|
To The Editor Of The Occident.
St. Thomas, 16th August, 1846.
Reverend Sir:—
I know the deep sympathy and interest
which you feel in all that concerns your co-religionists, wherever they
may be found. I therefore, without apology, take the liberty of occupying
your attention with some remarks, on a subject that ought to engage the
attention of every friend to the faith. I know not what your views may be
with respect to the various innovations which, under the title of
“Reform,” are finding their way into the Ritual and Ceremonies of the
Jews of the present day; but I think I know sufficient of you, in order to
be assured, that, whatever your opinions may be, you will not object to
hear, and to give publicity in your valuable periodical (the Occident) to
the opinions of others, however they may differ from yours.
It may be necessary to premise that the
individual who now addresses you thinks that the form of the religious
worship of the Jews may be favourably amended, some of their customs may
without injury or impropriety be dispensed with; but he must confess
himself not sufficiently learned to point at any particular one, and to
say so with certainty, therefore for himself, though a reformer, he would
rather yield allegiance to long established customs than indiscreetly to
have them changed. But another more powerful reason which induces him to
object to innovations alluded to is, that they are not the results of
combined and general understanding by the Jews throughout the world.
Individuals who claim to be the descendants of Israel, who believe in the
revelations of the Old Testament, and look for the fulfillment of the
promises declared thereby, should consider that an obligation rests upon
them of a different character to that which belongs to mere religious
sectarians;—on them devolves the duty of seeking for the national
regeneration of the house of Jacob, and by every means should they
endeavour to hasten the approach of the gathering in of the faithful. Will
they do so by destroying their individuality? Or by abject and servile
imitations of the customs of the gentiles, who, on their part, have no
inducement, no object in preserving that unity, which, while it gives
strength, vigour and consistency to the worship, is at the same time a
type of the object of the adoration and hope of the Jew: One only true
and all-powerful God?
If our forms be defective, our
ceremonies not congenial to the spirit of the times, in Heaven’s name
let them be changed; but let the change be the result of some combined
purpose; let it be based upon the united wisdom of competent persons,
selected by the parties interested. I am for change; but for such a change
as will not destroy the unity, the individuality and harmony of a people
who claim to be chosen of God. I am led to these reflections, Mr. Editor,
by having witnessed a ceremony performed in the Synagogue of this island,
under the title of “Confirmation;” what the Hebrew term is I do not
know, nor do I think there is any invented as yet; for I believe the
origin of this grave ceremony does not go quite so far back as when the
Hebrew Language was the vernacular of the Jews; but perhaps when I
describe it, your learning may devise some Hebrew word applicable to it;
and really I wish you would, for the term Confirmation reminds one too
forcibly of the “laying on of hands” of the “Lords spiritual,” the
“Vicegerents of their Lord and Master Jesus Christ.” In order to be
appreciated by a Jewish congregation, I will briefly describe the ceremony
as it was “enacted” here.
The confirmants having undergone a
course of instruction and preparation, and being perfect in their parts, a
procession, composed of the confirmants, (the girls dressed in white, with white veils covering their heads and faces, the boys
in their holiday suits,) walking in pairs, and succeeded by the Reader of
the congregation, dressed in his robes, proceeded from the residence of
the Reader to the Synagogue; arriving there, the service of the evening
(eve of Shabungot) was commenced; at the appropriate time the Reader
ascended the pulpit and delivered a discourse in English, the confirmants
and their parents were then placed around the front of the Ark, in two
ranks, the former in front and the latter in the rear:—the Reader,
taking his stand on the platform of the ark, then interrogated the
confirmants on the Decalogue and the thirteen articles of Faith,
alternately in Hebrew and in English, the responses being all correctly
made, in accordance with an established formula; the ark was opened, and
three Scrolls of the Law were taken out and held by the dignitaries of the
congregation; the confirmants then approached and placed their hands upon
the Scrolls, they repeated a solemn pledge and promise that they (the
confirmants) will always believe in what they have learned and repeated,
and will never change their religion, (or words to that effect)—the
confirmants assented thereto, and the parents then laid their hands on the
heads of the confirmants, and a blessing was invoked by the Reader. After
this an exhortation was delivered, and the service was concluded. Now,
sir, I ask, and would respectfully ask you to answer, Has such a ceremony
ever been performed in any Synagogue of Jews previous to the establishment
of what are termed “reformed congregations” in Europe? Is it to be
found in the formula of Jewish worship ordained by Rabbinical authority
since the dispersion? Is it to be found in the ceremonial established for
the Israelites by Moses? If not, then I feel constrained to say that it is
a presumptuous, uncalled-for innovation, without warrant from any
acknowledged Jewish authority, and as such, should be discountenanced and
rejected.
The creed of the Jew, as I have
understood it, consists in the emphatic declaration, “Hear, O Israel,
the Lord our God is One.” It begins and it ends with that single,
comprehensible and undisputed idea. But, in the ceremony of confirmation,
as it was performed here, this great truth is joined to what are termed
the Thirteen Articles of Faith, all of which the confirmants are made to
declare they “believe with a firm faith.”
Thus, confounding a plain and evident
truth, designed as the basis of the Jewish faith, with a collection of
questionable deductions drawn from the writings of the Prophets and the
Sages of the Bible, the foundation for discussions, divisions and
dissensions is laid, which, it is to be feared, will lead to the same
consequences as have resulted to the Christian Church. But independently
of this, I would ask, is it either wise or proper to cause, or even to
permit young, inexperienced persons, to make a solemn pledge before God
and the world, always to believe what they have been taught, and always to
act in conformity to that belief. In my humble opinion, it is a species of
subornation of perjury, and the promoter of deception. Sir, is a man’s
belief under his own control? Can he lock up his mind? Can he close his
senses to the evidences and power of reason? The idea of pledging one’s
self to any given belief appears to be such a perfect absurdity,
and is so much at variance with what every man, a fraction beyond an idiot
in intellect, must himself have observed of himself, that nothing but the
quintessence of bigotry could ever have imagined it.
The pledge, with respect to action, is
not quite so absurd; but what does it lead to? A child is pledged to a
certain religious practice; with the increase of years and experience he
finds them to be erroneous, and of course wishes to change them; but he
remembers his pledge,—what then? either he continues to do what he
BELIEVES TO BE WRONG; or he argues upon the non-liability to an engagement
into which he was forced or betrayed; and he forfeits his pledge. If the
former, what have not his wise teachers to answer for? If the latter, what
is the value of his pledge?
But, sir, let us look upon this subject
in another point of view, free from speculation, and founded upon facts
either having occurred or likely to occur. The communicant is under his
pledge bound to observe the laws of the Decalogue; among these is the
fourth—“Remember to keep holy the Sabbaths day,” &c.—he
repeats the imperative command; he is told that it comes from God
himself—that God in whose presence he stands, on whose holy word his
hand is placed; he then repeats the fifth command—“Honour thy father
and thy mother,”—that father’s hand is on his head, he feels its
pressure, and with it he remembers that that father openly and willfully
infringes the command which he brings him there to pledge himself to
observe!—the father is a Sabbath breaker!!—what a solemn mockery is
not this!
Mr. Editor, numberless are the
reflections which press on my mind at this moment; yet I dare not impose
upon your indulgence in giving vent to them. But permit the a few words
more; I shall be brief. This island you know is one of the colonies of
Denmark. Under the benevolent protection of its late and present
sovereigns, the Jews here have enjoyed not only a free toleration of their
religion, but their congregation has been endowed with special and
valuable privileges; they prospered under them; their worship was upheld;
and notwithstanding the regulations under which their co-religionists of
Denmark were governed, they were free to govern themselves. But the spirit
of absolutism and of bigotry could not let “well enough” alone; it
must control men’s consciences; there was too much freedom of action,
too much liberty of thought. In the year 1814 an ordinance of they King
had provided for the religious education of the Jews in Denmark; and, in
order to enforce it, it was ordained that the children at fourteen years
of age should undergo an examination and “depose their religion,” and
make a promise “never with their free will to act contrary to the
principles which they acknowledged” under the penalty of not
being permitted “to make oath, to enter into marriage, to enter
as journeymen in any corporation, to be made burghers in any town,
to keep any trade, to enter among the students, or to be their
own guardians:” all this was specially provided for the people of
the “Mosaic communion” residing, or such as might hereafter be
permitted to reside, in Denmark. Well, sir! nothing, of this was
ever applied or intended for the Jews of this place; they enjoyed their
civil and religious rights to the fullest extent. What think you, then, of
the fatuity of the men who could seek to disturb so happy a state of
things? what think you of the individuals who could apply to the colonial
government for permission to enforce the regulations alluded to upon their
co-religionists, residents of this island? to enslave their consciences?
to make the enjoyment of their civil rights dependent upon a pledge? to
shackle the freedom of thought, and of religious conviction?
Can it be that these men are the
descendants of the people, who for ages have endured persecutions and
obloquy without surrendering an iota of their right to worship God after
the dictates of their own hearts? they are so; they are Jews who have done
this deed. Strange inconsistency! the persecuted, whilst yet groaning
under the effects of persecution, seek themselves to be persecutors!! But,
sir, they say their intention is good: they fear that without some
restraint of this kind the Jewish religion will be lost; that there have
been a few seceders, and there might be more. And is it so? is the Jewish
religion so weak a fabric as to be held together with chains and cords? Is
its foundation gone? Has the glory departed
from Israel?
These men add insult to injury. Sir, you
are one of the watchmen on the outer tower; to you I appeal for a warning:
tell these men that in seeking to uphold, they destroy; tell them that the
great God of the universe has given to man free will to choose between
good and evil: let them not pretend to be wiser than their Creator.
Yours in the faith,
A Descendant Of Israel.
Note By The Editor.—Our
valued correspondent, whom we have known and esteemed for a number of
years, wields a strong pen; and though we think that he colours highly, as
all generous minds do when an object of interest is presented to them,
still we believe that there is a great cause for serious thought upon the
subjects embraced in his communication. Our friend could not have been
aware, when speaking of the ceremony of confirmation, that we had noticed
it already in our August number, from information derived from three
various sources, who all approved of the new institution, whilst we
appended a few remarks qualifying our assent to the introduction thereof.
We said: “Though so much is told of this child of modern days, we are, for our part, not yet satisfied
of its usefulness; and though not opposed to its being resorted to,
however we might except to some of its details, we have not yet seen
enough to satisfy our own judgment of the propriety of its
introduction.” It will thus be seen that we do not assent to the
necessity, and consequently to the propriety, of holding a public
religious initiation, as has been recommended by some of our correspondents, in common with many others.
Our readers need not be surprised that we allow others to advocate in our
pages what we do not think either useful or necessary; we have always
endeavoured to invite free discussion, not the least doubting that we too
may obtain thereby convictions not otherwise attainable. Truth can only
gain by discussion; error alone must lie crouched in darkness, for fear of
exposure. So with the confirmation; we permitted its advocacy, and will
now let others, if they think proper, discuss it according to its merits,
either on one, or the other side. We, for our part, deem it a harmless
thing, but still an innovation upon our ancient customs; Jews in former
days knew nothing of it; it is borrowed from the Protestants in Germany,
if we mistake not, and is akin to the first communion among the Catholics,
for which the children are prepared by a long course of study, so that
they may be able to be cleverly catechised by the examining clergymen when
the (to them) important day arrives for their admission to the grace of
the church. Christians, as our readers know, think the partaking of the
bread and wine of the communion of the highest importance; it, they say,
unites them to the body of Christ, when they typically or actually,
according to the varying views of Protestants or Catholics, partake of his
blood and his flesh. Hence the pomp and ceremony of a first approach to
the communion table, and all the mystical manipulations to give to a
simple act, which is done every festival at every Jewish table, the making
of Kiddush and Motzee, all the imaginable importance which circumstances,
well improved, can confer. Jews never had anything of the kind; their
religious initiation חנוך
(chinnuch) should commence from the cradle; the children should be early
taught some religious truth, induced to participate in some religious
ceremony, so that when the boy arrives at his thirteenth, and the girl at
her twelfth year, they may at once enter, understandingly and piously,
upon the duties which are now incumbent on them, they being, from their
respective ages, full members in communion with the household of Jacob.
Whilst, therefore, we lived in the simplicity of ancestral manner,
confirmation, initiation, or not
to be thought of, any farther than that the boys were counted among the
ten requisite for constituting
an assembly for public worship, or minyan (the
number) as it is technically termed, called to the public reading of the law and were permitted to read their
own portion, or even
the whole weekly section.
Occasionally a recitation or studied address was recited by the new members of the Synagogue, and a
friendly invitation given to partake of a religious entertainment (סעודה
של מצוה)
at the house of the parents or guardians.
From the nature of our worship, female children could not
participate in these ceremonies; hence their entrance into religious
communion was not marked by any outward act, other than their gradual
initiation of all the observances demanded of them.
Thus matters stood till about
1810, when, we believe, the celebrated J. Johlson, of Frankford on Maine,—whose “Instructions
in the Mosaic Religion” is sufficiently well known, and deservedly
appreciated among many of our readers,—was the first to recommend and
practise religious confirmation for both sexes in his school, which,
occasionally, served also as a place of worship for those who had become
estranged from the Synagogue because the ancient order of things no longer
suited their corrupt manners. We say, advisedly, corrupt manners. We have,
in several of our leading articles, before this, alluded to the great
demoralization and infidelity, especially among the educated, which
overspread all Europe at the end of the eighteenth century, and the
commencement of this. Our young Jews had need to show their enlightenment
by contemning all ancient usages; and hence the Synagogue, where the fancy
was not amused, ceased to claim their attendance, and, in truth, they were
strangers to Israel’s house of prayer. But in all evils there must
necessarily come a reaction; and when the disease is at its height, the
patient must either die or return to a healthy state
of life. The same was the case with the philosophers of Germany; they felt a reviving desire for religion; but they desired something
new, which would please them whilst it in a measure satisfied their
awakened conscience. In this case Mr. Johlson, (he was certainly one of
the first, if not the very first, of reformers,) who, in his school-house,
established a sort of worship, commencing at a later hour than the
Synagogue, with German hymns, organ, and preaching, to which was added confirmation of the young people:—the
former as a means of drawing the grown persons to his place of worship;
the latter, to impress the importance of religion upon the minds of those
just entering into life, so as to bind them, through means of the promise
then solemnly given, to the observance of the duties taught them at
school, and the belief in the doctrines which had been enforced by their
teachers. In thus giving Mr. Johlson the credit, or whatever else we or
others may call it, for this step, we are not certain that we are right to
assign him the invention; it is possible enough that he did it in
consultation with others, or that others had preceded him; perhaps the
celebrated Israel Jacobson, Minister of Finance (we think) to King Joseph
Buonaparte, of Westphalia. By the by, will some of our correspondents give
us the origin of the new reforms and their first promoters? The subject
might be interesting, and we have no means at hand to gratify our own and
the public curiosity. We only speak from impressions, and, as far as they
go, they are correct; more than that we cannot say.
Be this, however, as it may, our
respected correspondent will see that confirmation, or chinnuch,
(here is the Hebrew word, how does he like it?) is not the effect of
rabbinical, but of reform, tendency; it was resorted to as one of the
means to bring people back to a religious sentiment which had greatly gone
into abeyance. The organ and German hymn reform, although Mr. Johlson’s
work contains some beautiful composition, has not brought a healthier
state of religion among the Frankfort Jews; they have proceeded from bad
to worse, till they are almost on a par with those of Berlin, Hamburg, and
Paris; this does not say that there are not many pious Israelites in all
these places, but that many, in a great disproportion to what was formerly
the case, exhibit a course of life, such as no good Jew can justify.
Equally unfruitful has been the act of confirmation, not alone in the
hands of its first projectors, but in that also of all its later
advocates. No Jew is made so by a public exhibition, and public
attestation of faith, no
matter how well he and his companions rehearse the their school lesson in
the Synagogue before the assembled congregation; though he pronounce
the most solemn asseveration, after a most heart-stirring appeal from the
most eloquent minister, and under the imposition of the hands of his
earthly progenitors. The remedy against irreligion can only be found in a
thorough religious training, at school and at home; there must be, as the
words of the prophet have been applied, “line upon line, precept upon
precept;” and in addition, too, “observance upon observance,
watching upon watching;” teachers should enlarge upon the duties which
the Bible inculcates, and parents should see that what the school has
demanded is enforced at home. The confirmation, or initiation, should be a
daily work. “And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children; and
thou shalt speak of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou
walkest by the way; when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” Do
the parents do this? they require no pomp and ceremony to make their
children Jews. Do they neglect it? all the exhibitions in the world cannot
effect what they do all in their power, by their conversation and example,
to destroy.
These are our views, which we have
candidly given, instead of answering the questions of our friend, seriatim.But we do not wish to convey the meaning, as though we agreed with
him in thinking it a species of sin to let children affirm to the thirteen
articles of the Maimonidean creed. They are emphatically Biblical
doctrine, all derived from Scripture; and in assenting to them in our
prayers and hymns, such as Yigdal and Anee mahameen be-emoo-nah
Shelaymah, or in our catechisms, we only say that we are Biblical
Jews, believers in whatever the word of God has taught us. It is possible enough that there may arise, in after-life, doubts
as to the correctness of one or the other proposition; some men may
believe more, others less; but this does not say that therefore the
doctrines themselves are erroneous, or that the teachers were wrong in
propounding them as the fundamental articles of the Jewish faith. We
acknowledge, cheerfully, that the main pillar of the belief and acts of
the Israelite is the affirmation Our GOD is One. Yet does not this exclude
the ideas of eternity, incorporeality, priority, and sole power inherent
in the same Being. These are only amplifications of the great idea which
has been our watchword from the beginning. The belief in the existence of
the revelation of God, its promulgation through Moses, the plenary
inspiration of this great apostle of mankind, and the unchanging nature of
God’s word, are ideas embraced in the very nature of the truth of the
Deity, as we shall, God willing, prove hereafter in separate articles. To
affirm then to these, is no burdening the conscience with a new weight,
not before resting upon it, in the very name we bear of believers
in the Mosaic law. Farther, the belief in rewards and punishments,
and God’s omniscience, are again requisite deductions, both from Bible
and reason, when we admit ourselves as accountable beings, which the
possession of the Scriptures necessarily renders us. The only points of dispute which then could arise, are the belief
in the Messiah, and that in the resurrection of the dead. These are not
founded on reason as such, but on the words of revelation; and no
ingenuity of man can gainsay that both doctrines are taught, as evidently
as words can do it, in the books which our prophets have left us as their
legacy. At the same time, we are free to confess that we see no necessity
for affirming to all this, any more than to the proposition that the sun
shines, or that the earth is our planet. As Jews we are affirmed and sworn
for Mount Sinai, משבע
ועומד מהר
סיני; with the promulgation of the law, all
the truths it contains become at once our duty to believe, as we are bound
to obey all its precepts. The declaration of the affirmant adds,
therefore, not the smallest weight, or additional obligation, to what
exists without it. The only question is expediency: whether it would be
well to produce a striking effect upon the young Israelite at his or her
entrance into active life. Many wise and good men maintain the
affirmative, whilst others deny either the usefulness or propriety. We,
for our own part, incline to the latter view; we are, nevertheless, open
to conviction, in case some solid fruits were presented to us as having
sprung from this new ceremony adopted from the Christians, and one
of which our fathers knew nothing.
Our friend has asked us a few off-hand
questions; but in commencing to discuss them, we have been compelled to
write a much longer article than we are in the habit of doing, and more
extended than our readers, we fear, may be inclined to peruse with
attention. But it is unavoidable; it is not always possible to condense in
a small compass. We leave the subject unwillingly in the fragmental state
in which we have left it; but, we doubt not, that either the minister at
St. Thomas, or some other competent person, will take up the affirmative
side of the question, and we need not say that any rejoinder will be
gladly admitted into the Occident.
In one thing our correspondent is right,
that it is dangerous to forge our creed into fetters of faith, as
Mendelssohn calls the compulsory affirmation to articles of belief. If our
religion had no safer basis than a public deposition before the assembled
members of the Synagogue, at the age of fourteen, it would soon
fall into deserved decay and disuse. The
enemy is not yet at the gates of Rome, and the studied recitation of a few
boys and girls would not, in that case, save our republic. Thank God! we
are not sunk so far, and however many may fall off, the number of faithful
Israelites will not be materially diminished; and for all practical
purposes we can continue, in our national and individual capacity, to
exercise our duties despite of the apostates and sectarians. This,
however, is not what we wish to speak of just now; it is merely on the
impolicy of making a religious deposition the test of civil rights. If such a law is allowable only as the arbitrary mandate of
irresponsible government, Jews should be the last
to submit to it if they can avoid doing so. There is a double
absurdity in it; for, in the first place, those who join the Lutheran Church would be equal to original Christians
under the Danish laws, and, consequently, civilly better off than those
remaining Jews; and, secondly, civil rights would then depend upon professions
made at a tender age, however varying the conduct of the individual might
be, whilst the truly faithful Israelites would meet with grievous wrong,
simply because they have not taken a useless asseveration, which adds
nothing to their religious responsibility, this being just as strong
without
as with it. If people wish to have confirmation, in the name of Heaven,
let it be a voluntary thing; do not stamp it as an act above the positive
injunctions of Scripture. It is folly, it is wicked, so to treat each
other, so to destroy the value of our faith in the eyes of its followers.
Let us entreat our friends to withdraw, in time, from so dangerous a
course, before they injure themselves irretrievably, and bring disunion in
their places of worship, which no after-legislation can heal. Let us have
peace and harmony; and let our friends believe us, as one who never
willingly deceived them, that all the tendencies of the recent movements
have caused religion to retrograde; whatever reforms may be needed must
proceed from other sources, and be constructed upon better principles,
those, indeed, which are more consonant with the views of our ancient
religious teachers, the best friends, in truth, our religion ever had.
|
