AS I am this day called to administer the ordinance of baptism among you, in a way different from what you have been acquainted with, it is proper for me to give you our reasons for so doing ^*, especially since this way has every where been spoken against, even so much as to make some pious people suppose, that we hold the virtue of the ordinance to be in much water; and that we are not only cruel to our own children, but also so rigid as to exclude many good Christians from our communion, only for their want of compliance with one particular mode; notwithstanding the apostle says, "Neither cir­cumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

This, my friends, is a plain specimen of the conver­sation about these matters, which has been received by tradition from our fathers; but whether it be any better than vain conversation, a brief stating of the case may enable you to judge. The faculty of speech was given us for the more easy communication of our ideas to each other, for mutual benefit. But, after a long and tedious debate of old, the great giver of this faculty said, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by WORDS WITHOUT KNOW­LEDGE!" And one of the greatest masters of reason and language in the English nation observes, that the way of many disputants, even with regard to the WORDS upon which their arguments turn, resembles a trader, who, in casting up his accounts, should take the figure 8, and call it sometimes seven, and sometimes nine, as would best suit his advantage. Yea, that many expositors, both of divine and human laws, by the time they have done [Page 3]explaining them, make the WORDS to mean either nothing at all, or what they please ^†. Which vain deceit God has expresly warned us against, as what he saw would be used, to impose ordinances upon us "after the doc­trines and commandments of men;" with a show of wisdom, though in reality only "to the satisfying of the flesh." Gal. vi. 12, Col. ii. 8, 22, 23. For remedy against which, he commands us to "hold fast the form of sound words;" and to turn away from such as have "a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof." The form is to be held fast "in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus." A form is assumed to cover those who are lovers of their own selves: Yea, "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God." 2 Tim. i. 13, and iii. 2—5. A form of man's in­vention often calls the natural offspring of professors, heirs of promise. The form calls them "children of wrath, even as others." Eph. ii. 3. Yea, the form says, "that which is born of the flesh, is flesh;—ye must be born again." John iii. 6, 7. Compare these things with what the word of truth says of circumcision, and it will bring us directly to the case in hand. Many believing Jews were not only zealous for the continuance of cir­cumcision to their children, but also to have the same imposed upon the Gentile converts. To whom therefore the apostle said, "In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love—but a new creature. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keep­ing of the commandments of God." Gal. v. 6, and vi. 15, 1 Cor. vii. 19. Once that was his command; and while it was so, obedience thereto must be yielded by every Israelite, or else he must be cut off from that church. But now that command is out of date, which made their attempt still to obey it of no avail, to be nothing; yea, in some respects, worse than nothing. And how can any token of church-membership, that is founded upon the covenant of circumcision, be any better now than it was in the apostles days? For when many who were born in that covenant, and had received the token of it, came to the first administrator of baptism, he said, "who hath [Page 4]warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matt. iii. 7—9. And our Lord's commission to his ministers is, to "teach and bap­tize," to "preach the gospel to every creature: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Matt. xxviii. 19, Mark xvi. 15, 16. Which order of things they fol­lowed on the day of Pentecost, when "they who gladly received the word were baptized.—And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts ii. 41, 47. Or, as an excellent author renders it, "the saved ^‡." And this form, this order of things, appears in all their after proceedings. And the divine promise to the church, "that all her children should be taught of God," is ex­plained by our Saviour, as meaning such a teaching and learning as draws every man of them to "come unto him." Isai. liv. 13, John vi. 45. We therefore would use every gospel means to draw children and others to Christ, and then into his church; but know of no warrant for bring­ing them to baptism "before they come to Christ." Many will allow that this was necessary in the first planting of Christianity, who yet will have it, that the members of the Christian church brought their infants afterwards to baptism upon their faith, because they say they are in the same covenant of grace which was made with Abra­ham in Gen. xvii. But we ought to remember that Abraham had no warrant from that covenant to circumcise any one but such as were born in his house, or bought with [Page 5]his money. The first warrant which was given to that church to admit strangers by housholds, was on the day when they came out of Egypt. Exod. xii. 48. And the form of sound words is express, that Christ is mediator of a better covenant, that is, not according to the covenant which God made with Israel on that day. The one he calls "the first and the old covenant," the other the second and the new covenant, and says, "he taketh away the first that he may establish the second." Heb. viii. 6—13, and x. 9. And one of the plainest points of difference betwixt those two covenants is this, that the first took in great numbers that did "not know God, nor his forgiv­ing mercy;" the other requires that knowledge in every member, "from the least to the greatest." Deut. xxix. 10—13, Heb. viii. 10—12. And though many would have it, that this distinction is only in the efficacy of the administrations, and not in the covenants; yet it is certain that the efficacy of the "covenant of circumcision" was the same to Abraham, as that of the new covenant is to believers now; as he looked by faith through that sha­dow. Acts. vii. 8, Rom. iv. 11. And if men had not daringly taken away these names which the book of God calls the covenants by, and added thereto words of their own invention, this controversy would doubtless have ceased long ago.

And had it not been for the like practice concerning the manner of baptism, we apprehend we should never have heard sprinkling called a mode of baptism, any more than we should have heard sprinkling called a mode of dipping: This being the very meaning of the word baptism ^† For the word of truth says, we are "buried by it, buried in it;" and all know that to be buried is to be covered. And the great design of that gospel insti­tution is well described by the before named excellent author, who says,

"That baptism, by which the primitive converts were admitted into the church, was used as an exhibition and token of their being visibly "regenerated, dead to sin, alive to God, having the old man crucified," being de­livered [Page 6]from the reigning power of sin, being made free from sin, and become the servants of righteousness, those servants of God that have their "fruit unto that holiness whose end is everlasting life," as is evident by Rom. vi. throughout.—He don't mean, only, that their baptism laid them under special obligations to these things, and was a mark and token of their engagement to be thus hereafter; but was designed as a mark, token and exhi­bition, of their being visibly thus already ^‡."

This is an exact description of our sentiments concern­ing this matter, and must we not act accordingly, for fear it should condemn the practice of others? We abhor the thoughts of interrupting the worship of any who dif­fer from us; or of using any sort of violence, to enforce our sentiments upon them. And though there have been Baptists formed into church state in this land for these 140 years, yet our adversaries have been forced to go above 100 years further back, and over to a country 3300 miles off, in order to get any such thing to reproach us with, that ever was done under the Baptist name. And this mean and scandalous practice toward us was repeated in the Boston Gazette, no longer ago than the first day of last month. But that is so far from being our case, that in 1644 a law was made in Boston, to banish any man out of their jurisdiction, that should only oppose infant sprinkling, or that should depart from the place where any were going to administer it. In 1651, two Baptist ministers were seized, only for peaceably worship­ing God with a Christian brother at Lynn, and were im­prisoned and fined at Boston, where one of them was most cruelly scourged. Four years after, a pious member of the church in Charlestown was convinced that he had no divine warrant to bring his child to baptism; yet was still desirous to continue in the communion of that church; but only for his refusing to bring his child, or to stand up and look on when they sprinkled infants, they censured and excluded him therefrom. And for his join­ing with others in forming the first Baptist church in Boston, he was disfranchised, fined, imprisoned and [Page 7]banished. And no tongue can describe all the deceit and cruelty that Paedobaptists have been guilty of towards our denomination, from that time to this. No longer ago than the 26th of last June, the worship of a peace­able number of Christians, in this State, was violently interrupted, and a horrid mockery of this divine ordi­nance was committed, in order to prevent their acting in it according to their consciences. ^*. And the two great­est complaints that our opponents make against us at this day are, because we refuse tamely to yield to such burdens, as they are not willing to touch with one of their fingers.

I challenge their whole party to produce an instance, if they can, of their communing at the Lord's table with any person that they did not think was baptised; yet they have no better ground to accuse us of rigidness upon, than because we refuse to do so.

Again, the greatest plea for our present war against Britain, is because she claimed a power to tax us where we were not represented; yet our opponents here have claimed and exercised such a power over us for these 140 years. And they have no other colour for their accusa­tion against our denomination, of disobeying govern­ment, or disturbing the peace of it, than our refusal of any active obedience to that usurpation, and our plainly exposing the evil thereof to the public. And had not the Britons as good a pretence to call the Americans rebels upon, as any here have for the above accusation against us? Nothing prolongs controversy more, than a mis-stating and misrepresenting of the question in de­bate. The word of truth plainly speaks of those who get into the Christian church without saving faith, as thieves who did not come in by the door, but that they crept in unawares. John x. 9, Gal. ii. 4, Jude iv. Therefore the question in hand is not whether thieves do not some­times creep into houses, or into churches; but it is whe­ther when we see them we may consent with them, or [Page 8]whether it is not our indispensable duty to turn away from those who do so? Psal. l. 16, 18, 2d Tim. iii. 5, 6. Yea, and to attend closely upon the means and ways that God has appointed, for the guarding his church against and purging it from all such evils. Matt. vii. 6, 15, 16, Luke vi. 42—45, Rom. x. 10, 1st. Cor. v. 7—13. We are far from supposing the efficacy of baptism to lie in much or little water. It is wholly in obedience to God, and in his blessing thereon. But how many are there of our accusers, who will scarcely allow that infants can be saved without it? And I intreat you to consider what tendency it must have, to tell persons that they were born in the covenant of grace, and that they had the same sealed to them in their infancy. For it is most cer­tain, that natural birth, and all that parents and mini­sters can do for us, can never raise one soul above the power of self-love; and what dreadful work has that principle lately made among us? It has plainly verified the words of HIM who says, "this know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but de­nying the power thereof; from such turn away."

And as it is certain, that Christianity was first planted and was propagated through the world, for 300 years, by TRUTH and LOVE, without, and often against, the use of secular force; can the power thereof be more plainly denied in any way, than by declaring that natural birth and the doings of men can bring us into it, and that it would soon fail if it was not supported by tax and com­pulsion?