and the same temperament which had hitherto made him its most active persecutor, converted him into its most energetic Missionary.

The theory of visions in this case is free from several of the difficulties with which it is beset when offered as a rational account of the appearances to the original followers of Jesus. In the latter case it was necessary to assume that bodies of disciples, when assembled together, saw visions which they mistook for realities. In the case of Paul the statement of the historian is express, that he alone saw Our Lord, and heard His voice, and that his companions saw only the light, and heard a sound: but that they heard no articulate words. The further difficulty in the case of the disciples, that they must have mistaken visionary conversations containing directions for the reconstruction of the Church, for realities, applies with less force in the case of the Apostle, who only believed that he received a direction in a single interview, to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. In addition to this, the idea of the resurrection of Jesus, and his exaltation to mighty power in the kingdom. of God, was now no longer a novelty; and the investigations of Paul the persecutor must have fully disclosed to him the fact that such was the belief of the Christian Church.

On the other hand, St. Paul's case is encumbered with peculiar difficulties of its own. While acting as a persecutor, it is simply incredible that he did not sift the whole matter to the bottom. He must have been familiar with the account which was given by the disciples of Jesus. He must have been thoroughly acquainted with the theory propounded on the subject by the Jewish priests. As a member of the Cilician Synagogue, which disputed with Stephen, he must have urged all his objections against the arguments of the Protomartyr. Let us suppose that his reasonings broke down. Yet he was still unconvinced; and remained a furious persecutor. He must therefore have been under the influence of the strongest prepossession and fixed idea, and wholly devoid of expectancy. Consequently, his state of

mind must have been altogether incompatible with seeing a vision of Jesus risen from the dead, and mistaking it for a reality.

The idea that the demeanour of Stephen had produced any powerful impression on him is not only a bare assumption, without one atom of evidence to support it, but is contrary to his own express affirmations. Conscience had not remonstrated with him up to the time of the journey to Damascus. "I have lived," he says, addressing the Jewish Council, "in all good conscience towards God until this day." Not a single hint that he was in any sense a conscience-stricken man, or that he was in a relenting mood, occurs in any of his Epistles. On the contrary, to the Galatians he writes: "Ye have heard of my conversation in times past in the Jews' religion how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it; and profited in the Jews' religion, above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood." Equally decisive is the address to King Agrippa, "Many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests," &c. (Acts xxvi, 10-12.)

If the Apostle has correctly described his feelings in either of these passages (and the second of them is beyond all dispute written by himself), they utterly negative the idea of his being in such a disturbed state of mind at the time of the journey as could have produced the visionary appear

ance.

His pre

If it was simply imaginary, it can be accounted for on no principle known to mental science. The Apostle tells us that at the time of the journey, he was under the strongest influence of those kinds of prepossession and fixed idea which would have produced a precisely contrary result. "I was exceedingly zealous," says he, "for the traditions. of my fathers." Being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities." possessions and fixed ideas were therefore those of extreme Judaism and narrow-minded bigotry. If such a state of mind could generate visions at all, they must assuredly have been of a character precisely opposite to those which St. Paul imagined that he saw. Even if they could have suggested to him the appearance of the risen Jesus (which is impossible), we should never have heard one word about preaching Christianity to the Gentiles.

The thunderstorm and the lightning-flash are not only a mere guess on the part of those who have suggested them, but are directly contrary to the evidence we possess. Neither narrative says one word about darkness. The time of the appearance is definitely stated to have been at noonday, and it is implied that the sun was shining. Under such circumstances no flash of lightning could have exceeded the sun in brightness, and the brightness was seen by the Apostle's companions as well as by himself. The hypothesis of an attack of sunstroke would be far more probable under the circumstances than that of a flash of lightning; but even if assumptions wholly devoid of foundation can be admitted as accounting for one of the most important events in history, no principle then operating in the Apostle's mind could have produced the results with which the vision was attended, viz., a complete revolution in his ideas, and a selfdevotion to an entirely new course of action, which ended only with his life.

One little circumstance mentioned by the historian is utterly incompatible with any theory that the appearance on the road to Damascus was only a subjective vision.

When Paul recovered his sight, we are told that there fell from his eyes "as it had been scales." This fact, if true (and it seems impossible to ascribe it to the inventive powers of the historian), points to an objective reality of some kind. Any theory of visions, therefore, is simply worthless until it can explain how it was that Paul was stricken with blindness, and that three days after, when he recovered his sight, scales fell from his eyes. It will hardly be urged that the scales were visionary ones, or that they could have resulted from the action of Paul's mind on his body.

So far are the contents of the Epistles from justifying the observation that St. Paul was a man of such a mental temperament as to have led him to confound between the subjective and the objective, that they point to a conclusion. directly opposite. As I have observed in the sixth Lecture, if he had been a man of this temperament, the discussion respecting the supernatural gifts must have afforded ample opportunity for its display. Yet during the whole discussion we find nothing but the soundest reason and the acutest mental discrimination. The calm judgment exhibited by the Apostle throughout the entire discussion utterly negatives the hypothesis in question.

The Epistles unquestionably affirm that he had truth communicated to his mind by revelation. But to erect on this fact the theory that he was a man of that peculiar temperament which leads to the confounding of the subjective and the objective is to assume the point at issue. On the contrary, the Epistles abound with examples of his discrimi nating between the workings of his own mind and the divine illumination with which he believed himself to have been favoured; and they do not furnish us with a single instance in which the two are confounded together. The affirmations of Paul in his human character-even those which he made as one who had "obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful," and "believing that he had the Spirit of God," are everywhere clearly distinguished from

that knowledge which he believed to have been imparted to him by express revelation.

The following is the only apparent instance to the contrary, and will therefore require a brief consideration. The Apostle writes, "It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ about fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth); such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth); How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful (òv, possible) for a man to utter. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations," &c. (2 Cor. xii. 1-7.)

This passage is remarkable, and clearly establishes the following facts:

First that St. Paul somewhere near the time of his conversion believed himself to have been favoured with a preternatural illumination respecting divine truth.

Secondly that this illumination was imparted by means

of visions.

Thirdly: that in the particular vision in question, his own consciousness was unable to determine whether he was "in the body or out of it."

Fourthly: that as far as consciousness was concerned, he seemed to be translated out of this world into a higher sphere.

So far then is this passage from justifying the idea that he was in the habit of confounding the subjective and the objective, that it proves that on ordinary occasions he carefully discriminated between them. He tells us twice over, that on this particular occasion he could not tell for certain whether he was in the body or out of it. He was fully aware that it was a vision, but whether it was attended with a local transportation of his personality, he was ignorant.