Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

THE FINAL TRIAL OF CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS TOGETHER – attacked by the Haburah, the Kahal, the Organized Criminal Zionist Conspiracy

May 1, 2012


The Final Trial of Christians and Muslims Together 
click on picture

God and His Messiah Jesus Christ our Lord – our right and duty to witness to Him: Waters Flowing Eastward – PART ONE ZIONISM With the Villiany of the Haburah and Kahal referred to.

Title * Author * Contents * Part One * Part Two * Part Three * Supplements *



The world war had entered its fourth year in the latter part of 1917, with no indication of a rapid settlement in sight. The complexity and variety of events, increasing with the years, had emphasized its universal character. Every country engaged-whether America, Germany, Russia, Greece, France, Italy, or England found its entire interests, political, economic, and ethnic, involved in the issue. All these nations seemed gripped in a deadlock, and at the same time felt the pressing need of deliverance.

Before 1917, it had been thought that if the allies continued to hold the western front, the Russian ” steam roller ” would crash the central powers by sheer force of numbers. But the “steam roller” had itself exploded: there had been a revolution, and, by the end of July, Russian troops had withdrawn from Bessarabia and Moldavia, and between the Dniester and the Pruth, leaving the eastern front undefended. If this loss was somewhat offset by the fact that America, in spite of the President’s reluctance, had finally joined the allies, it was still doubtful whether her forces would arrive in time and in sufficient numbers to be of real military value.

The scale on which the war was waged made all usual methods of reaching a settlement out of the question: no outside Power could be invoked as mediator; the Pope had issued a peace proposal on August 1, but the allies regarded it as inspired by Germany and turned a deaf ear.

Allied statesmen had cast about for some principle on which an honourable peace could be proposed, if a crushing defeat could not be inflicted on the enemy. The principle of nationalities, viz., the right of small nations to form their own government, had been advanced, and had met with general acceptance.

Thus America’s object in entering the war, according to President Wilson, was to deliver the peoples of the world from autocracy,” ” to make the world safe for democracy,” and the like. But the application of this principle presented difficulties. That Germany and Austria should be broken up into Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, Jugo-Slavia, etc., in the way that afterward occurred, was one matter; but the example of Russia, and the possibility of the principle being applied to England, then troubled by Irish agitators, and the other allies, led many to dread a completely dismembered Europe.

Nevertheless, the idea had acquired a large measure of popularity in cities where reaction against over-organization had created an intense desire for freedom.

In rough, this was the situation when the British government issued a note favouring a national home for the Jews: it took the form of a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild and signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Arthur (later Lord) Balfour, and read:

Foreign Office, November 2, 1917.


I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which, may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,


Thus it was that the Jews, the ” Chosen People,” after centuries of dispersion, were to be established in a home land. Here was poetic justice; it seemed as though nineteen centuries of wrongs were to be righted.

Six weeks later, the newspapers were full of the triumphal entry of General Allenby into Jerusalem, and the conquest of the Holy Land by the British army which included Jewish units: to the religious-minded, it was as though Providence had set the seal of approval on the Balfour declaration. Sceptics, on the other hand, remarked callously that Allenby’s army had been loitering about Palestine inactive for the last four months; that Jerusalem offered no resistance and one week ought to have sufficed for staging his entry. His forces undoubtedly counted some Jews in the commissary department, as there are in all armies; but the credit for the conquest was almost wholly due to the assistance of the Arabs, over a hundred thousand strong, to whom the promise of autonomy had been made by England in 1915. The Balfour declaration was a direct violation of this promise. But for every miracle there are unbelievers!

More than a decade has passed, and, looking back, one is inclined to ask a few questions: Why was it that the British cabinet with a war on its hands resolved to set aside a national home for the Jews ? Had the cabinet proposed a home in the Near East to the Armenians first, and on the latter’s refusal turned to the Jews ? Was it to be an asylum for cripples and orphans; or a religious centre; or a sort of Liberia, like African Liberia founded in 1822 for freed negroes? Or were all the Jews in the world supposed to migrate back to Palestine ? This last idea, though excellent in theory, would hardly be feasible.

Reading the declaration carefully, it becomes clear that certain Jews (the Zionist group), and not all the Jews, wanted a ” national home “: they may even have intimated their desire to some member of the cabinet. Sir Arthur was dining one evening at Lord Rothschild’s country place and admiring his beautiful home, when, at the mention of that word, Lord Rothschild, turning away to hide a tear, said sadly that some of his friends ” had no home [that is, no national home] where they could lay their heads.” Sir Arthur was touched and said he would mention it to His Majesty and to his colleagues, and knew that they would express their sympathy for Lord Rothschild’s friends in distress. Accordingly, the declaration of sympathy followed a few days later.

For those who are satisfied with the above explanation there is no need to read further; those, however, w ц╝ desire a fuller account of things may be willing to discard popular fallacies and study things afresh. As a background, a general idea of the history and character of the Jews and their institutions is essential.

The longest path may be the shortest in the end.


In studying the Jewish people, special attention must be given to the Jewish community. This peculiar social order has for twenty centuries impressed its indelible mark on every one of its members in every quarter of the globe; uncrushed by pressure from without, it has administered its affairs according to its own arbitrary laws, often in defiance and to the detriment of the government of the land. The authority of the Jewish leaders, originally derived from the ten commandments delivered to Moses,l had already in the time of Augustus been widely extended2 by a learned but unscrupulous priesthood 3 over an ignorant, superstitious people. In that age, while a struggle was going on between two rival sects, Pharisees4 and Sadducees,5 certain political clubs 6 were formed which concealed under a religious mask the grasping aims of a clique.7

These clubs were not slow to take advantage of their country’s misfortunes. A few years later, during the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian, they won, by the betrayal of the Jewish cause, the favour of the Roman conqueror,8 and were subsequently entrusted by the imperial government with the administration of Palestine.’ Moreover, with the sack of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the death of the patriotic leaders, the common people found themselves utterly dependent, in spiritual as well as civil matters, upon these same self-styled societies of the learned, who alone possessed the secrets of the priesthood and copies of the sacred texts. By interpreting, altering, and augmenting the rules and ritual these texts contained, and by a system of espionage and assassination,10 the new rulers established a strict control over the daily life of their co-religionists. Thus having taken hold of the Jewish people through the medium of the Roman authority, this clique easily placed its laws above the ten commandments, and formed a government whose control over its subjects was absolute.11 This government became henceforth known as the Kahal.12

[By God’s irreversible judgment the Jews were condemned and cast out of of the Holy Land forever, two thousand years ago. The first dispersion of the Jews was in 70 A.D. and the second dispersion in 135 A.D. in the time since the prophecy of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His time on earth prior to His ascension into heaven. By the connivance of the Jews’ Pharisee Rabbinic Academies in Palestine in the first century A.D. the Kahal was given its form to rule over the apostate Jews who had committed the unforgivable sin of Perfidy and Deicide against the true Messiah Jesus Christ during the time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth.]

The dispersion of the Jews which followed in 135 A.D., instead of destroying the Kahal, served on the contrary to set it on a new and firmer basis, on which it has continued ever since. Wherever Jewish emigrants settled,13 they founded communities apart under the direction of the fraternities, and held to the precepts of the Talmud.(tm) Each community had its representative, its rabbi, its synagogue: it was a miniature Kahal. The different aims of these communities always found themselves intimately related with those of the central body upon which their existence depended.

For if the ruling clique or caste had begun by grinding down its own race,” it now saw that, by drafting them into its organization, it could exploit the gentiles on a far grander scale.” The number of fraternities was increased by the addition of trade unions, every trade in which the Jews engaged being represented. To strengthen its control and to advance the interests of the Jews as a whole, it developed and perfected that system of espionage which it still maintains.

It sent agents17 to watch over Jewish affairs at police stations, and, when opportunity offered, distribute gifts to the employees. Other agents were posted at the doors of shops, hotels, business houses, lawcourts, and even in the private households of government officials. These trained agents had each a special field to cover: police, export, import, exchange, government supplies, lawsuits, etc.

The duty of an agents assigned to lawcourts was to keep constantly in touch with the proceedings, or with the official, meet the petitioners and, when practicable,18 fix the sum they must pay for a favourable judgment. This concluded, the agent took all necessary steps, and often succeeded in obtaining a decision contrary to justice. But in every case, the first duty of the agent was to note all errors and irregularities committed by the court, and all scandals brought out in the course of trial: these, reported and carefully recorded in the files of the Kahal, could be used as weapons against any person involved, who might later wish to act contrary to Jewish interests. Thus the order derived strength from three sources: advance information on trade conditions, bribery, and blackmail.

It is quite easy to understand the reasons of the concentration of trade in the hands of the Jews, wherever they have settled in sufficient numbers. For if on the one hand the individual Jew is the slave of the Kahal, his submission on the other hand is rewarded by its support in his struggle with non-Jewish competitors. He can count on the immediate help of his fraternity, and where necessary of the whole organization, and thus is assured of the victory over any single gentile.

The teaching in the synagogue incited its following to a thorough exploitation of their gentile neighbours, care only being taken not to excite hostility to the extent of endangering the whole community. This doctrine, popular from the start, was eventually embodied in its most concrete form in a book of the Talmud, called the Shulchan Aruk. A few quotations will suffice to show its character:19

“When a Jew has a gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same gentile, lend him money and in his turn deceive him, so that the gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a gentile (according to our law) belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has the full right to seize it.”20

“When a Jew makes a deal with a gentile, and another Jew comes up and deceives the gentile no matter in what manner, whether he give him false measure or overcharge him, then both Jews must share between them the profits thus sent by Jehovah.”21

“Although it is not a direct obligation for a Jew to kill a gentile with whom he lives in peace, yet, in no case, is he allowed to save a gentile’s life.”22

“It is always a meritorious deed to get hold of a gentile’s possessions.”23

“Marriages taking place among gentiles have no binding strength, i.e. their cohabitation is just as the coupling of horses, therefore their children do not stand as humanly related to their parents.”24

Of the spirit which taught that all non-Jews were animals 25 to be stripped of their property for the benefit of Jewry, and which united the community in a common aim and a common hatred; of the Shulchan Aruk which transmitted this aim and this hatred from generation to generation, Jewish leaders of the last fifty years have written :26

” The Shulchan Aruk is not the book that we have chosen for our guide, but the book that has been made our guide, whether we would or not, by force of historical development: because this book, just as it is in its present form, with all its most uncouth sections, was the book that best suited the spirit of our people, their condition and their needs, in those generations in which they accepted it as binding on themselves and their descendants. If we proclaim that this is not our law, we shall be proclaiming a falsehood; this is our law, couched in the only form which was possible in the middle ages, just as the Talmud is our law in the form which it took in the last days of the ancient world, just as the Bible is our law in the form which it took while the Jews still lived as a nation on their own land. The three books are but three milestones on the road of a single development, that of the spirit of the Jewish nation.”

A Jewish community, in the midst of a gentile population on which it preyed, depended for its success on two things: the absolute subordination of its members and the secrecy of its proceedings. The Kahal concealed its activities from the outside world under the guise of religion. ” The Jews were loyal subjects like their neighbours, but to them faith was life, and they were constantly preoccupied with the observance of their ritual “, it told the world. But this was not a sufficient screen. As in all secret organizations there are traitors and renegades whatever the penalty. The Kahal was obliged to shroud itself in mystery and mysticism,27 even from its members. The multiplicity of the ritual laws, the voluminous civil code, the secret instructions of the fraternities, the continuance of obsolete forms, all served to create such a confusion that no non-Jew confronted with the documents could distinguish what was fundamental from what was prolix ritual or irrelevant.28 The general scheme of the Kahal, which has been in operation since the second century A. D., remains in force to this day. Its essential characteristics may be outlined as follows:

a) The council of elders or geronsia,”(r) presided over by ц═ patriarch or exilarch. Its functions were purely formal; it represented the Jews in official relations with foreign governments, acted as their spokesman when they wished to arouse public sentiment in their favour, but had no direct

responsibility in the secret government whose existence it served to conceal. Composed of leading members of the fraternities, it could discuss at secret meetings questions of general interest, leaving their practical solution to the


b) The tribunal or beth-din.30

c) The fraternities.

The beth-din decided all lawsuits and differences arising between individual Jews, and between members and the Kahal itself. It existed in all localities where there were Jews, catered to their commercial needs, and had final jurisdiction in both civil and religious matters. It alone was competent to interpret the spiritual laws of the Talmud. To illustrate the character of this court, the following paragraphs from the Talmudic code31 may be given:

” No Jew may appeal for justice to any court or judiciary other than the Jewish tribunal. This holds even when the laws of the country bearing on the question at issue agree with the Jewish laws, and when the two parties are willing to submit their differences to the former. Whoever breaks this injunction shall be outlawed;32 his offence is equivalent to contempt and violation of the law of Moses.

” The beth-din judges cases involving loans, debts, marriages, legacies, gifts, damages, interest, etc.

” Although the beth-din has no right to fine a thief or looter, it may inflict the indoui on him until he makes full restitution. It may inflict fines for the infraction of rules as prescribed in the Talmud.

” When the beth-din notices that the nation is given to disorders,33 it may, without confirmation by the Jewish authorities, impose fines, death-sentences, and other penalties; and in this connection it may waive the production of testimony to prove the guilt of the accused. Where the latter is a person of influence in the country, the beth-din may use the legal machinery of the country to punish him. His property may be declared outside the protection of the law (guefker), and he himself may be done away with as circumstances require.”

It would be erroneous to suppose that all suits between Jews are tried by the beth-din. In many circumstances, and especially in thorny cases where the Jewish law is contrary to common sense, because the form and the terms do not agree with justice and conscience, the case is tried not by the judges of the beth-din, called dayans, but by a special court composed of persons chosen for their knowledge of business practice or other special reasons.

The explanation of the mass of lawsuits between Jews before non-Jewish courts is as follows. For the most part, these have to do with drafts presented for payment and drawn on Jews who have incurred penalties at the hands of the beth-din. The laws of the country are thus used to execute the decisions of the Jewish tribunal. The beth-din makes a practice of binding the two parties in a suit submitted for its decision, by having them sign blanks before the trial. If, afterward, the party who has lost the case refuses to abide by the decision, the blank bearing his signature is converted into a draft and put into circulation.

Turning to the fraternities which are the sinews of the organization, one finds their outward form strictly innocuous. The rules are nearly all on the same model, and fix the annual dues, the place and date for the regular meetings, the duties and obligations of members, and the penalties if disregarded; the latter range from small fines to expulsion from the fraternity. A member expelled from a fraternity found himself cut off from the community and generally died an outcast. Each fraternity has a religious or charitable purpose, connected with such worthy objects as the following:

a) Reading from the sacred texts,34

b) Burial of the dead,

c) Ransoming of prisoners,

d) Free loans, help for poor girls, aid for the sick, clothing for the poor, etc.

It should be noted that these objects were not entirely disinterested: the fraternity charged with reading the texts, distorted them; those who buried the dead received fees, not only for that care, but also for plots in the Jewish cemetery, for the purification bath prescribed for Jewish women, for seats in the synagogue.35 The fraternity for ransoming prisoners was composed of the most influential members of the community; as its chief concern was the freeing of delinquent Jews from gentile courts, it had to bring pressure to bear on police and government officials.36

An excellent illustration of a Jewish community in the twentieth century is found in the account of the organizing of the KehillaW in New York City in 1909 and of its subsequent operation, – published in the Jewish Communal Register.38

The purpose of the Kehillah is to ” weld Jewish interests and develop community conscientiousness “; the immediate cause of its creation was ” the statement of the police commissioner, General Bingham, that the Jews contributed fifty per cent, of the criminals of New York City.”39

The first step taken by the constitutive convention was the election of an executive committee and an advisory council of seventy members; the latter is the council of elders or gerousia, and its duty is to ” make its voice heard and its opinions felt (sic) in all questions affecting the Jews the world over.”

The next thing of importance is the creation of a beth-din or court of arbitration, by the board of authoritative rabbis (vaad harabbonim) already charged with the regulations of marriage, divorce, circumcision, and ritual bath.40 The beth-din will undertake to settle all disputes between labour and capital.41

Further on, the purpose of the Kehillah is made clearer: it is for the ” coordination of the existing communal agencies42 to save the synagogue from impending ruin,” to which end all the material and moral resources of the entire community are to be drafted.43 In other words, the hierarchy of fraternities for which Judaism serves as a cloak and the synagogues as a lodge-room, is endeavoring to strengthen its hold on its members, among whom there is a tendency towards emancipation.

Finally, mention is made of some of the fraternities, under the title of benevolent societies: the burial clubs and the visitors of the sick. It is particularly interesting to note that these orders assess their beneficiaries: that is, they operate as life insurance companies.44

So well is the question of ritual meat (kosher) regulated by the Kehillah, that ” all the meat slaughtered in New York city and vicinity, whether for Jewish consumption or not, is slaughtered by schochetim under the supervision of

authoritative rabbis.’45 Of New York’s sixty per cent gentile population, none can buy meat not prepared according to Jewish ritual. But this paternal interest of the Kehillah for its members and for the whole gentile population is not entirely unmotivated; for the Register goes on to explain that meat so killed brings ” prices far in excess of those paid for ordinary meat.” It pays the slaughter-houses to employ schochetim and contribute to the welfare of the authoritative rabbis.

Thus the Jewish fraternities through the ages have kept their typical character of a secret government, disguised under the form of synagogues and schools.

The life of the people, too, has changed little from generation to generation, and from one country to another: they are always and everywhere the tools of the ruling clique; to it they pay heavy, indirect taxes, and in return receive help in exploiting the land which harbours them. They have a heavy heritage, a Jewish conscientiousness, a hatred of non-Jews, a love of deceiving; all this they

cannot easily shake off, and with it the yoke of the Kahal.

1. Exodus xx.

2. The Gospels themselves bear witness to the distortions of the divine law of Moses by the human additions of the rabbis. Cf. Matthew xv. 2: ” Thus you have destroyed the ommandment of God by your traditions.”

3. Compare Matt. xxm. 14-36.

4. Lit. the ” separated “.

5. From Sadoc, Greek form of Zadok (lit. ” the just “), founder of the sect.

6. Known as Imburah from habor, ” join together “.

7. Graetz, iv. History of the Jews, p. 85.

8. Vespasian appointed Rabbi John Ben Zakkai, chief of the haburah, ruler of Jamnia: Jost, i. History of the Jem, p. 210.

9. Brafmann, Jewish Brotherhoods, (Vilna, 1868) par. 18.

10. The clubs were secret fraternities, each member binding himself by an oath; the penalty for disobedience was exclusion or death: Jost., op. cit.

11. “Every day, and every hour of the day, and every act of every hour, had its appointed regulations, grounded on distorted texts of scripture, or the sentences of the wise men, and artfully moulded up with their national reminiscences of the past or their distinctive hopes of the future,-the divine origin of the law, the privileges of God’s

chosen people, the restoration to the holy city, the corning of the Messiah.” Milman, n, History of the Jews (Everyman Library, 1923 edition p. 165).

12. Literally, “community” or “commonwealth”.

13. Nearly every province of the Roman empire had at least one colony of Jews at the end of the second century A.D.

14. Talmud Torah, lit. “study of the law”, name for the agglomera tion of rabbinical works.

15. Contemptuously termed am-ha-aretz, lit. “people of the soil”, and debarred from bearing witness, etc.: Talmud Pessashim 98. They had to^’submit to the haburah or perish”. Talmud Tainot 23.

16. “The hatred of the am-ha-aretz towards the learned societies was so great, that, if we patricians had not obtained for them some material advantages, they would have killed us.” Talmud Pessashim 49.

17. Called factors: Brafmann, Book of the Kahal, ch I.

18. Depending on the character of the suit, judges, etc.

19. The Shulchan Aruk is a manual of Jewish laws, drawn from the Talmud, and compiled by Rabbi Joseph Caro (1488-1575).

20. Loc. cit., Law 24.

21. Ibid., Law 27.

22. Ibid., Law 50.

23. Ibid., Law 55.

24. Ibid., Law 88.

25. Goyim, lit. “animals”.

26. Quoted from Asher Ginzberg’s reply to Rabbi Lolli, in 1897.

27. The part played by the Jews in the founding and spreading of gnostic sects is not treated here.

28. ” The Mosaic law, intricate enough, is woven into an inextricable network of decrees (in the Mischna).. The Mischna fully admits polygamy… Capital punishment is of four kinds: stoning, burning, slaying by the sword, strangling… The sixth book is on the subject of uncleanness and ablution: it is rigid and particular to the utmost

repulsiveness.. The object of this work was to fix on undoubted authority the whole unwritten law. But the multiplication of written statutes enlarges rather than contracts the province of the lawyer; a new field was opened for ingenuity, and comment was speedily heaped upon the Mischna, till it was buried under the weight, as the Mosaic law had been before by the Mischna… Those ponderous tomes, at once religious and

civil institutes, swayed the Jews with uncontested authority.” Milman, op. cit., pp. 174, 175.

29. A revival of the old Sanhedrin which governed Palestine.

30. Lit. ” house of religion “: see Brafmann, Bk. of the Kahal, ch. 8.

31. Hocher-Hamichot. ” The synagogue with its appendant school or law court, became the great bond of national union.” Milman, pp. 160, 161.

32. Viz., the indoui or the herein, corresponding to excommunication and expulsion from the community.

33. The meaning seems to be, ” rebelling against the Kahal “.

34. There were four fraternities or learned societies having this as their object: they were composed exclusively from the upper caste. For this and the following, see Brafmann, Jewish Brotherhoods, p. 21.

35. Ibid., p. 38.

36. Ibid., p. 33.

37. Diminutive of kahal.

38. New York, 1919.

39. Jewish Communal Register (New York, 1919) n. If Bingham’s statement were without foundation, would it have aroused so much indignation?

40. Ibid., p. 50.

41. Ibid., p. 52.

42. Ibid., p. 55.

43. Ibid., p. 120.

44. Ibid., p. 732.

45. Ibid., p. 312.


The Jews, disseminated in all lands and claiming the same rights as other nationals, jealously guarded the secret of their hierarchy. Prior to the eighteenth century various nations had from time to time granted equality of rights to the Jews within their borders,1 but in every case had retracted them.

About 1770, Moses Mendelssohn2 and others began preaching emancipation for all Jews everywhere, as the ultimate goal of the race. This suited the Kahal: if its members enjoyed the privileges of other nationals, they would eventually occupy important posts in gentile governments and thus extend its own power and influence. The aim was to a large extent realized a few years later. With the French revolution in 1789, the status of the Jews in that country was completely changed.3 Not only did they obtain the franchise, but, profiting by the sale of confiscated property, they soon acquired great wealth. Napoleon remarked in 1806: ” By what miracle did whole provinces of France become heavily mortgaged to the Jews, when there are only sixty thousand of them in the country? “.4

Jews in Austria and Germany as in France and England, obtained about the same time political freedom and soon rose to high social and administrative rank in the land of their adoption: the names of Rothschild,5 Cremieux,6 and Disraeli,7 at once suggest themselves.

But, freed from the restricting influence of the ghetto, the Jews tended to become assimilated not only in appearance, but in reality. The yoke of the Kahal seemed more irksome to those who had acquired wealth which they wished to enjoy undisturbed. As it could add nothing to their success in life, they longed to be rid of its ritual, indirect taxes, demands of personal services, and its threats.

Jewish leaders, observing this tendency, felt the need of new links between communities, the more so, as the new facilities of communication of the nineteenth century- telegraph, railways, steamships-rendered intercourse between distant bodies much easier. A group of so-called ” universal brotherhoods ” was accordingly organized in only five years, 1864-1869; they were:

a) Brotherhood for the awakening of the slumbering

Jews,8 at St. Petersburg;

b) Alliance Israelite Universelle9 at Paris;

c) Jewish Emigration Society,10 at London;

d) Brotherhood for the enlightenment of the Jews,11 at St. Petersburg;

e) Brotherhood for the repopulation of Palestine.12 The first of these societies was founded in 1864: in 1866, it already numbered twelve hundred members among the wealthiest and most influential Jews, at whose head stood:

England England

Sir Moses Montefiore D. L. Loewe France Russia Prussia Prussia

Rabbi Albert Cohn M. Strahun M. S. Magnus L. Silberman

In 1864 was also founded the Brotherhood for the enlightenment of the Jews (fourth in the above list) with its centre at St. Petersburg; within a year it numbered 227 wealthy Jews, including Dr. Bernstein, the bankers Ginzberg, Dr. Kalisher, Dr. Schwabacher,13 and men prominent in science. It is therefore not surprising that their efforts should have met with sympathy among Christians.

On closer examination, the enlightenment these societies sought appears not to be of the kind to raise the people above the racial prejudices fostered in the ghetto. On the contrary, the literature which the society for the awakening of the slumbering Jews published, with the exception of a book of travels, was strictly a course of studies in Talmudic laws,14 and calculated to revive the sentiment of a common aim and common hatred found in the Shulchan Aruk.

The book of travels, Even Saphir, is more stimulating: it points out in subtle language the power of the Kahal and Jewish solidarity. A passage may be quoted as illustration:15

” Here in Cairo, Jewish business is exchange, banking, and usury… The Jews derive great benefit from these three operations, thanks to the different foreign currencies and the fact that there are two rates of exchange, one fixed by the government, the other by merchants.

” These two rates constantly vary, rising and falling, and people who do not deal in money matters are easily misled. These operations are for the most part in the hands of the Jews, wise and clever people who, among capitalists, rank as high as the wealthiest in Europe. They occupy important positions in the pasha’s palaces and government offices. In fact the Jews at the present moment enjoy full freedom in every way: their word counts for much, and in trials and lawsuits with non-Jews their side always wins.”

The Kahal resorted to another device to keep its flock within the fold. Whenever opportunity offered, it made a cause celebre of some Jew brought to trial in a gentile court, and then, when the case had become the common talk of the day, it had him released. In what better way could it show its power?

The murder of a French missionary by three or four Jews in Damascus in 1840 furnished one such occasion, and the Dreyfus case in 1896 another.

It found, too, little difficulty in organizing pogroms in Poland and in Russia. The peasants in these countries, though of a trusting, friendly nature, could be provoked by fraud and extortion at length to retaliate. A few Jews were killed, and millions of their race rallied around the synagogue. The privileges granted the Jews by the Tsar Alexander II necessitated the pogroms of 1882; and these were followed by a cry of ” anti-semitism,” which, as Herzl used to say, always gathered the sheep into the fold “-the time at the conference at Kattowitz in 1884.

Here eastern Jews16 met their more assimilated brethren from the West, but little was accomplished. The latter, whose views had been modified by long contact with Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans, failed to understand the violent nationalism of the eastern ghettoes, where the aim was a return to Palestine, the creation of a Jewish state, and eventual world domination.

The eastern group was known as “The Friends of Zion”17 and was led by Leo Pinsker and Moses Lilienblum. Pinsker had already set forth his programme in a book, Auto-emancipation (1882), in which he had been inspired by the Rome and Jerusalem (1862) of Moses Hess. Fear of the Russian authorities preventing a full exposition of his aim, he had limited himself to claiming Palestine for the Jews as a refuge against persecution.

One of his colleagues, Asher Ginzberg, was destined to carry his work much further. The latter, a fanatic, fanned Jewish national aspirations in the East, and from the date of the founding of the ” Sons of Moses ” in Odessa in 1889, the movement spread rapidly. Meantime in Germany and Austria, another active nationalist, Nathan Birnbaum18 of Vienna, organized the Jewish students into a body called the kadimah. Its aim was to establish a Jewish centre in Palestine which should rule the world in the three spheres of politics, economics, and religion, through the medium of Jews at the control of affairs in every nation.

If the western group, on the other hand, did not respond readily to a nationalist appeal, they yet were intrigued by the idea of world domination. International and clannish at heart, in spite of their outward assimilation, they were to prove by the sequel that they could be won to the eastern point of view: if they rejected it at first, it was largely because they thought they could obtain all they wanted without the help of their retrograde brethren. They were, moreover, divided into two camps: the Rothschilds and the German Jews in Germany and America. The second camp had invested a large part of their capital in German industry, which proved very productive in the years 1884 to 1896; they also shared, or pretended to share, in the plans of pan-German ambition.

But when, in 1896, Germany obtained from the Sultan the concession for the Bagdad railway and reached out over Palestine towards India, some leading western Jews were alarmed and felt the need of uniting Jewry. The only basis of union was the eastern programme, for the eastern group, being fanatics, would accept no other.

To win over the western group to the new aim, an assimilated Jewish writer, Theodore Herzl, was called on to paraphrase Leo Pinsker’s Auto-emancipation.19 This paraphrase, published in 1896, bore the title, The Jewish State. There was little that was original about the book, but the character and influence of the author carried much weight.

Theodore Herzl was a typical assimilated Jew.20 Born in Hungary in 1860, after finishing school in Budapest and studying law at the university of Vienna, he devoted himself to journalism and literature. As reporter for the Viennese paper, Die neuefreie Presse, he worked in Spain and later in France. While in Paris, he reported the Dreyfus case, under the influence of another Jew, the famous Dr. Blowitz, correspondent of the London Times.

It is said that the Dreyfus case ” made a Jew of Herzl.” He did not know Hebrew, and had never been taught the fanatical books of the Talmud, such as the Shukhan Aruk and the Abodah Zarah. He was opposed to violent methods, and in one of his novels, Altneuland, has left a picture of a civilized Jewish state, patterned on those of Western Europe.

In any case, after the publication of The Jewish State, the Friends of Zion in Odessa, and the body of students (Kadimah) under Nathan Birnbaum, adopted Herzl. The first Zionist congress was called at Basle the following year (1897). Herzl was elected president, a position which he held till his death (1904).

At the congress, as the eastern group was the more numerous, the name ” Zionism”, coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1886, was adopted, and its aim declared essentially democratic. But the western group was not wholly won. Some of them, mostly from England and France, responded coldly to Herzl’s appeal, fearing to compromise the rights and positions already acquired in those countries. The desired union could not yet be effected, and the two groups rallied around their respective leaders, Herzl and Ginzberg.

Herzl nevertheless remained faithful to the task he had undertaken.21 He entered into negotiations with the rulers of several nations to obtain some suitable home for the Jews. He failed to get Palestine from the Sultan, and later, the El Arish peninsula from the Khedive of Egypt; but he received, and virtually accepted, the offer of Uganda from Great Britain. In 1903, he laid this proposal before the sixth Zionist congress: it was thrown out by the Zionists who would have no land but Palestine. Herzl died the following year, and with him the leadership of the moderate party was soon to pass into the hands of the violent nationalists.22

* * *

An article in the Judisk Tidskrift (No. 6, Aug.-Sept., 1929), written by Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden, contained, according to the Swedish paper Nationen, the following passage:-

” I participated with Herzl in the first Zionist Congress which was held in Basle in 1897. Herzl was the most prominent figure at that first Jewish World Congress. He worked to achieve an object which had been fixed beforehand. Just as Isaiah foresaw, decades before the event occurred, the victorious power of Cyrus before anyone else, so did Herzl foresee twenty years, before we experienced them, the revolutions brought about by the Great War, and he prepared us for that which was going to happen. He foresaw the splitting up of Turkey, and he foresaw that England would obtain control over Palestine. ” We may expect important developments in the world.” These were the words spoken by Herzl twenty years before the Great War. He added that the events would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities.”

1. For example, in Spain, before the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella; in England, under Cromwell; in Russia, under the Tsar Alexis in th” seventeenth century.

2. Grandfather of the composer (1729-1786).

3. J. Darmstadter, in his essay, Histoire du peuple juif (Paris, 1886) says that, from this date, the Jews looked on France as their own possession.

4. Letter of Nov. 29, 1806, to Champagny, quoted in article ” MSS of Napoleon “, Synhedrian Allgemeine Zeitung des Jud. (Leipzig 1811), p. 33.

5. Cf. Corti, House of Rothschild (New York, 1928).

6. Cabinet minister in 1846 and 1871 ; one of the most active men in the coup d’etat of Louis-Napoleon in 1851 (1796-1880).

7. First Jewish M.P. The leading source for the life of Disraeli is W. F. Moneypenny and G. E. Buckle, Life of Disraeli (London, 1923) ; see also the admirable sketch, entitled Vie de Disraeli, by the Jew A. Maurois (Paris, 1927).

8. Haburah mekidze nirdamim. See Brafmann, Jewish Brother hoods, pp. 96-98.

9. Haburah kol Israel haberim.

10. Haburah shiluhe plakiloth.

11. Haburah marbe.

12. Haburah yishub Israel. To the foregoing list might be added the Jewish immigration society of New York, and also the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant) founded in 1843.

13. Op. cit., p. 100.

14. Including Pachad Ishak, ” fear of Isaac “, an index to Talmudic literature; Teschubat ha-gaonim ” decisions of the illustrious ” viz., of the ancient authorities on religious and legal matters, etc. Op. cit., p. 101.

15. Even Saphir, p. 18.

16. The two principal branches of the Jews are the Sephardim, settled mostly in the Spanish peninsula, and the Ashkenazim of Alsace- Lorraine, Germany, Poland and Russia. The former are the more cultivated.

17. Hoveve Zion.

18. His pen-name was Mathias Asher.

19. Whose direct orders Herzl was obeying is not clear: probably those of David Wolfsohn, acknowledged leader of western Jewry.

20. His enemies in the Zionist camp later hurled the epithet” assimi lated ” at him to express their scorn for his moderation.

21. Osiah Tonn mentions several letters of Herzl, expressing the wish to retire from the Zionist movement as soon as possible.

22. David Wolfsohn succeeded Herzl as president for a short time.


If Herzl strove to modify and conciliate Jewish ambition with its gentile surroundings, it was the task of Ginzberg to give it a new form and the strength of mass fanaticism.

Asher Ginzberg1 was born at Skvira, in the province of Kiev, in 1856, of well-to-do parents belonging to the Jewish sect of Hassidim. He received a strictly rabbinical education and, at seventeen, married the grand-daughter of a prominent rabbi, Menachem Mendel. Five years later (1878), he moved to Odessa, where he continued his studies, with special attention to the works of Spinoza, Moses Mendelssohn, and Nietzsche. Not long after,2 he visited Berlin, Breslau, and Vienna where he met Charles Netter, a French Jew and one of the founders of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, who introduced him into that body.

It was thus that, in 1884, on his return to Odessa, Ginzberg joined the Friends of Zion3 under Leo Pinsker and Moses Lilienblum, and attended the conference at Katto-witz. His shrewd, restless mind and command of Hebrew soon raised him to prominence: a letter in Hebrew to the scientist S. Finn on his seventieth birthday, attracted the notice of Alexander Zederbaum. Zederbaum was the editor of the Hebrew paper Ha-melitz, and immediately invited Ginzberg to contribute.

Although he had constantly criticized the methods of the Friends of Zidh privately, he hesitated to do so in print; but finally overcoming his scruples, he sent in a radical article, entitled Not the Way,4 which appeared the same year (1889). In it, Ginzberg attacked Pinsker’s plan of sending Russian Jews to Palestine for the material advantages they might derive.5 All attempts to improve the condition of Russian ghettoes were futile, he insisted; the Jews must first become consciously, aggressively national. The article with its direct appeal to fanaticism was read by Jews all over Europe; other articles by the same pen followed.

He now broke with the Friends of Zion, and with him went a group of young men who had come to share his advanced views. These men he formed (1889) into a secret organization called the Sons of Moses.6 It met in his house in Yamskaya Street, Odessa, and numbered among its first members, Ben Avigdor, Zalman Epstein, Louis Epstein, and Jacob Eisenstaat. It was to this small group that Ginzberg read what is to-day known as ” the protocols “,7 in which the national aim is set forth in such direct, forceful language, -in strange contrast to the confused, pedantic style of the Talmud.

The opening words give the tone of the whole.

” Let us put aside phraseology and discuss the inner meaning of every thought: by comparison and deduction let us illuminate the situation. In this way I will describe our system, both from our own point of view and that of the goyim.s

” It must be remembered that people with base instincts,” he continues, ” are more numerous than those with noble ones; therefore, the best results in governing are achieved through violence and intimidation, and not through academic discussion. Every man seeks power; every one would like to become a dictator if he possibly could; and rare indeed are those who would not sacrifice the common good in order to attain personal advantage.”

The argument is then developed with conciseness and lucidity: all objections are anticipated and met in a few terse phrases. No rhetorical effect is sought; expression is natural and vivid: e.g. of the mob at the time of a revolution,9 the author says:

” These beasts fall asleep when they have drunk enough blood; it is then easy to shackle them.”

The Protocols are sometimes criticized as containing nothing that had not been said previously by philosophers or statesmen; but even if that were true, it would detract little from their interest. For their importance does not lie in the aim, world domination, nor in the theory by which it is attained, exploitation of man’s baser instincts, but in the extraordinary astuteness with which the practical application of the plan has been suited to existing conditions.

The very fact that the language is forceful and incisive, that all the allusions are striking, and the thesis so to speak irrefutable, is to some an obstacle to belief: nor is this surprising.

If, at Waterloo, Napoleon had had a battalion of tanks and a few batteries of modern eight-inch guns, the forces of England and Prussia would have been driven from the field: with the improved methods of warfare of the last century at his command, he could have defied the armies of the world in 1814.

For the past century the Jews have been making rapid progress in the theory and practice of politics, while the rest of the world thought them merely emerging from the ghetto; and, as it cannot understand the intricate new machinery of government they have devised and set up, it says, ” Such a thing is impossible.” Yet, like a great engine of war, the organization of the Kahal advances on the course determined, crashing all resistance.

That course is succinctly stated in the twenty-four protocols of Ginzberg: they are an epitome of Jewish thought from Rabbi Akiba10 and Maimonides11 down to Marx12 and Engels. At the same time the reader is reminded constantly of some familiar event of recent years which bears out the thesis. For example the passage:13 ” To show that all the gentile governments of Europe are enslaved by us, we will manifest our power by subjecting one of them to a reign of terror, violence and crime.”

Can anyone, recalling the Russian revolution of 1918, read this, knowing it was written before 1897,14 and not be impressed by the correspondence between the prophecy and its fulfilment two decades later?

But Ginzberg was no visionary: he knew of what he wrote, and the course of the revolutionary movement already on foot in Russia had been too carefully calculated to leave any doubt as to its eventual success.

The Second International was formed in 1889, and the theories of Marx and Engels adopted. The labour movement was no longer represented by a small group of workingmen led by theorists, but by powerful national organizations of workers. Therefore the aim of the Second International to secure the transfer of power to the proletariat was to be pursued under conditions more favourable than those which had prevailed at the time of the First International. The dominant industrial and financial interests served to further the objectives of the socialists through a callous disregard for labour.15

In 1900, on Lenin’s return from exile, appeared the first number of the revolutionary paper Iskra (” The Spark “) edited in London by Trotski (Braunstein) a Jew, and supported by another Jew, Blumenfeld.16 Organizations directed by Iskra spread throughout Russia: it was the source from which the ideas of local leaders were derived. In March 1903, there emerged at its first meeting in Minsk, a completely formed Russian communist party; it represented six organizations and was headed by nine men, of whom at least five were of Jewish descent.17 It was known as the ” Russian social democratic party ” (until 1918), and its methods as well as its motto ” Proletarians of all countries, unite “, were those of Marx and Engels. A second congress of the party met at Brussels and then at London, in July and August, of the same year. Here the doctrine that ” the necessary condition of the social revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat “, was expressed for the first time.18

Then came the split between bolsheviks and mensheviks, and the movement faced its first real test in 1905. Weakened by defeat in the war with Japan, the Tsarist government could not forestall strikes and disorders. The shooting down of workmen who had assembled before the winter palace encouraged the bolsheviks to attempt an armed uprising. A congress of the party met in London on April 25, 1905, and formulated the programme which was to be put in practice twelve years later.19

The outbreak in Russia was immediately hailed by a Zionist paper as the work of Jews.

” The revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, a crisis in Jewish history. It is a Jewish revolution because Russia is the home of about half the Jews of the world, and an overturning of its despotic government must have a very important influence on the destinies of the millions living there and on the many thousands who have recently emigrated to other countries. But the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because Jews are the most active revolutionists in the Tsar’s empire “.20

Unsupported by the peasants and the army, the revolts of 1905 failed. A period of reaction set in, bringing with it the arrest and exile of many of the revolutionary leaders. From that time, in fact, plans for a revolution in Russia had to be entirely directed from abroad. How the old leaders usually managed to escape their prison sentences;21 how they secured funds to travel about and participate in congresses in Stockholm, Paris, Prague, Berne and other cities; and how they managed to keep alive a central organization is not explained in published documents; but the connection between these subversive activities and Zionism will become clearer further on.22

Meantime the protocols, secretly circulated in Hebrew among the Sons of Moses, had helped the expansion of that order throughout Russia and Poland and contributed to its victory at the Basle congress in 1897,23 when Zionism became an official movement.

But when Ginzberg saw that Herzl’s conception of Zionism was ” an economic one first and foremost “,24 excluding as it seemed the spirit of Jewish nationalism, he gathered his old adherents into a new secret order, the Sons of Zipn (B’nai Zion) to propagate the true faith. While affecting himself to keep outside of the official movement, he edited a Hebrew paper, Hashiloah (” The Way “), thanks to financial aid from a Moscow tea merchant, a Jew, Kalonymous Wissotzkii, and became head of a great Hebrew publishing firm called Ahiasaf. With these powerful organs, he could attack Herzl with impunity. One of the latter’s friends complains :25

” Ahad-ha-am (Ginzberg) reproaches Herzl with wanting to imitate Europe. He (Ginzberg) cannot admit that we should borrow from Europe its academies, operas, white gloves. The only thing he would transfer from Europe into Altneuland (i.e. Palestine) would be the principles of the inquisition, the way of acting of the anti-semites, the restrictions of the Rumanian laws… He understands freedom as practised in the ghetto, only in his conception the parts are reversed: persecutions are to continue, but this time, of the gentiles by the Jews… He is one of the worst enemies of Zionism, and it is our duty to protest against its name being used by him. His conception is the exact opposite of Zionism, and he would mislead us by speaking (slightingly) of ‘ political’ Zionism, in contrast to ‘ this secret Zionism>26 which is his very own.”

Fourteen years of labour at last began to show fruit. In 1911, Ginzberg’s representatives, Chaim Weizmann and others, scored a victory at the tenth Zionist Congress. Two years later (1913), ” when he visited the congress for the second time,” writes a disciple,27 ” he was happy. He could see how some of his ideas, some of the truths that he had fought so bitterly to advance, were already working within. He was happy, as a practical philosopher should feel when he realizes that his life has not been in vain, that he has been one link in the long chain that pulls Israel to a glorious future, that he has served Israel, and, through Israel, mankind “.

From this point, Zionism, as Ginzberg understood it, became a reality which his disciples28 have since carried from victory to victory under the eye of the master. He himself remained aloof, at least from public view, until his death in 1927 in a Judaized Palestine.

1. His pen-name was Ahad-ha-am, lit. ” one of the people “; his father was a tax-collector.

2. Between 1882 and 1884.

3. Hoveve Zion: supra, ch. III.

4. Lo ha-shiloah.

5. Certainly in this he showed great shrewdness.

6. B’nai Moshe.

7. Infra Part ц╜: The Protocols. From internal evidence the date of the protocols may be placed between 1880-1890.

8. The text itself should be studied: to paraphrase or quote a few passages from it is to give a very defective notion of this important work.

9. Protocol II.

10. Compiler of the Mischna (from shanah ” to repeat “) or oral tradition of the Jews in the second century A. D. See Preface to Mischna by Maimonides; also, Milman ц╞. History of the Jews, p. 133.

11. Spanish Jew, author of commentaries on Mischna and other works, in the twelfth century.

12. Karl Marx, author of Das Kapital, founder of first international, (1818-1883); joint author with Engels of communist manifesto. Marx’s real name was Mordecai.

13. Protocol VII, last paragraph.

14. A copy of the Protocols has been in the records of the British Museum since 1906: infra Part n, Chapter I.

15. W. R. Batsell, Soviet Rule in Russia (Published under the auspices of the Bureau of International Research of Harvard University New York, 1929), p. 756.

16. Batsell, op. cit., pp. 49, 691, 692.

17. Ibid., pp. 689, 690.

18. Ibid., p. 692. Compare, ” It suffices even for an instant to give the masses self-government, and they will become a disorganized mob… Capital which is entirely in our hands, will hold out to this state a straw, to which it will inevitably be forced to cling.” Protocol I, par. 6.

19. The central committee in 1905 was composed of the well known revolutionaries: Lenin (Ulianov), Rykov, Krassin (Vinter), Bogdanov, and Postalovskii; Batsell, op. cit., p. 694.

20. The Maccabean (New York, Nov., 1905), p. 250, under the title ” A Jewish Revolution “.

21. Thanks to the fraternity for the freeing of delinquent Jews: supra ch. II.

22. Infra, ch. V.

23. The Sons of Moses (B’nai Moshe) having achieved its object, was dissolved after the congress; for the latter, see supra, ch. III.

24. In the words of Richard Gottheil, Chief Rabbi of New York City.

25. Pamphlet entitled Audiatur et Altera Pars by Dr. Max Nordau, 1903, at the time of the publication of Herzl’s novel Altneuland, which Ginzberg attacked.

26. That set forth in the protocols.

27. Jesse Sampler, in his Guide to Zionism.

28. Among these should be mentioned Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolov, Leon Simon, Jabotinskii, Ussitchin, Schmaryar Levin.


It has frequently been observed that Europe, whether considered as a whole or as so many separate countries, lost rather than benefited by the world war: the victorious allies, with a huge burden of debt, came off hardly better than the vanquished. But to Zionism, the war brought untold wealth and the complete realization of an immediate aim.

” The present war “, wrote Sokolov at the time,1 ” has not affected the unity of the Zionist organization. As the latter was established on the federal principle, it was found possible to continue the essential work of the movement by utilizing the separate organizations of the different countries. The work of propaganda and the collection of funds… actually made great progress.”

It may therefore be interesting to trace its activities in four capitals, Berlin, Petrograd, London and New York, during this period.

At the outbreak of the war, Zionism had its headquarters in Berlin.2 There also were the headquarters of the moderate party, represented by the society, Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden. This society had built in the Holy Land a number of schools, seminaries, and other institutions, superior to those of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and the Zionists. On this account, Germany had promised the society control over Palestine, as soon as she had completed the Berlin-Bagdad railway. But as such an eventuality would not have suited Zionist plans, they looked to a different solution.3 “The inner actions committee,” we learn,1 “which met regularly in Berlin and transacted all international business between congresses, was composed of members dispersed in various countries. Dr. Schmaryar Levin had come to America to attend the Zionist Convention in June (1914). His presence in America during the war was valuable both for American Zionism and the international cause. Warburg and Hantke, two Gentfan members, were in Berlin where they remained practically throughout the war; Jacobson, another German member, was then in Constantinople.”

The strength of this Zionist international chain of communication did not escape the notice of the German government, which sought its support in addition to that of the Hilfsverein. In June 1915, an appeal was sent out from Berlin to all Zionists “asking for sympathy with Germany”.* The Zionists, however, were too shrewd to commit themselves while the issue of the war was still doubtful; at the same time, they wished to keep Germany’s confidence, which they subsequently exploited in connection with Russia. They therefore refused the request with the ironical explanation that “the Zionist movement could not be involved in world politics”.

The following year, they secretly transferred their support from the central powers to the allies, and their headquarters from Berlin to London.6 From then on, their influence was felt more and more in political circles in Europe and America. In particular the Zionist Transfer Department, as it was called, was in a position to transmit funds and information to subversive elements in enemy countries. In this connection, Jacobson, seeing that “Constantinople could no longer be the centre of Zionist politics, left for Copenhagen, where, in a neutral country, he could be of practical use to the Zionists by transmitting information and funds. There he established a Zionist bureau. Chlenov, one of the Russian members, went back and forth between Russia and Denmark, and eventually went to England. Another Russian member, Nahum Sokolov, moved about freely in the allied countries “.7 Rudolf Steiner, occult adviser to the Kaiser, passed freely between Germany and England during the whole period of hostilities, in spite of police regulations. ” By its dependable financial methods, it established what was practically a Zionist credit throughout the world. This had no small share in bringing about that attitude on the part of the allied governments which later resulted in their recognition of the Zionist organization as the official representative of the Jewish people.”8

The chief task which engaged the Zionists at this time (1916) was the revolutionary movement in Russia. The body of professional revolutionaries which had prepared and directed the outbreak of 1905, had continued its subversive work through congresses held in the different capitals of Europe with undiminished zeal.9 Lenin had become the acknowledged leader of the bolsheviks: with him on the central committee (elected in 1912) and later prominent among those who took over the control of Russia were: Zinoviev (Jew), Ordzhonikidze (Georgian), Schwarzmann (Jew), Spandarian (Armenian), and later Stalin (Georgian), and Belostolskii (Jew).io Outside of it, Trotski (Jew) was active both in New York and London.

Since 1914, these and other professional agitators had been carrying on, principally in Switzerland, a campaign against the war, which they hoped to turn into a class struggle.11 Under wartime conditions, however, a well organized revolutionary movement was difficult to effect. In 1905 the party in Russia had counted three million adherents, in 1906 one million, in 1907 three-quarters of a million, in 1908 only 174,000, and in 1910 just 46,000. In April 1917, a congress of the party claimed to represent 76,000 organized workers. It would be idle to fancy that this minute body was in any sense representative of the ‘proletariat’, or that it could become a welcome ruler, seven months later, over millions of people.12 But the Zionist task was facilitated by a clever exploitation of the German general staff in the beginning of 1917. The latter, in order to render Russia impotent and thus free troops for use on the western front, staked more on the use of subversives and thus played the Zionist game. ” Some man in Germany “, writes General von Hoffmann, then chief of the German staff on the Russian front, 13 ” who had connections with the Russian revolutionaries exiled in Switzerland, came upon the idea of employing some of them in order to hasten the undermining and poisoning of the morale of the Russian army. He applied to the deputy Erzberger and the deputy of the foreign office. And thus it came about that Lenin was conveyed through Germany to Petersburg in the manner that afterward transpired “. On May 10, 1917, shortly after his arrival in Russia from the sealed German railway car, Lenin spoke at the Petrograd conference of his party against the provisional government.14 He wanted to destroy at the roots every reminder of Russia’s Slavic past. He feared that a ” bourgeois government would make the Soviets unnecessary “,15

How, in the course of the ten months following, the bolsheviks replaced the provisional government, and, by preventing the constituent assembly from meeting, remained the absolute masters of Russia; how, faithful to their Zionist patrons, they manifested the strength of Zionism by subjecting the Tsar’s empire to a ” reign of terror, violence, and crime “,16 is common knowledge and cannot be treated here. Suffice it to say that they justified the judgment of the Austrian foreign minister, Count Czernin, who wrote (Nov. 17, 1917):”

” This Russian bolshevism is a peril to Europe, and if we had the power, beside securing a tolerable peace for ourselves, to force other countries into a state of law and order, then it would be better to have nothing to do with such people as these, but to march on Petersburg and arrange matters there. Their leaders are almost all of them Jews, with altogether fantastic ideas, and I do not envy the country that is governed by them. The way they begin is this: everything in the least reminiscent of work, wealth, and culture, must be destroyed, and the bourgeoisie exterminated. Freedom and equality seem no longer to have any place on their programme: only a bestial suppression of all but the proletariat itself.”1″

Zionism gained immeasurably by this success in both money and influence. Crown jewels and possessions, millions of paper rubles put into circulation, art treasures in museums, churches, and private houses, all have been turned to its account. Besides, the dramatic triumph of the ruthless methods advocated by Ginzberg did much to overawe the opposition to Zionism among the Jews. As a leading Zionist said:19

” The downfall of the tsardom of Russia was undoubtedly one of the greatest events in the world’s history. Russia entered into a period of revolution which seemed to bring with it all the blessings of right and liberty. The restrictions affecting nationalities and creeds were removed. But far from destroying Zionism, the new liberty gave it an immense stimulus.” (The blessings mentioned, it appears, are reserved exclusively for Zionists.)

While these events were taking place in Petrograd, Zionists in London were not idle. ” London from the beginning was the financial centre of the Zionist organization “;20 for, while the rival banking firm of Bleichroeder Mendelssohn in Berlin continued their support of the moderates, Rothschild had been won to the new movement. Nahum Sokolov had, during his frequent visits as member of the inner actions committee, been impressed with the opportunities offered for establishing a centre there:21 since 1914, he and Chaim Weizmann had been actively working to bring its political problems to the fore in England. To this end, Weizmann had entered into intimate ” relations with the house of Rothschild and done much to make this family more closely acquainted with Zionism.”22

Among the non-Jews, an invaluable friend was found in Sir Mark Sykes. How he was won to the cause is not clear:23 before the war he disliked it as ” bad cosmopolitanism and finance,” but, in the middle of the war, came to the decision which he announced in Hull, that ” It would mean that every Jew throughout the world would be made more valuable to the state which he had chosen for himself.”24 However that may be, from the beginning of 1917, Sykes devoted himself heart and soul to the movement, and his house at No. 9 Buckingham Gate, ” equipped with all such materials as correspondence files and telegraphic communications, became a Zionist centre.”25 Collaborating with Sykes was another gentile, Georges Picot.

The first official meeting of what was known as the ” Political Committee ” took place on February 7, 1917, at the house of Dr. Moses Gaster. There were present (besides Gaster) Lord Rothschild, James de Rothschild, Sir Mark Sykes, Sir Herbert Samuel, Herbert Bentwich, Harry Sacker, Joseph Cowen, Chaim Weizmann, and Nahum Sokolov.26

The Zionist programme to serve as a basis for official negotiations, covering the future mandates of Palestine, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and a kingdom of the Hedjaz, was discussed in detail.27 On the following day (Feb. 8) there was a second, smaller conference, with Georges Picot, at Sykes’ house: the result was a plan known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, which was then put into execution.

Sokolov left for Paris to negotiate with the French government. On March 22, 1917, he was received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he ” outlined the principles of the Zionist programme. He received the assurance that the French government regarded the programme very favorably and was authorized to inform the Zionist organizations of Russia and America of this result by telegraph.”28 Sykes left for Rome, and thence for Port Said and Cairo; then to Jeddah to negotiate with King Hussein, returning on June 14 to London, where he was occupied until November 1917, arranging the preliminaries for the Balfour declaration.29

One must not suppose that this was all done on the sole initiative of the London group; on the contrary,” every idea born in London was tested by the Zionist organization in America, and every suggestion from America received the most careful attention in London.”ц╖ц╝

The details of the diplomatic conversations in London which led to the declaration have not yet been made public; but, of the British cabinet besides Sir Herbert Samuel, Lloyd George, if not already a Zionist, was easily won to the cause;31 while Sir Arthur Balfour and other members who had the good of the nation at heart, were yet inclined to view it favourably from the following considerations:

a) The financial support of the Rothschilds, at a time when the country had to float loan after loan, would be lost, if the Zionist request were refused.

b) If granted, it would ensure Jewish co-operation throughout the empire and in other countries, both during the war and in the future.

c) The Palestine mandate, coupled with that of Mesopo tamia, was the gateway to India: by calling it ” a national home for the Jews”, England would lull French and Italian jealousy.

As against these, the mandate constituted a breach of England’s promise made to the Arabs in 1915 in return for their support in fighting Turkey. To offset this objection, the Zionists generously proposed to give the Arabs what they already owned, but with the new title of ” Kingdom of the Hedjaz “.

Moreover the cabinet could count on a number of Zionist votes in the House, notably Sir Alfred Mond (the late Lord Melchett)32 and Sir Philip Sassoon among the Conservatives, and more among Lloyd George’s following. The shrewder members of the cabinet realized that they would eventually have to reckon with the British taxpayer, and the commercial advantages33 of Palestine lost nothing in Zionist exposition. But the great plea was that the English and the Jews, the two great trading races of the world, should unite forces and take over the trade routes between Europe and Asia.34

Although the Zionists had made all preliminary arrangements with the allied governments and the cabinet as a whole was desirous of complying with every point, yet some over-scrupulous member,35 with (the Zionists thought) undue regard for the actual inhabitants of Palestine, altered the text Weizmann’s committee had prepared.36 Instead of the words, ” The reconstitution of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people “, at the last minute were substituted the words, ” The establishment of a national home in Palestine “.

” It can scarcely be necessary to explain at length,” wrote Asher Ginzberg indignantly three years later,37 ” the difference between the two versions. Had the British government accepted the version suggested to it, its promise might have been interpreted as meaning that Palestine, inhabited as it now is, was restored to the Jewish people on the ground of its historic right; that the Jewish people was to rebuild its waste places and was destined to rule over it and manage all its affairs in its own way, without regard to the consent or non-consent of its present inhabitants. For this rebuilding (it might have been understood) is only a renewal of the ancient right of the Jews, which overrides the right of the present inhabitants who have wrongly established their national home on a land not their own.”

It does not seem, however, that Ginzberg advocated the Jews withdrawing from the rich lands of Europe and America, on the ground that they have there ” wrongly established their national home on a land not their own.”

The Balfour declaration was issued on November 2, 1917, and transmitted to Lord Rothschild on behalf of the Zionist federation.38 Its endorsement by the other allies was a small matter between Nahum Sokolov and the two representatives, Pichon for France, Imperial! for Italy. From the debates in the French senate, April 5, 6, 1921, following the interpellation of Senator Dominique Delahaye, it subsequently appeared that neither the Chamber of Deputies nor the Senate had ever had the question of ratification put to them.

To those active in Zionist circles, the declaration was no surprise: among the leaders it had been expected for many months. It was, however, made the occasion for public rejoicing in the Jewish and Jew-controlled gentile press,39 and mass meetings were held in London and addressed by Sir Mark Sykes,40 Sir Herbert Samuel,41 and others prominent in politics. But the Jewish moderates, headed by Claude G. Montefiore and David L. Alexander, raised a dissentient voice: they feared, as at the Basle congress,42 that the new nationalism would injure their social rights as Englishmen. Even more they disliked being eclipsed by Ginzberg’s satellites from the ghetto. They made, therefore, common cause with the anti-Zionists in America; and when anti-Zionism died out there, it disappeared in England.

Meantime, in New York, changes were taking place of much importance to Jewry. When the Kehillah was organized in 1909,43 the control rested with a group of German Jews, including Jacob Schiff, president of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, a branch of the Bleichroeder Mendelssohn bank,44 Isidor Strauss, Julius Sachs, David Philipson, who, through their affiliations in Germany, were anti-Zionists and favoured the international Jewish policy. They maintained a ministry for foreign affairs, at first composed of appointees of the union of American-Hebrew congregations. The latter, through its delegates, established an ambassadorship at Washington to act for the Jewish people on immigration and other political matters. Subsequently the union was given the support of the B’nai B’rith,45 whose leading member had been appointed ambassador. ” For thirty years “, wrote an American Zionist,46 ” our ambassador at Washington was the Hon. Simon Wolf. He informed the United States government what the Jews of this country wanted and what they were opposed to. In Simon Wolf’s opinion, the Jews were not a nationality but a religious sect; they insisted upon being regarded solely as Americans. Mr. Wolf spoke in the name of assimilation on behalf of the Jews in America.”

Later another more powerful group of Jews organized under the name of the American Jewish committee and took over the ministry of foreign affairs.47 During the Wilson administration certain Jews appointed to the highest posts exerted so much influence on the chief executive and members of congress as almost to control the national policy: in particular the Zionist Louis Brandeis of the supreme court, Bernard Baruch, chairman of the war industries board,48 Felix and Paul Warburg of the federal reserve, Julius Klein of the department of commerce, and Eugene F. Meyer.49

Under Zionist influence, the Yiddish newspapers, edited by radicals, started a campaign against the American Jewish committee on the grounds that it was autocratic, and demanded an American Jewish congress, elected by and responsible to the people. ” As Zionism moved forward,” continues the article quoted above, ” the opposition had to recede. When the congress is not in session, the affairs of the Jewish nation are regulated [1917] by the inner actions committee50 and the greater actions committee, two executive bodies the members of which are elected by the Zionist congress.”

Thus Zionism, by clever propaganda, gained the masses. But it did not neglect to win over certain leaders of American Jewry, by what means may be guessed. Jacob Schiff had long been interested in the revolutionary movement in Russia and had transferred large sums to support it through his bank, as far back as 1905. The success therefore of the revolution in 1917, engineered by the Zionists, could not fail to change his views. ” I believe, ” he wrote Rabbi Philipson in 1918,51 ” I have heretofore explained to you the reasons which, soon after the outbreak of the Russian revolution, have induced me to change my former attitude towards the Zionist movement, and I have since become more and more convinced that it was in the best interests of our people that I did this.”

Schiff had evidently shared the ” blessings “52 of the Russian revolution and quite properly gave credit where it was due. The letter continues. ” There can be no doubt that the success of these [Zionist] endeavours will have the

most healthy and refreshing effect upon entire Israel, wherever in the world its members may be located, and the proposition you bring forward, to oppose these efforts, is, in my opinion, nothing less than preposterous.”

When the opposition to Zionism came to a head in America, it found all the leading Jews on whose support it had counted either only nominally anti-Zionist, or frankly favourable. Rabbi David Philipson and Max Senior, who with others were attempting to call a conference to combat it in the autumn of 1918, met with little encouragement in New York. Oscar S. Strauss wrote:53 ” I regard the holding of a conference to counteract the activities of Zionists as distinctly unwise and harmful. I do hope that your committee will recall its proposed action. I make this suggestion, yea request, not as a Zionist, as I am not affiliated with that organization, but as an American and as a lover of our people.”

An exchange of letters between Max Senior and Louis Marshall54 is more instructive. ” The reasons,” wrote the latter, ” which I then urged [in declining Rabbi Philip-son’s invitation] have been emphasized by the rapid march of events. The allied armies have now swept the Turks and the Germans out of Palestine. It is significant that Jewish units constitute a part of the victorious army.

” President Wilson expressed his personal views in support of the principles laid down in the Balfour declaration. France, Italy, and Greece have formally adopted it: there is therefore an unanimity of sentiment on the part of the allied powers.

” The American Jewish committee, although its members are in the main non-Zionists, recognised the political importance of the declaration as a factor in the effort to defeat the central powers. Major Lionel de Rothschild, president of the league for British Jews, informs me that that organization is in agreement with the American Jewish committee.”55

But, if Marshall pretended that the Jews should accept Zionism in order to comply with the ” unanimous sentiment of the allied powers ” who had determined to build a home for the Jews in Palestine, he was not blind to the real reason for Zionism. His letter continues:

” The Balfour declaration with its acceptance by the powers, is an act of the highest diplomacy. It means both more and less than appears on the surface. Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan: it is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon.”56 The letter ends with a threat to non-Zionists: ” All the protests they may make would be futile. It would subject them individually to hateful and concrete examples of a most impressive nature. Even if I were disposed to combat Zionism, I would shrink from the possibilities which might result “.

Senior’s reply is direct and fearless:57

” I repudiate any connection on national, religious, racial, or cultural grounds, with a ‘ national home-land for the Jews in Palestine’. We have seen how demoralizing a divided allegiance was to the Germans in this country. I do not pretend to know the inside political history and intricacies of policy of which you hint… I am not to be intimidated into silence by either of the threats you mention… I regard the real danger to the Jew to lie in silent acquiescence to the Zionist claims. You recognize that the non-Zionists did not precipitate the rupture. The break was bound to come, but the recent Tammany-like circular to congressmen was certainly the breaking point… I refuse to accept the Zionist coup d’etat as an accomplished and sacred fact… Finally, you and I and the Zionists know that Palestine offers no solution for the Jewish question in Russia, Galicia, and Rumania. Six million Jews in these lands cannot be removed to Palestine. I certainly have no objection to Jews moving to Palestine, or Persia, or Patagonia, if they can secure freedom in those lands. But emigration is only a palliative. The Jewish question must ultimately be worked out in Russia, Galicia, and Rumania.”

Senior’s fear that the ” real danger to the Jews (in America) lay in silent acquiescence to Zionist claims” has proved justified. The tasks since set by the Zionists for American Jewry have been heavier by far than those set by the Egyptians.58 But the Zionists cleverly lulled any lurking suspicions in the minds of all but a very few (including Senior) by a fanatical appeal to nationalism and a romantic picture of the ” land overflowing with milk and honey “. Anti-Zionism disappeared.

Then came the peace conference; the formation of the League of Nations at Geneva;59 and the British mandate for the holy land, over which the Jews exercised complete control in practice, leaving to the English taxpayer the expense of civil administration.60

Thus Zionism gained its ends: in Berlin and Petrograd by subversive activities, in London and New York mainly by diplomacy. Without the influence of Zionism in America during the Wilson administration, and American money, the Balfour declaration, obtained by the efforts of Weizmann and Sokolov, would have remained a dead letter.

1. Sokolov, History of Zionism, p. 21.

2. Jesse Sampler, Guide to Zionsm, p. 63.

3. Oscar S. Straus, in a letter to Rabbi Philipson, dated New York, Sept. 2,1918, alluding to this deal and writing in favour of Zionism asks, “Doyouwish Palestine to be under the tyranny of Germans, or of their brutalized tools, the Turks? “.

4. Sampter, op, cit., p. 63.

5. Ibid., p. 239.

6. Ibid., p. 63.

7. Ibid., p. 63.

8. Ibid., p. 63.

9. Supra, eh. IV.

10. Batsell, op. cit., p. 655.

11. In 1915 a conference of socialists opposed to war was held at Zimmerwald. Exponents of the programme of international revolution and class warfare were present in force. Ibid., p. 757. It was this year that Rosika Schwimmer (Jewess) induced Henry Ford to sail to Europe in the famous peace ship.

12. Ibid., p. 695. The population of Russia in 1917 was one hundred and thirty million.

13. The War of Lost Opportunities (New York, 1925), pp. 180-181.

14. Batsell, op. cit., p. 27.

15. 8 Speeches of Lenin (New York, 1928), pp. 19-26.

16. Protocol VII last par.

17. In the World War (London, 1919), pp. 216-217.

18. Cf. supra, ch. IV. Nordau’s criticism: ” He understands freedom as practised in the ghetto.”

19. Sokolov, History of Zionism, p. 38.

20. Ibid., p. 43.

21. Ibid., p. 44.

22. Ibid., p. 8.

23. His biographer, Shane Leslie, says ” it was his Catholicism that assisted Mark to understand the Jewish tragedy.” Mark Sykes (London, 1923), p. 269.

24. Loc. cit.

25. Sokolov II, History of Zionism, p. 29.

26. Ibid., p. 52.

27. This programme had been drafted by Gaster, Weizmann, Bentwich, Cowen and Sokolov at the end of 1916: he. cit.

28. Ibid., p. 52.

29. Shane Leslie, p. 270.

30. Sokolov, p. 82.

31. Lloyd George’s connection with the Jew Sir Basil Zaharoff (real name Zaccharia), large shareholder in Vickers, Maxim Ltd., munition works, should be kept in mind. For a statement on Zaharoff at this time see Boucard, Les dessous de I’espionnage anglais (Paris, 1929), pp. 228-234.

32. Vice-president (subsequently president) of one of the largest chemical firms, Brunner Mond & Co, in which Chaim Weizmann was also associated. Sassoon, another Jew, was closely connected with Mond in British politics.

33. The mineral deposits of the Jordan valley, for which Alfred Mond (the late Lord Melchett) obtained the monopoly in 1929.

34. ” The geographical position of Palestine, as the connecting link between three continents, if held by the English and the Jews, both shopkeepers, offers the opportunity of making the land of Israel the great emporium of “East and West”: Bernard Rosenblatt, Social Zionism, pp. 145, 146.

35. Presumably Sir Arthur J. Balfour himself.

36. The text was drafted under Ginzberg’s directions by the Jewish political committee composed of: Sokolov (chairman), Weizmann, Leopold Kessler, Cowen, Bentwich, Albert M. Hyamson, Simon Marks (secretary), Sacher, Israel Sieff, Leon Simon, Ettinger and Folkpvskii.

37. Ahad-ha-am, Essays on Judaism and Zionism, tr. by Leon Simon, p. 15.

38. Supra, ch. I.

39. ” But we all know how the declaration was interpreted at the time of its publication, and how much exaggeration many of our workers and writers have tried to introduce into it.” Ahad-ha-am, loc. cit.

40. Shane Leslie, p. 270.

41. In his speech at the demonstration of Dec. 2,1917, at the London opera-house, Samuel said that he ” had stood for Zionism not only in the cabinet, but outside it”. Sokolov, p. 47.

42. Supra, ch. III. “

43. Supra, ch. II.

44. Affiliated with the big ” D ” banks in Germany: Deutsche Bank, Disconto Gesellschaft, Dresdener Bank, Darmstadter Bank.

45. Supra, ch. III.

46. Louis Lipsky: The Maccabean (New York, June, July, 1917), p. 276.

47. Loc. cit., Presumably at the beginning of the Wilson administra tion.

48. Baruch stated publicly that during the war in his official capacity he ” probably exercised more power than any other man in the country “.

49. Present head of the Federal Reserve Board.

50. Supra, ch. V.

51. Letter of the late Jacob H. Schiff to Rabbi David Philipson, dated: Bar Harbor, Sept. 5,1918.

52. Supra, ch. V.

53. Letter of Oscar S. Strauss to Rabbi David Philipson, Beechwood, Avenue Avondale, Cincinnati, Ohio, dated New York, Sept. 2, 1918.

54. Born in Syracuse, N. Y., 1856; graduated from Columbia law school; became partner in law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermeyer & Marshall; appointed, in 1908, chairman of N. Y. state immigration commission; acted as counsel for Gov. Sulzer in his impeachment. For twenty years, chairman of the commission on amendment, N. Y. Bar Association. Brought influence to bear on President Taft and Senate to abrogate treaty with Russia, on account of treatment of Jews in Russia. President of Jewish delegation at the peace conference. Served on the board of arbitration (or beth-din) which settled the cloth

ing strike of 1919, in New York. Took a prominent part in Zionist movement; headed many Jewish charities, including the American Jewish relief commission which raised seventy-five million dollars ” for Jewish war sufferers “. Trustee of Syracuse university; president of N. Y. state college of forestry. Died in Zurich, Sept. 11, 1929. (Extract from press obituary notices on day following his death).

55. Letter of Louis Marshall to Max Senior, dated New York, Sept. 26, 1918.

56. Italics are ours.

57. Letter of Max Senior to Louis Marshall, dated Washington, Sept. 30, 1918.

58. The taxes and “-contributions ” for ” rebuilding Palestine ” have amounted to $100,000,000. Infra, ch. VI.

59. ” The League of Nations is an old Jewish idea.” Sampler, Guide to Zionism, p. 21. Leon Simon, in a draft for the Palestine mandate written in March 1918, said: ” It is fitting that one of the powers should act for the League as sovereign of Palestine during the period that must elapse before the Jewish nation can grow to full maturity.”

60. The construction of roads and the maintainance of an adequate police have been the two largest items.


Sionism is a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon,” wrote Louis Marshall,1 meaning that the project of a national home in Palestine would serve as an excuse for building up a powerful, international organization to supplant eventually the present national governments.

From whatever angle one considers it, the project is an experiment on a vast scale. Decades have passed since the experiment was begun, and it is time to ask:

a) Is the experiment a success or a failure ?

b) Have the promoters of the experiment proved that they have throughout always acted in good faith, or not?

To answer these questions properly would require a careful study of onditions, not only in Palestine, but in the world at large: such a study is beyond the present scope. It is, however, possible to examine certain points which bear directly on the above, namely:

1. Did the promoters of the national home for the Jews use undue political influence on the European powers, England in particular, in obtaining control of Palestine?

2. Did the promoters (the Zionist organization) benefit by the realization of the project?

3. Was their administration of funds scrupulous and competent ?

4. Have the inhabitants of Palestine benefited by the mandate; has Great Britain benefited by it; and have the Jews as a whole benefited by it ?

In connection with the first point, the origin of the Sykes-Picot agreement and of the Balfour declaration has already been traced.2 Both of these were in direct violation of the agreement made by the British government in 1915 through Sir Henry MacMahon with the Sherif of Mecca, Hussein. Then the Sherif had agreed to aid the British cause against the Turks, in return for a promise that Great Britain would recognize and support the independence of the Arabs, south of the prospective Turkish boundary. The British government has withheld from publication part of the official correspondence containing this agreement, in spite of requests made in the House of Lords and the House of Commons.3 It is affirmed by a writer to whom Hussein showed Sir Henry’s letters that, when the Arab leader flatly refused to accept territorial reservations proposed by the British authorities, the latter finally conceded the point and in January 1917 definitely undertook to support Arab claims in the whole territory south of the Turkish boundary, except in the protectorate of Aden and in the region of Basra in southern Iraq. In March 1916, Sir Henry wrote again to the Sherif confirming the agreement.4

But, as Chaim Weizmann once said,5 in this connection: ” Negotiating with a government is easy: one must demand things from a government; a government does not do things by itself; you must know what to demand, how to demand, and when to demand. If you know that, you know all the secret: that is essential for Zionists to understand.”

The Balfour declaration was endorsed in February, 1918, by the French government; in May, by the Italian government through its ambassador in London; in August, 1918, by a published letter from President Wilson; and, later, by a joint resolution of the United States Congress in its 1922 session.6

To allay Arab fears, just before the armistice (Nov. 7, 1918), the British and French governments issued a joint declaration which was posted throughout Syria and Palestine and ran :7 ” The end aimed at by France and England in the East is the complete and final enfranchisement of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of national governments and administrations, drawing their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations.

“To fulfil these purposes, France and Great Britain have agreed to encourage and help the establishment of native governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia, which have been freed by the allies, and in the territories whose liberation they are now pursuing, and to recognize these as soon as they are effectively established. Far from wishing to impose upon the populations of these regions any particular institutions, the allies have no other desire than to assure, by their support and by an effective assistance, the normal functioning of the governments and administrations which the populations have freely given themselves. To assure an impartial and equal justice for all, to facilitate the economic development of the country by helping and encouraging local initiative, to favour the spread of education, to bring to an end Turkish political divisions, too long exploited, such is the role which the two allied governments assume in the liberated territories.”

Early in 1919 there also gained currency in Palestine the twelfth of Wilson’s fourteen points, to the effect that nationalities under Turkish rule ” should be assured an undoubted security of life and an unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”.8 In May of the same year a purely American commission went to the Near East to ascertain the wishes of the communities as to a mandatory; the commission reported that Great Britain received second choice in 57.49 per cent, of the petitions; that there was a general agreement in favour of retaining the unity of Syria and Palestine, as well as a strong sentiment against France as a mandatory for Syria; less than one per cent, of the petitions supported the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, while 72.3 per cent, expressed opposition to it.9

Yet, without reference to these findings, the allied supreme council, at its meeting in San Remo on April 24, 1920, awarded the mandate for Syria and the Lebanon to France, and the mandates for Palestine and Iraq to Great Britain. This in itself was an act of bad faith on the part of the council; but the terms of the Palestine mandate were still less in keeping ” with the wishes of the native populations “. The mandate provided for carrying out the Jewish national home policy on the one hand, and for guaranteeing the rights of the existing population on the other. Throughout the confusion of the two aims, and the duplicity of both the British government and the Zionists behind it, are striking. In article 2 the mandatory made itself responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home; for the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. In article 4 the Palestine administration was to receive special advice from a so-called Jewish agency; under article 6 the British government undertook to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands: other sections provided that local autonomy should be encouraged, that there should be free access to the holy places, etc.

At the time when the mandate was awarded,10 Palestine bad a population of 757,182, of whom 590,890 were Moslems, 73,024 Christians, and 83,794 Jews; the remaining 9,474 were principally Druzes.11 The Jewish fraction, eleven per cent, of the population, was roughly divided into four groups:

Descendants of Jews who had never left Palestine

(negligible in number);

1. Descendants of Jews who had returned to Palestine in the middle ages (few in number);

2. Those who had come in during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, under non-Zionist auspices;

3. Those who had come in under Zionist auspices.

The mandate, however, recognized the Zionist organization as the Jewish agency with special public functions in Palestine, because Zionists were thoroughly organized both there and abroad and were the promoters of the whole experiment; and the Zionist, Sir Herbert Samuel, was appointed first British High Commissioner, taking office on July 1, 1920, superseding the military administration.12

The next point, whether the Zionist organization has gained by the venture, is easily elucidated by noting the enormous expansion of that body in the last decade and the millions of dollars that have passed through its hands.

The world Zionist organization today includes forty-seven territorial Zionist federations, a few smaller Zionist societies, and certain special unions.13 all represented at the world Zionist congresses. There are seven members of the Zionist executive committee in Palestine (four general Zionists, two labourites and one Mizrachi Zionist). Their duty is to watch over the work of the Zionist organization in Palestine, and to keep in touch with their colleagues abroad. Of the latter, there are three in England, one in Germany, and one in the United States.14

To make its activities more effective, the world Zionist organization has delegated a considerable part of its practical work to certain corporations and companies, of which the more important are:15

1. The Jewish Colonial Trust, Ltd., with a balance sheet for the year 1928 of more than ?10,000,000.

2. The Anglo-Palestine Co. Ltd., subsidiary of the above, also showing a balance sheet of more than ?10,000,000.

3. The Jewish National Fund, which by 1929 had acquired about 71,500 acres of rural, and 450 acres of urban land. The annual receipts between 1924 and 1928

averaged $1,384,000, making over $5,500,000 for the four years.

4. The Palestine Land Development Co, Ltd., which acquired about 38,400 acres, of which it sold to Jewish settlers about 14,300 acres. Its trial balance sheet in Dec. 1928 showed a balance of over $2,100,000.

5. The Palestine Foundation Fund, Ltd. (Keren Hayesod), which received for Zionist projects during the eight years 1921-1929 a total of approximately $18,000,000.

It maintains a complete educational system, including the Hebrew university at Jerusalem, a technical institute at Haifa, four technical and one music school, four normal schools, six secondary schools, and ninety-seven elementary schools.

Under Zionist auspices there has been organized also:

1. The Women’s International Zionist Organization;

2. The Sick Benefit Fund17 with a membership of 15,000.

Of the fifteen million Jews in the world today, 1,200,000 are enrolled as members of the Zionist organization. To secure the co-operation of all Jews and thus broaden its base of support, the organization entered into long negotiations with non-Zionists in America.18 In these, Samuel Untermeyer, Zionist, law partner of Louis Marshall (ostensibly anti-Zionist) in New York, took a leading part. The Zionist body altered its name to ” World Zionist Organization “; then in 1923, as money was not coming in fast enough, Chaim Weizmann at the Carlsbad congress suggested that the latter should be transformed into the ” Jewish Agency under the Mandate “, and should admit all non-Zionist Jews. Alfred Mond, the late Lord Melchett President of the English Zionist federation, was requested to go to America to promote the new Jewish agency and welcome Louis Marshall and his non-Zionist following into it. While in America, Mond said:19

” The Jewish Agency under the mandate is the broadest possible basis for all those who wish to help. It will be an immense aid to Palestine and a great strength to the Zionist organization, and I am glad to think the negotiations which had been carried on in London, favoring a committee to include the Zionist executive and representatives of the most important Jewish bodies have been brought to a successful result. I told Chaim Weizmann that it will be one of the greatect honours that can be conferred on me to serve on a board of that kind.”20

After long negotiations, a basis of agreement was finally reached in August 1929. Zionists and non-Zionists are now merged in a new body known as the Jewish Agency: its council includes an equal number of Zionists and non-Zionists : the executive committee of the council, consisting of twenty Zionists and twenty non-Zionists, is henceforth to occupy the privileged position described under article 4 of the mandate.

Such, in brief, are the visible organs established by Zionists for realizing their aim. What the sums collected by these and other organs would total is not easy to estimate. The Zionist organization is said to have spent seven million pounds ($34,000,000),2i and Baron Edmond de Rothschild an additional $50,000,000 in Palestine. 22 The first sum, however, represents but a fraction of the sums collected. The Keren hayesod alone brought in $18,000,000; and, in the single month of September 1929, the Jews of the United States raised more than ?1,500,000.23 A conservative estimate of the funds that have passed through Zionist hands since the Balfour declaration would be $100,000,000, irrespective of the large sums spent annually by the British government. Had such a large capital been placed in competent hands, there would be no need for further appeals or loans. Yet in May 1931, Alfred Mond made personal efforts to float a projected Zionist International loan and endeavoured to get the Italian government to join with the governments of Great Britain, France and Germany in guaranteeing it.24

But the Zionist administration of funds has been not only incompetent but irregular. A single instance may suffice.

It concerns the opposition made by American Zionists to the administration of Louis Lipsky, President of the American Zionist organization, and the resignation from that body of Rabbi Stephen Wise, Samuel Rosensohn and Lawrence Berenson.

At the Atlantic City (U. S. A.) Zionist convention the previous year, the disclosure had been made of the mismanagement of funds, and Berenson and Rosensohn were appointed to enquire into the affairs of the organization and restore the confidence of the Zionists in the country.

Berenson said later:25

” One of the first things we did was to create a thing heretofore unknown to the organization: namely a balanced budget—whereby the organization could never spend or invent a necessity for sums in excess of the budget. We found a deficit of $175,000, exclusive of guarantees, which had been created under the leadership of Mr. Louis Lipsky in the year or two prior to the Atlantic City convention. In the creation of a balanced budget, it became necessary to eliminate a lot of expenditures such as subsidies and compensation to favoured individuals.26

” A note on the Mercantile Bank (New York) was endorsed by the organization for the American Zion Commonwealth for $285,000. A petition of bankruptcy has been filed against the American Zion Commonwealth in Palestine. An attempt is now being made to save the Commonwealth and to raise $200,000. That is futile. The liabilities are $1,068,000. The assets consist of approximately $400,000 of accounts receivable, money owed by American purchasers of the lands in Palestine, and which will not be paid until the deeds are produced; but those deeds can not be produced. The remaining asset is land in Palestine, purchased in the land boom a few years ago. In part, the moneys received, instead of being applied to acquire the deeds, were used to purchase additional lands. The American Zion Commonwealth attempted to build an hotel, but the project had to be abandoned. The Commonwealth has other contingent liabilities, and the Arabs threaten to foreclose.

” One of the obligations of the Zionist Organization of America was the endorsement of this note on the Central Mercantile Bank of New York for $285,000. President Weinstein and Rosenblatt had a hand in that work, and were the two prime movers in the land speculation. When the speculation was rife and it looked as though the America Zion Commonwealth would make money, Mr. Lipsky, a man without any business experience, endorsed the American Zion Commonwealth as an American Zionist institution, ran editorials in the New Palestine and other Zionist publications, and was largely responsible for inducing the American purchasers to make deposits for the acquisition of lands through the American Zion Commonwealth. Thus the United Palestine Appeal felt compelled to advance in cash to the American Zion Commonwealth a sum of $320,000; and about $125,000 more of the United Palestine Appeal money had to be used to pull the American Zion Commonwealth out of its difficulties.

” The endorsement was placed upon that note by Mr. Lipsky without the knowledge, consent or approval of anybody in the Zionist organization.

” The United Palestine Appeal found it necessary to advance these sums of money, because the indignation of the land purchasers was injuring the United Palestine Appeal campaign, and even affecting the confidence in the Zionist organization.”

There remains to consider whether the native population of Palestine has benefited by the mandate. It is recalled that 79 per cent, of the population at the time of the St. Remo award was Moslem and it is therefore fitting to weigh the complaints of the Palestine Arabs. These may be grouped as follows:

1. Prior to the British occupation, Jews and Arabs lived together in tranquillity; since, there have been four serious breaks, of which three occurred in 1920 and 1921 and totalled 104 killed and 400 wounded; the

last was still more serious. In view of the fact that each break has inspired a fruitful campaign of Zionist appeals, there would seem to be a deeper connection

between the former and the latter.

2. The purpose of article 22 of the League covenant was to promote ” the well-being and development of the people” of the mandated territories. Alien Jews,

living outside Palestine, did not come within the scope of this aim. The Balfour declaration prevented Pales tine from creating those self-governing institutions described in article 2 of the mandate. Article 20 of the League covenant provided that all states members of the League must take immediate steps to procure their release from any undertakings inconsistent with the terms of the covenant: the Balfour declaration fell under this category.

3. Because of the Balfour declaration, the British authorities set up in Palestine a Jewish agency whose function was to advance Jewish interests above all others; Jews should be represented in a Palestinian legislature only in proportion to their numbers.

4. The Jewish national home policy cannot be accepted by the Arabs. If it constituted a reason for letting the

Jews outside Palestine enter the country ” as of right and not on sufferance,” it was the more reason that the Arabs themselves should be confirmed in their national home as against all intruders, and immigration placed in their control. The Jews already in Palestine were there by right and should enjoy the same status as the Arabs. But to argue (as the British did) that the right of the present Jewish community in Palestine should be extended to all the Jews of the world, was to adopt a line of reasoning ” which no people, let alone the Arabs, would accept if applied to itself.”27 5. The Arab-speaking inhabitants, to whom Palestine is Falastin (Philistia) resent its being referred to in all official documents as Eretz-Israel (land of Israel). They do not see why a country which they are accustomed to think of as their own should suddenly become Eretz Israel without their consent, simply because it has pleased other nations to set up in it a Jewish national home. They point out that their own possession of the country since the seventh century gives them rights to-day which the Jews scattered abroad do not possess. The next question is, have the Jews as a whole benefited by the national home policy ? The native Jewish population of Palestine is in much the same position as the Arab population: it has suffered from a large influx of immigrants causing acute unemployment. Nor have the immigrants benefited greatly. Although their future depended largely on agricultural development, the majority of Jewish immigrants, as shown by official figures and estimates, settled in the towns: in 1922 there were found to be 68,000 Jews in urban areas and only 15,000 in rural areas; in 1925, 85,000 in urban against 23,000 in rural.28 In 1926 and 1927 unemployment grew so acute that the Zionist organization had to resort to doles in the chief centres of Jewish population.29 For the seven years 1922-1928 the total number of Jewish immigrants was 79,894, nearly as many as the Jews in the country at the time of the British occupation; the total number of Jewish emigrants (mostly disappointed immigrants) for that same period was 23,761.

The huge sums raised on the pretext of a national home, and the new taxes devised and levied by the Zionist organization have been a heavy drain on Jewry as a whole, without any palpable compensation.30 What of Great Britain? She has long desired to control the Palestine-Transjordan-Iraq route; by the Balfour declaration she was led to the belief that a friendly Jewish population in Palestine would be the best possible guarantee of continued British control of this route which flanks the Suez canal and guards the approach to India. Apparently it is her intention to continue to seek some means of reconciling conflicting interests in Palestine. But her prestige has already suffered: Arab discontent in Palestine has spread to Iraq and India; the Jews have been the first to go back on her and make her responsible for all their difficulties. Moreover Palestine is a heavy drain on her treasury: to it she has had to advance several loans, of which the first in 1927 was for ?4,475,000. The Palestine administration has a public debt, guaranteed by the British treasury; it also has a yearly deficit, which in 1928 amounted to approximately ?800,000.

In conclusion, it is seen that the Zionists, through undue political influence, engaged England in carrying out a Jewish national home policy. This policy, contrary to England’s prior engagements and against her own best interests, has resulted in a costly and futile experiment.

It has created a new politico-racial problem in the near east, and has been disastrous to the native population of Palestine, and even to Jewry taken as a whole. But to its Zionist promoters, it has brought vast influence through the expansion of their own powerful, international organization, and millions and millions in revenue.

World Zionist organization, or Jewish agency, or Alliance Israelite Universelle—whatever name it takes, it is at bottom always the Kahal with its eighteen centuries of accumulated experience. Its aims and principles, whether shrouded in the mysticism of the Talmud or bluntly stated in the Protocols, are the same to-day as under the Roman empire. But in recent years the technical improvements in its methods of operating3! and the debility of national governments32 have advanced its cause with singular rapidity. Just fifty years ago, a German wrote:33 ” Russia is the last defence against the Jews, and its surrender is only a matter of time. The elastic spirit of Jewish intrigue will crush Russia in a revolution, such as the world has never seen the like. When it has overthrown Russia, it will have nothing to fear from any quarter; when it has seized in Russia all the offices of state as it has done with us, then the Jews will openly undertake the destruction of western civilization, and this ” last hour ” of condemned Europe will strike within a hundred or a hundred and fifty years at the latest, since the march of events moves more rapidly in our era than in preceding centuries.”

1. Supra, ch. V. * 1922-1932

2. Supra, ch. V.

3. J. de V. Loder, The Truth about Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Syria, p. 19. See also, Colonial Office, Correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation andihe Zionist Organization, Cmd. 1700, pp. 20, 26; H. W. V. Temperley, VI, History of the Peace Conference of Paris, p. 126.

4. A. Rihani, Around the Coasts of Arabia, ch. IX.

5. At a meeting at the metropolitan opera house, Philadelphia: Jewish Chronicle (May 25, 1928), p. 18.

6. The Balfour declaration was never submitted to either the French or British Parliament. On June 21, 1922, the House of Lords passed a resolution expressing its dissatisfaction with the terms of the mandate. Current History (Sept. 1922), p. 1008.

7. K. de V. Loder, The Truth about Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Syria, p. 32.

8. H. W. V. Temperley, I, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, p. 434.

9. Ibid., p. 145. If Palestine belongs to the Jews by historic right, then Spain by the same right should be handed over to the Moors.

10. The mandate was approved by the council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

11. Colonial Office, Report of the High Commissioner on the Adminis tration of Palestine (1920-1925), p. 48.

12. Allenby’s troops had a song in which the chorus ran : ” And they gave the holy city To the Zionist committee.”

13. Fraternities such as the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, the Mizrachi, the Poale Zion, and Hitachduth.

14. Foreign Policy Association, Information Service (New York, Oct. 16, 1929), vol. V, no. 16, p. 279.

15. Ibid., p. 280.

16. Zionist Executive Report (1929), pp. 278, 283.

17. Cf. supra, ch. II.

18. Supra, ch. V.

19. Speech at the Town Hall, New York, Sept. 26, 1923.

20. The part played by Alfred Mond, now Lord Melchett, is some what mystifying. Very closely connected with Chaim Weizmann in the chemical company of Brunner, Mond and Co., he was a Zionist and favoured the Balfpur declaration, then he favoured the Jewish Agency. In June 1928, at his country house in England, a secret conference of the

Jewish Agency took place, with Weizmann, Felix Warburg, Louis Marshall and Otto Wasserman. Yet on October 26,1928, there appeared a singular interview given by Lord Melchett deprecating the Jewish Agency, with such exclamations as: ” Oh, what is it? What does it want to be? Who needs it? ” Jewish Chronicle (October 26,1928). In

April 1929, he is once more praising and advocating the Agency: Jewish Daily Bulletin (April 24, 1929).

21. Report of the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan (1928) p. 117.

22. Reports of the Experts submitted to the Joint Palestine Survey Commission (1928), p. 34.

23. Foreign Policy Assoc., op. cit., p. 273.

24. Jewish Chronicle (May 18, 1928), p. 28.

25. Address on April 29, 1928, in Washington, D. C. Jewish Daily Bulletin, May 3, 1928.

26. Our italics.

27. Colonial Office, Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delega tion and the Zionist Organization (1922), pp. 18, 19.

28. Foreign Policy Assoc., op. cit., p. 287.

29. Report on the administration of Palestine and Transjordan (1927), p. 29.

30. The financial activities of Zionism before and after its transformation into the ewish world agency have a wide scope. They range from shekel gathering from every member of the Jewish community, innumerable appeals for funds for Palestine, direct taxation ” a’aser ” of every Zionist Jew, equally innumerable appeals for various relief funds, for government loans, etc. The money thus gathered represents huge yearly revolving funds hich constantly replenish the coffers of Jewish international financiers. How little such funds really benefit the Jewish needy masses can be judged from the constant ppeals for relief and the yearly deficits in every department. The Keren hayesod, the Keren hayemeth, the United Palestine Appeal, the Ort, the Russian colonization Fund, the Agro Joint for Jewish Farm settlements in Russia, the Joint Distributing Committee are a few of the outstanding fund-collecting-Jewish organizations.

31. In organizing revolutions, founding pseudo-religious fraternities like the Freemasons, Theosophists, etc.

32. Partly due to the increased facility of communication and con sequent breakdown of national feeling, partly to the spread of dema gogic ideals, sentimentalism, etc.

33. Wilhelm Marr, who took an active part in the revolution of 1848, in Der Sieg des Judentums fiber das Christentum (1879).

Title * Author * Contents * Part One * Part Two * Part Three * Supplements *

The Justice of God: Kahal

Go to link for article.



The Truth from a priest from his own writings 
click on picture
The Point

Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. — Saint Benedict CenterSeptember, 1958


Four Men Who Built The Zionist State

It is a peculiarity of history that the farther back we stand to get a look at it, the better we see it. And thus, with the smoke lifted and the rubble swept aside, those two increasingly distant calamities, World Wars I and II, are every day making a clearer picture.

It may be argued that the abiding effects of a war are not always the precise effects intended by the war’s planners. But when two international conflicts, fought within twenty-five years of each other, have both resulted in the establishment and extension of the same two world powers (to the detriment of all others), then there is more than mere chance to be reckoned with.

Those two powers, the chief two in the world today, are Communism and Zionism. The First World War gave them both a solid footing: the tracts of land they needed if they were to continue. The Communists announced a claim to all of Russia; the Zionists were granted one to Palestine. And World War II more than made good these claims. It gave the Communists the largest empire the world has ever known — stretching from Berlin to the China Sea. More unlikely, it gave the Zionists a sovereign Jewish state in the Holy Land.

That the fortunes of Zionism and Communism have been complementary, that world events of the past several decades have been to their common advantage, is obvious. That both movements are avowedly anti-Christian, and that both are in origin and direction Jewish, is a matter of record. But although the Jewish power of Communism has been quantitatively a greater oppressor of the Church — having killed more priests and desecrated more altars — the Jewish power of Zionism has hit the Church at the very core by seizing and profaning the one land which above all others is the Holy Land.

As an organized program of racism and revenge, fulfilling centuries of thwarted Jewish dreams, Zionism is larger than any one of the men who have been its leaders. Out of the last hundred years, however, there are four of these men who stand as symbols of Zionist progress. Considered in sequence, these leaders of Zionism will tell all of the story that must so urgently be known.

Moses Hess

In the year 1862, a German Jew named Moses Hess published at Paris a book called Rome and Jerusalem. If modern Zionism must be assigned a specific starting point, this was it. Hess’s message was straightforward. “Papal Rome,” he writes, “symbolizes to the Jews an inexhaustible well of poison.” But the Jews should not be discouraged, Hess continues. A “regeneration” of the world has been going on since the “great” French Revolution. Rome is already on the way down, he declares, and the job of the Jew is to establish Jerusalem in place of it. Christianity will be “finally replaced among the regenerated nations by a new historical cult. To this coming cult, Judaism alone holds the key.”

Hess nailed the whole argument in with the resounding blasphemy: “Every Jew has within him the potentiality of a Messiah and every Jewess that of a Mater Dolorosa… The Messianic Era is the present age.”

There was no Jew in Europe that was not interested. But, for many, Hess’s call to arms was too dangerous. There would be Christian resentment, they said. There would be a reaction, and all those new liberties so lately acquired by the Jews, as a result of the Masonic revolutions, would be revoked. To these “assimilated” Jews of Western Europe, Hess was a stab of bad conscience. He was telling them that, despite their white gloves and tall hats and changed names, they were still, and irrevocably, Jewish.

On the other hand, to the Jews of Eastern Europe, still confined in the Polish and Russian ghettos, Moses Hess was a prophet. His book begot a dozen secret societies dedicated to a revived Jewish nationalism. And it set the stage for a more versatile Jewish leader.

Theodore Herzl

If Moses Hess was the violent revolutionist that Zionism needed to start it off, Theodore Herzl was the capable calculator who brought order to the Zionist frenzy, won for Zionism the support of Western Jews, and gave permanent direction to the Jewish resurgence by advocating the immediate establishment of a self-governing Jewish state.

With diabolical doggedness, Herzl peddled his plan for a Jewish homeland on every important doorstep in Europe. The Kaiser listened to him. And so did the King of Italy and the Sultan of Turkey. England offered him a piece of her own property in Uganda. But the Zionists were determined against second-class handouts. They wanted Palestine or nothing for their nation, and Jerusalem for their capital.

Herzl dared approach even the Pope, Saint Pius X, to ask support for a Jewish settlement in Palestine. To so fantastic a proposal, the Holy Father (says Herzl’sDiaries): “answered in a stern and categorical manner: ‘We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem — but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.’ ”

The Pope did not discount the possibility of some measure of success for Zionism. Himself the virtual prisoner of Italy’s Masonic administrators, Saint Pius X held no illusory view of “Catholic Europe.” The men who were then running Europe’s governments were the offspring of those same Freemasons who had gloried in tearing down the ghetto walls while they sacked the churches. For Freemasonry had set the Jews up; and now that the Masons were in unchallenged power, the Jews could expect great things. But could they really expect Palestine? Besides being the Holy Land of the Christians, the territory of Palestine was the guarded property of the Turkish Empire, the centuries-old home of an established people. It seemed unlikely to the Pope that great numbers of Jews could ever settle there — and unthinkable that circumstances would ever permit the Jews to set up their own government in the place.

The Zionists, on their part, were confident that when desired circumstances do not present themselves on their own, they can be made to order. In a speech before the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, Herzl’s colleague, Max Nordau, said (and we repeat that the year was 1903): “Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future World War, the peace conference where, with the help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”

Chaim Weizmann

When the World War that Nordau had foretold eventually came, in 1914, Herzl was ten years dead. But a new Zionist leader was on hand to oversee the expected Jewish triumph. This was Chaim Weizmann, an itinerant chemist who had moved from his native Russia to Manchester, England, sometime before the outbreak of the War. It was Weizmann’s task to acquaint the British government with Jewish designs on the Holy Land. In exchange for an official smile on these Zionist ambitions, Weizmann could promise that his race — its financiers, presidential advisors, newspaper publishers and all — would join whole-heartedly in helping Britain win the war. Consequently, on Nov. 2, 1917, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, addressed a letter to Lord Rothschild, English representative of the powerful Jewish banking house.

“His Majesty’s Government,” wrote Balfour, “view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people … ” Though the letter further specified that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” the Jews assumed this clause was meaningless. The Balfour Declaration, as this letter came to be called, gave the Jews a foot in the Holy Land, and they set out with determination to wriggle the rest of their bulk through the door.

To direct this operation, Chaim Weizmann went to Palestine in 1918, as head of the Zionist Commission. Under Weizmann’s supervision, armies of Jewish immigrants pushed into Palestine (made a British Mandate in 1922) till eventually they had swollen their numbers to one-half the total inhabitants. (Their land-purchases were less prodigal; by 1948 they owned only six per cent of the available property.)

Through all this, the Church remained adamantly anti-Zionist. In a 1921 allocution, Pope Benedict XV expressed his fear that “the Jews should come to take in Palestine a preponderant and privileged position.” Most Catholic observers, however, thought such a possibility remote. Father Bede Jarrett, noted English Dominican, gave the majority opinion when he wrote, also in 1921: “The Jew has always specialized in money. Industrial labor has no interest for him, and agricultural labor even less. Therefore, he will never go back to Palestine, where the wealth is almost entirely in agriculture. Indeed, why should he worry over Palestine when he has the whole world at his feet?”

What Father Jarrett did not realize was that “the Jew” intended to demonstrate just how abjectly at his feet the world was — and precisely by taking over Palestine.

World War I, as Nordau revealed, had been the scheduled means for setting up a Jewish state. But it did not quite do the trick. A second World War was needed to bring the Jews’ otherwise unthinkable scheme to perfection. At the conclusion of World War II, Chaim Weizmann came to America to claim the spoils. Spurred on by him and fellow-Zionists, the United Nations obediently decreed that at the expiration of the British Mandate, the Holy Land should be partitioned into two areas; the smaller to be governed by Arabs, the larger by Jews.

The British were to withdraw on May 15, 1948. At midnight of May 14, Zionist leaders announced the formation of a Jewish State. Ten minutes after their announcement, President Harry Truman, defying all protocol, accorded this infant monstrosity official United States recognition. Later, Mr. Truman was to write in his published memoirs: “I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed me and annoyed me.”

Even if it were not known otherwise, events of the last decade would bear stern witness that the Masonic Mr. Truman overcame his annoyance.

David Ben-Gurion

Though Chaim Weizmann was duly named President of the Jewish State, and held that office until his death in 1952, it was a position of honor only. The Jews were grateful for all Weizmann had done, but they were confident they had come to a new season: the full flowering of that “Messianic Era” that Moses Hess had proclaimed. And they had a new leader: their Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.

As effective head of the Jewish State, Ben-Gurion represents the fulfillment of Hess, Herzl, and Weizmann; the achievement of Zionist victory. He is the symbol of Jewry on its own — the crucifiers of Christ free at last of Christian standards and surveillance. How alien the Jews are to those standards, their ten years of sovereignty have enabled them to show.

The acts of Jewish terrorism that had marked the final months of the British Mandate (when Jews were blowing up British buildings in Palestine, hanging British soldiers, mailing time-bombs to members of the British cabinet) seemed like mere schoolboy pranks when the Jews went to work on the Arabs. One million Arab residents of Palestine were forced to flee their ancestral homes — the orchards, pastures, and farms their people had worked for centuries. And as Archbishop George Hakim of Galilee insisted: “They were terrorized out.” The persuasive device employed by the Jews was simple: they massacred one whole Arab village; then they sent a sound-truck through all the neighboring villages, promising each one the same fate unless the people evacuated their homes immediately.

All this was apart from the military aggression, when Jewish soldiers, with arms supplied by Communist Czechoslovakia, invaded the Arab-assigned regions of Palestine and increased their national holdings by forty per cent. Feats like this thrilled the Jews who were watching from afar, swelled the fantastic sums being poured into Palestine by World Jewry, and provoked statements like this one by New York’s Jewish Congressman, Emmanuel Celler: “Maybe the Israelis may have to give the Arabs another lesson and cut through their forces again like a hot knife through butter. Only this time the pleas of the United Nations will not deter them. They will shoot their way clear into Beirut, Amman, and Alexandria.”

When Prime Minister Ben-Gurion’s plans for the further expansion of the Jewish state are realized (when international circumstances have been ordered to that end), there will be a fresh field open to the Jews. And it will be open not only for additional confiscation of Arab property, but for further desecration of Christian shrines and churches in those parts of the Holy Land that the Jews do not yet control. Bethlehem, for example, can expect a repetition of the profanity and sacrilege that the Jews have already perpetrated in Mount Carmel, Ain-Karim, Haifa, Capharnaum, Tiberias, Beit-Jala, Katamon, in all of Galilee, and in Jerusalem, the Holy City itself. These previous desecrations, so well calculated by Mr. Ben-Gurion, prompted the well-known but little-heeded warning of the late Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Hughes, who stated that there is in operation a “deliberate Jewish effort to decimate the Arabs and to destroy Christianity in Palestine.”

The consequences of this “deliberate Jewish effort” will spread in our time far beyond the borders of Palestine. For the once-Christian West has betrayed Our Lord’s Holy Land into the hands of His crucifiers, and already the price of the betrayal is being paid, in kind. It has cost England her empire. And it has put that other chief Zionist supporter, the United States of America, face to face with a Third World War — one that looms like a terror out of the Apocalypse, and that will provide the most fantastic chapter yet in the unfinished story of Zionism.


Al Nabka 2011


Noble Sanctuary Al-haram al-sharif
click on picture




Art in Palestine - Ismail Shammout 
Click on Picture

The Justice of God: 19 crime families of Israel: Zionist Jewish families, the “crime syndicate” headed by the leading Jewish gangsters of the time. IsraHell is just a crime syndicate run by child murdering paedophiles, see this for 19 families who rule IsraHell.

For current history and events in Occupied Palestine see: Europa & Palestine News « Kawther Salam

THE FINAL TRIAL OF CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS TOGETHER – attacked by the Haburah, the Kahal, the Organized Criminal Zionist Conspiracy = Antichrist

April 30, 2012

Go to this link for: THE FINAL TRIAL OF CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS TOGETHER – attacked by the Haburah, the Kahal, the Organized Criminal Zionist Conspiracy

And here: The Final Trial: Traditional Catholic Prayers: Baptism

The whole cesspool of secret societies warned of by God and Our Lord Jesus Christ and the faithful Apostles and Church Fathers throughout the centuries are part of the Haburah-Kahal, the organized Criminal Zionist Conspiracy, and embody all the Heresies that lead to the Antichrist.


St. Irenaeus Against Heresies and the warning against the Antichrist 
click on picture
Saint Irenaeus Against Heresies

Book I


Book I

1. Inasmuch1 as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,2 “minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith,” and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge;3 and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.2. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself. One4 far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point, “A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inexperienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when it has been mixed up with silver? “Lest, therefore, through my neglect, some should be carried off, even as sheep are by wolves, while they perceive not the true character of these men, -because they outwardly are covered with sheep’s clothing (against whom the Lord has enjoined5 us to be on our guard), and because their language resembles ours, while their sentiments are very different,-I have deemed it my duty (after reading some of the Commentaries, as they call them, of the disciples of Valentinus, and after making myself acquainted with their tenets through personal intercourse with some of them) to unfold to thee, my friend, these portentous and profound mysteries, which do not fall within the range of every intellect, because all have not sufficiently purged6 their brains. I do this, in order that thou, obtaining an acquaintance with these things, mayest in turn explain them to all those with whom thou art connected, and exhort them to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ. I intend, then, to the best of my ability, with brevity and clearness to set forth the opinions of those who are now promulgating heresy. I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus, whose school may be described as a bud from that of Valentinus. I shall also endeavour, according to my moderate ability, to furnish the means of overthrowing them, by showing how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements. Not that I am practised either in composition or eloquence; but my feeling of affection prompts me to make known to thee and all thy companions those doctrines which have been kept in concealment until now, but which are at last, through the goodness of God, brought to light. “For there is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be made known.”73. Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the Keltae,8 and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But thou wilt accept in a kindly spirit what I in a like spirit write to thee simply, truthfully, and in my own homely way; whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness. In fine, as I (to gratify thy long-cherished desire for information regarding the tenets of these persons) have spared no pains, not only to make these doctrines known to thee, but also to furnish the means of showing their falsity; so shalt thou, according to the grace given to thee by the Lord, prove an earnest and efficient minister to others, that men may no longer be drawn away by the plausible system of these heretics, which I now proceed to describe.9The Future Apostasy in the Time of Anti-Christ, and the End of the World. – Foreseen by Saint Irenaeus and the Apostolic Tradition he upheld, here:

Book V.

Chapter XXVIII.-The Distinction to Be Made Between the Righteous and the Wicked. The Future Apostasy in the Time of Anti-Christ, and the End of the World.

Chapter XXVIII.-The Distinction to Be Made Between the Righteous and the Wicked. The Future Apostasy in the Time of Anti-Christ, and the End of the World.

1. Inasmuch, then, as in this world (aeon) some persons betake themselves to the light, and by faith unite themselves with God, but others shun the light, and separate themselves from God, the Word of God comes preparing a fit habitation for both. For those indeed who are in the light, that they may derive enjoyment from it, and from the good things contained in it; but for those in darkness, that they may partake in its calamities. And on this account He says, that those upon the right hand are called into the kingdom of heaven, but that those on the left He will send into eternal fire for they have deprived themselves of all good.

2. And for this reason the apostle says: “Because they received not the love of God, that they might be saved, therefore God shall also send them the operation of error, that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but consented to unrighteousness.”242 For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly “be cast into the lake of fire: “243 [this will happen according to divine appointment], God by His prescience foreseeing all this, and at the proper time sending such a man, “that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but consented to unrighteousness; “whose coming John has thus described in the Apocalypse: “And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard, and his feet as of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon conferred his own power upon him, and his throne, and great might. And one of his heads was as it were slain unto death; and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon because he gave power to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto this beast, and who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemy and power was given to him during forty and two months. And he opened his mouth for blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all who dwell upon the earth worshipped him, [every one] whose name was not written in the book of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any one have ears, let him hear. If any one shall lead into captivity, he shall go into captivity. If any shall slay with the sword, he must be slain with the sword. Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints.”244 After this he likewise describes his armour-bearer, whom he also terms a false prophet: “He spake as a dragon, and exercised all the power of the first beast in his sight, and caused the earth, and those that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he shall perform great wonders, so that he can even cause fire to descend from heaven upon the earth in the sight of men, and he shall lead the inhabitants of the earth astray.”245 Let no one imagine that he performs these wonders by divine power, but by the working of magic. And we must not be surprised if, since the demons and apostate spirits are at his service, he through their means performs wonders, by which he leads the inhabitants of the earth astray. John says further: “And he shall order an image of the beast to be made, and he shall give breath to the image, so that the image shall speak; and he shall cause those to be slain who will not adore it.” He says also: “And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the fight hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six,”246 that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years.

3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.”247This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;248 and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

4. And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God: the chaff, indeed, which is the apostasy, being cast away; but the wheat, that is, those who bring forth fruit to God in faith, being gathered into the barn. And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are saved, that having been after a manner broken up, and rendered fine, and sprinkled over by the patience of the Word of God, and set on fire [for purification], they may be fitted for the royal banquet. As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.”249

Simon Magus and the rest of the Gnostic heretics descended like swarm of locusts upon the church at Rome, Italy and infested it with all the heresies that St. John the Apostle and Evangelist warned of here:

The Fall of Babylon

Revelation 18:

1 ¶ And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 10:1; Ezek.: 43:2
2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen: and is become the habitation of devils and the hold of every unclean spirit and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: … Scripture reference – Rev.: 14:8!; Isaiah: 13:21, 22!
3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; And the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 14:8; 17:2; Jer.: 51:7!; Rev.: 18:9, 15

Her Sins and Punishment

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:45!; 2 Cor.: 6:17!; Eph.: 5:7!; 1 Tim.: 5:22
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven: and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:9
6 Render to her as she also hath rendered to you: and double unto her double, according to her works. In the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 50:29!; 2 Thess.: 1:6
7 As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her. Because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen and am no widow: and sorrow I shall not see. … Scripture reference – Isaiah: 47:8
8 Therefore, shall her plagues come in one day, death and mourning and famine. And she shall be burnt with the fire: because God is strong, who shall judge her.

To have anything to do with the heresies or any of that is to be damned by God forever. In the first two centuries A.D. the church successfully repulsed these heresies, in the largest part due to the witness of Saint Irenaeus.Saint Irenaeus (180 A.D.) fought against the heresies at Rome knowing they were precursors of the Antichrist, which now at the council of Satan – Vatican II have come to pass.NOW THAT THE FINAL APOSTASY AT ROME, ITALY – THE VATICAN HAS COME TO PASS, we are to obey the voice from heaven, which is JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, comanding us to HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ROME, THE VATICAN, SINCE VATICAN II – AND ALL CONNECTED TO IT.

This is the root of all heresies as Saint Irenaeus tells us, which have their fulfillment in the Antichrist as St. John and St. Irenaeus warn us, above. 

Chapter XXIII.-Doctrines and Practices of Simon Magus and Menander.

1. Simon the Samaritan was that magician of whom Luke, the disciple and follower of the apostles, says, “But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is called great. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had driven them mad by his sorceries.”280 This Simon, then-who feigned faith, supposing that the apostles themselves performed their cures by the art of magic, and not by the power of God; and with respect to their filling with the Holy Ghost, through the imposition of hands, those that believed in God through Him who was preached by them, namely, Christ Jesus-suspecting that even this was done through a kind of greater knowledge of magic, and offering money to the apostles, thought he, too, might receive this power of bestowing the Holy Spirit on whomsoever he would,-was addressed in these words by Peter: “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God can be purchased with money: thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not fight in the sight of God; for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.”281 He, then, not putting faith in God a whit the more, set himself eagerly to contend against the apostles, in order that he himself might seem to be a wonderful being, and applied himself with still greater zeal to the study of the whole magic art, that he might the better bewilder and overpower multitudes of men. Such was his procedure in the reign of Claudius Caesar, by whom also he is said to have been honoured with a statue, on account of his magical power.282 This man, then, was glorified by many as if he were a god; and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit. He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him.

2. Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of heresies derive their origin, formed his sect out of the following materials:-Having redeemed from slavery at Tyre, a city of Phoenicia, a certain woman named Helena, he was in the habit of carrying her about with him, declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all, by whom, in the beginning, he conceived in his mind [the thought] of forming angels and archangels. For this Ennoea leaping forth from him, and comprehending the will of her father, descended to the lower regions [of space], and generated angels and powers, by whom also he declared this word was formed. But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through motives of jealousy, because they were unwilling to be looked upon as the progeny of any other being. As to himself, they had no knowledge of him whatever; but his Ennoea was detained by those powers and angels who had been produced by her. She suffered all kinds of contumely from them, so that she could not return upwards to her father, but was even shut up in a human body, and for ages passed in succession from one female body to another, as from vessel to vessel. She was, for example, in that Helen on whose account the Trojan war was undertaken; for whose sake also Stesichorus283 was struck blind, because he had cursed her in his verses, but afterwards, repenting and writing what are called palinodes, in which he sang her praise, he was restored to sight. Thus she, passing from body to body, and suffering insults in every one of them, at last became a common prostitute; and she it was that was meant by the lost sheep.284

3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judaea, when he had not suffered. Moreover, the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of those angels who formed the world; for which reason those who place their trust in him and Helena no longer regarded them, but, as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.

4. Thus, then, the mystic priests belonging to this sect both lead profligate lives and practise magical arts, each one to the extent of his ability. They use exorcisms and incantations. Love-potions, too, and charms, as well as those beings who are called “Paredri” (familiars) and “Oniropompi” (dream-senders), and whatever other curious arts can be had recourse to, are eagerly pressed into their service. They also have an image of Simon fashioned after the likeness of Jupiter, and another of Helena in the shape of Minerva; and these they worship. In fine, they have a name derived from Simon, the author of these most impious doctrines, being called Simonians; and from them “knowledge, falsely so called,”285 received its beginning, as one may learn even from their own assertions.

5. The successor of this man was Menander, also a Samaritan by birth, and he, too, was a perfect adept in the practice of magic. He affirms that the primary Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself is the person who has been sent forth from the presence of the invisible beings as a saviour, for the deliverance of men. The world was made by angels, whom, like Simon, he maintains to have been produced by Ennoea. He gives, too, as he affirms, by means of that magic which he teaches, knowledge to this effect, that one may overcome those very angels that made the world; for his disciples obtain the resurrection by being baptized into him, and can die no more, but remain in the possession of immortal youth.


Spiritual Bouquet: He who loves his life shall lose it; and he who hates his life in this world, keeps it unto life everlasting. St. John 12:25

Doctor of the Church, Bishop and Martyr

Saint Irenaeus was born in the year 120; he was of the Greek tongue, and probably a native of Asia Minor. His parents, who were Christians, placed him while still young under the care of the great Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. It was in this holy school that he learned the sacred science which later made him a great ornament of the Church and the terror of her enemies. Saint Polycarp cultivated his rising genius and formed his mind to piety by his precepts and example, and the zealous young scholar was careful to reap all advantages offered him by the solicitude of such a master. Such was his veneration for his tutor’s sanctity that he observed all the acts and virtues he saw in that holy man, the better to copy his example and learn his spirit. He listened to his instructions with an insatiable ardor, and so deeply did he engrave them in his heart that the impressions remained vivid even in his old age. In order to confound the heresies of his age, this Doctor of the Church acquainted himself with the conceits of the pagan philosophers, and thereby became qualified to trace every error to its sources and set it in its full light. By his writings he was already known to Tertullian, Theodoret and Saint Epiphanus, who speak of him as a luminous torch of truth in the darkness of those times.

After Irenaeus had spent a number of years in combat against the eastern gnostics and philosophers of error, Saint Polycarp determined to send him to Gaul, where many of the heretics of Asia Minor had already migrated to pursue the Catholic religion, which was beginning to find roots there. With a company of about forty Christians, the valiant soldier of Christ ascended the Rhone to Lyons to rejoin and aid Saint Pothinus, its bishop. Saint Pothinus was already advanced in age, and his church’s neophytes could not always distinguish truth from the gnostic aberrations. Saint Pothinus received the apostles with joy and soon ordained Saint Irenaeus.

A hundred times he exposed himself to martyrdom by his zeal, acting as the right arm of the aging bishop, but God was reserving that crown for him twenty-five years later. When Saint Pothinus had glorified God by his splendid martyr’s death in the year 177, Ireneus was chosen to be the second bishop of Lyons. The persecutors imagined that Christianity had been stifled in Lyons, and they ceased their pursuits for a time.

This great Doctor of the Church wrote many important works, of which the most famous is his Adversus Haereses, Against the Heresies, in explanation of the Faith. By his preaching, Saint Irenaeus in a short time converted almost the whole country to the Faith; the Christians of Lyons became models by their candor, their estrangement from all ambition, their poverty, chastity and temperance, and in this way confounded many adversaries of their religion. Saint Irenaeus continued to imitate what he had seen done by his beloved master, Saint Polycarp, himself the disciple and imitator of Saint John the Apostle. One can readily imagine the excellence of the administration and the breadth of charity reigning in the Church of Lyons.

Finally he suffered martyrdom there, with many others, in the year 202, under the Emperor Septimus Severus, after eighty years spent in the service of the Lord. The imperial decrees renewing the persecutions arrived at Lyons at the time of the celebration of Severus’ tenth year of reign; the pagans found amid the celebrations an opportunity to take vengeance on the Christians, who refused to participate in the debaucheries which accompanied these feastings. Assassins armed with daggers, stones and knives filled the city with blood, and thousands of Christians won, with their bishop, the crown they had always admired as the greatest glory God could grant His servants.

Sources: Little Pictorial Lives of the Saints, a compilation based on Butler’s Lives of the Saints, and other sources by John Gilmary Shea (Benziger Brothers: New York, 1894); Les Petits Bollandistes: Vies des Saints, by Msgr. Paul Guérin (Bloud et Barral: Paris, 1882), Vol. 7.

See these:

Traditional Catholic Prayers: Sorcery is forbidden by God and will always be punished by Him. WE ARE TO HAVE NO PART IN IT UPON PENALTY OF ETERNAL DEATH AND DESTRUCTION DAMNED FOREVERMORE

Traditional Catholic Prayers: The First Amendment: The First Amendment: Look up, your redemption is at hand: The return of ancient murdering lies

Traditional Catholic Prayers: Pashtun Resist: Palestine Cry: Europa & Palestine News « Kawther Salam – Drug Trafficking From Afghanistan

February 17, 2012

Pashtun Resist: Palestine Cry: Europa & Palestine News « Kawther Salam – Drug Trafficking From Afghanistan

Palestine Cry: Europa & Palestine News « Kawther Salam – Drug Trafficking From Afghanistan

Europa & Palestine News « Kawther Salam

Drug Trafficking From Afghanistan

VIENNA, 16 February (UNIS) – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today lent support for comprehensive and concerted international action to stem the flow of opium and heroin coming from Afghanistan. At a high-level conference taking place today in the Austrian capital of Vienna, Government Ministers stressed the need to reduce drug trafficking, opium poppy cultivation and production, as well as drug consumption, while aiming to establish a broad international coalition to combat opiate trafficking. Among them were Mr. Alain Juppé, Foreign Minister of France, and Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation.

“Drug trafficking and transnational organized crime undermine the health of fragile states, weaken the rule of law, and hinder our attempts to meet the Millennium Development Goals”, Mr. Ban told the partners of the Paris Pact, a framework of cooperation to control opiate trafficking from Afghanistan. Fighting the drugs trade is essential to our work to reduce poverty and raise standards of human well-being, “he added.
With the withdrawal of ISAF forces from Afghanistan in 2014, the international community will increasingly look to the United Nations to take on additional responsibilities in supporting Afghanistan, said Mr. Yury Fedotov, Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Mr. Fedotov, whose Office supports the 55-country-strong Paris Pact initiative, stressed that with security questions grabbing most of the attention, it was important to renew focus on the non-military aspects of transition – development, governance and strengthening civilian authority throughout Afghanistan.
“In all our activities, we are working closely with the Afghan government to ensure that we reverse the worrying trends in the increasing production and cultivation of opiates. I encourage the Afghan leadership to make this a national priority and to develop shared responsibility across all branches of government,” said Mr. Fedotov.
Afghanistan produces some 90 per cent of the world’s illicit opium. The UNODC Afghan Opium Survey 2011 pointed to a sharp increase in opium production, higher prices for the crop and a flourishing drugs trade – once again highlighting the direct correlation between insecurity, lack of agricultural aid and opium cultivation.
Drug money can potentially derail long-term stability. In recognition of the pivotal role of counter-narcotics efforts in building security, democracy and prosperity in Afghanistan, the Ministerial Conference identified four main areas for enhanced cooperation: regional initiatives; tackling financial flows linked to drug trafficking; preventing the diversion of precursor chemicals, which are used to manufacture drugs; and reducing drug abuse and dependence. Efforts under the Paris Pact initiative are aimed at strengthening international and regional cooperation in support of Afghanistan’s efforts to address drug trafficking.
In December 2011, UNODC launched a Regional Programme for Afghanistan and neighbouring countries, which can be a major tool in creating a broad international coalition to combat opiate trafficking, opium poppy cultivation and production, said Mr. Fedotov. He stressed the need for a comprehensive set of responses: breaking the link between poverty and drug cultivation, curbing drug demand and directing law enforcement efforts against the traffickers – not the farmers or the addicts. Intelligence-sharing with countries affected by the drug trade was also essential, along with good governance and anti-corruption measures. Only prospects for a better future would bring lasting security to Afghanistan, he stated, and his Office would do its utmost to support that aim through its extensive Regional Programme.
Affirming their “common and shared responsibility”, Paris Pact partners adopted the Vienna Declaration, a statement of international commitment to act in a “balanced and comprehensive manner” against the menace of illicit Afghan opiates. “We recognize that the narcotics problem is a global challenge which also requires a global response, including addressing the demand and supply sides,” the Declaration said.

Possibly related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Organized Crime has Ballooned to Global Proportions From the Left: Amina Mahmoud, Kenya, the chair of the press conference, Yury Fedotov, Executive Director of the United…                                              










Last chance to stop the Zio-Antichrist

November 26, 2011

Salaam al-Maseeh alaykum, assalaamu alaykum wa masaa’ul khayr, algmi akhuani wa akhawati.

Salaam al-Maseeh,

The below is of course my site on Christian profession of faith in Christ in love of our fellow believers in the true God, Muslims. Contained therein is reference to the Triad. A little history is appropriate. In the 19th century, the Triad was a Zio-Marxist-Communist network between Jews in three cities for the purpose of invading Palestine and bringing forth the evil reign of their ‘ha maschiach’ in total opposition to the true Messiah professed by both Christians and Muslims who is Our Lord Jesus Christ. Those cities were Moscow (Tsarist Russia), New York City (Freemasonic America) and Tel Aviv (Ottoman Palestine). This network brought forth Communism in Russia (financed by New York Jewry at the time of the beginning of the mythic 6,000,000). At the same time the Federal Reserve and the Jews’ Tax system was started in the United States to collectivize America under their thumb and give them the power to control politics in the United States, particularly to get the United States to act as their Bully Boy in three (sic) World Wars and many conflicts in between. The third has just begun in 2001 at the infamous beginning of 911. The Triad was morphed by the Jews into the United States, Russia and Red China during the cold war which was between WWII and the current WWIII. That was all explained to me over forty years ago by a Russian-Canadian Jew operative of the Triad transnationalist Intelligence service of the KGB, shadow CIA (not regular lawful CIA) and Red Chinese Military Intelligence while that operative was conducting operations for them from the United States in the Caribbean with their long time operative Fidel Castro.

Current events and the near future:

The Triad is Russia, China and the United States until Israel replaces the United States, then it is Russia, China and Israel – then there were two, Russia and Israel and then there was one: ISRAEL THE HOME OF THE DAJJAL, ANTICHRIST – that last move is the real reason that Yamantau exists

Beware and all of us get the word out to warn God’s faithful.

Baarakul laahu fiik,

Ma’ assalaamah

The Triad is Russia, China and the United States until Israel replaces the United States, then it is Russia, China and Israel – then there were two, Russia and Israel and then there was one: ISRAEL THE HOME OF THE DAJJAL, ANTICHRIST – that last move is the real reason that Yamantau exists

Follow this through.

We must always Be Prepared for Christ will return to Judgement at the end of this age, so stay in Confession of Faith in the True God in Eternal Faith & Beliefs in Him, Christians always in Eucharistic Thanksgiving always having nothing to do with Gnosticism and the Occult for they produce Gog and Magog at the end of the age, and these are always opposed to the true Messiah who is ‘Isa al-Maseeh for he Jesus Christ is the Truth; and always staying in Prayer to the True God and professing The birth of Jesus Christ from a virgin and praying The Psalms for all Godly purposes and always professing The Testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, for The Testimony of the The Revelation of The Lord God Jesus Christ is God’s True and Holy Word, and ours is to oppose The War of Antichrist against the Church and Christian Civilization being waged by the Triad and understanding what seeing the purposes of the Antichrist’s Plan revealed in the Triad Revisited – A Brief Look and knowing this is why the ZioNazi Antichrist who is the Dajjal is causing WORLD WAR III AND THE FALSE PEACE.

The Testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ

The Final Trial



The Nazis are the New World Order – they are EVIL and Antichrist – the Dajjal – Magog and will finally bring forth Gog. Unless we stop it.

August 26, 2011

The Invasion of the Middle East is Fascist.

True and a proven fact. Very unfortunately, many in the region don’t understand what fascism is all about, as in this example.

Leila Hussein: Speigel Online International – The Führer Cult Germans Cringe at Hitler’s Popularity in Pakistan

The Sun Religion of the Nazis and Its Purpose should instead be understood for the ancient tribal pagan abomination to God that it is.

Continue here:

The Muslim Brotherhood is part of this. The New World Order as perceived in the West, is just the tip of the iceberg. Neo-Fascism in America of course led to Dollars for Terror.

St. Matthew 24:11,12

August 23, 2011

St. Matthew 24 [11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. [12] And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold.

While a raving demented cold blooded murderer rambles on vaguely sounding at times like CNN, decent scholarly folks who tell the truth for the sake of a Godly understanding and peace could be penalized by proposed legislation that ostensibly is for preventing wrongdoing but seems more like it will go toward censorship. The First Amendment is still the law of the land and should remain that. Meanwhile, the results of the catastrophic lie of 911 and the resulting cold blooded murder in the Middle East by the war machine engendered by this staged demolition is first the murder and pillage and overthrow of nations in the region and secondly the economic destruction of the United States in stages. At the same time as NATO is becoming increasingly the partner of Russia, it is more and more linking the United States to the concerns of Europe in disregard of actual U.S. security interests.

Those European concerns are as evil and invalid morally as their real purpose is that of the Atheist Secularist Socialist Europeans, which is the Goal of Communism.

Secret Societies and Their Power in The 20th Century by Jan Van Helsing

August 11, 2011


by Jan Van Helsing
Translation and typesetting: Urs Thoenen, Zurich.
Original Title: Geheimgesellschaften und ihre Macht im 20. Jahrhundert

(Spanish version)


  1. Too Many Lodges In The Broth
  2. The Elders Of Zion
  3. Masonry Equals Freedom
  4. The Rothschild Family
  5. The Meetings Of The Learned Elders Of Zion
  6. Jewish Anti-Semitism
  7. The Talmud – What A Lovely Book!
  8. The “Strict Observance
  9. The Bavarian Illuminati Of Adam Weishaupt

10.The Battle Of Waterloo

11.Who Was Kaspar Hauser?

12.The Freemasons In America

13.Karl Marx

14.The Plan For A World Government

15.The Knights Of The Ku Klux Klan

16.The Black Nobility

17.The English Royal Family And The Opium Trade In The 18th Century

18.Background Of The Bolshevist Revolution

19.Skull And Bones

20.…And Thus Endeth Freedom In America

21.The Rothschild Towing Service

22.Cecil Rhodes And His Knights Of The Round Table

23.How To Stage A World War

24.The First World War As Seen By The Illuminati

25.The Ochrana (Former Russian Secret Service)

26.Russian Oil

27.The Balfour Declaration

28.The Americans “Want” To Fight, Too!

29.The Rockefeller Ministry Of Foreign Relations (CFR)

30.Preparing The Second World War

31.Adolph Hitler Offers A Cure

32.Adolf Schicklgruber And The ‘Thule-Gesellschaft

33.The “Vril-Gesellschaft” Or Not All Good Comes From Above

34.The Second World War

35.What Happened In America?

36.Germany Wants To Surrender

37.The American Support For The Soviets During The War

38.The Protocols Have To Be Fulfilled

39.What Was Achieved By The Second World War?

40.Germany Did Not Simply Lose The War !!

41.The Foundation Of Israel

42.The CFR Gains Strength

43.The Kennedy Assassination

44.The Knight Of Jerusalem

45.What About The Vatican?

46.The International Monetary Fund (IMF)

47.Information Control

48.Bio-Psychological Warfare

49.Energy As A Weapon

50.The CIA And The Shah

51.Saddam Hussein And “Desert Storm

52.What Does The Future Hold For The Conflict-Torn Near East?

53.Germany Reunited (To Fall)

54.What About The Serbs?

55.The Present Situation

56.George Soros And The Rothschild Connection

57.L. Ron Hubbard And The Church Of Scientology

58.A List Of The Main Known Organizations Of The Illuminati

59.666 (Six, Six, Six)




The Black Nobility from

August 11, 2011


 –  All The Queen’s Forces and All The Queen’s Men – from ‘The Biggest Secret’ – the Book

 –  Ancient  History of The Black Nobility

 –  A New Aristocracy – from “The Gods Of Eden”

 –  Black Nobility – from ‘Secret Societies and Their Power in The 20th Century’ by Jan Van Helsing

 –  Bluebloods! – extracted from ‘Blue Blood, True Blood, Conflict and Creation’

 –  Britain’s Royal Wedding – A Big Day For The Global Oligarchy

 –  Britain’s Royal Wedding Fiasco and Its “Dirty little Secret” in Bahrain

 –  David Icke Main File

 –  El Príncipe Carlos Implicado en el Asesinato de La Princesa Diana

 –  Hail Caesar! – Queen Gives Marching Orders to The United Nations

 –  La Diosa y el Rey – El Asesinato de Diana, Princesa de Gales – from ‘The Biggest Secret’, by David Icke

 –  Merovingian Bloodline and The Black Nobility

 –  Monarchy The Dragon Society – Real History, Dragon Philosophy and The Importance of Royal Bloodlines

 – “My Duty is To ‘Save The World‘” – Prince Charles Believes He Was ‘Born For a Purpose’

 –  Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands – Personal Background and His Part in Starting the Bilderberg Conferences

 –  Prince Charles Implicated in Murder of Princess Diana

 –  Prince Charles Labeled Eco-Hypocrite As He Arrives in The U.S. to Lecture on ‘Sustainability’

 –  Prince William is The Antichrist, Future King of One World Government

 –  Que Rija Britannia  – de ‘El Mayor Secreto’, por David Icke

 –  Rule Britannia – from ‘The Biggest Secret’, by David Icke

 –  Salve Cesare! La Regina Dà Direttive alle Nazioni Unite

 –  ¡Salve César! – La Reina le da Órdenes de Marcha a Las Naciones Unidas

 –  The Biological Basis of Elitism and “The Divine Right” Rule

 –  The Black Nobility

 –  The English Royal Family And The Opium Trade In The 18th Century – from ‘Secret Societies’ by Jan Van Helsing

 –  The Goddess and The King – The Murder of Diana, Princess of Wales – from ‘The Biggest Secret’, by David Icke

 –  The Largest Landowner on Earth – Queen Elizabeth II

 –  The London-Rome Beltane Ritual

 –  The Nazi Roots of The House of Windsor

 – “The Queen” – Why Movies Lie

 –  The Windsor-Bush Bloodline

 –  The Windsors’ Global Food Cartel – Instrument for Starvation

 –  Una Nueva Aristocracia – de “Los Dioses del Eden

 –  We Need To ‘Cull’ The Surplus Population Prince Philip, In His Own Words

 –  Who Are The Black Nobility?

Additional Information

 –  All in The Family – The Real Syndicate – from ‘Dope, Inc. – Britain’s Opium War Against the U.S.’

 –  Blue Blood, True Blood – Conflict and Creation – Selected Excerpts

 –  Children of The Matrix – Excerpts

 –  Commonwealth Games – Commonwealth Glory

 –  Dialogo Con Un Autoproclamado Illuminati – “Hidden Hand”

 –  Dialogue With a Self-Proclaimed Illuminati Insider – “Hidden Hand”

 –  El Caballo de Troya de Iberoamérica – Anglo-Venecianos Detrás de Santander

 –  El Jaque Mate – Informaciones Para Materializar Un Mundo Nuevo

 –  Fight The New World Order with Global Non Compliance

 –  Frenzy Around Britain’s Royal Wedding “Should Embarrass Us All – Johann Hari

 –  Human Blood Types and Human Evolution

 –  La Última Ilusión

 –  Mass Depopulation, Genocide, WW-3?

 –  MI-6 Are The Lords of The Global Drug Trade

 –  Pax Europa The United States of Europe and the Merovingian Master Plan

 –  Prince Philip’s Flu Is On The March

 –  Princes of Plunder – The Shape of Treachery and the Bridge at Arnhem

 –  Revelaciones de Un ‘Insider’ de Una Familia Elite

 –  Revelations of An Elite Family Insider

 –  Royals and Nobles Believe in Dragon Genes?

 –  The 1001 Club – Bankers, Intelligence Agents, and Raw Materials Executives Striving for A Sustainable Future

 –  The Atlantean Conspiracy – Exposing the Illuminati – from Atlantis to 2012

 –  The Dragon Court – Main File

 –  The First Corporation

 –  The Royal Wedding – What Will It Cost?

 –  The United States Remains a British Colony

 –  The Vatican and The Jesuits

 –  Tipos de Sangre Humana y la Evolución Humana

 –  Western Royal Families and Illuminati to Hold Emergency Summit Meeting in Vienna

 –  Who’s Controlling Who? – An Interview With David Icke


 –  Dope, Inc. – Britain’s Opium War Against the U.S. – by a U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team

 –  The Curse of Canaan – A Demonology of History – by Eustace Mullins

 –  The Empire of “The City” (World Superstate) – The Jekyll/Hyde Nature of the British Government – by E. C. Knuth

 –  The Coming Fall of The House of Windsor – by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

 –  The Thirteenth Tribe – The Khazar Empire And Its Heritage – by Arthur Koestler


 –  Como Hizo Su Fortuna Juan Carlos I de España

 –  NARCO S.A. – El Grupo Bilderberg

 –  Revelations of A Mother Goddess – David Icke 2006

 –  Ring of Power – The Empire of “The City” – World Superstate

 –  Royalty’s Drug Running Kingpins – from ‘The Secret Rulers of The World’

 –  Ruled by “The Gods

 –  The Black Nobility – The Freemasonic Order The Jesuit/Illuminati Connections

 –  The London-Rome Beltane Ritual 2011 – David Icke

 –  Tony Blair and British Freemasonry

 –  Vatican/Jesuit/Illuminati-Black Nobility – Occults Control The World

 –  What Happened to Strauss-Kahn, Was No Accident – New Political Shift in Progress…

Related Reports

 –  13 Bloodlines of The Illuminati

 –  Los lluminati – Main File

 –  Merovingios, Los Reyes Perdidos – Main File

 –  Most Noble Order of the Garter – Main File

 –  New World Order – Main File

 –  Occult Reptilian Saga – Main File

 –  Orion Technology and Other Secret Projects

 –  The Bilderberg Group – Main File

 –  The Committee of 300 – Main File

 –  The Dark History of The Vatican – Main File

 –  The Dragon Court – Main File

 –  The Elite’s Drug Management – Main File

 –  The Khazars – Main File

 –  The Sovereign Military Order of Malta – Main File


Knowing by oneself, knowing with the other

July 29, 2011

Knowing by oneself,
knowing with the other

Some reflections on the theme of “conscience”
in modern Egyptian Islam
and in Christian-Muslim dialogue


Oddbjørn Leirvik,

Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo

In the article on “conscience” inThe Encyclopedia of Religion,Michel Despland writes:

On the interreligious scene today, it is to be wished that dialogue and encounter shall proceed from conscience. And the notion of conscience may well be – or become – part of the account that each will give to the other of his or her own humanity. Such meeting of consciences cannot occur without the labor of consciousness: each trying to communicate over a period of time what he is aware of.[1]

Could “conscience” have any role to fulfil in a dialogue between religions? The notion of conscience is moulded in Christian tradition and European philosophy – beginning with the Greeksyneídêsisand the Latinconscientia. Attempts have been made to identify a notion of conscience in other traditions as well. In James Hasting’sEncyclopedia of Religion and Ethicsfrom 1911, one will find articles on “conscience” in Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek-Roman, Jewish and Islamic religion. Such an approach, however, presupposes that some conceptual essence in the notion of conscience – like internalisation of morality or personal responsibility – is distilled in advance. Both in ancient Egyptian religion, in Jewish tradition and in Islam, the metaphor of the “heart” expresses the inner centre of man – capable of moral judgements and self-evaluation as well as of personal communication with God, and in need of purification.

However, the Greek-Roman, and later Christian notion of conscience, involves something more than moral and religious internalisation. What appears to be specific for the notion of conscience, is rather the tension between the turn inwards (towards the Self) and the orientation outwards (towards the Others) – between knowing by oneself and knowing with Others. The prefixessyn-,con-andsam-(in Norwegiansamvit) might indicate that etymologically, conscience is knowing with someone. It might be Oneself, but just as well the Other. And maybe the two cannot be separated.[2]

Some perspectives on the notion of conscience in European/Christian tradition

If one sets out to examine the rhetorical function of conscience-centred discourses in Christian tradition and in European philosophy, it becomes clear that conscience most often refers to intimate knowing by oneself, and with God as the transcendent other. The human other is not that visibly present. Having “a good conscience” for doing something, often implies an element of distancing from the others. One withdraws into oneself, in order to ascertain that one can stand for something from oneself, and if necessary, in contradiction to what the community might stand for. As expressed by the old Stoic Cicero: “there is no audience for virtue of higher authority than the approval of conscience”.[3]

At the roots of the Christian tradition, however, Paul maintains the tension between knowing by oneself and knowing with others. When unfolding the notion of conscience in 1. Corinthians (ch. 8 and 10), he faces two groups in the Christian community. The one party know with themselves – from theirgnôsis –that they may eat meat consecrated to the idols (in connection with Roman temple cult) with a good conscience. The others – those with a “weak conscience” – do not think they can do so, and get their conscience “polluted” when eating meat consecrated to idols. In this conflict, Paul argues that thegnôsisof the strong ones should give way to what could be known together in the community. What the strong (and rich?) know with themselves, must yield to that what Christians inCorinth may know together – in a practice of solidarity. In the influential (in terms of the history of ideas) passage in Romans (2.14-16), knowing together even transcends the Christian community. The conscience of the heathens testify to knowledge shared by Jews, Christians, Greeks and Romans, namely that the divine law is written in the heart of every human being.

In Early Modernity, parallel with the new emphasis on the moral autonomy of the individual, the inward direction of conscience acquires fresh importance. InReligion innerhalb der bloßen Vernunft(1793), Kant characterises “das Gewissen” as “die sich selbst richtende moralische Urteilskraft”.[4]InMetaphysik der Sitten(1797), he writes that conscience is one of the moral faculties (“moralische Beschaffenheiten”) that must be taken for granted in every human being, if the notion of moral obligation shall make any sense at all. Fichte gives Kant’s rational-autonomous conscience a Romantic bend, and speaks of conscience as “das unmittelbare Bewußtsein unseres reinen ursrprunglichen Ich”.[5]Hegel, on the other hand, returns to conscience its social character. He regards Kant’s formal and individualised understanding of conscience as insufficient, and emphasises that conscience is first of all knowing with others:

Das Gewissen hat die reine Pflicht oder das abstrakte Ansich nicht aufgegeben, sondern sie ist das wesentliche Moment, als Allgemeinheit sich zu andern zu verhalten. Es ist das gemeinschaftliche Element des Selbstbewusstsein … das Moment des Anerkanntwerdens von den anderen.[6]

With Feuerbach, the orientation of conscience towards others becomes a critical insight: “Das Gewissen is dasalter ego,das Andere Ich im Ich”.[7]Feuerbach sees conscience basically as “bad conscience”, expressing the wounded other: “Mein Gewissen ist nichts anderes, als mein an die Stelle des verletzten Du sich setzendes Ich”.[8]Feuerbach unambiguously returns conscience to its etymological origin, as an expression of something known with others:

Gewissen ist Mitwissen. So sehr ist das Bild der Anderen in mein Selbstbewusstsein, mein Selbstbild eingewoben, dass selbst der Ausdruck des Allereigensten und Allerinnerlichsten, das Gewissen, ein Ausdruck des Socialismus, der Gemeinschaftlichkeit ist.[9]

In French Enlightenment and Romanticism, partly in English Enlightenment philosophy as well, the basic tension between conscience as self-consciousness and conscience as shared knowledge can easily be traced. In French, there is no parallel to the English distinction between “consciousness” and “conscience”. The French “conscience” often has a strong inward orientation, towards moral self-consciousness. Nevertheless, it is in French Enlightenment and Romanticism one can find the strongest expressions of conscience as a social and political right. In hisCommentaire Philosophique ou Traité de la Tolérance Universelle(1686), Pierre Bayle contends that conscience is the voice of God in every human being, and correspondingly, that going against conscience is equal to disobeying the law of God. Hence he can also speak of the rights of conscience (“les Droits de la Conscience”) as something directly related to God himself.[10]With Rousseau, the notion of conscience figures prominently in that part ofÉmile(1762) which is called “The Creed of a Savoyard Priest”. Here, conscience is referred to as “an innate principle of justice and virtue”, as “divine instinct”, “sure guide” and “infallible judge of good and evil”. According to Rousseau and his Savoyard priest, it is to conscience everyone owes “the excellence of man’s nature and the morality of his acts”.[11]

Rousseau’s notion of conscience is often referred to as the classical modern expression of individual “authenticity”. It should be noted, however, that authenticity with Rousseau is not solipsistic, but inextricably linked to the idea of a binding social contract into which humans freely enter (cf.Du Contrat Social,published in the same year asÉmile).In his bookThe Ethics of Authenticity[12], Charles Taylor characterises the idea of authenticity as a child of the Romantic period, which was utterly critical of a disengaged rationality that neglected the bonds of community.[13]The idea of authenticity gives birth to a new vision of community. Nevertheless, its origin lies in the notion of an inner voice:

Morality has, in a sense, a voice within. … This is part of the massive subjective turn of modern culture, a new form of inwardness, where we come to think of ourselves as beings with inner depths.[14]

Conscience in Islam?

Is the discourse of conscience a specifically Western/Christian discourse, then, or can parallel ideas of conscience be traced in other traditions – making an intercultural or interreligious dialogue on conscience meaningful (cf. Despland)?

Classical Islam lacks a proper word for conscience. In modern standard Arabic,damîrhas become the central word for conscience. From old,damîrstands for “the inner, hidden”. In classical Sufî psychology (like with al-Hallâj, d. 922, and with Ibn ‘Arabi, d. 1240),damîrsignifies “the inner conscious”; different fromsirr,“the inner unconscious”. In classical Arabic grammar,damîris the name of the personal pronoun. Only from the latter part of the 19th century, the word can be found in the sense of “moral self-consciousness” or “conscience”. New Arabic Bible translations from 1860 onwards seem to have influenced the process, by translatingsyneídêsisasdamîrinstead ofniyya(“intention”), which had prevailed in Bible translations from the 9th century until then. At the beginning of the 20th century,damîris found in this sense also in Arabic translations and Egyptian reception of European philosophy, as can be seen from a book on Rousseau from 1923 of the well-known literate Muhammad Husayn Haykal.

In the following, I will present three Egyptian authors from this century who have all put the notion ofdamîrat the centre of their works on religion, philosophy and ethics. They may also have prepared the ground for a possible Muslim-Christian dialogue on conscience. The authors are ‘Abbâs Mahmûd al- ‘Aqqâd (1889-1964), Muhammad Kâmil Husayn (1901-1977) and Khâlid Muhammad Khâlid (1920-1996). All of them are regarded as outstanding men of letters in their generation. They are prolific writers covering a wide field of topics, most of them dealt with in an essayist and popularised manner. The works of al-‘Aqqâd and Khâlid are widely read in Arabic, whereas Husayn (through translations into English by Kenneth Cragg) is better known internationally.

Common for them all is that they wrote books on Christ in the 50s. These books have rightly been regarded as landmarks in Muslim-Christian dialogue. Different from prevailing tendencies in Muslim apologetics, they base their reflections on Christ on the Christian sources, relying for the most part on the Biblical gospels. They also highlight the universal features in the message of Christ, making it relevant and challenging for a Muslim reader. They are, as both Western and Coptic Christians have seen it, dialogical in their approach to Christ, not merely apologetic. A second uniting feature between these authors is their strong focus on the notion of conscience (damîr) – both in their books on Christ and Christian tradition, and in their exposition of the Islamic faith and philosophical heritage.

By the interrelation of the themes mentioned, Christ appears a forerunner of conscience-based religion and ethics. But their philosophy of conscience turns out to be quite central also to their vision of Islam, their general anthropological outlook, and their view on the relation between individual and community in modernity. From one side, their conscience-based ethics may be seen as just another version of an internalised ethics, bent towards virtue ethics and ideals of personal formation. As such, their ethics of conscience may be said render to the individual more ethical autonomy than what has been the rule in Islamic ethics. On the other side, their ethics of conscience is also an ethics with obvious political implications – with obvious anti-authoritarian features, social radicalism (especially in Khâlid) and elements of a philosophy of non-violence (in Khâlid and Husayn).

As for the context of their writings, all the authors are well within the tradition of reformist Islam, and their works are heavily marked by modern Islam’s departure from rigorous traditionalism. But at mid-century, reformist Islam or “modern Islam” in Egyptis not at all a uniform phenomenon. The tension between liberal Islam, Islamic socialism and Islamism as competing programs of modernisation in Egyptis part of their immediate context. Their writings also reflect an Egyptian context marked by a distinct “dia-practice”[15]between Muslims and Christians, namely their co-operation in the modern Egyptian nation building, and joint efforts from Muslim and Christians to establish social justice.


Damirin al-‘Aqqâd: a key term in apologetics as well as dialogue

In a book from 1961, on “Thinking – an Islamic duty” (Al-tafkîr – farîda islâmiyya), ‘Abbâs Mahmûd al-‘ Aqqâd maintains that Islam is the only religion that fully authorises a free and independent relation between the creatures and their Creator, so that humans may approach God by means of their conscience – theirdamîr.[16]Already in his book from 1947 on “The Qur’ânic philosophy” (Al-falsafa al-qur’âniyya), he claims that the philosophy of the Qur’ân contains the only doctrine that can really vitalise conscience, and disperse the clouds that otherwise stand in the light of reason.[17]

Much of what al-‘Aqqâd writes on conscience, is flavoured by an outspoken apologetic interest. But also in his books on Christ and Christian tradition, the notion of conscience is strikingly central. His biography of Christ from 1953 (“The Genius of Christ”) appeared in the wake of corresponding biographies on Muhammad and Islamic heroes, most of them under the heading ‘Abqariyyat, “the genius”.

In a book from 1947 on the development of the notion of God (“Allâh“), al-‘Aqqâd presents Christianity as the first religion to base the service of God on human conscience.[18]In his Christ-biography from 1953, al-‘Aqqâd focuses on the universalism, the law of love and the pre-eminence of conscience in Christ’s message. When summarising Christ message in one expression, he speaks of “the law of love and conscience” (shari‘at al-hubb aw/wa-sharî‘at al-damîr).[19]

Another central motive in al-‘Aqqâd is the Sufî-based distinction between the outer and the inner. The law of love and conscience is contrasted by what al-‘Aqqâd terms “the law of outward forms and appearances” (sharî‘at al-ashkâl wa-l-zawâhir).Conscience is the warrant that actions are based on right intentions (niyyât)and ideals. The important thing is the reform of souls, and the change of motives and incentives (islâh al-nafsi, taghyîr al-bawâ’ith).[20]

One sometimes gets the expression that al-‘Aqqâd should primarily be read in the Romantic tradition of equalising religion with innermost emotion – cf. expressions like “in the secrets of conscience”[21]an “the innermost thoughts of his conscience”[22], and his frequent paralleling of “conscience” with “soul” and “heart”.[23]Still, it is obvious that his use ofdamîris related to some kind of social vision. “Freedom of conscience” is a central term for al-‘Aqqâd. Although he gives it a peculiar Romantic or Mystical flavour in expressions like “the freedom of conscience is the secret of all secrets in the life of man”[24], the concept of freedom of conscience has – of course – obvious ethical and political implications.

The project of Christ – apparently identical with that of al-‘Aqqâd – is aimed at refinement of the human character (tahdhîb al-âdâb al-insâniyya).Al-‘Aqqâd’s virtue ethics approach to moral questions rests upon a long tradition of philosophical ethics in Islam.[25]According to al-‘Aqqâd, it is only through character formation that the conscience of the individual, and the conscience of the community (damîr al-umma), can be safeguarded.As al-‘Aqqâd sees it, such formation can only happen through a reform of consciences (bi-islâh al-damâ’ir).He has far less confidence in reform or reinterpretation of outward laws and regulations. His focal point is ethics (akhlâq) and the formation of a moral character.

Al-‘Aqqâd’s interest in Christ is apparently not restricted to a historical presentation of Christ as a law reformer in Judaism, neither to a sympathetic exposition of basic Christian tenets. There are many indications that his writings about Christ should also be read as a critique of rigorous attitudes and outwardness in parts of contemporary Islam – cf. his employment of traditional Islamic offices likefuqahâ’[26],‘ulamâ’andhuffâz[27]when denoting the adversaries of Christ.


Damirin Kâmil Husayn: at the heart of a universal, human drama

Kâmil Husayn is known in the West for two books translated by Kenneth Cragg. His most famous book isQarya zâlimafrom 1954 (in English:City of Wrong), that was awarded with the Egyptian State Prize of Literature in 1957, and has attracted much attention in the international dialogue between Muslims and Christians. Kenneth Cragg has also translated a meditative work on philosophy (or psychology) of religion from 1968, entitledAl-wâdi al-muqaddas(in English:The Hallowed Valley).[28]

InThe Hallowed Valley,Husayn speaks of the voice of conscience as the very voice of God, with rather strong Sûfî connotations:

The hallowed valley is the place on earth, the point in time, the state of mind, where you reach upward beyond the form of external things, beyond your own nature and the necessities of life, and even beyond the bounds of your intellect … In the hallowed valley you hear the voice of conscience, clear and plain, enjoining upon you unconfusedly the obligations of the good, and leading you undeviatingly towards the truth – conscience as the very voice of God.[29]

As a prerequisite of abiding in the hallowed valley, Husayn speaks of the necessity of to fight against evil of all kinds, and its seductive power. This can only be done through exercise of “the hidden and passive virtues of resistance”.[30]Correspondingly, in an appendix to his novel of conscience, he emphasises that the main function of conscience is that of curbing and warning (râdi‘an wa-nadhîran):

Although it is possible to be positively guided by conscience, the main power for conscience being inhibitive and prohibitive, it is mainly a guide to us in avoiding wrong.[31]

Husayn relates his concept ofdamîrto general insights derived from psychology and the natural sciences. But he unfolds it in a literary fiction, in a drama of conscience based on the events of Good Friday as recorded in the New Testament Gospels. The book presents itself as a moral philosophical dramatisation of the events of Good Friday, which is indeed a controversial issue to approach for Muslim author. Instead of directly challenging the classical Islamic claim that Christ was in fact not crucified, Husayn enters the drama of crucifixion from the perspective of the intentions of those involved. As the Qur’ân confirms, the adversaries of Christ intended to crucify him (although, according to a conventional Muslim interpretation, their plans were thwarted). The intention of Husayn is to expose the universal importance of the drama of Good Friday, the central themes of which is the crucifixion of human conscience:

When they resolved to crucify him it was a decision to crucify the human conscience and extinguish its light. They considered that reason and religion alike laid upon them obligations that transcended the dictates of conscience.[32]

In his book, Husayn dramatises the inner conflicts that can be traced or surmised among Jewish leaders and the representatives of the Roman occupation force. Out of different motives, they all denied their voice within, when they resolved to have Christ crucified. Husayn also unfolds the moral drama of the disciples. For the disciples, being true to conscience was a question of being faithful towards the obligation of non-violence, as expressed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.

According to Husayn, the drama of Good Friday has a universal relevance. In Husayn – as in al-‘Aqqâd – conscience is clearly interrelated with personal virtue. Even more than al-‘Aqqâd, he stresses that religion (anchored in conscience) can only influence society indirectly. In Husayn, there is also more emphasis on the right of resistance than in al-‘Aqqâd’s more romantically flavoured project of renewal. It is all about the will and ability of the individual to obey his inner voice, and on this foundation, to venture non-violent resistance to the religious and political collective when necessary.

What would have been the contemporary impetus for making the crucifixion of conscience his crucial theme? According to Harold Vogelaar,City of Wrongshould first of all be read in the light of the shattering experience of World War II, as “an emotional, literary reaction to that catastrophic event”, movingly depicting “the utter failure of traditional religion to prevent it”.[33]Kenneth Cragg, on the other hand[34], focuses on the fact that Husayn relates his concept of conscience to central teachings of the Qur’ân, and to a contemporary context which is just as much Muslim as Christian. InCity of Wrong, he names the head of lawyers among the Jews – the one responsible for issuing religiousfatwas –amuftî.He alludes to controversial issues related to the interpretation ofsharî‘a;like imposing lashes for drunkenness[35]and the question of death penalty for adultery or alleged blasphemy/apostasy.[36]Likewise, he displays the ambiguity of the conceptijmâ‘(consensus of the religio-political community) when it comes to the question of the individual being true to conscience.[37]He frequently alludes to Qur’ânic expressions (like the concept ofzulm– “wrong, iniquity” – underlying the title of the book). Sometimes his allusions are made in astonishing ways, displaying a profound will of self-criticism as to how Qur’ânic concepts may be misused for suppression in the name of religion or society.[38]


Damirin Khâlid Muhammad Khâlid:
conscience unites the history of religions, but is best safeguarded by Islam

In a contextual perspective, the personal development of Khâlid Muhammad Khâlid is of special interest, particularly with regard to the tension between liberal Islam and Islamism. In his bookMin hunâ nabda’(in English:From here we start) from 1950, he advocated the separation of religion and state, vehemently attacking the political ambitions of the Islamic “priesthood” (traditional‘ulamâ’as well as secretly organised Muslims Brothers). During the 50s, Khâlid produced a whole series of books propounding democratic values combined with a vision of Islamic socialism, and simultaneously, a commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue. From the 60s, however, he turns more and more to the Islamic heritage, publishing several books on Muhammad and the men around him. At the end of the 70s, he seemed to have “converted” to a moderate Islamism. In contrast to his positions from the 50s, he now emphasises the Islamic foundation of the state. His book from 1981 on “The State in Islam” (Al-dawla fî-l-islâm)sets out with a critical reassessment of the secularist ideas he had been voicing in the 50s. Nevertheless, the book testifies to the fact that also in the latter part of his authorship, he strongly maintains his advocacy of the democratic rights of freedom – as a “good Islamic democrat”.

In this way, Khâlid embodies a general trend among several Egyptian intellectuals: From a social democratic commitment in the 50s, he becomes an advocate of “Islamic democracy” in the 70s and 80s. In a parallel development, he also moves from a general discourse of values (like social justice and democracy) towards a more specifically Islamic discourse – which deals with Islamic authenticity more than the authentic human being in general.

Khâlid’s best known contribution to inter-religious dialogue would be his book from 1958 entitled “Together on the road – Muhammad and Christ”(Ma‘an ‘alâ-l-tariq – Muhammad wa-l-Masîh).[39]In this books, he searches for what might be termed common ethical values between Christ and Muhammad. Both Christ and Muhammad are presented at human beings with an honest conscience (mustaqîm /istiqâmat al-damîr).Although they are merely humans, both of them embody very special “energies”(tâqât), and their spiritual nobility is linked with a shared commitment for “ordinary people” (al-rajul al-‘âdî).Both defend the fundamental human rights of subsistence, as well as the right to freedom of conscience. Christ liberated human conscience from its captivity of outwards laws and oppressing regulations. The same did Muhammad: By preaching social responsibility and challenging suppressive power, by spiritually subverting all institutions of religious mediation and defending the integrity of the individual person, he set human conscience free.

As Khâlid sees it, this prophetic mission rooted in the inner authority of Muhammad’s conscience. On the first page of his book on the human qualities of Muhammad (Insâniyyât Muhammad, from 1960), Khâlid claims that

If Muhammad had not been a messenger of God he would surely have been a human being on the same level as a messenger of God! And if he had not received the command from his Lord: ‘Oh messenger, proclaim what is revealed to you’ he would surely have received it from his very nature (min dhât nafsihi): ‘Oh human being, proclaim what is at work in your conscience.’[40]

Khâlid is utterly critical of all religiosity marked by blind compliance with tradition, and of a religious ethics based on formalistic rules “devoid of spirit”. As brothers in prophethood, Christ and Muhammad both focus on the inner meaning of the laws, and both of them are anchoring religion as well as ethics in human conscience.

In Khâlid, the notion of conscience apparently refers to something more than morality and ethics. In “Together on the road”, he defines conscience as “the human being in its true existence” (al-insân fî wujûdihi al-haqîqî).[41]By this repeated expression, he seems to link his ethics of conscience to the more general question of human authenticity: it is all about – as he puts it – opening up for the energies and potentials of the human being. Concretely, this can be expressed both through resistance to everything than binds conscience, and in creative, constructive work for a world of freedom. His aim is always the agreement between out outward conduct and our hidden inner (bayna zâhirinâ wa-bâtininâ)– a classical Sufî distinction that Khâlid links up with, but also transcends.

Five years after his book on Muhammad and Christ, Khâlid publishes a book that is entirely dedicated to the theme of human conscience – “on its journey towards its destiny” (Ma‘a l-damîr al-insânî fî masîrihi wa-masîrihi).In this book, he presents the history of religion and philosophy from the perspective of “development of human conscience”. He traces human conscience, on its journey from old Egypt via Chinese religion, the Old Testament scriptures, Christ, Muhammad and the Islamic revelation, all the way up to Mahatma Gandhi as the most prominent spokesman of conscience in our time. Khâlid highlights the interaction between conscience and reflective reason (‘aql), but also underlines that conscience cannot dispense of divine guidance through the prophets.

His reading of the history of philosophy reveals (among other things) interest in Rousseau’s coupling of a Romantic ethics of authenticity with the idea of a social contract based on the common will. By his endorsement of wide-ranging human rights of freedom, Khâlid draws a demarcation line against authoritarian version of the idea of a social contract. Among the rights of freedom, the right of “enlightened doubt” (al-shakk al-mustanîr)appears to be the most central of them all.[42]Khâlid presents the right of doubt as an integral part of the legacy of European philosophy, but also endeavours to link the idea of doubt as a positive human faculty to words of Muhammad.

As for the relation between individual and society, Khâlid claims that Muhammad’s ethics of conscience is more political than that of Christ. Whereas Christ persistently focused on intention (niyya), Muhammad recognised the need to reinforce intentions with social laws. Intentions must be implanted “in the depths of human nature and in the nature of society likewise”.[43]Christ focused on individual conduct, and according to Khâlid, he gave no directions for the social order (nizâm)that can never be dispensed of if human rights shall be effectively safeguarded.

These formulations from the early 60s could perhaps be taken as an indication of Khâlid’s later attraction to a moderate Islamism. In his book “The State in Islam” (1981), he maintains his advocacy of democracy and freedom rights, but unfolds his commitment within a purely Islamic discourse, and with no references to conscience or shared ethical values between Muslims and Christians. Has he moved from calling on the authentic human being, towards the proclamation of a specifically Islamic authenticity?


Conscience in the dialogue between religions:
knowing by oneself and with others

The turn to the other

In the formation of an integral human personality, self-consciousness and “knowing with others” must clearly be regarded as two sides of the same coin.[44]Also in a communal perspective, knowing by oneself (one’s own religious community) is always interrelated with knowing together with (or against) distinctive others. Those who belong to adifferentreligious community, might either be regarded as adversaries, as companions on the road, as members of an extended spiritual family, or simply neighbours with whom you will have to cope in one way or another. How can the interrelation of self-consciousness and other-directedness be conceived of in a dialogue between religions? Perhaps even more important: How can the twin experiences on the communal level, of a possibly shared commitment and the still ineradicable pain of difference, be conceptualised and lived with?

In recent philosophies of dialogue, “the turn towards the Other” has emerged as a central topic among prominent representatives of the Abrahamic family. Much of the inspiration has come from the Jewish philosophers Martin Buber (“I and Thou”) and Emmanuel Lévinas, who bases his ethics of proximity on the notion of “the Other’s face”.[45]

The recognition of the constitutive role of “the Other” in the formation of a religious self-consciousness is a most central theme with thinkers like Paul Ricoeur and David Tracy on the Christian side[46], and with Muslim writers like Hasan Askari (India) and Farid Esack (South Africa).[47]

The background of the new discourse on the inviolability of the Other is dramatic: the entire philosophy of Lévinas may be read as a reflection on the extinction of the Other in holocaust – resulting in an entirely ethical philosophy centred around the human face’s silent call for respected difference. For Lévinas, the Other can never be simply more of the same, from the point of view of the Self. The Other is essentially difference. The encounter with the Other’s face subverts subjectivity, as subjectivity has been conceived of in idealist or existentialist philosophy: It places the subject in the accusative, “by substituting me for the Other as a hostage”.[48]

Similarly, when David Tracy reflects upon the “the Divine Other of Liberation” as “the Hidden God”, he focuses on thedisturbingdifference of the marginalised Other:

Rather history will now be seen as the focus of God’s self-disclosure in the survival, struggle, conflict of oppressed and forgotten people, living and dead: in otherness, difference, marginality.[49]

Others (like Ricoeur) treat the question of selfhood and otherness in a more general perspective, investigating the conditions of moral character formation. Traumas as well as ordinary everyday experience give impetus to reflections on the how we define self and other, sameness and difference – at the personal as well as at the communal level.

Selfhood and otherness in conscience:
Ricoeur, Heidegger and Lévinas

Is the notion ofconsciencecapable of containing selfhood as well as otherness, analogical likeness as well as radical difference? Paul Ricoeur concludes his reflections onOneself as Anotherwith a discussion of the notion of conscience.[50]He is critical of purely existentialist notions of conscience, that tend to blur the constitutive role of others in the formation of human conscience. The same point is repeatedly made by Charles Taylor in the exposure of his “ethics of authenticity”, when he underlines the fundamentally dialogical character of human life, and the “inescapable horizons” of significant others in any search for human authenticity.[51]

As for Ricoeur, he takes Martin Heidegger’s notion of conscience to task. Heidegger’s philosophy may be read as a search for “eigentliches Selbstsein” – a human existence that is truly authentic. In this search, conscience (“Gewissen”) has a role to fulfil: “An authentic potentiality-for-Being is attested by conscience”.[52]Heidegger sees conscience essentially as a call to the individual from the depths of human existence (“Dasein”); a call to realise “its ownmost potentiality for Being-its-Self”.[53]For Heidegger, inauthentic being is loosing one’s Self in the multitude of “they” (“das Man”). Although becoming authentic includes the possibility of seeing others with new eyes, as individual beings with potentials for authentic existence, the other has no constitutive role to play in the formation of conscience . According to Heidegger, listening to conscience implies an element of radical distancing from others: too much identification with others leads to the danger of loosing oneself.

Against Heidegger, Ricoeur recalls the insight of Hegel “that conscience is the voice of the Other in the sense of others …”.[54]Ricoeur agrees with the contention forcefully put forward by Lévinas, that the call of Other is constitutive of the formation of self-consciousness and conscience.[55]But he is discontent with Lévinas’ insistence on the pure externality of the Other. Ricoeur looks for a notion of the Self and the Other thatintegratesSelfhood and Otherness. By use of the notion of conscience, Ricoeur sets out to reconcile Selfhood and Otherness in one final move.

To these alternatives – either Heidegger’s strange(r)ness or Lévinas’ externality – I shall stubbornly oppose the original and originary character of what appears to me to constitute the third modality of otherness, namelybeing enjoined as the structure of selfhood …if the injunction coming from the other is not part and parcel of self-attestation, it loses its character of injunction … If one eliminates this dimension of auto-affection, one ultimately renders the metacategory of conscience superfluous; the category of the other suffices.[56]

Existentialism and visions of community:
Muslim perspectives on sameness and otherness

In the perspective of Ricoeur, self-affection implies the ability of being touched and obliged by others, and results in a sensitive conscience. With our Egyptian authors, both being touched and being obliged appears to be central for their notion of conscience. In al-‘Aqqâd, the affective notion of love (hubb) and the moral notion of divine injunction (taklîf) both appear to be firmly within the conceptual field of conscience(damîr).[57]

What about the question of our Egyptian authors and the possible shortcomings of an existentialist notion of conscience? Should their notion of conscience be regarded as predominantly existentialist, in the sense of individual self-injunction and personal authenticity? Or is it rather sociable, in the sense of recognising and welcoming others as integral to the constitution of authentic selfhood? A consecutive question is just as crucial: if conscience is recognised as sociable, how should the others included in conscience be conceived of? Only as more of the same, like me and my community? Or as others with a potentially painful difference? Could it be that an existentialist quest for individual authenticity, coupled with a predominantly idealist and univeralist interpretation of Islam, obscures differences that will anyhow return with a revenge at some stage or other?

Khâlid comes close to existentialist notions of conscience when definingdamîras “the human being in its true existence”, and he combines his quest for authenticity with a universalist reading of Islamic fundamentals. Al-‘Aqqâd addresses existentialism in his book “Thinking – an Islamic duty”.[58]He apparently admires existentialism (which he callsmadhâhibal-wujûdiyya, without specifying his references) for its emphasis on the irreducible responsibility of the individual, and its stress on the unlimited authority of conscience. Nevertheless, he is wary of what he sees as its potential anti-social consequences. He seems to equate modern Western existentialism with the monasticism of ancient times:

In old times, the man with a vigilant conscience (al-damîr al-yaqzân) used to become tired with his society, and emigrated from it to the hermitage of religion. In present times, in the West, likewise tired with his societies, man clings to the ideologies of existentialism to which the individual resorts whenever the yoke of social convention(‘urf)becomes unbearable for him. He is released of his shackles – sometimes to licentiousness, and sometimes [taking resort in] the privacy of his emotional perception (al-wijdân).[59]

According to al-‘Aqqâd, Islam does offer a hermitage to which the conscience of the individual may resort – in the depth of his soul. But al-‘Aqqâd is emphatic that Islam does not allow any seclusion of conscience from its communal duties: “individual consciences must not separate their work from participation in social life”.[60]

However, in the constitution of the moral Self, man clearly sits in the hermitage of his soul, being enjoined only by God. Coming out of his hermitage, he seeks another kind of religious community, beyond that of blind adherence to traditions. In al-‘Aqqâd, this is clearly conceived of as a reformed society imbued with the essential (and universally valid) Islamic values. For all his interest in Christ and Christian tradition, one may ask whether Christians at any point are allowed to play the role as distinctive or even disturbing others, or whether Christ (with his appeal to individual consciences) is only brought to the front as an ally in al-‘Aqqâd’s project of establishing Islamic values in the depth of human conscience. Is Christ ever allowed to be distinctively “Christian”, or is he only seen as “more of the same” in al-‘Aqqâd’s reformed vision of Islam?

In Husayn, the encounter with the traditions of the Other is apparently a more shattering experience. The Christian gospels reveal the depths of human folly, and man’s ineradicable tendency to crucify his conscience. The drama of Good Friday leave Christians and Muslims alike naked and bare.

In Khâlid, like in al-‘Aqqâd, the discourse of conscience strikes a more optimistic note. The phenomenon of human conscience as seen by Khâlid clearly points to experiences and values shared by Christians and Muslims. He recognises Christian tradition as a religious resource in its own right, just as much capable of inspiring Muslims as the contemporary witness of love and non-violent resistance to evil offered by Gandhi. Like Husayn, he may use the symbolism of the crucifixion of Christ to express the repeated crucifixion of love and peace in this world. He may even speak of the return of Christ as the final victory of peace, love, truth, goodness and beauty.[61]But his outlook is unitary: he wants to present Christians and Muslims (and other people guided by conscience) as brothers “together on the road”. His meditations on “Muhammad and Christ – together on the road” could probably be read as a celebration of a shared practice between Muslims in Christians in modernity: their co-operation in the struggle for national independence and social justice in modernEgypt. He does not really address the wounded experiences in Christian-Muslim coexistence. When differences are addressed, also Khâlid turns out to be apologetic on behalf of his own Islamic faith – of which he can hardly be blamed. But to what extent does his outlook allow for differences with a permanent challenge?

Two Muslim voices with a difference

Similar to Khâlid, the South African Muslim Farid Esack (1997) reflects theologically on the shared experience between Christians and Muslims in confronting apartheid. But he adds two important dimensions: first, the recognition that confronting apartheid not only united Muslims and Christians. Muslims and Christians were also divided, within their own camps – between those who benefited from apartheid or silently complied with it (like the majority of white Christians, and many “coloured” Muslims), and those who decided to fight it. Secondly, and even more important: Esack realises that the experience that the real dividing lines did not coincide with those of the religious communities, but rather cut painfully across them, necessitates a critical reassessment of the Qur’ânic notion of the Other. What was true of some Jewish and Christian groups then (on the Arabic peninsula of the 7th century), in a historical conflict with specific social and political characteristics, is not necessarily true in a different context. Instead, one should look for the deeper content of the Qur’ânic message, which calls for faithful confrontation of any injustice and oppression. According to Esack, faith (imân)andislâmin the Qur’ânic sense, can never be entrenched within the confines of a specific religious community carrying its name. It cuts deeper.[62]

It might be argued that only when the encounter with the Other is recognised as a painful experience that shatters one’s own identity, otherness can make a real difference in the (re)formation of the religious Self. With the Indian-British Shi‘ite Muslim Hassan Askari, pain is clearly a part of “the dialogical relationship between Christianity and Islam”.[63]Askari displays considerable optimism on behalf of what he sees as a divinely intended dialogical relationship between the two religions, and he even speaks of Christ as a common sign for Christians and Muslims. Nevertheless, he concludes his meditations with the recognition that if differences are taken seriously, true dialogue will always be painful:

The discovery of the other, of our own being, is both soothing and painful, more the latter. The other is pain, a sting, a bite, but a pain in our very being, of it. It is right in the middle of this pain that a Divine sign is known.[64]

Knowing together is vulnerable experience

Knowing with others is a vulnerable experience. What has been positively known and lived as shared values and commitments, cannot easily be maintained in a changed context. In Egypt, the 50s and early 60s were still marked by the shared Egyptian identity felt by Muslims and Christians alike. From then, the event have taken a different turn. Muslim as well as Christian revivalism has shifted the emphasis from knowing together towards knowing by oneself – as Christians and Muslims, without being inspired or disturbed by foreign voices.[65]In Arabic, the modern term for authenticity –asâla –is not oriented towards any shared humanness, but rather towards the specific features of the Arab-Islamic heritage.[66]

Those who still endeavour to know something obliging together with others, and who are ready to share the pain of the distinctive other, are on the defensive in many places, not only in Egypt. Because of this rather disturbing fact, the voices who testify to a close past of more inclusive discourses, are worthy of listening to.

In late modernity, however, particularism and distinctive identities seem to have come to stay, and there might be no return to the universalistic discourses of the typically modern projects of reform. If dialogue shall be able to carry the weight of difference, knowing together must imply the readiness to live well with potentially painful otherness at close hand.

Only a conscience capable of containing pain and respecting difference, can furnish Christians and Muslims with a hope of becomingoneself as another– without violating either of the two.


What about conscience and “the reproaching soul”?

In Christian discourses of human conscience, the capability of self-reproach (and its emotional equivalent: remorse) is much focused upon – cf. Paul’s classical formulation in Romans 2.15:

Their conscience is called as witness, and their own thoughts argue the case on either side, against them or even for them, on the day that God judges the secrets of human hearts through Christ Jesus.

Also with Paul’s contemporary Jewish-Stoic philosopher Philo, who influenced later Christian developments as well, conscience is defined by its reproaching (elenchos)function:

there are some who … proved to be guilty of highly reprehensible conduct, convicted, if not by any other judge, at any rate by their conscience.[67]

Commenting on Romans 2, Martin Luther radicalises this judging aspect of conscience, and makes it the foundation of his speech of a conscience truly liberated by grace:

For conscience is not the power to do works, but to judge them. The proper work of conscience (as Paul says in Romans 2), is to accuse or excuse, to make guilty or guiltless, uncertain or certain. Its purpose is not to do, but to pass judgment on what has been done and what should be done, and this judgment makes us stand accused or saved in God’s sight. Christ has freed this conscience from works through the gospel and teaches this conscience not to trust in works, but to rely on his mercy.[68]

As we have noted, also Kant focused on the judging aspect of conscience, definingGewissenprimarily as man’s inner court in which the actions of man are either acquitted or convicted. In Protestant theology as well as in Idealist philosophy, the reproaching function of conscience might appear as a solitary affair of each and one individual – surveyed by God according to classical positions, expressing human autonomy according to modern reinterpretations. In his critique of theology as well as of Idealist philosophy, Feuerbach returns to judging conscience its inescapable social dimensions. As we have seen, he insists that the phenomenon of “good” or “bad” conscience gives no sense without the recognition of “oneself as another”: bad conscience is essentially the internalised pain of the wounded Other.

In Christian tradition, the judging function of conscience is conceptually linked with the exercise of self-reproach and the emotion of remorse. Among our Egyptian authors, the reproaching function of conscience is apparently not at the centre of their interest when employing the termdamîr. Their deliberations on conscience do not reflect common usage in the modern Arabic (Standard and Egyptian colloquial) lexicon liketabkît al-damîr(“remorse”) orta’nîb al-damîr(“pangs of conscience”). When Khâlid defines conscience as “the human being in his true existence”, he makes it clear that his definition of conscience is different from definitions that see in conscience primarily “the spiritual function which makes the human being regret the evil he has committed”.[69]

As for al-‘Aqqâd, he touches upon the faculty of self-reproach when exposing the Qur’ânic psychology of the soul in his book “The human being in Islam” (Al-insân fî-l-Qur’ân,1961). He cites notions of the soul that can be found in the Qur’ân, and especially the triadic image of the soul to which Sufism has paid so much attention: the soul that commands evil, the soul that reproaches itself, and the soul that has eventually achieved peace and confidence.[70]Al-‘Aqqâd does in fact relate the image of the self-reproaching soul (an-nafs al-lawwâma,Qur’ân 75.2) to the power of conscience. But only in passing, and his main point is that conscience reflects the human condition of being enjoined and accountable.[71]

In general, it might be argued that both in Khâlid and al-‘Aqqâd, conscience is primarily conceived ofin terms of its creative potentials– as the seat of human responsibility; as the anchoring ground of moral judgements; as the faculty of formulating new moral insights in the light of divine revelation; and as the warrant of human authenticity. Their discourse of conscience aims at freeing humans from the shackles of tradition and releasing human potentials.

In Husayn, there is clearly more negativity and pain in his discourse of conscience. Conscience is not only subject to suppression by external tyrants, but often enough liable to crucifixion and extinction by its own bearer. Also Husayn, however, finds the typical Christian sense of self-reproach a little obsessive, as shown by his ironic remark in the annexes to his novel of conscience: “The best Christian in his or her most sublime moments is a sad person”.[72]

In a dialogical perspective, the question arises whether conscience can only be the anchor of some shared ideals positively known together by Christians and Muslims, or whether it may also integrate negativity and pain. Is it possible that a Christian-Muslim discourse of conscience might even integrate a sense of remorse – resulting from the recognition that the integrity and anxiety of the Other has been neglected?



al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.:Al-falsafa al-qur’âniyya,Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1947].

al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.:Allâh,Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr 1994 [1947].

al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.:Al-tafkîr – farîda islâmiyya,Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1961].

al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.:Al-insân fî-l-Qur’ân,Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1961b].

al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.:‘Abqariyyat al-Masîh,Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1953].

Askari, Hasan: “The Dialogical Relationship between Christianity and Islam”, inJournal of Ecumenical Studies1972, p. 477-487.

al-Azmeh, Aziz: “The Discourse of Cultural Authenticity: Islamist Revivalism and Enlightenment Universalism”; inIslams and Modernities,London &New York: Verso 1993.

Pierre Bayle:Pierre Bayle. Choix des textes et Introduction par Marcel Raymond,Paris: Egloff 1948.

Despland, Michel: “Conscience”, inThe Encyclopedia of Religion,vol 4,New York: Macmillan 1987.

van Doorn-Harder, Nelly and Vogt, Kari:Between Desert and City: The Coptic Orthodox Church Today,Oslo: Novus forlag 1997.

Esack, Farid:Qur’ân, Liberation & Pluralism. An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity against Oppression,Oxford: Oneworld 1997.

Ferrara, Allesandro:Modernity and Authenticity. A study of the Social and Ethical Thought of Jean Jaques Rousseau,Albany: State University of New York Press 1993.

Feuerbach, Ludwig:Sämtliche Werke,Stuttgart: Fromann Verlag 1960.

Fichte, J. G:Das System der Sittenlehre,Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag 1963.

Hegel, G. W. F.:Sämtliche Werke,Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag 1952.

Haykal, Muhammad Husayn:Jean Jacques Rousseau,Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahdat al-Misriyya 1965 [1923].

Heiddegger, Martin:Being and Time(transl. J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson),Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1973.

Hussein, M. Kamel:City of Wrong. A Friday in Jerusalem(transl. Kenneth Cragg),Oxford: Oneworld 1994.

In Arabic:Qarya zâlima,Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahdat al-Misriyya n.d. [1954].

Husain, Mohamed Kamil:The Hallowed Valley. A Muslim Philosophy of Religion,Cairo: TheAmericanUniversity ofCairo Press 1977.

In Arabic:Al-wâdi al-muqaddas,Cairo: Dâr al-Ma‘ârif 1968.

Kant, Immanuel:Werke in zehn Bänden,Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1983.

Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad:Min hunâ nabda’,Cairo: Dâr al-Nîl 1950.

In English:From here we start,WashingtionD.C.: American Council of Learned Societies 1953.

Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad:Ma‘an ‘alâ-l-tarîq – Muhammad wa-l-Masîh,Cairo: Dâr Thâbit n.d. [1958].

Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad:Ma‘a l-damîr al-insânî fî masîrihi wa-masîrihi,Cairo: Maktabat al-Anjilû al-Misrî 1971 [1963].

Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad:Insâniyyât Muhammad,Cairo: Dâr al-Ma‘ârif 1994 [1960].

Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad:Al-dawla fî-l-islâm,Cairo: Dâr Thâbit 1989 [1981].

Lévinas, Emmanuel:Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority,Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991.

Lévinas, Emmanuel:Otherwise than Being(transl. A. Lingis), The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1981.

Ricoeur, Paul:Oneself as Another,Chicago: TheUniversity ofChicago Press1992.

Rasmussen, Lissi:Diapraksis og dialog mellem kristne og muslimer,Århus: Århus Universitetsforlag 1997.

Rousseau, Jean Jaques:Émile(transl. B. Foxley),New York: Dutton 1974.

Taylor, Charles:Sources of the Self,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press 1989.

Taylor, Charles:The Ethics of Authenticity,Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversity Press 1991.

Tracy, David:Dialogue with the Other. The Inter-religious Dialogue,Grand Rapids,Michigan: Eerdmans 1990.

Tracy, David: “The Hidden God: The Divine Other of Liberation”, CrossCurrents1996, p. 5- 16.

Vogelaar, Harold: “Religious Pluralism in the Thought of Muhammad Kâmil Hussein”,in Yvonne Y. Haddad and Wadi Z. Haddad:Christian-Muslim Encounters,University Press ofFlorida 1995, pp. 411-424.




[1]Despland 1987, p. 51.

[2]Cf. Ricoeur 1992:Oneself as Another.

[3]“Nullum theatrum virtuti conscientia maius est”;Tusculan DisputationsII, 26.64.

[4]Kant:Werke,band 7, p. 860.

[5]fichte:System der Sittenlehre(1798), 1963, p. 170.

[6]Hegel:Phänomenologie des Geistes(1807),cited fromSämtliche Werkeband 5, p. 450.

[7]Feuerbach:Theogonie(1851-57),cited fromSämliche Werke, band IX, p. 135.

[8]Feuerbach:Der Eudämonismus,cited fromSämtliche Werke, band X, p. 279f.

[9]Feuerbach:Theogonie,cited fromSämtliche Werke, band IX, p. 282.

[10]Bayle 1948, p. 138. Cf.Theologische Realenzyclopädie,band 13 (1984), p. 203.

[11]Cited from Rousseau 1974, p. 252 and 254.

[12]Taylor 1991. Cf. the references to Rousseau inTaylor 1989.

[13]Taylor 1991, p. 25.

[14]Ibid., p. 26. Cf. Allesandro Ferrara 1993.

[15]As for the notion of “dia-practice”, see Rasmussen 1997.

[16]al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961], p. 111.

[17]al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1947], p. 167.

[18]al-‘Aqqâd 1994 [1947], p. 109.

[18]al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1953], p. 101, 102, 105, 106, 107.

[20]Ibid., p. 95.

[21]Ibid., p. 122:fî sarâ’ir al-damîr.

[22]Ibid., p. 159:fî tawiyat damîrihi.

[23]Nafs(ibid,. p. 78),sudûr(p. 98),qalb(p. 106).

[24]al-damîr hiyya sirr al-asrâr,ibid. p. 171.

[25]Cf. the classical book of Miskawayh (d. 1030)Tahdhîb al-akhlâq(“Refinement of the character”).

[26]al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1953], p. 142.

[27]ibid., p. 113-114.

[28]al-wâdi al-muqaddasis a qur’ânic metaphor for the place where Moses encountered the burning bush, cf. Qur’ân 20.10-16.

[29]Husain 1977, p. 12.

[30]Husain 1977, p. 89.

[31]Hussein 1994, p. 231.

[32]Hussein 1994, p. 21f.

[33]Vogelaar 1995, p. 414.

[34]In his Introduction toCity of Wrong(Hussein 1994).

[35]Ibid., p. 150.

[36]Ibid., p. 107 and 125.

[37]Ibid., p. 186 and 227.

[38]See ibid., p. 226f., and Kenneth Cragg’s “Introduction”, p. 17-19.

[39]Khâlid n.d. [1958].

[40]Khâlid 1994, p. 9 (my translation).

[41]Khâlid n.d. [1958], p. 96, 98 and 99.

[42]Khâlid 1971, p. 170-172.

[43]Ibid., p. 123, cf. pp. 135 and 137.

[44]Cf. Ricoeur 1992.

[45]Lévinas 1991 (Totality and Infinity,especially the chapter “Ethics and the face”).

[46]Ricoeur 1992, and Tracy 1990 and 1996.

[47]Askari 1972 and Esack 1997.

[48]Lévinas 1981, p. 111.

[49]Tracy 1996, p. 14.

[50]Ricoeur 1992, p. 341-356.

[51]Cf. Taylor 1991, pp. 31-42.

[52]Ibid., p. 277.

[53]Heidegger 1973, p. 314.

[54]Ricoeur 1992, p. 353.

[55]Cf. Lévinas 1981 (Otherwise than Being), that may be read as a critique of Heidegger’s notion of selfhood and being.

[56]Ibid., p. 354f.

[57]For the interrelation of conscience and love, see especially al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1953]. For conscience andtaklif,see al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961b].

[58]al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961], pp. 119-120 and 138-139.

Ibid., pp. 119-120 (my translation).

[60]Ibid., p. 130.

[61]Khâlid n.d. [1958], pp. 187-189.

[62]See the chapters “Redefining Self and Other”, and “The Qur’ân and the Other” (in Esack 1997).

[63]Askari 1972.

[64]Ibid., p. 486.

[65]For Coptic developments, see van Doors-Harder and Kari Vogt (eds.) 1997.

[66]Jf. al-Azmeh 1993.

[67]On the virtues206 (cited from Loeb Classical Library).

[68]De votis monasticis, WA 8,60630-39. Cited fromLuther’s worksvol. 44, p. 298.

[69]Khâlid n.d. [1958], p. 96.

[70]al-nafs la-ammâra bi-s-sû’(Qur’ân 12.53),al-nafs al-lawwâma(Qur’ân 75.2) andal-nafs al-mutma’inna(Qur’ân 89.27).

[71]al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961 b], p. 30.

[72]Hussein 1994, p. 233.

Baptism – the 12 Prophecies

July 27, 2011

Short Lessons

The deacon now lays aside his festival robes and, with the subdeacon, attends the officiating priest who reads he following twelve prophecies in a low voice: while they are chanted by others of the clergy:
The First Prophesy: Genesis 1: 1-31; 2: 1-2
The creation of the world. – The man created after the Image of God and His likeness had dominion over all living creatures.

In princípio creávit Deus cælum, et terram. Terra autem erat inánis, et vácua, et ténebræ erant super fáciem abyssi: et Spíritus Dei ferebátur super aquas. Dixítque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona: et divísit lucem a ténebris. Appellavítque lucem Diem, et ténebras Noctem: factúmque est véspere, et mane, dies unus, Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmaméntum in médio aquárum: et dívidat aquas ab aquis. Et fecit Deus firmaméntum, divisítque aquas, qua erant sub firmaménto, ab his quæ erant super firmaméntum. Et factum est ita. Vocavítque Deus firmaméntum Cælum: et factum est véspere, et mane, dies secúndus. Dixit vero Deus: Congregéntur aqua, qua sub cælo sunt, in locum unum: et appáreat árida. Et factum est ita. Et vocávit Deus áridam, Terram: congregation-ésque aquárum appellávit Mária. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Et ait: Gérminet terra herbam viréntem, et faciéntem semen, et lignum pomíferum fáciens fructum juxta genus suum, cujus semen in semetípso sit super terram. Et factum est ita. Et prótulit terra herbam viréntem, et faciéntem semen juxta genus suum, lignúmque fáciens fructum, et habens unumquódque seméntem secúndum spéciem suam. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Et factum est véspere et mane, dies tértius. Dixit autem Deus: Fiant lumináris in firmaménto cæli, et dívidant diem ac noctem, et sint in signa et témpora, et dies et annos: ut lúceant in firmaménto cæli et llúminent terram. Et factum est ita. Fecítque Deus duo luminária magna: lumináre majus, ut præésset diéi: et lumináre minus, ut præésset nocti: et stellas. Et pósuit eas in firmaménto cæli, ut lucérent super terram, et præéssent diéi ac nocti, et divíderent lucem, ac ténebras. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonus. Et factum est véspere et mane, dies quartus. Dixit étiam Deus: Prodúcant aquæ réptileá nimæ vivéntis, et volátile super terram sub firmaménto Cæli. Creavítque Deus cete grándia, et omnem ánimam vivéntem atque motábilem, quam prodúxerant aquæ in spécies suas, et omne volátile secúndum genus suum. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Benedixítque eis, dicens: Créscite, et multiplicámini, et repléte aquas maris: avésque multiplicéntur super terram. Et factum est véspere, et mane, dies quintus. Dixit quoque Deus: Prodúcat terraá nimam vivéntum in génere silo: juménta, et reptília, et béstias terræ secúndum spécies suas. Factúmque est ita. Et fecit Deus béstias terra? juxta spécies suas, et juménta, et omne réptile terror in génere silo. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum, et ait: Faciámus hóminem ad imáginem, et similitúdinem nostram: et præsit píscibus maris, et volatílibus cæli, et béstiis, universæque terra, omníque réptili, quod movétur in terra. Et creávit Deus hóminem ad imáginemi, et suam: ad imáginem Dei creávit illum, másculum et féminam creávit eos. Benedixítque illis Deus, et ait: Créscite, et multiplicámini, et repléte terram, et subjícite eum, et dominámini píscibus maris, et volatílibus cæli, et univérsis animántibus, quæ movéntur super terram. Dixítque Deus: Ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam afferéntem semen super terram, et univérsa ligna qua habent in semetípsis seméntem géneris sui, ut sint vobis in escam: et cunctis animántibus terra, omnique vólucri cæli et univérsis, qua movéntur in terra, et in quibus est ánima vivens, ut habeant ad vescéndum. Et factum est ita. Vidítque Deus cuncta, quæ fécerat: et erant valde bona. Et factum est véspere, et mane, dies sextus. Igitur perfécti sunt cæli, et terra, et ómnia ornátus eórum. Complevítque Deus die séptimo opus suum quod fécerat: et requiévit die séptimo ab univérso ópere quod patrárat.

In the beginning God created Heaven and earth: and the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Be light made; and light was made. And God saw the light that it was good: and He divided the light from the darkness; and He called the light day and the darkness night: and there was evening and morning, one day. And God said, Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament from those that were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said, Let the waters that are under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so done. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas: and God saw that it was good. And He said, Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth; and it was so done. And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yielded seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind: and God saw that it was good; and the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years; to shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth: and it was so done. And God made two great lights, a greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule the night; and the stars; and He set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness; and God saw that it was good; and the evening and the morning were the fourth day. God also said, Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of Heaven. And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind: and God saw that it was good. And He blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth: and the evening and morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds: and it was so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And He said, Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to His own image; to the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, saying, increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat; and to all the beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon: and it was so done. And God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good: and the evening and morning were the sixth day. So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus qui mirabíliter creásti hóminem, et mirabílius redemísti: da nobis, quæsumus, contra oblectaménta peccáti, mentis ratióne persístere; ut mereámur ad ætérna gáudia perveníre. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, Who hast wonderfully created man and more wonderfully redeemed him, grant us, we beseech Thee, to withstand by strength of spirit the allurements of sin, that we may be worthy to reach everlasting joys. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Second Prophesy: Genesis 5: 32; 6; 7: 6: 11-14, 18-21, 23-24; 8: 1-3, 6-12, 15-21
The deluge.-The ark is the prefigure of the true Church,which is the Ark of Salvation.

Noë vero cum quingentórum esset annórum, génuit Sem, Cham, et Japheth. Cumque cæpíssent hómines multiplicari super terram, et fílias procreássent, vidéntes fílii Dei fílias hóminum, quod essent pulchræ, accepérunt sibi uxóres ex ómnibus, quas elégerant. Dixítque Deus: Non permanébit spíritus meus in hómine in ætérnum, quia taro est: erúntque dies illíus centum vigínti annórum. Gigántes autem erant super terram in diébus illis. Postquam enim ingréssi sunt fílii Dei ad fílias hóminum, illæque genuérunt, isti sunt poténtes a sæculo viri famósi. Videns autem Deus, quod multa malítia hóminum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitátio cordis inténta esset ad malum omnitémpore, pœnítuit eum quod hóminem fecísset in terra. Et factus dolóre cordis intrínsecus: Delébo, inquit, hóminem, quem creavi, a facie terræ, ab hómine usque ad animántia, a réptili usque ad vólucres cæli: pœnítet enim me fecísse eos. Noë vero invénit grátiam coram Dómino. Hæ sunt generatiónes Noë: Noë vir justus atque perféctus fuit in generatiónibus suis, cum Deo ambulávit. Et génuit tres fílios, Sem, Cham et Japheth. Corrúpta est autem terra coram Deo, et repléta est iniquitáte. Cumque vidísset Deus terram esse corrúptam (omnis quippe caro occúperat viam suam super terram), dixit a Noë: Finis univérsæ carnis venit coram me: repléta est terra iniquitáte a facie eórum, et ego dispérdam eos cum terra. Fac tibi arcam de lignis lævigátis: mansiúnculas in arca fácies, et bitúmine línies intrínsecus, et extrínsecus. Et sic fácies eam: Trecentórum cubitórum erit longitúdo arcæ, quinquagínta cubítorum latitúdo, et trigínta cubitórum altitúdo illius. Fenéstram in area fácies, et in cúbito consummábis summitátem ejus: óstium autem arca pones ex látere: deórsum cœnácula, et trístega fácies in ea. Ecce ego addúcam aquas dilúvii super terram, ut interfíciam omnem carnem, in qua spíritus vitæ est subter cælum. Univérsa quæ in terra sunt, consuméntur. Ponámque fœdus meum tecum: et ingrediéris arcam tu, et fílii tui, uxor tua, et uxóres Fíliórum tuórum tecum. Et ex cunctis animántibus univérsa carnis bina indúces in arcam, ut vivant tecum: masculíni sexus, et feminíni. De volúcribus juxta genus suum et de juméntis in génere suo, et ex omni réptili terra secúndum genus suum: bina de ómnibus ingrediéntur tecum, ut possint vívere. Tolles ígitur tecum ex ómnibus escis, quæ mandi possunt, et comportábis apud te: et erunt tam tibi, quam illis in cibum. Fecit igitur Noë ómnia, qua pracéperat illi Deus. Erátque sexcentórum annórum, quando dilúvii aqua inundavérunt super terram. Rupti sunt ómnes fontes abyssi magna, et catarácta cæli apértie sunt: et facta est plúvia super terram quadragínta diébus et quadragínta nóctibus. In artículo diéi illius ingréssus eat Noë, et Sem, et Cham, et Japheth Fílii ejus, uxor illíus, et tres uxores filiórum ejus cum eis in arcam: ipsi, et omne ánimal secúndum genus suum, universáque juménta in génere suo, et omne, quod movétur super terram in génere suo, cunctúmque volátile secúndum genus suum. Porro area ferebátur super aquas. Et aquæ prævaluérunt nimis super terram: opertíque sunt ómnes montes excélsi sub univérso cælo. Quindecim cúbitis áltior fuit aqua super montes, quos operúerat. Consúmptaque est omnis caro quæ movebátur super terram, vúlucrum, animántium, bestiárum, omniúmque reptílium, quæ reptant super terram. Remánsit autem solus Noë, et qui cum eo erant in arca. Obtinuerúntque aquæ terram centum quinquagínta diébus. Recordátus autem Deus Noë, cunctorúmque animántium, et ómnium jumentórum, quæ erant cum eo in arca, addúxit spíritum super terram, et imminútæ sunt aquæ. Et clausi sunt fontes abyssi et cataráctæ cæli: et prohíbitæ sunt plúviæ de cælo. Reversæque sunt aquæ de terra eúntes, et redeúntes: et cœpérunt mínue post centum quinquagínta dies. Cumque transíssent quadragínta dies, apériens Noë fenéstram arcæ, quam fécerat, dimísit corvum: qui egrediebátur, et non revertebátur, donec siccaréntur aquæ super terram. Emísit quoque colúmbam post eum, ut vidéret si jam cessássent aquæ super fáciem terræ. Quæ cum non invenísset ubi requiésceret pes ejus, revérsa est ad eum in arcam: aquæ enim erant super univérsam terram: extendítque manum, et apprehénsam íntulit in arcam. Exspectáre autem ultra septum diébus áliis, rursum dimísit colúmbam ex arca. At illa venit ad eum ad vésperam, portans ramum olívæ viréntibus fóliis in ore suo. Intelléxit ergo Noë, quod cessássent aqua super terram. Exspectavítque nihilóminus septem alios dies: et emísit colúmbam, quæ non est revérsa ultra ad eum. Locútus est autem Deus ad Noë, dicens: Egrédere de arca, tu et uxor tua, fílii tui, et uxóres fíliórum tuórum tecum cuncta animántia, qua sunt apud te, ex omni carne, tam in volatílibus, quam in béstiis, et univérsis reptílibus, qua reptant super terram, edu: tecum, et ingredímini super terram: créscite, et multiplicámini super eam. Egréssus est ergo Noë, et fílii ejus, uxor illíus, et uxóres fíliórum ejus cum eo. Sed et ómnia animántia, juménta, et reptília, qua reptant super terram, sécundum genus suum, egréssa sunt de arca. Ædificávit autem Noë altáre Dómino: et tollens de cunctis pecóribus, et volúcribus mundis, óbtulit holocáusta super altáre. Odoratúsque est Dóminus odórem suavitátis.

And Noe, when he was five hundred years old, begot Sem, Cham, and Japheth. And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. And God said, My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh; and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, it repented Him that He had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, He said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them. But Noe found grace before the Lord. These are the generations of Noe; Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God. And he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth), He said to Noe, the end of all flesh is come before Me; the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of timber planks: thou shalt make little rooms in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without. And thus shalt thou make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it; and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side; with lower, middle chambers, and third stories, shalt thou make it. Behold I will bring the waters of a great flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life under heaven: all things that are in the earth shall be consumed. And I will establish My covenant with thee: and thou shalt enter into the ark; thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and the wives of thy sons, with thee. And of every living creature of all flesh, thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark, that they may live with thee, of the male sex and the female. Of fowls according to their kind, and of beasts in their kind, and of every thing that creepeth on the earth according to its kind; two of every sort shall go in with thee that they may live. Thou shalt take unto thee of all food that may be eaten, and thou shalt lay it up with thee: and it shall be food for thee and them. And Noe did all things which God had commanded him. And he was six hundred years old when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth. All the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the floodgates of heaven were opened, and the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. In the selfsame day Noe, and Sem and Chain and Japheth, his sons, his wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, went into the ark; they and every beast according to its kind, and all the cattle in their kind, and every thing that moveth upon the earth according to its kind, and every fowl according to its kind. And the ark was carried upon the waters: and the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth, and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered. And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth. And Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days. And God remembered Noe, and all the living creatures, and all the cattle which were with him in the ark, and brought a wind upon the earth, and the waters were abated; the fountains also of the deep and the floodgates of heaven were shut up, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters returned from off the earth, going and coming; and they began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days. And after that forty days were passed, Noe opened the window of the ark, which he had made, sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth. He sent forth also a dove after him, to see if the waters had ceased upon the face of the earth: but she not finding where her foot might rest, returned to him into the ark, for the waters were upon the whole earth; and he put forth his hand, and caught her, and brought her into the ark. And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove out of the ark. And she came to him in the evening carrying a bough of an olive tree with green leaves in her mouth. Noe therefore understood that the waters were ceased upon the earth. And he stayed yet another seven days; and he sent forth the dove, which returned not any more unto him. And God spake to Noe, saying, Go out of the ark, thou and thy wife, thy sons, and the wives of thy sons with thee. All living things that are with thee of all flesh, as well in fowls as in beasts, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, bring out with thee, and go ye upon the earth; increase and multiply upon it. So Noe went out, he and his sons, his wife, and the wives of his sons with him. And all living things, and cattle, and creeping things that creep upon the earth, according to their kinds, went out of the ark. And Noe built an altar unto the Lord, and taking of all cattle and fowls that were clean, offered holocausts upon the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus, incommutábilis virtus, et lumen atérnum: respíce propítius ad totíus Ecclésiæ tuæ mirábile sacraméntum, et opus salútis humánæ, perpétua dispositiónis efféctu tranquíllius operáre; totúsque mundus experiátur et vídeat, dejécta érigi, inveteráta renovári, et per ipsum redíre ómnia in íntegrum, a quo sumpsére princípium: Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, unchangeable virtue and light eternal, look mercifully upon the wonderful sacrament of Thy whole Church, and perform in peace the work of human salvation, and let the whole world feel and see the things lifted up that were cast down, the worn out things renewed, and that all things are made whole through Him from Whom they had their origin, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who with Thee livest and reignest, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Third Prophesy: Genesis 22: 1-19
The offering of Abraham is a figure of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Faith and obedience of Abraham.

In diébus illis: Tentávit Deus Abraham, et dixit ad eum: Abraham, Abraham. At ille respóndit: Adsum. At illi: Tolle fílium tuum unigénitum, quem díligis, Isaac, et vade in terram visiónis: atque ibi ófferes eum in holocáustum super unum móntium, quem monstrávero tibi. Igitur Abraham de nocte consúrgens, stravitá sinum suum: ducens secum duos júvenes, et Isaac fílium suum. Cumque concidísset ligna in holocáustum, ábiit ad locum, quem præcéperat ei Deus. Die autem tértio, elevátis óculis, vidit locum procul: dixítque ad pueros sues: Exspectáte hic cumá sino: ego, et puer illuc usque properántes, postquam adoravérimus, revertémur ad vos. Tulit quoque ligna holocáusti, et impósuit super Isaac fílium suum: ipse vero portábat in mánibus ignem, et gládium. Cumque duo pérgerent simul, dixit Isaac patri sue: Pater mi. At ille respóndit: Quid vis, fíli? Ecce, inquit, ignis, et ligna: ubi est víctima holocáusti? Dixit autem Abraham: Deus providébit sibi víctimam holocáusti, fíli mi. Pergébant ergo páriter: et venérunt ad locum, quem osténderat ei Deus, in quo ædificávit altáre, et désuper ligna compósuit: cumque alligásset Isaac fílium suum, pósuit eum in altáre super struem lignórum. Extendítque manum, et arrípuit gládium, ut immoláret fílium suum. Et ecce Angelus Dómini de cælo clamávit, dicens: Abraham, Abraham. Qui respóndit: Adsum. Dixítque ei: Non exténdas manum tuum super púerum, neque fácias illi quidquam: nunc cognóvi quod times Deum, et non pepercísti unigénito fílio tuo propter me. Levávit Abraham óculos suos, vidítque post tergum aríetem inter vepres hæréntem córnibus, quem assúmens óbtulit holocáustum pro fílio. Aprellavítque nomen loci illíus, Dóminus Videt. Unde usque hódie dícitur: In monte Dóminus vidébit. Vocávit autem Angelus Dómini Abraham secúndo de cæla, dicens: Per memetípsum jurávi, dicit Dóminus: quia fecísti hanc rem, et non pepercísti fílio tuo unigénito propter me: benedícam tibi, et multiplicábo semen tuum sicut stellas cæli, et velut arénam, quæ est in líttore maris: possidébit semen tuum portas inimicórum suórum, et benedicéntur in sémine tuo omnes gentes terræ, quia obedísti voci mesa. Revérsus est Abraham ad púeros suos, abierúntque Bersabée simul, et habitávit ibi.

In those days, God tempted Abraham, and said to him, Abraham, Abraham: and he answered, Here I am. He said to him, Take thy only-begotten son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and go into the land of vision; and there thou shalt offer him for an holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show thee. So Abraham rising up in the night, saddled his ass, and took with him two young men, and Isaac his son; and when he had cut wood for the holocaust, he went his way to the place which God had commanded him. And on the third day, lifting up his eyes he saw the place afar off; and he said to his young men, Stay you here with the ass: I and the boy will go with speed as far as yonder, and, after we have worshipped will return to you. And he took the wood for the holocaust, and laid it upon Isaac his son: and he himself carried in his hands fire and a sword. And as they two went on together, Isaac said to his father, My father; and he answered, What wilt thou, son? Behold, saith he, fire and wood; where is the victim for the holocaust? And Abraham said, God will provide Himself a victim for a holocaust, my son. So they went on together; and they came to the place which God had showed him, where he built an altar, and laid the wood in order upon it; and when he had bound Isaac his son, he laid him on the altar upon the pile of wood; and he put forth his hand, and took the sword to sacrifice his son. And behold an angel of the Lord from heaven called to him, saying, Abraham, Abraham;and he answered, Here I am. And he said to him, Lay not thy hand upon the boy, neither do thou anything to him; now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy only-begotten son for My sake. Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briars, sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son. And he called the name of that place, The Lord Seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said, in the mountain the Lord will see. And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, saying, By My own self have I sworn, saith the Lord; because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only-begotten son for My sake, I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the seashore; thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies, and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed My voice. Abraham returned to his young men, and they went to Bersabee together, and he dwelt there.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus, fidélium Pater summe, qui in toto orbe terrárum, promissiónis tuæ Fílios diffúsa adoptiónis grátia multíplicas: et per paschæ sacraméntum, Abraham púerum tuum universárum, sicut jurásti, géntium éfficis patrem; da pópulis tuis digne ad grátiam tuæ vocatiónis introíre. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, the supreme Father of the faithful, Who dost multiply Thy children throughout the world by spreading abroad the grace of adoption, and Who, through the paschal sacrament, dost make Thy servant Abraham the father of all the nations, as Thou didst swear, grant that Thy people may worthily enter into the grace of Thy vocation. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Fourth Prophesy: Exodus 14: 24-31; 15: 1
As Moses freed the Israelites from the captivity ofEgypt, so Christ by baptism reserves the catechumens from the yoke of satan.

In diébus illis: Factum est in vígilia matutína, et ecce respíciens Dóminus super castra Ægyptiórum per colúmnam ignis, et nubis, interfécit Exércitum eórum: et subvértit rotas cúrruum, ferebantúrque in profúndum. Dixérunt ergo Ægypti: Fugiámus Isr?lem: Dóminus enim pugnat pro eis contra nos. Et ait Dóminus ad Móysen: Extende manum tuam super mare, ut revertántur aqua ad Ægyptios super currus, et équites eórum. Cumque extendísset Móyses manum contra mare, revérsum est primo dilúculo ad priórem locum: fugientibúsque Ægyptiis occurrérunt aquæ, et invólvit eos Dóminus in médiis flúctibus. Reversæque sunt aqua, et operuérunt currus, et équites cuncti exércitus Pharaónis, qui sequéntes ingréssi fúerant mare: nec unus quidem supérfuit ex eis. Fílii autem Israël perrexérunt per médium sicci maris, et aquæ eis erant quasi pro muro a dextris et a sinístris: liberavítque Dóminus in die illa Israël de manu Ægyptiórum. Et vidérunt Ægyptios mórtuos super littus maris, et manum magnum, quam exercúerat Dóminus contra eos: timuítque pópulus Dóminum, et credidérunt Dómino, et Móysi servo ejus. Tunc cécinit Móyses et Fílii Israël carmen hoc Dómino, et dixérunt:

In those days, the morning watch was come, and behold the Lord, looking upon the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, slew their host, and overthrew the wheels of the chariots, and they were carried into the deep. And the Egyptians said, Let us flee fromIsrael, for the Lord fighteth for them against us. And the Lord said to Moses, Stretch forth thy hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and horsemen. And when Moses had stretched forth his hand toward the sea, it returned, at the first break of day, to the former place; and as the Egyptians were fleeing away, the waters came upon them, and the Lord shut them up in the middle of the waves. And the waters returned, and covered the chariots and the horsemen of all the army of Pharao, who had come into the sea after them, neither did there so much as one of them remain. But the children ofIsraelmarched through the midst of the sea upon dry land, and the waters were to them as a wall on the right hand and on the left: and the Lord deliveredIsraelin that day out of the hand of the Egyptians. And they saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them: and the people feared the Lord, andthey believed the Lord, and Moses His servant. Then Moses and the children ofIsraelsung this canticle to the Lord and said:

TRACT: Exodus 15: 1, 2

Cantémus Dómino: glorióse enim honorificátus est: equum, et ascensórem projécit in mare: adjútor et protéctor factus est mihi in salútem. V. Hic Deus meus, et honorificábo eum: Deus patris mei, et exaltábo eum. V. Dóminus cónterens bella: Dóminus nomen est illi.

Let us sing to the Lord, for He is gloriously magnified: the horse and the rider He hath thrown into the sea: He is become my helper and protector unto salvation. V. He is my God, and I will glorify Him: the God of my Father, and I will exalt Him. V. The Lord crushing wars; the Lord is His name.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus, cujus antíqua mirácula étiam nostris sæculis coruscáre sentímus: dum quod uni pópulo, a persecutióne Ægyptíaca liberándo, déxteræ tuæ poténtia contulísti, id in salútem géntium per aquam regeneratiónis operáris: præsta; ut in Abrahæ fílios, et in Israëlíticam dignitátem, totíus mundi tránseat plenitúdo. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God of Whose wondrous works of old we feel the splendor even in our days, when Thou dost perform for the salvation of all peoples, through the water of regeneration, that which Thou didst for one people, delivering it from the Egyptian persecution by the power of Thy right hand, grant that the fulness of all the world be shared by the sons of Abraham and with the dignity of Israel. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Fifth Prophesy: Isaias 54: 17; 55: 1-11
We are through the Sacrament of Baptism incorporated into the new nation: the Church, which with God enters into a covenant superior to the covenant of Sinai.

Hæc est heréditas servórum Dómini: et justítia eórum apud me, dicit Dóminus. Omnes sitiéntes veníte ac aquas: et qui non habétis argéntum, properáte, émite, et comédite: veníte, emíte absque argénto, et absque ulla commutatióne, vinum, et lac. Quare appénditis argéntum non in pánibus, et labórem vestrum non in saturitáte? Audíte audiéntes me, et comédite bonum, et delectábitur in crassitúdine ánima vestra. Inclináte autem vestram, et veníte ad me: audíte, et vivet ánima vestra, et fériam vobíscum pactum sempitérnum, misericórdias David fidéles. Ecce testem pópulis dedi eum, ducem, ac præceptórum géntibus. Ecce gentem, quam nesciébas, vocábis: et gentes, quæ te non cognovérunt, ad te current propter Dóminum Deum tuum, et sanctum Israël, quia glorificávit te. Quæríte Dóminum, dum inveníri potest: invocáte eum, dum prope est. Derelínquat ímpius viam suam, et vir iníquus cogitatiónes suas, et revertátur ad Dóminum et miserébitur ejus, et ad Deum nostrum: quóniam multus est ad ignoscéndum. Non enim cogitatiónes meæ, cogitatiónes vestræ: neque viæ vestræ, viæ meæ, dicit Dóminus. Quia sicut exaltántur cæli a terra, sic exaltátæ sunt viæ meæ a viis vestris, et cogitatiónes meæ a cogitatiónibus vestris. Et quómodo descéndit imber, et nix de cælo, et illuc ultra non revértitur, sed inébriat terram, et infúndit eam, et germináre eam facit, et dat semen serénti, et panem comedénti: sic erit verbum meum, quod egrediétur de ore meo: non revertétur ad me vácuum, sed fáciet quæcúmque vúlui, et prosperábitur in his, ad quæ misi illud: dicit Dóminus omnípotens.

This is the inheritance of the servants of the Lord, and their justice with Me, saith the Lord. All you that thirst, come to the waters: and you that have no money, make haste, buy and eat; come ye, buy wine and milk without money, and without any price. Why do you spend money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which doth not satisfy you? Harken diligently to Me, and eat that which is good, and your soul shall be delighted in fatness. Incline your ear, and come to Me: hear, and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the faithful mercies of David. Behold I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the gentiles. Behold thou shalt call a nation, which thou knewest not; and the nations that knew not thee, shall run to thee, because of the Lord thy God, and for the holy One of Israel, for He hath glorified thee. Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for He is bountiful to forgive. For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are My ways exalted above your ways, and My thoughts above your thoughts. And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater; so shall My word be, which shall go forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it; saith the Lord almighty.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Omnípotens sempitérne Deus, multíplica in honórem nóminis tui, quod patrum fídei spopondisti: et promissíonis fílios sacra adoptióne diláta; ut, quod prióres sancti non dubitavérunt futúrum, Ecclésia tua magna jam ex parte cognóscat implétum. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
Almighty, eternal God, for the honor of Thy name multiply what Thou didst promise to the faith of the fathers, and increase by holy adoption the sons of promise, that, what the saints of old did not doubt would be, Thy Church may know to have been already in great part fulfilled. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Sixth Prophesy: Baruch 3: 9-38
We shall enjoy everlasting peace in heaven, if we observe the lessons of life and wisdom which the prophet (the Church) teaches us.

Audi Israël mandáta vita: áuribus pércipe, ut scias prudéntiam. Quid est, Israël, quod in terra inimicórum es? Inveterásti in terra aliéna, coinquinátus es cum mórtuis; deputátus es cum descendéntibus in inférnum. Dereliquísti fontem sapiéntiæ. Nam si in via Dei ambulásses, habitásses útique in pace sempitérna. Disce ubi sit prudéntia, ubi sit virtus, ubi sit intelléctus: ut scias simul ubi sit longitúrnitas vita, et victus, ubi sit lumen oculórum et pax. Quis invénit locum ejus? et quis intrávit in thesáuros ejus? Ubi sunt principes géntium, et qui dominántur super béstias, quæ sunt super terram? qui inávibus cæli ludunt, qui argéntum thesaurízant, et aurum, in quo confídunt hómines, et non est finis acquisitiónis eórum? qui argéntum fábricant et sollíciti sunt, nec est invéntio óperum illórum? Extermináti sunt, et ad inferos descendérunt, et álii loco córum surrexérunt. Júvenes vidérunt lumen, et habitavérunt super terram: viam autem disciplínæ ignoravérunt, neque intellexérunt sémitas ejus, neque fílii eórum, suscepérunt eam, a facie ipsórum longe facta est: non est audíta in terra Chánaan, neque visa est in Theman. Fílii quoque Agar, qui exquírunt prudéntiam, quæ de terra est, negotiatóres Merrhæ, et Theman, et fabulatóres, et exquisitóres prudéntiæ, et intelligéntiæ: viam autem sapiéntiæ nesciérunt, neque comemoráti sunt sémitas ejus. O Israël, quam magna. est domus Dei, et ingens locus possessiónis ejus! Magnus est, et non habet finem: excélsus, et imménsus. Ibi fuérunt gigántes nomináti illi, qui ab initio fuérunt, státura magna, sciéntes bellum. Non hos elégit Dóminus, neque viam discíplinæ invenérunt: proptérea periérunt. Et quóniam non habuérunt sapiéntiam, interiérunt propter suam insipiéntiam. Quis ascéndit in cælum, et accépit eam, et edúxit eam de núbibus? Quis transfretávit mare, et invénit illam? Et áttulit illam super aurum eléctum? Non est qui possit scire vias ejus, neque qui exquírat sémitas ejus: sed qui scit univérsa, novit eam, et adinvénit eam prudéntia sua: qui præparávit terram in ætérno témpore, et replévit eam pecúdibus, et quadrupédibus: qui emíttit lumen, et vadit: et vocávit illud, et obédit illi in tremóre. Stellæ autem dedérunt lumen in custódiis suis, et lætátæ sunt: vocátæ sunt, et dixérunt: Adsumus: et luxérunt ei cum jucunditáte, qui fecit illas. Hic est Deus noster, et non æstimábitur álius advérsus eum. Hic adinvénit omnem viam disciplinæ, et trádidit illam Jacob púero suo, et Israël dilécto suo. Post hæc in terris visus est, et cum homínibus conversátus est.

Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life: give ear, that thou mayest learn wisdom. How happeneth it, O Israel, that thou art in thy enemies’ land? Thou art grown old in a strange country: thou art defiled with the dead; thou art counted with them that go down into hell. Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom; for if thou hadst walked in the way of God thou hadst surely dwelt in peace forever. Learn where is wisdom, where is strength, where is understanding, that thou mayest know also where is length of days and life, where is the light of the eyes, and peace. Who hath found out her place? and who hath gone into her treasures? Where are the princes of the nations and they that rule over the beasts that are upon the earth? that take their pastime with the birds of the air, that hoard up silver and gold, wherein men trust; and there is no end of their getting? who work in silver and are solicitous, and their works are unsearchable? They are cut off, and are gone down to hell, and others are risen up in their place. Young men have seen the light, and dwelt upon the earth, but the way of knowledge they have not known; nor have they understood the paths thereof, neither have their children received it; it is far from their face. It hath not been heard of in thelandofChanaan, neither hath it been seen in Theman. The children of Agar also, that search after the wisdom that is of the earth, the merchants of Merrha, and of Theman, and the tellers of fables, and searchers of prudence and understanding; but the way of wisdom they have not known, neither have they remembered her paths. O Israel, how great is the house of God, and how vast is the place of His possession! It is great, and hath no end; it is high and immense. There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge; therefore did they perish. And because they had not wisdom they perished through their folly. Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath passed over the sea, and found her, and brought her preferably to chosen gold? There is none that is able to know her ways, nor that can search out her paths. But He that knoweth all things knoweth her, and hath found her out with His understanding: He that prepared the earth forevermore, and filled it with cattle and four-footed beasts: He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth, and hath called it, and it obeyeth Him with trembling. And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced. They were called, and they said, Here we are; and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to Him that made them. This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison with Him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it toIsraelHis servant, and toIsraelHis beloved. Afterwards He was seen upon earth and conversed with men.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus, qui Ecclésiam tuam semper géntium vocatióne multíplicas: concéde propítius: ut, quos aqua baptísmatis ábluis, continua protectióne tueáris. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, Who dost ever multiply Thy Church by the calling of the nations, mercifully grant that those whom Thou dost wash with the water of baptism may be guarded by Thy continual protection. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Seventh Prophesy: Ezechiel 37: 1-14
The prophet tells us if the resurrection of men. The Sacrament of Baptism infuses new life into our souls.

In diébus illis: Facta est super me manus Dómini, et edúxit me in spíritu Dómini: et dimísit me in médio campi, qui erat plenus óssibus: et circumdúxit me per ea in gyro: erant autem multa valde super fáciem campi, síccaque veheménter. Et dixit ad me: Fíli hóminis, putásne vivent ossa ista! Et dixi: Dómine Deus, tu nosti. Et Dixit ad me: Vaticináre de óssibus istis: et dices eis: Ossa árida audíte verbum Dómini. Hæc dicit Dóminus Deus óssibus his: Ecce ego intromíttam in vos spíritum, et vivétis. Et dabo super vos nervos, et succréscere fáciam super vos carnes, et superexténdam in vobis cutem: et dabo vobis spíritum, et vivétis, et sciétis quia ego Dóminus. Et prophetávi sicut præcéperat mihi: factus est autem sónitus, prophetánte me, et ecce commótio: et accessérunt ossa ad ossa, unumquódque ad junctúram suam. Et vidi, et ecce supper ea nervi et carnes ascendérunt: et exténta est in eis cutis désuper, et spíritum non habébant. Et dixit ad me: Vaticináre ad spíritum, vaticináre fíli hóminis, et dices ad spíritum: Hæc dicit Dóminus Deus: A quátuor ventis veni spíritus, et insúffa super interféctos istos, et revivíscant. Et prophetávi sicut præcéperat mihi: et ingréssus est in ea spíritus, et vixérunt: steterúntque super pedes suos exércitus grandis nimis valde. Et dixit ad me: Fíli hóminis, ossa hæc univérso, domus Israël est: ipsi dicunt: Aruérunt ossa nostra, et périit spes nostra, et abscíssi sumus, Proptérea vaticináre, et dices ad eos: Hæc dicit Dóminus Deus: Ecce ego apériam túmulos vestros, et edúcam vos de sepúlcris vestris, pópulus meus: et indúcam vos in terram Israël. Et sciétis, quia ego Dóminus, cum aperúero sepúlcra vestra, et edúxero vos de túmulis vestris, pópule meus: et dédero spíritum meum in vobis, et vixéritis, et requiéscere vos fáciam super humum vestram: dicit Dóminus omnípotens.

In those days, the hand of the Lord was upon me, anti brought me forth in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of a plain that was full of bones; and He led me about through them on every side: now there were very many upon the face of the plain, and they were exceeding dry. And He said to me, Son of man, dost thou think these bones shall live? And I answered, O Lord God, Thou knowest. And He said to me, Prophesy concerning these bones, and say to them, Ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God to these bones, Behold, I will send spirit into you, and you shall live, and I will lay sinews upon you, arid will cause flesh to grow over you, and will cover you with skin; and I will give you spirit, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord. And I prophesied as He had commanded me; and as I prophesied there was a noise, and behold a commotion; and the bones came together, each one to its joint. And I saw, and behold the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin was stretched out over them, but there was no spirit in them:And He said to me, Prophesy to the spirit; prophesy, O son of man, and say to the spirit, Thus saith the Lord God, Come, spirit from the four winds, and blow upon these slain, and let them live again. And I prophesied as He had commanded me; and the spirit came into them; and they lived; and they stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. And He said to me, Son of man, all these bones are the house ofIsrael. They say, Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost, and we are cut off. Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus saith the Lord God, I will open your graves, and will bring you out of your sepulchres, O My people, and will bring you out into the land of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall have opened your sepulchres, and shall have brought you out of your graves, O My people; and shall have put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I shall make you rest upon your own land; saith the Lord almighty.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus , qui nos ad celebrándum paschále sacraméntum, utriúsque testaménti páginis ínstruis: da nobis intellígere misericórdiam tuam; ut ex perceptióne præséntium múnerum, firma sit exspectátio futurórum. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, Who dost instruct us in the pages of both testaments how to celebrate the paschal sacrament, grant us to understand Thy mercy, that by the reception of the present gifts, our expectation of those to come may be confirmed. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Eighth Prophesy: Isaias 4: 1-6
Our Lord Jesus Christ, after cleansing our souls in Baptism, will take us under His protection.

Apprehéndent septem mulíeres virum unum in die illa, dicéntes: Panem nostrum comedémus, et vestiméntis nostris operiémur: tantúmmodo invocétur nomen tuum super nos, aufer oppróbrium nostrum. In die illa erit germen Dómini in magnificéntia, et glória, et fructus terræ sublímis, et exsultátio his, qui salváti fúerint de Israël. Et erit: Omnis qui relíctus fúerit in Sion, et resíduus in Jerúsalem, sanctus vocábitur, omnis qui scriptus est in vita in Jerúsalem. Si ablúerit Dóminus sordes filiárum Sion, et sánguinem Jerúsalem láverit de médio ejus, in spíritu judícii, et spíritu ardóris. Et creábit Dóminus super omnem locum montis Sion, et ubi invocátus est, nubem per diem, et fumum et spendórem ignis flammántis in nocte: super omnem enim glóriam protéctio. Et tabernáculum erit in umbráculum diéi ab æstu, et in securitátem, et absconsiónem a túrbine, et a plúvia.

In that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel only let us be called by thy name; take away our reproach. In that day, the bud of the Lord shall be in magnificence and glory, and the fruit of the earth shall be high, and a great joy to them that shall have escaped ofIsrael. And it shall come to pass, that every one that shall be left in Sion, and that shall remain inJerusalem, shall be called holy, every one that is written in life inJerusalem. If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood ofJerusalemout of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. And the Lord will create upon every place ofMountSion, and where He is called upon, a cloud by day, and a smoke and the brightness of a flaming fire in the night; for over all the glory shall be a protection. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shade in the daytime from the heat, and for a security and covert from the whirlwind and from rain.

TRACT: Isaias 5: 1,2

Vínea facta est dilécto in cornu, in loco úberi. V. Et macériam circúmdedit, et circumfódit: et plantávit víneam Sorec, et ædificávit turrim in médio ejus. V. et Tórcular fodit in ea: vínea enim Dómini Sábaoth, domus Israël est.

The beloved had a vineyard on a hill in a fruitful place. V. And he surrounded it with a wall, and dug round about it, and he planted the vine of Sorec, and built a tower in the midst of it. V. And he dug a wine-press therein: for the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house ofIsrael.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus qui in ómnibus Ecclésiæ tuæ fíliis, sanctórum prophetárum voce manifestásti, in omni loco dominatiónis tuæ, satórem te bonórum séminum, et electórum pálmitum esse cultórem: tríbue pópulis tuis, qui et vineárum apud to nómine censéntur, et ségetum; ut, spinárum, et tribulórum squalóre resecáto, digna efficiántur fruge fæcúndi. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, Who by the voice of the holy prophets hast manifested, in all the sons of the Church and in every region where Thou dost hold sway that Thou art a sower of good seed and dost make choice branches to grow, grant unto Thy peoples, who are reckoned before Thee both as vines and as cornfields, that, the disorder of thorns and brambles being cleared away, they may be made to bring forth worthy fruit. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Ninth Prophesy: Exodus 1-11
The children ofIsrael are to sacrifice the Paschal Lamb; the Israelites will put the Lamb of God to death on the Cross.

In diébus illis: Dixit Dóminus ad Móysen, et Aaron in terra Ægypti: Mensis iste, vobis princípium ménsium: primus erit in ménsibus anni. Loquímini ad univérsum cœtum flliórum Israël, et dicite eis: Décima die mensis hujus tollat unusquísque agnum per familias, et domos suas. Sin autem minor est númerus, ut suffícere possit ad vescéndum agnum, assúmet vicínum suum, qui junctus est dómui suæ, juxta númerum animárum quæ suffícere possunt ad esum agni. Erit autem agnus absque mácula, másculus, annículus: juxta quem ritum tollétis et hædum. Et servábitis eum usque ad quartam décimam diem mensis hujus: immolabítque eum univérsa multitúdo filiórum Israël ad vésperam. Et sument de sánguine ejus, ac ponent super utrúmque postem, et in superlimináribus domórum, In quibus cómedent illum. Et edent carnes nocte illa assas igni, et ázymos panes cum lactúcis agréstibus. Non comedétis ex eo crudum quid, nec coctum aqua, sed tantum assum igni: caput cum pédibus ejus, et intestínis vorabitis. Nec remanébit quidquam ex eo usque mane. Si quid resíduum fúerit, igne comburétis. Sic autem comedétis illum: Renes vestros accingétis, et calceaménta habébitis in pédibus, tenéntes baculos in mánibus, et comedétis festinánter: est enim Phase (id est tránsitus) Dómini.

In those days, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in thelandofEgypt, This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first in the months of the year. Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children ofIsrael, and say to them, On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbor that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb. And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male of one year; according to which rite also you shall take a kid. And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; and the whole multitude of the children ofIsraelshall sacrifice it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side-posts and on the upper door-posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread, with wild lettuce. You shall not eat thereof any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted at the fire; you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof. Neither shall there remain any thing of it until the morning. If there be any thing left, you shall burn it with fire. And thus you shall eat it: you shall gird your reins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste: for it is the Phase (that is the passage) of the Lord.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Omnípotens sempiterne Deus qui in ómnium óperum tuórum dispensatióne mirábilis es: intélligant redémpti tui, non fuísse excelléntius quod inítio factus est mundus, quam quod in fine sæculórum Pascha nostrum immolátus est Christus: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
Almighty, eternal God, Who art wonderful in the ordering of all Thy works, let them Thou hast redeemed understand that to have made the world in the beginning was no greater work that to have immolated in the end of the ages Christ, our pasch, Who with Thee livest and reignest, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Tenth Prophesy: Jonas 3: 1-1O
Pardon granted to the Ninivites, who, moved by the exhortations of Jonas, fasted and covered themselves with ashes for forty days.

In diébus illis: Factum est verbum Dómini ad Jonam prophétam secúndo, dicens: Surge, et vade in Níniven civitátem magnam: et prædica in ea prædicatiónem, quam ego loquor ad te. Et surréxit Jonas, et ábiit in Níniven juxta verbum Dómini. Et Nínive erat cívitas magna itínere diérum trium. Et cœpit Jonas introíre in civitátem itínere diéi unius: et clamávit, et dixit: Adhuc quadragínta dies, et Nínive subvertétur. Et credidérunt viri Nínivitæ in Deum: et prædicavérunt jejúnium, et vestiti sunt saccis a majóre usque ad minórem Et pervénit verbum ad regem Nínive: et surréxit de sólio suo, et abjécit vestiméntum suum a se, et indútus est sacco, et sedit in cínere. Et clamávit, et dixit in Nínive ex ore regis, et príncipum ejus, dicens: Hómines, et juménta, et boves, et pécora non gustent quidquam: nec pascántur et aquam non bibant. Et operiántur saccis hómines, et juménta, et clament ad Dóminum in fortitúdine, et convertátur vir a via sua mala, et ab iniquitáte, quæ est in mánibus eórum. Quis scit si convertátur etignoscat Deus: et revertátur a furóre iræ sua; et non períbimus? Et vidit Deus ópera eórum, quia convérsi sunt de via sua mala: et misértus est pópulo suo, Dóminus Deus noster.

In those days the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying, Arise, and go to Ninive the great city, and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive according to the word of the Lord. Now Ninive was a great city of three days’ journey. And Jonas began to enter into the city one day’s journey; and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Ninive shall be destroyed. And the men of Ninive believed in God, and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Ninive: and he arose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes; and he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying, Let neither men, nor beasts, nor oxen, nor sheep, taste any thing; let them not feed, nor drink water, and let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and forgive, and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, and they were turned from their evil way; and the Lord our God had mercy upon His people.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus, qui diversitátem géntium in confessióne tui nóminis adunásti: da nobis, et velle, et posse quæ præcípis; ut pópulo ad æternitátem vocáto, una sit fides méntium, et piétas actiónum. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, Who hast joined together the diversity of the peoples in the confession of Thy name, grant us both to desire what Thou commandest and the power to perform it, that there may be one faith in the hearts, and one piety in the deeds, of the people called to eternal life. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Eleventh Prophesy: Deuteronomy 31: 22-3O
We who have been baptized must, like the Israelites led by Moses, recall to mind the precepts of God and His munificence.

In diébus illis: Scripsit Móyses cánticum, et dócuit fílios Israël. Præcepítque Dóminus Jósue fílio Nun, et ait: Confortáre, et esto robústus: tu enim introdúces Fílios Israël in terram quam pollícitus sum, et ego ero tecum. Postquam ergo scripsit Móyses verba legis hujus in volúmine, atque complévit: præcépit Levítis, qui portábant arcam fœderis Dómini, dicens: Tóllite librum istum, et pónite eum in látere arcæ fœderis Dómini Dei vestri: ut sit ibi contra te in testimónium. Ego enim scio contentiónem tuam, et cervicem tuam duríssimam. Adhuc vivénte me, et ingrediénte vobíscum, semper contentióse egístis contra Dóminum: quanto magis cum mórtuus fúero? Congregáte ad me omnes majóres natu per tribus vestras, atque doctóres, et loquar audiéntibus eis sermónes istos, et invocábo contra eos cœlum et terram. Novi enim quod post mortem meam iníque agétis, et declinábitis cito de via, quam præcépi vobis: et occúrrent vobis mala in extrémo témpore, quando fecéritis malam in conspéctu Dómini, ut irritétis eum per ópera mánuum vestrárum. Locútus est ergo Móyses, audiénte univérso cœtu Israël, verba cárminis hujus, et ad fínem usque complévit.

In those days, Moses wrote the canticle and taught it the children ofIsrael. And theLord commanded Josue the son of Nun, and said, Take courage, and be valiant; for thou shalt bring the children ofIsraelinto the land which I have promised, and I will be with thee. Therefore after Moses had wrote the words of this law in a volume, and finished it; he commanded the levites, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a testimony against thee. For I know thy obstinacy, and thy most stiff neck. While I am yet living, and going in with you, you have always been rebellious against the Lord; how much more when I shall be dead? Gather unto me all the ancients of your tribes, and your doctors, and I will speak these words in their hearing, and will call heaven and earth to witness against them. For I know that, after my death, you will do wickedly, and will quickly turn aside from the way that I have commanded you: and evils shall come upon you in the latter times, when you shall do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him by the works of your hands. Moses therefore spoke, in the hearing of the whole assembly ofIsrael, the words of this canticle, and finished it even to the end.

TRACT: Deuteronomy 32: 1-4

Atténde cœlum et loquar: et áudiat terra verba ex ore meo. V. Exspectétur sicut plúvia elóquium meum: et descéndant sicut ros verba mea. V. Sicut imber super gramen, et sicut nix super fœnum: quia nomen Dómini invocábo. V. Date magnitúdinem Deo nostro: Deus, vera ópera ejus, et omnes viæ ejus judícia. V. Deus fidélis, in quo non est iníquitas: justus, et sanctus Dóminus.

Hear, O Heaven, and I will speak: and let the earth give ear to the words out of my mouth. V. Let my speech be expected like rain; and my words descend like dew. V. As a shower upon the grass, and like snow upon hay: because I will invoke the name of the Lord. V. Give ye magnificence to our God: God’s works are true, and all His ways are judgments. V.God is faithful, in whom there is no iniquity: the Lord is just and holy.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus, celsitúdo humílium, et fortitúdo rectórum, qui per sanctum Móysen púerum tuum, ita erudire pópulum tuum sacri cárminis tui decantatióne voluísti, ut illa legis iterátio fíeret étiam nostra diréctio: éxcita in omnem justificatárum géntium plenitúdinem poténtiam tuam, et da lætítiam, mitigándo terrórem; ut ómnium peccátis tua remissióne delétis, quod denuntiátum est in ultiónem, tránseat in salútem. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, the exaltation of the lowly and the strength of the just, Who wast pleased so to teach Thy people, through Moses, Thy holy servant, by the chanting of Thy sacred hymn, that this repetition of the law might become our instruction also, put forth Thy power upon the whole body of the justified nations, and give them joy by allaying their fear, so that ail their sins being wiped out by Thy forgiveness, that which was proclaimed for vengeance may turn into salvation. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

The Twelfth Prophesy: Daniel 3: 1-24
We are, after Baptism, protected by God in the midst of all adversities, as were the three young men in the furnace.

In diébus illis: Nabuchodónosor rex fecit státuam áuream, altitúdine cubitórum sexagínta, latitúdine cubitórum sex, et státuit eam in campo Dura provínciæ Babylónis. Itaque Nabuchodón-osor rex misit ad congregándos sátrapas, magistrátus, et júdices, duces, et tyránnos, et præféctos, omnésque príncipes regiónum, ut convenírent ad dedicatiónem státuæ, quam eréxerat Nabuchodónosor rex. Tunc congregáti sunt sátrapæ, magistrátus, et júdices, duces, et tyránni, et optimátes, qui erant in potestátibus constitúti, et univérsi príncipes regiónum, ut convenírent ad dedicatiónem státuæ, quam eréxerat Nabuchodónosor rex. Stabant autem in conspéctu státuæ, quam posúerat Nabuchodónosor rex, et præco clamábat valénter: Vobis dicitur pópulis, tríbubus, et linguis: In hora, qua audiéritis sónitum tubæ, et fístulæ, et citharæ, sambúcæ, et psaltérii, et symphóniæ, et univérsi génerís musicórum, cadéntes adoráte státuam áuream, quam constítuit Nabuchodónosor rex. Si quis autem non prostrátus adoráverit, eádem hora mittétur in fornácem ignis ardéntis. Post hæc ígitur statim ut audiérunt omnes pópuli sónitum tubæ, fístulæ, et cítharæ, sambúcæ, et psaltérii, et symphóniæ, et omnis géneris musicórum, cadéntes omnes pópuli, tribus, et linguæ, adoravérunt státuam áuream, quam constitúerat Nabuchodón-osor rex. Statimque in ipso témpore accedéntes viri Chaldæi accusavérunt Judos, dixerúntque Nabuchodónosor regi: Rex in ætérnum vive: tu rex posuísti decrétum, ut omnis homo, qui audíerit sónitum tuba, fístulæ, et citharæ, sambúcæ, et psaltérii, et symphóniæ, et univérsi géneris musicórum, prostérnat se, et adóret státuamá uream: si quis autem non prócidens adoráverit, mittátur in fornácem ignis ardéntis. Sunt ergo viri Judæi, quos constituísti super ópera regiónis Babylónis, Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago: viri isti contempsérunt, rex, decrétum tuum: deos tuos non colunt, et státuam áuream, quam erexísti, non adórant. Tunc Nabuchodónosor in furóre et in ira præcépit ut adduceréntur Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago: qui conféstim addúcti sunt in conspéctu regis. Pronuntiánsque Nabuchodónosor rex, ait eis: Veréne Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago deos meos non cólitis, et státuam áuream, quam constítui, non adorátis? Nunc ergo si estis paráti, quacúmque hora audiéritis sónitum tuba, fístulæ, cítharæ, sambúcæ, et psaltérii, et symphóniæ, omnísque géneris musicórum, prostérnite vos, et adoráte státuam quam feci: quod si non adoravéritis, eádem hora mittémini in fornácem ignis ardéntis; et quis est Deus, qui erípiet vos de manu mea? Respondéntes Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago, dixérunt regi Nabuchodónosor: Non opórtet nos de hac re respondére tibi. Ecce enim Deus noster, quem cólimus, potest erípere nos de camino ignis ardéntis, et de mánibus tuis, o rex, liberáre. Quod si nolúerit, notum sit tibi, rex quia deos tuos non cólimus, et státuam áuream, quam erexisti, non adorámus. Tunc Nabuchodónosor replétus est furóre, et aspéctus faciéi illíus immutátus est super Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago, et præcépit ut succenderétur fornax séptuplum, quam succéndi consuéverat. Et viris fortíssimis de exércitu suo jussit, ut ligátis pédibus Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago, mítterent eos in fornácem ignis ardéntis. Et conféstim viri illi vincti, cum braccis suis, et tiáris, et calceaméntis, et véstibus, missi sunt in médium fornácis ignis ardéntis: nam jússio regis urgébat: fornax autem succénsa erat nimis. Porro viros illos, qui miserant Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago, interfécit flamma ignis. Viri autem hi tres, id est, Sidrach, Misach, et Abdénago, cecidérunt in médio carmino ignis ardéntis colligáti. Et ambulábant in médio flammæ laudéntes Deum, et benedicéntes Dómino.

In those days, King Nabuchodonosor made a statue of gold, of sixty cubits high, and sixty cubits broad, and he set it up in the plain of Dura, in theprovinceofBabylon. Then Nabuchodonosor the king sent to call together the nobles, the magistrates, and the judges, the captains, the rulers, and governors, and all the chief men of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the statue, which King Nabuchodonosor had set up. Then the nobles, the magistrates, and the judges, the captains, and rulers, and the great men that were placed in authority, and all the princes of the provinces were gathered together to come to the dedication of the statue which King Nabuchodonosor had set up. And they stood before the statue which King Nabuchodonosor had set up. Then a herald cried with a strong voice, To you it is commanded, O nations, tribes, and languages, that in the hour that you shall hear the sound of the trumpet, and of the flute, and of the harp, of the sackbut, and of the psaltery, and of the symphony, and of all kind of music, ye fall down and adore the golden statue which King Nabuchodonosor hath set up. But if any man shall not fall down and adore, he shall the same hour be cast into a furnace of burning fire. Upon this, therefore, at the time when all the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the flute, and the harp, of the sackbut and the psaltery, of the symphony, and of all kind of music, all the nations, tribes, and languages, fell down and adored the golden statue which King Nabuchodonosor had set up. And presently, at that very time, some Chaldeans came, and accused the Jews; and said to King Nabuchodonosor, O king, live forever. Thou, O king, hast made a decree that every man that shall hear the sound of the trumpet, the flute, and the harp, of the sackbut, and the psaltery, of the symphony, and of all kind of music, shall prostrate himself, and adore the golden statue; and that if any man shall not fall down and adore, he should be cast into a furnace of burning fire. Now there are certain Jews, whom thou hast set over the works of theprovinceofBabylon; Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago; these men, O king, have slighted thy decree: they worship not thy gods; nor do they adore thy gold statue which thou hast set up. Then Nabuchodonosor in fury and in wrath commanded that Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, should be brought; who immediately were brought before the king. And Nabuchodonosor the king spoke to them, and said, It it true, O Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, that you do not worship my gods, nor adore the golden statue that I have set up? Now therefore if you be ready, at what hour soever you shall hear the sound of the trumpet, flute, harp, sackbut, and psaltery, and symphony, and of all kind of music, prostrate yourselves and adore the statue which I have made; but if you do not adore you shall be cast in the same hour into the furnace of burning fire: and who is the god that shall deliver you out of my hand? Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago answered, and said to King Nabuehodonosor, We have no occasion to answer thee concerning this matter; for behold our God, Whom we worship, is able to save us from the furnace of burning fire, and to deliver us out of thy hands, O king. But if He will not, be it known to thee, O king, that we will not worship thy gods, nor adore the golden statue which thou hast set up. Then was Nabuchodonosor filled with fury; and the countenance of his face was changed against Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago; and he commanded that the furnace should be heated seven times more than it had been accustomed to be heated. And he commanded the strongest men that were in his army, to bind the feet of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, and to cast them into the furnace of burning fire. And immediately these men were bound, and were cast into the furnace of burning fire, with their coats, and their caps, and their shoes, and their garments. For the kings commandment was urgent: and the furnace was heated exceedingly. And the flame of the fire slew those men that had cast in Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago. But these three men, that is, Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, fell down, bound, in the midst of the furnace of burning fire. And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God, and blessing the Lord.


P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Omnípotens sempitérne Deus spes única mundi, qui prophetárum tuórum præcónio, præséntium témporum declarásti mystéria: auge pópuli tui vota placátus; quia in nullo fidélium, nisi ex tua inspiratióne, provéniunt quarúmlibet increménta virtútum. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
Almighty, eternal God, only hope of the world, Who, by the mouth of Thy prophets hast shown forth the mysteries of the present time, be pleased to give increase to the desires of Thy people, for in none of the faithful do any virtues bear fruit but by Thy inspiration. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.