I have, for some years now, noticed a similarity and closeness between the jesuits and the jews while I have also read and listened to those debating whether it is the jesuits or the jews.
I’ve written articles on both. A few Santander blogposts have zoomed in on the jesuits while a number of others, the jews. However, I have found it difficult to justify my belief of a collaboration between the two – until now.
Why the first Jesuit Pope is such a big deal, I believe, many will now recognise by what we have seen recently since Francis’ appointment.
There has been (and probably still is) a War in the Vatican. The jesuits were barred from ever having a Pope but now, in the 21st Century, it has happened and Vatican II helped it on its way. The Dominicans and Franciscans (most catholics never even ask themselves – “Why so many different orders when we’re talking about One God and Jesus?”) have, OF COURSE, been anti – acceptance of jews (or converso jews – “New Christians”) in their ranks BUT the jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola, have absolutely embraced jews in theirs.
What happens, then, when the jews control the Vatican? You get the type of crap that Pope Francis is promulgating.
The Parliamentary speech is long but so well worth reading I assure you. If you know anything at all, you know, in this battle, 100 years is a drop in the ocean so, although from the late 1800s, the speech is setting the scene for what we are dealing with today.
The following is from pages 18 and 20 of the above book:
Henry Kamen, the English historian, himself a Jew, was so impressed with these statements of Ignatius that he was moved to write, echoing the words of Pius XI : “These incidents show that Ignatius had so far escaped the influence of the atmosphere in Spain as to become a deep and sincere spiritual Semite.” It was this open-minded attitude that the founder of
the Society of Jesus incorporated into the legislation of the Society.
Though the statutes speak of both Jewish and Moorish Christians, they had their greatest impact on those of Jewish lineage, since these were much more likely to
aspire to positions of authority. The Moorish Christians for the most part lived in rural districts, and engaged in agriculture and manual labor, while the Jewish Christians lived in cities, were merchants, and were more educated. Thus, the statutes had to do almost entirely with Jewish Christians.
In 1496, the Dominican Priory of St. Thomas Aquinas in Avila enacted and received papal approval for its discriminating regulation. 81 Overty thirty years later, in 1531, the Dominican houses of Santa Maria Nieba and San Pedro Martir of Toledo were authorized to exclude New Christians. In 1525, the Franciscan Observants requested and obtained from Pope Clement VII permission to refuse applicants of Jewish descent as well as those who had been examined by the Inquisition. Other orders, monasteries, churches, dioceses, military orders, and confraternities followed suit so that by the time Ignatius was writing the Constitutions of the Society (chiefly from 1547 to 1556), all of the major and most influential religious orders of Spain enforced clauses in their rules for admission excluding those of Jewish origin.
Then, from British Parliamentary archives:
HC Deb 22 March 1858 vol 149 cc465-547
MR. NEWDEGATE rose to move the omission of the fifth clause, under which Jews would be entitled to sit in the House. The hon. Gentleman said—I can assure the House that I am fully sensible of my own inability worthily to discharge upon this occasion, a duty which would have devolved on the present Lord Chancellor, had he continued to he a member of this branch of the Legislature, I am painfully aware that the House will now feel the loss of his close reasoning and warm eloquence; but I am also persuaded that this Amendment, by whomsoever it may be brought forward, is entitled to the most respectful attention. I must 491 beg to observe, that it is from no over-confidence in my own powers, and from no belief on my part that I am either a better Christian or a better man than other Members of the House, that I take this part; but I entertain a strong conviction upon this grave subject, and am profoundly persuaded that it is not only highly impolitic, but that it is absolutely wrong that this country, which for a thousand years has been governed through the intervention of a Christian Parliament; which has recognised as the basis of its law the great doctrines of Christianity; which has secured to itself Christian legislation by securing to itself a Christian Legislature, and which has under that system enjoyed God’s manifold and prolonged blessings, should cast away the recognition of God as we know Him, as he has declared himself through our blessed Mediator, in his attribute of the governor of nations and of the universe, and to this result, as is fully admitted by its leading advocates, tends the clause, which I oppose. I have undertaken this task, not because I feel myself good enough for its adequate performance, but because I am not bad enough for its neglect. When I remember the men with whom I have been associated in this great cause, but who are no longer Members of this House — such men as the late Sir R. Inglis, the late Mr. Goulburn, the late Mr. Law, Mr. Stafford, the Vice-Chancellor Stuart, the Lord Justice Turner, Lord Stanhope, Lord Shaftesbury, the Duke of Marlborough, the present Lord Chancellor for Ireland, the present Lord Chancellor for England — I cannot regard with any other feeling than one of deep contempt, the imputation which is sometimes thrown out against the opponents of the proposal now under the consideration of the House, that they are actuated in the course they are pursuing by a spirit of narrow sectarian bigotry and persecuting intolerance. I would appeal to any one who posseses the slightest acquaintance with the public con-duct of the distinguished men whom I have named, far more to those who enjoyed the advantage of being known to them in private life, whether the mere mention of such an array of learning, of experience, of Christian feeling, and of active benevolence, is not sufficient to refute so contemptible an accusation. Let it be remembered, too, that this Bill, though professedly general, is really introduced 492 for the purpose of obtaining a seat for Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person who already enjoys the manifold advantages of an influential position in this country, and it must at once be seen that we have here no policy of violent persecution to reverse. The contest in this case lies ostensibly between three par-ties. We have, in the first place, a wealthy Jew, who by means of a large foreign influence has obtained a great command over the constituency of the City of London; we have next a number of persons who are carried so far by their love of civil and religious liberty, as they call it, that they are ready to discard from the constitution of the legislature that religion which forms the very basis of all our freedom; and we have, in the third place, that earnest and most estimable portion of the people of this country who have for the last eleven years opposed, and to this day, as is proved by their petitions, conscientiously oppose this measure. I wish to guard myself against the supposition that in opposing this clause as it now stands, I desire to do more than to provide that no Jew should be a member of the legislature. If the House should consent to strike out the clause I should not oppose the introduction of some other provision which would continue to the Jews the power they now possess of filling in this country purely ministerial offices. This Bill differs from any measure which has been introduced for the same object since 1851, in that it would expressly place the profession of Judaism on a par with the profession of Christianity as a qualification for admission into this House. I know that some hon. Friends of mine consider this an advantage—I cannot share their opinion. I do not think that any benefit can be gained by binding the Jew to his religion on the occasion of his entrance within these walls. I do not believe that a Jew is likely to be a better man or a better Member of this House because he is a strict adherent of the Talmud. The effect of this clause would be to bind the Jewish member to a religion the tenets of which I think I can show are of an immoral tendency, are anti-national, and anti-social. It is said by the advocates of this change, that the Jew accepts the Old Testament, and that he ought easily to amalgamate with the Christian, who only differs from him by accepting in addition to the Old Testament the inspired writings of 493 the Evangelists and Apostles. This is a complete mistake. The Jewish religion, it is true, purports to be based on the Old Testament, but it is in reality embodied in the Talmud, and the Talmud is a compilation of those traditions which our Divine Redeemer declared, when he was on earth, had rendered the law of the Old Testament of none effect. It is a compilation of traditions which, to use a phrase adopted by the Prussian Parliament, are “the invention of men who had not the fear of God before their eyes.” The Talmud is an embodiment of those traditions which so blinded the Jews, that, under their influence, they condemned their own true king, our blessed Redeemer, to the cross. We are now asked, to bind the Jews to those wretched doctrines which for centuries have kept them a separate people from the rest of mankind, as a qualification for admission to this House. There are but few people who seem thoroughly to understand what Judaism is, and what effect it produces on the mind and condition of its votaries. The question was put the other day in the following form:—” Is there anything in the mental character of the Jew which ought to exclude him from the House of Commons? We can understand that religious differences may be used as a ground of exclusion in the case of people whose religious belief unfits them for the society of their fellow men, and we should on that account wish to see Mormons excluded from seats in Parliament; but how can a Christian extend to the Jew that principle? A Jew does not believe all that a Christian believes, but all that he believes is believed by the Christian, and there is nothing, therefore, in his faith which ought to subject him to civil disabilities.” I readily admit that the view of the subject for which the inquirer evidently contends is fairly put in that passage. But I cannot forget that, according to Saint Paul, the Jews are struck with a mental blindness, which, after their rejection of their own true King, incapacitates them from understanding the prophecies of the Old Testament itself. I cannot, as a Christian, reject such evidence; I cannot conceal from myself the present truth of Saint Paul’s declaration. For I concur in the opinion of Paley, that the condition of the Jews at this day is a standing miracle; we have the highest ancient as well as modern authority for the assertion, that by the operations of their religion on their minds the Jews are kept a 494 separate and an anti-social race. The noble Lord the Member for London has made himself the special champion of this Jewish cause, and has thereby excited the regret of many of his own best friends. The noble Lord does not, I am sure, consider the present Earl Grey a hostile observer of his public career. I doubt whether the Earl Grey concurs with the noble Lord in his views upon this question; but the noble Earl published the other day a most able work on Parliamentary reform — a work which every Member of this House would do well to study, and which shows that its author has not wasted the time which has elapsed since he was in office; and in that book while writing of the effect of large constituencies on the character of statesmen, Lord Grey declares his belief that the representation of the City of London has been, a disadvantage to the noble Lord; and he compares that disadvantage with the advantage which Sir R. Peel enjoyed as the representative of Tamworth, which has a much smaller constituency. I believe that many friends of the noble Lord consider that his connection with the City of London has been and is a misfortune both to himself and to his country, by binding him to unnatural pertinacity in this matter of the Jews. The noble Lord, in addressing his constituents last year, admitted that his efforts to enable Jews to sit in Parliament, and thus to destroy its Christian character, had not been attended with the success which had crowned his previous labours in the cause of civil and religious liberty. The expression he used was remarkable: he said that his labours in this matter of the Jews, had not been attended with equal favour. Nor am I surprised, for upon the Jewish question he is opposed to the strong conscientious convictions of the most intelligent portion of his fellow countrymen. I have already said that the Jewish religion exercises a powerful effect over the mental condition of the Jewish people; and I shall bring forward some proofs of the truth of that statement. In the year 1848 the question of the position of the Jews was debated in the city of Hamburgh, where a much more accurate knowledge of the real tenets of the Jewish religion prevails than in this country. On the 9th February of that year the Syndicus Shroder brought forward a Motion in the Senate of Hamburgh, for granting to the Jews civil and electoral rights; but that proposal, after a 495 long debate, was negatived by twenty-one votes against six. A document, in which the religious, moral, and political objections against the emancipation of the Jews were clearly set forth, was then printed by order of the Senate, and was incorporated with the public records of that city; and the following are some extracts from that remarkable paper:— In passing through all the epochs of the history of Europe, marked by the rise, propagation, and development of Christianity, we look in vain for some favourable results as regards the Jews, accruing from the various changes in the formation of society, and the progress of the sciences and civilisation. In the course of events, we see the Jews in various opposite characters and positions; we see them as Roman citizens, Roman slaves, agents of Christian princes, bankers, hawkers, rabbins, preachers, and spies; but in each and every capacity they have remained, and are still the same people, who have not at heart the teachings of experience, nor the grand and sublime interests by which public welfare is promoted. They have, directly and indirectly, brought about agitations and revolutions, and have again in their turn felt the shaft of revolution directed against themselves. They have been driven from countries, and again returned thither. They have become martyrs for their religion, and again converts from it. They have plundered their neighbours, and again been plundered by them. They have, in some individual instances, shown themselves liberal and charitable, while in most cases they have caused the ruin and misery of their fellow-creatures by the most cunning and wicked devices; but, throughout the many centuries they have lived amongst Gentiles and Christians, contempt and repugnance followed thorn in all ages and in all countries. The cause of this phenomenon lies in the character of Judaism itself, which affords to its votaries no point of centralisation based on morality. Religion ought not only to be elevated above all legislation, but to serve as a basis for laws. But it is different with Judaism. The most simple and general rules of humanity are made to turn upon laws both obscure and equivocal, and this is plainly reflected in the moral actions of the Jews, in which the character of isolation and private motives are predominant. I brought on a former occasion under the notice of the House a work called The Old Paths, by Dr. M’Caul, a learned and estimable clergyman, who has for many years been engaged in zealous and charitable labours for the conversion of the Jews. In that book I find the following passage, showing the real nature of Judaism. I must beg the Committee to bear in mind, that when Jewish writers or writers on Judaism use the expression “the Oral Law” they mean the traditions of the Pharisees and of the Rabbins, which are embodied in the Talmud:— That Jadaism is identical with the religion of the oral law was proved in the first number, by an appeal to the highest possible authority—the Prayer Book of the Synagogue, which is not only 496 formed in obedience to the directions of the oral law, but declares expressly that the Talmud is of Divine authority. So long, therefore, as that Prayer Book is the ritual of the Synagogue, the worshippers there must be considered as Talmudists— believers in all the absurdities, and advocates of all the intolerance of that mass of tradition. That this is no misrepresentation and no unfounded conclusion of cur own appears from the latest book published in this country by a member of the Jewish persuasion. Joshua Van Oven, Esq., has, in his Introduction to the Principles of the Jewish Faith, a chapter, headed Judaism, which begins thus:—’The Jewish religion, or Judaism, is founded solely on the law of Moses, so called from it having been brought down by him from Mount Sinai. With the particulars of these laws he had been inspired by the Almighty during the forty days he remained on the mount after receiving the Ten Commandments; these he afterwards embodied in the sacred volume known and accepted as the written law, and called the Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses, contained in the volume we term the Bible. We also from the same source receive, as sacred and authentic, a large number of traditions not committed to writing, but transmitted by word of mouth down to later times, without which many enactments in the Holy Bible could not have been understood and acted upon; those, termed traditional and oral laws, were collected and formed, into a volume called the Mishna, by Rabbi Jehudah Hakodesh, A.M. 4150. In addition to this, we are guided by the explications of the later schools of pious and learned rabbis, constituting what is now known by the name of the Talmud or Gemara,’ Dr. M’Caul gives the following account of the morality inculcated in the Talmud:— The oral law loosens the moral obligations. It teaches men how to evade the Divine commandments, as was shown in Nos. 11, 14, and 15, It allows dispensation from oaths, as proved in Nos. 56 and 57. It allows men to retain what they know does not belong to them, if it only belongs to a Gentile (p. 18), or to an unlearned Jew, as appears from No. 59. It sanctions the murder of the unlearned. It is a persecuting and intolerant system. It gives every rabbi the power of excommunicating the Jews (No. 31); and it commands the conversion of all the Gentile nations by the sword (No. 6). It forbids the exercise of the commonest feelings of humanity to those whom it calls idolaters. It will not permit a drowning idolater to be helped, nor a perishing idolater to be rescued, nor an idolatrous woman in travail to be delivered. That passage may appear to afford too severe a view of the immoral and anti-social nature of the Talmudic religion, but the statements which it contains are confirmed by the elder Disraeli, in his work entitled The Genius of Judaism, a work from which I have derived as much if not more instruction in reference to this question than from any other I have ever read, and which breathes throughout a love for the Jewish nation. In that book the learned author describes the tyrannical and deadening effect of Judaism upon the minds of its votaries:— 497Such was the triumph of. those ‘whited sepulchres,’ the Pharisees, enemies of reform and of Christ, they built a labyrinth from whose dark intricacies there was no issue; they hammered out a network of iron from ago to age, from whence no captive could extricate himself. As their religion decayed, and their superstitions multiplied, the human passions had a wider stage opened whereon to perform their part. The pride of domination kindled in the breasts of the ‘dictators ‘ who held the fate of an enslaved people in their hands. Pale with vigils, but paramount in power, the rabbins sat exalted in their chairs, while their disciples were ‘rolled in the dust of their feet,’ as they pompously described the sovereignty of their divinity schools. There, at least, the prostration of the body could not be as great as that of the understanding. I was not satisfied while inquiring into this subject when I procured the document which I quoted from Hamburg, without endeavouring to ascertain upon what facts the immoral and anti-social nature of Judaism was asserted. I was furnished with such evidence, and I will cite one modern case out of many, illustrative of the pernicious tendency of the Jewish religion; I refer to the proceedings at a trial which took place at Kowno, a Polish town in the government of Wilna, more than two-thirds of the inhabitants of which are Jews, as reported in the States Gazette published at Riga, March 19, 1846. It appears that the premises of a Jew merchant of the name of Fabian, son of a rabbi, had been forcibly entered by the police, and that they found there five large packages containing seventy-five pieces of fine cloth, which were contraband. But another Jew, a carrier, came forward and perjured himself by stating that he had brought the cloth for another Jew, and on his account from a place within the frontier. The crime of perjury was subsequently discovered. What was this perjured Jew’s defence? The excuse was this, that he had been instructed by the rabbi that he had the power to dispense with the oath of a Jew before a Christian Court, if by so doing the perjury was for the benefit of the Jews, and that this Rabbi had absolved him. This rabbi was himself called before the court, and after much prevarication; admitted that those were the doctrines of the Jewish religion, and that he had dispensed with the oath of this Jew. Now these, I contend, are anti-social doctrines and that a religion which countenances them should not be admitted as a qualification for admission to this House. I now come to the second point of my subject. I have stated that this religion 498 is anti-national, and in this view of the matter I am aided by the Jews themselves, for I hold in my hand a most able pamphlet, circulated within the last year, and written by a Jew. It is a work entitled Jewish Emancipation, in which the writer states that many of the Jews consider that they fulfil the Word of God and their own destiny by remaining a separate people; that they altogether deprecate the attempt to introduce Baron Rothschild, or any other Jew, into the Parliament of this country; that he makes this attempt without their sanction; and he begs it to be understood that if the House sanctions the proposal for the admission of Jews into Parliament, they do it not at his instance, or at the instance of a large part of the Jewish community. The writer, David John Anderson, in his pamphlet says,— What do the people of Israel require when they clamour for Jewish emancipation? They already possess it in freedom to speak and act, to enjoy the rights, liberties, and immunities of the land in which they live, in being capable of holding any office in the executive, though not in the legislative government of the country, because Jews are essentially, and will ever remain strangers among the nations with whom they are sojourning. This is the vital principle of Jewish nationality. The indissoluble link that for centuries upon centuries has bound them together, the bond of brotherhood that has left them still Jews, preserving in almost its original form that religion, grand in its simplicity, and even now bearing the stamp of cloud-covered Sinai. Believe me, it is a mistaken notion to imagine a Jew is exalted by a seat in the British Parliament; let him take any office he pleases in the executive government, he is but administering laws already made, but as soon as he forgets the true destiny of Judaism, which in itself is internationality, and amalgamates himself with that people from whom, by the laws of his faith, he is bound to hold himself aloof, he meets but the merited contempt of all right-minded Israelites, and the cold toleration of those who deny the truth of his religion. Well, Sir, Mr. Anderson goes on to protest against the attempts made by his coreligionists to amalgamate themselves with the Legislature of this country. And he further goes on to say that in their very prayers they give evidence that their hopes are not connected with this country, but “that they look from year to year” (such is their speciality of expression) to their restoration to the land of their fathers. Mr. David Anderson writes of the prayer which the Jews pronounce year by year at the feast of the Passover as follows:— The following is translated from the Hebrew service for the two first nights of Passover. It 499 admirably illustrates the point in question, as well as the proverbial hospitality of the Jews one to another:—Lo! this is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt; let all those who are hungry enter and eat thereof, and all who are necessitous come and celebrate the Passover. At present we celebrate it here; next year we hope to celebrate it in the land of Israel. This year we are servants here, but next year we hope to be freemen in the land of Israel.’ How then, Sir, is it that, when over and over again the fact has been cited in this House that the Jews are aliens—not aliens by the accident of birth, but aliens by the nature of their religion and social economy —what is the reason that this fact has been boldly contradicted? I bring you the evidence of a Jew of high character, who tells you that though you may induce a Jew to sit among you in the Legislature of England, if he be a Jew by religion— and by this Bill you will stamp him doubly so—he must in reality be an alien at heart. I would not state such a fact as this lightly, or without corroboration, but it does not rest on the dictum of the writer of the work I have quoted, who, although a learned and an able man, is not invested with authority by his people; but I hold here a sermon—[Cries of “Oh, oh!” and a laugh], Hon. Members may be pleased to treat this matter lightly, but it was a grave and an important question they were entering on, and one calculated, if not properly legislated on, to violate the deepest and most devotional feelings of the people of this country, and I beg hon. Members to remember that I am only doing my duty when I lay before them reliable information. In further confirmation of what I wish to elucidate, I will read an extract from a sermon on the Jewish faith, delivered in the Great Synagogue, Duke’s Place, Sabbath 24, Shevat 6608 (Jan. 29, 1848), by the Rev. N. Adler, Phil. Doc, chief rabbi of the united congregations of the British empire, published by Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange. After emphatically asserting the authority of the oral law, the learned rabbi thus addressed his congregation:— And there is not only a futurity for the individual, but also for the people at largo. The same God who bore us on eagles’ wings above all impediments, and destined us to be (here follows Hebrew text) a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, a pattern and standard for mankind; the same God, who in consequence of our sins has fulfilled every word of his threat, scattered us among the nations, and left us few in number; the same God who sifted the house of Israel in a sieve; the same God will surely fulfil the other 500 part of his revelation, that he will have compassion on us, return and gather us from all the nations, and will bring us into the land which our forefathers possessed. I think that I have now proved conclusively that the doctrines of their religion, as accepted by the Jews, constitute them aliens in this country, as well as aliens elsewhere; I hope hon. Members will excuse me for having adduced this evidence in support of my assertion that the Jewish religion is anti-national. It happened that during the revolution in 1848, in Austria, sundry Jews were among the rebels. God knows that, if they were struggling for freedom, they have my cordial wish for their success; but when placed upon their trial, these Jews declared that their religion freed them from all oaths of allegiance, since they were not either Austrians or Hungarians, but Jews, whose country was Palestine. We have been told that the first Jesuits were Jews; we have it so in Coningsby—[a laugh]. That is indeed a work of fiction. But when I assert that Jews had been officers of the Inquisition in Spain, I assert it on the authority of the rabbi of the synagogue in Birmingham. And I assert, on the authority of the elder D’Israeli, that a close affinity exists between the doctrine, the manner of reasoning, the right of absolution, the dictatorial power claimed, and the universal power aimed at, alike by the rabbis and the Jesuits. He terms such fautors of the Pope as the Jesuits the mere mimics of the rabbins. He says that the Jesuits derived their system, derived their anti-social doctrines, derived their subversive tendency, from the rabbins. Not that the Jews have not at different times been persecuted by the Roman Catholics—I will not exclude that fact; but they sometimes have a common object, and at all times there is a great similarity of feeling and conventionality between the Jesuits and the Jews. We have seen it, and we see it now, in the perpetual attacks that are made on the Christian constitution, on the Protestant Christian constitution of this country. What is the proposal in the clause? That you should enthrone Judaism—the oldest and the most inveterate opponent of Christianity— in the British Parliament, which has hitherto been exclusively Christian by its constitution. And by whom is this organic change supported? I have been ten years watching this question in this House, and let me ask when and on what occasion have 501 you seen a Roman Catholic Member stand up for the maintenance of the Christian character of Parliament? I have mixed with Roman Catholics in private, I have urged them on the ground of our common Christianity to resist such proposals as the present, and I have met with every courteous kind of response, and I have hoped that they would have joined me, as a Protestant Christian, in upholding the profession of our common Christianity—but what has it come to? When they returned to the House they shook their heads as they passed me, and voted for the destruction of the Christian character of Parliament. There was one Roman Catholic Member, however, the late Mr. Raphael, Member for St. Albans, who acted otherwise; he was by descent a Jew, but had become a Roman Catholic; and I remember in 1849 the virulence with which he was assailed by Mr. Keogh, because he dared to say in this House that he had not become a Christian to vote against the maintenance of Christianity, as a qualification for admission to this House. I had several conversations with that gentleman, and he told me he had suffered much persecution from the Jews when he left them. He stated that his own people had repudiated him; but that he grieved to find that his new instructors, the Roman Catholic priests, were inclined to persecute him because he would not vote away the Christian character of the English Parliament. Now, Sir, I say these facts point to the conclusion that those who wish to break down the Constitution of this our Protestant State—that Constitution which is the palladium of our prosperity and freedom, and of the freedom of Europe against the assaults of despotism, now excited by Rome under the dictation of the Jesuits— I say, Sir, that our great assailants see in this proposal to seat Judaism in Parliament, a means to accomplish the end of the bitterest enemies of England. Fast est ab hoste doceri. It is right that those who believe, as I believe, that the freedom of England grew out of the Reformation of her religion—that her independence is sustained by the purity of her Christianity, and will fall with the national abandonment of its dictates—should oppose this measure. Sir, this is no chimerical danger. I know there are many hon. Gentlemen who value the connection that subsists between Church and State. Have they not observed that those who would break down the connection—that those who would separate the Slate from all re- 502 cognition of Christianity, and from all obligations derived from its connection—are most anxious to introduce the Jews into Parliament? Another fallacy often relied on is that the admission of Jews to Parliament will induce them to accept the Christian faith. I have cited the opinions of Jews who declare their own religion against the proposal before the House. I now state the opinion of one who was a Jew by religion, and who is now labouring most sedulously to bring his people to Christianity. In a pamphlet, entitled, “A Protest on the Jews’ Disabilities Bill, by a Believing Jew,” the author writes:— We must not conceal the fact that among the multifarious enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ, foremost in rank and most determined in purpose, stands the Jew. His inveterate enmity to the Cross is as old as Christianity, and wide as the world. The Jew is the declared enemy of Christ. A formal declaration of war against Jesus of Nazareth characterises the Judaism of eighteen hundred years’ standing. It is part and parcel of the Jewish creed to regard Jesus as an impostor, and to hold Him accursed. It is a curious fact that Dr. Owen, Cromwell’s Chaplain, and Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, when consulted by the Protector, as to the admission of Jews, not into the British Parliament, but merely to reside in England, discovered in the Judaic documents, which he consulted, a distinct and emphatic curse against Christ. Dr. Owen informed Cromwell of this fact, and I believe it had considerable weight with that great but faulty man, in deciding him to reject the application of the Jews for permission to reside and trade in this country. The Protest of a Believing Jew continues:— The Jew despises the Christian dogma. His views and feelings regarding Christianity may be summed up in two words—supremo contempt. I would hope that the men who are disposed to favour this unhappy measure sin through ignorance. Indeed, such appears to be the case. An. utter want of acquaintance of the real state of my nation is discernible in all the shallow arguments for emancipation. It is covertly insinuated by the promoters of the Bill that this step might bring the Jews over to Christianity. I pity the men who can so deceive themselves. Let me assure such persons that this is a gross deception. I can confidently assert that the very reverse is to be apprehended. The inconsistency of our Christian legislature will disgust the Jew; it will provoke his ridicule, and compel him to despise the cowards who, whilst calling themselves Christians, dare not name the name of Christ in presence of the more conscientious Jew. But when I see that this newly-begotten friendship threatens to prove more injurious to Israel than former enmity—when I see that it is attempted to emancipate the Jew temporally, at 503 his cost spiritually—when the hand, stretched forth to strike off the chain from his body fastens it about his soul—I marvel, and ask my liberal Christian brother, ‘ Is this thy kindness to thy friend? Eighteen hundred years’ exile marks the great sin of my nation—the sin of rejecting Christ. And shall Great Britain be foremost in defying the living God, by saying to the Jew, ‘Our differences are not worth talking about: it is true you Jews blaspheme Jesus Christ, and consider us Christians idolaters; but you and we can legislate together without discovering to each other our respective dogmas.’ Kindness, forsooth! I confess that I would rather see a revival of the Crusades than this hollow friendship, which casts such fearful stumbling blocks in the way of the Jew from coming to Christ. The Crusader hunted the Jew’s body—the new system persecutes his soul; the old system made my people bigots—the new will, I fear, make them infidels. Men and brethren, we have a duty to perform to this peculiar nation, yet, ‘beloved for their fathers’ sake,’ and we owe a paramount duty to the Saviour of man; and now by a hearty protest against this unhappy Bill, let us show real love to the Jew and supreme love to Jesus Christ. Now, this was the opinion of a converted Jew. I have hoard the question put, what will be the effect on the forms of the House of the introduction of the Jews? It has been said, “Oh, we shall retain our prayers, it will make no difference; one or two Jews will be Members of the House, but it will make no difference;” but he wished to show the House how this alleged no difference might be magnified and aggravated. It happened that in 1851 the Corporation of Amsterdam admitted two Jews to be members of the assembly. Previously to that time the proceedings of the assembly began with prayer; and I have a letter from Amsterdam, ascertained to be authentic, in which it is shown that very soon after the introduction of these two Jewish members among the thirty-seven other colleagues, the practice of opening their deliberations with prayer through our blessed Redeemer and in his name was unfortunately abandoned. Now, I do not think that many Members would be inclined to maintain that it is desirable, in view of the feelings entertained towards this House by the country, that we should abandon that admirable form of prayers which our chaplain reads daily. The Jewish Intelligencer of January, 1852, gives a narrative of the case of the admission of two Jews into the Corporation of Amsterdam, and the name of Christ was soon excluded from the prayers of the Corporation. A committee was appointed to draw up a new form of prayers, and, to the no small astonishment, not only of 504 the respectable members of the Corporation, but of the true Christians of the country, the name of Jesus Christ was left out. Some members made an urgent remonstrance, but they were out-voted. It may be said that this is a very trifling instance, but I will show you that it is the beginning of the infidel system of Holland. I will show you how this vicious principle spread. This happened in 1852, and I have here a letter from the Protestant Alliance, dated October, 1857, the authenticity of which I have also ascertained, and I am at liberty to say that the Rev. M. H. Vine, the clerical secretary, went himself to Holland, and this is his account of the state of things there, showing the cause of the decline of freedom in Europe;— The secretary has visited Brussels, Cologne, Hamburgh, Berlin, Hanover, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam. Judging from what appears at most of these places, the state and prospects of Protestantism on the Continent must be regarded as very unsatisfactory. At Cologne the efforts of the King of Prussia to obtain a site for the erection of a Protestant church have long been successfully resisted. In the kingdom of Hanover religious intolerance and persecution prevail to a considerable extent. In Holland a law has just been enacted by which the Bible is banished from the Government schools in order to please the Roman Catholics, and the name of Jesus is excluded from all prayers used by the children, in order to satisfy the Jews. Now, you may say the town of Amsterdam is a very unimportant place, and that Holland is a very small country; but I show you, by the example I have cited, how in a neighbouring and a Protestant country this principle of infidelity has spread, and how just are the apprehensions of the public—of thinking men—of those who are not led away by party cries or political necessities, when they approach this House year after year, instructing us to resist this measure, and praying this House to reject this vicious proposal, as it did in 1854—who seek, if possible, to convince the noble Lord the Member for the City of London that, by adhering to this measure, he is himself playing the part of a persecutor in thus ignoring and violating the best feelings of his unoffending countrymen. This same proposition was made to the Parliament of Prussia in 1850; for in that year certain Jews had presented a petition to the Prussian Parliament, in which they had set forth their grievances, and demanded admission to the civic dignities and municipal functions of the State. In answer to that petition, the Prussian Parliament resolved, 505 on the 17th of June last, by a majority of 67 against 33, that the citizen Jews in Prussia be admitted to the municipal posts of the realm, provided that such of the Jewish candidates on whom the election falls take an oath of abjuration in the following words:— I, M.N., hereby declare on my solemn oath, and without any mental reservation whatever, that I do not believe in my conscience that the dogmas and doctrines contained in the Talmud and other Jewish books of received authority which allow unfair dealings and actions towards a Christian and Christian community, be of Divine authority and origin; and, on the contrary, I do herewith condemn all such doctrines by which the public and private safety of the Christian society may be endangered as wicked inventions of men who had not the fear of God in their heart. So help me God. This is taken from the Prussian States Gazette, published at Berlin. Now many people hope that the Jews are changing or relaxing their undue submission to the Rabbins, their unhappy adhesion to the delusive traditions, which form their religion. Did any Jew come forward and accept that renunciation? Not one. Universally they adhered to their traditions, which I have characterized as anti-social, anti-national, and immoral. The Jews rejected this test, and they remained excluded from the Prussian Parliament. I feel that, in dealing with this subject, I am struggling for a great principle, and that it is my duty to justify myself. It may be thought that I have investigated this matter in a spirit of unnecessary severity, or that I am contending with unnecessary zeal. I rely for my justification on the authority of the Evangelist—an authority which all must respect. He wrote:— Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world. I cannot except the measure now proposed from that condemnation. I cannot think that this measure is consistent with the Christian profession of this House, or of the country at large. It is a proposal to exalt the religion which condemned the Author of our faith and salvation to the death of a malefactor; by placing Judaism on a par with Christianity as a qualification for this House. I cannot in my conscience think that this measure is consistent with the 506 prayers offered by this House, or with its Christian profession and attributes, which I believe it to be the duty both of the nation at large and of individuals to maintain. I cannot hope that, as the consequence of the passing of this measure, the future of this country will continue to glide on with the prosperity that has characterized the past. I believe that those who claim such a measure as this in the name of liberty sin against the very source and fountain of freedom, that fountain of freedom being the Christian religion. Of that blessed faith and pure morality Judaism is the earliest, the oldest antagonist and reviler. You cannot reconcile these opposite creeds. If you are Christians, you must believe those who have told you in the Gospel that the Jews while under the law were under bondage, and that they still remain so. If man would be free, he must be free as God will have him free, he must be free in Christ, he must be free by accepting the law which God implants in the heart of each for his own guidance. If we would preserve our national freedom, we must still maintain the principle, avowal, and obligation, that our statutes shall be based on Christianity, that law which alone fits man for the enjoyment of such freedom, as I hope will ever characterise the legislature, the laws, and the constitution of this country.