CHAPTER X.

FIRST PROMULGATION OF CHRISTIANITY.

I HAVE shown, in the preceding chapters, the strong internal evidence which supports the divine authority of the Christian Scriptures. And yet a great deal of internal evidence must always remain, which it is not possible to draw out into actual proof. The attentive reader of the New Testament will find this at every turn; and the best use he can make of the arguments which have been urged, would be to employ them as hints according to which he might examine the Gospel for himself.

I come now to consider the first propagation of the religion. We have indisputable proof that it was actively and successfully propagated, and made its

way with surprising rapidity, when we know that there were multitudes of Christians of both sexes and of all ages, in Rome, in Greece, and in various parts of Asia, within seventy years of the crucifixion.1

1 See ch. i. p. 8. At large in Paley, p. ii. c. ix.

This is an historical truth; and when the nature of the religion, its originality, and its demands, are considered, it may well be reckoned an extraordinary fact. We may, indeed, be loosely told, that mankind are naturally fond of the marvellous; that the ignorant are prone to superstition; and that in a barbarous age or country any idle tale finds a multitude ready to give it their belief. But a reasonable man will not be satisfied with anything so vague as this. Though the marvellous may be greedily listened to, when it demands nothing further than an idle acquiescence, mankind are more circumspect and incredulous when they are called upon to sacrifice all their former opinions, desires, habits, and prejudices. The cause could not be forwarded by Jewish superstition, since it is abundantly plain, that the Jews were extremely slow and unwilling to receive Christianity, and in fact never did adopt it, as a people; neither can we resort to barbarism, since among the nations which furnished the first proselytes, were some of the most civilized then existing, in an age proverbial for civilization. It becomes, therefore, an interesting object of inquiry, to trace the manner in which Christianity first gained ground.

However familiarly spoken of, it is not an occurrence of every day to change the religion of mankind. Should any one affirm the contrary, no sufficient reason can be alleged, why that should not

́be practicable now, which is believed to have been found practicable eighteen hundred years ago. Let us imagine a similar case; and suppose a number of persons in this or any other country to associate themselves together, and profess that they had a commission from God to model anew the civil and religious institutions of the land, and re-establish, for example's sake, the principles of the law of Moses. Suppose them to assert, in conformity with this pretension, that God required the nation to lay aside their present religious services, and to introduce in their stead, the Jewish ceremonial: to resort for the purpose of national worship annually to the capital city, as the Israelites were accustomed to do: to abstain from certain kinds of food; and to keep holy the original Sabbath, instead of the day of Jesus' resurrection. Or farther; that he commanded them to leave their fields unsown, and their orchards unpruned, every seventh year, and not to gather during that year even the spontaneous produce of the ground: to make no bargains of sale for their lands beyond fifty years, but that all estates purchased during the intermediate period should be resigned at the expiration of that term to the original owner.

This would be, as Christianity was, a new religion; and Christianity, from its Jewish converts, required a renunciation of prejudices, and from the Gentiles a change of habits and customs, not less complete

2

་་

and violent. The doctrine of the resurrection of a person who had suffered on the cross, and of baptism in his name for remission of sins, was not more agreeable to their natural prepossessions than anything in the case here imagined. Private interests were equally affected, when they that believed forsook their houses or lands or their nearest relatives "for the kingdom of God's sake," or "sold their possessions and goods, and had all things common.

It is useful sometimes to realize an idea.

Let us

suppose doctrines of this sort to be preached within our own knowledge. Every individual would feel that some or other of the provisions of such an innovation concerned himself. Argument, therefore, of every kind would be employed, from the clamour of the vulgar up to the reason of the well-informed. The most charitable opinion would set down such teachers as fanatics, who might believe themselves the servants of God, but were really under the grossest delusion. But the more general opinion would condemn them as workers of mischief under the disguise of religion. No individual would listen to the improbable pretence, that they acted under a divine commission: they would be reckoned enthusiasts or impostors, who must either be silenced or punished.

Those, however, who had undertaken a scheme of this nature, would of course be prepared for opposi

1 Luke xviii. 29. Acts ii. 44.

tion. We may conceive that they would be furnished with arguments in defence of the regulations just now supposed; and reference might be made to the law of Moses, by which these very customs and ordinances were once established. But it would be waste of time to prove that argument, persuasion, and assertion would be equally unable to gain attention to such innovators.1 Those who believe the national

religion to be from

God, would condemn them:

those who regard it not, would despise them.

Suppose them to go farther still, in order to establish their claim to be heard. Suppose them to confess that they depended on argument no farther than to explain their object; that the proofs of their mission were of a different nature; that they did not expect to be believed on their own assertion, but appealed to proofs of supernatural assistance by which their mission was authenticated. It is evident

1 Unless, indeed, the argument might prove an accomplishment of prophecy, and, therefore, show a species of miracle. The force of the appeal made by Jesus and the Apostles to the Jewish Scriptures depended entirely on the accordance of those Scriptures with their mission. If it be urged, that their success was favoured by their reference to writings which the Jews acknowledged to be sacred, two important inferences follow: first, that the alleged prophecies were in previous existence; next, that they agreed with the circumstances under which "Jesus who was called Christ," actually appeared, and lived, and died.

Luther, by appealing to the Scriptures, made a very successful innovation in religion. But if there had been no Scriptures of authority acknowledged to be paramount, or if these had not borne him out in his appeal, would he have been listened to for a moment?