|
Error, when discovered and exposed, may endeavour to
shelter itself under the aegis of crafty silence,
and thus feign humility and forbearance. This might
serve the end in view without exciting others to
expose it, if such error stood solitary and
disconnected with these others. But when the peace
of mind, and the religious existence of a community
is at stake, and the grave charge of promulgating
unsound doctrines is made, silence then, by
treacherously withdrawing from the arena, and
leaving in the minds of the congregation doubts,
instead of holy faith, betrays culpability and
proves guilt. The present position of Mr. Poznanski
is sufficient evidence of the truth of our assertion
<<355>>in
our article signed S. N. C., in the July
No. of the Occident, and we would not have been
forced again to appear before the public in defence
of honesty, zeal, and integrity, but that our
silence, when matters of such import are at stake,
might be construed as unpardonable, and indicative
of having employed misrepresentations on our side.
We, therefore, come forth to substantiate our every
assertion by authentic documentary evidence, and to
refute the statements of our opponent “C,” who
uncalled for, again tries to clear what cannot be
cleared, by endeavouring vainly to assail, not only
our veracity, but that of gentlemen of high literary
attainments, whose characters stand unimpeached, and
whose reputation for “deep learning” preceded them
to this country. These gentlemen, Dr. Raphall, Mr.
Newman, and Dr. Eckman, have unanimously expressed
their views of the unsoundness and consequent
heterodoxy of one individual, which opinions have
been endorsed by a large portion of the Israelites
of Charleston?
The editor of the Occident,
in the July number ably
and logically defined the relative position of the
two reverend gentlemen; but we will take a wider
scope, and inquire whether any Jew or Christian,
after a theological argument with Mr. P., and there
have been many such, left him under any other
impress on than that stated by Mr. N. and Dr. E.?
Why does not Mr. Poznanski show the evidences of
having taught, during a period fourteen years if
not Rabbinical Judaism, at least such as is
practised by the Caraites, or that was practised by
the Sadducees of old, or even the modern reformers
of Europe who still belong to Judaism?
But we will leave generalities, and proceed to
defend ourself from
the unjust accusation of “C,”
who dictatorially declares our report, as
correspondent of the Occident before alluded to,
to
be at variance with common sense, although it is in
consonance with the universal opinion of the
majority of Israelites everywhere. He also thinks
our “style” so loose and disjointed as to carry the
refutation of our assertions on the face of it. We
shall, therefore, have to devote a few words to the
verbal criticism of “C,” which we would have passed
over, had he not so pom<<356>>pously brought them
before the public, for the purpose of mystifying
truth. We asserted that 44 members withdrew from the
Synagogue, among whom were the founders of the
Congregation.
“C.” objects to the word “founders,”
and uses ridicule instead of refutation. The shafts
of ridicule, when brought to bear in the field of
controversy, invariably indicate the weakness of the
hand that wields them: We could afford to
acknowledge that a happier term might have been used
to express the sad fact, that forty-four honest,
grave, and scrupulous men were compelled to
withdraw, upon the introduction of the organ into
the Synagogue by a small majority of votes, contrary
to their very constitution; and, as the minority
contended, against all rules of justice, equity,
honesty, and piety. So much for this fact which,
strange to say, “C.” does not deny; but he objects
to the term founders, which is not improper
after all. We had reference to Messrs. H. M. Hertz,
Nathan Hart, Nathan Nathans, Levy Moses, and others
for over forty years, had, by their piety,
benevolence, and large contributions, assisted to
lay the foundation of the respectable and prosperous
condition of the congregation at the time Mr. P. was
elected. We repeat that these gentlemen had a claim
to be considered as the founders of the
congregation. We never said of the Synagogue;
the founders of which were of another century.
Another error is pointed out by our critic. A
typographical omission of a few letters, viz.,
page
205, line 11, add “by Mr. P.,” the sentence
will then read thus:—“Dr. E. found that all positive
religion was rejected by Mr. P.;” but for this
omission “C.” would have been spared
seventeen lines
of his profound criticism.
Looseness of style does not affect the truth of an
assertion, but looseness of principle will. I quoted
from the petition sent to Dr. E., and acknowledged
to have been composed by “C.,” viz., “Religion is a
holy abstraction from worldly contentions.”
“C.” denies his having uttered each a puerility.
Now, we boldly assert that such a puerility was
uttered by him, although the extract from the
petition which he has given to the world, he has
purposely left out this particular sentence. We send
on <<357>> for publication
the original copy of the
petition, received by Dr. E., in the handwriting of
the Secretary of K. K. Beth Elohim, and signed and
certified also by him, embodied in which is the very
sentence expunged from his copy, and disavowed by
“C.,” the author of it, standing forth as the
glaring contradiction of his own assertion, and a
confirmation of the truth of ours.
Now for facts. We are fully confident, that if we
cannot command respect by the correctness of our
style, we can do so by the correctness of our
statements. We are candid and intelligible if not
polite and polished. We had rather plead a good
cause badly, than successfully defend a bad one,
bringing to our aid the auxiliaries of eloquence,
oratory, and sophistry. We stated that Dr. E., from
repeated conversations with Mr. Posnanski on his
first arrival, and from personal observation
afterward, found that all positive religion was
rejected by Mr. P.
This assertion rests on the veracity of Dr. E. Now,
as long as this gentleman is known by the highest
testimonials from abroad, as well as by his
gentlemanly deportment and exemplary conduct, which
have secured to him the love and esteem of all the
unprejudiced, who are acquainted with him
here,—until it can be proven that Dr. Eckman’s
veracity is impeachable, the simple denial of a
third person, who cannot know from his own
observation anything about the matter, is no
evidence, and least of all no proof. But facts speak
for themselves, and it is not necessary to bring
forward either Dr. Raphall’s, Mr. Newman’s, or Dr.
Eckman’s testimony. Let us take up the Bible, and on
examining the contents, we will find it to consist
of three branches, history, laws, and prophecy. It
is well known that Mr. Poznanski does not believe
the historical part, as he gives no credence to any
historic records; in other words, he is a doubter.
Prophecy he denies. The whole burden of prophecy
bears on the promise of the Messiah, the
resurrection, the future restoration of Israel, and
the happy state of the world in that era; all this
is denied by Mr. P. Consequently, we were justified
in saying that prophecy was denied (see Mr. P.’s
creed, and “C.’s” admission that it was prepared in
conformity with the principles of reform).
Now, there remains but one more part,
<<358>> “the
laws.” Is there any doubt about his opinions on this
point? The man who boldly raised his hand against
all our ancient sages and institutions—who
unsparingly rushed against the belief of the whole
religious world, little caring how deep he might
wound their feelings—that man, like a bashful
maiden, with all her charms of modesty, could not
answer Mr. Newman, when asked about the Sabbath and
circumcision. He, who could boldly introduce his own
preparation into the house dedicated to God, instead
of those truths accepted by Jews, Christians, and Mohamedans (as desired), is too polite to give a
modest rebuke in his own house, to what is thought
by him and “C.,” to be a coarse and indelicate
question proposed by Mr. N. O, sancta modesta! What
does such silence justify us to believe? If, he
could not speak to Mr. Newman, he plainly did so to
Dr. E., as he objected to Dr. E. preaching so much
about the Bible, and wished him to take moral
topics. He did, we again aver, ask him to preach
against all observances and ceremonies; he
wanted nothing but the idea of a God, which is pure
Deism. Had he belonged to the Caraites, or Sadducees
at least, he could not have allowed his congregation
to neglect all those laws, which even these sects
strictly observed, and do now observe. There was a
denial of all that was doctrinal and national.
“What need we,” said Mr. Poznanski, when speaking
about dietetic observances, “make such difficulties
or circumstances of eating? they (other nations)
eat, drink, and thrive.”
“C.” asks what religion was observed in the
Synagogue. We reply, The Synagogue is exactly like
every other Portuguese Synagogue; the same prayers
are used unabrogated, with the exception of the
omission of two or three Kaddashim, the same creed
is used, viz., the Yigdal, the same tradition is
acknowledged; the same ceremonies observed, and so
the Synagogue is the same as any other; but the
inconsistency was in the minister praying for what
he did not believe, and his professing in his
prayers in the pulpit, what he denied in his
prepared creed, and in conversation. Every
Sabbath for ten years, he prayed for the
resurrection of the body, the coming of the Messiah,
the restoration of Israel and yet he plainly
acknowledges his dis<<359>>belief in these tenets;
he then has uttered in the pulpit what he disavows
his belief in, to say the least of it; besides its
being a profanation of the Holy Name.
“False lips are an abomination unto the Lord.”
(Prov. xxii. 12.) “He who turns his ear from
listening to the law, his prayers even are an
abomination.” (Prov. xxvi. 9) “C.,” and all Mr. P.’s
advocates together, cannot clear him of what any
child could have convicted him, when using our
liturgy. Now all our remarks referred to Mr. P.; and
the religion that he observed in the Synagogue was
neither Jewish, Christian, Mahomedan, nor Pagan. The
poor, ignorant Pagan is true and sincere to his
idols; but to provoke instead of invoking, to ask
with our lips, what we reject with our hearts, this
no honest man can do; no, not even a Pagan. Mr. P.
might have respected the golden letters in front of
the Hechal, “Know before whom thou standest;”
and would have done better not to have admitted in
the Ten Commandments opposite the Tebah, the one
teaching “Do not take the name of the Lord, thy God,
in vain.” We are somewhat surprised to see a
respectable man, as we always supposed “C.” to be,
publicly come forward in defence of such principles.
He has, doubtless, been imposed upon, or he would
never have advanced such groundless accusations
against us, as we are called upon to repel; and, we
do sincerely hope, when he sees the incontestable
proofs (which he has been kept in ignorance of) that
we will advance to sustain our positions, he will
have the candour to acknowledge he has been
wrongly induced to do this act of injustice.
“C.” calls into question our veracity, and
states
that Dr. B. did read the prayers conjointly with Mr.
P. on Yom Kippur, and stood side by side the whole
day, pouring forth their devotions at the common
altar of our religion, and refers for the truth of
his statement (in a note) to the Parnass. Now,
in
the text, we call upon, not only the Parnass, but
the whole congregation, to verify our assertion,
that Dr. Eckman took no part in the prayers on that
day. Dr. E. give a lecture, as a lecture was
required he also read the law, as it was necessary,
at least on that day, to let the congregation know
what their duties <<360>> were; but he took no part
in the prayers and, to the credit of the
congregation be it spoken, that only two members
knew at that time the ground of the objections of
Dr. E. to Mr. P.’s reading the prayers.
“C.” states farther that a committee was appointed
by the Board of Trustees, to prepare a creed (as it
was understood) in conformity with the principles
of reform. “The creed of Maimonides is
translated in every prayer-book and catechism.” Who,
after this statement, believes that the Board of
Trustees could have been so ignorant and stupid as
to think that the creed prepared by Mr. P. was the Maimonidean creed. As it would put a schoolboy to
the blush to use such an argument, the advocates of
Dr. E. would consult silence if they would conceal
their shame. We are sorry that we shall have to
expose “C.’s” want of candour in making such a
reckless statement. We will produce authentic
documentary evidence to sustain our position, and
thus the weakness of “C.’s” assertion.
Extract from the evidence produced in Court in
the case of the State vs. and others, in the Spring
term, 1844.
Feb. 21st, 1841. “The Building Committee was
requested to have two tablets set up in the
Synagogue, one the Ten Commandments, the other the
thirteen articles of faith.”
March 7th, 1841. “The Committee received
instructions from the Board of Trustees to consult
the Hazan in Preparing the tablets.”
In
the Southern Quarterly Review, 184–, there is an
article from the pen of J. C. Levy, Esq., one of the
committee appointed to prepare the tablets, in which
we find (page 36), speaking of the difference of
opinion among the Rabbis about fundamental points of
belief, that he says: “Thus, we find the creed of
Maimonides, or articles of Jewish faith, as
inscribed on the tablets in the new Synagogue in
Charleston, which appear to be identically the
same as collated by that great light, vary from
other authority held in equal estimation in his day.
The thirteen articles referred to in the Synagogue,
from Maimonides, are as <<361>> follows:”
(there is no use transcribing them, as want of room
prevents it, and every one knows what they are.)
The committee referred to by “C.” consisted of three
gentlemen. We have the published evidence and
opinion of one of them,—a gentleman of the highest
respectability,—Mr. J. C. Levy, that he fully
believed it to be the creed of Maimonides; 2d, the
opinions of the Parnass, and the other members of
the committee, avowing the same belief; and lastly,
we have conversed with nearly all the members of
the congregation, who agree in the same opinion,
that it was the creed of Maimonides that was
intended to be placed in the Synagogue.
Notwithstanding this, at this late day we are
indebted to “C.” for the important development that
the creed was to be prepared in conformity with the
principles of reform. If so, why was not this
altered creed included in the circular as part of
the reform established in K. K. B. E. ? Could
anything have been more important, or imperatively
demanded for the information of others?
“C.” has quoted the
Circular as the Alpha and Omega
of the reform, upon which he is ready to stand or
fall. Is this not another proof that no such
alteration of the creed was ever intended to or did
constitute a part of the reform? If it were as “C.”
states, have not the committee who prepared the
circular omitted to give to the world notice of the
most vital of all the changes that were
contemplated? But it is yet time; and we call upon
“C.” and his friends to tell us wherein consists the
difference between the creed of Maimonides and that
of Mr. Poznanski, which “C.” now insists was
prepared in conformity with the principles of
reform.
“C.” attacks our veracity again, and boldly and
unequivocally asserts that we made another
misrepresentation,—as to the number of signers to
the petition to Dr. E., requesting him not to
resign. Does “C.” think he has a child to deal with,
that he should so coolly attempt to crush us with
satire, ridicule, and unfounded assertions? If so,
he will have found out his mistake. We will, in
this as in all the other allegations, bring the
proof that he is wrong and we are right.
<<362>>
The Board of Trustees, K. K. B. E.,
Charleston, May
4th, 1851 (5611).
Resolved, That the Rev. Dr. Eckman be informed that
the petition signed by Mr. I. N. Cardoza and
seventeen other legal members, are such as are fully
authorised to come before this Board, and that the
petition signed by Mr. B. Mordecai and eighteen
others numbering among them but fifteen members or
Yahidim.
(Signed) MYER JACOBS,
Sec. and Treas. K. K. B. E.
(Extract from the Minutes.)
We
also transmit to the editor, for publication, the
original petition, with the nineteen autograph
signatures attached, fifteen of whom are legal
members, and fours are contributors. The resolution
appended substantiates the number of names on the
petition, and consequently completely exonerates us
from any intention to deceive, and convicts “C.” of
unpardonable and culpable ignorance,—thus showing
clearly that he has been egregiously duped by the
misrepresentations of others.
Having now proved, by irrefragable evidence, that
every one of the charges made by “C.” against us, as
well as his other assertions, is without any
foundation, and having established on a firm basis
our veracity as a faithful reporter, we leave an
impartial public to judge what credence is to be
placed in any communication emanating from “C.,” for
whom we feel no unkindness, notwithstanding his
attack on us. S. N. C.
1.
Charleston, Sunday, May 4th, 1851 (5611).
To
the Trustees of the Congregation Beth Elohim:—
The undersigned, for themselves and a large portion
of the members of this Congregation, beg leave
respectfully to submit to the consideration of your
body a few remarks on a subject of vital importance
to the well-being and future welfare of this
congregation.
In
approaching the subject of their complaint, they
would premise that they entertain no feeling of
disrespect or unkindness for the Rev. Julius Eckman,
our present minister. That they regard him as a
gentleman of deep learning, and of capacity to
discharge the sacred <<363>> duties of his calling.
That they had cheerfully rendered their assent to
his occupying the office of Hazan, under a
conviction, from his written and verbal acquiescence
to the established principles of their reform, that
he sanctioned and would uphold it.
Your honourable body will readily admit that, in the
preliminary arrangements with Mr. Eckman, any
evasion or distrust, and faltering on all the points
of reform which have been adopted for the last ten
years, would have at once proved fatal to the
reverend gentleman occupying that office.
In
good faith, therefore, they had a right to expect
that Mr. Eckman would have sustained the reform in
undiminished seal and vigour. They hoped that in his
lectures he would have confined himself general
expositions of the principles of Judaism. A fertile
field was before him, to trace the history or our
faith, so rich in precepts of virtue, so fruitful in
acts of hallowed devotion, and so abounding in
examples of sacrifices on the altar of our religion.
But Mr. Eckman thought proper to deviate from this
course in his lectures. He introduced irrelevant
topics he arraigned individual opinion on doctrinal
points; he made sacred subjects debatable ground,
and the piety and forbearance of the minister were
sunk in the controversialist. Instead of being
chastened by exhortations addressed to their hearts,
a large number of our congregation were chastised
for supposed defection from the religion of their
forefathers. We do not want constantly upheld to our
view a picture of the feuds of the Church, to purify
our passions, or to exalt our notions of the
Divinity. Pure religion is a holy abstraction from
all worldly contentions.
A
minister of God has but one solemn duty to perform.
His mission is from on high. He should preach no
other than holy precepts and holy truths. He should
mollify enmity, and propitiate passion. A course
contrary to this, mars the beauty of that divine
harmony that should command his most fervent praise
and devotion. We regret, therefore, to express our
opinion that Mr. Eckman does not exercise the
qualifications of sack a minister as is required by
our congregation.
His own friends acknowledge that the subject of some
of his discourses are ill-timed and improper; that
he is too violent in denunciation, and that such
recrimination in the pulpit leads to its
degradation.
Your petitioners regard it as essential to the
welfare of a congregation, that entire unanimity of
sentiment and feeling should exist
<<364>> between a
pastor and his flock; and we have shown in the
above remarks that, in our opinion, the chief
province of such a man was to promote the spiritual
welfare and exaltation of his flock, and not to
invade the sanctity of private opinions.
From these remarks, your respectable body must
conclude that the signers of this petition are
dissatisfied with the official conduct of the Rev.
Mr. Eckman; and they request that the Board of
Trustees will convey the views here taken to the
reverend gentleman, and that, trusting to the
exercise of his own self-respect, he will no longer
retain an office that places him in opposition to so
many of his congregation, and renders him an
obstacle to their peace and harmony.
Signed by Isaac N. Cardozo, B. D. Lazarus, John J.
Cohen, D. C. Seixas, J. M. Seixas, I. L. Delange, C.
F. Levy, I. R. Solomons, Philip Wiseman, Isaac
Davega, Michael Lazarus, Myer Jacobs, A. J. Moses,
G. Lazarus, P. M. Cohen, Philip Cohen, B. A.
Rodrigues, Jacob Ottolengui.
On
reading the above, the following resolution was
passed,— ayes 4, noes 3.
Resolved, That the petition of the congregation be
accepted, and that it be recorded in the minutes,
and that a copy of the same be forwarded by the
Secretary to the Rev. Mr. Eckman, with the desire of
this Board that he will comply with the request of
the petitioners.
M.
JACOBS,
Sec. and Treas. K. K. B. E.
2.
To
the President and Trustees of the Congregation Beth
Elohim
The undesigned, congregators and members of K. K. B.
E., having the highest opinion of the learning,
piety, integrity, and zeal of the Rev. Dr. J. Eckman,
respectfully request that the Board of Trustees will
request that he will not regard any petition to
resign his office, as they feel assured that
perseverance in the faithful discharge of his
clerical duties will ultimately secure to him the
approbation of a large majority of his congregation.
B.
Mordecai, I. S. Cohen, Joseph H. Oppenheim, Abraham
Moise, Morris Meyer, Isaac Moise, S. Lipman, Joshua
Lazarus, I. H. Oppenheim, H. M. Oppenheim, Is. E.
Hertz, B. Weinberg, A. Loryea, M. C. Mordecai, Chas.
H. Moise, E. Levy, Isaac Harris, Thos. J.
Moise, Mordecai Hyams. <<365>>
3.
Board of Trustees, K. K. B. E.,
Charleston, May 4th,
1851 (5611).
Resolved, That the Rev. Mr. Eckman be informed that
the petition of J. N. Cardoso and seventeen other
legal members are, as such, fully authorised to sign
and come before this Board. And that the petition of
Mr. Ben. Mordecai and eighteen others, numbering in
all among them but fifteen members (or Yahidim) of
this congregation.
(Extract from the Minutes.)
M.
JACOBS,
Sec and Treas. K. K. B. E. |
