A RECORD OF THE CONFERENCES.

        I. The first recorded yearly conference (as they were then called) was the conference which met in Zion church, New York City, on the 21st day of June, 1821. There were 22 preachers enrolled at this Conference. They represented churches in and about New York City, Long Island, New Haven and Philadelphia. This was the New York Conference. Bishop Moore gives a synopsis of the minutes of yearly conferences from 1821 to 1881. The minutes of seven sessions of that period are omitted.

        II. The Philadelphia Conference was organized in 1829.

        III. The New England Conference was organized in Hartford, Conn., June 21, 1845, Bishop C. Rush, presiding.

        IV. The Allegheny Conference was organized in 1849, Bishop Rush, presiding, George Galbraith, Assistant Superintendent.

        V. The Genessee (now known as the Western New York Conference) was organized September 13, 1859, by Bishop C. Rush. This was the last Conference organized by him.

        VI. The Southern Conference was organized May 2, 1829, in Washington, D. C. This Conference was shortlived. We have no minutes of its sessions. It was represented in General Conference in 1860. Its name was changed to Baltimore Conference. In 1872 it was consolidated with the Philadelphia Conference, and since, we have had the Philadelphia and Baltimore Conference.

        VII. The North Carolina Conference was organized in Newbern, N. C., December 17, 1864, Bishop J. J. Clinton, presiding.

        VIII. The Louisiana Conference was organized by Bishop J. J. Clinton, March 13, 1865.

        IX. The Kentucky Conference was organized by Bishop Samson D. Talbot, on Wednesday, June 6, 1866, in Center Street church, Louisville, Ky.

        X. The Virginia Conference was organized in October, 1866, in Petersburg, Va., by Bishop J. J. Clinton.

        XI. The South Carolina Conference was organized in Lancaster, S. C., March 24, 1867, by Bishop J. J. Clinton.

        XII. The Alabama Conference was organized in State Street church, Mobile, Ala., April 3, 1867, by Bishop J. J. Clinton.

        XIII. The Georgia Conference was organized in Trinity church, Augusta, Ga., June 15, 1867, by Bishop J. J. Clinton.

        XIV. The California Conference was organized in San Francisco, Wednesday, January 10, 1868, by Bishop J. J. Clinton.

        XV. The Tennessee Conference was organized in Knoxville, Tenn., October 6, 1868, by Bishop J. J. Clinton.

        XVI. The Florida Conference was organized in Pensacola, April 22, 1869, by Bishop J. J. Clinton.

        XVII. The West Tennessee & Mississippi Conference was organized by Bishop J. J. Clinton, in Coffeeville, Miss., in October, 1869. It was represented in the General Conference in 1872 by ministerial delegates.

        XVIII. The New Jersey Conference was organized by Bishop J. J. Clinton, in 1874. This was the last conference organized by Bishop J. J. Clinton, the great organizer. He organized eleven conferences in ten years. Bishop Clinton did his own preparatory missionary work. He went to Louisiana alone, where Zion ministers had been seen in an army transport vessel. He followed Elder Hood to Newbern in less than six months after he sent him there. He followed Elder Strong to Alabama soon after he sent him. He also followed Hopkins to Tennessee soon after he sent him. He went to Florida and Georgia to open the way for others. He had 15,000 members in Louisiana, when he left that work. His immediate successor by neglect and mismanagement, lost nearly all of them.

        XIX. The Canada and Michigan Conference was organized by Bishop T. H. Lomax, September 11, 1879.

        XX. The Central North Carolina Conference was organized by Bishop J. W. Hood, November 18, 1879.

        XXI. The West Alabama Conference was organized December 14, 1880, by Bishop J. P. Thompson.

        XXII. The Arkansas Conference was organized by Bishop S. T. Jones, in March, 1882.

        XXIII. The Central Alabama Conference was organized in 1881.

        XXIV. The Texas Conference was organized in November 1883, by Bishop T. H. Lomax.

        XXV. The North Georgia Conference (now known as the Georgia Conference), was organized by Bishop T. H. Lomax, in 1885.

        XXVI. The Missouri Conference was organized by Bishop T. H. Lomax, September 17, 1890.

        XXVII. The North Louisiana Conference was organized by Bishop C. C. Pettey, November 20, 1890.

        XXVIII. The South Florida Conference was organized by Bishop T. H. Lomax, January 14, 1891.

        XXIX. The Ohio Conference was organized by Bishop J. W. Hood, September, 1891.

        XXX. The Western North Carolina Conference was organized November, 1889, at Statesville, N. C., by Bishop J. J. Moore

        XXXI. The South Mississippi Conference was organized at Meridian, Miss., by Bishop C. R. Harris, December, 1891.

        XXXII. The Palmetto Conference was organized by Bishop I. C. Clinton, December 1891, at Spartanburg, S. C.

        XXXIII. The Blue Ridge Conference was organized by Bishop T. H. Lomax, at Knoxville, Tenn., in October, 1892. This conference was first called the East Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina Conference, but has had for many years the shorter name. (The Oregon Conference was organized in 1892 by Bishop C. C. Pettey.)

        XXXIV. The North Arkansas Conference was organized in 1896 by Bishop Jehu Holliday.

        XXXV. The West Central N. C. Conference was organized by Bishop J. W. Hood, November 18, 1910.

        XXXVI. The Albemarle Conference was organized at Edenton, N. C., by Bishops J. W. Hood and G. W. Clinton, November 30, 1910.

        XXXVII. The North Alabama Conference was organized in 1894 at Scranton, Miss., by Bishop C. C. Pettey.

        XXXVIII. The Oklahoma Conference was organized in 1897 by Bishop Jehu Holliday.

        XXXIX. The Michigan Conference was organized at DuQuoin, Ill., by Bishop G. L. Blackwell.

        XL. The Indiana Conference was organized at DuQuoin, Ill., in 1909, by Bishop G. L. Blackwell.

        XLI. The Cape Conference was organized November 27, 1911, at Wilmington, N. C., by Bishop A. Walters.

        XLII. The Cape Coast Conference was organized in March, 1910, by Bishop A. Walters.

        XLIII. The West Gold Coast Conference was organized in March, 1910, by Bishop A. Walters.

        XLIV. The Liberia Conference was organized in March 1910, at Brewerville, by Bishop A. Walters.

        XLV. The Oregon Conference was organized October 23, 1910, by Bishop J. S. Caldwell.

        XLVI. The Southwest Virginia Conference was organized October 15, 1910, at Asheville, N. C., by Bishop C. R. Harris.

        XLVII. The South Alabama Conference was organized at Montgomery, Ala., December 2, 1911, by Bishop J. W. Alstork.

        XLVIII. The Cahaba Conference was organized at Bessemer, Ala., November 20, 1912, by Bishop J. W. Alstork.

PART II.
THE NEGRO RACE.

PART II.
THE NEGRO RACE.

        (For what follows the author alone is responsible. Copied from the History of 105 years of the A. M. E. Zion Church.)

        Since we have asserted the ancient greatness of the Negro race, and since assertion is lame without proof, a chapter here on this subject may not be out of place. It is the impression with many that the Negro has no history to which he can point with pride. There could be no greater mistake than this. If it had been in the power of modern historians of the Caucasian race to rob him of his history, it would have been done. But the Holy Bible has stood as an everlasting rock in the black man's defense. God himself has determined that the black man shall not be robbed of his record which he has made during the ages. And here again we acknowledge with humility and thanksgiving our great obligation to God for his goodness toward the race. At every step in this investigation we see plainly the hand divine interposed in our behalf; and the more we investigate the subject, the more deeply do we feel the obligation the race is under to love, fear, and serve that God who has so carefully watched over our destiny.

        The first and most illustrious of earth's historians has left on record statements which set forth the fact beyond reasonable doubt that an ancestor of the Negro race was the first of earth's great monarchs, and that that race ruled the world for more than a thousand years; and the statements of Moses are confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest secular historians whose writings have come down to our time. Ethiopia and Egypt were first among the early monarchies, and these countries were peopled by the descendants of Ham, through Cush and Mizraim, and were governed by the same for hundreds of years.

        Palestine was peopled by Canaan, the younger son of Ham, upon whom the curse was pronounced, and, notwithstanding the

curse, his posterity ruled that land for more than eight hundred years. They were in it when the promise of it was made to Abraham, and four hundred years later, when Israel came out of Egypt, they were still in full possession of it. And although the land was promised to Israel, yet two tribes, the Jebusites and Sidonians,*

* The Sidonians were never driven out by the Israelites.
resisted the attacks of Israel for more than four hundred years after they entered upon their promised possessions. Neither Joshua nor the judges of Israel could drive them out; not until David became king were the Jebusites driven out from the stronghold of Zion. It was from this ancient seat of the Jebusites, also called Salem, the seat of royalty and power, that Melchizedek, the most illustrious king, priest and prophet of the race, came forth to bless Abraham, as seen in Genesis xiv. 18, 19. There have been many wild notions respecting this personage, for which there is no good reason. As Dr. Barnes says:

        "The account of this man in Genesis is as simple an historical record as any other in the Bible. In that account there is no difficulty whatever. It is said simply that when Abraham was returning from a successful military expedition, this man, who, it seems, was well known*

* So well known that no particular account of him was deemed necessary.
, and who was respected as a priest of God Most High, came out to express his approbation of what he had done and to refresh him with bread and wine. As a tribute of gratitude to him and a thank offering to God, Abraham gave him a tenth part of the spoils which he had taken.

        Such an occurrence was by no means improbable; nor would it have been attended with any special difficulty if it had not been for the use which the apostle makes of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet on no subject has there been a greater variety of opinions in regard to this man. The bare recital of the opinions would fill a volume. But in a case which seems to be plain from the Scripture narrative, it is not necessary even to enumerate these opinions. They only serve to show how easy it is for men to mystify a clear statement of history, and how fond they are of finding what is mysterious and marvelous in the plainest narrative of facts.

        That he was Shem, as the Jews supposed,*

* That is, some of the Jews, not all: for their historian, Josephus, as Dr. Barnes remarks, states that he was a pious Canaanite.
or that he was the Son of God himself, as many Christian expositors have maintained, there is not the slightest evidence. That the latter opinion

is false is perfectly clear; for if he was the Son of God, with what propriety could the Apostle say that he 'was made like the Son of God'--that is, like himself; or that Christ was constituted a priest 'after the order of Melchizedek'--that is, that he was a type of himself. The most simple and probable opinion is that given by Josephus: that he was a pious Canaanitish prince, a person eminently endowed by God, who acted as the priest of his people. That he combined within himself the offices of priest and king, furnished to the Apostle a beautiful illustration of the offices sustained by the Redeemer, as he was, in this respect, perhaps the only one whose history is recorded in the Old Testament who would furnish such an illustration. That his genealogy was not recorded,*

* What Dr. Barnes here mentions is evidently what the Apostle means by his being without father, etc. His genealogy was not recorded.
while that of every other priest mentioned was carefully traced and preserved, furnished another striking illustration. In this respect, like the Son of God, he stood alone; he was not in the line of priests; he was preceded by no one in the sacerdotal office, nor was he followed by any. That he was superior to Abraham and consequently to all who descended from Abraham; that a tribute was rendered to him by the great ancestor of the fraternity of Jewish priests, was also an illustration which suited the purpose of Paul.--Dr. Albert Barnes, "Notes on Hebrews," chap. vii.

        We have copied so much from Dr. Barnes' Commentary for two reasons: 1. Because his opinion agrees with what appeared to us to be the natural conclusion when we first read the account of Melchizedek in Josephus, more than thirty years ago. 2. Because we wished to show that in the opinion we have advanced we are supported by one of the ablest Bible expounders of our time. Barnes is a standard author; his commentaries have been adopted by the Presbyterian Board. Those who wish to see what further he has to say can consult his notes on Heb. vii., also his notes on Psalm ex: 4. It seems impossible to reach any other conclusion than that Melchizedek was king of the Jebusites; they took possession of that land when the posterity of Noah was dispersed from Babel. At the time that Abraham met Melchizedek they had been in possession of it for nearly three hundred and fifty years, and they remained in possession of it for eight hundred years more.

        Salem, the seat of government, was the same which was also called Jerusalem. Josephus positively states this, and Dr. Barnes

says it is the almost universal opinion. The change, it is generally agreed, comes from the name of the inhabitants--the Jebusites--Jebus being changed to Jerus, and that to Jerusalem. In Psalm lxxvi: 1, 2, Jerusalem is called Salem: "In Judah is God known; His name is great in Israel. In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place is Zion."

        Rahab and Tamar were both Canaanites, and both, also, the ancestors of the world's Redeemer. It is not quite certain that the Canaanites were black; but there can be no doubt that they descended from Ham, the father of the black race; and "Cursed be Canaan" is a favorite text with those who delight in the idea of Negro inferiority. We may remark that some have claimed that the curse upon Canaan extended to the whole of Ham's race; upon what grounds this claim is set up we have never been able to discover, except the desire to have it so. The natural conclusion, it seems to us, if we want to make anything more of it than the simple historical statement that Noah cursed his grandson for his son's misconduct, would be that Noah was led to take this plan, to avoid the idea that the rest of Ham's posterity was affected by the curse. In naming the younger son, we would naturally get the idea that the curse was to fall upon the smaller portion of Ham's race. To our mind this was a prediction which was fulfilled when Joshua led Israel into the promised land. "Servant of servants shall he be." To whatever extent the Canaanites served the Israelites, who themselves had just come from servitude, this prediction was fulfilled, and that was to no very great extent. They were driven out of the land and exterminated to a considerable extent, but they were not made slaves in any considerable numbers.

        The promise of God was not that Israel should make slaves of them--He has never sanctioned slavery--but His promise was to drive them out, not all at once, but little by little. "I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against thee. By little and little, I will drive them out from before thee. . . . Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in the land, lest they make thee sin against me; for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee." See Exodus xxiii, 28-33.

        And yet Israel did make a covenant with them, and in that the prophecy of Noah was fulfilled. Israel did serve their gods, and they were ensnared, and therefore were never able to drive out all the Canaanites. Respecting the covenant that Israel made with the Canaanites (see Josh. ix), the inhabitants of Gibeon came to Joshua and made him believe that they lived in a country far from him, and he made a covenant with them by which the princes of the Israelites agreed to spare their lives, and they agreed to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for Israel, and thus of their own volition they became the servants of a people who had just come from bondage. And thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Noah, "Servant of servants shall he be," etc.

        This, however, was a very small portion of Canaan's race; enough, indeed, to fulfil the prophecy, but not enough to make the noise about, that Negro-haters have been making for the last two or three hundred years.

        God promised to drive out the Canaanites, that Israel might inhabit the land free from the snares of idolatry, but God's promise was conditional. To avoid the dangerous increase of wild beasts a portion of the Canaanites were permitted to remain until Israel had sufficiently increased to populate the land. During this period of joint occupancy the Israelites were required to keep themselves from idolatry and from all entangling alliances with the Canaanites. The Israelites failed in both these requirements; they worshipped the idols an married the sons and daughters of the Canaanites. Hence, God did not drive out all of the Canaanites, and Israel could not drive them out. "And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel; and he said, "Because that his people hath transgressed my covenant, which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice; I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died." (Judg. ii. 20, 21.)

        We have already mentioned the fact that the Jebusites held their stronghold till David came to the throne; their dislodgement was then necessary to the accomplishment of the divine purpose; but the Sidonians, descendants of the elder son of Canaan, including the Tyrians, were never driven out by the Israelites. They, with their kindred, the Carthaginians, were the most powerful maritime nations of their time. The Philistines, who gave Israel more trouble than any other of the nations in that land, were the descendants of Ham through Mizriam.

        As an evidence of the strength and valor of the nations with which Israel had to contend in the land of Canaan, we have the fact that, during the four hundred years in which the judges ruled, Israel was in bondage more than seventy years to those nations. It was not weakness nor the want of courage on the part of the Canaanites, nor the superiority of the Israelites which gave Israel a habitation in that land; but God had a purpose in the interest of humanity, and the idolatry of the Canaanites rendered them suitable objects upon which to operate upon carrying out of that purpose.

        Historians tell a story of the Tyrians and Carthaginians which is most credible to both: "When Alexander was besieging Tyre, the Tyrians took that which they valued most highly, their wives and little children, and sent them to Carthage, and although the Carthaginians were engaged in war, they received them and succored them with parental care." Caucasian civilization can point to nothing that exceeds this gallantry on the one side and generosity on the other. Considering the period at which this occurred, it indicates a marvelous degree of advancement in the knowledge of what is due to the family.

        Carthage has contributed to the honor of the Negro race not only in this, but also in producing one of the most renowned warriors that has ever appeared upon a field of battle. Of course we refer to Hannibal; but besides him there was another, less renowned, it is true, but greater in that he was both statesman and warrior. We refer to Hamilcar, the father of Hannibal. He took Hannibal at nine years of age and taught him the art of war. He had the ability to unite the forces for victory; the lack of this was Hannibal's misfortune and the ruin of Carthage. But in boldness, in courage, and in the splendid management of his forces, Hannibal has had no superior and but few equals since man began to fight.

        Hannibal also possessed some ability as a statesman. History informs us that upon one occasion by a persuasive speech he brought the Carthaginian senate to a unanimous agreement on an important matter on which there had been a disagreement. He feared that if the senate was not unanimous, there would be dissensions among the people.

        Carthage also gave to the world in the person of St. Augustine and St. Cyprian, two of the ablest ministers of which the Christian Church can boast. The simple mention of these names is all that any man at all acquainted with Church history needs. That the Phoenicians, who were the founders of Carthage in union with original Africans, were the descendants of Canaan, there ought

to be no question; but since everything honorable to the Negro race is questioned, we will simply give the testimony of Rollins.*

* Rollins, Book I, p. 160.
He says: "The Canaanites are certainly the same people who are called, almost always, Phoenicians by the Greeks, for which name no reason can be given, any more than the oblivion of the true one." Thus it is seen that up to Rollins' time there was no question as to the fact that the Phoenicians were Canaanites. Rollins did not know why this, instead of the true name, was given; neither do we know, but we may easily conjecture that since it was the Greeks that gave this name instead of the true one, it may have been their purpose to hide the fact that the people to whom they were so greatly indebted were the descendants of the accursed son of Ham. This would be in perfect accord with the conduct of the Caucasian race to-day.

        We have also the testimony of Dr. Barnes that the Phoenicians were descended from the Canaanites. In his notes on Matt. xv. 22, of the woman of Canaan who met Jesus on the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he says: "This woman is called also a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth (Mark vii, 26). Anciently the whole land, including Tyre and Sidon, was in possession of the Canaanites, and called Canaan. The Phoenicians were descended from the Canaanites. The country, including Tyre and Sidon, was called Phoenicia or Syrophenicia; that country was taken by the Greeks under Alexander the Great, and these cities in the time of Christ were Greek cities. This woman was therefore a Gentile, living under the Greek government and probably speaking that language. She was by birth a Syrophoenician, born in that country, and descended therefore from the ancient Canaanites."

        On the same text Dr. Abbott says: "The term Canaan was the older title of the country, and the inhabitants were successively termed Canaanites and Phoenicians, as the inhabitants of England were successively call Brittons and Englishmen."

        Of Carthage we may remark, through all the hundreds of years of its existence as an independent government, it remained a republic. Rollins, speaking of its government, says:

        "The government of Carthage was founded upon principles of most consummate wisdom, and it is with reason that Aristotle ranks this republic in the number of those that were held in the greatest esteem by the ancients, and which were fit to serve as a model for others. He grounds his opinion on a reflection which

does great honor to Carthage by remarking that from the foundation of his time (that is, upward of five hundred years) no considerable sedition had disturbed the peace nor any tyrant oppressed the liberty of the State. Indeed, mixed governments, such as that of Carthage, where the power was divided betwixt the nobles and the people, are subject to the inconvenience either of degenerating into an abuse of liberty by the seditions of the populace, as frequently happened in Athens and in all the Grecian republics, or in the oppression of the public liberty by the tyranny of the nobles, as in Athens, Syracuse, Corinth, Thebes, and Rome itself under Sulla, and Cæsar. It is therefore giving Carthage the highest praise to observe that it had found out the art, by the wisdom of its laws and the harmony of the different parts of its government, to shun during so long a series of years two rocks that are so dangerous, and on which others so often split. It were to be wished that some ancient author had left us an accurate and regular description of the customs and laws of the famous republic."

        While we agree with Rollins in his lament of the want of a more complete history of that ancient Negro Republic, yet if those Caucasians who are wont to arrogate to themselves all the excellencies of this world, and to deny that the Negro ever has been great, or ever can be, would take time to read what has been written, with sufficient care to understand it, they would add much to their store of knowledge.

        Having touched briefly upon the history of the posterity of Ham through his younger son, we shall now take a brief view of the greatness of that posterity as it is seen in his descendants through his second son, Mizraim. That the ancient Egptians were black both the Holy Scriptures and the discoveries of science, as also the most ancient history, most fully attest. But as some profess to have doubts on this point, we shall take some testimony which we think no fair minded man will attempt to dispute.

        The psalmisticalls to memory the wonders which God wrought for His people, and celebrates in song His dealings with Israel in Egypt and frequently calls Egypt the land of Ham. How can this be accounted for if Egypt was not peopled by the posterity of Ham? But he goes further than this; he calls their dwellings the tabernacles of Ham. He "smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham." (Psalm lxxviii, 51). "Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob sojourned

in the land of Ham." (Psalm cv. 23). "He sent Moses His servant, and Aaron whom he had chosen. They set among them his signs and wonders in the land of Ham." (Psalm cv. 26, 27). "They forgat God ther Saviour, which had done great things in Egypt; wondrous works in the land of Ham." (Psalm cvi. 21, 22.)

        The man who after reading these pages, can doubt that the Egyptians, to whom Israel was in bondage, were the descendants of Ham is beyond the reach of reason. The repetition seems designed to settle this fact beyond question. We might add, if it were necessary, that the Book of Canticles is an allegory based upon Solomon's affection for his beautiful black wife, the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

        In the sixty-eighth psalm we have a prophecy which connects Egypt with Ethiopia as follows: "Princes shall come out of Egypt, Ethiopia shall soon stretch forth her hands unto God."

        Rollins, in speaking of the fact that all callings in Egypt were honorable, gives this as a probable reason, that "as they all descended from Ham, their common father, the memory of their still recent origin to the minds of all in those first ages, established among them a sort of equality, and stamped in their opinion a nobility on every person descended from the common stock."

        Again, treating of the history of the kings of Egypt, Rollins says: "The Ancient history of Egypt comprises two thousand one hundred and and fifty-eight years, and is naturally divided into three periods. The first begins with the establishment of the Egyptian monarchy by Menes or Mizraim, the son of Ham, in the year of the world 1816.

        On the next page he says of Ham; "He had four children, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan." After speaking of the settlement of the other sons, he returns to Mizraim and says: "He is allowed to be the same as Menes, whom all historians declare to be the first king of Egypt."

        In speaking of the settlement of the sons of Ham, Rollins says: "Cush settled in Ethiopia, Mizraim in Egypt, which generally is called in Scripture after his name and by that of Cham (Ham), his father; Phut took possession of that part of Africa which lies westward of Egypt, and Canaan of the country which afterward bore his name."

        That ancient Egypt was the seat of the arts and sciences, there can be no doubt; the evidences of this still remain. The cities built by the early kings of Egypt have been the wonder of all succeeding ages.

        Sesostris stands at the head of the list of the great Egyptian warriors. Rollins says;

        "His father, whether by inspiration, caprice or as the Egyptians say, by the authority of an oracle, formed the design of making his son a conqueror. This he set about after the Egyptian manner; that is, in a great and noble way. All the male children born on the same day with Sesostris were by the king ordered brought into the court. Here they were educated as if they had been his own children, with the same care as was bestowed on Sesostris with whom they were brought up. He could not possibly have given him more faithful ministers nor officers who more zealously desired the success of his arms. The chief part of their education was inuring them from infancy to a hard and laborious life, in order that they might one day be capable of sustaining with ease the toils of war.

        "Sesostris was taught by Mercury, a native Egyptian whom the Greeks pronounced thrice great. The instruction included politics and the art of government. His first venture in war was against the Arabians, whom he subdued; a nation which had never before been conquered. He next invaded Libya and subdued the greater part of that country. At the death of his father he felt himself capable of undertaking the greatest enterprises.

        "He found no less a design than the conquest of the world. But before he left his kingdom he provided for his domestic security in winning the hearts of his subjects by his generosity and justice, and a popular, obliging behavior. He was no less studious to gain the affection of his officers and soldiers, whom he wished to be ever ready to shed the last drop of their blood in his service, persuaded that his enterprises would all be unsuccessful unless his army should be attached to his person by all the ties of esteem, affection and interest. He divided the country into thirty-six governments (called Nomi), and bestowed them on persons of merit and the most approved fidelity. In the meantime he made the requisite preparation, levied forces, and headed them with officers of the greatest bravery and reputation; and these were taken chiefly from among the youths who had been educated with him. He had seventeen hundred of these officers, who were all capable of inspiring his troops with resolution, a love of discipline, and a zeal for the service of their prince. His army consisted of 600,000 foot, and 24,000 horse, besides 27,000 armed chariots.

        "He began his expedition by invading Ethiopia, situated on

the south of Egypt. He made it tributary aud obliged the nations to furnish him annually a certain quantity of ebony, ivory and gold.

        "He fitted out a fleet of four hundred sail and ordered it to advance to the Red Sea, and made himself master of the isles and cities lying on the coast of the sea. He himself leading the army, he overran and subdued Asia with amazing rapidity, and advanced farther into India than Hercules, Bacchus, and in after times, Alexander himself ever did; for he subdued the countries beyond the Ganges and advanced as far as the ocean. One may judge from hence how unable the more neighboring nations were to resist him. The Scythians, as far as the river Tonais, as well as Armenia and Cappadocia, were conquered. He left a colony in the ancient kingdom of Colchos, situated to the east of the Black Sea, where the Egyptian customs and manners have been ever since retained.

        "Herodotus saw in Asia Minor, from one sea to the other, monuments of his victories. In several countries was read the following inscription engraved on pillars: 'Sesostris, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, subdued this country by the power of his arms.' Such pillars were found even in Thrace, and his empire extended from the Ganges to the Danube.

        "The scarcity of provision in Thrace stopped the progress of his conquests and prevented his advancing further into Europe. . . . He returned, therefore, laden with the spoils of the vanquished nations, dragging after him a numberless multitude of captives, and covered with greater glory than any of his predecessors; that glory I mean, which employs so many tongues and pens in its praise; which consists in invading a great number of provinces in a hostile way, and is often productive of numberless calamities. He rewarded his officers and soldiers with a truly royal magnificence, in proportion to their rank and merit. He made it both his pleasure and duty to put the companions of his victory in such a condition as might enable them to enjoy during the remainder of their days a calm and easy repose, the just reward of their past toils. With regard to himself, forever careful of his own reputation, and still more of making his power advantageous to his subjects, he employed the repose which peace allowed him in raising works that might contribute more to the enriching of Egypt than the immortalizing of his own name; works in which art and industry of the workmen were more admired than the immense sums which had been expended on them."

        In the face of the indisputable facts of history, Mede says: "There never has been a son of Ham who hath shaken a scepter over Japheth; Shem hath subdued Japheth and Japheth subdued Shem, but Ham never subdued either."

        Mede's historical researches must have been barren of results, or he must have forgotten many things. It is amazing what an amount of ignorance and stupidity race prejudice, conceit, and arrogance are responsible for.

        Gardner says: "It is to the Caucasian race that the history of the world must mainly confine itself, for with that race originated almost all that ennobles and dignifies mankind."

        Another outburst of wind. These thoughtless scribes shut their eyes to the fact that the race of Ham dominated the world for nearly, if not quite fifteen hundred years. They shut their eyes to the fact that for fifteen hundred years more, dominion was constantly shifting and no one race held undisputed sway. For the last two thousand years the ascending star of empire has been with the Caucasian races; Japheth, the last, has become first.

        The facts recorded by Rollins concerning Sesostris are not at all liable to the suspicion of having been colored by his admiration of that great prince. Rollins indicates very clearly the absence of admiration; he not only questions that kind of glory which historians accorded to Sesostris, but also criticises his vanity as follows:

        "Sesostris might have been considered as one of the most illustrious and most boasted heroes of antiquity had not the luster of his warlike actions, as well as pacific virtues, been dimmed by thirst of glory and a blind fondness for his own grandeur which made him forget that he was a man. The kings and chiefs of the conquered nations came at stated times to do homage to their victor and pay him the appointed tribute. On every other occasion he treated them with sufficient humanity and generosity, but when he went to the temple or entered his capital he caused these princes to be harnessed to his car, four abreast, instead of horses, and valued himself upon his being thus drawn by the lords and sovereigns of other nations. What I am most surprised at is that Diodemus should rank this foolish and human vanity among the most shining acts of this prince."

        Thus it is seen that Rollins was ready to censure even where others praised Sesostris. As a godly man, Rollins was compelled to condemn this unparalleled exhibition of human vanity. At

the same time his statement of the fact indicates the high esteem in which this prince was held. That the lords of those conquered nations submitted to thus dishonor themselves to do him honor, shows how completely he was master of the situation. It indicates more than this: it indicates the wonderful wisdom and power of that black prince, in that he was able, through a long reign, to hold these chiefs in faithful allegiance without a single revolt.

        The record given by Rollins indicates that Sesostris was among the wisest, as well as among the most powerful monarchs of earth. Napoleon was a great warrior, but he died in exile, prisoner of war. Alexander was a great general, but he made a foolish march across a desert country, almost to the dastruction of his army, for the foolish purpose of worshipping at the shrine, and of being called the son of Jupiter Ammon. This so discouraged his forces that he never accomplished the object of his ambition. For this, many of his command despised him.

        Sesostris made no such blunders in his campaign. He went forth conquering until he met a providential interposition; his climax of wisdom was displayed in his turning back when he discovered that not merely mortal beings, but the great immortal opposed his further conquest. He returned to his own country to enjoy in peace and prosperity the fruits of his unparalleled victories. His conduct toward those cities which resisted his attacks most stubbornly, was in striking contrast to that of Alexander; as Alexander advanced to invade Egypt he found at Gaza a garrison so strong that he was obliged to besiege it. It held out a long time, during which he received two wounds; this provoked him to such a degree that when he had captured the place, he treated the soldiers and inhabitants most cruelly. He cut ten thousand men to pieces and sold all the rest with their wives and children for slaves. His treatment of Betis, the commandant of the forces, was the most shameful of anything recorded in history.

        Sesostris, on the other hand, was pleased with those who defended their possessions most bravely; the degree of resistance which he had to overcome was denoted by him in hieroglyphical figures on monuments. The more stubborn the resistance, the greater the achievement and the more worthy the people to become his subjects. Respecting the foolish march of Alexander which we have mentioned, the following from Rollins will explain:

        "At Memphis he formed a design of visiting the temple of Jupiter Ammon; this temple was situated in the midst of the

sandy deserts of Libya, and twelve days' journey from Memphis. Ham, the son of Noah, first peopled Egypt and Libya after the flood; and when idolatry began to gain ground in the world some time after, he was the chief deity of those countries in which his descendants had continued. A temple was built to his honor in the midst of these deserts, upon a spot of pretty good ground, about two leagues broad, which formed a kind of island in a sea of sand. It is he whom the Greeks call Jupiter and the Egyptians Ammon.

        "The motive of this journey, which was equally rash and dangerous, was owing to a ridiculous vanity. Alexander having read in Homer and other fabulous authors of antiquity that most of their heroes were represented as the sons of some deity, and as he himself was desirous of passing for a hero, he was determined to have some god for his father. Accordingly he fixed upon Jupiter Ammon for this purpose, and began by bribing the priests and teaching them the part they were to act. Alexander had a journey to go of sixteen hundred stadia, or eighty French leagues, to the temple of Jupiter Ammon, and most of the way through sandy deserts. The soldiers were patient enough for the first two days' march, before they arrived in the extensive, dreadful solitudes; but as soon as they found themselves in vast plains, covered with sands of prodigious depth, they were greatly terrified.

        "They were several days in crossing these deserts, and upon arriving near the place where the oracle stood, they perceived a great number of ravens flying before the most advanced standard. These ravens sometimes flew to the ground, when the army marched slowly, and at other times advanced forward, as if it were to serve them as guides, till they at last came to the temple of the god. A surprising circumstance is that, although this oracle is situated in the midst of an almost boundless solitude, it nevertheless is surrounded with a grove so very shady that the sunbeams can scarcely pierce it, not to mention that this grove or wood is watered with several springs of fresh water which preserve it in perpetual verdure.

        "It is related that near this grove there is another, in the midst of which is a foundation called the Water of the Sun. At day-break it is lukewarm; at noon cool, but in the evening it grows warmer and at midnight is boiling hot; after this as day approaches it decreases in heat, and continues this vicissitude forever. The god who is worshipped in this temple is not represented

under the form which painters and sculptors generally give to gods, for he is made of emeralds and precious stones, and from head to navel resembles a ram."

        The king being come into the temple, the senior priest declared him to be the son of Jupiter, and assured him that God himself bestowed this name upon him. Alexander accepted it with joy and acknowledged Jupiter his father. He afterward asked the priest whether his father Jupiter had not allotted him the empire of the world; to which the priest, who was as much a flatterer as the king was vainglorious, answered that he should be monarch of the universe. At last he inquired whether all of his father's*

        * Philip.

        Decorated with the splendid title of the son of Jupiter, and fancying himself raised above the human species, he returned from his journey as from a triumph. From that time, in all his letters, his orders and decrees, he always wrote the following: "Alexander King, Son of Jupiter Ammon."

        If the fact that Sesostris had his chiefs to take the place of horses in conveying him to the temple was vain and foolish, what shall be said of the vanity of Alexander in this exploit? But we have transcribed this passage for the purpose of calling attention to the fact, that there could have been no such prejudice against the Negro, Ham, at that day, as his race endures to-day. There could have been no thought that he was inferior to Shem or Japheth, for here we see the most distinguished of the warriors descending from Japheth renouncing his own race and his own father and claiming Ham, deified, for his father.

        We can hardly think that Alexander was so ignorant as not to know of whose honor and to whose memory this god was erected. The country in which he was situated, his black priests, and all the circumstances surrounding him rendered it impossible for Alexander to escape knowledge of his identity. This ought to satisfy any reasonable mind that the race of Ham must some time have been uppermost among the sons of men.

        Cadmus, who invented letters and took them to Greece, is admitted to have been either Egyptian or Phoenician (both claimed him); it does not matter which, he was a descendant of Ham; and he may have descended from both by intermarriage.

        The ancient greatness of Ham's descendants on the line of his elder son, Cush, is most strikingly set forth by Moses in the Book of Genesis. The record is as follows:

        "Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.

        "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and the Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Galah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city."

        The sacred historian generally in recording facts on this side of the flood gives only a particular account of the posterity of Shem, and enlarges upon facts respecting other nations only in some relatiom to Shem's posterity. The passage just quoted is a departure from this rule, and the reason for the special prominence given to this distinguished Ethiopian is far to seek unless it was Jehovah's purpose that a despised race, in generations following should thus be able to point to the greatness of its ancestry.

        Take his record, found in the tenth chapter of Genesis, and you will notice that nearly one-fourth of the chapter is taken up with the account of this one man. It is the chapter in which Moses gives the settlements of the generations of Noah; all that is said of more than fifty heads of families is contained in this chapter; but as we have noticed, Nimrod gets the lion's share, and is made to appear more distinguished for his greatness and mighty achievements than any other man from the time of Noah to that of Abraham. The historian could not have given him greater prominence, and the fact that Moses wrote by inspiration heightens the significance of the record and adds to the distinction of this ancient black hero. We may remark, however, that Moses, having married a black woman, was not averse to doing justice to her race, a thing which cannot be said of modern historians.

        In this record it is seen that Nimrod was the first of earth's great monarchs; the first to erect a great empire, the first to bring other nations under his control. He was the beginning or first of mighty ones among men, and also a mighty hunter before the Lord," or "as Nimrod the mighty one." His might is not

only expressed in this language, but it is seen in the extent of his empire and in the numerous cities he built; it is also seen in the duration of his empire, for the government continued in his posterity for hundreds of years. And his successors were not only some of the mightiest men that ever ruled, but also, a woman who led to victory the largest army ever marshaled by a female. We refer to Semiramis. It was she to whom Alexander referred when he admitted that a woman had performed mightier achievements in a certain land than he had.

        This Babylonian or Chaldean empire established by Nimrod and enlarged and embellished by his successors, was the head of gold in the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, which went from him and was recalled by the prophet Daniel. It had for hundreds of years almost universal dominion. In support of this position we once more turn to Rollins, Book III, Chapter 1:

        "The Assyrian empire was undoubtedly one of the most powerful in the world. As to the length of its duration two particular opinions have chiefly prevailed. Some authors, as Clesias, whose opinion is followed by Justor, give it a duration of thirteen hundred years; others reduce it to five hundred and twenty, of which number is Herodotus. The diminution, or rather the interruption of power which happened in this vast empire might possibly give occasion to this difference of opinion, and may, perhaps, serve in some measure to reconcile it.

        "The history of those early times is so obscure, the monuments which convey it down to us so contrary to each other, and the systems of the moderns upon that matter so different, that it is difficult to lay down any opinion about it as certain and incontestable. But where certainty is not to be had, I suppose a reasonable person will be satisfied with probability; and in my opinion a man can hardly be deceived if he makes the Assyrian empire equal in antiquity with the city of Babylon, its capital.

        "Now we learn from the Holy Scripture that this was built by Nimrod, who certainly was a great conqueror, and in all probability the first and most ancient of all those who have ever aspired after that denomination.

        "The Babylonians, as Callisthenes, a philosopher in Alexander's retinue, wrote to Aristotle, reckoned themselves to be at least of nineteen hundred and three years' standing when that prince entered triumphant into Babylon, which makes their origin reach back to the year of the world 1771, that is to say, one hundred

and fifteen years after the deluge. This computation comes within a few years of the time in which we suppose Nimrod to have founded that city. Indeed, this testimony of Callisthenes, as it does not agree with other accounts of that matter, is not esteemed authentic by the learned; but the conformity we find between it and the Holy Scriptures should make us regard it. Upon these grounds we think we may allow Nimrod to have been the founder of the first Assyrian empire, which subsisted with more or less extent and glory upward of fourteen hundred and fifty years, from the time of Nimrod to that of Sardanapalus, the last king, that is to say, from the year of the world 1800 to the year 3257.

        "Nimrod: He is the same with Belus, who was afterward worshipped as a god under that appellation. He was the son of Cush, grandson of Ham and great-grandson of Noah. He was, says the Scripture, a 'mighty hunter before the Lord.' In applying himself to this laborious and dangerous exercise he had two things in view: the first was to gain the people's affection by delivering them from the fury and dread of wild beasts; the next was to train up numbers of young people by this exercise of hunting to endure labor and hardship, to form them to the use of arms, to inure them to a kind of discipline and obedience that at a proper time after they had been accustomed to his orders and seasoned to arms he might make use of them for other purposes more serious than hunting. In ancient history we find some footprints remaining of this artifice of Nimrod, whom the writers have confounded with Ninus, his son; for Dodonus has these words: Ninus, the most ancient of the Assyrian kings mentioned in history, performed great actions; being naturally of a warlike disposition and ambitious of the glory that results from valor, he armed a considerable number of young men that were brave and vigorous like himself, trained them up for a long time in laborious exercises and hardships, and by that means accustomed them to bear the fatigue of war patiently and to face danger with courage and intrepidity."

        "What the same author adds, that Ninus entered into alliance with the king of the Arabs and joined forces with him, is a piece of ancient tradition which informs us that the sons of Cush, and by consequence the brothers of Nimrod all settled themselves in Arabia, along the Persian Gulf, from Thavila to the ocean, and lived near enough to their brother to lend him succor or

receive succor from him. And what the same historian further says of Ninus, that he was the first king of the Assyrians, agrees exactly with what the Scripture says of Nimrod, that he began to be mighty upon the earth; that is, he procured himself settlement, built cities, subdued his neighbors, united different peoples under one and the same authority by the band of the same polity and the same laws, and formed them into one state, which, for those early times, was of a considerable extent, though bounded by the river Euphrates and Tigris, and which in succeeding ages made new acquisitions by degrees and at length extended its conquests very far.

        "The capital city of this kingdom, says the Scripture, was Babylon. Most of profane historians ascribe the founding of Babylon to Semiramis; others to Belus. It is evident that both the one and the other are mistaken, if they speak of the first founding of the city, for it owes its beginning neither to Semiramis nor Ninus, but to the foolish vanity of those persons mentioned in Scripture who desired to build a tower and a city that should render their memory immortal. Josephus relates, upon the testimony of a sibyl (who must have been very ancient and whose fiction cannot be imputed to the indiscreet zeal of any Christians), that the gods threw down the tower by an impetuous wind or a violent hurricane. Had this been the case Nimrod's temerity must have been much greater to rebuild a city and a tower which God himself had thrown down with such marks of His displeasure.

        "But the Scripture says no such thing, and it is very probable the building remained in the condition it was when God put an end to the work by the confusion of their languages, and that the tower consecrated to Belus, which is described by Herodotus, was this very tower which the sons of men pretended to raise to the clouds.

        "Nimrod was the first who encompassed it afterwards with walls, settled therein his friends and confederates, and subdued those that lived round about it, beginning his empire in that place but not confining it to so narrow a compass. Having possessed himself of the province of Asshur, he did not ravage them like a tyrant, but filled them with cities, and made himself as much loved by his new subjects as he was by his old ones.

        Among other cities, he built one more large and magnificent than the rest, which he called Nineveh, from the name of his son Ninus, in order to immortalize his memory. The son in his turn

out of veneration for his father, was willing that they who had served him as their king should adore him as their god, and induce other nations to render him the same worship. For it appears plainly that Nimrod is the famous Belus of the Babylonians, the first king whom the people deified for his great actions."

        One difficulty with profane authors respecting Nimrod is, that they have overlooked the fact that he possessed himself of the land of Asshur, or Assyria; and another is that one profane author at some period fell into the mistake of confounding the acts of Ninus with those of his father Nimrod, and others have copied the error. Like Rollins, we plant ourselves upon the Bible; our first knowledge of ancient history was obtained from that source. Where it speaks at all, it is the rule by which all must be squared; where it is silent, other creditable authorities are good; but that which is in direct conflict with it, must err. The Bible, as we have seen, sets forth the greatness of Nimrod so clearly that he who reads*

        * Hab. ii:2.

        The testimony which might be gathered in support of the position we have taken respecting the ancient greatness of Ham's posterity would fill a volume; but the limits of the plan of this book forbid a more extended consideration of the subject. If what is here written shall induce those who come after us, whose better opportunities will enable them to give the subject a more learned consideration to go to the bottom of this matter, our reward will be ample. Those who take issue with us will, we think, be compelled to pay more attention to the subject than historians generally are wont to do. Those who may be inclined to combat our position, will ask: "If the race of Ham was once so great, why is it now so small? Why is it that the race everywhere is so degraded, so ignorant, and so wretched?"

        The answer is not far to seek. Ham forsook God and took the world for his position. The language of Abraham addressed to the rich man in torment might well be addressed to Ham: "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things." Ham had his day, and made very bad use of it. For fifteen hundred

years he possessed the earth through his posterity, and what did he do with it? He led the nations into idolatry. He began at Babel, in Nimrod his grandson, to exhibit his daring impiety. God had said: "Go forth, multiply, and replenish the earth." (Gen. viii:16; ix:1). Nimrod said: "No, let us not do that. It is not well for us to get scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly, and let us build us a city (here in Shinar), and let us erect a tower, whose top may reach unto heauen, (that we may see it at any distance, that it may serve as a rallying point, a center of gravity around which all our interests shall cluster); 'and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." (Gen. xi:3, 4.)

        Of course in this great empire, of which this city was to be the center, Nimrod was to be sovereign. He was to take the place of the Almighty in the hearts and affections of the people. He was not a tyrant in the ordinary sense of that term; he was a bold, fearless, scheming political boss. He was the more dangerous and the more successful because of his extraordinary sagacity; by his graceful address, his wonderful physical powers, his energy and dash, he won the hearts of the people and swayed them at his will, just as scheming political bosses do now. The purpose of God was to scatter them; the purpose of Nimrod was to hold them together for his own aggrandizement. So God said: "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth." (Gen. xi:7,8.)

        Although Moses does not mention the fact, yet we think it quite probable that the difference in complexion, as well as language, had its origin in connection with this purpose of God to scatter the nations all over the whole earth. It was not to hinder the building of a city that God confounded their languages, but to scatter them. For God said: "Nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do." (Gen. xi:16.) But so long as they are one people and one language they will continue to hang together. Those who could understand remained together. Many remained with Nimrod, who began his kingdom there; notwithstanding the displeasure which God had shown respecting his conduct, he was determined to make himself a name there. He made the name: Baal, Bel, Belus, which in time became Baal-Berith, Baal-gad, Baal-moloch, Baal-peor, Baal-zebub, etc.

This is the name he made, and not only his own race, but all the nations of the earth forsook God and went a whoring after it.

        Richard Watson, in his Biblical and Theological Dictionary, page 116, after speaking of the general use of the term Baal among the Babylonians and Assyrians, the Phoenicians, Sidonians, Tyrians, Carthaginians, and other Canaanitish nations, says:

        "It is remarkable that we do not find the name Baal so much in popular use east of Babylon; but it was generally west of Babylon and to the very extremity of western Europe, including the British Isles. The worship of Baal, Bel, Belus, and Belenus was general throughout the British Islands, and certain of its rights and observances are still maintained among us, notwithstanding the establishment of Christianity during so many ages. A town in Perthshire, on the borders of the Highlands, is called Tilliebeltane, or Tillebellane; that is, the eminence or rising ground of the fire of Baal. In the neighborhood is a Druidical temple of eight upright stones, where it is supposed the fire was kindled. At some distance from this is another temple of the same kind, but smaller, and near it a well still held in great veneration. On Beltane morning superstitious people go to this well and drink of it, then make a procession round it nine times, so deep rooted is this heathenish superstition in the minds of many who reckon themselves good Protestants."

        Thus it is seen that the idolatry established by the posterity of Ham reached the uttermost regions of the Caucasian race. This is the great sin of Ham and his sons; they were originators and promoters of idolatry, the stench in God's nostrils, the thing of all most hateful and most hated by the sovereign God of all. The greatness which we have been ascribing to Ham's race is the earthly sort, that which profane writers of every race have extolled. It is from their standpoint that we have been writing. We claim there is no true greatness outside of godliness. The mass of the ancient descendants of Ham were not godly, and therefore not truly great; they were men who, as the psalmist says, have their portion in this life. Ham's race in early times produced a few exceptions to this rule: Melchizedek, before mentioned, was the most distinguished exception. In honor of his righteousness God blessed the Jebusites beyond other of the doomed nations, in that they were permitted to retain their stronghold of Zion for four hundred years after the entrance of Israel upon their promised possessions. His righteous administration

was long remembered and its influence long felt. Many of those who enjoyed his instructions and his priestly intercessions were probably induced to lead pious lives, and thus the knowledge of the true God was long retained among them.

        Rahab, who hid the spies, and became one of the ancestors of the world's Redeemer, was a believer in the one only living and true God. There were, no doubt, many others, but the mass were idolaters, and this is why the race has felt the divine displeasure. But the promise is that princes shall come out of Egypt, and that Ethiopia shall soon stretch forth her hands unto God. Whatever shall become of the two younger sons of Ham, this promise assures us that the two elder sons shall cast aside idolatry and return unto the Lord. That this prophecy is now in the course of fulfilment, the Negro Church stands forth as unquestioned evidence. It is the streak of morning light which betokens the coming day. It is the morning star which precedes the rising sun. It is the harbinger of the rising glory of the sons of Ham. It is the first fruit of the countless millions of that race who shall be found in the army with banners in the millennial glory of the Christian Church.

PART III.
GOD'S PURPOSE IN THE NEGRO
CHURCH, AS SEEN IN THE HISTORY
OF THE MOVEMENT.

PART III.
GOD'S PURPOSE IN THE NEGRO CHURCH AS SEEN IN THE
HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT.

        When I was in England, I was asked: "Are there churches in America composed wholly of colored people?" When I answered in the affirmative, the question quickly followed: "Why is that?"

        The necessity that I was under to give an answer, was the origin of this statement. It is hard for people in other lands to understand that Americanism which excludes an entire race, regardless of moral, material or intellectual worth, from the social and religious circle of other races.

        We say Americanism, for it is not found elsewhere on the face of the globe.

        In England, France or Germany, a Negro of character and intelligence is received into the best society as freely as any other race.

        At the great Ecumenical Conference of Methodists in London, in 1881, the black delegates were especially honored. There is nothing in that country to remind a black man that he differs from others, unless it be the extraordinary attentions shown him and the distinguished honors heaped upon him.

        If such were the state of feeling in this country, there would be no necessity for the Negro Church; in fact, it could not exist.

        The Negro Church is the legitimate offspring of American caste.

        American slavery, for its own aggrandizement, attempted to chattelize the whole of one of the three great branches of the human race. To do this effectually, it was necessary to deny, as far as possible, or at least to crush out its manhood.

        This effort to brutalize the race was a very early development in American history. It was especially apparent in the closing of the door of every social organization against him.

        The door of masonry was so effectually barred that the Negro in this country is wholly indebted to the English army lodges and to the Grand Lodge of England for the rites and benefits of that ancient and honorable fraternity.

        It is easy to understand how this feeling would affect the Negro in his Church relation. While there was not the same universal disposition to keep him out of the Church wholly, yet there was a disposition to limit, proscribe and regulate him in the Church.

        The difference between his treatment and that of other members was so marked that his condition was intolerable beyond endurance, except when the effort to escape was discouraged by seemingly unsurmountable difficulties.

        Near the close of the eighteenth century, there began an unparalleled movement, which has resulted in the establishment of the Negro Church, not one branch merely, but all the branches; not of one denomination, merely, but of all the denominations.

        I think we can trace the origin of all the leading branches back to about that period. This is one of the marvelous and most interesting things respecting the movement, that it was simultaneous.

        The colored members of the different Christian denominations, of one accord, in all parts of the country, and as nearly as can now be learned, at about the same time, separated from the whites, and formed each for themselves, a church of the same faith and order, as those from which they separated, leaving the white churches almost without a colored membership.

        This is the movement which we have pronounced unparalleled. I think it will be generally admitted that it was a most extraordinary movement. It was general, wide-spread, and at least, nearly simultaneous. It occurred at a period when means of travel and of communication were limited and poor, so that there could have been no general understanding through consultation.

        The question naturally arises in the mind, what could have provoked, caused or given rise to this wonderful movement of a whole, scattered race of one accord, with one mind and intent and in one direction?

        Secessions from the different denominations have generally

resulted from difference of opinion on points of doctrine or church government.

        But it was clearly not this which caused the black people to leave the whites; for in nearly every case they adhered to the same doctrine and form of government, as the church from which they separated.

        There is but one exception to this rule. That is the St. Thomas P. E. church in Philadelphia. With this single exception, the black people who came out from the white churches adhered to the same doctrine and shades of doctrine and the same form of church government as the churches from which they separated.

        It must be evident, therefore, that some extraordinary cause gave rise to the movement. Nothing but the desire for the freedom denied them in the white church, could have produced this general exodus.

        Like causes produce like effects, wherever operated. Back seats, sometimes called "Nigger" pews, were provided for them. Galleries which were reached by outsteps, and in some cases, outside sheds were provided without any means of keeping warm, where they could hear the preacher, but could hot see him.

        They were denied the privilege of the Lord's table, until all the whites had communed.

        The line of proscription was also drawn at the baptismal font. Such were some of the many vexations and indignities to which the colored members were subjected in the white church. Is it any wonder that they came out?

        There has been a disposition on the part of several branches of the Negro church to claim priority in this movement. At least five or six different bodies have claimed that they, each were first.

        We shall not enter into the controversy on that point; we are looking higher. We have our eye fixed on the general movement; it towers up so grandly that in comparison with it, the consideration of any one branch dwindles into insignificance. Then, again, I have come to the conclusion that each had all may have been first. That is, the movement was one and inseparable. That it was so nearly simultaneous, that there is no unquestionable certainty as to where the beginning was. How else can we account for the many conflicting claims?

        No one of these denominations has a complete history. If we

had a complete history of each, we might possibly find that the movement was absolutely one; for as we shall see later, there was more in it than what appears on the surface.

        To our mind, this was not an Episcopalian, Presbyterian or Baptist movement. It was not a Bethel, Union, nor Zion movement, but a general, grand, united and simultaneous Negro movement. It was the race that was oppressed, and it was the race that moved.

        It was a movement by which a race, hampered, proscribed, regulated and oppressed, gave a grand and united exhibition of its determination to find in its organizations that religious liberty which was denied it in the white church.

        The foregoing is what we find on the surface. But digging down, we shall find that what, on the surface of this subject appeared as only the result of a wicked proscription, born of race hate, begotten of that hydra-headed monster, American slavery, is only another of the many instances in which God his made the wrath of men to praise Him. This brings us to the Providential purpose.

                         "God moves in a mysterious way,
                         His wonders to perform;
                         He plants his foot-steps in