The classical presentation of the type of indi- viduality permitted and required in the Kingdom of God is in the Beatitudes. Too often they are read as a suppression of individuality, which they are if a man's chief characteristics are posses- sions, popularity, self-assertion, self-indulgence. But in Christ's eyes this should not be the Avay of showing a man's true nature. The descrip- tion, taken as a whole, presents an energetic ty]ie whicli, just because of its superiority both to society and to nature, Is botind to be oi marked individuality. To be poor in spirit is not to be poor-siiiriteii, not to bend and break under every trial, but is to be rich in a faith which acceiits poverty or anything else in the assurance of never 'being broken or bent. The mourner is not one given to tears, but one in energetic opposi- tion to wrong and in energetic symiiathy with suffering. The meek is not the meek and mild, not the soft, timid person, but one who lias too high a faith in a wiser power than his own to strive and cry. To hunger and thirst after right- eousness is neces.sarily to take an independent and difficult course in the world ; while to be merciful requires decided strength of character, most of the cruel things on earth being done not in self-will and malice, but in thoughtlessness and weakness. Purity of heart never could survive in this world as mere innocence and ignorance of evil ; the soft people who seek to shun everything disagreeable are the chief makers of dispeace ; and only persons of determined character and decided principles ever run any risk of being jiersccuted for righteous- ness'sakf. -Wen- tlirnMi.M.ni.r.un.lition but this lust, il xv.,nl.I mark I lic c,,„n a^l «itli tli,^ accepted
nil,, nh,, \- 111,, odd mail m the hundred, one who will not walk with the crowd in the broad way, one who has xoTnething of the singiilarity of the piophri whiili -will ensure for him the singularity of I lie jiidphet's reward.
This large scope for individualit.y is maintained chiLlly by resting the guidance of life not on a rule, "ijut on a relation to God, revealed not in a code, but in a Person. This was the basis of a rule of love to God and to man to which all the Law and the Propliets could be reduced. Love is the way of at onrc giving sr-npp to our own individu- ality an. I ch.-i-ishiim' thr iihli\i.lualit\- of others. N,.Mh;n joM- can l.r with. Mil law. A- it has been well sai.l, What is love at tlir centre is alwa.ys law at the circumference. But love at the centre will always keep law mindful of human differences. It will be a law in accordance with the Apostle's interpretation of his Master's meaning when he
IXDIVTDUALITY (OF CHRIST)
INDIVIDUALITY (OF CHRIST) .S21
enjoins us to Ije true to our own highest individu- ality, i.e. the special demands of our own con- science, to do nothing that is not of faith (Ro 14^) ; to attend so far to the weakness of our own indi- viduality as not to be enslaved to anything ; and to regai'il tln> inili\ i.luality of our neighbour so far as to tiil.i' liriM [u «l,at edifies (1 Co 10^). Never- theless it is no lr\ii' development of Christian faith or morale, as Xrwiuan (ui his Development) and countless others ha\'e argued, that the faith has heen elaborated into a creed that omits no detail of doctrine, and the morality into a code that lays down every detail of duty. Nor can it ever be true liumility to surrender our individuality to any other man made like to ourselves.
Yet a free Protestant code and a smaller creed do not necessarily give us a true and character- istic faith, or save us from a mainly negative standard of duty, and perhaps there is no kind of consideration fo'r others more needed at the present day than to have courage to be ourselves.
To leave room for this individuality is one of the most difficult and most neglected tasks of theology, and to leave scope for it in the Church is a task that has never been \'ery anxiously ]mrsued by the ecclesiastic. Yet if the liui' manifestation of faith is power to become sous of (lod in spite of society and circumstances, a very injiiortaiit element of it should be the maintenance of our true indi- viduality ; and though truth can only be one, there should be something characteristic in eacli man's faith. The jireservation of this difference among the Scripture writers is the real task of Biblical Theologj', which should not aim at evapor- ating truth into what each man thinks, but at showing how important every man is for his faith.
Literature. —Goethe, WilhelmMeister; Sohleiennacher, Reden [tr. On Religion : Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, 1893] and Monologen [tr. Moiwlogues'] ; Hejrel, Phllosophte dvr Geschichtc [tr. Philosophy of Hlstorii, Is.-Vl ; CuUl.-, n,r.« ; i:,,,,i„.i,.
Essays: J. S. Mill, On Libert,:; l.n.l.'iHaiin, /'.■. '.:■/'■<,• '
Individualilat, 1900; Leiiim.', r/,, ,,(/„■/,,■ /v„ . Schian, 'Glaube und Imliviclniliiii • (/'''wAr, , i A'/jtAi!, 1S9S); A. Bi-eithaupt, /,'.r/,/.' /mm/ rit,. ■/,,.,. j , /,,,;, dmliUit im Christlich-sittliclien Leben, l!iul.
John Oman. INDIVIDUALITY (of Christ).— Regarded sim- ply as a historical character, or as a subject of a visible career among men, Christ undoubtedly presents as distinct an aspect of individuality, or concrete reality, as can be affirmed of any historical personage. On the other hand, when we pass from the historical point of view t<p tlial of f 'hristoloeical construction, we can liav.lly fail lo rai~e the .pie^- tion whetherit ispossible l.'.e-ca|.e from i|ii,ilifyinu the category of individuality a-- a|.[.lie<l to cinisl on the side of His humanity. I'roeueding from the latter point of ^■iew, and deferring to the Catholic postulates respecting the union of our Lord's man- hood with the pre-existent Logos or Son of God, we are confronted with the task of explaining how a real concrete manhood can be taken into verit- able union with the Logos without effecting a heterogeneous and double personality. The task is a very difficult one, and in wrestling with it a temptation easily arises to strip the manhood of concreteness or individuality, and thus to accom- modate it more fully to the demands of personal unity. But a resort to this alternative has its own difficulty, and that by no means a slight one, since the thought of an incarnation which means the union of the Son of God with a mutilated man- hood, or ^\dth a mere semblance of manhood, is far from being satisfactory. Indeed, there is little hazard in affirming that the mind and heart of Christendom would sooner tolerate an element of unresolved dualism in the person of Christ, than sacrifice in any appreciable degree the reality and perfection of His manhood.