|
Under this head we gave, in our last number,
some
remarks of our own concerning the reported doctrinal
defects of Dr. Isaac Wise, the letter of the
President of his congregation, and a statement made
under oath before a Notary Public at Charleston,
concerning some public declaration made by Dr. Wise,
pending a controversy held between Dr. Raphall and
Mr. Poznanski. All the characters in the case are
sufficiently well known to the generality of our
readers to make it evident that we very reluctantly
opened the Occident for any such a publication; not
that we do not condemn the neological notions of an
impersonal Messiah, and the affirmation of a mere
belief in the immortality of the soul in
contradistinction to the resurrection of the dead,
but be<<307>>cause, first, we feel a high regard for
Dr. Wise and his talents, so greatly developed as
they are in a comparatively very young man, and were
hence unwilling to give him pain by any agency of
ours; and secondly, because we foresaw that other
statements would be drawn into the defence and
replication, which have nothing to do with the
doctrinal controversy in question. Any one
acquainted with the course of public business among
American congregations, as the editor of this
magazine is, knows, at first sight of any dispute,
that not always the best motives are the basis of an
apparent earnest zeal for religion and the welfare
of the people.
How matters stand in the present case is not
difficult to decipher. There are parties in the
Albany congregation—one a reformist, the other
professing to be orthodox. Now, the friends of Dr.
Wise allege that Mr. Spanier, the president, and
others, have a personal ill-will to Dr. Wise, not
because he is a reformer, but because he boldly
reproved the gross conduct of some men, whom he has
thus provoked, and Mr. S. wishing the office vacated
for some relative of his own. This is the sum of the
allegation of the reverend doctor’s friends, that it
is not religious zeal, but a mere personality, which
has elicited the appeal to the public in the
Occident and the Asmonean. They communicate to us
certain doings of the editor of the latter paper,
which we do not choose to publish, as we mean not to
interfere with our cotemporary, for we should at
once be taxed with wishing to injure him, for the
sake of increasing our circulation, a charge which
we do not care just now to bring down on us.
But the acts of baseness (which, if true, ought to
cover the perpetrators with everlasting infamy)
alleged to have been committed against Dr. Wise, do
not unfortunately contradict the statement which we
laid before the public. They only prove that the
doctor is an ill-used man, and by no means clear up
the difficulty of the case. To our apprehension, Dr.
W. would have stood in a glorious light, could he,
in the face of the persecution, for so Mr. Beckel’s
letter to us exhibits the case, have been able to
prove that nothing could be alleged against his
views regarding Judaism, that no appeal could
possibly be made from the majority of his
congregation to the people at large. It is confessed
that four-fifths of the Beth-El Kahal are strenuous
supporters of Dr. Wise.
When lately he returned from Charleston, where he
had been elected as minister of the reform
congregation, he was urged by a large number to
remain at Albany, and the sum of two hundred dollars
voted in addition to his former salary. The
President, we are told, declared that the treasury
was not able to afford it; but the
<<308>>members,
by a voluntary subscription, at once contributed the
sum required. This proves how strong the attachment
of the people towards their pastor, a feeling honourable alike to both parties.
When now, in the face of this, a conspiracy is
batched up against the Rabbi, for such is Dr. W. in
his flock, because he has in the lawful exercise of
his authority prohibited the people from eating of
the killing of the former Shochet, whom he had
suspended for causes which he deems sufficient, in
which, to confess the truth, if we are correctly
informed, we entirely coincide with him; when he is
dragged before a court of law on a suit for damages
for doing duty in the premises boldly and
fearlessly: we say that those who have been active
in such procedures deserve the condemnation of all
right-thinking Israelites; for these acts cannot be
justified by any plea of heterodoxy, for that must
stand on its own ground.
If, in addition, it be true, as reported to us, that
a man in authority attempted to stop Dr. W. in his
functions, by merely informing him that he had been
suspended, and then to prevent him delivering a
sermon as is his custom, we must unhesitatingly
pronounce our utter abhorrence of such unauthorized
acts. The minister, whoever he be, is not a hired
servant to be dismissed at a moment’s warning, or to
be browbeaten and ordered about by the civil
officers of the congregation. What business has the
President, in a common-sense view, with the pulpit
or the reading-desk? Let him preserve order, see
that decency prevails during worship; and with that
he ought to be satisfied. If it unfortunately should
happen that either Rabbi, Reader, or Minister merits
being suspended or removed, the sentence, if there
be one, ought to be communicated to him before the
service commences, nay, before the Sabbath and holy
day, for these should be should be devoted to mental
no less than bodily rest; and why should the persons
who perform the highest functions known to our
religion be the only ones excluded from the joy in
the Lord which the sacred days are primarily
intended to promote?
No
error of Dr. Wise, we assert, can justify any such
outrage, and we deeply regret, we almost blush, to
be compelled to make the statement, that this should
have occurred in a congregation professing to be
Israelites, and more yet, that when the people
thought proper to vindicate the honour of the man
they had elected—wisely or unwisely is not the
question, he being at all events the man in whom
they had confidence—by an appeal to the laws of the
country to protect him against the recurrence of the
like indignity, a man who is said to be a Parnass of
one of the New York city congregations, on being
asked by the <<309>>court, “Is it customary with the
Jews to abuse their ministers in such a manner could
answer, “Yes, sir, we do not care about our
ministers; we just as leave abuse them as not.”
What can the world—what can Jews themselves think
about the manner in which our ministers are
regarded, if a public statement, like this, could be
made by one who is in authority, who does no doubt
think himself elevated far above the preacher and
expounder of the word of God; for is the latter not
merely a scholar? does he not receive a salary? “O,
vain man, dressed in brief little authority!” might
we justly exclaim; and how long since is it that
scholarship is of no value? that the fortuitous
election to preside over the business affairs of
the people confers the authority to insult those
whom the law of God declares shall be honoured and
obeyed in their teaching? and how can their teaching
be obeyed, if they are degraded into the servile
tools of civil power? If such should unfortunately
become the general sentiment of the people, no one
ought to assume the station of public teacher; and
far more honourably and usefully would the man of
learning be employed to dig the field for a bare
subsistence than to expose himself to be abused at
pleasure. But we are happy that these degrading
views are not participated in by all congregations,
though in most, the respect usually shown to the
spiritual leaders is not equal to what Christians do
under similar circumstances, nor what of right it
ought to be, irrespective of what is done by others
than Israelites.
Dr. Wise’s friends farther claim for him, that he
has brought a chaotic body of men coming from every
part of Germany, without feelings in common, and
animated by sectional prejudices, into union, so as
to form a respectable congregation of one hundred
and fifty members. That his preaching is energetic,
and full of holy fire and instruction. That many
have been brought to respect the Sabbath and the
other sacred days, whereas formerly they were
indifferent to the Lord’s rest. That not content
with the learning he acquired in Europe, in the
cities of Prague, Pressburg and Mantua, he devotes
his nights to study to an extent which induced those
who value him to remonstrate with him on his
over-exertions. That he has laboured faithfully and
well to propagate instruction among the children,
and that he is the main stay of the congregational
school, which is flourishing notwithstanding the
late deplorable occurrences All this, we confess,
tells well and much in praise, of our
fellow-labourer’s great usefulness, and it should
induce his opponent “to be to his faults a little
blind,” if even they cannot extend kindness to his
qualities.
<<310>>
Now, as to the subjects properly at issue, Dr. Wise
acknowledges that he did answer “no” to the question
respecting the resurrection of the body; he does
think the matter involved in obscurity as developed
in the Talmud, but is willing to admit himself in
the wrong if convinced of error. Now we deem that we
can find enough of Biblical reasons without
resorting to the Talmud to prove the doctrine to be
a revealed truth, and we trust that we shall be
enabled to establish this in the future; this month
we merely give the commencement of the discussion,
and hope to continue it in connexion with the coming
of a personal Messiah in future numbers. As regards
the coming of the son of David we will quote the
words of Dr. W. in a letter to us: “That I answered
no to the question on
תחית המתים is true;
but according to the best of my memory I cannot say
that a question on the Messiah was asked or answered
at all. I lectured on that subject several times,
but none of those signed to the certificate were
present. The restoration of Israel was never
doubted, even by honest Christians; but the
משיח (Messiah) as
described by the Talmud, and as living in the
imagination of the pious ancient Jew, cannot be
found in the Bible. I cannot find it; but if anybody
can show me this משיח
in the prophets, I am ready to yield and not before.
I write now on this subject, and thus try my utmost
to find this renowned personage in the Bible, but I
cannot find it; I should be very much obliged to
anybody who will find it for me in the Bible.”
So
far so good; Dr. Wise distinctly says that he cannot
find the personal redeemer alluded to in Scripture;
but is willing to adopt the belief if it can be made
clear from Scripture, we should judge solely,
as he excepts to the imaginings concerning this
point by the pious ancient Jew. Well, we are ready
to adopt the challenge, and have therefore
commenced the discussion in the Occident by laying
down our premises, which, as the reader will
perceive, are solely Scriptural. It may appear
utterly presumptuous in us to accept the challenge
not alone against Doctor Wise, who at all events is
honest and bold in his avowal, and does not shrink
from publicly stating his opinions, but against a
whole school of our neologists, who imagine that
nothing better can happen than a universal diffusion
of the monotheistic idea among all mankind; but in
the present instance diffidence would be quite
misplaced, for an advocate of Judaism, the belief of
the ancient pious Jew, must not fear to meet
its opponents, from whatever quarter they may come.
We
promise Dr. Wise one thing, that having no personal
feelings against him, least of all men living, and
always abhorring personalities, we shall conduct
our part of the discussion in an abstract
<<311>>manner, taking up the subject point by point,
as though it were entirely a new inquiry, on which
not a word had been written before; and thus elicit
the truth as nearly as we can do it. We shall be
ready to accede him all possible space for a reply
and to state his objections, and we at the same time
are willing to allow those thinking with him to come
to his aid, whilst we invite the orthodox
also to assist us, as it surely is more commendable
to teach than denounce without giving any
reason except that of authority, which is not
a very cogent convincing proof in the present age of
the world.
In
the letter referred to from Dr. W.’s friends, our
remarks introducing the certified statement of
Messrs. Hart, Rosenfeld, and Valentine, are
characterized as in a measure lending our aid to
destroy one of the few men of intellect of our
nation in this country, and that what we said was
not a very flattering comment on our worthy friend.
We appeal to our readers whether we said the least
personal of Dr. W., and whether if it had been any
thing else but a doctrinal subject, the article
would have found a place in the Occident. We
unhesitatingly say, no; if there is a personal
difference between a part of a congregation and its
minister, the public press is not the medium for its
discussion; the meeting room of the people is far
better calculated, especially if the minister has so
large a majority in his favour, and his opponents
are as represented, the least important.
And even as regards doctrinal differences we deem
the press useful only to discuss them, so as to
excite an examination of the question, and to give
the delinquent an opportunity to alter his views
upon conviction, or if this be impossible, to warn
the people, and to caution them against the adoption
of error preached by those in authority. There may
be instances where an appeal to the public is quite
admissible, where a great wrong has been unjustly
suffered; but in the present instance, though we
must condemn unhesitatingly the conduct of the
president, if the statement submitted to us is true
in every respect, still we cannot avoid saying on
the other side that the minister is even more to
blame for adopting neological doctrines, which the
pious and ancient Jews deem subversive of their
religion. We pity him that with all his learning he
has not been able to discover the truth of
Maimonides’ creed; but he ought to have asked others
to enlighten him, if this be possible, before he
differed so widely from the great luminary whom he
himself so highly and so justly reveres. Perhaps he
makes also a difference between Rambam the
philosopher and the religious teacher; we for our
part should grieve to see any cause for such a
distinction in that great character; his silence,
should it actually exist, in his Moreh, with
respect to the two doctrines in question
<<312>>can
only be owing to their not belonging to his
inquiries into the nature of absolute religion, and
not to any philosophical doubt in the premises.
In
conclusion, we must again repeat our regret at the
space this article occupies in our pages; but we
could not refuse admitting the complaints of Dr.
Wise’s friends, and in justice we must also defend
our own position from the assumption of having done
him any wrong; and sure we are, that in his own
mind, Dr. W. acquits us of all blame. |
