We are not careful to criticise the details of this plan, nor are we anxious to secure any particular modification of them.  The cardinal fact is that the plan itself keeps the two bodies in Georgia apart for no other assigned or assignable reason than race prejudice; for who supposes for a moment that if these bodies were both white there would be this elaborate plan devised to touch each other with the tips of the fingers, instead of giving at once the whole hand-grasp of Christian fellowship?  And so long as this plan makes or retains the line of caste distinction or practically delays or evades its rejection, it is a compromise that should not be endorsed.  But already the old pleas for compromise are urged in its behalf: 

1.  It is said that this is a first step towards the ultimate—­a bridge to facilitate a future coming together.  But a bridge is not possible, nor if possible, necessary.  There is no doubt that since the New Testament was written there have been great improvements in bridge building, both mechanical and theological; but between equal manhood on one side and race prejudice on the other, “there is a great gulf fixed,” and no bridge can span the chasm. The Negro must surrender his manhood or the white man his prejudice. There is no half way.  But when either is surrendered, there is no gulf, and no bridge is needed.  If the Negro will take his place as an inferior, he and the white man can ride on the same seat in a buggy:  if the white man will surrender his prejudice, the Race-Problem is settled.  Which shall be surrendered—­the manhood or the prejudice?  The Congregational churches have no doubt on that question, and if we are to educate men in right principles we must stand firmly upon them ourselves.  To begin with a compromise is to yield the very point at issue.

2.  But now also the opposite tack is taken.  We are told that race prejudice is a fixed fact—­that the Southern people will never yield, and that hence if we are to plant Congregational churches in the South at all, we must compromise.  And once more we have with us the “practical men,” who claim to take common sense views, and they urge us again to be content with the “half-loaf.”  But this compromise “half-loaf” is very much like the famous “little book” that John ate that was indeed in the mouth “sweet as honey” but afterward proved to be exceedingly “bitter.”  The truth is that this half-loaf, and Ephraim’s “cake not turned” and the drink that was “lukewarm, neither hot nor cold,” constitute a very unhealthy diet for Christian people.  The past has its lesson by which we ought to have profited; and it will be a shame if, with all our experience, we are found to need the reproof that “when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that some one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God.”