Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-10-18
REASON VS.. FAITH.
Judaism VS.. Deisnn.
Is DIR. wise the "VOIfaire of
the Jews
Reply TO DIR. FOrd's Second
Review.
Editors Mamnhis Anneal.

;, Review.
Editors Memphis Appeal:
Knowing that articles OF q purely n
ligious nature, particularly when pa
taxing OF a controversial character, Al
but little suited to the columns OF q SEE
uler journal, l win endeavOr TO consul
the utmost brevlty in answering the OF
jecsions raised by the Rev. DR.. Ford, i
mis- article Of last Sunday.
Controversies, both religious and met
aphysical, have often arisen from q mer
Misunderstanding Of words. The con
tending champions, after = more or les
protrscted struggle, found that, afte
all, they had only been engaged in
l0g0mGchy-s war of words "-whiIt
in reality they agreed with each othel
in ideas and sentiments. An explanation
was all that was required to complete
the reconciliation OF the combatsnts
Proceeding on this principle, 1 tool
special pains in my last reply to DR.
Ford, simply to explain the meaning
Ia which l used the words "mystery
and faith in my discourse. Inasmuch
IS the objections of DIR. F. to my state
ments were based upon different mean
ing OF those words, Iresorted to the simple
method OF "expia1atioD," in order to
show the Reverend Doctor that he musf
have misunderstood me, when he infers
from my propositions that the Jews who,
bslieye as l do, deny the facts commonly
called miracles" and put no faith "
Il. e. trust in God. l have shown that
Uy mystery" l mean n dogma
which is contrary 10 reason and common
sense, and by faith" to believe az true
such mystery, eUeG though, as 50. Ans-
elm authoritstively deelSres, sit is d6-
SUrd." DR.. F. will certainly agree with
me that the poverty Of the EoSIiah Ian
gusge, in many respects, is SO great that
lt has often but o word to express diff
ferent shades OF meaning. A superficial
glance at Webster's definitions OF the
very words In question, will satisfy any
One on this point.
But my Learned friend, il seems, is LOT
Satisfied with my explanation. He doubts
whether l actually meal TO use the
words mystery and faith T" in the sense
explained, and eve goes so far as to call
my definition Of mystecyisn eVas5Oa. 1t
is certainly very singIHtr, to use no
harsher expression, thaL the Reverend
Doctor will not believe 3 simple state
elent OF mine as the meaning Of certain
words, particularly after [ have shown
that those words have actually been
used ia that by men OF his own
persuasion. He wishes to force me,
ss IL were, TO use the terms as he under
stands them. "FOF," continues he, she
does not himself believe in any dogma
which does violence to his reason or cou-
sense" mo sane man." the Doc
tor pertly adds, fought to believe such
dogma" l am, indeed, happy to hear
this. Every enlightened man, Of what
ever persuasion, will thank him for this
l only trust that the Doctor
will, consistently, force no man to be-
lisve any thing That does violence to his
reason, but allow ali men the widest,
a-nrestrained liberty of thought ia the
Geld of religion as well as IN the domain
o. science and above all, that he will not
hereafter indulge so literally IN the cpl
thets, ''skePtic, inhdel, Deist, etc, " when
referring to those rational Christians as
well as Israelites who do not, because
cannot in justice 10 their Intellect,
give assent to some Of the Rntiquated
doctrines held by their so-cailed "Ortho-
dOx brethren. II the Doctor claims
that, according to my deiaition of the
word, there Is no more mystery in his
creed than in mine, L bid him welcome
10 the gratifying conclusion. It vas not, !
lor is 1t now, nay object TO dispute that
the columns Of the APPEAL | let
he enlightened community Of both
Jews and Christians judge OF that for
after comparing the "creed
If Israel" as published in ms last srti-
lie, with the creed which d.. Ford is pre-
to advocate. Were l disposed TO
begin, or carry on, a strictly religious !
controversy, it would be & matter Of COM
e=se 10 convince the reader of
he very reverse of Dr.. F's assertion.
6ut l have too much regard for a sim
,erely religious community, to drag iuto
he pubic forum, and expose 10 ali their
weakness, views and sentiments which
hey hold sacred and i~nviolste.
DR.. +, abiding to my creed, = Y that
8 " Ds5SDl, not judaism such principles
before Abraham, before Nosh.p
Now, a Deist, as every body knows, is
ne who denies RsUetGti0a. In nv
reed, ss published in the Appeal. it
avs explicitly, "GOd revealed His hols
viii through Moses and the Prophets"
5 this Dsism? Did this principle exist
Before Abraham ?" According to the
and M~Rimonides, man who re.
idolstry and only believes in the
.nlty Of God ts an " Israelite ia votary
( Judaism. DR.. F., however, would
xciude such q man from the pale Of Ju-
.aism; he would Guido even the ancient
in rigid orthodoxy.
DR.. +. TAKES ggsat pains to show that
be miracles (Which are mystefiss In
rs sense of the word were actual facts
nd not against TedsoH,-ss il I ever de-
led thisi admit all this. Iouly depv
n Of has > osga1sasa - fsFs.r,T IT,
rary 10 tRS laws Of nature and, there
IRE, contrary to reason. HogeVsr yon-
they appear, they ~are'cspabio more
+ less, Of 9 scientific explanation. They
re, therefore, no mysteries lin ms sense
( the term The Doctor here uncon.
agrees With ne, since he himself
dmits that they are not agslnst rsssou.
lie has only forgotten, it seems, that 10
is first article he stated the contrary.
Ybsn he asked the question /: In de-
lRndinE orr assent to them THE miro.
les IS facts, does not Judaism wish to
10 tt0EeaeS to OaT reason ~" However.
am glad 70 learn that he bas so quickly
ome TO 3 different conclusion. 1t is
ever too late to amend,
DR.. FoGd, with becoming modesty,
not profess 10 be a. familiar az the
.abbi with Hebrew Yet he attsmpts
D instruct the Rabbi " 10 the knoWl-
dye Of that sacred tongue. Let US see
IlLh Ekst success. Masters ef,en learn
their pupils. Il do net apply this
D myself because am not vain enough
D consider myself master Of the Hebrew,
simply because Rab6i literally means
MASTER" In the first place he tells me
hat mysLeryh % derived from the He.
TeV, and refers to Dan. 81 %, as evi,
Now, any me who Is able to
the original, will ind that the
TOrd and the whole passage referred to
ChdLdGis, and not Hebrew. Again,
G-dnaias he translates " shall be caused
D believe lpdestye voice Now, the
cry tyro In Hebrew grammar will tell
he Doctor that yo-0n1in8 is OF the con-
called Hlphik, and must there
,re be 10 the active, not passive voice.
gain, Gen. Is: 6, he translates
Abraham believed God" and ex-
ressly adds that it must not be
rsnsgsted "bslieyed IN God.u Had
% consulted the original Rehrau