|
New York,
Tishry the 12th, 5604.
To the Editor of the Occident,
It
was a source of gratification to me to see in the last number of the
Occident that some one has at last broached the subject of rabbinical
authority. I am alluding to the Rev. B. C. Carillon's communication,
without, however, sharing his sentiments, as you will perceive from the
remarks which I beg to submit to your consideration. It appears to me
that persons the most capable of handling the subject have hitherto been
the most backward in doing so. The only reason I can assign for their
silence is, that those denying or doubting the divine authority of the
sages are not willing to avow their principles openly, for fear of
subverting our from-time-immemorial-adopted system of worship and
ceremonial observances. Others, who have implicit faith in what the
rabbins taught us, prefer their inward belief to remain unknown, to
incurring the risk of being considered hyper-orthodox. The time has now,
however, arrived, that one ought to take a bold stand, and defend our
long-cherished traditional faith against the invaders of our most sacred
territory. Since the publication of the first number of your periodical,
I anxiously watched to see if any one would undertake to argue the
point. I was silent, for I said, "Let days speak, and multitude of
years should teach wisdom." Besides, I feel my inability to do
ample justice to such an important question. But as the Rev. B. C.
Carillon has assumed a position which requires and demands refutation, I
will exert my utmost endeavours to do so.
The
reverend gentleman wishes to draw a line between the divine authority of
the sages and that ceded to them by mankind on account of their
superior wisdom and grammatical knowledge. Now, I am of opinion that no such distinction can be made. No law is
binding to us unless it be divine; therefore, if the Talmud be not
divine, it is not binding. If the question be asked, "Were the
rabbins inspired or not?" I would unhesitatingly answer in the
negative. Since after the destruction of the holy temple, prophecy and
רוח הקודש have been
taken away from Israel; but as regards traditional laws, they are most
unquestionably divine, having been transmitted to our sages from Moses
by the hands of Joshua, the elders, the prophets, &c., as we find in
Aboth. Nor is it possible that the law of Moses should have been given
to the Israelites without subsequent or simultaneous explanation. Since,
to the majority of those blessed with the divine gift, it must have been
wholly or partly unintelligible on account of their ignorance, (having
just emerged from bondage, it is not to be supposed that they could have
been sufficiently enlightened to understand the Word of God,) in
consequence of which, when he commanded them
והגית בו
יומם ולילה, it
would have been unreasonable to exact it from them, had he not provided
them with a tradition, or oral law, which was ready to explain and
interpret every item of that law, and which was only compiled and
committed to writing at a time when the Jews began to be dispersed, and
fears were entertained of its being entirely forgotten, or at least of
its becoming corrupted. I could quote many an authority to substantiate
what I here assert, but think it unnecessary, as these facts must be
known to the majority of your readers.
The
Rev. B. C. Carillon very ingenuously asks, "I would like to
know whether Mr. Marks lays Tephillin?" Surely he ought to know
that these reformers reject Tephillin altogether;* they dispense with
that ceremony by spiritualizing the text.** Now, I am rather inclined to
believe that when the law was given, "Thou shalt bind them for a
sign upon thy hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine
eyes," the question must most assuredly have suggested itself to
some one's imagination, whether it were to be fulfilled literally or
spiritually? And an answer must have followed which caused this ceremony
to be handed down from generation to generation, and to be observed even
at the present day. If the answer had been "spiritually," no
one would ever have dreamed of imposing a burthen upon ourselves which
was not originally intended. The same I presume to have taken place in
regard to the injunction לא תעשה
כל מלאכה; as it is not defined
in Holy Writ what is a מלאכה and what is
not, a subsequent explanation was necessary; hence we have the
thirty-nine אב מלאכות,
the תולדות being mere analogous
deductions. I could cite many more laws, which would be equally as
unintelligible, were it not for the exposition of the Rabbis.
Nevertheless,
I do not wish to advance that every word contained in the Talmud is of
divine origin. Nay, far from it. Such as
הגדות
מדרשים and interpretations of
passages in Scripture where no point of law is at issue, I do not
consider to be authority. You will find Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Rashi,
Maimonides, and many more of our principal commentators, to interpret
passages in diametrical opposition to the Rabbis. I am alluding only to
הלכות, and that is all which is claimed by
them, or for them.
Should
my opinions be attacked, you will always find me prepared to defend them
to the best of my poor ability. I am yours very respectfully,
HENRY
GOLDSMITH.
Letter From The Rev. Wm. Ramsey.
Mr.
Editor—In looking over the pages of the "Occident" for
October, I was not a little surprised to find that my name was inserted
as one of the directors of the "Pennsylvania Society for
Evangelizing the Jews." I wish you and your readers to understand
that it was done, no doubt, through kind intentions, but wholly without
my knowledge or approbation. It is, I believe, a customary thing in this
city, in forming a society, to appoint as officers gentlemen who are
known or supposed to be favourable to the objects of the society, even
without their knowledge. But when this is done, it seems but right that,
in the publication of the proceedings of the society, the fact should be
mentioned. If this were done, there could be no misunderstanding in the
case, and explanations would be needless.
I
am willing to acknowledge that I do feel a deep and increasing interest
in the children of Israel, and watch with no little anxiety the conduct
of the nations of the earth towards them, and the dealings of Providence
in their behalf. But I choose to manifest that interest in other ways
than in forming a society specifically in reference to them. The gospel
requires me to do good unto all
men, as I have opportunity. Under this authority I endeavour to act; and
hence it is that my prayers ascend daily to God; both for the Jew and for the gentile, that they may be saved. The Jew,
as a man, is of no more importance, in my eye, than any other man: But
the Jew, as a Jew, has an interest thrown around him which belongs to no
gentile on the earth. He is a mystery to himself, as well as to the
gentile. The great mass of the
gentile world look upon him as an outcast from God, and a foe to his
fellow-man, and a being who may be despised, abused, and robbed at
pleasure. We need not go to the dark ages for confirmation of this statement.
The nineteenth century furnishes us with ample proof. Witness the scenes of Damascus. The blood of the offenceless Jew is scarcely dry upon the sabre
of the Turk, when the Emperor of Russia issues his ukase against the
whole nation, and drives them, under the ban of imprisonment or death,
from his territories. The sound of this iniquitous mandate had not yet
died upon our ears, when the Vatican thunders forth its peals of
compassion for the purse of the Jews of Ancona. We wait to hear what
will be the end of these tender mercies of Rome for the defenceless Jew.
No doubt they will be such as were manifested towards them in Spain in,
the days of Ferdinand and Isabella. May the God of Abraham deliver them
from the deadly embrace of the "Mother of Harlots."
In
all countries you find the children of Israel, and "Yet they dwell
alone, and are not reckoned among the nations." They have
"become an astonishment [both to themselves and others], a proverb;
and a by-word among all nations whither the Lord has led
them."—Deut. 28.37. But few of the gentiles think it worth while
to inquire into this subject, and there are still fewer that seem to
have any light upon it. Some have, in their boldness and ignorance,
dared to affirm that the providence of God has no more to do in
perpetuating the Jewish race, than it has in perpetuating the family of
drunkards. But they are wilfully ignorant of the fact, that the Lord has
led them among all nations; and that "He that scattereth Israel
will gather him, and keep him as shepherd doth his flock." That
their present captivity is in consequence of their sins, no intelligent
Jew will deny. And yet but few if any among them seem to have any idea
of when it shall end. It has continued already nearly eighteen hundred
years, and for aught that many know or care, it may continue eighteen
hundred years longer. But we are not wholly without light on this
subject. Moses says of Israel, "When thou shalt return unto the
Lord thy God, and shall obey his voice, with all thine heart, and with
all thy soul, then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and
have compassion on thee, and will return and gather thee from all the
nations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee."—Deut. 30.
2, 3. We have additional light on this point in the New Testament. Paul
informs us, "that blindness in part has happened to. Israel, until
the fulness of the gentiles be come in."—Rom. 11. 25. Then
"shall the Redeemer come to Zion, and to them that turn from
transgression in Israel." This, the apostle tells us, is a mystery
of which he would not have us ignorant, lest we gentiles should be wise
in our oven conceits. The same idea is advanced in Luke 21. 24:
"Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the gentiles, until the times
of the gentiles be fulfilled." These times will be
fulfilled, and this fulness will be brought in, when the gospels
shall have been preached among all nations, for a witness unto them.
Then shall the end come, i. e., the end of Israel's
captivity; and the completion of this age or dispensation.
I
nowhere find it mentioned in the Scriptures that the Jews, as a nation,
will, during this dispensation, believe that the Messiah has come,
though many of them have believed in him. The contrary, however, is
plainly revealed by Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, 11.30, 31. He
there tells us that as we gentiles, in times past, did not believe God,
but now have obtained mercy in consequence of the unbelief of the Jews,
by the sovereign will of God, so also have these (the Jews) also now not
believed in our [gentile day of] mercy, that they also may obtain mercy,
not through our instrumentality, but through the sovereign mercy of God:
for He hath concluded them all [both Jews and gentiles] in unbelief,
that He might have mercy upon all. God has not honoured the Jewish
church, as such, in reclaiming the gentile world thus far from idolatry;
nor will he honour the Christian church, as such, in bringing back the
captives of Israel, and in leading them to acknowledge their Messiah.
That will be done by a higher power. That they ought to believe in him,
I have no more doubt than I have that the gentiles should do so: but
that either Jews or gentiles will, as a body, believe in Jesus of
Nazareth as the Messiah, and obey him, I have no well-grounded hope. But
the time is not far distant when "Zion shall be redeemed with
judgments, and her captives with righteousness." Then shall they
acknowledge that the "rod out of the stem of Jesse, the branch out
of his roots" (Is. 11. 1), is Adonai Tzidkenu, the Lord our
Righteousness."—Jer. 23. 6. "And the man whose name is the
branch shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall sit and rule upon
his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his throne."—Zech. 6.
12, 13. Then "shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely."
Entertaining
the views I do on this interesting subject, I doubt not that if
Christians would converse more with their Jewish brethren on those
prophecies which refer to the character, office, work, and advent of the
Messiah, and do it in the spirit of meekness and love, such as their
divine Master exhibited, it would tend more to unite them in love than
any other course that could be pursued. As I have already said, God's
dealings towards the Jews is a mystery to us gentiles; and his dealings
towards us is equally a mystery to them. If God is offended with them
for their sins, He is no better pleased with us for ours. For He says,
"I am very sore displeased with the gentiles that are at ease: for
I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the
affliction."—Zech. l, 15. With the ardent prayer that the time
may speedily come when "the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and
come with singing unto Zion;" and "when the Lord of hosts
shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients
gloriously," I remain, dear Sir, yours very truly,
William Ramsey.
We
lay the above letter from our valued friend before the public with much
satisfaction, as it proves that he at least did not join in the unholy
work against the peace of our people in this state. We have not time nor
space this month to comment upon the Scriptural quotations which Mr.
Ramsey adduces; but we shall probably revert to them, unless prevented
by the constant accumulation of new matter. Our friend will easily
understand that we read not the Bible as he does; nevertheless, we would
be guilty of unpardonable offence against good breeding should this fact
prevent us from giving him a space in our journal to define his
position. We only wish that there might be many who with the sincere
conviction in favour of his own religion, would combine, as Mr. Ramsey
does, a sincere love for Israel with their faith. Mr. R. has seen our
people on the coast of Coromandel, in the countries of the Ottomans and
in America, and he was the one we alluded to in our last, as being of
all the officers of the Pennsylvania Society alone acquainted with the
wants of the Jews. We are,
therefore, pleased to find that his name was placed among the list of
officers without his consent, since he must know that a course of
intermeddling can only irritate, without leading to any result at which
the most bigoted conversionist could rejoice.—Ed. Oc. |
