The Bloomfield times. [volume] (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1867-187?, 1870-03-01
S U N D AY RE A D I NC.



Mr.. Editor-Tn looking over the SER
mon of Rev. Jas. Harper, d. d., found in
vol. 4, No. 6, of Bloomfield Times" /
fud some things which have tendency to
miSlead rather than benefit the puddle
lie says, "Our text leads to three other
points," to the second of which we file
some objections. 1t reads,
I'd. "To things which the particular
church with which we are in communion,
condemns and testi6es against"
We object, 1st because the "point"
recognizes a plurality Of churches by d.
cine right And I'd. because it is de-
parture from the great fact established by
the Reformation of the 10th century,
ii. e.) " The Bible-the Bible ALONE, is
the religion of Protestants."
Now let us see what the Church IS.
Rev. Harper says: according to the
book of Acts, it is the Chwch Of God,
which he purchased with his own blood"
Mark, sir, the Church is unity, if you
please, one Church and its name one
Now Rev. Harper was happy in his Sc
lection of the definition ot what the
church is; but how can his 2nd point be
made to agree with it? Not more differ
ent are day and night. Again, H. says,
" If he neglect to hear the church, etc. =
(not the particular church with which
we are in communion) Here is the uni
ty again the church-not churches
Christ established church, and in His
last beautiful prayer, prays earnestly for
the oneness and unity of that church,
and any principal point which sanctions
the dismemberment Of the church" in
to sects and parties is radically erroneous,
and dangerously false. According to II.
these divisions are by " divine right" for
if not why should we obey the injunc-
tions of those particular churches Now
if Brigham Young as founder of poly
gamy enjoins plurality of wives on his
followers, they must obey this particular
church with which they are in commun-
ion.
According to HIS second point, Lu-
ther committed a grievous error in object
ing to the mountebanh operations of
Tetzel He should have swallowed in
diligence, the Old Man of sin, and the
Old Mother Church with all her mann.
merieS to Jo0t For hereby he would
have showed his willingness to obey that
particular church."
If this point (2nd) is scripturally true
then those whom we consider martyrs fol
the truth were only obstinate disobeyers
of the particular Old Mother Church
falsely so called. d.-What can stand before
a point of this kind?
Having thus briefly touched upon our
first objection we pass to our 2nd, which
is that it departs from the foundation es
tablished by the glorious reformation, viz
the Bible alone is the religion Of Pro-
testants" Now, sir, who has right to
legislate for the Church ? Manifestly
God alone. Christ says, my word shall
Judge you in the last day."--Not the
words of Peter, or Paul, or Wesley OF
Calvin Synod's Eldership, Presbytery's
Ecumenical Council or the Old Ant
Christ, known as the Pope. No; Christs
word is to judge us. Christ has Il
church which he purchased with his
own precious blood called in Acts, " the
church Of God" He has given laws to
that church, and he claims the sole righ
to legislate for it. We are only required
to obey Him. "My sheep hear my
voice." etc. His error arises from recog-
nizing the existing divisions Of the pres
ent or any other age as the "church OF
God" Sects date back to an early day
even to the Apostolic age. Even then
some were for Paul, some for Apolles,
some for Cephas and some for Christ
The great Apostle says, Are ye not car
nal and walk as men 2" These divisions
were evidence of this casualty. The
apostle knew nothing of obeying the in
functions of these particular churches
in which you are in communion"
Divisions are not of God
ANTISECTARLANIsM