usher invited us to walk in and take a seat. We did so, but pretty soon he came to us and said: 'You will have to go to the gallery. I made a mistake; you cannot remain here.' We were puzzled. We could not see the reason for such conduct upon the part of those having the meeting in hand.
"We have attended the political meetings held at different times, in different parts of the city, by the respective parties, but have never had any one invite us to the gallery. Why such a thing should be done in a religious meeting, we cannot understand. It does seem to us that there should be as much charity in a meeting of this character as there is in a political meeting, but there was not. It was exceedingly painful to us to receive such unchristian-like treatment from our denomination. We fail to see the relation between this sort of treatment and religion. There may be some practical morality in it, but according to our judgment it does not harmonize with the teaching of the New Testament. The Negro may be wrong, in many respects, as to what constitutes the ideal Christian, but he certainly will not get much light on the subject from the men who cannot keep their prejudice in abeyance through one religious service. We suggest that our white friends write over the doors of the places in which they hold religious services, No negroes need apply. We wish only white persons to be saved. If it were a fact that the Negro had no better conceptions of the religious life than stated by his critics, it would be in keeping with his early training, both from precept and example."
With this manner of dealing with religious and social ostracism, the recognition of the Afro-American is an assured fact. The Caucasian must be reasoned with, not bulldozed. This Prof. Jones understands, as is evident by the way he has expressed himself above, and which no fair-minded white man can read without emphatic approval.
