sincerity and earnestness; but surely this is a most accurate description of the feeling of a man conscious that he was in possession of an important truth, which all around him were in want of; and too anxious for the welfare of his fellow-creatures to pass by any opportunity of enlightening them. "Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say ? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our

This passage affords a lively sketch of the Athenian agora and its frequenters, accustomed to perpetual discussions and agitating endless questions, with an utter indifference as to their truth or falsehood. Some entirely rejecting what they heard, "what will this babbler say?" Others struck with something imperfectly comprehended, and thinking it of sufficient consequence to be referred to the council of Areopagus.

We are next presented with the address of Paul to this assembly, opening with an ingenious allusion

to the altar inscribed, "To the unknown God;" and undertaking to set forth the Creator, who was at present strange to them, though convinced by their reason of the existence of some Supreme Being.

The condemnation of idolatry, and declaration of the truth which follows, is delivered in a tone of authority arising from the speaker's own confidence, which is beautifully blended with the compassion which he feels towards the ignorant and erring objects of his address. He speaks in that decisive strain of conscious superiority, which a Christian of the present day would adopt towards a tribe of Indians or Chinese. Yet who was the speaker? A stranger from an obscure province of Syria. Where was he speaking? In Athens, the instructress of the world. Whom was he addressing? The philosophers of highest repute in their age, to whom the wisest of other countries came for illumination.

He does not, however, launch at once into the mysteries of the faith which he professed. His mind is not so enthusiastically filled with the message of salvation which it was his office to convey, as to overlook the wisest method of imparting it. His object is, to prepare them to meet a future judgment: therefore he directs his blow towards their consciences and their fears. "The times of former ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men everywhere to repent; because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteous

ness by that Man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all, in that he hath raised him again from the dead."

The effect of this novel declaration was the very effect to be anticipated from all that we know of human nature, and of that particular audience. When they found that his doctrine involved the question of the resurrection of the dead, a part ridiculed the idea: a part postponed the consideration while some adhered to him, and "believed."

of it;

1 Acts xvii. 30, 31.

2 He must have unusual confidence in the inventive powers of the early Christians, who can look upon these narratives, and the many others which are contained in the "Acts of the Apostles," as a mere fabrication: remembering, at the same time, the age to which the book indisputably belongs, and the persons by whom it must have been composed. When we consider the immense quantity of matter and the great variety of facts contained in it: the minute circumstances detailed: when we compare the speeches of Peter with those of Paul: and those of Paul to the Ephesians with those which he addressed to an unconverted audience: when we examine the conduct attributed to the Jews their open persecution at Jerusalem, and their indirect accusation at Thessalonica; the ingenuity with which the adversaries of the Apostles address themselves to the passions and interests of men in the different cities: the characters of Gallio, of Felix, of Lysias, of Agrippa: it seems impossible to suppose this an invented narrative of things which never took place, or of persons who never had a real existence. This argument, indeed, can have no weight with a person who is not sensible of the air of truth and reality which pervades the whole history. But whoever is alive to this, whoever does perceive in almost every page the marks of a writer detailing the account of actual transactions and circumstances, should observe that the proof which arises from evidence of this kind, is not to be deemed far-fetched or imaginary, because it is incapable of being drawn out in words, or of being presented to the mind of the sceptic in any other way than by sending him to the books themselves.-See Paley's Hora Paulinæ, Conclusion, p. 359.

M

Some believed. This is what requires explanation. How came any to give assent to such a fact as that affirmed by the Apostle, unless convincing evidence of his truth and divine commission were presented to them? What enabled Paul to prevail against that moral vis inertia which so strongly retains mankind in their accustomed habits and the opinions of their country, unless he really could bring forward the proofs to which he appealed? How came he to establish his ground, in defiance of opposition, not for want of it: for the history proves that both Jews and Gentiles were no less decidedly attached to the religion, the traditions, and the worship of their ancestors, than ourselves.

We have advanced thus far. We have shown that the first preachers of Christianity achieved a most arduous undertaking: and we have argued that such success affords strong presumption of their bearing about with them sufficient evidence of divine authority. Two questions, however, arise, which demand consideration.

On the supposition of the facts being true which form the basis of Christianity, was such miraculous interference to be expected as might effect the sure, though gradual establishment of the religion? And was it to be expected that on such authority their religion should be partially, not universally, received?

With regard to the first of these questions, we may surely reply, that there was ground to expect divine interposition. The reason has been already anticipated: nothing else would have obtained for the Apostles an attentive hearing. Supposing, therefore, what it is not unreasonable to suppose, considering the state of the moral world at the period in question, that God had devised a plan for its melioration it is also probable that he would authenticate it by such visible interpositions of his power as are said to have accompanied the ministry of Jesus and his Apostles. Because we cannot conceive that, without some co-operation of this kind, their preaching would have obtained any permanent attention, much less that it would have effected what it did ultimately effect, the conversion of the civilized world.1

:

And this seems sufficient ground for believing, that if it were the purpose of God. to establish a revelation like the Christian, he would see fit for a time to suspend or change the ordinary operations of his laws; and that in the case before us he actually did so.

The cases of successful imposture or enthusiasm which sometimes astonish us, are no exception to this argument. Persons, such, for instance, as Swedenborg, do not introduce a new religion, but stand forward as interpreters of a religion before established on very different grounds; and because that is believed, they are listened to. If the religion were not already believed, these persons would gain no attention. The Apostles raised Christianity out of nothing, and against everything.