The history of the Jews: From the war with Rome to the present time

At the commencement of the seventeenth century the Reformation may be regarded as an accomplished fact. The great flood of controversy which had broken up the Church had begun to subside, and whatever countries had been gained by the new opinions, or had been retained by the old ones, remained in both instances firm to their allegiance. It might have been expected that the great changes which had been worked would largely affect the condition of the Jews, and ultimately, no doubt, they did so; but for the time the effects were scarcely discernible. No doubt, in Protestant countries the clergy could no longer put in force the terrible engines of persecution which had hitherto been ready to their hand; and this was in itself an immense relief. Again, in lands which still owned the supremacy of Rome, much of the virulence of the priesthood against the Jews was of necessity abated. They had graver and more absorbing occupation for their thoughts. In the momentous struggle which was in progress the Jews were more or less overlooked. But the bitterness of feeling towards them was scarcely, if at all, diminished. The leaders of the Reformed movement themselves regarded the Jews with but little favour. They could not, indeed, but abhor the barbarities which had been employed against them by the rulers of the Church; but they had little idea, so far as themselves were concerned, of showing consideration towards the obstinate and rebellious race which persisted in rejecting Christ.[180] This, however, was not universally the case. Frank du Jon (Franciscus Junius), the well-known Dutch Reformer, urged on his countrymen, in earnest and emphatic language, the duty owing by all Christian nations to their brethren the Jews, who were to be won by the spirit of love to the fold of Christ. So did Isaac Vossius, Professor at Amsterdam, who addressed a letter to the Jews, strongly indicative of this temper. The Arminians of Holland again, and their allies, evinced a most brotherly kindness towards such Jews as had taken refuge in their country. The celebrated Hugo Grotius was especially remarkable for the respect he entertained for the Rabbins and their opinions. Indeed, though some of the leading Reformers occasionally expressed themselves in a manner which was inconsistent with the wise principles they professed, yet the general effect of their teaching grew and strengthened as generations went on, and resulted at last in a widespread and enlightened toleration.

It must also be remembered that the Jews themselves—for a long time, at all events—showed no more inclination to embrace Gospel truth, as set forth by the Reformers, than they had been in previous generations to accept the tenets of the Romish Church. It was not, indeed, to be expected that the deep mutual rancour which had been the growth of so many generations—of savage cruelty on the one hand, and sullen, inflexible hate on the other, could be removed by any sudden change, even if its results had been far more beneficent. It is far easier to provoke international animosities than to compose them again. Let us remember how long, in this country, the bitter dislike and contempt of the French nation, which Nelson and his school did their best to encourage as the best safeguard of England against successful invasion—let us remember, I say, how long it lasted, after all possible danger of the dreaded results had passed away. It cannot, indeed, be said to be dead even now, though three generations have passed away since it was called forth. Remember also that the mutual antipathy of the Englishman and the Frenchman could not for a moment be compared, in respect of its bitterness, with that which existed in those dark and miserable times between the Jew and the Christian. Let us be thankful that a spirit of toleration and mercy has been growing, however slowly, and still continues to grow, and pray that our children may behold the ripe perfection of that glorious harvest.

Not much is recorded of the Jews in Germany and the other countries of Central Europe during the earlier portion of the seventeenth century. There was a disturbance at Frankfort in 1614, which proved disastrous to them, though it does not seem to have arisen from religious bitterness. It will be remembered that, as nearly as possible one hundred years before, there had been a proposal to exile all the Jews in the town. That originated in commercial animosity, and nothing but the mutual jealousies of the deputies present at the meeting had prevented its being carried out. On the present occasion a revolt of the trade guilds against the town authorities had been successful, and the first act of the guilds was to expel the Hebrew traders, of whose prosperity they were jealous. But two years afterwards the sedition was suppressed, and the leader of the émeute put to death, whereupon the Jews were permitted to return. A similar expulsion took place in Worms, when the fugitives found a protector in the Elector Frederick.

In the year 1619 began the terrible ‘Thirty Years’ War,’ from which all classes of men suffered heavily, and the Jews as much as any. During the celebrated siege of Prague they rendered great service to the Emperor. Rabbi Leo has written a history of the incidents of that eventful period; in which he praises highly the conduct of his countrymen, their zeal and courage throughout the siege, and especially their piety, in assembling in their synagogues to implore Heaven to grant their countrymen victory, and reciting a litany composed expressly for the occasion by one of their Rabbins. He is persuaded, indeed, that the preservation of the city was entirely owing to their intercession.

If such was the case, it is to be feared that the Emperors Ferdinand II. and III. did not evince the gratitude which would be due from them. We learn that in 1630 the first-named took from them their privilege of farming the revenues of the Hungarian kingdom. His reason for doing so does not flatter them. He says it was because ‘they had neither conscience nor honesty, and were therefore unworthy to enjoy it.’ They must, however, have regained it, since we find that they were again deprived of it, in 1647, by his successors.

In 1650 a great meeting of Jews, at which three hundred Rabbins were present, is said to have been held on the plain of Ageda, thirty miles from Buda, to determine a question which, it appeared, was agitating the minds of many—whether the Messiah had not already come. The sole authority for the occurrence appears to be one Samuel Brett, who published an account of it in London, A.D. 1655, five years after the supposed assembly. Most historians reject the story as a mere invention, designed partly to facilitate the conversion of the Jews, partly to throw obloquy on the Church of Rome. Among those who refuse it credit, is the celebrated Menasseh ben Israel, whose authority carries great weight. Further, in the narrative itself, the imputing by the Pharisees of the miracles of our Lord to the agency of magic, reads like a plagiarism from Matt. xii. 24; as also their objections to His mean origin, to a similar extract from Mark vi. 3.[181]

On the other hand, some authorities accept Brett’s statement as genuine; and there are circumstances in it not easy to reconcile with the notion of imposture. Thus, the author gives his name and the particulars of his own life and career, which it would have been easy to disprove, if they were fictitious; and, as the publication of the story must have provoked a good deal of angry feeling, it is at least strange that this was not done. But when Nathaniel Holmes republished the history, as he did eleven years afterwards, he added no hint that its authenticity had been so much as suspected. Nor again, still later, did the compiler of the Harleian Miscellany, who also reproduced it. Further, Brett states that the Jews, when they broke up their meeting, resolved to hold another in three years from that time—two years, that is, after the date of Brett’s publication. An impostor, one would think, would not have inserted this perfectly needless addition to his narrative, which could only lead to his detection. The idea which the entire story gives is rather exaggeration than imposture. Such a meeting as he describes might really have taken place; but the numbers, the character of the speakers, and the interest felt by the Jews generally in the proceedings, have been greatly overstated. It will be better to give Brett’s story with this caution appended to it.

He states that the first meeting took place at the time and for the purpose already stated, the King of Hungary having first granted permission. A vast number of learned Jews from all nations repaired to the spot, and encamped in tents round a central pavilion, where the council sat.

The first day was employed in examining the credentials of the various Rabbins. On the second, Rabbi Zechariah, who had been chosen president, proposed the main question, ‘Whether the Messiah had already come, or were they still to await His advent?’ Some, we are told, argued that He must have come. They had now suffered, they said, for 1600 years the heaviest woes, nor did there seem any prospect of these coming to an end. But why should God thus delay the coming of the Deliverer? Neither they, nor their fathers for many generations, had been guilty of idolatry, which alone would be an adequate cause for withholding Him. But the sense of the assembly was against this view. It was affirmed that He had not come, and that the sins of the people had delayed His advent.

Next it was debated in what manner He would come; and here there was no lack of unanimity. It was agreed that He would appear, according to the old belief, as a conqueror, who would restore the kingdom to Israel; that He would uphold the Mosaic law in all its integrity, and that He would be born of a virgin. Some of those present then raised the question whether Jesus the crucified might not be the Messiah. But the Pharisees objected that Jesus had been a person of low birth and condition, whereas the Messiah would appear surrounded by all the accessories of earthly grandeur. A Rabbi named Abraham rejoined that it was difficult to account for the miracles wrought by Jesus, unless He was the Messiah. But Zebedee, a chief Pharisee, rejoined that these miracles had been effected by magic. In this the Sadducees present concurred, though they had hitherto opposed nearly all that the Pharisees advanced.

The congress had lasted for six days, when some priests made their appearance, who, at the request of the King of Hungary, had been despatched from Rome. These at first only attempted to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and, while discoursing on this topic, seem to have been heard with patience. But when, digressing from this, they began to insist on the authority of the Church, and demand the submission of the Jews to the Pope, the whole assembly broke out into a tumultuous cry of ‘No Christ!’ ‘No God-man!’ ‘No intercession of saints!’ ‘No worship of images!’ ‘No prayers to the Virgin!’ The meeting broke up in disorder, coming to no conclusion. But it was alleged that many Jews were shaken in their belief.

In another part of Europe—the part, indeed, in which the Jews had hitherto enjoyed the most entire immunity from suffering—great troubles befell them about this time, in consequence of the rebellion of the Cossacks against the rule of the Poles. In the spring of 1648 massacres of Jews took place in the countries which lie to the east of the Dnieper, in which thousands perished. Still larger numbers were carried off as prisoners, and sold in Turkey. During the interregnum following on the death of King Ladislaus, hordes of barbarians overran the Ukraine, committing great havoc, from which all the inhabitants suffered, but none, we are told, so much as the Jews.

In 1670 the Jews were banished from the Austrian dominions by the Emperor Leopold, a weak and narrow-minded prince, who was easily persuaded to adopt measures which he was as speedily obliged to modify or reverse. He had granted, only a short time before, Rabbi Zachariah permission to build a magnificent synagogue and schools for the revival of learning. But the synagogue had hardly been finished when it was turned into a Christian church by the Emperor, and the whole of the Jews exiled from his dominions. The reason of this is said to have been that the Empress attributed her barrenness to the displeasure of Heaven at the toleration shown to the Jews. But her death in her confinement, shortly afterwards, doubtless had a counter-effect on the mind of the Emperor; and we are not surprised to hear that the Jews were recalled, and re-established in their possessions.[182] It was upon this occasion that the Jews expelled from Vienna found a refuge in Berlin, where a thriving community grew up.

In this century many learned Jews and Christian Hebrew scholars appeared, whose names are well known, even at the present day. Among these the most distinguished were Rabbi Menasseh, of whom we shall have occasion to speak presently, and the Christian writers Pocock, Surenhusius, and Vitringa. But the most renowned Christian Hebraists of this century were the two Buxtorfs. The elder, Johann, born at Westphalia in 1564, and dying in Basle in 1629, is the author of the famous Hebrew dictionary and grammar continually quoted by Hebrew scholars. His son, also called Johann, born 1599, and dying in 1664, finished the concordance which his father had commenced.