to the essential features and vital elements of his character.  Gold rings and gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, can entitle no man to, a “good place” in the church.  Nor can the “vile raiment of the poor man,” fairly exclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his heart and head may fit him to fill.  To deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade a man below a thing; for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile raiment, but things, “which perish with the using?” And this must be “to commit sin, and be convinced of the law as transgressors.”

In slavery, we have “respect of persons,” strongly marked, and reduced to system.  Here men are despised not merely for “the vile raiment,” which may cover their scarred bodies.  This is bad enough.  But the deepest contempt for humanity here grows out of birth or complexion.  Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, or improvidence, or extravagance.  It may be, often is, an index of character.  But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my birth?—­how for my complexion?  To despise or honor me for these, is to be guilty of “respect of persons” in its grossest form, and with its worst effects.  It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing to do with; for which, therefore, I can not, without the greatest injustice, be held responsible.  It is to poison the very fountains of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions.  It is with a worse temper, and in the way of inflicting infinitely greater injuries, to copy the kingly folly of Xerxes, in chaining and scourging the Hellespont.  What, then, so far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of slavery, which can not be maintained under any form nor for a single moment, without “respect of persons” the most aggravated and unendurable?  And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshipers of a dark complexion are to be shut up to the negro pew?[A]

[Footnote A:  In Carlyle’s Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we have the following anecdote, illustrative of the character of a “grandmother” of the Count.  “Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately towards the church font; another dame striking in to take precedence of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the ear, and these words, ‘Here, as in the army, THE BAGGAGE goes last!’” Let those who justify the negro-pew-arrangement, throw a stone at this proud woman—­if they dare.]

Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to religious assemblies.  It is to pervade social life every where.  Even where plenty, intelligence, and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, the poor are to be welcomed with especial favor.  “Then said he to him that bade him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.  But when thou makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed, the lame and the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they can not recompense thee, but thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.”