other principles, manifest itself in external acts, and in an external
form of rites and ceremonies. It is just as impossible for a living man
to continue without giving any signs of life, as for the religious
principle to exist without an outward expression. It is the universal
law of creation that every vital principle should manifest itself and
therefore, when the Creator himself was pleased to give a religion, he
ordained certain rites and ceremonies to give notice of its existence,
and to serve as the body in which the soul should reside. Rites and
ceremonies, therefore, are not to be despised, even when devised by man,
for they are demonstrations of an internal life from which they proceed;
but when instituted by God, they are doubly important, because besides
being a sign, they have all the authority of a Divine command. False
religion, however, is not satisfied with this acknowledgment, nor this
measure of reverence. It goes still further, and elevates the external
sign above the thing signified, by making the external rites the great
essentials of religion. Thus, in the time of the Prophet Isaiah, the
Israelites thought that the act of sacrifice, and the external
observation of the Sabbath and holidays, formed the substance of
religion, and therefore God told them, that even these things, though
ordained by himself, were not pleasing in his sight, unless they
proceeded from the living principle within. “Bring no more vain
oblations: incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and
Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity,
even the solemn meeting.” (Isaiah i. 13.) And again in a subsequent
chapter he says, “They seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a
nation that did righteousness and forsook not the ordinances of their
God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in
approaching to God.” (lviii. 2.) And yet at the same time he shows that
this was all mere outside work, and displeasing in his sight. Wherever,
therefore, we find a religion, which places external observances above
the moral duties, we may be sure it is not of God; and for this reason,
amongst others, we believe that the oral law is the invention of men. We
had an instance in the subject last considered, the dispensation from
oaths. The rabbies disregard the moral obligation, but make the mere
form of going to a rabbi to get absolution an essential requisite.
Another proof is furnished by their doctrine concerning _The
meritoriousness of Circumcision_, which is set forth as follows:—
מצות עשה לכל אדם מישראל שימול את בנו וגדולה היא משאר מצוות עשה שיש בה צד
כרת , וגם נכרתו עליה שלש עשרה בריתות בפרשת מילה , ולא נקרא אברהם שלם עד
שנימול ובזכותה נכרתה לו ברית על נתינת הארץ והיא מצלת מדינה של גיהנם כמו
שאמרו חכמים שאברהם אבינו יושב שנימול , ומאוסה היא הערלה שנתגנו בה הגוים
שנאנר כי כל הגוים ערלים , וכל המפר בריתו של אברהם או שמושך ערלתו אע׳׳פ
שיש בידו תורה ומעשים טובים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא ׃
“It is an affirmative precept, binding on every man of Israel, to
circumcise his son; and this is greater than any of the other
affirmative precepts, for there is a threat of excision attached to it;
and further, on account of it, thirteen covenants were made, as is
recorded in the chapter of circumcision. Abraham was not called perfect
until he was circumcised, and by the merit of circumcision, a covenant
was made with him respecting the giving of the land. It also delivers
from the judgment of hell, for the wise men have said, that Abraham our
father sits at the door of hell, and does not suffer any one that is
circumcised to be cast into it. Uncircumcision is despised, for the
Gentiles are reproached with it, as it is said, ‘All the nations are
uncircumcised’ (Jer. ix. 25); and every one who breaks the covenant of
Abraham our father, either by not being circumcised or by becoming
uncircumcised, has no part in the world to come, even though he possess
a knowledge of the law and good works.” (Joreh Deah., 260.) Here we have
the very same misconception, which God reproved by the mouth of Isaiah;
an external act is preferred to holiness of life, and a mere preparation
of the body to purity of heart. It is gravely and solemnly asserted that
the precept concerning circumcision is greater than all the other
affirmative precepts, that is, it is exalted above our duty to God and
our duty to our neighbour. The command
ואהבת לרעך כמוך
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” is an affirmative precept,
and is therefore one of those to which circumcision is preferred. The
command
כבד את אביך ואת אמך
“Honour thy father and thy mother,” is an affirmative precept, and has a
promise of long life in the land attached to it. It concerns our duty to
those, to whom, under God, we owe our existence, and yet the oral law
teaches that obedience to it is not so important as to the precept
concerning circumcision. We do not mean to deny the scriptural
importance of circumcision, nor of any other of the Divine institutions,
but we do mean to appeal to every Israelite of understanding to judge,
which of these commandments is of most importance. Can an Israelite,
merely because he is circumcised, though he has no love to his
fellow-men, and no reverence for his parents, be acceptable in the sight
of God, or can he be more acceptable than a Gentile who obeys these
commands? But the sweeping declaration of the oral law, not only teaches
men that circumcision is more valuable than love to man, but exalts it
even above love to God. The commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God, with all thy heart,” &c., is an affirmative precept, and is
consequently included amongst those which are stated to be inferior to
circumcision. This conclusion seems so monstrous, that one is almost
afraid of having misunderstood the sense; but Rashi, who must be
acknowledged as an authority, goes still farther, and endeavours to
prove that circumcision is equal in importance to all the other
commandments put together.
שהיא שקולה כנגד כל המצוות שבתורה ׃
“It is equivalent to all the commandments which are in the law.”
(Nedarim, fol. 31, col. ii.) So that there can be no doubt that this is
the doctrine of the oral law. Now just let the reader consider the
nature of circumcision. It is, in the first place, an external act,—it
is, in the second place, an act performed without the will of the
infant, and at a time when he can exercise no act of moral
responsibility, and yet the mere act is placed above the highest
perfection of a created being, love to God and his fellow-creatures. But
the oral law does not merely assert this doctrine, but gives its proofs,
and the first is, that to the precept of circumcision the threat of
excision is annexed. Of course, we admit the fact, for it is plainly
said, “The uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken
my covenant” (Gen. xvii. 14.); but we deny the consequence. There is
nothing peculiar to circumcision in the annexed threat of excision. God
has pronounced the same threat against every presumptuous sin, as it is
written, “But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be
born in the land or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that
soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised
the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall
be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” (Numb. xv. 30, 31.)
Here we see that presumptuous transgression of any one of God’s
commandments will be visited with the same punishment denounced against
the omission of circumcision, so that the annexed threat is far from
proving that this precept is superior to all the other affirmative
commandments. On the contrary, it shows that God does not judge by the
external act, but by the state of the heart, and that presumptuous
disobedience of any commandment, as demonstrating an utter want of love
to him, will be visited with the severity of his wrath. It is further
alleged, “That Abraham was not called perfect until he was
circumcised,”—and this is proved in the Talmud, by the words, “Walk
before me, and be thou perfect.” But these words do not prove that, even
after his circumcision, Abraham was called perfect; they are a command
to be perfect, but not a declaration that he was so; and it cannot be
urged that by being circumcised he obeyed this command, and thus became
perfect, for this would open an easy way of attaining perfection to the
most abandoned of mankind. Besides, it is easy to prove that this word
“perfect” is also given to the uncircumcision. Long before circumcision
was given, it was applied to Noah. “Noah was a just man, and perfect in
his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen. vi. 9), where that
which is only commanded to Abraham, is asserted to have been found in
Noah. God commanded to Abraham to walk with him, and to be perfect; but
he declares of the uncircumcised Noah, that he was perfect, and did walk
with him. In this respect, therefore, even if the rabbinic
interpretation of the words were correct, circumcision has no
superiority over uncircumcision. The next proof, namely, “That by the
merit of circumcision a covenant was made with Abraham, respecting the
giving of the land,” is equally inconclusive. Long before the covenant
of circumcision God had promised the land to Abraham, and that
repeatedly; and not only had promised it, but had actually made a
covenant with him respecting the gift, as we read, “In the same day, the
Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this
land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river
Euphrates.” (Gen. xvi. 18.) This covenant was made before the birth of
Ishmael; and when Ishmael was born, Abraham was eighty-six years of age;
consequently, it was at least fourteen years before circumcision, so
that the assertion that the covenant respecting the land was made on
account of the merit of circumcision is altogether false. God made the
covenant, not because Abraham deserved it, but according to his own
grace and mercy, when Abraham had no bodily mark to distinguish him from
the surrounding nations. Here again, then, the oral law asserts what is
false. But the rabbies were not contented with Scripture proof; they
felt that the letter of Scripture was against them, and therefore had
recourse to their own invention, and have devised the fable that
“Circumcision delivers from the judgment of hell, for that Abraham sits
at the door of hell, and does not suffer any one that is circumcised to
be cast into it.” That this is a regular and wilful falsehood, no one
that has reason, and takes the Scripture to guide it, can possibly
doubt. It implies that many who are circumcised deserve the punishment
of hell, and are led to the very door, but that Abraham interferes, and
delivers them from their just punishment. If they did not deserve it,
and were not liable to it, there could be no necessity for Abraham’s
sitting in so unpleasant a situation. The guilt of these persons is,
therefore, fully admitted, and yet the wise men say, that out of regard
to the mere external token of the covenant, God gives up his attribute
of justice, and acquits those who deserve punishment. But it implies
further, that God does not deal thus to the Gentiles—that to them he
exercises all justice, and shows no mercy. Abraham looks on with
unconcern when a Gentile is brought to the place of the damned, feels no
compassion and exercises none, and the Divine Being himself is made a
party in this injustice, and want of compassion. Religion is
misrepresented as a mere system of favouritism, and the Judge of all the
earth as a doer of wrong. That this is the plain drift of the story is
plain from what follows: “Circumcision is despised, for the Gentiles are
reproached with it, as it is said, ‘All the nations are uncircumcised.’”
Here the rabbies plainly tell us, that God despises the works of his own
hands, that he disdains the overwhelming majority of his rational
creatures, and that not because of their wickedness, or their cruelty,
or their idolatry, or their profanity, but because they have not got a
commandment which He never gave them. The rabbies themselves will admit
that God never gave the Gentiles the commandment of circumcision, how
then is it possible that he should blame them, or despise them, or treat
them with unmitigated severity, because they have not got what He never
gave them? If it had been offered to them, and they had refused, there
would have been some ground for such a representation, but at present
there is none. It is not true that God reproaches the Gentiles in the
words, “All the nations are uncircumcised;” on the contrary, He is
reproaching Israel. The context is, “Behold the days come, saith the
Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the
uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon and
Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the
wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of
Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jer. ix. 25, 26.) This is very
different doctrine from that of the rabbies. God declares that the mere
outward sign of circumcision shall not save from punishment; that he
makes no difference whatever between the uncircumcised and the
circumcised, but that he looks upon the heart, and deals out to all
evenhanded justice. He says, that he will punish the idolatrous nations,
whom he has enumerated, but declares that he will punish the sinners of
Israel along with them, and then to obviate the very objection which the
oral law urges, and to take away all false confidence in circumcision,
he adds, “The nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are
uncircumcised in heart;” as if he would have said, Do not deceive
yourselves, thinking that your circumcision will save you: there is a
worse uncircumcision than that of the flesh, the uncircumcision of the
heart. This is doctrine worthy of the Divine Being, consistent with his
attributes of justice and holiness, and consolatory and encouraging to
all his rational creatures; whereas the rabbinic doctrine is
dishonouring to God, and contemptuous to all the Gentile nations. If it
were believed, no Gentile would have any motive to serve or honour the
true God, from whom he could expect neither justice nor mercy. It is
equally pernicious and destructive to the moral and spiritual welfare of
the Israelites themselves. Any man who believes that his circumcision
will save him from hell, will feel himself at liberty to violate other
commands without fear. Why should he be holy, or chaste, or honest, or
true? His father Abraham is sitting at the gate of hell waiting for him,
and will deliver him from the just reward of his delinquencies. We do
not mean to attribute such reasoning to all Israelites—far from it; but
it is certain that on the minds of the ignorant and superstitious this
doctrine must have this effect. Those who are acquainted with the Word
of God, or know how to reason, must believe that it is false, but then
it is their duty not only to disbelieve it in their hearts, but to
renounce it publicly, and to teach the ignorant and uneducated that it
is false. Israelites often feel justly indignant at the want of due
appreciation which characterizes public opinion with regard to the
nation, but let them reflect on the causes, and they will cease to
wonder. Mankind in general does not distinguish between the Jews and
Judaism, but erroneously attribute, without any discrimination, the
errors of the system to the men; and how can they do otherwise, so long
as the oral law is still upheld as a Divine code of law? Let Israel
renounce the errors publicly, and all the causes of misconception will
be removed.
But we would ask our readers to go a little farther, and compare the
doctrines of Christianity on this subject with those of the oral law.
They will find that where the rabbies have erred, the disciples of Jesus
of Nazareth have taught the truth. St. Paul admits the importance and
the privileges of circumcision. He asks, “What advantage then hath the
Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?” And answers, “Much every
way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
(Rom. iii. 1.) He does not undervalue God’s mercy to Israel, but at the
same time he honours God’s justice and holiness, by declaring that “God
will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient
continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,
eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the
truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and
anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and
also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no
respect of persons with God.” (Romans ii. 6-11.) This exactly agrees
with the words of Jeremiah, and with the character of God, as set forth
by Moses and the Prophets, and must commend itself to the mind of every
reflecting person. Let then those who reject Christianity account for
the fact, that where the rabbies are wrong, the preachers of
Christianity are right. If all truth come from God, and unassisted human
reason must go wrong, how is it that God should have helped Christians
to the truth, and left the Jews in deadly error for so many centuries?
Judaism teaches that the Gentiles are despised, simply because they have
not got an outward sign, which God never intended they should have.
Christianity proclaims that God is a just Judge. It says, “Circumcision
verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the
law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the
uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his
uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” Judaism teaches that
Abraham sits at the gate of hell to deliver even the wicked, if they be
only circumcised. Christianity teaches that Abraham has no respect to
the outward sign, unless it be accompanied by purity of heart. “There
was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and
fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named
Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores. And it came to pass
that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s
bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up
his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in
his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and
send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool
my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son,
remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and
likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art
tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf
fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither
can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray
thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest Send him to my father’s
house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest
they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said unto him, They
have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay,
father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Luke xvi.
19-31.) Let the reader compare this with the rabbinic doctrine, and then
explain why it is that where the oral law errs, God has given the truth
in the New Testament.
No. LIX.
CRUELTY TO THE UNLEARNED.
The great object of these papers has been to compare Judaism, as it at
present exists, with the religion of Moses and the Prophets, and thus to
ascertain whether the Jews of the present day walk in the good old paths
pointed out to their forefathers. We have endeavoured to give our
reasons for believing that the Jews have been imposed upon by the
inventors of the oral law, and have now got a religion diametrically
opposed to that which was revealed to them by God. More than a year has
elapsed since the first of these papers was published, and yet no answer
has appeared. This silence may be attributed to one of three causes.
Either there has been a want of sufficient zeal on the part of those who
profess Judaism—or, prudence has suggested that the system would not
bear discussion—or, these papers have been thought unworthy of notice.
It is for the Jewish people at large to consider, which of these three
reasons have influenced the champions of the oral law. The Jews
certainly have a right to some explanation from those, whose learning
and station point them out as the natural defenders of Judaism. Every
reflecting man must be staggered by the fact, that a strong case has
been made out against the oral law—that, contemporaneously with the
publication of these papers, strong symptoms of dissatisfaction with
certain parts of Judaism have been manifested in one of the most
respectable synagogues in London—and yet, that nothing has appeared,
either in the shape of defence or explanation. That this silence has not
proceeded altogether from contempt is made probable by another fact, and
that is, That it is confidently asserted that a public answer was given
orally to the first number, and that this answer was satisfactory to
those who heard it. It is much to be regretted that the answer was not
made known generally, so as to afford the same satisfaction to others.
For ourselves, we should have been most happy, if convinced of error, to
have retracted any erroneous charge. We have, in the interval,
frequently considered the subject which is said to have been answered;
and now consider it our duty, before closing this series, to make known
our reasons for still believing, that that one topic is in itself
sufficient to prove that the religion of the oral law is a system of
error. Our arguments were simply these. A religion which despises and
insults the unlearned cannot be from God. The oral law does despise and
insult the unlearned, for it commands its disciples not to marry the
daughters of the unlearned on the ground that they are no better than
beasts. Therefore the oral law cannot be from God. Secondly, a religion
which makes the murder of an unlearned man lawful, cannot be from God.
The oral law does make it lawful, for, as we showed in No. 1, Rabbi
Eleazer says, That it is lawful even on the most solemn day of the
Jewish year, to kill an unlearned man without observing any of the
technicalities of the rabbinic art of slaughtering; or, as another says,
to rend him asunder like a fish. Therefore the oral law cannot be from
God. We now proceed to show why we still think that that line of
argument is valid.
The first step is, to establish the meaning of the expression עם הארץ
_Amhaaretz_, which we translated “an unlearned man.” The literal English
of this expression is, “People of the land,” it might therefore signify
the inhabitants of Canaan, but in the Bible it is more commonly used of
the mass of the Israelitish people, as for instance:—
וכל עם הארץ שמח ותוקע בחצוצרות ׃
“And all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets.” (2
Kings xi. 14. See also verses 18-20.) Here the expression is opposed to
king and princes, and evidently means the mass of the population, or, as
some would say, “The common people.” And, again, to give an example from
the Prophets:—
ועתה חזק זרבבל נאם ה׳ וחזק יהושע בן יהוצדק הכהן הגדול וחזק כל עמי הארץ ׃
“Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O
Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people
of the land.” (Hag. ii. 4.) Here, also, the expression is opposed to the
governor of Judah and the high priest, and plainly signifies the mass of
the population. In the oral law, it has much the same signification; it
stands for those who are not counted amongst the learned, nor the great
men of the time, nor the almoners, nor the schoolmasters, as appears in
the extract given in page 7, with this difference, that in the oral law
the want of learning is a prominent idea, and the expression may
therefore be applied to a high priest if he be unlearned. In further
proof we might appeal to the common parlance of the Jews, even at this
day, for they commonly call an unlearned man an _Amhaaretz_. We prefer,
however, giving one or two extracts more from the laws, where the
expression _Amhaaretz_ is put in opposition to “The disciple of a wise
man,” that is, to a learned man. We read, for instance, that in a court
of justice,
דין תלמיד חכם קודם לדין עם הארץ ׃
“The cause of the disciple of a wise man takes precedence of the cause
of an Amhaaretz.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. xxi. 6.) Again,
וכן אסור לו לנהוג בהן קלות ראש אע׳׳פ שהן עמי הארץ , ולא יפסיע על ראשי עם
הקודש אע׳׳פ שהן הדיוטות ושפלים בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב הם ׃
“In like manner, it is unlawful for an elder to behave with levity to
the congregation, even though they be Amharatzin. Neither let him behave
haughtily to the holy people, for although they be common and humble
persons, they are children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (Ibid., c.
25.) Again,
לפיכך כשמלמדין את הקטנים ואת הנשי וכל עמי הארץ אין מלמדין אותן אלא לעבוד
מיראה וכדי לקבל שבר וכו׳ ׃