|
In the discharge of our duty as an editor of a Jewish periodical, and
minister of our religion, we have been impelled to bear our decided
testimony against all the attempts lately made to establish a reform
which will naturally cause a disruption in our communities, and lead to
the establishment of sects in our bosom. It has been the just pride of
Israelites, as our learned correspondent, the Rev. Mr. Rice, says in his
sermon which we gave in our last number, that they have ever
been one uniform people, free from sects and marked divisions. but all
the efforts of the moderns seem directed to divide off our household
into factious sections, each acting independently of the other, and
revolving, like some eccentric planet, in an orbit of its own. Whilst
we, on our part, have during the whole course of our official life,
which has neither been short for our years, not without excitement and
event, always striven to cement a union where we found divisions, and to
bring together through the bond of religion and conformity the
individual members of Israel with whom we happened to come in contact.
We do not, however, mean to say that our system of observances and
ancestral ceremonies (we do not speak of the LAW, for that is
perfection) could not be improved in some particulars; nor do we assert
that there are not some things which will strike the uninitiated as
strange and useless; but this we will maintain against all
contradiction, that there is nothing whatever in the manner and
substance of our prayers and ceremonies which could induce any
sober-minded Israelite to separate himself from the Synagogue, because
his advice or request had not been followed in the adoption of the
improvement which he may have suggested. For our people naturally fear
to touch the sacred ark which they have guarded so many centuries; mere
observances even have, in some points, acquired with them a strength
equal to absolute laws; and no one who knows how dear to the heart are
early associations will venture to break off, without urgent necessity,
from those practices and views which have grown with him from the cradle
and become a part and parcel, as it were, of his very being.
Here then would be a key of our earnest opposition to all the
contemplated changes, and particularly to the temple-reform in Hamburg
and Charleston, as also its imitation or rather its associate in London,
if even there were nothing illegal in them. But even this there is, as
far at least as we know of these movements, and we have thus
characterized them whenever it was our duty to speak concerning them in
our periodical and from the pulpit. We know well enough that the zealots
for visionary reform (for visionary it is whilst not two sections are
agreed about what they wish to abolish and what to substitute)
will doubtlessly accuse us of being behind the age, and of doing
injustice to their motives. But even if we are behind the age, we are so
honestly. We have had as many opportunities to observe the state of the
Jewish congregations, at least in America, as any one among thousands,
and we believe that our acquaintance with individuals in almost every
place in the Union, Canada, and the West Indies, either personally or by
letter, is greater than any Israelite we know of; and we hesitate little
in saying that not one of the plans for reform, we use the word though
we cordially detest it as applied to our religion, will either satisfy
all the parties or improve the state of religion. They all reach
externals only, and we want most of all a greater appreciation of our
duties as men of Israel. How are we then behind the age? how do we
misinterpret the motive of the reformers? We will merely state, though
we think that we have said so before already, we too are for progress,
but it must be a progress, not for lopping off an observance here and
there, and striking out a phrase or a passage or a portion of the
prayers, simply because one does not like rabbinical portions, another
not the metrical hymns, another does not approve the doctrines embraced
in the terms of our ritual, or because a fourth finds some critical
faults. In thus condemning the labours of our contemporaries we know
well enough our own deficiencies, we cheerfully acknowledge that many on
the continent of Europe who are engaged in the ministry, are our masters
in all that is learned and eloquent; but, nevertheless, we cannot yield
to them, who differ so widely from their views. But say even that all
the European Rabbins had agreed upon a plan of proceeding, we should
still hesitate transplanting to America with our aid the crude project
which would thus be produced. We stand here in a peculiar and somewhat
delicate position; we never had among us any men of real strength in
public situations, but with rare exceptions, who could stand forth as
the champions of Judaism; and still it has extended and struck deeper
roots in the hearts of thousands. There is now a greater religious
sentiment here than in Europe; and the little that has been left to us
in our domestic and public relations is cherished with an ardour of
which the European new-lights have but little conception. To be sure the
stranger will find little to approve of in the state of religion
witnessed in America; but he should consider that what he sees has been
snatched from the destruction by the inherent strength of our faith,
unaided by the exhortations from the pulpit or the teaching of the
schools. It is the family circle which has effected this; and all that
is requisite, we think, is to aid this holy germ to enable it to strike
root deeper and deeper in the hearts of the natives of this soil. Much
there is surely to discourage, but there are also on the other hand many
signs of life. But all the systems of reform which will naturally tend
to make us sects instead of a united people, will not, cannot, effect a
union of hearts, but must produce divisions and heart-burnings.
We will not stop to inquire how much more one division is culpable
than the other, whether it be an organ that is the worshipped idol, or a
new ritual invented by men of the day, instead of time-honoured prayers,
or whether all positive religion is to be case off; this is for
the different reform-unions to reflect on; it is their business to see
that they keep as much of the law in their system as they believe
absolutely necessary; but we speak only of the effect, no matter how
produced, and declaim against division, even if the deviations which
constitute the new sects be ever so small.
In our September number we
spoke of the "Reform Verein" in Frankfort, and in
discussing the merits of this monstrous abortion, we said: "But it
has been reserved for the ultra-liberalists to form themselves into
distinct sects with avowed peculiar doctrines, by which they sever
themselves from the majority of Israel. We have thus a Temple
Association at Hamburg, a Congregation of British Jews at London, and a
Reform Society at Frankfort." (Vide
Occid. Vol. ii. p. 304.) But we leave it to our readers whether
we did not distinctly place in culpability the Frankfort nothingarians,
(it is an ugly word, but the only one we could use except ——)
far deeper than the London reformers. But it seems that our remarks,
without our intending it, have given cause of umbrage to a highly
respectable gentleman connected with the West London Synagogue of
British Jews, in saying that this association had rejected, equally with
the Frankfort union, the authority of the Talmud. We certainly ought to
have remembered that there is a difference between rejecting it and not
calling the whole of divine origin, especially as we hold the same
opinion. Still we cannot see, if this be precisely the case, why Mr.
Elkin, our esteemed correspondent, and his highly respectable
associates, several of whom we have much cause deservedly to appreciate,
should deem themselves compelled to set up a new Synagogue, with a
different organization, and distinct from the fellowship of their
brothers of the other Synagogues.
We have also to remark that in defending the London British Jews from
some unfounded attacks published against them, we did so upon the simple
principle of justice; nevertheless it could not thereby be understood,
that we were either the apologist or partizan of the movement. But as we
are supposed to have been wrong in our remarks alluded to above, and as
our language is liable to a construction which we did not mean to give
it, we publish the subjoined from the last letter of our correspondent,
merely adding that we had received before one letter whish we decline
printing altogether, as it bears upon a subject which we will not
discuss at present, and another which could not be printed entire; of
the last, however, we subjoin such extracts as will satisfy Mr. Elkin.
At the same time we cannot help stating that every one will do us the
justice to remark that by giving publicity to the two sermons of Mr.
Marks we have done something to make his views on the Messiah and the
duties correctly understood, much to his advantage over the Hamburg
reform.—Ed. Oc.
London, 18th Nov. 1844.
Reverend and Dear Sir,
There is an article in the
Occident, No. 6, which, proceeding from your pen, surprises me
much; for how could I ever expect that you, who in an editorial note,
had defended us from the sweeping, unqualified charge of Mr.
Carillon, as to our having denied all talmudic authority, would yourself
have brought the like indiscriminating charge! My letter to the Occident
irrefragably proves that we do not deny, never did deny
the authority of the Talmud in the unqualified manner you represent, and
thus you formerly said, when we were attacked by Mr. Carillon:—"We
think that, judging from the consecration sermon, Mr. Marks admits
measurably the authority of the Rabbis." Surely then it is not just
to say, because we bow more reverently to the Holy Oracles of
God, that we pay no reverence to the Talmud; and although I have
proved that our minister spoke of that work in terms truly respectful,
yet, you say, "the rejection of the rite of circumcision, as well
as the authority of the Talmud;" is but a wide step from our
proceedings three years ago. My letter, Sept. 10th, will, I
hope convince you, that we little deserve to be classed with the
Frankfort Reform gentlemen. To prove our dissimilarity from them, let me
inform you that from our pulpit we have lately had a series of sermons
on the perpetuity of the Laws of Moses—sermons
striking terror into the heart of the Sabbath-breakers—enforcing
the obligation of wearing Tephillin—of
fixing the Mezoozoth* and also denouncing the eating of prohibited food;
and yet are we classed with men whose latitudinarian principles have
late been deprecated from our pulpit! (Vide Voice of Jacob, No. 85.)
Fearlessly, I say, "we are more sinned against than sinning;"
but the consolation is left us, that from the aspersions of man, we can
appeal with a clear conscience, to that Righteous Judge who weighs the
actions of all his creatures.
I begin to be apprehensive that I shall not be able effectually to
remove the false and prejudicial reports in circulation against us but
by publishing the far greater portion of my letter to you under date 10th
September. I remain, Rev. and dear Sir,
Yours very respectfully,
Benj. Elkin.
Extract
From Mr. Elkin’s Letter of September 10th., 1844.
"Your favor 24th June reached me in Devonshire, where
I have been residing some months with my family, and as your letter did
not call for prompt reply, I have deferred addressing you till after my
return to London, which was not till Friday last. I am much surprised
and disappointed at your having closed the columns of the Occident
against my communication, and I really cannot bring my mind to acquiesce
in the cogency of the reasons you assign for this exercise of your
editorial prerogative.
"I grant that you have a right to be cautious what articles you
admit into your paper; but do you not think, sir, that this kind of
censorship should be exercised less rigidly where there is but one
press, and when the appeal to its columns comes from the accused?
Moreover, my letter, except on one point, is merely elucidatory, and
affords proof incontestable that we never entertained the thought of
repudiating the wearing of Tephillin or denying the authority of the
Traditions.
"Quinzinus (an assumed name) has published in a pamphlet, not
only the two mendacities my letter so incontestably disproves, but has
added another pious falsehood, namely, our ‘Non-commemoration of the
destruction of the Holy Temple.’—Sir,
every action of our blessed Synagogue is a living refutation to these
and a host of other calumnies.
"These falsehoods have had an inglorious vitality, and these
it is that encourage Christians in their expectation of our union with
them; but I am acquainted with facts which authorise me to say
that from the members of our Synagogue, Christians, lay and clerical,
utterly despair of ever making converts.
"I trust you will pardon this prolix explanation of my reasons
for wishing you had inserted my letter, and why I consider your
rejection of it a departure from that uniform impartiality which had
heretofore distinguished the pages of the Occident. I however regret
your determination of the less as the letter is to appear in the Voice,
after the holydays, and you will see that I have omitted the
objectionable word you pointed out. I am aware of the opinion you so
long expressed to Mr. Henriques on the abolition of the second day
festivals; but I would entreat your attention to the important
difference between us and congregations already existing. In the latter
case the religious scruples of others are entitled to consideration, in
the former, the whole congregation agree to the measure.
" ‘We want union, union,’ you exclaim. My worthy sir, do not
let us cheat our understandings by mere sound; for if we take a
religiously philosophic view of the adhesive elements of this lauded
union, we shall arrive at the melancholy truth of its being a compound
of hot puritanism, cold indifference, and a very small residuum of rational
piety. There may be expediency in this union; but as it gives no
spirituality to our worship, I see no holiness in the alliance. A little
wholesome agitation were better than the repose of this union; which
reminds me of the curse of the calm upon the Dead Sea. Mourn not then,
Sir, over our severance from this union, but grieve at its necessity,
and I join in your lamentation. Sir, the very intensity of our
attachment to our holy, blessed religion, and desire of its perpetuity
have caused the dissolution of this union. Many of the founders of our
Synagogue, men far advanced in the autumn of life, and of staid
religious habits—these and others of
our congregation, wished to see something done calculated to inspire a
well-grounded hope that our children would continue steadfast in their
parents’ creed. This, under God’s blessing, we have accomplished,
and death will have one pang less for me! Sir, I address you—a
pious, learned minister of our Church—with
all the reverence due to the majesty of truth. I call on you then in her
sacred name to believe that we have not been actuated by any abstract
love of reform—that we have done
nothing but what we thought essential to improve our public worship—that
we have given strength to the weak in faith, and caused the
discontinuance of the desecration of the Sabbath. We have kept a happy
middle course, avoiding alike the Scylla of bigotry, the Charibdis of
infidelity. Happy, happy for Israel! were every Synagogue conducted as
is ours, where the pure word of God—frequently
enforced and illustrated from the writings of our sages—is
preached, and where the soul, throughout the service, breathes a
spiritual atmosphere. The merit is also ours of having given a
death-blow to the only specious reason assigned for reading portions of
our prayers in the vernacular tongue of each country. With us, the study
of Hebrew is as much an element of education as the fashionable
languages, music, drawing, &c., for we hold it more essential that
our daughters should be rational beings, than accomplished
ladies. Happily they can be both, and no longer commit the folly—I
had almost said the lunacy—of
addressing God in a language not understood! Further, the whole of our
congregation, through some live at great distances, assemble before the
service commences, and throughout the service the utmost devotion
prevails. As regards the confirmation of both sexes, I verily believe J.
K. G. of Boston would see all he desiderates on that head fully carried
out in our Synagogue. Again, in our Synagogue there is no more
distinction between rich and poor than in the grave: Wealth should
have no immunity in the temple of God. Since our Synagogue has been
established (January, 1842), we have not made a single alteration, nor
does there exist any intention of making any; our reform
therefore, speaking humanly, may be said to be final. Looking then to
the fruits already produced by this reform, can I—dare
I, think it unacceptable to God? It forms a new and glorious epoch in
our spiritual existence—tends to make
us better in every relation of life, and has awakened in our souls a
deeper love of our holy religion.
"Regarding our Prayer Book, you say it is unauthorized—far
from being divine—a human compilation
and of human authority. We never held it up in any other light. The book
was compiled expressly for our Synagogue—it
contains nothing but what is pure and holy—it
defecated from every portion breathing a spirit of intolerance—is
possessed and preferred by very many persons not of our congregation,
and our Minister in its compilation had the assistance of a gentleman as
competent for the task as any other learned Jew in England.
"You allude to our designation of British Jews. By this
appellation we have happily merged the absurd and untrue distinction of
German and Portuguese Jews: we are Englishmen, consequently, British
Jews.
"Having replied to the religious points embraced in your letter,
I return to the all-important question, namely, the restoration of
peace in the community. I am truly happy to say that there does not
exist any thing like the same acerbity of feeling as existed at first,
and were Sir Moses Montefiore inclined to undertake the god-like task,
we might again ‘live in the hallowed bonds which make Israel one;’
but the magnanimity of confessing error is a virtue rarely practised,
and Sir Moses would have to confess error to render his mediatorial
efforts of use. I should have greater hopes in the impartial
administration of the gentleman who is to succeed the late Rabbi did I
not fear the influence of men who will attempt to poison his mind
against the Secession Congregation. The preliminary step to peace as an
act of common justice, must be the revocation of the Cherem (i.e.
the proclamation of the late Rabbi Hirschell). That act of simple
justice must be done unconditionally, then we shall be in a
position to listen to overtures of peace. If the Cherem was right, let
it be continued; if wrong, let it be revoked. I confess that I see
difficulties in the way of pacification, but before we were persecuted,
every member of our community, for the sake of preserving the blessing
of peace, would have made some sacrifice and been satisfied with a
smaller measure of reform. That time was; since which we have
happily consolidated our new form of public worship, and have had nearly
three years experience of its transcendent spiritual blessings.
"The whole of your works adorn my library, and the reading of
your sermons aloud has formed part of our home Sabbath devotions,
imparting to us spiritual comfort and mental illumination. The Occident
affords me great pleasure, especially your bold and able defence of
Judaism. Here, where there is an established religion, this cannot be
done to fearlessly, and you will find that the Voice does not like to
transfer to its columns even Dias’ Letters.
"Beseeching the God of our fathers to accord you the blessing of
better health, the prolongation of your valuable life, and many happy
returns of the approaching festivals, I conclude by iterating from the
depths of my soul your own prayer—‘That
the time may soon come when union and peace may prevail among all our
sons, and that righteousness may spread in every land.’"
I remain, Rev. and dear Sir,
Yours very respectfully,
Benj. Elkin.
|
