|
To
the Editor of the Occident:—
An
article appeared in the March number of the Occident
with the above caption, signed “S. Newman.” After
stating the necessity of the various congregations
in the United States combining to promote more
purity and zeal in the practice of our religion, he
adverts to a visit to a “Kehillah* esteemed not many
years ago one of the chief in the Union.” Mr. Newman
then says that the late minister,† once orthodox,
has changed to the opposite extreme. That according
to his creed “The law was not given to Moses
by God, but delivered to our fathers by Moses
yet he admits its divinity by calling it the Divine
Law in our possession.” Mr. N. then says that Mr.
Poznanski “has advocated the abolition of all
ceremonial laws, and from his silence on the
abrogation of the Sabbath and circumcision it is
feared that they are no longer obligatory on the
house of Israel.”
Now, sir, as one of the congregation alluded to, I
pronounce the above assertions a gross tissue of
misrepresentations. They are a reflection on dignity
and pride which Mr. N. should possess as a professor
in one of our chief universities, and they are a
departure from that sincerity and love of truth
which he should practise as a man. If the Rev. Mr.
P. had been allowed to preach such doctrines, and
tolerated in doing so for twelve or fourteen years,
by his congregation, then the latter must have
possessed very little knowledge of the great truths
of their religion, and none of that spirit and seal
which elevate the character of all true believers.
But let us analyze a little closer these illiberal
expressions. Mr. Newman says that the minister
alluded to above asserts “That the law was not given
to Moses by God, but delivered to our fathers
by Moses,” yet he admits its divinity by
calling it the “Divine Law.” Now because it is said
that the law was <<90>>delivered to our fathers by
Moses, Mr. N. chooses to infer a denial that
the law was given to Moses by God. Although
he admits it was called by our minister “the Divine
Law.” Is not this torturing words to suit his own
disingenuous feelings, and false assumptions? Is it
not a syllogism of the worst kind? If the laws are
admitted by our minister to be of divine origin, how
can he be said to be in favour of the abrogation of
the Sabbath and circumcision? This would amount to a
denial of revelation, and consequently lead to
infidelity. What an obnoxious stigma on an
enlightened congregation is thus published to the
world! They are branded as derelicts from all the
sacred principles of their religion, because they
were in favour of lopping off a few excrescences
that marred the beauty and detracted from the
dignity of their form of worship. It was left for
Mr. Newman (who has been advocating moral doctrines
all his lifetime) to give to the world such a
specimen of his beautiful precepts, and all for the
love of an old habit, we presume, because it was
uncalled for and gratuitous.
In
short, Mr. Editor, the Rev. Mr. Poznanski has never
advocated doctrines that conflicted with cardinal
principles. It is useless to enter into a lengthy
discussion to establish the assertion. If
unprejudiced men will take the trouble to analyze
his views on doctrinal points, without torturing
verbal definitions to suit their own views, they
will find nothing but what is orthodox (in the true
meaning of the word). Nor will they find anything
but what is consistent with the rued zeal, and
ardent advocacy of the religion of his forefathers.
The following short quotation from Mr. N. in the
article alluded to above, comes in here quite
admirably. “The exploded ideas which originated in
the dark ages, and are falsely termed orthodoxy,
are so many stumbling-blocks in the path of
the Jewish minister. The least deviation from
useless ceremonial observances which deaden the
spirit of Synagogue worship, and tediously prolong
the service, are magnified into dangerous
innovations.”
The above contains the essence of all that the
congregation of Beth Elohim ever contended for. They
explain the course, and <<91>>trace the results
likewise of all Mr. Poznanski has been labouring to
establish.
I
will now, Mr. Editor, make a few general remarks in
connexion with the subject before us. We all admit
that some reform is necessary to keep pace with the
rapid march of improvement. It has become a
necessity of the age, and will before long be
recorded among its triumphs. Judging from your own
remarks in your valuable journal, you are yourself
infected with the spirit of reform,—of such reform,
I mean, as will tend to develop the great truths and
sublime moral beauties of our religion by proper
expositions and explanations. When this is effected
it will be a great era for our people, because
national elevation will follow from national
enlightenment.
The men who entertain such views are not to be
charged with a desecration of their religion. And if
leading individuals, influenced by love and
liberality, and not by profession, under the cloak
of zeal, were united, they could achieve trophies of
which they would be proud. But, sir, religion has,
in every age, suffered more from its professors
than from its principles. If left to itself, ours
will be found to have vital energy, and moral
strength, and power enough to stand upon its own
eternal foundations. But as no system is perfect,
and no creed infallible, we always find a dangerous
spirit of disputation engendered in the public mind.
We are aware that reforms require searching
investigation before they should be adopted. Yet
they are but a reflection of the light of the age,
and they should carry with them some deference and
respect, as they stand without those binding virtues
so necessary to give them durability.
But to conclude, sir, we still indulge the hope
that, through reasonable reform, we shall see our
form of worship adorned with all its pristine
dignity, and its olden virtues still flourish and
full of fruition. But even these, and its other
great attributes, will remain without development if
the light which is everywhere around us be not
allowed to penetrate our temple.
C.
Charleston, S. C. |
