a vineyard. "My beloved had a || vineyard in a very fruitful hill, and he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine press therein. And he looked that it should bring forth grapes; and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What more could be done to my vineyard that I have not done? For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah is his pleasant plant." Our blessed Lord appears to have had a view to this allegory of the church in his parable of the vineyard, in the 13th chap. of Luke; and the apostle Paul to both in the 6th chapter to the Romans: where, speaking of baptism, he styles it a being planted in the likeness of Christ's death; a proof by the way, that he considered circumcision and baptism as appointed for the same purposes. It is necessary also here to observe, that the church, under the patriarchal and Abrahamic dispensations, was not different from that under the dispensation by Christ, but one and the same; differing indeed in external rites, but the same in substance and in essence. When the Abrahamic dispensation began, though new ordinances were added to it, it was yet ingrafted into the patriarchal dispensation, constituted a church by sacrifice, typical of the death of Christ. That the Christian dispensation is ingrafted into the Abrahamic, is affirmed and argued by Paul in his epistles to the Christian churches. In the eleventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans, he fitly compares the covenant of circumcision on which the Jewish church was founded to "a good olive tree"-Abraham, with whom it was first made, to "its root," its provisions to "its fatness" and the circumcised off spring of Abraham to its "natural branches:" and, by a very common figure of speech, the Jewish nation as constituting the church of God at that time, are compared by Jeremiah to "a green olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit." He tells us that the natural branches were broken off "because of unbelief," or for not receiving Christ as the Messiah, with the exception of a remnant that received him as such, and thus still adhered to the good olive tree, and constituted the church. He tells us also, that some of the Gentile nations, whom he fitly compares to a wild olive tree, were "cut out of this wild olive tree," by believing in Christ, and by faith ingrafted into the good olive tree, in the place of the broken off branches, and "partake of its root and fatness." And it is worthy of particular attention, that the apostle, in the 23d and 24th verses, alluding to the restoration of the Jews, does not say with Mr. C. that they will be ingrafted into what he calls the Christian church, commencing at the day of Pentecost, but into their own olive tree, or that church founded on the covenant of circumcision, and out of which they were cast by their unbelief. "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted in contrary to nature into the good olive tree, how much more these which be the natural branches shall be grafted into their owN OLIVE TREE?"-grafted in with their offspring as formerly, as the bud is grafted on with the branch. Let this be recollected; and what now is Mr. C.'s interpretation of this beautiful and appropriate allegory? "The good olive tree was the Jewish nation,"-but not as a church of God, for this he denies"the root and fatness of the good olive tree was Jesus Christ; and in a still more enlarged and exalted sense, the Christian church is the Let us now test this interpretation by what the apostle tells us about this good olive tree and its natural branches. The natural branches, says he, were broken off from the good olive tree; that is, according to Mr. C.'s interpretation, the Jews were broken off from the Jews or the Jewish nation. If we will try it by the hypothesis that the Christian church was the good olive tree, it will be this:-The Jews, the natural branches of the Christian church were broken off from the Christian church: but, according to Mr. C.'s system, the Christian church did not commence until the day of Pentecost, and the Jews were broken off before this time by their not receiving Jesus as the Messiah, and crucifying him as an impostor. I need scarcely say that the absurdity of this interpretation is so palpable, as to be almost capable of being felt, and is as opposed to itself, as the arctic is opposed to the antarctic pole. But this is not all. He tells us in the foregoing page, "that Judaism and Gentilism were both distinct from, and essentially opposite to Christianity." What now shall I say to this? I feel an unwillingness to call it blasphemy, or a speaking injuriously of God; and yet I know not a milder term whereby it can be designated. Judaism is an universal term comprehending all the doctrines, commandments, and ordinances delivered by God to Moses; and you are now doubtless ready to ask, what could induce him to bring down the doctrines and precepts of Judaism to a level with the doctrines and precepts of Gentilism; and the ordinances which Jehovah appointed for his own worship, to a level with the impure, licentious, and horrible. rites of Gentile idolaters, whose altars often streamed with the blood of their own children, and of other human victims, sacrificed to their idol gods? The same principle that induced him to deny that there was a church of God in the Jewish nation, together with that unrelenting hatred to infant baptism which he manifests in almost every page of his book. For he clearly saw, that the admittance of a church in that nation, and that the Christian church was ingrafted into it, overturned his whole system, and furnished Pædobaptists with an unanswerable argument for infant baptism, as I hope to make appear in its proper place. Surely there is not a thinking person whose mind is not perverted by a system, but will say, there must be something rotten-rotten to the very core, in that system, to support which, compels a man to pour contempt on that church of God, and his ordinances, "which he hath purchased with his own blood." But so intent is Mr. C. on degrading Jews and Judaism, that he insists that it is impossible that they could be a church of God, because the apostle says in the 32d verse of this chapter, "that God hath concluded them all in unbelief that he might have mercy on all," and he warmly recommends this verse to the consideration of all Pædobaptists. I have considered it, and to understand it as Mr. C. does, would be to set the apostle in opposition to himself. For although he says that the Jewish nation were rejected by God from being his church, because of their rejecting his Son, yet there was "a remnant according to the election of grace:" that although "blindness happened to Israel," it was "but in part:" and that only "some of the branches were broken off." What then does he mean in that verse? The same thing that he meant in the 3d chapter, when he says, "I have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin," and equally need a Redeemer. And to redeem Gentiles as well as Jews, was the ultimate end for which Christ came into the world, and erected a church as a medium of redemption: and although professed friends sometimes join with avowed infidels, in pouring contempt on that church and his holy word, he hath declared that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And who does not see, that to place Judaism on a level with Gentilism, is virtually saying, that the Old Testament cannot be the revelation of a holy God; for, if Judaism is essentially opposite to Christianity, Gentilism cannot be any thing more than essentially so. But this chapter is not the only place wherein Paul, who was a Jew by birth, not only recognised the existence of a church in the Jewish nation, but affirms that the Christian church was built upon it. In 2d chapter of his epistle to the Ephesians, he says, Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands: that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God: and are built," (not as Mr. C. says, upon the foundation of the apostles alone, but) "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ, himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." Having now proved the existence of a church of God from Adam to Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ, and the identity or oneness of that church under those dispensations, and also the present dispensation of grace; we are now prepared to estimate the force or weakness of Mr. W.'s arguments in favour of infant baptism, drawn from the oneness of the church, and the force or weakness of Mr. C.'s replies. The limits I have assigned to this letter, will not allow me to review all the arguments used on the occasion; I shall therefore confine myself to those that seem to have most bearing on the point in dispute. Mr. W. we are told, produced that passage from one of the evangelists, where it is said, that little children were brought to Christ, that he might put his hands on them and pray; and his disciples rebuked them that brought them-" But Jesus said, suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." From this passage Mr. W. argued, "that by the kingdom of heaven we must understand either the church of Christ on earth, or the kingdom of heaven above: if we understand it of the church on earth, then doubtless infants are said to be members of it; and if we suppose that the kingdom of heaven or the invisible church above is meant, then they must be born of the Spirit, and consequently fit subjects for baptism." As I do not know whether Mr. W.'s argument from this passage is stated with accuracy and precision, or not, I shall therefore not make any remarks upon it. Mr. C.'s objections however, are, that this transaction took place previous to the appointment of baptism as an initiating ordinance into the Christian church; and that it was a blessing and not baptism that was requested for these children. Be it so-the words "of such is the kingdom of heaven," however, prove that Christ considered and ac knowledged them as a component part of his church at that time; and Mr. C. is now called upon to show at what time, and by whom they were cast out. Aware, it would seem, of the force of this argument, he says, that the words of such" only mean similarity; and in support of this he adverts to another passage, where it is said, "that Jesus called a little child to him, and set him in the midst and said, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." It is enough to say in reply, that the words" of such" and "as little children" are entirely dissimilar in signification; the former always referring to persons, and the latter to character. As for the silly pun, which he exhibited on the occasion, that as baptism and blessing both begin with a B, either will suit the advocates of infant baptism; I am heartily willing that he shall have all the honour that belongs to it; and those who then heard it, and those who now read it, will estimate all its worth and force. Mr. W. also produced in favour of infant baptism, Peter's memorable address to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost. Acts ii. 38, 39. “Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Accord ing to Mr. C.'s statement, (pages 50-54) Mr. W. argued, that as the promise in this passage evidently referred to Gen. xvii. 7. "I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee ;" and as the children of the Jews are equally included with the parents in it, when he urged the parents to be baptized-that the children ought to be baptized also. To this Mr. C. objects, by saying that the promise in this passage does not refer to Gen. xvii. 7, but VOL. I. to the promise of the extraordinary influences of the Holy Ghost, mentioned by the prophet Joel in the second chapter of his prophecy, and referred to, and applied by Peter from the 16th to the 21st verse. Be it so; and what follows? This: that whatever that promise was, it is undeniable that Peter urged it as an argument, why the Jews and their children should be baptized. But that the promise referred to in this passage, cannot refer to the prophecy of Joel, is evident from the following considerations. That promise had been already fulfilled, in the miraculous gift of tongues, conferred on the apostles, for the purpose of qualifying them for preaching the gospel to the different nations of the earth to which they were now to be sent. And as the "gift of the Holy Ghost," as well as "the remission of sins," is mentioned by Peter, as what the Jews whom he addressed were to receive, upon their acknowledging Jesus to be the Messiah, by being baptized in his name; then, according to Mr. C.'s interpretation of the passage, the three thousand that were baptized on that day, were all endowed with the gift of tongues. But there is not the smallest intimation that this was the case; nor is it elsewhere mentioned that this gift was to be expected by those who submitted to Christian baptism. The fair conclusion then is, that the ordinary influences of the Spirit, as a spirit of sanctification, are there intended, and are therefore properly connected with the remission of ed kind. The apostle Paul, I think, || answers the question, when speaking of the covenant of circumcision: he says, "And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, according to THE PROMISE." Gal. iii. 29. And in his epistle to the Romans (ix. 8.) he uses the same phraseology, and says, they that are the children of the flesh are not the children of God; but the children of THE PROMISE are counted for the seed. With these passages in view, we now see the propriety and force of Peter's argument. From the time of Abraham, the Jews had enjoyed the privilege of being admitted into the church by circumcision, together with their children. Baptism was now to take its place. Hence says Peter, "be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And lest they should suppose that they themselves were only entitled to be admitted into the Christian church by baptism, and their children left out, he adds, "the promise is to you and to your children," or they are, by the promise of God in the covenant of circumcision, entitled to all the privileges under the new dispensation, to which they were entitled under the old. But let the promise mean what it may, what is the language of Mr. C.'s interpretation? This: the promise is to you, Jews, therefore be baptized; the promise is also to your children, but they are not to be baptized; or in other words, the promise was once to your children, but it is now revoked; but by whom, or at what time, neither Mr. C. nor any other person can tell. On the contrary, we have seen that it was acknowledged by Christ during his life, and by Peter after his death, "and after Christ had fully instructed the apostles in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God." There is another consideration, which, when duly weighed, perfect ly comports with, and strongly corroborates the interpretation I have given to this passage. The Jews, we know, from Paul's epistles, were extremely tenacious of their privileges; and if their children, according to the Baptist system, were now to be cast out of the church, a fairer opportunity of doing so, and of obtaining their parents consent to the measure, never presented itself before nor since. "They were pricked to the heart," from a sense of their exceeding great guilt in crucifying, as an impostor, the Son of God, and their expected Messiah; and were thereby prepared to submit to any thing that would remove the guilt of such an atrocious crime; and accordingly said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Did Peter say to them as Baptists would have said, and do say; be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins-for the promise is to you, but not to your children? But he says, "the promise is to you, and to your children; and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." But whom does the apostle mean by the "afar off," in this passage? Mr. C. tells us that it means what Joel in his prophecy styles the "remnant whom the Lord shall call." I confess that I was amazed when I read this, as it came from a man who talks about "quacks in theology," in his book; and as I did not think there was any person who read the Bible, and was acquainted with its phraseology, but knew that the remnant is usually, if not uniformly, applied to that portion of the Jews who believed in Christ, and who should be saved from the direful calamities awaiting that nation; and portrayed by Joel in that prophecy in the strongest and most appalling colours. But a passage in the epistle to the Ephesians, already adduced, tells us that the words "afar off," designate the |