Courts, which are human instrumentalities for the determination of truth in the administration of relative justice, have frequently had occasion to consider and define reputation and character. Judicial expression has not always been clear; and the common use of these words has often been both misleading and confusing. People generally regard them as synonymous. That there is a well defined distinction will be apparent after a moment of clear thinking. Reputation is the consensus of local human opinion of a man expressed by those living in his community or the general public estimation of persons more widely known. It may be good or bad and equally mistaken in either instance. It is based on what others say or their failure to say anything concerning some person. Character consists of those mental qualities of which the individual is actually possessed.
It is generally assumed that reputation indicates character, for it is said that deeds reflect mental qualities. Comments based upon deeds and the inferences and conclusions drawn from them frequently repeated, constitute reputation; and reputation, prima facie, denotes character. For this reason, evidence of general reputation is held in legal procedure to be "competent and material." The truth of course is that unless the individual is controlled by Principle, his deeds do not consistently or truthfully reflect spiritual qualities. Without a knowledge of motive and all the facts, one might be tempted to judge from appearance only, because, ordinarily speaking, so much depends upon the attitude of those who see, hear, and comment, and also upon what the person himself may think about a good name. For instance, a good reputation has a recognized social and commercial value, and it may be sought after upon this ground alone. A reasonable desire for the good opinion and favorable comment of others is commendable, if conduct is not directed by such a desire. The moment consideration is given to what people will say, a dangerous element enters which blinds and confuses judgment. Fear of adverse comment drives weak humanity recklessly over the highway of action. It is not surprising, then, that reputation is often found to be entirely at variance with character.
Our Master knew that reputation was nothing more than judgment according to appearance, often hasty, prejudiced, and ephemeral, and that a good reputation was liable to speedy destruction through the caprice of evil hearts. He knew it was the object of envious attack and often a disappointment to him who had labored for years to do well. He gave therefore no heed to the cultivation of reputation, but was content to be judged by his motive and works. In speaking of him Paul said that he "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant." That is, he was not careful of his acts because of what people might say of him or because of any worldly position he might attain. His every act and deed were inspired by his purpose to help and heal. Judged by the dishonesty and prejudices of the Pharisees, he acquired the reputation of deriving his power to heal from Beelzebub, of being gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners, a blasphemer, and mad. The reputation of these same Pharisees for righteousness was equally incorrect and depended for its security upon the inability of mortals to detect evil or to distinguish the false from the true.
