|
The establishment of any reform, or the movement taking
place among the Israelites all over the world, is a proper subject of
discussion for any religious periodical advocating the principles of
Judaism. Hence, it need not cause surprise that we have frequently taken
public notice of the reform movement, commenced in London, which
resulted in the establishment of a separate or secession congregation,
called the West London Synagogue of British Jews. But independently of
public considerations, we have ample cause for our interference on other
grounds. A gentleman with whom we had a personal acquaintance some years
ago, when on a visit to this country, and with whom we had exchanged
several letters, informed us in one of them that he had joined the
movement. As was natural, we replied to him, in the main deprecating the
secession, even if there were some cause of complaint. Among other
things we objected to the abolition of the second days of the festivals,
by the mere will of a few private gentlemen, who, however respectable, could not be trusted with improving our
system. At the same time, we freely acknowledged, that to our view, the
keeping of double holidays was one of the weakest of all our
observances, the cause of their introduction having, in a measure, been
removed. Nevertheless, we stated our convictions, and do so now, that
arbitrary changes in this case would lead to no good result, and that
hence it would be a useless innovation, especially as the Scriptures, by
the examples they furnish, do not prohibit our keeping additional
days. Regarding the prayer-book to be formed, we objected that it would
be nothing but a human invention; and whilst admitting the prayer-book
in use among all Israelites not to be divine, still we could not think
of abolishing it for the production of any new men in whom we could not
place the confidence we have in our old teachers. We only quote from
memory, not having kept a copy of our letter. It is needless to say that
our advice was not taken, though no offence was given to our
correspondent by our candour. In the process of time, the prayer-book of
the Burton Street Congregation was ushered before the world, and its
birth was heralded by an interdict, issued by the heads of the German
and Portuguese congregations, against its use. We never understood that
a formal Cherem, or excommunication, (which would have placed,
according to custom, the delinquents, for the time being, beyond the
society of the faithful,) was pronounced against the persons worshipping
after the new form, and we so understood upon inquiry, because an
impression was current, that the book and the people had
been interdicted. The prohibition to use the new prayer-book, we
consider to be a proper exercise of the prerogative of the heads of the
Synagogue; they are placed in this position to be watchmen for the house
of Israel; when they see
danger, they are bound to give warning. But we objected, and wrote to a
distinguished gentleman, at the head of the opposite party, that,
according to our humble opinion, too much importance had been attached to the whole secession proceedings, and that a
simple notice or circular, cautioning against the use of the new
prayer-book, without entering into a denunciation of its authors, would
have been enough and much more proper.
So far our private acts. We never sought to interfere,
but we could not avoid writing a reply, when the question had been
brought before us first by one of each party. We do condemn what
we consider a useless and burdensome law of the Portuguese congregation
of London, imposing a Cherem upon all who establish a Synagogue within
six miles of Bevis Marks (the site of the Synagogue Shaar Ashamayim);
still we doubt whether this excommunication is of that grave kind which
almost leaves the sufferer religiously dead. Be this as it may, there
was a necessity for altering this law, as a Synagogue was required at
the west end of London, to enable the many Israelites residing there to
attend religious worship at least once every Sabbath. Why this
permission was not granted, we do not know; perhaps the directors of the
old Synagogue thought that reform, not a place of worship,
was desired. But unless we greatly misunderstand the Jewish community of
London, such a permission would have been ultimately granted, had the
matter been urged respectfully, and without heat; perhaps some slight
modification in the manner of conducting the worship, we should judge,
might have been allowed without any infringement of our ancient usages.
But it seems both sides were to blame, the reformers in demanding the
right to introduce changes, the others in obstinately refusing every
thing. The separation then took place. And scarcely had the minister
pronounced his introductory or consecration sermon, when missionary
societies, both in England and America, rejoiced over the separation, as
though it were an approximation to Christianity. It was upon discovering
this, that we took for the first time public notice of these
transactions,
in
a note to page 102 of our Vol. I. Our friends in England will
recollect that about the same time an advertisement appeared in the
French Archives and two German papers, asking for a minister for St.
Thomas, on the plan of the Burton Street reform. In consequence of this,
when the Rev. Mr. Carillon returned to St. Thomas to resume his
ministry, we admitted a letter which he wrote us, and prefaced it, with
a few, what we thought, necessary remarks. (Vide
Occident, Vol. I. p. 346.) Soon after this, we
received a sermon preached by the Rev. Mr. Marks, which, as it
contained a complete refutation of the unsoundness of the seceders upon
fundamental doctrinal grounds, we hastened to insert. It was not our
fault that some correspondents thought proper to animadvert upon Mr.
Carillon’s letter, and upon the supposed course of Mr. Marks’s
congregation; for we think that free discussion, especially where all
are equally interested, ought not to be abridged. As soon as Mr. Marks
became aware what was thought of his movements abroad, he wrote to us
two letters for publication, which we gave in the first
and second
numbers of our second volume. Some animadversions sent to us upon these
letters we declined inserting, thinking that enough had been said on
both sides, in a fruitless controversy. Still we think that a few
remarks which we appended to Mr. Marks’s letters, gave offence in
certain quarters, when we think that we treated the reverend gentleman
with a great deal of courtesy. But this can be of no interest to our
readers, so we pass it over, with but one remark, that in this as in our
whole course as editor, we are perfectly willing to lay our conduct open
to the examination of a disinterested person, to whom we will accord all
the explanation requisite, and apologize if we cannot convince him or
his friends, of the correctness of our proceedings.
Thus matters stood when Mr. Elkin, of London, a gentleman
who stands high amidst his congregation, wrote to us a letter upon the
subject of the controversy, which we did not immediately publish,
although permission had been given us to do so. When, however, we
accidentally made some remarks, which Mr. Elkin thought unjust to his
party, he sent us another epistle, which we gave in our eleventh
number of last volume, together with an abstract of the previous
letter, to wit, such parts as would plead as the best justification of
the secession. But certain parts we could not give publicity to, since,
in admitting a a defence of the Burton Street Synagogue, communicated
without an official stamp, by a gentleman on his own responsibility, it
would have been evidently unfair to reflect upon others not in this
country, and to render our periodical thus an arena for the settlement
of distant disputes not connected immediately with religion. We are
perfectly willing to discuss religious questions in the abstract, with
persons in the farthest east, for this concerns all Israelites; but upon
matters of municipal regulation we cannot enter, unless we are
personally conversant with the subject. Hence we could not give currency
to a part of Mr. Elkin’s letter which censured severely the conduct of
the managers of the Portuguese congregation in London; especially since,
to our conviction, the entire truth of the charges would not
justify the establishment of a new mode of worship. Mr. Elkin, however,
has thought proper to publish his letter to us in extenso, in the London
Jewish Chronicle, with long explanatory notes, under date of March 21st.
In this he has acted under the impression that the parts omitted by us
were requisite for his defence, and that of his associates; and although
we think that we ought to have been written to before Mr. Elkin gave
publicity to a letter which, from one of the concluding paragraphs, was
left to our discretion to publish or to withhold, still we will readily
believe that he has acted from the supposed necessity of self-defence.
This publication has, however, produced a sharp reply from H. Guedalla,
Esq., in the Chronicle of April 4th; but as we have not
published any of Mr. Elkin’s charges, we of course cannot undertake to
discuss the merits of Mr. Guedalla’s rejoinder. Still we cannot help
remarking that Mr. Guedalla appears perfectly correct in his
supposition, that a small measure of reform would not have satisfied the
gentlemen who asked for change, or else they would not have carried
measures so far as they have done. Mr. Guedalla is farther right in
saying that no good can result from a farther controversy, and that all
parties would best consult the interest of Judaism; by seeking peace and
pursuing it; had this been thought of in the commencement of the
movement, had the different parties endeavoured to approximate, had the
ascama (law) against the erection of a new Synagogue been early revoked:
who knows but that, differences though great, and reforms though
ardently called for, peace might have been maintained between the
various Israelites of London. But unfortunately, one party asked too
much; the other, it seems, would not yield; and now each one thinks
himself right, and condemns the other. Would it not be wise to endeavour
to produce a conciliation? The revocation of the interdict against the
prayer-book can hardly be expected; no Rabbi can conscientiously approve
a ritual that was professedly framed without rabbinical authority; but
surely we trust that its supporters are not so bigoted for the mere work
of the day, as the prayer is, as to refuse all concessions because pious
Israelites were cautioned not to use a work for their devotions not
sanctioned by the heads of our church. And since both Mr. Elkin and Mr.
Guedalla have done us the honour to send us their letters, we trust that
we shall not be deemed officious if we ask of them in this public
manner, they both being sincere friends of Judaism, to draw near unto
each other, to endeavour to heal the breach so unfortunately existing.
We are placed at a distance, and we can thus judge how fatal a blow they
give to our holy faith, by contending against one another, and wasting
their strength, which ought to be unitedly employed against foreign
opponents. In our private letter to Mr. Elkin we conjured him for peace;
we do so again; and we trust that the ultras on both sides will be
inclined to listen to reason, when such men as Mr. Elkin and Mr.
Guedalla unite their efforts to heal the acerbity of feelings, which an
estrangement of some years’ standing has produced. With these remarks
we take leave of the subject at present. |
