In view of the diligence of the criticism thus systematically exercised, the fact is very remarkable that the two readings, _baptisōntai_, and _rantisōntai_ should have been transmitted side by side, and traceable back nearly to the apostolic age. And it is further remarkable, that no one of the ten successive critics whose revisions are traceable on the codex Sinaiticus has corrected the place in question so as to read _baptisōntai_, although it is certain that reading did extensively prevail. Nor is the variation alluded to in the writings of the fathers. It is immaterial to the present argument which is the true reading. If it was _rantisōntai_, the language of Mark explains the meaning of Luke. What the Pharisee expected was that Jesus should have _baptized_ himself by _sprinkling_. And, whichever is the true reading, this fact is patent that at an age so early as to be undistinguishable from that of the apostles and evangelists, so intimate was the relation between sprinkling and baptism that the one word was inadvertently substituted for the other, in transcription; and the alteration received by the ablest men in the church, without question or protest, then or afterward, or the betrayal even of a consciousness of change; despite the watchfulness of a criticism systematic in its exercise and jealous for the purity of the text. If the primitive church understood baptism to mean immersion, if the rite was administered in that, as the only Scriptural mode, the occurrence of the case here presented would have been plainly impossible. It could only happen where the two words were identified as designating the same rite. How easily the words might be confounded will appear by a comparison of them as written in the primitive Greek, known as uncials, or capital letters:— ΒΑΠΤΙΖΩΝΤΑΙ. ΡΑΝΤΙΖΩΝΤΑΙ Were the first and third letters dimly written, or blurred, the one word might readily be taken for the other. SECTION LI.—_Baptisms of Utensils and Furniture._