Acts 8:38

“And he commanded the chariot to stand still, etc.] 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…”

“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.”

“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…”

“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. Acts 8:39”

“and he baptized: Joh 3:22, Joh 3:23, Joh 4:1 Acts 8:39”