its real as distinguished from its apparent strength

(1862.)

in discussions with “infidels,” churchmen are very ready with the taunt, “you are but a handful of’ fanatics. nearly the whole intellect of the nation is for us and against you.” in general the taunt is merely parried by a “what matter, if we are right?” whereas it should also be retorted by a counter-thrust of denial. for, in truth, but a very small part of the intellect of the nation—i.e., intellect in the only sense in which it is of importance—active intellect, is devoted to the establishment or even to the establishment and the so-called dissenters combined. if they only are the true soldiers of the church militant whom she spiritually feeds and equips for the warfare of life, and who are loyal to her with their whole heart and mind, how many legions must be deducted from the armies gathered round her banners before we can fairly estimate her actual power in the field! should jesus come to eliminate his true followers from the multitudes of professing christians, as gideon selected his, three hundred from the two and thirty thousand israelites, let us consider whom he would reject.

first, all the cowards and hypocrites who simply cling to what appears the dominant party, and who would therefore call themselves atheists were atheism in the ascendant; a vile brood, the incumbrance and disgrace of every cause they adopt; “hateful to god and to the enemies of god”; of whom even to write is not pleasant.

secondly, the indifferent through lack of vitality; men of tepid heart and inert brain, who are incapable of any strong sane affection. i use the word sane because these creatures have intense self-love, which in its essence is insane; and because also they may be frenzied by the drunkenness of fanaticism, in which state they can die as devotedly as they can murder atrociously. the adhesion of these also i count no gain to any cause.

thirdly, the indifferent through excess of vitality, including the most eminent “practical” men, soldiers, sailors, lawyers, engineers, statesmen. these, applying their whole energies to their several professions, rarely trouble themselves with theological any more than with other extraneous matters, but passively acquiesce in whatever creed may be prevalent around them. their real church is the world; their real worship is labor; and they no more add to the strength of their nominal church than did the savants to that of napoleon’s army in egypt—those savants whom the wise napoleon always ordered (with the donkeys) to the centre whenever an attack was expected. to these must be added all the men whom we call fine animals, who enjoy such a red-blooded life in this world that they are not subject to bilious forebodings of another. some classes of the most famous men—the poets, philosophers, doctors, physicists, mathematicians—are commanded by their very vocations to think seriously on some of the great theological questions, and therefore, whether ranged for or against the church, count for something. the reader must ask his memory whether their weight in the balance has preponderated for orthodoxy or for heterodoxy. the statesmen i have counted among the indifferent, because their support of religion, in whatever form, has been almost universally no more than political.

fourthly, the supersubtle, including laymen and divines of first-rate talent; who cannot help delighting in the exercise of their skill of fence, and who instinctively feel that it is much harder to champion any existing institution than to attack it, and naturally (like all unconquerable knights-errant) prefer the most difficult devoir. their adhesion to the church, therefore, though seeming to strengthen it, really proclaims its weakness. macaulay tells us how halifax, the trimmer, always joined the losing side.

fifthly, the supremely reverential, including the very best of the laymen and divines; men whose lofty reason is drowned in a yet deeper faith, as mountain-peaks high as the highest in air are said to be submerged in the abysses of the atlantic. in many cases these might be ranked in the preceding class; for it is a general rule that the more reverence, the more subtlety. they see—how clearly!—the flaws and imperfections of their church, they even realise the danger of its total fall; but they cannot tear themselves away from the venerable building wherein all their forefathers worshipped, in whose consecrated precincts all their forefathers were buried in hopes of a happy resurrection; whose chants were the rapturous music and whose windows were the heavenly glories of their pure childhood; whose prayers they repeated night after night and morning after morning at their mother’s knee. can they leave this, with all its treasured holiness of antiquity for some new bold glaring erection, wherein men certainly congregate ta talk about god, but which might just as well be used as a warehouse or a manufactory? no; rather than leave it they will believe, they will force themselves to believe, that some miraculous renovation is at hand, or that (as the structure was certainly raised by god) god will uphold it in spite of the law of gravitation. these are the men who keep the church from falling into insignificance, but they are not essentially hers. it is not she alone whom they could thus worship. had they been brought up idolators, idolatry must have retained almost the same influence over spirits so reverentially humble, so loving and pure.

and here it may be remarked that one can scarcely conceive a church so frail and gloomy and even vile, but that a fervent soul and a strong intellect could fortify it with argument, adorn it with the gold and jewels of imagination, illustrate its dark altars and vivify its dead idols with the burning fire of spirituality, until it should be far more noble and mighty and splendid than ever was aspired to by the majority of men. but mark, such men as these of whom i speak do not derive their religiousness from, but really bestow it upon the church in which they pray. she is subject and indebted to them, not they to her. she does not nourish them, they nourish her. she is the statue, they are pygmalion. and they are indeed idolators, for they worship a creation of their own souls. perhaps pygmalion himself fell down and adored his flushed and breathing statue, thinking her, with artist-reverence, nothing less than a transformation of venus urania. when one thinks of certain noble men and women—as maurice and kingsley, ruskin and the browning—devoting themselves in spite of themselves to an effete faith, one is sadly reminded of poor abishag the shunammite wasting and withering her healthful youth to cherish old worn-out david, “who knew her not,” who could fill her with no new life, and who was, despite her cherishing, so certainly near death. he had been a great king in his time, but now his time was past, and as it was now the maiden’s spring-time, he should have left her to live her proper life.

but when all these are separated from the host, who are left to whom we may point in answer to emerson’s question, “in christendom, where is the christian?” strictly speaking there has never been but one christian—the man christ jesus. but i would give the title to those who thoroughly believe the bible after having investigated it to the best of their power, who find its doctrines completely satisfy them, and who sincerely endeavor to act up to those doctrines. how many of such are there? i have known perhaps half a dozen. has any reader known many more? will any one dare assert that they are more numerous in england than the equally sincere secularists or atheists? i scarcely think any honest and thoughtful person will.