|
by Isaac Leeser
In these times of general agitation in religious
matters, when political discussions seem to have been lost sight of in
the newly awakened desire to improve the spirit, it is well for us to
see “what we need,” and what our position calls for. It is not to be
denied, that after a long struggle for political freedom, in which all
the civilized world was engaged for nearly a century, in which religion
was but too often made a theme of ridicule or idle speculation, a new
return to religious sentimentality has been witnessed, and perhaps we
may date from this new impulse a revival of bigoted superstition on the
one hand, whilst on the other there is a strong desire for innovation in
well-established principles, which sees nothing good in any thing old,
and whose standard of excellence is that the matter to be adopted be of
modern origin. Some thus discover all that is valuable in antiquity,
others look on the future as the true mother of excellence. Though at
first the struggle was waged only between contending Christian factions,
it has at length reached us too, and we see this day a sharp contest
carried on between Jews who favour reform and those who oppose all
change. Perhaps we are wrong in saying “all change,” since most, if
not all, admit that some improvement is not alone necessary, but
practicable also; whilst there are many, though these are as yet a small
minority, who desire to transform Judaism to such a degree as to appear
strange in the sight of its faithful adherents.
But are we and the Christians in the same position?
or rather, are Judaism and Christianity of the same nature, so as to
require the same remedial measures? We hear the advocates of wild reform
answer: “Catholics and Protestants were both priest-ridden, and the
men of the last century who effected a revolution in respect to the
authority of the clergy conferred a true benefit on the community; and
as the Jews were and are greatly under the control of their Rabbins, or
spiritual leaders, he too who will deliver the people from the spiritual
yoke they bear will become a benefactor of Israel.” We think that we
put a strong position, and give in a few words the main features of the
argument of which the subject is capable. But we beg our readers to
consider one great difference between the Christian and the Jewish
spiritual leaders. The former possess power, wealth, and extensive
influence; they govern the states, and enlist in their behalf the
passions and feelings of the multitude. They have large revenues from
which they are supported, have religious orders which act like a
military organization, and which are felt in every direction by the high
and the low; whereas the Jewish teachers have no such power, no large
emoluments, are unsupported by government, and all the influence they
can exercise is necessarily derived from their personal standing and the
kindness with which they are regarded by the community. We do not wish
to deny, (for were it necessary we would be the first to attack any
unnecessary assumption by spiritual authorities,) that at times, when
the Christian clergy ruled over the conscience of the people, when
authority was every thing, and appeals to reason something scarcely
thought of, Jewish Rabbins also undertook to govern with the rod of
spiritual terrors, and could, by the power of excluding refractory
members from the communion of Israel, exercise a fearful sway over the
minds of their hearers. We will not debate whether this power of
excommunicating is one of good or evil import, since we have to deal
only with facts; it existed, whether for good or evil, and doubtlessly
in those communities where enlightenment in modern civilization is yet
unknown, it is still occasionally exercised. But the assaults on the
infallibility of the Christian priesthood dealt a powerful blow to this
abuse of power by our own chiefs, and we fully believe that a formal
repudiation of any Israelite authority, has not been witnessed for many
years. Upon the whole we doubt whether, except in rare instances, any
one was ever excommunicated, unless his own course had excluded him
previously, and when he had voluntarily withdrawn himself before his
condemnation was pronounced; but sure we are, that for many years past,
at least since our recollection, no such exclusion was decreed over any
one of whom we have heard. There may nevertheless be instances of the
kind, but we only say that we are unacquainted with them.
All we meant to argue is this, that in our church
government we had properly no grievances to complain of in respect to
clerical tyranny, nor of the exactions demanded of us to support the
church. the teachers of religion were properly, what the leaders of
other sects profess to be, servants of the people, and as regards the
contributions for the support of our establishments, it is sufficiently
notorious that our people were always democratic enough in their ideas
to contribute no more than was actually required to defray the current
expenses, and we have yet to learn that there exists any where a single
Synagogue which is not dependent for its subsistence upon the liberality
of its members. The pay of all the officers attached to our churches,
from the chief Rabbi down to the person who takes care of the building,
is notoriously small; and it is well that this is so, since by this
means those who would merely serve for money are naturally excluded from
being called to office. Hence it must appear absurd to argue that,
because there was occasion for reform in Christian churches, there is an
equally great call for it among ourselves; the position of the two is
widely differing; and hence every sect professing Christianity may have
become corrupt, without the least taint necessarily resting upon our
venerable fabric.
But
we think that it is not so much the abuse of power, as the self-imposed
burdens of peculiar strictness which has excited the discontent of many
Jews, and at the same time that the desire to be in outward appearance
like the nations arouns us, may have caused others to seek for remedies
to accomplish this wish of theirs. Whilst the Jew was compelled to wear
a garb of his own, to be marked at first sight by some outward token as
a son of Israel, it was natural enough that he should be perfectly
willing to distinguish himself in his mode of worship from those who
oppressed him, and that he in truth should glory in being as unlike
others as he could be. And as there is no unmixed evil in the world, so
had this circumstance one good effect, it made the Jew love his
religion, and it rendered him proud of possessing a treasure which
rendered him a mark for malicious persecution, whilst it elevated his
soul in its approach to the Deity. The more, therefore, the storm of
adversity sent its pitiless missiles against him, the more he wrapped
himself up in his mantle of faith and shielded himself by it against the
fury of the blast. But we have lived to see a change in our outward
circumstances; not that we are now particular objects of affection,
since we for one do not believe in the love of the world for Israel, but
it has become for the time-being the policy of many nations not to
persecute for opinion’s sake with fire and the sword; men have learned
to tolerate each other in the chambers of their hearts. It could not be
otherwise than that we should participate in the benefits arising from
this altered state of things. But at the same time this gave rise to a
restlessness under the ancient restraints which our teachers have from
time to time recommended to us. It is doubtlessly a cause for regret
that many little useless ceremonies were gradually introduced,
especially since the ignorant have learned to attach to them an
importance much greater than ever was thought of by those who first
recommended them; we do deplore that men who lived in contemplation of
sublime truths should have set an example of asceticism more fitted for
the penance of a cloister than the active duties of an every-day life.
But to say the worst of such things, they were merely useless;
injurious, however, they could never be. Abstinence and frequent fasting
become at last a second nature, and persons habituated to them do not
heed, nor do they desire, the indulgences which those accustomed to
luxuries deem requisite to their existence. Much may therefore be said
in favour of a frequent denial of useless indulgence and occasional
fasts, since they accustom us to dispense in times of affluence, and
enable us thus to bear with more fortitude when the occasion demands it.
Nevertheless, we say that we regret that it ever was looked upon as an
accepted duty to fast frequently, as by this means a class of extra
righteous, under the name of Hassidim, came into existence, which has
for years past led to the formation of a peculiar sect under that title,
and consists of men, in many parts of Poland, who attach far too much
importance to certain acts of outward devotion. We cannot say much about
these last, as our information is exceedingly vague and imperfect. But
we wish merely to remark, that any such impracticable piety exhibited by
the great is too apt to produce one of two results: either it makes
fanatics of the ignorant, or it places virtue at such all elevation in
the eyes of the multitude that they do not strive to obtain what is
really practicable. Hence we do not wonder that, when authority began to
lose its weight, at the time and under the circumstances of which we
have spoken before, many customs which were the growth of ages of
seclusion should experience a decadence perhaps undeserved, and fall too
quickly into oblivion. Too much no doubt had been added, by slow
degrees, in the course of ages; matters, at first of no moment, had
acquired consistency with those things of real and permanent importance;
and when at length the change did come, as was unavoidable in the change
of the times, men learned to look with suspicion upon many things which would never have been questioned had it
not been for the manner in which they were mixed up with useless
ceremonies. Whilst every thing was practised that was connected in any
manner with religion, as it had been practised in preceding ages, and as
those prominent among us showed by their example, there was no
difference in conduct among the people; as all those who felt
religiously inclined strove who should be foremost in strict conformity
to ancestral customs. But when this
feeling
wore away, in Germany, France, England, and America, there arose
suddenly as it were a restlessness to get rid of as much as possible,
and for whatever a valid reason could not be given fell at once into
disuse. To this cause we ascribe chiefly the treat and general agitation
for reform, wherein every one is anxious to throw off whatever he can,
and retain as little as possible consistently with Judaism.
We
have now, we think, a proper solution for the unfortunate division of
sentiment which has sprung up among us. It is not that fault is found
with those who expound the laws to us; it is not that they have abused
their power, or imposed political burdens upon the people; but that ages
have added to the letter of the law, and brought into vogue practices
which are neither commanded nor necessary as protection against
transgression. No one who justly thinks will object to any safeguard
which our wise men have placed as a bar to sin, or the abstinence from
every thing which is the commencement of iniquity, though in itself it
may not be a downright infringement of the letter of the Bible. But when
we know that observances have been recommended that have no such
bearing, we must say that they have been unwisely recommended. But
whilst we condemn sincerely the existence of such things, we must
equally reprobate the anxiety of so many moderns to demolish every
thing, and to reconstruct religion anew upon a basis of their own. Were
they now men of sound learning, who were perfectly familiar with their
subject, and of such unswerving piety that we should be compelled to
think them honest, we would at least listen to them with deference and
weigh well their arguments, if they advance any such. But we have no
such confidence in the reformers of our day. We know they boast of
superior enlightenment to all other Israelites; they call themselves the
true conservatives of religion, by pretending to strengthen the
structure whilst removing it piece by piece; but we cannot countenance
their proceedings nor believe their assertions, whilst they do not
strike at the acknowledged excrescences, but at the fundamentals of
religion. So the doctrine of the Messiah has been assailed by some of
them; they wish to preach political amalgamation in equality of rights
as the true state of redemption of the Jews, regardless in this respect
of the prophetic predictions, which they are as anxious to pervert as
those were in ancient days who applied them to cases and events to which
they had no reference. We cannot admit them to be merely inquirers after
truth, whilst they commence with making violent changes in the form of
worship as received among us from time immemorial. And then look at the
variety of reforms proposed! Some talk of abolishing the Hebrew and
substituting the languages of the various countries; others will read
the law once in three years; others want not to call up the people to
the reading of the law; others want to throw out all allusion to the
Messiah in our prayers, and carefully exclude every thing that refers to
the promised restoration. But what does all this amount to? Merely to
produce schism and useless variety in the Synagogue, and to have in
every congregation a peculiar form of worship, and perhaps a peculiar
set of doctrines. We should think that the division of sects among
Christians has proved mischievous enough to be a caution to us how we
follow in their dangerous footsteps. See what animosities, contentions,
lawsuits, and heart-burnings have been caused; and we are invited to
follow in the same senseless path and give up our unity, for what? for
problematic improvements, which yield nothing, because they are nothing.
Hitherto we have been one people; but now we are to become a multitude,
and we are to avoid each
other in our public worship. And for our part we say candidly, much as
we love peace, we could not consistently with our conviction go into a
meeting of those who break off from the Synagogue by setting up a
worship of their own, and think we have discharged our duty. If even we
should not consider it a sin, according to the strict letter of the law,
we would deem those acting thus as giving a fatal blow to the peace of
Israel, and hence we would avoid countenancing them, whilst we remain in
our feelings toward them a friend and brother. This is not bigotry, but
what is due to the unity of the church in which we have as a people
always found so much protection and peace of the soul.
In America especially, there is so little cause for
reform, that we hardly can imagine how some people can be clamorous for
it. In Europe there has to a certainty been a great deal of rabbinical
domination; but here we never had a Rabbi, and the ordinances which are
observed, are those absolutely requisite for a religious life. Not one
too much is kept here; on the contrary, discipline is too loose; and
sooner than expand, we ought to contract the limits of religious
freedom, by which term we mean that disposition to act as seems best in
each person’s eyes, of which the Bible gives us some instances. We
doubt whether a single Hassid can be found in all this country,
and surely those who are too strict are so few that “a child could
write them down.” We would lift up our voice against the clamour
raised in Europe against disorders which do not exist here. For the most
part there is more decorum observed in our places of worship than
elsewhere; and what is yet open to censure can be amended without much
difficulty, and without commencing to agitate or to propose innovations.
Above all, we beg our friends not to give ear to new customs imported
from one or the other reform congregation in Europe; but especially with
respect to the public reading of the law and the prophets in the
Synagogue. It has been a holy thing, that once every year the whole of
the divine legacy has been proclaimed to the people; it has tended more
than any thing else to confirm us in obedience, and to make us familiar
with our duties. The public calling up of devout persons to the reading
of the law, has enabled the thousands of Israel to declare before the
assembled people their gratitude for the bestowal of the Scriptures. Why
then abridge the teaching of the people? “Because it detains them too
long at the Synagogue.” Sooner would we then abolish every thing else
than this. What use is singing or preaching, compared with the reading
of the word of God? The two acts just mentioned may please the ear, but
the last reforms the sinner, and instructs the soul. With regard to the
other reform spoken of, we presume they wish to base it upon the
unsightliness to the gentile visitor, for persons to quit their seats
and to come up in succession to the reading-desk to hear their chapter
read, But we would again impress upon the public mind, that our worship
must not be modelled at all after gentile notions; we are a peculiar
people, and even our manners ought to have something striking, by which
we can prove that our origin is derived from a far-off antiquity.
Besides, we would ask: By what right does any congregation undertake to
abolish what has stood for ages? It were perhaps different had there
been a consultation among those learned and true, to deliberate upon the
matter; but for a. few unauthorized individuals to act as though they were
the state, is too preposterous to admit even of a serious thought.
We therefore again reiterate our admonition to our readers, not to be
too hasty to adopt reforms, which before long they may be glad to change
again. Let them depend on one thing: our ancestors were as pious and
wise as they can possibly be; and if the pressure of the times caused
them to err in a few things, they are nevertheless far safer guides than
those who have never done nor suffered what they did in the upholding of
the faith revealed from Heaven. |
