OUR eighth argument is derived from the places where the ordinance of baptism was anciently administered; which will still farther develop the force of the prepositions in construction with baptizo.

      Baptism was first administered in rivers. The first Baptist, during his public ministry, spent much of his time on the banks of the Jordan. Thither resorted to him "all Judea and Jerusalem, and were baptized of him in the Jordan, confessing their sins." They were not baptized upon Jordan, nor were they baptized with Jordan, nor was Jordan baptized upon them; but they were baptized in Jordan. Our English in is but the adoption of the Greek en. The Romans borrowed their in from the Greeks, and we borrowed our in from the Romans; and all these ins are of one and the same signification and construction. In is neither at, with, nor by; except by figure. It is literally in. In the house, is not at the house, with the house, nor by the house; but in the house.

      Now, as epi does not bring the Jordan upon them, and as eis and en place them in the river, the meaning of ek and apo is by necessity established as assisting the baptized to emerge out of the river.

      If the liberty which Pedobaptists have taken with these prepositions, in the heat of controversy, has called forth the admiration and reproofs of their own most learned and sober-minded men, why should it be thought strange that we should be astounded at the recklessness of such men as Dr. Miller of Princeton, and others, who, in defiance of their own reputation for learning and good sense, have contradicted, in express terms, all our lexicographers, translators, reformers, historians and distinguished critics, for the sake of the papal dogma of infant rantism, consecrated by John Calvin, John Knox, Theodore Beza, and their adherents.

      On counting the actual occurrences of en in the New Testament, I find it is found 2660 times. Of this immense number of [157] times, though these learned doctors tell you of its two-and-twenty meanings, it is translated in your common testament 2045 times by in. Yet such critics as Dr. Miller, when he puts on his Pedobaptist spectacles, will have it with always when baptism is alluded to. John baptizes with water; but, when the phrase comes, en to Jordanee, he passes it by. He does not say, he baptized them with Jordan; but, passing it by, he says that eis means at or to, in such cases. Well, not having time to count over the whole book, I found in the four gospels that eis occurs 95 times. Of these, it is translated by into 372 times, and by to, for into, more than one hundred times; for to the house, to the temple, to the city, to Jerusalem, Bethany, Nazareth, &c., means into; and of 273 times unto, it might have been very often into; thus making, in all, 500 out of 795 occurrences.

      As for ek and apo, frequently rendered out of and from, it is, on two accounts, unnecessary to speak particularly; because, first, whether they are more commonly rendered by from or out of, avails nothing, seeing that from, nine times in ten, is out of, in sense. For example, from heaven, from the temple, from the city, from the grave, means out of these places, and not from the boundaries of them. In the second place, it being evident that baptizo, with en and eis, most certainly places the subject in the pool, in the river, or in the bath, ek and apo must bring them out of it.

      Fancy or taste may increase indefinitely the figurative meaning of words; but the number of figurative meanings is of no philological account in fixing the common or proper meaning of any word; still less the mere connectives of speech.

      The partial and one-sided mode of interpretation is nowhere more apparent than in the cavils about these prepositions. We shall produce but a single example: Epi and en will illustrate the matter. After raino or cheo, epi is always translated upon, without one demurrer in all the Pedobaptist ranks; yet epi, out of 920 times in the New Testament, is translated by upon only 158 times, that is, about once in six times: whereas, en is translated four times in every five by in. Yet to sprinkle upon is never cavilled at by a Pedobaptist; while to baptize, or immerse in, is always repudiated as an unwarrantable licence on the part of a Baptist!!

      But the reason given why John baptized at Enon, one would think, ought to silence every doubt or cavil on that question. [158] But, alas for frail human nature! it will not always be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Hence, although we are expressly told that John baptized at Enon, because there was much water there, the spirit of the sectary sets about to prove that there was not much water there, but only a few rivulets. And, if at last he is constrained to admit, that even many pools might be collected from many rivulets, he sets about finding some other use for the many rivulets and pools than for the performance of baptism. In his heated imagination, he sees all the dromedaries and camels of Arabia carrying the people to John's tent, and, that these thirsty animals, coming off their long journey, might have something to drink, the humane John, who always kept a bason and a squirt upon his table for the purpose of baptizing, pitched his tent near to Enon for the sake, not of baptizing, but of watering the caravans that flocked to his baptism. Credat Judæus Apella, non ego. To argue against imagination, is like arguing against love or our instinctive appetites. Still we must remark, that polla hudata signifies much water, and that John the Apostle uses the phrase in his writings no less than five times; the other instances, too, all requiring much water. The mystic mother of papal Rome sits on "many waters." Are these little rivulets, indeed! The voice of God, too, is compared to the sound of many waters! Can these be rivulets?

      John, in the Hebrew and Greek style, uses polla hudata, in the plural form, for much water. I believe we never have hudor in the singular number in all the Septuagint; hence, we are confirmed in the belief that, in Jewish style, the plural form indicates much water, just as the word always indicates to us.

      But does not the sentence itself refute the presumptuous construction sometimes imposed on it. Reads it not, that John baptized at Enon for a given reason? He did not encamp or lodge there for that reason; but he baptized there for that reason. Hence, the baptizing and the reason, much water, most fairly and honourably go together. John baptized at Enon for no other reason than that there was much water there.

      Suppose, for example, we were told that a celebrated millwright had located on a certain creek because it contained much water, who would more honour his own understanding, he that affirms he located there for the sake of watering his stock, or for the sake of erecting mills? [159]

      As to the location of Enon, whether it were north of John's first location, some fifty miles up the river Jordan, or whether it was a stream issuing from a fountain called "Ainyon, Doveseye Spring," or whether it was a sun-fountain, near Salim, venerated by the old Canaanites, are questions I have neither leisure nor inclination to discuss. Robinson, in his History of Baptism, discusses such questions at great length. I refer the curious to him, and will only give a short extract from his work on the use of the words polla hudata:

      "It is observable, that the rivers Euphrates at Babylon, Tiber at Rome and Jordan in Palestine are all described by polla hudata. Jeremiah speaks of the first, and, addressing Babylon, says, 'O thou that dwellest upon many waters, thine end is come' for Babylon was situated on what the Jews called the river, the great river Euphrates. The Evangelist John describes Rome, which was built on the Tiber, by saying, 'The great harlot the great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth, sitteth upon many waters.' Ezekiel describes Judea and Jordan, by saying to the princes of Israel, 'Your mother is a lioness, her whelps devour men, she was fruitful by reason of many waters;' an evident allusion to the lions that lay in the thickets of Jordan. The thunder which agitates clouds, charged with floods, is called the voice of the Lord upon many waters: and the attachment that no mortification can annihilate, is a love which many waters cannot quench, neither can the floods drown. How it comes to pass that a mode of speaking, which on every other occasion signifies much, should in the case of baptism signify little, is a question not easy to answer."

      To an unsophisticated mind, this passage, together with the various locations of John along the Jordan, sometimes on this side, and sometimes on that side, methinks, independent of every other argument, would refute the notion of sprinkling. But how much more, when the meaning of the word and the laws of construction, already established, assert that John's disciples were immersed in the Jordan, confessing their sins!

[CBAC 157-160]