Documenting the American South Logo
powered by google
  Highlights   |   About   |   Collections   |   Authors   |   Titles   |   Subjects   |   Geographic   |   Classroom   |   New Additions  

History of the African Methodist Episcopal Church:
Electronic Edition.

Payne, Daniel Alexander, 1811-1893

Ed. by Smith, C. S. (Charles Spencer), 1852-1923

Funding from the Library of Congress/Ameritech National Digital Library Competition supported the electronic publication of this title.

Text transcribed by Apex Data Services, Inc.
Images scanned by Meredith Evans
Text encoded by Apex Data Services, Inc., Ellen Decker, and Jill Kuhn Sexton
First edition, 2001
ca. 1.4M
Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
2001.

        © This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.

Source Description:
(title page) History of the African Methodist Episcopal Church
Daniel A. Payne
Ed. by C. S. Smith
xvi, 502 p., ill.
Nashville, Tenn.
Publishing House of the A. M. E. Sunday School Union
1891
Call number BX8443 .P28 (Holgate Library, Bennett College, Greenboro, NC)

        The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH digitization project, Documenting the American South.
        The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
        Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved. Encountered typographical errors have been preserved, and appear in red type.
        All footnotes are inserted at the point of reference within paragraphs.
        Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.
        All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
        All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as " and " respectively.
        All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as ' and ' respectively.
        All em dashes are encoded as --
        Indentation in lines has not been preserved.
        Running titles have not been preserved.
        Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check programs.

Library of Congress Subject Headings, 21st edition, 1998

Languages Used:

LC Subject Headings:

Revision History:

        

Illustration

Rt. Rev. Richard Allen
1st Bishop of the African M. E. Church
[Frontispiece Image]

        

Illustration

[Title Page Image]

        

Illustration

[Title Page Verso Image]

NOTICE.

        FINDING it impossible to carry out my original intention of publishing THE HISTORY OF THE A. M. E. CHURCH in a single volume, this is to give notice that the present volume will be considered as Volume I., or, THE HISTORY OF THE A. M. E. CHURCH FROM 1816 TO 1856.

        Volume II. is now in course of preparation, and will be issued as soon as possible.

D. A. P.

HISTORY
OF THE
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH,

BY

DANIEL A. PAYNE, D.D., LL. D.,
One of the Bishops of the A. M. E. Church; Author of "The Semi-Centenary of African
Methodism;" "A Treatise on Domestic Education;" "Recollections of Seventy
Years;" ["]General Conference Sermons."

EDITED BY REV. C. S. SMITH, D. D.

TWO PARTS. IN ONE VOLUME.

ILLUSTRATED.

NASHVILLE, TENN.:
PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE A. M. E. SUNDAY-SCHOOL UNION.
1891.

Page ii

ENTERED, ACCORDING TO ACT OF CONGRESS, IN THE YEAR 1891, BY
DANIEL ALEXANDER PAYNE,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, AT WASHINGTON.

Page iii

PREFACE.

        THE General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, seeing the necessity and desirability of having the history of the rise and progress of the Church set forth clearly and concisely for the benefit of its ministers and members, authorized Rev. George Hogarth, the General Book Steward and editor of the Magazine from 1840 to 1848, to publish a work entitled, "The Rise and Progress of the African Methodist Episcopal Church," with a revision of the life and death of Bishop Allen. Mr. Hogarth, for various reasons, never accomplished the work which had been thus assigned to him. He had frequently called upon the ministers of the Connection to furnish him with the documents, and other data necessary for him to go on with the history, but owing to the general apathy on the subject no response was made to his inquiries, and at the date of his death nothing had been done.

        In the General Conference of 1848 the question of having the history written was again brought up, and by a numerous vote I was invested with the power and work of Historiographer of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. During the years from 1848 to 1850, following the example of the General Book Steward, Mr. Hogarth, I sent to the various ministers and officers of the Church, asking for the necessary information to enable me to fulfill the duties of my position, but always met with the same result--no notice was taken of my request, and no responses were made.

        Meanwhile, everything I came across having the nature of history was seized and carefully put away. Finally, I perceived that unless I went in search of material, the history would never be written by me. Therefore, I begged Bishop Paul Quinn to release me from pastoral work in order that I might go in search of historical documents and converse with the contemporaries of Bishop Allen and his coadjutors, for many of his intimate friends and advisers were then living. But the Bishop refused, saying: "I will give you a small appointment which you can manage, and at the same time go on in search of what you need." To this I replied: "That is impossible." But the good Bishop persisted, and at the close of the Baltimore Conference of 1850, which sat in Washington, D. C., in April, he sent me out as pastor of the Ebenezer A. M. E. Church, of Baltimore, Md.

        The announcement was made on Monday or Tuesday. The following Friday morning I went to Baltimore, and in the evening met the class-leaders and stewards, of whom I made inquiries concerning the condition of the charge; but to not one of my questions would they give any information. Therefore, I said: "Brethren, why do you not answer my questions?" The chief steward replied: "Dr. Payne, we might as well tell you at once. The people met here last Wednesday and passed a resolution to reject you

Page iv

as their pastor." Said I, "Is that true?" "Yes," he replied, "it is true." Again I demanded, "Is that true?" He said, "Yes." Then I rose, took my hat and cane, saying, "Good-bye, brethren; I shall never cross your threshold again as your pastor. But," said I, "what are your reasons for refusing to have me as your pastor?" He said: "The people say they have no objection to your moral character. They believe you are a Christian gentleman; but they say you have too fine a carpet on your parlor floor, and you won't let them sing the cornfield ditties, and if any one of them should invite you to dine or take tea with him, you are too proud to do it."

        But the Omniscient Head of the church militant and triumphant overruled this rejection of his servant for good, as the sequel shows:

        (a.) Bishop Quinn, having been informed of the fact that I was rejected, visited Baltimore, and urged me to take possession of the pastorate, assuring me that the civil law would protect and defend me in so doing. I replied that I was willing to go wherever the people were willing to receive me, but my own sense of what was right and proper would not allow me to force myself on a people who had formally rejected me.

        (b.) By this adverse occurrence, I was free to travel in search of material for our Church history.

        My searches and researches commenced at Baltimore, and continued up to Portland, Maine; then through Ontario--called at the time "Canada West"--and Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky to St. Louis. Thence I proceeded by steamer to New Orleans, at that time the extreme southwestern point of our field of labor. Returning from New Orleans, I passed through Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and arrived at New York in time to be present at the General Conference held in that city in 1852.

        As Philadelphia was the fountain and headquarters of African Methodism, I expected to obtain the most information in that city, and in this I was not disappointed. Mrs. Adams, the youngest daughter of Bishop Allen, had in her possession a large old trunk which had belonged to the Bishop. To this I obtained access, and upon examination found that it contained the most valuable documents extant which could shed a ray of reliable light upon the early history and character of the illustrious man.

        These documents are the manuscript basis of what is called "The Life, Experience and Gospel Labors of the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen." There was also an unbound manuscript entitled, "Articles Improving, Amending and Altering Articles of Association of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, commonly known by the name of Bethel Church, of the city of Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by and with the consent of two-thirds of the male members of said church."*

        * This association to regulate and govern the mother church adopted seven articles. It is dated, Philadelphia, the 24th of March, 1817; certified to be lawful by Joseph McKean, Esq., Attorney General, after which the Articles of Association were persued and examined by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth, and pronounced lawful by Judges Thomas Tilman, Jasper Yeats, Thomas Smith and H. H. Breckenridge; and then ordered to be enrolled by the Governor of the State.


Page v

        The former document contained thirty-seven pages, and was written by Bishop Allen's son, Richard Allen, Jr. The proof of this statement is confirmed by the minutes of the Baltimore Conference for 1818-19, which are also in my possession. The minutes of these two Conferences were written by young Richard, then about fourteen years old. The manuscript of the Philadelphia Conference of 1818 is also in my possession. It was enveloped by a thin pasteboard cover, which is so colored as to imitate conglomerate stone. Being too small for the manuscript, this cover did not give that perfect protection which a larger covering would have furnished. It was labelled on the back:

RICHARD ALLEN,
JOURNAL,
MARCH 13TH, 1826.

        I also obtained from the widow of Rev. Joseph Cox his own journal, as closely kept as that of Bishop Allen--in a pasteboard portfolio. These were the only two personal journals of the "Fathers" that I found in the city of Philadelphia. Brother Cox was a local elder in the mother church, and in mental power excelled all but Joseph M. Corr, who was "General Secretary" for the three Conferences--Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York. Joseph M. Corr was also a local preacher and class-leader, and a tailor by trade. Although he kept the fullest and best minutes of the three Annual Conferences, he kept no journal of his daily private life. Beyond these two journals nothing was found in Philadelphia concerning the beginning of things--nothing but "tradition," and that was contradictory.

        Elder Clayton Durham and Deacon Walter Proctor were associates of Bishop Allen. Good and useful men were they, but illiterate. Bishop William Paul Quinn was also in the city of Philadelphia (1850). Added to these, I found a stalwart layman named Jonathan Tudas, from whom I obtained an interesting account of the convention--not the General Conference, because at that time (1816) there were no Conferences in existence to be represented by a General Conference. There were only separate and independent churches from Baltimore, Md., Wilmington, Del., Attleborough, Pa., and Salem, N. J., which met in Philadelphia, organized a convention, and in that convention organized the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Jonathan Tudas was present, and from his lips I obtained the "tradition" which is given the reader in the second chapter of this history. But before I would accept his narrative as correct, or approaching correctness, I interviewed Clayton Durham, a member of the convention of 1816, and Bishop Quinn, who, like Jonathan Tudas, was present, but not a member--being permitted to see and hear all that was said and done. Walter Proctor was not present, but he had obtained from Allen and Durham all that was said and done. To these three persons I put the following question:

Page vi

        "Can I depend upon any statement made by Jonathan Tudas respecting the sayings and doings of the convention of 1816?" To this interrogation every one of them answered in the affirmative, and assured me that Tudas had a powerful memory, and was a man of unquestionable veracity.

        Leaving Philadelphia, I traveled throughout the whole of the territories embraced by the Connection, including Canada West. From Washington, D. C., I went to Portland, Me., and then from St. Louis to New Orleans and as far West as Iowa City, in search of historical material.

        At every point and in every place I searched as diligently as I did at Philadelphia and Baltimore (for the latter city was as much a fountain and a factor, original and powerful, as the former).

        Every pamphlet, every Conference minute, Quarterly and Annual, with every scrap of paper that threw a ray of light upon the genesis and progress of the Connection was examined and copied, and, whenever permitted, I took possession of it. But after I had seen and gathered all available material, I perceived and recognized the fact that the materials providentially saved were both sparse and poor. Nothing reliable, nothing indisputable had been obtained--nothing but the minutes of Quarterly and Annual Conferences. What, then, could I do? Tax the imagination? Imagination is not history. It is the source of romance. Could I depend upon tradition? Because it is contradictory, it is therefore unreliable. At first it may be like pure water flowing from a pure fountain, but in its passage through ravines, glens and valleys, through bogs, quagmires and swamps, through creeks and rivers into the ocean, it becomes stained, polluted, muddy and filthy, like the waters of the great Mississippi. No, no, no! History can find no firm foundation in tradition. Neither can it in rhetoric, for that often canonizes falsehoods and lies as well as facts and truths.

        Upon, what, then, must history be based? Upon unquestionable official monuments like the pyramids of Egypt--like its obelisks and its Sphynxes, its Karnac, its hieroglyphics--which have been preserved through thirty centuries, and brought down to us the histories of ancient Egypt, once mistress of the world, but now, alas! alas! "the basest of the kingdoms."

        We say that history must also be based upon documents, official and irrefutable. Such are the minutes of our Quarterly and Annual Conferences. They are manuscript and printed documents of the genesis and development of the past. The sayings and doings which they record were recorded because they were sayings and doings; the facts and events which they chronicle are chronicled because they actually occurred, and were attested by those who were eye and ear witnesses of them.

        Official documents, whether correct and accurate, or incorrect and inaccurate, we cannot go beyond. The facts which they record are recorded because they are facts. It is presumed that all statements were examined and sifted before they were accepted and put on record, therefore they are reliable. If such monuments of the past are not to be credited, what is?

        Once more, the correctness and accuracy of a record depends much upon the competency of the chronicler, the secretary, or upon the printer;

Page vii

but neither accuracy nor inaccuracy can destroy the reality of the facts--neither can they annual the events.

        I am now prepared to inform the reader that our first chapters may be called Documentary History, because they are based upon the minutes of the several Annual Conferences. So if it be objected, the fact that the early part of the history of our Church being based upon such scanty material must be taken into consideration. To such objection our reply is: We cannot make that rich whose nature is poor. Should we make the attempt, it would be fiction, not truth. If the "Fathers" have given us sparse minutes, we cannot make them full. They are gone to their eternal rest; we cannot call them back. They have left for us the records of their labors; we have made the best of them--the best possible to us.

        If Bishop Allen, Bishop Morris Brown and Bishop Quinn had kept daily private records of their private and public lives, the first part of our history would have been ten-fold more interesting than it is. If all the secretaries who succeeded Joseph M. Corr had detailed the transactions of the Annual Conferences which were in existence from 1816 to 1840, when the Indiana Conference was organized by Bishop Morris Brown at Blue River, Indiana, our history would have been fuller and more instructive than it is. Up to that date the most detailed minutes are those given us by Joseph M. Corr and Lewis Woodson--the former of Philadelphia, the latter of the Ohio Conference. For beauty of penmanship and detailed entries, David Ware may be ranked with them; but it is my duty to say, as a faithful historian, these three secretaries were really laymen, i. e. local preachers, who obtained their living by secular employments, who, by the civil and ecclesiastical laws, are ruled out of the ranks of the clergy. These facts indicate the illiteracy of the itinerant ministry up to 1844.

        We now remark that the first parts of our history may seem stiff and monotonous, but they are rocks--unchangeable rocks. The Great Teacher, who is also the greatest factor of human history, tells us that a wise man will build his house upon a rock. But the latter part of our history is full of life, because it represents the living times, many of its actors being now on the stage still performing their part in the drama. The materials of our history are now increasing, and becoming rich as well as abundant. They ought to be carefully preserved for the future historian.

        To this end we cannot be too careful in electing secretaries; and the Bishops ought to conscientiously keep their own diaries and journals, both private and official. The presiding elders should be required to do the same, and no one should be a presiding elder who is too illiterate to register his daily work. Then, too, if the pastors will write monographs of the several pastorates which they serve, including men and women noted for their piety, usefulness and faithfulness, we shall have at the celebration of our first centennial, which will occur in 1916, varied, abundant and most valuable materials, wherewith the historiographer of that day shall be enabled to furnish to posterity an instructive history.

        And now, may I not say a word to my readers as to the nature and uses of history?

Page viii

        As regards its nature, one has said, "History is philosophy teaching by example." Let us regard this definition as scientific. As a Christian educator, I shall say, history is a method which God employs to teach us that righteousness exalteth the individual and the nation, and sin is a curse to the individual and to the nation. This definition can be demonstrated by biography as well as by monography and general history. We say, therefore, that the Creator of man teaches him by the course of history, as he does by no other method. History is illustrative and confirmative of the teachings of revelations and the utterances of prophecy.

        What are the uses of history?

        (a.) History may be used to teach man the truth--that there is a Supreme Being above him, behind him and before him, enlightening him, counseling him, and controlling him by limitations of time and power.

        (b.) A second use of history is to teach that the Supreme Being is not a god; but the ALMIGHTY GOD, the All-Wise. Good, holy, infinite in all his attributes, he is the God who both causes and permits human actions, be they intellectual activities, moral sensibilities, or movements of the will, causing only the good, and permitting the bad.

        (c.) A third use of history is to teach man that God is the supreme, absolute, irresistible factor of history. "This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isaiah xiv. 26, 27.)

        "When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him? whether it be done against a nation, or against a man only." (Job xxxiv. 29.)

        Indeed, all the prophets from Moses to Malachi teach us the truth that God is the absolute factor of history. And the teachings of Jesus and the apostles go beyond them, as revealing the Omnipotent Hand in human history, individual and universal.

        History, both sacred and secular, reveals another startling, I may say, appalling truth--that good angels and good men are co-operating factors with God, on the one side; while bad men and bad angels are co-operating factors with Satan, on the other side. Behold the contending factors of history!

        So, also, history shows that God deals with his Church as he deals with the state. Both prosper and perpetuate their existence as they observe, reverence and keep his commandments, his statutes and his judgments--both fall under his indignation and are destroyed as they disobey him and contemn his commandments, his statutes and his laws. Sacred history abounds with examples illustrating and confirming these statements we have just made.

        Lastly, both sacred and secular, sometimes called profane history, show that Churches, as well as states, monarchies and empires, are limited by divine power; that when their time expires no human or divine agency can prolong their existence, and that the invisible power brings them to a final end.

Page ix

        The antediluvian Church seems to have had no organic form, but we see stars of the first magnitude shining in its firmament--stars such as Abel and Seth, Enoch and Noah. This inorganic four was useful for the antediluvian age. When that age expired it passed away forever.

        Out of the flood and the ark, which sailed upon its bosom, came Noah and his sons as new seed for a new state and a new Church. From the three rescued brothers, the eldest, Shem, was chosen, and of his immediate descendants Abraham was selected as the root of that divine tree which God the Father ordained to become the Tree whose juices and leaves and fruit are for the healing of nations. It assumed two successive outward forms: the Patriarchal, then the Mosaic or Jewish. The first was very simple; the second, very complex and gorgeous. Both continued performing their functions for ages, then each was displaced and gave way to a nobler one. Mark well, each of these was racial. Then came the noblest of them all--called at Antioch the Christian, but styled by the Prince of the Apostles, "The Church of the Living God;" non-racial, therefore, to stand forever on earth till she shall conquer all the races, make them one in Christ Jesus, then ascend into the heaven of heavens, or become "The New Jerusalem," whose foundations are eternal, whose inhabitants are the sinless. This Christian Church, which St. Paul styles the Church of the Living God, is universal and invisible--embracing all the saints on earth and all the saints in heaven. The different denominations may be compared to so many regiments in the "Grand Army," each of which makes and writes its own history.

        Believing as we do that the African Methodist Episcopal Church is one of the regiments of the grand division of the "Grand Army," and that she has to make and write her own history, we humbly present the following pages as preserved sheets of history already made and still developing. May the reading and studying of these preserved sheets contribute to the intellectual, moral and spiritual edification of its laity and clergy, stimulating their continuous growth in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, "be blessing and glory, and wisdom and honor, and power and might, forever given." Amen and amen.

D. A. P.

Page x

Page xiii

Page 1

PART FIRST.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY REFLECTIONS.

        Three Points of History--The Historian's Task--Its Fulfillment--In Civil Life and Ecclesiastical Life--Churches and Conferences--Pastors and Flocks--Remarkable Men and Women--Bishops--A Perfect History of the Redeemer's Church.

        IN all history there exists the necessity of three great points, and without these being brought forward and cleared of all superincumbent affairs which do not accord with them, no properly written history or accurate knowledge can be obtained. The first of these three points, which must be brought out clearly before the mind, is the actual facts--facts which will stand the severest test and bear the truth upon their face. The next point of importance is the judicial weighing of this testimony--the patient unraveling of the tangled skein; the gathering up of the broken ends and the piecing of the fragments and bringing them into a harmonious whole. To do this, we are required to make inquiries into the nature of things--the condition of affairs which led to the ultimate consummation of what took place--or in other words, Why did the facts, which we know to have occurred, so occur? There must have been some reason for events shaping themselves in the way they did. The third great question before us is the results following such a course of events. In the performance of this duty, the historian, if he will faithfully perform his duty, has no easy work before him. It is his obligation not only to exhibit facts as they are and occurrences as they were; the character of private and public men as their conduct manifested it; to tell of governments and the principles by which they developed themselves; of legislators and the laws which emanated from them; but also to show the effects of these upon the people among whom they obtained, both in times of peace and warfare; to trace their influence upon surrounding nations

Page 2

and the influence of surrounding nations upon them, until they have reached the climax of their prosperity; depicting their virtues and vices in the most graphic manner, extolling the one and denouncing the other; thus following the subjects of his story from infancy to old age and from the cradle to the grave of their national existence, bringing to light the invisible hand of the God of nations which led them through all their vicissitudes, now exalting them on account of their virtues and then casting them down because of their vices. Thus does he fulfill his difficult task--teaching mankind by living and striking examples that "Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people." This is the business of him who writes a history of man in civil life. Similar is the work of him who writes of man in ecclesiastical life.

        May the Great Head of the Church help us to write concerning the African Methodist Episcopal Church as a faithful historian--as one who will not be warped by envy, bribed by gold, nor awed by power. In the execution of the task allotted to us by the General Conference of 1848, we shall describe the most prominent churches and the respective Conferences and show how the one became the legitimate offspring of the other. We shall portray the life and character of the pastors as far and as well as materials will admit. We will show the general character of the flocks and the particular characters of the most remarkable men and women among them. We shall portray the characters of the Bishops and the ministers in general, holding up to public admiration the local preachers who distinguished themselves either by their piety, their talents or their usefulness. We shall show how the several General Conferences were constituted; how these Conferences maintained their intellectual character by their respective enactments; and how these enactments affected the character of the churches for weal or for woe. We shall also give the history of the Fine Arts--architecture, music, painting and poetry--as cultivated by members of the A. M. E. Church. Moreover, we shall give a view of its doctrines and government. The History of the Redeemer's Church cannot be perfect till this is written. Mankind cannot know it as a whole till they shall have read this history.

Page 3

CHAPTER II.
PRELIMINARY CAUSES OF ORGANIZATION.

        Bethel in Baltimore or Bethel in Philadelphia--The Baltimore Church Possesses the Older Documents of History--Testimony of Rev. David Smith and Rev. Richard Allen--General Conference of the Methodist Church in 1784-1787--Unkind Treatment of Colored Members in Philadelphia--Bishop Allen Consecrates the First Bethel--The Colored People Disowned as Methodists.

        WHETHER Bethel Church in Baltimore or Bethel Church in Philadelphia is the first born, has been contested. Some of the oldest among our ministers and among our laity contend that the Baltimore church was first organized; others, that the Philadelphia church had a prior origin. Whether the former church is entitled to be considered the oldest church of the Connection or not may be forever a disputed point in the history of our Church, but it is undisputed that the first record of any of the proceedings of the rulers and fathers of the A. M. E. Church is dated from that city, and the testimony of Rev. David Smith, one of the early pioneers of our ministry, corroborated by a letter written by the Rev. Richard Allen on February 18th, 1816, is to the effect that the separation of the Church in Baltimore took place three weeks before the lawsuit in Philadelphia which forever released us from the oppression that really brought about our Church freedom.

        But then again, while the Baltimore Conference can produce older documents touching its history than can be found concerning the Philadelphia Conference, by at least four years, the priority would seem to belong to Philadelphia on the grounds that the church there can produce written records of her origin dating farther back than any discovered in Baltimore.*

        * Of course we are now speaking of these Churches as independent societies, antecedent to their becoming integral parts of the A. M. E. Church.


But, be this as it may, the preliminary causes which led to the organization of the African Methodist Episcopal Church are to be found in what follows:

        In 1784, the Rev. John Wesley ordained the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL. D. (a member of Jesus College, in the University of Oxford) for the office of Bishop, and sent him over to

Page 4

this country to organize the various societies of Methodists then existing chiefly in the cities of New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, into an ecclesiastical association. These societies were planted in America through the agency of certain local preachers from Ireland, the chief of whom were Philip Embury in New York and Robert Strawbridge, who having emigrated to Frederick county in the state of Maryland, therein preached and formed societies. In the month of December and on the 25th day in the year above mentioned, all the societies founded in America by Methodist preachers were consolidated into one body by the General Conference held in the city of Baltimore, Bishop Coke presiding, assisted by Bishop Asbury. The latter was ordained by the former.

        About three years after this organization of the M. E. Church, the colored members of that body in the city of Philadelphia, suffering from the "unkind treatment of their white brethren, who considered them a nuisance in the house of worship," met for the purpose of canvassing their wrongs and devising means to remedy the same. The result of this meeting was the determination to erect a house of worship wherein they could worship God under their own "vine and fig-tree." In their efforts to accomplish this object they met with great opposition from Elder J. McC----,who declared if they did not give up the building, erase their names from the subscription paper, and make proper acknowledgements, they should be publicly expelled. Conscious of their rights as men and Christians, and of the rectitude of their motives, they regarded not the mandate of the reverend gentleman and sent in their resignations. While in this condition the Lord raised up friends to counsel and assist them, in the persons of many of the most respectable and influential white citizens, the chief of whom were Dr. Benjamin Rush and Mr. R. Ralston. Bishop White was also among their illustrious benefactors, for he ordained the Rev. Absalom Jones to be their pastor, who of course was ordained according to the Protestant Episcopal Church.

        In 1793, the numbers of the serious people of color having increased, they were of different opinions respecting the mode of religious worship, and as many felt a strong partiality for that adopted by the Methodists, Richard Allen, with the advice

Page 5

of some of his brethren, proposed the erection of a place of worship on his own ground and at his own expense, as an African Methodist meeting-house. This movement was violently opposed by the preachers of the M. E. Church, who also insisted that the house should be made over to the Conference. The building was soon finished and Bishop Asbury by invitation consecrated it to the service of the Most High. The house was called Bethel, after the example and, I trust, in the spirit of Jacob.

        It was now proposed by the resident Elder (J. McC----) that they should have the church incorporated that they might receive any donations or legacy as well as enjoy any other advantages arising therefrom. This was agreed to, and in order to save expense, the Elder proposed to draw it up for them. But they soon found that he had done it in such a manner as to entirely deprive them of the liberty they expected to enjoy. In this condition they suffered grievances both numerous and painful. Sometimes demanding the keys, at other times declaring they should have no more meetings without his permission, the Rev. J. S---- thus embarrassed them until they were driven by force of circumstances to ask legal advice. This led the congregation to sign a petition to the Legislature of Pennsylvania for a supplement to their deed, which petition that body readily granted. This liberated them from numerous difficulties, but did not drive their opponents from the field. In order to adjust matters, they proposed supplying them with preaching, if they would give six hundred dollars per year to the Methodist Society. The congregation refused to give so large a sum, and the preacher proposed to serve for four hundred; but this also they refused to give, whereupon the preachers agreed to preach twice a week during the year for two-hundred dollars. But it proved to be only six or seven times a year that they were served with preaching and then, sometimes, by such preachers as were not acceptable to the people and not in much esteem among the Methodists as preachers. Our people being displeased with such treatment, compelled the trustees to resolve to give but one-hundred dollars per year to the preachers. When a quarterly payment of the last sum was tendered it was refused and sent back, the two hundred dollars being insisted upon or they would preach no more.

Page 6

        The authorities of the church then waited upon Bishop Asbury and requested him to furnish them with a preacher, promising to give him ample support, provided he would do all the duties of a pastor. The Bishop said he did not think there was more than one preacher belonging to the Conference who could attend to those duties, and that was Richard Allen. The Bishop was again informed that the people would pay a preacher four or five hundred dollars a year if he would perform all the duties incumbent on his office. He replied, "We will not serve you on such terms." Sometime after this interview with Bishop Asbury, Elder S. R---- declared that if the supplement were not repealed, neither he nor any of the preachers, itinerant or local, would preach for our people any more. At length the preachers and stewards of the Academy offered to serve them on the same terms which had been made to the preachers of St. George's Church. This proposition was acceded to and then they had preaching for about twelve months, after which they demanded one hundred and fifty dollars per year. This sum was refused and they declined to preach any more. The local preachers of the Academy were also threatened with expulsion if they dared to serve our people. About this time the elder of the Academy published a circular letter, in which our people were disowned as Methodists. A house was also fitted up, not far from Bethel, and an invitation was given to all who desired to be Methodists to resort thither; but being disappointed in this plan, the resident elder of St. George's went to Bethel and insisted on preaching to them and taking the spiritual charge, declaring that he would do so because they were Methodists. Being told that he should come on some terms with the trustees, he replied that he did not come to consult with Richard Allen nor the trustees, but to inform the congregation that on the next Sunday he would come and take charge of them, to which reply was made that he could not preach for them under such circumstances. At the appointed hour, however, the said elder went to Bethel, but the people had so obstructed the aisle of the church that he could get but halfway to the pulpit; meanwhile one of our number was occupying it. Finding himself thwarted, he appealed to those who came with him as witnesses that, "That man," meaning the preacher in the pulpit, had taken his appointment, after

Page 7

which he departed. The next elder stationed at Philadelphia was R. B----, who, following the example of his predecessor, came and published a meeting for himself; but the afore-mentioned precaution having been taken, he went away without effecting the object desired. In consequence of this disappointment he applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. This brought on a law-suit, which ended in favor of Bethel. Thus we were delivered, forever delivered, as well from a distressing and expensive law suit as from our oppressors.

        About this time the colored people in Baltimore and other places were treated in a similar manner as in Philadelphia, and rather than go to law, chose to seek places of worship for themselves. This constrained the Philadelphians to call a General Convention in April, 1816, to form an Ecclesiastical Compact. At this Convention, Bishop Quinn--then a lad of about eighteen or nineteen years of age--was present, but not a member. Brother Jonathan Tudas was also present, but not a member. Between the two, the writer was enabled to make out the list of members in attendance at this Convention--there never having been any printed minutes, and the manuscript being lost, there were no other sources of information except among the fathers of the Church who were living in 1850. The testimony of Jonathan Tudas does not differ materially from that already stated, except that he gives the incident which led directly to the proclamation shutting out our people from the M. E. Church. A woman was accused and convicted of adultery. Immediately after love-feast she reported to the preacher in charge of St. George's Church that she had been unlawfully and unjustly expelled; whereupon he sent her to Richard Allen with this message, substantially, that he must restore her back to membership. This Mr. Allen stated could not be done. The preacher then filled out a love-feast ticket and bade her take it to the keeper of the door, stating that he would not dare refuse her admission; but she met the refusal, nevertheless, in the reply that if Mr. R----, the preacher himself, should come presenting the ticket with her name, he should not enter. Because of this Mr. Allen took the deed of the church to proper parties, who told him that according to the letter and spirit of the deed, Mr. R---- could lock up the church against him, and that he could prevent this only by having a supplement to

Page 8

the deed. This was drawn up immediately, and acknowledged by the Judges of the Supreme Court. It was then confirmed by the authorities at Lancaster, the seat of government, where it was sent. Mr. R---- in the meantime tried to see the deed but was put off by Richard Allen, who appointed the day upon which he could obtain it, and then handed to the discomfited preacher the supplement. "Well, then," said Mr. R----, "I suppose you think you have done it!" On the following Sabbath he published from the pulpit of St. George's Church, that Richard Allen and his adherents were no longer members of the M. E. Church.

        After the failures to abide by what had been promised in the way of preaching for us, and the consequent refusal of the Quarterly Conference to pay for what had not been done, Brother Tudas gives us the details of the next step: Then Mr. Emory fitted up a house at the corner of Third and Lombard streets. Robert Green, a colored man, also bought a house, where in 1851, St. Mary's Street Church stood, and invited the members of Bethel who wished to be Methodists to come there, at the same time telling them he would sell Bethel. Doubting which would have pre-eminence, the supplement or the deed, he made his fears known to the people. Then the trustees and congregation agreed to secure the property for the use of our people by giving Mr. Allen a bond-mortgage upon it, as he held a claim of $6,300 against it. The church had also borrowed about $4,000 from him and was indebted to him, aside from this for his services as a pastor, to the amount of $1,400. Mr. Allen's claims, therefore, amounted to $11,700. The house was put up for sale, Mr. Green bidding against Mr. Allen who bought it in for $10,500. Such were the causes that brought about the origin of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Does it need the eye of a philosopher to see the hand of God in all this? We have often been blamed for our separate organization, and our fathers have been blamed for bringing about that organization. The blame is as unjust as it is cruel. Let it be fastened upon those who pulled our fathers from their knees as they humbly bowed themselves in the sanctuary to worship that God who has, declared himself to be no respecter of persons. Let the censure fall with ten-fold weight upon the heads of those who still perpetuate invidious distinctions in the house of the Living God.

Page 9

CHAPTER III.
RESULTS OF SEPARATION FROM THE M. E. CHURCH.

        Beneficial Results to the Colored Men--Colored Members of the A. M. E. Church--A Comparison--One-fourth Colored in 1792--The African Methodist Church a Slander--Self Government--Self Support--Proof of Its Ability.

        AS to the result of this separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church, permit us to remark that it has been really beneficial to the man of color. First: It has thrown us upon our own resources and made us tax our own mental powers both for government and support: For government--viewed in the light of official responsibility--when we were under the control of the M. E. Church we were dependent upon them for our ministerial instructions. They supplied our pulpits with preachers, deacons and elders, and these in the vast majority of instances were white men. Hence if the instructions given were of the right kind, the merit was the white man's and his alone; so also, if the manner of instruction was pleasing, the merit was the white man's and his alone. The colored man was a mere hearer.

        Again: we were dependent upon them for government. Not only were the presiding elders and preachers in charge all white men, but in a multitude of instances the very class leaders were also white. So then, if the churches among the colored people were well governed, the merit was the white man's and his alone. The colored man was a mere subject.

        But, again: Although the colored members of the M. E. Church always supported to their utmost ability the institutions of the Connection, yet because their white brethren were so vastly in the majority, that support which was so cheerfully and cordially given could not be felt. This was not only true of us when we formed a constituent element of the M. E. Church, but it is equally true to-day of our colored brethren who still continue in connection with it. In the southern states the colored members of the M. E. Church are numerous. In 1792 all the colored members of that church amounted to 13,871. In 1815, the whole number was 43,187. In 1828, the whole number was

Page 10

54,065. In 1840, it was 87,197. The whole number in the M. E. Church ran thus:

        
Year. Whites. Colored.
1815 167,978 43,187
1828 327,932 54,065
1840 650,357 87,197
1845 1,024,466 145,435

        Since the division of the M. E. Church, which took place in 1844, the statistics of both Churches throw the colored and Indian members into one and the same column, so that is is impossible to know from the tables before us the whole number of colored members belonging to the M. E. Church, North and South. But from this it will be seen that in 1792 the number of the colored members constituted but about one-fourth of the whole Methodist fellowship in the states. In 1828, about thirteen years after, it constituted still about one-fourth. In 1840, about twelve years later, it formed less than one-seventh of the whole Church, and in 1845, it formed about one-tenth. So, viewed in whatever light you please, the existence of the colored man as a factor of the M. E. Church, always was, still is, and ever must be a mere cipher. The tendency of all this was to prove that the colored man was incapable of self-government and self-support and thereby confirm the oft repeated assertions of his enemies, that he really is incapable of self-government and self-support. But is not the existence of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a flat contradiction and triumphant refutation of this slander, so foul in itself and so degrading in its influence? For the last seventy years a period of more than seven-tenths of a century, it has been governing itself and supporting itself. Being compelled to teach others, its ministry has been constrained to teach itself. This has caused them to seek knowledge on the right hand and on the left. It has forced them to implore and explore earth and heaven for information that they might be able to lead the erring souls of men from the one to the other. Compelled to govern others, its ministry has been constrained to read and investigate church history for models of government. They have also been led to cogitate for themselves; to discriminate between laws which were just, and those which were unjust; to expunge

Page 11

from the statutes of the Church those which were unequal in their bearings and to substitute those of a more equable character, so that the blood-washed flock of Christ might walk before him in all peace and quietness, feeling that the ecclesiastical yoke and burdens are both easy and light.

        The ability of our Church (as a distinct branch of the Christian family) to provide for itself, even in its early life, can also be clearly demonstrated by the following facts: Within the twelve years from 1841 to 1853, the members of the African Methodist Episcopal Church built, and also rebuilt, three churches in the city of Philadelphia, one of which cost about $16,000, the other over $6,000 and the third about $5,000. In the same period we built and remodelled two churches in the city of Baltimore, one of which cost about $16,000. In the same period we built one in the city of Pittsburgh at the cost of about $10,000. At the same time we built one in Cincinnati, one in Washington, D. C., and one in New Orleans--the first at a cost of $10,000.

        Compelled to support their own institutions, our members have learned to economize and to forecast as they never could or would, had they remained in connection with their white brethren. Does any man require the proofs of these assertions? Let him go to all these cities, to New York, to St. Louis, to Nashville, and others as well. There he will see the commodious and beautiful edifices which have been constructed and dedicated by ourselves to the worship of Almighty God--edifices varying in their costs from $3,000 to $60,000. Let him go to Philadelphia and see our Book Concern, where our hymn books, disciplines and weekly papers are published, which, though in a very imperfect and infant state, give every evidence of an intellect that is at work for itself, and for its own development Let him go to our Sunday-School Publishing House in Nashville, where our own Sabbath-school literature is issued and publications brought forth. Let him go to our several seats of learning--to Wilberforce, near Xenia, O., to Allen University at Columbia, S. C., to Paul Quinn College at Waco, Texas, to Morris Brown College at Atlanta, Ga.--there he will see our children and our youth under the culture of educated men and women giving the pledge of minds that will in the development of mature powers, cause the world to know that they lived and lived to good purpose.

Page 12

Let him visit our churches where he may often hear preachers, who by their native talents or literary acquirements (and sometimes both) demonstrate to the most prejudiced hearer that the man of color can think for himself and guide the sacramental host into the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel of Christ.

        Secondly and lastly: The separation of our Church from the M. E. Church, which was brought about by the agency of our venerated fathers, the Rev. Richard Allen of Philadelphia and Rev. Daniel Coker of Baltimore, has been beneficial to the man of color by giving him an independence of character which he could neither hope for nor attain unto, if he had remained as the ecclesiastical vassal of his white brethren. This is evident from the training which the force of circumstances has given us. These circumstances have been such as to produce independent thought; this has resulted in independent action; this independent action has resulted in the extension of our ecclesiastical organization over nearly all of the States and also into Canada; this ecclesiastical organization has given us an independent hierarchy, and this independent hierarchy has made us feel and recognize our individuality and our heaven-created manhood.

Page 13

CHAPTER IV.
ORGANIZATION OF THE A. M. E. CHURCH.

        The Order of the Plan--Election of a Bishop--Daniel Coker Elected--He Declines--Richard Allen Chosen--Bethel Church made a Separate Charge--Weak Financial Condition--Our Exact Fathers.

        IT has been already intimated that the question is not settled relative to the parent churches in Philadelphia and Baltimore, whether the latter had a separate and distinct origin before the former or not. But in pursuing this narrative we purpose for the sake of order and convenience to commence with the churches farthest South and trace them northward; with the churches farthest East, and trace them westward; with the Baltimore Conference first, not only because its written proceedings date beyond the doings of any other, but also because its annual deliberations have always been prior to those of the others, so that its official documents annually date first.

        As to the organization itself of the A. M. E. Church, we must return to the Ecclesiastical Compact formed by the General Convention in 1816. Forced to take this step, the delegates assembled from Baltimore, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Del., Attleborough, Pa., and Salem, N. J. But sixteen names have been handed down to us as participating in the deliberations of the Convention. The names in the following list were given by Bishop Quinn and Brother Jonathan Tudas, who were present but not participants, as previously stated:

        FROM BALTIMORE:--Rev. Daniel Coker, Rev. Richard Williams, Rev. Henry Harden, Mr. Edward Williamson, Mr. Stephen Hill, Mr. Nicholas Gilliard.

        FROM PHILADELPHIA:--Rev. Richard Allen, Rev. Clayton Durham, Rev. Jacob Tapsico, Rev. James Champion, Mr. Thomas Webster.

        FROM WILMINGTON, DEL.:--Rev. Peter Spencer.

        FROM ATTLEBOROUGH, PA.:--Rev. Jacob Marsh, Rev. William Anderson, Rev. Edward Jackson

        FROM SALEM, N. J.:--Reuben Cuff.

        The men most distinguished in the Convention, were Richard

Page 14

Allen, Daniel Coker and Stephen Hill; and to the counsels and wisdom of the last named, more than to any other man, the Church was indebted for the form it took.

        The most important thing that was done was, of course, the organization of the Connection. The speeches which were made in this important Convention are lost to the Church and to posterity, but the following is the resolution under which the Church was organized:

        "Resolved, That the people of Philadelphia, Baltimore, and all other places, who should unite with them, shall become one body under the name and style of the African Methodist Episcopal Church."

        The next thing of importance was the election of a Bishop. The votes being polled, Rev. Daniel Coker was declared the Bishop-elect on the 9th of April, 1816. On the 10th he resigned, or rather, declined the office, and Rev. Richard Allen was chosen in his stead, and was therefore consecrated the Bishop of the A. M. E. Church on the 11th of April, 1816. The next important thing done was to make it constitutional that any minister coming from another denomination should be received in the same official standing which he held in the Church or denomination whence he came. This then was the origin of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Poor and lowly, an outcast and despised of men, it thus feebly entered into being; but with a manifest destiny of greatness which has been unmistakably developing for over three quarters of a century.

        The churches in the city of Baltimore were planted by the Rev. Daniel Coker. The first record of the proceedings of this Conference is dated April 7th, 1818--the first documentary evidence of its existence. It was opened in the house of Mr. Samuel Williams--a fine two-story building, standing in 1843--in Baltimore, under the presidency of Rev. Richard Allen. The minutes of that Conference present to us a very meager number of representatives--Rev. Richard Allen, Rev. Jacob Tapsico and Rev. William Cousins being the representatives of the Philadelphia churches; and Rev. Richard Williams, Rev. Henry Hardin, Charles Pierce, James Fowsin, Jerry Miller, William Quinn and Thomas Robinson representing Baltimore. These were afterwards joined by others as the Conference continued its sittings from day to day.

Page 15

        The first transaction we find taken up was a charge brought by James Cole against Daniel Coker. Before a committee was appointed to examine this charge, the following resolution was passed:

        Resolved, That no business of a secret nature referred to a committee shall be taken out of the Conference, and if reported out of the Conference by any member, they shall forfeit all their official functions for one year, and shall not obtain their license until they give proper satisfaction to the Annual Conference


        Why this resolution was necessary we have no means of knowing at this late day, but the wisdom of such a proceeding can hardly be doubted[.]

        A committee consisting of Jacob Tapsico, Richard Williams and Edward Williamson was appointed to hear the report and try the case. This committee met at the house of Don Carlos Hall on the 8th, and on the 10th of April reported to the Conference that it had found the charge proven and Daniel Coker guilty. In the meantime another committee had been appointed to examine the work of the trial committee and, after due examination, concurred in the verdict and Daniel Coker was expelled from the Connection. Whatever may have been the sin with which he was charged, and whatever the evidence produced against him, the whole Conference appears to have been satisfied of the justness of his sentence. Two members of the Conference do not appear to have participated in the case: these were Bishop Allen and Elder William Quinn.

        Daniel Coker had shown himself to be eminently useful, and to his talents and activity the infant Connection was largely indebted for the progress it had made. On that account the two non-participants deeply sympathized with him although we have no record of that sympathy being in any way expressed. In view of his former usefulness to the Connection and the disadvantages under which it might have to labor from his absence from its work and councils, we cannot but admire the stern resolve of this body, which dispensed with all the advantages it might otherwise receive, in order to carry out the principles of right and justice, in order to keep itself pure and free from everything which might militate against its advancement in the cause of the Lord; which cut off every one who by any course of conduct might retard that work, or give rise to offence, no matter

Page 16

what the cost might be. It would be well if this course were followed more at the present day and less attention paid to expediency than to right.

        This Conference decided that two deacons were sufficient to present for ordination at present and two were recommended and ordained: Charles Pierce and Edward Waters. The last named was admitted at this time as a regular member of the Annual Conference. Richard Williams and Henry Harden were elected to elder's orders. In the line of progress we find it unanimously agreed upon to lay before the Society the building of a Church on the Point, and a committee was appointed to view the site for the purpose. None had died or withdrawn, and, save in the sad case of Daniel Coker, no charges were preferred against any of the members. There were 1,066 members in the Society reported. The services of the Secretary were recognized by the appropriation of five dollars to pay for the same. This was as it should be. We have already seen how much is lost to the Church by the neglect of the General Convention of 1816, in not preserving its records.

        It was different with the Conference of 1818. Here we find the minutes replete with the details of every transaction entered into; and these really give us the first view of how our fathers carried on the business of the different things committed to their charge. These minutes are written in a careful, clear hand and although the work of a mere lad, they show a striking adaptability for the work. The penmanship is that of Richard Allen, Junior, son of Bishop Allen. He was neither a member of the Annual Conference nor a member of the Church, if we are rightly informed. It is supposed that he was employed as the Secretary, because he was the best scholar that the Conference could obtain. He was then about fifteen years of age. Bishop Allen and the Baltimore Annual Conferences of 1818 and 1819 (for the lad was made Secretary of both) exhibited a degree of common sense and sound judgment which many of the Conferences and leading men of our times will do well to consider and imitate. Better have a boy who can do a thing as it ought to be done, than a man who cannot.

        This was the first characteristic of this Conference, and the second was the election of a Book Steward. In this the members

Page 17

"builded better than they knew," and laid the foundation of an institution, which since that time has continued to grow in power and influence. Possibly no man in the Conference had any conception of what he was doing to promote the influence and power of the Church, when he voted for the simple resolutions that a book steward be appointed and that Don Carlos Hall receive the appointment.

        In this selection also there was wisdom. This Don Carlos Hall, who was promoted by the Annual Conference to this office, was not a traveling preacher nor a local preacher, but an intelligent layman. He was appointed because he was best qualified, and this selection of the Baltimore Conference demonstrated the soundness of their judgment. It will be wise for the Annual Conferences of the present hour to follow so good an example. Where there cannot be found an itinerant preacher qualified to fill an office involving labor of such a character, let a local preacher possessing the needed qualifications be employed; and when neither itinerant nor local preacher is competent, let a layman be placed in the position. Indeed, the more we employ laymen to fill such positions, the better for the entire Church. At the same time Henry Harden was appointed book steward for the circuit.

        The good resulting from having printed minutes for reference moved the Conference, for it almost unanimously decided to print one thousand copies, the work being left in the general superintendent's hands and to be performed in Philadelphia, the Conference providing for his expenses.

        We find that three--Richard Williams, Henry Harden and Charles Pierce--were nominated to go to the Philadelphia Conference, with an appropriation of fifteen dollars each for their expenses. They were exact--these fathers in the early Church, for even a small sum was paid for the use of the room in which the Conference carried on its deliberations, though it was in a private house; and they were careful as well, for we find directions for providing a trunk for the Conference papers. At this Conference Bethel Church was separated from the circuit and made a separate charge. The financial condition of the Conference was not very strong, although apparently it had the balance on the right side, as the total receipts were $437.90 and the expenditures,

Page 18

including everything, $344.05. After resolving that the next Conference, that of 1819, be held in Baltimore, the Conference of 1818 adjourned April 14th.

        Two things characterize this Conference. First, it is the first Conference of which we have any record. The meeting in 1816, although of the utmost importance in the history of the Church, left no records behind it in a tangible form. The whole of the evidence of its existence, apart from the fact that the independent churches there united to form the A. M. E. Church, is wholly dependent upon statements made verbally. It is true the witnesses are reliable men; but at best, all are liable to error. If any Conference was held in 1817, no knowledge of it whatever is obtainable. It is probable some meeting or Conference was held, but of what may have been said or done we have no means of knowing. The important characteristic we have already emphasized--the beginning of what has since proved to be one of the most important offices of the Connection--the office of book steward and the wisdom of the choice of Don Carlos Hall, which future events fully verified.

Page 19

CHAPTER V.
BALTIMORE CONFERENCES, 1820-21-22.

        Conference of 1820--Twenty-one Members Present--Their Names--Conference of 1821--Local Preachers Admitted to Seats in Annual Conference--A General Rule Adopted--Conference of 1822--Bishop Allen Makes an Address--A Long Debate in Reference to Western Territory--An Assistant Bishop Elected.

        THE Baltimore Annual Conference of 1818 opened with ten members, some of whom were from the Philadelphia District. The Conference of 1820, about which we are now to write, opened with twenty-one members, showing an increase of eleven, some of whom, as in the first instance, were also from Philadelphia. The names of the men were as follows:

        Rev. Jacob Matthews acted as secretary.

        Again the reader is asked not to forget that Mr. Don C. Hall, marked here and mentioned as steward, and who had distinguished himself in all the preceding Conferences, was not a clergyman, but yet he participated in all the business of the Conference, moving resolutions and voting for them--in a word, leading on the affairs of the Church, and giving character to them. The Conference of this year was held at his house, a private dwelling. Such also was the case with the first session, in 1818. It was held in a private dwelling, that of Mr. Samuel Williams, while that of 1819 was in the sanctuary.

        Two persons were admitted on trial, John White and Joseph Chane; James Cole was ordained a deacon; David Smith, Charles Pierce, and Edward Waters were ordained elders.

Page 20

        Henry Hardin and David Smith were paid by the steward of the Annual Conference twenty-four dollars for their expenses to the Philadelphia Conference.*

        * The Conference minutes show that Richard Allen, Jr. is no longer the secretary of the Annual Conference. Rev. Jacob Mathews fills the office. As in the case of young Allen, he is brought from Philadelphia; but, although a man, as secretary he is not the equal of young Allen, in either writing or recording.


        While there was little or no business of particular interest to us, aside from learning that the number in Society was 1,202, we find in two instances how utterly futile were the "Ways and Means" adopted by the Conference of 1819 to prevent the dreaded "discord, schisms, tattling and tale-bearing."

        The next year (1821) the Conference met as usual in the same city, and was opened on the 14th of April, in the church located in Saratoga street, near Gay. Bishop Allen was in the chair. There were several things done at this Conference worthy of note. Boundaries were enlarged, and business of importance dispatched.

        The eastern shore of Maryland was incorporated in the bounds of the Baltimore Conference under a motion made by Rev. Jacob Mathews, and placed under the charge of the Elder in Baltimore. The local preachers were formally admitted to seats in the Annual Conference. This was brought about by the motion of Brothers Harden and Webster. But, by motion of Rev. David Smith and the said Brother Harden, they were to be deprived of a "voice in the Conference against any one of the traveling preachers," except "in case of a trial," and then "only as witnesses." A "General Rule" was adopted for the government of all the churches. This Rule, it seems, had been drawn up in the city of Philadelphia, on the 9th of July, 1820, at the First General Conference then in session, and the Second in order of time; but to this fact no allusion was made by the Baltimoreans. This "General Rule" was first ratified by the Baltimoreans, and then adopted for "government of all the churches." This fact indicates the false views which the members of the General Conference entertained concerning their power as a General Conference. This Baltimore Annual Conference had not only fixed the place of the meeting of the general Conference, but doubtless did send representatives to attend it; for in those days all traveling preachers were members of the General Conference. But

Page 21

we are not informed as to the nature of it, and as there are no minutes of that Philadelphia Conference, they having shared the fate, if they existed, of the other minutes of the Philadelphia Annual Conference, we are left in ignorance of its character and design.

        Exhorters to the number of seven were licensed by this Annual Conference. Then there was a motion that it was resolved that "the Rule for raising moneys for the support of the Gospel be enforced."

        There seemed to have been a spirit of insubordination manifested among the local ministry, who were therefore required by vote to pledge themselves anew to "be in subjection to the Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church."

        The number of members in the bounds of the Baltimore Conference had increased to 1,760, Carlisle being the weakest point, with a membership of fifteen, while Baltimore City reached 525, with Caroline County, of recent addition to the work, following next with 192.

        One year later (1822), less two days from the opening of this Conference, the body convened again, upon the 12th of April. Bishop Allen addressed the Conference with special reference to two points always worthy of emulation--love, peace, and harmony among the ministry, and the necessity of conducting the business of the Conference in the fear of God.

        The work was increasing, and there was a consequent increase in the importance of the business to be transacted. Charles Guy, Peter D. Schureman, and Jeremiah Beulah were received on trial in the traveling connection, while Marcus Brown, Amos Crookshanks, and Richard Boone were elected to receive orders as deacons, the work demanding more than two.

        A long and serious debate arose in this Conference relative to the Western Territories and the Conference under whose jurisdiction they should be placed. It was vast enough as a district--these Territories--for the record refers to it as "the country west of the Alleghany Mountains," and after consideration a former rule respecting it was repealed, and it was determined that the supervision should belong to the Philadelphia Conference until it was proper to set it off into an independent district.

        Again the borders were enlarged in another direction through a petition received from Washington, Georgetown, and Piscataway,

Page 22

requesting to be admitted into union with the African M. E. Church, which petition was unanimously granted.

        The Church had so increased in its six years of existence that it was thought best to have an assistant to the Bishop. The Baltimore Conference took the matter in hand now, as we see in its motion to create a committee of three traveling preachers to nominate two or three candidates for that position. The committee consisted of Jacob Richardson, William Quinn, and Thomas Webster. The election of the candidates was to be managed in the following manner according to the journal of that date:

        It was moved by Jacob Matthews, and seconded by Abner Coker, that Don Carlos Hall be appointed as a judge with the Bishop in time of election. It was put to vote, and carried, that the person that should be elected for an assistant to the General Superintendent should be voted for by private election, and the name of the person that should gain the election should be sealed up, and for to be kept in secret until after the Conference in Philadelphia has given in their vote, and, according to the Bishop's proposal, for him then to be set apart, if the two Conferences, Baltimore and Philadelphia, wished for it to be done, voted, and carried


        It is a curious paper, showing a very awkward and contradictory movement, at least, in the step toward making a second Bishop; but it was a first experience, in which two Conferences instead of one were concerned, and the authority vested in each body does not seem to be very clearly understood, stated, or acted upon.

        The Philadelphia Conference was not then in session, but in the election held in Baltimore, Morris Brown, Henry Harden, and Jacob Matthews were candidates, and the vote stood: Morris Brown, 7; Jacob Matthews, 9; Henry Harden, 4. The following month the Philadelphia Conference convened the 20th of May, and we find the same three again as candidates for general superintendent, with the following result: Morris Brown, 9; Jacob Matthews, 15; Henry Harden, 9. The total vote stood: Morris Brown, 16; Jacob Matthews, 24; Henry Harden, 13.

        For the first time Bishop Allen's name appears at the end of the Baltimore proceedings, and also in attestation of the genuineness of the electoral votes cast, both in Baltimore and Philadelphia, for the episcopal assistant. The character and constitutionality of this election will be examined at another point. In

Page 23

this instance we have an evidence that election to the episcopal office does not constitute any person a Bishop. "The laying on of hands" must follow election in order that the individual may be a veritable Bishop.

        At the Baltimore Conference the question was asked whether the local preachers should have a vote for these candidates set apart for the general superintendent. The answer was in the affirmative, and this answer was given in the form of a vote. There seems to have been some doubt about the employment of Shadrack Bassett as a traveling preacher, in view of the circumstance that having been a slave he had petitioned for his freedom, and having been delivered by the courts from the claims of one slave-holder, it was feared he might be subject to the claims of another, wherefore Brother Abner Coker was appointed a committee to consult an attorney, from whom the Conference received the following instrument:

        Judgment in case of a petition for freedom is not judgment against the whole world, but only against the individual against whom it is filed, so that if a petitioner should succeed in being discharged from slavery to an individual who illegally claimed him, he would still be liable to be seized by his proper owner. The only point gained by Shadrack Bassett, if he sues in case against Hackney, will be that he can make use of the judgment of freedom against Hackney as a security against future molestation, as it is probable that no one would hold him after he had produced such a judgment. It is my opinion that the Conference of Colored People incur no risk in sending Shadrack Bassett forth to preach the Gospel, provided he does not go south of the State of Maryland.

[Signed.]
JOHN TYSON, Attorney.


        All these documents are matters of history, and this is but one of many which might be brought forward to these pages for the eyes of the present and future generations--the present viewing them with mingled feelings of indignation, shame, and regret; the future commingling with these, astonishment and curiosity.

        All that is of other generations teaches us closely--a proof of the unity of the races. All that is of each race inspires that race, or casts it down according to its character; therefore, all that these early journals record of the beginnings of our Church--the trials and triumphs, the failures and successes, the strivings and achievements--moves us to close sympathy and impels us to greater deeds.

Page 24

        Our fathers in African Methodism wrought wisely and well for their day and generation, and the documents we gather are indicative of the force which has spread African Methodism far and wide, and from which we learn of the spirit and manner of the men who were leaders then.

        As an Appendix to the Minutes of the Baltimore Annual Conference the following document is recorded, and in furtherance of the above idea, we insert it here:

        It was moved, seconded, and carried that all the local elders, deacons, and preachers shall have a seat in the Annual Conferences, provided that they stand fair, and be in subjection to the elder in charge in receiving appointments and filling up all such appointments that may be given to them from time to time by the elder in charge; provided that the elder does not infringe too much on his temporal affairs; and in case of any of the local preachers should be called upon to fill up any extra appointments, then the minister in charge shall see that the said preacher or preachers shall receive such aid from the Society as is allowed to local preachers in such cases in referring to that discipline that we have recourse to in all giving cases in our ministry or state. If the above rules should be ratified by the Annual Conference, then, if any of the preachers, after receiving appointments from the elder, should refuse for to go and fill up his appointments, without a sufficient excuse, shall, for the first neglect, he be reproved by the elder, and also, if he should neglect the second time, without a lawful excuse, then the elder may, if he think proper, summons that preacher before a committee, and if he gives no proper satisfaction for his neglecting his duty, then the elder, with the committee, shall silence him until the Quarterly Meeting Conference, and his case shall be referred to the Annual Conference for trial and decision.

        Done in the Philadelphia Conference for the whole Connection in General.

Signed by the Superintendent,
RICHARD ALLEN.

Secretary pro tem.,
JACOB MATTHEWS.


        The two points in this document show the men of our times:

        First.--The Quarterly Conference had no jurisdiction over the case of the delinquent local preacher, beyond a mere hearing of the statement and reference of the question to the Annual Conference, which alone could try and pass judgment on him.

        Second.--The Philadelphia Conference was by this extraordinary document invested with the power of the General Conference.

        Again, the report of members from the various churches under the Baltimore jurisdiction shows an increase of 1,938. The Eastern Shore work, so recently added, gives 330 of that number.

Page 25

It is wise to make an assistant to the Bishop, in view of this and the nearly parallel increase in the Philadelphia District. This year Jacob Matthews is sent to Baltimore City; David Smith to Washington and Georgetown; Peter Schureman is placed in charge of Piscataway Circuit, while Thomas Webster, Jacob Richardson, Joshua Early, and Jeremiah Beulah are sent on the more scattered work of the Harrisburgh Circuit.

Page 26

CHAPTER VI.
EARLY CONFERENCE SESSIONS.

        Morris Brown Admitted into Full Connection--Three Founders Elected Deacons--Stronghold of African Methodism in Philadelphia--Enlarging the Borders--Statistics of Membership--Philadelphia Conference Invested with the Power of a General Conference--An Increase in Numbers.

        THE Baltimore Conference preceded that in Philadelphia by a little more than a month. As has been said of the former, so it can be said of the latter: if any Conference was held in 1817, we are unable to find any trace of the fact. May 9th, 1818, the Philadelphia Annual Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church met in Philadelphia, at the house of Richard Allen, and opened at 11 o'clock A. M. with singing and prayer. In the course of the session nearly all the names of the founders, as represented by the list of 1816, were upon the record. Five preachers were admitted on trial; six members were admitted into full connection, among them Morris Brown. Three of the founders, Henry Drayton, Edward Jackson and Reuben Cuff, were elected to deacon's orders, while Morris Brown, with two other of the founders, James Champion and Jacob Tapsico, were elected and ordained elders. One death is recorded: "Joseph Lea, a man of God, who has labored for many years in the ministry, during which time he supported the character of a Christian and a faithful minister, a kind and loving husband and a tender father." There seems to have been no particular business of importance transacted at this meeting. We find on the third day of the session that Thomas Banks, president and trustee of the Snow Hill church corporation applies to the Bishop and Conference to take charge of the spiritual concerns of their church and congregation, which request is unaminously granted, with the promise to supply them with preaching as often as they can make it convenient. The first detailed report of the members in the Society were given at this meeting, and we find sixteen places represented: Philadelphia, 3,311; Baltimore, 1,066; Salem, N. J., 110; Trenton, 73; Princeton, 33; Snow Hill, 56; Woodbury, 29; Attleborough, 41; New Hope, 33; Frankfort, 28; Westchester, 46;

Page 27

Plemeth, 8; Whitemarsh, 29; Bridgeport, 6; Brunswick, 40; Charleston, 1,848; making a total of 6,748. It is seen by this that the stronghold of African Methodism was in Philadelphia, with Charleston next in order. On May 20th the Conference adjourned to meet again in Philadelphia, the date not being stated. And here we may say there is an hiatus; for the next proceedings, of which we have any knowledge or record, are dated in 1822. Not until that date have we any Church records to run parallel with those of Baltimore, which were continued yearly from 1818.

        On the 19th of April, 1819, the Annual Conference for the Baltimore District was opened at the A. M. E. Church, Saratoga street. The members present were from Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston, S. C., and were as follows at the opening of the session:

        The first duty of the Conference was to appoint a doorkeeper, whose instructions were to admit no one without the leave of the chair. A resolution was also passed that no member of the Conference should leave the room without the permission of the chair; while still another resolution, tending toward the secrecy and safety of the proceedings of the Conference, was one by Don C. Hall, to the effect that the steward shall not present or show the books or papers of the Annual Conference to any person or persons without the permission of the superintendent. These were all directed to the end that the business should be properly and rapidly done. There appears to have been some letters addressed to the official members in Philadelphia which had been detained by the secretary for some reasons, and handed to the Bishop upon his arrival in Baltimore. We do not know what these letters contained, for, although a motion was made

Page 28

that they should be read to the Conference, there is no record of this having been done. Probably, however, the contents of those letters caused Henry Harden to place his resolution before the Conference, "that no minister or preacher belonging to the African Methodist Episcopal Conference, or any member, local or traveling, shall write any letter or letters or communications, verbally, or by any other way whatsoever, that will have the bearance of raising discord or hardness in the Connection," as well as another to the effect "that ways and means shall be entered into by the Conference to prevent any member or members of the Annual Conference of taking a part with any person or persons evading the Discipline of the said African Methodist Episcopal Church or Churches; or shall be found guilty of sowing discord, or raising schisms, tattling or tale-bearing, so that the Church or society may suffer injury by the strife of such person or persons, the Elder shall call him or them to trial; if found guilty, the Elder shall silence him or them until the setting of the Annual Conference, then the Elder shall deliver the charge to the Conference, in writing, and the Conference shall deal with the said offender according to Discipline." At this Conference Daniel Coker, who had been expelled in the year 1818, made application to be reinstated in the position which he had formerly held. A committee having been appointed to take into consideration the reinstating of Daniel Coker, reported as follows:

BALTIMORE, April 27, 1819.

        We, the Committee appointed by the Annual Conference on 22d inst., to take into consideration the case of Brother Daniel Coker, deem it necessary for to receive him into Society, and he be in subjection to the Elder stationed in the District, and when they see proper, shall be admitted to the pulpit at their discretion; but he shall not fulfill the office of a deacon until the Annual Conference restores him to fill those offices.

Committee:
JOSEPH COX, DANIEL COKER.
REV. MORRIS BROWNE, DANIEL COKER.
REV. RICHARD WILLIAMS, DANIEL COKER.
JEREMIAH MILLER, DANIEL COKER.
RICH'D ALLEN, JR., Secretary.


        Henry Fox and Jacob Roberts were admitted as members of the Conference, while the former and David Smith were appointed Deacons. At this time we find the Conference enlarging the borders of the Church. First, by the addition of Frenchtown,

Page 29

which was taken into the district of Baltimore, and next, by the addition of Caroline County, which was also placed under the charge of the Baltimore Conference, with Charles Pierce in charge. In the appointment of Charles Pierce to the charge of the Circuit we find a remarkable departure from the established usage. No expense was incurred in the admission of Caroline County, or, as it was afterwards called, Harrisburg Circuit, as that was to be borne by the Society in that Circuit. The statistics of membership in 1819 show an increase of over 300 above those of 1818, there being an aggregate within the Conference limits of 1,388. The next Annual Conference was appointed to be held in Baltimore, and the General Conference of 1820 was appointed to meet in Philadelphia. There are several things in this Conference which are worthy of remark.

        First: Frenchtown was added to the field of labor this year; so was Caroline County, afterwards named Harrisburgh Circuit.

        Second: An appointment for the labors of an itinerant preacher on a whole Circuit was made by the members of the Annual Conference during the session of said Conference, and that before the Bishop's face, while the man who seconded the motion to that effect was a layman, viz., Don Carlos Hall, the Conference book steward.

        Third: The preacher was sent, or rather appointed to the Circuit before that Circuit was taken into the Connection.

        Fourth: The Rev. Daniel Coker, after being expelled for one whole year, was restored to the Church, not on probation, but in full fellowship, and in the exercise of his functions as a minister of the Gospel, the exercise of the deaconate excepted. And yet he was allowed to occupy the pulpit only by permission of the elder in charge--that is to say, at his discretion. We also do well to consider the fact that no elder, no church action of an elder, is allowed to intervene the action of the Annual Conference that expelled Mr. Coker, as more merciful and tolerant leaders may now do; but the same power that expelled is the power that restores.

        In our judgment this example is worthy of imitation, for it has too often happened that, after having been convicted by the Annual Conference, one has been allowed to unite with some local church, and then was restored to full standing by that church before the lapse of a single year. We are more enlightened than

Page 30

were the founders of the Connection, but are we as moral? Have we as high sense of personal and official character as they?

        Fifth: The stringency of the resolution against a discordant spirit evinced the strength of their hatred against it.

        Sixth: The Second General Conference was appointed and held in Philadelphia by a vote of the Baltimore Conference.

        Seventh: The vain efforts of the Annual Conference to prevent discontented and insubordinate spirits from "taking a part with any person or persons" who might be disposed to inveigh against the Discipline, or "sowing discord," or "raising schisms," or "tale-bearing."

        As long as there is a devil to disturb the peace, harmony, and love of the Church, or to destroy its unity, just so long will evil-minded persons be found to carry out their infernal purposes. And what is the most perplexing as well as lamentable feature of all church troubles is the impossibility of making such persons see that they are Satanic agents.

        We do well to censure every attempt to produce schism and to resist the good government of the Church, not so much by passing resolutions to prevent such evils, as by cultivating the spirit of Christian forbearance, confidence and love.

Page 31

CHAPTER VII.
EXTINCTION OF THE CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

        Episcopal Support--Rise of African Methodism in the City of New York--New York and Brooklyn Churches Incorporated with the A. M. E. Church in 1820--Societies outside of New York--Manner of Electing Delegates to General Conference--Finances of the Second General Conference--The Slaveholders' Fear of the A. M. E. Church.

        UP to this period (1822), with the one exception of the Philadelphia Annual Conference of 1818, we have devoted our entire attention and space to the doings of the Baltimore Annual Conferences. The reason for so doing is this: No manuscript, no printed traces, no signs whatever can be found of the sayings and doings of the Philadelphia Conferences other than those of 1818, up to the year 1822. That some must have existed at some period is positive, as is gathered from the resolutions of the Baltimore Conferences during this time, where mention is made of these meetings, but what eventually became of the journal, minutes, or other documents, is not known.

        In 1822, the Philadelphia Annual Conference begins to run in a parallel line with that of Baltimore, and for this year we have both the manuscript journal and the printed minutes of the session which opened in Philadelphia, May 9. The resolutions passed at this Conference were comparatively few, and the general business in most cases unimportant. Bishop Allen presided, and the preachers admitted on trial were Joshua P. B. Eddy, George Bowler, and Noah Cannon. Charles Butler was ordained a deacon and elder for the express purpose of going as a missionary to Africa. Thomas Robinson, Adam Clincher, Samuel Collins, George Bowler, Joshua P. Eddy, Henry C. Mervin, Solomon Walsh, James Scott, and David Crosby were licensed preachers, and William Cornish and Walter Proctor were set apart for the office of deacon, with the proviso that they travel.

        At this time that portion of the law was repealed which said that a preacher should not be stationed in any place longer than two years. Four other licensed preachers were ordained deacons: Thomas Robinson, Adam Clincher, Samuel Collins, and Noah Cannon.

Page 32

        It was agreed that in place of salary the Bishop should thereafter receive twenty-five dollars from each Annual Conference, and that each Conference should pay his traveling expenses: that is, he would receive compensation at that period from the Baltitimore, Philadelphia, and New York Conferences,*

        * For the rise of the New York Conference see pages following the Philadelphia Conference of 1822.


for it was decided at this Conference that there should be three Annual Conferences instead of two.

        When the question of the finances of the Conference were being considered, it was ordered by that body that hereafter each member must pay the expenses of his horse himself. As the contingent fund of this Conference eighty-six dollars were collected, which fund was distributed as follows: twenty-five dollars to the Bishop as allowance, seventeen dollars and twenty-seven cents were paid for circular letters to the Bishop, and thirty-three dollars and thirty-seven and a half cents were paid for preachers' horses.

        A resolution was also passed that no preacher in charge should license any person who should make application to them for license to preach or exhort in the African Methodist Episcopal Church until the said person should have been verbally licensed by the preacher in charge twelve months prior to the time that the application was made.

        The election of a general superintendent was brought forward. This action had been taken by the Baltimore Conference of April previous. Then three candidates, Morris Brown, Henry Harden, and Jacob Matthews, had been nominated, and an election had been held, but in accordance with the resolution passed at the time, the results of the election were kept secret until after the election at Philadelphia. The total votes cast at both Conferences were sixteen for Morris Brown, thirteen for Henry Harden, and twenty-four for Jacob Matthews. Jacob Matthews was therefore declared elected. The Philadelphia Conference also decided to hold its next session in Philadelphia. The Society was not yet so extended that it was deemed wise to remove the sessions of these first three Conferences from the cities whose names they bore, and we therefore find the first session of the new Conference--the New York--was held in the city of New York.

        In the Philadelphia Annual Conference of 1822, we also see the brethren acting with the authority of a General Conference,

Page 33

first, by the election of an Assistant Bishop; second, by decreeing the existence of three Annual Conferences. The action of this Conference respecting licentiates to preach is also a flat refutation of the assertion that no one, according to our usages from the rise of the Connection, has ever been fully admitted unless they have been recommended by a Quarterly Conference of our Church, but they have "climbed in some other way."

        The limitation of a stationed preacher to two years was also abolished, as was previously done by the Baltimore Annual Conference. By motion, the Conference ordered the ordination of William Cornish and Walter Proctor to the office of deacons, provided they entered upon itinerant work, but there is no record of the execution of the order. This order to ordain was given immediately after they had been received into the itinerant work.

        The motion for the appointment of Rev. Charles Butler to Africa as a missionary resulted in but a paper mission.

        In 1822 the numbers in Society stood as follows:

        
South Carolina City 1,400
In the Circuit Charge 1,600
Smyrna Circuit 31
Riverhead 79
Fredericktown 15
Cookstown 13
Warwick 24
Boheamarnania 10
Frenchtown 41
Middletown 17
Scrabbletown 6
Thorofare 11
Philadelphia City 3,002
Chester and Tenecum 31
Bristol Circuit in Frankfort 25
Bridgeport 29
Attleborough 39
Newhope 29
Mountain 15
Easton 22
Reading 9
Valley 13
Westown 29
Wightmarsh 14
Salem Circuit, Port Elizabeth 17
Tranfield 28
Greenage 42
Salem 72
Bushtown 10
Dutchtown 14
Woodbury 16
Snowhill 42
Evesham 47
Total 6,792

        
City of Pittsburgh 145
Washington, Pa 45
Readtown 30
Pickson 18
Total 238

        
Trenton Circuit, Trenton 72
Princeton 38
Rockhill 37
Siggstown 36
Blandsburgh 27
Brunswick 17
Total 227

Page 34

        This gives a final total of 7,257 for the above points; and the joint list of the ministers for 1822 is as follows: