Among the many wise sayings of Paschal there is one that deserves our most attentive study: viz., that few heresies have their origin in simple error, but that all that have ever attained to power have originated in the exaggeration of truth. Without that element of truth there would be no power in the error. This principle is in perfect harmony with all we see around us. In everything there are certain proportions, and nothing can compensate for their loss.

In art the painter may mix his colours in the most perfect combination; he may bring out each feature with all the power of a Rembrandt, but if the head is twice too large for the body, or the nose for the face, his beautiful painting becomes nothing better than a ridiculous caricature.In nature God has fitted the parts of each tree in beautiful proportion. Each part—the root, the stem, the branch, the leaf,—does its work in perfect harmony. And many a beautiful tree bears nothing, simply because an ignorant gardener, by what he calls pruning, has disturbed the proportions of its parts.

In music it is the same, and Shakespeare knew it when he wrote,

“How sour sweet music is
When time is broke, and no proportion kept.”

But there is no illustration more perfect than that of light. In pure white light there are many parts, but all in perfect harmony. Let any one colour be left out, or its strength be diminished, and the pure white is seen no more. If we wish for purity in light we must have the whole spectrum, and have it just as God has given it. Let man disturb it in any way whatever, let him keep back any colour, because it does not suit his taste, or isolate any other colour, because for it he feels a special preference, and the result will be that he will no longer look on the pure bright light of heaven. He need not introduce any new element; all that he has to do is to keep back a part and to disturb the proportion, and by that simple and easy process he can substitute a colour of his own devising for the pure brightness of the sunbeam.

I believe it to be just the same with the truth of God. It is clearly so with the Lord Himself. As He is perfect in every detail, so is He perfect in the proportions of His attributes. Every attribute is in its place, and every attribute perfect; and all are so beautifully fitted together, that the highest desire of the heart thirsting for God is to come “to the perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”

So it is with the faith, or God’s great plan of life, continued and carried out in His own boundless love, for the salvation of His people. Of course in this plan there are many parts,—incarnation, life, atonement, resurrection, mediation, etc. There is the work of the Father, the work of the Son, and the work of the Holy Ghost; and, besides that, there is the act of the believer,—seeking Christ, receiving Christ, and living to His glory. And of the whole it may be most truly said, “As for God. His work is perfect.” The whole plan, and every part of it, is Divine. Each part is complete, and each of these complete parts being fitted together in complete proportion, form, when thus fitted, a grand, a perfect, an harmonious whole.Just so it is with Sacred Scripture. Some people speak of that sacred Book as if it consisted of several detached fragments, accidently preserved and indiscriminately grouped; whereas those who know it best and study it most, see in it a perfect and harmonious revelation of a perfect and harmonious salvation. No one denies for one moment that it was written by many authors, and that the fragments, as they are called, were written at intervals, extending on the whole over more than 1500 years. No one denies that in the several writings you discern the several minds and characters of the several writers. No one denies that the historical accuracy of one man, the poetic genius of another, the affectionate pastoral earnestness of a third, and the argumentative faculty of a fourth, are all employed, and all appear with undisguised individuality. But our point is that there is no appearance of accident or confusion, but that all these various authors have been employed to bring out one perfect whole; that the historian, the poet, the biographer, the letter writer, and the logician, have all their exact place, and have all, by God’s inspiration, exactly filled it. What some men regard as a difficulty we regard as the wonder of the Book. We see many rays in the spectrum, but all are blended so as to give one perfect light, and when we think on the beautiful and perfect proportions of the whole, we are prepared to exclaim, with Dryden,

“Whence, but from heaven, could man unskilled in arts,
In several ages born, in several parts
Weave such agreeing truths?”

Now if all this be true it must follow that our great object must be not merely to preach a selection, however well made, of detached truths, but to declare the whole counsel of God, and so to declare it that the proportions of God’s revelation may be preserved. It is not enough that we exhibit certain of God’s attributes,—His righteousness, e.g., without His mercy, or His mercy without His love; or one side of our Lord’s nature and character,—His Godhead, e.g., without His manhood, or His manhood without His Godhead. Nor is it enough that we teach certain portions of the plan of life,—as atonement without repentance, or repentance without atonement. Our great desire must be, as faithful stewards, to declare the whole: not to select any favourite colours in the spectrum, but to exhibit without partiality the perfect light of the truth of God.

But in the application of this principle one caution has been suggested to me by a very thoughtful friend: viz. this,—that in an endeavour to attain to the proportionate place of any particular truths, we must take into consideration not merely the frequency with which they are repeated, but the urgency with which they are pressed upon our attention. There are some subjects in which our opinions are formed from historical reference to the practice of the early Church, such as Episcopal Government and infant baptism, and however important they may appear, they must clearly be put in a different category from those where we have the clear command of God, or the clear declaration that they concern the essentials of life eternal. Again some subjects may cover a greater space in Scripture, and still be of less importance than other short passages which have been solemnly uttered as containing the very essentials of salvation. The broadest band in the prism is not the brightest, and the brightness of the one is quite as important as the breadth of the other. The historical books of the Old Testament, e.g., must none be neglected; but, though they occupy nearly one-third of the whole Book, they do not outweigh in importance that single sentence of our blessed Redeemer: “Truly, truly, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Some portions again are only preparatory to the final development of the perfect plan of life, and they clearly occupy a position of different proportionate importance to the plan itself. Each portion of God’s truth has its own place in the complete plan, and the importance attached by the inspiring Spirit to each part, and to the place of each part, is that which we really want to ascertain. We want to take a comprehensive view of the great salvation as complete in the finished work of our blessed Redeemer, and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. We want not merely to look at the completed system, but at all that God appointed to prepare the way for it, and then without reserve, and without preference, yield ourselves to the Divine teaching, and make it our earnest prayer that in all His proportions, and in all His perfections, we may be taught of God to exhibit Christ.

And now, having said enough on the general principle, let us begin by applying it to the variations which exist amongst us with reference to the great principles which lie within the circle of Evangelical truth, and in which we are in the main agreed. I hear a good deal of the disunion of the Evangelical body, but I do not believe it. I am fully alive to our defects in organization, and I believe you will always find such defects amongst persons trained as we are to think for ourselves, and to act on our own responsibility; but I believe there is a vast amount of real loving Christian brotherhood amongst us, and I doubt whether in the whole world you would find five hundred thinking men more completely of one heart and one mind than that loving band of brethren who meet year after year in this hall, under the presidency of our venerable friend. Still we have our variations, and I venture to suggest that these variations, such as they are, arise much more from our losing sight of the proportions of truth, than from error as to truth itself. Some, e.g., of us who are deeply interested in prophetic inquiry, may carry the subject too far, and become too much absorbed by an intense interest of the study; while other dear brethren have been so much impressed by our mistakes, that they think it wiser to neglect the subject altogether; and thus it comes to pass that the proportion of truth is missed by us both. Is it not possible that some of us are so impressed with the grandeur of the universal offer of a free salvation in Christ Jesus, that we scarcely give sufficient prominence to the doctrine of election; while others have our hearts so filled with the deep sense of electing love, that we feel some difficulty in making a universal offer? And in such a case does not the difficulty arise much more from our losing sight of the relative position of two truths, than of either party being in error as to either one? Each can prove his point, but the question is, Do they preserve the proportion of truth?

So again, is there not a danger of those amongst us whose own mind is occupied by the Jews, seeing everything in Jewish light, and forgetting the election from the Gentiles; while those who are absorbed in Gentile work are in equal danger of withholding his proper portion from the Jew?

Once more, is it not a question whether, as a body, we are giving quite sufficient prominence to the sacrament of Baptism? If I were to draw any comparison between the two sacraments, I think I must come to the conclusion that the sacrament of Baptism occupies in Apostolic teaching a more prominent place than the Lord’s Supper; but I am not at all sure that the proportion is not reversed in my own ministry, and that much more importance is not attached to the Holy Communion than to our Baptism into the body of Christ. The same may be said of the Second Advent, and many other subjects. We may be perfectly sound upon each point, and able in the most satisfactory manner to prove each point from Scripture, but still while maintaining truth we may be exhibiting a partial view of truth: we may be presenting only certain colours of the spectrum, and failing to produce the perfect light; we may be playing only the bass notes, and so losing the harmony of our music.

If this be the case, we shall not be drawn together by an eager maintenance of our own particular subject, but by fixing our thoughts on the whole. I am not arguing against men taking up particular subjects and becoming absorbed in them. I believe that if this were not done nothing great would be accomplished, for no one mind is big enough for the whole. But I am anxious that we should remember that other person’s subjects have a place in God’s system as well as our own; that “the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you;” but that we all remember that “God hath tempered the body together;” and that our earnest desire must be, as one united band of brethren, to exhibit before the world in all its proportions the whole counsel and the perfect mind of God.

But, leaving these subjects, which may be defined as variations within the Evangelical body, let us pass on to apply the principle to some of those great questions in which the whole body are united in the earnest struggle for the truth of God; and let us begin with that which is undoubtedly one of the great questions of the day,—the relative value of ritual, and reality in religion. Now let us admit at the outset that it is utterly impossible to have reality without ritual. It is impossible for twelve men to meet together and worship God decently and in order without a ritual of some kind or other. Nay, I would go further, and say it is impossible for any one, even alone, to pour out his heart before God without a certain amount of ritual or form. There must be a certain ritual, or external action, in harmony with the spiritual or internal movements of the soul. But though you cannot have reality without ritual, you may have ritual without reality. You may have an elaborate form, notwithstanding the total absence of the weightier matters of the law. It becomes therefore a matter of deep interest for us to consider what is the relative position of ritual in the Christian system, and what place it occupies in sacred Scripture.

Now it was once said to me by an advanced Ritualist, “If there be an elaborate and gorgeous ritual in heaven, and if there was an elaborate and gorgeous ritual under the law, may we not conclude that we ought to have the same in this intermediate dispensation?”

But where do we find any account of a gorgeous and elaborate ritual in heaven? We do, I acknowledge, read of one gorgeous dress “of purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls;” but that was on the harlot. In all besides there is perfect simplicity. The bride has no dress but “fine linen, clean and white;” and when the elders were honoured with crowns, they cast them at the feet of the Lamb, that all eyes might be fixed on Him, and all heaven give Him His honour. Nor was there any gorgeous ritual under the law. It is true that the high priest wore a dress adorned with precious stones and the most costly material that could be procured, but that was for the simple reason that what he wore was typical of the glorious attributes of our blessed Redeemer. But the dress of the ordinary priests was perfectly simple. And as for ritual, it was minute because it was prophetic: it was a pictorial prophecy, and therefore of necessity accurate. But in other respects we find no directions whatever. The argument therefore completely falls to the ground; and we have to consider simply the position occupied by ritual in the New Testament. And what do we find there? Absolutely nothing: not even in the administration of the sacraments do we find a single direction beyond the name and the water in Baptism, and the use of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Beyond these points not a hint is given. Whether it should be received standing, sitting, or kneeling; what words should be used, and who should use them; whether there should be a liturgy or extempore prayer, and indeed whether there should be any prayer at all,—all these things are left without any notice in the Word of God.

But I must be careful what I say, for I once had a pamphlet sent me purporting to give Scriptural authority for some of these modern innovations. It maintained that the cloak, the fa?????, which St. Paul left at Troas, was his chasuble, without which he could not celebrate mass at Rome; and that the many lights which sent Eutychus to sleep were the many candles with which the altar at Troas was adorned. If men believe that, it is vain to argue with them. But this much we may safely conclude,—that if these be the only arguments that can be produced, the men who urged them must have been very hard up for an authority. Our conclusion therefore remains untouched, that the whole of the New Testament is occupied by the great realities of the Gospel of Christ; and that, so far as Scripture is concerned, there is not even a hint as to ritual. And what is the grand conclusion? Is it not surely this,—that if we would keep to the proportions of truth we must not allow the thoughts to be led off by ritual, but must keep well in view the great realities of life and death, of forgiveness, of purification, new life, and everlasting salvation: the great things of the Gospel, the weighty matters revealed in the Word of God. Even when contending against innovation we must not allow the interest of the contest to draw our thoughts from great realities. And in our own peaceful and parochial work we must not disturb our people by needless changes, even though some of them may seem to ourselves to be improvements; and we must take good heed that, while all things are ordered as becometh the house of God, the great law of proportion is observed, and the minds of our young people not drawn off by the form and furniture of worship. I was deeply impressed not long ago by the importance of this principle in its bearing upon missions. In missions you have a great reality that fills the Scriptures. History, prophecy, biography, command, and promise, all unite in urging the sacred work of missions. I was anxious to ascertain to what extent the missionary spirit flourished in conjunction with costly ritual; and I thought the best test that I could apply was to ascertain how much was contributed to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel by some of those churches that are most renowned for ritual. I selected seven, with the names of which I happened to be familiar. [16] I then turned to the last report of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, in order to ascertain how much they gave for missions, and I found that the aggregate contributions by all seven together to the general fund amounted to the amazing sum of £7 13s. 2d. I ought to say that St. Albans added £5 13s. 10d. for a special fund for Honolulu. So that, taking into account the gifts to particular dioceses, as well as those to the general fund, the total contributed by the seven churches to foreign missions, through the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, amounted to £13 7s. And yet the incumbent of one or them (St. Andrew’s, Wells Street) stated in evidence before the Ritual Commission, that the cost of his choir alone was “about £1000 a year.” Is it not high time that men lay to heart the proportion to be observed between ritual and the reality of religion?

But now let us go a step further, and apply this law of proportion to what is commonly called the sacramental system. I heard this well defined not long since, in a very able sermon by an advanced Ritualist. He supposed a person in America anxious to communicate with his friend in England, and asked the question whether he would do so by direct communication through the air, or through the medium of the telegraphic wires. “Just so,” said he, “the question is whether God has been pleased to communicate direct with the soul, or has chosen to do so through the medium of His priests and sacraments.” My own belief is that that was a very fair statement of the point at issue, and I am anxious to bring it to the test of the law of proportion, and to ascertain as far as we can what proportionate place this intermediate system occupies in the Word of God. But here I meet with a great difficulty, for when I turn to my Bible the system, as a system, is not to be found. I know not therefore how to bring it to the balance; all I can attempt therefore is to consider it in detail, and to examine separately the different parts of the telegraphic system. Let us begin with confession and absolution.

Respecting confession to a priest, not one word is to be found in any portion of the New Testament; and with reference to absolution by a priest, there is not a passage which can be quoted with any semblance, of authority, except that one most difficult verse in the Gospel of St. John. I am not about to discuss that verse, or to endeavour to decide whether the words were spoken to the whole Church or to the Apostles, or whether, if to the Apostles, they describe a gift as one to be permanently transmitted, or to terminate with, the Apostleship. My object is to point out that if they referred to a gift to be transmitted through the Apostles to priests, if the transmission were to stop at priests and not descend to deacons, and if the forgiveness, and therefore the salvation of the whole Church were dependent on the exercise by a priest of the transmitted power,—it is to my mind perfectly inconceivable that the revelation of God should be completed and closed, without containing one single sentence either as to the law of transmission, or the exercise of so tremendous and mysterious a power. In the Acts we have the record of Apostolic missions. In the Epistles we have twenty-one addresses to Christian Churches, three of which were exclusively devoted to the subject of the ministry; while passages bearing on the relationship between ministers and people are perpetually recurring. From one end of the Book to the other, the great subject of forgiveness is mentioned again and again; and yet, with reference to what was termed at Nottingham, “sacramental confession and absolution,” though the application of life is supposed to depend on it, not a single hint is given.

Should these words be ever brought to the notice of those earnest men with whom we have lately been recommended to cultivate union, I would earnestly intreat them to consider whether the Apostles placed absolution and confession in the same position that they are doing; and if not, I would suggest to those zealous men the further question, whether the difference may not be explained by their having completely mistaken the words of our Lord.

Turn next to sacrifice. Now if there be any continuation in any form of a propitiatory sacrifice for sin we must all admit that it is of the utmost possible importance. If it be God’s institution there is no describing the loss of those who live without it. But here I am met with the remarkable fact that, when I look for the theory in the Word of God, I find no trace of it. There is no allusion to a priest, for the ?e???????ta of Rom. xv. 16, has manifestly nothing to do with the subject. There is no altar, unless Heb. xiii. 10, be referred to, which very few are bold enough to attempt to refer to a sacrificial altar in the Church. There is not a hint as to the persons administering the Lord’s Supper, which is very strange if all the virtue is really dependent on the transmitted priesthood of the sacerdotal sacrifices. And above all, there is not one word about sacrifice in the words of institution, unless it be that t??t? p??e?te means, and must mean, “perform this sacrifice.” The whole system hangs on the unproved and unsupported sense, arbitrarily given to these two perfectly simple words, and I would most earnestly put it to those who believe in the continuation of propitiatory sacrifice,—is there any evidence for the doctrine which bears the least appreciable proportion to its intense and overwhelming importance.

The same may be said of the real presence. I am not now speaking of transubstantiation simple, but of the statement that in each element there is present a real true living Saviour,—body, soul, and divinity. Now I fully admit that those who believe in this do not make at all too much of it. I do not see how it is possible to make too much of it. If that same Lord and Saviour who was born at Bethlehem and died on Calvary, is seated on the communion table, as really, and if I may so speak, as socially, as he was seated at the Paschal Supper, so that we may speak to Him there and then, as a person visible before us, I can imagine no adoration too profound, no love too deep to be consecrated to such a presence. If I believed it, my present thought is that I could never leave the Church and never cease to speak of it. It seems as though I must be ever telling those that look for Him, that I have found the Messiah. But here I am met with this most extraordinary difficulty,—that His own Apostles and inspired writers never once alluded to the subject. They often spoke, it is true, of breaking bread, and in one Epistle the Apostle Paul entered fully into the subject of the Lord’s Supper; but the only two texts that I know of as having been ever forced into a reference, are: “Not discerning the Lord’s body,”—which has no allusion to the living person; and the original words of institution: “This is My body and this is My blood,” which distinctly teach a separation in the parts, as opposed to a union of the whole in the person of a living Lord in either element. But I am not stopping to discuss particular texts. Let those who believe the doctrine think what they please respecting them, and I would earnestly ask them to consider two questions.

(1) Did the Apostles give the same proportionate place to the doctrine of the real presence that they are doing? Did it occupy the same place in St. Paul’s teaching as in theirs?

(2) Is the authority for the doctrine at all in proportion to the overwhelming weight of its interest and importance?

Test the matter by the law of proportion, and I have no doubt as to the issue.

But now turn to the other side,—the direct and personal reinstatement of the sinner before God: and here I am as much at a loss as I was before; but not as before to find a text, but because the whole Book of God is full of the subject. It fills the Scriptures as the air fills the room. It is not here or there, but everywhere. In the Old Testament it is predicted, in the New Testament fully manifested. In the teaching of our Lord, in the sermons of His missionaries, in the letters of His Apostles, in all alike you find it. Present and complete forgiveness, complete justification, finished atonement through the perfect sacrifice once for all, and the ever living, never changing advocacy of our blessed Redeemer now at the right hand of the throne of God,—these are subjects not dependent on forced interpretations of minute texts, but which form the substance of the whole teaching of God. They meet you everywhere and you cannot avoid them. I do not quote them, for there would be no end of it. If I wanted, e.g., to quote on the doctrine of justification by faith, I must begin by quoting the two Epistles to the Romans and Galatians; or if on the finished sacrifice and present Priesthood of our Lord and Redeemer, I must begin with the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. We do not rely on words only but on chapters, and not on chapters only, but on whole books,—books inspired for this very purpose; and not on separate books only, but on the whole united testimony of the whole collection of books which God has interwoven together as an abiding witness to the faith once delivered to the saints.We trust to the whole great, grand, aggregate of the Gospel, and from the whole we learn that there is nothing intermediate between us and our God, but that the atonement being complete, the veil of the temple has been rent from the top to the bottom, and that now there is nothing left but the deadness of our own hearts to prevent our passing in at once, alone, and just as we are, to cast ourselves, in the full assurance of complete reconciliation, for all we need, before the mercy-seat of God.

London: William Hunt and Company, 23, Holles Street, Cavendish Square;
and Aldine Chambers, Paternoster Row.