SECTION V.

        82 Q. Well, you have shown that the British Church approaches the Apostolic age very closely; and you have shown it from authorities which the learned world would not dare to disrespect. Now, will you tell us at what time the Roman Catholic Church was sent into Britain, or England, if you choose that name?

        A. I will. Pope Gregory I., surnamed the Great, sent Augustine and forty monks (missionaries) there to convert the old Pagan Saxons, A.D. 596, which was the first entrance of the Romish Church into that territory. Let us here quote a little more history, which may throw some light upon the time and circumstances. The historian Edward Cutts, in his "Turning-Points of English History," says: "One day, as Gregory the Archdeacon was crossing the Forum in the city of Rome, he saw groups of slaves exposed for sale. One group of children attracted his attention,--their complexions were fair, eyes blue and hair flaxen. He asked from what country they came, and was told they were Angles. He said, 'They would not only be Angles, but Angels, if they were Christians.' He then asked, 'From what province do they come?' and was told they came from 'Deira' (now 'York'). 'Truly,' said he, 'they should be called de-ira (from the wrath of God), and brought to the mercy of Christ. And how is their king named?' said he. 'Aella,' was the reply. 'Yea,' said Gregory,

'may Alleluias be sung there.' " These captive slaves were Saxon Pagan children of the conquering race, which had overrun England and driven the Britons into Wales and Cornwall. This good man Gregory became Pope Gregory the Great, A.D. 592. Remembering the Saxon captives, he determined to send missionaries there to convert the nation. The historian Bede, who was born A.D. 673, tells us "that in A.D. 596 Pope Gregory sent Augustine and forty monks to convert the Pagan Saxons."

        But without being tedious in quoting the exact words of history, suffice it to say, after many hardships and discouragements, Augustine with his monks landed on the Isle of Thanet in August, A.D. 596, and was kindly received by Ethelbert, the Saxon King of Kent. Says Bede: "In the year 603 (seven years after he landed), Augustine, with the aid of King Ethelbert, drew together a conference of the Bishops of the next province of the Britons, at a place which is called Augustine's Oak to this day, and proposed fraternal admonitions and unity with the Biships of Britain; that they all should preach the Gospel together to the Gentiles. But the British Biships answered that they could not depart from their ancient customs without the consent and leave of their people." This conference, therefore, failed; but a second one was appointed, to which seven of the Bishops of the Britons came, with a number of their most learned men. Here stood the representatives of the Church of Rome and the Ancient British Church, face to face, right in the very heart of England. The Ancient British Church, of which Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Chrysostom and Jerome had written. But the union sought by Augustine was not

effected, nor was it ever, by the consent of the British Church.

        Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, says: "The Ancient British Church, by whomsoever planted, was a stranger to the Church of Rome and all its pretended authorities." Haddan and Stubbs, Vol. I., tell us, "that while Paulinus, a missionary appointed by Augustine (after he failed to unite with the British Ancient Church), is said to have baptized in Northumbria as many as ten thousand persons a day, and planted the Romish Church in four of the seven Saxon kingdoms, yet, in fifty years, it had passed away. The work of Augustine had been fruitless of permanent results everywhere save in Kent."

        83 Q. Thank you for the historic accounts of the entrance of the Romish Church into England, and for some of the details of its representatives meeting with the British bishops. Will you now give me a brief sketch of the later career of the British Church?

        A. I will; but it must be brief, indeed, as we have consumed so much space upon the existence of the British Church prior to the arrival of Augustine and his forty missionaries in England. Nevertheless, I have scarcely touched the historic proofs that might be compiled sustaining the fact. Now, let me say, to trace the British Church, up through the hundred and fifty years' struggle with the Saxons, which terminated in the Saxon conquest, which Hume, Vol. I., describes so lucidly, and the Norman conquest under William the Conqueror in A.D. 1066, till King John surrendered his crown to the Pope of Rome in A.D. 1213, would require more space and time than we are able to give the subject.

        Let me say, at this point, no one could properly realize the ordeal through which the old British Church had to pass, not fully acquainted with English history. It must be remembered that the dark ages have set in, and wars, revolutions and corruptions stalk abroad; one party succeeds another; the Britons, Saxons, Scots, Normans, Danes, Welsh, Romans, Popes, archbishops, cardinals, generals, admirals and many other mighty actors play prominent parts, and the church is sometimes on this side of the revolution, and sometimes on that. But the student of history will find the old British Church maintaining her individuality, though somewhat Romish at times, up till long after the Norman Conquest, notwithstanding the removal of all her bishops who supported King Harold after A.D. 1066. We see this Ancient Church in A.D. 729 dealing with the cycle of time. Again, in A.D. 809 she is accepting the same. Again, after the conquest of William of Normandy by the aid of Pope Alexander II., her Archbishop of Canterbury is removed from office. And thus the Church mixed with corruption, immorality in some instances, and some Romish vices, comes down the highway of centuries, till John the King of England takes off his crown, and hands it over to Pope Innocent III. in A.D. 1213. While I grant that the British Church and the Church of Rome made some terms of agreement in the ninth century, which compromised the original purity of the British Church, or we might call it at this period the Anglo-Saxon Church, yet I deny that history gives an instance where any Pope of Rome ever claimed England for the Church till after King John, who, in an unfortunate hour of military weakness, surrendered his crown

to the Pontiff. The question now arises,--How long was the British or Anglo-Saxon Church absolutely under the Roman Catholic Church? We answer,--From A.D. 1213 until A.D. 1530; if we estimate from the revolt of King Henry VIII., it will be exactly 317 years. But as King Henry of England would not allow the reformers of the British Church to rid it of its Roman corruptions, and as he lived 17 years after his revolt, we owe it to the truth of history to add the 17 years to 317, which would make the entire time the British Church was a vassal of the Church of Rome 334 years.

        84 Q. But did not these 334 years' subjugation to the Roman Catholic Church blot out the original existence of the old British Church?

        A. No. For all the time she was subject to the church of Rome, history assures us, she was protesting against the corruptions of the Roman See, and trying to throw off the Roman yoke. Her Bishops in England refused to obey at least a score of orders which came from the Pope of Rome.

        85 Q. Was not her ministerial ordination vitiated or corrupted, while mixed with the Roman Catholic Church?

        A. No. For both churches claim apostolic succession any way. The Roman Church claims St. Peter for her founder, and the British Church claims St. Paul, so instead of weakening the claim, it doubles its strength, if there be any virtue in the theory at all.

        86 Q. But since the English Church was, as you affirm, restored at the reformation, can we say that she could have been properly called a church while she was infected with so many papal corruptions as she was before it?

        A. Yes; under Popery she was a church, although in

an error by reason of enforced obedience or subjection by civil authority. The Israelitish Church remained a church even under Ahab. The Jewish Church still existed under the Pharisees and Scribes. The Ark of God was still the Ark of God, even when in the hands of the Philistines, and the vessels of the Temple were holy even at Babylon. The English Church was as much the old English Church after she was reformed as Naaman was Naaman after he had washed in the river Jordan and been healed.

        87 Q. Did any sovereign of England ever protest against the church of Rome before King Henry VIII. got mad at the Pope and threw off his civil authority?

        A. Yes; Egfrid, king of Northumberland; King Alfred, his successor; King Edward, the Confessor; King Henry I., and several other sovereigns.

        88 Q. But did not King Henry VIII. bring about the revolution which freed the English Church from Roman Catholicism for corrupt purposes?

        A. Yes; for a most base purpose. So was the Temple of Solomon built by cedars of Lebanon hewn by workmen of heathen Tyre. Jehu did not please God, the Bible informs us, but his reformation did. Nebuchadnezzar was idolatrous, but his edict for the services of God was religious. The bloody and cruel Herod repaired the Temple; but Jesus Christ, the Son of God, preached in it. The colored race was freed as a war measure, but they accepted freedom as a Divine providence

        89 Q. Now what do you claim for the African M. E. Church, through this old British Church, which you say has come down to us through all these centuries of years?

        A. I claim for the A. M. E. Church just what the

Presbyterian, Moravian and the Reformed Dutch Churches do through other channels, that we have a consecutive chain of ordinations back to the primitive days of the Christian Church.

        90 Q. What? Do you mean a line of orders, through a succession of Bishops, back through the English Church, then the Anglo-Romish Church, then the Anglo-Saxon Church, and then the old British Church, up to the Apostles?

        A. No. I cannot say anything about the Apostles; nor do I claim a line of orders through prelatical Bishops, for the reason that I know better, as neither Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke, Richard Allen, Absalom Jones, nor any of the founders of the Methodist Churches were Bishops; they were only Priests, Presbyters or Elders; but I do claim that through them, and the Church of England, the A. M. E. Church has a ministerial (Presbyterially) succession to the primitive days of the Christian Church, and that our right to ordain men to preach the Gospel, baptize, give the Communion, and pastor churches came from somewhere and not from nowhere. And thus the A. M. E. Connection is a Christian Church, and not a mere association of men and women, with no historic foundation or authority.

        I hold further, that our Episcopacy, consisting as it does of a call from the entire Connection and the consecration of its Bishops, amounts to ECCLESIASTICAL EPISCOPACY.

CHAPTER III.
ORGANIZATION OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

        91 Q. When was the African M. E. Church organized?

        A. In the month of April, 1816.

        92 Q. By whom was it organized?

        A. Rev. Richard Allen and fifteen others.

        93 Q. Will you give me the names of the other fifteen?

        A. I will. Jacob Tapsico, Clayton Durham, James Champion, and Thomas Webster, of Philadelphia; Daniel Coker, Richard Williams, Henry Harden, Stephen Hill, Edward Williamson and Richard Gailliard, of Baltimore, Maryland; Peter Spencer, of Wilmington, Delaware; Jacob Marsh, Edward Jackson, and Wm. Andrews, of Attleborough, Pennsylvania; and Reuben Cuff, of Salem, New Jersey.

        94 Q. Why did these men organize a new church?

        A. Because they were treated unchristianly by their white brethren.

        95 Q. To what white brethren do you refer?

        A. To those of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of which they were members.

        96 Q. Will you tell me in what that unchristian treatment consisted?

        A. In pulling them from their knees while at prayer, forcing them to back seats and in the gallery, and using abusive language to them.

        97 Q. What was the result of this treatment?

        A. It led to them building a church, where they could worship God unmolested.

        98 Q. What church was built?

        A. Bethel Church in Philadelphia.

        99 Q. Did they really build a new house?

        A. No; they purchased a blacksmith shop and removed it to their lot on Sixth street near Lombard street.

        100 Q. When did this transaction occur?

        A. In the year 1787, the lot was bought, and the house was built in 1793.

        101 Q. What were they doing from 1787 up to 1816, when they permanently organized?

        A. They were contending for their religious rights.

        102 Q. Did God raise them up any friends from among the white people?

        A. He did, namely, Dr. Benjamin Rush, R. Ralston, Wm. McKean, Richard Mosely, Jupiter Gibson and Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

        103 Q. Who was elected and ordained the first Bishop of the A. M. E. Church?

        A. Rev. Richard Allen, a good and great man, who had been ordained to the Christian ministry seventeen years before, by Bishop Francis Asbury of the M. E. Church.

        104 Q. When was Richard Allen consecrated a Bishop?

        A. April 11th, 1816.

        105 Q. Did Bishop White ordain Rev. Richard Allen a Bishop?

        A. No; I wish it had been possible, but Bishop Allen was ordained to the Episcopacy by five regularly-ordained ministers, among whom was Rev. Absalom Jones.

        106 Q. Who was Absalom Jones?

        A. A priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church, who had been ordained by Bishop White.

        107 Q. What does tradition say about him?

        A. Tradition says that Jones bore the greetings of Bishop White, and assisted in this ordination by Bishop White's consent.

        108 Q. What does this establish?

        A. That our ordination is not bogus, and connects the A. M. E. Church with historic Christianity.

        109 Q. Do you mean that the ordiantion of the A. M. E. Church is Episcopally historic?

        A. No. I mean that it is Presbyterially historic, or, in other words, that through the ordination of four Methodist ministers and Absalom Jones, a Priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Bishop Allen received a succession of hands, though through Priests, Presbyters, or elders, which gives his ordination the stamp of primitive Christianity, and made him, through the call of the entire church an ECCLESIASTICAL BISHOP, though not prelatically apostolical.

        110 Q. Do we find anything in history about the creation of a Presbyter-Bishop?

        A. Yes. The Church in Alexandria made one by the imposition of the hands of elders, A.D. 246; and the great Reformer, Rev. Martin Luther, D. D., with three others, ordained Nicolas Amsdorf a Bishop, January 20, A.D. 1542. Archbishop Usher tells us it was successively done in olden times; and Mr. Wesley and three others ordained Dr. Thomas Coke a Bishop September 10, A.D. 1784. According to Archbishop Usher, the status of the Bishop of Alexandria was never questioned by the church or his Episcopal colleagues.

        111 Q. Is historic ordination either Episcopally or Presbyterially essential to the establishment of a Christian Church?

        A. It is so held by all Christian denominations that amount to a Church.

        112 Q. Is that held as a cardinal postulate in the A. M. E. Church?

        A. Yes; for it will not allow even preachers who are not ordanied to baptize, marry or consecrate the Lord's supper. If they do, they are expelled from the church for it; as guilty of sacrilege. Proper and legitimate ordination is held by the A. M. E. Church to be a Divine rite or ordinance, and any attempt upon the part of an unordained person to exercise its prerogatives, is a desecration of the sacred rite.

        113 Q. Has the ordination of the A. M. E. Church ever been strengthened or augmented since the consecration of Bishop Allen to the Episcopacy?

        A. Yes, considerably strengthened. Ministers in full orders have united with the A. M. E. Church from the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Congregational, Episcopal, and Baptist Churches, as well as from all branches of Methodism; and they in turn have helped, by the imposition of hands, to ordain our Bishops and Elders. So that, if the A. M. E. Church had started with a bogus ordination (Presbyterially), it would have been as genuine as any by this time, as it is in possession of the ordinations of all the leading churches of the land.

        114 Q. Then ordination is not regarded in the A. M. E. Church as a sacrament?

        A. By no means. The Church of Rome, however, holds that it is a sacrament; but Methodists simply maintain that it is a divine rite or ordinance, which imposes sacred obligations, equally as binding as sacramental

vows; for, until ordination is conferred, the preacher cannot administer the Holy Sacraments. While ordination is not a sacrament, it is an indispensable prerequisite to the administration of the sacraments.

CHAPTER IV.
GENERAL CONFERENCE.