Acting on this principle every well ordered government finds it necessary to have officers regularly appointed whose duty it shall be to define law—to give an expose of them: in our own Republic, the illustrious Salmon P. Chase sits as Chief Justice, the head of those thus appointed. We ask: Shall not the Church, which is the Kingdom of God, be as well ordered as any?

And herein consists the strictest Democracy, the most approved Protestantism—a Democracy and a Protestantism, that rises in its might against a one man rule, and insists that the majority shall hold sway; believing as it does, that it is altogether more probable that a thousand men of equal wisdom, piety and disinterestedness, have the right view of a subject, while the single individual is in error; unless, indeed, that individual lay claim to inspired wisdom, and give sensuous demonstration of the same; should which be done, and his message conflicts not with the Gospel,*

* Gal. i: 8.

Thus, we doubt not, reasoned Richard Allen, and the thought, doubtless, never entered his brain of attempting to change the received dogmas, or bring in new ones. He felt that the humane teachings of Scripture had been disregarded, that partiality the most flagrant had been entertained and practiced against him and his race. When he heard the sanctimonious Parson read, “For if there come unto your assembly, a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment, and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, ‘Sit thou here in a good place,’ and say to the poor, ‘Stand thou there,’ (back by the door) or sit thou here (behind the door, or in some unswept gallery,) under my footstool, are ye not partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?”*

* Jas. ii: 2-4.

(b) Whence arose the common determination of the ‘Free Africans’ to be ecclesiastically free?

We give a second reply:

Allen and his liberty-loving coadjutors learned these lessons of religious manhood, from the very people who now strove to fasten upon them a hated authority. They had heard the stories which make up the religious history of the country; of the May-flower and its heroic band, who braved the perils of the deep, the greater perils of the land, all that they might not be ecclesiastically oppressed. They had heard of Roger Williams and the city which he built for all those who might be distressed on account of conscience.†

† Providence, R. I.

But the most potent of all, was the lesson taught them by the Methodists themselves. If the rise of Anglo Methodism is to be excused, that of African Methodism is to be plead for; and if the former is to be countenanced, the latter is to be most strenuously defended. Was John Wesley and his people ever made the subjects of brutal treatment, and at the hands of their religious teachers? Richard Allen and his people were. Was John Wesley denied any or all of the immunities which belong to a man and a Christian? Richard Allen was. Was John Wesley driven from the Assembly of the Saints, and bade in fact, “Go serve other gods?”*

* 1 Sam. xxvi. 19.

Nor can Methodism, Anglo or American, be so successfully defended, as when arguments similar to these are employed, for all other arguments, as to rites and doctrines, do but “beg the question,”—are based on premises which ought first to be proved themselves. It was on this ground chiefly, that Wesley himself justified the American Methodists in breaking away from the English hierarchy, and becoming a self controlling body. In a letter addressed “To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America,” and written after the Revolutionary struggle, in speaking of Methodist Preachers receiving ordination at the hands of the English Bishops, he objected to it: 3rd. “If they would ordian them, they would likewise expect to govern them, and how grievously that would entangle us;” 4th. “As our American brethren are now totally disentangled, both from the State and the English we dare not entangle them again either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty, simply to follow the Scripture, and the primitive Church; and we judge it best that they should stand fast in the liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free.”

In plain words, Mr. Wesley's argument was, that if they remained in the Episcopal fold, they would have been controlled against their wishes, which was most true.

Nor does Dr. Coke, at the consecration of the Rev. Mr. Asbury to the office of Bishop, fail to use a similar train of argument, as the first, as it is undoubtedly the strongest, in the defence he there makes. We could quote at length, but refrain; let the following suffice. Speaking of the Church of England he says: “The churches were in general filled with the parasites and bottle companions of the rich and great. The humble and most importunate treaties of the oppressed flocks, yea, the representations of a general assembly itself, were contemned and despised.” And because of such oppressive treatment toward the people, Dr. Coke justifies their withdrawal from the English Church, and their organization into an independent body.

So too, Dr. Bangs, in his “History of Methodism,” when he speaks of the Fluvanna Conference held in 1779, says: “Here the arguments in favor of administering the ordinances, came up with double force. The war had separated them from Mr. Wesley; all the English Preachers, except Mr. Asbury, had returned to England, and nearly all the Ministers of the Establishment, being unfriendly to the American cause, had also left their flocks and gone home.”

And what says Dr. Abel Stevens, in his masterly work: “English writers have deemed it desirable to defend him (Wesley) against the imputations of disregard for the authority and order of the national Church. The task is not difficult, as will be seen in the course of our narrative; but it may hereafter be a more difficult one to defend him before the rest of the Christian world, for having been so deferential to a hierarchy whose moral condition at the time he so much denounced, and whose studied policy throughout the rest of his life, was to disown, if not to defeat, him.”

In short, the gist of the whole matter is, it was the manly upheaval of Wesley's bosom, that forbade him to wait longer the tardy motions of the English Bishops, and compelled him to exercise a power long before recognized as lawful by him, and ordain, and send on swift wing, Dr. Coke, to superintend the Methodist societies, as well as to ordain their preachers.

It was thus too, on the part of the American Methodists. Weary with the prejudiced actions of pastors, who were opposed alike to them, and to their bleeding country; weary at not having administered to them, the Bread by which man lives; weary at beholding their little ones called to the bosom of God, without even a form of Baptism, they broke away with a firm determination to be Christian men.

How then, can the world condemn a generation of men for acting the part of freemen, that had been tutored by such a valiant race. Richard Allen, taught by the example of Coke and Asbury, with a courage equal to theirs, only acted up to the necessities of the hour in which he lived.

(c) The third answer to the question, “Whence learned they these lessons of ecclesiastical freedom?” we give:

The very genius of Columbia, the genius that speaks only of freedom, told them to stand up with the crowd.

Are not America and Liberty synonyms? Is freedom not taught by our mountains, in their defiant and unbroken range from pole to pole? Does not the rushing of our rivers tell us of liberty, as they in majesty sweep along, bidding the hills stand aside at their coming? and what are the wave songs of our Northern seas, but the songs of the untrammelled and unbought?

They learned it from the school boy, as he threw up his cap and shouted, Liberty! They learned it from the broken accent of the fresh foreigner, as he muttered out Liberty! They learned it from the stereotyped prayer, uttered every Sabbath from ten thousand altars—the prayer of thankfulness for the privilege of worshiping God under our own vine and fig tree, none daring to molest or make us afraid.

Lessons of liberty once learned are soon practiced to the confusion of tyrants, and the joy of the poor.

These Sixteen knew not enough to venture in strange ways, they walked only the beaten path. Allen's example of exhortation was closely imitated by them all. “I pointed them to all manner of prayer,” said the old Preacher, “and to the invitation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, ‘come unto me all ye that are heavily laden, and I will give you rest.’ ”

(c) Financially. Who is poorer than the man who lives by honest toil, but him who toils for nothing? With this latter class—the poorest of the poor, were these Sixteen identified. They were the representatives of a race, to whom not even the nights and the Sabbaths belonged—a peeled race, and scattered, a race meted out. Without capital, without resources, without lucrative positions, how weak indeed, was the force that must dispatch these simple Evangelists to the work. Then it was, as it is now, in the far South, where the followers of these Sixteen, and with a kindred burning spirit, have gone on the same joyful errand. Rev. H. M. Turner, writing from Macon, Ga., says: “I have just returned from a five hundred mile tour, travelling night and day, stopping here and there trying to preach. The people everywhere are eager to hear the Word of Life. And yet thousands have to be neglected for want of preachers and means to travel with; for these Railroads make no deduction for Negro Preachers.”

Let us sum up the forces to be employed, the resources at hand. In numbers, Sixteen; in learning only knowing Jesus, and Him crucified; in finances, the veriest beggars.

And yet the building went up; though scores of Tobiahs said, “Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall.”*

To conclude chapter III. A hundred thousand souls! A goodly heritage was before them; and as from their Pisgah they viewed the land, its mountains of oak and elm, its green carpeted plains, more charming than Esdraelon, with its ten thousand vineyards, its walled cities, its flowing streams, Allen whispered to Coker, “The land is good, let us go up and possess it,” while the little company catching the words as by inspiration, uttered a deep, Amen.

They separated, some to the South, others to the farther North, each one resolved to do and dare for God, each one repeating in his bosom: Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by long suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned.; By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened and not killed; As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing all things.

But let us give a bird's-eye view of this whole matter, by placing in opposition two summaries, that of the first decade, and the one of the fifth decade, as we find them in Bishop Payne's Work; and it may be remarked of the latter summary, that the extreme honesty of the Bishop, if it did not lead him to understate the facts, as many contend, it certainly saved him from overstating them.

But let the reader compare them and judge for himself.

But why ask this question, when the ruling powers in the M. E. Church, did not believe that God ever called a colored brother to the regular work and honors of the ministry. Be not surprized, good reader, at this apparently rash assertion; for, be assured, it is said in charity toward the men to whom it relates. These men, christian men withal, gazed upon the condition of affairs — the existence of slavery — the enforcement of the most oppressive laws — the comparative ignorance of the men presenting themselves for the Master's work — the fewness of their brethren to whom they would possibly minister, all these untoward sights appalled them, and made them believe that their colored brother was more likely to be mistaken in his impressions in regard to his call to the ministry, than that the Lord would call him to do a work, that seemed to them impracticable. Not believing that these Methodist ministers were wicked enough to still the voice which they doubted not, God had bidden to speak, we prefer in charity to believe, they thought God too prudent to commission a black Ambassador. And what was their crime, but acting upon the damnable policy of expediency—of doing what seemed to be necessary, but not just — of compelling the Church, the Church that should account to no man, and to no times, to succumb to the base prejudices of the human heart.

(b) Would as many have been ordained? Possibly in proportion to the number, there would have been as many ordained, but in a local capacity. The fact that these colored deacons, and elders — made thus without the least regard to mental qualification (we know elders who can scarcely read or write) were expected to do much of the work of the white pastors among their people, to baptize the children, to administer comfort to the sick, and to bury the dead, casts a suspicious cloud over this mode of action of the M. E. Church, and makes it appear not altogether “disinterested benevolence.”

(c) Would as many have received the same amount of education? Let it be said to the lasting reproach of the M. E. Church, that Church which took it for granted that God had given it a vicegerency, more full than that of St. Peter's successors over his colored children, that while the Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, and Lutherans received colored men into their schools of theological training — while even the “heterodox” Christians of New England would do the same—the Methodist Episcopal Church — the Church that boasts of its evangelism — the Church that thunders from ten thousand altars every Sabbath, the doctrine of a present sanctification, has uniformly closed the doors of its colleges, its universities, and its seminaries against the intrusion of any black; aye more, so bitter was this prejudice that it even excluded her own black children from entering on terms of equality,—even those sable sons of hers who were preparing to do her work in a foreign field!

After having assumed to have special charge of the colored people for the last three-quarters of a century, need we ask, what is the intellectual status of the most enlightened of them, even of her colored ministry? Debarred from its schools, they went not to the schools of their more liberal neighbors. And why should they go? Why should a man labor for treasures he cannot spend? Why plant a vineyard, of whose fruits he must never taste? It is nonsense to answer that men should study for the simple pleasure it affords. However true, that is not the general principle upon which the world moves, and it is but tantalizing to apply it to the colored people—a people actuated by the same motives as are others. And yet in no mean degree, the colored people have done that very thing, to wit: studied for the simple pleasure it afforded; aye, they did more, they studied with the well-grounded assurance, that it would make them only the more desperate or unhappy! America has always presented the anomaly of subjecting merit to a low senseless prejudice. No, not always, for Washington could honor Phillis Wheatley, and Jefferson could pay homage to Bannaker. It was only in the degenerate days of the Republic — the days anterior to the Resurrection, that an A. B. was compelled to shave scavengers, or an A. M. to black the boots of scullions; while a host of well-read men must be adorned with white aprons—and all to their country's shame, not theirs.

The M. E. Church imbued with the low prejudices of the vulgar crowd, denied her own colored members, admittance into her schools of learning, schools too, which they had helped to build; and then whispered in their ears, as it were to climax a long course of ingratitude, the chilling words of Peter to Simon Magus, “Thou hast neither part, nor lot in this matter.”*

In regard to the want of culture, which the colored ministry of the M. E. Church make manifest, we ask, and with solemnity, “Who shall answer the Master when He cometh, the body of men who demanded it, or those who tamely submitted to it?”

(d) Would as many have received the same amount of ministerial training? How can a man have the fruits of a harvest he never planted? The results of a labor never performed? At the organization of the Mission Conference in Sharp Street Church, Baltimore, Md., in the year 1864, our dear brethren realized, and I have no doubt to the chagrin of their souls, that they were just fifty years behind their brethren of the A. M. E. Church. The very work that Richard Allen and Daniel Coker, with fourteen others, did, fifty years ago, with manlier hearts, and more independent wills, they were doing at this late day. Never having met in Conference capacity themselves, and thrust into the off corners of the galleries, when they would attend the Conferences of their white preachers, they but moved as one or more Presiding Elders directed.

And now, as we conclude this Chapter, we feel constrained to speak to our dear colored brethren—those who are “kith and kin” with us, who are still in communion with the M. E. Church—Revs. Benj. Brown, Benj. Gross, Robt. Robinson and others. The writer feels conscious of having employed strong language in his argument, against the Church with which you are identified, but no stronger than the necessities seemed to demand. He writes to defend the manly action of Richard Allen, and to show that the results of fifty years, have fully proved the wisdom of his course. To do this most successfully, the truths of to-day, and of history must be told, and told to advantage. This, and only this, he has striven to do; yea, he believes that in your own thoughts you will say with the southern Queen “The half has not been told.”*

It would have been a source of unspeakeable joy had he been permitted truthfully to record, that your Church, had acknowledged your full and true manhood; and not denied it both in practice and in law—that it had opened its school doors to you, as did other Christian bodies, and like them, too, have received you into Conference upon a perfect ministerial equality; but alas! the doors of its schools, and of its Conferences as well, were locked, and bolted, and barred against you. But we do not feel like judging the M. E. Church of to-day, by what she did in 1860, nor yet in 1864. God forbid that we should. We know that Methodist preachers are men of like passions with others, and have a slight hankering after the multitude—the popular side; and yet we fear not to express the opinion, that the day is not far distant when that mighty organization, will not be ashamed to recognize, and with all their rights, all, of every nation and clime, who love the doctrine of Christ as expounded by Wesley. Nor would we complain of that Providence which led you, dear brethren, to remain beneath the parental roof, giving you grace to suffer, and hope to look for better days; for the sweet thought comes to us, that He has a high purpose in it, even the thought that you shall be the connecting link, whereby all the Methodists of the Republic, white and black, will be joined in one; and being thus united, move forward, like an invincible host, to the more perfect redemption of our own country, and of the world; which may God grant, for His glory's sake.—AMEN.