|
To
the Editor of the Occident.
Sir:—
In
allusion to some remarks which I could not avoid
making in No. 12 of the last volume of the Occident,
on the change to the <<200>> opposite extreme, by a
late minister once orthodox,
a reply has appeared in
No. 2 of this volume, signed “C,” the writer of
which describes himself as a member of the
congregation of Beth Elohim of Charleston, S. C.
Judging the said remarks too strong to be mistaken.
as referring to any one but to the Rev. Mr.
Poznanski, he was induced thereby to take up the
cudgels in defence of the latter, and pronounces my
assertions a gross tissue of misrepresentations.
This, my accuser, I would only ask,
Is it not a
gross misrepresentation for one who repeatedly
declared his utter unbelief in the Bible, and yet
calls himself a member of a Synagogue, and even
steps forth as the champion for the purity of Jewish
religion?
As
to the truth of what I have stated respecting the
backsliding late minister, here are the plain
facts, let them speak for themselves. That
gentleman, in the presence of a number of his
friends, laboured hard to convince me that all
ceremonial laws as given by Moses, which are either
unsuitable to our age or inconvenient, are no longer
binding on us, any more than that (Deut. xxii. 3)
“when thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt
make a battlement for thy roof.” (I repeat his own
words.)
To
my inquiry whether circumcision and Sabbath ought
not also be abrogated, as very unsuitable and
inconvenient, he remained mute. Having either taken
upon himself or consented to make alterations in the
creed adopted by the Jews in general, such as the
resurrection and the coming of a Messiah, which he
rejects altogether, he likewise found fault with the
belief “that this law now in our possession is that
which was given to Moses by God,” and substituted in
its place the belief “that the Divine Law now in our
possession is that which we received from Moses.”
What could have been the object of this alteration?
And why did he so obstinately refuse to assent to my
urgent entreaties to reinsert the words as they
were in the original, if only to conciliate those of
his Jewish brethren who suspect (and not without
reason) the motive for altering a creed so vital to
their faith? The many years he had been the
spiritual guide of his congregation, he of necessity
had frequently to pray publicly for the
resurrection, for the coming of the Messiah, and
for our return to the <<201>> land of our fathers.
And even at a funeral, which happened to be during
my sojourn there, I heard him in the service he was
reading, most solemnly and impressively repeat the
sentence
(Is. xxvi. 19): “Thy dead men shall live, &c., and
the earth shall cast out the dead.” When
subsequently I questioned him how he consistently
could utter such prayers for what he neither expects
nor desires? his answer was, “he understands these
words differently from what they are generally
understood.” Then surely his successor in the
ministry cannot be blamed for honestly having
refused to allow him to read prayers for his
congregation on כפור—knowing
him as he did, that he meant not what he is
understood to pray for.
I
am far from condemning any one for his belief or
unbelief according to his conscience; but of a
minister, I am sure, his friends who are honest men,
must agree with me that he should teach and speak
directly what he means to convey, and they cannot
consider all I had occasion to say on the subject,
as uncalled for and gratuitous. For it is the duty
of every layman who at all cares for his religion,
to watch those who take upon themselves to lead the
opinions of their coreligionists, and expose their
errors or insincerity—be they ministers or editors.
One of the latter class, I regret I cannot help
taking this opportunity of noticing, has, to my
mind, committed a great error (for I doubt not it
was inadvertently) in expressing his sentiments in
the cause of humanity in terms irreverent of the
Divine Law. I refer to what has appeared in the
Asmonean of May In an article headed “Teaching by
the Gibbet,” the writer advocates the abolition of
the last punishment for murder, if even the most
atrocious for, asks he, although the inspired book
says “blood for blood,” does it not equally
whisper, “Thou shalt not kill?” And it is therefore
time that a custom so barbarous should be done away
with.
Such reasoning I can very well understand if
coming from a follower of the New Law, one who
considers that to be a substitute for the Old, the
commandment therein to mankind in general (Gen. ix.
6): “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his
blood be shed,” does not concern him;—seeing in what
manner his Lawgiver did deter the witnesses from
testifying against the woman <<202>> taken in
adultery, he not only is justified, but is in duty
bound to reject the evidence of all witnesses in
criminal cases; as no witness can be found without
sin.
But an Israelite, a believer in the immutability of
the Old Law, emanating as it does from an immutable
God, and finding therein besides that quoted above (Exod.
xxi. 14), “But if a man come presumptuously upon his
neighbour to slay him with guile, thou shalt take
him from mine altar, that he may die;” (Numb. xxxv.
31.) “Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for
the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death,
but he shall be surely put to death:” I say, one who
believes this so peremptory and unequivocal
commandment to be Divine, cannot consistently
denominate it “a barbarous custom,” and, led away by
false humanity, even dare to make Scripture on that
point contradict itself. It nowhere whispers
לא תמות, “Thou
shalt not kill,” but calls aloud
לא תרצח, “Thou
shalt not murder;” and killing, judicially, cannot
be murder.
Yet the said editor, in his publication of June 5,
1851, referring to the same subject, asks his
learned friends who disagree with him thereon, to
turn to the 4th chap. of Genesis v. 15, where they
will find that God would not permit Cain to be put
to death; and by commuting the punishment of the
murderer of his brother to that of banishment, He
clearly taught mankind the right of forgiveness. But
his learned friends would reply that his inference
is false; for Cain did not break any law, since
there was then no law yet regarding murder. Besides,
though he intended to hurt his brother, he could not
have premeditated to put him to death, as he could
not have known what death of mankind was. And as to
his question: “If for the crime of murder we are to
take upon ourselves the infliction of the death
penalty, why are we to set aside the punishment of
death which the Almighty awarded for the commission
of so many other crimes—as Exod. xxi. and Levit.
xx.? I answer, ye have not set it aside; but we have
to conform to the moral laws of the nations we live
amongst, who were never called upon to obey the laws
exclusively given to the Israelites. But had we the
power we still would have to adhere to them: and
such members <<203>> of us who look upon them as
antiquated and barbarous customs, and consider pure
Judaism untenable, would either have to desert it,
or submit to it altogether.
S.
NEWMAN. |
