Newspapers / The Star of Zion … / Sept. 25, 1885, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Star of Zion (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
ORGAN OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL ZION CHURCH IN AMERICA. •Urn NUMBER 36 [From the N. T. "Freeman** Sept, art 1886.} . SHALL METHODISTS UNITE ? BISHOP JONES ON THE MO TIVES FOE ORGANIC UNION. A STRONG MANLY PLEA BY A BISHOP OF THE ZION CONNECTION FOR THE ORGANIC UNION OF ALL COLORED METHODISTS IN THE UNITED STATES. To the Editor of the Freeman.—No thing however important is likely to succeed without an impelling motive. Where]thia^power is wanting ^or weak, in any enterprise, there will be a cor responding want of interest, if not an actual indifference to the success of such enterprise. What, then, is the motive which is to prompt the necee* sary interest and effort to bring about the consummation oi organic union be tween the two principal bodies of coP . ored Methodists in America ? These two bodies have stood against the jostle of long and trying years; and stand today the brazen monuments of successful Negro endeavor in origina ting, planning, and sustaining religi | ous organization;—they constitute the * “ Jachin” and “Boaz” on the porch way of their religious effort and -suc cess—the visible proof! of the “estab lishment” and “strength” of the gen time Christian worship, every where on earth. Net that these two bodies famish the only example of true script ural worship among the Negro element —I make no such claim, what I claim is, that in organization, numbers, and appliances, as well as in adaptation to the religious peculiarities of the Negro race, they stand at the head of the . great army of colored Protestant^ just as Methodism stands the advance guards of the universal Protestant host—the leading coluipn. Having gained this laudable height ; maynot ambition—if that be tiwsF ob- ! ject whose gratification is mainly sought, which I disclaim hem rest ? With the connectional machinery of each in hack—all interest on the in crease; with reasonably encouraging prospects, looming up in the near as well as distant future—may not even laudable ambition be thought to have reached its objective point? What motive then is to prompt to commendable endeavor in this new and untried experiment? It would have been as easy, and quite as com mendable to their public spirit and patriotic to country and race, if the re volutionary fathers had thus mutual ly congratulated each other, long be fore independence was fully fought out They might have stayed the effu sion of blood (their own included) and might have obtained increa sed and tempting concessions from the parent government, if they had ceas ed. But they found a motive suffici ent to goad them on to heroic eftort, and to sustain them amid the hard ships and privations of that long and . bloody struggle—in their indomitable will, and unswerving purpose—God helping them—to leave to their pro geny and the rest ofmankind the most noble and brilliant example of popu lar and free government the world ev er knew. True, many of them shed their life-blood as a sacrifice to their purpose, and never lived to enjoy its blessed fruit, but, living or dying they succeeded grandly, in erectiog a tem ple of liberty into which all nationalities and all people may now all gather, and unite in singing—“America.” 1 he arts and sciences and all the recent grand achievements of our high er civilization, might have long since ceased to unfold their wonders, and those by whom they were projected and fostered might now be found rest ing on the undeveloped discoveries of , half a century gone by, but for the mo tjve found in the insatiate on the part pf age and experience—not to be con tented simply to gloat over the acoom plishments of the past, but to lend their - ripe age and experience to the devel opments of the future. Not /or them •f -selves was this necessary, for history mj must hateilocorded them an enviable meed of praise for the accomplishment* of their stalwart manhood, without the more difficult and brilliant achieYe . ;' v mente of age; but the, inspiring and sustaining motive which bore themon t .> >■ to heroic effort*, and crowned them with success, even in their grapple with their all-ahsorbing {atari eet in the race, combined with an in allSslfeiKtf tk i: *>'• emi flexible purpose to divide, if need be, the last breath bf life in an effort tp serve that race. >- ’ / -* If the nation's heiro* whom we hove just laid to rest, who Was honored in life—no less than in death as no son of earth was ever honored—ii be Up on whom the glittering glories of earth were lavished when living, whom'all nations mourned when dead-could find a motive in tfc* very embraoe of depth to nerve inm to almost aupernuman ex fort that he might finish a work de voted specially to the complete unifi cation of the nation; surely' there would be no difficulty on the part of colored men, and especially colored* Method ists, in finding a motive to manly Chris tian endeavor, to preach, [pray, speak and work, .while God gives us the abil ity, for the unification of a people, on whose united effort morally, socially, interlectually, materially and reli giously, {with Divine aidjdepends the lifting of the inhabitants of a whole continent, five times as great, numer ically, with a destiny equal, if not more brilliant than the American na tion has yet reached or even dreamed of—the civilization and Christianiza tion of Africa. If the aged sire, burdened with the weight of years of anxiety and toil, finds a motive at the very threshold of the grave, for increased effort to im prove, beautify and adorn - his estate that the condition of his children may be bettered When he is no more—-we may well pity that selfishness which destroyed all motive to labor for the betterment of the religious condition of a race, simply because we shall soon cease to be individually benefitted thereby. “Not unto themselves but (into us did the prophets minister, when they teatifiedof the coming of Christ, and theglory that should {fol low..” Not forHunself did Jesus offer the sacrifice of the universe, but, “He’ loved us.” Not for themselves did the heroes in the field and in the councils of the oation^toil, suffer and succeed, but for future generations. Not for the own personal benefit does the sire enlarge his grounds, improve his mansion replace his fruit-trees and fertilize his fields. So far as he and his consort * are individually concerned, the few re . maining days of their busy, eventful lives might lie spent in quietness and ease; for themselves they have* enough and to spare; but, impelled by the lof by motive which had left them such a rich inheritance—such an almost end less variety of accumulated resources with which to begin life—they toil on bo the end, sowing that others may reap. Let ue, as tax as in our power imitate their noble example, and as we have no broad acres, no stately mansion, no hoarded wealth toe lave as an inheritance to our children, letjos st least find a motive sufficiently strong to prompt us to the highest en deavor. of which we are capable—to leave for them the rich ana hopeful patrimony Of a ‘‘united church.” More than this we may not be able to leave them; to leave them less because We allowed our selfishness to shut out from view evmy commendable motive that would aid us in securing them this, will be a crime committed upon posterity, for which it will, at least mentally, exhume the presumebly guilty parties, try and condemn them at tbe bar of popular opinion^and con Xthem to ignominious graves. And does not aay "the proceeding will will be just?”. ST Jokes. Brooklyn, N* Y., Sept 4,1886. BISHOP HOOD ON THE UNION. BE THINKS MEN WHO WHITE OUGHT TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES. It seems to me that men who write on the subject of union between Zion and Bethel ought to understand the position of the church for which they pretend to speak. Elder Blacknon, in his article, in which there are some good things, falls into the error of pre suming that we have not the third ordination.« Whatever we may have had np to 1868, it cannot he question ed that we established the: third ordi nation in that year-. Each of the per ions bishop ftt tiiftt tioi6 oeived Hlf before—had received the second owli nation. What then could the ordinar tion which Ihey received at that be, but a third ordination? The emony was almost the same as found in the discipline of the M church. The word “install” was used because it was preferred by gome of the delegates from New York aaj New England. The Southern *nj| Western delegates preferred qtra. terms, but yielded because they fr« garded mere terms of little consequence In 1872 "consecrate” was put i% which term is used by the Protestan| Episcopal church, which iB regarded as“pretty good authority on the sub ject of episcopacy. The ceremony as adopted at that time was silent on tha subject of laying on hands. Watson, the best Methodist theological author? ity, says that the^l*pipg on of hand* is non-essential, that the ordination it complete without it Taking this view of the.subject and to conciliate a feel ing which then ex|st$d in tome page of the connection, the ceremony! 1876 was silent on that subject. And the published ceremony stands in the last issue of the discipline nearly the same as then. As to what has been the practice is another question, and one hard to settle, since we have hot made a bishop for several years and men are forgetful. There are men who will swear that they laid their hands on the head of a bishop, ’others certain that they saw it done; and? there is at least one bishop who &l|y belies*. ih&LJb* fhlt .,th^|teight-flil hands upon his head. Our position, however, is that the laying on of hands is non-essential in the ordination ceremony, that the or dination is complete without it. This was the position taken by our dele? gates at Washington, which position die delegates elected by the A M E church unanimously accepted. Our delegates took the position that there could be no question as to the validity cf our episcopacy—that we could not negotiate with a body for union which raised this question. When this was fully understood by the commissioners an the part of the A At E' church, they retired and brought in a proposi tion which our commissioners accepted rhis proposition is not fairly stated by the “Recorder.” It does noMtate that Zion’s Bishops shall not be re-or iained. It is, that the persons hold ing that office shall continue to hold it during good behaviour. And then, there is a proviso, that future bishops irill be made according to American Methodism. That, I prepome will be aurcourse, whether we unite or not. “Elder Blackson must see that the wcgst enemy -of our church could not propose a greater stultification than be does when he proposes the re-ordi nation of his Bishops. That will not be lone by ourselves pr any body else, because we do not believe in the fourth ordination. I, for one, have no few for the standing of our Bishops in the new Organization, should it be fonned. Neither do I share Elder Blackson’s fears for the standing of any grade of mem; a? the moral rectitude, without which no man is qualified for the min »t along with, but if by the union of e two churches we can get rid of those who are too lazy to make the necessary effort or too immoral to sus tain a good character, the good Lord hasten the day. Both connections have suffered from a class of hangers on or hang-betweens. Both will go by tl^e board if there is union. ^ In eoncluaion,I would say, that we should look to the commissioners ap pointed by the A M E church (to meej; ours) ior an expression of the .sentiment of that church and not to any single individual, though he be a bishqp. It is presumed that the church in selecting its part of tha commission knew its men, and selected them be cause it knew them, judging the A M E Church by the words and,action of its commissioners,, we have a right to presume that it is sincere in its pro fession of a desire tor union on honor able terms, and unites the church through its bishops or otherwise, should repudiate the action of the commis sioners,, we should have no occasion to change this judgment. As a member of the commission appointed by our General conference (thoughnot able to be present), I fully endorse the articles as shown me by the official stenogra pher elected by the commission. No amount of criticism on the ad dress delivered at the California con ference is worth notice. No matter who indulges in it. Men do not de scend to personal abuse, when they have facts or arguments to present. W? have no time now to consider side issues. WILL THE&E BE A UNION ? BISHOP CAMPBELL, AGAIN ON THE WAR PATH—EPISCOPACY—THE ORIGIN OF THE AXE AND THE AM EZION CHURCHES. ' . Immediately after the adjournment of the General conferences of the A M E and the A M E Zion churches, I put myself on record in the “Star of Zion” as favoring organic union be tween these two great connections upon terms of equality and upon Christian and friendly basis. I am for union on these terms (nothing else) first, last and all the time. I had hoped that the brethren of the two connections would not oppose the proposed union until they had seen whether or not they 'would like the platform .adopted by the commissioners, which is soon t6 be published in the official organs of the respective churches. But already the black clouds of envy and deviltry are seen, and the lightnings of dis content playingtheir games across the clerical heavens. It is now evident, that that meeting like the others held in gone-by days, will not amount to a hill'of beans. gome of the leading men of Bethel church ate already on the war-path and have sounded the tocsin, and it is natural to suppose that the best part of their soldiers will gird on their ar mor in time for the coming conflict. The editor of the “Christian Recorder” has led off. An editor’s pen at times is mightier than the sword—and Bish op Campbell has Mowed suit. * The mean and spiteful manner in which the Bishop has referred to our. Bishops <c&lli«jg them B#*<) in beneath the gambling in Wilmington, N C, Nov. 4th, for it will avail nothing. Already the Bethel brethren are saying they are not ready for union; that they believe each church hag a mission to perform; that Zion has several objec tionable features that will have to be removed before a union is effected. In reply, we will say that Bethel has sev eral objectionable features to us; one is, they jblow’*too much; another is, they are head over heels in debt and are constantly losing churches &c. Zion has no debts worth talking about. We never go al over the country blow ing about our men, trying to make the people believe they are greater than the Saviour and his apostles. We propose to remain humble and make ouf work tell. The main cause of all this bad feel ing between two connections is about the episcopacy of the A M E Zion church. Our Bethel brethren have been preaching for years that we have no bishops. This assertion is not only false, but strange, unless the position is taken that this assumed by, the Greek church, the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Episcopal church; that there is no episcopacy ex cept it comes in .direct line from St. Peter. Bat certainly Bethel would be the last church to set up such a claim when Bishop Allen (her first bishop) was ordained by two deacons. Com mon sense ought to teach them to sing small about this episcopacy business. I think they feel this, and that is why they-arewildnver ours in order tp hide the weakness of their own. It is an undeniable fact that a man is to his church what his church makes him. If the ehurch makes him a trustee or class-leader,’ he is that, in the eye of the law, both civij and ecclesiastide. If the church makes him a deacon, elder or bishop, it is just the same. All the ordination that Bishop Allen received was from his church, and surely Zion or any other; church has as much right, to their mode of making Bishops as Bethel. Then, again, Methodism only recog nises two ordinations: that of a dea con and elder, and it has decided that the third ordination is non-essential. That being a fact, then Zion has taken the two ordinations. Did not the white Methodist church do away with the third ordination at their last Gen eral conference? Certainly* Did not Bethel church do the same at their last General conference ft They did, and said the bishopric was only an office That brings both Bethel and the white M E church dowd to the position that Zion has always held. Now what is tiie use of Bethel insisting upon Zion to take what they have done away with before she is willing to unite wnn us on terms of equality? It is the height of:nonsense.’ If Bethel will take the third ordination lawfully, so will Zion. We wUl let the bishops of the two connections be ordained by the church of England. But as the epis oopacy now stands, before we will let Bethel ordain our Bishops, we will stay apart. It is useless for either church to say it will crush out the other unices a union is effected, for both churches will live in spite of men or devils and aocomplish their God given misaion. ; 1';> ; . * Mr. Editor, l toow Wa letter is longer tl lan usual, but you must bear j with me. * For 60 years, op ever since Bethel was organized, she has been carrying on a war with Zion, and while wo havn been in pea ce and quiet for sometime,i^aty now compels Us to open up this whole subject afresh, sinoe they have renewed ihecon%t and since Bisho p Campbell says he ' • v. ?■* HSI ♦iftjtfijft.j j, ||fd - <j 111 fit has just commenced to write again on this subject Mr. Allen left the M E church in 1816 and went to New York and opened a war upon Zion tvhjch his followers have kept up unto this day. The same tales that were told years ago are still circulated. Time and again have they declared that the Zion church seceded from Bethel. The fact is, the Zion church was or ganized 20 years before Allen left the white Methodist church, and her-in corporation dates back to the year 1800, as the public record in New York city will show (see record in the office of the clerk of the city and county of Ne^r York, in Lib. No. 1, page 28). If you will search the “Preface” ofthe white M E Discipline, it will inforn you that Allen was a preacher in their church about 1804. In 1816 the Beth els came out from the white church, mid Bethel was first organized as an M E Church and dedicated as such. In 1809, the Bishop of the M E church made an appointment that did not please them and they rebelled. Trouble arose which resulted in their separation from that church in 1816. In 1796 the Zion church N was organ ized as an African M E church, so that the M E church had no claim up on it. The M E preachers served us for a time under a written contract, but not as part of our organization. So from the first, Zion was an inde pendent African M E church; it came out from no organization. The tound era of it,'it is true, had been members of the John street M E church, but their design from the first was to form a separate church. This, it appears was not the design of the Bethel peo ple ; with them it was an afterthought an idea borrowed by Mr Allen from the Zion church in New York. Hav ing borrowed that idea from Zion church and his people having made him a bishop (as they say) in a man ner that seemed good to them, he went to New York to persuade Zion to en- * list under his banner and acknowl edge him as Bishop. Zion refused to , do so for good reasons. The Zion connection in New York city at that time emhraced two church es—Zion and Asbury. Mr. Allen/ finding he could accomplish nothing with Zion, the mother of colored churches, turned to Asbury, the daugh ter, and succeeded in taking part of her members. This was the begin ning of war between the two churches. Zion ministers retaliated, went to Philadelphia and succeeded in tearing Big Wesley away from Bethel, which we hold to-day. This, I presume, is the ground upon which Bethel say that we seceded from them. Nothing could be,more false. Zion, the foun tain-head of our connection, was never connected with Bethel; and the,split ting off was commenced by a church splitting off from us and going to Beth el, so that if there is anything in that, Bethel split off from us. We do not, however, make anj such claim, for it would be treating the subject unfairly by either party. Zion in New York and Bethel in Philadelphia are the two respective churches from which the two connections have sprung. These churches have never been unit* ed, and consequently cannot be truth fully said to have separated. Having started independent of each other, they have ever remained so. I will stop for the present and say to our Bethel-brethren, if they /want to con tinue this subject, we are willing. I have another old gun loaded that wants to “go o ' J. W. Sams,
The Star of Zion (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 25, 1885, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75