Booth, Abraham, London, to Samuel Jones, Lower Dublin, 13 February 1790. 

London, Feb. 13, 1790.

Dear Sir,

         Your Packet came safe to hand, but not till the latter end of December last. Had it arrived soon as you intended, I should have sent you an answer long ago.

         With regard to the case on which you desire my opinion, I may observe in general; that as a similar instance has never occurred to my notice, & as I have never been called, in the course of Providence, to study the point, so it is to me a novel question. Since I received your favour I have, however, bestowed some thought upon the subject; & now lay the result of my deliberation upon it before you.

         The question upon the case that was decided by the Association at Philadelphia, Oct. 1788, may be thus expressed: Is a person that has been immersed, on a credible profession of faith, in the name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the Holy Spirit, by an unbaptized & unordained minister of the word, really baptized? Or, ought the solemn immersion, administered by such a person, to be esteemed essentially defective, null & void? To the former of these queries, I feel myself, at present, obliged to answer in the affirmative; & consequently, I must put a negative on the latter.

         I take it for granted that real baptism should be administered but once, to the same person; & that where there are the essentials of the ordinance, there is real baptism; notwithstanding some irregularities that may attend it, whether on the part of the subject, or of the administrator, or of both. This being admitted, it necessarily follows, that though it is and indispensable duty to discourage every irregular proceeding in reference to baptism; yet we should not consider baptism, in any instance, as invalid, except something essential to the ordinance be wanting, lest we should be deservedly stigmatized with the character of Anabaptists.

         The great course of your argument, or the opposite side of the question, seems to confound the essence of baptism, with its orderly administration. A profession of faith, by the candidate; the immersion of him in water; & that immersion performed in the name of the Lord, or (more explicitly, in the name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the Holy Spirit); are, in my opinion, essential to baptism. If any one of these be wanting, the ceremony performed is not Christian baptism. But, whether the administrat0r have [sic] been ordained to the ministerial work at large, or to the pastoral care of a particular congregation; whether, if solemnly set apart to the pastoral office, it was by imposition of hands, or without it; whether he be a stated, or only an occasional preacher of the word; whether he has been immersed, on a profession of faith, or only sprinkled in his infancy; &, finally, whether he be really born of God, or continue in his unregenerate state; are things, in my opinion, that enter not into the essence of baptism. It may be real baptism, though, in certain respects, both the candidate & the administrator act a disorderly part, & be accountable to God for so doing. – I may add, that, in my view, whoever is called to preach the gospel, is equally called, whether he be an ordained minister or not, to baptize those that profess faith in the Love of God. I think otherwise, however, as to the adminstration of the Lord’s supper, because the latter is to be administered to a church, as such; & never to require a special official relation, where he so officiates; but not the former, it being administered to detached individuals, in order to their becoming members of some church.

         To illustrate, & to support my view of the case, the following thoughts may not be altogether impertinent.

         First: If a disciple of Christ receive such an immersion from the hands of his unbaptized minister of the word, as would, without all dispute, have been considered as real baptism, had the administrator himself been baptized; it ought to be considered accounted true baptism. For it would be very strange, if, when two ministers of the gospel performed the same specific action, upon two candidates, equally qualified, in the same divine Name, with equal ability & for the same general purpose; the one ought to be considered as administering Christian baptism, & the other a common dipping; or, at least, something esentially different from real baptism. That the application of a candidate for the ordinance to an unbaptized minister, & that the administration of it by him, are, in ordinary cases, very disorderly, & to be discouraged, is readily allowed: but that such baptism itself is null, I do not perceive.

         Secondly: If the administrator’s not being himself baptized, renders the baptism he administers null & void; then, I think, it may be concluded, that the want of real faith, whether in the administrator, or in the candidate, must have the same effect. In the administrator: From the language of the New Testament, respecting the administrators of Christian baptism, leads us to consider them as really baptized persons; so it also leads us to consider them as true believers; nor is the latter less clearly suggested than the former. – If, then, the solemn immersion, administered by an unbaptized preacher of the gospel, be essentially defective, merely because he is not baptized; the same consequence must follow, with regard to all baptized adminstrators, if they be not real believers. This consequence, in my opinion, cannot be avoided without renouncing your hypothesis: a consequence, nevertheless, that will not readily be admitted. For, as I imagine, you cannot suppose that every ordained Baptist minister, either has been, or now is, a real believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, so, I conclude, you never conceived that the baptisms administered by unbelieving Baptist ministers was invalid. – In the candidate. For the New Testament much more expressly requires faith in a candidate, than it does baptism in the administrator. He that believeth & is baptized – If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest – Hearing, they believed, & were baptized. On your hypothesis, therefore, if, after solemnly immersing a person, upon his profession of faith, you become doubtful about the reality of his conversion to Jesus Christ; you must be at an equal uncertainty respecting the reality of his baptism. Now, supposing the party himself to be convinced, that he was an unbeliever when he received the solemn immersion; & supposing he should request to rebaptize him; you could not, consistent with your hypothesis, refuse. To this, however, I cannot but think, you would feel reluctant; because it would be, in the disgraceful sense of the term, Anabaptism.

         There is an instance on sacred record, to which, as pertinent, I would here advert. Simon was baptized by Philip; who, doubtless, previously heard his profession of faith, & considered him as a true believer. Philip, however, was afterward convinced that the Sorcerer was not a converted person. This is clear from the language of Peter to Simon. But is it equally clear, that either Philip, or Peter, or John considered the Magician as an unbaptized person? That he was really baptized is as plain as that he was unconverted. Simon professed faith in Christ: Philip considered his profession as credible; & upon that profession, he, in the name of the Lord, immersed him. This, notwithstanding the bad state of Simon’s heart in the sight of God, was baptism, real baptism. Nor is there, as far as I can perceive, the least reason for us to suppose, that (had Simon afterward made a credible professon of repentance for his wickedness, & of a believing regard to the atonement of Christ) that Philip would have thought it his duty again to baptize him. – It is worthy of observation, that, when Peter, in the second of Acts, exhorted his unbaptized hearers, his language was; Repent, & be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins. But when he exhorted a baptized unbeliever, his words were; Repent of this thy wickedness, & pray God, if peradventure the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee; without saying a word of baptism. Deep repentance & ardent prayer were manifestly Simon’s duty: but there is no appearance of its being either his immediate, or his remote duty, to be rebaptized.

         Thirdly: As baptism & the Lord’s supper are equally positive institutions, & equally depend on the <–> authority of Christ, if an unbaptized minister of the gospel cannot administer baptism, neither can [he], for the same reason, administer the real supper of our Lord, either to one set of communicants or to another. For baptism is necessary, not only to an orderly administration of that to the ministry, their partaking of the holy supper, & their incorporating themselves in a church state, are all disorderly, & equally defective. For the New Testament knows no more of an unbaptized church of Christ, or of unbaptized communicants at the Lord’s table; than it does of an unbaptized believer being call’d by a Christian church to preach the gospel & to baptize. They are, therefore, all irregular, being otherwise than it is written; & consequently to be discouraged.

         Thirdly [sic]: “Baptism is indispensably necessary to private membership in a Christian church, & much more to an officer in it.” The necessity of baptism, in the one case & in the other, arises from the same principle, & stands on the same ground; namely, the authority of Christ, expressed in his appointment & in the apostolic practice. Between the case of, what is called Free Communion, & the subject before us, there is a manifest & an essential difference. No argument, therefore, can be drawn from a just opposition to the former, to an adoption of your hypothesis. Infant sprinkling is to be rejected, whoever is the administrator, because it is not baptism, either as to mode or subject. Here, an essential defect lies in the act itself, simply considered, But in the question under discussion, the subject is as well as in the subject. But in the question under discussion, the subject is considered as perfectly proper; & the mode, as completely agreeable to divine rule. There is no defect, therefore, either in the subject, or in the act itself, simply considered;  but all the impropriety lies in the administrator not being himself baptized, or not ordained. – To show, in a still stronger light, ^the^ vast difference there is between the two cases, I would add, Were you yourself, Sir, to pour a little water upon, or to sprinkle an infant, in the ^name^ of the Father, & so on; it would, notwithstanding your having been baptized, called to the ministry, & ordained to the pastoral office, have no more of real baptism in it, than if it had been performed by an unconverted & unbaptized Negroe slave.

         Fourthly: “Nothing, relative to the positive appointments of Christ, should be esteemed indifferent, or be treated as nonessential.” Readily granted; provided we distinguish between what is essential to a divine appointment, considered in itself; & what is essential to the orderly administration of it. So, for instance, it is essentially necessary to the orderly administration of the Lord’s supper, that both the administrator, & the communicants, be baptized; but, for the reasons before mentioned, I do not consider their baptism as essential to the being of that institution. I also consider baptism as absolutely necessary to an orderly church of Christ; but I dare not affirm, that it is essential to the existence of a Christian church. For baptism is not more necessary to a church of Christ, than circumcision was to the ancient Israelite’s church. Now, it is manifest that, when the chosen tribes passed over Jordan, the bulk of them was uncircumcised: yet, it is equally plain, they were still the church of God. – Once more,

         Fifthly: “The church at Corinth met to celebrate the Lord’s supper. They had the proper elements, administrator, & so on, insomuch that, perhaps, some among them might say, They had every thing among them that was essential. But what does the Apostle say of it? Why he says, This is not to eat the Lord’s supper. It seems, he would not allow it to be the thing at all, because of the manner in which they attended on it. There was something wanting, as to the rule. – So, in the case before us, though the subject was meet, & the mode scriptural, yet this is not baptism, because the administrator, never having been baptized himself, was not qualified to baptize others.” – This ^is^ your argument at large, & in your own words; which, as it seems to be the most plausible, & that on which you lay the principal stress, shall be the more particularly considered.

         That the two cases are not parallel, & that the argument is inconclusive, will plainly appear, if the conduct of the Corinthian church, & the reasons of their being reproved, be duly regarded. Thus, then, the Apostle, in reference to that case:

         When you come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions (schisms) among you – when ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: & one is hungry, & another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat & to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, & shame them that have not? – Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another; & if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. I Cor. II.18, 20, 21, 22, 33, 34.

         From this description of the case it appears, That the menbers of the Corinthian church were divided into parties; or, that there was a schism among them – That, though they met in the same place, & nearly at the same time, it was in detached parties – That each person had his own separate provision, which he brought along with him – That the partizans of each faction associated together in the common place of assembling, as if they had come to a disorderly secular feast – That they come to satisfy the calls of animal appetite, rather than to return from the place hungry; & others, in a state of intoxication. – And, finally, that every one took before other his own supper. These are the grounds on which the Apostle asserts, This is not to eat the Lord’s supper; as manifestly appears, by the argumentative & careful particle for, which connects the twentieth & twenty-first verse. – The foregoing particulars may be summed up under two general ideas; namely, that of confounding the Lord’s supper with their common social feats, & that of such disorderly behaviour one toward another, at these public meals, as must, on the general principles of decorum, be esteemed very indecent. See Dr. Doddridge’s Family Expositor, & Wolfe’s [Cures, in hoc?].

         These things being duly considered, I cannot help thinking my worthy Correspondent will be of opinion, that there is an essential difference between that feast of which the disorderly Corinthian professors partook, & that institution which is called the Lord’s supper. For it does not appear that the matter of the feast which Paul censures, was mere bread & wine, nor that there was any particular administrator, for each one seems to have served himself, nor that the feast was held as a solemn ordinance of religious worship; nor with anything like a devout frame of mind. It therefore was as different from the Lord’s supper, as the sprinkling of an infant, is different from the immersion of a professing, or as bathing for mere immersment, & in a childish manner, is different from Christian baptism.

         Having given you my reasons against the determination of so many of my worthy Brethren on your side the Atlantic, I shall now take the liberty of adding; I am very much concerned that the Baptist Ministers & Churches in America should have adopted such an hypothesis, & that in their Associations they should have adopted formed such a determination: for, according to my present view of the novel question, the stigma of Anabaptism is the natural  unavoidable consequence. – Were it not taking too much upon me, I should earnestly advise, That the determinstion of the associated Ministers & Messengers might undergo a material & thorough revision.

         Should you, Sir, after fairly considering the contents of this long letter, be of opinion that my reasoning is inconclusive; I should be much obliged, were you to write with the same freedom to me, that I have done to you. I may, perhaps, be under the influence of prejudice against your hypothesis, from the mere novelty of the thing, & from the general sentiments of Baptists in this part of the world: for I do not know of a single individual among them, either minister or private professor, that is, in this instance of your opinion. – That the Spirit of wisdom, of truth, & of grace, may guide you & all the ministers of Christ; that neither you, they, nor I, may either act a disorderly part, or connive at corruptions in the worship of God, as practised by others; is the earnest prayer of your fellow Labourer,

                     & unworthy Brother,

                                 In the Gospel of Christ,

                                             Abrm Booth

Address: none

Postmark: none

Endorsed: July 24. 90. came to hand. [noted by Jones.]

Text: Samuel Jones Correspondence, Mrs. Irving H. McKesson Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1790-93.