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. There-
