take active steps for the conversion of the Jews. He had, it is true, convinced himself that at Rome, where since the time of Pope Gregory XIII a Dominican monk was wont on certain Sabbaths to hold forth, in a sleepy manner, before a number of Jews, they either ignored him or mocked at him. But he thought that the Protestant princes, more zealous Christians than the Catholics, ought to devise a better plan. It also grieved this thorough scholar that the colleges of rabbis presumed to criticise writings concerning the Jewish religion, and that they ventured to express their approval or disapproval; this was an infringement of the rights and the dignity of Christians! Withal Wagenseil, as has been said, was kindly disposed to the Jews. He remarked with emphasis that he thought it wrong and unworthy to burn Jews, to rob them of all their property, or to drive them with their wives and children out of the country. It was excessively cruel that in Germany and other countries children of Jews should be baptized against the will of their parents, and compelled to accept Christianity. The oppressions and insults to which they were exposed at the hands of the Christian rabble were by no means to be approved. It was not right that they were compelled to say "Christ is risen," that they were assailed with blows, had dirt and stones thrown at them, and were not allowed to go about in safety. Wagenseil wrote a pamphlet to expose the horrible falsehood of the charge, that the Jews use the blood of Christians. For the sake of this pamphlet, which spoke so warmly for the Jews, his other absurdities should be pardoned. Wagenseil expressed his indignation at the horrible lie: "It might pass if the matter stopped with idle gossip; but that on account of this execrable falsehood Jews have been tormented, punished, and executed by thousands, should have moved even stones to compassion, and made them cry out." Is it credible that in the face of this judgment, spoken with firm conviction by Wülfer and Wagenseil, who not only had associated with Jews for years, but were accurately acquainted with Jewish literature, and had penetrated into its innermost recesses as none before them, their contemporaries should seriously revive the horrible falsehood, and justify it with ostentatious learning? A Protestant, John Andrew Eisenmenger, professor of Oriental languages, repeated the accusation, a thousand times branded as false, and furnished posterity with abundant material for charges against the Jews. Eisenmenger belonged to the class of insects which sucks poison even out of flowers. In confidential converse with Jews, pretending that he desired to be converted to Judaism, and in the profound study of their literature, which he learned from them, he sought only the dark side of both.