Jews who have professed conversion to Christianity have sometimes denied that there is any practice of Ritual Murder of Christians among people of the Jewish faith. On the other hand, many "converts" have confessed that Jews practice Ritual Murder.

When one considers that the history of the Marrano ("converted" Jew) community has conclusively shown that the conversion of these Jews was simply a ruse and as false as the Jew himself, and that the establishment of the Inquisition of Spain was almost entirely due to the fact that the pretended converts could be dealt with in no other way, they practising Jewish rites secretly whilst outwardly pretending to be devout followers of the Church, one will naturally place more credence on those "converts" who admit that Jewish Ritual Murder is practised than on those who deny it.

It would be interesting to know whether those converts, who have admitted the fact of Ritual Murder, were people with a mixture of either the Aryan or of the Alpine racial strain in their blood. But that knowledge is denied to us.

The cases which have come to light in which Jewish converts to Christianity or to Mahomedanism have confessed that Ritual Murder is practiced by Jews are chronologically arranged below:

1144. Theobald, a monk and a Jewish convert, of Cambridge, came forward at the time when enquiry was being made into the death of St. William of Norwich, and said that as a Jew in Norwich he himself had known that a child was to be sacrificed at that place in 1144. He said that the custom of the Jews was to draw lots as to where the deed should be done, and that it fell to Norwich to supply the blood which was required by them in the year 1144; the Jews believed that without the shedding of human blood, they could never gain their freedom and return to Palestine.

1468. Bishop Jean d'Avila, himself the son of a converted Jew, actually investigated the Ritual Murder case in Segovia, Spain, and himself found the Jews guilty, who were afterwards executed (see page 18).

1475 Hans Vayol, converted Jew, charged the Rabbi of Ratisbon with Ritual Murder for the sake of the blood. Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 16 (1903).

1475 Wolfkan of Rutisban, Jewish convert to Christianity, charged the Jews with the Ritual Murder of St. Simon of Trent for the sake of the blood they required for their Passover celebrations. Authority: Ibid, Vol. XII, p. 554 (1906).

1475. A converted Jew, Jean de Feltro, described to the officer investigating the Ritual Murder of St. Simon of Trent, how his father had told him that the Jews of his town had killed a child at Passover to get the blood for their Passover bread.

1490. Torquemada, himself of Jewish blood (Roth, History of the Marranos, 1931, p. 39), must have confirmed the sentence of death against the Jews responsible for the Toledo ritual murder, and it would be through him that Ferdinand and Isabella would learn about it. The Ritual Murder case was one of the main factors which disposed the King and Queen to expel the Jews from Spain.

1494. Alonzo de Spina, stated by a Jew historian to have been of Jewish blood (History of the Marranos, Roth, 1932, p. 34) accused the Jews of murdering children for ritual purposes. He occupied the high position of Rector of Salamanca University, and his accusation was made in his work Fortalitium Fidei.

1555. Hananel di Foligno, of Rome, Jewish convert to Christianity, accused the Jews before Pope Marcellus II of the Ritual Murder of a boy. Enquiry under the auspices of a Cardinal resulted in a Mahomedan apostate, guardian of the murdered boy, being charged with the crucifixion of his ward "for the sake of getting possession of some property." This sounds like the usual cock-and-bull story which, under the powerful influence of Jew Money, is resorted to when Courts are faced with the difficult job of shielding Jews from "the Blood Accusation." Why on earth should the man crucify the boy instead of quietly getting rid of him in a more usual manner? Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia (1903), Vol. V, p. 423.

1614. Samuel Friedrich Brenz, a Jew, who was converted in 1610, wrote a book revealing the Ritual Murder practice of the Jews. It was called Judischer Abgestreifter Schlangenbalg and was published at Nuremberg. The title translated is The Jewish Serpent's Skin Stripped. The Jewish Encyclopedia's description of the author speaks of his "crass ignorance, hatred, falsehood and pernicious fanaticism." The book was republished in 1680 and again in 1715.

1720. Paul Christian Kirchner, converted Jew, admitted in his Judisches Ceremoniel, Frankfurt, that dried Christian blood was considered useful as a remedy for certain diseases of women.

18--. Paulus Meyer, converted Jew, accused the Jews of Ritual Murder in his Wolfe in Schafsfell, Schafe in Wolfspelz (Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, etc.). He had a libel action brought against him by the Jews he accused of being involved in a case of alleged ritual murder, and was sentenced to four months' arrest.

The Jewish Encyclopedia describes all these last three authors as "malicious and ignorant enemies of their people."

17--. A converted Jew, Serafinovicz, wrote a book admitting Ritual Murder as a Jewish practice. Authority: The Jew, C. Roth, Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, 1935, p. 24.

1759. A converted Jew, J. J. Frank, formed a sect called the Frankists at Lemberg. These people were all Jews who had become Christians in revolt against the evils taught in the Talmud. They said that it was the Talmud which was the root of all the troubles between Jews and Gentiles. Prince Etienne de Mikoulissky, administrator of the archdiocese of Lemberg, instituted public debates between the Frankists and the Talmudic Jews. A debate held in July took place in which various matters were dealt with point by point until six points had been settled; the seventh one was the Frankists' declaration that "the Talmud teaches the employment of Christian blood and he who believes in the Talmud ought to make use of this blood." The Frankists said they had learned this in their youth as Jews. Under the heading Baruch Yavan, the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903, Vol. II, p. 563, admits that the Frankists brought the blood accusation against the Talmudists; also in Vol. VII, p. 579, under Judah Lob ben Nathan Krysa. The Frankists completely defeated their opponents in these debates. Ultimately they became assimilated into the Christian community.

There is a large bibliography with reference to the Frankist community, of which the following two works may receive mention here: La malfaisance juive, by Pikulski, Lvov, 1760; and Materiaux sur la question relative aux accusations portees contre les Juifs a propos des crimes rituels, by J. O. Kouzmine, St. Petersburg, 1914.

1803. A converted ex-Rabbi wrote a book in the Moldavian language in 1803 which was published again in Greek in 1834 by Giovanni de Georgio under the title Ruin of the Hebraic Religion. This converted Rabbi called himself by the name Neophyte. Extracts from his book were quoted in Achille Laurent's Relation Historique des Affaires de Syrie depuis 1840 � 1842, a book described on p. 24 under the Damascus case. This extract gives very full information, confirms the murder, crucifixion and bleeding of Christians by Jews for Ritual purposes and the use of the blood for mixing with the Passover bread; and says that the practice is handed down by oral tradition and that nothing appears about it in writing in the Jewish religious books. Monniot in his Le Crime Ritual chez les Juifs copies long extracts from Laurent's quotations from Neophyte.

1826. Paul Louis Bernard Drach, ex-Grand Rabbi of Strasburg, published a Deuxieme lettre d'un rabbin converti, Paris, 1827. On page 7 he said: "The zeal of these Rabbis goes as far as dedicating to death all those who follow the doctrine of the Trinity, and consequently all Christian Israelites."

1840. Ex-Rabbi Mousa Abou-el-Afieh, who became a Mahommedan during the Damascus Ritual Murder trial, gave evidence that the blood of the murdered Father Thomas had been ordered by the Grand Rabbi Yakoub el Entabi, and was required for the use of zealous persons who sent Yakoub their flour for Passover, in which he mixed the Christian's blood. The employment of the blood was a secret of the Grand Rabbis.

1913. A converted Jew, Cesare Algranati, enumerated a number of ritual murders for a book Cahiers Romains, 1913, a Catholic publication of Rome. Its date was 29th November, 1913. Over 100 cases are cited, of which 27 were in the 19th century. Authority: A. Arcand, in Le Miroir, Montreal, September, 1932, p. 12.



THE Jews are wont to pretend that the Blood Accusation, as they call it, is the product of medieval superstition and credulity, and anti-Jewish prejudice. They bring forward as examples cases where Jews have been wrongfully charged with Ritual Murder or against whom there was insufficient evidence, the mob taking the initiative and lynching every Jew it could lay hands on.

Such things have occurred, but they are quite useless in support of the Jewish claim of innocence of Ritual Murders.

There is an exact analogy in more modern times in the case of the negroes of the Southern States of the U.S.A. Everyone knows that lynching has been resorted to where negroes have been suspected of certain outrages against white women and children. Everyone knows also that sometimes the mob, in its racial thirst for vengeance, and in its impatience of the slow and corrupt legal procedure, has lynched innocent men. But no one will argue on such grounds that negroes guilty of such offences have not frequently met with the rough justice they deserved at the hands of the mob, or that negroes never attack white women and children! Yet the Jews bring forward this same rotten argument to shield themselves from the charge of Ritual Murder! Because innocent Jews have been lynched, no Jew ever does a Ritual Murder!

We have, fortunately, many cases on record in which constituted authority has duly tried the Jewish murderers and found them guilty, or has, sometimes without finding the culprit, given a verdict concerning the cause of death which leaves no doubt as to its ritual character. Let me enumerate some of these:

1192. Jews convicted after personal investigation by Philip Augustus, a sagacious man of good judgment.

1255. The case of "Little St. Hugh" at Lincoln, duly tried by proper authority and the judgment approved of by King Henry III.

1288. Jews tried by proper authority for ritual murder at Troyes.

1468. Jews tried by the Bishop of Segovia, himself son of a converted Jew.

1475. Jews tried at Trent by proper authority.

1480. Jews tried at Venice by proper authority.

1485. Jews tried at Padua by proper authority.

1490. Jews tried for the Toledo ritual murder by the most learned men of the Universities of Salamanca and of Avila, under proper authority.

1494. Jews tried by proper authority for ritual murder at Hungary.

1670. Jew tried by proper authority at Metz. Sentenced by order of Parliament.

1698. Jew tried by the highest tribunal of the land for a ritual murder at Sandomir, Poland.

1748. Jews tried for ritual murder at Duniagrod, Poland, by Episcopal Court.

1753. Jews tried by Episcopal Court at Kiev for a ritual murder at Zhytomir.

1753. Jews tried by Episcopal Court for ritual murder at Pavalochi, Poland.

1831. Jews tried by proper authority at St. Petersburg for ritual murder.

1840. Jews tried by proper authority at Damascus for the ritual murder of Father Thomas and his servant.

1852 and 1853. Jews tried for two ritual murders at Saratov. Actual trial eight years after the murder.

1899. Jew convicted of the Polna murder by proper authority.

1911-13. Verdict of the Court in the Kiev case that the victim had been first bled and then killed; murderer not identified. See p. 32.

Finally we may also mention the case at Breslau in 1888 (see Chapter XVIII) where a rabbinical student was found guilty of extracting blood from a Christian boy without intention to cause fatal injury.

It is interesting to note that when the Jew, Jacob Selig, made his appeal to the Pope in 1758 complaining of "persecution" of Jews in Poland by means of the blood accusation, he admitted that the cases he complained of had been brought before the Courts!

In pre-Hitler Jew-controlled Germany, there were several cases in which the Courts were obviously made use of for the smothering of the Ritual Murder Accusation, just as the Old Bailey was made use of in 1936 in an endeavour to silence me on the same matter.




THE Jew, Cecil Roth, in Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, 1935, p. 20, says: "The Catholic Church never gave the slightest countenance to the calumny" (the blood accusation). This seems to be very inaccurate, as we shall demonstrate.

The Jews say that the Popes Innocent IV, Gregory X, Martin V, Nicholas V, Paul III, Clement XII and Clement XIV have all expressed disbelief in the Ritual Murder practice of Jews.

Let us first take the case of Innocent IV, who has issued Bulls about the matter on 28th May and 5th July, 1247, and again on 25th September, 1253. Now the first of these simply demands that no action should be taken against Jews on a Ritual Murder charge unless they have been tried and found guilty; the Bull of 1253 defended the Jews against the charge of Ritual Murder because the Old Testament did not sanction that practice!

But the views of Innocent IV are dealt with in the Catholic Bulletin, Dublin, August, 1916, pp. 435-8, from which I shall quote. The late Lord Rothschild was greatly perturbed about a Ritual Murder trial which was going on at Kiev in 1913, and which we describe fully in this book (see p. 32). He wrote a letter to Cardinal Merry del Val, asking him to state whether the Bull of Innocent IV dated 5th July, 1247, was authentic; Lord Rothschild said that this Bull declared that Ritual Murder was "an unfounded and perfidious invention." When the Cardinal replied that the letter was authentic, this was taken to mean that Innocent IV had denied the existence of ritual murder by Jews! But note that no such statement as Baron Rothschild imputed to Innocent IV was contained in the Bull!

Let the Catholic Bulletin deal with the matter in its own words:

"The document [the Bull] consists of two parts, one part sums up the case as presented by the Jews themselves. The Pope states that he has received a complaint that the Jews are being oppressed and pillaged by both ecclesiastical and secular princes, that they are being cast into prison, and even put to death, without trial or confession of guilt, that they are being falsely accused of ritual crime which they assert is manifestly opposed to their law, namely the Divine Scriptures. The second part, which alone expresses the Pope's mind, is as follows: 'not wishing, therefore, that the said Jews be unjustly harassed, whose conversion God expects in his mercy . . . we wish that you should show yourselves benign and favourable towards them. Restore to their proper state those of the mentioned matters that you find to have been rashly attempted by the said Nobles against the Jews, and do not permit that in the future they should be for those or similar pretexts unjustly molested by anyone.'

"Jews must consider Christians to be very uncritical and gullible if they think they can he induced to accept this document as a papal declaration that ritual crime does not exist. It is obvious that the Sovereign Pontiff merely gives instructions according to general principles, ordering that the Jews should not be unjustly oppressed or molested. He makes no pronouncement whatever regarding the truth or falsehood of the specific charges. Naturally, he must leave the decision regarding this point to the judgment of the bishops to whom he writes. Least of all was he likely to be impressed by the sophistry that ritual crime could not exist among the Jews because it was forbidden in the sacred Scriptures. None could know better than he that it was not the teaching of the Scriptures, but the infamous teachings of the Talmud that caused people to look upon Jews as a grave danger to society. Only three years before the appearance of his letter, namely in 1244, he showed plainly what he thought of the Talmud by pressing Louis IX to collect from his subjects all the copies he could obtain and consign them to the flames."

Before leaving Innocent IV, I ask the reader to realise the typical Jewish cunning exhibited by Rothschild in exploiting the answer of Cardinal del Val regarding the authenticity of the letter as confirming an interpretation of that letter's contents by Rothschild! How Jewish!

Gregory X in a Bull of 7th October, 1272, is a little more explicit than Innocent IV; the same exhortation is made for legal trial of all cases, but he says that they should "not be arrested again on such groundless charge unless (which we think impossible) they are captured in flagrant crime." Gregory thus does not deny that the crime exists; he says he thinks it is impossible.

Pope Martin V, Nicholas V, Paul III and Clement XIII issued statements which show to my satisfaction, although not apparently to that of some anti-Jew writers, that they did not wish to support the opinion that the Ritual Murder charge was a true one against the Jews.

Then we come to Clement XIV. Before he became Pope, he was Cardinal Ganganelli. He was despatched by the Inquisition in 1759 to investigate Ritual Murder charges against the Jews in Poland, and he wrote a long report about it. This report is quoted in full in Roth's Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew and is, indeed, the only "evidence" brought forward by Roth in that book, published in 1935.

From beginning to end of Ganganelli's report, there is nothing that a scientific investigator would regard as evidence that Ritual Murder was not practised by Jews. The Polish cases he admits were juridically decided; and he brings forward examples of definitely false charges of Ritual Murder such as everyone knows have arisen, but which do not in the least affect the question as to whether Ritual Murder happens or not. He merely opposes his opinion to those of the men in authority on the spot.

But there is more. Definitely, and far from being able to refute the charge of Ritual Murder against Jews, Ganganelli admits the Ritual Murders of St. Simon of Trent and of St. Andreas of Rinn in these words:

"I admit then, as true, the fact of the Blessed Simon, a boy three years old, killed by the Jews in Trent in the year 1475 in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ"; and "I also admit the truth of another fact, which happened in the year 1462 in the village of Rinn, in the Diocese of Brixen, in the person of the Blessed Andreas, a boy barbarously murdered by the Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ."

One thing concerning Ganganelli's report seems to have escaped the notice of other anti-Jewish workers, and to my mind it damns the report from the beginning; in undertaking an investigation such as that with which Ganganelli was confronted, one should surely start with an unbiased outlook? Read Ganganelli's admission about his own outlook when he went to Poland to investigate:

"With my weak faculties, I endeavoured to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime which was imputed to the Jewish Nation in Poland."

The Cardinal set forth, not to find out whether Ritual Murder existed in Poland or not, but "to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime"! And yet, he had to admit the crimes of Trent and of Rinn!

Thus, the book Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, by the Jew Roth, which relies entirely upon Ganganelli for its material, is valueless except to the anti-Jewish worker to whom it is a God-send! Yet, what a good "press" this book had when it was published in 1935! The Morning Post greeted it (16th January, 1935) with headlines "Ritual Murder: Jewish people absolved: striking denunciation," and called the book "a final and incontrovertible refutation of the hideous Ritual Murder accusation." It is clear that the critic had either never taken the trouble to read the book or was deliberately misleading the public as to its contents; it is no "incontrovertible refutation"; it is an unscientific conglomeration of irrelevant matter, with a confession of bias and of the truth of the Ritual Murder accusation itself. The Catholic Times (15th February, 1935) says: "The learned Cardinal completely refutes the persecutors of the Jews and conclusively shows the flimsiness of the charges against them and their inherent absurdity." Ganganelli "completely refutes" nothing, and all that he "conclusively shows" is that Ritual Murders were a Jewish practice.

The Birmingham Mail, 22nd September, 1936, is typical of the attitude of the "British" critics of the book: "It is symptomatic of the unhealthy state of the Continental mind that credence can be given in certain parts of Europe to the atrocious libel in which it is alleged that Christian blood is a necessary concomitant of the Jewish Passover celebrations."

Although the book was widely advertised when it came out, the Jews seem to have realised that it merely gives evidence in favour of Ritual Murder, for I found it difficult to get a copy in 1936, having ultimately to resort to a friend in the second-hand book trade to get one for me.

Thus Clement XIV, far from being a witness for the defence of the Jews, is an unwilling witness of the truth of the anti-Jewish accusation.

And what of the Popes who have supported the Ritual Murder accusation by their acts? There are many.

Sixtus IV approved in his Bull XII Kal. July, 1478, of the conduct of the Bishop who dealt with the Jews in the St. Simon case at Trent. The Jews endeavoured to enlist Sixtus IV on their side by pointing out that he had suspended the cult of St. Simon of Trent; this was done by Sixtus IV solely as a disciplinary measure, for Simon had not yet been beatified by papal authority, but was being made the centre of a local cult.

Gregory XIII recognised Simon as a martyr and himself visited the shrine.

Sixtus V ratified the cult of St. Simon in 1588, allowing the celebration of mass in his name. This is confirmed as a fact by Benedict XIV.

Benedict XIV himself in a Bull Beatus Andreas (1778, Venice, IV, p. 101 seq.), beatified both Simon and Andreas, two boys murdered by the Jews "in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ"; "the Jews," he said, "used every means to escape the just punishment that they had merited and to escape the just anger of the Christians."

How significant of the methods of the advocates for the Jew, to note that in Strack's book, no mention whatever is made of Benedict XIV's Bull, although the actions of Sixtus IV are wilfully misinterpreted!

Pius VII, 24th November, 1805, confirmed a decree of the Congregation of Rites of 31st August according to the Church at Saragossa the right to honour Dominiculus, killed by the Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ (see p. 17). He also authorised for the church at Toledo the same privilege in respect to St. Christopher, the boy crucified by the Jews near that place in 1490 (see p. 20).

In 1867, the Congregation of Rites authorised the cult of Lorenzino, at Vicenza, Padua, ritually murdered by Jews.

Gregory XVI, also, gave his support to the anti-Jewish accusers when he honoured Gougenot des Mousseaux by making him a Chevalier of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, in reward for writing his book, Le Juif, le Judaisme et la Judaisation des Peuples Chretiens, in which Gougenot des Mousseaux devoted a chapter charging the Jews with Ritual Murder of Christians for the sake of their blood.

Pius IX refused to see the Jew Montefiore when the latter was returning from his visits to Egypt and to Constantinople, where he had bribed the Khedive and the Sultan so that the Jews at Damascus could escape the consequences of their guilt of the Ritual Murder of Father Thomas and his servant; this, in spite of a shameless Jewish persistence which has been fully described in Sir Moses Montefiore's biography. That showed what Pius IX thought about it, and he himself was of Jewish blood.

Pope Leo XIII bestowed distinctions on Edouard Drumont, author of La France Juive, who accused the Jews of Ritual Murder therein. Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia (1905), Vol. X, p. 127.

To sum up: The Popes who have appeared to disbelieve the existence of the Ritual Murder crime have, with the exception of Clement XIII, been those who lived in the least enlightened times; many later Popes have given very clear evidence that they hold the opposite opinion. The reader has the facts before him and can judge for himself.

Remember that although other martyred boys, victims of Jewish Ritual Murder, have been regarded in many places as saints without papal authority, there is no record of papal disapproval of these cults except in the case of Sixtus IV, already mentioned, whose action was purely disciplinary and who himself specifically approved of the conduct of the Ritual Murder Case to which the matter referred. Such locally beatified "saints" or martyrs were St. William of Norwich (1144), St. Richard of Pontoise (1179), St. Hugh of Lincoln (1255), St. Werner of Oberwesel (1286) and St. Rudolph of Berne (1287). In every such case it is quite obvious that the cult had the full approval at least of the episcopal authorities over the places mentioned.

Those who condemn the Blood Accusation as a wicked invention for the purpose of persecuting Jews and robbing them, must at the same time condemn wholesale some of the highest dignitaries of the Catholic Church, men against whom nothing is known beyond that they had excellent characters, like William Turbe, Bishop of Norwich to give an English example.

When the reader peruses the details of the cases that I have cited in this book, he will realise that Episcopal Courts have dealt with many of them; in other words, the Jews were condemned by the existing religious authority of the day.

Many of the earliest records we have of these Ritual Murders come from the pens of Catholic historians, such as the Bollandists, a body of Belgian Jesuits; a list of the principal works on the subject will be found at the end of the book.

Father Creagh, Redemptorist, publicly accused Jews of the practice of Ritual Murder, on 11th January, 1904, in a speech in Limerick. Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia (1904), Vol. VIII, p. 89.

Perhaps I may best wind up this chapter by giving the names of the twelve members of juries who investigated, considered and condemned the Jews in the Ritual Murder case of La Guardia in Toledo, together with their qualifications: (1) Maestre Fray Juan de Santispiritus, Professor of Hebrew, Salamanca University; (2) Maestre Fray Diego de Bretonia, Professor of Scripture; (3) Fray Antonio de la Pena, Prior; (4) Dr. Anton Rodriguez Carnejo, Professor of Canon Law; (5) Dr. Diego de Burgos, Professor of Civil Law; (6) Dr. Juan de Covillas, Professor of Canon Law; (7) Fray Sebastian de Hueta; (8) Licentiate Alvaro de Sant Estevan, Queen Isabel's corregidor for Avila; (9) Ruy Garcia Manso, Bishop Talavera's provisor; (10) Fray Rodrigo Vela, head of the Franciscan Monastery, Avila; (11) Dr. Tristan, Canon of Avila; (12) Juna de Saint Estevan.

On the findings of such men of standing we surely have every right to rely?



THIS may be summed up very briefly. The Protestant Church appears to have allied itself to Jewry, if one may judge from the political views expressed by our Archbishops and most of our bishops. These views are almost invariably similar to those expressed by Masons, and are almost always pernicious.

However, there was a time when Protestants were Protestants, unaffected by Masonry or by the powerful propaganda of which Jewish money is the source.

Martin Luther seems to have had an inkling of the true nature of the Jew when he said: "How the Jews love the Book of Esther, which is so suitable to their bloodthirsty, revengeful, murderous appetite and hopes. The sun has never shone on such a bloodthirsty and revengeful people, who fancy themselves to be the chosen people so that they can murder and strangle the heathen." (From the Erlangen edition of Luther's Table Talks, Vol. XXXII, pp. 120.)

This seems plain speaking enough; but we find the Jew, C. Roth, (Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew), citing Martin Luther as having condemned the "libel" of Ritual Murder "in unqualified terms."

However, the Jewish Encyclopedia (1904), Vol. VIII, p. 213, definitely states that Luther charged the Jews with Ritual Murders.

At Magdeburg in 1562, a Protestant History of the Christian Church was compiled, called the Magdeburg Centuries; it was compiled by a number of Lutheran theologians headed by M. Flacius, and was first published at Basle as the Historia Ecclesie Christi. This work records the ritual murders of Blois, Pontoise (Paris), Braisne, Fulda, Berne and Oberwesel.

John Foxe in his Acts and Monuments of the Church (1563) says: "For every year commonly their [the Jews'] custom was to get some Christian man's child from his parents and on Good Friday to crucify him in despite of our religion." He describes the ritual crucifixion of British children by Jews at Norwich and Lincoln, before the expulsion.

The learned and distinguished Puritan, William Prynne, a fearless fighter against evil, in his Short Demurrer to the Jewes long discontinued Remitter into England, 1656, gave details and references of the Ritual Murders at Norwich, Gloucester, and Bury St. Edmunds in England, and those of Blois, Braisne, Richard "of Paris," Fulda, Prague, Werner of Oberwesel, Rudolph of Berne, Simon of Trent and others. In Book I, p. 67, he says: "The Jews . . . have ofttimes . . . maliciously acted it [crucifixion] over and again in representation; . . . by crucifying sundry Christian children on Good Friday or near Easter, on a Crosse, in a most barbarous manner, in derision of our Saviour's death and passion." On p. 68 he quotes several authorities "that the Jews in Paris did every year steal some Christian child, or another brought up in the King's Court, and carrying him to a secret house or vault, did, on Good Friday or Easter-Day, in contempt and derision of Christ and Christian religion crucify him on a Crosse . . . and that they have been frequently apprehended, persevering in this wickednesse; for which, upon Direction, they were usually murdered, stoned, burned, destroyed, hanged, by the furious multitude's violence, or executed, imprisoned, banished by Christian Kings and Magistrates, yet such was their malice to Christ, that they would still persevere therein, and act it over again upon every opportunity."

This book of Prynne's, which ran into two editions, is in the British Museum and Guildhall Libraries, but is unobtainable, though stated by booksellers to be of no great rarity or value; in the London Library there is no copy, but there is a Jewish refutation of it!

Our nation has been so carefully schooled by the Jewish Money Power, which has been able to destroy or rarefy all sources of information on Ritual Murder, that the twentieth century Protestant Church has come to believe that the thing is a mere relic of medieval superstition.