|
Minister of the Congregation Beth Elohim,
Charleston, S. C.
We
have recently listened to several of the lectures of
this gentleman explanatory of our faith, the
ceremonial law, the Talmud, &c., and (although not a
member of his congregation, but opposed to the
innovations which have therein obtained), we must
nevertheless own that we were both highly edified
and instructed. Dr. Eckman is a zealous and honest
labourer in the cause of Judaism. Not content with
discourses on the Sabbaths and festivals, he devotes
his time, talents, and energies, to the instruction
of Jewish youth, during the week, and each Sunday
afternoon lectures on subjects above named. He is a
German by birth—an indefatigable and laborious
student and a profound thinker. Devoted to the study
of languages, he has mastered the ancient and modern
tongues and their literature is as familiar to him
as “household words.” His knowledge of the origin,
etymology, combination, and definition of words is
most extraordinary, and as a philologist we doubt if
he has a superior. His mind exhibits a rare and
beautiful, union of strength and harmony, where
virtue and intellect are melodiously blended with
imagination and piety. In his lectures we were
struck no less with the subtlety of his power of
analysis, the force of his understanding, the
critical acumen, and deep research of his learning,
than the dignified and elevated tone of thought that
pervaded all his sentiments. Armed with the panoply
of religion, truth, and learning, he is ever ready
and powerful in attacking grappling, and overcoming
error in whatever form it may assume, or from
whatever quarter it may proceed. His style of
oratory is bold, fluent, persuasive, and at times
eloquent, but above all there is an honest
earnestness in his manner that
“Knows not how to spare,
Yet rarely blames unjustly.”
Dr. Eckman is an enlightened and pious reformer; not
one of<<93>>your “modern school reformers” whose
actions are guided by mercenary motives and selfish
designs, both in the United States and Europe. His
views of reform are based upon the principles
established by those great intellects of Germany,
Mendelssohn Zunz, and Salomon. His idea of reform
consists in introducing order and decorum into the
worship of the Synagogue, and likewise prayers and
discourses in the vernacular, so as to reform the
moral faculties,—to cultivate the heart and its
holiest affections,—to teach the observance of the
commandments and precepts of our holy law—(both
Divine and Rabbinical)—and to sow the seeds of
religion broadcast, so as to produce an abundant
harvest of virtue and social happiness. He wishes to
reform his congregation by causing them to observe
our religion and its ceremonies, and not to reform
our religion by striking down its principal and
fundamental supports. Although not opposed to the
organ or the abolition of the second days of the
holidays, he has publicly declared that, as we were
a peculiar people, with one faith, one language, and
one God, so should we be as one family living in
concord and harmony, and if the above measures
produced discord and division, they should not have
been established, even if objected to by a single
individual. But where many were opposed to these
changes, and withdrew from the Synagogue, more evil
than good was the result, and such measures became
highly injurious. His work is “a labour of love,”
(though we regret to say, is not so regarded by a
portion of his highly respectable congregation) but
his situation imposes upon him many painful and
difficult obligations, which to fulfil requires
courage, skill, and judgment. He nevertheless does
not falter in his course, but grasping the Bible as
his sword, and with truth for his shield, he wages
with warmth and spirit an interminable warfare
against apathy and skepticism. We trust that he will
persevere in this glorious conflict and be supported
by all good men, that immeasurable success may crown
his efforts, and the approving smiles of God be his
rich reward.
N.
Note by the Editor.—In the above two communications
received from persons of diverging opinions, at
Charleston, our readers have a <<94>>reflex of the
difference in views on the question of reform now
agitating the congregation Beth Elohim of that city.
We must be excused for not expressing any opinion on
the merits or demerits of either Mr. Poznanski or
Dr. Eckman, not having had an opportunity of
satisfying ourself of the extent of the reforms of
the first, nor of the reaction of the latter. One
thing we may be permitted to say, that if Dr. E. is
willing to go as far as Dr. Gotthold Salomon, of
Hamburg, he goes much farther than legalized reform
can extend, and though we may have to admit his
merits, if he succeeds in bringing his flock nearer
to the ancient standard, we can never be brought to
confess that he places them on a safe and orthodox
basis. We do not use this word orthodox in a
sectarian sense, but as indicating pure biblical
Judaism, to which we reckon the advent of the
Messiah, and we regret to say that herein the great
Hamburg preacher is, despite his great learning,
exceedingly unreliable, as his various sermons
amply prove. It is on the whole exceedingly
dangerous to belong to any school, whether you
dignify it as that of Mendelssohn, or anybody else;
we know of but one school which we can always rely
on, and that is the BIBLE, as expounded by our
teachers.
The question, therefore, to which we would
call the attention of our correspondent, N., whose
zeal and talents we greatly admire, is, “Does Dr. Eckman teach ancient Judaism?” If he does, he is a
safe guide; if not, he must be judged as lacking of
a full measure of the necessary elements of the
character of a teacher in Israel. We trust, however,
that the learned divine is all that his friends
claim for him; but we confess that we should be more
satisfied of his full ability to do good if he were
to remove the organ from the Synagogue, and
substitute a simple translation of the Maimonidean
creed in place of the tablets now there, against the
contents of which
we have publicly protested in the
fifth number of our first volume, not to speak of
the restoration of the second day of the holy days,
which it is evident that no single congregation have
a right to abolish on their own assumed authority of
reforming whatever they may happen to call abuses,—a
mode of proceeding totally at variance with
religious conformity.
We
say all this in no spirit of unkindness towards Dr.
E., for we wish him success in his labour of love,
to which N. so eloquently refers; but we must not
shut our eyes to the fact that Dr. E. entered office
in a congregation acting on the principles which he
now justly condemns, and he could not be sure
beforehand that he could lead them back. We do not
impute to him any bad motives, it is against our
<<95>>usual method; but we insist upon it that we
must first see consistency before we give in our
adhesion to his supposed views. At the same time we
hope to be favoured, either by him or his friends,
with some of his lectures, from the tone of which we
shall be able to form a more correct judgment in the
premises.
As
respects Mr. Poznanski, Mr. Newman assuredly
referred to him in his article, though he did not
name him; but we cannot agree with our valued
correspondent C., that Mr. N. has done Mr. P. so
great an injustice. Mr. N. complains of the
ambiguity of Mr. P.’s words, which could be
interpreted either way, and of his silence on the
necessity of even great observances, which would
also give room to fear that he thought them
unnecessary. Mr. P.’s own hearers can judge better
than Mr. Newman, an accidental sojourner in
Charleston, how Mr. P. thinks on the subject; but
surely a stranger in the country may be pardoned for
publishing in a religious magazine, like ours, his
fears that there is danger to be apprehended from a
system of half way teaching which requires an
explanation at every turn. This is not the system of
the prophets, who taught fearlessly and directly
what they meant to convey. We have accordingly no
sympathy with your non-committals in religion any
more than all honest men have in politics; let us
know our men, without mask or disguise, that we may
either esteem them as true shepherds, or avoid them
as teachers of falsehood and error. For our part, no
one can ever say that we have ever been among the
detractors of Mr. Poznanski, much as we have
disapproved of his course, nor should Mr. Newman
have found a space in our pages had we thought that
he meant to cast unjust censure on Mr. P. If we
understand C. aright he does not assert that Mr. P.’s language is not ambiguous, and this is all we
thought Mr. Newman intended to assert; and we really
believe, from the little intercourse we had with
him, that he is one of the last whom we should
accuse of deliberately asserting an untruth.
Unpleasant as personal explanations are to us, and
no doubt to our readers, the proceedings at
Charleston are of that kind that they ought to be
placed before the public eye. We have ourself
watched the gradual development of the reform
question there for near eleven years, and after
raging violently for a number of seasons, we are
happy to present our readers with the sure
indication of a sober return to first principles, as
related by N. Mr. Poznanski and Dr. Eckman are,
therefore, not individual reformers, who are nothing
to the public, but embodiments of ideas in whom all
have a deep interest, and who are
<<96>>thus
amenable for what they do and teach. It is idle to
advance that Mr. P. has retired to private life, and
should therefore be no longer amenable to censure or
loaded with praise; since his reform did not die
when he quitted office; and whilst these remain he
must not complain if allusion is made to him by
writers who discuss the propriety of measures in
which he bore a prominent part. If Mr. P. had not
wished to occupy a space in the public view, he
ought never to have placed himself there; he may now
be willing to withdraw; but others have also to
decide whether they will let him. But we say in
truth we make no war on any man, and we shall take
care also that our correspondents shall not do it;
but principles are represented by men; hence both
may be fitly discussed together, in a temperate way,
without infringing on propriety, and we really
thought that Mr. Newman had confined himself to his
point. Hence we regret that his remarks have excited
unpleasant feelings in the bosom of any one,
especially our correspondent C., whom we never
thought to be of the irascible kind.
As
regards our own person, we confess that we are a
reformer if viewed one way, and a decided opponent
of reform if viewed from the other. Whatever is
permitted by Talmud and Scripture, that we will
labour to introduce, if even mediaeval customs have
substituted something else, and we have expressed
this opinion frequently in our correspondence and
conversation; but we will strive with all our energy
against that reform which would rob the LAW of the
least of its weight and FAITH of the smallest of its
requirements. The religion of the Schools of
Palestine is good religion for us, and we care not
whether this is attacked by sticklers for abuses or
philosophers; we must at length come back to old
principles, and we might as well do so first as
last. And well may we ask, as the great prophet,
“Who is for the Lord?” and whoever he be let him
join this standard, to restore the LAW to its first
strength, and doctrine to its pristine glory, for
this is true, ancient, unmixed, pure Judaism, and
under its banner alone can we conquer! But we fear
that both reformers and their opponents are too
timid to join the middle ranks, and they will both
stand aloof, while odium is heaped on the small
number of moderate men, from all sides. But be this
as it may, this shall not terrify us from
discharging our duty fearlessly; and whilst we
retain the control of our pages, we shall give
expression to our sentiments to the best of our
knowledge, and leave the issue in the hands of the
ONE whose approbation alone we strive to obtain. |
