historical criticism hardly existed; at all events, its methods were not generally accepted. In those days the nature of scientific truth was hardly understood. Under these circumstances the doctrinal assertion of Biblical infallibility could not do much harm, whilst it impressed people with a great sense of reverence for the Bible, in which they actually found so much good; nor was the doctrine-as it has since become at all in violent collision with the popular heart and understanding, or at variance with the state of knowledge in that age. But now we have passed into a very different age, and if we value the Bible we do not value it for its infallibility, because it is seen to be clearly not infallible; that is not the nature of its value, that is not an element in its inspiration.

I have drawn elsewhere, at great length, the distinction between Inspiration and Infallibility, and whilst I have always maintained the inspiration of the Bible, I have shown that if you keep dogmatically to the infallibility of the Bible you are simply injuring the Bible by claiming for it what it does not possess, and what it never pretended to have or to be. We dismiss such dogmas as Ecclesiastical Supremacy or the Infallibility of the Bible without misgiving and without pain, because we thereby reach a higher level of truth, and therefore a higher level of life and nobler views of inspiration.

So, then, it is not formularies and ceremonies that we object to-we must have them-but we will not have them fixed for ever; they must be moulded by the wants

of every succeeding age. We do not mind dogmas, but we don't want inflexible dogmas. We don't mind theology, but we must not allow our theology to roughride conscience and exterminate religion. It may seem to some presumption to speak in these terms of theology and theological tenets which have been preached by a great many eminent clergy and bishops of the past; but how else can we speak in the present day, when our best thinking men outside the Church are simply smiling at the kind of things we call truth—simply smiling at what we pretend to believe, but what few sane men or educated persons outside the Church even profess any longer to hold?

Have we not a right to say that much of the old theology in this nineteenth century is no longer profitable doctrine, but mere dogma-that we want some new expression of truth, and that our narrow views and our conventional sermons and explanations are, in fact, exterminating religion, because they are keeping educated people out of our churches, driving the thoughtful and scientific world into opposition, and making enemies of those who should of all others be our friends? If the Church cannot utilise some of the best men of the age, the Church will go down; if the Church, which calls itself National, cannot use their enthusiasm, their learning, their love of truth, their philanthropy, and their goodness, except in connection with one shibboleth, so much the worse for the Church-the Church will have to go down. Those who under the garb of a spurious piety refuse to recognise facts-those who oppose themselves

to the voice of scientific, social, and religious progress, will find themselves ere long in a very poor minority.

You must have observed from the very beginning of my sermon that to-day I am not speaking to those who are satisfied, but to those who are dissatisfied. Were it otherwise, you might accuse me justly of unsettling people's minds; as it is, I address myself to those who are already unsettled. I shall do them no good unless I am able to take their doubts and give expression to their difficulties, with a view to showing, if I can, a way out of them. But this will only be done by making it clear that many of the forms they have received, and the beliefs they have treasured up, are not necessarily a part and parcel of that religious spirit which can never die.

3. Now, when I look for some light to guide me; when I see, not without anxiety, yet with a firm faith in the future, how the old things are passing away, whilst all things are becoming new; when I awake to the consciousness that we are in the midst of one of those great transition periods which came upon the world about the time of Christ, or again about the time of the Reformation, shall I not look anxiously for some steady principle of belief—some sure method of inquiry? What is that method? What is that principle? I answer this. The principle is the Love of Truth; and the only sane method of inquiry must be one which is founded upon that principle.

Therefore I beg you to notice that this morning I

I

have nothing to do with any particular doctrines. have simply to point to the Love of Truth as a principle, and notice the methods of inquiry which are the direct consequences of it. You must be sure that your method is a sound method, and when you are quite sure of that, you need not be anxious about your belief; you will accept it as you accept any other consequence of wise. thought and action; you will follow truth whithersoever it goeth, and each doctrine as it presents itself to you will have to be judged before the same equal tribunal. But I hear some one say, 'Is there no such thing as faith? Are we not to receive certain truths in faith? Is there not one region for the intellect and another for the spirit-may we not lean upon God's promises where we cannot prove-may we not aspire where we cannot know? What becomes of faith when you speak of methods of inquiry, and oppose science to religion? Shall we set up our little puny reason against the great revelations of God?'

4. Brethren, our minds are surely confused when we venture to speak thus about Reason and Faith. We are mixing up things which have nothing to do with each other, or rather, which have certain points of contact, but which lie in altogether different planes. I pray you, once for all, to make one great distinction, in order that a great popular fallacy may be exploded. I pray you to distinguish between what you call FAITH and what you call BELIEF. They are two very different things. Faith is the instinct of trust in the Invisible

moulding itself around a dozen beliefs and changes of belief-giving heat and motion to the cold mental process which has defined the object and nature of belief; -faith underlies all religions, and impels men to practise outwardly what they believe inwardly. The object of belief is not decided by any intuition; the object of belief is decided simply by the mind. When you have got an object of belief, faith or trust or self-abandonment to the divine instinct is ready to gather up and bring its wealth, and give it to the object you have decided it is right to worship. But belief is distinct from faith altogether. We don't seem to realise that, when we talk of faith being superior to reason; faith and reason are two different things. Our reason is given to us in order that we may determine what we ought to believe. But you may believe a thing, and yet may not have any faith in it. You may have an orthodox conviction about a dozen doctrines, but that conviction may not influence your life. Faith, the religious instinct, may never have laid hold of, or quickened your belief; the belief lies dead, being alone. Now let us try and understand, more closely if possible, the functions of the intellect and the functions of the religious sentiment, commonly called faith; and let us never be betrayed into talking such confused nonsense as we sometimes hear talked about setting up Reason against Faith, or Faith against Reason.

I am told, in the Acts of the Apostles, that Jesus said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'. I may have, and for myself I have, unbounded faith in that utterance.