Evidence of Christianity | Page 7

therefore,
who stood forth to preach the religion must necessarily reproach these
rulers with an execution which they could not but represent as an unjust
and cruel murder. This would not render their office more easy, or their
situation more safe.
With regard to the interference of the Roman government which was
then established in Judea, I should not expect, that, despising as it did
the religion of the country, it would, if left to itself, animadvert, either
with much vigilance or much severity, upon the schisms and
controversies which arose within it. Yet there was that in Christianity
which might easily afford a handle of accusation with a jealous
government. The Christians avowed an unqualified obedience to a new
master. They avowed also that he was the person who had been foretold
to the Jews under the suspected title of King. The spiritual nature of
this kingdom, the consistency of this obedience with civil subjection,
were distinctions too refined to be entertained by a Roman president,
who viewed the business at a great distance, or through the medium of
very hostile representations. Our histories accordingly inform us, that
this was the turn which the enemies of Jesus gave to his character and
pretensions in their remonstrances with Pontius Pilate. And Justin
Martyr, about a hundred years afterwards, complains that the same
mistake prevailed in his time: "Ye, having heard that we are waiting for
a kingdom, suppose without distinguishing that we mean a human
kingdom, when in truth we speak of that which is with God."* And it
was undoubtedly a natural source of calumny and misconstruction.
_________
* Ap. Ima p. 16. Ed. Thirl. _________
The preachers of Christianity had, therefore, to contend with prejudice

backed by power. They had to come forward to a disappointed people,
to a priesthood possessing a considerable share of municipal authority,
and actuated by strong motives of opposition and resentment; and they
had to do this under a foreign government, to whose favour they made
no pretensions, and which was constantly surrounded by their enemies.
The well-known, because the experienced, fate of reformers, whenever
the reformation subverts some reigning opinion, and does not proceed
upon a change that has already taken place in the sentiments of a
country, will not allow, much less lead us to suppose that the first
propagators of Christianity at Jerusalem and in Judea, under the
difficulties and the enemies they had to contend with, and entirely
destitute as they were of force, authority, or protection, could execute
their mission with personal ease and safety.
Let us next inquire, what might reasonably be expected by the
preachers of Christianity when they turned themselves to the heathen
public. Now the first thing that strikes us is, that the religion they
carried with them was exclusive. It denied without reserve the truth of
every article of heathen mythology, the existence of every object of
their worship. It accepted no compromise, it admitted no
comprehension. It must prevail, if it prevailed at all, by the overthrow
of every statue, altar, and temple in the world, It will not easily be
credited, that a design, so bold as this was, could in any age be
attempted to be carried into execution with impunity.
For it ought to be considered, that this was not setting forth, or
magnifying the character and worship of some new competitor for a
place in the Pantheon, whose pretensions might he discussed or
asserted without questioning the reality of any others: it was
pronouncing all other gods to be false, and all other worship vain. From
the facility with which the polytheism of ancient nations admitted new
objects of worship into the number of their acknowledged divinities, or
the patience with which they might entertain proposals of this kind, we
can argue nothing as to their toleration of a system, or of the publishers
and active propagators of a system, which swept away the very
foundation of the existing establishment. The one was nothing more
than what it would be, in popish countries, to add a saint to the calendar;

the other was to abolish and tread under foot the calendar itself.
Secondly, it ought also to be considered, that this was not the case of
philosophers propounding in their books, or in their schools, doubts
concerning the truth of the popular creed, or even avowing their
disbelief of it. These philosophers did not go about from place to place
to collect proselytes from amongst the common people; to form in the
heart of the country societies professing their tenets; to provide for the
order, instruction and permanency of these societies; nor did they
enjoin their followers to withdraw themselves from the public worship
of the temples, or refuse a compliance with rites instituted by the laws.*
These things are