The Baptist position rests on two assumptions. The _first_ is, that _baptizo_ means, to dip, to immerse, to submerge,—one or other of these, as the different advocates of the cause may select,—_and nothing else_. The _second_ is, that on account of its resemblance to the laying of the body of Jesus in the sepulchre, the rite of dipping, immersion, or submersion in water was appointed as a symbol of his entombing. The first of these assumptions is essential to vindicate the mode in question, and the second to establish its typical significance. If _baptizo_ does not mean as defined, or if that is not the only meaning, the whole immersion fabric falls to the ground. And if the second proposition is not established, the rite becomes an unmeaning absurdity.—On these vital points, the following are the results of the evidence thus far developed in these pages. 1. While the Scriptures everywhere, in the Old Testament and the New, are full of the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit,—while the divers baptisms of the Mosaic ritual were unquestionably typical of it, and the prophecies abound in references to it under the figure of affusion—the sprinkling of water, and the outpouring of rain,—the rite of immersion does not pretend to any better evidence than is found in a definition of _baptizo_, which is now admitted to be erroneous, and a few expressions in the New Testament which are at best of questionable interpretation. Aside from these, it is foreign and uncongenial to the whole tenor of conception and language of the New Testament as well as of the Old. 2. Not to insist on the special conclusions of Dale,—the admissions of Dr. Conant, confirmed by the authority of Prof. Kendrick, prove that the word does not mean, to dip, to put in the water and take out again; but to put under the water, to submerge. The rite, then, consists in submerging the subjects. In that action the baptism is completed. There is therefore in it no symbol nor suggestion of the resurrection. 3. The elaborate researches of Dr. Dale, and the results established by the investigations of this volume, are confirmed by the distinct admission of Dr. Conant, that the primary is _not_ the _only_ meaning of the word. It not only means, to submerge, but also, “the coming into a new state of life or experience.” Thus, the citadel of the immersion position is definitely abandoned. The word is _not_ limited to one meaning. The mere fact, therefore, that it occurs, in any given place, decides nothing as to the form of action expressed by it; since the question always arises,—In what sense is the word here used? a question which, in every instance, must be decided by evidence outside the word. Until so decided, any inference from the word is mere assumption. 4. To re-establish the crumbling structure of immersion, the prepositions avail nothing; since they are as congruous to the supposition that the rite was performed by affusion.