A.D. 1600-1700.
THE JEWS IN GERMANY AND CENTRAL EUROPE.
At the commencement of the seventeenth century the Reformation
may be regarded as an accomplished fact. The great flood of
controversy which had broken up the Church had begun to subside,
and whatever countries had been gained by the new opinions, or had
been retained by the old ones, remained in both instances firm to
their allegiance. It might have been expected that the great changes
which had been worked would largely affect the condition of the
Jews, and ultimately, no doubt, they did so; but for the time the
effects were scarcely discernible. No doubt, in Protestant countries
the clergy could no longer put in force the terrible engines of
persecution which had hitherto been ready to their hand; and this
was in itself an immense relief. Again, in lands which still owned
the supremacy of Rome, much of the virulence of the priesthood
against the Jews was of necessity abated. They had graver and more
absorbing occupation for their thoughts. In the momentous struggle
which was in progress the Jews were more or less overlooked. But
the bitterness of feeling towards them was scarcely, if at all,
diminished. The leaders of the Reformed movement themselves regarded
the Jews with but little favour. They could not, indeed, but abhor
the barbarities which had been employed against them by the rulers
of the Church; but they had little idea, so far as themselves were
concerned, of showing consideration towards the obstinate and
rebellious race which persisted in rejecting Christ.[180] This,
however, was not universally the case. Frank du Jon (Franciscus
Junius), the well-known Dutch Reformer, urged on his countrymen,
in earnest and emphatic language, the duty owing by all Christian
nations to their brethren the Jews, who were to be won by the spirit
of love to the fold of Christ. So did Isaac Vossius, Professor at
Amsterdam, who addressed a letter to the Jews, strongly indicative
of this temper. The Arminians of Holland again, and their allies,
evinced a most brotherly kindness towards such Jews as had taken
refuge in their country. The celebrated Hugo Grotius was especially
remarkable for the respect he entertained for the Rabbins and their
opinions. Indeed, though some of the leading Reformers occasionally
expressed themselves in a manner which was inconsistent with the wise
principles they professed, yet the general effect of their teaching
grew and strengthened as generations went on, and resulted at last in
a widespread and enlightened toleration.
It must also be remembered that the Jews themselves—for a long
time, at all events—showed no more inclination to embrace Gospel
truth, as set forth by the Reformers, than they had been in previous
generations to accept the tenets of the Romish Church. It was not,
indeed, to be expected that the deep mutual rancour which had been
the growth of so many generations—of savage cruelty on the one hand,
and sullen, inflexible hate on the other, could be removed by any
sudden change, even if its results had been far more beneficent. It
is far easier to provoke international animosities than to compose
them again. Let us remember how long, in this country, the bitter
dislike and contempt of the French nation, which Nelson and his
school did their best to encourage as the best safeguard of England
against successful invasion—let us remember, I say, how long it
lasted, after all possible danger of the dreaded results had passed
away. It cannot, indeed, be said to be dead even now, though three
generations have passed away since it was called forth. Remember also
that the mutual antipathy of the Englishman and the Frenchman could
not for a moment be compared, in respect of its bitterness, with that
which existed in those dark and miserable times between the Jew and
the Christian. Let us be thankful that a spirit of toleration and
mercy has been growing, however slowly, and still continues to grow,
and pray that our children may behold the ripe perfection of that
glorious harvest.
Not much is recorded of the Jews in Germany and the other countries
of Central Europe during the earlier portion of the seventeenth
century. There was a disturbance at Frankfort in 1614, which proved
disastrous to them, though it does not seem to have arisen from
religious bitterness. It will be remembered that, as nearly as
possible one hundred years before, there had been a proposal to exile
all the Jews in the town. That originated in commercial animosity,
and nothing but the mutual jealousies of the deputies present at
the meeting had prevented its being carried out. On the present
occasion a revolt of the trade guilds against the town authorities
had been successful, and the first act of the guilds was to expel
the Hebrew traders, of whose prosperity they were jealous. But two
years afterwards the sedition was suppressed, and the leader of the
_émeute_ put to death, whereupon the Jews were permitted to return.
A similar expulsion took place in Worms, when the fugitives found a
protector in the Elector Frederick.
In the year 1619 began the terrible ‘Thirty Years’ War,’ from which
all classes of men suffered heavily, and the Jews as much as any.
During the celebrated siege of Prague they rendered great service
to the Emperor. Rabbi Leo has written a history of the incidents
of that eventful period; in which he praises highly the conduct of
his countrymen, their zeal and courage throughout the siege, and
especially their piety, in assembling in their synagogues to implore
Heaven to grant their countrymen victory, and reciting a litany
composed expressly for the occasion by one of their Rabbins. He is
persuaded, indeed, that the preservation of the city was entirely
owing to their intercession.
If such was the case, it is to be feared that the Emperors Ferdinand
II. and III. did not evince the gratitude which would be due from
them. We learn that in 1630 the first-named took from them their
privilege of farming the revenues of the Hungarian kingdom. His
reason for doing so does not flatter them. He says it was because
‘they had neither conscience nor honesty, and were therefore unworthy
to enjoy it.’ They must, however, have regained it, since we find
that they were again deprived of it, in 1647, by his successors.
In 1650 a great meeting of Jews, at which three hundred Rabbins were
present, is said to have been held on the plain of Ageda, thirty
miles from Buda, to determine a question which, it appeared, was
agitating the minds of many—whether the Messiah had not already come.
The sole authority for the occurrence appears to be one Samuel Brett,
who published an account of it in London, A.D. 1655, five years after
the supposed assembly. Most historians reject the story as a mere
invention, designed partly to facilitate the conversion of the Jews,
partly to throw obloquy on the Church of Rome. Among those who refuse
it credit, is the celebrated Menasseh ben Israel, whose authority
carries great weight. Further, in the narrative itself, the imputing
by the Pharisees of the miracles of our Lord to the agency of magic,
reads like a plagiarism from Matt. xii. 24; as also their objections
to His mean origin, to a similar extract from Mark vi. 3.[181]
On the other hand, some authorities accept Brett’s statement as
genuine; and there are circumstances in it not easy to reconcile
with the notion of imposture. Thus, the author gives his name and
the particulars of his own life and career, which it would have been
easy to disprove, if they were fictitious; and, as the publication
of the story must have provoked a good deal of angry feeling, it is
at least strange that this was not done. But when Nathaniel Holmes
republished the history, as he did eleven years afterwards, he added
no hint that its authenticity had been so much as suspected. Nor
again, still later, did the compiler of the _Harleian Miscellany_,
who also reproduced it. Further, Brett states that the Jews, when
they broke up their meeting, resolved to hold another in three
years from that time—two years, that is, after the date of Brett’s
publication. An impostor, one would think, would not have inserted
this perfectly needless addition to his narrative, which could only
lead to his detection. The idea which the entire story gives is
rather exaggeration than imposture. Such a meeting as he describes
might really have taken place; but the numbers, the character of
the speakers, and the interest felt by the Jews generally in the
proceedings, have been greatly overstated. It will be better to give
Brett’s story with this caution appended to it.
He states that the first meeting took place at the time and for the
purpose already stated, the King of Hungary having first granted
permission. A vast number of learned Jews from all nations repaired
to the spot, and encamped in tents round a central pavilion, where
the council sat.
The first day was employed in examining the credentials of the
various Rabbins. On the second, Rabbi Zechariah, who had been
chosen president, proposed the main question, ‘Whether the Messiah
had already come, or were they still to await His advent?’ Some,
we are told, argued that He must have come. They had now suffered,
they said, for 1600 years the heaviest woes, nor did there seem any
prospect of these coming to an end. But why should God thus delay the
coming of the Deliverer? Neither they, nor their fathers for many
generations, had been guilty of idolatry, which alone would be an
adequate cause for withholding Him. But the sense of the assembly was
against this view. It was affirmed that He had not come, and that the
sins of the people had delayed His advent.
Next it was debated in what manner He would come; and here there was
no lack of unanimity. It was agreed that He would appear, according
to the old belief, as a conqueror, who would restore the kingdom to
Israel; that He would uphold the Mosaic law in all its integrity, and
that He would be born of a virgin. Some of those present then raised
the question whether Jesus the crucified might not be the Messiah.
But the Pharisees objected that Jesus had been a person of low birth
and condition, whereas the Messiah would appear surrounded by all
the accessories of earthly grandeur. A Rabbi named Abraham rejoined
that it was difficult to account for the miracles wrought by Jesus,
unless He was the Messiah. But Zebedee, a chief Pharisee, rejoined
that these miracles had been effected by magic. In this the Sadducees
present concurred, though they had hitherto opposed nearly all that
the Pharisees advanced.
The congress had lasted for six days, when some priests made their
appearance, who, at the request of the King of Hungary, had been
despatched from Rome. These at first only attempted to prove that
Jesus was the Messiah, and, while discoursing on this topic, seem
to have been heard with patience. But when, digressing from this,
they began to insist on the authority of the Church, and demand the
submission of the Jews to the Pope, the whole assembly broke out
into a tumultuous cry of ‘No Christ!’ ‘No God-man!’ ‘No intercession
of saints!’ ‘No worship of images!’ ‘No prayers to the Virgin!’ The
meeting broke up in disorder, coming to no conclusion. But it was
alleged that many Jews were shaken in their belief.
In another part of Europe—the part, indeed, in which the Jews had
hitherto enjoyed the most entire immunity from suffering—great
troubles befell them about this time, in consequence of the rebellion
of the Cossacks against the rule of the Poles. In the spring of
1648 massacres of Jews took place in the countries which lie to
the east of the Dnieper, in which thousands perished. Still larger
numbers were carried off as prisoners, and sold in Turkey. During
the interregnum following on the death of King Ladislaus, hordes of
barbarians overran the Ukraine, committing great havoc, from which
all the inhabitants suffered, but none, we are told, so much as the
Jews.
In 1670 the Jews were banished from the Austrian dominions by the
Emperor Leopold, a weak and narrow-minded prince, who was easily
persuaded to adopt measures which he was as speedily obliged to
modify or reverse. He had granted, only a short time before, Rabbi
Zachariah permission to build a magnificent synagogue and schools for
the revival of learning. But the synagogue had hardly been finished
when it was turned into a Christian church by the Emperor, and the
whole of the Jews exiled from his dominions. The reason of this is
said to have been that the Empress attributed her barrenness to
the displeasure of Heaven at the toleration shown to the Jews. But
her death in her confinement, shortly afterwards, doubtless had a
counter-effect on the mind of the Emperor; and we are not surprised
to hear that the Jews were recalled, and re-established in their
possessions.[182] It was upon this occasion that the Jews expelled
from Vienna found a refuge in Berlin, where a thriving community grew
up.
In this century many learned Jews and Christian Hebrew scholars
appeared, whose names are well known, even at the present day. Among
these the most distinguished were Rabbi Menasseh, of whom we shall
have occasion to speak presently, and the Christian writers Pocock,
Surenhusius, and Vitringa. But the most renowned Christian Hebraists
of this century were the two Buxtorfs. The elder, Johann, born at
Westphalia in 1564, and dying in Basle in 1629, is the author of the
famous Hebrew dictionary and grammar continually quoted by Hebrew
scholars. His son, also called Johann, born 1599, and dying in 1664,
finished the concordance which his father had commenced.
FOOTNOTES:
[180] It has already been observed that Martin Luther, though
sometimes he speaks of the Jews rather with considerate compassion
than anger, at other times, and especially later in his career, uses
the very bitterest language respecting them, as, for instance, in his
tract (published in 1543) on _The Jews and their Lies_, the title of
which, it may be remarked, is quite in accordance with its contents.
And again, in his exposition of Psalm xxii., written many years
earlier, he thus writes: ‘Doubt not, beloved in Christ, that after
the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, violent enemy than the
Jew.’ He also enjoins the sternest and most violent measures to be
used against them. The great founder of Calvinism, again, though he
is less fiery and vehement in his denunciation of them, cannot be
said to regard them with any greater favour. He sees in them nothing
but the virulent, determined enemies of Christ, whom it would be
weakness, if not sin, to treat with any favour.
[181] It may be added that the very existence of the Sadducees, as a
sect, at this period of history, is an anachronism.
[182] A different explanation has been given of Leopold’s strange
changes in his treatment of the Jews. He is said to have shown them
favour at first, on account of his attachment to a beautiful Jewess.
But she was assassinated; and Leopold, at first believing the deed
to have been done by the Jews, banished them. Afterwards, being
convinced of his mistake, he allowed them to return.