The microfilm for this essay is very dark at certain places and is difficult to transcribe. It is believed that the information provided is profitable and it is hoped that it will be beneficial. It could not be determined what letter number this is. - Jim Duvall
Letters to a Reformer, alias Campbellite
By John L. Waller
From the Tennessee Baptist, 1855Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself overwise. - Solomon
Letter ? - [Title: Blurred] by Immersion It has been but a short time ago, and you were [blurred] our ears with your invectives against those persons that wished to contradict [blurred] "They were remarkable plain," [blurred] "and said what they meant, and meant what they said.": But how is it with you now? Do you still retain your views upon those subjects? I think not. I presume - I [blurred] do not [blurred].
3rd chapter of Acts, [several words blurred] (I quote the new translation) [several words blurred} name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I say, I know you do not receive him in the literal sense; for that would excuse the blood of the Savior entirely. That is not mentioned. No, sir, you must construe. You do not, and will not take this passage in its literal acceptation. As capacious as are your stomachs, this would be more than you could digest. Well: what construction do you put upon it? What does Peter mean? "He means," say you, "that this is the way appointed in the new institution to wash away sins, by applying the blood of the Savior to the soul." But surely, sir, he does not say so; nor can I find such an idea any where definitely conveyed (if conveyed at all) in the Bible. But, you reply, we have the right to infer that such was his meaning. I dispute your right of putting words into his mouth. His language cannot be tortured into any such expression; and I protest against your construing it into any thing but what he says. He speaks plainly enough, and says - "Reform, and be immersed in order to the remission of sins." Now this is either saying that immersion literally remits sins, or it does not. If immersion literally remits sins, nothing else does; then for what purpose was the blood of the Savior spilled?
Again in acts xxii. 16, Paul tells us that Ananias said to him, "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This is another of your favorite texts; and, like the other, you understand it literally, for do you believe that baptism ALONE washed away Paul's sins? If you take this verse literally, it says so as plainly as language can express it. If baptism alone washed them away, it does not require a logician to demonstrate that the blood of the Saviour had nothing to do in it. If we interpret this passage literally, then Paul afterwards made an egregious blunder when he said "In whom (Christ) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Again he tells us, it was Christ, "whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" - "Much more now,being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Paul, then, either was mistaken when he wrote these things: or he did not mean what he said. He did not - he could not have meant that baptism washed away his sins, and the blood of Christ also, in the same sense of the word. Choose you, which of those expressions will understand in a literal sense for both cannot be so. Does baptism, or does the blood of the Saviour wash away sins? Does the water, or does the Redeemer remit our sins and consequently, save our souls?
But you would tell me again, that this is not the way you understand the apostle. But you have talked too long, and too loudly against it, to be allowed now, the privilege of construing. I do not choose to see you entangled in your own net. Either take the passage literally, and believe that baptism alone washes away sins, or interpret it as I do, and believe that it emblematically washes them away. I see no middle ground. Taking the passage in its literal sense, (and this is your great rule of interpretation,) and baptism stands alone as the grand purifier of our souls. There is no allusion to any thing else as aiding it. If then baptism alone washes away sins, in vain was the blood of the Saviour poured out. He need not have borne the scoffs and abuse of the Jews, and bowed his head in painful and ignominious death.
You must perceive, without going at length upon this subject, that you dare not, yourselves, rely upon what your favorite texts expressly and literally say. You have to resort to what you have so long censured to construction. You have, by inferences, to establish your premises, and mingle in the mere expression, covert, and an open signification - that it literally says one thing, and by implication, means another. Such a medly of significations, but illy comports with that simplicity of the scriptures - that singleness of meaning, of which you have spoken and written so much.
If the apostles Peter and Paul, literally meant what they said, they did not say what you do of immersion. They no where convey then idea that a person must reform and be immersed, and by this procure, in the act of immersion, the blood of Christ is applied and remits - washes away sins. No, sir, this idea originated with others besides any of the apostles. No where in all the New Testament can such an idea be found. It has no local habitation but in the mind of those who have taken from it some its popish features, and thus reformed, have prevented it to the world as a relic of wonderous perfection.
I hope you will not think I impugn your motives. I doubt not your sincerity in the views you entertain. But pardon me, when I tell you, that in my [2 words blurred], no foes can be found in the civilized world, less founded in reason and revelation, than the actual remission of sins by immersion. Among all the superstitions of the Heathen world, few can be found to exceed in absurdity, one among the Hindoos. They believe by bathing in the river Ganges, their souls are cleansed from every moral transgression. When we recollect that this whimsical idea is found among one of the most idolatrous nations of the globe, [blurred] half of our surprise is removed. But what are we to think, when an idea near alike be believed by [blurred] mind, with the Bible in his hand?
It is not my intention to enter upon any selection of passages from the scriptures to show that it is the Savior and the Savior only, that saves our souls from sin. They would [blurred] volume, My prime object is to [blurred] the correctness of your reformed order of things. If the Savior and his apostles desired to make of baptism, what you say they did, it would
[The next nine lines are at the bottom of the page and are so dark that they are not readable.]
The great defender of Christian faith, shows at great length, how we are saved by Christ, through faith, and James shows what that faith is, but neither has told us that baptism was the prime instrument, if not the grand laver of purification. Indeed Paul thanked God he had baptized but few of the Corinthians, for he says, "I was sent, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." What! baptism being the converting act, the means appointed to regenerate men; and Paul, the most active proclaimer of the gospel, and the apostle to the Gentiles, was sent to baptize, to convert, to regenerate men! You may make your own comments upon this. It prostrates your theory forever. But I must hasten. With one more proposition, and I will close this subject. It is this:
That as consistent interpreters of the scriptures, you overthrow the main pillar upon which your theory is reared. You dwell much, and with great emphasis upon the Greek eis. You tell us we should immerse INTO (eis) the name, instead of in the name of the Lord, aye, and that John immersed into reformation. I do not know, not being very expert in comprehending your reformed terms, that I ever should have understood what immersion into reformation meant, had I not known that John, previous to immersion, required "fruits worthy of reformation." (New Version.) Hence, I infer, that "immersion into reformation" means, immersion because of reformation. But strange tor elate, when you come to Acts ii. 38, you say, "Reform, and be each of you immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of sins." Why not say INTO the remission of sins. Eis metanoian, (into reformation,) and eis ephesin, (in order to remission,) have the same grammatical construction; and if the former should be translated into reformation, I see no reason why the latter should not be translated into remission. Is not one as good sense as the other; that is - nonsense! Do they not sound equally euphonious? Cannot one plead as much precedence in usage, as the other; that is - no usage? And if immersion INTO reformation means immersion BECAUSE reformation, what does immersion INTO remission of sins mean? I submit this problem to be solved by your philogical [sic] skill.
Upon what, then rests your boasted theory - this grand article of your creed? Upon scripture? We have seen that those texts upon which you rely, prove too much, that is, nothing for you. Upon reason? I know of no principle of common sense, that will sustain the idea that water applied to the body, will cleanse the soul of its moral pollution. Upon the analogy in the original scriptures? We have just seen how that works with your consistency. You may plead its antiquity, but even then, it will prove too much for you: for that same plea will not only establish this, but most of the other absurdities of the mother of abominations.
========== [From the Tennessee Baptist, July 28, 1855, p. 3; via a CD of microfilm copy. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More on John L. Waller
Baptist History Homepage