820
INDIVIDUALITY
INDIVIDUALITY
away, and men appear in till their real character- istics, often Avith the unhonoured to their honour, and vnth the liighly esteemed to their shame. Even the Pharisee, the type in all ages in which indi- viduality is most suppressed by creed and custom, cannot keep the curtain drawn in His presence. At first sight tliis detiniteness seems to be lost in tlie strange, vague atmosphere of tlie Fourth Gos- pel, which is so strongly irradiated by one in<li- A'iduality — that of the writer. But in life it is not the persons who are themselves colourless who do most justice to the individuality of others. So it is that in John we see, more than in any other Gospel, the vivid individuality, in particular, of the disciples, and how Jesus recognized it and dealt with it. Andrew and Nathanael, Philip and Thomas are mere names and shadows in the other Gospels, while in John they have each one his own characteristic note. Even Peter, in the other Gos- l)els, is little moie than an inexplicable mixture of insight and error ; but in John he is drawn in a phrase by the Master Himself, ' When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself and walkedst w hither thou wouldest' (21"). This enterprising but im- petuous character appears in the whole presenta- tion of him in John, till, in the days of heaviness, he flung off the slackness which liad fallen ujion all the disciples, and said vi'ith his old gri]) at his girdle, 'I "o a fishing ' (2P). In considering the question of the authenticity of John, this, at all events, deserves consideration, that it leaves us with such a sense of the strong indiWduality of the Apostles, both as children of nature and as children of p^ace, as to make it not in(re<lilile that a handful of poor men should start to cdnquer the world. In this Gospel, moreover, faitli is not only an individual act, which it nmst always lie, but ahso an attitude whicli brings out a man's deejiest individuality. Men do not believe, because tliey trust only what they see (4^*). They cannot be- lieve in Christ, because already they have not believed in the highest they knew (5"). It is a certain preparedness for Christ which makes men believe in Him (6^°' '"). Belief is a special word to oneself, a hearing from the Father (6^''). Unbelief arises from being from beneath (8=*), from being of one's father the de\dl (S"). There is, throughout, a family likeness in unbelief; while belief, in the consciousness of its own special needs, finds its own call. It does not lean on Abraham, or fashion itself on the accepted model, but, like Nathanael, it seeks God under the fig-tree, like Phili]i it is ready to say to conventional questions, ' Come and see.' This faith, moreover, issues in an eternal life, the present effect of which is to give us possession of our o>vn souls, to know God in such a way as not to be greatly concerned about men, to lie in the world yet not of it (17'").
Though less promincMt in tlie Synoptics, our Lord's regard to individual ilv is not Ir^s simiilirani. To enter the Kingdom, sn \,vnu.,uurr.l .,„ in.livi- duality is requireil tliat- il ran lakr l.y iisrli' tlir narrow way, while the couimuii i-uui-r is the Imiail road (Mt 7*') ; it is to be one in so cliaracterislic a fashion as to cause more joy in heaven than tin' ninety and nine who, satisfied with the rciLiM.l standard, need no repentance (Mt 18", Lk 15'). This .strong insistence that many are called and only few chosen, indicates not arbitrariness in dealing with individuals, but the rarity of the indiiiduality God requires (Mt 22"). His true dis- ciples must be of so pronounced a type that, while they shun the j'Oor glory of .self-disphiy (Mt 6-), they must yet be the salt of the earth, and not even fear tlie prominence of being as a ('ity set on a hill. They must shun the all-pervasive, all- jissimilative creed of the time, the leaven of the Pharisees ; nor will the accepted Christian formula,
the saying of ' Lord, Lord,' Vie any more approved (Mt 7=').
Ovir Lord does not really diflfer from the pa^an view that the worth of the individual depends upon his individuality. The difference is in the estimate of that wherein this indiriduality consists, and of the possibilities in each man of attaininj? it. Kven to Aristotle individuality meant something aristocratic. The qualities in a person worth coiisiderin'^' arc liberality (E/sy- Oif^ic-rr,^), magnificence (_u-yctKoTp;T'.foi), and nia^'naniniity(u£}-a>.o- •4-!.,^.a), These all require a certain social station, a certain aloofness from the petty concerns of life, which could be pos- sible for all men only when the great mechanical slave whom Aristotle dreamt of could be made to do the drudgery. With other hand, a man could have true individuality
Nor is Christ's conception that of modern culture, which, indeed, is much nearer Aristotle than Jesus. He does not seek, with Goethe, to build up as high as possible the pyramid o( his nature. A man does not fail of that individuality which the Kingdom of God requires, even though he have to cut off an offending hand or pluck out an offending eye, and enter blind and maimed (Mt 6»).