THE COLOR-LINE SECESSIONS.
When it is remembered that the African slave-trade in this country was
intrenched behind the venerated Constitution, it is not strange that
nearly every conflict the Methodist Episcopal Church has had touching
slavery aroused bitter opposition within and without the Church. In most
instances it is conceded that defeated or desperate enemies, when
opposing a third inveterate foe, will, if an opportunity is afforded,
unite against a common enemy; or, in other words, Pilate and Herod will
unite. Working out from within is often found the more effectual way,
whether it be a prison, a political or ecclesiastical party, or the
disruption of a Church. It was thus done in the secession of colored
members from our Church in 1816 and 1820. Among the number of colored
members belonging to St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church of
Philadelphia in 1815 was a local preacher, Richard Allen, who afterward
organized and became the first bishop of the “Bethel Connection,”
afterwards known as “the African Methodist Episcopal Church.” The
colored members, under his leadership, formed a nucleus of a society for
themselves, aside from, and out of the jurisdiction of, the pastor of
St. George’s Church. The entire affair was local, and the result of the
dissatisfaction that arose was the same as it would be to-day if a local
preacher, white or colored, were to organize a society in opposition to
the wishes of his pastor, purchase Church property for the congregation,
or part of it, and then deed it to a few individuals instead of the
Church. It has been intimated by persons whose reputation rests more or
less upon that and similar transactions, that it was the outgrowth of
neglect on the part of pastor and people of St. George’s Church. Let
Bishop Allen answer that question. He says: “I was then working for
George Giger. Before this, Bishop Asbury asked me to travel with him.
The bishop proffered me what he was receiving, my victuals and clothes.”
Rev. R. Allen refused this offer, as he says: “I told him that I thought
people ought to lay up something while they were able, to support
themselves in time of sickness and old age. But I made up my mind that I
would not accept of his proposals. Shortly after, I left Hartford
Circuit and came to Pennsylvania, on Lancaster Circuit. I traveled
several months on this circuit with the Revs. Peter Moriarty and Ira
Ellis. The elder in charge in Philadelphia frequently sent for me to
come to the city. February, 1786, I came to Philadelphia. Preaching was
given out for me for five o’clock A.M., in St. George’s Church. I strove
to preach as well as I could, but it was a great cross to me; but the
Lord was with me. We had a good time, and several souls were awakened,
and were earnestly seeking redemption in the blood of Christ. I thought
I would stop in Philadelphia a week or two. I preached at different
places in the city. My labor was much blessed; I soon saw a large field
open in seeking and instructing my African brethren. I preached wherever
I could find an opening. I established prayer-meetings; I raised a
society in 1786 of forty-two members. I saw the necessity of erecting a
place of worship for the colored people of the city; but here I met
opposition. But three colored brethren united with me in erecting a
place of worship.”
Now let us rest and contemplate for a moment the situation. Here we find
a local preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church was invited by the
pastor and presiding elder of St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church to
come to the city, and preach to his congregation at an usual hour for
service, five A.M. He came; success attended his labors. He then,
encouraged by success, began going hither and thither to preach in the
city. He, of course, found a following. What effort of the kind was ever
made that did not find a following? Does it appear a repetition of the
story of Absalom? But let us not stop now to consider that phase of it.
In St. George’s Church, though welcomed, he “found it a cross to preach”
there. Why was it a cross to preach the gospel there? Have we not in the
above sentence a key to the entire situation? Was it not the effort to
avoid having to preach to those who had formed an idea of what a sermon
should be from the ministrations of the pulpit of St. George’s Church
that brought about the other complaints? Do not such things grow? Rev.
Richard Allen had preached but a short time to his “African brethren”
until a _necessity_ for a separate Church arose. He says himself that
the leading colored members refused to go with him. It was natural,
therefore, that the above-mentioned _necessity_ would arise. Why was it
that, as he determined to form another society and erect a church, when
he presented the project “to the most respectable colored people of
Philadelphia, they bitterly opposed it?” Now, if it was entirely
regular, Christ-like, and therefore right, why was it that but three
colored men—Absalom Jones, William White, and Darius Ginnings—would
unite in that project? Rev. Richard Allen says: “These united with me as
soon as it became public and known by the elder, who was stationed in
the city.” Why this secrecy? Who were instigating, abetting, and
encouraging Richard Allen in this move? Let us suppose it was members of
another denomination in that city, or some of the white members of St.
George’s Church. They could only have taken sides and pushed the matter,
because, (1) They opposed meeting and worshiping with colored people,
and could use him—Mr. Allen—to help them; or, (2) They opposed the
pastor of St. George’s Church, and wanted a complaint against him; or,
(3) They believed the colored members of St. George’s Church were being
imposed upon by the white members; or, (4) They wished to germinate
schism within St. George’s Church. If the colored members were being
imposed upon, could Mr. Allen not have remedied the matter by remaining
and combining the strength of the imposed upon with that of the good
white members of St. George, and fighting the matter to the end?
But Rev. Richard Allen capitulated. Is capitulation on the part of a
general attacked an exhibition of leadership or prowess? General Sigel,
in the late war, became famous at it; but only among a certain class of
soldiers. When it is remembered that our African brethren were in such a
fort as St. George’s, the capitulation seems to take on the air of
cowardice. Instead of that Church being a monument and outgrowth of a
desire of our white members to _drive_ the black ones out, it is just
the opposite—the outgrowth of an effort to _keep them within our
communion_. Mr. Allen, after reciting his action in the premises,
relates what followed. One conversant with the polity of our Church,
after knowing what had gone before, can shut his eyes and tell what
followed, especially if the presiding elder, Dr. Roberts, and our
pastor, then stationed at St. George’s Church, knew and dared do their
duty. Notwithstanding this, as strange as it may appear, we hear from
the lips of some ministers of the African Methodist Episcopal Church
that their dear African brethren, members of St. George’s Church, “were
pulled off their knees while at prayer in the church, because of their
color;” nearly every young minister entering some of their conferences,
ignorant of Methodist history, gives the above answer to the question,
why he prefers _that_ connection to all others. Of course, the tyro
knows nothing to the contrary. It is known by every one conversant with
our history, that even after the “Allenites,” as they were called, had
gone out and erected a building for Church purposes, the presiding elder
and pastor of St. George’s Church were willing to let them go on with
their separate worship, not exercising, or desiring to exercise, a tithe
as much authority over them as almost any one of their own presiding
elders does over their Churches in this country to-day. The presiding
elder, having an appointment to preach for them one Sabbath, was
surprised to hear them exclaim as he walked up the aisle of their church
that day, “Pray, brethren, pray; here comes the devil!” Such language as
that in God’s house shows the _animus_ that actuated that side of this
question. With such a spirit actuating them, the matter could hardly
have been settled otherwise than it was, or they had to remain under the
supervision of our Church. The question has often been asked if Richard
Allen was in the Church on the occasion when that outcry was made. The
answer has been, time and again, that “_he first began the cry_.”
When it is remembered that the “Absalom Jones” mentioned as having
joined Richard Allen in this movement, was _a priest in the Protestant
Episcopal Church_, and that Richard Allen had acquired considerable
wealth, more light falls on the dark background. Notwithstanding the
fact that many thousands of colored members had joined the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and were considered in general orderly and exemplary
members, some of the more intelligent males possessing gifts, grace, and
usefulness, as such, had been licensed, and several ordained deacons and
elders, and that the colored members under Richard Allen had formed an
organization, having built a respectable church and were under the
oversight of one of our white presiding elders, they were restless, and
chafed in the harness. In April, 1816, one month before the session of
the General Conference that met in Baltimore, upwards of _one thousand
colored members_, under the leadership of Richard Allen, had withdrawn
from our Church. Why? A General Conference was called immediately after
the formation of a Church by Rev. Richard Allen, and _he_ was elected
their first bishop! The most wonderful thing concerning this whole
affair is the _constant_, _regular succession of events_! These,
however, are the straws in the winds. It is, therefore, but little
distance to the prime cause of that secession. Of the 42,304 colored
members remaining in the Church during the quadrennium, many of them
were praying that the unpleasant episode at Philadelphia would end
there, and give the Church peace. Notwithstanding the trouble with the
Allenites, as they were called, the Church still sympathized with the
race, and the Committee on Slavery at the General Conference gave no
sound for retreat from the vantage ground assumed. The whole report read
thus:
“The committee to whom was referred the business of slavery beg
leave to report that they have taken the subject into serious
consideration, and, after mature deliberation, they are of
opinion that, under the present existing circumstances in
relation to slavery, little can be done to abolish a practice so
contrary to the principles of moral justice. They are sorry to
say that the evil appears to be past remedy, and they are led to
deplore the destructive consequences which have already accrued,
and are yet likely to result therefrom.
“Your committee find that in the South and West the
civil authorities render emancipation impracticable, and
notwithstanding they are led to fear that some of our members
are too easily contented with laws so unfriendly to freedom,
yet, nevertheless, they are constrained to admit that to bring
about such a change in the civil code as would favor the cause
of liberty is not in the power of the General Conference. Your
committee have attentively read and seriously considered a
memorial on the above subject, presented from several persons
within the bounds of the Baltimore Annual Conference. They have
also made inquiry into the regulations adopted and pursued by
the different annual conferences in relation to this subject,
and they find that some of them have made no efficient rules on
the subject of slavery, thereby leaving our people to act as
they please, while others have adopted rules and pursued courses
not a little different from each other, all pleading the
authority given them by the General Conference, according to our
present existing rule, as stated in our form of Discipline. Your
committee conclude that, in order to be consistent and uniform,
the rule should be express and definite, and, to bring about
this uniformity, they beg leave to submit the following
resolution:
“_Resolved_, by the delegates of the annual conferences in
General Conference assembled, That all the recommendatory part
of the second division, ninth section, and first answer of our
form of Discipline after the word ‘slavery,’ be stricken out,
and the following words inserted: ‘Therefore, no slaveholder
shall be eligible to any official station in our Church
hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will
admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy
freedom.’”
The following was enacted by the _General Conference of 1820_:
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Slavery be instructed to
inquire into the expediency of expressing our approbation of the
American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the
United States, and of recommending the same.
“_Resolved_, That no person shall hereafter be licensed as a
local preacher or exhorter, nor shall the annual conference
receive any one as a traveling preacher on trial or into the
traveling connection, who holds slaves.”
No one will certainly charge that the Methodist Episcopal Church at so
early a date was simply caring for her colored members because of their
influence and wealth. They had neither. The Church then, as now, desired
to benefit the race in every conceivable way. Nor was it obligatory on
her to follow up such persons as would rather _rule_ under great
disadvantages than serve under the most auspicious circumstances; nor
yet offer any extraordinary emoluments to retain those who, at that
time, could do no more than increase anxiety and labor on the part of
the Church. Rev. R. Allen also mentions the fact that there were others
who wished him to unite with them in opposition to the Methodist
Episcopal Church. _Did Richard Allen consider the work he was then doing
opposition to the Methodist Episcopal Church?_ Whether the question be
answered or not, the spirit of secession among our colored members in
Philadelphia was rife, as the legitimate outgrowth of his efforts. This
fever soon spread, or rather was conveyed, by being carried in the
clothes of Rev. R. Allen to New York City as well. Immediately after his
election to the episcopacy, the year he organized his Church in
Philadelphia, he went to New York City, and disturbed the tranquillity
of our colored members, who hitherto had found joy and comfort in
worshiping God without reference to their color or ancestors. He
succeeded in establishing a small Church there, as the harvest from the
seeds of dissension he had sown. His next step was the ordination of a
preacher by the name of Miller, to whom he gave the charge of the Church
he had formed. _This man Miller was taken out of our Church for
ordination._ Our colored membership in that city then numbered near
fifteen hundred souls, among whom were several other local preachers
besides Miller—men of piety and talent. This membership was under the
care of a white presiding elder. They had regular preaching services
every Sabbath, and the sacraments were duly administered to them. The
other appointments were filled by their own colored preachers. When the
trustees of the white Churches expressed an opinion that some of the
expenses should be paid by the colored members as well, some of the
colored members began to object. It was but a short time until this
became a source of complaints, too. Pretty soon a feeling began to show
itself, from some cause, that it was “degrading for them in any way to
be dependent upon white folks for the administration of the ordinances
and the government of the Church.” During this year, as before, every
effort was made by the Church to remove all these complaints. Concession
after concession was made, but all to no purpose. The removal of the
supposed evil was not the desideratum with the provoking cause.
Notwithstanding they were harassed until they left the Church, instead
of uniting with Richard Allen’s faction, they chose to establish a
Church of their own. Some say they did not have full confidence in Rev.
R. Allen. In 1819 they decided to withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal
Church. The fact that our Church had not recognized colored men as
traveling preachers was the complaint under which they left. By this
secession we lost fourteen local preachers, and nearly one thousand
members, including class-leaders, exhorters, and stewards.
Notwithstanding many strange stories originated with or grew out of
these secessions, the Rev. N. Bangs, the second Methodist historian,
expresses the feelings of our Church when he said: “We can not do
otherwise than wish them all spiritual and temporal blessings in Christ
Jesus. Though formally separated from us in name, we still love them as
our spiritual children, and stand ready to aid them, as far as we may,
in extending the Redeemer’s kingdom among men.”
If these secessions had occurred among those who were in bondage, it
might have appeared less strange. If those who led them had even
professed the belief that the secession would ameliorate the condition
of the suffering millions of the race then in bondage in the South, it
might have assumed the role of race pride. But, alas! the condition of
the poor slave in the South, whose interests every General Conference,
and the one soon to meet in the city of Baltimore, had carefully
considered and did all it could to emancipate him, was not written in
their bond. _Those secessions did nothing toward bettering the condition
of the slaves at the South._ If they did anything touching human slavery
then existing in this country, it was to leave the suspicion of
ungratefulness on the face of every struggling slave in the South. It is
but a truism to say, it strengthened the belief that the race did not
thank the Methodist Episcopal Church for what it was even then trying to
do for them, and yet, notwithstanding this, the following was the action
of the _General Conference of 1824_:
“_Resolved_, 1. That all our preachers ought prudently to
enforce upon our members the necessity of teaching their slaves
to read the Word of God; and also that they give them time to
hear the Word of God preached on our regular days of divine
service.
“_Resolved_, 2. That our colored preachers and official members
have all the privileges in the district and quarterly-meeting
conferences which the usages of the country, in different
sections, will justify: _Provided_, also, that the presiding
elder may, when there is a sufficient number, hold for them a
separate district conference.
“_Resolved_, 3. That any of the annual conferences may employ
colored preachers to travel where they judge their services
necessary: _Provided_, they be recommended according to the form
of Discipline.
“_Resolved_, 4. That the above resolutions be made a part of the
section in the Discipline on slavery.”
[Illustration:
MORGAN COLLEGE, BALTIMORE, MD.
]
Since nothing aside from the action already taken by the Church on this
subject was done until the year 1836, when the General Conference met
for its twelfth session in Cincinnati, Ohio, we pass from the General
Conference of 1824 to the General Conference of 1836. The agitation of
this question went steadily on, however, and the Abolitionists kept it
warm. From Maine to Louisiana, from Canada to Florida, it was being
agitated. Since so much was said concerning the question at that General
Conference, some of which, if not retrogression, was akin to it, we give
the following resolutions. In reading the same, and judging them, we
must remember that the seeming opposition to Abolitionism was
attributable, in a measure, to the aversion to politics; that the tide
of agitation was even then so high that the strongest of strong men
trembled; that the Church had time and again put itself on record as to
the question at issue. Though it, for the time being, condemned the
action of the two “lecturing delegates,” it never once relaxed its grip
upon the throat of slavery, nor assayed to compromise a single principle
of right. So far removed from the scenes that greeted the General
Conference that year in Cincinnati, and remembering how thoughtless some
advocates of measures can sometimes be or appear, and how easily a zeal
without knowledge can injure a good cause, we do not wonder at the
action taken in the case of those two brethren. But when the enemies of
human liberty construed the condemnation of the action of those two
brethren by the General Conference as a weakening by the Church on the
question of slavery, the ensuing General Conference disabused their
minds of their error, and sent the enemies of liberty to grass again.
The following are the resolutions above referred to, enacted by the
_General Conference of 1836_:
“WHEREAS, Great excitement has prevailed in this country on the
subject of modern Abolitionism, which is reported to have been
increased in this city recently by the unjustifiable conduct of
two members of the General Conference in lecturing upon and in
favor of that agitating topic; and WHEREAS, such a course on the
part of any of its members is calculated to bring upon this body
the suspicions and distrust of the community, and misrepresent
its sentiments in regard to the point at issue; and WHEREAS, in
this aspect of the case, a due regard for its own character, as
well as a just concern for the interests of the Church confided
to its care, demand a full, decided, and unequivocal expression
of the views of the General Conference in the premises;
therefore,
“_Resolved_, by the delegates of the annual conferences, in
General Conference assembled, That they disapprove, in the most
unqualified sense, the conduct of two members of the General
Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city,
recently, upon and in favor of modern Abolitionism.
“2. That they are decidedly opposed to modern Abolitionism, and
wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in
the civil and political relation between master and slave, as it
exists in the slaveholding States of this Union.
“3. That the foregoing preamble and resolutions be published in
our periodicals.”
The report of the Judiciary Committee is here given also, touching this
question at another point:
“The Judiciary Committee, to whom was referred the petition of
the official members of the Methodist Episcopal Church on
Lancaster Circuit, Baltimore Conference, report, that the
petition referred to them is an able document, drawn up in the
most respectful language, and signed by twenty-nine individuals,
who claimed to be official members of the Methodist Episcopal
Church on Lancaster Circuit.
“The petitioners first invite the attention of the General
Conference to the section of the Discipline which states that
‘no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our
Church hereafter, when the laws of the State in which he lives
will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to
enjoy freedom,’ etc. They then produce an extract of the laws
from the commonwealth of Virginia, showing their extreme rigor
in this matter, ‘That any emancipated slave (with exceptions too
rare to be looked for in one case out of many) remaining in the
commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to
freedom shall have arrived, contrary to the provisions of this
act, shall be sold by the overseers of the poor, in any county
in which he or she may be found, for the benefit of the literary
fund.’ In view of this act they claim that they, as official
members, are protected by the Discipline of the Church, as they
deem it to be precisely one of the exceptions to the General
Rule provided for in the Discipline; and especially as under the
existing laws of the commonwealth to emancipate their slaves
would, in many cases, be an act of cruelty to the slaves
themselves. The matter of complaint by the petitioners is, that
the construction put upon this rule by the Baltimore Annual
Conference, in certain acts respecting individuals connected
with this section of the work, is subversive of their rights and
oppressive in its bearings; that they require the same
submission to the rule of persons in that State as of those in
sections where the legal disability to comply with it does not
exist, regardless of the exceptions. And they respectfully
solicit the interference of the General Conference, either to
revise the rule, or give it such construction as to afford them
relief in the premises; or, finally, if neither be done, to
cause them to be set off to the Virginia Conference.
“It is due to the Baltimore Conference to say that the cases
referred to as evidence of their improper application of their
rule, are stated in terms too vague and indefinite to
authorize the inference drawn by the petitioners. It is
represented that a young man applying to be received into the
itinerancy is prevented by application of this rule; that it
is in vain for him to urge upon a majority of the conference
the impracticability of his complying with the rule, in
consequence of the laws under which he lives, or any other
consideration in favor of his being received; because he will
not comply with the rule, he must be rejected. The same, it is
assumed by the petitioners, is done with respect to those who
apply for ordination. And it is inferred by them, that if the
conference act consistently, stewards and leaders may be
expected soon to be called upon to comply with the rule, or
forfeit their official standing in the Church.
“Your committee view this subject in a very different light. In
admitting a preacher to travel, or electing one to orders, a
conference must have the right to act freely; and in cases which
are not successful, it is wholly an assumption, on the part of
the applicants or their friends, to say what particular
considerations dictated the vote, unless such considerations be
distinctly avowed by a majority of the conference. And it is
known to all conversant with the transactions of an annual
conference, that no person applying to be received or ordained
ever enters as a party before the conference, pleading his own
cause, and hearing and answering the objections which may be
urged against his application. Any act of conference, then, in
these cases, can not be justly urged as evidence that the
conference denies the party concerned the benefit of the special
provision in the rule. A conference or other deliberative bodies
possess, and in the nature of the case must possess, the right
to determine its own course, and vote freely in all such
individual cases. Your committee, therefore, can not see that
the privileges claimed by the petitioners have been contravened
by an act of the Baltimore Conference.
“Having said this much respecting the alleged grounds of
grievance, your committee agree in the opinion that the
exceptions to the General Rule in the Discipline, referred to by
the petitioners, clearly apply to official members of the Church
in Virginia, according to the laws of the commonwealth, and do
therefore protect them against a forfeiture of their official
standing on account of said rule. In addition to the petition of
the official members of Lancaster Circuit, a resolution of a
quarterly conference of Westmoreland Circuit has been referred
to your committee, by which it appears that the members of said
conference concurred in said petition. Should the General
Conference agree in the opinions stated by the committee in the
report, it is respectfully recommended that, after adopting it,
they cause a copy of it to be forwarded to the official members
in each of the above-named circuits. All of which is
respectfully submitted.
“The committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the
North, praying that certain rules on the subject of slavery,
which formerly existed in our book of Discipline, should be
restored, and that the General Conference take such measures as
they may deem proper to free the Church from the evil of
slavery, beg leave to report:
“That they have had the subject under serious consideration, and
are of opinion that the prayers of the memorialists can not be
granted, believing that it would be highly improper for the
General Conference to take any action that would alter or change
our rules on the subject of slavery. Your committee, therefore,
respectfully submit the following resolution:
“_Resolved_, etc., That it is inexpedient to make any change in
our book of Discipline respecting slavery; and that we deem it
improper further to agitate the subject in the General
Conference at present.
“All of which is respectfully submitted.”
The pastoral address presented to and accepted by that General
Conference, at once puts forever at rest any shadow of a doubt as to any
disposition of the Church to compromise with slavery. We quote the
closing part touching this question, viz:
“It can not be unknown to you that the question of slavery in
these United States, by the constitutional compact which binds
us together as a nation, is left to be regulated by the several
State Legislatures themselves, and thereby is put beyond the
control of the General Government, as well as that of all
ecclesiastical bodies; it being manifest that in the
slaveholding States themselves the entire responsibility of its
existence or non-existence rests with those State Legislatures.
And such is the aspect of affairs in reference to this question,
that whatever else might tend to ameliorate the condition of the
slave, it is evident to us, from what we have witnessed of
Abolition movements, that these are the least likely to do him
good. On the contrary, we have it in evidence before us that the
inflammatory speeches and writings and movements have tended, in
many instances, injuriously to affect his temporal and spiritual
condition by hedging up the way of the missionary who is sent to
preach to him Jesus and the resurrection, and by making a more
rigid supervision necessary on the part of his overseer, thereby
abridging his civil and religious liberties.”
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1840.—Test cases touching slavery were continually
arising. That of Silas Comfort was among the most noted. No one will,
for a moment, deny that this noted case was as complicated as noted, and
was, we believe, on the whole as we now see it, settled for the best
interests of the Church and the colored race. The decision was not what
could have been expected; but, then, “discretion is the better part of
valor.” There were, of course, two sides—two separate and distinct
parties concerned. While the interests of a class within the Methodist
Episcopal Church were at stake, the unity and tranquillity of the Church
were on the altar. The action of Rev. Silas Comfort was an entering
wedge between the two parties within the Church. Many earnest, honest
men thought it a strange procedure when that General Conference declared
it “inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher among us to permit
colored persons to give testimony against white persons in any State
where they are denied that privilege in trials at law.” This was passed
by a vote of 74 to 46. Twenty-two members of that General Conference did
not vote at all. Whether the spirit that gave birth to the Wesleyan
Methodist Church three years afterward kept them from voting, is not
recorded. Whether that decision hastened the organization of the
above-mentioned Church or not, many believe it did. The decision, since
in it the word “denied” appears, was probably the best the General
Conference thought it could do under existing circumstances, coupled
with the restriction to those “States where they are denied that
privilege in trials at law.” The reason for rendering such a decision
probably rested upon the fact that otherwise it might have led to
internal wranglings in the general Church, and imposed additional
hardships upon the colored man, in that masters would probably have felt
it incumbent upon themselves to prohibit any slave from enjoying the
benefits derivable from membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and thus added injury to insult, and left them a prey to “the false
accuser of the brethren.” Notwithstanding the construction others put
upon that decision, or what we now think of it, the colored members of
the Methodist Episcopal Church were not well pleased, as a protest from
Sharp Street Church declares. The author of “The Anti-slavery Struggle
and Triumph in the Methodist Episcopal Church,” at page 148, says: “At
the General Conference of 1840 a memorial was prepared by forty official
members of Sharp Street and Asbury Churches, in Baltimore, protesting
against the colored-testimony resolution. It was put in the hands of
Rev. Thomas B. Sargent, and by him given to one of the bishops. Through
the efforts of Dr. Bond and others the memorialists were pacified
without the conference knowing anything of the document.” The Rev. Dr.
Elliott declared that “the colored members of the Church were greatly
afflicted. This matter had like to have done great mischief.” The
document was afterward published. Among other things equally pungent,
the memorialists said:
“We have learned with profound regret and unutterable emotion of
the resolution adopted May 18th, which has inflicted, we fear,
an irreparable injury upon eighty thousand souls for whom Christ
died; souls which, by this act of your venerable body, have been
stripped of the dignity of Christians, degraded in the scale of
humanity, and treated as criminals, for no other reason than the
color of their skin. The adoption of this soul-sickening
resolution has destroyed the peace and alienated the affections
of twenty-five hundred members of the Church in this city, who
now feel that they are but spiritual orphans or scattered sheep.
The deed you have done could not have originated in that love
which works no ill to his neighbor, but in a disposition to
propitiate that spirit which is not to be appeased, except
through concessions derogatory to the dignity of our holy
religion! And, therefore, they protest against it, and conjure
you to wipe from the journal the odious resolution.”
This was strong language, prompted by a stronger feeling.
The members of Sharp Street Church did not protest against the decision
of the Church in this case, because they doubted the expressed fidelity
made prior to this, that was self-evident. But they knew that times
change and men change with them. This to them looked like a compromise
with the spirit of slavery that stalked abroad in the land. That
decision, viewed from this distance to-day, to some, assumes a different
aspect altogether. How could they keep from protesting? What could they
do more, how dare do less? How did they curb their feelings enough to
express their thoughts in such mild language? Why should not those
burden-bound colored men and women protest against, while compelled to
submit to, a decision that to them was humiliating in the extreme? Shall
the crawling, loathsome worm of the dust be allowed to squirm when trod
upon, the venomous snake to hiss, the vicious beast to defend himself,
and then deny the right to protest? Could the Church of God deny them
the privilege of exculpating themselves in the eyes of the public from
what to them appeared an undeserved reproach, thrown upon them because
of their color or helpless condition, casting thereby away from them the
protection of all save that of God? As they probably thought, why thus
insult them? Aye; rather why insult justice and God by demanding of them
a reason for protesting, since it appeared to them that the Methodist
Episcopal Church—the Church, and only Church, that from the beginning
had stood manfully in their defense—by that decision “had failed to
manifest the spirit that worketh no ill to its neighbor?” Whatever the
protestants in this instance may have thought or said, viewed at that
time from the _ignis fatuus_ of the then existing African Churches in
the North, “it was calculated to drive out of the Methodist Episcopal
Church every intelligent and manly colored man,” into one or the other
of these Churches. Viewed, however, under the light of the Address of
our bishops at that time, it assumes a more rational and philosophical
aspect. The bishops said: “We can not withhold from you at this eventful
period the solemn conviction of our minds, that no ecclesiastical
legislation on the subject of slavery at this time will have a tendency
to accomplish these most desirable objects, to wit: Preserve the peace
and unity of the whole body, promote the greatest happiness of the slave
population, and advance generally in the slaveholding community of our
country the humane and hallowing influence of our holy religion.” By
this we judge that at that time the Church had come to the conclusion
that it was impossible by “ecclesiastical legislation” to benefit in any
way the colored man; that extra legislation on the question would be not
only supererogatory, but in all probability only beneficial in goading
the slaveholder. We infer (1) that civil legislation touching slavery
was not objected to; but that (2) the objection to the admission of
colored testimony had been raised by the civil courts, and it was not
considered being “subject to the powers that be” to demur; at least,
that it was the duty of the Church “to live in peace with all men” as
much as possible. We are not ignorant of the fact that there have been,
and will yet be, times when forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and when
the Church of God can not afford to be loyal “to the powers that be.”
But what could be accomplished by the opposition of _one Church_ to the
slave oligarchy that was then rife in this country? As to this we can
only say:
“Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never-failing skill,
God treasures up his bright designs,
And works his sovereign will.”
As we now see it, there was no use for Methodism to push slavery harder
at that time, since God was behind the movement. Long before this time
the bishops and other far-seeing and right-minded men saw that all the
speeches made and actions taken pro and con relating to slavery, by the
Church, would, without the interposition of God, culminate in splitting
the Church. This in itself gave promise of what actually grew out of
it—a long, bitter, but bloodless ecclesiastical war between the two
factions. Seeing signs of an approaching crisis, they were anxious to
avert it as long as possible, and at the same time prayed to God, “Thy
will be done, and not mine;” that when the on-sweeping tidal wave, even
then within the bounds of the Church, in opposition to holding slaves,
did come, that, so far as those who were leading in opposition to the
accursed traffic were concerned, their consciences might be clear, and
that if the separation came in their life-time, their side should bear
the marks of God’s approbation.
Without multiplying evidence going to show the interest the Methodist
Episcopal Church took in the colored man from its origin to the time at
which we have arrived, we wish now to note the result of the
unwillingness of the Church to compromise with slavery. We have seen
that in every case where it was possible to make concessions to the
colored man, to train, protect, and elevate him, the Church has done it
where it was proper and best for him. It has in every case, as far as
practicable, tried to remedy the wrongs perpetrated upon him as well as
lessen his burdens. Not, of course, always as the colored man thought it
ought to have been done—for he was not in condition to even judge what
was best for him—nor yet as some who appeared more radical would have
had it done; but the Church stood by and for the colored man as no other
denomination occupying the same territory and similar circumstances
would do. To know what was contemplated by the Church in this case we
have but to trace out the legitimate results. During the interregnum
from 1836 to 1844 “God moved in a mysterious way his wonders to
perform.” The question of the abolition of American slavery was
discussed at each General Conference with animation and seriousness.
Many declared the radical action taken by the Church on the question
would eventually rend the Church in twain. Many earnest prayers ascended
to the throne of God in behalf of the tranquillity of the Church, but
were not answered because “his brother” was in need; and those prayers,
if answered, would not only have riveted his shackles, but bathed his
face in tears, and consigned the poor colored man and his posterity, not
to perpetual banishment—that would have been tolerable—but to a slavery
worse than that of the Russian serf. As many more prayed that the
prediction as to the split in the Church might come to pass. As a
result, each succeeding General Conference was marked by the friends of
slavery as the beginning of the end of a united Methodism in America.
------------------------------------------------------------------------