aspect of the question and confine ourselves to the religious, and we
propose to give a few illustrations. A Negro in every way qualified,
in character, piety, and intelligence, applies for membership in a
white church. Shall the color-line be drawn and he be refused
admission for no other reason than that he is a Negro? This does not
imply that the whites and blacks should be urged or persuaded to unite
in all churches or in any church. It may be conceded that the blacks
generally do not desire to unite with white churches, and that, in
their present state of culture, it may not always be for their
edification to do so. But where an individual Negro _does_ believe
that it would be for his edification and growth in grace to belong to
a white church, shall the color that God stamped on him, or the race
in which God gave him his birth, be a sufficient reason {150} for
refusing him? The question and the principle apply equally if the
Negro should be given to understand that while he would not actually
be refused admission, yet the preference of the church would be that
he should not apply; nay, we do not see why the principle is not the
same if the well-known attitude of the church on the race question
should be such that the Christian self-respect of the Negro would not
allow him to make the application.

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