Page images
PDF
EPUB

1849.]

Their Ethical Character.

519

take of them with moderation. We are naturally most impressed by that which occurs but seldom. C. The severe virtue is esteemed more genuine than the mild. It is thought to be far more difficult to spurn all earthly good, than to make a wise use of it. A philanthropist who deigns to commune pleasantly with men, is regarded as on a perfect equality with them; and it is not considered, that he may be influenced in holding this communion with them, by the pious desire of elevating them to his own moral standard. On the other hand, if under the impulses of scorn and pride he should violently denounce men, he would be regarded as superior to them in moral worth, too high above them for sympathy with their follies. He raises himself up to be a mark for observation; and it is asked, what other than a good motive can a man have for making himself, in toils and sufferings bodily and mental, an exception to his race? D. As the unsocial virtue is esteemed the more pure, so it is esteemed the more difficult of imitation, and therefore is the more amazing and impressive. Men imagine that it requires no effort to perform the gentle, winning, refined and modest duties of the philanthropist, but that the penances and harsh discipline of the hermit are well nigh superhuman; and it is natural to revere the difficult more than the easy.

Thirdly, we will notice a few ideas suggested by this disposition of men to esteem the forbidding, more highly than the alluring virtues. A. This disposition suggests a lesson of instruction. Although, apart from its abuses, it is in itself right, yet it is not the distinctive form of Christian piety. The spirit of Christianity is one of love, tenderness, clemency; it flows outward in generous efforts for the happiness of men, and does not keep the eye of the philanthropist introverted upon himself, his heart locked up from the approach of his neighbors. Our Saviour does not condemn that type of piety which was exemplified without its natural abuses in John, but he does not extol it as the most desirable, and his own example favors the more amiable virtues. These are in less danger of becoming ostentatious, of being regarded as supererogatory, of degenerating into pride, obstinacy, misanthropy, fanaticism, extravagance. They are also in fact, although not in appearance and in common estimation, more infrequent, more pure, more difficult than are the self inflicted tortures of what are called the religious orders. B. This disposition, as it has prevailed in past ages. suggests a mortifying reflection on our present state. It must be confessed that we, my hearers, do not value the unsocial virtues so highly as the social. We do not honor the man who cuts himself off from human sympathies. Why? Is it because we have imbibed more of the spirit of the Gospel? Do you believe this? No. It is because we

[ocr errors]

have become too effeminate for those self sacrifices, too soft for those conflicts, too weak for those toils which once commanded the reverence of mankind, but are looked upon by us in our degeneracy as irrational and ludicrous. We have lost the impetuous zeal of the one class, and the faithful love of the other class of the true friends of their race, and we should therefore be ashamed of our indifference to religion, our pusillanimity, love of repose, enervated wills. C. This disposition, as it has prevailed among men, suggests to us a solemn warning. We are too sickly to revere the rigorous virtues, and too cold-hearted to practise those that are more genial. We do not reflect on the strictness of life which is involved in a cheerful piety; a strictness more constant, more laborious, requiring more watchfulness and a more earnest spirit, than are needful for the ascetic, monastic state. It demands a greater effort to win men to holiness by a uniform benignant example, than to administer the sharpest rebukes against sin. There is great danger that, mistaking the nature of Christian cheerfulness, forgetting the description of the broad and narrow way, and of our duty to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, we shall become more and more selfish, worldly, fickle and trifling, until we ruin our souls. Wherefore let us have 'grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear, for our God is a consuming fire, Heb. 12: 28, 29.

Notwithstanding the scholastic habits of Reinhard, he seems to be at home in the discussion of the most common duties of life. The foibles of domestic intercourse he describes as minutely as if he were a man of the world, rather than a man of books. In an ethical discourse on Matt. 5: 20-26,1 he proposes to warn his hearers against the dominion of ill humor, and after having remarked, a) that this ill humor consists in a discontented state of mind, ill will toward men, a sullen, fretful disposition expressing itself in the countenance and in offensive conduct, a peculiar irritability excited on the most trivial occasions; b) that this ill humor is occasioned by the weather, by the businesses, interruptions, or even amusements of life, by the reaction from an excessive activity of the mind, by lawless and violent passions; c) that this ill humor is of various kinds; sometimes occasional and of short duration, sometimes habitual and of long continuance; he proceeds to show; first, that this ill humor is the rock on which our peace of mind is wrecked; for, a) it not only deprives us of the pleasures which we might enjoy, but b) it increases the sorrows which we must experience; secondly, it is the rock on which our success in

1 Predigten, 1795, Band II. ss. 242–256.

1849.]

Their Ethical Character.

521

life is wrecked, for a) it estranges our friends from us, and b) it converts all around us into foes; thirdly, it is the rock on which our usefulness is wrecked, for it diminishes a) our desire, and b) our fitness to do good; fourthly, it is the rock on which our virtue itself is wrecked, for, a) it poisons our virtue in its fountain; as it is impossible to combine misanthropy with that love to God and to our neighbor which is the origin of virtue, and b) checks it in its outflow; as it is impossible to combine misanthropy with those acts of forgiveness, patience, beneficence, joy, peace, etc., which are the expressions of virtue.

There is an obvious tendency in Reinhard's mind to derive lessons for the common duties of life, from texts which more obviously suggest a theoretical or doctrinal discussion. Thus in a sermon from Matt. 22: 15-22, "Render unto Cesar," etc. when we expect a course of remark on the claims of God or of civil government, he startles us with the Proposition, A man should have the courage to be better than others. He should, as Jesus did, defend the truth, the right, vir.ue and propriety, when they are neglected and opposed by others. That a man should display true courage is rational, is Christian, and, as illustrated in the text, is for his highest interest. In discoursing on Matt. 9: 1-8,2 our author devotes his Exordium to a beautiful description of the fact that plants, flowers, trees grow up without deformity; that there are very few diseased and misshapen animals; but among men the instances of a disagreeable, disfigured exterior are frequent. Notwithstanding all the attempts to conceal the disproportion and sickliness of the body, we seldom meet a large company of men without discovering a physical blemish in some of them. Why is the human organization more exposed than the inferior structures, to an unhealthy growth? It is the master-piece of nature's visible works; why then is it peculiarly exposed to disorder? It is injured by the passions which are sinfully allowed to rage within it. Jesus looked upon the palsied man, and reminded him that his disease was the result of crime. The reproof was gentle, and consisted in forgiving the invalid who had abused his physical system by a dissipated life. As his sin may have been notorious as well as ruinous, the scribes were offended that it should be thus readily forgiven. Instead of dilating, however, upon the mode in which they were put to shame by our Lord, we are led by the impression which he made upon the forgiven invalid, to consider the necessity of earnest reflection upon the strictness with which nature revenges all abuse of the physical system.

[blocks in formation]

It is natural to expect that, devoting the energies of his richly stored, his fertile and inventive mind to the ethical department, Reinhard would discourse on many duties which have seldom engaged the thoughts of even meditative men. There is no crevice in moral science which he does not appear to have explored, and to have derived from it some valuable reflections. He is one of the last preachers who can be accused of vague generalizations; for he applies the principles of the Gospel to those individual states and specific duties, which are too peculiar to be often inculcated and considered apart by themselves. In a sermon on Luke 10: 24,"many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them," etc., he considers, first, the fact that many foresee a better future than they will live to experience; they foresee, a) the cessation of some evils which now oppress the community; b) the successful issue of certain schemes which are now in process; c) the mature development of certain principles which now lie in their germs; d) the happy issue of certain events which are now dubious and threatening; secondly, he considers the duties resulting from this foresight of a better future; a) it is neither rational, nor kind, nor prudent, nor pious to restrain our interest in the improvements which we shall not live to see developed; b) we should avoid all selfish interest in them, as well as all hostility to them; c) we should labor to promote them and to hasten their development. The peroration of the sermon is given in a note in Bib. Sac. Vol. III. p. 486.

But while Reinhard is eminently an historical and a practical preacher, he is not merely such. Let us briefly consider the

12. Philosophical Character of his Sermons.

It is by no means implied, that the general style of his preaching is distinctively philosophical. It develops the results of scientific research, but is ordinarily accommodated to the facile apprehension of the multitude. It is difficult, however, for one whose mental habits are those of a philosopher, to banish from his sermons all the peculiarities of his favorite pursuits. In the following syllabus of one of Reinhard's ethical discourses, we discover his metaphysical ter dencies.

When our Saviour forgave the sins of the man sick with the palsy, certain by-standers "said within themselves, This man blasphemeth; but Jesus knowing their thoughts, said, Wherefore think ye evil in

' Predigten, 1795. Band I. ss. 233–252.

1849.]

Their Philosophical Character.

523

your hearts?" Our author devotes his entire sermon on Matt. 9: 1—81 to the discussion of a principle suggested by the above named incident. His theme is, The freedom of the thoughts; not the freedom to think, the right of free inquiry; but that constitutional property of the soul by which our ideas follow each other without hindrance. Our train of thought is often free in regard to the interference of other men ; for often they cannot detect it, or in any manner influence or regulate it. They may present an object to the mind, but that object may occasion an entirely different mental process from the one which they anticipated. The preacher, for instance, suggests to those who hear him, sometimes no idea at all, sometimes just the opposite to that which he intended, very seldom the precise thought which is in his own mind. Our mental processes are sometimes free, even from the power of our wills. Now and then an idea which we wish to recall, will not occur to us; and one which we wish to expel, haunts us continually. When we choose to marshal our thoughts in order, they will confuse themselves the more; when we wish them to move rapidly, they linger, and their stream often flows on as it will, independently of our effort, or of foreign interference. Yet this freedom has its bounds. Nature sets some limits to it, and our thoughts cannot be always free. They follow a law of the constitution; they are influenced by the body; they will sometimes, in despite of all our desire to conceal them, expose themselves through the physical organs. A man may pretend, in his words, that he has not certain thoughts, but his eye and cheek will convince all observers that he is making a mere pretence. The inclination sets some limits to this freedom, and our thoughts will not be always free. When a strong passion arouses us, it causes all our other acts to gather themselves around it and serve it. It is as a dam built across the stream of our ideas, and it turns them from their free out-flow. Duty likewise affixes some limits to this freedom, and our thoughts ought not to be always free. A man has no right to entertain any ideas, which entice him to any form of even secret sin. He is responsible for some of his thoughts, and therefore our Saviour rebukes the scribes in our text for their concealed mental processes. If then the spiritual acts of a man be in some respects under control, in others not, we may learn the duty of paying a fit deference to the freedom of thought in other men. We should not be meddlesome in prying into their hidden states of feeling, in ferreting out their secret purposes, in sounding and striving to look through them. We should not officiously watch for all the little signs of their

1 1 Predigten, 1797, Band I. ss. 316–335.

« PreviousContinue »