LiTERATURK. — BlUl'T^ N. •■ ,,. :.:i.|, iii .•.!:-|.^', I'.ilr-y's
Moral Philosophf/. I i ■ _ mist.
Socialism, see i^'n///"/' , ' . . ■ . ' .! , I -i of
Books for Social i: . : . i, .s.
MiU, 0«l Z,i6erti/: II. tl- 11 S|i. II-' I, 1/ '/ --,:;, imd
Sociology: Tolstoi, A'sMn/s. ami many si ' i ..m iho
relation of the individual to the Churi-h, 1' ! I ini.ii'
toljoisv. L'£ranqileetl'Eqi;se\tr. Tl,,' I. .,,/,, 1003); Neniiian, T/ie Dcudnprnent of (:!,,■ .'..,, /;..,,,.. ; s;s ; •and T. B. Strong, God and the Imlimiliml, r.n. :.
.loiix (Tmax. INDIYIDUALITY.-The word 'individuality' may be used merely for the quality of being an in- dividual, but its connuon use is to indicate tlie special characteristics which distinguish one indi- A-idual from another, that which, as it has been expressed, marks each one as a particular thought of God. Only in this latter sense is the word con- sidered here.
Both in morals .and in religion it has always been a difficult matter to determine the due place of individual difTerences. The great weakness of Deism, r - , •■vi- thnt, ivhiln it nl.nnd- antly exalted the individual, it I'l.l n- i.li.i i..r umIi. i.|M:lIil^ . Its natural religion
product of Rationalism, with his view of religion as an append- age to a moral law, and his supreme test of a moral law by its fitness to be a law universal, only accentuated this limitation. The Romantic reaction had as its characteristic note the glory of individuality. The marvel of the universe was just its variety, and the glory of man that he was the most varied thing "' in the universe. The whole duty of man was to be himself and admit no law except the law of his own nature. Then un- fortunately it too frequently appeared that what man took to be his nature was only self-pleasing, and what he thought was religion was only satisfaction of the artistic sense. There was also another very strange result. This excessive insistence upon individuality came to obliterate the individual. So much stress was laid upon what was changing and varied, that nothing was thought of what is one and unchanging. Hence everj'- thing was reduced to the great World-Spirit whose artistic pleasure in unfolding His variety constituted the history of the
This insistence on the importance of individuality by Ro- manticism, nevertheless, bore large fruit in both ethics and religion. Indeed, all modern study at least of the historical religions may be dated from Schleiermacher's insistence on the marked indi\'iduality of all the great founders of religion. Nor is it possible to question his ri^ht to point in particular bo Jesus. The supreme hinnan interest in all the Scriptures is their im- mense gallery of persons who'gave scope to their individuality. For the most part they are very far from being perfect, but none of them is fashioned on the common worldly tj7>e, none of them is rolled like smooth stones on the beach, in the con- tinual social attrition. Yet, even in this great gallery of the children of nature and of God, Jesus stands out pre-eminent. Whatever may be said of the stories of His birth, they mark the profoundest impression made on His contemporaries by a great, a striking, an unforgetable individuality. Though the many attempts at painting His human individuality, from the Apocryphal Gospels downwards, cannot be regarded as nearer a true likeness than the attempts at portraying His human features, every reader of the Gospels feels that, amid all the things He surrendered, He never surrendered His own marked human individuality. On the contrary, it continued to be a prominent thing that forced itself on everyone. He went His own way, thought His own thoughts, lived His own life, and never accorded anything to that tyranny of fashion to which, in our weak regard for others, we continually sacrifice what is greatest and best in our natures.
Our Lord's regard for the individuality of tlie persons He dealt with might be used as a key for understanding large portions of the Gospels. He took special care to bring out the individuality of each one's faith. He brings the modesty of the woman with the issue of blood into prominence, to give her the assurance she needed for her com- fort (Mt 9-"'). He rejects roughly the prayer of the Canaanitish woman, to show more clearly lier 1 i;4ht to be heard (Mt 15-'--"). He sits at meat in I he publican's house, to create self-respect in the social outcast (Mk 2'^). He meets the centurion, the man of command, by working through a com- mand (Lk 7'"'°) ; and He an.swers John, the man who had required action, by action (v.~). He justified wisdom both in John the ascetic and in Himself Mho came eating and drinking, and only lilaiiied the narrow censoriousness which could ap- preciate neither (Mt 11").
In the Fourth Go.spel, in particular, the key to almost everythmg Jesus says or does is that He knew what was in man (Jn 2^°). Nicodenius, the man dried to parchment and swathed in con- ventional considerations, needs to be born again into a new and fresh life (3'"'°). The woman of Samaria, no longer able to command the protec- tion of even the poorest marriage tie, and too dis- reputable to appear at the well except Avhen the midday sun kept the other women at home, is ottered living water to refresh her soul parched for sympathy, and is so interpreted to herself that .she said, ' He told me all tliat ever I did ' (4'-2«). Be- cause the nobleman has the aristocratic spirit of his class, he is simply told to go his way, liis son lives (4™) ; because his bed has for thirty-eight years been the centre of all his interest, the cripple at Bethesda is told to take it up (5"). All the Gospels are full of persons of vi\'id individuality. A striking feature of our Lord's whole ministry is the way in which, in His presence, a man's true qualities inevitably come to light. The respectable convention behind which men hide inevitably falls