"1. The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the 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 efficacy to that important truth."3. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive Church."4. The pure and austere morals of the 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."Broadly speaking, this analysis may be accepted, but with some comments. The first cause--the
inflexibility and intolerance derived from the Jews--may be wholly accepted. We have seen in our
own day the advantages of intolerance in propaganda. The Christians, for the most part, believed
that they alone would go to heaven, and that the most awful punishments would, in the next world,
fall upon the heathen. The other religions which competed for favour during the third century had
not this threatening character. The worshippers of the Great Mother, for example, while they had a
ceremony --the Taurobolium--which was analogous to baptism, did not teach that those who
omitted it would go to hell. It may be remarked, incidentally, that the Taurobolium was expensive:
a bull had to be killed, and its blood allowed to trickle over the convert. A rite of this sort is
aristocratic, and cannot be the basis of a religion which is to embrace the great bulk of the
population, rich and poor, free and slave. In such respects, Christianity had an advantage over all
its rivals.
As regards the doctrine of a future life, in the West it was first taught by the Orphics and thence
adopted by Greek philosophers.
* The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. XV.