“So much are they (the Jews) bent to shed the blood of Christians, that they say a Jew needs no repentance for murdering a Christian; and they add to that sinne to make it sweet and delectable that hee who doth it, it is as if he had offered a Corban to the Lord, hereby making the abominable sin an acceptable sacrifice. But beyond all these they have a bloody thirst after the blood of Christians. In France and many kingdoms they have used yearly to steale a Christian boy and to crucifie him, fastning him to a crosse, giving him gall and vinegar, and running him in the end thorow with a spear, to rub their memories afresh into sweet thoughts of their crucifying Christ, the more to harden themselves against Christ and to shew their curst hatred to all Christians” (pp. 18–19).
John Sadler stands out conspicuously for dissociating himself from this baseless prejudice. When he wrote his “Rights of the Kingdom,” in 1649, he summed up the matter in a happy and pithy manner: “Wee say, they (the Jews) crucified a child, or more. They doe deny it: and we prove it not” (p. 74). Undaunted by Sadler’s championship of the Jews, James Howell followed Calvert, and in the Epistle Dedicatory to his pirated edition of Morvyn’s translation of Joseph ben Gorion, “The wonderful and deplorable history of the latter times of the Jews” (London [June 2], 1652), he thus insinuated the truth of the charge:—
“The first Christian Prince that expelled the Jews out of his territories, was that heroik King, our Edward the First, who was such a sore scourge also to the Scots; and it is thought divers families of those banished Jews fled then to Scotland, where they have propagated since in great numbers, witness the aversion that nation hath above others to hog’s flesh. Nor was this extermination for their Religion, but for their notorious crimes, as poysoning of wells, counterfeiting of coines, falsifying of seales, and crucifying of Christian children, with other villanies.”
Sadler was not the only English contemporary of Menasseh ben Israel who threw doubt on the Blood Accusation. Prynne himself relates in the preface to his “Demurrer” that he met Mr. Nye by the garden wall at Whitehall, when he was on his way to the Conference on the Jewish Question. “I told him,” writes Prynne, “the Jews had been formerly clippers and forgers of money, and had crucified three or four children in England at least, which were principal causes of their banishment, to which he replied, that the crucifying of children was not fully charged on them by our historians, and would easily be wiped off.” (Preface, p. 4.)
It is curious that, as Menasseh himself points out, the Jews were not alone at this period as sufferers from the Blood Accusation. (“Humble Addresses,” p. 21.) Apart from the instance quoted by Menasseh, a similar charge was levelled at the Quakers, who were accused of the ritual murder of women. An illustrated tract on the subject will be found in Historia Fanaticorum. (See “Historia von den Wider-Tauffern,” Cöthen, 1701.)
The Blood Accusation did not again make a conspicuous appearance in Anglo-Jewish history, but it is not improbable that the Damascus trials in 1840 produced a serious effect in retarding the progress of the struggle for emancipation. On the Continent, and in the Levant, it has frequently reappeared during the last thirty years.
P. [109], l. 8. “In Iad a Razaka.” Misprint for Yad Hachazaka (“The Strong Hand”), also called Mishneh Torah, an exposition of Jewish law by Moses Maimonides, written (in Hebrew) 1170–1180.
P. [111], l. 7. “A particular blessing of the Prince or Magistrate.” See note, supra, p. 163.
P. [112], l. 16. “And every day the Jewes mainly strike.” The belief that Jews habitually desecrated the sacramental wafer runs parallel with the Blood Accusation. A curious echo of it was heard in 1822, and the published account of the case was illustrated by George Cruikshank (“The Miraculous Host tortured by the Jews,” Lond., 1822).
P. [114], l. 4. “Wherefore I swear.” This oath is famous in Jewish history, and has been over and over again quoted and reiterated on occasions of the revival of the Blood Accusation (see e.g. Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc., vol. i. p. 38).