To
the Editor of the Occident.
Reverend and Esteemed Sir:
The synod of New York, no doubt, anticipated that
your people, if they should condescend to reply to
the Address, would find in the Christian doctrines
of the second person in the Godhead and the Deity of
the Messiah, their chief objection to their
embracing Christianity. If the synod through their
Address have elicited from you a reply which gives a
candid and friendly expression of your objections to
Christianity, their object is, to a great extent,
reached. You have most liberally assured me that
your periodical is open to me, and that you are
ready to carry on the discussion farther. I am
willing and anxious to enter any field with any of
your people where there is a fair prospect of an
instructive and friendly discussion.
First, let me, in one important point, as
politicians say, “define my position.” I am not
conscious that I defend a single sentiment,—that I
favour any influence adverse to the perpetuation of
the Jews as a distinct people. In embracing
Christian principles, you would relinquish all that
you hold in common with the millions of Mahomedans
and Unitarians against the Trinity; and if you can
be one with Mahomedans on the Unity of
<<186>>God,
and yet remain a distinct people, how would your
union with Christians on the same point necessarily
destroy your peculiar nationality? In removing the
great wall that separates you from Christians, you
would break the great band that makes you one with Mahomedans. I confess myself deeply impressed with
the intense feeling of nationality that
distinguishes the Jews,—their love of their holy
language and holy land, and their pride of descent.
The hand of God is manifest in the separate
existence of this people to this time, and I would
not lay a single obstacle in the way of this
continued separation in coming ages. It is possible
that God will use this separation in carrying out
some of his greatest plans of mercy to all mankind.
I cannot see why the Jew who becomes convinced of
Christianity and who believes that Christ was a Jew,
should not have the strongest sentiment of
nationality, and be most anxious that his posterity
should know themselves as the descendants of
Abraham.
In
all circumstances the man, who has no desire to
perpetuate the name of his fathers and honour of his
nation, furnishes good evidence that he is of little
worth; and the circumstances with the Jews are most
peculiar. It is then not against the Jews as a
separate people, but against their errors, that I
write; and I have no apprehension of finding error
so entwined with the nationality of the Jews that
both must be opposed together. Judaism might once
demand the extermination of the seven nations of
Canaan; Christianity in no circumstances demands a
national extermination.
You will receive in a few days a small volume from
my pen, entitled “Identity of Judaism and
Christianity,” in which I endeavour to prove
unanswerably that the Jews, in acknowledging Jesus
Christ as their Messiah and God, would separate
themselves from the Mahomedans and Unitarians, and
return to the ancient faith of the patriarchs and
prophets who lived long before Christ. I prefer not
to transcribe any of the arguments in these letters,
but to commit the volume to you, hoping that,
without any direction from me, you will readily see
the points in the argument which I consider most
important, and faithfully fulfil your promise “to do
me justice,”
The Christian doctrines of <<187>>the second person
in the Godhead, and of the Deity of the Messiah,
appear most clearly sanctioned in your own
Scriptures. We will hope that hundreds and thousand
of your people, as the advocates of the inestimable
right of private judgment, and the friends of free
discussion, of intelligence, and truth, will examine
our arguments, and not in either indifference or
contempt pass us by as unworthy of notice. Many
thanks to you for the various notices taken of the
Synod’s Address; our obligations to you will be
still greater if you permit us to prove in the sight
of you all, that we worship no other than the God of
Israel.
I
do not expect to write more than two additional
letters in this series, unless some unforeseen event
should call me out to defend myself. Take this as a
promise that I will not, according to my present
expectations, occupy much space.
Yours, most respectfully,
M. R Miller.
Note by the Editor.—When, last winter,
the
Synod of the Presbyterian Church of New York
invited the Jews to join their communion, they being
the most Synagogue-like church, it caused a good
deal of remark, and the
Rev. Dr. Schlessinger
particularly came out with some happy observations,
which, together with the invitation and the remarks
which we thought the case demanded, are contained in
the
January number of the seventh volume of the
Occident, to which we refer the reader. We took
especial care that these replies to the invitation
should duly reach the hands of the parties making
it; but, rather to our surprise, neither public nor
private notice was taken of them.
Whilst thus wondering at the pertinacity of those
who love Israel so greatly, deeming it strange that
they should call on us for a great end and then not
be willing to look into the causes of our declining
to join with them, we were favoured with a letter
from our correspondent, the Rev. Mr. Miller, asking
of us to permit him to send a rejoinder to Dr.
Schlessinger’s article to all our readers in a
separate pamphlet. We did not think it proper to
comply with his request, and hence Mr. M. has since
then issued it through the usual channel, and offers
it for sale in various quarters (as we perceive by
an advertisement in the Asmonean), at a nominal
rate, his intention being the dissemination of truth
as he understands it, not the obtainment of any
pecuniary gain. Mr. M. also promised us to cause any
reply of our own to be inserted in some of the
papers be<<188>>longing to his party.
Accordingly we
sent him a sermon on Zechariah ii. 10, preached in
Philadelphia on last Sabbath, Chanukkah, in view of
this question; but we regret to perceive that up to
the moment of writing this no paper or magazine in
connexion with the Presbyterian Church has thought
proper to give it publicity, although asked by one
of its ministers as a matter of good faith, and as
it was necessary that we should not be regarded by
the world at large as unable to give a reply. We may
leave our readers to judge for themselves, whether
if the remarks we offered in the above address had
been very weak our friendly opponents would not have
spread it before their readers long before this.
We
may as well mention in this connexion that some
weeks ago we obtained a letter from our valued
correspondent J. R. P., of Hackney, England,
containing a formal reply to a part of the Synod’s
arguments, which we, at his request, duly forwarded
to the Rev. John M. Krebs, D. D., stated Clerk of the
Synod of New York, with a note of our own, in which
we complained of the unfairness of the gentlemen
signing the invitation maintaining so profound a
silence when two answers had been placed in their
hands by persons who could not justly be overlooked
as unworthy of respect. Dr. Krebs, in a few days
after, sent a reply, in which he stated that neither
he nor any officer of the Synod had any right to
reply for himself, but that all the papers in his
possession, and any others that might reach him,
should be laid before the Synod at its next
assembling in October.
We
confess that it looks curious to us to witness this
unwillingness on the part of learned doctors of
divinity to assume this responsibility of contending
with a few simple Jews. Is it the intention of the
learned doctors to issue a formal bulletin once a
year, and to wrap themselves up in their dignity for
the remainder of the time, and say, We cannot reply?
In what manner is truth ever to be elicited under
such a system of self-imposed silence? It is true
that no one can answer for the Synod as such; but
each one of its component members can speak for
himself, and as the Jews fight singly, their
antagonists ought to do the same. There is no fair
play in a whole body of the highest talent in the
country trying its skill against a plain merchant
like our friend J. R. P., or against a person who
has never obtained a college degree like the editor
of this magazine; and hence we suppose it is against
Dr. S. that the caution is required. Indeed it is a
noble resolve; as usually, “the better part of
valour is discretion.”
At
all events the Jews have shown hat they are ready;
three champions have entered the lists, and if their
fanfare is not replied to, if the
chal<<189>>lengers back out and will not redeem
their gage, it is no fault of theirs; and hence, let
no one say hereafter that our people are afraid to
meet the issue.
But to revert again to Mr. Miller. When we returned
from our journey south we found on our table the
above communication, together with his pamphlet, the
latter however we have not yet found time to read,
as our prolonged absence has not left us any leisure
for more than our ordinary work, which had
accumulated unduly since we left. We promise him,
however, that his reasonings shall not be treated
with scorn, and that if necessary they shall be
replied to. In the meanwhile, however, let us
confine our remarks to his article. We offered him
the use of the Occident to speak to our readers,
although we did not think it proper to permit him to
send them through our means a sectarian tract. Mr.
M. has consented to avail himself of our permission,
and has transmitted accordingly the first of a
series of papers.
It
is scarcely requisite to meet Mr. M. at the very
outset of his discussion before he has adduced any
proofs. But let us nevertheless state at once that
his opening is very unsatisfactory. He draws a
comparison between Jews being Unitarians, with
Mahomedans professing the same views around them,
and that still they remain Jews. But does not every
one see that there is a material difference between
the two cases? The Jews do not agree with the
Mahomedans any farther than that one mere abstract
principle; in everything else they act irrespective
of the customs of their neighbours, they are in
other words no Mahomedans, though both believe in
the unity of God. The Jews observe their religion,
and deny the truth of Mahomed’s mission. Is not this
dissent enough?
But how would the case be if we were to act
according to the views of the New York Synod and
adopt Christianity with all its faults and beauties,
supposing it has either or both? How would we
maintain our identity? Can any one imagine that the
Jews, having embraced the ideas of their neighbours,
could continue to form a sort of separate empire
among themselves? to refuse eating the flesh of the
swine? to continue to observe the seventh day
Sabbath? the feast of redemption? the fast of the
atonement? when their new brothers reject all these
as the ancient order of things which has been done
away with by the alleged second (or third) person
in the Godhead?
One thing is certain, that taking the Acts of the
Apostles as an authentic work, which we, to confess
the truth, do not farther than probability goes; it
would appear that from the very beginning of
Christianity a systematic effort was made,
especially by Paul, the so-called
<<190>>Apostle to
the gentiles, to dispense with the observance of the
Mosaic law; and to follow faithfully in his steps
and those of his colleague, Peter, on whom the
Church of Rome founds its authority, seems to have
been the business of all their successors up to this
very hour. No one more than a Presbyterian divine is
sedulous in making it apparent that the weekly
Sabbath has been, literally speaking, abolished so
far as the Bible injunction goes, and that an
inferential day was substituted therefor.
Now this change is either defensible or not; if the
first, it must be that the Sabbath was no more
necessary, as the world, we presume, was no longer
created by divine power, to commemorate which it was
instituted, when the Christian Messiah appeared; and
that moreover some greater event than the creation
had taken place, which it was necessary to signalize
by a Sabbath of some sort, we say of some sort,
because no one has ever yet transferred the whole
obligation of the Jewish Sabbatic rest to the first
day of the week. But the Bible teaches that the
children of Israel should keep the Sabbath forever
as a perpetual covenant, as a sign of God’s power;
consequently, if the change be correct, there must
be an error somewhere in the Scriptures, and we may
freely leave it to the Christian divines to point it
out and to reconcile it with their views the best
way they can.
But if the change be indefensible upon scriptural
grounds, the only method by which the respective
parties can measure truth, what is then to be
alleged in favour of a system which subverts the
whole biblical scheme of duty, and establishes in
its place an arbitrary enactment of fallible
mortals, who, to say the least, cannot show any
claim to a better knowledge of divine things than
those whom they wish to transform into mere copyists
of their unsound opinions? The very transfer, or
rather the abolition of the Sabbath, proves that
there is an irreconcilable difference between the
assumption of the unity of God as a principle of
faith, and that which enforces a trinity; for only
on such a ground of necessity, as a requisite of
self-preservation against the power of the ancient
religion, can the Christians excuse the
unwarrantable liberty they have taken with God’s
holy law.
The early Catholics were honest at all events; they
prohibited Jewish practices, even the very
observance of the Sabbath in question, so that their
adherents should not Judaize, as they aptly
termed it. We also think it was the council of
Trent, assembled in the middle of the 16th century,
which decreed for the same reason that the Christian
Easter should not be celebrated at the same time
with the Jewish Passover, so as to place an entire
barrier between the adherents of the monotheistic
idea and those who favour a plurality in the
Godhead.
<<191>>
The subject admits of a long argument which, it is
possible enough, we may present hereafter on some
fitting occasion. But for the present we must
confine it within very narrow limits, too narrow
indeed for a proper elucidation thereof. It will,
however, be readily apparent without entering very
far into theological disputes, that the Jew, to
remain separate in his nationality, must have
national principles. Say, however, that he is to
adopt Christianity, as respects the idea of a
trinity, a three joined in one, three persons yet
but one god, three essences and still but one being,
an idea which we deem both absurd and unscriptural,
unreasonable and irreligious: he is certainly also
bound to learn his practices from those who profess
the same ideas.
The very first thing that would present itself to a
young man thus converted, or rather perverted from
the truth, would probably be, his settlement in
life, or what is the same, to become the head of a
family. He would marry then, not a Jewess born, who
does not share his opinions, for she would reject
him, and he, for the sake of domestic peace, ought
to refuse placing his happiness upon a person so
devoid of his opinion on salvation. Besides, why
should he confine himself to his sisters in the
flesh? is he not one now with the great church
of Christ—we use the common phrase? are not all
gentiles equally his brothers and sisters in spirit?
why should he reject an alliance with them? Besides
all this, worldly advantage would counsel him to
choose from the larger congregation; he will
have more choice as respects wealth, beauty, and
family alliance, advantages not often overlooked, if
attainable, by candidates for the married state.
Now, let our worthy correspondent tell us what would
become of this Jew’s separate nationality? His wife,
to a certainty, would not go to the Synagogue to
hear doctrines preached which she and her husband
think heretical; she would not keep the Sabbath of
the Lord to please his notions; she would not
observe the Passover, because his conscience demands
of him to eat unleavened bread; she would not
circumcise her son at eight days old, when infant or
adult baptism is all she deems necessary.
Are we right? But suppose even the convert should
find or be already married to a Jewess, and they
should agree in their religious opinions, and
believe firmly in the division of the Godhead, can
you tell us, why they should continue the practice
of Judaism? is there, according to your ideas a
Christianity for the gentiles and another for the
Jews? We know full well that the Reverend John Oxlee, of Molesworth, England, maintains this
opinion, which he has published in his letters to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, respecting the folly
of asking Jews on being converted to forego Jewish
practices and the ob<<192>>servance of their
religion according to the code of Moses; but the
absurdity is nevertheless not the less glaring.
What is Judaism in its practice, but a testimony of
one people that they believe in the entire scheme of
revelation, as given to Moses? and what is Christian
practice, but a testimony equally emphatical on the
part of its followers, that they do not believe in
the obligation of this law of our great teacher? or
else they would endeavour to observe it in all
particulars, even as we do.
You will say, however, that the original doctrine of
the Jews was the belief in a separation of the
divine essence into different personages. But does
it not strike you as extremely unfortunate for your
position, that the Israelites always rejected this
very idea, at the risk of everything which man can
endure? Was it for a shadow they suffered? Was it
for a vanity to which they sacrificed all that man
holds dear?— Pause one moment, Christian friends,
think but an instant, and you must be struck with
the reflection, that from the very inception of
Christianity, the great opposition to its adoption
could not have been made, if there had been a
single voice among the Jews that a plurality
was consistent with their doctrine of the unity of
God.
It
is indeed something curious, that it is but a late
thing that the discovery was made, that the Jewish
doctrine of a unity is identical with the Christian
trinity. We speak according to our knowledge in
stating that this discovery is a late thing; we are
however so little acquainted with polemical
literature, that this assertion may be of a very
ancient date. But, ancient or modern, it seems, as
all history enables us to discover, that the Jews
never could be persuaded that their faith was
identical with any other; they always said that they
stood alone in maintaining conjointly the belief in
one sole God and Creator, and the obligation to
observe the law which He has promulgated for their
instruction. They resisted Antiochus; they resisted
Hadrian; they resisted the popes of Rome; they
resisted the califs of Bagdad; they resisted the
sultans of Constantinople; and why? because they
contended for a shadow? for a vain subtle point of
theological hair-splitting? The very idea is absurd;
they always understood their worldly interests too
well, to risk and dare so much for something which
was not every way deserving their whole mental
energy, their entire worldly wealth, their very
earthly life.
It
is therefore evident that there must be employed
some stronger convincing reasoning than the
argumentum ad hominem, literally proofs against
the body, which Christians have thought themselves
authorized to use against us from time to time; our
bodies were tortured, that our <<193>>spirit might
comprehend a doctrine which we are now told, and
perhaps were then assured, is contained in our very
law. But if neither disputations carried on in the
presence of popes and cardinals, if neither
persecutions nor bribes could effect a change of
sentiment in the masses: what likelihood, we ask, is
there now of the whole Jewish people coming over, so
as to maintain their identity as a nation, whilst
they profess the belief in the trinity which is
desired of them?
If
it be true that we are bound to maintain intact the
Jewish nationality, since Mr. Miller says
Christianity is not to destroy it: it is certain, as
we have proved, that it must be done through an
observance of the ceremonies and the peculiar laws
of our people in general; they must intermarry only
with those who believe and act with them as
adherents to the Mosaic law, and they must
accordingly be circumcised and baptized; observers
of the Sabbath and the Sunday; believers in one god
and three gods; keepers of the Passover and Easter;
attendant at Synagogue and at church; eat the
unleavened bread and partake of the sacrament; in
short, be nondescripts in opinion and conduct,
whilst to crown all, they must avoid familiar
intercourse with the gentiles, who naturally, as
said already, cause the disruption of such a state
of existence.
If
this process be at all practicable, therefore, it
must be for the whole people to be converted at
once; that we might live among the Christian
population believing in a trinity, as we now do
among the Mahomedans, believing in the Unity, with a
strict observance of our faith.—Consequently, the
conversion of single persons or single families is
wrong in principle, even according to the opinion of
many learned and pious Christians; and hence our
correspondent and the Synod must condemn the
practice of the conversion society and others, who
are so sedulous to catch any stray sheep which may
happen to fail into their hands.—We will take our
friends at their word, that Christianity under no
circumstance demands the national extermination of
the Jews; so let it be;—ask no one, accept no
convert, till the whole nation knocks at your door;
and as this time will be long absent, we trust that
they will say with us, in every sense of the words
of the daughter of Zion, “Esto perpetua.” |
