Questions on Chapter 16.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 16.

QUESTION 1. What evidence do the Jews furnish that the prophecies concerning Messiah have not been interpolated since his advent?

2. By what evidence is it proved that they could not have been corrupted for centuries before?

3. How may the evidence from prophecy be viewed in its application?

4. What number of plain predictions concerning Messiah are found in the Old Testament?

5. What are some of these predictions, of a specific character?

6. What is the proof from the prophecy of Daniel’s “seventy weeks”?

7. What prophet foretold the place of Christ’s birth?

8. What prophet foretold his miracles and sufferings?

9. What other minute circumstances were foretold concerning him?

10. In what sense were his predictions of his death a double miracle?

11. How is it proved that his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled?

CHAPTER 17. — THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY.

THE argument in favor of revelation founded on the success of Christianity, by some authors, has been embraced under the general division of external evidences; and by others, under what they term, collateral evidences. But as, in our arrangement, the collateral division is entirely omitted, and the whole included within the two general divisions of external and internal, we think the evidence founded on the success of Christianity more naturally falls under the head of the external evidences. We think this kind of testimony is as properly embraced under the division to which we have assigned it as is that arising from miracles or prophecy. Indeed, the evidence from the success of the gospel is so closely allied to both that which is founded upon miracles and that which is founded upon prophecy, that some authors have considered it under the one head, and some under the other. But this will be more manifest as we proceed to analyze the argument now to be discussed.

The truth of Christianity may be established, from the great success which attended the first promulgation of the gospel; in two ways: First, this success had been abundantly predicted not only by the Old Testament prophets, but also by our Saviour himself; hence the fulfillment of this prediction amounts to a prophetic argument in favor of Christianity, independent of any divine interposition by which that success may have been produced. Secondly, the means by which this success was effected were entirely inadequate to produce it, without divine interposition; hence the realization of the success, under the circumstances, is evidence that it was effected by divine interposition, and, consequently, this amounts to miraculous testimony in favor of Christianity. It follows, therefore, that if the several parts of this argument, as just presented, be satisfactorily sustained, it will afford us a moral demonstration, both prophetic and miraculous, that Christianity is true.

The first elementary part of the argument, as just stated, requires us to show that this great success of Christianity had been foretold by prophecy. That such was the fact, no reader of the Bible can dispute. In the predictions of those prophets and righteous men, who spoke of the coming Messiah, they dealt extensively, and with rapture, upon the victorious conquests and prosperity of his kingdom. They portrayed his triumphs in the following strain: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.” “For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” “The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose.” “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” “Behold, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers.” “For the Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” “The abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.” “And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.”

That these predictions refer to Messiah’s reign, even the bigoted Jew cannot deny. And what language could depict in colors more vivid the conquests of his kingdom?

Our Saviour’s own predictions on the subject are equally explicit. He said to his apostles: “That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” And again: “This gospel of the kingdom shall first be preached to all the world for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come.”

From all these Scriptures, it is very manifest that the great success of Christianity had been foretold in prophecy; and thus the first element of our argument is sustained.

The next question before us is this: Did Christianity, in the first ages of its promulgation, meet with a remarkable degree of success? On this question, our first authority is the Acts of the Apostles. Here we learn that at the opening of the gospel dispensation at Pentecost three thousand souls, in one day, were converted and added to the Church; and, a few days afterward, about two thousand were converted in one day. And the book of the apostolic Acts is but one continuous record of the labors, the persecutions, and abundant successes of the apostles. It appears from this sacred record alone that in a few years many thousands, and some from all classes of society, were converted through the labors of the apostles — not only in Jerusalem and throughout Judea, but at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, and almost all parts of the Roman Empire. Our next testimony as to the great success of the gospel, in that early period of its history, is derived from the Christian writers of that day. Justin Martyr, a learned divine of the Second century, published, about the year 146, a work called “A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” in which he uses these words: “There is no nation, whether of barbarians or Greeks, whether they live in wagons or tents, amongst whom prayers are not made to the Father and Creator of all through the name of the crucified Jesus.” Tertullian, who flourished about the close of the second century, writes thus: “In whom but the Christ now come have all nations believed? for in whom do all other nations (but yours, the Jews) confide? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and the inhabitants of Pontus, Asia, and Pamphylia, the dwellers in Egypt, and the inhabitants of Africa beyond Cyrene, Romans and strangers, and in Jerusalem, both Jews and proselytes; so that the various tribes of the Getuli and the numerous hordes of the Mauri, all the Spanish clans and different nations of Gauls, and the provinces of the Britons (inaccessible to the Romans, but subdued by Christ), and of the Samaritans, and Dacians, and Germans, and Scythians, and many unexplored nations, and countries, and islands unknown to us, and which we cannot enumerate — in all which places the name of the CHRIST who has come now reigns, for who could reign over all these but Christ the Son of God?”

The same author, in a letter to the Proconsul of Africa, in which province Tertullian himself also resided, speaks as follows: “If we Christians were disposed to array ourselves as open or secret enemies of our opposers, a sufficient force of numbers is not wanting to us. Many of the Moors and Marcomanni, as well as other tribes more remote, even to the very ends of the earth and throughout the world, are with us. We are but of yesterday, and yet we have filled all your places — your cities, your islands, your castles, your towns, your council-houses, your very camps, your tribes, your palace, your senate, your forum. We have left you nothing but your temples. If we should break away from you, and should remove into some other country, the mere loss of so many citizens would overwhelm your government; and would itself be an effectual punishment. Doubtless you would be frightened at your own solitude. The silence and stupor which you would witness would cause the world over which you reign to appear as dead. Your enemies would then be more than your citizens who should remain.”

Undoubted as this testimony of the early Christian Fathers must be considered, since their apologies were public papers addressed to the emperors and magistrates of the Roman Government; yet, as the mere fact that they were Christians may excite suspicion against the truthfulness of their statements, we will now adduce the testimony of pagan historians to the same effect.

The celebrated Roman historian, Tacitus, lived contemporary with the apostles, in the first century, and none have questioned his integrity as a chronicler of the events of his day. In giving an account of the great fire which reduced to ashes the city of Rome, he says: “But neither by human aid nor by the costly largesses by which he attempted to propitiate the gods was the prince able to remove from himself the infamy which had attached to him in the opinion of all for having ordered the conflagration. To suppress this rumor, therefore, Nero caused others to be accused, on whom he inflicted exquisite torments, who were already hated by the people for their crimes, and were vulgarly denominated CHRISTIANS. This name they derived from CHRIST, their leader, who, in the reign of Tiberias, was put to death as a criminal while Pontius Pilate was procurator. This destructive superstition, repressed for a while, again broke out, and spread not only through Judea, where it originated, but reached this city also, into which flow all things that are vile and abominable, and where they are encouraged. At first they only were seized who confessed that they belonged to this sect, and afterward a vast multitude by the information of those who were condemned not so much for the crime of burning the city as for hatred of the human race. These, clothed in the skins of wild beasts, were exposed to derision, and were either torn to pieces by dogs or were affixed to crosses; or, when the daylight was passed, were set on fire that they might serve instead of lamps for the night.”

The reputation of Suetonius, another Roman historian, is also well established. He speaks as follows: “He (Claudius) banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually raising disturbances, Christ (Chrestus) being their leader.” In the Life of Nero, the same author says, “The Christians were punished, a sort of men of a new and magical religion.” Pliny the younger was also a Roman writer, renowned for his intelligence and veracity. This learned philosopher, in the beginning of the second century, wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan, containing the most satisfactory testimony to the point in hand. He speaks as follows: “Pliny to the Emperor Trajan wisheth health,” etc. “It is my custom, sir, to refer all things to you of which I entertain any doubt; for who can better direct me in my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I was never before present at any of the trials of the Christians, so that I am ignorant both of the matter to be inquired into and of the nature of the punishment which should be inflicted, and to what length the investigation is to be extended. I have, moreover, been in great uncertainty whether any difference ought to be made on account of age, between the young and tender and the robust; and, also, whether any place should be allowed for repentance and pardon, or whether those who have once been Christians should be punished, although they have now ceased to be such, and whether punishment should be inflicted merely on account of the name where no crimes are charged, or whether crimes connected with the name are the proper objects of punishment. This, however, is the method which I have pursued in regard to those who were brought before me as Christians. I interrogated them whether they were Christians; and, upon their confessing that they were, I put the question to them a second and a third time, threatening them with capital punishment; and when they persisted in their confession, I ordered them to be led away to execution — for, whatever might be the nature of their crime, I could not doubt that perverseness and inflexible obstinacy deserve to be punished. There were others, addicted to the same insanity, whom, because they were Roman citizens, I have noted down to be sent to the city. In a short space, the crime diffusing itself, as is common, a great variety of cases have fallen under my cognizance. An anonymous libel was exhibited to me, containing the names of many persons who denied that they were Christians or ever had been, and, as an evidence of their sincerity, they joined me in an address to the gods, and to your image which I had ordered to be brought along with the images of the gods for this very purpose. Moreover, they sacrificed with wine and frankincense, and blasphemed the name of Christ, none of which things can those who are really Christians be constrained to do; therefore, I judged it proper to dismiss them. Others, named by the informer, at first confessed themselves to be Christians, and afterward denied it; and some asserted that, although they had been Christians, they had ceased to be such for more than three years, and some as much as twenty years. All these worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and execrated Christ. But they affirmed that this was the sum of their fault or error: that they were accustomed, on a stated day, to meet together before day, to sing a hymn to Christ in concert, as to a god, and to bind themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wickedness, but, on the contrary, to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery; also, never to violate their promise nor deny a pledge committed to from. These things being performed, it was their custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous, innocent meal, which, however, they had omitted from the time of the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I forbade assemblies of this sort. On receiving this account, I judged it to be more necessary to examine by torture two females who were called deaconesses; but I discovered nothing except a depraved and immoderate superstition. Whereupon, suspending farther judicial proceedings, I have recourse to you for advice; for it has appeared to me that the subject is highly deserving of consideration, especially on account of the great number of persons whose lives are put into jeopardy. Many persons of all ages, sexes, and conditions are accused, and many more will be in the same situation; for the contagion of this superstition has not merely pervaded the cities, but also all villages and country places, yet it seems to me that it might be restrained and corrected. It is a matter of fact, that the temples which were almost deserted begin again to be frequented, and the sacred solemnities which had been long intermitted are again attended; and victims for the altars are now readily sold, which awhile ago were almost without purchasers. Whence it is easy to conjecture what a multitude of men might be reclaimed, if only the door to repentance was left open.”

The Emperor’s reply to this letter was as follows: “Trajan to Pliny: Health and happiness. You have taken the right method, my Pliny, in dealing with those who have been brought before you as Christians; for it is impossible to establish any universal rule which will apply to all cases. They should not be sought after; but, when they are brought before you and convicted, they must be punished, Nevertheless, if any one deny that he is a Christian, and confirm his assertion by his conduct — that is, by worshiping our gods — although he may be suspected of having been one in time past, let him obtain pardon on repentance. But in no case permit a libel against any one to be received, unless it be signed by the person who presents it, for that would be a dangerous precedent, and in nowise suitable to the present age.”

Much additional testimony to the same import, both from Christian and pagan writers, might be adduced; but we deem it superfluous to add any thing farther, except to refer to the well-known and important fact that such had been the extent to which the Christian religion had spread and triumphed, that as early as the commencement of the fourth century, which was little over two hundred years from the death of the last of the apostles, it became the established religion of the vast Roman Empire. This mighty revolution was effected by Constantine the Great on his ascending the imperial throne. Whether he had become a real convert to Christianity, or whether he merely adopted it as the religion of the empire through political motives, matters nothing so far as the question before us is concerned. If he was a real convert, it shows the position and influence to which Christianity must have attained to arrest the attention and gain the approval of so illustrious a personage; and, moreover, to induce him to proclaim it as the religion of the state. But if he was influenced in the case solely by considerations of statesmanship, then we have the best of proof that Christianity at that early period of its history had gained the ascendency over paganism, and become the most influential religion of the empire. From what has been presented, it cannot be denied that the success of Christianity, from its first promulgation till it had overspread the Roman Empire, was astonishingly great, furnishing in the fact an evident fulfillment of the predictions of the prophets and of Christ on the subject. According to the statement of our argument, the next question to be considered is this: Were the means used in producing this success adequate to effect it without the aid of divine interposition? In order to a proper understanding of this subject, there are two points to be particularly considered: First, the feebleness of the human instrumentalities to be employed in the work; secondly, the magnitude of the difficulties in the way of its accomplishment.

If it appears that the means are not so feeble, nor the interposing difficulties so great, but that Christianity might have secured the success with which it was crowned without the aid of divine interposition, then our argument, so far as grounded upon the fact that a miracle of power was performed in effecting this success, must be set aside; but that would not weaken the argument, so far as it is based on the fulfillment of prophecy, or on the performance of a miracle of knowledge. On the contrary, should it appear that the means or instrumentalities admitted in the case are inadequate to the contemplated success without divine interposition, then it will follow that our argument is sustained in both its branches, and these branches will mutually strengthen each other.

But we now proceed to contemplate the human instrumentalities set apart and employed for the establishment and spread of the gospel. What were these? We see no conclave of far-seeing politicians or wise philosophers uniting their councils to mature and digest a plan to uproot all the deepest prejudices of nations, and to revolutionize the religion of the world — no array of eloquent orators going forth from the schools to entrance and overwhelm, with the “wisdom of words,” all the nations of the earth, and win them to a new religion — no mighty armies and navies waiting the bidding of an ambitious potentate to go forth in battle to overthrow the kingdoms and empires of the world! None of these instrumentalities were employed by Him who said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” But what do we behold? According to the showing of infidelity, only a few obscure, illiterate, humble peasants — fishermen, tent-makers, or tax-gatherers — without science or eloquence, without wealth or power, without popularity or influence, or armies or navies, or sword or scrip, going forth to battle against prejudice, and power, and eloquence, and learning — against kings and priests — against philosophy and superstition — against the bigotry of the Jew and the idolatry of the pagan — against the deadly hate and malice of all. And for what? Let infidelity answer, and it will tell you, to uphold and promote the cause of an impostor — an impostor who had deceived and deluded them for years, and who at last had been executed in disgrace; and, to crown all, according to infidelity, one whom they knew to be such! Now we ask, according to all the laws by which men and minds are governed — according to the philosophy of human nature — Is it not morally impossible, unless upon the hypothesis that the apostles were insane, that they should ever have attempted the promulgation of the gospel in the name of Jesus, much less that they should have gained signal success in the enterprise, unless they had been assured, not only of his divinity and resurrection, but also of his miraculous assistance in their work?

But, admitting that they were sufficiently demented to have made the attempt, would they have selected Jerusalem as the theater of their commencement — that very city in which their Master, only a few weeks previously, had been crucified as a malefactor — in the midst of that very community who were so familiar with all his deceptions, if such they were — who had it in their power to expose all the false statements of his disciples concerning his resurrection, if he had not arisen; and, above all, who were so deeply enraged against him and his followers — under all these circumstances, would they have selected Jerusalem as the place of their first operations? And how can we account for their instant and abundant success?

Admit the truth of Christianity, and all is plain — deny it, and all is inexplicable. They were assured of the divinity and resurrection of Jesus; they confided in his promise, that they should be “endued with power from on high,” and waited for its fulfillment. The Holy Ghost came: they spake with tongues they had never learned, and were able to say to all who doubted the divinity of their mission or the resurrection of their Master, “Bring forth your deaf, your blind, your lame, your sick, and, in the name of Jesus, we will heal them; bring forth your dead, and, in his name, we will raise them to life again!” But for the “power from on high” with which the apostles were endued, they never could have established a Church in Jerusalem, or anywhere else — but for this, they never could have encountered the powerful opposition, both from Jews and pagans, by which they were withstood, or, having encountered it, according to all human calculation they would have been instantly overwhelmed and crushed beneath its weight. They “preached Jesus and the resurrection” with success, because he who had said, “Lo, I am with you alway,” ever accompanied them, “bearing them witness both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.”

The circumstances of the age and countries in which Christianity was first presented, rendered success in the enterprise, by means and instrumentalities so feeble and insignificant, a moral impossibility, except upon the supposition that the apostles received “help from God.” Had Christianity originated during the dark ages, when learning and science were almost forgotten or unknown, and the whole world was shrouded in ignorance, it might be pleaded that designing men had practiced deception upon the benighted multitudes, and led them blindly to embrace a delusion; but, as if it were designed by Providence that this plea of infidelity should be forever forestalled, Christianity arose and established its claims in the most enlightened period of the world’s history. Jesus Christ appeared in the Augustan age, so justly celebrated for the general diffusion of intelligence and the prosperous condition of philosophy, science, and learning. The world had never before been so well prepared for the critical examination of the claims of a new religion, or the ready detection of the false pretensions and cunningly-devised frauds of an impostor.

Another circumstance rendering that age a peculiarly favorable juncture, either for the establishment of the claims of a true religion or for the detection and exposure of an imposture, is the fact that the Roman Empire had then gained the height of its greatness, and had overspread by its influence the enlightened world, rendering tributary to its dominion nearly every civilized nation upon the globe. This circumstance, added to the fact that it was a time of universal peace, rendered that the period of all others the most auspicious for the promulgation and success of a true religion, but the most inauspicious for the success of a fraud. Philosophers and men of learning abounded almost everywhere in the cities and large towns; their means of mutual communication and intercourse were easy and abundant; they had leisure for study and patient examination; and there was no great political revolution or exciting war in progress to distract the mind or interrupt the process of investigation. At such a time, and under such circumstances, are those poor fishermen of Galilee capable of palming a gross deception upon the world, and, in a few years, revolutionizing its religion?

But let us look at the places selected for their operations. They did not wander to some remote and obscure corner of the empire — distant from Jerusalem, the scene of the ministry and miracles of Jesus and the center of Jewish learning and influence, and far away from Rome, the seat of empire and power — but they lifted the standard right at Jerusalem, where, in a few months, they had many thousands of converts. At Rome, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Damascus, Antioch, Philippi, and throughout all the towns and cities in their reach, they stood forth preaching the gospel with great success. Wherever Jewish prejudice was the most inveterate, or Jewish malice the most vindictive, there they hasted to unfurl the banner of the cross, and there they founded flourishing Churches; wherever among the pagans was found the center of philosophy or the stronghold of idolatry, there they proceeded at once, boldly proclaiming salvation in the name of the crucified One, and calling upon all to abandon the worship of “dumb idols.”

But who were their opponents in this conflict? All parties, and sects, and orders, among the Jews. The Essenes, the Herodians, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes and the priests, the rulers and the elders, the members of the Sanhedrim, and the doctors of the law, all stood up as the bitter enemies and persecutors of the despicable “sect of the Nazarenes;” but among all these the apostles gained converts, and founded Churches in their midst.

Among the Gentiles they were met and opposed by emperors, kings, proconsuls, governors, magistrates, and all in authority; by Platonists, Peripatetics; Epicureans, and all the philosophical sects; by the rulers of state, and the priests of religion — in a word, by the learning and eloquence, power and prejudice, pride and malice, of the whole world. Christians were ridiculed, slandered, reviled, hated, persecuted, imprisoned, scourged, beheaded, drowned, thrown to wild beasts, crucified, burned, and “killed all the day long;” yet the Church spread and prospered more and more, and thus “mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.”

The inducements held forth by Jesus and his apostles to enlist disciples, were not such as were calculated to promote success upon mere natural principles. Neither riches, nor honors, nor pleasures, were promised his followers, but toil and poverty, tribulation and ignominy, persecution and death — these were the earthly rewards of Him who said, “Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” Are such terms of discipleship as these the marks of imposture? Did human wisdom ever suggest a scheme like this to win the support of men? What could induce a designing deceiver to propose such terms? In the absence of heroic daring, resulting from a firm conviction of the truth and an abiding confidence in the divine aid, how could sane men have hoped for success when exhibiting such terms as these? Supernatural interposition apart, what could be imagined better calculated to prevent success than this initiating maxim of Jesus: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me?”

Look also at the general tenor of the precepts and promises of Christianity, in this religion, “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” must be forsaken, the sinful propensities of unsanctified humanity renounced, and a life of holiness pursued. Is this the device of an impostor? To win adherents to his cause, would he prescribe sacrifices at the very threshold which only can be made by the exercise of the loftiest species of moral heroism of which our nature is capable? To pluck out the right eye, to cut off the right hand — these are precepts which no impostor could have invented or would have enjoined. They fully attest the divinity of the gospel, and clearly demonstrate the impossibility of its success, except through the influence of a principle of heavenly origin, conferred by divine interposition, changing the current of the heart and transforming the texture of the life.

And what were the promises of this religion in connection with the life to come? Were they calculated to win the approval and secure the devotion of man’s corrupt and sensual nature? Taking the moral nature of man as we know from experience and observation that it really is, its whole current is in direct antagonism to the purity and holiness of the gospel, as enjoined in this life, and to its unearthly and spiritual rewards, as promised in the life to come. It tells of no fountains of worldly honors, or riches, or pleasures, in reference to this world, and gives no promise of Elysian fields of sensual delight in reference to the world to come. We conclude, therefore, that the terms of discipleship and the moral precepts and heavenly promises of the gospel are all of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of success but upon the supposition that divine interposition is afforded. Infidelity, staggering under the weight of the argument for the truth of Christianity derived from its success, has attempted to account for this success on natural principles alone. The author of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” has exhibited, as adequate to this purpose, the following “secondary causes”:

1. “The inflexible and intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.”

2. “The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficiency to that important truth.”

3. “The miraculous powers of the primitive Church.”

4. “The virtues of the primitive Christians.”

5. “The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire.”

Referring those who wish to see a full and complete answer to Mr. Gibbon’s chapter on this subject to the treatises by Bishop Watson, and Lord Hailes in reply to Gibbon, we here append a remark or two in reference to each of these five “secondary causes:”

1. As to the “zeal of the Christians,” so far as it was a pure and holy principle consistent with the genius of Christianity, it is acknowledged to have been a very powerful cause in securing the success of Christianity. But then it was not “derived from the Jewish religion,” but from a firm conviction of the truth and importance of Christianity, resulting from the most satisfactory evidence of the divine interposition in its establishment. But if a bigoted intolerance, inconsistent with the mild precepts of the gospel, be charged upon the Christians, that would have been more likely to prevent than to promote success.

In reference to the second cause — “the doctrine of a future life” — this, it is true, was an element of apostolic success; but then it was founded on the attested facts of the resurrection of Jesus and the repeated miraculous assurances of the Holy Spirit, and, of course, cannot be considered a mere natural or secondary cause.

As to Mr. Gibbon’s third cause — “the miraculous powers of the primitive Church” — these miracles must have been either real or spurious. If real, they were a mighty engine of success; but then the divine interposition is confessed, and the point in dispute given up. But if these miracles were mere pretensions and frauds, then they could not have promoted success, but would have resulted in detection, exposure, and defeat. Mr. Gibbon’s fourth cause — “the virtues of the primitive Christians” — the whole world must admit to have been very efficacious in effecting the great success of Christianity; but it is truly astonishing that a mind like that of Mr. Gibbon could conceive of those divinely-imparted virtues as a mere natural or secondary cause! Those sublime virtues could only have resulted from the truth, excellency, and divine authentication of the doctrines of Christianity.

The fifth cause is, “The union and discipline of the Christian republic.” Here we see an exhibition of the fact that great minds are often shorn of their strength when they assault the claims of divide revelation. Mr. Gibbon is to account for the rapid growth of the Christian Church during the first and second centuries, and he does so by attributing it to that “union and discipline” which, according to his own showing, were for three centuries gradually forming the Church into a state! How can that “formation,” which was gradually completed in the third century, produce the success of Christianity in the first and second centuries?

In conclusion, it may be proper for us to refer to the fact, that infidelity has attempted to neutralize the force of the Christian argument, founded on the success of the gospel, by appealing to the fact that Mohammed had great success in the establishment of a false religion; hence it is argued that the success of Christianity can be no evidence of its truth. The truth of Christianity is argued from its success, on the ground that there were certain circumstances connected with its origin and establishment which would have rendered its success a moral impossibility unless it had been true. Now it is clear that the success of Mohammedanism can only bear against the Christian argument here predicated, provided it was accompanied by similar circumstances. It is very plain that the circumstances connected with the establishment of the two religions were quite dissimilar in character. Mohammed claimed to perform no miracle — Jesus Christ performed many, of the most obvious character, and in the most public manner. Had Mohammed undertaken as many of the same character, under circumstances of similar publicity, it is impossible that he could have succeeded, even with the ignorant Arabs; but Jesus Christ confounded the combined wisdom of Jews and Gentiles. Mohammed accommodated his precepts to the wicked and sensual propensities of an ungodly world, both as regards this life and the next; the teachings of Jesus Christ proclaimed a deadly warfare against all manner of sinful luxury, sensuality, lust, uncleanness, and abomination, promising no reward of sensual indulgence in the future. Mohammed made but trifling progress till he seized the sword as his instrument of propagandism, and mustered a large army of fierce warriors, presenting to his conquered foes the alternative of conversion or death; Jesus Christ announced to his disciples: “My kingdom is not of this world.” “Provide neither sword nor scrip.” “They that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.”

The simple proclamation of the facts and doctrines of the gospel, in the spirit of meekness and love, was the means selected by the Saviour for the propagation of his religion. We might notice several other important points of contrast between the circumstances connected with the establishment of these two religions, but more would be superfluous. The causes of the success of the religion of the false prophet can only be contrasted — not compared with those which produced the success of Christianity. The causes in the one case were “earthly, sensual, and devilish;” in the other case they were “pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, and full of mercy and good fruits.” While Mohammed’s success proves his religion to be of this earth, that of Christianity demonstrates the divinity of its origin. QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 17.

QUESTION 1. In what two ways may the truth of Christianity be proved from its success?

2. What scriptures show that this success had been predicted?

3. What is our first source of argument to prove this success?

4. What is the next testimony on the subject?

5. What quotations are made from Christian writers?

6. What from profane writers?

7. When did Christianity become the religion of the Roman Empire?

8. What two points are to be considered to show that this success could not have been secured but by divine aid, and what evidence bears satisfactorily upon the subject?

9. How is the strength of the opposition to Christianity shown?

10. What were the inducements held forth by Jesus and his apostles to enlist disciples?

11. What the character of the precepts and promises of Christianity?

12. How does Gibbon attempt to account for the success of Christianity on natural principles?

13. How is the fallacy of his argument shown?

14. How is the success of Christianity contrasted with that of Mohammedanism?