Interested Interpretation.
By R. F. COTTRELL
To account for the unscriptural and anti-scriptural practices of apostate Christianity, interpretations of some of the ancient prophecies have been given, which, though not very interesting, are certainly interested. When the records of the New Testament have been searched in vain for authority for keeping Sunday instead of the Sabbath, and for sprinkling instead of baptism, the ancient prophets have been appealed to, and, lo! David is found to have said, “This is the day the Lord hath made,” Isaiah, “So shall he sprinkle many nations,” and Ezekiel, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.” The day the Lord hath made of course must be Sunday, and the sprinkling must be Christian baptism. And the practice of the apostles and primitive church in regard to these subjects, is considered of no force to settle the controversy, but must give place to such lucid interpretations of prophecy. But the prophecies of the great apostasy of this dispensation, resulting in a power that should think to change times and laws, are not so clear to their understanding. There is no weekly Sabbath mentioned in the New Testament but the seventh day; and the Holy Spirit still calls this day the Sabbath. And there is abundant historic evidence to sustain the following assertion of Sir Wm. Domville: “Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine in A. D. 321.” So also of baptism, the meaning of the term, and all the circumstances incidental upon its administration, as related in the New Testament, with the inspired commentaries of the apostles in the epistles, all go to show that it was immersion. And there is abundant historical testimony to sustain the following from F. Brenner: “Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and ordinarily performed by the immersion of a man under water; and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods of baptism were called in question, and even prohibited.” Yet in the face of the well-established meaning of terms, the teachings of the apostles, and the early history of the church, there are those who will tenaciously cling to their forced interpretation of prophecies which say nothing to the point, and peril their salvation upon proofs and evidences on which they would not risk a dollar. When will they learn to deal honestly with God and themselves?! How does God look upon such evasions of truth and duty?