FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.

37

tinent, identify these two propositions: see the consequence. The justification of my conscience, by belief in Christ as the crucified and risen Saviour and Lord, is that which I mean by this doctrine: consequently, this being the foundation of the church, the church comes to mean a certain number of men whose hearts and consciences have been purified by faith. This sounds very well ; but now for the practice. The question arises,Who are these men ;-how is it to be ascertained that they have formed right apprehensions respecting their own purification of heart and conscience? Here begins a controversy. One party says, the acknowledgment of the doctrine of justification, and of such doctrines as are necessary to it, is the bond of our union : another says,-no; the mere doctrine of justification is not justification; you must ascertain the reality of each person's faith in Christ, or you cannot admit him to your communion. The arguments of each side against its opponents have been admirably borne out by facts: those who have set up the creed or notion of justification, as the bond of fellowship, have made it evident by their practice how vast the difference is between the literal acknowledgment of a notion, and the practical belief of a truth. Those who have adopted the other method of ascertaining, by an examination of convictions, experiences, signs of faith, who is the true, and who is not the true believer, have confirmed all that their opponents prophecied, as to the substitution of something else, for the

38

ATONEMENT FOR MANKIND,

faith which is assumed to be so self-sufficing. All the history of sectarianism, from the Reformation downwards, may be said to be little more than a series of expedients to obtain tests of one kind or the other, which should be satisfactory; or to reconcile the two kinds of tests together. The dogmatists find, one notion after another must be taken into their creed, in order to guard this tenet of justification; but the more bulwarks they raise, the more do their opponents proclaim them to be the enemies of spiritual life. The men of experiences and apprehensions invent new and more subtle tests, to determine the state of the affections and feelings of their worshippers; and the other side cry out, that they are either running into the most extravagant fanaticism, or framing snares for the conscience, or substituting feeling for faith. Now it seems to me, that all these things have happened inevitably; that the notion of building up a church upon the assertion of a fact, expressly concerning the distinct life of each man, is an absurdity and a contradiction which, in the first place, tends to destroy the meaning of that doctrine itself; in the second place, leads to interminable strife and separation. I say, that the life of a church is based upon a deeper foundation than this, even upon that foundation upon which the doctrine of justification itself is based, — the ATONEMENT made for mankind, in the person, and by the incarnation and death, of Jesus Christ. In this assertion, as far as it is opposed to the doctrine of particular redemption, i. e. a

UNIVERSAL SAVING LIGHT OF FOX. 39

redemption made for those who believe in the redemption, I am supported by your early Friends. They spoke of an universal saving light, given to mankind; and they said, that the church was called out, by the Spirit, to be a witness for this light, and that it could not be built upon individual notions and conceits. These are two grand principles-like the one of which I have already spoken, I conceive very imperfectly carried out; but, nevertheless, hinting at the principle upon which the universal church is grounded.

My complaint of these doctrines is, that, instead of leading us forward to the privileges of the new dispensation, they throw us back upon the old. If the Friends were right, as I believe, in their assertion, that the Word lightened every man that came into the old world, what did the death of Christ, if it only procured a universal saving light, obtain for men more than they possessed already? This question has often been asked by the Calvinist, and I fear no satisfactory answer has been given to it. Surely, the mere words, universal and saving, are not worth much, in pointing out the difference between the new state and the old one: and yet they are worth something in another way, as pointing out a very important distinction, which both Fox and Barclay seem to be aiming at, but not clearly to perceive; which their Calvinistic opponents entirely overlook. I have shewn already, that the same Word who revealed himself to the hearts of particular men, as their

40

IDEA OF A MEDIATOR.

Lord and Friend, revealed himself also as the King and Lord of a nation. From the moment that the Jewish commonwealth was constituted, according to the divine plan, we see the idea of a Mediator beginning to dawn through its various institutions.

It is not in any artificial types, in the interpretation of which so much perverse fancy may be exercised, that we recognize this idea. It is implied and involved in the whole constitution. God reveals himself to his people, as an absolute Lawgiver, frowning upon sins,-sins which they have actually committed; and yet these sinners are still partakers of His covenant; they constitute a holy and righteous nation. How are these two ideas compatible? How shall each man feel himself to be a sinner, and yet feel that the body to which he belongs is a pure and holy body? The Jewish mind, educated by its divine law, is itself taught to answer the question; the feeling is awakened in it, of the necessity of a Mediator between it and God; the reason is taught to feel that there must be such a Mediator, that it must be in Him that the nation is constituted; and that each member of the nation is pure and holy, —not in himself separately, but as he views himself in connection with his nation, and so in connection with its Head.

Thus David and Isaiah learned to feel that their glory was not in being David and Isaiah, not in being prophets chosen and appointed of God; but in being Israelites. All their privilege of drawing

IDEA OF SACRIFICE.

41

nigh to God, belongs to them in that capacity; they renounce it when they set up any individual distinction or glory. All the way through the Jewish history, we shall find this idea of the nation subsisting in a Mediator,-perfect, holy, and righteous in Him,-coming forth with greater life and clearness, while we see a few gradually led to understand who and what this Mediator must be; that His character must be the same as the character of the Absolute Being with whom he connects man; that He must, in the highest and most wonderful sense, be one with Him; yet that He must be also perfectly one with the creatures whom he unites to their Maker.

If by the light of this idea, and of the other, which you see is included in it,—that all unity as a nation only lasts while the members of it regard themselves as one in this great Being,—you study the institution of Sacrifices, you will be at no loss I think, to perceive the meaning of an ordinance, which, when it is disjoined from men's position in a commonwealth, and is refered merely to their individual state, becomes utterly unintelligible. The Jewish nation, being united together in one Head, is a holy and righteous nation. Every act done by any man in disobedience to the Law of God, is renouncing his connection with the Head of the nation, and with the other members of it. It is setting up a selfish life, it is renouncing the privileges of a Jew. For this act, he comes with the sacrifice appointed by God, offering it, through the Priest, and with confes