|
It
is curious indeed to observe the ebb and flow of the
popularity of public men. It is about fifteen years
ago that the Rev. Mr. Poznanski was elected to his
late position. His advent to Charleston was hailed
by the strict conformists with more than the
pleasure usually displayed at the choice of a new
minister. The people had been long without a regular
Hazan, and division as regards the mode of worship
had long existed; and it was hoped that Mr. P. would
not alone supply the vacant post, but also promote a
thorough union of feeling among the Israelites of
that city. Mr. P. was spoken of as he had shown
himself during his residence of full five years in
New York,—not alone orthodox in the theoretic sense
of the word, but in practice likewise, and modest
and conciliatory in his conduct. It is therefore not
to be wondered at that those who adhere to the
outward forms of religion should be delighted at
having at their head a man whose meekness and piety,
independent of his learning, promised them so many
good results as the fruits of his ministry.
We
also shared these sentiments; we were one of the
first to welcome him on his arrival from Germany,
and only regretted that the situation* which he has
since occupied was then held by another, wherefore
he had temporarily to fix his attention on other,
though not uncongenial pursuits. Does any man
believe that, if the orthodox portion of Charleston
and those Israelites of New York and Philadelphia
who shared their sentiments, and among these the
Editor of this Magazine, had had the least idea that
Mr. Poznanski was a reformer of the Salomon school,
Mr. P. would ever have been elected to the various
stations he was called on to fill? We
unhesitatingly assert, Never; but he would
assuredly have been left to propagate his peculiar reformistic notions without the adventitious support
of public office; and it is highly probable that the
world at large would not have known a great deal for
or against the since famous Reverend
<<210>> Gustavus Poznanski. But if one at that period
(1831-36) was a strict man, it was Mr. P.; if any
one was ultra-orthodox among the most orthodox, it
was Mr. P.; if any one discountenanced innovations,
it was Mr. P.; and, if anything, many blamed him for
carrying his conformity to the extent of not
partaking of a meal prepared for the public
celebration of the anniversary of a charitable
institution of the members of his congregation, soon
after his election. No one could with justice find
fault with such a strict course of life, were it not
that it is in glaring contradiction with what has
since been displayed; and hence the most charitably
disposed must come to one of two conclusions:—either
that Mr. P. at that period dissembled his real
sentiments, or that at a subsequent one he assumed
new doctrines, at variance with his first
convictions.
Some of our readers may perhaps recollect that,
about twenty-eight years ago, a secession party was
formed in Charleston, composed of about thirty
respectable and intelligent gentlemen, some of whom
we now umber among our personal friends, who, not
satisfied with the ancient mode of worship, and
perhaps aggrieved at some unwarranted proceedings of
the board of trustees, separated from the Kahal Beth
Elohim, and formed a body of their own, with an
abridged form of prayers, composed for the most part
of English, and but little Hebrew. They had some
English hymns of their own composition, and
introduced sundry other changes in the outward mode
of worship. We are not sufficiently familiar with
the whole affair (though we have heard a good deal
about it from time to time) to speak of it with a
perfect confidence of not making a misstatement, in
the absence of written historical memoranda. The
prayer-book, such as it is, is however still in
existence, a small edition having been printed for
the use of the members, though we are not just now
in possession of the same. But we well recollect a
correspondence which took place soon after our
arrival in America (in ‘24), between the late Mr.
Jacob Mordecai, then Parnass of Richmond, Virginia,
and one or more members of the reform party. We
thought then, inexperienced though we were, that Mr.
M. had the best of the argument. We also recollect a
flaming and well-written address by Mr. Isaac Harby,
an intelligent and learned gentleman of fine
literary taste (whose works, by the by, ought to be
appreciated more than they are, and his errors be
forgotten, as he is no longer among the active on
the earth), which was intended to set forth the
views of the association.
Nor have we forgotten that it was highly recommended
in the North American Review at the time, as is
<<211>> supposed, by a Unitarian clergyman of
Charleston, a proceeding which was then thought
highly censurable, as the reviewer no doubt intended
by his remarks to foment yet farther the spirit of
discord which had exhibited itself among the
Israelites of that place. Mr. Mordecai wrote out his
views on this subject also, and we were permitted to
read the manuscript, as it was never published,
there being then no means at hand for giving
publicity to Jewish matters, except in independent
publications; and these could not then be issued
except at a great sacrifice, there being too few
Israelites in America to support any work whatever,
unless at an enormous price. Enough for our present
purpose, however, to state that the society, after
a brief existence, was soon dissolved, and some
having died, and others moved away from the city,
the greater portion were reunited to the old
congregation, each having to pay a fine for his
absence, according to the option of the trustees.
We
are not prepared either to approve or to condemn the
wisdom of this step, as a reconciliation without a
penalty might perchance have wrought more
beneficially on the mind of some than has been
proved by experience since to have been the case.
Several, however, kept aloof, and took no part in
the congregational affairs, and we know not whether
they ever attended worship.
This much is certain, that some of the old reformers
did not look favourably upon Mr. Poznanski when he
first arrived. They did not join the congregation;
and some even treated him, if not with indignity,
certainly not with the politeness due to a
respectable stranger on his arrival in a place.
Perhaps they regarded him as chosen by a party, in
which case they might have justly thought that he
had no claim upon them, and that they who had
elected him might also practise towards him the
rites of hospitality. It admits, however, of no
question, that Mr. P.’s friends were those who were
the strictest observers of religion, and his tacit
opponents those who were not so wedded to ancient
opinions and observances. So well did Mr. P. conceal
his heterodox views, if he had any, that, though
first elected for but two years, he was chosen for
life when only twelve months or thereabout had
elapsed after his arrival. Honourable as this public
testimony was to his good conduct and efficiency, it
also shows that he was viewed as, properly
representing the opinions of the vast majority of
his constituents. But scarcely two years after his
arrival had elapsed, when the Synagogue was
destroyed by fire, on the evening of the 27th of
April, 1838, a fearful conflagration laying a large
portion of Charleston in ashes. We of course cannot
know what curious change had been going on in the
<<212>> mind of Mr. P. since his election for life;
but this much we can state with confidence as
strictly true, that about the middle of ‘39, or
perhaps in the autumn of that year, when the new
Synagogue had commenced to replace the one
destroyed, Mr. P. was walking in the environs of the
city with the then Parnass, the late Nathan Hart,
when Mr. P. hinted to him the propriety of erecting
an organ in the new structure. Mr. Hart was
naturally shocked at this proposed innovation, and
begged Mr. P., for the love of peace, not to mention
the subject in any shape.
For the moment nothing farther was heard of the
plaything; but scarcely had another year come round,
to wit, about July, ‘40, when the Editor of the
Occident received no less than four letters from
residents of Charleston in as many successive days,
all inquiring about the legality of the proposed
musical instrument, which we were told had been
sanctioned by the Hazan, but whose opinion was not
acquiesced in by all the members. We wrote as many
answers as were demanded, on the spot, without
consulting with any of our learned friends; and
though we have no copies of our letters, we
recollect one passage in the one we wrote to Dr. De
la Motta:—that the discord which would be introduced
by the contemplated measure would be more
destructive to the building and the congregation
than the fire which had two years before laid the
house in ruins. We do not profess to quote words
exactly, written off at the spur of the moment
eleven years ago; but we merely repeat the
substance; and we regret that the event has so
fearfully verified our prediction. The proposed
meeting was held. The President protested against
the question being decided by a simple majority, as
it was a constitutional question, and required, we
think, three-fourths to carry it; but he was
overruled by a majority, and then it was decided to
erect the organ, by a bare excess of votes,—46 to
40;—or, in other words, a majority resolved upon
doing what the constitution had expressly declared
such a majority should not do. It is true enough
that we often find people overriding that very law
which alone gives them power; and congregations,
corporations, and states, often commit acts of
violence without of necessity drawing the sword;
still each especial wrong cannot be defended upon
the plea that a greater or less, or equal, enormity
has been or may be practised elsewhere.
When we learned that the minority had been so
summarily ousted, as it was in fact, several of the
ancient reformers having been just admitted to
membership, and thus swelled the number of the
lovers of change, and that the man whom we had till
then looked upon as a <<213>> pillar of strict
conformity—(we then knew nothing of his former
conversation with Mr. Hart)—had, by his decision,
swayed the opinion of several otherwise neutral,
among whom we may mention the late President of the
Congregation, Mr. Ottolengui, we advised Mr. Hart to
take out an injunction against the organ, so as to
test the question judicially; but he refused, as he
was unwilling to bring Jewish matters before a court
of justice. Soon after, Mr. Hart died; hence we
cannot say whether he would have at length changed
his objection, as it became more and more evident
that the organ, illegal in itself, had been used
merely as an entering wedge for yet farther changes.
But, though the minority were not willing to sue for
their rights, they would no longer keep. communion
with the reformers, as they plainly showed
themselves, and they formed a new society, under the
name of “Shearith Israel,” the Remnant of Israel,
and it exists to this day, as our readers are well
aware.
We
will not allude now to the lawsuit which afterwards
sprung out of the question of the right of
membership, when many of Mr. Poznanski’s adherents
began gradually to leave him, as his views became
more and more developed; for the early volumes of
our magazine have spoken on that subject already. We
would only state, however, that, having a public
mission at Savannah during February, ‘41, we passed
a few days at Charleston; and in conversation with
Mr. Ottolengui, who, among others, had written to us
in the summer for our opinion, we told him frankly
that on no account could the step which had been
taken, and which he had participated in, at least so
far as to adhere to Mr. P., be justified; and he
would live to see that other innovations would
follow, in order to accommodate the service to the
organ. Mr. O. indignantly repudiated this ides of
ours, and said it was merely intended to give
dignity to the worship that music was to be invoked;
but he failed to remove our apprehension, and the
event has again proved the justice of our
predictions.
Soon after our return to Philadelphia the new
Synagogue was consecrated, and then, for the first
time, we had an intimation of Mr. Posnanski’s real
sentiments on the subject of the principles of our
religion, much as our favourable opinion of him had
been shaken by his conduct towards Mr. Nathan Hart
in the organ affair, and the conversation, or rather
discussion we bad with him on the legality of his
reforms, at the house of one of his supporters, and
on learning that his former opponents had joined
him, in the same measure as his ancient friends and
admirers were gradually abandoning him and his
ministry.
This <<214>> was an alleged extract of his
consecration sermon, in the Charleston Courier,
which was to this effect:—“This land is our
Palestine, this city our Jerusalem, this house our
temple,” by which he evidently denied the coming of
the Messiah, and the restoration of the temple and
ancient worship. On being asked to print the sermon,
which excited some attention, he declined, as we
understood then, that it would provoke controversy—a
very prudent resolve, truly, after being, at least
in part, the means of dividing his former
congregation, and separating it into two sects,
instead of one harmonious body. Besides, the fear of
controversy shows more than usual timidity, as no
Jewish journal was then existing, either in England
or America; hence it would have been difficult in
the extreme to find an organ through which the
discussion, if entered into, could have been laid
before the people.
But what Mr. P. dreaded so much came over him
nevertheless: his restlessness under ancient
restrictions caused him to offer a pretended
translation of the Maimonidean creed, instead of the
one usually found in the catechism and prayer-books,
though he still chaunted the hymn Yigdal,
which contains the same principles. We are not
prepared to account for this inconsistency. Perhaps
he wished first to find an entrance for his
doctrines, which, if once admitted without
objection, would afterwards easily supplant ancient
Judaism. But in this he did not succeed. It is, by
the by, wonderful that a committee of the
Congregation should have requested a translation of
our creed from the minister, as though they
had a distrust of the correctness of the one found
in the catechism, which was in use in their own
Sunday-school. Perhaps they thought that the author
of that work, from his known opposition to violent
reforms, had substituted something for the true
meaning of the words of Maimuni. If so, they were
surely more prudent than wise, as they did not
inform themselves whether their own revered and
respected minister, as they all styled him, would
not do the very thing—that is, substitute his own
words for those of our great teacher. Thus time
passed on; the new creed blazed out from the golden
letters on a white tablet, till accidentally, as we
learn, a gentleman well versed in religion read the
new invention; and then, for the first time,
revealed that it was not the true child of
Maimonides, but a surreptitious foundling of unknown
paternity.
Soon after this, Mr. P. spoke against the observance
of the second holy-days; also the cycle for reading
the law was changed from one to three years; besides
which, other minor matters were gradually
intro<<215>>duced, until at length the original
adherents of the reform movement became restive
under the constantly augmenting changes, and many
resolved to reunite to them the seceders, so
called, or, more correctly speaking, the orthodox
party worshipping as the “Remnant of Israel,” in
order to check farther encroachments. Our readers
know that a long lawsuit was the result, which was
decided in favour of the reformers, owing, as we
think, to mismanagement on the part of the counsel
of the defendants, who ought to have been the
plaintiffs in the question of compelling the
President to convene the Trustees, as the case was
mainly decided upon the ground that the Board could
not legally meet without the presence of the
President. But we cannot now discuss this, as we
have other things to speak of.
It
was about that time, June, ‘43, that one of our
correspondents in Charleston sent us a transcript of
the creed of Mr. Poznanski, which is affixed to the
walls of the Beth Elohim Synagogue, asking us
whether it was a fair translation. Of course we
repudiated such a creed, which puts everything in
doubt, and asserts nothing positive, besides
abrogating the resurrection. We at once wrote a
public letter, (see Occident, Vol. I., No. 5,
August, 1843,) to Mr. P., calling on him for a frank
avowal of his sentiments; but our questions remained
unanswered. We heard that the cry of persecuting Mr. Poznanski was raised against us, as though he had
not the same means of coming before the people, with
a simple admission or contradiction of his imputed
heresy, as we had, as our magazine was placed fully
at his service. It is ridiculous to suppose that we
could have persecuted Mr. P., even if we had desired
it; and to ask a public man like him to let
Israelites at large know his true sentiments on
religion, and he the minister elected to defend that
faith, is surely no persecution, as a single answer,
yes or no, would not have been beneath the dignity
of the most exalted.
Perhaps Mr. P. dreaded again to get into
controversy; if so, he acted very wisely to preserve
a profound silence, since, when one says nothing,
you cannot charge him with having said something.
But, though he maintained this studious silence, he
did, nevertheless, inculcate his unbelief in the
main dogmas of Judaism in his congregation—at least
he did not teach the opposite of what the
construction of his creed evidently taught. One
thing, however, he effected by this means—he
disarmed the teachers of the opposite views from
combating his principles, as we could not think of
making warfare upon a man who is a moral coward, and
who could at any time assert that he had been
misunderstood and misrepresented. Besides this, his
own adherents fol<<216>>lowed him so blindly, that
to express a doubt of his correctness was to expose ourself to the anger of many; and his opponents were
sufficiently convinced of his unsoundness; wherefore
it would have been worse than useless, as matters
stood, to make a martyr of him in the estimation of
his followers, and thus confirm them the stronger in
their advocacy of their leader.
We
may, therefore be asked, why we break through our
resolution now, when in times of previous excitement
we dropped the discussion of an important
case,—because, in continuing it, we should have been
compelled to cite Mr. P. before the bar of public
opinion; and this especially, as Mr. P. no longer
holds a public station, and has retired to private
life? We tell you at once, kind reader, it is to
sustain the efforts of his successor, the Rev. Dr.
Eckman, in the noble stand he has taken to
counteract the pernicious influence which the
incorrect doctrines, as they are propounded in the
new creed, would ultimately exert on the rising
generation; and, as it is supposed, not without much
apparent reason, that Mr. P. is endeavouring to
influence the congregation against Dr. E., it is but
just to bring before the tribunal of the people the
delinquencies of his predecessor.
We
do not do this in the spirit of hostility; for,
though we candidly confess that we are not, and have
no cause to be satisfied with him, we never make our
private griefs cause for our private or public acts
towards others. But religion has a claim on all its
followers, and we hold it as a good maxim,
במקום שיש חילול השם אין
חולקין כבוד לרב “There
where the name of God is profaned, no respect is
shown, even to a teacher;” and we are perfectly
willing to have the same treatment extended to us,
if ever we expose ourself to the same cause of
censure. It is enough, therefore, that we believe
that, to recall to mind the gradual lapsing of the
late Hazan of Charleston into error, will uproot the
influence he once wielded, in order to induce us to
speak of the facts of the case, as we have learned
them from various sources; and we shall take care
not to state a single doubtful fact, or to set down
aught in malice.
It
is now rather more than a year past that the
Reverend Doctor Raphall, in his Southern tour, was
summoned to meet Mr. P. in controversy, owing to
the imprudence of this gentleman to allude to the
reform which had been introduced by him, in his
address of welcome to the learned Doctor. We rather
think that Mr. P. himself did not propose the
discussion, but we have no doubt that he was quite
anxious to take his part, when the proposition had
been made by the minister of the Shearith Israel
Congregation. The notes of this controversy,
<<217>>
which were sent to us by a friend, never reached us.
But we have learnt in substance, that when Dr. R.
put to Mr. P. the question whether he believed in
the coming of the Messiah, he hesitated; but Dr.
Wise,* who was, among many others, also present, he
being then in Charleston as a candidate for the
office which Mr. P. was ready to vacate in favour of
a man of his own mode of proceeding, answered loudly
“No,” and Mr. P. then assented to the same idea, but
rather in a more subdued tone of voice. The next
question, “Do you believe in the Resurrection?” was
answered again by Dr. Wise with a loud “No,” and Mr.
Poznanski again assented in a subdued voice.
The heresy, therefore, of Mr. P., formerly enveloped
in mystery, though perfectly well understood by
many, was now publicly revealed; and in candour he
ought to have told the people, who so long had
followed his lead, that the prayer-book ought
to be cast aside, as asking for matters which are
not true, nor likely to become true. But he did not
do this, but continued to pray for the Messiah, the
Revival of the Dead, and also assented to all the
thirteen articles of the usual creed in chaunting
every Friday evening at least the hymn Yigdal.
There was thus a contradiction between Mr. P.’s
professed doctrines and the prayers which he read
for the people as Hazan, which, as an honest man, he
ought to have avoided, either by avowing a disbelief
in doctrines held sacred by other Israelites, or at
once establishing a new sect, with whatever
followers he might be able to muster. But neither he
nor Dr. Wise pursued this course. Perhaps they had,
or have got a method of their own to explain our
creed. Perhaps with them
ביאת המשיח the coming of the Messiah is an
ideal kingdom of God on earth, not by the elevation
of the worship, but by a spread of a universal
assent in the main theoretical principles of
religion; and תחית המתים
is a simple belief in the immortality of the soul,
though the first doctrine ought then to be called
קבלת מלכות שמים
“The acceptance of the kingdom of Heaven,”
and the second השארת הנפש
“The permanence of the soul.” But, as these
terms have not been employed by our teachers, when
they were perfectly familiar with them on other
occasions, we think that there can be no doubt of
the unreasonableness of so explaining it, as Messrs.
Poznanski and Wise have done, in accordance with
other neologists of the present day.
<<218>>
Dr. Wise, for reasons probably of his own, resigned
the office of minister of the Beth Elohim
Congregation, after he had been elected, and
remained at Albany with his former flock. It was
then that Rev. Dr. Eckman, who had been for a few
months settled at Richmond, went South, as we
understand, in order to see whether he could not
take office at Savannah, which place has been and is
still unsupplied. On his way he stopped at
Charleston, and was induced to accept the ministry,
and Mr. Poznanski himself said that Dr. E. was the
very man for them. But the very first day of his
arrival he had a discussion with Mr. P., which at
once brought them into an antagonistical position,
as Mr. P.’s views were such that Dr. E. could not
coincide with them, and the coldness thence
resulting became apparent to the President, Mr.
Ottolengui. But there is no occasion to bring any
purely privates matter into this discussion, as
there is enough of a public nature to satisfy even
idle curiosity. It is sufficient for our purpose to
state that Dr. E., before his election, took full
pains to let no doubt rest on his principles, that
he disapproved of many of the innovations, and
altogether of the new theories broached by Mr. P.
and his adherents.
Notwithstanding this general knowledge,* Dr. E. was
chosen on a probationary term of two years. He soon
found that to do his duty manfully, he had to do
battle without fear, and regardless of
consequences. Mr. P., though no longer in office,
was still powerful with many, perhaps the majority
of the Congregation, and hence every step taken by
Dr. E. was an aggressive assault on the man of power
and consummate tact.
Towards an absolute reform party Mr. P. has
doubtless acted very faithfully. He has progressed
by slow but sure steps. The gradual weakening of the
attachment to our creed at length enabled him to
avow openly his disbelief in doctrines, which, to do
before, would have utterly ruined him with his own
party, who regarded it as a false imputation and
persecution in us even to hint that such a thing was
probable, nay, possible even. But towards true
Judaism, as expounded by the fathers, Mr. P. has
acted like a parricide. He took away the ground on
which it stood, and, so far as he was concerned, our
venerable parent might have been crushed under the
weight which would have <<219>> overwhelmed her.
Hence Dr. E. only did his duty in withstanding him
to his face, in refusing to let him read the prayers
on the Day of Atonement, for the reason stated by
our correspondent, since it would be wrong to permit
a man to officiate for the people who did not admit
the truth of what he says. We know not whether Mr.
P. acknowledges
the facts as stated by Dr. E.; but, even if he does
not, it is merely a question of veracity between
the two gentlemen, and then we should have to decide
according to probability.
Here is, on one side, a person perfectly independent
in his circumstances; he has, on more than one
occasion, falsified his former course; he may have
been disappointed in the character of the man whom
he desired to be his successor. On the other hand,
is a stranger to the city and country, who has to
earn his bread by his profession, to which he has
devoted many years of his life. His interest would
lead him to seek the counsel and support of his
predecessor, who is both powerful and beloved by
his flock. Still we find Dr. E. defying him, and
throwing himself upon the good sense of those on
whose votes his future continuance in the ministry
depends. Whom now shall we believe? Let our readers
answer—we need not put the words in their mouth.
But the natural result of the difference between the
old and new ministers soon became apparent, in a
strong partisan feeling enkindled on both sides.
And, strange as it may seem, the adherents of Mr.
Poznanski, not willing to await the expiration of
one more year, when, if they have the majority, they
can vote Dr. Eckman regularly and legally out of
office, send a petition to the Board of Trustees,
consisting of seven individuals, to urge these to
call on Dr. E. to resign, after he has scarcely
served out half his term of two years. This petition
is signed by eighteen members. A counter-petition,
signed by nineteen, calling themselves congregators
and members of the Congregation Beth Elohim, request
Dr. E. not to notice the petition of his opponents,
and to maintain his post. We have before us both
papers, and would, had we not been requested
otherwise, lay them before our readers, as matters
for future history. But as it is, we can
merely glance at their contents. The petitioners
aver that Dr. E. could not have been elected Hazan,
(which, by the by, he claims not to be, but the
ordained minister,) of the Congregation, had his
views on the reform, as it exists, been known to the
majority; and, as the majority must rule in all
things, and he not representing their peculiar
reform principles, they request the Trustees to
notify him that he ought to retire, out of
self‑respect, as he is placed in opposition to so
many of his congregation, <<220>> which renders him
an obstacle to their peace and harmony. The others
applaud his piety, integrity, zeal, and learning,
and desire, therefore, his perseverance in the
faithful discharge of his clerical duties.
To
extract more from the papers in question would be to
copy them entire, and this we are asked not to do.
But it will strike any one that those who have
themselves so far departed from the ancient
standard, have no right to expect a conformity to
their newly established principles. First let us
ask, what are these? In what code are they
written?—or are they a sort of common law, lex
non scripta, which requires a Mansfield, a
Blackstone, or a Marshall to expound? It is true, a
programme of the reform was published in the
Occident on several occasions, by which the new
incumbent might. have been made to take a test oath
before entering on his nondescript duties of
preaching Judaism with some of its main features
omitted. But why did these same gentlemen not
demand Mr. Poznanski’s resignation years ago, when
he deceived them as regards his orthodoxy another
way? We will not say that all were perfectly
familiar with Dr. E.’s ideas; but that is their
fault, as it was that of Mr. P.’s first electors,
that they did not subject him to a rigid
examination. The omission to do so gave both
incumbents a great latitude of motion for or against
reform—and mind, the word reform is one of
very ambiguous signification; and, however we
condemn Mr. P.’s course, and that of other ministers
who have done as he has, we blame still more the
people, for acting with so little circumspection as
to put power in the hands of men whom they do not
know thoroughly, or to leave them in the exercise of
it without a contest, the moment they find
themselves deceived.
It
will not do for our friends of the reform side to
say that their being the deceived, though even this
is denied, makes a difference in the question. We
say “No;” they could not expect that they ever could
find a man who would honestly carry out their views
of the creed, and employ the prayer-book in the
assumed sense they give it. Besides, if they claim
perfect liberty of action, they must allow it to
their minister; if they choose to repudiate our
ancient forms and opinions, he has the same right to
reject theirs; and it is at length with them a
question for the majority—not as with
orthodox Jews, what our authorities say on
the subject.
Take it therefore, as they will, they have no right
first to impose a test, or else they must at once
establish a confession of faith and a rule of church
government of their own, which, if the future
ministers deviate from, they are to be deposed; or
at least they should have the grace to
<<221>> wait
till the time of election comes round, when they
can, if they have the majority, turn out Dr. E., and
elect a man after their own heart, and thus decide
the question as suits their own views. Upon the
whole, therefore, Dr. E. did right in not resigning;
and we trust that he may be strengthened to
persevere in his reform of the right kind, to bring
people back to a true standard of religion, and that
his opponents may become reconciled to his ministry.
In
saying this, we wish not to be understood as
taking back the least of our objections against
the reform of the Beth Elohim Synagogue. We condemn
it, as we always have done; but of the two we prefer
positive Judaism at least, though it appears in a
somewhat fantastic dress, to views which no one who
fully believes in Scripture without mental
reservation can in any wise sanction. We beg Mr. Poznanski and his friends to read our candid
thoughts, as expressed above, without heat or
prejudice, with the calm deliberation which all
articles on the holy theme of religion merit, and to
pause in a course which, sooner or later, will cause
them deep and lasting regret. We, for our part, have
discharged a simple duty, as journalist and
Israelite, to give the above imperfect sketch,
which, though it treats of men, is of a public
nature, as these men represent vital principles,
which are of lasting interest to all who profess the
religion of Moses.—We must close for the present. |
