branch in me that beareth fruit, my Heavenly Father purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." Here we see one cause why the righteous have to partake of that legacy: "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal, shall ye be baptized:" yet those seasons of Divine favour, realize the inexpressibly precious doctrine of the sensible fulfilment of the promised indwelling of the Father and of Christ; embracing that peaceful, that holy and ineffable COMMUNION with GOD, of which pious souls are at seasons of precious manifestation, favoured to participate; and which is the perception and enjoyment, of the presence and power of God in their hearts; by which they are enabled to approach and worship at the footstool of God. some peculiarly favoured seasons, this blissful enjoyment and sense of the Divine presence, may rise, in the stillness of all flesh, to the highest participation of the sensible presence of God, which man is capable of enduring, whilst inhabiting his frail tenement of clay; and thus the soul may partake of a very precious foretaste of the nature of those joys which constitute eternal felicity.

In

SECTION IV.

The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.

In p. xix, J. Wilkinson thus alludes to this subject: "The Discipline of Friends has served to keep up that moral decency for which they are admired by the world, and on account of which they also hold themselves in estimation; but this is only 'making clean the outside of the cup and of the platter;' for unless, by the grace of God, Holy Scriptures be accepted as the rule of faith and practice, there can be no sound internal principle of action: because it is by faith in what God has been pleased to reveal through the apostles and prophets, which the apostle speaks of (Eph. ii., 20—22) as the foundation upon which all true Christians are built, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, whereby the whole body of believers (represented by a spiritual temple) are consecrated."

The former part of this quotation I pass over as unworthy of notice, and at once ask: What was the foundation of the apostles, when Jesus sent forth the twelve and afterwards seventy disciples, to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils?" Were the Scriptures their FOUNDATION, the main part of which as to Christian Faith and practice did not then exist? Were these the foundation of the apostles on those occasions! or had the twelve apostles and the seventy disciples, whilst the Saviour was personally with them, "Jesus Christ for their foundation;" and had they afterwards another "foundation," "by faith in what God had been pleased to reveal through apostles and prophets?" Were the Truths afterwards revealed and subsequently recorded in the New Testament the rule of faith and practice, to the twelve and the seventy, before they were so

revealed? or was the power and holy influence which alone could enable them to work the commissioned miracles, or dictate those truths, their rule of faith and practice; and those truths no more than the fruits of their faith-a goodly structure raised upon "the Foundation" of the apostles, even on "Jesus Christ?" for "No other foundation can any man lay than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST!" !" "the power of God, and the wisdom of God?" Upon what authority then does J. W. ascribe to believers now another foundation? and that too as being "spoken of by the apostle!"

J. W. not only controverts the views of the "early Friends" on this point, but, in p. 145, after giving a quotation from George Fox, which J. W. says, "might at first sight appear to comprehend what is spoken of Eph. ii. 19-22.” J. W. adds-" But a very different thing from this is meant;" and thereupon he proceeds to divert the reader from the exercise of common sense in what appears to be G. Fox's meaning, and gives to G. Fox's words such a meaning as J. W. is pleased to affix to them. Hence it seems proper still further to state what is meant by "The Foundation of the apostles and prophets;" as I understand the "early Friends;" who, whilst they most freely own and acknowledge the sacredness and Divine origin of these revelations, and their "faith in what God has been pleased to reveal through apostles and prophets,' as proceeding from the Spirit of God and of Christ; yet, I apprehend they did not consider those revelations to be Christ Himself, and, therefore, did not consider them their foundation; for "no other foundation can any man lay than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST." Upon what authority then does J. W. ascribe to believers now other foundations? The question is now put in the plural number; for besides representing that the apostle "speaks of faith in what God has been pleased to reveal through the apostles and prophets, as being the foundation on which all true Christians are

built," J. W., in p. 147, after giving another quotation from G. Fox, says: "It is indeed acknowledged, that the apostles and prophets built on Jesus as their foundation; but then THEY are not acknowledged as the first stones of the Temple upon which other believers must rest." The first stones of a building being the foundation; we are, therefore, here told that the "apostles and prophets," not Jesus Christ, are the foundation on which other believers MUST REST." And to show that this is no forced construction of J. W.'s words, let him be his own expositor. In p. 149, J. W. says, speaking of Ephes. ii. 19-22: "The FOUNDATION of this building, that is the first course of stones that are laid upon the Eternal Rock, (see Rev. xxi., 14.,) are the apostles and prophets; and all other stones are laid, or supposed to be resting upon THEM;" with more to the same purport.

Waving for the present, the extreme incongruities which arise out of J. W.'s two additional " foundations;" let us now proceed to discuss the ONE sure FOUNDATION, "which is JESUS CHRIST."

When our blessed Lord addressed to his disciples the inquiries: "Whom do men say that I the Son of MAN am;" with the further question: "But whom say ye that I am ?" By the first of those inquiries, our Lord appears to have purposely pointed directly at his manhood, forming his question so as decidedly to avoid the least reference to his supreme character, saying: "I the SON of MAN." This view of the inquiry heightens the very striking import of Peter's reply: "Thou art the CHRIST, the Son of the LIVING GOD."

It appears clearly to have been through the efficacy of a Divine and "Inward Light," an "Immediate Revelation ' from God, that Peter was enabled to say: "Thou art the CHRIST, the Son of the Living God;" for our Lord replied: "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona! for flesh and blood hath not REVEALED it unto thee; but my FATHER who is in heaven."

z 3

66

Can words more fully express the absence of every thing of the natural man?" And availing himself of the name which Peter had borne before he was called to be a disciple, (see Matt. iv. 18,) and which, signifying a "stone or rock" was peculiarly fitting to the occasion, our Lord added: "I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Can any one suppose, on serious reflection, that our Lord intended by "this Rock" to designate Peter? him to whom Jesus also said: "Get thee behind me satan! Thou art an offence unto Me; for thou savourest not the things that be of GOD, but those that be of men." What! Did Christ mean to build on satan, that Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail !! Surely every voice will unite in exclaiming-NO! And whilst I most freely respond to it; admitting also that our Lord, in calling Peter satan, did not mean to convey that Peter was the arch fiend; so to me it is equally plain that Jesus by the words, "Thou art Peter," &c., did not mean to transfer to him, the foundation of His own church; nor to represent any but HIMSELF, "the Christ, the Son of the Living God," as the Rock on which He would build His church, through that revelation of Him of which He declared: "Flesh and blood," "the natural man," "hath not revealed it unto thee, but My FATHER which is in heaven."

In Peter we have, may I not say, an unparalled exemplification and demonstration of that very important Truth, too little regarded by the high professors of religion; "The ' natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." And the illustration of this incapacity acquires additional force and importance, when we contemplate the circumstances under which it was