Part 38

(4) The nation mediates between humanitarianism and individualism. In serving its own ends and seeking to accomplish its mission, it works for the good of all, and also for the freedom of the individual man. The tendency of humanitarianism as a motive apart from the higher life of the state, or apart from its impersonation in Christ as its head and leader, is to weaken individualism and to defeat the very end it wishes to subserve, the achievement of the rights of man. Humanity as a whole lacks the visible, tangible embodiment of the nation. It has not yet the consciousness of itself nor of its unity. It cannot respond to the needs it awakens. It does not, as a whole, realize its relationship to God, nor is it placed in such a position as to make it feel the need of God. It is in danger of becoming an abstraction in so far as it exists without relationships. But the nation is close at hand, near, and felt as a moral personality or being, seeking ideal ends which are also within the bounds of possibility. Humanity as a whole undertakes no enterprises which make it tremble as it comes to unknown, trackless seas. But when the nation comes to great crises, where human wisdom is powerless to direct its course, it falls back instinctively and by necessity upon the belief in the guidance of God. Thus the nation as a whole appears in a higher form of personality than individual men can achieve, even the greatest men, and so prepares the way for the belief in the still higher, the invisible, infinite personality of God.

(5) The nation as a moral personality and depending upon God becomes the safeguard of morals. If there has been a decline in morality in the nineteenth century, as some maintain, shown in the general weakening of moral sanctions, or by the increase of divorce and indifference to the sacredness of family life, it must be attributed in some measure to the indifference to nationality from the time that political liberalism resting on an abstract humanitarianism, or in combination with a scientific naturalism, gained the ascendency. So far as this tendency has in any degree invaded the Christian Church it has been powerless to effect a change for the better. The great men whom humanity is directed to worship do not constitute a moral standard, nor can scientific postulates be made a basis for moral culture; for nature is at least unmoral, if not, as some assert, immoral, and it is only as acted upon by man that nature gives response to the increasing purpose of the world. Religious truths—the personality of God, His creation and government of the world, immortality, and the freedom of the will—these are shattered, we are told, “by the great eternal iron laws of the universe,” or “are in hopeless contradiction with the most solid truths of empirical science.” And so, it must be added, are the sanctions of ethics and moral law. It is when we turn to the state, to the moral personality of the nation, that we encounter other laws and living forces which restore what an empirical science or a transcendental humanitarianism has broken down. Here the supreme test is spiritual—the well-being of the nationality. The state must build upon the family as its corner-stone; it must enforce those moral laws which the history of nations, as well as human experience in its best estate, reveal to be the inmost expression of the normal life of man.

The beginning of a new century may seem like an artificial division of time, but the self-consciousness with which the nineteenth century closed, the efforts at introversive estimates of its place in history and of the work it had accomplished, indicate something more than a conventional barrier to be passed. Prophecies in regard to the new age may be futile, for God reserves to Himself the knowledge of the future. But it is much if we can to any extent read the meaning of the past and detect the sources of its strength and weakness. And for the rest, Christian faith and hope are inextinguishable, looking forward to the fulfilment of the Christian ideal—that higher unity where Christ appears as the embodiment of humanity and the voice of its yearning for a perfect brotherhood; where the nation also acknowledges Him as its overlord, so that, in the words of Christian prophecy, the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ. In that ideal conception, the _dominium_ belongs to the state, and the _ministerium_ to the Christian Church.

ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN.

THE JEWS AND JUDAISM

The opening years of the nineteenth century found the Jew blinded by the light of a new sun, the rays of which were beating upon the Ghetto and were forcing him to take off, one by one, the many garments with which he had clothed himself during the hostile Middle Ages. For the Jew these Middle Ages did not end with the Reformation and the Renaissance; but only disappeared in the transformation brought about gradually by the French Revolution. The beginning of the twentieth century sees him putting on some of these garments again, and trying to save his own warmth from being lost in the coldness of the outside world. During this period the Jew has passed through more upheavals than many nations have during three or four times the number of years. What outward struggles has he not been called upon to experience; through what alternating seasons of joy and sorrow has he not passed! What changes even within his own body has he not sustained! The modern European and American world has had a hard fight to find its way into its present changed condition; but much harder by far was the task laid upon the Jew; and, whether he has succeeded or not, he has made an honest fight. Evidences of the struggle abound on every hand, and the road is strewn with many a dead hope and many a lost opportunity. The Jew was bound more firmly to ancient traditions; and so interwoven were these ancient traditions with his whole being that the new life into which he came had of necessity to be blended with the old. The tale of the Jew of the nineteenth century is a record of his endeavor to do justice to the two demands which were made upon him: the one from the outside world—to fit himself to take his place worthily and do his work side by side with the other citizens of the state in which he lived; the other from within his own ranks—to harmonize his religious belief with his new point of view and to adapt his religious exercises to modern social conditions.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS

The struggle of the Jews in the various European countries for civil rights and for equality before the law was long drawn out, and was marked by varying fortunes dependent upon the political conditions of these countries. More than seventy years of the century had passed before this struggle had been fought out. Though it is true that a beginning was made in Germany and Austria (1750 and 1781), to France belongs the honor of having been the first to really do away with the mass of anti-Jewish legislation which the centuries preceding had piled up. On the 27th of September, 1791, the National Assembly at one stroke removed all the disabilities under which the Jews had been living—distinctive dress, special Jew’s oath, Jew’s tax, forced residence in certain localities, etc. From France, and under the influence which that country then exercised, the emancipation of the Jews spread to Belgium and Holland, and to some of the states of Germany; but the rest of Europe was not yet ready for this emancipation. The reaction which marks the period between 1814 and 1848 made itself felt upon the Jews, restoring, in many places, the disabilities under which they had formerly lived. The “Judengassen” became once more inhabited, and the principles of freedom and liberty for all members of the state seemed to have been wellnigh forgotten. The Revolution of 1830 stayed the downward course in some of the German states; but it was not until 1848 that the second great period in Jewish emancipation came about. In the breaking down of old institutions it was natural that the exceptional laws against the Jews should go also. The German Parliament of 1848, at Frankfort, forcefully proclaimed the doctrine of religious liberty; and of this parliament a Jew, Gabriel Riesser, was vice-president. But it was not until the formation of the German Empire, in 1871, that the emancipation of the Jews, which had gradually made its way in the various states, was carried through for the whole of that empire. In 1867, a decree was issued in Austria by virtue of which all citizens were declared equal before the law, and in 1870 the walls of the Ghetto fell in Rome. In 1874, Jews were admitted to the rank of citizens in Switzerland. In 1878, the Congress of Berlin, the leading spirit of which (Disraeli) was of the Jewish race, demanded equal rights for the Jews living in the Balkan Peninsula. These rights were accorded by the various states there, with the exception of Roumania; which, in spite of the treaty and in spite of the promises made at the time, still continues to refuse to allow the Jews living within its borders to become citizens or to treat them as an integral part of the population. In Turkey the laws which put certain restrictions upon non-Mohammedan citizens were sensibly changed in 1839; so that the Jews living in the dominions of the Sultan suffer from no exceptional legislation.

The cause of Jewish emancipation in England suffered no such sudden changes as it did on the continent. It proceeded by regular stages through the abrogation of the Act of Test in 1828, the admission of Jews as citizens of London in 1830, as sheriffs in 1835, as magistrates in 1845, and in 1858 as members of Parliament by the removal of the words “upon the faith of a Christian” in the oath taken by the members. There can be no doubt that the emancipation in England, though long drawn out and fiercely contested, was more effective than anywhere else, owing to the fact that it was progressive in character and based upon the idea of rights demanded and not upon that of favors granted. Nothing was asked of the Jews in England other than that they be good citizens of the state; while the whole continental legislation regarding them, from the time of Napoleon on, had on the part of the legislators only one object in view—to break up the cohesion of the Jews as a body and to pave the way for their disappearance as a distinctive group. The idea that emancipation was a favor and not a right brought it about that the Jews themselves aided in their own disintegration. They believed that it was their duty to show themselves more patriotic than were the other citizens of the state in which they lived, as they were receiving greater favors. And so, even though Jews have sat in the parliaments of various continental states, they have with few exceptions steadfastly refused to acknowledge themselves to be in any way representatives of their brethren, and in some cases (notably in France) during the last few years have either remained supinely indifferent when Jewish questions were before their several parliaments, or have even aided those whose agitation was directed against their fellow-Jews. In England, on the contrary, the Jewish members of Parliament have never forgotten that, in addition to their interests as citizens of England, they have a duty to perform to the Jews, whom they also represent, and they have therefore been able, while giving their best services to the state, to be also useful to their co-religionists. It may be due to this cause that the emancipation of Jews on the continent has in no way been able to stem the recrudescence of anti-Semitism; while it has undoubtedly done this in England. The opposite effect is most clearly seen in Algiers, where the wholesale emancipation of the Jews in 1870, through the efforts of Crémieux, that bold champion of his people, has in a large measure contributed to make the riots possible which have in late years been witnessed in that French colony. Neither the population of Algeria nor the Jews there were at that time ready for such a measure; it did not therefore come as the result of a development among the people, but as something imposed upon them by the government.

In addition to Roumania, Russia is practically the only country which has refused to enter the European concert, and which by means of laws and ordinances represents still the dark period of the Middle Ages. It has turned the provinces on its western borders into a tremendous Ghetto, and driven the Jews to exile by making life within that pale practically impossible. Even Portugal in 1821, and Spain in 1868 (the two countries from which the Jews had been banished for a great number of years), opened their doors to them once more; though few Jews have ventured to return to the Peninsula, despite the fact that in 1886 a committee was formed in Madrid for the promotion of Jewish immigration into Spain.

THE WANDERING JEW

The Wandering Jew is not the Jew of legend, but the Jewish people of history. The dislocation of large Jewish bodies, which was characteristic of the Middle Ages, has been kept up during the nineteenth century; and this dislocation has, as in former times, profoundly modified Judaism in the various countries. From the fifteenth century on to the nineteenth, hostile legislation on the part of Western Europe had been continually driving the Jews to the East. The expulsion from Spain and Portugal, at the end of the fifteenth century, forced several hundred thousand into Turkey; while the hardships which they had to suffer in the smaller German states and in Austria caused large numbers to seek a refuge in Poland and Russia. The tide commenced to turn westward about the middle of the eighteenth century, though bands of Jews from Poland had been driven into Germany, Italy, and Holland in the terrible years of the Chmelnicki persecutions (1648–1651). The readmission of Jews into England, the relative kindness of Frederick William of Prussia and of Frederick the Great, aided a certain slow but continuous infiltration from Poland, so that at the end of the eighteenth or the first half of the nineteenth century these Polish Jews were to be found in all parts of Germany, Holland, and England. This slow migration back again to Western Europe took on, however, much larger proportions in the latter part of the nineteenth century; but before this could happen a strong movement still farther westward had already taken place. Jews were among the earliest settlers on the American continent. They were in nearly every case of Spanish or Portuguese descent, having come from Holland and England to the possessions which these powers held on the new continent. In the middle of the nineteenth century, when the tide of immigration from Germany was at its height, a large number of Jews from the southern states and the Rhine region found their way to these shores. The Russian atrocities of 1882 and the following years caused a greater shifting of the Jewish population westward than can be paralleled at any previous time. It has been estimated that between the years 1882 and 1900 fully one million Russian Jews left their homes in the pale of settlement, finding new dwelling-places in England, Germany, and France. The largest number (probably half a million) came to the United States and Canada. Untoward economic conditions existing in Galicia, and the frequent outbreaks of anti-Semitism there, forced out during the 90’s a large number of Galician Jews; and in 1899 and 1900 the hostility of the Roumanian government has made it impossible for thousands of Jews to remain in a country in which most of them had been born; and, under circumstances the like of which has hardly ever before been seen, bands of the Roumanian Jews have been wandering over Europe, seeking the means by which to come to the American continent in order there to establish themselves anew. There are between ten and eleven million Jews to-day in the world: of these, about nine million live in Europe; one million in the United States and Canada; three hundred and fifty thousand in Africa; three hundred and fifty thousand in Asia; and sixteen thousand in Australasia.

COMMUNAL ORGANIZATION

All these changed circumstances variously modified the organization of the Jewish communities. Napoleon’s attempt in 1807, as the result of the Sanhedrin which he had convened in Paris, to found this organization upon a modern basis, dividing the Jews of France into certain consistories and arrondissements, had an effect not only upon France, but also upon those countries which for a time were under his influence (Holland, Belgium, etc.), and even upon many of the German states. In 1808 such consistories were established in Westphalia and Cassel; in 1809, an Oberrath was created in Baden; and in 1828 and 1831 an Oberkirchenbehoerde in Würtemberg. It was due also to Napoleon that in France and Germany the Jews were obliged to adopt family names, they having, in most cases, still retained the Oriental custom of simply adding to their own prænomen that of their father. Prussia was the only one of the German states which was not so affected. There the state exercises a supervisory influence, compelling all the Jews to be members of the Jewish community, but in no way further regulating the communal life. When the Reform tendencies commenced to make themselves felt in the larger Jewish communities, the Orthodox members safeguarded their own interests by making use of the law passed in 1873, mainly through the efforts of the Jew Lasker, which enabled the people to declare themselves “confessionslos” and form their own synagogues, thus nearing in a measure the system followed in English-speaking countries. In England and America no such organization was effected, as the state does not there take cognizance of the religious belief of the people. In both these countries attempts have been made by the Jews themselves to organize under one head upon a purely religious basis, but without much success. In France there is a Chief Rabbi of the Jews who is recognized by the state as their rabbi and head. But the Chief Rabbi of the Jews in the British Empire, though he is nominally the head of the Jews in the kingdom, has no actual position as such, and is even not recognized by certain schools of Jews themselves. The Sefardim, or descendants of Spanish and Portuguese Jews, have always kept themselves distinct, and have their own Chief Rabbi, or Haham. In the year 1840, the more liberal-minded element among the London Jews cut themselves loose from the United Synagogue and formed a Reform party, their example being followed in Manchester and Bradford. Neither they nor the recent immigrants from Russia, who have formed their own “Federation of Synagogues” recognize the authority of the Chief Rabbi. This more congregational system has been carried to its utmost limits in the United States, where each congregation is a law unto itself and absolutely rejects any interference on the part of any larger body. From time to time a desire has been manifested to supersede this purely congregational system by some form of union. The late Dr. Isaac M. Wise, of Cincinnati, had at various times attempted to bring the Jews of the United States together with an authoritative synod at their head. Out of this and other attempts have come the Central Conference of American Rabbis and The Union of American Congregations (founded in 1873), which now comprises about ninety-one congregations. These organizations, however, do not by any means represent either all of the Jewish ministers or all of the Jewish congregations, and the Union itself is merely a deliberative body having no power to do anything in the internal affairs of one of its constituent synagogues. Since the union of American Jewish congregations comprises only such as stand upon a Reform platform, a union of Orthodox congregations was formed in New York two or three years ago, and it is hoped that this organization will do much towards binding together the very many congregations of those who adhere strictly to traditional Judaism.

But the organization of Jews as a church has not been found sufficient. Spread over so large a portion of the earth and coming under such varying influences, it was inevitable that the theological differences which already existed should grow apace, and a great cleavage be made between the Orthodox and the Reform wing of the synagogue. It was early felt that some more secular bond must be found which should unite the Jews of various persuasions for common and concerted action. The first attempt in this direction was nobly made by Narcisse Leven, Eugene Emanuel, Charles Netter, and a few others, in founding (1880) the “Alliance Israélite Universelle” in Paris, whose object it was to aid in removing Jewish disabilities wherever they might exist, and to raise the spiritual condition of their coreligionists in Northern Africa, Eastern Europe, and Western Asia by the founding of schools. From these small beginnings the Alliance has grown to be an important factor in the conservation of Jewish interests. Faithful to its programme, it has established a large number of elementary and technical schools, and has intervened actively in Algeria, Morocco, the Turkish Empire, and Persia whenever Jews or Jewish interests were in any way threatened. Its attempt, however, to represent the whole Jewish people has not been successful; for the reason that it has been allied too closely with French national interests; and side by side with the “Alliance Française” it has been an active propagandist of the French language and of French culture in the East. This one-sidedness of its work is best seen in the fact that by its side similar organizations have been created in other countries, “The Board of Delegates of American Israelites” in the United States, “The Anglo-Jewish Association” in England, “The Israeli-tisch Alliance” in Austria, and the “Deutsche Gemeindebund” in Germany. At one time it was hoped that the B’nai B’rith, established in this country in 1843, by Isidor Busch, Julius Bien, and others, would form such a union of Jews, where the theological differences would be eliminated. But though this order, which has 315 lodges in, the United States and Canada, has established itself in such countries as Germany, Roumania, Austria, Algeria, Bulgaria, and Egypt, and despite the good work it has so far done, the mere fact that it is a secret organization prevents it from standing forth as the representative of international Jewry. Where, then, and in what manner is such a body to be found?

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS