there grew up in Italy, and in the principal cities of Greece and of Asia, parties of men, more or less numerous, who professed a way of life entirely new, both in practice and in principle.1 Renouncing the idols and imaginary deities which they had been educated to worship, they acknowledged one Almighty Creator and Governor of the world, as revealed to them by his Son, "the man Christ Jesus." Removed alike from the ignorant thoughtlessness of the vulgar, and the sceptical hesitation of the philosophers, they believed in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and a state of future retribution. Stedfastly relying on this expectation, they treated with indifference the honours and gratifications of the present life; and, for the sake of future reward, cultivated a character unknown before, and now that it became known, often despised, and seldom much esteemed a character, of which the conspicuous features are piety, humility, charity, purity, and moderation.

And the persons who entered upon this new course of life were not persons whose previous habits rendered them more likely to embrace it than their neighbours, whose society they left.

1 Suetonius, the writers of the Augustan History, Lucian, Apuleius, Athenæus, to say nothing of the Roman satirists, may acquaint us what the state of the world was, in which the purity of Christian morals had to make its way. And in the midst of the general corruption, Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, and the cities of Ionia and Asia Minor were especially notorious.

They are spoken of—nay, they are personally addressed as having been brought from darkness to light, with respect to habits as well as principles. Paul, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, after enumerating some of the worst vices of our nature, and those to which we know from history that the Corinthians were particularly exposed, goes on to say, "Such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”1 He says the same, in effect, to the converts from Colosse, Ephesus, and Rome; and insinuates it universally; with the intent, we might suppose, of magnifying the extent of his conquests, if his object had not been evidently to exhort, and not to prove a point; and if we had not collateral evidence of the greatness of the change. So great a change, indeed, that it is commonly expressed by the strongest imaginable comparisons; and is represented as a new birth, a new creation. Neither will these figures be deemed overstrained by those who have a clear historical acquaintance with the state of that world out of which the first Christians were taken; and those who have not such acquaintance, are necessarily without one of the most striking proofs of the divine origin of our religion.2 The Moham

11 Cor. vi. 11.

2 No evidence is more likely to prove convincing to a classical scholar than Justin Martyr's "Apologies." Let him consider

in common

medan and the Christian are daily now, language, set in opposition to each other. Yet a Mohammedan and a Christian may be considered as brothers in opinion, compared with a Gentile before and after his conversion to the Gospel. The perplexities and inconsistencies of the best philosophy; the gross ignorance of the mass of mankind; the depraved habits of all, form a contrast so remarkable to the clear views, the authoritative tone, and the purity of the Gospel, that we seem to have been suddenly conveyed from an opposite hemisphere, and to emerge in a moment from darkness to light.

It was shown formerly, that the doctrines and principles from which the Christian character derives its vigour, had no origin, as far as we know, in the opinions which prevailed before in the world among the inhabitants of any country. But the evidence arising from the originality of the doctrines would be comparatively slight, if Christianity were a mere collection of speculative principles. Men, whose

attention is mainly given to other concerns, may acquiesce in certain philosophical or theological opinions with an indifference which renders their profession a very inadequate test of the truth or falsehood of those opinions. Henry the Fourth of

the date, about 110 years after the death of Christ (indisputable, from the address to Antoninus Pius); the history and native country of the author; and let him compare the sentiments, morals, and principles which he finds there with all he ever read of classical antiquity.

France renounced the Protestant faith. But that renunciation, under all its circumstances, contributed nothing in favour of the religion which he adopted. Again, when the Protestant religion was finally established in England, and only two hundred of the Roman Catholic priesthood, so bigoted under Mary, resigned their benefices for conscience' sake, we cannot allege this as any proof of the soundness of the Protestant cause.1 Such abjuration or profession only shows the indifference or want of principle of those concerned.

But the case is very different with the first converts to Christianity. The principles which they embraced made an entire change in their habits of life. The doctrines which they professed were doctrines to be acted upon. And the strongest evidence, after all, that those doctrines deserve to be believed, is that they were acted upon; acted upon by numerous bodies of men in different countries; were received as ruling principles of life and conduct as principles of sufficient weight to overcome previous habits, and to superinduce contrary habits; to defy all opposition during life, and to be maintained triumphantly in death. For to preach the Gospel, as the Apostles preached it, was not to persuade a man who had maintained the extinction of the soul at the dissolution of the body, to acquiesce

1 Burnet's Hist. of the Reformation, b. iv. Fuller's Church History, b. ix.

in arguments for its immortality; it was not to convince a disciple of Epicurus that the prospective contrivances and admirable adaptation of the several parts of the universe prove an intelligent contriver; -but it was to persuade those who had believed themselves subject to no law except that of the state, to acknowledge a heavenly Governor; to submit to a code of unusual strictness and purity; to renounce sensual indulgences which they had been accustomed to consider innocent: to give up habits of life which had been familiar to them from their youth, and adopt a new course on principles entirely different.

This would not be done, by whole bodies of men, on a doubtful speculation, or out of a rash love of novel doctrines. It was not the sort of "new thing" for which the sophists of Athens were always on the watch.1 It is what we cannot imagine any persons to consent to do, without some overruling motive, or without irresistible conviction.

The first converts of those who preached Christianity were taken from among their own countrymen. These they persuaded to renounce their dependence on the law of Moses; to change the whole nature of their religious worship; to resign a pretension to the exclusive favour of the Deity, an inheritance bequeathed to them from their ancestors, which they had boasted of during fifteen hundred years;

1 Acts xvii. 21.