Litchfield enquirer., 1867-12-05
Church Union.
The quarrels between different Christia

us by the past. It is also unquestionably true that bitter party feeling between the different bodies of christians is on the wane, and that they are coming to see of what evil example their uDchristian con- duct in that respect has hitherto been. We have censured frequently and sharply the tendency of Episcopalians to exagger- ate the peculiar features of their church into an insurmountable barrier against in- tercourse with other Protestant denomina- ions. We have spoken our mind, too, re- garding their apparent desire for close connection with foreign churches, some of which are greatly dlsfgured by supersti- ton, all more or less corrupted by an evil alliance with the State, merely because those churches are episcopally governed. We now propose to venture few remarks on the misunderstanding which grow out of differences of christian practice, in which, as 1t seems to us, our Congregational brethren are, if anything, more in fault than ourselves.
 Uncharitable views regarding differen- ces of creed, church organization and gov ernment are easily detected; but unchari- table views regarding differences of prac- tice, consisting for the most part of feel ings and opinions remarkably difficult of proof, and easy of denial, arc by no means as readily reached and dealt with. Yet to this latter species of uncharitableness, we firmly believe. is owing to a considerable degree the want of proper christian fel- lowship between the two principal religi- ous denominations of Connecticut, so far, at least, as the laity are concerned.
 In practice Congregationalism and Epis- copacy are widely different; the former is @ demonstrative, the latter all undenonstra- tive species of christianity. At the outset, therefore, there is almost inevitable mis- understanding; and the demonstrative, es- pecially, in this as in every other case, is prone, we think. to undervalue the undem- Onstrative. The Congregationalist is en- aged, from the commencement. to the pub lie expression of his religious feelings; he is expected, before admission to commu- nion to offer satisfactory proof of the re- quisite ''change of heart," and to subscribe a stringent creed; the christian status of every church member is, to considerable extent, the business of every other church. member Is often question upon which he is called to decide judicially. For effecting conversions and revivals of religious interest much reliance is placed on the feelings a. reused by earnest personal appeals, and on the awakening influences of meetings great ly excited on the most momentous of ques- tions. People of such christian habits natur- ally enough find it very difficult to appreciate the methods of church whose laity is nev- CT heard except in set responses; whose clergy discourage settlements and avoid ''special occasions; which receives into full merbership apparently every appli- can't Of good character who can subscribe a creed liberal enough to admit an Univer- salist-a Colensoist, even; to which ex- communication is practically unknown; and where nearly the same prayers are re- peated every week, sometimes every day.
 The Episcopalian, too, is not backward in misconstruing religious methods entire ly different from his own. Any enquiry into the state of mans feelings towards his God, he is apt to consider little less in trusive than such an inquiry would be into the state of his feelings towards his wife or his children. To him the ways of Congre- gatiOnalism seem annoying and inquistori- al rather than useful He inclines to believe that the advantages of public prlyer mee = ings. largely participated in by the laity, are rather theoretical than practical; that their tendency is to a formal line of exhortation and cant, rather than to full and genuine confession of feeling. The tumultuous and impetuous character of revivaism runs counter to all bis religious habits For an excited preacher to lay hold of individu Us and give them during the singing Of Q psalm to choose between heaven and hell, does not seem to him proper mode of ap- pealing to the manhood and intelligence of the nineteenth century.
 We wish merely to state not to discuss their differences in christian practice. There is probably much to commend, some thing to condemn, and much that is the same, in both methods. Upon one chief fact there can be no dispute; both modes are largely practiced and with excellent re. suits. The great need is that of sufficient. lyeDlarged christian charity to enable each to certain extent to understand, and te sympathise with the other; for, as we be- fore remarked, differences in practice keep christians almost as far apart as diff ferences in belief. Both parties are cer. tainly intolerant and uncharitable enough and it may be our individual prejudice that leads us to suppose our Congregations brethren rather the greater offenders II this instance, but we think there are bet