SECTION THIRD.

The Flourishing Period, 1863 to 1896.

        At the close of the preceding period we had 6 Annual Conferences, 92 ministers, and about 5,000 members. At this time there was a call from the South. Old Zion in New York was known as far south as New Orleans as the mother of African Churches. Quite a number of our members in New Haven, Conn., were originally from New Berne, N. C., and when in New Berne they were members of Andrew Chapel. These members urged the bishop to send some one down to New Berne to look after our people there. Finally, Rev. John Williams was appointed, and the New England Conference Mission Board appropriated fifty dollars to send him. He, however, let nearly a year pass before he had the courage to start. Meanwhile the bishop became impatient, and

about the 25th of December, 1863, he appointed Rev. J. W. Hood, and the Mission Board appropriated fifty dollars more to send him. He started at once, taking his family as far as Washington. The Chesapeake Bay was frozen, and he could not get through till near the middle of January. He reached New Berne on the 20th of January, 1864. The church, numbering about four hundred members, accepted his service and agreed to unite with the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church; they had previously been connected with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. A few weeks later the church at Beaufort was added. The Union lines then extended about fifteen miles westward from New Berne; several country organizations were formed between New Berne and Beaufort. About the 1st of March Rev. John Williams reached New Berne. Finding the field at New Berne and vicinity occupied, he went to Roanoke Island and Washington, N. C., and was received by the churches at those points. Early in the month of May Bishop Clinton visited New Berne and ordained William Ryle and Ellis Lavender as deacons. He also visited Beaufort and ordained Enoch Wallace. He started to return to Washington, but the Confederates recaptured that town, and the bishop was obliged to retreat. New Berne was attacked about the same time, but the Union forces were able to hold it. In the month of July Deacon David Hill was sent from the New England Conference and took charge of the work at Beaufort. After the evacuation of Washington the refugees from that and adjacent places formed a settlement over the Trent River from New Berne, and it was called James City.

Rev. John Williams made this his headquarters and founded two or three churches in that vicinity.

        About the middle of September the yellow fever became epidemic, and three of our best men were swept away, namely, Deacons David Hill, William Ryle, and Enoch Wallace.

        In December, 1864, the North Carolina Conference was organized; this was the first Afro-American Conference held in that territory over which the Confederate flag had floated. War was still raging, nevertheless Bishop Clinton with his missionaries, gathered around a stove on a cold winter day and laid the foundation for that structure which towers up so grandly to-day. The work in North Carolina is the great central force in Zion Connection. Nine of our large Conferences have grown out of this beginning in North Carolina. The roll of this first Conference numbered twelve, including the bishop, as follows: Bishop, Joseph J. Clinton; elders, John Williams, Ellis Lavender, J. W. Hood, E. H. Hill; deacons, W. J. Moore, H. W. Jones, David Gray, Joseph Green, Sampson Copper, Abel Ferribee; preacher, Amos York. Hill and Lavender were ordained elders at this Conference, also six deacons. In anticipation of the surrender the work was laid off, embracing several points then within the Confederate lines. They were worked up to, however, in every case as laid out but two.

        During the latter part of 1864 Bishop Clinton established missions in Louisiana and Florida. Rev. Wilbur G. Strong was the first missionary sent to that work. Brother Strong is a man of excellent parts, a fine scholar, and generally well equipped, and he had very great

success, especially in Alabama, in which State the strength of the Church is second only to that of North Carolina.

        May 25, 1864, the twelfth quadrennial session of the General Conference convened in Philadelphia. The South was represented in this General Conference by a lay delegate in the person of Edward H. Hill, who a short while after that was licensed to preach and ordained deacon and elder, all within a few months' time. He informed the General Conference of the success which had attended the efforts of the missionaries sent to North Carolina, and of the splendid prospect for the Church in that field.

        Preceding the sitting of the General Conference the subject of union between Zion and Bethel had been much talked of. The union of the two factions of Zion four years previous had made the impression with many that it might be an easy matter to unite the African Methodist Episcopal (Bethel) and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Churches, and make them one. Ministers in both Churches had preached on the subject, and it was thought that the people were pretty well prepared for it, and, in fact, many were, but there were also those who were bitterly opposed to union. We shall have more to say in another place as to why the union failed, and possibly must ever fail.

        The first formal proposition for union came from the African Methodist Episcopal (Bethel) Church, and was presented to this General Conference. We take the following from the minutes of the second day's session, May 26, 1864:

        "A special committee from the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, consisting of Revs. A. McIntosh, M. Sluby, and Dr. Watts, were introduced to the Conference and were cordially received. Business was suspended to give them audience. "Rev. McIntosh, the chairman of the committee, after some congratulatory remarks, presented and read a document emanating from that body as to its action and provision made for consolidation of the two connections, namely, African Methodist Episcopal Church and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church: That in order to duly consider the matter a committee of nine had been appointed, with two bishops, to meet a similar number from this General Conference as a joint committee, in the event they deem such consummation possible, shall call a convention consisting of such number of delegates as may be determined by said joint committee. When the convention shall have assembled they shall determine the conditions upon which the union shall be consummated; and said conditions shall be submitted to all the Annual Conferences of each connection. If the terms agreed upon by the convention be ratified by a majority of all the Annual Conferences above mentioned, that the two connections from that date shall be one."

        After a brief interchange of sentiment with the committee touching the subject the following prevailed:

        "Resolved, That we cordially receive the representation made to this Conference by the subcommittee from the Committee on Church Union appointed by the African Methodist Episcopal General Conference, and that we promise to give the subject presented a Christian and fraternal consideration which its importance so justly demands at the earliest opportunity.

        "The committee withdrew. The subject was further deliberated upon, which resulted in the following resolution:

        "Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to present the Christian greetings and resolutions of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion General Conference to the African Methodist Episcopal General Conference.

        "The following were appointed: Revs. S. T. Jones, J. B. Trusty, S. M. Giles. This committee, having filled its mission, returned and reported through the chairman, Rev. S. T. Jones, the cordial reception they met with and the feeling evinced upon the subject of consolidation; that they were upon the point of adjourning that evening, but upon hearing of our approval of their proposition suspended the adjournment until our Conference could get a sufficient quorum to consider the matter properly.*

        * It may be noted that our General Conference met in Philadelphia about the time the other adjourned.

He corrected an error in the report of the committee from that body, namely: Instead of two bishops, as was reported, it is the Bench of Bishops to be united with nine from that body, and the same from us or an equivalent in members."

        On the following day, May 27, the following preamble and resolutions, offered by S. T. Jones, were adopted:

        "Whereas, By the working and control of an all-wise and gracious Providence, circumstances and events have so conspired during the present great struggle as clearly to indicate that the set time to favor Zion has fully come; and,

        "Whereas, This is specially manifested as relates to that portion of the Church composed of colored Methodists in America; and,

        "Whereas, We should prove ourselves false alike to the principles of our holy religion, our obligations as the representatives of Christ, and our duty and responsibilities as the leaders of a weak because divided people, should we fail, from any minor consideration, to improve the present favorable opportunity with a view to the future peace and prosperity of the Church, and the moral, social, and political interest of the race with which we are immediately identified; therefore,

        "Resolved, That in the great principle of Christian union and brotherhood we fully indorse all proper measures employed in furtherance of that principle, and that our warm sympathies are with those who are heartily engaged in the effort to unite in one body the African Methodist Episcopal Zion and African Methodist Episcopal Churches.

        "Resolved, That as an evidence of our sincerity, and with a view of facilitating the consummation so ardently desired, this Conference appoint a committee of nine with the Bench of Superintendents forthwith, who shall be authorized and empowered to confer with a similar committee in connection with the Bench of Bishops chosen by the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church on all matters touching a consolidation of the bodies represented."

        A committee of three--J. W. Hood, J. H. Smith, and J. P. Hamer--was appointed to inform the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church that in compliance with their wish a committee had been appointed to confer with them on the consolidation of the connections. On returning they reported that six o'clock that evening had been fixed upon for the joint meeting.

S. T. Jones, J. W. Loguen, P. G. Laws, Sampson Talbot, G. H. Washington, J. Coleman, J. W. Hood, J. D. Brooks, J. P. Hamer, S. M. Giles, W. F. Butler, with Superintendents Bishop and Clinton, constituted the committee on our part. They reported to the Conference on Saturday, May 28, that it had been agreed to submit the subject of consolidation to a convention composed of twenty-five on each side, and their action to be submitted to all the Annual Conferences for confirmation. Our delegates were as follows:

• NEW YORK CONFERENCE.--Revs. W. H. Pitts, Isaac Coleman, Jephtha Barcroft, Jacob Thomas.
• PHILADELPHIA CONFERENCE.--Revs. Sampson Talbot, S. T. Jones, Charles J. Carter, J. B. Trusty.
• NEW ENGLAND CONFERENCE.--Revs. S. M. Giles, W. F. Butler, G. H. Washington, J. W. Hood.
• SOUTHERN CONFERENCE.--Revs. J. D. Brooks, R. H. G. Dyson, J. P. Hamer, J. A. Williams.
• ALLEGHENY CONFERENCE.--Revs. Abraham Cole, J. B. Cox, James A. Jones.
• GENESEE CONFERENCE.--Revs. J. W. Loguen, James H. Smith, William Sanford, Bazel McKall.
• RESERVES.--Revs. J. P. Thompson, Jacob Anderson, G. A. Spywood, R. A. Gibson, P. G. Laws, John Thomas.

        The convention met according to agreement and formulated a platform for consolidation. Zion carried out her part of the agreement. To make the final consolidation the more convenient she agreed to meet in Washington, where the other body had agreed to meet; she also changed the date of sitting of the General Conference,

as may be seen by the following resolution (p. 50, Minutes of General Conference, 1864):

        "Resolved, That the rule for the sitting of the General Conference on the 'last Wednesday in May' be suspended, and the 'first Wednesday in May' be substituted."

        Our people ratified the platform and the General Conference confirmed it; but for some reason the authorities in Bethel did not submit it to their people. Since that time some of us have gone slow on the union question with that Church.

        Nevertheless, when a proposition came from them again in 1884 desiring to renew the effort, Zion again consented, and appointed a commission to meet theirs, and a platform almost a duplicate of the one prepared by the convention of 1864 was adopted by the joint commission. This was submitted to the bishops with a request that they should submit it to the people for ratification.

        Here again the bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal (Bethel) Church were responsible for the failure; they refused to submit it to their people. To state the matter exactly, all of our bishops who were present voted to submit the platform to the people, and Bishop Payne voted with us; but his colleagues (seven) voted against it, even Bishop Wayman, who, as a member of the joint commission, helped to make the platform and voted with the other members of the commission to request the bishops to submit it to the people; yet in the joint meeting of the bishops he voted against it. Thus the work of the second convention came to nothing.

        At this General Conference (1864) Sampson D. Talbot, John D. Brooks, and J. W. Loguen were added to the

list of bishops. The bounds of the several Annual Conferences were fixed as follows:

• THE NEW YORK CONFERENCE.--The New York Conference to embrace all that part of the State of New Jersey lying north of the Raritan River, and that part of the State of New York lying east of the Hudson River, including that portion of the State of Connecticut not comprised in the New England Conference; and also that part of the State of New York lying west of the Hudson River, bounded by a line commencing at the city of Albany and running southwesterly to the Pennsylvania State line, and also the British Guiana Mission.
• THE PHILADELPHIA CONFERENCE.--The Philadelphia Conference to embrace the State of Delaware, and all that part of the State of New Jersey south of the Raritan River, and all that part of Pennsylvania east of the Big Valley; Lewistown, Montrose, and Wilkesbarre excepted.
• THE NEW ENGLAND CONFERENCE.--The New England Conference to embrace Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and all the New England States except that part of Connecticut lying west of Stamford, until such time as those points in the British Provinces warrant the resuscitating or setting apart of a separate Annual Conference.
• THE BALTIMORE CONFERENCE.--The Baltimore (formerly known as the Southern) Conference to embrace the State of Maryland, District of Columbia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and all that part of Virginia north of the James River, including the city of Richmond.
• THE ALLEGHENY CONFERENCE.--The Allegheny Conference to embrace all that part of the State of Pennsylvania

  ---

  Page 94

  west of the Big Valley, including the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and Iowa.

• THE GENESEE CONFERENCE.--The Genesee Conference to embrace all that part of the State of New York not comprised in the New York Conference, including Montrose and Wilkesbarre, in Pennsylvania.
• THE NORTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE.--The North Carolina Conference to embrace the State of North Carolina, Tennessee, and all that part of Virginia south of the James River.
• THE CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE. -- The California Conference to embrace Upper California and all that part of Lower California belonging to the United States, and the adjacent territories.
• THE LOUISIANA CONFERENCE.--The Louisiana Conference to embrace those States south of North Carolina.

        This laying off the nine Annual Conferences looks large on paper, but there was not much in it as to the number of churches at that time. There were less than a dozen churches in all New England, less than a dozen in the Genesee Conference, about twenty-five in the New York Conference; there were less than a dozen churches in all States west of Pennsylvania and Maryland; and in all the States south of Washington there were none except the few which had been gathered in North Carolina during the preceding five months. Nevertheless, the field laid off at that time has been largely occupied. The State of New Jersey, part of which was embraced in the New York Conference and part in Philadelphia Conference, has been made the New Jersey Conference, and is larger now than either the New England, Genesee, or Allegheny Conference

was in 1864. The Baltimore and Philadelphia Conferences have been consolidated. The "On to Richmond" which was hoped for when the bounds of the Southern Conference were extended to the James River has not materialized; only two churches have been planted by that Conference south of the Potomac.

        The field westward has been better occupied. First the Kentucky Conference was formed, then out of it the Arkansas and Missouri Conferences were formed. The North Carolina Conference was formed as contemplated, and from it sprang the Virginia Conference, the South Carolina Conference, the Tennessee Conference, and the Central North Carolina Conference; from the Tennessee Conference the West Tennessee and Mississippi Conferences, and the East Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina Conferences; from the Central North Carolina Conference the Western North Carolina Conference; and from the South Carolina Conference the Palmetto Conference.

        The Louisiana Conference has not amounted to much in that State up to this time, but the territory embraced in that Conference, as first set off, has been pretty well worked up. First, the Alabama Conference, which had, and possibly has yet, the largest number of ministers of any Conference in the connection. It has been divided and the West Alabama Conference formed out of it. Then the Florida Conference was formed, which has also been divided. Finally, the Texas Conference and a second Georgia Conference have been formed. The California Conference was formed as anticipated, and the Oregon Conference, of which little was known in 1864, has been formed.

        The only section of the work laid off at that time in which we have retrograded, or made but little advance, is the British Provinces. Before the war we had considerable work in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada, and one or two of the West India Islands. Two things operated to hinder this work: First, when the way was opened for us to extend our efforts southward, it required every available man to occupy that field, and the kind of men that could be spared for the provincial work were wholly unsuited to it. The sending of them was little better, probably worse, than sending none. Second, about that time Bishop Nazery, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, went to Canada and established the British Methodist Episcopal Church, which carried everything before it in the Dominion of Canada so long as Nazery lived. As we had not men in the provinces capable of holding our churches they were carried away by this movement. When Nazery died and men got to fighting over his shoes that work went to pieces, and we presume we might easily regain all we lost there if we had the men and means to occupy the field. For about thirty years we have made but little effort in that direction. The Michigan and Canada Conference includes a fragment of the Church we once had in Canada. We have a little work in the Bahama Islands and in Santo Domingo.

        At the General Conference in 1868, held at Washington, D. C., the Discipline was more thoroughly revised than at any other period since the first Discipline was adopted. The idea of a lifetime episcopacy which prevailed at the reunion in 1860 was incorporated and the Discipline was greatly enlarged.

        In the platform agreed to in the convention for the consolidation of Zion and Bethel (in 1864) it was agreed that we should adopt the lifetime episcopacy, including the third ordination, as understood by other Episcopal Churches. This was one of the questions submitted to our people for ratification, and it was adopted; and notwithstanding we failed to unite, we revised the Discipline according to the idea thus indorsed by our people. It is doubtful if all the members just realized that fact, and the movers in the matter did not make any more ado about it than was necessary to get the revised matter adopted.

        The question of laying on of hands in the ordination of bishops was not raised, as the Committee on Revision were not willing to risk losing the substance in contending for a shadow. Besides this our ministers have long used the ritual of the Methodist Episcopal Church in performing the ceremonies; hence the absence in the Discipline of the instruction for laying on of hands at a particular point did not necessarily prevent that performance. We may remark, however, that it became a question whether we did or should lay on hands in the ordination of bishops, and therefore in 1888 the few lines which were omitted in the ordination ceremony in 1868 were supplied. So that the ceremony of setting apart a bishop in our Discipline is the same as that in the ritual of the Methodist Episcopal Church, except that the word "consecrate" is substituted for "ordain."

        The General Conference of 1868 made a blunder which cost us very dearly. We met in Washington City according to agreement with the African Methodist Episcopal

Church to facilitate the consummation of the union if agreed to. As our people had agreed to the plan adopted by the convention many had high hopes of the consolidation. Our General Conference agreed to the union with only two dissenting votes. But when we informed the other body that we had fulfilled all the requirements of the platform and were ready for the union we were coolly informed that they had not submitted the matter to their people. This made some of our men indignant, and some became reckless, like a person disappointed in marriage and ready to do something for spite.

        Gilbert Haven and others had been courting some of our leading men, to induce us to unite with the Methodist Episcopal Church. The bait held out was that we should have a pro rata representation in the Episcopal Board, which it was understood would give us two or more bishops on equality with the white bishops. Gilbert Haven was perfectly honest, and thought he could manage it. This proposition, made to our General Conference just when we were feeling the sting of Bethel's conduct, was very favorably considered. The result was that we sent a delegate to Chicago. He was well received, and it looked for a few hours as if we should get from that body all we could ask. The majority of that body agreed with Gilbert Haven; but there was a powerful minority, led by a man by the name of Slicer, who would have no Negro bishop. We feel to-day that through the prejudice of that man and his followers God delivered us from a fatal blunder. God makes the wrath of men to praise him.

        If those who had favored the idea of receiving us on

fair terms, when they found it could not be done, had just given it up and informed us of the sentiment as they understood it, we should have suffered no loss. But instead of that they played the old game of delay. Some of us fully understood the meaning of this; we could see from the newspaper reports that there was no hope of what Gilbert Haven and others held out to us. They were anxious to do it, but the odds were against them; many of us, therefore, made up our minds to pursue the matter no further. Some, however, were in favor of accepting what was offered--a four years' consideration of the matter. The experience of the preceding four years with the African Methodist Episcopal Church was not lost sight of by the more thoughtful among us; so there was division in our own ranks. The desire to unite with some other branch of the Methodist Church was so strong in some that they were ready to unite on any terms, or even to make an unconditional surrender. Then some of the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church took advantage of our weakness. There were many places where our people were struggling with heavy church debts, and the church property was not fully secured; in many such cases they were told that if they would go to the Methodist Episcopal Church their property would be paid for and their ministers supported out of the Freedmen's Aid Society. In some cases the contemplated union was used against us, and our people were told that we were going soon to be all one anyway, and those who went first might fare best. The result was that thousands of our members went to that Church. Rev. G. W. Price, Presiding Elder of the Lumberton

(N. C.) District, attempted to take his whole district and the church at Wilmington, N. C. He took several churches and about one thousand members. We got the church at Lumberton back, but it took us seven years to do it, and the Methodist Episcopal Church had the advantage of possession and the use of our property all those years, while our people were without a place of worship. Only a few remained faithful under these circumstances; so that we have hardly now regained our former strength in that section, while the Methodist Episcopal Church, which hindered us from doing what we might have done, has but little now to show for the large number of members she took from us more than twenty years ago.

        As in 1860, likewise in 1868, more bishops were made than could be used to advantage. Some of us contended that four bishops were all we needed, but the majority would have six; only five, however, were employed to any advantage at any one time during the four years. It was agreed to pay the bishops one thousand dollars, but not more than two of them received that amount. The additions to the Bench of Bishops at this session were J. W. Loguen, who was elected in 1864 but resigned; J. J. Moore and S. T. Jones. Bishop W. H. Bishop was retired at his own request.

        Since the death of Bishop Clinton there has been some question as to who was senior bishop; sometimes Bishop Jones and sometimes Bishop Moore has been announced as senior. It may be well to explain how this controversy arose. At the time the bishops were elected Bishop Jones was not present; he had gone to Chicago as a delegate to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church

before the election of bishops took place. When he returned, nearly ten days later, some one told him that he was elected first; there are always persons whose enthusiasm carries them beyond the truth as well as beyond reason. Such a person misled Bishop Jones in this matter. Of course there was no reason why he should doubt the statement. Certainly he was the more popular of those elected at that time, and we are sure that if any importance had been attached to the idea of electing him first it would have been done. But we do not believe that those who were most anxious for his election thought of it at all, and so it happened that he was not elected first. Nevertheless, the false impression made upon his mind remained fourteen years unchallenged, because there was no occasion for the question to come up. But when Bishop Clinton died (Bishops Talbot and Loguen having previously passed away) there were none to claim the seniority but Moore and Jones, and it was discovered that some claimed that Moore was senior and others that Jones was senior. But for three or four years no one went to the record, and Bishop Jones, feeling fully satisfied that he had been correctly informed, felt that those who acknowledged Bishop Moore as senior were simply hostile to him, and there finally got to be considerable feeling over it. The writer of this remembered that Bishop Moore was elected first, but as there was some feeling over it he preferred that the record should testify, and it was agreed to go to the record, which is as follows:

        "The election of bishops being in order, the chair appointed G. A. Spywood, J. A. Jones, and W. F. Butler tellers. The roll of Conference was called, and each member deposited his ballot. On counting the votes it appeared that the whole number of votes cast was 74; necessary to a

choice 38. J. J. Moore received 59, and was duly declared elected a bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church of America. A second ballot was cast, and on counting the list it was ascertained that 75 votes were cast; necessary to a choice 38. S. T. Jones received 62, and was declared duly elected a bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in America."*

        * Minutes, 1868, p. 24.

        Such is the record made at the time that it was done, and there can be no question that Bishop Moore was senior by a few minutes' time as it respects their election. There was a greater difference as to their consecration. Bishop Moore was consecrated on Wednesday, May 27; Bishop Jones did not return from Chicago till the following day. The General Conference adjourned on Friday, the 29th, but provided that Bishop Jones should be consecrated on the following Sabbath. Since Bishop Jones passed away there is now no question as to seniority; but we have thought it proper to give the facts, as some have continued to speak of Bishop Jones as the senior bishop. We might truthfully have spoken of him as first among his peers, or the ablest bishop. That much even Bishop Moore was willing to accord him.

        Among our best and most useful men of his day we must class Rev. Samuel M. Giles, of whom we have spoken before, but a more extended notice seems demanded. He was for several years secretary of the New England Conference, also secretary of the New England Mission Board. He was a fine scholar, and one of the most lucid preachers we ever listened to. He was not an orator in the ordinary sense of that term; he held the interest of his congregation by what he said. Every time he spoke he said something, and something which came so natural and so well in

place that it seemed as if nothing else could have suited so well. He was a model of Christian purity, and was always ready to do good for evil; you might have smitten him on the one cheek and he would have turned the other. If he had occasion to chide one he would pray with him first or hand him a passage of Scripture to read, which would prepare him to receive the admonition. He would never turn a person out of church if he could help it; in fact, he had such influence over his members that he seldom had one to turn out; they would sacrifice their own desires to live in accord with his teaching. He lived in the hearts of his people. He was among the best writers the connection has produced; he wrote rapidly, and the best of language was so ready at command that he seldom had to rewrite. If he had lived a few years longer we should have had such a history as we shall never see.*

        * We regret that the Giles manuscript cannot be found.

he had lived till 1868 he would have been elected instead of Loguen; but he died before the Conference met.

        Rev. James A. Jones was also one of the strong men of that period; he held important charges in all parts of the connection as far east as Nova Scotia, as far west as Missouri, and as far south as North Carolina. He was the first general secretary elected after that office was created.

        Jacob B. Trusty and J. P. Hamer were both men of considerable ability. Brother Hamer was editor of the Zion Church Advocate, and Brother Trusty was connected with him in the management of that paper.

        Abraham Cole and Joseph Armstrong were men of ability and usefulness.

        In 1872 only one bishop was added. Brooks was retired and Loguen died, which left the number five, all that could then be used to advantage, and for the four succeeding years the connection had a steady growth and numbered in 1876 two hundred and twenty-five thousand; so that from 1864 to 1876 the connection doubled five times, or once in less than three years. We doubt whether there is another such record in the Church history of our times.

        In 1876, by a system of log-rolling known to politicians and discreditable to the Church, three bishops were elected. Not because we needed to make that many at that time, but to satisfy the unholy ambition of one man. The result was that the Church was disgraced by one holding the highest office to which man can attain on earth. Not only this, but the one man who was best prepared to build up our work in the South at that time

was obliged to take a pastoral charge for four years. Few, if any, know how much harm was done by putting a bishop in that humiliating position. He was the choice of the South, and the treatment he received caused much ill feeling, of which our enemies took advantage, and said that we had made a Southern man a bishop as a sham, but did not mean to let him fill the office. We could name men in high positions in other denominations who used it for all it was worth against us, and had there been a bishop in charge of the Third District who for any reason had failed to meet the situation, the connection would have met a greater disaster than has ever befallen it. The bishop who provided for his colleague by giving him a pastoral charge which was willing to accept such service as he could give them, and at the same time care for his mission work, was blamed; but he fully understood the situation and the imminent danger, and made up his mind to bear any amount of censure in silence, if permitted to do so, or to meet a storm if necessary, as he believed it was the only way to save the connection from disaster. The four years were passed, however, without serious damage; but it was seen that there were certain things indispensable to the continued growth of the connection:

• It was necessary, as far as possible, to put an end to that system by which unsuitable persons could get into the bishopric by forming combinations. To this end it was necessary to put an end to the farce of reelecting bishops. After 1868 the bishop was made for life, but to be held in active service he had to be reelected at the end of four years; if not re-elected he did

not cease to be bishop, but was held as retired. He was liable to be called into active service in case of a vacancy during the interval of the General Conference. The reelection, therefore, settled nothing except that those who were re-elected were supposed to be certain of work. This being the case, there was a much easier way to get at it, namely, by simply providing for the retiring of a bishop when he ceased to be useful.
• A better financial system was found to be an indispensable necessity.
• It was seen that we needed a well-established newspaper.
• It was fully realized that the establishment of an educational institution was an indispensable necessity.

        It is remarkable that the delegates from two episcopal districts came to the General Conference in 1880 with well-prepared plans to meet all the necessities, and they were all in some degree provided for. Bishop Jones and the bishop of the Third District both realized for the first time how closely their minds ran together on connectional matters, and how important it was for them to unite their efforts for the success of the connection; and from that time till the day of Bishop Jones's death there was no important measure put in motion in the interest of the connection that did not have the best effort of both.

        It was decided at this General Conference by an almost unanimous vote that the bishop should remain in office during good behavior without reelection. There were none added to the board at this General Conference (for the first time since 1844). Bishops Brooks and Talbot

had passed away, and Bishop Clinton was broken down, so the active bishops were reduced to six.

        The splendid financial plan which we now have was formulated at that time. It did not then reach its completeness as we now have it; it has undergone little changes of detail, but the main features are the same, and the changes have only brought it more fully up to the idea of the minds that originally conceived it.

        The Star of Zion was adopted by this General Conference. There had been several previous efforts made to secure an organ for the connection. As early as 1860 the Anglo-African was adopted; its editor, Robert Hamilton, was chorister of old Zion Church. When that paper had run its course and failed the Zion Standard and Weekly Review was started by the trustees of old Zion Church, with Bishop Jones, who was then the pastor, as religious editor. A complete outfit was purchased, and $7,500 was spent in the effort to establish a connectional journal. The General Conference of 1868 agreed to purchase the paper at the original cost, $4,000 of which the corporation agreed to donate. In the Journal of that Conference we find the following, which was offered by Rev. S. T. Jones, and adopted:

        "Whereas, The incorporate body of Zion Church, New York, in a commendable public spirit, has commenced and carried on at its own expense the Zion Standard as the organ of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, by which the interest of the Church and the race has been materially advanced; and,

        "Whereas, Said incorporate body has, in a spirit of magnanimity which should command the respect of the General Conference and entire connection, donated to this body the sum of $4,000; therefore,

        "Resolved, That the thanks of this Conference are due and are hereby

tendered to the said incorporation for its liberality as well as for the creditable manner in which it has conducted the paper under peculiarly embarrassing circumstances."

        The words we have put in italics conveyed the idea to some of us who were present at that General Conference that possibly we were taking an elephant on our hands, and so it proved. Rev. J. N. Gloucester was made editor, and Abram B. Coss, Esq., business manager; but the paper failed in less than one year. The collapse was so complete that the record of the succeeding General Conference contains no mention of it. About 1872 or 1873 the Zion Church Advocate was started in Washington City by Rev. J. P. Hamer, Jacob B. Trusty, and others. It was conducted by a company until the sitting of the General Conference which met in Louisville, Ky., in 1876. The General Conference agreed to take the paper and conduct it. The Minutes of that General Conference were never published, and we have only memory to rely upon. Rev. W. H. Day was made editor. It was agreed that each minister should pledge $4.50, the price of three copies per year; but for some cause not a copy was issued after the General Conference.*

        * Since the above was written we have learned that three numbers were issued, and the amount sent from North Carolina being all that was sent, was thus used up.

"CHURCH ORGAN.

        "I have frequently urged the importance of an organ through which the Church could speak to all the world and tell whatever is important for the world to know. The General Conference at its last session attempted to establish a journal, but the effort proved a failure. Your money deposited with the secretary at the last Conference was sent to the editor, since which we have received no paper from that source. Tired of being harassed by persons who had sent their money and could get no paper, I went to New

Berne and arranged with Brother Tyler for the publication of a paper. The Star of Zion is the result of that effort. While this paper was started to supply a need resulting from the failure of the Zion Church Advocate, its grand success has stamped it as a permanent organ of the connection, whatever may be the success of other enterprises. I commend the Star to your heartiest and most earnest consideration. Let us make it a power in this land--a star so bright that no cloud can hide the beauty of its rays."

        Such is the account given of the origin of the Star by the man who put down the first five dollars to pay for the paper for the first issue.

        A circular was sent to several ministers and a few laymen, requesting each to subscribe $1 per month to run the Star until it became self-sustaining. About twenty-five persons responded. It was thought that not less than $30 per month would be necessary to insure success. The mover in the matter agreed to pay $5 per month to insure success. The North Carolina Conference at its session in 1877 adopted the following:

"REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CHURCH ORGAN.

        "Whereas, The General Conference in its effort to establish a connectional organ did thereby show the great necessity for the same; and

        "Whereas, The plan fixed upon by the General Conference has thus far been a failure,

        "Resolved, That we, the members of the North Carolina Conference, do agree to perpetuate the plan and intention of said General Conference by a hearty support of the paper gotten up through the wisdom of Right Rev. J. W. Hood and edited by Rev. J. A. Tyler with artistic skill through the unshrinking love and zeal he has for the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and the cause of our beloved Zion; and,

        "Whereas, This is the first time that the Southern portion of the connection has ever attempted to establish a paper, and a paper is much needed in our midst; therefore,

        "Resolved, That every minister of this Conference be urged to take the paper himself and become an agent to solicit subscribers for the same. And

        "Whereas, Elder J. A. Tyler has been so faithful in editing and upholding and continuing the paper until the sitting of the Conference,

        "Resolved, That the members of this Conference do pay him the sum of $25 by way of respect.

        "Resolved, That we do pledge ourselves to maintain and support, in all honorable ways, the paper above mentioned, known as the Star of Zion.

"Respectfully submitted,

"H. C. PHILLIPS, Committee."

"J. MCH. FARLEY, Committee."

"J. W. DAVIS, Committee."

"R. S. RIEVES, Committee."

        The spirit of this report was carried out to a large extent by the members of the North Carolina Conference. The South Carolina and Virginia Conferences also took an active part in supporting the paper, and several leading men in different parts of the connection gave it their influence and support, so that by the meeting of the General Conference in 1880 it had a considerable circulation and was known in every section. The promoters of this enterprise, who had given their means and labor to establish the paper, went to the General Conference and offered the paper, press, and type which they had purchased to the connection free of charge, and with only two conditions, namely, first, that the General Conference would assume a small indebtedness on the type (about $100), and, second, that the paper should never be discontinued. The stockholders had given this pledge to the public when they started the paper, and they were determined that the pledge should be kept; hence they reserved the right to take hold of the paper again if the connection let it fail. The General Conference has kept its pledge, and the Star twinkles for all.

        The fourth important matter provided for at this General Conference was our present splendid Livingstone College. We had been trying for many years to establish

an educational institution. The first effort was the Rush Academy, located somewhere in the State of New York; twenty years or more had been spent on this effort without accomplishing anything. Then it was proposed to sell the property in New York, and a lot was bought in Fayetteville, N. C., on which to erect the Rush University. This was regarded as a good location, because it was where there were a large number of our people. But the State Normal School was located at Fayetteville, and the man we hoped to use in establishing the university, Professor C. R. Harris, was selected as principal of the Normal School. Hence Fayetteville proved a failure. About the same time the Zion Hill Collegiate Institute was started in Pennsylvania, near Pittsburg. This was entirely out of the way of our people, and some of us saw from the commencement that this effort could only end in failure. But our beloved senior bishop, J. J. Clinton, had set his heart upon it, and we saw that the end of it would be the end of his usefulness, and we were anxious to postpone the evil day as long as possible; hence we encouraged the effort. The bishop's plan was to get an appropriation from the Legislature. We think the bill passed but was vetoed by the governor. The bishop believed that its failure was the result of treachery in his own ranks, and was consequently greatly depressed in mind.

        The institution collapsed, and the bishop's mental and physical vigor failed, and he never recovered. We shall never forget the forlorn appearance he presented when we visited him after that disaster. We soon found it would not do to talk to him on the subject of the college. He

lingered for a while, but was never strong either in body or mind after that.

        We have found that it is pretty hard work to plant a college. They seem to spring up as a natural growth where they are successful. Our Livingstone is not where the attempt was first made to plant it; it was started at Concord. It was, however, at the Annual Conference which met at Salisbury, in 1877, that the first movement was made which resulted in its establishment.

        Several persons have claimed the honor of being the originator of Livingstone College. We think the honor of the very first move in the matter belongs to one who is always too modest to claim honors; he was not only the first to move in the matter, but he has done as much as any other man toward making the institution the religious power it is. We refer to Bishop C. R. Harris, D.D. The following, taken from the Minutes (page 22) of the North Carolina Conference, 1877, speaks for itself:

        "C. R. Harris presented a paper signed by Thurber, Harris, and Rieves, on the establishment of a theological seminary in this State. Adopted. The plan in substance is this:

• Provides for the election of trustees, who, after the incorporation of the seminary, are to devise the form and have the printing and distribution of the building stock.
• Shares to be $10 each; minimum limit to be sold, 500; each church to be allowed at least one share.
• Each share entitles its representative to a year's tuition in the seminary, and may be purchased by individuals.
• Provides for the returns of elders, and the time and place of annual meetings to frame and to present to the Annual Conference a report of the progress of the work.

        Such is the record. The document in every line exhibits its authors. We say authors, for while the greater part of it shows the handiwork of Bishop Harris the joint-stock idea sounds very much like William H. Thurber, who has from the commencement shown the deepest interest in the success of the institution. It was he who first interested the people of Concord in the matter and secured the ground on which it was first proposed to erect the college.

        Rev. R. S. Rieves, whose name is associated with Harris and Thurber in presenting the matter to the Conference, was quite young at that time, hence was not honored with a place in the board of trustees; but he was even then one of our best students, and stands to-day in the very first rank among the presiding elders, not only as a worker and preacher, but also as a thinker. There are few men who have a larger or better influence in a deliberative body. The names of Harris, Thurber, and Rieves should be engraved in rock and placed conspicuously somewhere at Livingstone. Nothing has ever succeeded better than that for which they planned.

        At the next Conference, 1878, the bishop in his address spoke as follows:

"ZION WESLEY INSTITUTE.

        "This can be made a success if we so will. I think Bishop Lomax was in the chair when this measure passed the Conference. When I was spoken to about it I gave it no encouragement, but after it passed the Conference I felt it my duty to give the measure a fair trial. With this view I met the board of trustees, and there for the first time learned exactly what was proposed. The prospect of success appeared so much beyond my expectation that I finally fell in with the plan proposed. I, by the advice and consent of the trustees, appointed an agent, who agreed to travel and lecture for sixty days free of cost if I could procure for him

free tickets over the several railroads. Colonel A. S. Buford, President of the Richmond and Danville Railroad, granted him a two-thousand-mile ticket over the North Carolina Division of that road. Major John Hughs granted him a free ticket over the Atlantic Road, and Colonel L. C. Jones granted him a free ticket over the Western Road. The best that other roads consented to do was to furnish tickets at clergymen's rates. In order to make use of the tickets the agent had received it was necessary to raise a small amount to pay expenses on other roads. To my surprise I learned that, so far from being willing to raise anything on his traveling expenses, at some places they demanded that the agent pay his board, notwithstanding he was giving the connection sixty days of his precious time free of cost. I confess I was disheartened, especially when I learned that men who sat here and voted for this measure professed to know nothing about it. I was charged with exercising authority not vested in me, and the agent was charged with being an impostor. An impostor, indeed! He asked not a cent. I asked the churches to defray what little expense he incurred in doing our work for nothing. His business was to open the way for the several pastors to sell the shares you had voted to issue. Were you in earnest when you gave that vote? I supposed you were. If you were not I hope you will say so, and we shall know what to do. Let us trifle no longer."

        This address calls to mind the difficulties under which the college was started. The Conference having voted to issue shares of stock, it was necessary to set the idea clearly before the churches; very few of the ministers of that time were sufficiently intelligent to do it. Professor A. S. Richardson, a fine lecturer, volunteered to give sixty days to the cause. We may remark that in working up the institution in its early stage no one did more than Professor Richardson. It was he who worked up the sentiment in Salisbury which induced the white people to subscribe $1,000 to induce the trustees to move the college to that place. From the Minutes of 1878 we take the following:

        "Professor A. S. Richardson, the lecturing agent for Zion Wesley Institute, submitted his report and entertained the Conference with an eloquent speech in behalf of the institute. He gave an itemized account of the

shares he had distributed, and congratulated the members of the Conference on the prospect of soon having an institution of our own to reflect its light over the whole country. He counseled united and vigorous action. 'We must deny ourselves,' he said, 'and set the example of taking scholarships and aiding pecuniarily in the work. Votes are powerful; they declare war and command peace, but votes will not build Zion Wesley Institute. [Laughter.] Presbyterians have schools of their faith, Baptists of theirs, Catholics of theirs; we should have one of ours. We shall never firmly establish ourselves as a connection until we have a good seminary of learning. We want a supply of good ministers, and a good institution alone will give them to us. Our people are yearly becoming better educated, and we must have a ministry to instruct and assist them. Education will secure this, and education we must have.' Thanks were tendered to the speaker by a unanimous vote."

        At the North Carolina Annual Conference in 1879 the secretary and treasurer of Zion Wesley Institute submitted his report, as follows:

"To the Board of Trustees Zion Wesley Institute, Bishops, and Conference:

        "BRETHREN: I have no rose-colored report to offer, but such as I have give I unto you. In accordance with a resolution of the last Annual Conference diplomas of honor were prepared by Professor A. S. Richardson. From January 13 to February 21 fifty ministers were supplied with them, express charges being paid from the treasury. A few others were supplied afterward, the total number being five hundred. Nine hundred and thirty-five were printed, eleven sold by the secretary, and three were returned by Deacon Vanderberg, leaving a balance on hand of four hundred and twenty-seven. Of scholarships four hundred and seventy-six were printed, two of them being sold by Elder Bonner last year at Tarboro, and two this year by Elder Harris at Salisbury.

        "In the latter part of June Elder Thurber made a suggestion that we endeavor to raise funds at once to put up a temporary building, so as to start the school on the 1st of December. It was thought that as so much labor had been performed, and some timber could be obtained on the ground, $250 cash would enable us to get the building ready for occupancy by that time. Immediately I wrote an appeal for Zion Wesley Institute and sent it to the Star, which was published in the August number. In it I urged all the preachers in charge of our churches to raise a collection for Zion Wesley Institute at once and forward to the treasury at Salisbury.

        "One or two ministers wrote saying that they intended to comply, but up to the assembling of the Conference none had responded to that appeal but

Jerry McNeill, who sent $2 from Swan's Station. All honor to him! Let this epitaph be written over his grave: 'He hath done what he could.' "As further aid in raising funds for the institute the trustees at an informal meeting, held at Concord in August, agreed that the diplomas might be sold on time by paying $1 yearly. The secretary was to inform the financial agents of the arrangements and furnish them with blank due-bills to be signed by parties purchasing diplomas. At the same time several brethren present agreed to advance certain sums to supply demand while the building was in process of erection. Of these Bishop J. W. Hood forwarded to the treasurer $50, $40 being the balance of the Educational Fund of this Conference then in his hands, and $10 donated by himself.

        "No receipts yet from scholarships or diplomas. On the 19th inst. the idea occurred to me that the apathy of the ministers in regard to the collection of funds might be due to the fact that the deed to the land had not yet been placed in the hands of the trustees, although it had been agreed that no improvements should be made till all was done, and the chairman of the Building Committee had been instructed to get the deed as soon as possible.

        "I then thought I would try to secure a piece of land in Salisbury and have it presented to the institution. However, on the 21st I dropped a card to Warren Coleman, Esq., of Concord, one of the most prominent of the trustees, who dedicated the land to Zion Wesley Institute, asking if there was any possibility of having a deed for that land, to be presented to this Annual Conference, and requesting an answer by return mail. Receiving no reply, on Sunday night I called a meeting for Monday night, to see if the citizens would secure land and donate it to the institution.

        "On Monday Mr. Joseph Ballard, an honorary trustee of Zion Wesley Institute, made inquiries concerning places which might be bought. At night he reported that four acres were offered free of cost by Mr. D. L. Bringle, postmaster, but that a more desirable tract, containing forty acres, could be obtained for $200. It was decided to secure said tract, sell thirty acres, and donate the other ten acres to Zion Wesley Institute if the building would be placed upon it. The thirty acres were soon disposed of, and a subscription amounting to $60 was then received for the ten acres to be given to Zion Wesley Institute, the money to be paid by January 15, 1880. J. B. Ballard was made treasurer, and agreed to place in the hands of another a deed for twenty acres of land as security for the trust reposed in his hands.

        "Salisbury is undoubtedly the better location for the institute, both because it is easier of access from the western part of the State and because, there being no high school in the place, it affords a fairer prospect for academical students. But as the location has once been fixed at Concord and it has become evident that the delay in securing a title to the land is not wholly due to the trustees of the camp ground--assurance being given that the

land donated will at once be placed in possession of the trustees of Zion Wesley Institute--I will not press the application from Salisbury.

        "I have said I had no rose-colored report to offer, but as some cloudy days end with a golden sunset, so may this report close with a cheering statement. Since coming to Conference the following brethren have paid $55.25 into the treasury, which amounts they had raised during the year, namely, W. J. Moore, A. York, W. H. Thurber, J. C. Dancy, R. S. Rieves, A. G. Kesler, John Hooper, A. B. Smyer, Z. T. Pearsall, and J. H. Mattocks, with a donation of $10 from Bishop Lomax. Besides this, owing to a happy forethought of our silver-tongued orator and the generosity of the Conference and the congregation of this church, $36.11 have been received as the proceeds of the Thanksgiving collection.

        "I now offer my report as treasurer of the institution:

        "Zion Wesley Institute as an institution of learning, conceived in and thus far fostered and sustained alone by the North Carolina Conference, appeals to your warmest sympathies and most energetic labors. I trust that though divided in name we are not in heart, and that every member, both ministerial and lay delegates, will push forward the roll of diplomas and scholarships, and by no means neglect the public collections provided for at this session of the Conference.

"Respectfully submitted,

C. R. HARRIS,
"Secretary and Treasurer Zion Wesley Institute.

        "It was ordered that the secretary be required to secure an engrossed copy of the Act of Incorporation from the Secretary of State for the benefit of the institute.

        "It was further ordered that the words 'Zion Wesley Institute Fund' be inserted in the statistical table instead of 'Rush University Fund.'

        "The trustees of Zion Wesley Institute were instructed to open the school on the first Monday in January, 1880.

        "It was decided that the same rule regulating reports of scholarships be applied to the reports of diplomas of honor. Reports to be made and funds sent to the treasurer at the end of every month.

        "Subscriptions were then taken for Zion Wesley Institute, to be paid by the 1st of March, 1880. These were received: E. C. Davidson, $1; L. S. Hurdle, $2; David Drake, $1.25; J. R. Harris, $5; Thomas W. Payne, $1; David Williams, $1; Sullie Herndon, $1; Peter Caldwell, $1; A. Alen, $1; L. R. Ferebee, $5; Jerry McNeil, $2; H. M. Mosely, $1; J. A. Norwood, $2; John Pillican, $1.50; W. D. Dickerson, $1; J. H. Mattocks, $3.

        "It was ordered that hereafter diplomas be given to all who donate $1 (one dollar) or more to Zion Wesley Institute, the amount to be written on the diplomas in place of the word 'five;' also that all outstanding duebills be canceled on the same conditions."

        The institute was adopted by the General Conference which met in Montgomery in 1880, and Rev. C. R. Harris was continued as principal.

        The Ecumenical Conference in London, in 1881, was seized upon by the bishop of the Third Episcopal District as a favorable opportunity to put the institute on a firm footing; and to that end he selected Rev. J. C. Price to accompany him to England as a delegate to the great Conference. Not even Price himself knew the bishop's purpose in selecting him. On their way to England the bishop informed Price what he desired him to do. Price agreed to undertake the agency, and he and the bishop began to arrange their plans as soon as they reached England. They did not take a pleasure trip over Europe, as other delegates did, but watched their opportunity; it soon came, providentially, as it appeared, and the result was that by the time the Conference closed a board of Englishmen had been appointed to take charge

of the finances, and appointments had been made for Price for a period of several weeks. In less than a year's time he collected $10,000.

        When it was learned on this side that Price was succeeding so well the white people in Salisbury became interested and offered $1,000 toward the purchase of a lot if we would move the college to that city. The offer was accepted, and in the spring of 1882 the present site was secured.

        Because Price had been successful in collecting a large amount of money, and because much more was needed, which it was hoped he might be instrumental in raising, the Board of Bishops, at their meeting at Chester, S. C., in September, 1882, elected him president, notwithstanding Rev. C. R. Harris was the senior teacher in the institution and one of the best disciplinarians that ever walked into a schoolroom. In fact, we have known but few teachers who were the equal of Bishop Harris.

        During this period the Church has had two severe trials to pass through, but passed through both without apparent injury. The first grew out of a misunderstanding respecting the place of meeting of the General Conference in 1872. Bishop Jones, who was sent to Chicago as a delegate, with a proposal for a consolidation with the Methodist Episcopal Church, finding that the union could not be effected at that time, entered into an agreement to continue the effort for the ensuing four years; and as the Methodist Episcopal General Conference had agreed to meet in Brooklyn he agreed to use his influence with his body to have it meet in New York, so that the two General Conferences, being near together, could the more easily

consider the matter. But when Bishop Jones got back to Washington he found but little union sentiment. We at Washington had gathered from the newspapers the real sentiment of that body, and had fully realized that Bishop Haven could not secure for us what he desired, and he was not willing to ask us to accept less than a full recognition of our Christian manhood. Bishop Haven's proposition was that in case of union we should have a pro rata representation in the Episcopal Board, and that in all other respects we should have such recognition as our numbers entitled us to. But it was soon discovered that the Methodist Episcopal Church as a whole was not ready for that. But Bishop Jones was kept so completely surrounded with the enthusiastic friends of the movement, who hoped against hope, that it was impossible for him to take in the situation. Having agreed to do what he could to have his General Conference meet in New York, he felt bound to do so. But when he stated the agreement and asked the General Conference to agree to go to New York the point of order was made that he was discussing a question already settled, as we had already agreed to meet in Charlotte, N. C.

        The brother who made the motion to meet in Charlotte had no notion of changing it, but a sense of justice induced him to secure for Bishop Jones a fair hearing; he therefore moved to reconsider the motion by which it was agreed to meet in Charlotte. Bishop Jones made his statement and the Conference adjourned without any further action. The matter was overlooked the next morning, and the General Conference finally adjourned without fixing its next place of meeting. About a year

before the time for the General Conference to meet the matter came up at the meeting of the Board of Bishops. Bishop Jones held that the purpose of the General Conference in reconsidering the motion to meet in Charlotte was that it might be changed to New York. The other bishops disagreed with him and voted to hold the General Conference at Charlotte, N. C. They also voted to meet on June 19 instead of May 25.

        It happened that Bishop Jones was chairman of the board, and he assumed to veto the action of his colleagues. He published that the action of the board was unlawful, and as chairman it was his duty to see that the law was carried out, and that the General Conference would meet in New York on the day fixed by law. The other bishops carried the question to the Annual Conferences, and the result was that sixteen Conferences voted to sustain the action of the majority of the bishops. Nevertheless Bishop Jones, with representatives from two or three Conferences, met in New York on May 25. There being no quorum present, they adjourned to meet in Charlotte on June 19. Bishop Jones claimed that by this action they had made the June meeting a legal one.

        As to the date of meeting, we think Bishop Jones was correct. May 25 had been fixed in the Discipline as the day on which the General Conference should meet; it had stood so for years, and the Board of Bishops at that time was not authorized to change it. As to the place, since that had been left unfixed by the General Conference there was no other authority to fix it but the board. In defending his position at the General Conference Bishop Jones made one of his four great speeches. He spoke

for four hours, and if a vote had been taken at the close of his speech, as his friends desired, he would have carried a considerable portion of the General Conference with him. But Bishop Clinton followed the next day with a four hours' speech and carried the Conference his way. Bishop Jones saw that the odds were against him, and gracefully surrendered, and the matter was amicably settled. To avoid any such trouble in future the Board of Bishops was authorized to change either time or place of the meeting of General Conference, should it become necessary.

        The other trouble to which we have referred grew out of the trial of Bishop Hilliery. That threatened at one time to become a very serious matter. The conduct of Hilliery had become such that there were frequent complaints. His intemperance had become notorious. His conduct with females was such that families who gladly entertained other bishops would not admit him to their houses at all. There were most scandalous reports respecting him. All the other bishops were urged by leading members to do something to stop Hilliery from disgracing the connection. The bishops all talked to him, but he wholly disregarded their reproof. He claimed that they were jealous of his talents and influence, that he was the only educated man among us and the only original Zionite on the Board. The rest of us, he said, had all come from some other Church and were combined against him, the only "true blue." We presume that Bishops Moore, Jones, and Thompson were members of Zion Church before he was born.

        The complaints continued unabated, and finally, at a

meeting of the Board of Bishops in Petersburg, Va., March, 1883, charges were formulated and signed by Bishop Thompson and placed in the hands of Bishop Hood, who had charge of the Kentucky Conference. The charges did not include the grosser matter, but a few of the minor complaints. It was hoped that the calling him up on these minor complaints would induce him to reform. It was possibly unfortunate that the case went to the Kentucky Conference, as it was said that a majority of that Conference was pledged to stand by him, right or wrong. He had charge of that Conference the year previous, and was charged with giving the best appointments to certain men for a consideration. The majority of the Committee of the Whole voted that the charges were not sustained; the chairman fully believed that they were sustained. There is a provision in the Discipline respecting the trial of members that if the chairman of the committee disagrees with a majority of the committee respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused he may carry the case to the appellate court. Under this law the chairman decided to carry the case to the General Conference.

        The question then arose as to what position that placed Hilliery in until the sitting of the General Conference. The bishop was a little slow about ruling on that question. Rev. E. H. Curry pressed him for a decision. After consulting with Bishops Jones and Thompson, who were present, the chairman decided that it left his case pending and silenced him until it could be settled in the General Conference.

        From this decision Hilliery appealed, but his appeal

could only be settled by the General Conference; for there is no appeal from a bishop's decision rendered in the Annual Conference except to the General Conference.

        Hilliery then went to Philadelphia and got together a committee to try Bishop Hood for maladministration, based wholly upon his rulings. Without the preliminaries which the law requires, and without waiting to hear from Bishop Hood, the committee declared him suspended. The Board of Bishops declared the action of this committee null and void.

        Hilliery's next hope was to preside at the Virginia Conference, notwithstanding the Board had designated Bishop Jones to hold that Conference. Hilliery hoped by this means to secure a delegation to the General Conference and thus be able to threaten a split in the connection. But the Virginia Conference stood by Bishop Jones, and Hilliery was left without a following.

        At the General Conference the first thing to settle was as to whether or not Bishop Hood was correct in his rulings. 1. That the bishop, sitting as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, in the trial of a minister, may dissent from the decision of the majority and carry the case to the General Conference. 2. Does such action silence the defendant? There were some other minor points on which the bishop ruled during the trial which were in Hilliery's favor, and from which the counsel for the Church appealed. After the whole matter was fully discussed a resolution was adopted confirming all of Bishop Hood's decisions.

        These, however, did not touch the merits of Hilliery's

case. It was in substance only a declaration that the matter was properly before the General Conference. If Hilliery had then acknowledged his fault and promised to do better he would have been borne with, but he seemed determined to go to destruction. He finally compelled the General Conference, by his own conduct, to unclothe him of the bishopric and to send the charges to an Annual Conference, on which he was tried and deprived of all ministerial functions. He sued two of the bishops for $25,000 damage, but finally had the costs to pay. He then sued the Connection for $10,400, and the costs fell upon him again; and thus ended one of the most trying difficulties with which the Church has had to contend. We think the moral sentiment of the Church and the sagacity of its bishops are evidenced by the fact that we were able to unclothe a bishop without splitting a single church or losing a member. When we consider the effort he put forth to carry ministers and people with him it is truly remarkable that he accomplished nothing in that direction. He moved into a town in which he was once very popular and married into one of the best families, hoping thus to get a hold upon the Church through his wife's relatives. But he failed, and then forsook his wife. Having borne our full share of that trouble, we hope never to have another like it. It is to be hoped that the Connection will never again exalt such a man to that high position. His election was the result of a combination engineered by himself. A man truly called to the office of bishop does not have any of that kind of work to perform to get there. If you see a man scheming to get into that office you may know that he

is not a suitable person to fill it. If he is the right man the office will come to him without any scheming on his part. Since the end of our trouble with Hilliery we have had smooth sailing. There is now the most perfect harmony among the bishops, and each is doing what he can to build up the connection.

        The General Conference which met in New York city in 1884 made appropriations for the several institutions as follows: Livingstone,*

        * The act of incorporation of Zion Wesley Institute was changed in several respects. The title was changed to Livingstone College.

        This General Conference did one very foolish thing: it elected Rev. A. L. Scott editor of the Star of Zion. Scott was a very uncertain quantity at best. He had recently come from some other Church and sprang up among us like a mushroom. He had a kind of "singsong"

eloquence in preaching which was quite agreeable to many intelligent hearers, but he was a great rambler. He was but little acquainted with the rules of composition, and had none of the qualifications of an editor, unless brass is a qualification. It may appear strange that the General Conference should elect such a man; but such bodies are sometimes led by influences which they do not take time to investigate, and have to repent at leisure what was done in haste. This foolish thing was done for spite, so the brother who engineered it confessed after he had accomplished his purpose. One of the bishops had said that J. C. Dancy was better situated to take charge of the Star than anyone else he knew of at the time. At this several ministers took offense. The bishop did not say then what we will say now, that in our opinion Zion Connection has not raised up another man who is the equal of Dancy as an editor. It is his peculiar calling. But the impression was pretty general that that in substance was the bishop's meaning. The brother who engineered the election of Scott took very great offense. He was connected with the large delegation from Alabama, of which Scott was also a member. He got that delegation to agree to vote unitedly for any one of its members named for any position; he then sprang the nomination of Scott upon the unsuspecting General Conference, and he was elected. The movers in this spiteful affair, however, were not the men who watched the proceedings most closely; they frequently spent hours sight-seeing when important business was being transacted. Some men are seldom absent in time of business. Having accomplished the election of Scott, the movers in

this measure went the next day, in time of business, out to Central Park; while they were gone the Conference took action which effectually put it out of Scott's power to take charge of the paper. A motion was adopted that all the money coming from the General Fund should be paid on the debt of the Star until that debt was settled, which amounted to $925. For this debt Rev. J. McH. Farley was responsible. He was also business manager, and authorized to receive all moneys. This left nothing for Scott to work with, and, failing to do, he became liable to the charge of neglecting his duty. Thus, providentially, the connection was saved the disgrace of having an unsuitable person as editor of our Church organ.

        We may learn from this whole transaction the importance of paying attention to business and keeping our personal feelings out of our ecclesiastical duties. In this case, to prevent a connectional disaster, a remedy had to be applied which might have proven as bad as the disease. Farley might, with the power the General Conference gave him, have kept that paper in his own hands for four years, to its great injury. Those who put that power in his hands believed that he would surrender when a better arrangement could be made, and he did not disappoint them. But such dangerous remedies should never be needed, and they would not be if men would act from reason and not from passion.

        There are many men who are not good judges of the qualifications of men for certain positions. When we have those who are experts on that line we ought to give their opinion calm and careful consideration; we ought not to fly in a passion because they express opinions

respecting a matter which we think is an overestimate. We are as likely to be mistaken as they are, and in any case they are entitled to their opinion. Besides this, envy is an indication of weakness, and is very sinful. It was envy that induced the first murder.

        The General Conference which met in New Berne, N. C., in May, 1888, did less in the way of lawmaking than any that has assembled within our knowledge. Two bishops were added to the bench, namely, Charles C. Pettey and Cicero R. Harris. Possibly the most important thing was the making of Bishop Thompson chairman of the Book Room and authorizing the bishop to make whatever changes were necessary to put that institution in good running order. The Book Concern is the oldest institution in the connection, but it had not up to that time been a paying institution. Several thousand dollars had been sunk in it with not much to show for it. It is now in a hopeful condition.

CHAPTER IV.
BETHEL VERSUS ZION.

        THE first account of contention among Christians was at Corinth. The seeds of contention there sown have produced a fearful crop. The contention has not been limited to individual Christians, but has extended to Christian bodies. Not only has one said, "I am for Paul," and another, "I am for Apollos," but each has anathematized the other. One Christian body has tried to destroy another Christian body. This spirit, in our opinion, is that beast which is to be destroyed before the millennium. See Rev. xix, 19, 20. This beast is supposed to symbolize papacy. And so it may symbolize the persecuting spirit of papacy. But that spirit is just as bad anywhere else as in the Church of Rome. That Church has had a better opportunity to exhibit its persecuting disposition than any other. We believe there are other Churches which have the disposition to swallow every other Church in as large a degree as the Church of Rome. And we presume that nearly every branch of the Christian Church has been opposed by some one particular branch more than all others. The conflict between the Wesleyan Methodist Church in England and the Primitive Methodist Church was the cause of the only unpleasant episode that occurred in the sittings of the great Ecumenical Conference in Washington, D. C., in 1891. A person who watched closely could see

that there was a pretty sharp contest between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

        It has fallen to the lot of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church to have the African Methodist Episcopal (Bethel) Church as its great antagonist. That Church has shown more opposition to Zion than all others put together. There has been much talk of union between the two Churches, but there is in fact very little union sentiment in Bethel Church, either among members or ministers. There has never been much desire in that Church for a union with Zion. There has been a desire in that Church from its earliest existence to absorb the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Bishop Allen was hardly warm in his office before he cast an avaricious eye upon the little nucleus of the rising African Methodist Episcopal Zion Connection, the Zion and Asbury Churches. He found himself a bishop with only two churches. There was an independent colored Methodist Church in Wilmington, Del., but Peter Spencer had been made the chief minister of that organization, and was Allen's senior by three years, and a man of strong will, great energy, and a natural born leader. There was, therefore, no chance for Bishop Allen to extend his episcopal oversight in that direction. The only other colored Methodist Churches North at that time were the Zion and Asbury Churches in New York city, and a few other small organizations in that vicinity, connected with them. To these he went, hoping they would recognize his bishopric and take shelter within his fold. His followers long cherished that hope. His

appearance among them was entirely too arrogant, especially so in consideration of the fact that they knew from whence his bishopric was derived. He failed utterly with Zion, but through the influence of William Miller, who united with him, he secured a portion of the members of Asbury Church, and was thus enabled to form the nucleus of his Church in that city. He also captured the church at Flushing, L. I. These were the first secessions from the Zion Connection, and were induced by the bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, which thing has been occasionally repeated and has been a cause of bitterness between the two Churches.

        A little later some of the Zion brothers went to Philadelphia and received the Wesley Church, which Bishop Allen expected to cover in that city, and this was regarded as secession from Bethel; and from that time onward, occasionally, a church has been detached from one of these organizations and taken into the other. The Bethel Churches in Middletown, N. Y., Middletown, Pa., and in York and Mechanicsburg of the latter State, and St. Paul's African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, are all splits from the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. The same is true as to the African Methodist Episcopal Churches at Kingston and Elmira, N. Y. The Bethel Church at Bridgeport, Conn., was originally a Zion Church; some Bethel members from other places became connected therewith and succeeded in electing a majority of the board of trustees, and these voted to have a Bethel minister. When this was done the Zion people left their own church and

built another. Bethel still has our church. During the last ten years we have occupied a few churches which formerly belonged to Bethel; but in each case we have stepped in and bought the church after they had lost it. We have not stolen any of their churches. That Church has through all its history been making attacks upon us from one standpoint or another. One of the stories which has been circulated by them is that Zion is a split from Bethel. The only possible foundation for this story is that in a few instances Churches have split off from Bethel and come to Zion. But for this very same reason Bethel might with greater propriety be called a split from Zion, for the third church that Bethel had was a split from Zion. But in perfect fairness it cannot be said that either is a split from the other. Both of these Churches came out from the Methodist Episcopal Church, Zion in New York and Bethel in Philadelphia, and each independent of the other. Each is an offshoot from the mother of Methodist Episcopal Churches.

        Bethel has claimed to be the older Church, and has used this claim very freely in her attempts to supplant Zion in places where Zion had the start. This claim, for many years, was based upon the idea that Zion was formed in 1820. This idea is erroneous. About 1821 is the time when the first regular Conference was held. The Church had then been in existence about twenty-five years. It was incorporated in the year 1801. The Act of Incorporation is still on record in New York city. The Church was organized in 1796, and was beyond all question the first Methodist Church, white or colored, that was formed independent of the Methodist Episcopal

Church. The organization was composed of colored members of the John Street Methodist Church, the first of American Methodist Churches. The title under which it was incorporated was "The African Methodist Episcopal Church;" but because the first Church was called Zion, and to distinguish ourselves from Bethel Church, which took the same title, "Zion" was added as a part of the connectional title. Up to 1864 the connections were generally spoken of as Bethel and Zion, and in many places in the North they are still so designated. In going South the Bethel people undertook to represent their Church as preeminently the "African Methodist Episcopal Church," and to that end they tried to drop the "Bethel." We say "tried," for they did not always succeed; sometimes a Church was organized by a minister accustomed to harping on Bethel, and in such places Bethel became as "pat" as it is in Philadelphia.

        The fact that Zion Church had the service of the Methodist Episcopal preachers up to 1820 is taken as evidence that Zion had not separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church; but the kind of service received from the Methodist Episcopal Church at that time might be received now. As a matter of convenience Methodist Episcopal preachers, for a consideration, might render all the service now which was then rendered without interfering with our independence; they simply preached and administered the sacrament. This service was rendered under articles of agreement between the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States of America on the one part and the trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church on the other part.

        In this agreement two distinct Church organizations are recognized, the Methodist Episcopal Church and the African Methodist Episcopal Church. And this agreement was made in April, 1801. Here the record shows that Zion Church in 1801 at New York was recognized as an independent body known as the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Article V provides and declares that none but Africans and their descendants shall be chosen as trustees of this Church, or of any other Church property under this incorporation. In Article VI it was provided that no persons should be admitted into close connection with their classes, or be enrolled on their books as members, other than Africans or their descendants.

        The fact that there were five churches represented and six or eight ministers present at the first Conference shows that they had been working up a connection prior to that time. Bishop Jones, in his generosity, admitted that while as a Church Zion was the older body, yet Bethel established her itinerant system first. I am not sure that we should admit that much. Bishop Jones was so anxious for a union between the two bodies that he always handled Bethel as tenderly as possible, except when they drew him out by some unreasonable assumption. At Columbia, S. C., eight hundred members in a body went out from Bethel and sent for one of Zion's bishops to go and receive them into our connection. Unfortunately for Zion, Bishop Jones was then on that district, and when he went to receive them they wanted an assurance from him that there was no likelihood of a union between Zion and Bethel. Negotiations were then

in progress, and Bishop Jones had great hope of union, and manifested vexation at their request for such an assurance. He failed to receive them. Had this writer been there he would have received them. He could honestly have given the assurance they wanted, for he has never, since 1864, thought there was any likelihood of a union. Bishop Jones could not honestly have given such assurance; his desire for union was so great that he thought he could see it coming.

        Since it has been shown that 1796 was the date of the organization of Zion Church some men in Bethel Church have attempted to get behind that date and to claim that the first movement for the organization of Bethel Church was in 1787; and an attempt was made to get up a centennial celebration in 1887, but it proved a most ridiculous failure, because it was known to be a sham. Their history shows that Richard Allen, their founder and their first bishop, was a member of the Quarterly Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1804. If he founded a separate Church in 1787, how was it that he continued a member of the Quarterly Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1804? It will not do to make a man too many things at once. There was a movement about 1787, but it was not the Bethel movement, nor did it result in establishing an African Methodist Episcopal Church. It is quite likely that it had that object in view in its inception, but if it had it was turned aside from its purpose.

        About this period, or a little later, a considerable number of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia desired to have a church and preacher of their own. The authorities of the Methodist Episcopal

Church refused to grant their request. They appealed to Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church. He agreed to their request provided they would unite with his Church. They agreed, and Absalom Jones was taken under course of instruction, and ordained, first a deacon and afterward a priest. Thus was formed St. Thomas's Protestant Episcopal Church. This was the result of the movement in 1787, or later, of which historians of the African Methodist Episcopal Church have made so much, and which they have tried to make people believe had some connection with the history of the formation of their Church, which, according to their own history, took place twenty-nine years later.

        This story reminds us of an anecdote we have heard told of a slaveholder who frequently spun hard yearns, and if they were doubted would turn to a slave boy, who was pretty good at fixing up such stories, to substantiate what he had said. One day he told a story of an extraordinary shot he had made. He had put a ball through a deer's right hind foot and right ear. When the crowd seemed to be doubtful the boy was appealed to as usual. "Yes, that's so," said the boy. One of the crowd then asked, "How was it done, Sam?" "Why," replied Sam, "just as massa was about to shoot the deer put up his hind foot to scratch his ear and the ball passed through both." He got his master out of the difficulty, but when they were alone again he said, "Massa, don't spread the ball so much next time; I had hard work to get that one together."

        This story of twenty-nine years from the time they began to organize till the organization was an accomplished fact is spreading it out pretty well. It will take

a mighty scratching of the ear with the hind foot to get that ball through both these periods.

        Bishop Allen, according to his own statement, given by Bishop D. A. Payne in his History of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (vol. i, chapter xi), made no attempt to organize an African Methodist Church until about 1793, and that proved a failure. Bishop Allen, speaking of the church erected at that time, says:

        "We intended it for the African preaching house or church; but finding the elder stationed in the city was such an opposer of our proceedings of erecting a place of worship, though the principal part of the directors of this church belonged to the Methodist Connection, and that he would neither preach for us nor have anything to do with us, we held an election to know what religious denomination we would unite with. At this election it was determined. There were two in favor of the Methodist, Rev. Absalom Jones and myself, and a large majority in favor of the Church of England. This majority carried."

        Thus it is seen in this history of Bishop Allen, written by himself, that his effort to provide a preaching house for colored Methodist preachers was a total failure. When the test came there was only one besides himself who favored remaining in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the preference of that one (Absalom Jones) was overcome by Bishop White, who ordained him a deacon and made him pastor of this colored flock in the Protestant Episcopal Church.

        But what was this movement which failed? Certainly it was not a movement looking to the establishment of an independent African Church. That seems not to have been thought of. The only question considered was which of the white denominations they chose to adhere to.

        Mr. Allen was offered the pastorate of this flock, but

he refused it, declaring that he could not be any other but a Methodist. Though the ministers had not treated him nor his people fairly, he saw nothing to do but remain under them. We have the notion that if the idea of an independent African Methodist Church had dawned upon him as it did upon James Varick he might have held that people over whom he was having so great influence.

        In 1794 he commenced again in the interest of the Methodist Episcopal Church. He bought a blacksmith's shop and had it fitted up for a house of worship. Bishop Asbury accepted it as such and preached in it, and thus encouraged the work. Though not a member of Conference, Allen had for many years traveled as an itinerant preacher in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Asbury had taken a special interest in him, and as he had remained after Absalom Jones, with nearly all the colored members, had gone to the Protestant Episcopal Church he enjoyed special favors and was permitted to preach to the flock he had begun again to gather, and in 1799 he was ordained a deacon.

        It was not until the cruelty and unfairness of the preachers stationed in Philadelphia became utterly unendurable that Allen was driven, contrary to his inclination, to establish an independent Church.

        It is a remarkable fact that Bishop Payne gives a very interesting history of the life and work of Bishop Allen, written by himself, and covering the period of ten years from 1784 to 1794, but there it suddenly breaks off. The question naturally arises in the mind, Did his personal account of himself end in 1794 (thirty-six years before

his death), or has it been found necessary to suppress it? After 1794 we have only a very fragmentary account of him till near the year 1816, at which time he came out from the Methodist Episcopal Church. After that till his death we have a very satisfactory account.

        It does not need a microscope to discover that during the twenty-two years about which there is silence he was trying as hard as he could to work for the upbuilding of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, and that if God had not purposely made the Methodist Episcopal preachers mad, or hardened their hearts as he did Pharaoh's, in the interest of his oppressed people, Allen would have remained in that Church. But Varick had formed a separate organization in New York, and Spencer had formed a separate organization in Wilmington, and it became a necessity for Allen to do the same. To get the lead of those who had started on the independent line before him, he had himself proclaimed a bishop, though he had received only two ordinations.

        It fell to our lot to be particularly well situated to learn the early history of the Bethel Church in Philadelphia. Our mother in her youth was a member of that church. We have frequently heard her tell the history of that church, and that of Peter Spencer's church, in Wilmington, Del., the second church to which she belonged. Nothing is more firmly fixed in our mind. Our mother was a woman of extraordinary intelligence, and deeply interested in the Church and whatever pertained to the interest of the African race in America. Though circumstances compelled her to leave Bethel Church, yet she always retained a high regard for that church, and

she attended it till the time of her death when in Philadelphia. Four of her daughters have been members of that church; one died a member, and two still remain members, and she could have had no interest in misrepresenting it. Its history, as coming from her, is that the building of Bethel Church was commenced about 1809. The church was built under the title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but the purpose of the colored people was to have an organization of their own, which, after a struggle during several years, they succeeded in effecting in 1816. She had, however, left Philadelphia before they separated from the white Church. She married our father in 1813, and moved to Wilmington, Del., his home. Leaving Philadelphia, she took a certificate from Bethel Church, which was then under the Methodist Episcopal Church. She arrived at Wilmington about the time Peter Spencer withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal Church under the following circumstances: Spencer was a leading member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Wilmington, called Zion (Zion seems to have been a favorite title with the colored Methodists). In 1806 they built a new house of worship, called the "stone house," corner of Ninth and French Streets. The colored people built it themselves, and supposed that when they had built it they could control it. But, like the people in Philadelphia, they made the mistake of taking the deed for the ground in the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church. When the church was completed the bishop appointed a preacher in charge without consulting their wishes. This brought on a lawsuit which lasted for seven years. Delaware was a slave

State, and there was not much chance for colored people against a body of white people as strong and influential as the Methodist Episcopal Church. Spencer found that the courts were against him, and he made up his mind to give up the stone house, which he had held up to that time by appeals from court to court, the court of last resort having decided against him. He called a meeting, announced the situation, and said, "You that are with me, follow me." He had purchased a lot on the opposite side of the street, and thereupon built a house which his enemies called a "pigeon box."

        When our mother reached Wilmington with her certificate from Bethel, Philadelphia, those who had remained with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the "stone house" endeavored to persuade her to deposit her certificate there, as that was the same as the church from which she had come. She declined, saying, "No, I will go to the 'pigeon box' with my husband." Thus we see that Bethel Church still remained in the Methodist Episcopal Church at the time she left it, and there never would have been any pretense that the African Methodist Episcopal (Bethel) Church had any organization earlier than 1816, only for the purpose of claiming to be older than Zion.

        Bishop Turner, in his Church Polity, speaks of Peter Spencer as having been connected with Bishop Allen. Nothing could be more erroneous; Spencer's movement as an independent Church began before Allen's, and he left the Methodist Episcopal Church three years before Allen. He claimed to be the "first of all colored leaders" to declare a complete and absolute ecclesiastical independence of the white Church. Hence it is seen that

Bethel was not the first but the third organization of colored Methodists.

        There is another point upon which Bethel has made Zion Church the special object of attack; that is, the bishopric. Small preachers have gone through the country saying, "Zion has no bishops." One preacher in North Carolina used to say, "Hood's no bishop, he is an elder." In this he showed his ignorance, for a Church that can make an elder can make a bishop if it so desires. But such ignorant statements have their effect upon ignorant people, and we know from experience that for several years in many places in the South thousands of people have been kept out of our Church by the efforts of men who made it their business to convey the impression that something was wrong with Zion's episcopacy. Nor has it been small men alone who have made this fight; even bishops have descended to this low style of attack. We remember visiting a Conference held in Raleigh, N. C., by a Bethel bishop several years ago, and he introduced us as "Hood of Zion." He had been telling his men that Zion had no bishops, and he could not consistently introduce us as bishop. We have seldom visited any of their Conferences since that time.

        The question may arise as to why this Church is so anxious to discount our episcopacy. We think it is because they have set up a claim for themselves which the facts do not warrant, and they hope to divert attention from their own by raising a dust about ours. Some of their ministers have gone so far as to claim apostolic succession; and this is based upon the claim that Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, ordained

Richard Allen. Now, the absurdity of this claim will appear at once to any man who thinks. Was a bishop of a Protestant Episcopal Church ever known to ordain a bishop for any other denomination? Absurdity is stamped upon the face of this story. Another claim set up is that Absalom Jones, a priest in the Protestant Episcopal Church, ordained Richard Allen. We have it on good authority--that of his daughter--that this statement, coming to the ears of Absalom Jones, was denied by him. He said he was present as a spectator but took no part in the ceremony. Does it look reasonable that a priest in a Protestant Episcopal Church could ordain a Methodist bishop and not be called to account for it? Moreover, it is not generally conceded that a single priest can ordain a bishop. But if Absalom Jones ordained Allen, as one portion of the African Methodist Episcopal brethren claim, what has become of that claim of another portion, just as strongly put forth, that Bishop White ordained him? It is questionable whether Absalom Jones was an elder in 1816. We know that the Episcopal Church (even with white ministers who have had better advantages than we can suppose Absalom Jones had at the period in which he lived) moves slowly.

        But the third claim of the African Methodist Episcopal historian is that Richard Allen was ordained by five elders. Now, if this is true the two former claims were not true. If either of them was true when they were positively stated by Bishop Quinn and others, this is not true.

        We have heard well-informed Bethel men, even bishops, at different periods set up the three conflicting claims,

and each told his story as positively as if he knew it to be true. In these three conflicting statements respecting Allen's ordination who is to decide which is true or whether or not any of them is true? Let us look at this last statement in the light of some stubborn facts. It is agreed that Allen was the first man in that Church who was made a minister. Those ordained by him are supposed to have been ordained after he was made a bishop. Where did the five elders come from? There was no other colored Methodist elder in existence except Peter Spencer. If five regularly ordained white presbyters officiated why were their names not given? Does not any thoughtful man know that if this were true the names of the elders would have to be laid in rock, graven with an iron pen? They would not for many years have circulated the story that Bishop White ordained Allen if they could have given the names of five white elders who performed the ceremony.

        But we have it from two eyewitnesses that there was not an elder present. Rev. David Stevens, whose honesty and straightforwardness were proverbial, told us that he was present and saw the ceremony performed, and that there was not an elder present. Mr. Vanbrackle, a member of Bethel Church, told us the same thing. Both of these eyewitnesses state that Absalom Jones was present, but that he was at that time only a deacon. Hence we state on the authority of two witnesses that there was not an elder present at that ceremony.

        Now, in all this confusion and uncertainty about the origin of their own episcopacy, it is easy to see why they seek to discredit ours. We were the only body of Christians

likely to raise a question as to the validity of their episcopacy; therefore, if they could have gotten us to accept it it would have been safe. If in the platform adopted by the convention of 1864 we had agreed that they should ordain our bishops, their purpose would have been accomplished. Their discovering, at the last moment, before the adjournment of the convention, that we intended to ordain our own bishops, before the consolidation, was the secret cause of their refusing to submit the platform to their people for ratification. We then had superintendents elected for four years and put in office without any written ceremony. It is a fact that three of the first four superintendents served as long as they lived, the other one until long after he lost his eyesight; but the form of an election was gone through with once in four years. It was seen that it was only a matter of time when we would elect for life and install by a ceremonial consecration.

        The Bethel people thought that if a union could be effected in 1864 under the agreement that all the bishops should be made for life, and they could have the privilege of ordaining our bishops when the consolidation took place, they would at last have accomplished what Allen went to New York for soon after he was made bishop. We suppose many have wondered why they failed to submit to their people the platform which they had helped to build in 1864. There is no mystery about it with those who studied them during the sitting of that convention. They failed to accomplish that for which they hoped when they went into convention. The Zion men sized them up quickly, and maneuvered to keep them

from learning till the last moment that they could not accomplish their object. There were several points of difference in the two connections. Most of them were considered of minor importance. Two or three points of difference had respect to the rights of the laity. On these points Zion was unwilling to yield much, as they knew that anything which would have the tendency to arouse opposition among the laity would damage the prospect of union. There were some other points of difference which we were more willing to yield. We got over the question of title quite easily. The two connections were distinguished by Zion and Bethel, and it was agreed to drop these terms and call the consolidated connection the "United African Methodist Episcopal Church." There was no difficulty about adopting this title then. Bethel had not up to that time specially harped on the term African. Up to that time Zion was as much the African Methodist Episcopal Church as Bethel was. But the effort since that time to make the Bethel Church preeminently the African Methodist Episcopal Church has changed the relation of the two churches to that title.

        The main question about which there was any difficulty at that time was the episcopacy. Zion had an elective superintendency, and Bethel had the lifetime bishopric. One thing which made this an opportune time for the union was the fact that a majority of the ministers in Zion Connection were ready for the change to the lifetime bishopric, and were only held back by a small minority. This majority was the more ready for a union because they saw that it would be the easier way to reach

their object. Nevertheless we made a show of fight, as though we were unitedly attached to the elective superintendency.

        The question of episcopacy was about midway in the articles of agreement as first drawn up for discussion. The articles which preceded it were adopted after a lively but very pleasant discussion. But when we came to the question of episcopacy it was found that we were going to have an interesting struggle. It was then that S. T. Jones made the speech which made him a bishop four years later. He would possibly have been elected at that time, but the men to be elected had been agreed upon, as is too often the case, before the General Conference met. When we reached this subject the whole question of episcopacy came up. Bishop Payne made a long and learned speech defining the position and claims of his Church. Bishop Jones in reply stated our position. He stated, in substance, that there was authority lodged within the Church to make such officers as it needed for the efficiency of the work; that our Church, having regularly ordained elders, had the power to make bishops, if it chose to do so; that we had an elective superintendency, elected for four years as matter of choice; that our superintendents were bishops in fact to all intents and purposes; that for the sake of union our people might possibly consent to adopt a ceremonial consecration and to elect our bishops for life, or during good behavior.

        This speech drew from Bishop Payne the acknowledgment that if our General Conference should elect our bishops for life, and elect three elders to ordain them, they would be as legal bishops as he was. Bishop Payne

was an acknowledged authority in that Church, and some of his men seemed to regret that he had been compelled to make that admission. But in view of the fact that the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church provides that in case there be no bishops three elders shall be elected to ordain a bishop there was no other conclusion to come to. At this point some of the Bethel men began to show a disposition to give up the union. They began to see the tendency of things, that after all we were not dependent upon them or anybody else for the lifetime bishopric when we got ready to adopt it. And we began to understand them as we never had before. Up to that time they had hoped to make bishops for us in case of union, and they felt that to fail in that was to lose all the glory of the union; without that there was nothing in it for them.

        It seemed for a time that we could get no further. Rev. J. W. Loguen (afterward bishop) suggested that we go to the other end and work up to the bishop from that end. He said he had noticed that sometimes when the cars were on an upgrade and could not go forward they backed. He thought as we had run up to this article on one side we might go to the other side and back up to it. If we found that we could agree on every other article there would be the greater reason to try to come to an agreement on this. We had agreed among ourselves to accept the lifetime bishopric, when we came to that point, but did not intend to let it be known until the time came to meet that question. Loguen's suggestion was agreed to, and we went to the other end of the articles of agreement and worked back to the

question of episcopacy from that end. We agreed upon every article almost unanimously. We arranged every detail for submitting the platform to the people, the Annual and General Conferences. Everything else was completely provided for, so that if we could come to an agreement on the bishopric there would be nothing to do but to adjourn and go to the people with the matter, with the hope of a union in about fifteen months' time. And if the Bethel delegates and bishops had gone to their people in the same spirit that the Zion men did that would undoubtedly have been the result.

        When everything else had been settled we approached the vexed question. It was not nearly so much of a question with us as it may have seemed to them, as we, at the commencement, had calculated on yielding to them on that question by adopting the lifetime bishopric. We therefore came to that subject with the following propositions: 1. That we adopt for the united connection the superintendency as it exists in Zion Church, or the lifetime bishopric as it exists in Bethel Church, as a majority of the convention shall decide. 2. Provided that in case we agree to adopt the lifetime bishopric the General Conference of the Zion Church shall be called in extraordinary session and our bishops elected for life and ordained before the union is consummated, so that when we meet for the consolidation we shall each have bishops of equal standing.

        It seems to us that a more reasonable compromise could not have been asked nor less accepted than this. But the sequel will show that the Bethel men had other notions. The first question voted on was that we adopt

the superintendency as it exists in the Zion Church. As it had been agreed that just enough of our men were to vote with them to defeat this proposition it was defeated by a close vote.

        The next proposition was that we adopt the lifetime bishopric. This was adopted by a close vote. The last proposition to be considered was the proviso that before the final consummation of the union the General Conference of the Zion Church should be called in extraordinary session and the bishops elected for life and ordained. On this question the convention was a tie; but according to the rules of the convention in case of a tie the chairman had the casting vote. Bishop Clinton was in the chair and voted for the proposition, and it was then adopted. When the announcement was made Rev. R. H. Cain and A. L. Stanford cried out almost simultaneously, "To your tents, O Israel!" A delegate on the Zion side asked, "Why to your tents so hastily?" This set them to thinking, and the cooler heads soon devised a means to get out of the difficulty. The chief secretary and the assistant, who had kept the minutes, were Zion men. If they had left the convention unceremoniously they would have placed themselves at great disadvantage. They had allowed us to do nearly all the work, and the papers were all in our hands, and Bishop Clinton was chairman of that session. If they had left the convention we had only to publish the facts to show that they were entirely to blame for the failure to unite. They therefore asked that we have another session. We asked for what another session was desired, when everything had been completed. There was absolutely nothing

more that we could do to further the union. We believed that they had some scheme to get the advantage, but we could not think what. We thought, however, that we had nothing to fear, and we consented. Notwithstanding it was our day to have the chairman, they took advantage of the fact that this was an extra session, and had Bishop Campbell in the chair before the hour to which we had adjourned.

        When we assembled one of their delegates (Chaplain Hunter or A. L. Stanford, we are not certain which) had a long preamble and resolutions; the preamble stated the facts of our having assembled and what we had accomplished. The substance of the resolutions was that we put off the final consummation of the union for four years, each party doing all it could for its own side during that time. For this all their delegates voted. All of our delegates voted against it, but Bishop Campbell gave the casting vote in its favor, according to their arrangement. We then understood that at least a part of their purpose in having another session was to get Bishop Campbell in the chair to give the casting vote. A recess long enough to prepare the resolutions would have been all that was necessary otherwise. There would have been no harm in those resolutions if they had honestly intended to take the four years in preparing their people for the change as they stated. But that was not their purpose. They meant the same as when they cried, "To your tents, O Israel!" except that they did not act so honestly. They meant to defeat the union, because they believed that we intended to make our own bishops. This was shown by the fact that they did

not submit the matter to their people at all. We had thousands of copies of the platform published at our own expense, and supplied their ministers, one of whom admitted that he had a satchel full of them, and did not even show them to the ministers stationed nearest to him. It is doubtful if any considerable number of the Bethel people ever saw that platform or had any idea why the measure failed.

        We have not believed since that time that there has been any honest purpose on the part of a majority of the leaders in that Church to unite with Zion Church on any fair terms. Bishop Payne has honestly desired and worked for a union, and he alone of the older bishops. We think possibly of those later elected, Bishops Gains, Handy, and Grant may be counted as honestly in favor of union. If we were asked to-day our opinion respecting the union of these two bodies we should say we think there is but little hope. We have elected and ordained our bishops for life, and they have now given up all hope of gaining anything on that line.

        Since the foregoing was written the union movement has been started again, and a very vague and unsatisfactory platform, adopted by the two General Conferences, is being submitted to the people. The result of this third effort will be a subject for the future historian. We expect nothing but talk.

CHAPTER V.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST
EPISCOPAL ZION CHURCH.

        EVERY denomination has its peculiar characteristics. We know the ministers of some denominations almost at a glance. Each denomination seems to fix its mark, more or less distinctly, upon its members. The founders of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church were quiet, unassuming, humble, and unpretending men. They had deep convictions as to the civil and religious rights of men. They meant as far as possible to maintain their own rights, but they went about it in an unostentatious manner. They were distinguished for firmness of purpose, but the carrying out of their purpose was accomplished with as little noise as possible. This may be seen in the ministry and membership to-day. This characteristic has been taken by some for want of snap, and by some we have been underestimated. This fact was especially noted in the convention of the two African Methodist Episcopal Churches in Philadelphia in 1864. The Bethel brethren presumed that their men were generally so much stronger than the Zion men that they had no occasion for a careful selection of delegates to meet the Zion men; any of their men were thought to be sufficient. But we had not been in session long when it was discovered that the men they had selected were no matches for the Zion men. The numbers were equal, and the

fact that a platform was adopted with which we were entirely satisfied, but which they were unwilling to submit to their people, shows that the Zion delegates were abundantly able to take care of their own interests. Exactly the same thing happened in the second effort to unite the two connections. The joint commission which met in Washington City in 1885 adopted a platform, which our bishops were willing to submit to our people; but the Bethel bishops, with one exception, voted against it. The third attempt to unite the two connections seems likely to result as its predecessors, and for the same reason.

        It thus seems evident that by some means our delegates in convention were regarded as having taken too good care of our interests. The idea in Zion is that there is not much in noise. Some of us in this day think that we have been too quiet, and the present tendency is toward a little more show. Some of our young men are inclined to imitate the ostentation of somebody else; but it will be a long while before the connection loses its quiet characteristics.

        Another characteristic is the disinclination to proselyte. We have frequently heard our ministers in times of revival say to the people, "Get religion, and then join whatever church you choose." We have said it ourself. And when the converts are wavering and undecided we say, "Let them alone, let them be persuaded in their own minds." Some of our members say, "They shall not say I persuaded them;" and thousands of those converted by our ministry are thus encouraged to go to other denominations, or at least permitted to go without any effort on

our part to induce them to come to us. This foolish thing is carried so far that even parents often refuse to make any effort to keep their own children within their own Church. The Church is making some improvement on this line, but the improvement is not near rapid enough. It is well enough for evangelists to tell people to join what Church they choose, but the ministers of a regularly organized Church should do what they can, in reason, to gather their converts into their own Church. If they do not feel to do this they are better fitted for evangelists than for pastors.

        The Church has taken a high stand on moral questions. Some writer has said that the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church has peculiar notions on the subjects of marriage and divorce. That writer must have been at a loss to know what to write. There is not a particle of truth in the statement. The views of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church on this subject are in accord with those of the other branches of the Methodist Church. The law is as follows:

        "No man who has two or more living wives, nor woman who has two or more living husbands, shall be admitted as a member of our Church, except they were unavoidably separated by slavery, so as not to have the least prospect of being together again in this life; or except the separation was on scriptural grounds, fornication (Matt. xix, 9); in both of which cases the clearest proof must be given to the pastor in charge, called upon to take cognizance of the case. And if any pastor in charge receiving information to that effect respecting any person or persons applying for membership in our societies shall fail to investigate the case and shall thereby admit such person or persons in the Church wrongfully, such pastor shall be deemed guilty of immorality.

        "Divorce. Our ministers shall discourage the procuring of divorces except where they are to be procured on scriptural grounds. All divorces not thus obtained shall subject the person so offending to trial according to Discipline."

        The first exception in the foregoing recognized that some slaves were parted against their will. This was a separation unavoidable on their part, and it frequently happened that they never met again. In such cases they were allowed to marry again. Of course when there ceased to be any such condition of affairs there was no further application of that exception to the law. It remains in the Discipline as a relic of the accursed institution, and reminds the children of what their parents endured.

        There is no Church more pronounced in its opposition to loose marriage laws. No looseness of life is tolerated in our Church. The law is sufficient and its administration rigid. It is not always that the accused gets the benefit of a reasonable doubt. In our experience we have found it harder to protect those as to whose guilt we were doubtful than to convict those whom we believed to be guilty. No doubt but there are guilty persons among us who escape punishment, as there are in all Churches; yet it is not on account of a lack of effort to maintain a pure Church. Both the ministers and laity in Zion Church know that they are expected to live pure lives, and if they fail to so live the fact must be kept well hidden. And there is no one so high but he can be reached. Well-supported charges against a bishop would be investigated as surely and as quickly as against a less important personage. We can name quite a number of ministers who have been expelled from our Church after conviction on charges of gross immorality who are now occupying the pulpits of other denominations.

        Our Church has always supported the temperance

cause. The use of intoxicating drinks is forbidden. The law at one time read, "Except for mechanical or medicinal purposes;" but an abuse of this section having been discovered it was stricken out. No person would be called to account for taking medicine prescribed by a physician, but the members can learn this without having it stated; hence it was deemed unnecessary to continue this exception in the Discipline. Men who come up to be received into the ministry are required to pledge themselves to abstain from all intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and also from the use of tobacco. This last requirement was adopted at the General Conference of 1880.

        In the efforts to restrict the rum traffic our ministers have generally stood in the front ranks. We know one of our ministers who failed to take his stand on the right side, and a large portion of his members left the church and asked the bishop to allow them to form a temperance church, with a pastor in accord with their views. That minister showed contempt for the rebuke thus administered, but a curse seems upon him, and he has never prospered since. The temperance influence is so strong in the Church that the man who attempts to oppose it may expect to come to grief as this man did. It is not a thing of recent birth, but a sentiment as old as the Church itself, which has grown with the growth of the Church, so that we claim temperance is one of its cardinal principles.

        The committee to give expression to the sentiment of the Church on the subject of temperance is a standing committee in our Annual Conferences. In the New

England Conference there is but one minister who uses tobacco in any form. In the days of slavery the Zion ministers were generally the leaders of the antislavery movement, and their pulpits were always open to the antislavery lecturer. If no other house could be obtained for an antislavery meeting it was known that the Zion Church could be had. The doors of that Church were never closed against one who wanted to plead for the oppressed. In fact, the leaders have always stood foremost in every movement tending to the advancement of the race.

        We have mentioned the fact that Zion was the first among the Methodist Episcopal Churches to grant to the laity representation in the Annual and General Conferences. We may add that this Church was the first in granting to woman that recognition to which she is entitled. In 1884 the word "male" was stricken from the Discipline, thus removing every restriction. Since then, in Zion Church, it is not a question of sex, but one of fitness, when any position in the Church is considered. Women are class leaders and superintendents of Sabbath schools; they may be trustees if there is nothing in the civil law to prevent. They are exhorters and preachers; and, notwithstanding this freedom, we have never had any considerable number of female preachers, and we have heard of but one female preacher who gave us any trouble, and that trouble was the result of a blunder, and she was a white woman, and we fully believe it was a righteous retribution. When you sow the wind you may expect to reap the whirlwind.

        The Methodist Episcopal Church is now agitated over

the question of admitting women as delegates to the General Conference. That question did not require an hour's debate with us; it was settled when the word "male" was stricken from the Discipline. Possibly it may be asked, "What are the chances of women getting seats in the General Conference?" In the first place, if she is president, secretary, or treasurer of any board elected by the General Conference, she is by virtue of said office a member of the General Conference and entitled to all its privileges. Secondly, the lay delegates are chosen by an Electoral Conference made up of lay delegates attending the Annual Conference. The lay delegates to the District Conference are elected by the members of the circuits and stations. Since there are generally more females than males in our churches it would be an easy matter for them to send as delegates to the District Conferences representatives of their sex, and that body in turn could elect females to the Annual Conferences. Therefore at least in some cases it would not be difficult to elect a female. In fact, we believe in almost any case where there was a female present as a candidate, whose general fitness, combined with piety and intelligence, made her the best representative, she would be selected, and largely by the votes of the males. Our idea is that we should not be hindered from using such instrumentalities as God is pleased to raise up, on account of sex. This is the position of Zion Church on the woman question. That the colored ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church have voted by a large majority against the admission of women as delegates to the General Conference has been severely criticised.

This is regarded as a display of ingratitude in consideration of the fact that the women of America were among the foremost advocates of liberty and the enfranchisement of the Negro. But we would remark that the black minister must not be judged by those who remain in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The black man can never be seen at his best when he sits in the shadow of the white man. As the spreading oak dwarfs the grass beneath its shade, so does the superior number of white members in the white Church, with their ideas of their superiority, dwarf the black man who remains in that communion. To see the black man at his best he must be seen in his own institution, and managing his own affairs. White institutions as object lessons are an advantage to him, and when the occasion arises he takes pattern of the best he can see.

        In Zion the black minister has shown the height to which he can rise respecting the rights of women when he is where there is nothing to hinder him from following his best convictions. In his own institution he makes his own sentiment, thinks for himself, and takes his own responsibility, keeping pace with the best thought of the age in which he lives. We are willing to be judged by the standard we set up for ourselves, but not that action which grows out of a standard made for us, or the result of secondhand opinion.

CHAPTER VI.
FIRST BISHOP OF THE CHURCH AND HIS SUCCESSORS.