We
should feel some reluctance in quoting the following passage from the
"Morning Post," if we were not assured that it will at once be
evident to most of our readers, that as it abounds in exaggeration, it
must have originated in mistake and ignorance:—
The
Jews have been, from time immemorial, incarnations of the principle of usury;
and wherever the principle of usury has been allowed scope, the rights
of productive industry have been invariably trampled under foot. Let the
history of modern Europe be carefully examined, and it will be found
that in direct proportion to the growing influence of the Jews, has been
the abasement of the great mass of the labouring classes. Wherever the
Jews flourish most, there will be found to flourish, in the
rankest luxuriance, the arts of usury, of money-jobbing, and extortion.
Now
we do not say that there are no Jews to be found who have been guilty of
usury, we do not wish in any measure to conceal the fact, or extenuate
the fault, as far as individuals are concerned, nor can we pretend to
know exactly how many may have been involved in the guilt of that odious
crime; but we do maintain that the above is any thing but a just
representation of that people considered as a nation.
As,
however, mere reasoning would avail nothing in reply to such an
accusation, however forcible our argument, however just our appeal might
be; let us look at the facts of the case.
Look
to the Jews in London—and it must be remembered that London is not the
most promising or most favourable place to find the national character
of the Jewish people fully developed. No Jew was permitted to reside in
this country for 350 years. It was only at a comparatively recent date
that they were allowed to take up their abode in our land. The Jews of London have therefore had but a
short time to establish those institutions which assist so materially in
forming the national character. How large a proportion of our churches,
colleges, public schools, hospitals, &c., were built, founded, and
endowed, at a time when no Jew dared settle among us. And yet, let us
see what they have done; they have established no less than eight
Synagogues, two large hospitals, three lying-in
institutions, six free-schools (one of which contains 600 boys
and 300 girls,) besides about a dozen societies for the education
and clothing of children; five societies for distributing bread,
meat, coals, clothing, &c., to the poor; and a host of other
charities, such as almshouses, burial societies, loan societies, blind
institutions, widow pension societies, societies for giving marriage
portions to poor Jewish young women, for finding places for apprentices
and servants, for visiting and relieving the sick, for the relief of the
poor at festivals, for the assistance of aliens, &c.
If
we visit the Continent we shall find the result still more favourable,
as to the testimony borne by the numerous and extensive charitable
institutions, established among the Jews. And what is perhaps still more
to the purpose, as a reply to the false assertions of the article before
us, we shall find that the Jews are every where distinguished by their
willingness to assist in carrying out plans of benevolence formed for
the aid of their Christian neighbours. We cannot understand how the
principles usury could by any possibility have led to this widespread
spirit of benevolence and charity.
But
let us not only look at those public institutions which bear such a
decided testimony to the principles which prevail generally, let us look
to individuals. We would recommend the writer of the above paragraph to
visit the Jewish quarter in the neighbourhood of Houndsditch, on a
Saturday morning; and to observe the number of Jewish shops which are
closed; and to note the amount of pecuniary sacrifice which is
cheerfully made in honour of the Sabbath, as kept by them. What a plain
and undeniable proof that, whatever we may think of their religions
opinions, there is a strength of character thus evident, which, to say
the least, entitles the Jews to respect and admiration. Why do they
voluntarily forego the advantages of commerce and trade for so
considerable a portion of their time? On the Sunday the law of the land
prevents their making good the loss they voluntarily sustain by the
observance of the Saturday, and yet without a murmur hundreds, or
rather, we should say, thousands, in our own immediate neighbourhood, do
thus give a practical demonstration every week, that they are not
insensible to a religious obligation which they conceive to be binding.
By what possible means could it come to pass that "incarnations of
the principle of usury" should of their own accord, give up for a
considerable part of their time, all prospect, all possibility, of
honest gain, to say nothing of the unjustifiable mode of seeking profit
which they are accused of adopting. We do not now discuss the necessity
for observing the Sabbath on Saturday, or keeping the great Jewish
feasts which are so carefully observed by such numbers of our
neighbours; what we maintain is, that self-denial exercised, to a large
amount, from religious motives, can as little exist in the slaves of
avarice, as benevolence and charity. A very few instances may, perhaps,
be found, in which the hardened usurer, through fear of death and a
judgment to come, has relaxed his grasp of wealth, and contributed
largely to some object of mercy; some few may, perhaps, exercise
self-denial and charity from a regard to character, or from unworthy
motives, and still be usurers and misers in their hearts; but these are
rare exceptions, and there is something in the manner of such men which
shows that they are doing violence to their feelings, that the duty is a
heavy burden, and that the gift is wrung from their souls.
We
lay no stress on a solitary and extraordinary act of kindness on the
part of a dying man, be he Jew or Christian; we cannot hope much from
any act of devotion performed under the impulse of sudden terror, by
those who have long been accustomed to live to themselves, as if no eye
saw them, and no eternity awaited them: but while we deplore that
leaning to tradition which hath caused Israel's gold to become dim, and
mixed her wine with water, we cannot see the noble sons of the father of
the faithful, who abound in works of mercy, thus made the subjects of
unmerited scorn, without some expression of surprise and sorrow. If they
are to be condemned as a nation, for worldly-mindedness, we say,
"Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone."
The
Jews have received the law of Moses, and have not been faithful to it;
they have departed from the simplicity and integrity of that truth which
was committed to them; and sad enough have the results been, for the
nation at large as well as for individuals. Sent forth as strangers,
they have been reminded at almost every step of their weary pilgrimage,
that the only title they could possibly obtain to respect and esteem
among the thoughtless multitudes around them, was to be found in the
possession of wealth, the only part of this world's goods left to those
who were debarred, in most countries, from the possession of every other
kind of property, and the enjoyment arising from rank, honour, and
station. No wonder then that they clung to the only remaining source by
which they could obtain influence, and secure to themselves that honour
and those pleasures which man naturally desires and craves.
Let
us, before we accuse them of extraordinary baseness in craving after
wealth, ask ourselves, what have we done by precept and example to show
them the more excellent way?
We
often complain, and we complain justly, of the influence exercised by
the oral law; but while we are duly alive to its faults, we must not
overlook that in it which is really praiseworthy.
What
do those who wantonly and unsparingly accuse the Jews, in the manner
already alluded to, say to such passages as the following:
It
is an affirmative precept to give alms to the poor of Israel,
according as the poor have need, if in the power of the giver; for it
is said, "Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him," (Deut.
15.8); and again, "Thou shalt relieve him, a proselyte* or a
sojourner, that he may live with thee;" and again, "That thy
brother may live with thee," (Levit. 25. 35, 36.) Whosoever sees
a poor man begging, and shuts his eyes against him, and does not give
him alms, transgresses a negative precept; for it is said, "Thou
shalt not harden thine heart nor shut thine hand from thy poor
brother." (Deut. 15. 7.) Accordingly, as the poor hath need, thou
art commanded to give. If he has no clothing, he is to be clothed; if
he has no furniture, it is to be bought for him; if he has no wife, he
is to be helped to marry one; if a woman, she is to be assisted in
getting a husband; yea, if it had been a poor man's custom to ride
upon a horse, and to have a servant running before him, but he is now
come down in the world, it is a duty to buy him a horse to ride, and a
servant to run before him; for it is said, "Sufficient for his
need in that which he wanteth." (Deut. 15. 8.) And thou art
commanded to relieve his want, but not to make him rich. If an orphan
apply for assistance in order to marry, it is a duty to hire a house
for him, and to provide all necessary furniture, and afterwards to
help him to marry. If a poor man come and ask for relief, and the
giver has not so much as he wants, he ought to give what his means
afford. How much? He that gives a fifth of his property fulfils the
commandment well. He that gives one part in ten fulfils it in a
middling manner. He that gives less must be regarded as a person with
an evil eye. (Hilchoth Matt'noth Aniim 107. 1-5.) .
*
Literally, a stranger.
Are
we prepared to go and do likewise? This is not an empty name among the
Jews; there are thousands among them, whatever the writer in the
"Morning Post'' may say, who enter fully into the spirit of such
laws, and make exertions to comply with its requirements which
may
well put their Christian neighbours to the blush.
This,
indeed, is a most painful thought; Christianity has taught us "to
love" even "our enemies," "to bear all things,
believe all things, hope all things;" and yet we find the above
paragraph not in an obscure pamphlet, which might lie hid in a corner,
but in a leading article of one of our influential daily journals.
Are
there, then, many to be found, who are willing to entertain such
sentiments? We grieve to find there should be any of our countrymen so
unkind, so unjust; we hope that their number is at most but very few. We
are inclined to think that the writer, having been, as it appears,
misinformed concerning the purport and intent of the regulations
recently published in the Russian empire, to which allusion is made in
another place, was led from one mistake to another, and thus, knowing
but little of the real character of the Jews, he, without further
consideration, concluded that the whole community amply deserved the
punishment, which, according to the picture drawn in his own
imagination, had been inflicted on them. But as time will show what is
the real state of the case, as it regards the Russian ukase, so will
more mature reflection, we trust, lead the writer, and all others who
have thoughtlessly, by word or deed, helped to cast a stumbling-block in
the way of the Jews, to a better sense of that which truth and justice,
to say nothing of humanity and mercy, require at their hands.
"The
history of modern Europe, if carefully examined," will not
show that "the abasement of the great mass of the labouring classes
has been in direct proportion to the growing influence of the
Jews."
This
is most plainly proved by the state of our own country [England]. What
evidence can be brought to show that the abasement of the great mass of
the labouring classes in our days is greater than it was in those times
above referred to, when the Jews were banished from our shores? It is
worse than idle to talk in this way.
The
observation made by a mighty monarch has often been repeated; that no
one ever injured the Jews but he suffered for it; and we may well
believe that this will prove true in the history of every nation; for
the words of the prophet were doubtless written "for our
learning," when he thus recorded the sentence pronounced by the
Most High,—"Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; I am jealous for
Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy. And I am very sore
displeased with the heathen that are at ease, for I was but a little
displeased, and they helped forward the affliction." (Zech 10. 14,
15.) The rich charter of
Israel's national privilege has never been revoked." "Blessed
is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee." |
