It
may be presumptuous in one who is, properly
speaking, but little more than a layman, both by
position and education, to undertake discussing so
grave a theme as the one we have proposed; but we
are, nevertheless, induced not to shrink from the
self-assured task, as we mean to take our stand on
scriptural grounds solely, in which mode of arguing
neither philosophical knowledge nor a deep
acquaintance with antiquarian lore is required. It
is not here the question what Aristotle or
Descartes, Leibnitz or Newton, Rousseau or Voltaire,
Steward or Spinoza, Mendelssohn or Kant, Fichte or
Hegel, nor what a Saadiah, or Maimonides or Albo has
said, but what the word of God, the sole standard,
the only measure of right among Jews, has taught and
revealed unto us and all mankind.
This confession of our little, or rather absence of,
acquaintance with philosophy may cause the learned
Thebans, of whom the world has a sufficient number,
to turn aside from our opinions as of no value to
their highly cultivated intellect; but we beg them
and others not to be so self-satisfied with their
acquirements which are at length but the inventions
of men as fallible as themselves, and often the
assumption of learned ignorance, assumed for want of
a true acquaintance with things, and which a
subsequent generation may <<266>>have ample cause to reject as unsupported by sound
argument. We say this not to disparage learning and
acquaintance with the higher investigations in the
powers and workings of the human mind; but only to
assert that so far as religion is concerned all such
things are but of secondary importance. Knowledge is
a most worthy and useful handmaiden of religion; but
it is folly to elevate it above its real teacher,
the wisdom and truth that spring from the teaching
of the divine will.
Judaism, to begin then, has been variously stated,
especially in modern times, and it has been said to
be based on various and differing principles, if
every one’s opinions are to be taken as a standard.
Pre-eminent among our teachers of religious
philosophy stands Rabbi Moses, son of Maimon, the
great Rambam of the Jews and the Maimonides of the
gentile world. Both his extensive learning in the
philosophy of the ancients, his thorough knowledge
of the theological works of our people, and his
elevated position as the chief medical adviser of
the Sultan of Egypt, gave him a rank in Israel which
few were ever able to attain, at the same time that
they rendered his fame more extensively diffused
among the rest of the world than that of any other
Hebrew who has lived after the destruction of the
temple. He has been commented on by the scholars of
all countries, and has been translated in various
languages; and both as an authority in Jewish
legislation and the doctrinal views of our people,
he has been quoted times without number. But we have
not a sufficient acquaintance with his writings,
which have, owing to our isolated position, not been
generally accessible to us, to discuss them as they
deserve; and we shall, therefore, have occasion to
make use of the kind assistance of some of our
learned correspondents, should we long continue at
our post, to enlighten our readers with regard to
the subject.
All we can do is to glance at the legacy which all
Israel, learned and unlearned, have received from
this wise physician and religious teacher. We refer
to the CREED, as it is found in our catechisms and
prayer-books, and which has been viewed as a
standard of orthodox Judaism for the last six
hundred years. We are well aware that even during
Maimonides’ lifetime a severe controversy was waged
against him by some Rabbis of France; but, unless we
greatly err, it <<267>>was not against his creed,
but against some of his philosophical views,
embraced in his Moreh Nebochim, which work,
perhaps not correctly understood even now, is the
cause of much learned disputation among those
capable to handle the subject with all the dexterity
which literary gladiators alone know how to employ.
We are neither wise nor learned enough to speak of
the merits of the contest; we leave this to abler
hands, together with other matters, for which we can
merely hope to be the purveyor for the public.
Our readers need, therefore, not to fear that we
shall trouble them with any controversial views laid
down by various writers, whether Maimonides made a
correct enumeration of the principles of religion,
or whether in strict truth there is any particular
doctrine more fundamental than the other; for in the
first place such learned trifling, even were we
fully competent to the task, could lead to no
result, and secondly, because we agree with the
assertion of those, who say that the whole Bible is
fundamental, and whatever principles, doctrines or
views it teaches, whether they be one, two, or a
million, are all alike true. This does not say that
the thirteen articles of our usual creed are not all
true, but that they are only so because they are
scriptural, and that any other principles which you,
kind reader, or any one else, can evolve from sound
scriptural arguments are equally to be received by
all orthodox, or more properly speaking, correctly
believing, Israelites, as those embraced in the hymn
Yigdal.
It
is evident enough to all endowed with common sense,
that if a discussion can be legitimately narrowed
down to this simple ground of argument, a great and
general acquaintance with controversial and
metaphysical books is neither requisite nor
desirable even; for if the Scriptures speak to us in
an intelligible style, and if they are with all the
last resort, the highest court of appeal, they are
all-sufficient for this purpose, that is, to
determine what orthodoxy means; and the subject
being thus limited, any extraneous learning, or any
flight into regions not requisite for its
elucidation, will rather prevent than hasten our
coming to a just and speedy conclusion.
Suppose, for argument’s sake, that any great
scholar, say Mendelssohn, should have alleged, in
some <<268>>book, that revelation were incompatible
with human reason (which, however, he has not done,
so far as we have understood his writings), what, we
ask, has that to do with the question? is,
therefore, revelation impossible? is it, therefore,
not consonant with Scripture? On the contrary, we
would be compelled to say that a highly learned,
wise, and, if you will, a good man has made a
declaration which is not supported, nor supportable
by the best tests which God has placed within our
reach, sound common sense and its teacher—the
revealed word which He has entrusted to us.
We
hope that our premises are understood. We do not
allege that men cannot be, and are not often,
mistaken in respect to what the Bible teaches; we do
not say that many absurdities have not been
entertained, even among Jews, which were fortified
by scriptural arguments; but that, after all, we
must come back to the Bible as the best light within
our reach; and that a literal, fair, and
unconstrained reading of the original text of the
Bible, is the last and only true arbiter in regard
to duty and doctrine. We may, nay, we should, listen
to the teaching of men superior to ourselves in
learning and wisdom; but the moment they transgress
the limits and teach us what the Holy Scriptures
contradict, then must we not hesitate which side to
choose, as little as the children of Levi hesitated,
when Moses, after the people had made themselves a
calf of molten gold, stood in the gate of the camp,
and called out, “Who is for the Lord come to me.”
Those devoted servants in the day of general
apostacy were told to gird on their swords and slay
each his brother, his friend and his relative, who
had rebelled; even so should in these days be the
conduct of the true Israelites of all ranks and
degrees of learning; each one should gird himself
with the two-edged sword which the word of God
places in his hands, and strike down error, whether
preached by friend or foe, by Israelite or the
stranger to our race. What is it to us who falls?
It is the battle for the truth which we are called
on to wage, and whoever is stricken down by the
irresistible weapon which the true believers wield,
let him perish; it is his own sin, his own
self-love, his own presumption, and his own
forsaking of the holy <<269>>standard, which have
laid him low; for we strive not for victory to adorn
our brows with the laurels of conquest, but that the
ancient faith of Israel may be vindicated, and the
people still live on as the witnesses of God, in the
same manner they were instituted from the beginning.
Let us not be understood as rejecting commentaries
and elucidations of the Scriptures, or as admitting
the right of private judgment in matters of faith
which some sects claim; for authority among
Israelites is of great value, and we are bidden in
Holy Writ to apply to the judges for the time being
in matters of controversy, of whatever kind they may
be “matters of contest within thy gates” (Deut.
xvii. 8). But at last the judges themselves were but
the expounders of the Bible; and if now there are
those among us who wish to make our faith nugatory
by introducing philosophical deductions of reason,
mere human reason, instead of what God has taught,
it is evidently our business not to accept this
philosophy of Judaism, or rather Judaism dressed up
in the vain trappings of Aristotle of old, or Hegel
of the present day, without seeing well and
carefully whether it squares exactly with the words
according to which our ancient judges pronounced
judgment and delivered into our hands the doctrines
which they had themselves received.
We
acknowledge that this in a measure opens the way for
private judgment of the Bible; but it is not an
arbitrary carrying into the text whatever each
individual may wish it to convey, but an inquiry
into the nature of any proposition which is laid
before us for acceptance. It certainly requires a
certain amount of previous study and training to
enable a person to carry on this investigation; and
it may be presumptuous in any one to offer himself
as a guide in the premises; but if the opinions are
given with moderation, without the pride of a
teacher who throws off his dicta which must be
received under some indefinite penalty, and if good
reasons are assigned for the judgment thus timidly
presented to the world, no injury can result to the
cause of truth, if even one as humble as the writer
of this essay ventures to propound his views in a
department where the greatest intellects of all
civilized nations have contended for the
<<270>>meed
of approbation, in their alleged contest for what is
right and true.
Let us turn to Deut. xiii. 1, and we shall find this
great principle laid down as our guide in all
things: “All the word which I command you, this
shall you observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto,
and shalt not diminish therefrom.” This evidently
says that all Scripture is fundamental; the whole or
none is to be received as a standard, and by it
alone must everything be judged. As a commentary to
the great principle thus authoritatively laid down,
the great prophet continues to give us three
distinct ordinances with regard to a deviation,
either in teachers, friends, or people, from the
standard of the law. From verse 2 to 6 we have the
manner of proceeding with a prophet, either actual
or pretended, who advises the worship of strange
gods of whatever kind, and he supposes even a case
where such a deceiver should be empowered to work a
miracle or give an extraordinary sign or token in
confirmation of his false mission. In either case we
are told, “Thou shalt not listen to the words of
this prophet or this dreamer of dreams, for the Lord
your God but proveth you, to know whether you indeed
love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul.”
And he next adds: “After the Lord your God shall ye
walk, and him shall ye fear: also his commandments
shall ye observe, and to his voice shall ye hearken,
him shall ye serve, and to him shall ye adhere.” The
punishment of the deceiver with the highest penalty
known to the laws is next ordained, and the reason
assigned is that the delinquent meant to inflict on
his hearers the greatest possible injury, which is
the forsaking of the true way of life which the Lord
God has commanded us to walk in. From v. 7 to 12 we
have the mode of proceeding in case a relative or
friend should appeal to us to swerve from God,
either from affection or any other cause; again we
are told that we should have no pity; the criminal
is not to be screened by our love for him, or the
long existing ties between us; for the duties to the
Supreme should outweigh all earthly considerations.
From v. 13 to 19 is the law with regard to an entire
city which should, through the advice of wicked men,
become an apostate to the law of our Father:
<<271>>in which case we are told that, in order to
prevent the evil from spreading, all contained
therein should be doomed to fire and the sword, as
it is better that the perishable should perish at
once, sooner than the existence of evil should
remain unchecked, and spread by the power of
contagion over the yet healthy portions of the body
politic.
As
a farther amplification of this ordinance we may
turn to the eighteenth chapter of the same book,
where we will find the promise of the spirit of
prophecy to be dispensed to those in whom the Lord
may find pleasure, and deputize them to go abroad as
the teachers of his people, and their guides to the
highest spiritual excellence. We read: “For the
nations which thou shalt drive out listen to the
observers of clouds and conjurers; but as for thee,
the Lord thy God hath not given thee the like. A
prophet from thy midst, from thy brothers, like unto
me, will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee,—to him
shall ye listen. All as thou didst ask of the Lord
thy God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying,
I wish no more to hear the voice of the Lord my God,
and this great fire I desire no more to see, lest I
die.” Without entering deeply into the question, we
may readily see that God here told us, that we
should not practise superstitious rites for the sake
of diving into futurity or uncovering hidden things.
But if it would please Him that we should know the
future, or the hidden present, He would send unto us
a man like Moses, inspired by higher wisdom, and
infallible in speaking the truth.
We
had, ourselves, all been made such prophets when we
stood in one grand national assembly, drawn out in
the mighty array of an entire people, making a
covenant of everlasting obedience with the Lord of
all, who promised at that time to be our protector,
and to permit us to call Him our God, thus “the
Lord Eternal, the God of Israel;” we all had
heard the words which embodied the whole essence of
the truth necessary for the well-being of society,
and which teach us, at a single glance, the main
principle of Divine worship, as well as the nature
of the existence of the Deity; still we had also
felt the weakness of human nature, when thus
confronted, so to say, with the Majesty of Heaven;
we had sunk, in our own feeling,
<<272>>into our
proper insignificance; the glory before us was too
great for our endurance; and hence the reluctance of
the masses to witness again what no human eye had
seen before their time. We begged, therefore, that
He who knows the heart might vouchsafe to select a
messenger, from time to time, to tell us what the
Lord had said, which we then would obey and do. Was
this request unreasonable? Vain mortals might say
that those who feared, themselves, to be taught by
the highest Wisdom, could not merit any farther
light; but he who knows our frame, judged not in
this wise, but promised to do according to our
words, receiving the wish for godliness as the
highest offering which we could present for his
acceptance.
The mission of the prophets was therefore accorded;
but, observe, they were to be like Moses, sons of
Israel, mortal teachers, men of the people, only
elevated above them by the possession of a higher
piety, and more extensive mental endowments, and
they were to speak according to the law of God as
revealed in the presence of the nation, and as it
was afterwards perfected by the subsequent commands
given to the father of the prophets.
Therefore says the text: “And the Lord said to me,
They have done well in what they have spoken. A
prophet will I raise up unto them from the midst of
their brethren, like unto thee, and I will place my
words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all
which I shall command him.” What this can possibly
be, in its general nature at least, not in the
particular message for each time, we have been shown
in ch. xiii. 1, &c. Therefore the Bible demands of
us, with justice, that we shall punish the
presumptuous prophet who shall dare to speak a word
in God’s name which God has not commissioned him to
speak, or who should speak in the name of other gods
than the Lord of Israel. The event of non-fulfilment
of the prediction is the test of the falsehood when
the prophet utters anything in the name of God, or
when it is evidently in contradiction to the
received revelation; for this must be indicated by
the double expression ולא
יהיה הדבר ולא יבא, “And the thing cannot be
nor will come to pass;” that which cannot be is what
contravenes the Scriptures, and that which cannot
come to pass is a false prediction, which no event
can verify.
<<273>>
This now simply was the object of the mission of the
prophets to confirm the people in our religion as
received at Horeb, and to foretell those events
which it behooved us to know for our hope and our
guidance.
This, however, proves the position with which we
started, that whatever is taught by the prophets
must be accepted as true for belief and conduct by
all Israelites. We demanded instruction, first,
from the mouth of the Most High, immediately,
without the intervention of messenger or prophet,
that is, a man sent to the people to speak to them
in behalf of the one who sent him he was called
therefore נביא
Nahbée, which is synonymous with orator, speaker,
or reciter of verses, for instance, in Exodus
iv. 10, Moses excuses himself for his unwillingness
to undertake his great message to Pharaoh, king of
Egypt, to demand the liberation of the Israelites,
upon the plea that he could not speak fluently,
being both a stammerer and slow in speech,
otherwise; the same is repeated in substance when in
Egypt he was ordered again to appear before the
king, when he was told (vii. 1), “Behold I have made
thee a god (chief, superior, judge) unto Pharaoh,
and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet
נביאך,” which was
explained, Exod. iv. 16, “He shall serve thee as a
mouth,” or one who should speak for him.
So
also in 1 Samuel ix. 9, we read: “Anciently it was
custom in Israel when a man went to inquire of God
he used to say, Come and let us go as far as the
seer ראה; for the
prophet נביא of the
present time was anciently called seer” Ro-ay. We
have, therefore, full evidence that the term Nahbée
did not signify an inspired man, at the time of
Samuel, but must have signified either an orator,
poet, or a person who recited the religious lessons
which were taught in the schools, probably
established by Samuel, or at least under his
patronage. This will appear as a correct explanation
of 1 Sam. x. 5: “After this thou (Saul) wilt come to
the hill of God where there are the outposts of the
Philistines; and it shall be as thou comest there to
the city thou wilt meet a company of Nebeeim
(prophets, or rather poets, reciter) going down from
the altar-height, and before them will be a
psaltery, tabret, flute, and harp, and they shall be
reciting (מתנבאים);
and there shall rest upon <<274>>thee a spirit of
the Lord, and thou shalt speak with them, and thou
shalt be changed to another man.”
In
verse 11, in speaking of the fulfilment of Samuel’s
prediction, we are told that those who knew Saul
previously, said to one another, “What is this that
hath happened unto the son of Kish; is Saul too
among the poets?” The term Han-nebeeim used
cannot mean among the prophets proper, as in that
case the word used, haro-im, the seers, as
that was the proper designation of inspired men in
those days.
There are other passages which could be cited to
prove that the word in question had often the
meaning here spoken of; but it is of no doctrinal
use to carry the argument farther; as all we wanted
to say is that when we first left Egypt we earnestly
wished to be taught without an intermediate agent;
but when this wish had been once gratified, we
requested, in the second place, to have a
human messenger to speak to us the message, which he
was to receive from the Most High (Exodus xx. 19).
The elevated and elegant language of prophetic
inspiration merely added dignity, to the words which
the faithful servants of God were to communicate,
but was by no means necessary to stamp them with the
seal of truth or authority. This was entirely
owing to the nature of the ideas they had to convey;
and that we find the most beautiful language which
ever flowed from human lips in the writings of
Moses, Isaiah, Micah, and others, only proves, that
in choosing his servants, the Lord selected those
whom the world even had to acknowledge as the most
deserving, cultivated, and intelligent among their
fellow-men.
In
this twofold instruction, first direct and then
indirect, we have accordingly an undeviating
standard of truth presented to us. For we have a
means of comparison by which all we may hereafter
hear can be actually and faithfully compared. It is
not to be supposed, even on the score of mere human
reason, that God would employ so much impressiveness
and pomp to instruct an entire people without the
intervention of an agent, unless He meant to lay
down permanent rules and principles, which should be
unalterable from their very nature, however the
details, or minor observances to be enforced under
the rule of the great constitution thus made known,
might be liable to <<275>>changes thereafter as his
wisdom might dictate.
For instance, the first precept, “I am the Lord thy
God;” which enjoins the belief in the existence of
the Deity, according to our received opinion, and we
have the best reasons for the correctness of our
construction, as without any other argument we may
allege that the verse (Exodus xx. 1) “And God spoke
all these words, saying,” is the preface, not the
next succeeding one—we say, that this first precept
must either be true always, or it never could have
been. We are told to acknowledge our God, who had
proved to us his existence. What can subsequent
events or ages add to this truth? can they increase
his power, and can they augment his happiness? or on
the other hand, what can subsequent events or ages
do to lessen this truth? can they take away any of
his prerogatives? can they circumscribe at pleasure
his omnipotence? The proposition must be absurd to
the commonest understanding; we, therefore, say with
justice, that herein we have a degree of comparison
to prove the soundness of any system with respect to
its ideas concerning the existence of God. For we
may say, that if its ideas are identical with ours,
they are of course correct, being the same; but if
they diverge in the least, if they invest God with
attributes of humanity, give Him an associate,
render Him fallible, unfaithful, or whatever would
derogate from his pre-eminent purity and goodness,
they must be false and unsound, and cannot,
therefore, be received by us; or else we would be
compelled to assume that we were always wrong, or
what is the same, that we were erroneously taught by
God himself concerning his own being at the time he
vouchsafed to be himself our teacher: and who will
maintain so absurd a proposition ?
(To be continued.) |
