Popery, had it not been found necessary to set up an infallible book in order to overturn an infallible pope. Roman Catholics had to be fought; the imagination had to be appealed to; the senses had to be conciliated; the instinct of reverence had to be transferred from a visible thing called the Pope, to an invisible God! Yes, that should have been, but was not ; it was far more easy to transfer worship from one outward thing called Pope to another outward thing called the Bible, and that was done; but that could not be done without the all-important assumption that, every word in the Bible was verbally inspired, and, therefore, must be literally true:' -that being granted, the Reformers immediately found themselves in possession of a whole armoury of texts, which could be used like the arrows of the Spartan's foemen, not only to inflict wounds but to darken the air. But that is not the value of the Bible, my brethren; that is not the way to use the book out of which are the issues of life. Its power does not lie in infallibility, it is not identical with God's Word. The Word of God does indeed breathe through the Bible, in spirit and in truth, but every book and chapter and verse is not infallible.

The distinction between infallibility and inspiration may be new to some here present; but it is one which, in the interests of enlightened common sense, we are bound to make. Let me illustrate this at once, by an appeal to a case in practical life drawn from the Bible itself.

David was highly inspired in his life, but he was not

infallible in his life. David was highly inspired in his writing, but he was not infallible, nor were any other of the sacred writers.

49. But why should I assume that your ignorance of the commonest facts of ecclesiastical history is absolute? There are those before me who have doubtless studied these questions more deeply than I have; there are those present whose judgment is doubtless sounder than mine; but the commonest learning and the commonest sense should suffice to deliver us from opinions which have been formed without learning and maintained without candour.

What is the history of the Canon, i.e., the set of records bound up together which we call Holy Scripture? Did the people who collected and edited and bound them up always think that no word could be altered? Were they always agreed about the text? Were they always sure about what was inspired and what was not? Did they never differ amongst themselves-those ancient scribes and doctors who have transmitted the sacred records to us as to which books should or should not be included in the number of sacred books; did they always esteem each book and every part of each book now contained in the Bible as equally valuable or equally true; or is it the case that upon all these questions there has always been the greatest uncertainty, and the most remarkable divergence of opinion amongst those whose opinions are in the least worth noticing?

One glance at the history of the canon of Scripture

will show you not only that the popular views about verbal inspiration are untenable, but that they are also of comparatively modern origin. For, how is it possible to maintain that every portion of the Bible is infallibly or verbally inspired, when those from whom we get the Bible, when those who have told us all we know about it, held opposite opinions not only as to the value and authority of whole verses and chapters, but as to the claim of whole books in it to be called Holy Scripture in any sense of the word whatever ?

50. When I was reading for holy orders, amongst other books put into my hands by the Bishop of London to assist me in preaching the Gospel was Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.' As the work consists of valuable articles written chiefly by the most learned and orthodox divines and scholars in England, I naturally turned with the most eager interest to the article entitled the 'Canon of Scripture,' that is to say, ‘the collection of books which forms the original and authoritative written rule of faith and practice of the Christian Church.' Now, if we examine this article what do we find? We find, in reading the history of the Old Testament Canon, the human judgment wavering between different conclusions-seeking to stamp now one thing, now another, as of divine authority, and alternately adopting and rejecting different portions of the Bible accordingly. The writer of the article in question, himself a bishop's examining chaplain, proves that this has been done by those whom we revere as the greatest

and holiest Christians. They never had any idea that in approaching the writings now bound up in the Old and New Testaments, and which we call the Bible, it was wrong to examine them, to reject portions or whole books, to differ with each other upon the relative value of the contents of the other books; that notion is one of modern growth.

51. The early Fathers made little distinction between the apocryphal books which we do not consider Holy Scripture at all, and the Old and New Testament books. They quote them all as Holy Scripture. St. Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Callistus reject the book of Esther. Origen, Athanasius and the Council of Laodicea insert the apocryphal book of Baruch. St. Augustine is very uncertain about what is the canon of Scripture. In a famous passage he includes in the whole canon of Scripture' all the apocryphal books. Up to the Council of Trent, Romanists allow the question of what books were canonical or authoritative to have been open. And the Council of Trent made all the apocryphal books canonical, and added a curse upon all who should not receive them as such; since which time different degrees of authority have been given to them at different times.

As things were in this position as late as the English Reformation, we can hardly wonder (and it is a very noteworthy fact) that the original English articles of 1552 contained no catalogue of inspired books at all.

52. Now turn from Old Testament books to the

Then

New. Their history is precisely similar. I notice three periods in the compilation of the New Testament: Tradition, Speculation, Authority. It is a simple fact that nearly two centuries elapsed before it occurred to anyone that any book of the New Testament ought to be called Scripture, or was either of divine or inspired authority. The written records of the New Testament did not at once assume their subsequent importance, were not even collected, for this was the age of Tradition, and they are not quoted with the formulas of respect which always accompany the Old Testament. came the age of Speculation. The four Gospels were now separated from a multitude of other accounts of Christ's life. Soon the need of a definite list of books was felt. And then we are introduced to the same spectacle of indecision and arbitrary judgment on the part of this bishop, or saint, or council, which we noticed in the case of the Old Testament. At the close of the second century I find two distinct lists-the canons of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Western Church rejected the Epistle of James, Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter; but inserted the Apocalypse of Peter, now deemed spurious. The Eastern Church accepted the Hebrews, omitted Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Book of Revelation. The Epistle to the Hebrews has never been cordially accepted by the churches of Rome or Africa. At the close of the third century, the canon, with doubts about Hebrews, was received as we have it now throughout the Latin Church. Perhaps, I may now skip the history to the time of Luther. Erasmus,