THE COLORED BISHOP QUESTION.
The quadrennium from 1868 to 1872 exhibited a marvelous growth among the
colored membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This was but the
pulsation started by Methodism among her hitherto downtrodden children,
by her labor of love in carrying to them the gospel of free salvation
through the agency of her benevolent societies, the class of bishops,
General Conference officers, and the consecrated and self-denying white
teachers from the North, who left their homes of comfort and joy to go
South and put themselves upon God’s altar for the elevation, morally,
financially, intellectually, and spiritually, of their “brother in
black.” The work done, and its effects in so short a time, seem now the
marvel of the age! The scattered sheep had been gathered from the hills
and valleys, the cane-brakes and swamps, from the villages and the
larger cities, into societies nearly everywhere. Wherever possible they
had been organized into conferences as had been provided by the action
of the General Conference of 1864. With the application for recognition
came that also for separate conferences. Two separate annual conferences
had been organized before 1865—the Delaware Conference, July 28, 1864,
and the Washington Conference, October 27, 1864. Besides this, the Rule
of the Discipline, requiring a probation of two years, had been
suspended so far as to permit our bishops to organize annual conferences
with such colored local elders as had traveled two or more years under a
presiding elder, who were recommended by a quarterly conference and by
at least ten white elders. Thus the constitutional rights of the colored
membership of the Church had been recognized, and the marvelous growth
among them during this quadrennium was but a manifestation of
appreciation on the part of the religious colored people of the South,
evidence of their preference for Methodism, pure and simple.
The fact that colored delegates were recognized by the General
Conference of 1868, and provision made for the organization of the
Lexington Annual Conference, that had hitherto been mixed with the
Kentucky Conference, white; that separate annual conferences had been
formed; indeed, that every practically conceivable thing was being done
by the Church for her colored members,—caused many to flock toward her
that had fled for safety in another direction. The tide was soon checked
by the ministry and membership of the two colored denominations—the
African Zion and the African Methodist Churches—that were toiling in the
same field, by crying out “the Methodist Episcopal Church will never
permit a colored man to be elected a bishop.” Consternation seized many
of our members when they were told that the Methodist Episcopal Church
would only tolerate a black membership as “hewers of wood and drawers of
water.” It at last became to many, as they said, “self-evident, that to
retain the better class of colored people there must be no
discrimination anywhere in Methodism on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.” Many, many hard battles were fought,
not with the enemy of souls, but with our brethren of the above-named
two denominations. From 1868 to the adjournment of the General
Conference of 1872 a bitter religious warfare was waged. At last, as the
quadrennium drew to a close, it was evident that the agitation of the
question of a bishop of African descent had not only done much injury,
poisoning and unsettling the minds of our colored membership, but that,
in one way or the other, the question must be put and answered by the
ensuing General Conference. This was one of the most important questions
considered by the General Conference of 1872, sitting in Brooklyn, New
York. This, the twenty-first session of our General Conference, will be
remembered as the largest ever held by our Church up to that time, there
being four hundred and twenty-one delegates. Several of our colored
conferences sent up memorials in favor of the election of a bishop of
African descent. As they were presented they were respectfully referred
to the Committee on Episcopacy, composed of one delegate from each
annual conference, colored or white. The petition for a bishop of
African descent from the preachers’ meeting of New Orleans received the
following reply:
“The special committee to which was referred the memorial of the
New Orleans preachers’ meeting of May 23d, asking for the
election of an additional bishop, who shall be of African
descent, respectfully report: That at a meeting of the
committee, held May 30th, the statements of the memorialists and
their requests were carefully considered. The very reasonable
demand, that at least some action may be taken which shall
assure our people that the Methodist Episcopal Church invites to
her altars peoples of every nation, and extends to them equal
rights in her worship and government, was responded to with
great unanimity by the following declaration of facts which, we
are persuaded, will be entirely satisfactory to the
memorialists.”
Then follows the report of the Committee on Episcopacy, viz.:
“The Committee on Episcopacy report to the General Conference
concerning the election of a colored bishop: (1) That they are
deeply impressed with the Christian spirit manifested by those
memorializing the General Conference on this subject. The rapid
progress our brethren of color are making in all that elevates
mankind is most commendable, and we have no doubt there is a
future of great promise before them. Your committee would
further report that, in their judgment, there is nothing in
race, color, or former condition that is a bar to an election to
the episcopacy, the true course being for us to elect only such
persons as are, by their pre-eminent piety, endowments, culture,
general fitness, and acceptability best qualified to fill the
office. (2) The claims of our numerous and noble-hearted
membership of African descent to a perfect equality of relations
with all others in our communion are fully recognized by the
Discipline, and amply demonstrated in the administration of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. There is no word ‘white’ to
discriminate against race or color known in our legislation; and
being of African descent does not prevent membership with white
men in annual conferences, nor ordination at the same altars,
nor appointment nor eligibility to the highest office in the
Church. (3) Election to the office of bishop from among
candidates who are mutually equal can not be determined on the
ground of color or any other special consideration. It can only
be by fair and honorable competition between the friends of the
respective candidates. And yet the presentation of a
well-qualified man of African descent would, doubtless, secure
very general support in view of the great interests of the
Church, which would thereby be more abundantly promoted. No such
opportunity, however, has been afforded at this General
Conference.”
Quite a while before the assembling of that General Conference the
colored bishop question had been widely discussed, receiving very
general consideration and favorable mention in some localities. It,
however, was not of a demonstrative character. The fair, plain,
Christian statements of that General Conference put an end to the “color
question” within the Church, _so far as special ecclesiastical
legislation goes_. May we not hope that it put a quietus upon those
without the Church who prefer to arrogate to themselves a kind of
aristocratical attitude, because they have solved the Negro problem by
divorce, but who willingly join in any outcry that will have a tendency
to condone any action relating to “the vexed question” they have taken,
or seem to shadow any spirit of unkindness that would naturally attach
to such a wicked divorce? The manliness, Christian spirit, and
unwavering fidelity of the Methodist Episcopal Church toward the colored
man from his arrival in this country, so far as the heart of the Church
is concerned, ought to be “read and known of all men.” That General
Conference said all on the colored bishop question that could be said;
and, for that matter, all on the race question that needs to be said for
all time to come.
While glancing backward and beholding what the Methodist Episcopal
Church has done, and is now doing, for the amelioration of the condition
and giving the colored man in general, and the colored membership within
the communion of the Church in particular, prestige, we feel as if the
ignorance of any colored man in this country who dares say the Church,
as such, has not loved and respected the race, is inexcusable,
reprehensible, and hate-provoking. In many instances the Church did not
do what we asked; in others it did not do what others thought it should
have done; but time and experience have taught us it did generally what
was best. It was feared that much harm would come to Methodism among our
people if a bishop of African descent were not chosen at that General
Conference. Ought we to say it was the hope of some? In the rural
districts, where the general intelligence of the race was not above par,
it may have caused friction because of the omnipresence of “colored
bishops,” “General Conference officers,” “college presidents,” etc. The
years that are to come, unless a strange influence not related to that
of the Church of the past comes upon our Methodism, will show that up to
this time it was better as it happened. The election of a man of African
descent was urged and expected: (1) To tighten our hold upon our people
by offsetting outside statements that the Church would never elect a
colored man to the bishopric; (2) To remove any lingering doubts, if
there remained any, as to the intention of the Church touching the
relation of the colored man to it. We doubt not many, without the
Church, who persistently _pushed_ this matter, urging it through their
Church papers, the secular press, and in nearly every public place, and
on nearly every occasion; who did this for the specific purpose of
demoralizing and scattering our membership, though done with a seeming
gravity and earnestness worthy of a better cause, did not honestly
believe it possible that the great Methodist Episcopal Church would even
go as far as it did; believing that it was an impossibility, as much so
as it would be to elect a _white_ man to the bishopric in one of the
distinctively colored organizations, were there the same number of white
people within the communion of those three Churches, comparatively, that
there are colored in our Church, and that the Church would not only
passively refuse, but would plainly say so. This would naturally have
weakened their faith, and they would have doubted the sincerity of the
professions of the Church made in favor of the colored man by it in the
past. On the contrary, the action of that General Conference _had no
such effect_ where the truth of the matter was properly told, or where
the intelligence of our people made them conversant with the past
history of the Church on the color-line question.
The discussion of the question was kept up until the assembling of the
session of the _General Conference of 1876_. Without stopping to speak
of the spirit manifested in the discussion of this question, pro and
con, outside of the General Conference, nor to speak our views then or
now, wishing to give as complete an account of the manner in which that
General Conference was brought to see this question, we simply state
that the discussion was carried into nearly, if not every congregation
in the Church during the quadrennium. The whole matter, phœnix-like,
came to the surface at the call for resolutions and memorials. The
Mississippi Conference led with the following, presented by Moses Adams:
“WHEREAS, The Methodist Episcopal Church has under her care one
hundred and fifty thousand members of African descent; and
_whereas_, the said Church meets with great opposition from
other Methodist bodies, I therefore respectfully ask this
General Conference to elect a man of African descent to the
office of bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church. This is
asked for two reasons: (1) That the Church needs one to help
defend her cause. Nothing, in my judgment, would build up the
Methodist Episcopal Church more than the election of a bishop
from the membership of African descent. (2) The race is not
fully represented in the Methodist Episcopal Church without one
such being elected to that high office of trust.”
From the West Virginia Conference the following was presented by G. W.
Atkinson:
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Episcopacy consider the
expediency of electing a German bishop and one or more African
bishops, to supervise the German and African conferences of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in America.”
The Delaware Conference sent up a memorial in favor of the election of a
bishop of African descent, which was presented by H. Jolley. The
petition in favor of the same sent up from the Georgia Conference was
presented by Rev. C. O. Fisher, signed by himself and sixteen others.
The Mississippi Conference sent up a similar petition by A. C. McDonald.
The foregoing gives a faint idea of the scope of the question.
Just how that General Conference would handle the question, striking the
happy, golden mean between the two extremes, without reflecting upon the
past history of the Methodist Episcopal Church relating to the colored
membership on the one hand, or, if necessary to refuse, how it could
avoid injuring the work already established among the race, was a
perplexing question. Each memorial was given a careful and respectful
investigation and promptly and properly referred to the Committee on
Episcopacy. At last, after many guesses and prophecies by friends of the
measure, and others, the work of the Committee on Episcopacy was
finished. When the committee signified its readiness to report, on
motion of General Clinton B. Fisk, Report No. 2 of the Committee on
Episcopacy was taken up. When the secretary arose to read it, it
appeared as if a peculiar spell had come over a great many members of
that General Conference who knew nothing of the decision of the
Committee. The report was as follows:
“We have had before us certain papers asking the election of a
man of African descent to our episcopal office, and other papers
asking that the residence of such bishop be in Liberia. It is
claimed in these petitions that the circumstances of the people
of African descent are such that the efficiency of the work of
our Church among them demands the election of a man of African
descent to our episcopacy; that such election, more than any
other fact, would establish beyond all gainsaying the relation
of our Church to its members of African descent; that it would
give them a bishop that could mingle freely with them without
embarrassment to the work among them in any locality; that these
ends would be reached, and the needed administration in Liberia
be secured, by fixing the residence of such bishop in that
colony. Your committee have considered these facts; but in view
of the statement received from the present Board of Bishops as
to their ability to discharge the duties of the superintendency,
we recommend the adoption of the following:
“_Resolved_, (1) That this General Conference elect no bishops.
“_Resolved_, (2) That the facts presented in the several
petitions above mentioned are entitled to careful consideration
whenever the election of additional bishops shall become
necessary.
“_Resolved_, (3) That we reiterate the declaration of the
General Conference of 1872, touching the relation of a man of
African descent to our episcopal office, and assert that race,
nationality, color, or previous condition is no bar to the
election of any man to the episcopal office in our Church, nor
any other elective office filled by the General Conference.”
(Journal 1876, p. 353.)
The fact that “papers asking that the residence of such bishop be in
Liberia” had also been presented, though coming in all probability from
opposition to the election of a man of African descent to the bishopric,
like Thomas doubting his risen Lord, demonstrates the fact that that
General Conference, by its Committee on Episcopacy, would have granted
the petitioners in favor of the election to the episcopacy of a man of
African descent their request, if they had produced a suitable man of
African descent; or that the election of a missionary bishop for Liberia
would put a quietus upon the agitation. If not this, then it declares
that there were those in that General Conference who had expressed
themselves as favoring every move touching the colored membership in the
Church that would elevate and inspire them with hope for the future. The
entire proceeding is, to my mind, inexplicable, were it not for the
omnipresent fact that, so far as the Church is concerned, “God is in the
midst of her.” The plea of the petitioners was not granted by that
General Conference; but that is not stranger than the fact that other
plans failed to be carried out at that General Conference, and for that
matter every General Conference in the history of the Church from 1844
until to-day, that were, so far as arrangements, etc., go, already well
supported before the meeting of the General Conference. Going back to
the day of the adjournment of _that_ General Conference, we say, we can
wait.
THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1880.—During the following quadrennium up to
this General Conference the colored bishop question was more generally
discussed than before. The official papers of the Church began to take
notice of the question, while our brethren of the African and Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, joined in to help on the good work—the former,
in all probability, because of the supposed predicament it put the
colored members into; and the latter, because they wished to push what
they were pleased to call “the thorn in the flesh” farther into the
quick of the white membership in the Church. The Baltimore District of
the Washington Annual Conference passed a series of resolutions touching
this question. Those resolutions were, in all probability, too radical
when they declared the election of a man of African descent to our
episcopacy “the only way the Church can hope to prove its good faith or
respect for the numerous colored membership within the Church.” The fact
is, the Church was not required to bring forth fruits to exhibit any
such thing.
The _Central Christian Advocate_, our official organ at St. Louis, thus
spoke on this subject:
“A few weeks ago the members of the Baltimore District Conference,
Washington Annual Conference, passed a preamble and resolutions, in
which they declare that members of African descent in the Methodist
Episcopal Church do not enjoy practically the fullest recognition of
Church fellowship and communion; that the only way to prove to them and
the world that they are recognized as equals in the Church is the
election of a man of African descent to the office of bishop; and they
recommend their brethren to ‘agitate’ the question and, if necessary, to
‘demand’ the election of a colored bishop at the General Conference to
be held in May, 1880. This is the action of a single district
conference; to what extent it represents the opinions of the colored
ministers of the Church we have no means of knowing; for, so far as we
have observed, no other district conference has yet taken action on the
subject.
“The action of a single district conference, however influential and
worthy of consideration, scarcely brings a question before the Church
sufficiently to make it at once a subject for general discussion in the
official papers. We proposed, therefore, to wait and see whether the
Baltimore District Conference represented the convictions of others than
itself. But our editorial brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, caught it up at once as a choice morsel, which afforded them a
nice opportunity to worry, as they believe, the white membership of our
Church, and to sow dissension among the colored members. The Richmond
_Advocate_ declared that intense mortification and confusion would seize
upon the whites when this action of their colored brethren became known,
and that not an official paper of the Church would dare mention what had
taken place. It was a false prophet. And it must have been doubly
surprised when the New York _Methodist_, which is presumed to represent
the more conservative element in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
promptly pronounced in favor of the election of one or two colored
bishops. The Louisville _Methodist_ thinks we have ‘a difficult problem’
on our hands, and, with an air of compassionate concern, informs our
colored brethren ‘that all the important offices of the Methodist
Episcopal Church will be filled by white men, notwithstanding the
resolutions of the Baltimore District.’
“But the Louisville _Methodist_ is too anxious to make out a case. It
says that the colored members of our Church were greatly disappointed
that a colored bishop was not elected in 1872. Had the editor consulted
the published proceedings of that General Conference instead of drawing
upon his imagination for his facts, he would have scarcely made such a
statement. There was but one memorial before the conference on the
subject, and it had only four signatures attached. The Committee on
Episcopacy, to which it was referred, reported ‘that, in their judgment,
there is nothing in race, color, or former condition that is a bar to an
election to the episcopacy, the true course being for us to elect only
such persons as are, by their pre-eminent piety, endowments, culture,
general fitness, and acceptability, best qualified to fill the office.’
And no more eloquent speech was made during the conference than that of
Hon. James Lynch, of Mississippi, a colored lay member, declaring that
the colored men asked no favors on account of race, and that when they
produced a man as fit for the place as those about them, it would then
be time enough for action.”
The spirit manifested by our Southern brethren in the discussion of this
question within our Church smacks of officiousness. They are in no way
to be affected whether it is or is not done. While they have a perfect
right to take part in any and all discussions worthy of public
attention, anything like an attempt to sow the seeds of dissension among
the members of any other denomination is, in the eyes of an ignorant
black man, reprehensible, not to say unchristian. It gives room for
complaint from the world that Southern “Methodists are no better than
other folks.” The colored man who is simply a member of the Methodist
Episcopal Church for the sake of “important offices” had better _leave
it—the sooner the better_. No Christian white man remains in any Church
for that sole reason; and, as Bishop Simpson once said: “A white man is
as good as a colored man, if he behaves himself.” One thing is certain,
that every such office-seeking colored man in the Church will fail to
receive the support of every intelligent colored Christian within the
Church. It is true that, on general principles, it was but a short time
until the desire of the brethren of the Baltimore District became that
of many others; that is, that it was thought necessary that a colored
man should be elected to the bishopric.
When the General Conference of 1880 met in Cincinnati for its
twenty-third session, this question again came up for discussion.
Memorials and resolutions on this subject were presented from Washington
Conference, by Henry A. Carroll; from Delaware Conference, by W. F.
Butler, Zoar Church and Cambridge charge; J. C. Hartzell, from New
Orleans preachers’ meeting; by John H. Dunn and J. H. Shumpert, from
Mississippi, _et al._; and C. O. Fisher presented an extract from the
journal of Savannah Conference and from Atlanta District. On Wednesday,
May 12th, on motion, the rules were suspended to allow E. W. S. Hammond
to present the following paper:
“WHEREAS, It is clearly evident, from the memorials and
petitions on the subject, and which were duly referred to the
Committee on Episcopacy, that the colored people of the
Methodist Episcopal Church desire a bishop of their own race;
and _whereas_, the election of a colored bishop would be a
practical recognition of our full manhood by the Church, and a
grand influence in the extension of our work in the United
States and in other lands; and _whereas_, the General Conference
of 1872 did declare, and the General Conference of 1876 did
reaffirm, with emphatic significance, that race, nationality,
color, or previous condition is no bar to the election of any
man to the episcopal office in our Church; and _whereas_, the
General Conference of 1876 did recommend that the memorials,
petitions, etc., on the above-named subject should be entitled
to a careful consideration whenever the election of additional
bishops shall become necessary; and _whereas_, the necessity for
the election of additional bishops is apparent, and the way is
now open for the practical operation of the above resolution; be
it, therefore,
“_Resolved_, That this General Conference recommend the election
of a colored man to the episcopacy.”
He supported the above preamble and resolution by a vigorous and timely
speech, through courtesy of the General Conference, lasting over fifteen
minutes.
On motion of L. C. Queal, the foregoing paper was laid on the table _for
the present_. The memorials, followed hard by that resolution and
speech, seemed to put the General Conference to thinking on the subject
as never before.
It is not exactly certain that there was _no_ opposition to the question
at that General Conference. Why need any one demand a thing to which
there is no objection? It would come as a matter of course. Some spirit
of opposition anon manifested itself in a way as unfair as uncalled for.
For instance, the following presented by A. W. Milby, of Wilmington
Conference:
“WHEREAS, The question of a colored bishop is with great
persistency urged upon the attention of the General Conference;
and _whereas_, it is a question to be determined, not by appeals
to sentiment, but by arguments and facts addressed to the reason
and the understanding; and _whereas_, we believe that the
records of the benevolent societies and the statistical reports
of the several annual conferences, composed of colored
preachers, will furnish the best data for a wise and godly
judgment; therefore,
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Episcopacy be, and are
hereby, instructed to inquire into and report to this conference
at an early day, the following items in respect to the
conferences composed, in whole or in part, of colored preachers,
to wit: (1) The amount of money contributed by said conferences
to the Episcopal Fund during the last quadrennium. (2) The
amount contributed to the missionary cause. (3) The amount
contributed to the Church Extension Society. (4) The amount
contributed to the Freedmen’s Aid Society. (5) The amount
received by said conferences from the Missionary Society during
the quadrennium. (6) The amount received from the Church
Extension Society. (7) The amount received from the Freedmen’s
Aid Society.”
On motion, the above resolutions were referred to the Committee on
Episcopacy. The unfairness of such a proposition, as well as the
unchristian spirit that produced it, become at once apparent, when it is
remembered that in the Church of God the good to be done for our brother
is not to depend either upon his willingly accepting it, demonstration
of appreciation, the amount of wealth possessed by the recipients, or
the amount of money they can or will produce. “How much will he bring at
auction?” was the language of slave-traders in the past. The amount
given for almost any cause by almost every person is dependent upon the
intelligence possessed or communicated relating thereto, and the
interest taken therein, coupled, of course, with financial ability. If
the resolutions above referred to were germane, why not have each of the
above conferences also report: (1) How many souls have been converted
during the quadrennium? (2) How much religious fervor, comparative
consistency in religious life, has been manifest among them? (3) How
much time have they had, and under what circumstances, to be prepared to
accumulate wealth, and then give it “as the Lord prospers them?” (4)
What have they given, _per capita_, in comparison with their white
brethren’s wealth, time, and influence, for the spread of the kingdom of
God among men? (5) What proportion do they sustain to the rest of the
membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, numerically? (6) What per
cent of their actual wealth do they give for the cause of Christ? If any
special attention was paid to those resolutions, those in charge of our
benevolent societies have no knowledge of it. The _Church of God will
never require such a test_. Were the Methodist Church to do it, Satan
would certainly be warranted in affirming that a dollar in her scales
weighs more than an immortal soul.
The crisis in the question of a colored bishop came May 20th, when
Report No. 3 of the Committee on Episcopacy was presented, as follows:
“The Committee on Episcopacy, having considered the memorials
and petitions referred to it on the election of a bishop of
African descent, adopted each of the following resolutions by a
vote of thirty-nine to eight:
“_Resolved_, 1. That the best interests of our Church in
general, and of our colored people in particular, require that
one or more of our general superintendents should be of African
descent.
“_Resolved_, 2. That we recommend that this General Conference
elect one bishop of African descent.”
J. S. Smart moved to adopt; thereupon Alfred Wheeler presented the
following minority report, and moved that it be substituted for the
report of the majority:
“A portion of your Committee on Episcopacy, differing widely
from the majority, both as to the necessity and expediency of
electing a colored bishop at the present time, feel constrained
to express our dissent by a minority report. After listening
attentively to prolonged discussions upon the subject, and
giving due weight to the arguments urged in its favor, and to
full representation of the state of our religious work among the
colored people of the South, representations made by themselves
as well as by their white co-laborers, we are convinced that
sound policy forbids the adoption of the recommendation of the
majority.
“_Resolved_, therefore, That we deem it inexpedient to elect any
more bishops at this General Conference.”
John Lanahan moved that the whole subject be indefinitely postponed. On
motion of Emperor Williams, the yeas and nays were called, and the
motion to postpone indefinitely was carried by two hundred and
twenty-eight votes to one hundred and thirty-seven.
To show the interest manifested, of the three hundred and ninety-nine
delegates, all were present and voted on that resolution save
thirty-four. At page 282 of General Conference Journal of 1880 we have
the list of names. There appear names of persons who voted indefinitely
to postpone that question that surprises us a little; and not very much,
either. However, a quietus was thus put upon that question for _that
session at least_.
Let us look back for a moment. Has it not appeared in nearly every
instance, when the colored membership have memorialized the General
Conference, that not only has respectful attention been given, but
concessions made? Has it not appeared as clearly, all the way through,
that the Church, as such, is ready whenever the race presents a proper
man? The voice of the Church not only declares its willingness, but even
hints that while “race, color,” nor other special considerations are to
be helps or hindrances, _it is possible_ to elect a colored bishop by
“fair and honorable competition between the friends of the respective
candidates.”
There is no man within the Methodist Episcopal Church who would feel
worse than the writer, were any General Conference of our Church to
elect a white man to the episcopacy because he had been an Abolitionist,
a Federal soldier, was a Japanese, or who had been a foreign missionary,
but, aside from these things, had no other qualification. Just the same
way would it be if any General Conference should elect to the office of
bishop in our Church a _colored_ man, simply because he had been a
slave, or because he could make a passable speech, or deliver an
acceptable sermon, or was pastor of a small congregation, but, aside
from this, had no literary attainments, but little or no executive
ability, and but little practical experience in general Church work. It
would be no particular advantage under such circumstances, while it
might do incalculable injury, not only to the general Church, but to the
interests of the race in particular.
Hon. James Lynch, of Mississippi, declared in the General Conference of
1872, that no favors were asked on account of race. Rev. E. W. S.
Hammond, in the eloquent speech delivered before the General Conference
of 1880, in Cincinnati, said that the plea being made was not for a
_colored bishop simply for the colored people_, but a bishop for the
Methodist Episcopal Church. And now the way is not only open, but wisdom
at the threshold of the bishopric in our Church cries to all, “There is
nothing in race, color, or previous condition, a bar to entrance here,
but the true course given me is to admit only those who, by their
pre-eminent piety, godly judgment, and literary qualifications, are best
fitted to fill the office.” There is not an intelligent Christian of
color within our Church that does not bow assent to this sentiment. When
as a race we are to be represented on our bench of bishops, we want a
man who is, and will be, a credit to the Church, an honor to the race
and to himself, an equal among equals in every respect—a representative
man, “blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, modest, given
to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy
of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that
ruleth well his own household; not a novice, lest being lifted up with
pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have
a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach and
the snare of the devil.” Then, and not till then, ought a colored man be
elected as “one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------