|
To
the Editor of the Occident:—
As
it is the province of the press to guide and
enlighten public opinion on all questions affecting
the moral and religious welfare of society, and as
you have always avowed yourself an advocate of its
purity and freedom, I hope the following remarks,
in correction of important errors in three articles
in your periodical for July, will receive an
insertion. I shall enter upon very few arguments,
but confine myself almost exclusively to facts,
as the best mode of refutation. When we go by the
<<314>>record we do not give play, in serious
matters, to the imagination; neither do we draw
beautiful pictures according to our wishes, nor
portraits according to our partialities.
In
answer to my first article in the
June number of the
Occident, signed “C.,”
Mr. Newman begins by
accusing me of disbelief in the Bible. Mr. N. here
makes a false and reckless accusation, founded, I
presume, on some random expression of some one in
the opposition. Can he adduce a single fact, can he
refer to a single act in support of his assertion?
We defy him to the proof. What does such an
accusation moreover indicate? Let the reader bear
in mind that Mr. N. professes to be the great
advocate of high moral and religious principles. But
is this assertion of his a specimen of his lessons
of virtue, or of right, or of justice, that he
preaches to mankind? Is society to be improved and
its virtues to be expanded by propagating slanders
and maligning character? The man who does this dishonours and does not dignify society.
With regard to
Mr. N.’s report of the conversation
with Mr. Poznanski, I was not present, but
intelligent gentlemen, of known probity and honour,
who were, give a different version from Mr. N. But
the latter gentleman attaches great importance to
Mr. P.’s silence, when he questioned him regarding
the abrogation of the Sabbath and Circumcision. Poor
Mr. N. could not perceive that if he was so coarse
and indelicate as to put such a question to Mr. P.,
in his own house (where the conversation was held),
an answer could not have been returned, except in
indignant language, which Mr. P. had too much
refinement and good breeding to do in his own
domicile.
I
now beg to take leave of Mr. N., as the major part
of his argument was answered in
my first piece,
signed “C.”
In
reply to the article signed “S. N. C.” I shall be
very brief. He has to learn that to command respect
he must be correct, candid, and intelligible, in
establishing and elucidating his positions.
In the
first place, when the schism of 1840 took place,
instead of the founders of the congregation
withdrawing, as he says, they, poor men, had all
withdrawn to their graves, for not one of them was
alive to unite their lamentations with S. N. C. The
positions of this writer are so much at variance
<<315>> with common sense, and are put together so
loosely and disjointedly as to have their own
refutation on their face. He says, that Dr. Eckman
found, on his arrival in Charleston, that “all
positive religion was rejected; no religions
instruction was communicated in the Synagogue;
prophecy was denied; hence the denial of all that is
doctrinal and national.” What a bright and beautiful
picture is here drawn of the religion of intelligent
and highly educated men, many of whom occupy
intellectual and high moral positions in society.
Will S. N. C. inform us what kind of religion was
observed in the Synagogue? Was it Jewish, Christian, Mohamedan, or Pagan? Intelligent men generally have
some guide in their aspirations to the Almighty. If
“all positive religion was rejected; no religious
instruction; prophecy denied; hence the denial of
all that was doctrinal or national,” what was there?
S. N. C. wants logic and common sense. There is no
use in refuting what cannot be understood.
Again, he says, that Mr. Poznanski requested Dr. E.
“to preach against all observances, whether Biblical
or Rabbinical,” and “has acknowledged to Dr. E.,
that it was of no consequence where the Bible came
from.” And, farther, that “Mr. P. told Dr. E. that
he did not believe in the prayers, but detested
them.” It would be descending too low to refute such
rant. It is concentrated malice and
misrepresentation combined. It is devoid of
character, because devoid of either truth or reason.
S.
N. C. finds fault with the remark used by C. in the
petition to the Board of Trustees, requesting Dr. E.
to retire, that “Religion is a holy abstraction from
all worldly contentions,” and says he never knew
before “that religion was an abstraction.”
C. never
uttered such a puerility. As S. N. C. wants
comprehension, C. will endeavour to enlighten him.
We contend that the professors of religion are not
to commingle in worldly contentions; nor to be
influenced by the baser passions, or the viler
impulses of mankind. Their place is in the temple of
the Divinity, and not in the purlieus of vice. If
men wish to indulge in the holy influences of
religion they must attend the house of God, and
there pour forth their orisons on the altar of the
Most High. But S. N. C. is an advocate, I suppose,
of the Jesuit doctrine, “that the end sanctifies
the means.”
<<316>>
It is farther said, that
Dr. E. would not permit Mr. Poznanski to read the prayers on the Day of
Atonement from horror of his heterodoxy. He did read
them* conjointly with Dr. E. But his consistency had
to receive other shocks, and his purity to be
farther tainted; for they not only stood side by
side during the whole of that hallowed day pouring
forth their devotions on the common altar of their
religion, but likewise during the whole of the
autumnal holidays.
As
for the assertion so vauntingly made, that
Mr. Poznanski was requested to give a translation
of the Creed prepared by Maimonides, and that he
palmed a different one on his congregation, the
charge is ridiculous and foolish. A committee was
appointed by the Board of Trustees, of whom Mr. P.
was Chairman, to prepare a creed as it was
understood, in conformity with the principles of
Reforms. 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., and strictly
scrutinized by the Committee, and adopted by them,†
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.
Another correction of the numerous
misrepresentations of S. N. C. and I am done.
He
says the petition requesting Dr. E. to retire, was
signed by eighteen congregators (voters); and that
requesting Dr. E. not to retire, was signed by
fifteen congregators and four contributors. Such is
not the fact.‡ The petition of the latter, was
signed by eleven congregators and four contributors,
the latter are of no avail from having no vote.
In
regard to the article headed “The Rev. Dr. Eckman
and his Congregation,” I shall confine myself
exclusively to the record, in refutation of
the assertions made there. My chief object in
replying to you, is that the friends of Dr. E. must
not expect to <<317>> build up his reputation for
orthodoxy, consistency, and sincerity, at the
expense of truth, nor at the sacrifice of anything
derogatory to the character of the congregation of
Beth Elohim.
I
beg leave to premise here, that we do not intend to
enter into any elaborate refutation of the charges
trumped up by Dr. E. and his adherents, against the
orthodoxy of Mr. Poznanski. That gentleman has
retired to private life, where he enjoys the love
and admiration of a large number of his late
congregation. He has ability enough, if necessary,
to take care of himself; but he adopted a rule, many
years past, never to reply to reflections on his
official conduct. He was aware of the endless and
bitter recrimination of religious controversies, and
wisely determined to avoid them, and to treat with
utter indifference, all calumnies on his public
course or character.
You say that “Dr. Eckman, before his election, took
pains to let no doubt rest on his principles;
that he disapproved of many of the innovations.”
Now, sir, to show how much Dr. E. objected to
Reform, and how much consistency and sincerity he
has evinced in his whole career, I beg leave to
introduce here, the chief portion of the Circular of
this congregation, containing the project of our
Reform, and to which Dr. E. was referred.
CIRCULAR.
“1st. The service of the Synagogue of this
congregation is conducted with the accompaniment of
an organ.
“2d. The sermons and prayers are preceded and
followed by hymns and psalms, sung by a choir in
Hebrew and English.
“3d. The Pentateuch is read through in the Synagogue
once in three years.
“4th. The Haphtorah and some other Hebrew portions
of the service are omitted.
“5th. The second days of the holydays are not
observed by this Congregation.
“6th. Various other improvements have been made in
the mode of worship, with the view of promoting
devotion and decorum.”
This, sir, is the embodiment of our reform. Upon it
we are ready to stand or fall. It is our alpha and
omega. The only inquiry now is, has Dr. E. come up
to the mark or has he falsified his declared and
recorded opinions? To come at <<318>>the truth of
this, let me lay before you extracts of letters from
Dr. E. to Mr. Poznanski previous to his acceptance
of office.*
Extract of a letter dated Richmond, Va.. April
22, 5610, from the Rev. Dr. Julius Eckman to the
Rev. G. Poznanski.
“If, as I suppose, there is a desideratum of a
minister in your Congregation, I cannot have the
least objection to have this letter proposed to an
honourable committee: on the contrary, I shall be
under obligations to you for doing so, and be ready
to give any information relative to myself that I
possibly can.”
Extract of another letter from the same to the
same. dated Richmond, April 26, 5610.
“Your information in the circular shows me that your
reforms are not only allowable, but even on
Rabbinical grounds highly commendable, with the
exception of the second holyday. Well, it is not
your fault that the Rabbinical Minhag collides with
the word of Scripture. My object in offering my
services is far from selfish. You therefore will
oblige me to send me the outlines of the picture.
Everything which has no influence on the practical
life, and is bordering on aerial, is of no
consideraon. Your modification of the creed, as,
for instance, אחד
rendered ‘one in unity,’ is quite correct, as
he is an absolute unity, while every other one is
but relative: we expressedly say
אחד ואין יחיד כיחידו,
and again, ואין יחידות
כמוהו and therefore are quite astonished at
the objection. About the Messiah, &c., this
is bordering on the ideal. What is it good to
[wrangle?] about terms which have not since two
thousand years been determined? If, however, there
are some more serious changes contemplated, you will
oblige me to tell me, that I may have some estimate
before I embark in such an important undertaking.
Honoured sir, this is far from being calculated to
express any doubts about the admissibility of what
there has been created, but a mutual understanding
is highly desirable. Again allow me to tell you it
will be necessary to confute aggressions against a
community of which I am fully convinced they merit
the highest esteem.
Could a greater latitudinarian in reform be
required, than what Dr. Eckman here avows himself to
be? Endorsing in the strongest and even in
fawning language, all and more reforms than were
ever contemplated sanctioning the creed, and even
touching, gratuitously, on the vital subject of the
Messiah, in a manner that evinces, if not disbelief,
indifference. These are stern and indelible proofs.
They <<319>>show a want of that stability and
sincerity of character that adorn and dignify the
pious divine.
After this correspondence Dr. Eckman came on to
Charleston, was elected, and began to officiate as
minister of this congregation. I beg leave now to
close this lengthy communication with the following
extract from the petition sent in to the Board of
Trustees, requesting Dr. E. to retire. It explains
in detail the reasons that influenced the
petitioners.
“Your petitioners, in approaching the subject of
their complaint, would premise that they entertain
no feeling of disrespect or unkindness towards the
Rev. Dr. Eckman, our present minister. That they
regard him as a gentleman of deep learning, and of
capacity to discharge the sacred duties of his
calling. That they had cheerfully tendered their
assent to his accepting the office of Hazan, under
a conviction, from his written and verbal
acquiescence in 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 Dr. Eckman, that any
evasion, or distrust, any faltering on all the
points of reform which had been adopted for the last
ten years, would have at once proved fatal to the
reverend gentleman occupying said office.
“In good faith, therefore, they had a right to
expect that Dr. Eckman would have sustained the
reform with undiminished zeal and rigour. They hoped
that in his lectures he would have confined himself
to general expositions of the principles of Judaism.
A fertile field was before him to trace the history
of 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 opinions on doctrinal points. He made
sacred subjects debateable 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
portion of our congregation were chastised for
supposed defection from the religion of their
forefathers.
“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 contrary
course to this mars the beauty of that divine
harmony that should command his most fervent praise
and devotion.
“His own adherents acknowledge that the subject of
some of his lectures are ill-timed and improper;
that he is too violent in denunciation; and that
such recrimination in the pulpit but leads to its
degradation.”*
<<320>>
“We regret, therefore, to express our opinion that
the Rev. Julius Eckman is deficient in the
qualifications of such a minister as is required by
our congregation.”
Charleston, S. C.
Remarks by the Editor.—Our correspondent is
right in presuming that we are for free discussion;
and hence his article appears as a part of the
discussion on the elements of religion, although,
much to our sorrow, it has just now assumed a
somewhat personal form, which we regret more,
perhaps, than the parties immediately interested.
Had we noticed the refection of Mr. Newman on “C.”
as though he were a disbeliever in Scripture, we
would to a certainty have struck it out, as, whether
true or not, it has, no connexion with the
subject-matter. But it entirely escaped our notice;
and hence we are glad to receive from “C.” an
authoritative contradiction, as we are always
rejoiced to place every one right before the people;
and the more so, as it assures us in this case that
another man of intellect adheres fully to the
standard of our belief. At the same tine, we must
believe that Mr. N. spoke from what he had heard,
and what he fully believed to be true.
This being disposed of, we must say that “C.” makes
a weak defence for Mr. Poznanski’s silence to Mr.
N.’s question. In an argument it was no rudeness in
Mr. N. to ask Mr. P., especially as a report was
current, and generally believed, that he had spoken
lightly of all observances, and had rather obscured
than otherwise our article of faith which claims
implicit belief in the revelation of Horeb. It was
Mr. P.’s business to speak out boldly, or he should
not argue at all. Nor will it answer to say that now
he is a private man; for his creed, as “C.”
confesses it to be, and not that of Maimonides, yet
encumbers the wall of the Synagogue. Remove this—let
Mr. P.’s friends so longer fight his battles—and
then can he speak as having retired, but not whilst
his works remain. Mr. P. was not so afraid when he
or his friends challenged us to an argument, in the
winter of ’41, when we were at Charleston, on our
way to and from Savannah. We might well have waived
the argument, on the plea that we ware unprepared,
as was the case indeed; but we did not shrink from
the contest, and we have yet to learn that Mr. P.
was incontrovertible, notwithstanding the load of
learning he summoned to his aid.
<<321>>
“S. N. C.” did not say that the religion professed
among the congregation was other than the Jewish;
but he meant to convey that the practice thereof was
sadly neglected. Will “C.” assert the contrary?
About the facts of “S. N. C.” we must leave him to
speak for himself; and we have no doubt that he can
give a good account of what he wished to convey. It
is likely enough that he has been misinformed in
slight details; but he certainly did not make a
willful misstatement.
As
respects the creed, we are certain that it is news
to the people as much as to us that a new one was
designedly made by Mr. P. He ought to have told the
public long since that he had discarded Maimonides
altogether;—it would have saved a great deal of
discussion, and healed the breach now existing long
ago; since few indeed would willingly have professed
a Judaism ŕ la Poznanski, had they known that
this was asked of. them. Are they now willing—being
certified by “C.,” and he is good authority—to
follow a creed invented on the spur of the moment,
without discussion, without consultation, and which
no one was prepared for? We ask Mr. P.’s devoted
friends—Do you recognise him as your prophet?
Our limits compel us to be brief, wherefore we must
dismiss for the present C.’s reply to us with a few
words only. We do not set up a claim of strict
orthodoxy for Dr. E. The public will judge of him by
his works; and his views on the resurrection are
surely good. There are many, however, in Charleston,
who will substantiate Dr. E.’s assertion that he had
an argument with Mr. P. on the first day of his
arrival; and, that Mr. Ottolengui, the President
then being, was aware of this divergence between the
new and the retiring minister; and this is all we
said, and it covers the whole ground.
The reform programme, we trust, is not more sacred
to the parties than the creed of Israel; and still
they have relinquished the last. How, then, can they
stand by the first? They surely ought to permit a
little divergence against their orthodoxy—it
is only fair.
When Dr. E. speaks of the Messiah, as ideal,
it is no denial of the doctrine of his coming. Ideal
is only opposed to practical; the last it is got;
but nevertheless it is vital in its influence on our
faith.
Dr. E. professes to be a reformer; hence he had no
objection to take a Synagogue of the German reform
kind, as in Hamburg; but this does got my that he
must subscribe to all the new inventions which Mr.
P. had suctioned, and which he (Dr. E.) did not know
the extent of till after his arrival.
Dr. E. shall be welcome to make any reply in our
next. For the <<322>>present we must stop for want
of room, but not for lack of inclination and
ability. We may recur, perhaps, to the subject ourself. |
