|
AFTER the publication of so
many articles on the subject of an Assembly of
Delegates, it may possibly appear exceedingly dull
in us, but we are constrained to admit that we do
not clearly see the cause for all the fretfulness,
timidity, and furious zeal displayed in the
declamatory effusions of the many writers, whose
lucubrations have been admitted into your pages; and
if they are to be taken as evidences of the spirit
of disunion rife amongst us, we say, Avoid
assembling until safer or better times, when the
brotherhood enjoined by our faith shall be more
prevalent, and the mass have acquired, by a series
of years of <<321>>prosperity, what ages of
adversity appears not to have taught them, that is,
a full knowledge of the truism UNION is POWER.
Citizens of a federation, whose
legislatures are professedly Christian,
living in the midst of a population, the majority of
whom are avowedly believers in the doctrines of the
infallibility and supremacy of their church, it
behooves us to ponder well, ere we peril by a public
exhibition of our weaknesses, the character we have
obtained in the community for the universality of
our charities, proverbial fidelity to the ties of
kindred and faith, and general conservative tendency
of our religious precepts. For ourselves we deny the
necessity for all this clamour; there is a marked
increase in, and a wide-spreading progress of our
churches in the states; but this is not a revival
of the spirit of religion, neither is it
owing to the zeal or ability of the professors of
religion; but it is a consequence of the rapid
growth of the Hebrew population.
Repeatedly have we shown that
our ministers, as a class, have no influence, are
unknown, except in very rare cases, beyond the
sphere of their own congregation, and, where it is
otherwise, its extreme rarity and exception prove
the rule. It is not so with the many sects by which
we are surrounded; we could enumerate men in the
Episcopalian, the Catholic, Baptist, and Unitarian
Churches, whose names are not only favourably known
through the length and breadth of the land, but
whose learning and attainments have achieved a
European reputation. Desirous of our own Hazanim or
churchmen holding such enviable positions, we are
led to inquire if this absence of influence is a
good or an evil; is it caused by a want of ability
in the men, or a consequence of the inertness of our
church polity, or a defect in its established
ritual? or is it a natural tendency of the
independent democratic constitution of the
congregations, each of which has been aptly and
advisedly termed “a distinct republic?” in either of
the positions are we to deny ourselves the right, or
are we deprived of the power to investigate the
anomaly we exhibit? Will any of the fundamental
principles of Judaic belief, from the Unity of the
Deity, the future advent of the Messiah, to the
inspiration of the Prophets, be invalidated or
weakened by a solemn inquiry, why we have not
hitherto had, and wherefore, in future, we should
not have an established recognised ecclesiastical
authority in this country, capable of expounding the
canon laws of our church, heretofore a sealed book
to the mass, since laws to be respected must be
known? or will it destroy the independence of the
self-supporting congregations to discuss the
propriety of creating a permanent board, whose
authority shall be conclusive and respected in the
state or Union, to inspect the scholastic and moral
testimonials of candidates for <<322>>the office of
Hazan or Shochet, and to pronounce on the
eligibility of parties to unite in wedlock, whose
right to marriage is alleged to be contrary to our
precepts, to decide upon the fitness of both male
and female applicants for admission into the pale of
our religion,—in short, to fulfill the various
legislative duties necessary in a large Hebrew
population, for the prevention of a conflict of
opinions and the preservation of a dignified,
consistent action, and which are in no wise a
portion of the administrative duties of the trustees
of each separate congregation?
We apprehend that neither the
principles of the faith nor the independence of its
separate churches will be in any danger from the
premeditated assembly, nor can the ruin be achieved
which is so despairingly depicted by one of your
correspondents. Supposing the proposed assembly a
fixed fact, who talks, who thinks of clothing it
with unlimited powers? what congregation will
invest a delegate with power, to give in their
adherence to any notion, which has not previously
been maturely deliberated on by them, and obtained
their entire and perfect acquiescence? and even
then, what power will exist and where
to enforce any resolution of change which a
supposed majority of innovators in the assembly may
pass? Every congregation has an inherent right to
arrange and settle their religious rites according
to their own will. No power exists or can be created
contrary to the political constitution of the
country, which in spirit says, “no man can be
coerced to profess any form of religious belief, or
to practise, any peculiar mode of worship.”
Therefore all these fears are
beside the question. Moreover, is it possible today
to set up in America a congregation or congregations
upon the model and principles of either of the
so-called reformed Synagogues of Europe? and will
the writer who advocates “no assembly” stand forth
and say that (even to discountenance this) we
ought to prohibit association and intermarriage with
the families of these men? To deny their children
entrance into the covenant? and to exclude their
dead from interment in our cemeteries? The
public and private character of the gentleman
alluded to precludes us from forming any such
conclusion; his intellect has expanded too much
under the perseverance of his meritorious
self-culture, to permit of his supporting the
excommunication of past times; and in America it is
by that alone suppression of opinion can be
attempted, much less achieved. It it is not
possible, under present circumstances, to prevent
dissonance betwixt the services of the various
Synagogues, how will it be possible for reformers so
readily to overcome the scruples against innovation
of the conservatives in the proposed assembly, that
non-conformity will stalk over the land, and,
instead of being Jews, men will become Deists?
We antici<< 323>>pate the reverse of this. The position
assumed by another writer in the Occident of June,
“That there is a broad platform on which all parties
can meet,” we hold to be correct; and we are with
this gentleman (whose appointment as a delegate
gratifies us greatly for we estimate him amongst the
few exceptions before alluded), in the opinion, that
in the constitution of the proposed Assembly there
is nothing to intimidate the most devoted believer,
but much good may be derived from an interchange of
opinions and sentiments upon the generally admitted
necessity of action for the improvement of the
religious knowledge and devotional feelings of the
worshippers; leaving untouched and unscathed the
worship. Our view is, that the delegates ought to
have been, and some no doubt are, sent to
discuss, deliberate, and report, NOT TO
DETERMINE the proposed Assembly being but a
preliminary to future action. It may propose
the adoption of an annual conference or convention
of ministers and laymen, similar to other religions.
IT MAY RECOMMEND the
establishment of a theological or general
educational institute.
It may propound a plan
for the creation of an ecclesiastical board or
boards.
It may suggest a union
of the charities, in all the large cities.
It may propose, recommend,
propound, or suggest any action which is deemed
serviceable by the assembled wisdom; but that being
done, its functions cease, and accordingly as these
proposals or recommendations are consistent with the
wants and spirit of the times, will its labours be
deemed valuable or valueless.
ראובן
P.S. Possibly many distant
congregations are now deterred by the fear of
expense attending the proposed Assembly; we are of
opinion that there is no necessity for a delegate to
be a member of the congregation he represents, they
may appoint any Hebrew gentleman of trust and
intelligence, resident at the North, reserving to
themselves the right of revocation and reappointing
for any future conference. |
