Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1898-07-07

of that church. Suppose in this country
the President were Mohammedan, and
was invested with the power to suppress
all movements toward substituting Chris
tianity instead thereof, and earnest Chris
tian men, here and there, were deeply in
terested in seeing the truth of God as re-
vealed in Jesus Christ flourish in the land,
and suppose the President, urged by
very wicked motive, we're to withdraw all
opposition to Christianity and actually esq
pouse its cause, and those earnest Chris
tan men were to take advantage of the
withdrawal of the Presidents opposition,
and of his espousal of the cause dear to
their hearts, to begin the work of spread
ing the Gospel, even under his patronage,
would you say that the President was the
founder of Christianity in this country? |
will close my answer to this question with
this just parrllelism: If Henry VIII was
the founder of the Episcopal Church, then
! Constantine was the founder of Christian
ity. The former espoused the struggling
purity in the church in order to CRAFTY his
desires. The latter adopted Christianity
as his religion in order to add to his impe-
rial strength. Neither in the one case nor
in the other was the pre-eXisting truth af-
fected.
2nd. What grounds have you in your
church for the practice of confirmation? |
| We have no doubt as to the righteousness
Of confirmation. 1t has always and every
where been practced in the church. To-
day, at least two-thirds or more of the adj
herents of Christianity practice confirma- |
ton. You say, THAT may all be true, but |
what are your grounds" We are conf !
dent it was, or an equivalent thereto,
recognized in the Jewish Church as neces.
sary IN order to be admitted into all the |
blessings and privileges of that church.
Christ, at the tender ace of twelve. years,
was carried by His parents to Jerusalem,
and brought INTO active connection with |
the life of that church, which He never
disowned. Do you not think contirma-
ton in the Christian Church corresponds
somewhat to that service in the Jewish
Church? Examine St. Luke, II, 4I-47
We have some positive testimony in ref
erence to the ordinance of confirmation
given in the Acts Of the Apostles. 1t is of
especial value because it just came along
while the church was at worE. When the
Apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that
though the ministry Of Philip, the Deacon,
Samaria had received the word of God,
sent unto them Peter and John, who, when
they were come down, prayed for them
that they might receive the Holy Chest,
and then laid their hands on them. See
Acts, viii, 5-l7-St. Paul, in his journeys,
came to Ephesus, and he found there some
who were baptised unto Johns paptism.
After they were baptised in the name of
the Lord Jesus, he laid has hands on them,
Anfc | frhic AnOctlo
writing to the Hebrews, urged them to
leave the first principles and go on to per-
fection, Among the first principles be
placed The laying on ofhands. Hebrews, Vi,
l. So much for the Bible testimony.
Now. What do the writer's who lived
Immediately after the Apostles (the first
one lived not more than LOG years after
the last book of the New Testament was
writtenl have to say about contirmation2
Turtullian, who lived i'll the second cen-
tury, says: Hands were laid on those
who were baptized; the officiating Bishop,
by his benediction, invoking the Holy
Ghost" Cyprian, in the third century,
says: "They who were baptized were
brought to the rulers Of the church, that
by our prayers and laying on of hands they
may receive tho Holy Ghost" Jerome,
who lived in the fourth century, has this
to say: "As for those who are baptized in
the less towns by the Presbyters and dea-
cons, the Bishop travels ouS to them to lay
hands on them and to invoke the Holy
Ghost"
Thus We see that, in the early days of
Christianity, confirmation was recognized
and practiced and from that time to the
present we have proof from many and