the translation of the Bible; but this supposition will nevertheless
be found to be correct:... The speeches of [John] Pym (1584‒1643) and
others upon the Earl of Strafford’s (1593‒1641) impeachment [1640],
of Viscount Falkland (1610?‒1643), Sir Henry Vane (1589‒1655), etc.,
upon the Episcopacy Reformation question, will suffice as instances
of discourses in which many proofs may be found, upon perusal, of
Biblical influence.”

“It is well known that [William Pitt] the [First] Earl of Chatham
(1708‒1778), the most eloquent orator that England has ever produced,
recommended to every person who wished to become acquainted with the
force of the English language, and to acquire the power of expressing
himself with facility, to study the writings of the copious Barrow.
Now we know that Barrow was deeply read in the Holy Scriptures; we
know that his style is greatly tinctured by the influence which they
exerted upon him; will it, then, be too much to assert that English
speaking, in general, ... has been considerably influenced by the
Bible translation?...”

“It may be concluded from the foregoing observations, that the
translation of the Bible into our language is a most remarkable event
in the history of English literature:... Those who have compared most
of the European translations with the original have not scrupled to
say that the English translation is the most accurate and faithful of
the whole.... Besides, our translators have not only made a standard
translation, but they have made their translation a standard of our
language. The English tongue of their day was not equal to such a
work; but God enabled them to stand as upon Mount Sinai; and _crane_
up their country’s language to the dignity of the originals, so that
after the lapse of two hundred years, the English Bible is still with
a very few exceptions the standard of the purity and excellence of the
English tongue.”¹

    ¹ An Essay upon The Influence of the Translation of the Bible
      upon English Literature,... By [William Thomas Petty
      (1811‒1836) _afterwards_ Fitz-Maurice, Earl of Kerry] Lord
      Kerry.... Cambridge:... 1830. (8º. 1 _l._ + 82 _pp._)

This influence of the _Hebrew_ language can be traced not only in
the masterpieces of great poets; it was also of a general and popular
character. The study of the _Hebrew_ language among Christians,
which had only casually and at intervals occupied the attention of
ecclesiastics during the Middle Ages, received an immense impulse from
the revived interest in the Bible caused by the Reformation.

Scientific progress in _Hebrew_ was perhaps more considerable in
other countries where the Reformation was gaining ground, but while
in other countries this influence was felt chiefly among scholars, in
England the influence has been popular and has been felt in the daily
life of the nation. The process of enrichment and ennoblement of the
English language has been going on for centuries among all classes
of the population, and one of the chief agencies by which it has
been effected is certainly the influence, direct and indirect, of the
_Hebrew_ Bible.

To penetrate into the history, prophecy, and poetry of the _Hebrew_
Bible, to revere them as the effusion of Divine inspiration, to live
in them with all the emotions of the heart, and yet not to consider
_Israel_, who had originated all this glory and greatness, as the
“Chosen People,” was impossible.¹

    ¹ Among modern English poets and writers, Robert Browning
      (1812‒1889) was a great friend of the Jews and a good
      _Hebraist_, and very often quoted _Hebrew_ sentences. In a
      letter to a friend Browning wrote:

      “The _Hebrew_ quotations are put in for a purpose as a
      direct acknowledgment that certain doctrines may be found
      in the Old Book, which the concocters of Novel Schemes of
      Morality put forth as discoveries of their own.”

      In _Jewish Fancies_ there are many _Hebrew_ phrases, also
      in the _Melon Seller_ and in the _Two Camels_. In _Rabbi
      Ben Ezra_ and _The Doctor_ the reader will find essentially
      Jewish thoughts.

      Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809‒1892) also read the Bible in the
      original _Hebrew_. Lady Tennyson (1813‒1896) writes in her
      journal in 1867:

      “A.” (meaning her husband Alfred) “is reading _Hebrew_
      (_Job_ and the Song of _Solomon_ and _Genesis_). He talked
      much of his _Hebrew_. He brought down to me his psalm-like
      poem ‘Higher Pantheism.’”

      John Bright’s (1811‒1889) sublime oratory was avowedly based
      on the Bible; from it, not from the classics of Paganism,
      came the inspiration of his highest eloquence. The memorable
      party nickname, “_The Adullamites_,” which he conferred
      on the Liberal seceders on the Franchise Bill in 1866,
      shows his familiarity with the details of Bible history
      and the readiness with which he could adapt his knowledge
      to political illustrations. How minutely he knew the Old
      Testament is apparent to any reader of his speeches.

Hence among the Puritans there were many earnest admirers of “God’s
Ancient People,” and Cromwell himself joined in this admiration.
It was by this Biblical _Hebrew_ movement that public opinion in
England had been prepared for a sympathetic treatment of the idea of
a readmission of the Jews into England.

  Illustration: THE CONFERENCE BETWEEN MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL
                        AND OLIVER CROMWELL (1655)

                 _From the painting at the Jews’ College,
                       Queen Square House, London_

                             CHAPTER III.

              THE RE-ADMISSION OF THE JEWS INTO ENGLAND

    Manasseh Ben-Israel――Aaron Levi _alias_ Antony Montezinos
    ――Moses Wall――Leonard Busher――David Abrabanel [Manuel Martinez
    Dormido]――Oliver St. John.

MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL (1606‒1657), the Amsterdam Jewish preacher and
_Hebrew_-Spanish author, was the chief promoter of the readmission
of the Jews to England and the leading figure in the history of that
great event. He had all the virtues and accomplishments of a leader.
He was a man of fine intellect and high moral character, unselfish in
thought, word and deed, straightforward and sincere, extraordinarily
endowed and irresistibly attractive, at the same time a faithful
religious believer and a practical man of action. All the sorrows and
all the hopes of the old Jewish nation were in him, and all the beauty
of the Bible was in his visions.

Manasseh was neither a first-rate _Talmudical_ authority, nor the
principal of a great _Rabbinical_ school, nor a celebrated and
officially recognized leader of _Rabbis_. He achieved nothing striking
in the field of _Halachah_,¹ where alone, according to traditional
views, authority can be won among learned _Rabbis_ and their followers.
In high _Rabbinical_ quarters he may have been considered a dilettante
or an eclectic, perhaps a sort of dreamer; and not without justice.
The “practical” people of the period, again, may have pointed out that
there was plenty of immediate “practical” work for Manasseh to do in
congregations, in societies, in charities and in schools among the
Portuguese Jews of the “_Jodenbreestraat_” in Amsterdam, and that he
would do better if he devoted himself to ordinary local work, instead
of chasing chimeras and planning Utopian schemes in close agreement
with the Puritan Saints and _Marrano_ travellers. And yet, in spite
of all the immediate needs of the hour, this remarkable man, inspired
by a vision of the lost Ten Tribes of _Israel_, wrote one book after
another; not the traditional commonplace _Rabbinical_ books dealing
with questions and details of the conduct of everyday Jewish religious
life, but books about the past and the future, about the Ten Tribes
and about _Israel_ as a nation――and with an inimitable touch of
mysticism and poetry. He thought that Judaism required something
more than local activities, that it needed clear-sighted and fearless
self-defence, emancipated from routine, and not localized within the
boundaries of one country. And he not only wrote books in _Hebrew_,
Spanish, and Latin on this subject, but had several of them translated
into other languages; he also entered into personal relations with
non-Jewish “dreamers” who had proved by their ideas their intellectual
kinship with him, although they challenged him to controversy on some
essential points. He wrote petitions and proposals, and interfered
to a certain extent with what should, according to some other rabbis,
be confidingly left to Providence. It had dawned upon him that the
Jews should resettle in England, to pave the way for their final
resettlement in Palestine.

    ¹ Jewish Jurisprudence.

Manasseh was nothing if not a Zionist, if we look upon Zionism in
the light of his time. He was undoubtedly a dreamer, but one of those
dreamers to whom the word of the Psalmist applies, “... We were like
unto them that dream.”¹ He combined worldly wisdom with the prophetic
spirit. There was some ancient magic about him; there was a deep sense
of religion in all his writings. This religious character enabled
Manasseh to stir up Christian England at a time when there was a great
rekindling of the religious consciousness. No wealthy Jew could have
influenced England as did this poor _Hebrew_ scholar; no powerful
Jewish community could have produced an impression equal to that
produced by this Jewish dreamer, not only by his boundless activity,
determination and persistence, but chiefly because he was an inspired
man. He brought to his task deep religious feeling, and a mind
ripened by Jewish historical studies. He thus set himself to perform
with energy and moral courage an exceedingly responsible service
to the Jewish people, which he carried out with singular fidelity,
inspiration and enthusiasm, as well as with discretion and tact.

    ¹ Psalms, _chap._ cxxvi., _v._ 1.

He sent his brother-in-law, David Abrabanel [Manuel Martinez Dormido]¹
to England in 1654, to present to the Council a petition for the
readmission of the Jews, and followed up this visit by his own journey
to England, in order to support this petition.

    ¹ He was a native of Andalusia, Spain, and was imprisoned for
      five years (1627‒1632) by the Inquisition, and tortured,
      together with his wife and her sister. On being released he
      went to Bordeaux, and in 1640 to Amsterdam.

      In the preliminary leaves of _Thesouro dos Dinim_, by
      Manasseh Ben-Israel, Amsterdam, 5405 (1645), his name
      appears as one of the dedicatees and is described as
      the _Parnas da Sedaká e Talmud Tora_. In 1663 he settled
      here, and in the following year “David ABrabanel dormido”
      appears as one of the signatories to the first _Ascamot_
      of the _Sephardi Kahal_ in London in the year 5424. He died
      2 _Nisan_ 5427, and was interred in the second _carera_ at
      the _Beth Haim_ in the rear of the _Beth Holim_ at Mile End.

There were undoubtedly several auxiliary causes which made the
readmission of the Jews possible, and the general conditions of
the time and the country were assuredly favourable. Still, the fact
remains that Manasseh’s powerful imaginative impulse and his emotional
Messianic conception were the most important driving force in the
wonderful story of the resettlement of the Jews in England.¹ It is
true that he did not succeed in obtaining that formal permission for
the resettlement which he wanted, but by the publicity of his appeal
he brought the subject prominently before the ruling minds of England,
and thus indirectly led to the recognition of the fact that there was
nothing in English law against the readmission of the Jews.²

    ¹ Not that there had not been Jews in England since the
      expulsion. The researches of Sir Sidney Lee and Mr.
      Lucien Wolf have shown that hardly for a single year was
      English soil without Jewish inhabitants, some of them of
      considerable distinction: Dr. Rodrigo Lopez (_ob._ 1594),
      Antonio Fernandez Carvajal (1590?‒1659), Manuel Martinez
      Dormido [David Abrabanel] (_ob._ 1667); but they were
      tolerated only as privileged individuals.

    ² Mr. Lucien Wolf, to whose researches our knowledge of the
      secret services of Carvajal and his friends to Cromwell and
      the Commonwealth is due, is inclined to give them all the
      credit for the readmission. But it is clear that had not
      public opinion been aroused on the side of Jewish rights,
      nothing could have been done.

One can say, without exaggeration, that there was a Biblical and
Messianic idea at the very root of this great event. In effect,
Zionism stood at the cradle of the resettlement of the Jews in England.
This is clear to everybody who has studied Manasseh’s writings,
particularly in the original _Hebrew_, the language in which he can
best be understood and appreciated. His favourite idea was that the
return of the Jews to their ancient land must be preceded by their
general dispersion. The Dispersion, according to the words of the
Bible, was to be from one end of the earth to the other, and must
therefore include the British Isles, which lay in the extreme north
of the inhabited world. Manasseh made no secret of his Messianic
hopes, because he could and did reckon upon the fact that the “Saints”
or Puritans wished for the “assembling of God’s people” in their
ancestral home and were inclined to help and promote it.

What was the difference between Manasseh and other _Rabbis_? No
_Rabbi_ could fail to be well acquainted with the familiar prophecies
of the Bible, and to know that the Dispersion was to be from one end
of the earth to the other. Are not these prophecies quoted in the
Jewish daily prayers, prayers that have been lost unheard, as it seems,
in the dark depths of 2000 years of dispersion, and are known to every
Jewish child? Or did not the _Rabbis_ cherish those Messianic hopes
which inspired Manasseh? There was only one difference: the difference
between passivity and activity, between purely spiritual impulses and
impulses which lead to action. If the dispersion has to be complete,
let Providence make it complete――this was the usual point of view.
Those who merely believed declined to do anything, as they did not
wish to face the danger of failure. They lived on that, of which other
nations die――on sorrow. Their melancholy had much of majesty in it,
but it led to nothing and ended in nothing. They dared not attempt
to penetrate into the secrets of the Almighty; for God alone can see
what will happen, and no man can avoid his destiny. They refused to
undertake any effort for the readmission of their brethren not only
into Palestine, but even into England. They were believers, not men of
action. Manasseh took matters into his own hands. He not only believed,
he acted in accordance with his belief. He collected evidence with
judicious care, weighing and measuring difficulties, keeping facts
calmly before his mind, studying the facts of the dispersion with
interest and zeal. He occupied himself with Messianism more than any
Jewish scholar since _Don_ Isaac _de_ Judah Abrabanel (1437‒1508), and
more effectively than the latter, because of the active character of
his plans.

In his מקוה ישראל, _Esperança de Israel_ (Appendix iv), Manasseh relates
how the _Marrano_ traveller, Aaron Levi, _alias_ Antony Montezinos,
while travelling in South America, had met a race of natives in the
Cordilleras, who recited the _Shema_, practised Jewish ceremonies, and
were, in short, Israelites of the tribe of _Reuben_. Montezinos had
related his story to Manasseh, and had even embodied it in a sworn
affidavit before the heads of the Amsterdam Synagogue. Montezinos’
story seemed to be a proof of the increasing dispersion of _Israel_.
_Daniel_ (xii. 7) had foretold in his prophecies that the dispersion
of the Jewish people would be the forerunner of their restoration.

“And the Lord shall scatter thee among all peoples, from the one end
of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;...” (Deuteronomy
xxviii. 64).

It was clear from Montezinos’ and other travellers’ reports that the
Jews had already reached one end of the earth. “Let them enter England
and the other end would be reached.” In this sense Manasseh wrote
his book, which, at the instigation of John Dury (1596‒1680) was
translated into English by the Puritan Moses Wall,¹ from the Latin
version (Appendix v), of the original Spanish under the title of _The
Hope of Israel_ (Appendix vi), which produced a profound impression
throughout England. It was followed in the next few years by two other
tracts by Manasseh, _The Humble Addresses_ [1655] (Appendix vii) and
_Vindiciæ Judæorum_ [1656] (Appendix viii).

    ¹ “... Moses Wall, of Causham or Caversham in Oxfordshire, a
      scholar and Republican opinionist, of whom there are traces
      in Hartlib’s correspondence and elsewhere.” (_Life of John
      Milton_, by David Masson (1822‒1907), vol. v., 1877, _pp._
      601‒2).

      See also _The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John
      Worthington_ (1618‒1671). Edited by James Crossley
      (1800‒1883).... 1847, _pp._ 355 and 365.

These tracts followed the remarkable evolution of English religious
ideas which occurred in the seventeenth century. It is a well-known
fact that the recognition of religious liberty in England was
due chiefly to the struggle between the True Believers and other
Nonconformists. The Reformation had granted only a limited form of
religious liberty: when the True Believers themselves began to be
persecuted the demand for religious liberty became very strong. The
earliest pamphlet on this subject, by Leonard Busher, published in
1614,¹ had already demanded religious liberty for the Jews as well.

    ¹ Religious | Peace: | Or, | A Plea for Liberty of |
      Conscience. | Long since presented to King _James_, | and
      the High Court of Parliament then | sitting, by _Leonard
      Busher_ Citizen of _London_, and Printed in the Yeare 1614.
      | Wherein is contained certain Reasons against | Persecution
      for Religion, Also a designe for | peaceable reconciling of
      those that differ in opinion. | ... London, | Printed for
      John Sweeting at the Angel in Popes-head-alley, | 1646. |
      (_4to._ 4 _ll._ + 38 _pp._ [B. M.]

      Imprimatur:――This usefull Treatise (Entituled _Religious
        Peace_), long since Presented by a Citizen of _London_ to
        King James, and the High Court of Parliament then sitting;
        I allow to be Reprinted.
          _Aprill 1._                           JOHN BACHILER.

      A copy of the first edition, published in 1614, has not yet
      been discovered.

      _p._ 28: “... but shall offend also the Jews, ... who
      account it tyrrany to have their consciences forced to
      religion by persecution.”

      _p._ 71: “Then shall the Jews inhabit and dwell under his
      majesty’s dominion, to the great profit of his realms....”

The English refugees in Amsterdam came into contact with the Jews
of that town, and above all with Manasseh, whom they admitted to
the innermost circle of friendship. The intercourse was continuous,
and did much to dispel the mutual prejudices which old enmities had
created and ignorance had nourished. Intimacies were formed which
proved salutary to both, particularly to the Saints. Manasseh was also
on terms of intimacy with Oliver St. John (1598?‒1673), the English
Ambassador in Holland (1651), who was afterwards a member of the
Committee selected to consider the readmission of the Jews into
England.

                             CHAPTER IV.

                         MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL

    Manasseh as a Jewish _Rabbi_ and as a _Hebrew_ writer――His
    activity as a publisher and corrector of _Hebrew_ books――The
    Bible editions, the Psalms and the _Mishnah_――Manasseh’s
    connection with _Safed_ in Palestine――_Enseña a Pecadores_
    ――The influence of _Rabbi_ Isaiah _ben_ Abraham Horwitz
    ――Solomon _de_ Oliveyra――Manasseh’s _De Termino Vitae_――The
    Influence of _Don_ Isaac Abrabanel――The Lost Ten Tribes and
    the_Marranos_.

THE literature concerning Manasseh, which is chiefly in English, but
partly also in Dutch, German, _Hebrew_ and Spanish, is very rich in
detail and affords an accurate and thorough insight into Manasseh’s
intellectual relationship to contemporary Christian scholars and
statesmen, and extensive information as to his writings in defence
of Judaism, his missions, _etc._ The Jewish Historical Society of
England has played a prominent part in the researches on the subject
by arranging lectures and publishing excellent papers, and the ground
has been covered on the whole very thoroughly. There is, however,
one point which has not yet been sufficiently elucidated, _viz._,
Manasseh’s attitude as a Jewish _Rabbi_ and as a _Hebrew_ writer.
His literary communications with Christian divines, his apologetic
writings in Spanish and Latin, and his Spanish translations present
after all only one view of his individuality and activity, the view
seen by the outside world. If, however, we wish to describe Manasseh
in his private, inner life, and to understand his particular views and
methods, we have to leave the apologist and the polyglot translator
and to discover the author when he writes for his nation in the
national language. Here, and only here, we discover the Jewish scholar
in his originality.

In this connection we meet Manasseh as publisher or corrector
(proof reader) of his three partial and complete Bible editions:
(1) _Chamisha Chumshé Thora_, Amsterdam, 1631; (2) _Sefer T’hillim_
(Psalterium Hebraicum ex recens. Manasseh, _etc._), Amsterdam, 1634;
(3) _Esrim V’arba_ (Biblia Hebraica), Amsterdam, 1639.

These books were edited by Manasseh with great care and fine judgment.
Heer J. M. Hillesum, the scholarly librarian of the Bibliotheca
Rosenthaliana (Universiteits――Bibliotheek, Amsterdam), supposes that
the first _Hebrew_ book printed in Amsterdam¹ was the “Daily Prayers”
according to the Spanish rite dated January, 1627, and edited by
Manasseh.² Whatever view may be taken of this assumption, it is,
at all events, certain that Manasseh was one of the pioneers of
Amsterdam _Hebrew_ printing, which will for ever have a distinguished
place in the annals of _Hebrew_ publications. He not only displayed
artistic taste worthy of the friend of Rembrandt in creating the first
specimens of beautiful _Hebrew_ books, but by the precision of his
corrections he proved himself an excellent _Hebrew_ grammarian. It
must be borne in mind that _Hebrew_ grammarians among the _Rabbis_
of his time were seldom met with, and found only among scholars of a
somewhat progressive type.

    ¹ Het eerste te Amsterdam gedrukte Hebreeuwsche Boek.
      Verbeterde overdruk uit maanblad “_Achawah_” van 1 Februari
      _en_ 1 Maart 1910 (No. 185 _en_ 186) by Heer J. M. Hillesum.

    ² סדר תפלות כמנהג קהל קדש ספרד ... נדפס עתה במצות הגבירים אפרים בואינו ואברהם צרפתי
                              באמשטילרדאם בבית מנשה בן ישראל שנת וישכן ישראל בטח

      (_16mo._ 1 _l._ + 360 _pp._ (paginated, 2‒361) + 1 _l._
      [Bodleian.])

      The only other copy known is in the library of Elkan N.
      Adler.

He showed his competence also in the _Mishnah_, three volumes,
Amsterdam, 5404, corrected with great care by Manasseh Ben-Israel,
Teacher of the Law and Preacher, and published by Eliahu Aboab.¹
In this edition we see mere corrector’s work. As we gather from the
preface, manuscripts of the _Mishnah_ were brought from “the town
which is full of Scholars and writers, _Safed_ in the Land of _Israel_,
may God rebuild it soon!”

    ¹ יעקב ספיר איש ירושלים is inscribed on the preliminary leaves of the
      British Museum copy. He was known as _Eben Sappir_, _Rabbi_,
      Author and Traveller. Born in Russia 1822 and died in
      _Jerusalem_ 1886.

In the course of our inquiry we shall show that Manasseh was in close
touch with the Holy Land; here attention is called only to the fact
that in this editorial work Manasseh was actuated by a desire to
compare the various manuscripts. These _Mishnaioth_ are a wonderful
pocket edition, containing the text without any commentary, and
evidently destined for repetition. _Talmud_ students will find here
a good many instructive variants.

Another book edited by Manasseh, though it is merely a translation,
throws some light on the tendencies of the time and on Manasseh’s
Jewish connections. This is the _Libro Yntitulado Enseña a
Pecadores_.¹ (Appendix ix). This little book contains, in addition
to a translation of a prayer composed by _Rabbi_ Isaac (1534‒1572)
_ben_ Solomon [Ashkenazi] Luria, a translation of a section of
_Rabbi_ Isaiah (1555‒1630) _ben_ Abraham Horwitz’s _Sepher Shné Luchot
Ha’brith_ ... Amsterdam ... 5409. The author’s name has come down
to posterity by the initials of his great work “S. L. H.”² with
the attribute _Hakadosh_.³ He was _Rabbi_ in Frankfort-on-the-Main,
Prague, Posen, and Cracow, and then went to the Holy Land, where
he was called מרא דארץ ישראל⁴ His _Shné Luchot Ha’brith_ is a work of
admirable erudition in the _Agadah_ (Legend, Saga) of the _Talmud_,
as well as in homiletics and _Cabbalah_. _Rabbi_ Isaiah Horwitz was a
religiously inspired Zionist. His enthusiasm in expounding the glory
of the Holy Land (_Shné Luchot Ha’brith_, _p._ 275, sermon to _Lech
L’cha_, and _p._ 389, sermon to _Va’etchanan_) was almost unique in
the literature of that time. He combined moreover a rare religious
ecstasy and _Cabbalistic_ visions with progressive ideas on education,
in which he recommended a systematic method, contrary to the customs
of that time――a tendency also found in Manasseh. _Rabbi_ Isaiah lived
to an advanced age, and his activities came to an end in the Holy
Land. His manuscript was brought to Amsterdam and published there,
with additions by his son David, who was also a distinguished scholar.
This book seems to have impressed Manasseh so much that he published
a translation of a part of it, containing prayers and contemplations
for repentant sinners, evidently for _Marranos_, for whom a great
many prayer-books and religious tracts were published at that time in
Spanish and Portuguese.

    ¹ Instruction for Sinners.

    ² Pronounced “_Shloh_.”

    ³ The Saint.

    ⁴ Lord of the Land of _Israel_.

This book, while proving the fact of Manasseh’s connection with a
great Palestinian authority, shows also that he was in touch with
the _Hebrew_ poet and grammarian, _Haham Ribi_ Solomon¹ _de_ David
_de_ Israel _d_’Oliveyra, the author of _Sharshot Gabluth_――_Ayeleth
Ahabim_, which were both published in Amsterdam in the year 5425
[1665], and many other books and treatises on _Hebrew_ poetry. He
is considered to be one of the precursors of the revival of modern
_Hebrew_ literature in Holland, and wrote poems and compositions of
a didactic character. In the course of our inquiry we shall discover
that Manasseh himself had a great predilection for _Hebrew_ poetry.
Embodied in the _Enseña a Pecadores_ is a “Confession of Penitence”
composed by _Haham d_’Oliveyra in _Hebrew_ וידוי כפרה and Portuguese
[_♦Viduy Penetencial_], which includes a prayer for the rebuilding of
the “Holy City,” using the Biblical phrase:――תבנה חומות ירושלים _Fabricarás
murallas de Yerusalaim_.

    ¹ _Ob._ 23 May, 1708, at Amsterdam.

    ♦ “Vidvy” replaced with “Viduy”

Another work of Manasseh in Latin, _De Termino Vitae_, Amsterdam,
1639 (Appendix x), was written with the object of answering a question
which was addressed by his friend the Christian scholar Jan _van_
Beverwijck [Johannes Beverovicius] (1594‒1647) to various divines
and scholars, and is, consequently, apologetic in character. But
two passages throw some light on Manasseh’s views as to the Land of
_Israel_ and Messianism. In one of them he emphasizes the fact that
the Jews frequently collect alms for those who live in the Holy Land;¹
and in the other he says that “if anyone desires to know all the
controversies of the Jews concerning the explanation of _Daniel’s_
(_fl._ 3389 _a.m._) Prophecies, he may read Abrabanel’s Treatise,
which the learned Johannes Buxtorf II. (1599‒1664) has translated into
Latin.”² In this way he identifies himself with the ideas expounded
by Abrabanel in his _Mayy’neh Hayeshuah_, which showed that Abrabanel
was not only Messianistic in the usual sense, but was firmly convinced
that the end of the Captivity might be expected in the near future.

    ¹ “_Hinc etiam in Synagogis Hebraeorum ... vel eorum qui
      terram sanctum incolunt...._” (De Termino Vitae, _p._ 103).

    ² _Ibid._, _p._ 184.

Manasseh was a _Hebrew_ grammarian concerned with the correctness of
ancient sacred texts, and an editor of keen discrimination. In his
scholarly work he kept in close touch with the scholars of _Safed_;
he was moreover influenced by the religious Zionistic enthusiasm
of _Rabbi_ Isaiah Horwitz. In his Messianic hopes he was a disciple
of Abrabanel, and he highly appreciated the modern though religious
_Hebrew_ poetry of his time, which poetry he introduced in his
devotional book as a _Viduy_, concluding with an apotheosis of _Zion_
and _Jerusalem_.

Regarded from the point of view of these ideas, Manasseh of the
“_Conciliador_” appears to us in his proper light. Broad-minded,
highly accomplished, interested in all the discoveries of his time――an
important period for discoveries――he sincerely believed in Montezinos’
report concerning his distant brethren, while, on the other hand, his
great devotion to Palestine and his belief in Abrabanel’s predictions
made the question of the Lost Ten Tribes for him not one of curiosity
but one of vital importance for the national salvation. _Judah
and Israel_ are to return――where, then, is _Israel_? Is the Return
thinkable so long as _Israel_ is lost? All the legends concerning the
_Sambatyon_ and the various reports of Eldad _ben_ Mahli Ha’dani (_fl._
9th century) concerning the tribe of Dan and the “Sons of Moses” who
live somewhere as an independent, strong nation, were essentially the
reflex of a powerful national aspiration. The descendants of _Judah_,
_Benjamin_ and half of the tribe of _Manasseh_ felt themselves too
weak, too humiliated and too few in number to achieve the great
work of Restoration, but believing as they did in the impossibility
of the disappearance of the ancient nation, they were sure that
the descendants of _Israel_, uniting with and absorbed by other
nations though they might be at present, would one day be awakened
to consciousness as to their origin and join _Judah_ in repopulating
the ♦Holy Land. This is the reason why they were so fascinated by the
reports respecting the Lost Ten Tribes. Is it to be wondered at that
_Marranos_ were particularly ready to believe in this miracle? Were
they not themselves like one of the Lost Ten Tribes in that, after
all the tortures of the Inquisition, and after having apparently been
ultimately denationalized, converted and absorbed, they had reasserted
themselves and were now awakening to a new Jewish revival? Considering
that these aspirations happened to coincide with the hope for the
Restoration and the rediscovery of the Lost Ten Tribes, in which
reformed Christianity, and especially the Puritans, believed, we
can fully realize the popularity which Manasseh’s ideas had gained
in these circles, and we can quite understand how they led to the
readmission of the Jews to England.

    ♦ “Loly” replaced with “Holy”

                              CHAPTER V.

                    MANASSEH’S _NISHMATH CHAYYIM_

    The most important of his Hebrew writings――Quotations from
    Gebirol, Bedersi, _R._ Kalonymus, _R._ Zerahiah Ha’levi, and
    others――Plato, Aristotle and Philo――_Cabbalistic_ ideas――_R._
    Isaac Luria――Miracles and Christian Saints――Manasseh’s Jewish
    Nationalism――“The Jewish Soul”――The _Zohar_――_R._ Jehudah
    Ha’levi――The holiness of the Land of _Israel_――_R._ David
    Carcassone, the messenger from Constantinople.

THE most important of Manasseh’s _Hebrew_ writings, though it is only
alluded to incidentally, or dismissed with derisive criticism in some
biographies, was his _Nishmath Chayyim..._,¹ Amsterdam, 1651 (Appendix
xi). Sarcastic observations have been made with regard to the legends
and superstitions with which this book abounds. It is true that the
book contains many legends and superstitious beliefs; but that is just
why, from a literary point of view, it contributes far more to a real
knowledge of Manasseh than the writings in which he advocated certain
causes as apologist or translator. In this book we get Manasseh
himself, a national Jew, preaching to his brethren in the national
language. A careful study of the book in the original, with its
peculiar style, its wide range of allusion, and its distinctive spirit,
gives us a clear idea of Manasseh’s religious views, his Jewish
national self-consciousness, or――to use the modern term――his Zionism.

    ¹ “The Breath of Life”: on the existence of the soul, the
      future life, _etc._

The book is a careful compilation, skilfully put together and well
chosen in every part. Though somewhat florid in certain portions, it
is on the whole excellently written. Its style reminds one of that of
Abrabanel, with a touch of _R._ Isaac (1402?‒1494) _ben_ Moses Arama.
The author often quotes poetical sentences of Solomon (1021?‒1058)
_ben_ Judah Ibn Gabirol [Abu Ayyub Sulaiman Ibn Yahya Ibn Jabirul],
known as Avicebron: _R._ Jedaiah (1270?‒1340?) _ben_ Abraham Bedersi
[Bedaresi].¹ Kalonymos (1286‒_post_ 1328) _ben_ Kalonymos _ben_ Meir
[Maestro Calo]; Zerahiah (1131?‒1186?) _ben_ Isaac Ha’levi Gerondi,
and others, and thus shows himself well versed not only in the ancient
texts, but also in the beauties of comparatively recent _Hebrew_
poetry.

    ¹ He quotes Bedersi also in _De Termino Vitae_: “Quando
      aspicis coelum, quod supra te est”――with the _Hebrew_
      original (_p._ 17).

Manasseh’s argument aims at proving that the immortality of the
soul is an old _Biblical_ as well as a _Talmudical_, _Rabbinical_
and _Cabbalistic_ principle. He defines the _Nefesh_ (Soul) as the
internal ultimate principle by which man thinks, feels and wills. The
term _Ruach_ (Mind) denotes this principle as the subject of man’s
conscious state, while _Nefesh_ denotes it as the source of man’s
physical activities as well. The question of the reality of the soul
and its separate existence apart from the body is for him one of
the most important problems of religion, for with it is bound up the
doctrine of a future life. He knows Plato (427?‒347? _b.c.e._),
Aristotle (384‒322 _b.c.e._) and Philo (20? _b.c.e._‒_post_ 40
_c.e._). It is well known that Mysticism shares to a great extent
the ideas of the system of Plato, _e.g._ in his theory of the world
of ideas, of the origin of the world-soul and the human soul. The
two standpoints, the cosmological and the epistemological, are
found combined in Plato. In the _Phædo_ the chief argument for
the immortality of the soul is based on the nature of intellectual
knowledge interpreted by the theory of memory; this of course implies
the pre-existence of the soul. This doctrine developed into an extreme
Transcendentalism. Aristotle, on the other hand, emphasized the
intimacy of the union of body and soul. The difficulty in his theory
is to determine what degree of distinctness or separateness from the
matter of the body is to be conceded to the human soul. He fully
recognizes the spiritual element in thought, and describes the “active
intellect” as separate, but the precise relation of this “active
intellect” to the individual mind was an obscure point in his theory.
Philo combined the Platonic theory with the data of the Bible, and
taught that every man, by freeing himself from matter and receiving
illumination from God, may reach the mystic, ecstatic or prophetic
state, where he is absorbed in the Divinity. The Stoics taught that
all existence is material, and described the soul as a breath
pervading the body. They also called it Divine, a particle of God.
Manasseh’s system is a syncretism of the ideas of Plato, Philo and
the Stoics, while he rejects the Aristotelian ideas. He endeavours
to prove that Moses Maimonides (1135‒1204) did not follow the
great Peripatetic, and opposes the commentator of Maimonides’
_Moreh-Nebuchim_ Moses (_fl. 14th cent._) _ben_ Joshua Narboni
[Mestre Vidal], in a somewhat forced dialectical manner.

Accepting on these grounds the pre-existence of the soul, the
continuance of the soul in the world to come, and reincarnation, he
comes to the _Cabbalah_, quotes the _Zohar_, and declares himself
a disciple of _R._ Isaac Luria. According to the _Zohar_, man is
composed of three things: Life, or _Nefesh_, Spirit, which is _Ruach_,
and Soul, which is _Neshamah_. By this man becomes a _Ruach Chajah_
(Living Spirit).¹ Manasseh’s doctrine may be summarized as follows:――

    ¹ See _p._ 157, _The Secret Doctrine in Israel_, by A. E.
      Waite, 1913.

(1) The human soul is endowed with special gifts fitting it for
an intimate union with the Divinity――the Stoic “particle of God,”
corresponding to the _Hebrew_ “_Chelek Eloha Mimaal_”;

(2) The gifts or graces through which every man is equipped for his
perfection form his Life, Spirit and Soul into an organized whole,
whose parts are knit together;

(3) Through contemplation and piety the human soul enters into that
higher heavenly soul, into the mystical cosmos whose parts are united
in divine eternity. This is, to his mind, the meaning of the Biblical
teaching that man is made in the image and likeness of God.

The _Cabbalistic_ ideas once accepted, Manasseh accepts also the
transmigration of souls, physical resurrection, expelling of demons,
and so on. He indulges in theosophical visions and metaphysical
speculations. All these seem strange from a modern point of view,
but he should be considered in the light of his time. He believed
in miracles. Did not the Fathers of the Christian Church believe in
them? Origen (185?‒253(4)) says that he has seen examples of demons
expelled.¹ St. Athanasius (293‒373) writes in the Life of St. Anthony
(251(2)‒356(7)) from what he himself saw and heard from one who had
long been in attendance on the saint. Justin Martyr (100?‒163‒7), in
his second apology to the Roman Senate appeals to miracles wrought
in Rome and well attested. Tertullian (155?‒222?) challenges the
heathen magistrates to work the miracles which the Christians perform²;
St. Augustine (354‒430) gives a long list of extraordinary miracles
wrought before his own eyes, mentioning names and particulars. And
even in the time of the Reformation, did not Johann _von_ Reuchlin
(1455‒1522) adhere to _Cabbalistic_ mysticism in his _De arte
cabalistias_ and _De verbo mirifico_? Paradoxical as it may seem at
first sight, Manasseh even in his metaphysical beliefs was somewhat
of a rationalist, in the sense that he accepted only evidence of
trustworthy authority. The _Safed_ authorities, who were supposed to
have witnessed the miracles of Luria, of course impressed him in the
same way as Montezinos’ reports, because they were in harmony with his
theory. At any rate, it is characteristic of his way of thinking that
he was anxious to build upon facts and evidence.

    ¹ _c. Celsum_, i. 2.

    ² _Apol._, xxiii.

We have had to wander to some extent into a domain outside our
province in order to appreciate fully Manasseh’s general ideas.
His Jewish nationalism, which is for us the principal point, can be
understood only in connection with his whole system of ideas. This
nationalism is outspoken in the _Nishmath Chayyim_. What we, in modern
language, call race, national (from _natus_――_natio_) individuality,
_i.e._ what the Jew is by himself, by the fact of being born a Jew,
is termed by Manasseh “the Jewish soul.” His system is rooted in
his faith in the excellency of the Jewish soul, which is a profound
act of homage to the race; that is the point of view from which he
regards Jewish history. History, he thinks――and in this point again
he is guided by the evidence of historical facts――bears witness to
the beneficial influence that the soul of _Israel_, or――more precisely
――the _Israelitish_ soul, has exerted on the intellectual life of
mankind.

On this point he is even carried away by his imagination to make
exaggerated statements of the following kind, again backed up by
authorities: “It is a truth confirmed by innumerable writers, that
all the learning of the Greeks and Egyptians was derived from the
Jews: Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria (150?‒213?) and Theodoret
(386?‒247) assert that all the best philosophers and poets owe their
learning to the Holy Scriptures, for which reason they call Plato the
‘Attic _Moses_’; the ‘Athenian _Moses_.’ Clearchus the Peripatetic
(320 _b.c.e._) writes that Aristotle gained most of his learning from
a Jew with whom he had much conversation; Ambrose (340?‒397) writes
that Pythagoras (_fl._ 540‒510 _b.c.e._) was by origin a Jew, and like
a pilferer robbed them of many things; Cornelius Alexander Polyhistor
(80 _b.c.e._) writes that he was a disciple of the prophet Ezekiel
(_fl._ 3332 _a.m._). Lastly, it is certain that Orpheus (_14th_ or
_13th cent. b.c.e._), Plato, Anaxagoras (500‒428 _b.c.e._) Pythagoras,
the Milesian Thales (640‒546 _b.c.e._), Homer (_fl._ 962‒927 _b.c.e._)
and many other very learned men, derived their knowledge from the wide
ocean of the knowledge of _Moses_ (2368‒2488 _a.m._) and the Sages and
professors of his most Holy Law; for, according to the Psalmist,

    “He declareth His word unto Jacob, ...” (Psalm cxlvii. 19).

    “He hath not dealt so with any nation; ...” (_Ibid._ 20).

In his preface to _Nishmath Chayyim_ he makes this statement in a
more general form, saying that “wherever he quoted the non-Jewish
authorities, he wanted only to show that most of their teachings were
derived from our ancient sources.” He repeats that “Pythagoras was a
Jew, and all he taught and wrote was copied from our Holy Law and true
Tradition” (_fol. 171a_), and that “Plato had learned the teachings of
our prophet _Jeremiah_” (_fol. 171b_) (_fl._ 3298 _a.m._). Not that he
was lacking in love and consideration for other nations. Far from it:
on the contrary, he lays stress upon the sentence of the _Mishnah_,
that the pious men even of heathen nations have their share in the
future life, inasmuch as they observe the Seven Commandments of the
_Noahides_; and, needless to say, he highly respected Christianity,
and was practically the first _Hebrew_ author who quoted so often and
with such great reverence the authority of the Christian Church. Even
when he speaks of the Spanish Inquisition, of which his father was one
of the tortured victims, no word of contempt or hostility escapes his
pen, although, living in Holland, and dealing almost exclusively with
the adherents of the Reformation, he could have expressed his ideas
on this subject quite frankly. But, nevertheless, he is convinced that
“God gave to the _Israelitish_ soul a very special grace, by which
it is enabled to feel his sensible presence,” that “the _Israelites_
are and have to remain a distinct nation, having essentially the
prerogative of sanctifying life,” and he continually quotes and
illustrates the Biblical verses:――

   “... Blessed be ... Israel, Mine inheritance”
                                              (Isaiah xix. 25).

   “... Israel is the tribe of his inheritance;...”
                                              (Jeremiah x. 16).

   “And who is like Thy people, like Israel, a nation one in the
      earth,...”                              (2 Samuel vii. 23).

as well as several passages of the _Zohar_, which emphasize the
particular dignity of the Jewish soul, and _R._ Judah (1085(6)‒_post_
1140) _ben_ Samuel Ha’levi’s [Abu al-Hasan al-Lawi] well-known views,
expounded in the _Kuzari_ (_chap._ i., _par._ 46):――

   “The Israelites are favoured, for God gives them holy souls.”

This sentence from the _Zohar_ is the keynote of Manasseh’s teachings,
and his favourite phrase when he speaks of all _Israel_ is,

   “... shall ... surname himself by the name of Israel”
                                              (Isaiah xliv. 5).

Whenever he means to lay stress on Jewish origin, without distinction
of country, party, school, _etc._ (a significant allusion also to
the _Marranos_), he uses this phrase. If we add that he emphasizes
the holiness of Palestine, enumerating the seven degrees of sanctity,
explains the desire of pious men to find their rest after death
in Palestinian soil by the fact that the _Shechina_ will dwell in
the Holy Land, and so on――we can realize the depth of his national
Palestinian enthusiasm. His devoted attachment to the cause of his
persecuted brethren is expressed when he speaks of _Rabbi_ David
Carcassone, the messenger from Constantinople, “who came to our city
to collect funds for the relief of our brethren who had fallen a year
before into the hands of the Cossacks, ... may God send His angel
before him” (_fol. 173b_)――referring to the massacres in Poland, 1648.
The most interesting reference to his propaganda among Christians on
behalf of the Restoration is made in his preface, where he relates
that towards morning he had a vision: “And I raised my eyes and I saw
behold an Angel touched me and said unto me ... I have given thee for
a light to the Nations in the book which thou hast written about the
Ten Tribes to possess desolated heritages....”

                             CHAPTER VI.

                       SOME OF MANASSEH’S VIEWS

    The massacres of Podolia――The _Marrano_ Tragedy――Manasseh’s
    views on the mission of _Israel_――Dispersion and Restoration
    ――_R._ Jacob Emden’s annotations――Manasseh’s theory of the
    Jewish race.

THE frightful massacres of the Jewish communities in Podolia, Volhynia,
and other provinces of Poland, entirely startled and horrified Jewry
all over the world. For months and years the murder of the Jews went
on. No language can describe the cruelties and sufferings inflicted
upon this unfortunate people from the Dnieper to the Vistula. There
was “a kind of chase taking place within an enclosed area.” Some of
the aged and prominent Jews were kept as hostages in the hands of
the mob, who demanded heavy ransoms from the Jews of other countries.
This was the purpose of Carcassone’s mission from Constantinople to
Amsterdam. Turkey offered an asylum for the hunted refugees who were
fortunate enough to cross the boundary, but only very few succeeded,
while thousands of those who tried to escape were murdered, or
languished in the galleys and prisons as hostages. Manasseh, himself
the son of a refugee and a martyr, felt this tragedy. On the other
hand, the news concerning the Inquisition in the country of his birth
was still horrifying the world, for Jews were still being burnt alive
there. Putting together the brief note in the _Nishmath Chayyim_
regarding the massacres of 1648 with the remarks in _De Termino Vitae_
on the Inquisition, we obtain a terrible picture. In _De Termino_
Manasseh alludes to the emigration of the _Marranos_.

The _Marranos_! What a splendid record of noble deeds, of spontaneous,
gentle piety, of triumphant suffering, is called to memory at the
mere mention of the word! What powerful endurance is described in
the history of these Jewish martyrs! What an inspiration to attempt
even the impossible in the cause of liberty of conscience! What
a great tragedy theirs was――a tragedy illumined by personal deeds
of self-sacrifice! Their story is a story of thrilling personal
experiences and of sorrow and separation and death.¹

    ¹ H. H. R. Jacob _de_ Aaron Sasportas gives in his _Ohel Jacob_
      (Amsterdam, 1737) a most eloquent and stirring description
      of the tragedy of the Marranos (_Respon._ III.).

            They flock, says
Manasseh, in thousands to other countries, and it is useless to
attempt to tell in a few words the incalculable loss that Spain and
Portugal have sustained in losing wealth, and inhabitants, by the
inhuman acts of the Inquisition. Apart from their execrable inhumanity,
the utter folly of the atrocities is apparent from the fact that the
Inquisition forces the wealth, trade and skill of the country to leave
it. Here he speaks as a statesman who knows the countries in question.
In _Nishmath Chayyim_ the note is one of sober-minded resignation. He
does not inveigh against the Cossacks as he did against the Portuguese;
he simply expresses the hope that Carcassone may raise the necessary
funds, and that God may send His angel before him. By using this
Biblical phrase¹ Manasseh expresses his high appreciation of the
importance of the mission. The general situation of the Jews in the
Diaspora is described by him in short but plain terms: “If the nations
would ask, Why are you in captivity, exposed to outrage and contempt,
dispersed and scattered...?” Manasseh clearly rejected the idea that
Israel’s mission demands an everlasting dispersion. It seemed to him
that the dispersion ought to be made complete, because it must lead to
the Restoration. In this respect his views were not only in accordance
with Scripture, but the outcome of a train of reasoning. The process
of dispersion has to reach its climax, and then the process of
restoration will begin. The _Hagadic_ sentence:――

  ²צדקה עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא בישראל שפזרן לבין האומות. פסחים, פז׃

often quoted by the adherents of the dispersion in support of the
_Galuth_, was interpreted by Manasseh to mean that so long as the
Israelites must live dispersed they should live dispersed among
several nations, because in this way their complete destruction is
more difficult than if they were dependent upon one or two nations.
But dispersion is not for him the ideal state of the Jewish nation.

    ¹ “...He will send His Angel before thee,...”
                                        (Genesis xxiv. 7).

    ² “The Holy One Blessed be He did justice with Israel by
      scattering them among the nations” (_Pesachim_, _fol._ 87).

      [The only sentence of this kind, against innumerable others
      in the opposite sense.]

The law of Divine providence with regard to the nation of _Israel_ has
ever been that defection is eventually to be followed by dispersion
and reconciliation by restoration.

   “Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land
      they defiled it....”                (Ezekiel xxxvi. 17).

   “... and I scattered them among the nations, and they were
      dispersed through the countries;...” (_Ibid._ 19).

   “... from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols,
      will I cleanse you” (_Ibid._ 25).

   “And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers;
      and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God”
                                            (_Ibid._ 28).

There is not one passage in which the promised restoration is
represented as anything other than a distinct proof of reconciliation
between God and his ancient People, or dispersion as anything other
than a punishment. The People and the Land of _Israel_ are so linked
with one another that whatever continuity is ascribed to the one must,
on all strict principles of interpretation, be also attributed to
the other. In the twenty-sixth chapter of _Leviticus_ we find _Moses_
giving the people, as warning and encouragement, a prophetic outline
of their future history, which forms the real basis, and, in fact,
makes up the substance of all that is found in the later prophets as
regards the people of _Israel_. It is true that both the judgments
there threatened and the mercies there promised are set forth
hypothetically, on the supposition of their wickedly departing from
the Lord and afterwards repenting――“_if ye walk contrary unto Me, and
will not hearken unto Me_,” on the one hand; “_if they shall confess
their iniquity_” on the other. But since the conditional statements
are changed――as they are in other places――into absolute announcements
of what is to take place, the hypothetical forms of expression must be
regarded as merely the appropriate mode of conveying warnings against
defection and an encouragement to repentance:――

   “And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of
      their fathers, ... and also that they have walked contrary
      to Me”                              (Leviticus xxvi. 40).

   “I also will walk contrary unto them, and bring them into
      the land of their enemies; ... and they shall then be paid
      the punishment of their iniquity”           (_Ibid._ 41).

   “then will I remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My
      covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham will
      I remember; and I will remember the land”   (_Ibid._ 42).

It is impossible to deny that the “remembrance of the covenant” and
the “remembrance of the land” here go together. If we allegorize the
one, we must allegorize the other as well, and then there is neither
land, people, covenant, prophets nor law――an obvious absurdity which
at once refutes itself. The fundamental Mosaic principle is clear,
plain and positive. The land is to be held in perpetuity by the
Jewish nation, provided the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled.
The infringement of the covenant subjects the rebel to bondage and
makes him an outcast from the land of his inheritance. The promise of
redemption is a rescue from the penalties thus incurred. Therefore,
he explains, the _Agadist_ did not say _heglom_, “He drove them out,”
which is the usual expression, but _pizrom_, “He spread, scattered
them,” because, so long as the _Galuth_ lasts, they have to live
in various countries. Yet it is absurd to think that the state of
_Galuth_, predicted by _Moses_ as a curse, is a blessing. Here we have
in short Manasseh’s ideas as to the _Galuth_ and Restoration. We know
that he also acted in full accord with these ideas.¹

    ¹ The British Museum has a copy of the _Nishmath Chayyim_,
      Amsterdam, 1651, with autograph annotations of _R._ Jacob
      Emden [Jacob Israel] (1697‒1776) _ben_ Zebi Hirsch Ashkenazi
      (1658‒1718). Two of these annotations are of special
      interest. Manasseh writes (_fol. 6b_) about the physical
      weakness of the Jews when compared with Gentiles. On this
      Emden remarks: I admit this only with regard to the Jews
      in the _Galuth_; when the Jews lived in their own land they
      amazed the Romans by their great heroes and athletes, and
      more so at the time of the First Temple. In another passage
      (_fol. 8a_), where Manasseh writes about the shorter life
      of those who keep the Law as compared with others, Emden
      again remarks: But in Palestine the Jews distinguished
      themselves by much greater longevity. (M. Seligsohn, the
      author of Emden’s biography in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_,
      who enumerates various books with Emden’s autograph
      annotations, does not seem to have had any knowledge of
      these annotations.)

The constitution established by _Moses_ was a theocracy. The true King
of _Israel_ was God, and the constitution was the Law. The priests
and Levites were God’s ministers; the prophets were God’s ambassadors,
commissioned to convey his instructions not only to the people but to
the King himself. The Kingdom was thus emphatically the Kingdom of God,
and the King was the earthly viceroy of the invisible Sovereign. He
was more limited than a constitutional monarch; he was subject not
only to the Law, but also to those who were entitled to explain the
Law. Such a state of things never existed in any other nation, either
in ancient or in modern times. The Jewish nation regards it as an
Ideal State, and looks forward to a future in which this idea will
be accepted by the whole world, when God will be the King; but this
will take place only after the establishment of this Divine order in
Palestine. Therefore Jews pray to God to give them their judges and
their counsellors as in ancient times, _i.e._ to restore their life
under God’s order, a life of justice and peace and wisdom; they hope
also that this will influence all mankind to recognize the Kingdom of
God, _i.e._ the rule of justice, mercy and love. Then the promise to
_Abraham_ will be fulfilled:――

   “... and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
      blessed;...”                          (Genesis xxii. 18).

and the blessings and privileges of God’s Kingdom will be offered
freely to all mankind. Here the influence of Abrabanel is evident.¹
Another interesting point in Manasseh’s theory is his combination of
the idea of the _Nefesh Ha’yisraelith_ with the principle of heredity.
He terms this principle _Mizgé² Ha’aboth_, that is, the particular
character of the nationality inherited from the ancestors. This is
Jewish nationality, which is part of the Jew’s inheritance at birth.³

    ¹ Abrabanel’s commentary on 1 Samuel viii.

    ² In Biblical _Hebrew_ “_Mezeg_” means blended, or mingled
      [“_Al Yechsar Hamazeg_” (_Cant._ vii. 3)]: in mediæval
      _Hebrew_ it signifies “Character,” “Individual Nature,”
      “Temperament.”

    ³ It is worthy of notice that some Christian theologians have
      come――from another point of view――to the same conclusion as
      to the importance of the Jewish race:

      “The question of their National Restoration is one of
      blood and not of creed, of race and not of conversion, of
      nationality which might include as many sects as in the days
      of Christ. One only question can be demanded by the hallowed
      soil of that country, and by the Providence of God――_Are
      you a Jew?_ In this sense the twelve Apostles were Jews,
      and if now on earth their title to their land is as clear,
      undoubted, and equitable as that of Nehemiah or any modern
      Jew. The Christian creed does not make any of that nation
      less a Jew and a descendant of Abraham.... The question of
      Jewish nationality, and consequently of restoration, is not
      one of creed but of race, and as such it should be kept
      before the mind. The isolation of the Jew would be as great,
      if all were Christians, as at present. His separation from
      amongst the nations has been pronounced by that omnipotent
      word, whose truth and will in effecting its purposes are
      only equalled by the unalterable character of the Divine
      nature. They shall dwell alone. They are not amalgamated
      with the nations. In their final return, a peculiarity of
      religious rites and laws will keep them apart from other
      people. Once a Jew, he is always a Jew, whatever may be
      his creed” (Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth, Remarks, _etc._,
      London, 1852, _p._ 21).

This is more than the religious idea of the _Z’chuth Aboth_ (Merits of
the Fathers); it is, though mixed up with _Cabbalistic_ notions, an
ethnological conception――the real basis of the modern Jewish national
idea.

Manasseh’s conception of the character (or particular blood mingling)
of ancestors, which lives on in the nation, accords entirely with
the mode of thought of a modern national Jew as this finds expression
in the best writings of the new Zionistic literature. When the Jew
feels the pulse-beat of nature in his heart, then the history of his
forefathers comes to life within him. He no longer struggles alone
through life, he is sensible of connections between himself and
millions who have been and of whose spirit and soul he has received
a share in life. The most glorious, invigorating feeling which an old
race can offer; the consciousness of individual transitoriness and
universal constancy, begins only then to be of value for him because
the easily intelligible national future has made comprehensible his
own infinite one. This psychic process is the unconscious aim of
that which he perceives as national longing. The free individual
must become a problematic nature if he cannot force the roots of his
spiritual and physical personality into the soil of a soul-related
community. The unit goes adrift in the chaos of social struggles when
it is not linked by a thousand tender and yet untearable threads with
the ethnical community of a nation. This ethnical community is the
fount of two infinite perceptions which have become the mightiest
supports of human civilization; first of all arises the consciousness
of national control which develops into the unnoticed, yea,
self-evident foundation of the ethnical unit, the moral consciousness
of duty and sense of responsibility. National responsibility finds
its complement in the right of recovery of the individual against
the community. In the wrestle with other morals and conceptions of
life, the individual has often to lean on those who are like-minded
because like-born so as not to lose himself. It has been repeatedly
experienced in Jewish history that many Jews have not only lost
their veriest substance but have voluntarily surrendered it, so that
their culture subsisted only through an ingenious system of exquisite
imitations of foreign nature and foreign customs.

What Manasseh understood under “Character of Ancestors” pertains
as little to atavism as the modern Jewish national idea. Atavism is
something unconscious, it is found even among the dejudaized Jews.
But what with the dejudaized is atavism becomes with nationalist Jews
the historic basis of their whole life tendency. The comprehension
of the past wafts the first breath of life into the present, upon the
wreckage of bygone times dawns the premonition of the greatness of
each lived moment――and new life blossoms upon the ruins. Therein lies
also the power of the national consciousness to create cultural values.
What is based upon heredity and tradition is no longer sacrificed
to thoughtless recession of self――misconstrued as civilization――but
replenished with national love. It is no longer the anarchy of aimless
“culture” which wants to link up with the attainments of unfamiliar
races so as to become like them, and which as an imitation it can
never attain, but it is a strongly rooted culture, which reaches deep
down to the national wells of life, and can thereby become equal to
all other great and deep-rooted cultures.

The individual is the outcome of a nation, its ultimate aim. The
nation is the circuitous way of nature to produce an individual. A
nation is great, not only when great creative minds arise from its
midst, but also when the many live intensively, so that they receive
impulses from the few, and return impulses to the few――and when the
past lives on in the present. It is this idea of Jewish nationality
which Manasseh had forefelt in spite of his mysticism. He was
permeated with religious enthusiasm and, at the same time, all
aglow with intense national feeling. Therefore, his thoughts and
sentiments tended to greatness; he understood that the best means of
strengthening and reaffirming the national consciousness of a people
about to lose the knowledge of its ethnical individuality, is just
that it should be told its history, that its ancestors should be
recalled to memory, their great deeds sung and praised, and that pride
of the past should be instilled. As he poetised so sublimely he could
also accomplish great deeds, because he kept his eye upon Palestine
he was also able to achieve great results in the Diaspora. He was
the father of post-exilic English Judaism, and this Judaism ought to
follow in his footsteps.

To conclude, reference should be made to the _Hebrew_ writer Perez
Smolenskin, himself a pioneer of modern Zionism, who, though he did
not deal with the matter in detail, was guided by a sound intuition
when he characterized Manasseh in his _Am Olam_ (1880) as a great
pioneer of the national idea.

                             CHAPTER VII.

                      MANASSEH’S CONTEMPORARIES

    The Renaissance and the Reformation――John Sadler――Milton’s
    belief in the Return――Edmund Bunny――Isaac _de_ La Peyrère
    ――Leibnitz――Thomas Brightman――James Durham――The pamphlet
    “Doomes-Day”――Thomas Burnet――The pamphlet “The New _Jerusalem_”
    ――Thomas Drake――Edward Nicholas, John Sadler, Hugh Peters,
    Henry Jesse, Isaac Vossius, Hugo Grotius, Rembrandt, Isaac
    _da_ Fonseca Aboab, Dr. Ephraim Hezekiah Bueno, Dr. Abraham
    Zacuto Lusitano, _H. H. R._ Yahacob Sasportas, _Haham_ Jacob
    Jehudah Aryeh _de_ Leon [Templo]――Manasseh’s origin.

AS a result of the impulse given to Letters generally by the
Renaissance in the fifteenth century, and by the Reformation in
the sixteenth century, the knowledge of the _Hebrew_ language and
literature spread rapidly in the literary world, and particularly in
the first half of the seventeenth century. _Hebrew_ was a favourite
study with Puritan ministers, who dwelt much upon the Messianic hopes
and promises of the Scriptures and _Rabbinical_ works. A great stir
was caused among Jews as well as Christians by Montezinos’ report and
other rumours concerning the lost Ten Tribes. John Sadler (1615‒1674)
(Appendix xii), Town Clerk of London, a friend of Cromwell, and
probably also of Milton and Dury, stated that there was an old
prophecy which fixed the time of the Restoration at the year 5408 =
1648 A.D. Puritans and Sectarians began to take the greatest interest
in Jewish Messianic affairs just before King Charles I. (1600‒1649)
was executed, for most of them were looking forward to some new
reformed Commonwealth, some new communion of saints, some republic,
some peaceful kingdom of Truth and Justice, and they connected the
restoration of _Israel_ scripturally with its advent. That was one
reason why Sadler and Cromwell and others were favourably disposed
towards the Jews and inclined to let them come back to England, for
the idea prevailed that the Jews had first to be dispersed throughout
the whole world before the Lord would return to set up His millennial
Kingdom. Milton thought that the whole twelve tribes would return to
_Zion_;¹ and similar sympathetic views are expressed in an anonymous
romance published in London in 1648, entitled _Nova Solyma_ (Appendix
xiii), of which it has been claimed he was the author.

    ¹ Paradise | Regain’d. | A | Poem. | In iv. Books. | To which
      is added | Samson Agonistes. | The Author | John Milton.
      | London, | Printed by J. M. for _John Starkey_ at the |
      _Mitre_ in _Fleet street_, near _Temple-Bar_ MDCLXXI (8º.
      2 _ll._ + 111 + 101 + 1 _l._ ERRATA). “Licensed July 2,
      1670.”

      [Samson Agonistes was translated into _Hebrew_ by Joseph
      Massel and published under the title of שמשון הגבור in
      Manchester, in 1890. (8º. 3 _ll._ + 107 _pp._ + 3 _ll._)]

      Joannis Miltoni Angli De Doctrina Christiani ...
      Cantabrigiæ,... M.DCCC.XXV. (_4to._ 6 _ll._ + 544 _pp._ +
      1 _l._)

Edmund Bunny (1540‒1619), a theological writer, devoted himself to
the work of an itinerant preacher, visiting towns and villages. His
doctrine was Calvinistic, but his warm attachment to the ideals of
ancient _Israel_ was a singular feature of his theological views.¹

    ¹ The | Scepter of | Ivdah: | Or, what maner of Government it
      | _was, that unto the Common-wealth_ | or Church of Israel
      was | _by the Law of God_ | appointed. | _By Edm. Bunny._ |
      ... _Imprinted at London by N. Newton,_ | and A. Hatfield,
      for | _Iohn Wright._ | 1584. | (_Sm._ 8º. 4 _ll._ + 160
      _pp._ + 31 _ll._ [B. M.]

      The | Coronation of | _Dauid_: | Wherein out of that part of
      the | _Historie of_ David, _that sheweth how_ | he came to
      the Kingdome, wee have set | forth unto us what is like to
      be the end | of these troubles that daylie arise | for the
      Gospels sake. | By _Edm. Bunny._ | ... _Imprinted at London
      by_ Thomas Orwin for | Thomas Gubbin and John Perin. | 1588.
      | (_4to._ 6 _ll._ + 108 _pp._ [B. M.])

      Of The | Head-Corner-Stone: | by Builders still overmuch
      | omitted: ... By Edm. Bvnny, Batcheler | of Divinitie. |
      ... Printed by W. Iaggard, 1611. | (_Sm. Folio._ 11 _ll._
      + 577 _pp._ [B. M.])

The distinguished French-Huguenot scholar Isaac _de_ La Peyrère
(1594‒1676) of Bordeaux, probably of _marrano_ Jewish blood, author
of many works, wrote and published anonymously _Dv Rappel des Ivifs_,
M.DC.XLIII.¹ (Appendix xiv) which was intended to be part of a greater
work on the same subject.² He demands in this book the restoration of
_Israel_ to the Holy Land in an unconverted state, in the belief that
this restoration will lead to the final triumph of Christianity. He
expects France to carry out this idea, and appeals in this sense to
the Royal Dynasty in a somewhat strange homiletical manner.³ In 1644
he was appointed French Ambassador at Copenhagen. Being on intimate
terms with the eminent scholars Isaac [Vos] Vossius (Appendix xv)
(1618‒1689) and Hugo Grotius [Huig _van_ Groot]⁴ (1583‒1645) he became
acquainted with their mutual friend Manasseh and with Manasseh’s
friends, Caspar [_van_ Baerle] Barlaeus (1584‒1648), Simon Episcopius
(1583‒1643), Gerard John [Vos] Vossius (1577‒1649),⁵ Johannes [_van_
Meurs] Meursius (1579‒1639), David Blondel (1591‒1655), [Peter]
Petrus [Serrurier] Serrarius (_fl._ 1650‒1700) and Paulus Felgenhauer
(_circa_ 1625), who all supported similar ideas.

    ¹ “... the curious will be rather surprised to learn that the
      Abbe [Henri] Grégoire (1750‒1831) and others have been under
      a mistake in asserting that Peyreyra’s _Rappel des Juifs_
      was printed during his life-time, upwards of 120 years: for
      this singular book, as it appears from the learned Jesuit,
      his friend, he could never obtain a license; but the fair
      copy, which he deposited in a public library, only appeared
      in print in Paris, after it became the pleasure of the head
      of the French government to assemble a Jewish _Sanhedrin_ in
      May, 1806, for reasons that are obvious....”

                          (_Gentleman’s Magazine_, vol. lxxxii.,
                                      November, 1812, _p._ 432.)

    ² _p._ 373: ADVIS AV LECTEVR. _Ce petit Traittè n’est qu’vn
      Essay et un Extraict d’un plus grand Desseing que i’ay
      conceu; intitulé_ SYNOPSIS DOCTRINÆ CHRISTIANÆ AD VSVM
      IVDÆORVM ET GENTIVM.

    ³ “Ie fonde cette Cõiecture sur ce que cette grãde Deliurance
      des Iuifs fut traittée & concluë dãs la ville Royale de
      Susan: Svsan, qui signifie Le Lys. Ville Royale de Susun qui
      est donc mesme chose que la ville Royale du Lys: and mesme
      chose ville Royale de France.”

      This appeal recalls another of a similar kind addressed
      in 1672 by Baron G. W. _von_ Leibnitz (1646‒1716) during
      his sojourn in Paris (1672‒1676) to Louis XIV. (1638‒1715)
      about the conquest of Egypt. “Epistola ad regem Franciæ
      de expeditione Egyptiaca.” This interesting appeal, which
      contains also some references to _Jerusalem_ and Syria, was
      discovered in Hanover during the first occupation by the
      French and transmitted to the First Consul Bonaparte, who
      wrote from Namur on the 4th August, 1803: “Mortier m’envoie
      à l’instant même un manuscrit, en latin, de Leibnitz,
      adressé à Louis XIV., pour lui proposer la conquête de
      l’Egypte. Cet ouvrage est très-curieux.” M. de Hoffmann
      published this document in a pamphlet which appeared in
      French in 1840: “Mémoire de Leibnitz à Louis XIV. sur la
      conquête de l’Egypte.”

    ⁴ Swedish Ambassador in Paris, 1635‒1645.

    ⁵ William Laud, Bishop of London (1628‒1633), presented Gerard
      John Vossius to a canonry in Canterbury Cathedral in 1629.
      His son, Dionysius Vossius (1612‒1633), translated the
      _Conciliador_ (Pentateuch), Francofurti 1632 [I. S.] of
      Manasseh Ben Israel into Latin. Francofurti, 1633 [I. S.]
      and Amsterdami, 1633 [I. S.].

The Rev. Thomas Draxe¹ (_ob._ 1618), a theologian of great knowledge
and influence, demonstrated that “all the particular promises, such
as the land of Canaan, a certain form of government ... were proper
to the Jews...,” and “that we (Christians) must therefore acknowledge
ourselves debtors unto the Jews, and deeply engaged unto them, we must
be so far off from rendering or returning them evil for good....”²

    ¹ The History Of The Worthies Of England. Endeavoured by
      Thomas Fuller, D.D., London,... MDCLXII., _pp._ 125‒126.

    ² The Worlde’s Resvrrection, or The gener’all calling of _the
      Iewes..._ By Thomas Draxe, _Minister of the word of God_ ...
      At London ... Anno 1608. (_4to._ 6 _ll._ + 124 _pp._ [B. M.])

Thomas Brightman (1562‒1607), a Puritan Divine and Bible exegete, in
his comment on:――

  Illustration: _H. H. Reby_ YAHACOB ♦SAPORTAS

                                              _P. van Gunst, sculp._

          _From a line engraving (proof before all letters)
                       lent by Israel Solomons_

    ♦ “Saportas” shown elsewhere as “Sasportas”

   “And the sixth [angel] poured out his vial upon the great river
      Euphrates; and the water thereof dried up, that the way of
      the kings of the east might be prepared” (Revelation xvi. 12).

gives reasons why these “kings of the east” must mean the Jews, and
then says: “What! Shall they return to _Jerusalem_ again? There is
nothing more certain: the prophets do everywhere confirm it.”¹

    ¹ A Revelation Of Mr. Brightman’s Revelation, Whereon Is
      shewed, how all that which Mr. _Brightman_, ... hath
      fore-told ... hath beene fulfilled, and is yet a fulfilling,
      ... whereby it is manifest, that Mr. _Brightman_ was a true
      Prophet.... Printed in the yeare of fulfilling it. 1641.
      (_4to._ Eng. Front. + 1 _l._ + 37 _pp._ [B. M.]

The Rev. James Durham (1622‒1658) not only upholds, but gives solid
reasons for his belief in the Restoration of the Jews.¹

    ¹ A Commentary Upon the Book of Revelation.... Delivered in
      several Lectures, by ... Mr. James Durham, Late Minister of
      the Gospel in _Glasgow_.... Edinburgh.... 1680.

Mr. Vavasor Powel (1617‒1660) expounds with abundant references to
scriptural prophecy, the return and re-establishment of the Jews,
attended with many miracles and peculiar circumstances.¹

    ¹ A New and Useful Concordance to the Holy Bible.... Also a
      Collection of those Scripture-Prophesies which relate to the
      Call of the Jews, and the Glory that shall be in the latter
      days.

      Begun by the industrious Labours of Mr. Vavasor Powel, late
      deceased:... London,... 1671.

An anonymous writer relates:――

   “... the Jewes ... are ... assembling ... from out of all
    countreys ... to regaine the holy land once more out of the
    hand of the _Ottaman_:”¹                    (Appendix xvi).

    ¹ Doomes-Day:... The gathering together of the Jews ... for
      the conquering of the Holy Land.... London,... 1647.

Thomas Burnet (1635?‒1715), Master of the Charterhouse, a great
scholar and celebrated author in English and Latin, writes:――

    _Deum nunquam deserturum esse finaliter populum suum
    Israeliticum._

    Secundò, _Nondum impleta esse promissa omnia Israelitis
    data_.¹

    ¹ De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium Tractatus. Ajicitur
      Appendix de Futurà Judærum Restauratione.

      Autore Thoma Burnetio, S. T. P. Editio Secunda. Londini:...
      M.DCC.XXXIII. (8º VIII. + 432 _pp._ [B. M.])

      _p._ vi.: Editoris Præfatio.... Londini, ex Hospitio
      Lincolniensi, mense Oct. A.D. 1727: _pp._ 315‒432: “Appendix
      de Futura Judæorum Restauratione. Autore Thoma Burnetio,
      S. T. P.”

Another anonymous theologian published in 1674, _A Paper, shewing that
the great ... Restauration of all |Israel| and |Judah| will be
fulfilled ... and that the |New Jerusalem| is most probably then to be
set up_ (Appendix xvii).

Among the Christian friends of Manasseh, the following distinguished
persons may be named: Edward Nicholas, the author of _An Apology
for the Honorable Nation of the Jews_, 1648 (Appendix xviii);
the above-mentioned John Sadler, who petitioned Richard Cromwell
(1626‒1712) for a pension for Manasseh’s widow; Hugh Peters
(1598‒1660), one of Oliver Cromwell’s army chaplains, and a strong
advocate for the unrestricted admission of the Jews (Appendix xix),
Isaac Vossius, the scholarly Protestant ecclesiastic, with whom he
was in correspondence.¹ Vossius, at one time a member of the Court
of Queen Christina of Sweden, was instrumental in bringing Manasseh
to her notice.² Dr. Nathanael Homes (1599‒1678), the famous Puritan
divine and author,³ and the great painter Rembrandt Harmenszoon van
Ryn (1606(7)‒1669). The most notable of his Jewish friends were,
Isaac _da_ Fonseca Aboab (1605‒1693) (Appendix xx), _Haham_ of the
_Sephardi_ community at Amsterdam, on whose initiative the Great
Synagogue there was erected. Dr. Ephraim Hezekiah (_ob._ 1665) [_de_
Dr. Joseph⁴ (_ob._ 1641)] Bueno (Bonus), author of several liturgical
works⁵ and the subject of Rembrandt’s famous etching “The Jew Doctor”;
Dr. Abraham Zacuto Lusitano (1580‒1642) (Appendix xxi), one of the
most celebrated physicians of his age; Jacob Jehudah Aryeh _de_ Leon
[Templo] (1603‒1675), chiefly known as having designed models of the
Tabernacle and Temple and was called “Templo” for that reason, which
was assumed as a surname by his descendants. In anticipation of his
visit to England, to exhibit the models before Charles II. (1630‒1685)
and his Court, he published in Amsterdam a pamphlet in English
describing them (Appendix xxii): and _H. H. R._ Yahacob Sasportas
(1610‒1698), who accompanied Manasseh to England in 1655, was
appointed in the month of _Nisan_, 1664, _Haham_ of the _Sephardi_
community in London. He was the author of one of the treatises in
_Sepher Pene Rabah_ edited by Manasseh Ben Israel ... Amsterdam 5388,
and also wrote _Sepher Ohel Ya’acob_ and _Sepher Kizur Zizath Nobel
Zebi_, which were published together at Amsterdam 5497, against
the adherents of _Sabbatai Zebi_ (1626‒1676). His stay here was of
short duration――not quite two years. He left the country to escape
the plague which was then raging, and subsequently, in 1681, became
the Ecclesiastical Head of the _Sephardi_ Jews in Amsterdam. It is
noteworthy that two of these friends of Manasseh, Aboab and Sasportas,
were particularly interested in the Messianic hopes, though from
different points of view. Aboab, a _Cabbalist_, whose religious
poetry is remarkable for chaste diction and wealth of imagination, was
supposed to be a secret _Sabbatian_, while Sasportas, sober-minded and
a strict _Talmudist_, was strongly opposed to the mystical tendencies
of pseudo-Messianism, and hoped for the restoration in the traditional
way.

    ¹ Two of these letters have been published by _Heer_ J. M.
      Hillesum, in his article “Menasseh Ben Israel,” in the
      _Amsterdamsch Jaarboekje_, 1899, _pp._ 27‒56.

    ² Manasseh in her honour published in Portuguese:――Oracion
      Panegirica a su Magestad la Reyna de Suedia. Amsterdam,
      1642. _4to._

    ³ The Resurrection――Revealed Raised Above Doubts &
      Difficulties. In Ten Exercitations.... By Doctor Nathanael
      Homes.... London, Printed for the Author, A.D. 1661.

    ⁴ Wrote one of the “Aprovaciones” for “La primera parte del
      Conciliador enel Pentateucho, 1632.” “Del excelente Señor
      Doctor Joseph Bueno, Philosopho, y Medico preclaro.”: and
      also a SONETO which appears on the ninth introductory leaf
      of “Menasseh Ben Israel De La Resvrreccion De Los Mvertos,
      ... En Amsterdam, En casa, y à costa del Autor. Ano. 5396.
      de la criacion del mundo.” (_12mo._ 12 _ll._ + 187 _pp._
      + 1 _l._ [I. S.]

    ⁵ At the joint expense of Ephraim Bueno and Jona Abrabanel
      (who both contributed SONETOS to De La Resvrreccion De Los
      Mvertos) the _Sepher Pene Rabah_ [I. S.] was issued at
      Amsterdam in the year 5388. It was edited, re-arranged and
      printed by Manasseh Ben Israel. Jona (_ob._ 1667) Abrabanel
      was a poet, and son of Dr. Joseph (_ob._ 1620?) Abrabanel,
      a physician in Amsterdam, whose sister Rachel was the wife
      of Manasseh Ben Israel. Their father, Isaac Abrabanel,
      a scientist (_ob._ 1573), lived and died in Ferrara,
      Italy, and was on intimate terms with the famous _marrano_
      physician, Juan Rodrigo _de_ Castel-Branco [Amatus Lusitanus]
      (1511‒1568). He was the son of Joseph Abrabanel (1471‒1552),
      a doctor of medicine, born at Lisbon and died at Ferrara,
      whose father, _Don_ Isaac, was the illustrious Bible
      commentator and statesman.

  Illustration:
          _Dr._ EPHRAIM H. BONUS         _Dr._ ABRAHAM ZACUT

                    _H. H. R._ MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL

         _Haham_ J. J. A. _de_ LEON     _H. H. R._ ISAAC ABOAB
                 [_Templo_]                 _da_ FONSECA

            _From rare engravings lent by Israel Solomons_

In 1603 Joseph Ben-Israel, the father of Manasseh, and his wife Rachel
Soeiro, secretly left Lisbon. He had been a victim of the Inquisition,
which deprived him of his wealth, and on three distinct occasions had
been subjected to excruciating tortures, which undermined his health.
They apparently fled to La Rochelle, France, for it was here that
Manasseh was shortly afterwards born, in 1604, as is attested by
his marriage certificate, deposited in the Archives of the City of
Amsterdam (Puiboek, No. 669, _fo._ 95 _verso_, 15 Aug. 1623). Here
he was also baptized, as it was not until his parents arrived at
Amsterdam that they dared avow their faith in the God of _Israel_. In
a holograph letter¹ of Manasseh to an unknown correspondent (suggested
by Mr. E. N. Adler, the owner, to be Gerard John Vossius) he writes:
“... and the _Thesoro delos Dinim_ (Appendix xxiii) of our rites
and ceremonies, the last in my Portuguese mother tongue, for I am
a Lisbonian by patrimony....” He did not claim Lisbon as his own
birthplace, but as that of his father. Most of his connections were
with Spanish and Portuguese Jews, though he was opposed to any sort
of separation, condemning it in his writings, and emphasizing the
necessity of Jewish unity and brotherhood. It is noteworthy that
a hundred and twenty-six years later, when the father of Jewish
Rationalism, Moses Mendelssohn (1729‒1786), had to defend Judaism
and the Jewish people, he found no better apology than Manasseh’s
_Vindiciae Judæorum_ (1656), which was translated into German, and
for which he wrote the admirable _Vorrede_ (Appendix xxiv).

    ¹                         AMSTERDAM, ultimo de Janʳᵒ, 1648.
      Magᵉᵒ y muy docto Sʳ

      _... y el Thesoro de los dinim de nuestros ritos y
      ceremonias, este en mi lengua materna lusitana_, porq’ yo
      _soy por patria Lixbonense_.... Con esto _me despide, hora
      vale amantissimo_ S.        EL HAHAM MENASSEH BEN ISRAEL.

      _Jewish Quarterly Review_, No. 63, _p._ 569, vol. xvi.,
      April, 1904.――_About Hebrew Manuscripts_, by Elkan Nathan
      Adler ... London ... 1905, _pp._ 65‒77――_The Jewish
      Historical Society of England Transactions_ ... Edinburgh
      and London. 1908 ... _pp._ 177‒183.

                            CHAPTER VIII.

                     PURITAN FRIENDS OF THE JEWS

    Newes from Rome――Rev. Dr. William Gouge――Sir Henry Finch,
    Sergeant-at-law――King James I.――Archbishop Laud――Archbishop
    Abbot――Roger Williams――Johanna Cartwright and her son Ebenezer
    ――John Harrison――Rev. John Dury――Rev. Henry Jessey――Rev.
    Thomas Fuller――Re-admission and Restoration――Manasseh and the
    Puritans.

THE publication of a tract in 1607, entitled:――

   “_Newes from Rome ... of an Hebrew people ... who pretend
    their warre is to recouer the land of Promise...._”
                                                (Appendix xxv)

is remarkable for the interest evinced at a time when the presence of
a Jew in England was deemed unlawful. It purports to be a translation
from the Italian of a letter dated 1 June, 1606, sent by _Signior_
Valesco to _Don_ Mathias _de_ Rensie of Venice. In it he is informed
of the perturbed state of the world, and that Hungary, Bohemia and
Muscovia are to declare war, seize Constantinople, and drive the
Turk out of Europe. Tunis, Morocco, with the Arabians, and others,
are to expel the Turk entirely out of Africa. The Soffie, the Medes,
the people of Melibar on the border of India are in revolt. The
most alarming news is to the effect than an unknown people, strong,
mighty and swift, from beyond the Caspian mountains, claiming to be
descendants of the lost Ten Tribes, are coming to recover the Land of
Promise from the Turk. This is followed by a detailed account of the
leaders of each tribe, the strength of each army, with the particulars
of its equipment. The letter concludes by a promise of more news in a
few days.

It was, however, a Puritan England that welcomed back the Jews as an
ancient nation and as the “People of the Book.” In 1621 the Rev. Dr.
William Gouge (1578‒1653) published the anonymous work:――

    _The World’s Great Restauration. Or, The Calling of the Iewes_
                                                  (Appendix xxvi).

In the preliminary leaf, “To the Reader,” signed “Thine in the Lord,
William Gouge. Church-Court in Black-fryers, London 8. Ianuary. 1621.”
he states:――

    “_... I haue bin moued to publish this Treatise ... and to
    commend it to thy reading. And this is all that I haue done.
    The worke it selfe is the worke of one who hath dived deeper
    into that mysterie then I can doe. His great understanding of
    the Hebrew tongue hath bin a great helpe to him therein. How
    great his paines haue beene, not in this onely but also in
    other poynts of Diuinitie, his |Sacred doctrine of Diuinitie|,
    first published in a little Manuel, after set forth in a
    larger volume, his |Old Testament|, or |Promise|, Therein the
    mysteries of the Iewish types and ceremonies are opened, his
    |Exposition of the song of Salomon|,¹ and this, |The World’s
    great restauration|, or |Calling of the Iewes| (workes of his
    heretofore and now published) doe witnesse_.”

    ¹ _The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity_, 1589, 1613; and
      _Exposition of the Song of Salomon_, 1615, issued
      anonymously, are in the Bodleian Library. Neither Wood’s
      _Athenæ_, Bohn’s _Lowndes_, _The Dictionary of National
      Biography_, nor The British Museum catalogue mention them.

The writer, Sir Henry Finch (1558‒1625), Serjeant-at-Law (1616), was
a distinguished author of many legal works. Mr. J. M. Rigg, in the
_Dictionary of National Biography_, vol. xix., 1889, tells us, that
in this treatise “he seems to have predicted in the near future the
restoration of temporal dominion to the Jews and the establishment
by them of a world-wide empire.” This caused James I. to treat the
work as a libel, and accordingly Finch was arrested in April, 1621.
He obtained his liberty by disavowing all such portions of the work as
might be construed as derogatory to the sovereign and by apologizing
for having written unadvisedly. William Laud (1573‒1645), Bishop of
St. David’s, 1621,¹ in a sermon preached in July of that year, took
occasion to animadvert on the book. It was suppressed, and is now
extremely rare.

    ¹ Bishop of Bath and Wells, 1626; Bishop of London, 1628;
      Archbishop of Canterbury, 1633.

In spite of the official proceedings, in consequence of which he was
forced to sign his recantation and acknowledge his loyalty to the
sovereign, Finch clearly never renounced the principal idea of his
book. A letter from the pen of a celebrity of the day gives a fair
idea not only of the sensation which Finch’s _Apocryphal Apocalypse_
created at the time, but also of the personal and somewhat strange
motives underlying King James’s indignation (Appendix xxvii).

Dr. Gouge was considered equally culpable. He was imprisoned for
nine weeks, and only released on giving certain explanations, which
[George Abbot (1562‒1633)] the Archbishop of Canterbury (1611) deemed
satisfactory. He was a fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, where
he taught _Hebrew_, having been the only steadfast pupil of a Jew
(Appendix xxviii) who came to Cambridge to give instruction in that
language.

Roger Williams (1604(5)‒1683), the son of James (_ob._ 1621) and Alice
Williams, was a native of London. He was one of the great pioneers of
Religious liberty, his prime contention being that the civil powers
should have no authority over the consciences of men. Ecclesiastical
tyranny induced him to emigrate in 1631 to America. In 1635 he
was banished from the state of Massachusetts for his heretical and
political opinions. The following year he and a few other malcontents,
after many hardships and trials arrived at Rhode Island, and in
gratitude to God’s mercy he named the first settlement “Providence.”
In 1638 he purchased land from the aborigines, and the state of Rhode
Island was founded. In June, 1643, he set sail for his native land to
obtain a charter, which was granted, dated 14 March, 1644, giving the
“Providence Plantations” full power to rule themselves by any form of
government they preferred. During his stay here of but a few months,
he published two tracts advocating religious and political freedom.
In one he writes: “For who knowes not but many ... of the ... Jewish
Religion, may be clear and free from _scandalous offences_ in their
life, and also from _disobedience_ to the Civill Lawes of a State?”¹

    ¹ The | Blovdy tenent, | of Persecution, for cause of |
      Conscience, discussed, in | A Conference _betweene_ | Trvth
      and Peace. | Who, In all tender Affection, present to the
      High | Court of _Parliament_, (as the _Result_ of | their
      _Discourse_) these, (amongst other | Passages) of _highest
      consideration_. | Printed in the Year 1644. (_4to_. 12 _ll._
      + 247 _pp._ [B. M.]) Chap. lvi., _p._ 171.

In July, 1644, he left the English shores, and in the following month,
the tract containing this plea for the Jews, was by the order of the
Commons publicly burnt by the common hangman. The author arrived at
Boston on the seventeenth of December following. In 1651 he again
embarked for England, in connection with matters concerning the State
he had founded and remained for two and a half years.

Ecclesiastical affairs here were in an unsettled condition, so a
“Parliamentary Committee,” known as “The Committee for the Propagation
of the Gospel,” was formed, of which Cromwell himself was a member,
to consider certain proposals of some twenty leading divines. Among
the papers, one presented by Major Butler and others, contained the
following clause:――

    4. “Whether it be not the duty of the Magistrates to permit
        the Jews, ... to live freely and peaceably among us.”

This was accompanied by a comment, signed R.W.,¹ in which he argues at
length under seven different heads why “this wrong”――their exclusion
should not be continued:――

    ¹ Roger Williams.

    “I humbly conceive it to be the _Duty_ of the _Civil
    Magistrate_ to break down that superstitious _wall_ of
    _separation_ (as to Civil things) between us Gentiles and the
    Jews, and freely (without this asking) to make way for their
    free and peaceable Habitation amongst us.”

    “As other _Nations_, so this especially, and the _Kings_
    thereof have had just cause to fear, that the _unchristian
    oppressions_, _incivilities_ and _inhumanities_ of this Nation
    against the Jews have cried to Heaven against this _Nation_
    and the _Kings_ and _Princes_ of it.”

    “What horrible _oppressions_ and horrible _slaughters_
    have the _Jews_ suffered from the _Kings_ and peoples of
    this Nation, in the Reigns of _Henry 2_ (1133‒1189), K.
    _John_ (1167‒1216), Richard I. (1157‒1199) and _Edward I._
    (1239‒1307), concerning which not only we, but the _Jews_
    themselves keep _Chronicles_.”¹

    ¹ The fourth paper presented by Major Butler to the honourable
      Committee of Parliament for the propagating the Gospel....

      Also a letter from Mr. Goad, to Major Butler, upon occasion
      of the said paper and proposals.

      Together with a testimony to the said fourth paper. By R. W.

      Unto which is subjoyned the fifteen proposals of the
      Ministers.

      London, 1652. _4to_.

He returned to Providence in 1654, and in September, shortly after his
arrival, was elected President or Governor of Rhode Island, one of the
thirteen original states of the Union, and the first to accord Jews
rights and privileges similar to other colonists. He held office until
May, 1658, and it is worthy of note that one who took a significant
part in securing the admission of Jews to England in the Old World,
was the founder of a state in New England in the New World, which
was the first to grant equal rights to Jews at a time when he was its
President. He died at Providence in the early part of April, 1683.¹

    ¹ Roger Williams, The Pioneer of Religious Liberty. By Oscar
      S. Straus.... New York.... 1894.

In 1899 a tablet, with the following inscription:――

                    In Memory of Roger Williams,
                 Formerly a Scholar of Charterhouse
           Founder of the State of Rhode Island, and the
      Pioneer of Religious Liberty in America. Placed here by
      Oscar S. Straus, United States Minister to Turkey, 1899.

was presented to the Charterhouse, where Williams was a scholar in the
year 1624.

In 1649 two Baptists of Amsterdam, Johanna Cartwright and her son
Ebenezer, presented a petition to Lord Fairfax (1612‒71) and the
“generall Councell of Officers” in favour of the Jews (Appendix xxix).
Religious fervour had been stirred to a high pitch, and there were few
men whose minds had not been influenced by Messianic beliefs and other
religious and mystical ideas.

John Harrison (_fl_. 1630), a famous traveller and diplomatist, envoy
to Barbary, published _The Messiah already come, etc._ (Appendix
xxx). He took a lively interest in the disputes which arose between
partisans of the new Puritan movement and those who adhered to the old
doctrines, besides dwelling on the question of religious liberty, and
he argued that so long as the Jews were not equal in their rights to
others as a nation, “the heart will be filled with violence.”

John Dury (Durie), the ubiquitous Protestant divine, who travelled
much and endeavoured to bring together all sections of Protestantism,
was a great friend of the Jews. He was one of those who drew up the
“Westminster Confession” and “Catechisms.” In 1649‒50 he wrote _An
Epistolicall Discourse of Mr. Iohn Dury, to Mr. Thorowgood, concerning
his conjecture that the Americans are descended from the Israelites_
(Appendix xxxi), and during his stay at Cassel, in Germany, _A Case
of Conscience, Whether it be lawful to admit Jews into a Christian
Commonwealth?_ (Appendix xxxii).¹

    ¹ The Rev. Walter Begley, in his issue of _Nova Solyma_, 1902,
      vol. i. p. 350, refers to the _Commonwealth of Israel_,
      1650, as one of Dury’s works. The catalogues of the British
      Museum and the Bodleian Libraries do not record a copy.
      The _D.N.B._ does not include it in its list of his works,
      but mentions 20. _Epistolary Discourse [on Israelitish
      origin]_, 1649, and 27. _Epistolary Discourse [on Americans
      being Israelites]_, 1650, both equally unknown. The latter,
      however, may be “An Epistolicall Discourse Of Mr. Iohn Dury
      ... that the Americans are descended from the Israelites,”
      printed in the preliminary leaves of _Iewes in America ...
      Tho: Thorowgood_ ... 1650.

Another great friend of the Jews was Henry Jessey, or Jacie
(1601‒1663), a Baptist divine. He began his studies in 1618 at
Cambridge, where at St. John’s College in ♦1622 he was admitted
Constable’s scholar. _Hebrew_ and _Rabbinical_ literatures were his
favourite studies. He projected a revised translation of the Bible
and made some progress in it. He collected £300 for the poor Jews
of _Jerusalem_, who in consequence of the war between the Swedes and
Poles in 1657 were reduced to great extremity, as the main source
of income derived from their charitable coreligionists in European
countries was thereby cut off. This is, as far as is known, the
earliest instance of English Christians helping the Jews of Palestine
(Appendix xxxiii).

    ♦ “1662” replaced with “1622”

In 1653 he wrote a treatise for the purpose of reconciling the various
religious opinions of Jews and Gentiles, entitled, _The Glory of
Jehudah and Israel_ (Appendix xxxiv).

His liberality to Jews was memorable on other occasions. He claimed
for them the rights of citizenship and admission to this country which
was then under consideration.

He was one of the members of the Assembly convened by Cromwell
to consider Manasseh Ben Israel’s proposals for the return of his
coreligionists to England. He is supposed to be the author of an
anonymous tract, entitled _A Narrative of the late Proceeds at
White-Hall, concerning the Jews_ (Appendix xxxv).

Thomas Fuller (1608‒1661),¹ Prebendary of Salisbury, delivered several
sermons, in which he argued that the Jewish nation was fulfilling an
important office in the world and was, under the order of Providence,
an instrument in giving the victory to good over evil. This nation
ought not, therefore, to content itself with mere existence, but
should throw its elements, or the best of them, into another mould and
constitute out of them a new society which would become a blessing to
the world.

    ¹ Author of “A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine” ... London ... MDCL.
      He was the elder brother of Francis Fuller (1637‒1701),
      at whose obsequies the Rev. Jeremiah White (1629‒1707)
      said: “... But I will add no more concerning his Learning,
      because it was not only a _Personal_, but _hereditary_
      Accomplishment: For I think it did belong to his Family to
      be learned....” [_p._ 112: “A _Funeral Sermon_ Preached upon
      the Death Of the Reverend Mr. Francis Fuller ... By Jeremiah
      White, ... London ... 1702.”] (_Sm._ 8º. 4 _ll._ + 119 _pp._
      [B. M.])

  Illustration:
             _Sir_ OLIVER ST. JOHN       THOS. BRIGHTMAN

                       _Rev. Dr._ WILLIAM GOUGE

                 HUGO GROTIUS          _Rev._ HENRY JESSEY

All these Christian pioneers of religious liberty and Zionism were in
close connection with Manasseh, and helped him to prepare the way for
the re-admission of the Jews into England.

The view held by many Christians, especially in England, was that
the Israelitish race, now scattered over the face of the earth, would
eventually be brought back to its own land. To this was generally
added the belief that the Jews would return in a converted, _i.e._
Christian, state.¹ In conformity with the general spirit of the period,
all these ideas had a religious colouring in the minds both of English
theologians and writers and of the Jews themselves.

    ¹ The final ingathering of the Jews is taught in both the
      Jewish and Christian Bibles.

Why were these considerations particularly important with regard to
England? In seeking an answer to this question we are met at once by
the significant fact dealt with in the first chapter of this book: the
attachment of Englishmen to the Bible.

The men and women who live in the pages of the Bible had long ago
become recognized types for the English nation. As early as the
seventeenth century interest in the restoration of _Israel_ had become
deep and general, England providing the earliest stimulus to Zionism.
The connection between this idea, and the idea of the readmission of
the Jews into England after long years of exclusion, following their
final expulsion under Edward I. in the year 1290, and the steady
progress of the latter idea, supported and determined by the former,
is characteristic not only of Manasseh’s writings, efforts and plans,
but of the whole epoch. Facts prove with what steadfastness of aim and
consistency of thought the problem was attacked and conquered by the
Puritan theologians and writers, and to what an extent their defence
of the Jews formed one comprehensive and consistent scheme, of which
the readmission of the Jews (justice applied to _individuals_) was one
part, and the Restoration of _Israel_ (justice applied to _the nation
as a whole_) was another.

Whoever studies Manasseh’s writings and the Puritan literature of that
epoch will have no difficulty in recognizing that the idea of national
justice to the Jews underlies all the discussions and controversies
and is common to all schools of thought. Thus Zionism has but brought
to light and given practical form and a recognized position to a
principle which had long consciously or unconsciously guided English
opinion. The ideas of Readmission and Restoration originally formed
a single stream in England, before they separated to flow in distinct
but parallel channels. Readmission, however, became an immediate
practical result, whilst Restoration was left for the future.

                             CHAPTER IX.

                         RESTORATION SCHEMES

    Dr. John Jortin――Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol――Edward King
    ――Samuel Horsley, Bishop of Rochester and St. Asaph――Jewish
    Colonies in South America――Marshal de Saxe’s scheme――Anecdote
    by Margravine of Anspach――Earl of Egmont’s project――Proposed
    settlement of German Jews in Pennsylvania――Viscount
    Kingsborough’s Mexican colony――John Adams, President of the
    United States.

THE books and pamphlets, consisting largely of interpretations of
the Bible, naturally contain many ideas open to serious criticism on
the part of a modern reader. Inevitably also (seeing that the writers
were theologians) they exhibit a persistent tendency to conversionism.
But one thing that continually impresses one is the earnestness
and sincerity revealed throughout. The readmission of the Jews into
England was likewise connected in some quarters with conversionist
tendencies, but on the whole it was an act of justice, and the Jews
profited by it.

The writers with whom we have been dealing were men trained from
childhood to read the Holy Scriptures, to reflect upon what they read,
and to consider every question from the standpoint of their religious
convictions. A certain weakness will no doubt be found in the
one-sided exegetical tendency shown in the numberless explanations of
the seventh chapter of the Book of _Daniel_, and various Apocalyptic
prophecies. But have not all the different denominations done the
same? Has not each one made use of some part of the Bible in order
to support its ideas? Does not every sect explain the word of God
according to its own way of thinking? Do not the opinions of one sect
conflict with and contradict those of another? It must be remembered
that this method of Scriptural interpretation was in keeping with
the spirit of the time, and that the entire question was still in
its infancy. Be that as it may, one cannot but be grateful for the
devotion of these Christian champions, in spite of the peculiarity of
some of their notions. Although as Jews we often differ from them as
regards the interpretation and application of certain verses, still
we cannot withhold our admiration for the sincere enthusiasm which is
evinced in most of their writings.

Dr. John Jortin (1698‒1770), an ecclesiastical historian and critic,
the author of _The Life of Erasmus_ ... London ... 1758‒1760, and of
many books dealing with the problem of the Jewish people, developed
the idea that the preservation of this people, “under such long,
such signal and such unexampled persecutions and calamities inclines
one to think that they are reserved for some illustrious purpose of
Providence.”

Thomas Newton (1704‒1782), Bishop of Bristol (1761), a divine of great
authority, defended the idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ in words
which no Jewish national enthusiast could excel. The Jews, he believes,
will be restored to their native city and country. At the same time,
he emphasizes the dignity and the necessity of Jewish distinctiveness
all over the world, and condemns anti-Jewish prejudice:――

    “We see that the great empires, which in their turns subdued
    and oppressed the people of God, are all come to ruin;
    because, tho’ they executed the purposes of God, yet that
    was more than they understood; all that they intended was to
    satiate their own pride and ambition, their own cruelty and
    revenge. And if such hath been the fatal end of the enemies
    and oppressors of the Jews, let it serve as a warning to all
    those, who at any time or upon any occasion are for raising a
    clamor and persecution against them”¹       (Appendix xxxvi).

    ¹ Dissertations on the Prophecies, ... vol. i. ... MDCCLIV.
      _pp._ 241‒242.

Edward King (1725‒1807), a miscellaneous writer and essayist, was
a zealous champion of more enlightened theological views than were
approved in his day by the orthodox believers. In one of his books,¹
which is written with intense faith and enthusiasm, and abounds in
beautiful passages that appeal to the imagination and heart, the one
point in which he is particularly emphatic is the return of the Jews
as Jews to the Holy Land.

    ¹ Remarks on The Signs of the Times; By Edward King, Esq.,
      F.R.S.A.S.... London: ... 1798. (_4to._ 40 _pp._ [B. M.])

Samuel Horsley (1733‒1806), Bishop of Rochester (1793‒1802), Bishop
of St. Asaph (1802‒1806), considered King’s book of sufficient
importance to publish another¹ in reply, from which one gathers, that
the opinions expressed by King were not entirely rejected. “I agree
with you,” wrote the Bishop, “that some passages in _Zechariah_ (_fl._
3408 _a.m._) in particular, make strongly for this idea of a previous
settlement ... and so far I can admit....”

    ¹ Critical Disquisitions on the Eighteenth Chapter of Isaiah,
      in A Letter to Edward King, Esq., F.R.S.A.S. By Samuel,
      Lord Bishop of Rochester, F.R.S.A.S. London: ... M.DCC.XCIX.
      (_4to._ v. + 109 _pp._ [B. M.])

This declaration must have made a profound impression. It was the
declaration of a man who was, as a contemporary biographer says, “an
ornament to the Senate, an honour to the Church of England, and one of
the first characters of the age in which he lived.”

In some tracts written at the beginning of the nineteenth century a
semi-political note is already sounded, as, for instance, in the tract
_A Call to the Christians and the Hebrews, by Theætetus_ (Appendix
xxxvii). This call did not find an immediate response; nevertheless,
the political idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ reappeared at
various epochs in England as well as in the other English-speaking
countries and elsewhere.

The various efforts to establish autonomous Jewish Colonies in America
during the early history of that country are not strictly Zionism, but
are not without interest from the Zionist point of view. “Under the
authority of the Dutch West India Company.... In 1652, a tract of land
... was granted in the island of Curaçao to Joseph Nunez _da_ Fonseca,
and others, to found a colony of Jews in that island ... but it was
not successful....”¹

    ¹ _The Settlement of the Jews in North America._ By Charles P.
      Daly, LL.D. ... New York ... 1893. _p._ 9.

About 1654 a project was formed for a settlement in Surinam, then
a British colony, with Jewish fugitives from Brazil. The scheme is
referred to as “Privileges Granted to the People of the Hebrew Nation
that are to goe to the Wilde Cust” (_Egerton MSS._, _vol._ 2395,
No. 8. [B. M.]).

A grant was made by the French West India Company to David Nasi, a
Portuguese Jew, in 1659, by a charter which authorized him to found a
Jewish colony in Cayenne.

Some of the later projects are even more interesting. About the year
1749 Marshal _de_ Saxe¹ contemplated erecting a Jewish state in South
America of which he would be King. “... We have only meagre accounts
of this scheme; I am unable even to say whether he had abandoned it
prior to his death....”²

    ¹ Hermann-Maurice (1696‒1750) [Moritz _von_ Sachsen], Comte
      _de_ Saxe, Marshal of France, was the illegitimate son of
      Friedrich August (1670‒1733) the First, Elector of Saxony
      (1694‒1733), who reigned over Poland (1697‒1733) as August
      the Second [the Strong]; and Maria Aurora (1668‒1728)
      Gräfin _von_ Königsmark. His father’s legitimate son
      (1696‒1763), who succeeded to both dignities as Friedrich
      August the Second, Elector of Saxony, and as August the
      Third, King of Poland (1733‒1763), was the father of Maria
      Josepha, the wife of the Dauphin Louis (1729‒1765), and
      mother of that unfortunate Monarch, Louis XVI. ♦(1774‒1792)
      of France.

    ♦ “(1774‒1792)” should be “(1754‒1792)”

    ² _Early American Zionist Projects_, by Max. J. Kohler, A.M.,
      LL.B., in Publications of the American Jewish Historical
      Society, 1900, No. 8 _pp._ 76‒79.

The Margravine of Anspach¹ tells us in her anecdotes about him, that
“He took a fancy to become a king: and on looking around..., as he
found all the thrones occupied, he cast his eyes upon that nation
which for seventeen hundred years had neither sovereign nor country;
which was everywhere dispersed, and everywhere a stranger.... This
extraordinary project occupied his attention for a considerable time.
It is not known how far the Jews co-operated with him, nor to what
point their negotiations were carried; nor was his plan ever developed:
but the project was well known to the world, and his friends sometimes
even joked with him on the subject.”²

    ¹ Elizabeth (1750‒1828), youngest daughter of the fourth
      Earl of Berkeley, K.T. (1715(6)‒1755), who in 1767 married
      William Craven (1738‒1791), afterwards the sixth Baron
      Craven. In the month following his death, she espoused the
      Margrave of Anspach (_ob._ 1806).

    ² _Memoirs of the Margravine of Anspach._ Written by Herself
      ... London: ... 1826. Vol. ii., _pp._ 132‒133.

John Perceval (1711‒1770), the second Earl of Egmont, when scarce a
man, had a scheme of assembling the Jews, and making himself their
King.¹

    ¹ Note by Lord Holland (1773‒1840) in _Memoirs of the Reign of
      King George II._ (1683‒1760), by Horace Walpole (1717‒1797)
      ... London ... 1847. Vol. i., second edition, _p._ 35.

Hardly was the constitution of Pennsylvania of September 28th, 1776,
adopted.... A German Jew, whose name and domicile are not mentioned,
forwarded a letter to the President of the Continental Congress
... that a number of German Jews had the intention of settling in
America.... Let the conditions be stated to us, gracious President....¹

    ¹ _A Memorial sent by German Jews to the President of the
      Continental Congress._ By Dr. M. Kayserling. (Publications
      of the American Jewish Historical Society, No. 6, 1897,
      _pp._ 5‒6.)

Edward King (1795‒1837), Viscount Kingsborough, eldest son of George,
third Earl of Kingston (1771‒1839), promoted and edited with copious
notes a magnificent work, entitled _Antiquities of Mexico_ ... 9 vols.
Imperial Folio and 60 _pp._ of a tenth volume. London, 1830‒1848.
The drift of King’s speculations was to establish the colonization of
Mexico by the Israelites.¹

    ¹ Gordon Goodwin in the _Dictionary of National Biography_.

In this connection special mention should be made of a great American
who was undoubtedly inspired by English Puritanism and displayed
the same broad-mindedness as the Puritans in relation to the Jewish
problem. This was John Adams (1735‒1826), the second President
of the United States of America (1797‒1801), and one of the most
distinguished patriots of the Revolution. He was one of the most
enthusiastic supporters of the Zionist idea. In a letter addressed to
Major Mordecai Manuel Noah (1785‒1851), he says: “I really wish the
Jews again in Judea, an independent nation, for, as I believe, the
most enlightened men of it have participated in the amelioration of
the philosophy of the age; once restored to an independent government,
and no longer persecuted, they would soon wear away some of the
asperities and peculiarities of their character,...” But, anticipating
that he might be wrongly supposed to desire the return of the Jews
to Palestine for the purpose of getting them away from America or
limiting their rights in that country, he continues: “I wish your
nation may be admitted to all the privileges of citizens in every
part of the world. This country (America) has done much; I wish it
may do more, and annul every narrow idea in religion, government and
commerce.”¹

    ¹ Discourse on The Restoration of the Jews: Delivered at the
      Tabernacle, Oct. 28 and Dec. 2, 1844. By M. M. Noah. With a
      Map of the Land of _Israel_. New York: ... 1845. (8º. viii.
      + 55 _pp._ + folded map.) _p._ vi.: “I find similar and
      stronger sentiments in a letter from President John Adams,
      written to me when nearly in his ninetieth year, with all
      the fervour, sincerity and zeal he exhibited in the early
      scenes of our Revolution,” _etc._

                              CHAPTER X.

                              PALESTINE

    The Love and Knowledge of the Holy Land――The Land of the
    Bible――The Bible Societies and the Institutions for the
    Investigation of the Holy Land――The Palestine Exploration Fund
    ――Colonel Conder――Sir Charles Wilson――Sir Charles Warren――Lord
    Kitchener.

THE love and knowledge of the Holy Land were scarcely less valuable
than the influence of the Bible and its language in paving the way
for an understanding of Zionist aspirations. What is more natural
than that the Land of _Israel_ most strongly attracted the Christian
Englishman by its past history and its present condition? He could not
lay his hand upon his Bible without being reminded of the _Jordan_,
of the _Lebanon_, of the _Mount of Olives_. Every Sunday called to
his mind the ancient history and lost prosperity of the “glory of all
lands,” while the existing ruin and desolation of the country gave
testimony to the truth of the Bible and the certainty of the promised
blessings.

While the familiar passages of Scripture concerning the Restoration
were calculated to promote human effort in this great cause――for
in many of these passages the spiritual application is not the most
obvious, and all of them seem inspired by the vision of a real and
natural return to the Land――the Biblical descriptions of the Holy Land
contributed not less to the propaganda of what we may call the Zionist
idea. There is no country whose geography is, if not better known, at
any rate dearer to the heart of man than that of the land of which the
Bible speaks.

Apart from the divine character of the Scriptures, they have handed
down through the centuries the earliest history of which we have any
records, and have preserved for all time records of the economic,
domestic and political life of a people which inhabited one of the
most important provinces of the ancient world. The people and the land
are no allegory, no abstraction; they are realities. They still exist,
and they can be brought together again as they were in their natural
condition. They are both equally typical, almost unique. There is no
other country whose geographical features are so strongly marked as
those of Palestine, the character of whose inhabitants so strikingly
depends on peculiarities of position, soil and climate. And there is
no other people whose character, history and destinies are so peculiar
as those of the Jewish people.

Two kinds of English organizations, without parallel in any other
country――Bible Societies and Palestine Societies――have contributed
particularly to the investigation of Palestine. Apart from their
conversionist tendency, the Bible Societies were founded in order “to
promote the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, both at home and in
foreign lands.” This idea could take deep hold of the minds of the
people only in England. The first Bible Society of Great Britain was
founded in 1802 (Appendix xxxviii). Shortly afterwards――in 1805――a
“Palestine Association”¹ was established for the purpose of promoting
the knowledge of its geography, natural history and antiquities, with
a view to the illustration of the Holy Writings. The inquiries of the
Society were directed in the first place to ascertaining the natural
and political boundaries of the several districts within the limits
of the Land of _Israel_, the topographical situation of the towns and
villages, the courses of streams and rivers, the ranges of mountains,
and the manners and customs of the inhabitants. They extended to
the natural products of the Holy Land and adjacent countries, to
peculiarities of soil, climate and minerals, and to the exploration
for Jewish antiquities. This was, however, by no means the beginning
of the study of Palestine: it was rather a new organization of the
studies in question. But notwithstanding the learned and laborious
compilations of Christianus Adrichomus (1533‒1585), Petrus Ravanellus
(_ob._ 1680), Christophorus Cellarius (1638‒1707), Thomas Fuller
(1608‒1661), John Lightfoot (1602‒1675), and the more recent work of
Dom [Antoine] Augustin Calmet (1672‒1757), Johann Heinrich Michaelis
(1668‒1738), Thomas Harmer (1715‒1788), Willem Albert Bachiene
(1712‒1783), and Ijsbrand _van_ Hamelsveld (1743‒1812), many of the
most important points were still left unexamined. “No country should
be of so much interest to us as Palestine, and at the same time no
country more urgently requires illustration.” With this motto the
“Palestine Association” started its fruitful work, which it continued
during the whole of the last century with growing skill and success.

    ¹ Palestine Association. 1805. (Proposals.) _p._ 4. _Saville
      Row_, _March 31, 1805_. [B. M.]

The Society known as the “Palestine Exploration Fund” was first
formally constituted in 1865. The object of the founders was the
prosecution of systematic and scientific research in all branches
of inquiry connected with the Holy Land, and the principal reason
alleged for conducting this inquiry was the illustration of the Bible
which might be expected to follow such an investigation. The Society
numbered among its first supporters both Christians and Jews. The
War Office granted the services of Royal Engineers for the execution
of excavation work――Colonel Claude Reignier Conder (1848‒1910), Sir
Charles William Wilson (1836‒1905), and Sir Charles Warren. Colonel
Conder devoted his whole life to Palestinian research. Earl Kitchener
(1850‒1916) surveyed _Galilee_ for the Society, and his work aroused
general interest and led to important results (Appendix xxxix).
Hitherto knowledge regarding the country had been very limited;
reconnaissance sketch-maps of parts of the country had been made,
but every successive traveller was able to point out deficiencies,
errors and unexplored tracts. With trained skill, thoroughness and
conscientious work the Society combined a love and enthusiasm for
Palestine which made it possible to obtain the most admirable results.
The progress from the theological character of the first “Palestine
Association” to the scientific methods of the “Palestine Exploration
Fund” typifies the evolution of the whole Palestinian idea from a
traditional belief to a great human and historical aspiration――the
same evolution which can be traced in the development of the Zionist
idea.

  Illustration:
       _Gen. Sir_ CHARLES WARREN           _Maj.-Gen._
        _Elliott and Fry, Ltd._     _Sir_ CHARLES W. WILSON

                           _Earl_ KITCHENER
                       London Stereoscopic Co.

         _Dr._ EDWARD ROBINSON       _Col._ CLAUDE R. CONDER

                             CHAPTER XI.

                   NAPOLEON’S CAMPAIGN IN THE EAST

    The Appeal of Bonaparte to the Jews of Asia and Africa――Haim
    Mu’allim Farhi――The Fortress of Acre――Jewish opinion in
    Palestine――El-Arish――_Gaza_――_Jerusalem_――Moses Mordecai
    Joseph Meyuchas――“A Letter addressed by a French Jew to his
    Brethren”――France and England――The real motives of Bonaparte’s
    Appeal.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE (1769‒1821) issued in 1799 a summons to the Asiatic
and African Jews to march under his banner, promising “to give them
the Holy Land,” and “to restore ancient _Jerusalem_ to its pristine
splendour” (Appendix xl). One hardly knows whether this was to be
taken quite seriously. The Jews in _Jerusalem_ appear either not to
have put much trust in Bonaparte’s flattering words, or to have been
utterly ignorant of the proclamation. The question was so important,
and so much confusion prevailed regarding it, that the appeal,
being vague in its terms, could not lead to any practical action.
Some historians suppose that this proclamation was only a trick
which Bonaparte played with the intention of winning over to his
cause the Jewish minister of the Pasha of Acre, Haim Mu’allim Farhi
(1750?‒1820), the soul of the defence of that important sea-fortress.
This supposition, however, is based on no evidence. It is pure
speculation, and is highly improbable.

No Jew seriously believed in the success of Bonaparte’s ambitious
design or in the possibility of his victory, and no attention was paid
to his promises. On the other hand, it would not have been impossible
to suppose that Bonaparte’s plan might succeed after he had conquered
Syria and carried the war into the heart of Turkey. He would then
perhaps have assigned a share in his government to members of the
Jewish nation upon whom the French could rely.

Bonaparte’s idea was simple and his intentions were sincere. He
regarded the Jews――particularly those living in Asia and Africa――as
a nation, and as having indisputable historical claims on the Holy
Land and _Jerusalem_. He was sure that they would help him and hail
his victory as a happy triumph¹ if they knew that their national ideal
was to be realized and “ancient _Jerusalem_” to be restored to its
“pristine splendour.” Was this not the same policy which he applied in
later years in his relations with the small nationalities in Europe?

    ¹ In an Order, in which he confirms the prerogatives of the
      Monks of the Mount _Sinai_ convent, he refers to the Jews.

              AU CAIRE, le 29 frimaire au 7 (19 décembre, 1798).

      Bonaparte, général en chef, voulant favoriser le convent du
      mont _Sinai_: ... 2º Par respect pour _Moise_ et le nation
      juive, dont la cosmogonie nous retrace les âgres les plus
      reculés; ... Bonaparte.

      (_Correspondance inédite officielle et confidentielle de
      Napoléon Bonaparte_ ... Egypte. Tome Deuxième. Paris ...
      M.DCCC.XIX. _p._ 179.)

      In another Appeal, Bonaparte ordered his troops to treat
      the natives with tolerance: “Agissez avec eux comme vous
      avez agi avec les Juifs, les Italiens; ayez des égards
      pour leur mufti et leurs imams, comme vous en avez eu pour
      les rabbins et les evêques; ayez pour les cérémonies que
      prescrit l’Alcoran, pour les mosquées, la même tolérance
      que vous avez eu pour les convents, pour les synagogues,
      pour la religion de _Moise_ et de Jésus Christ”
      (Proclamation of General Bonaparte of the 22nd June, 1798).

      Colonel Sebastiani wrote concerning the Jews in his report
      on his mission to Constantinople in 1802 in a somewhat
      anti-Semitic spirit: “Les Juifs sont, comme partout ailleurs,
      indifférents sur tout changement de gouvernement qui ne
      leur offre pas la matière à de nouvelles spéculations”
      (_Bibliothèque Diplomatique――Recueil des Traités de la
      Porte Ottomane_ ... Par le Baron J. _de_ Testa ... Tome
      Premier France. Paris ... MDCCCLXIV. _p._ 513).

Jewish opinion in the East was reserved and somewhat pessimistic,
not with regard to the purpose, but concerning the opportunity and
the means. The Jews were willing to make any sacrifices in order to
restore “ancient _Jerusalem_” in a peaceful way, but not to revolt
against the rulers of the country. Moreover, they knew that this
campaign was bound to be a failure.

The Turks followed the plan of allowing the inadequate forces of
Bonaparte to advance as far as possible from their Egyptian base,
while they massed heavy forces in Syria. El-Arish and _Gaza_ in the
south-west of Palestine fell into the hands of Bonaparte’s army on the
17th and 25th February, 1799. The Jewish community of _Gaza_ had fled.
In _Jerusalem_ the news of victories and atrocities created a general
panic. It was rumoured that Bonaparte was about to enter the Holy
City. At the command of the deputy Governor the inhabitants began to
throw up ramparts, the Jews also taking part in the work. One of the
_Rabbis_, Moses Mordecai Joseph Meyuchas, encouraged and even assisted
them in their operations. After these occurrences the success of
Bonaparte in Egypt and Syria was arrested, chiefly by the arms of
Great Britain, and his schemes in the East were frustrated.

The appearance of Bonaparte in Palestine was like the passing of a
meteor, which, after causing much perturbance, disappears. His dream
of becoming Emperor of the East faded away quickly. Still the fact
remains that the idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ had occupied the
mind of this great conqueror in the prime of his youth, at the very
beginning of his unexampled career. He and his adherents seemed, even
after this failure, to persist in gazing with a wistful eye towards
the same quarter, and their ambitious plans evidently involved the
future fortunes of those Eastern countries which have so long been
the monotonous scenes of isolation and ignorance.

Whatever judgment we may form as to the practical value of Bonaparte’s
scheme in those days, the suggestion of restoring Palestine to the
Jews remains highly significant. It is obvious that had there not
been Jewish aspirations of this kind in France such a suggestion could
not have arisen even as a fantastic plan or as a caprice of military
headquarters in a distant country. Bonaparte had too much political
foresight even in his younger years to run the risk of engaging
himself in an undertaking before he had sounded the competent circles
in his own country. As a matter of fact these aspirations were
expressed, and, imaginary as they were, seem to have been very popular
among French Jews. There is, consequently, reason to conclude that
Bonaparte’s scheme was, in reality, more serious than it might have
seemed at first sight.

A most curious document, almost entirely overlooked or underestimated
by French historians, throws some light on the real tendencies of that
time among French Jews. This is a “Letter addressed to his brethren by
a Jew” in 1798¹――one year before the Bonaparte Proclamation (Appendix
xli). This letter is a sort of Zionist programme. It is a mixture
of different elements, partly Jewish, partly pan-French Imperialist,
expounded in a manner that only a deep Jewish national feeling could
have inspired. The impenetrable political speculations of those days
already contain the germs of some ideas which are developed to full
consciousness and clearness a hundred years later in modern Zionist
speeches, pamphlets and programmes.