In considering this subject it is hardly possible to overestimate the importance of the existence of the Church as a visible institution, which has lived an historic life from a brief interval after the Crucifixion to the present hour. Those who propound this theory forget that this is the most important thing to be accounted for; and treat the whole subject as if they were merely investigating the origin of a ghost story. That this great Society came into existence at a particular date, and at a particular place, is an historic fact. No less certain is it, that the Messianic conception on which it was reconstructed was wholly different in character from that which formed the original bond of union among the earliest followers of Jesus. Such a change must therefore have taken place in their ideas, as was adequate to convert the old bond of union into that on which the Church was actually reconstructed. The Crucifixion rendered the old Messianic conceptions utterly untenable, and unless new ones had been speedily adopted the little Society must inevitably have perished in its founder's grave. But it is the most certain of facts, that the present historic Church came into existence within a few weeks after this event. Consequently, during the interval which elapsed between the Crucifixion and the first attempt to reconstruct it, the disciples must have abandoned the old foundation of a visible Messiah, and adopted the new one, of an invisible and spiritual Messiah. But if the theory of visions is a rational explanation of the facts, not only must the appearances, and the interviews, have been visionary, but the instructions must have been so likewise. What does this mean? That the whole foundation on which the Church of Jesus Christ has been erected-that great Society which has acted mightily on man for good during eighteen centuries of time—is the creation of the fatuous dreamings of a number of disordered imaginations; and all this, we are invited to accept in the name of reason, and philosophy, rather than admit the reality of a miracle,

It will probably be objected that Mahometanism is a case

of this description, and that as far as it is not founded on imposture, it rests on the unreal dreams of the prophet of Mecca; and on appearances of the angel Gabriel, which, unless they were deliberate inventions, Mahomet must have mistaken for realities.*

The perusal of the Koran leaves on my own mind the impression, that during the earlier portion of his career the Arabian prophet may have been a sincere fanatic. No less certain is the impression produced by that part of it which is latest in date, that his fanaticism had become united with no small amount of imposture. There are chapters in it which no one in the possession of his senses could have believed that he received from the angel Gabriel, or that they were written on the eternal tablets of the divine mind. On the whole, Mahomet seems to have belonged to that mixed and very mysterious order of character which we occasionally meet with in history and in actual life, uniting self-delusion, fanaticism, and imposture in nearly equal proportions.

But it will be urged that on the strength of his conviction of the reality of the appearances of the angel, he laid claim to a divine Mission, and on this foundation has succeeded in erecting the Mahometan Church, and thus a hallucination has been the means of creating a great reality.

I answer, that the assertion that Mahomet succeeded in erecting his Church on this basis is inaccurate. The utmost that can be affirmed is that he was induced to undertake his thirteen years' peaceful mission at Mecca under the persuasion that he had received a divine commission through the appearance of the angel. The results of his peaceful labours

It is not my purpose in this place to draw a general parallel between Christianity and Mahometanism, but simply between the two systems, as far as they can be supposed to have originated in some mental hallucination, in the supposed visionary appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mahomet, those of Our Lord to the Apostles, and the erection of Christianity and Mahometanism on the basis of these delusions.

however were so inconsiderable, that the small band of believers whom he collected never succeeded in constituting a Church; and if he had confined himself to such labours the Church of Mahomet would never have been created. And no wonder, for the prophet never once made any manifestation of superhuman goodness, holiness or power which could impart credibility to his testimony. He stood in the position of a mere man witnessing to himself, precisely corresponding to what Our Lord meant when He said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." His visions he saw alone, and whether they were pure illusions, or these united with an incipient form of that self-delusion which manifested itself in the latter portion of his career, they failed to create a Church until he grasped the sword. There are passages in the Koran which produce the painful impression that even at an early date a spirit of self-delusion was mixed up with his fanaticism. I allude to those in which he assumes a tone of deprecation, on account of his inability to perform a miracle, when his opponents challenged him to work one in attestation of his divine mission. But the real foundation of his Church dates from his advancement to sovereign power, which a fortunate combination of circumstances threw into his hands. With this event begins that portion of his career in which unquestionable self-delusion and imposture become united with the original fanaticism of his character. We cannot now trace the stages of his downward course, but it is probable that his change from fanaticism pure and simple to fanaticism combined with imposture was a gradual one. However this may have been, the contrast between the Christian and the Mahometan Churches is complete, not only in the mode of their foundation, but almost in every other particular. With the possession of royal authority Mahomet ceased to be the missionary, and grasped the sword, his successful use of which formed in the eyes of his followers the real vindication of his divine mission, and constitutes the foundation on which his Church has been erected. Jesus renounced the

sword and was crucified; His cross became His throne; His followers proclaimed Him a spiritual Messiah, who would conquer his kingdom, not by force but by persuasion; and on the basis of His resurrection found the Catholic Church, over which for eighteen centuries He has reigned as its invisible King. If then, as unbelievers allege, the Church of Jesus Christ has been founded on a body of visionary delusions, it is certain that the Church of Mahomet has been founded on the sternest of realities, the sword wielded by the conqueror's hand.

But the theory of visions breaks down at every point where it can be tested by the facts of history. Not only is it the most certain of facts that the Church was reconstructed on the basis of the Resurrection within a very brief interval after the Crucifixion, but it rapidly increased in numbers. To make converts was a necessity of its existence. How could this be effected? There was only one mode, viz. to proclaim the setting up of the New Messianic kingdom; and that the person whom the chiefs of the nation had recently crucified on the charge of being a false Christ, had risen from the dead and become its spiritual King. What did His adversaries, who had just compassed His death, say when within a few weeks they saw what they must have considered a new imposture set up, and multitudes joining the new Society? There was one simple way of crushing the movement-the production of the body. No amount of delusion on the part of the followers of Jesus could have resisted the logic of such an act. If they were unable to produce it, the only possible reason must have been that it had passed from their custody into that of His friends. But such a supposition is destructive of the entire theory of visions; for in that case the belief in His resurrection cannot have been the result of any delusion, but its sole source must have been a deliberately concocted fraud. If, on the other hand, the body was still in the custody of His enemies, it is simply incredible that when the Resurrection was publicly announced they would not have produced it

However the fact may have been, either way it is fatal to the visionary theory. Its only refuge is to suppose that some one stole the body, and thereupon the remainder of His disciples took to seeing visions of the risen Jesus; but for such a fraud it is impossible to assign any adequate motive, and that it became the basis of a set of visionary appearances which were mistaken for realities is incredible.

Pressed by this difficulty, some of the adherents of this theory have affirmed that the followers of Jesus retired from Jerusalem after the crucifixion of their Master, to more friendly Galilee; and that these took to seeing visions of Him raised from the dead, and to reconstructing the Church.* The object of this is to gain time for the belief to grow; and to remove the scene of action to a distance from the place of the Crucifixion. The supposition however is not only devoid of all evidence, but directly contradicts the testimony of the Pauline Epistles. These render it certain that the Church was set up at Jerusalem within a very brief interval after the Crucifixion; and that it grew to sufficient numbers to induce the authorities, aided by Paul, to commence against it a sharp persecution. On this point we are

*The only ground for this assumption is the message sent to the disciples through the women on the morning of the Resurrection: "Go and tell my brethren, that they go before me into Galilee; there shall they see me;" the assertion in St. Matthew's Gospel, that the eleven disciples did see Him in Galilee, and that of the Fourth Gospel, which, while it affirms that He was twice previously seen by the Apostolic body at Jerusalem, tells us also that He was seen by seven disciples in Galilee. It should be observed that all three Synoptics concur in stating that the scene of the origin of the belief in the Resurrection was at Jerusalem, prior to any of the disciples leaving it for Galilee. This being so, it is absurd to accept their testimony in the one case and to deny its validity in the other. But, as I have shown above, it is impossible that St. Paul could have been ignorant where the belief originated. Every circumstance connected with him as a persecutor proves that it must have taken a firm root in Jerusalem shortly after the Crucifixion; and that the theory of its having gradually grown up in Galilee, has no other foundation than the imagination of those who have propounded it.