History of the Jews, Vol. 5 (of 6). Graetz Heinrich
and modern times towards their protectors. He forcibly refuted the calumny that the Jews had been banished from Spain and Portugal for treachery and faithlessness. It was easy for him to show from Christian authors that the expulsion of the Jews, and their cruel treatment by Portugal, were at once criminal and foolish, and most emphatically condemned by wise rulers. He took occasion to defend his brethren against three other charges: usury, child murder, and proselytism. To wipe off the stain of usury, he made use of the justification employed by Simone Luzzatto, a contemporary Jewish Italian author, that usury was objectionable not in itself, but in its excess. Of great weight was the fact which he adduced, that the Portuguese Jews, for whom he was pleading, abhorred usury as much as many Christians, and that their large capital had not been obtained from it. Manasseh could repudiate with more vehemence the charge of murdering Christian children. Christians made the accusation, he thought, pretty much from the motives that influenced the negroes of Guinea and Brazil, who tormented those just escaped from shipwreck, or visited by misfortune in general, by assuming that such persons were accursed of God.
"We live not amongst the Black-moors and wild-men, but amongst the white and civilized people of the world, yet we find this an ordinary course, that men are very prone to hate and despise him that hath ill fortune; and on the other side, to make much of those whom fortune doth favor."
Manasseh reminded the Christians that there had been a time when they, too, had been charged by heathens with being murderers of children, sorcerers, and conjurers, and had been punished by heathen emperors and officials. He was able to refer to a case of his own time, that of Isaac Jeshurun, of Ragusa, a Jew repeatedly tortured for child murder, whose innocence had come to light, and filled the judges with remorse. Manasseh denied the accusation of the conversion of Christians to Judaism, and referred to the injunction of the Jewish law to dissuade rather than attract proselytes.
"Now, because I believe, that with a good conscience I have discharged our nation of the Jews of those three slanders… I may from these two qualities, of Profitableness and Fidelity, conclude, that such a nation ought to be well entertained, and also beloved and protected generally of all. The more, considering they are called in the Sacred Scriptures the sons of God… I could add a third (point), viz., of the Nobility of the Jews, but because that point is enough known amongst all Christians, as lately it has been shown … by that worthy Christian minister, Mr. Henry Jessey … and by Mr. Edw. Nicholas, Gentleman. Therefore I will here forbear and rest on the saying of Solomon … 'Let another man's mouth praise thee, and not thine own.'"
Cromwell was decidedly inclined to the admission of the Jews. He may have had in view the probability that the extensive trade and capital of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, those professing Judaism openly as well as secretly, might be brought to England, which at that time could not yet compete with Holland. He was also animated by the great idea of the unconditional toleration of all religions, and even thought of granting religious freedom to the intensely hated, feared, hence persecuted Catholics. Therefore, he acceded to the wish of the Jews to open an asylum to them in England. But he was most influenced by the religious desire to win over the Jews to Christianity by friendly treatment. He thought that Christianity, as preached in England by the Independents, without idolatry and superstition, would captivate the Jews, hitherto deterred from Christianity.
Cromwell and Manasseh ben Israel agreed in an unexpressed, visionary, Messianic reason for the admission of Jews into England. The Kabbalistic rabbi thought that in consequence of the settlement of Jews in the British island, the Messianic redemption would commence, and the Puritan Protector believed that Jews in great numbers would accept Christianity, and then would come the time of one shepherd and one flock. To dispose the people favorably towards the Jews, Cromwell employed two most zealous Independents, his secretary, the clergyman Hugh Peters, and Harry Marten, the fiery member of the Council, to labor at the task.
At last the time came to consider the question of the admission of Jews seriously. They had been banished in the year 1290 in pursuance of a decree enacting that they should never return, and it was questionable whether the decree was not still in force. Therefore, Cromwell assembled a commission at Whitehall (December 4, 1655), to discuss every aspect of the matter. The commission was composed of Lord Chief Justice Glynn, Lord Chief Baron Steel, and seven citizens, including the Lord Mayor, the two sheriffs of London, an alderman, and the recorder of the city, and fourteen eminent clergymen of different towns. Cromwell mentioned two subjects for discussion: whether it was lawful to admit Jews into England, and, in case it was not opposed to the law, under what conditions the admission should take place. Manasseh had formulated his proposal under seven heads: that they should be admitted and protected against violence; that they should be granted synagogues, the free exercise of religion, and places of burial; that they should enjoy freedom of trade; and that their disputes should be settled by their own rabbis and directors; and that all former laws hostile to Jews should be repealed for their greater security. On admission, every Jew should take the oath of fidelity to the realm.
There was great excitement in London during the discussion on the admission of the Jews, and popular feeling was much divided. Blind hatred against the crucifiers of the Son of God, and blind love for the people of God; fear of the competition of Jews in trade, and hope of gaining the precedence from the Dutch and Spaniards by their means, prejudiced ideas that they crucified Christian children, clipped coin, or wished to make all the English people Jews – these conflicting feelings disturbed the judgment for and against them. Cromwell's followers, and the Republicans in general, were for their admission; Royalists and Papists, secretly or openly his enemies, were opposed to the proposal. The people crowded to the hall where the Jewish question was publicly discussed. At the very beginning the legal representatives declared that no ancient law excluded the Jews from England, for their banishment had been enacted by the king, without the consent of Parliament. The city representatives remained silent; the most violent were the clergy, who could not rid themselves of their hatred against Jews, derived from the gospels and their theological literature. Cromwell, who most earnestly wished to see them admitted, therefore added three clergymen, among them Hugh Peters, from whom he expected a vote favorable to the Jews. The question was not brought to a decision in three sittings. Cromwell therefore ordered a final discussion (December 18, 1655), at which he presided. The majority of the clergy on this day, too, were against the admission of Jews, even the minority favoring it only with due precautions. Cromwell, dissatisfied with the course of the discussion, first had the theological objections refuted by Manasseh ben Israel, then expressed himself with much warmth, and reprimanded the clergy. He said that he had hoped to receive enlightenment for his conscience; instead, they had made the question more obscure. The main strength of his arguments was: The pure (Puritan) gospel must be preached to the Jews, to win them to the church. "But can we preach to them, if we will not tolerate them among us?" Cromwell thereupon closed the discussion, and resolved to decide the matter according to his own judgment.
He had not only the opposition of the fanatical clergy to contend against, but also that of the multitude, who shared their prejudiced feeling. The enemies of the Jews made every effort to win over the people against their admission. They spread the report that the Jews intended to buy the library of the University of Oxford, and, if possible, turn St. Paul's into a synagogue. They sought to bring Cromwell's friendship for the Jews under suspicion, and circulated the report that an embassy had come to England from Asia and Prague to find out whether Cromwell was not the expected Messiah of the Jews. A clerical pamphleteer, named William Prynne, stirred up a most fanatical excitement against the Jews. He composed a venomous work, "A Short Demurrer," in which he raked up all false accusations against them of counterfeit coining, and the crucifixion of Christian children, and briefly summarized the anti-Jewish decrees of the thirteenth century, so as to make the name of Jew hated. From other quarters, also, various publications appeared against them. John Hoornbeek, a Dutchman, composed a book on the conversion of the Jews, in which he pretended to be their friend, but actually sought to asperse them. John Dury, an Englishman residing at the time at Cassel, was also resolved to make his voice heard about the Jews; he weighed arguments for and against their admission, and at last inclined to the view that it was a serious matter to permit Jews to enter England. His work was printed and distributed. Probably at Cromwell's suggestion, Thomas Collier wrote a refutation of Prynne's charges, dedicating it to the Protector. He even justified the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews, and concluded his