonwealth and the American Republic. There are more differences than resemblances, at least the differences are more marked. Governments change with time and place, with the age and the country, with manners and customs; yet at the bottom there is one radical principle that divides a republic from a monarchy or an aristocracy; it is the natural equality of men—that "all men are born free and equal"—which is as fully recognized in the laws of Moses as in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed the principle is carried further in the Hebrew Commonwealth than in ours; for not only was there equality before the laws, but the laws aimed to produce equality of condition in one point, and that a vital one—the tenure of land—of which even the poorest could not be deprived, so that in this respect the Hebrew Commonwealth approached more nearly to a pure democracy.

"Of course the political rights of the people did not extend to the choice of a ruler, nor did it to the making of the laws. As there was no king but God, it was the theory of the State that the laws emanated directly from the Almighty and his commands could not be submitted to a vote. No clamorous populace debated with the Deity. The Israelites had only to hear and to obey. In this sense the government was not a popular, but an absolute one.

"But how could absolutism be consistent with equality? There is no contradiction between the two, and indeed, in some respects, no form of government is so favorable to equality as a theocracy. Encroachments upon popular liberty and the oppression of the people do not come from the head of the State so often as from an aristocratic class which is arrogant and tyrannical. But in a theocracy the very exaltation of the Sovereign places all subjects on the same level. God alone is great and in His presence there is no place for human pride. Divine Majesty overawes human littleness, and instead of a favored few being lifted up above their fellows, there is a general feeling of lowliness and humility, in the sight of God, in which lies the very spirit and essence of equality.

"As the Hebrew law recognized no natural distinctions among the people, neither did it create any artificial distinctions. There was no hereditary class which had special rights; there was no nobility exempted from burdens laid on the poor, and from punishments inflicted on the peasantry. Whatever political power was permittedto the Hebrews belonged to the people as a whole. No man was raised above another; and if in the making of the laws the people had no voice, yet in the administration of them they had full power, for they elected their own rulers.

"Moses found soon after he left Egypt that he could not administer justice in person to a whole nation, so he directed the tribes to choose out of their number their wisest men, whom he would make judges to decide every common cause, reserving to himself only the more important questions. Here was a system of popular elections, which is one of the first elements of a republican or democratic state.

"In the administration of justice a Theocracy is an ideal government, for it is Divinity enthroned on earth as in Heaven, and no other form of government enforces justice in a manner so absolute and peremptory. In the eyes of the Hebrew lawgiver the civil tribunal was as sacred as the Holy of Holies. The office of the judge was as truly authorized, and his duty as solemnly enjoined, as that of the priest. The judgment is God's, said Moses, and he who gave a false judgment disregarded the authority of Him whose nature is justice and truth. The judgment seat was a holy place, which no private malice might profane. Evidence was received with religious care. Oaths were administered to give solemnity to the testimony. Then the Judge, standing in the place of God, was to pronounce equitably, whatever might be the rank of the contending parties. 'Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God's.' He recognized no distinctions, all were alike to him. The judge was to know no difference. He was not to be biased even by sympathy for the poor. 'Neither shall thou countenance a poor man in his cause. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.' Magistrates were not allowed to accept a gift; 'for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.'

"The humanity of the Hebrew code is further seen in its mitigation of slavery. This was a legal institution of Egypt, out of which they had just come. They themselves had been slaves. Their ancestors, the patriarchs, had held slaves. Abraham had over three hundred servants born in his house. The relation of master and slave they still recognized, but by how many limitations was this state of bondage alleviated! No man could be subjected to slavery by violence. Man-stealing was punished with death. The more common causes of servitude was theft or debt. A robber might be sold to expiate his crime, or a man overwhelmed with debt might sell himself to pay it; that is, he might bind himself to service for a term of years: still he could hold property, and the moment he acquired the means might purchase back his freedom, or he might be redeemed by his nearest kinsman. If his master treat him withcruelty; if he beat him so as to cause injury the servant recovered his freedom as indemnity. At the longest his servitude came to an end in six years. He then recovered his freedom as a natural gift; 'If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.' A Hebrew slave was therefore merely a laborer hired for six years. Nor did the law permit the servant to go forth in naked poverty, and with the abject feeling of a slave still clinging to him. He was to be loaded with presents by his late master—sheep, oil, fruits, and wine—to enable him to begin housekeeping. Thus for a Hebrew there was no such thing as hopeless bondage. The people were not to feel the degradation of being slaves. God claimed them as his own, and as such they were not to be made bondmen. Every fiftieth year was a jubilee, a year of universal emancipation. Then 'liberty was proclaimed throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof.' This was the time of the restitution of all things. Though a man had sold himself as a slave, his right in the land was not alienated. It now returned to him free of encumbrance. At the year of jubilee all debts were extinguished. His native plot of ground, on which he played in childhood, was restored to him in his old age. Again he cultivated the paternal acres. He was not only a free man but a holder of property. Says Michaelis: 'The condition of slaves among the Hebrews was not merely tolerable, but often extremely comfortable.'

"That the sympathies of the law were with the oppressed appears from the singular injunction that a foreign slave who fled to a Hebrew for protection should not be given up: 'Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.' No Fugitive Slave Law remanded the terror-stricken fugitive to an angry and infuriated master and to a condition more hopeless than before.

Such was the democracy of Theocracy—a union in which one sprang out of the other. Men were equal because God was their Ruler—a Ruler so high that before him there was neither great nor small, but all stood on the same level. But the Hebrew Law did not stop with equality; it inculcated fraternity. A man was not only a man, he was a brother. That law contains some of the most beautiful provisions ever recorded in any legislation, not only for the cold administration of justice, but for the exercise of humanity. The spirit of the Hebrew law was broader than race, or country, or kindred. What liberality, for example, in its treatment of foreigners. Against race hatred Moses set up this command, 'Thou shalt not oppress a stranger,' which he enforced upon the Israelites by the touching remembrance of their own bitter experience, 'for ye know the heart of a stranger seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.' But not only were foreigners to be tolerated; they were to receive the fullestprotection. 'Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger as for one of your own country.'

"In several requirements we discern a pity for the brute creation. Long before modern refinement of feeling organized societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, Moses recognized dumb beasts as having a claim to be defended from injury. Birds' nests were protected from wanton destruction.

"But perhaps the most beautiful provision of the law was for the poor.

"'When ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvests. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt have them for the poor and the stranger.' If the reaper dropped a sheaf in the field, he might not return to take it. Whatever olives hung on the bough, or clusters on the vine, after the first gathering, were the property of the stranger, the fatherless and the widow. Under the shelter of this law came many a Ruth, gleaning the handfuls of golden corn to carry home to her mother, who was thus saved from utter destitution. By these means the law kept the poor from sinking to the extreme point of misery. At the same time, by throwing in their path these wayside gifts, it saved them from theft or vagabondage. As a proof of its successful operation, it is a curious fact that, in the five books of Moses, such a class as beggars is not once mentioned. The tradition of caring for those of their own kindred, remains to this day and it is an honorable boast that among the swarms of beggars that throng the streets of the Old World or the New, one almost never finds a Jew.

"The law took also under its care all whom death had deprived of their natural protectors; 'Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child.' They were sacred by misfortune. God would punish cruelty to them. 'If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless.'

"Thus the Hebrew law took the poor and the weak under its special protection; death, sorrow, widowhood, orphanage, all threw a shield of protection over the desolate and the unhappy. By this spirit of humanity infused into the relations of life, all the members of a community—the rich and poor, the strong and the weak—were united in fellowship and fraternity. One sacred tie bound them still closer; not only were they of the same race and nation, but they had the same religious inheritance; all were fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God."

As a supplement to Dr. Field's effective presentation of his subject we add here, an extract from theChristian Union, on "Moses and his Laws," by HARRIET BEECHER STOWE:

"The strongest impulse in the character of Moses appears to have been that of protective justice, more particularly with regard to the helpless and down-trodden classes. The laws of Moses, if carefully examined, are a perfect phenomenon; an exception to the laws of either ancient or modern nations in the care they exercised over women, widows, orphans, paupers, foreigners, servants and dumb animals. No so-called Christian nation but could advantageously take a lesson in legislation from the laws of Moses. There is a plaintive, pathetic spirit of compassion in the very language in which the laws in favor of the helpless and suffering are expressed, that it seems must have been learned only of superhuman tenderness. Not the gentlest words of Jesus are more compassionate in their spirit than many of these laws of Moses. Delivered in the name of Jehovah, they certainly are so unlike the wisdom of that barbarous age as to justify of them to Him who is Love."

Another woman of commanding authority, GEORGE ELLIOT, speaks on this topic as follows:

"Unquestionably the Jews, having been more than any other race exposed to the adverse moral influences of alienism, must, both in individuals and in groups, have suffered some corresponding moral degradation; but in fact they have escaped with less abjectness, and less of hard hostility toward the nations whose hands have been against them, than could have happened in the case of a people who had neither their adhesion to a separate religion founded on historic memories, nor their characteristic family affectionateness. Tortured, flogged, spit upon, thecorpus vileon which rage or wantonness vented themselves with impunity, their name flung at them as an opprobrium by superstition, hatred, and contempt, they have remained proud of their origin. Does any one call this an evil pride? The pride which identifies us with a great historic body is a humanizing, elevating habit of mind, inspiring sacrifices of individual comfort, gain, or other selfish ambition, for the sake of that ideal whole; and no man swayed by such a sentiment can become completely abject. That a Jew of Smyrna, where a whip is carried by passengers ready to flog off the too officious specimens of his race, can still be proud to say, 'I am a Jew,' is surely a fact to awaken admiration in a mind capable of understanding what we may call the ideal forces in human history."And again, a varied, impartial observation of the Jews in different countries tends to the impression that they have a predominant kindness, which must have been deeply ingrained in the constitution of their race to have overlasted the ages of persecution and oppression.The concentration of their joys in domestic life has kept up in them the capacity of tenderness; the pity for the fatherless and the widow, the care for the women and the little ones, blent intimately with their religion, is a well of mercy, that cannot long or widely be pent up by exclusiveness, and the kindness of the Jew overflows the line of division between him and the Gentile."On the whole, one of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of this scattered people, made for ages 'a scorn and a hissing,' is that, after being subjected to this process, which might have been expected to be in every sense deteriorating and vitiating, they have come out of it (in any estimate which allows for numerical proportion) rivaling the nations of all European countries, in healthiness and beauty of physique, in practical ability, in scientific and artistic aptitude, and in some forms of ethical value. A significant indication of their natural rank is seen in the fact, that at this moment the leader of the Liberal party in Germany is a Jew, the leader of the Republican party in France is a Jew, and the head of the conservative ministry in England is a Jew."

"And again, a varied, impartial observation of the Jews in different countries tends to the impression that they have a predominant kindness, which must have been deeply ingrained in the constitution of their race to have overlasted the ages of persecution and oppression.The concentration of their joys in domestic life has kept up in them the capacity of tenderness; the pity for the fatherless and the widow, the care for the women and the little ones, blent intimately with their religion, is a well of mercy, that cannot long or widely be pent up by exclusiveness, and the kindness of the Jew overflows the line of division between him and the Gentile.

"On the whole, one of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of this scattered people, made for ages 'a scorn and a hissing,' is that, after being subjected to this process, which might have been expected to be in every sense deteriorating and vitiating, they have come out of it (in any estimate which allows for numerical proportion) rivaling the nations of all European countries, in healthiness and beauty of physique, in practical ability, in scientific and artistic aptitude, and in some forms of ethical value. A significant indication of their natural rank is seen in the fact, that at this moment the leader of the Liberal party in Germany is a Jew, the leader of the Republican party in France is a Jew, and the head of the conservative ministry in England is a Jew."

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULEY (afterwards Lord Macauley) delivered a celebrated oration in the British House of Commons on April 17, 1833, in support of the bill for the removal of the disabilities of the Jews. After a destructive criticism of the arguments and reasons which were then being advanced by the opponents of liberalism, arguments which have since then been so completely outlived as to be no longer, in any Anglo-Saxon community, deemed worthy of consideration, the great statesman concluded his masterly presentation in a lucid statement and eloquent peroration, as follows:

"Whatever the sect be which it is proposed to tolerate, the peculiarities of that sect will, for the time, be pronounced by intolerant men to be the most odious and dangerous that can be conceived. As to the Jews, that they are unsocial as respects religion is true; and so much the better; for surely, as Christians, we cannot wish that they should bestir themselves to pervert us from our own faith."But that the Jews would be unsocial members of the civil community, if the civil community did its duty by them, has never been proved. My right honorable friend who made the motion which we are discussing has produced a great body of evidence to show that they have been grossly misrepresented; and that evidence has not been refuted by my honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford."But what if it were true that the Jews are unsocial? What if it were true that they do not regard England as their country? Wouldnot the treatment which they have undergone explain and excuse their antipathy to the society in which they live? Has not similar antipathy often been felt by persecuted Christians to the society which persecuted them?"While the bloody code of Elizabeth was enforced against the English Roman Catholics, what was the patriotism of Roman Catholics? Oliver Cromwell said that in his time they were Espaniolized. At a later period it might have been said that they were Gallicised. It was the same with the Calvinists. What more deadly enemies had France in the day of Louis XIV, than the persecuted Huguenots?"But would any rational man infer from these facts that either the Roman Catholic as such, or the Calvinist as such, is incapable of loving the land of his birth? If England were now invaded by Roman Catholics, how many English Roman Catholics would go over to the invader? If France were now attacked by a Protestant enemy, how many French Protestants would lend him help? Why not try what effect would be produced on the Jews by that tolerant policy which has made the English Roman Catholic a good Englishman and the French Calvinist a good Frenchman?"Another charge has been brought against the Jews, not by my honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford—he has too much learning and too much good feeling to make such a charge—but by the honorable member for Oldham, who has, I am sorry to see, quitted his place."The honorable member for Oldham tells us that the Jews are naturally a mean race, a money-getting race; that they are averse to all honorable callings; that they neither sow nor reap; that they have neither flocks nor herds; that usury is the only pursuit for which they are fit; that they are destitute of all elevated and amiable sentiments."Such, sir, has in every age been the reasoning of bigots. They never fail to plead in justification of persecution the vices which persecution has engendered. England has been, legally, a home to the Jews less than half a century, and we revile them because they do not feel for England more than a half patriotism."We treat them as slaves, and wonder that they do not regard us as brethren. We drive them to mean occupations, and then reproach them for not embracing honorable professions. We long forbade them to possess land, and we complain that they chiefly occupy themselves in trade. We shut them out from all the paths of ambition, and then we despise them for taking refuge in avarice."During many ages we have, in all our dealings with them, abused our immense superiority of force, and then we are disgusted because they have recourse to that cunning which is the natural and universal defense of the weak against the violence of the strong. But were they always a mere money-changing, money-getting, money-hoardingrace? Nobody knows better than my honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford, that there is nothing in their national character which unfits them for the highest duties of citizens."He knows that, in the infancy of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letters and arts were still unknown to Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterward the site of Rome, this contemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid temple, their fleets of merchant ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians and their poets."What nation ever contended more manfully against overwhelming odds for its independence and religion? What nation ever, in its last agonies, gave such signal proofs of what may be accomplished by a brave despair? And if, in the course of many centuries, the depressed descendants of warriors and sages have degenerated from the qualities of their fathers, if, while excluded from the blessings of law and bowed down under the yoke of slavery, they have contracted some of the vices of outlaws and slaves, shall we consider this as a matter of reproach to them?"Shall we not rather consider it as a matter of shame and remorse to ourselves? Let us do justice to them. Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons. Let us open to them every career in which ability and energy can be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not presume to say that there is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism among the descendants of the Maccabees."Sir, in supporting the motion of my honorable friend, I am, I firmly believe, supporting the honor and the interest of the Christian religion. I should think that I insulted that religion if I said that it cannot stand unaided by intolerant laws. Without such laws it was established, and without such laws it may be maintained."It triumphed over the superstitions of the most refined and of the most savage nations, over the graceful mythology of Greece and the bloody idolatry of the northern forests. It prevailed over the power and policy of the Roman Empire. It tamed the barbarians by whom that empire was overthrown. But all these victories were gained, not by the help of intolerance, but in spite of the opposition of intolerance."The whole history of Christianity proves that she has little indeed to fear from persecution as a foe, but much to fear from persecution as an ally. May she long continue to bless our country with her benignant influence, strong in her sublime philosophy, strong in her spotless morality, strong in those internal and external evidences to which the most powerful and comprehensive of human intellects have yielded assent, the last solace of those who have outlived everyearthly hope, the last restraint of those who are raised above every earthly fear!"But let us not, mistaking her character and her interests, fight the battle of truth with the weapons of error, and endeavor to support by oppression that religion which first taught the human race the great lesson of universal charity."

"But that the Jews would be unsocial members of the civil community, if the civil community did its duty by them, has never been proved. My right honorable friend who made the motion which we are discussing has produced a great body of evidence to show that they have been grossly misrepresented; and that evidence has not been refuted by my honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford.

"But what if it were true that the Jews are unsocial? What if it were true that they do not regard England as their country? Wouldnot the treatment which they have undergone explain and excuse their antipathy to the society in which they live? Has not similar antipathy often been felt by persecuted Christians to the society which persecuted them?

"While the bloody code of Elizabeth was enforced against the English Roman Catholics, what was the patriotism of Roman Catholics? Oliver Cromwell said that in his time they were Espaniolized. At a later period it might have been said that they were Gallicised. It was the same with the Calvinists. What more deadly enemies had France in the day of Louis XIV, than the persecuted Huguenots?

"But would any rational man infer from these facts that either the Roman Catholic as such, or the Calvinist as such, is incapable of loving the land of his birth? If England were now invaded by Roman Catholics, how many English Roman Catholics would go over to the invader? If France were now attacked by a Protestant enemy, how many French Protestants would lend him help? Why not try what effect would be produced on the Jews by that tolerant policy which has made the English Roman Catholic a good Englishman and the French Calvinist a good Frenchman?

"Another charge has been brought against the Jews, not by my honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford—he has too much learning and too much good feeling to make such a charge—but by the honorable member for Oldham, who has, I am sorry to see, quitted his place.

"The honorable member for Oldham tells us that the Jews are naturally a mean race, a money-getting race; that they are averse to all honorable callings; that they neither sow nor reap; that they have neither flocks nor herds; that usury is the only pursuit for which they are fit; that they are destitute of all elevated and amiable sentiments.

"Such, sir, has in every age been the reasoning of bigots. They never fail to plead in justification of persecution the vices which persecution has engendered. England has been, legally, a home to the Jews less than half a century, and we revile them because they do not feel for England more than a half patriotism.

"We treat them as slaves, and wonder that they do not regard us as brethren. We drive them to mean occupations, and then reproach them for not embracing honorable professions. We long forbade them to possess land, and we complain that they chiefly occupy themselves in trade. We shut them out from all the paths of ambition, and then we despise them for taking refuge in avarice.

"During many ages we have, in all our dealings with them, abused our immense superiority of force, and then we are disgusted because they have recourse to that cunning which is the natural and universal defense of the weak against the violence of the strong. But were they always a mere money-changing, money-getting, money-hoardingrace? Nobody knows better than my honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford, that there is nothing in their national character which unfits them for the highest duties of citizens.

"He knows that, in the infancy of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letters and arts were still unknown to Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterward the site of Rome, this contemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid temple, their fleets of merchant ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians and their poets.

"What nation ever contended more manfully against overwhelming odds for its independence and religion? What nation ever, in its last agonies, gave such signal proofs of what may be accomplished by a brave despair? And if, in the course of many centuries, the depressed descendants of warriors and sages have degenerated from the qualities of their fathers, if, while excluded from the blessings of law and bowed down under the yoke of slavery, they have contracted some of the vices of outlaws and slaves, shall we consider this as a matter of reproach to them?

"Shall we not rather consider it as a matter of shame and remorse to ourselves? Let us do justice to them. Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons. Let us open to them every career in which ability and energy can be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not presume to say that there is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism among the descendants of the Maccabees.

"Sir, in supporting the motion of my honorable friend, I am, I firmly believe, supporting the honor and the interest of the Christian religion. I should think that I insulted that religion if I said that it cannot stand unaided by intolerant laws. Without such laws it was established, and without such laws it may be maintained.

"It triumphed over the superstitions of the most refined and of the most savage nations, over the graceful mythology of Greece and the bloody idolatry of the northern forests. It prevailed over the power and policy of the Roman Empire. It tamed the barbarians by whom that empire was overthrown. But all these victories were gained, not by the help of intolerance, but in spite of the opposition of intolerance.

"The whole history of Christianity proves that she has little indeed to fear from persecution as a foe, but much to fear from persecution as an ally. May she long continue to bless our country with her benignant influence, strong in her sublime philosophy, strong in her spotless morality, strong in those internal and external evidences to which the most powerful and comprehensive of human intellects have yielded assent, the last solace of those who have outlived everyearthly hope, the last restraint of those who are raised above every earthly fear!

"But let us not, mistaking her character and her interests, fight the battle of truth with the weapons of error, and endeavor to support by oppression that religion which first taught the human race the great lesson of universal charity."

Here is an utterance on this subject by OTTOvonBISMARCK. This man, whose iron hand puddled the smelt of the furnace wherein, with fire and blood, the German people were fused into political unity, was—or rather, is, for he is yet living, and will long remain a power—this man is no friend of the Jews. His spirit crystallized, and his nature drew its inspiration out of the time when "Polen, Juden und Franzosen" were a trinity of bugbears for the worshippers of royal divinity in Europe. Bismarck never fully recovered from that nightmare of his youth and early manhood, but he towered above his fellows, and he had the faculty of perceiving the truth and a habit of telling it which, notwithstanding his diplomatic training, he was wont to indulge. In a notable debate in the Prussian Landtag during the session of 1871, he expressed himself as follows:

"In my position as President of the Ministry I must repudiate any obligation to fill the places in the civil service with Roman Catholics according to their proportionate number in the population of the country.... The existence of a distinctively religious body in a political assembly is in itself a monstrous phenomenon.... This tends to make religion the subject of parliamentary debates.... I adhere to the principle that every religion should be allowed perfect freedom, without considering it, for that reason, necessary that it should be represented in the executive departments in the same ratio as in the population. Every religious body would have as much right as the Catholics to claim this; the Lutherans as well as the Jews, andI have found that it is the latter particularly who are most distinguished by their special intelligence and capacity for administrative functions."

As an estimate of Jewish citizenship by a man whose life experience has afforded him a rare insight into social and political conditions on both sides of the Atlantic, we quote the following expression by CARL SCHURZ, on the occasion ofthe dedication of the Montefiore Home for Chronic Invalids, in New York City:

"Honor to the men and women who have accomplished this and who are bound to accomplish still more. They do honor to the community which calls them its own; for any community, whatever its pretensions, will be honored by citizens who take so high a view of their duties to humanity."And who are these citizens? They are Jews. This is not the only monument the Jews of New York have planted to their benevolence and public spirit. There are others—some even far exceeding this in costliness and grandeur. But none—none of their own and none instituted by any other class of citizens excels it, nay, perhaps none equals it in beauty of sentiment and devotion. And for whom is this done? Hear the noble words of the President of the Society as found in last year's report: 'As Israelites we are compelled, both by circumstances and inclination, to provide for the needy of our own faith; but this must not induce us to exclude any human being because of his religious belief from the benefit of an institution charged with the improvement of bodily ailment.' Thus it is done for the brotherhood of men. This is the true spirit, worthy of him whose name this edifice bears. It is the spirit, too, which more than any other, has created the brightest, the most stainless glories of our great American Republic—the spirit which, without any governmental action, out of the spontaneous initiative of the patriotic citizen, through private munificence, through individual solicitude for the welfare of all, has covered this land all over with educational institutions and enterprises of benevolence. In our school days we read of the Roman matron Cornelia, who, when other noble ladies exhibited to her their stores of pearls and precious stones, called in her children, and pointing to them, said: 'These are my jewels.' So when the Old World shows to us the magnificence of its baronial halls and royal castles, the American Republic may point to her colleges and hospitals and asylums founded by the patriotic generosity of simple citizens, and say, 'These are my palaces.'"And to entitle the American people to this proud distinction, the Jews have done as much as any other class of citizens—nay, I may repeat in their presence what I have frequently said in the presence of others—the Jews have, in proportion to their numbers, done far more. I repeat this with all the greater willingness, as I have recently had occasion to observe the motive springs, the character and the aims of the so-called "anti-Semitic" movement, a movement whose dark spirit of fanaticism and persecution insults the humane enlightenment of the 19th century; whose appeals are addressed to the stupidest prejudice and the blindest passion, whose injustice affronts every sense of fairness and decency and whose cowardice—for cowardice is an essential element in the attempt tosuppress the competing energies of a mere handful of people—whose cowardice I say, should provoke the contempt of every self-respecting man."In the face of this movement, which for years has stirred some European countries, and thrown its shadows even across the ocean, upon our shores, it is most grateful to the human heart to hear the President of the Montefiore Home say, that while this roof is to shelter the neediest of Israel, no human being because of his religious belief shall be excluded from its protection. He might take the clamorous anti-Semitic by the hand, show him the hospitals, orphans homes, charity schools, founded and sustained by Jewish money, Jewish labor, Jewish public spirit, benevolence and devotion and say to him: 'If you have any sick, any aged, any children who cannot find help elsewhere, here we shall have room for them, and they are welcome.' What has the anti-Semite to answer? No, no, that movement cannot survive. It must perish in shame. It will be consigned to an ignominious grave by the generous impulses of human nature and the civilization of this age. And what will remain will be the beneficent influence and the sweet memory of such good actions as yours, and the brotherhood of mankind."

"And who are these citizens? They are Jews. This is not the only monument the Jews of New York have planted to their benevolence and public spirit. There are others—some even far exceeding this in costliness and grandeur. But none—none of their own and none instituted by any other class of citizens excels it, nay, perhaps none equals it in beauty of sentiment and devotion. And for whom is this done? Hear the noble words of the President of the Society as found in last year's report: 'As Israelites we are compelled, both by circumstances and inclination, to provide for the needy of our own faith; but this must not induce us to exclude any human being because of his religious belief from the benefit of an institution charged with the improvement of bodily ailment.' Thus it is done for the brotherhood of men. This is the true spirit, worthy of him whose name this edifice bears. It is the spirit, too, which more than any other, has created the brightest, the most stainless glories of our great American Republic—the spirit which, without any governmental action, out of the spontaneous initiative of the patriotic citizen, through private munificence, through individual solicitude for the welfare of all, has covered this land all over with educational institutions and enterprises of benevolence. In our school days we read of the Roman matron Cornelia, who, when other noble ladies exhibited to her their stores of pearls and precious stones, called in her children, and pointing to them, said: 'These are my jewels.' So when the Old World shows to us the magnificence of its baronial halls and royal castles, the American Republic may point to her colleges and hospitals and asylums founded by the patriotic generosity of simple citizens, and say, 'These are my palaces.'

"And to entitle the American people to this proud distinction, the Jews have done as much as any other class of citizens—nay, I may repeat in their presence what I have frequently said in the presence of others—the Jews have, in proportion to their numbers, done far more. I repeat this with all the greater willingness, as I have recently had occasion to observe the motive springs, the character and the aims of the so-called "anti-Semitic" movement, a movement whose dark spirit of fanaticism and persecution insults the humane enlightenment of the 19th century; whose appeals are addressed to the stupidest prejudice and the blindest passion, whose injustice affronts every sense of fairness and decency and whose cowardice—for cowardice is an essential element in the attempt tosuppress the competing energies of a mere handful of people—whose cowardice I say, should provoke the contempt of every self-respecting man.

"In the face of this movement, which for years has stirred some European countries, and thrown its shadows even across the ocean, upon our shores, it is most grateful to the human heart to hear the President of the Montefiore Home say, that while this roof is to shelter the neediest of Israel, no human being because of his religious belief shall be excluded from its protection. He might take the clamorous anti-Semitic by the hand, show him the hospitals, orphans homes, charity schools, founded and sustained by Jewish money, Jewish labor, Jewish public spirit, benevolence and devotion and say to him: 'If you have any sick, any aged, any children who cannot find help elsewhere, here we shall have room for them, and they are welcome.' What has the anti-Semite to answer? No, no, that movement cannot survive. It must perish in shame. It will be consigned to an ignominious grave by the generous impulses of human nature and the civilization of this age. And what will remain will be the beneficent influence and the sweet memory of such good actions as yours, and the brotherhood of mankind."

On the same occasion as that noted above, the opening of the Montefiore Home for Chronic Invalids,Hon. ABRAM S. HEWITT, Mayor of New York City, spoke as follows:

"No other people, so far as I have observed, no sect or denomination or party have done so much as the Jews, to relieve distress, give education and elevate the standard of morality in our midst, and I make that statement after a good deal of observation and attention, particularly that part of it concerning the subject of education."I have never found the Jews lacking in public spirit. It is said of them that they have the art of getting wealth. If but a part of what is said of them be true, they understand well the use of wealth when once acquired. They are found among the first admirers of art, they love music and have since the daughters of Judah hung their harps on the willows by the waters of Babylon."This charity is unique, and it is a link in the chain of Jewish institutions. So long as there are calls by suffering humanity, the Jews will year by year add new links to their beautiful chain until it embraces every need of society regardless of race and religion."I have read at the door as I entered, that the Israelites erected this building to the chronic sick in honor of Moses Montefiore, a Jew, who for nearly a hundred years set an example to other people and creeds of a broad charity that affects all people and all lands."This institution was one long wanted in New York for a class for whom there is no hope save such offered by the poor-house or Blackwell'sIsland. They were here given instead a home in which love reigned and religion presided, religion which opened the portals of the other world where all must go, rich and poor, Jew and Christian, where reigns the Heavenly Father whose chosen people have proven steadfast amid all oppression and persecution, and who has so long preserved them, but who nevertheless knows no difference between His children."

"I have never found the Jews lacking in public spirit. It is said of them that they have the art of getting wealth. If but a part of what is said of them be true, they understand well the use of wealth when once acquired. They are found among the first admirers of art, they love music and have since the daughters of Judah hung their harps on the willows by the waters of Babylon.

"This charity is unique, and it is a link in the chain of Jewish institutions. So long as there are calls by suffering humanity, the Jews will year by year add new links to their beautiful chain until it embraces every need of society regardless of race and religion.

"I have read at the door as I entered, that the Israelites erected this building to the chronic sick in honor of Moses Montefiore, a Jew, who for nearly a hundred years set an example to other people and creeds of a broad charity that affects all people and all lands.

"This institution was one long wanted in New York for a class for whom there is no hope save such offered by the poor-house or Blackwell'sIsland. They were here given instead a home in which love reigned and religion presided, religion which opened the portals of the other world where all must go, rich and poor, Jew and Christian, where reigns the Heavenly Father whose chosen people have proven steadfast amid all oppression and persecution, and who has so long preserved them, but who nevertheless knows no difference between His children."

From a deeply thoughtful address before the Young Men's Hebrew Association of Philadelphia, byJudgeF. CARROLL BREWSTER, on the Valley of Baca as referred to in Psalm lxxxiv, we quote the following as the expression of a Nestor among jurists:

"Perhaps, then, the very dreariness of this barren place was intended as a prophecy of the woes which God's chosen people should encounter on their march through the history of many ages. And the water to be found in the midst of this desolation might prefigure the refreshing deliverance which the centuries were to bring. Of bitterness and of persecution, of suffering beyond man's power to describe, of its depth, of all that is sad and sorrowful, the history of the Jewish nation bears tearful testimony. The student has two marvels, as he turns these weary pages of the very monotony of cruelty. He wonders how the ferocity of man could ever enact this horrible tragedy, and then he wonders how the race survived."It would be a vain and painful task to recite here the thousandth part of what history tells us, and it is certain that history does not, in this case as in many others, falsify the facts. These narratives were all written by the actors who took a horrid pride in recounting their own infamy. The man who has but a moderate installment of feeling in his breast must cry out with indignation as he reads of these outrages. To the jurist they are especially repugnant, for they tell not only of the slaughter of human beings, but of the murder of justice."

"It would be a vain and painful task to recite here the thousandth part of what history tells us, and it is certain that history does not, in this case as in many others, falsify the facts. These narratives were all written by the actors who took a horrid pride in recounting their own infamy. The man who has but a moderate installment of feeling in his breast must cry out with indignation as he reads of these outrages. To the jurist they are especially repugnant, for they tell not only of the slaughter of human beings, but of the murder of justice."

The following is from the pen of GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, the life-long editor of "Harper's Weekly" and "Harper's Magazine." As a prominent actor in the stirring events of his generation he has left a marked impress on our national life, but great as was his influence in the councils of the nation he was yet best known to the large mass of the American people as the genial, persuasive writer of the "Easy Chair" in the magazine which he so ably edited. The extract which we print is from that department of Harper's Magazine, where it appeared in July, 1877, vol. 55, p. 300.

Back to Index Next