|
To
The Editor of the Occident.
Reverend Sir:
The three leading articles of the last three numbers
of the Occident, were the batteries of the orthodox
party against their well- equipped opponents, the
reformers; or, as some people took them, as a direct
attack upon the humble writer of these lines, or
against his system or supposed system. You were kind
enough <<493>>to allow me, or any other man, to give
his views and his justification to the public, a
privilege which I was refused in the half official
organ of some leaders of the darkest stability. I
will therefore make use of your permission as well
as I can.
I
consider your articles as a preparation of the
battle-ground, since you did not yet come to the
main points which are:
- That the Bible forbids every reform.
- That the prophets teach the resurrection of
the body, and the coming of a personal Messiah.
- That every Jew, in order to be a Jew, is
bound to believe these dogmas.
Allow me, therefore, to prepare in this letter the
ground for my defence, or for the defence of reform,
if you like better to oppose a system than an humble
individual.
It
is by no means a matter of indifference to me, what
a Newton, a Leibnitz, or an Alexander Humboldt,
said or wrote; for all the facts of natural
philosophy, no less than those of mathematics and
history, are realities, which cannot be denied,
changed, reformed, or demonstrated away from the
realm of nature, in which God was pleased to place
us. If anybody would prove by some passage in the
Bible, that 3x3=8, or that it would be eight at some
future time; or that the two sides of a triangle
are, or will be at some future time, smaller than
its third side: we would say,
- Either that mathematical principles are false; or
that
- The Bible is in this respect falsified; or
that
- The expounder made a wilful or accidental mistake.
But we take for granted, with our ordinary mode of
reasoning, that the principles of mathematics are
correct, and that the Bible is a divine truth as a
whole, and in all its particulars; consequently the
fault must be in the expounder, and in him only; and
I do not think that any objection can be made
against this conclusion. All laws of nature, and all
experience of history, are as true as that 3x3=9, or
as the principle, that two sides of a triangle are
larger than the third; no one, even not the most
orthodox, can prove the opposite; wherefore we must
come to the conclusion, that as dogmas have been
taught, and even <<494>>proved by biblical texts,
which are contradicted by the laws of nature, or by
the facts of history, whoever has so expounded them,
must have taken an erroneous view of his subject, or
has misinterpreted the word of God. I readily admit,
Mr. Editor, your position in regard to mental,
moral, or transcendental philosophy, which is
formed, reformed, and deformed, by nearly every
school; and which must of necessity change to alter
its views, if they run counter to any new
discoveries, or the events experienced, in nature or
history; but as regards natural philosophy (even
logic and psychology) and history, I will maintain
my position, unless I am convinced of the contrary;
and if you do not succeed in doing so, my views on
reform, progress, development of Judaism, and even
my views on resurrection and Messiah, are proved by
the logical consequences of my position respecting
natural philosophy and history.*
You admit, that all speculative sciences must be
disregarded, when they are contradicted by immutable
realities; and taking (as I do) Bible to be an
immutable and unchangeable reality, because it is
the word of God, for all men and in all ages, you
reject the speculations of Hegel, Jacobi, Schelling,
etc. inasmuch as they are incompatible with the
Bible. Please, sir, permit me to reason in the same
method. If the expounders of the Bible teach us
doctrines incompatible with the laws of nature,
which are the works of the same eternal God, or to
the experience of history, which is the realized
will of the same benign Providence: I am bound to
reject them, in order not to be forced to doubt the
authenticity of the Bible, or to suppose that
Infinite Wisdom contradicted itself in Bible,
nature, and history.
It
is by no means a matter of indifference to me, what
the Talmud states or how the Midrashim think on the
Bible; though I consider everything which is of a
human origin liable to mistakes, fallible in many
respects, and therefore subject to a sound and
scientific criticism; and though I have found plenty
of doctrines and opinions in the works of antiquity,
to which I am <<495>>honestly opposed: I,
nevertheless, venerate these incomparable treasures
for their great value as a whole; I discover in them
the views of our fathers concerning our sacred
possession; I find in them sound and practical
wisdom, noble and liberal principles, true and
honest comments on the Bible. But where the Talmud
comes in conflict with the facts of natural
philosophy, and their logical consequences, or with
the events, as experienced in history, and their
natural results, I am fearless on the side of truth;
hence, where the Talmud imposes upon us doctrines or
the observances of ceremonies, which are foreign to
the Bible, and which infested us for many centuries
with the spirit of intolerance, and of separation;
which degraded religion into a compendium of blind
and insignificant rites; which depressed the
youthful spirit of Judaism, and drove thousands from
our community; or where the Talmud comes in conflict
with the demands of our age, which, if listened to
will bring destruction and ruin in its train; there
I am fearless on the side of reform; and if
thousands of learned or not learned doctors say “The
Talmud is divine,” I must a thousand times pity
them, that they did not look deeper into the matter,
or that they lack the moral courage to speak the
truth.
It
is by no means indifferent to me, what our
Maimonides, Nachmanides, Jehuda Halevi, Aben Ezra,
said or wrote; for they were pious Israelites,
honest and upright men, investigators in the field
of science and speculative philosophy, deep scholars
and powerful reasoners; and though Aben Ezra or Don
Isaac Abrabanel come at times in conflict with Rabbi
Akiba, Gamliel, or even Hillel, we have no right to
decide in favour of the one or the other, because of
his authority which makes his opinion preferable; a
chapter of one of those philosophers deserves the
same regard and attention, and is entitled to the
same authority, as a section of the Mishnah. But
still they were men fallible, as well as the
Talmudists; and as Maimonides was misled by the
Grecian philosophy, to think all the celestial
bodies to be living beings, or inferior angels, they
were liable to commit other mistakes.
We
must therefore come to the conclusion, that all
speculative sciences, those of Kant, Locke, Wolf,
Fichte, <<496>>Jacobi, Hegel, Schelling, &c., as
well as those of the Tannaim, Moraim, Geonim, and
Moorish Jewish philosophers are true, so far as they
can stand a trial in opposition to the Bible; that
their views on the Bible are true, so far only as
they can stand a trial, if weighed against the facts
of natural philosophy and history, and their logical
consequences, which are the rock (Zur) on
which God placed Moses, to show him the glory of the
Most High.
If
you will permit me, I mean to continue my reply in
your next.
Please, sir, to accept the assurance of my warmest
friendship and highest respect.
Yours,
ISAAC M. WISE, D. D.
Albany, November 13, 5611. |
