|
To
the Editor of the Occident
My
Dear Sir,—
I
am charged by you in
your last Occident with
inconsistency. For myself, I am regardless of such
an accusation, being fully <<142>>satisfied with the
purity and rectitude of my intentions; and my
position, at present, with the Congregation Beth Elohim of Charleston, among whom I have the honour
to teach, would render it improper and undignified
to enter into a full exposition of my principles,
so long after my election.
I
must therefore respectfully request, that you will
suspend your opinion in relation to my course, until
the period shall arrive, when it may become
necessary, that I should appear before my brethren
under my own name, in defence of Truth, Justice, and
the Holy Word of God.
Sincerity and candour are certainly virtues which we
greatly admire; but we should be careful how we pass
sentence before we are fully possessed of facts and
circumstances connected with the subject upon which
we are about to decide.
For your satisfaction, however, I would state, that
my views were fully and plainly expressed to those
members of the Congregation who presented
themselves for that purpose, previous to my
election, and, nevertheless, I was elected, contrary
to my expectations, by an almost unanimous vote, I
believe only one individual having voted in the
negative, and he has since become one of my warmest
friends and supporters. While I gave my humble
acquiescence to the requisitions of the circular of
the Congregation Beth Elohim of Charleston, as
admissible according to the letter of strict
Judaism, I have never hesitated, on all occasions,
after the earliest period of my arrival, to oppose
anything that encroached upon the principles of
ancient Judaism, or that might have the tendency to
wound the feelings of the pious and conscientious
Israelite, whose sincere attachments and affections
claim our highest respect and attention.
That the Almighty God, blessed be He, may enable His
humble servant, under the most trying circumstances,
to effect some little good among his people, is his
most fervent and ardent prayer.
Yours, respectfully,
Julius Eckman
Note by the Editor.—It is indeed painful in
the extreme, for one like us to be called upon to
insert communications as in the last num<<143>>ber
of our Magazine, wherein the merits of opposite
opinions are discussed, and upon which we are in a
measure called upon to pass an opinion; for to say
nothing, when grave measures of principle are at
stake, would at once show that we are unworthy to
occupy the editorial supervision of a Jewish
periodical, the business of which is to speak out
boldly on all matters affecting Judaism. We were
called upon to print a piece deprecatory of some
remarks about Mr. Poznanski which we had inserted,
and which had appeared solely because Mr. P. stood
as the representative of certain ideas, against
which we have always protested, and against which we
have preached and written for a number of years. We
did, therefore, no injustice to that gentleman to
let an intelligent correspondent, who is himself a
liberal orthodox writer, disturb Mr. P. in his
retirement, especially since we are assured that he
has still a strong party devoted to him and his
principles. At the same time another friend
forwarded to us a communication on the course of Mr.
P.’s successor in office, a gentleman highly praised
for his learning and zeal, and the powerful and
disinterested efforts he is making to bring his
flock back to a proper mode of thinking on religious
matters.
We are perfectly willing to let the
Occident speak in behalf of such laudable efforts,
and we wish with all our heart that they may be
successful to the fullest extent. But can any one
expect that we should not, at the same time, protest
against the propriety of any gentleman’s taking
office when he is brought forward as the defender of
opinions which we must condemn? Can it be asked of
us, that we should by our silence endorse a course
of proceeding which we would never have adopted? We
leave it to Dr. Eckman himself, and our valued
friends, who find fault with our notice of last
month, whether we could have acted otherwise. We
know full well that Dr. E.’s position is a painful
one in the extreme; to stand as the mediator between
two opinions, and endeavour honestly to reconcile
them, is a task which the greatest minds may fail
under; we admire his courage to defy so powerful an
opponent as Mr. Poznanski, who both from his
connexions and talents, is an opponent of no mean
order; but all this does not reach our first
objection, which is, that Dr. Eckman should have
hesitated before he assumed a post so full of danger
and difficulties. We should deeply regret that our
remarks should have thrown in his way the smallest
obstacle, or done the least to diminish his
usefulness. But if so, it was entirely unavoidable;
we belong to no school of reformers, we know of no
one now living in Europe, whose footsteps we could
safely follow; and let our teachers in this country
place themselves on the <<144>> platform of
Scripture and tradition, and they may depend on our
support, little as this is just now, and nothing
that we can effect shall be left undone to assist
them in their labours.
We
are perfectly aware that Dr. E. cannot of his own
accord remove the organ or restore religion in
Charleston; and that all he can do in his present
position is to bring matters in train for a future
restoration to the ancient standard. But we only ask
of him, that he should declare against all that has
been done, openly and unequivocally; let there be no
reservation of mind, nothing be left for any doubt,
and then can we speak as approvingly as our personal
friends do now of the Reverend Doctor. Let us again
repeat, that we attack no man’s motives; but surely
we have an undoubted right to say that those men of
Israel who feel a deep interest in the maintenance
of a uniformity of religion, have a claim on all who
profess to teach, to speak without disguise, and to
labour without fear, without regarding whom their
words may indict. Let us beware of that most
dangerous enemy to truth, flattery; let our
teachers also guard against self-deception,
and let the people see that they support those most
who show the most consistency; and all will be well.
We have, for our part, no wrongs to revenge against
any of our public men in the country, and what we
say of them is the simple expression of our honest
conviction. We know well enough that this does not
bring us many friends; but it at least proves that
we speak what we believe the truth.
Now as respects Dr. E. we are pleased to record that
his ideas were known before his election; and let us
therefore hope that all who now differ from him, may
speedily become his sincere friends, and give him
their aid and countenance in his pious efforts. |
