The report and resolutions were heartily adopted, and the President of the United States immediately apprized of the fact, that, if the Southern Baptists had forsaken him in the hour of trial, the Baptists of the North—a body extending its branches throughout New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the great West, embracing in its communion vast wealth and influence, as well as great moral and Christian strength—will stand by him until the rebellion has been rooted out.—New York Tribune, May 30.

The temptations of the Saviour of mankind, whether by the Satans of the invisible world or by the wisdom of the arrogant human pretenders to superior intelligence and craft, are among the most instructive records of the inspired volume which all true Christians revere. It stands upon record that one of those temptations of the divine man was a political question of that day, among the sons of Israel. One of the wise men of that age and nation dared to try the Saviour of mankind with one of the political questions of the times. That question of an idle curiosity or malignant spirit eager to betray the divinity to the mad rage of the populace or the vindictiveness of power, was a question of deep interest to the patriots among that people, and to the base slaves of a foreign domination, who had but too well learned to

“Bend the pregnant hinges of the knee,
Where thrift may follow fawning.”

The question they put to him was this, “Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar?” The answer of the great examplar of Christendom might reasonably be expected to stand as a perpetual lesson to all those who profess to live after his example, to obey his precepts and seek the guidance of his spirit, as well in reality as name. What was the noble answer? Did he like those who to-day arrogantly assume to dictate the conscientious judgment of the Christian on the political controversy about slavery or on that about the war say, either that they must “pay tribute unto Caesar” or must not; and that it was a Christian duty, a duty enjoined alike by religion and by patriotism to pay the tribute, or to refuse it? Not at all. He simply gave them in reply a broad and universal principle of justice between man and man, applicable in all ages and to all people, leaving it to the intelligence and judgment of his hearers to apply the indisputable principle and judge for themselves. He bade them to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to render unto God the things that are God’s!”

How widely have the churches or denominations of the present day departed from the example of the glorious, and divine founder of their professed faith! How rashly and arrogantly have they presumed to mingle in the arena of political debate and authoritatively to throw the weight of their influence into the scale of one or other of the combatants for or against a great political question! How eagerly they rush under the impulse of human pride and opinion and passion and the arrogance of a sense of more than papal infalliability to decide to-day directly and decisively, whether it is or is not sin to hold slaves in servitude: whether it is or is not “lawful to pay tribute” unto the powers that be, the Caesars of the day!

And yet, what do we see? The Church in one section of the Confederacy, or denominations of christians in one section, denounce as sin exactly that which in another section the same church and the same denomination uphold as lawful, christians, and right! In one section they proclaim it authoritatively to be a christian and patriotic duty to render unto our Caesar the legal tributes, and [in] the other they claim with equal positiveness the right and duty to deny and withhold it! In one section, the prayer of faith ascends to omniscience for the securing of this tribute by force of arms, at the point of the bayonet and the cost of bloodl In another for divine assistance and guidance in the effort to resist this demand! And these conflicting and hostile prayers are not addressed to two hostile Deities, but to the one God revealed to all christians everywhere only through one and the same revelation!

All this cannot be considered as impeaching the truths of religion. It simply shows the weakness and infirmities of human nature, and the errors even of christian men, when they attempt to apply a divine revelation to subjects to which the Deity has not seen fit to apply them. It would seem to teach that when the clergy, the churches, or other congregations of devout men, attempt to prescribe political creeds and duties, and decide upon new questions of human relation, and instead of simply repeating the grand principles of duty, attempt to apply them in details to human action, they transcend the bounds of their religion and descend into the mazes of human error and the weakness of mortal fallibility!

The churches North and South, in their conflicting lessons to the people of the different sections, are equally with the politicians responsible for present disasters. Perhaps as they speak with more power and greater influence, they are more responsiblel And if war and bloodshed become inevitable, they will certainly be more responsible, for no one can fail to see that the enthusiasm of religion superadded to the mere opinion of patriotic duty,—and the holy sanction of the Church,—inspirit politicians of either sections and tend [to] make them more dogmatic and resolute, and to render the war, in either section, a holy as well as a patriotic wart Each combatant will fall, in the cause of duty, according to the instruction of the church, North or South! Each will hope to ascend, fresh from the shedding of fraternal blood, to a peaceful Heaven and the calm bosom of eternal Love!

Alas for human judgment and human frailty! Alas for human arrogance! Alas for the infal[l]ibility of the best of human churches, when passing beyond the limits of direct revelation, they seek to declare the will of God as to civil, social and political relations!