Thus the Baptist theory of the form and meaning of the ordinance is exploded, since the two ideas can not stand together. They are mutually destructive and the incongruity is fatal to the whole scheme, which can not stand without an immersion on Pentecost; and can not endure the crucial test of the only immersion which they can pretend to discover there. The alternative is inexorable. If that which Christ dispenses is the normal, the antitype, baptism, then by it the ritual baptisms of both economies are to be interpreted; and their signification is to be found, not in the sepulchre, but on the throne—in the Spirit thence poured out, and the life and salvation thence dispensed;—and the form of the ordinance must needs correspond to its meaning. If, on the other hand, immersion in water is the normal baptism, and the burial of the body of Jesus, its meaning, then the baptism of Pentecost with all its phenomena and doctrine is to be struck from the record, as no baptism at all. _If that which Christ dispenses is baptism, immersion is not._ PART XII. THE BAPTIST ARGUMENT. SECTION LXXV.—_Baptizo and the Resurrection._ The argument in proof that the disciples of John and of Christ were immersed comprehends four essential propositions. (1) That _baptizo_ means, to dip, to plunge, to immerse, to submerge,—one or other of these, and _nothing else_; (2) That the prepositions, _eis_, _en_, _ek_, and _apo_, as used in the New Testament, in connection with _baptizo_, require and enforce that meaning; (3) That the resort of John to the Jordan, and to Enon, “because there was much water there,” is conclusive to the same effect; (4) That Paul, in saying that we are “buried with Christ in baptism,” refers to the form of immersion; (5) It is, moreover, held that the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch shows it to have been by immersion. The last point will be considered further on.