|
No. V.
To
the Editor of the Occident.
Reverend Sir :
Whenever I sit down to write something for the
people, I always do it with a cheerful mind, because
I am convinced the people reed my humble essays and,
since I always commit to writing the most sacred
truths, according to the best of my conviction, I
am confident of God’s assistance. Bat this time it
is with indignation that I take up my pen. I detest
to speak or <<299>> to write in my own behalf. You
will admit that I have written more during the last
five years than any one of my colleagues; but I
never wrote one letter in my own behalf: You turned
a philosophical dispute into personal invectives of
the most abusive kind; and, though I am aware that
you will either not publish this communication, or
affix again to it a host of notes full of ironic
compliments and new invectives, still I cannot
resist the desire to answer you.
To
answer your notes to my letters on resurrection
would be a folly, which to commit I shall
deliberately beware; for neither you nor your
allies, whom you summoned to partake in the crusade,
have done the least injury to my fortifications; and
if you cannot bring forward better evidences in your
favour, and better contra-evidences to my
statements, you will hardly succeed to discomfit
the fatal “No” which I hazarded to pronounce in the
presence of the uppermost exponent of your so-called
orthodoxy. You came again and over again with the
worn out arms of mysticism, and so do your friendly
allies; but I am no Don Quixote, that I shall fight
the air. Friend Lesser, it becomes you to know that
the philosophical investigations of our age have
shaken the foundations of mysticism; its pillars,
its strongholds are dashed in pieces, and everything
based upon it exists but in a dream of bygone ages.
Whatever is irreconcilable with the plain facts
which nature represents to us, can be vindicated no
longer, because it is a useless waste of time. You
cannot force upon a man to believe what he has good
and holding grounds to reject. The time of despotic
legislation of priests is gone; mere supposals,
inferences, dreams, and imaginations are now
appreciated precisely at their real value. But I
forget that you pointed me to the 12th of Daniel. It
becomes you, as a Jew and a minister, to know that
Daniel was no prophet, and that we take no precept
and no doctrine but from Moses and the Prophets. The
Talmudists understood that well enough; and when
they, in Sanhedrin, section Chelek, advance their
biblical proofs in favour of the resurrection, they
wisely omit* to quote <<300>> the 12th of Daniel.
Daniel himself confesses that he did not understand
what he was told, or what he saw. You will
therefore surely not expect of me that I must
understand him to advance doctrines which appear
absurd at the first sight. And without all that, it
is plain enough that Daniel speaks about the
restoration of Israel, which he should not live to
see, as he should go to his end and rest; and at the
end of days (in a world where no sun shines to
measure the days and times), he shall arise to his
lot (to live for ever in the midst of congenial
spirits praising God). You also call my attention to
the prayer-book (remarkable authority); but,
unfortunately, it is not said there, in plain words,
that the body shall arise. And suppose it is said
there, do you not know that the Amidah or Shemoneh
Esray was written after the destruction of the
second temple, as the 6th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 15th
benedictions plainly prove? And do you assert that
the men of that time were infallible? Did I not give
you plain reasons for such passages,
in my second
letter, pp. 191-194? But it is useless to discuss
the matter. You will have to say some cabalistic
mysteries, and I will then again pity you, so we can
never meet; therefore I deem it best to suspend
writing on this subject, and to commence the
deliberation on the real theme, which to discuss I
have sat down to write.
<<301>>
1. You state (p. 24), “It is indeed strange that
professed successors of the Rabbis—those who
exercise functions which ought not to exist, if the
Talmud were a tissue of errors—should be found among
the followers of Eisenmenger and Mac Caul.” To reply
to such a charge requires a calm mind, which I
cannot maintain when reading such an invective, that
is more than any man can calmly bear. It would
appear to me that, since you were in possession of
my second letter on the subject, where I attempted
to justify the allegoric language of the Talmud (pp.
192-194), in a manner quite different from Eisenmenger and Mac Caul, you made this remark, so
that you could say (p. 199), “He has confessed
enough in saying that the Rabbins were thoroughly
learned,” in order to make the reader believe your
epistle brought me to this confession; but there are
a good many readers of your periodical who know well
enough that epistles effect very little with me.
Evidence—give me evidence, and nothing but evidence;
but evidence is a thing as foreign to fanatic zeal
as truth to mysticism. To you, as you confess, is
the Talmud the veiled image at Sais. I had the
courage to lift up the veil: still I became not
blind; still I see things in a correct light.
2.
You state (p. 196) “We have no rule to declare any
one a heretic; but this much is certain, that we
cannot trust anyone as a teacher of religion, who
denies what this religion teaches.” It is a real
pity that you are not better acquainted with our
code of Rabbinical laws, or you would find there a
minute specification of such rules; and I doubt not
that you and you sagacious friends could find there
some ground to render that great service to the
Jewish Church, as you call it, and to the Jewish
community of America, to excommunicate me as a
heretic, an infidel, an atheist, a dangerous
advocate of errors, &c. But, my dear sir, I advise
you not to trouble yourself; not to disturb the
sweet repose of your friends, to excommunicate an
humble and decried individual—a harmless, not cared
and not called for man as Isaac M. Wise, of Albany.
Such a great trouble was in its right place when
Rabbi Jehudah Hallevi*, Maimonides, Aben Ezra,
Spinoza, Mendelssohn, and Solomon Maimon were
excommunicated as heretics. Those were great and
influential writers, dangerous to the Jewish
community. Then was the pious zeal well applied; but
“should the king of Israel pursue after one flea?”
<<302>>
I must confess that I was altogether ignorant that,
in this age of science and enlightenment, of
perfect liberty in the republic of letters, and in
this country of liberty, one can be excommunicated
as a heretic. I thank you for the information. It
would be very severe to me to be declared a
heretic.
Christian doctors persecute me on account
of my criticisms on the New Testament; so neither
Abraham nor Paul [?] would open me the gates of
heaven. But who shall excommunicate me? You? Oh,
you wage no personal warfare with me, you are so
much inferior to my humble self in erudition, in
Jewish learning. Did you not say so? I will take the
fruits of your lofty imagination for truth. Shall
your erudite and sagacious friends do it? Tell them
I am not afraid to discuss with them any one
theological question, provided they abstain from
personal warfare. Shall the people do it? You may
rest assured, that your views are not those of the
majority of Israelites in America. That class of
people who think, think with me; and those who think
not, do not think with you either. “You have no
confidence in me as a religious teacher.”
That is a
real pity; but I am accustomed to be perfectly
satisfied if I can have confidence in myself—if my
conscience whispers that I have spoken
<<303>> truth
on behalf of the sacred cause of Israel, though it
undermines my reputation, my very existence; though
I am opposed, by dozens of fanatics, who spare no
trouble to ruin me. I am content if my conscience
whispers that I have done my duty, have not harmed
my fellow-man, have not advanced doctrines which I
myself do not believe in, have not become arrogant
and overbearing. And, my dear sir, I have this
satisfaction, and also this one, that hundreds whom
I taught the pure word of God, whom I withdrew from
immorality, from superstition, and prejudices, from
sin and indifferentism, whom I connected closer with
God and Judaism, have full confidence in me as a
religious teacher. And I am satisfied; when we once
will meet as disembodied spirits before the throne
of mercy, you will perceive that I am satisfied.
3.
You state, p. 199, “Dr. W.’s mode of reasoning would
destroy all faith, and would open the door to
infidelity of the worst kind.” Experience has not
proved anything in favour of your supposition; for I
have brought a true religious spirit wherever I
came: therefore you should have proved logically
your very pious assertion, which is calculated to
uproot me at once. But an editor of an American
Jewish journal has no use for a thing like logical
proof; his word is law to the reader; his authority
is unquestionable; wherefore, you could declare me a
follower of Eisenmenger, of Mac Caul, a heretic
unworthy of your confidence, without quoting the
least proof for your words; and all this you could
conveniently do as an avowed friend of mine, and
without waging a personal warfare against me. H’m!
that’s singular, indeed! Let me suppose something,
too;—I have a right to it, as well as any one
editor. It strikes me that it is the mode of not
reasoning which destroys all faith, and opens the
door to infidelity of the worst kind. This ruinous
mode of imposing principles and doctrines upon the
Israelite,—imposing them with the especial
recommendation of being truly Jewish, inseparable
from the system of Judaism,—is the horrible cause of
infidelity of the worst kind. Doctrines which are
opposed by sound common sense, by the very facts of
nature, by the Bible itself, aroused the suspicion
of rational men; and they <<304>> rejected, not
these doctrines alone, but the whole system of which
they formed a part, made hundreds indifferent
spectators to our sacred cause, caused others to
overthrow the whole structure of Judaism and adopt
in lieu of it a pure Deism, and many fell into the
horrible depths of nihilism. The time of a blind and uninquiring faith is gone; we deal now with rational
and reasoning men.
Experience furnishes you with a good deal more proof
in favour of my supposition than of yours. Lay your
hand upon your heart, be calm and honest, and ask
yourself whether you can justify your cause before
God, if the coming generation of Israel will be lost
to our sacred cause, because you imposed upon them
doctrines which caused them to reject the whole
system? I could not. Or do you think a generation
growing up in a free and enlightened country will
not do so? I do not; and therefore I think it my
sacred mission to teach an enlightened and pure
Judaism, to remove as much mysticism as possible
from the system of our faith, to give as much
rational evidence for it as I can bring forward; and
if I am wrong, I am honest, and God will not judge
me too severely. But as for man, none is my judge in
a case which I have to plead but before God; nor
will their fanatical endeavours frighten or hinder
me in the least.
And so I abandon the dispute, and I hope my name be
mentioned no more in American Jewish journals; nor
will I reply to any charge brought against me. I
shall henceforth pursue my way without journals. In
twenty years hence, the reader will be astonished
that I could waste so much time in the discussion of
questions decided long ago; that men disputed
matters which were as clear as the sun at noon. They
will pity me, that I lived in this critical and
unsettled age, when the war of opinions is waged all
over the civilized world, and also between the
opinion of the people and the editors. They will be
the evidences for my doctrines.
I
can easily forgive you the injuries done to me; for
I pity you, and I hope that the day is not far when
the Occident will advocate the doctrines of reform.
I
will, remain an honest friend of Isaac Lesser, but
with the <<305>> Editor of the Occident I am done;
wherefore I bid a hearty farewell to its readers.
Fraternally yours,
Isaac M. Wise, D.D.
Albany, July 9th, 5611.
Remarks by the Editor.—The apprehension of
the evil consequences of the serious discussion
which we were in a measure forced into with Dr. Wise
has been partly verified in the spirit displayed by
him in the foregoing communication. Dr. W. must have
known, when he penned it, that it would appear in
the Occident, notwithstanding his denouncing as
fanatics all the defenders of Judaism as it is
transmitted in Scripture, Talmud, and Prayer Book;
we include the whole three, since, notwithstanding
the ridicule cast upon the latter by Dr. W., there
can be no question that, in, defining what our
received opinions are, no sound critic will fail to
take cognisance of this important element of our
public and private worship. Dr. Wise has had so much
evidence of the perfect freedom with which the
Occident has been conducted from its very beginning,
that one might think he need not have dreaded being
denied the privilege of replying to the Editor, or
all of his correspondents. Perhaps, now as Dr. W.
has said he would not write any more for our work,
we ought to let him speak at his pleasure, and allow
his various allegations to pass without a word of
contradiction, upon the plea that it is ungenerous
to strike an unresisting foe; but in so acting we
should exhibit an Utopian generosity, which we do
not profess to be necessary in any walk of life. And
though Dr. W. says it is his last, if he chooses to
reconsider this resolve, and endeavour to refute our
remarks, he shall be welcome to any reasonable
space he may require.
We
would premise that, though Dr. Wise’s replying “No”
to the questions whether Mr. Poznanski believed in
the coming of the Messiah and the resurrection of
the dead, in the discussion this gentleman had with
Dr. Raphall during his visit to Charleston, was the
cause of our writing the fragmentary papers,
“Judaism and its Principles,” in our last volume, we
do not recollect that we mentioned the Doctor’s
name, except in a note to the first article. He
therefore was no more assailed than any of the other
defenders of the new species of Judaism, of which
unfortunately, there are more than should be among
the professed teachers of righteousness. We
acknowledge boldly that we meant to convey the idea
that those who deny the two doctrines in
<<306>>
question are not fit to be Jewish ministers; and
why? Because they have no right to employ the Prayer
Book and read the Scriptures to the people in a
sense different from what the ostensible words seem
to convey. Will Dr. Wise or his adherents say that
the Bible is silent on the subject? that he can give
a reasonable explanation of the eleventh chapter of
Isaiah, and many others; the twenty-fifth of the
same prophet, and the many allusions and direct
words of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Psalms, so as to make
us believe that the prophets did not teach the
redemption of Israel, the regeneration of the world
through a personal Messiah, and the subsequent
revival of those who sleep in the dust of the earth?
Can Dr. Wise, or any one else, dare to assert that
the most ancient part of the prayer book does not
require the belief in both doctrines? Is not the
benediction commencing
אלהי נשמה שנתת בי “My
God, the soul which thou hast placed within me,” not
expressive in the fullest sense of the idea of a
corporeal resurrection? Does not the benediction
רצה, the
seventeenth of the ’Amidah, fully enforce the
restoration of the temple worship? Now we say,
gentlemen reformers, be consistent; reject the
prayer book out and out, reform the Bible out and
out, or conform to the standard which these
authorities plainly indicate. We would most
assuredly condemn any teaching which should raise a
new sect, an offshoot of Judaism, such as
Christianity evidently was at its first inception;
but we would at least honour the courage of the men
who would boldly rise up and sever their connexion
with us, however we might deplore their sinful
proceeding. They would display a consistency in sin,
which the half measures of some of our teachers most
assuredly lack. We the people therefore have a right
to demand of these teachers to express boldly
whether they belong to us or our enemies, that we
may know what to do in the premises; and we
individually, and as a simple Israelite, without any
public position, and speaking without looking to any
public body for the cue how to express our
sentiments, among other, demand of those who are in
the chair of authority to declare at once and
without equivocation, “Do you believe or not in
Scriptures, and the doctrines handed down to us, and
which are embraced in our prayed?”
Dr. W. is indignant at our throwing a doubt upon his
right to propagate Judaism with arbitrary
limitations. But he has no cause for this
indignation, and we gave only free scope to a
sentiment which is shared by all who believe as we
do. We, however, have much more cause to complain of
his speaking of us and our friends as ignorant
fanatics who wish to deprive the people of the right
of discussion. Is <<307>> this not strange? How was
Dr. W. ever enabled to bring his views before the
public in this country, except through an American
Jewish journal? Is it necessary that we, as editor,
should endorse all his opinions, under pain of being
denounced as a fanatic? As we understand Dr. W. and
all his associates, the self-styled friends of light
and progress, if we believe with them, and applaud
and subscribe what they allege, well and good; then
have we a right to think and spear, because we think
and speak with them. But woe to us if we dare to
imagine in our ignorance that the authors of our
prayers had some dim knowledge of the truths which
our religion demands! and double woe, if we have the
audacity to aver that modern discoveries in science
by no means overthrow the structure of our faith! We
will not give vent to all the thoughts of sincere
indignation that rise up in our mind, because it is
useless to enter into a personal combat of any sort.
Enough;—we persist in our expressed opinion, without
meaning offence to any one, that persons who wish to
teach Judaism must, as a prerequisite, admit all its
doctrines. No one can, it is true, coerce the
belief; but, on the other hand, there is no earthly
necessity that they who cannot believe our standard
should be our teachers; and if unfortunately they
have qualified themselves by severe study to fit
themselves for the functions of Rabbi or minister,
and afterwards find that their opinions do not
square with what is expected of them, they should
act honestly, and renounce a profession for which
they have no inward call, and for which they have
not the necessary prerequisite,—perfect conviction.
There is no necessity that you, he, or I, should be
ministers of religion, or professors of mathematics,
or demonstrators of anatomy; but this is certain,
that if any one of us offers himself to act in
either capacity, he must be mentally, morally, and
physically capable to do justice to all the duties
demanded of him. An imperfectly qualified person may
be chosen in the absence of an individual amply
endowed; but this is not the rule, but the
exception, and is only to be submitted to till the
defect can be remedied.
Dr. W. treats our arguments as though they were the
most stupid and unsatisfactory in the world. He also
speaks of our allies whom we summoned. If the
public agree with Dr. W. about our weakness, he
ought to rejoice that we had nothing better to
oppose him with; for nothing so strengthens an
argument as the futile attempts to overthrow it. But
we cannot be a judge in our own case. As regards,
however, our allies, only one has as yet appeared
before the people, and sure we are that no one has
any cause to complain of <<308>> his bitterness. We
acknowledge that we did call on all those who knew
the subject to come out in defence of the faith, and
we had especial reference to one person; but the
call has not been responded to except by two, one of
whom has not yet appeared in our pages; and the
others either condemned the discussion outright, as
useless and improper, or preserved a profound
silence. Our army of defenders therefore is small
indeed, and, for numbers, need not excite the wrath
of Dr. W.
We
again aver, that to reduce everything to the
evidence of our senses before admitting it, would
destroy all religion; since but few ideas are
reducible to the evidence of the apprehension of the
corporeal organs of our frame. The very assumption
of spirit, immortality, &c., is mysticism, in
the strict sense of the word, as you cannot produce
the least proof tangible to the senses. It is true
that an unreasoning, blind acquiescence in dogmas is
injurious to a healthy state of religion; but
Judaism always investigated, and the very discussion
on the material element of religion which the
Occident has always encouraged proves that we at
least abhor the absence of close investigation; and
we are happy that thus far no injury has resulted to
our holy religion from the wide scope of discussion
which we have permitted. It is not necessary to
follow Dr. W. step by step. But we may say we did
not insinuate that our epistle had caused Dr. W. to
retract. We only wish that he had done so, and thus
aided us to heal the breach which German
reforms have produced in four congregations in this
country. We rather think that it is ungenerous to
accuse us of the paltry meanness which
insinuating presupposes. We are apt to call
things by their right names; but if Dr. W. had been
convinced by any arguments of ours, it would not be
to his discredit, as this is the only benefit of
discussions, that the truth may be elicited.
We
are happy that Dr. Wise has been so successful in
reforming those under his ministry; we wish him
ample success in the same pious test; but still we
may that the result would not have been less, had he
preached the creed of Maimonides without abridgment.
We
know that excommunications have been pronounced, and
can be again, if necessary; but we in this country
have no competent tribunal, and we doubt, with
Mendelssohn, the expediency of so doing, under
almost every circumstance. We do not wish to declare
Dr. W. a heretic; but we fear that he covets the
distinction of being made a martyr of. We shall take
care that he shall not have that satisfaction;
<<309>> the moment that he stops the discussion, his
name shall only appear in news items, as other
persons have frequently appeared; and if that does
not suit him, he may interdict being mentioned even,
and he shall be gratified. He surely endeavoured to
cast ridicule on the Rabbis; and in this he acted
with Dr. Mac Caul. We said it in sorrow, and not in
sager; but it was only the truth, and this may be
spoken.
Dr. Wise will not write any more for us. Be it so.
We conducted the Occident four years before we knew
of Dr. W.’s existence; and if we live and continue
at our post, we hope to find something for our
readers, and other correspondents to aid us. Our
friends will observe that it is not the illiberal
editor, but the liberal disputant, who expresses
illiberal sentiments against freedom of discussion;
and it will be found so in general, that the
greatest tyrants are those who claim the most
freedom. Every one is at liberty to submit to them;
they alone have the right to employ their
tongue and pen. This is not our notion of freedom. |
