How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from the admonitions and instructions which James applies to the arrangements and usages of religious assemblies.  Into these he can not allow “respect of persons” to enter.  “My brethren,” he exclaims, “have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.  For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel; and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.  On this general principle, then, religious assemblies ought to be regulated—­that every man is to be estimated, not according to his circumstances—­not according to anything incidental to his condition; but according to his moral worth—­according 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 transgressor.”

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 of 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 cannot, without the greatest injustice, be held responsible.  It is to poison the very fountains of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions.  What, then, so far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of slavery, which cannot 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 worshippers of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew?[20]