And he commanded the chariot to stop. And they went down both to the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptised him.

So he stopped the chariot; and both of them - Philip and the eunuch - went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

And he gave orders for the carriage to be stopped, and the two of them went down into the water, and Philip gave him baptism.

And he ordered the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch descended into the water. And he baptized him.

So he ordered the carriage to stop, and they went down into the water – both Philip and the Treasurer – and Philip baptized him.

They went down into the water. Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. We ought rather to fight even an hundred times to death for the ceremony itself of baptism, inasmuch as it was delivered us by Christ that that we should suffer the same to be taken from us. But forasmuch as we have as well a testimony of our washing, as of newness of life, in the figure of water; forasmuch as Christ representeth unto us his blood in the water as in a glass, that we may fet [1] our cleanness thence; forasmuch as he teacheth that we are fashioned again by his Spirit, that being dead to sin, we may live to righteousness; it is certain that we want nothing which maketh to the substance of baptism. Wherefore the Church did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat, excepting this substance. For some dipped them thrice, some but once. Wherefore there is no case why we should be so straitlaced in matters which are of no such weight; [2] so that external pomp do no whit pollute the simple institution of Christ.

Footnotes

1 - "Petamus," seek.

2 - "Non ita necessariius," not absolutely necessary.

And they went down both into the water - This passage has been made the subject of much discussion on the subject of baptism. It has been adduced in proof of the necessity of immersion. It is not proposed to enter into that subject here (see the Editors' Notes at Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:16). It may be remarked here that the preposition εἰς eis, translated "into," does not of necessity mean that they went "into" the water. Its meaning would be as well expressed by "to" or "unto," or as we should say, "they went "to" the water," without meaning to determine whether they went "into" it or not. Out of "twenty-six" significations which Schleusner has given the word, this is one, and one which frequently occurs: John 11:38, "Jesus, therefore, groaning in himself, cometh to εἰς eis the grave" - assuredly not "into" the grave; Luke 11:49, "I send them prophets," Greek, "I send to εἰς eis them prophets" - "to" them, not "into" them, compare Romans 2:4, 1-Corinthians 14:36; Matthew 12:41, "They repented at εἰς eis the preaching of Jonas" - not into his preaching; John 4:5, "Then cometh he "to" εἰς eis a city of Samaria," that is, "near to it," for the context shows that he had not yet entered "into" it, compare Acts 7:6, Acts 7:8; John 21:4, "Jesus stood "on" εἰς eis the shore," that is, not "in," but "near" the shore. These passages show:
(1) That the word does not necessarily mean that they entered "into" the water. But,
(2) If it did, it does not necessarily follow that the eunuch was immersed. There might be various ways of baptizing, even after they were "in" the water, besides immersing. Sprinkling or pouring might be performed there as well as elsewhere. The most solemn act of baptism that I ever saw performed was, when I was a boy, in the river on the banks of which I was born, where the minister and the candidate went both of them "into" the Myer, and, when near to the middle of the river, the candidate kneeled down in the water, and the minister with a bowl "poured" water on his head. Yet if the fact had been stated, in reference to this case, that "they went both down "into" the water, and came up out of the water," and it had been hence inferred that the man was "immersed," it would have been wholly a false inference. No such immersion occurred, and there is, from the narrative here, no more evidence that it occurred in the case of the eunuch. See βαπτίζω baptizō.
(3) it is incumbent on those who maintain that "immersion" is the only valid mode of baptism to prove that this passage cannot possibly mean anything else, and that there was no other mode practiced by the apostles.
(4) it would still be incumbent to show that if this were the common and even the only mode then, in a warm climate, that it is indispensable that this mode should be practiced everywhere else. No such positive command can be adduced. And it follows, therefore, that it cannot be proved that immersion is the only lawful mode of baptism. See the Editors' Notes at Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:16.

And they went down - They alighted from the chariot into the water. While Philip was instructing him, and he professed his faith in Christ, he probably plunged himself under the water, as this was the plan which appears to have been generally followed among the Jews in their baptisms; but the person who had received has confession of faith was he to whom the baptism was attributed, as it was administered by his authority.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still,.... That is, the eunuch ordered his chariot driver to stop; for to him it better agrees to give this order than to Philip; though otherwise the words are so placed, that it would be difficult to say who gave the command.
And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him: upon which Calvin has this note;
"hence we see what was the manner of baptizing with the ancients, for they plunged the whole body into water.''
And indeed, other mode had been practised then, as sprinkling or pouring of water, there would have been no necessity of their going out of the chariot, and much less of their going down into the water; and as for change of apparel, it cannot be reasonably thought that so great a man should take so long a journey without it. In like manner the Jewish ablutions and purifications, which were performed by immersion, and therefore called baptisms, Hebrews 9:10 are spoken of in the same sort of language as here: so a profluvious person, and a woman that had lain in, were obliged , "to go down and dip" (k).
"It is a tradition of the Rabbins (l), that he that sees any nocturnal pollution on the day of atonement, , "goes down and dips himself".--And so all that are obliged to dipping, dip according to their custom on the day of atonement; the profluvious person, man or woman, the leprous person, man or woman, the husband of a menstruous woman, and one defiled with the dead, dip according to their custom on the day of atonement.''
(k) T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 42. 1. & 43. 1. (l) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 88. 1.

they went down both into the water, and he baptized him, &c.--probably laving the water upon him, though the precise mode is neither certain nor of any consequence.

They both went down into the water. "The original undoubtedly implies a going, not to, but into, the water."--Abbott. "No sufficient reason can be given why the parties went down into the water, but for the sake of the immersion of the new convert."--Ripley.

And they both went down - Out of the chariot. It does not follow that he was baptized by immersion. The text neither affirms nor intimates any thing concerning it.