|
Mr. Editor:
Your valuable periodical
contains, in its last number,
a letter from a Mr. Beckel, the contents of which are so little in
accordance with the true state of the case, and
display so glaringly a want of a sense of justice,
that an answer is demanded; and as you kindly
offered your columns for any one feeling aggrieved,
I, as one that is aggrieved, send you this reply.
The letter contains three
distinct attacks: one directed against the Rev. Dr.
Lilienthal, one against the editor of the Israel’s
Herald, and one against the society of “The
Friends.” I have, of course, nothing to say, either
for Dr. Lilienthal or for Mr. Busch, both these
gentlemen being sufficiently able to take care of
themselves. My reply will be directed against the
attack on the Friends, of which society I have the
honour of being a member.
Had the attack been made in any
other paper, I would not have taken any notice of
it, though it displays an utter ignorance as to our
design, and contains still more lamentable
misstatement as regards our origin. But as your
valuable periodical circulates east of the Atlantic,
and carries to our brethren residing there the
tidings of what occurs here, and will meet the eye
of many a Jew that will condemn us, should no direct
answer be given, a reply on our part becomes
necessary.
And what is the purpose of this
attack? Does it not appear that it wounded vanity or
ambition had prompted it? Does it not take for
granted that the Friends opposed a projected
convention and that they <<271>>must consequently be
chastised for this opposition? In fact we are
accused of nothing else; our origin is stigmatized
as a Jesuitical trick, our motives and purity of
purpose are called in question, and our society is
thus placed before the world as an institution
hostile to the common cause of Judaism. We will
answer this unworthy reproach with solid facts, and
let the world judge.
In the Occident for the month
of April, page 17, we read the following as part of
Dr. Wise’s celebrated lecture on “The Light”:
“Why do they (the Jews) so
obstinately resist every improvement, though it
contemplates ever so much the happiness and
elevation of the Jewish religion? Because—excuse me
the severity of my words—because ignorance has
unduly increased, because the Jewish religion is
partly not properly known, and partly misunderstood;
and then is ignorance the bitterest enemy of our
religion, for Judaism requires more to be known than
to be believed in.”
Many of those that now form the
bulk of the Friends, had long before harboured the
same ideas. Dr. Wise was long before this in
friendly communication with us; often did we, in
confidential meetings, dwell with sorrow on this sad
prevalence of ignorance; and, following the impulse
which the above-quoted eloquent appeal had produced,
we formed, under Dr. Wise’s own eyes, and with his
full approbation, the society of “The Friends,”
whose object is to assist in removing the great
stumbling block, ignorance, by diffusing light and
information in all directions, and this by proper
means. The Rev. Dr. Wise has been an honorary member
of this society since its commencement and as a
proof I subjoin below his letter of acceptance, to
show that the society originated in no Jesuitical
trick, and that either ill-will or ignorance has
been at work to throw its poison at an institution
that has been constituted for the common good, that
has nothing to do with isolated questions like that
of the convention, that numbers among its seventy
members many high-minded and intelligent men, men
alive to the prosperity of our people and their
religion, men that seek no favours, that have
assembled from pure motives, and seek to serve the
common cause in a manner consonant with their views
as to what is right and needful.
It is alleged that Dr. Wise was
received even the second time with a great deal of
enthusiasm; why does Mr. B. suppress the fact of his
being refused a hearing by the Henry Street
Congregation,* that invited him previously to preach
for them? Why charge Dr. Lilienthal, or any
particular person, with having secretly counteracted
the good cause, when the natural working or passions
and divergence of opinions will<<272>> explain all? Ought we
not in brotherly charity to forego to slander any
individual, when the cause of the failure lies in
the peculiar nature and composition of the Jewish
elements? Dr. Lilienthal is not opposed to a
convention, but he may doubt that it wall be able to
carry out the views of Dr. Wise, as expressed in his
lecture and circular, as published in your
periodical. He fears, and perhaps justly so, lest it
might end in dissatisfaction, and injure the common
cause beyond recovery.**
“The Friends,” far from having
any Jesuitical objects in view, have seized upon the
wants of our people, and will not flinch from their
path or duty. They claim a high degree of
respectability for all their members; they are all
warm and sincere friends of our religion, and alive
to its interests. They seek light, instruction, and
knowledge in matters of religion; they desire to
train the minds and create a lively interest for the
good cause, and hope to improve the moral as well as
the intellectual faculties of those that can be
reached by their influence. They assemble once a
week for this purpose. Just look how they go to
work. They had lectures on the existence of God, as
proved by outward nature; another on religion, as
founded on the secret influences of the heart; one
on the history of pagan worship and idolatry; still
another on the origin, progress, and future of
our religion. They had a critical essay on the
immortality of the soul; they expect next a lecture
on the history of the Jews and their literature.
They are promised still farther to have scientific
lectures tending to prove the divine origin of the
Bible, whilst they have debates to discuss the great
questions of the day touching our religion. The
question whether a convention ought to be
encouraged, was discussed, and strenuously advocated
by the Rev. Dr. Lilienthal. Now, as no one can deny
that our people generally are sadly deficient
in knowledge respecting their religion, as they know
little, if anything of their philosophy and
literature, their great men and their views, and are
even imperfectly acquainted with their national
history, our society has a noble field of action;
for to fill up this blank, to give and
receive information, is the great and
glorious object of this society. Now I ask,
is not a body of men, thus well informed and
trained, better able to judge of the present and its
wants, than those that are a prey to blind
prejudices and ignorance? A trifling sum of two
dollars per year, just enough to pay expenses, gives
to the poorest an opportunity to come and hear. In
short, the society gives all the facilities
possible, and makes all possible exertions to
diffuse light a and knowledge amongst our brethren.
Far, therefore, from our enthu<<273>>siasm being
cooled down, it has been directed in a proper
channel, and receives daily a new and refreshing
impulse by our steady success. We quote farther from
Mr. Beckel’s letter: “If you are the friends of your
people, why do you form an isolated society?” The
answer is, because you cannot agitate the masses in
the Synagogue; for scientific, philosophical, and
historical investigations as demanded by our
society, are not proper for the pulpit—it is not the
fit place to analyze the great questions of the day;
and, therefore, we have our peculiar formation and
place of meeting, where no one is excluded, and all
are heartily welcome that desire light and
knowledge.
Mr. Beckel asks whether we
belong to that class of men who, insincere in
their own professions, assume to prepare people
for reform? I will not stoop so low as to answer
such a charge. Whosoever has so far forgotten the
rules of politeness and propriety, as to doubt the
honourable motives of such a respectable class of
men as compose the
Society of “Friends,” has
forfeited all claims to our friendly consideration.
And all this bitter attack is
made against an association which has not yet
completed its constitution; has met but a dozen
times, and has barely trimmed its sail for its long
and arduous voyage. We were unaware that pirates
could be found on the high seas of intelligence; we
had embarked our best wishes and hopes, and expected
to meet the soft breeze of kindness and brotherly
love; we anticipated a prosperous voyage; our flag
was streaming from the masthead; our motto and
mission unfurled to the breeze. Truth was to be our
compass, reason our helmsman, hope our anchor. Yet,
scarcely had the vessel left the secure haven, when
the fiery stream of passions were let loose; the
black, heaving billows of calumny foamed around it,
and dashed against its sides with angry surges as
though bent on its destruction.
Yet we trust in that light
above to guide and protect us, the light that has so
oft guided Israel in dark and dismal days, and we
hope that our bark will arrive at its place of
destination, and that the clouds will disperse at
the approach of the genial rays of the orb of the
day.
It is, in conclusion, but just
to state that Dr. Lilienthal does not stand at the
head of the society as alleged; but he is, of right,
highly valued and esteemed among us as a man of deep
knowledge, extensive researches, and mighty
intellect; and our confidence in him as; a sincere
Jew, has not in the least abated.
I regret very much, Mr. Editor,
that this warfare has been provoked. This is my
first and only reply. I conceive it to be injurious
to our good and holy cause to stray aside from the
even path of kind inquiry, <<274>>and resort to
calumnies which must discourage the well-meaning
portion of our brethren. Unfounded charges are
calculated to stifle every lofty and philanthropic
effort and set brother against brother. Had the
editor of the “Occident,” of whom we expect strict
impartiality, only said one word in extenuation of
these serious charges, I should have refrained from
answering; but the gauntlet was thrown with so much
boldness, and in such an offensive spirit, that it
had to be taken up, and now we challenge the Jewish
world for a fair and impartial verdict.
Sigismund Waterman, M.D.
New York, June 7th, 1849. |
