that is organically connected with Hebrew, and both are, of course, opposed to a Hebrew Palestine. Why these people, who, as we have seen, stand for territorialistic Judaism instead of universal, should call themselves Jewish universalists, we are at a loss to understand. The fact that their notion of God is as colorless and pale as that of the Unitarians, and the fact that their conception of ethics, especially of Jewish ethics, is as bloodless and vague as that of the rationalists of the eighteenth century, gives them scarcely any right to call themselves Jewish universalists and to assert that they stand for universal Judaism. Our only consolation is that this sort of territorialistic Judaism that goes under the false mark of universal Judaism is not the invention of the Reform rabbis, nor that of the Yiddishists, but is as old as Judaism itself. All who have carefully paged the history of our people know that there always was a Jewish minority from time immemorial that stood for a territorialistic Judaism, and if there is any difference in principle between the Judeans and Israelites this difference consists in that the Judeans always stood for universal Judaism, while the Israelites stood for a territorialistic Judaism. The Judeans were what the nationalists are today--traditional, conservative and nationalistic, while the Israelites were reformers, assimilationists and territorialists. The Judeans advocated a Palestinian and Hebrew Judaism, while the Israelites always opposed it and were satisfied even with the Temple outside of Palestine.