Again, shall colored churches, conferences or presbyteries be formed on the same territory in order that the colored members may not unite with the white churches, conferences or presbyteries? Shall a line be run between the races on the simple ground of race or color, and irrespective of character, convenience or choice, so that the Negro as a church member shall not be allowed to choose the church he shall join, or as a minister the option as to his conference or presbytery? For one race to demand such a line of separation, is to consign the other race to a position of inferiority as humiliating as it is discouraging. Such is the demand of race prejudice, and such the position of inferiority in which it insists on placing the Negro. Slavery held the Negro there, and since emancipation, this race-separation is intended to accomplish the same purpose. The Southern white man makes no objection to the race or color of the Negro, but only to his position as an equal. He was not merely tolerated, he was more than tolerated, as a slave, and he is now as a servant.
The present controversy in regard to the color-line is calling forth some frank admissions from intelligent white men at the South. Thus the Rev. Wm. H. Campbell, an Episcopal clergyman of South Carolina, vindicates his refusal to sit in Convention with the Negroes by the inferiority which the Almighty has stamped upon them. Mr. Campbell says:
"The Bishop does not understand or appreciate the reasons why some of us cannot, under any circumstances, sit in Convention with Negroes. The objections commonly made need not here be referred to. The difficulty with some of us is not 'on account of color,' as it is usually, but not with strict accuracy, put; for some Negroes are as white as some white men, but because they are of an inferior race, so made by the Almighty and never intended by him to be put on an equality with the white race, in either Church or State."
The question at issue is not one of expediency, but of principle; and, among Christians, whether in the individual church or the ecclesiastical body, it is a question of Christian duty to be settled by the Divine authority of the Master himself. We propose no argument on the subject, but content ourselves by quoting a few well-known passages of Scripture, which, though familiar, have lost neither their significancy nor their authority. In the end, the voice of God must be decisive.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."
"God hath showed me that I should call no man common or unclean."
"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him."
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ."
"Inasmuch as ye have not done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have not done it unto me."
Secretary Roy, in the Advance, controverts the statement of the Herald and Presbyter, that the Congregationalists have come to consent to separate ecclesiastical bodies on the ground of color. Dr. Roy supposes that this conclusion may have been jumped at because of the formation of a new Congregational Association in Georgia, which is an outcome from the Congregational Methodist churches there. The Interior, evidently with gladness, makes the same assertion. The Christian Union replies to this, saying, "We do not think this is true; but, if it is, so much the worse for the Congregationalists!" We may say with Dr. Roy, that nothing is more certain than that in the New Empire that is growing before our eyes, the Congregational churches of this century will not turn towards the dark ages, and will not put themselves to shame by refusing to fellowship with the disciples of Christ on the ground of caste. Such a proposition would have the scorn of our National Council.