114
MANLINESS
MANNA
saken Hiiu. Of His perseverance it is only neces- sary to say that He was ' obedient even unto death, yea, tlie death of the cross' (Ph 2*).
It is in regard to love of personal honour that the transcendent difference between the world's idea of manliness and the manliness of Jesus be- comes apparent, just as also very varying views are to be found even among worldly men as to what honour really is. However, an integral element in honour in the worldly sense is the good opinion of a man held by his fellows. To be an inconsiderable ]>erson was regarded by Aristotle as incompatible with hapi)iness. High-mindedness is one of the virtues which go to make the perfect man, and ' by a high-minded man we seem to mean one who claims much and deserves much ' {Nir. Eth. iv. 3, § 3 ; cf. Mt23^-). Even the proud indifference of the Cynic to the opinion of his neighlx)urs by its vehemence betrayed its hollowness. It is tlie last refuge of pride to despise all who do not acknow- ledge the superiority on which it is based. In the life and teaching of Jesus tiie centre of morality is changed fronr self to God. Kight conduct consists in obedience to the law of God. The essential nature of the Law is to love God and one's neigh- bour (Mt 22»'-^", Mk 12^"- 31, Lk 10-'). The approval of God is thus the sujjreme practical consideration for the Christian, while his relations to others are to be governed by love and a desire for their good. There is no exception to this rule. It is to guide the conduct of Christians towards those anIio have injured them. Now the right and duty of aveng- ing an affront or an injury liave always seemed to men bound up with tlie love of honour, and the division of others into friends and enemies has seemed inevitable. But Jesus teaches that His followers are to forgive injuries, and to love their enemies (Mt S^^f- 18-i- -'^ Lk 6-"'- 17^ *). Moreover, they are not to meet violence with violence. And of these precepts He has given a perfect illustra- tion (Lk 42^-3", Mt 26=--56, Mk W\ Mt 27^, Jn gs^ W 19").
It is in regard to this duty of forgiveness that the world has found the greatest difficulty in assimi- lating the views of Jesus, and has been inclined to treat them as counsels of perfection which cannot be i)ut in practice. Three degrees of opinion on this question may be distinguished : (1) that of those who altogetlier ignore the teaching of Jesus as impracticable ; (2) that of those who find in His teaching the condemnation of all resistance to evil, whether private or public, and so condemn alike war between States and private quarrels, whether settled by physical force or by an appeal to courts of law, the decisions of which ultimately rest on force ; (3) that of those who find in the teaching of Jesus primarily the inculcation of a spirit of love the manifestation of which is deter- mined in every case by the circumstances, and which accordingly condemns neither Avar nor an appeal to force, nor an appeal to courts of law, aj^art from the occasion which gives rise to them.
With the first of these opinions we are not con- cerned. The second has always been held by many- Christians. It is based especially on Mt 518-18 26^2, Lk e^'^ \T. In the early Church it led to a strong feeling against the propriety of Christians serving as soldiers (cf. TertuUian, cle Idol. ch. 19 — ' the Lord in disarming Peter unbelted every soldier'). In later times the Society of Friends have been the most prominent adherents of similar ideas. And Tolstoi, among modem writers of distinction, holds such views in their most extreme form. It has to be remembered, however, («) that the illustrative sayings of Jesus cannot wisely be generalized into universal precepts. To do this is 'to ignore the clearly marked feature of His teaching, in which He aimed ' at the greatest clearness in the briefest
compass.' (b) If Jesus said, 'To him that smiteth thee on one cheek offer also the otiier ' (cf. Mt 26'-', Jn 18"), He also told His disciples to sell their garments and ' buy a sword ' (Lk 22^8^ cf. Mt lO^*^- ^^). (c) Jesus laid down a method of dealing with one who has trespassed against another which cannot be brought within the boundary of .strict non- resistance, tliough, indeed, tlie motive of this deal- ing is undoubtedly to be a desire for the good of the offender (Mt W^-'^"'). The third opinion is that which has generally prevailed among Christians. According to it, the ruling principle of a Christian's conduct is love towards all. This involves at once and without question or limit the forgiveness of all injuries and the crucifying of the spirit of emulation and self-esteem which so often leads to strife. But the manifestation of heart-forgiveness is to be regulated by a wise conception of the injurer's welfare and the welfare of others. These principles, in their mutual interaction, condemn all personal vindictiveness and malice, such an appeal to violence as duelling, that litigious sjiirit which aims at getting the better of another in a law-court, and all wars of aggression, as A\ell as those which spring from national or personal pride. They do not condemn, however, the establishment of just government by force of arms, nor an appeal to justice and a desire for its vindication by force, nor the use of arms in the protection of the weak.* Tliere is thus open to the Christian a spliere for the exercise of aggressive courage consecrated to the furtherance of noble ends. To right wrong and to protect the weak are the natural aims of Christian manliness. At the same time it remains true that the Christian is called upon to exercise the courage of endurance much more fi'equently than that of aggression. And the endurance of the martyr shows a quality of manliness which transcends all others, inasmuch as his courage is made sublime by self-sacrifice.