Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States

Edited by: Lalor, John J.
Display paragraphs in this book containing:
First Pub. Date
New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co.
Pub. Date
Includes articles by Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari, Henry George, J. B. Say, Francis A. Walker, and more.
731 of 1105



MOSAISM. This name is much more applicable than that of Judaism to the dogmas and institutions of the Pentateuch, which, after having formed the national and religious existence of the Hebrew people, still regulate to-day the beliefs and the morals of that people, scattered, to the number of at least five or six millions, over the whole surface of the earth. Judaism designates only a particular state of that ancient religion from which Christianity and Mussulman belief sprang: it is the spirit which animated it and the forms which it adopted after the return from the Babylonian captivity, when it was no longer acknowledged except by the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Judah or the Judæans ( Judæi), which our language, disfiguring the name, calls the Jews. Mosaism, on the contrary, so called from Moses, its principal founder (Moseh or Mosheh in Hebrew), embraces all the elements of which the faith and legislation of the Israelites have been composed from their origin up to the present time.


—Thus understood, Mossaism, while recognizing in Moses the author or promulgator of its general constitution, commenced its existence long before that great man, and has continued it, modifying or completing it, long after him, for, at this present time, after nearly four thousand years, it can not withdraw itself from the influence of modern ideas. People often speak of the immobility of Judaism, with the evident intention of extending this accusation of immobility to all Mosaism. This is a grave error. No religion, especially when complicated with a civil legislation and a political constitution, has remained long free from changes and transformations. The contrary could take place only among a petrified people, in a race of men who had absolutely forgotten the use of will or of intellect. Now, the Israelites have never been in such a position, even in the midst of the harshest servitude, and Mosaism has never checked the internal workings of its institutions, while ever guarding, for its basis, this precept of the prophet: "Ye shall add nothing to it nor take anything away from it."


—The immense career which it embraces may be divided into four principal periods. The first begins with Abraham and extends to the departure from Egypt; this is the epoch of the patriarchs. The second is filled by the promulgation of the laws, ordinances and prescriptions, which the last four books of the Pentateuch contain, and which in the eyes of faith are considered as having been drawn up by Moses under the inspiration of God; this is the epoch of the law, properly so called, of the written law or of the Torah. The third belongs to the prophets, who succeeded Moses, and who form an uninterrupted chain, up to the end of prophecy. Finally, in the fourth, we find the doctors, who, under pretext of interpreting the law and protecting it against transgressions, overloaded it with a multitude of disciplinary regulations and accessory doctrines; this is the epoch of the oral law or of tradition, which begins about the third century before Christ, and ends with the Talmud, about the fifth or sixth century of our era.


—The particular characteristic of the patriarchal epoch, is to show us monotheism as a patrimony, as a spiritual heritage, destined to pass from father to son in the same family until a time forseen by a divine wisdom. It was to Abraham that the only God, the living God, first revealed himself, and Abraham made him known to Isaac, and Isaac to Jacob. The head of the family was invested with sacerdotal dignity; he was Priest, as he was king, because there was no other authority than his, and his worship, freed from all rules, consisted of prayers and of sacrifices. Morality itself held but a small place in this primitive religion; it was natural morality, reduced to the practice of justice and to gravity of manners, preserved in spite of polygamy.


—After the departure from Egypt, when the Hebrew family had become a people, the obscure tradition, which it had kept up to that time and by the force of which it had remained united, was soon changed into a religion all at once national and universal: universal by a fund of imperishable truths: national by the particular forms under which it had to be preserved among a race solely devoted to that pious ministry, a nation of priests, as they called themselves. It was given to Moses, one of the greatest legislators who has ever appeared on earth, to accomplish this wonder. It was through him that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob became veritably the eternal God, the God of the universe, Jehovah, the God of gods and the King of kings. It was he also, who, conceiving the human race as a single family, of which the house of Israel was only a feeble branch, drew from this idea a code of morals for the use of all ages and of all races. But in order that the people to whom he confided this deposit should not let it escape from their hands, it was necessary, in some way, to isolate it from the rest of the world and to insure its duration by the vigor of its legislation. This thought was evidently the source from whence flowed most of the prescriptions of the Pentateuch.


—To separate the spirit from the letter, the invariable substance from its transitory form, the universal dogma and morality from the national worship, was, sometimes unwittingly, the aim of the prophets who succeeded Moses. All the efforts of their eloquence tended to this end, to place justice, rectitude, charity, purity of soul, circumcision of the heart, above exterior practices: to show as an abominable work before God the prayers, the fasts and the sacrifices which were not accompanied or preceded by good actions; and to let their people see a time, more or less near, when all the nations of the earth, adoring the Eternal, would form only one family. There were some even who hastened the accomplishment of this prediction by carrying the world of Jehovah to the foreign races who were ignorant of or despised it.


—The doctors (nomodidascaloï) or rabbis, as they were commonly called (from rabbi, my master) the authors and the interpreters of the oral law, who, under different names, so much the more venerated as they live nearer our own age, form an uninterrupted chain for more than eight centuries: they were the theologians and the jurisconsults of Mosaism. They tried to fix the dogmas, to regulate the thousand details which belong to the external practice of religion, to determine in advance in the name of a tradition which they made reach back to Moses, all possible applications of the law. Hence, that voluminous collection, which is called the Talmud (that is to say, the study, or rather the science, the science par excellence and which is composed of two parts: the Mishna or the second law, and the Gemara or the comments. Hence, also, three classes of doctors, who are distinguished only by the time in which they lived or the work in which they took part; the Thannalm or authors of the Mishna, the Amoralm or their immediate disciples, and the Sabouraïm or those who, having lived last, were obliged to summon reason(sabara) to the aid of tradition. It is to these latter that the drawing up of the German is principally due.


—We may reproach all these teachers of God's people with having stilled, in some sort, the text of the law under the enormous mass of their commentaries, and with having too often degraded the spirit of it by a multitude of minute regulations. But the honor must be left them of having prevented their beliefs and their morals from sharing the ruin of their nationality; of having preserved their religious unity from the destruction which overtook their political unity; of having created in advance, with a power of duration unparalleled in history, the only authority which was able to bind together the scattered remnants of their race: we refer to the tradition accepted as a second law descended from Sinaï, and which regulates even the smallest details of the life of an Israelite. This authority, after all, is not so immutable as it is supposed to be; for it is a purely lay authority, exercised by the learned, by doctors, and it is a principle of the Talmud, that every provision adopted by one synod can be repealed by another. Without any doubt the traditions, which have been added to the Holy Scriptures, the Mishna and the Gemara, bear the traces of their origin; they are the work of the sect of the Pharisees. But the Pharisees, from the time that they appeared on the scene, carried all the nation with them and might be taken for the nation itself. The Essenes formed only a feeble minority, whom a contemplative and monastic life maintained in isolation until the day when they were confounded with nascent Christianity. The Sadducees, who were not more numerous, even less so perhaps, were the Epicureans of Mosaism, since they denied the resurrection and the future life. They were the rich and the great of the earth, who, satisfied with their lot in this world, did not care much about the other. Now, the men of this description count for nothing in any belief; all beliefs reject and deny them, as they deny all beliefs. As for the Samaritans, who rejected not only the Talmud, but the canonical books, with the exception of the Pantateuch and the book of Joshua, they are reduced to-day to a score of families, who vegetate at Sichem in misery and ignorance, and must soon disappear. Although they pretend to be the descendants of the ten tribes, which formerly formed the kingdom of Israel, they belong to Mosaism neither by their origin nor their faith. Sprung from one of those foreign races which established themselves upon the territory of the ten tribes dispersed by conquest, they were always the enemies of the Jews, their neighbors, and their worship, whose seat was Mt. Gerizim, was only a rival worship of that of Zion.


—The most essential dogma of Mosaism, that from which it has never varied, is the belief in one only God, in a living God, Creator and Preserver of all beings, whose power is subject to no rules and no limits, except his own wisdom; it is a spiritual monotheism, which no religion of antiquity approaches, neither the pantheism of India, nor the dualism of Egypt and Persia, nor the polytheism of the Romans and the Greeks. We often hear it maintained that the God of Moses and of the Old Testament is only a national God, who, like the kings of the earth, exercises his authority over one people alone, and who chose a capital, by designating Jerusalem as the only place worthy of possessing his sanctuary. Nothing is more contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Holy Scriptures; for when they first mention the name of God, it is to tell us that he created heaven and earth, light and darkness, the stars of the firmament, vegetables, animals and man. He is, according to the words of the Pentateuch, the God of minds, who animates all flesh, that is to say, the principle of intellect and of life, Who is upon the earth and in the heavens, and before whom there is no other god. When Moses asked God by what name he should be called, that he might inform his brothers who were plunged in ignorance and servitude, he received for answer these sublime words: "I am who am," that is to say, the only Being to whom existence really belongs, the eternal Being who has always been and who always will be, as his name Jehovah or Yaveh indicates. He is the eternal Being, immaterial, infinite; this is why he has forbidden his being represented to the eyes, and why all images are prohibited in his temple. He is the Judge as well as the Master of the earth. "I, even I, am he," he says by the mouth of his prophet, "and there is no god with me: I kill and I make alive: I wound and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." (Deut., xxxii., 39.)


—There is no inference to be drawn from the an thropomorphical figures under which he often appears in the history of the Hebrew people and in the visions of the prophets. To uncultured men it was necessary to speak a language that they might understand, that of the imagination and of the senses. There is, besides, such majesty and such eloquence in these figures, that it is difficult to conceive a more sublime and more complete manner of making the multitude comprehend the existence of a Creator. The detractors of the Bible often cite the words of Jephthah, when he sought to repulse the attacks of the king of Moab: "Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So, whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." (Judges, xi., 24.) But Jephthah was far from being a prophet. He was an ignorant adventurer, who spoke to an idolatrous king the only language which was common to both.


—The temple of Jerusalem was, for the tribes recently become masters of the holy land, a pledge of political and religious unity. For it must not be forgotten that the nationality of the Hebrew people was confounded with their religion, and that many altars, many temples independent of each other, must necessarily have dividid it, as the schism of Samaria abundantly proves. But the prophets did not cease to announce that the house of Jehovah would be a house of prayer for all nations: that a time would come when his name would be invoked over all the earth: that his word would break through the walls of Jerusalem to enlighten the world. From the time of the patriarchs, when he appeared for the first time to Abraham, he predicted to him that all the families of the earth would be blessed in him. (Genesis, xii., 3.) The God of the Bible, the God of Mosaism, is therefore at once the all-powerful Master of the universe, since he created it, and the Father of the human race; a free God, personal and spiritual.


—Man, according to the Holy Scriptures and according to teachings and tradition, bears in himself the same marks. He was created, says Genesis, in the image of God; and since in the words of the Decalogue, it is forbidden to represent the divinity under any visible form, this resemblance must be understood in a spiritual sense. It is thus, in fact, that it is understood in the Pentateuch. All the moral qualities which Moses wished to develop in the souls of his people, he represents as divine perfections which man should seek to imitate. "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy." (Leviticus, xix., 2) "The Lord God, mereiful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." (Exodus, xxxiv., 6) "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart and be no more stiffnecked, for the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow," etc. (Deuteronomy, x., 16-18.) The serpent himself, when he promises to Adam and Eve that their disobedience will render them like their Creator, speaks only of a spiritual resemblance, which consists in the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis, iii., 5) But all these qualities suppose liberty. Hence, liberty is formally recognized in the Old Testament, commencing with the books of Moses. We see there that God speaks to man as to a creature entirely master of his own actions; he shows him in the future the rewards and punishments which will follow his conduct, according as it shall have been good or bad.


—From the idea which Mosaism has formed of the divine nature and of human nature flows all its morality. Christ summed it up with admirable precision when he said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hand all the law and the prophets." How, indeed, is it possible not to love God, if God is for us not that abstract and intangible being that pantheism adores, or the blind force of nature which under a thousand different forms pagan mythology invokes, but the living model of all beauty and of all moral perfection, the personal principle of life, of thought and of liberty? How is it possible not to love man if he be the reflection of that eternal ideal, and if it be true, as the Scriptures affirm, that he is the image of the Creator? Therefore, neither Moses, nor the prophets, nor the doctors, ever tired of insisting upon these two precepts. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deuteronomy, vi., 5.) It is the author of the Decalogue who thus expresses himself, and these sublime words have become the credo of the synagogue. Every Israelite repeats them morning and evening, adding to them these words: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy, vi., 4.) These words were in the mouth of the celebrated Akiba, when he died by the most horrible tortures in the reign and by the orders of Hadrian. Says the Psalmist. "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God." (Psalms, xiii., 1, 2.)


—The love of man for his kind and for human nature in general, is prescribed with no less force in the books of the Old Testament. Moses was the first to say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and this maxim may be considered as the most complete expression of devotion and of right, of charity and of justice, of what one owes to others and to himself. Far from absolutely excluding love of self, it lays down the love of self as the rule and the type of the love which should be borne for others. Far from prescribing, like Indian morality, the annihilation of the individual, the sacrifice of the human person, it is precisely the human person which it defends and protects under the imperative form of a general law emanating from God. It exacts that the human person shall be dear to us for the dignity which is in it, without distinction or exception, without difference between ourselves and our fellow-men.


—The universal application of this precept has been contested in vain by those who maintain that it is applicable to the Israelites alone. Did not Moses teach, in Genesis, that all men descend from the same primitive pair, and consequently that they all form one family, that they are all brothers? Moses also said: "Love ye, therefore, the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Leviticus, xix., 34) He does not stop there; he wishes men to love even their enemies, and what is more still, to fly to their aid when they are in trouble, and to work with them for their deliverance. We read in Exodus (xxiii, 4, 5,) these beautiful words: "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him thou shalt surely help with him." We search in vain all the holy books of the Hebrew people, and we do not find this maxim which the Sermon on the Mount, in the Gospel (Matthew, v., 43,) attributes to the ancients: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy." The authors of tradition have shown themselves on this point the worthy successors of Moses and the prophets. Hillel the Elder, who died about half a century before Christ, summed up in these words the obligations of the law, of which he was one of the most illustrious interpreters: "What you do not wish one to do to you, do not do to others; this is all the law, all else is but the commentary on the law."


—The articles of the Decalogue, which forbid theft, murder, adultery, false testimony, envy, are only the rigorous consequences of this principle; for we are commanded to love our fellows as ourselves, and for a much stronger reason should we abstain from doing them any evil. But the actions proscribed by the Decalogue are not the only ones which incur the reprobation of the Hebrew legislator. The Pentateuch formally condemns all acts of violence, all injury by action or by word, and even all grudge in the heart. (Leviticus, xix., 17, 18.) It condemns not only adultery, but debauchery and prostitution. It pushes severity so far as to exact the burning by fire of the daughter of a priest whose manners shall have become a public scandal. (Leviticus, xxi., 9.) It condemns not only theft, but the abuse of property, such as the action of receiving as a pledge from a poor borrower the instrument of his labor or the garment which covers him. It condemns not only false testimony but calumny, backbiting and lying.


—We experience some difficulty when we pass from these admirable precepts to the civil laws of Moses. But it must be remarked that there is an immense gap between the civil laws of a country, however advanced it may be in civilization, and the universal rules of morality. Civil laws, to be practicable, are obliged to accept at least a part of the prejudices, of the passions and of the habits of the nation, for which they are intended. Civil laws, among all peoples and in all times, are nothing more than a compromise between the fact and the right, between the state of culture, of morality, of external security, which a nation has reached, and the absolute exigencies of conscience or the ideal proposed by religion. How, for example, can we reconcile with the mildness of the Gospel the punishments pronounced against criminals by all Christian nations? How can we reconcile with evangelical purity that sort of guarantee offered by the police to the profligacy of morals? It is still worse when we pass from the civil order to international relations, where force is the sole guarantee, we may even say the sole measure, of right. It is not astonishing, therefore, that Moses, at once moral legislator, civil legislator and political chief of his nation, offers us a similar contradiction, and one even more obvious, because of the difference in times, manners and customs.


The faithful of Mosaism in the midst of other Religions; their Emancipation. It is impossible, with the best will in the world, to see in the dispersion of the Isrealites among other nations, a supernatural effect of the death of Christ; for this dispersion commenced and was almost accomplished many years before our era. From this epoch, the greatest part of the nation lived outside of Palestine, scattered through the three divisions of the ancient world. Without speaking of the ten tribes led away by Salmanazar and which were confounded with the other peoples of his empire, the Jews themselves, that is to say, the ancient inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah, did not consent to return with Zorobabel and Esdras. When Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian monarchy, he found a great number of them in Babylonia. It was in Babylonia itself, at Sora, at Pombeditha, at Nehardea, that they founded their most celebrated academies. There was a large number of them in the Greek colonies. They formed a considerable part of the population of Alexandria, whither Alexander the Great attracted them, by according to them the same privileges as to his Macedonian subjects. Ptolemy Soter almost depopulated Judæa in the interest of his own states; and if it is true that a hundred and twenty thousand of these exiles returned to their own country, there still remained enough of them to enable Osins to conceive the idea of building at Leontopolis a rival temple to that of Jerusalem. It was during their sojourn in Egypt, under the government of the Lagides, that the Jews became familiar with the language, the manners, the civilization and the philosophy of the Greeks. It was from this intercourse that the version called the Septuagint, many apocryphal books of the Bible, and the writings of Philo, sprang. The policy of the Seleucides in Syria was the same in regard to the Jews as that of the Ptolemies in Egypt. They attracted crowds of them to Seleucia, to Antioch, to Ctesiphon, to Phrygia and Lydia. Thence they spread into Ionia and most of the islands of the Archipelago. At Rome also, after the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, there was a Jewish colony, which numbered, in the time of Augustus, more than eight thousand persons. The dispersal of the Jews before the Christian era, is attested by the Acts of the Apostles. We read there (ii., 5, 9,) that on feast days there came together at Jerusalem, Jews of all languages and of all nations, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, of Cappadocia, of Pontus, of Phrygia, of Pamphilia, of Egypt, of Libya, of Arabia, of Cilicia, of Crete and of Rome. But we know that the destruction of the Hebrew nationality was not complete till after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and above all after the emperor, Hadrian, just after the insurrection of Barchochebas, had built upon the ruins of the holy city a new city, entry into which was interdicted to the descendants of Israel, under pain of death.


—Palestine remained no less, even after this event, the religious mother country of the Jews. The cities of Tiberia, of Sephoris, and Diospolis, were the seats of so many theological academies, in which the Talmud of Jerusalem was being elaborated, while in the academies of Persia that of Babylon was being prepared. But the mass of Israelites scattered throughout all the extent of the empire, passed through alternate periods of repose and suffering, according to the humor of the masters of the world, or of the subordinate tyrants who occupied their place in the provinces. Confounded with the first Christians, they had the honor, for a long time, of suffering with them for a cause which was common to them, that of the one God, proclaimed both by the Old Testament and the New.


—The hardships endured by the Israelites under Greek or Roman rule had a purely political character. The laws of the empire gave the right of believing what one wished or what one could; but religion being a national institution, they would not allow one to neglect to honor it publicly, or, still less, to affect to despise it. Such were not the persecutions which awaited the followers of the old law under the reign of the Christian princes, above all during the Catholic fervor of the middle ages. These latter were inspired by religious hatred. Hence they were much more terrible; for they added to the barbarity of the times what there is most implacable in fanaticism. Moreover, men are less worthy to be accused than the situation itself. The Christian nations, convinced that all was finished, that the word of the Scriptures was accomplished, that the liberator promised to the human race had come, were naturally irritated against that stubborn race who persisted in proclaiming the contrary. Manners were not mild enough, nor faith evangelical enough, to make men put in practice those beautiful words dropped from the cross: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." On the other side, the Jews did not recognize in the dogmas of the Trinity and of the Incarnation the severe monotheism of their ancestors, neither did they admit that the rude age in which they lived, that that age of oppression, of violence, of servitude for some, of despotism for others, of war for all, was the age of peace and of universal liberty predicted by the prophets, the age when swords were to be changed into plowshares; and the Jews felt their attachment for their faith increase by reason of the sufferings which they endured for it. Excluded from all the professions, from all the recognized honorable conditions, excluded even from the ranks of servitude, as much despised by the slave bound to the soil as by the nobility and the middle class, having no other resource than to trade in money, a trade declared infamous in the name of Aristotle and the Holy Scriptures, they lived as enemies in the midst of that society, which, not content with loading them with outrages, periodically decimated them by frightful butcheries.


—This state of things was prolonged until the sixteenth century. Then a policy, more intelligent than that of the middle ages, appreciating the services which the Jews were able to render to finance and to commerce, commenced to assure them a pleasanter condition of things. It was thus that, under Henri III., the Spanish Israelites, expelled by the edict of Ferdinand and Isabella, or flying from the stakes of the inquisition, obtained permission to establish themselves, with an entire liberty of conscience, in the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne, where they gave a vigorous impulse to the commerce of France with Italy. Another portion of these exiles went to the Netherlands, recently freed from the yoke of Philip II., and they took an honorable part in the industrial activity of the cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Others were received with the same consideration by Denmark, and brought the same advantages to it, to the free city of Hamburg, and to the European colonies recently founded in North and South America. The electors of Brandenburg, knowing how to profit from the faults of their neighbors, also attracted to their states the Jews persecuted in the rest of Germany. But the greatest part of this change was the work of the reformation. Christian unity being broken, and the new communions, brought forth by the preaching of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, having forced the Catholic powers to treat with them on an equal footing or to suffer them in their midst, the principle of toleration entered little by little into the statutory provisions, into the manners and into the public law of Europe. The Jews were not slow to reap the fruits of this toleration. The Protestant countries—above all, Holland, England, from the time of the protectorate of Cromwell, and North America—treated them with a benevolence hitherto unknown, and little by little admitted them to the rank of citizens.


—To the principle of toleration introduced by the reformation were joined the principles of liberty, of humanity, of universal right, so dear to the eighteenth century. It was under the influence of these ideas, which, although not new, received a new application, that the emperor of Austria, Joseph II., proclaimed his edict of toleration in 1782; that the constitution of the United States of America admitted, in the fullest measure, freedom of conscience; that the Grand Duke Léopold I. introduced the same reform into Tuscany; that King Louis XVI. issued his decree of 1784, and paved the way, with the aid of Malesherbes, for a more efficacious reparation. It was at this same epoch, and under the same inspiration, that Dohm in Germany and the Abbé Grégoric in France demanded the complete assimilation of the Israelites to their Christian fellow-citizens. This desire was only accomplished by the constituent assembly of 1789. Jan. 28, 1790, it passed a first decree which recognized the rights of active citizens to the Israelites of the south of France, known under the names of Portuguese, Spanish or Avignonese Israelites. A second decree of Sept. 27, 1791, proclaimed solemnly the emancipation of all the Israelites, inhabitants of France, without distinction of origin.


—All the French constitutions, which followed that of 1791, sanctioned the same principle. The victorious eagles of the empire bore it successfully into all the countries of Europe, even into Spain and the states of the church. Naturally this triumph lasted no longer that the régime to which it was due. But the seed was sown in men's minds, and we see it to-day bearing fruit everywhere. The Israelites of Germany, of Austria, of Italy, of Belgium, of Portugal, of Switzerland and Denmark, are now citizens like those of France, of England, of Holland and of the United States. It will be the same everywhere where civilization shall have attained the height it has in these countries.


—Wherever it has been proclaimed, the emancipation of the Israelites has produced the same effects. It has changed pariahs into useful, laborious and intelligent citizens, who serve society and civilization in all the spheres of human activity; in the arts, in the sciences, in industry, in commerce, in politics and in war. There is not a free country which does not count Israelites among the notable men from whom it draws the most honor.


731 of 1105

Return to top