Division Of The Churches

There secms to be a very general misnpprehension of the nnlurc and eflects ol the división of the Methodist and Baptist churches. Because slaveholders and Ablítionisíscannot agree to act together in the sanio religious organization, the inference is drawn that persons composing these bodies are disposed to throw off ihe civil government, and divide our political unión also. The Detroit Advertiser says: "The friends of oür National Union are sleeping on a mine. National lic, sLreuger than any parchment Constitution, are sundering, and few or none regard it with much solicilude. The greai religious associations of the country are now in ihe very act of n geographical and institutional división. m Other denominations, in num'.iers aivi popular influence, but jet vastly important, are likely to tread, ere long, in the same path, until the whole American religious rommunity is sectionally rent into twain. Yet that community comprises in fact the same people, a great major ity of the same men and women, who go to make up our political nation. Are political strongerthan religious ties?" ín re{)ly to the question here proposed, wewouldsay that men are quite as tenacious of their opinions and feelings on religious as on civil or political matters - perhaps more so. But in the case before us, this essential difFerence exists. The male members of these churches are at the same lime cilizens and church memèers. In the latter capacity, they are left free to follow their opinions and prejudices to any extent they please. They may have one denominational organization, or two, or a dozen, or none at all. The whole matter is left to themselves. There is no opposing obstacle from without. The world's people do not interfere. The political authorities take no cognizance of their doings. Human nature, being thus left free to act without erstraini, the result is seen in the división of these denomiualions. But why should we thence argue that a dissolution of our political union will take place? This is a very different affair, as will be seen by a momeníary glance at these considerations. 1. That there is a much larger number of persons interested in tb is result than in a mere denominational división. 2. There is every variety ol political and religious faith: Atheists, Infidels, Federalists, Mobites, Aristocrats and the very vilest of society, must agree to act with the most virtuous, the most pairiotic, and the most orthodox, or our unicn cannot bedestroyed.3. There is every variety of interest - The Manufacturar, the Merchant, the Farmer, the Cotlon-raiser, the Sugargrower, the Slaveholder anJ the Abolitionist must all unite in calling fur distanion, or there can be none. 4. Both sections of the Union Norlh and South, must be agreed upon it. Now we venture to say that at the North not one in a thousand of its adult population would vote for disunion. Wedonotneed it. We know that slavery is a curse to us, but we are content to abide its evils until we can bring abouta peaceful remedy without división. But how stands the case with the South? The slaveholdeis did, indeed, bellow for a dissoTulion of the Union some yeors since: but every sensible man knows that it was only the ebullition ot' mere blust ering bravadoes. The Slaveholders have never seriously proposed any such thing: and they dark not do it. Who would then catch their fugitivos for them? Who maintain n standing army for keeping their bondmen in Slavery? lf the Slaveholders wish for Disunion, the preparatory steps towards il ure easy. Why have they not cnlled a convention of Slaveholders to delibérate ori the matter? The tact is they Jo nol ■zcish for it. We cannot sec any practicable melhod of eíFecling a dissolution of the Union, without a general consent of the people of the North and South. Nor do we find a desire for such a result in either ection. lf it exist at all, the presumntion would be that the members of the I5ritist and Methodist Cburchea, who have already dissolygd their rcügious fies. woulcl bo for breakíngtheir political ones. Bnt do we find any thing of this in the history oftheir proceedings? Not tho least vesiige. On the contrary it s nolorious tliat tho Union has not in its bosom more ardent defetiders than these samo I5ajilsts nou Methodist?. lleüce we deern all prnphesies of disunion delusivo. It is nut desired by a ihousandih part of tbc nation: it is not projjosed seridusly but a very fcw nt the North: and no practicable mcihod of efl'ecting'it bas been pointed out except by a general consent of all tbc people, öf which ihere is not the least probability, wbile its cbnséquericés wouUl bc more or or less disast rous, without bringing benefit toany Vvhich migbt not be beller atlained in some oilicr way. But there ïs anbther aspect of this mater which may properly aflbrd a losson to politicians. The BaptSt and Methodist Ciuirchcs extended from the extreme North to the extreme Souih. Each of them embraced arge nunibcrs of bigoted Slaveholders and of ardent, untinng Abulitionii-Ks. These were unablc to ogroc to act longer together and they iiaveseparated, with no liopo of a re-union till Slavery sliall have ceased to exist. Now look at the Whigand Democratie parties. Each of these extends from Maine to Texas, and embraces tho most zoalous Slaveholders, and large number of sincere and honest-hcarted, thougb perba ps not always consistent antislavcry men. Will these two classes of men always act together? In this connection, the inquiry of the Adverliser becomes of momentous interest - "Are polilical strongcr thdn religious lies?" We auswer, no: and lience,in the división of these naiinual churclies, politicians may read the fate of lljeir nationül parties. These church members have divided their religious orgnnizations on the question of Slavery: think you the same persons will long continue to act together politically on a subject which has divided them into different religious bodies? In this view of the subject, the Adverüser bas just reason for ominoua forebodings to its party. These religious divisions are preparing the way for the sepa rat ion of the political parties. so that a dividing line shall bo drawn between the friends of Freedomar.d of Slavery.The responsibiüty of effecting these religious divisions is generally attributed direclly to Abolitionists, nnci they are denounced as little better than devils for their supposed agency in it. The Jackson Patriot, which haib under the Democratie flag, lays it to our charge in the following courteous and candid style: "These movements arj the consequence oftheaction of the abolitionists of the North. This fanatical and impious portion of the human race are doing their worst. They do not scruple to sever the ties of the church, but if we can judge by their works, they would not stop until they had torn the Union asunder. Nero fiddled while Rome was burning; bóvv would these aliens to every thing sacred e.xpress their joy, couldthey eilect their nefarious designs? ís it not liroe for sober men, who have in the least countenanced these mad-men in thrtir infernal course, to pause and look about them? The churches are fast being rent in shreds; are our political institutionsany more secure?" So faras we know, that class of Abolitionists attachedto the Liberty party have never directly soughl the división of these or any olher churches. But they have very generally held to the principie that man-stealers, however unexceptionable their charactors in other respects,are not proper persons to be admitted into Cliristian churches. We suppose it was a discussion of this principie and those connected with it. which has occasioned si:ch a dissatisfacíion to theslaveholderslhat they have withdrawn from their brothren for the express purposo of hoMing slaves in quietness. The movement for división, we believe, has origiiiated with them. - Are we the therefore to be blamcd, because when we have told them the truth, they have become oiFended and Ie ft us? As to the nature of this división which themselves have consummated, we entertain no grievous npprehensions in refurence to it. There is just as much real piety and worlh in the churches as there was bfilbre división, lts iniluence for the liberation of the slave föll be highly favorable. The control of the slaveholders over the northern churches will be withdrawn, and they wlll be Ieft free to act out their honest convictions in reference to this gi'eal iniquity. Kcsides, a purcJy slnveholding church will soon become thescorn of mankind. The organizalion of a Rumseliing Christian Church would be far more rca.onable, and be less ofanoutrage upon Christian principie, than one to manufacture slaves by stealing helpless little infants, and quoting Jestis Christ for aulhority for so doing. There niay be evils attending the separation, but we believe they will be very greatly overbalanccd by the goorl. As tlic whole matter now looks to us, wc may say, that althojgh 'Jie división originated on the partof theSlayeholders, vet in the language of another on a? different occasion, "personally wc have no objection, but on the contrary should be glad to see it, with the comrnon consent, upon just i and fair terms," without bittemess, and I in nccordancc witii CIiriMian principies-.