Litchfield enquirer., 1873-11-27
Christian Unity.

two Presbyterian churches, two meetings of Friends, s,-the progressive and the oth. odox,-one Methodist church. and one Episcopal. With all this machinery. it could hardly be claimed that there was au active interest in religious affairs in the town, and the fact was patent that not one of those churches was either well at. tended or well supported. They were feeble, struggling churches, every one of them: and at least one of them went out. side for funds to keep itself alive. There are ten thousand just such towns in Am erica-sect-ridden, with feeble churches. usually feeble and discouraged ministry. and population grown dead for lack of unity in the church, and brains and cul- ture and fervor in the pulpit To build a large church in such town as we have described, to fill its pulpit with 9 first rate man. to bring all those churches to- gether in union that is actual and not sentimental, would be like bringing life to the dead. If so simple thing as this caunot be done, for reasons that no sane man can dispute, then let the talk about Christian unity cease until we get a little further along.
 It is claimed by those who represent the various sectarian organizations that the people are not ready for changes so radical as this would be. We know some thing ot the views and feelings of the people on this subject, and we declare our conviction that they are half century in advance of the clergy. It is not the peo- pie who are against actual Christian unity, where such unity is absolutely essential to Christian success. The sectarian or ganizations oppose it. The sectarian newspapers oppose it. The sectarian colleges and theological institutions op- pose it. The sectarian clergy oppose it. It is from the church leaders that the op- position comes. The entire sectarian ma chinery and policy of the various church es are against it. Gan an instance be given where the governing sectarian in- | duences have combined to reduce to har- mony the denominational differences in a town, and bring all into one fold, under one shepherd? We shall be glad to hear of such an instance; we certainly never heard of one.
 We are at once reminded of the recent
 talk about an Union Church at Bethle.
 hem. There are two serious practical ob. y0CsAUns, nUwevsr, UU any SUCH unlon O1 discordant denominations A church such as Dr. Holland proposes would be cut of from any fellowship with other churches. It would be vastly more Inde. pendent than any form of Independency now extant, for it would have no connec. ton whatever with any existing religious organization. It would seem, however, as if evangelical denominations could unite in authorizing Union churches oi the kind proposed, leaving the members l of those churches to affiliate with such outside organizations, as suited them best.
 There IS, however, more serious ob- iection still, arising from the fact that one church will hardly meet the wants of one community, no matter how small. Just as under republican forms there is always an administration party, and an opposition party, 50 no administration" church will ever satisfy the opposition" A minis ter that is worth his salt speaks out frankly on many subjects regarding which there are fundamental differences of opin- ion in every community. With the rise of the two original political parties in the United States, if not be- fore, there came the necessity for at least two churches. The way the | Qreoatinna1S-e;-;-A---- -s In--s =--J ssV- tackled Thomas Jefferson and the Demo cratic party made it almost impossible for New England Democrat to remain. in their churches. The growth of Episcopa- cy Tn Connecticut arose from this necessi- ty for an opposition" church. So, too, when slavery and temperance became prominent questions of debate, and min- isters felt bound in conscience to attack the one and support the other, the men who justified slavery and opposed total abstinence were to be found mainly in the opposition" churches. In short, if the pulpit is to be live moral force at all, il must attack existing evils and it cannot attack those evils without arousing op- position-for there can be no moral or re- ligious progress without its natural oppo sition any more than there can be any polit l ical progress without it. Now this opposi ton is obliged either to forsake christian
 ity altogether, as it has done so often il
 France and other Catholic countries, or tt
 found opposition" churches in which it
 peculiar views do not subject it to cen sure.
 |
 Aside from the outside influences tha
 start and maintain Opposition" churches
 there are fundamental ''inside" differences
 that induce like results, We cannot un
 dertake to define accurately the funda
 mental difference of view between tn
 Episcopal and the Evangelical churche
 regarding the needed qualifications fo
 church membership. It is enougl
 to say in general terms that in plac
 of the evangelical requirements o
 evidence of "change of heart" and sub
 scription to stringent confession of faith
 the Episcopalian is scarcely expected t
 do more than profess desire to lead {
 christian life, and to assent to a cree,
 that admits of vast latitude of opinion
 In the evangelical church the clergy an'
 laity are judged by much the same stan
 dards of faith and practice. In the Epis
 copal church strictness is the rule fo
 the clergy only; the laity are allowe'
 great latitude of action and belief. Thi
 difference of inner constitution peculiar
 ly qualities the former church for th'
 aggressive work of reform; the latter, fo
 becoming the refuge of '.opposition," fo
 such as profess desire to become chris
 tians, without becoming ''puritans."
 We cannot help thinking, therefore
 that at least two churches are about a
 necessary to the religion of free countr
 as two parties to it's politics. But ther ' - W0