|
The attention of the Jewish public being directed to
the movements of this congregation, we beg leave to
lay before them a statistical and comprehensive
sketch of the past and passing events which have
agitated, and are now agitating this body.
At
the period when the Rev. G. Poznanski was elected,
for a probationary term of two years, Hazan of the
K. K. B. E., it was one of the most orthodox,
religious, and charitable in the United States.
After the expiration of one year, the Congregation,
in consideration of his ardent zeal in the cause of
our holy religion, his piety, and conformation to
all the laws, both Mosaic and Rabbinical, elected
him for life.
As
soon as this event took place, a course
diametrically opposite was immediately pursued by
Mr. Poznanski, which was the cause of the disastrous
outbreak in 1840, when upwards of forty of the most
conscientious and strictly conservative members were
scrupulously compelled to withdraw (among whom were
the founders of the Congregation), and to leave in
the power of its rulers not only that sacred
edifice, which was identified with many holy
associations, but were denied any participation in
the management of the Karen ka-yemet fund, to which
they had largely contributed, until it had
accumulated to the sum of $25,000, the interest of
which was appropriated to support the very
individual who, by his arbitrary and anti-Jewish
conduct, caused another dispersion in Israel, and
depriving the aged supporters of the Congregation,
their venerable matrons and their
<<204>> children,
not only of a place of worship, but also of the
privileges of sepulture; for, immediately upon
their withdrawal, the constitution of the K. K. B.
E. was amended, as, follows:—”Any subscriber, Yehid,
or member of this Congregation, male or female, who
shall habitually attend Divine service at any
other place of worship within the city than that of
the K. K. B. E., or subscribe thereto, as members or
Yehedim, shall be charged annually one hundred
dollars.” We do not deem any comment
necessary.
The Congregation remained in a lethargic state until
its second revolution, in 1843, which involved it in
an expensive and tedious lawsuit, and ended in the
withdrawal of about twenty-five members, who were
opposed to the abrogation of the second day of the
holydays, and other innovations, suggested by Mr.
Poznanski. This event caused a great deal of
unhappiness and dissension among families who had
hitherto lived in peace and friendship until the
advent of Mr. Poznanski and the promulgation of his
new doctrines.
These twenty-five joined those who had withdrawn in
1840. The K. K. B. E. is now threatened with a third
and probably final dissolution, when this event
takes place; and of its near approach indications
never were more palpable. It will, no doubt, cause
the overthrow for ever of the unhallowed and vain
panoply of power with which its present rulers are
invested.
It
numbers at this time about forty members, and is
divided into two parties, whom we shall call, for
the sake of distinction, Radical and Conservative.
Their present minister, the Rev. Julius Eckman, was
elected about eleven months ago (Mr. Poznanski
having resigned), on a probationary term of two
years. This gentleman is a regularly ordained
רב מובחק בישראל,
and empowered, by virtue of a diploma honourably
conferred on him, under the seals of the Rabbinates
of Berlin and Prenzlaw (which are two of the
greatest acknowledged authorities of Europe), and
was duly prepared by an examination at the Royal
Frederick Wilhelm College at Berlin, and by his
having been a Civic Universitatis Berolinensis rite
inscriptus for the space of five years. He was
elected contrary to his expectations, as he
<<205>> had expressed himself to all those who
called on him previous to that time, as being
entirely opposed to the principles avowed by their
late Hazan; and in his inaugural address he
expressly told the Congregation that he appeared
before them simply as a teacher in Israel, and
objected to being considered their spiritual head.
The cause of this division into two parties of such
opposite extremes originated as follows. The Rev.
Dr. Eckman, from repeated conversations, on his
first arrival, with Mr. Poznanski, and from personal
observations afterwards, found that all positive
religion was rejected; no religious instruction was
communicated in the Synagogue (as Mr. Poznanski did
not lecture); prophecy was denied; hence the denial
of all that is doctrinal and national. The
non-observance of the law not only passively
connived at, but his exposing some laws that might
offend our modern delicacy to the view of his
adherents, the more effectually to prove there was
no necessity for observing them; his request to Dr.
E. to preach against the Rabbis, and all
observances, whether Biblical or Rabbinical; and
his acknowledgment to him that it was of no
consequence where the Bible came from, convinced Dr. Eckman of Mr. Poznanski’s daring infidelity, as Mr.
Newman calls it.
Dr. Eckman kept silent until Yom Kippur, when Mr.
Poznanski was called to take part in the sacred
functions of that day. This Dr. Eckman, as an honest
man, could not consent to, and privately
remonstrated with Mr. Poznanski on the great crime
of profanation. Mr. Poznanski replied that he not
only did not believe these prayers, but he detested
them; whereupon Dr. Eckman denounced him to the
Parnass, not only as an infidel, but inimicably
disposed to the very institution of Judaism, and
positively refused to take any part in the service
of that day. The personal friends of Mr. Poznanski
immediately arrayed themselves in open hostilities
against Dr. Eckman, and have waged them until the
present time. The great injustice of this
persecution, being so evident to the public, and Dr.
Eckman’s straightforward course in the cause of
religion and truth, have drawn to his standard of
true faith a large number of the most respectable
and intelligent <<206>>
members of the congregation. The Radical or
Poznanski party numbers exactly eighteen; the
Conservative party fifteen members and four
congregators. The remaining eight or nine are
indisposed to take any part in congregational
affairs.
The public denunciation of the creed by Dr. Eckman,
at the Tabernacle lecture-room, some weeks ago, as
being anti-Jewish, and as having been
surreptitiously introduced in the Synagogue, gave
publicity to the following facts, viz.:
The Building Committee received instructions from
the Congregation, in 1841 to
have “our creed translated and placed in the
Synagogue,” and recommended the assistance of their
Hazan, the Rev. G. Poznanski, for that purpose. The
Committee accordingly informed that gentleman of
the wishes of the Congregation, to which he
assented, and this prepared creed was played in the
Synagogue as our (“the Maimonidean”) creed. It
contains, like that of Maimonides, thirteen
articles, and purports to be “Elements of Jewish
Faith.”
This Committee, with the exception of Mr. Poznanski,
with fearless magnanimity, have recently expressed
that they have no pretensions to Biblical or
Rabbinical lore; that they never supposed that this
creed aimed a blow at the very vitals of Judaism;
they received it in full faith of its really being
that which the Congregation requested them to
procure, viz., a translation of “our (the
Maimonidean) creed;” and, if it were anything
else, it was not the acknowledged creed of
the Congregation.
A
public meeting of the Sunday school attached to the
K. K. B. E., under the sole control of the ladies of
the Congregation, was convened soon after this; and
this creed, which had hitherto been taught, was
rejected, and for ever expelled from the school. It
would not be out of place here to answer
the
objections of “C,” in the last “Occident,” to the
view Mr. Newman takes, in his criticism on this
creed, of the substitution of “the divine law handed
by Moses to our fathers,” for the universal belief,
and correct translation of Maimonides, “that
the law was delivered unto Moses by God.”
The only article of faith necessary for any believer
is that of <<207>> תורה
מין השמים. If this is admitted, the other two
proposed by “Albo,” and the twelve according to
Maimonides, follow of themselves, as the whole Bible
is there acknowledged to be given by God, and all
the contents binding. But this very article is
distorted and rendered inane by the alteration
introduced in Article 8th, where, instead of the
universal belief that the Law was delivered to Moses
by God, it is, in Mr. Poznanski’s creed, only
considered as a divine law, delivered by Moses unto
our fathers. Now, a “divine law delivered by Moses
“may mean no more and stand no higher than a “divine
poem” by Milton, a “divine hymn” by Dr. Watts,
“divine service” by an incompetent layman, or a
“divine comedy” by Dante. The word “divine” is of
less import than “sacred,” and “divine” and “sacred”
less than “ holy.”
The drift of the translator may easily be
perceived by comparing Article 9th, which
immediately follows, when, instead of the positive
and emphatic assertion of Maimonides—viz. : “We
believe with a perfect faith that this law will
never be changed or altered, and that there will be
no other law given by the Creator,
blessed be his name,”—he simply states that “we
believe the divine law will never be altered or
changed.” He has expunged, or forgotten to
translate, what we so very much want to
hear;—viz.: that “the Creator, blessed be his
name, never will give any other law.”
“C” also states that Mr. Poznanski “never advocated
doctrines that conflicted with the cardinal
principles of our religion.” It is not difficult to
infer what a man’s moral and religious principles
are, when his own words and actions sufficiently
indicate them.
First: in his discussion with Dr. Raphall, when
asked if he believed in the Bible, i. e., the Law
and the Prophets, he, in the presence of both
congregations, replied, after a long hesitation,
Y-e-s,—several of his own congregation inferring,
from his evasion and long consideration, that he did
not fully believe.
Secondly: the non-obligation of observance of the
ceremonial and Rabbinical laws, as expressed to Dr.
Eckman and Mr. Newman.
And, lastly, his extreme inconsistent course; viz.:
coming to <<208>> Charleston as a pious and orthodox
Mosaic and Rabbinical Hazan, and in a short time
afterwards subverting our faith, by
introducing into the Synagogue one of his own
manufacture, which is replete with infidelity and
irreligion.
The Poznanski party, finding themselves reduced in
the last ten years from over one hundred voting
members to only eighteen, and destruction
approaching from exposure of their leader by Dr.
Eckman, determined, as a last resort,—they being in
the majority in the Board of Trustees,—to transmit a
petition to the Board with the request that Dr.
Eckman should resign, as they did not think he
suited their views. This petition, signed by the
eighteen members, was accordingly sent in, and a
resolution passed; by a vote of 4 to 3, that Dr.
Eckman should comply with the wishes of the
petitioners. A contra petition was also sent to the
Board, signed by fifteen members, and four
contributors, requesting Dr. Eckman to take no
regard to the resolution of the Board of Trustees,
as he was elected for a two years’ probationary
term, and that they had the highest opinion of his
learning, piety, integrity and zeal, and that
perseverance in the faithful discharge of his
clerical duties will ultimately secure to him the
approbation of a large majority of his congregation.
We
understand also that “C” is the author of the
petition requesting Dr. Eckman to resign, which
petition contains a definition of religion,
according to the ideas of his former teacher, for
Dr. Eckman’s edification,—viz.: “Pure religion is an
abstraction from all worldly contentions.” With some
few men, religion is a colour; a lifeless, abstract
notion. But abstraction is not pure religion.
Religion must manifest itself in our actions in
life, ay, it must embrace the whole sphere of our
activity and affections. Our religion teaches us
למען השמרו ועשיתם
“observe and do,” “perform and act.” What
abstract religion means we humbly confess to have no
idea of, but would respectfully advise “C” and his
party to desist from contentions against “pure
religion.”
S.
N. C. |
