North Carolina Newspapers

ORGAN orr THE AFRlOAl^ METHODIST EPISCOPAL ZXOIST OHUROH IN" AMERICA - ~ ■ ■ 1—— _\ __ . j-, _ VOLUME IX. NO. 51. CHARLOTTE, N. C„ THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17,1196. CENTENNIAL VOLUME, 1796-1896 . BETHEL AND ZION, REJOINDER TO DR. J. M. HfINDERSON-■ FACTS, N FIGURES, ARE TO WIN l;N THIS DISCUSSION. BY BISHOP A. W/ LTERS, D. D. OT In the Christian Recorder of De • cember 3rd, in reply to my article, “Bethel and Zion,” Dr. J. M. Hen . derson makes a puerile appeal to the members of the A. M. E. Church for sympathy by expatiating on the deeds of,the departed heroes of the Church. Ohe who had not read my article would suppose that I had assailed their integrity and underrated their ability. Nothing was further from my mind than an attack upon the fathers of the A. M. E. Church. Facts, not eloquence, are to win in this discussion. My heart is too big and my love too great for the Negro race to wan tonly reflect upon its heroes, whether in Bethel or Zion. I honor the mem ory of the sainted Allen. He was a great Negro leader, strong in intel lect, firm in purpose, lofty in thought, exemplary in his life, forceful in the presentation of Gospel truth—a wor thy founder of a great church. There is nothing else for me to do but to honor and reverence such a man. It thrills me with delight to read of the Herculean efforts of such heroes as Bishops Morris Brown, Edward Wat ers, Wm. Paul •Quinn and Jabez Campbell, and of the tremendous dif ficulties they had to surmount in or der to extend the borders of their church and lift up a degraded and oppressed people. x revere tne cultured ana scnoiariy Bishop Brown, the eloquent and po etic Ward, the sweet Gospel preacher and able parliamentarian, Wayman, and that prince of educators, peer less race leader, great historian—the most brilliant tftar in Bethel’s con stellation, one that sheds its dazzling and benign rays throughout this en v tire nation—Bishop Daniel A. Payne, D. D., LL. D., founder of proud Wil berforce. What Negro with a grain of common sense or a particle of race pride would not delight to honor such geniuses ? I will not cease to sound the praise of Negro heroes, whether in Church or State, until my lips are sealed, my tongue paralyzed and my voice si lenced in death. God forbid that I should strive to pluck one garland from the brow of the founder of Beth i el Church. I would to God that Dr. Henderson possessed some of the no ble traits of the departed heroes of his Church ; if he did, he would not be continually slandering the institu tions and eminent men who are strug gling so zealously to perpetuate the church which Allen founded, and which he (Henderson) professes to love so dearly. In the first place, Dr. Henderson has but little regard fox the truth. In his reply he says of the subject of Incorporations “Begone with your irrevelant (our unanswerable) ques tions.” He forgets that he raised the question of Incorporation in his arti cle of October 15th, when he said that Bethel Church was incorporated in 1793. We requested him to in form us where the .record of such in corporation was to be .found, the book, page and date. He has found this to be an impossibility, (I knew this at the time;) and now gives us for in genious argument: “Begone with your irrevelant questions.” Finding his mistake he says that the property secured in 1793 was Richard Allen’s own personal property, and hence there was no need of incorporation. It is a great pity the Doctor was not aware of this fact before his state ment of October 15th. Recognizing his defeat he says: “What has the incorporation of a l^oard of Trustees, whose highest functions is to hold title to real estate, got to do with the birth of African Methodism?” By the above he shows his ignorance ot the whole question under discussion. Why did he boast in the beginning that Bethel Church was incorporated before Zion, if incorporation does not amount to anything ? As soon as he discovers beyond a doubt that Zion was incorporated in New York be fore Bethel was' in Philadelphia, he turns ecclesiastical acrobat and c/ies irrevelant ' In the second place the D6ctor eired when he Etated that Zion had no 01 dained ministers in 1820. Zion had at that time four regular!^ Ordained deacons, viz: James Varick, Wm. 14 iller, Abraham Thompson and [Lev el'! Smith, and it was no fault of hers tl at she did not have elders. For ytiars prior to 1820 she had petitioned B shop Asbury and other Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church to ordain elders for her. Dr. Hender son is aware that Bethel had E.bout the same difficulty*ln securing (ordi nation for her men. In the third place the Doctor is in error when he strives to make the impression that Bishop Allen oh his visit to New York in 1820 die not urge the Zionites to unite wit i bjia Connection. In Rush’s Rise and Prog ress of the A. M. E. Zion Church, page 44, is the following : “A letter was read which was st nt by Richard Allen, directed to William Brown, advising them (the Zionites) to unite With him, but there was very little said about it, notwithstanding.” The Zionites refused to unite with Allen, but not because he declined to ordain their men, whoim the Doctor says desired to remain in the Mjetho? dist Episcopal Church. They had already withdrawn from the Metho dist Episcopal Church at the time of Bishop Allen’s visit to New Yojrk. mads until dupl JDr. Henderson says we were out. If the statements Bishops Allen, Payne and Turne correct, Bethel was also kicked for Absalom Jones and, others pulled from their knees during in St. George’s Methodist Epii Church in Philadelphia. They to be allowed to remain prayer was over, but their r was not granted. Those who main during the prayer left im: atelv after. (See Payne’s Hi page 79). • This looks like they forced out. The Doctor is guilty of when he strives to make the in: sion that Bethel Church was der the immediate control Methodist Episcopal Church 1793 to 1816. Every intelligi M. E. minister and layman that Bethel did not withdraw the Methodist Episcopal Chun 1816. Why continue to misle people? It cannot b* proven the A. M. E. Church as a society organized in Philadelphia in The earliest date given by Payne in his history of the orgk: tion of the A. M. E. Society in adelphia is in 1793. On the following: “In 1793 the numbers of the people of color, having increased kicked by r are out; were pirayer ^copal b?gged the elquest re medi ii story, were not page of eint icity pres un' the from A. knows from L till the that was :a.d 1787. Bishop niza Phil 4 is serious , they mode of religious worship, and as many felt a strong partiality for that adopted by the Methodists, Richard Allen with the advice of some of the brethreja, pro posed the erection of a place of worship on his own ground and at his oifvn ex pense as an African Methodist meeting house.” In Tanner’s Outlines of History, page 144, we read : “May 5th, 1794.—A number of ijis, citi zens of Philadelphia, d3scendents of the African race met together at the house of Richard Allen in order to consult to get ier. upon the most eligible means to pro vide for ourselves a house to beet in for religious’ worship agreeable jto our ow: t desire, according to the light! which Gol 1, through grace, has given usj—sepa rat(j from our white brethren—for rea son) hereinafter mentioned. It was pro pos id to purchase a frame that Was for salt; at the time and remove it to k lot of gro ind that was offered and apjpeared con venient for the above purpose. 'Broth ers Robert Green, Joseph Houston, Wil liam Hogin, Isaae Miller, York Byers, An bony Robinson and John ! Allen sho aid be a committee to superintend an> matter they might be called onto undertake respecting the above. Pres ent ! Robert Green, Joseph Houston, Wi liam Hogin, Isaac Miller, York By ers, Anthony Robison, John Allen. Ric aard Allen, Thomas Martin, Solomon Bri enham, PrincE Pruence. Philadel phia, May 13th, 1704.—At a stated meet ing-of the committee it was unanibously agr led to proceed to prepare the frame for the purpose, and that the frame be put in order to more it next; Saturday Brother Robert Green, for i he •enaer*d,| ' or Phillip Johnston was chosen in his stead.” The above statement differs materi ally from that made by Dr. Hender son. I again state briefly our claim to priority. It is generally admitted that American Methodism was bom in New York City in 1766, and that Phillip Embury and Captain Webb were its first preachers. Their meet ing place was a rigging loft in Wil liam Street. Peter Williams, a col ored man,, who with his own hands laid the corner stone of Zion church, (see Lost Chapters of Methodism, page 444), was a leading spirit in its formation and -was one of the first converts. Now any unprejudiced reader will see that Zion is in direct succession. All colored Methodists of America rejoice ■ in the fact that they were represented in the original Methodist organization in America in the person of Peter Williams. Bishop Arnett in his Budget of 1891 says: “Peter Williams was the firBt colored man that was a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in New York.” And further says: “He was converted under the preaching of Phillip Embury, and was the first sexton of Wesley Chapel, from 1778 to 1795.” Bishop Arnett rejoicesiin the fact that when the foundation of Ameri can Methodism was laid, a colored brother was there ; he claims that he was represented in Methodism through this colored brother, and does not raise any serious objection to his be ing a Zionite. He (Peter Williams) was the lead er of a colored class as early as 1780; from that time till 1795 he was pre paring his people to -strike out for themselves. In 1796 they organized the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, but, like Bethel in Phil adelphia, remained under the care of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1800 incorporation was secured, and recorded.-in. February, 1801. Incor poration gave the colored trustees of Zion church entire control of the property, which they have retained from that time until now (except by change of location). By the way, we have a very desirable location in New York City, and hot in the slums, Dr. Henderson to the contrary notwith standing. zion’s episcopacy. Dr. Henderson slurs the Episcopa cy of the A. M. E. Zion Church in the following words: “Zion is truly a Methodist body, but Zion is not an Episcopal body.” Before discussing the Episcopacy of the A. M. E. Zion Church let us turn the light upon the Episcopacy of the A. M. E. Church. Richard Allen was ordained a dea con in 1799 by Bishop Asbury, but I have searched the histories of the A. M. E. Church in vain to find when he was ordained an elder. Bishop Ar nett in Budget of 1891 says that Richard Allen was ordained by .Bish op Asbury in 1799, but does not state to wbat order. Bishop Tanner in bis Outlines of History, page 17, gives the following ambiguous ques tion and answer: “Did Bishop White ordain Richard Allen to be Bishop ? No; Richard Al loa was ordained by Bishop Asbury of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and seventeen years after he was ordained a Bishop by five regularly ordained minis ters; among them was Absalom Jones, whom Bishop White had previously or dained an elder or priest.” The good Bishop is careful to s&te that Absalom Jones was ordained an elder, but omits to inform the read er to what order Bishop Asbury or dained Richard Allen in 1799. How ever, this difficulty is cleared up by Bishop Payne, (page 69 of his His tory.) Speaking of a quotation from the Journal of the Philadelphia Con ference in 1031, on the death of Alien, he says: “He (Allen) was born in Philadelphia in 1760, ordained deacon in 1799 and a Bishop in 1816.” What we desire to know is, by whom was Richard Allen ordained an elder. The ordination of Rev. Richard Allen as a bishop is also somewhat cloudy and needs clearing up. Bish op Payne in his History, (page 14,) says after speaking of some prelimi naries of the first Conference : “The next thing of importance was the election of a Bishop. The votes be rather declined the office, and Rev. Rich ard Allen was chosen in his stead, and was therefore consecrated a Bishop of the A. M. E. Church on the 11th of April, 1816.” On page 13 he informs us that the Conference was composed of sixteen members, namely: From Baltimore— Ministers Daniel Coker, Richard Wil liams, Henry Harden ; Laymen Ed ward Williamson, Stephen Hill, Nich olas Gilliard: From Philadelphia— Ministers Richard Allen, Clayton Durham (or Drayton), Jacob Tapsico, James Champion; Laymen Thomas Webster: From Wilmington, Del.— Minister Peter Spencer: From Attle borough, Pa.—Ministers Jacob Marsh, William Anderson, Edward Jackson : From Salem, N. J.—Reuben Cuff. Bishop Turner in his Church Polity and Bishop Tanner in his Outlines of History give the same list. There is no mention of Absalom Jones, the Protestant Episcopal priest, or elder, being present. Up to the time of this meeting none of the ministers present were elders except, possibly, Peter Spencer. Revs. Allen and Co ker had been ordained deacons by Bishop Asbury, but not elders. In the case of Rev. Alien we have not been able to find any record of his or dination as an elder; hence the infer ence is that he had not been ordained an elder up to 1816. For proof that Coker was not an elder, see Payne’s History, pages 28 anil 29. TV * 1_1 TITMl *_TT_ xvu/uaxu tt unauio »nu jlxcui j uai den were elected to elders’ order in 1818. James Champion and Jacob Tapsico were ordained elders in the sarfie year at the Philadelphia an nual Conference. (See Payne’s His tory, page 26). H^nry Durham (or Drayton), Edward Jackson and Reu ben Cuff wejre ordained deacons at the same time. Peter Spencer, who was the only elder present, (if any,) seems to have taken no part in the proceedings; indeed, he was the founder of what is known as the Un ion A. M. E. Church. Jacob Marsh and William Anderson were so in significant that you never hear of them again. Now I desire to know from whence, came the three or five elders who were said to have ordained Rev. Richard Allen a Bishop. In Bishop Tanner’s Outlines of History, page 152, quoted from Ex cerpts of the First Edition of Lorenzo Dow’s Works (1815) is the following: “If Mr. Wesley had a right to ordain Dr. Coke, by the same rule Absalom Jones might ordain Richard Allen, and the ordination must be equally valid.” Mark you, he does not say that Absalom Jones did ordain Richard Allen, but might. \ Hq speaks as if there was some discussion as to whether his ordination was valid un der such circumstances. The forego ing quotation shows that there was some question concerning the validity of Allen’s ordination as early as 1816, the very year he is said to have been made. In the midst ot so much ob scurity in regard to tire ordination of Bishop Allen, I don’t think that our sister Bethel has any room to sneer at the validity of Zion’s Episco pacy. A word concerning Zion’s Episco pacy : In the beginning, we adopted the Superintendency, believing we were following the ideas of Mr. Wes ley. In his letter of commission to Dr. Coke, he (Mr. Wesley) says; “Know all men that I, John Wesley, think myself to be providentially called at this time to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry in America. And therefore, under the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye to His glory, I have this day set apart as a Superintendent, by the imposition of my hands and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers), Thomas Coke, doctor o! civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England" and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work, etc. John Wesley.” (See Emory’s Defense of the Fathers, page* 38.) Again, in his letter to Bishop As bury Mr. Wesley says: “How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called a Bishop■? I shud der, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me a Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end to this 1 ” (See Stevens’ History of Methodism, page 220.) . - After such denunciation of the . Wesley,’did,, not Zion have very gdbd reason Providence 'ias ordered otherwise; hence we have the term Bishop. When Zion discovered that fact, she dropped the term Superintendent and adopted the erm Bishop. This was done in 1868 , In 1822 Revs. JamesVarick, Abra ham Thompsc n and Leven Smith were ordained elders by Dr. James Covel, Sylvester Hutchinson and William L. Stillwell, all regularly ordained eld ers of the Methodist Episcopal Church. (See'Rush’s ltise and Progress of the A. M. E. Zion Church, page 78.) Ac cording to Mr. Wesley’8 letter of com mission to Di. Coke, and Lord King’s Primitive Church, this ordination was valid. These brethren, in turn ordained others, and So on down the lin£3? In 1838 we adapted the life time tenure. All the living Bishops of the A. M. E. Zion Church received the third ord nation. I am sure that I was set apart for a Bishop by the laying on of hands of Bishops who had been ordsined by more than three elders, and I im truly a Bishop as any living Episconis. If Absalom Jones, a colored priest in the Protestant Episcopal Church, could make Rev. Richard Allen a Bishop, (notwith standing Bisl op Hood in his History of the A. M E. Zion Church, page 144, says his daughter declared that he affirmed before his death he had nothing to.do with the ordination of Rev. Richard Allen, but was simply present when he was onlained), then a half dozen Bishops who bad been ordained by more than three elders bad the right to ordain the present Bishops of dll :- Chfrreb. and our ordi nation is valid. Dr. Henderspn shows his ignorance and narrown sss when he says that Zion is not ,wi Episcopal body. If not, why did the General Conference of the A. M. E. Church in 1892, by an almost uninimous vote, agree to unite with the A, M. E. Zion Church, provided the annual and quarterly conferences consented to it ? If we are not an Eoiscopal body why did the Board of [Bishops of the A. M. E. Church meet :n joint session with the Bishops of tht A. M. E. Zion Church at Washington City in 1892 and agree upon a platform to be submitted to the ministers and members of both churehes ? But why discuss the matter further with poor Di. Henderson, since he has no regard for the truth ? A min ister who pays $81,000 for »lot and church buildiig and in a few months afterwards publishes that the same property is worth $165,000, '(when property generally depreciates in value where Qolored congregations locate) is eeriainly devoid of Chris tian integrity. But what more can be expected fronc a man who over his own sigilature confessed a short while ago that he hsd been guilty of almost every crime ii the catalogue of crimes since he had been a minister? Some ot ns tnougni that he had reformed in these last 3-ears, bnt since he has prevaricated 30 much recently, we have come to the conclusion that his reformation in not very thorough, and his preaching df moral ethics is all bosh. What he needs is some old time Methodist religion, or in other words, to be born again. More anon. Ntw York. ^ . NOTES FROM MISSISSIPPI. ThiB makes ny second year on this circuit. When I came here the mem bership was very small at both points. At Zion we ha3 no house to worship in and the nembership had gone down to 30. We had hardly any house at Simes Chapel and 30 mem bers there, making 60 members on the circuit. On January 7th, 1894, the South Misiwippi Conference con vened at Kosiiusko, Miss; Bishop Pettey wanted a man to send to this circuit. After lookipg over his roll of preachers fo:* rr man, he asked the presiding elder to select a man they centered on nW. I came to tl e work and found oar people laughed at by other denomi nations and en.reatisg them to come in and join their churches. Some of told me they could1 not tat it would pay me to I told them that the here and I would stay points. They agreed and promised me their hearty support. So Rev. B. S.Simes, a local deacon, and a mem ber of the church, encouraged me and to-day that church tabes the name of Simes’ Chapel after him. He soon got the members in line and com menced to build. He (Rev. Simes) owns a plantaliqn and sold the lot on which the church : ow stands. His house is always a home for the Zion ministers who chance that way. I cannot say too much for this good Christian gentleman. I got all of my plans in order and began to blow the trumpet of Zion and the people heard the alarm with joy and with earnestness they began to pour in to see us and stayed, and when they went home they told others, and they came. We did so well up to July, 1895, when I started a revival at Simes’ Chapel and added 26 converts, 10 accessions, making a total of.36. At my next point, Zion Chapel, we gained 23 converts, 11 ac cessions, making the grand total ol 70 members added. In September we began to take up money for the building and raised $100, and in No vember we gave another rally and took up $50. Then we went to build-, ing and December 4th, the church was completed and it wras so nice un til Zion Chapel was the choice by the brethren for the annual Conference to be held in. On the 4th of De uemuer, iovu} me oouiu lYussigsippi Conference met and the members of Conference were nicely cared for and at the same time we had on hand $65.00 to build a new church" at Simes’ Chapel. At the adjournment of the Conference the members of both churches were so well pleased with my work until they all rffcked my return. Bishop Pettey re-ap pointed me the second year. We have been moving along nicely and added to the circuit 20 member this year. I have Zion Chapel in a first-class order and now we are building a first-class church at Sime’s Chapel at a cost of $1,500, an^ we want to have it fin ished by the annual conference. Now, Mr. Editor, you see we have been wide awake on all lines and in tend to make Zion second to none. We have been looking for Bishop J. B. Small, D. D., for the last ten or fifteen days, but he has failed to come. We are now getting ready for the annual conference which will meet at Durant, Mississippi, Decem ber 16th, 1896. Now to all the brethren of the South Mississippi Conference, we must remember that we have 9 bishops and 7 general offic ers and all of them are to be support ed out of the general fund. Let us rally and collect it. A REPLY TO O. D. HILL. Mr. Editor: I see in the Star dated November the 12th, an article by 0. D. Hill stating that none of the preachers of the State of Missis have not sent in their Easter moneys hut one, and that was Brother G. W. Johnson ; but I say that statement of 0. D. Hill is a false. He has further more said that Otir Publication House has been slighted by the preachers of Mississippi; I say that is a false. He said that they were not able to lead a portion of the race because they were ignorant, but when he said that he told what the old people make soap out of. Now, permit me to tell you who 0. D. Hill is. Be was a mem ber of Simo’s Chapel and has not at tended preaching in church in four or five months; he failed to pay up his general fund last year and also his presiding elder and pastor, and also this year the same ; and the church holds a charge against him for neg lecting the means of grace. He was once a superintendent of Simas Chapel Snnday-fchool and he was turned out for insubordination. _ He was a trus tee and was dropped because he was also elected delegate to the dis trict conference.and he failed to go. Nov^he reason I say this is I have sent in all'of n»y Easter money to Rev. G. L. Blackwell' and have my receipt at home; and how 0. D. Hill could write such an article to the Stab like that—and I am his pastor —.-I cannot see; and if O. D. Hill had come to me I would huve shown him my receipt. It will be best for him after this to know what he is publisn ,<r; whole AN APPRECIATED GIFT.’ I d'eaire'to say a few words for the encouragement of our young people here, and let the readers of the Stas Imow that we are still alive and at work. We had quite a successful time Thangpgiving Day. I only wish to mention at this time the success of our baby society, entitled the Home Oircle. We have a number of twen ty-two, including the manager, the eldest being 18 years of age. ■> This Society was organized Octo ber 27 th, by Mrs. J. P. Wade, a lady of no small ability and fore-thought; one that knows no failure. They un dertook the Thanksgiving entertain ment ; proceeds for the benefit of the pastor. To the surprise of all, with e, noble speech from the President, a girl 16 years old presented to the pastor $50. I shall give you the ad dress as it was with the names of the members of the club : , “Rev. T. H. Slater, the members of the Worker’s Home Circle, only one month old on the 27 inst., has appointed me the president of said Society, to voice to you the sentiment of our hearts. Our observation, Sir, of your work and Christian examples has hot passed our young minds without thought. We, the members of the Cir cle assemble here Sir, to show to you our regards and warmest love for the work in which you are engaged by presenting to you through our treasurer, Miss Annie E. Fleming, this purse containing 1 150. Trusting that you will receive it with the same feeliug of triumph as we feel." This was signed by Mrs. J. P. Ward, general manager; Maud B. Lewis, president; Alice Fields, secre tary, and Annie E. Fleming, treas urer. The members: Maritha Kirk, Grace Brown, Stella Gilkinson, Nellie Jacks9n, Grace Jackson, Carrie Gilk iyson} Ada Bowler, Lettie Lilly, Liz zie Parker, Alfonso Barnard, John Lewis^ Garry Grice, Wm. Turner, Edward Brooks, Rev. Kirk, Wm( Fold, Frank Turner and James MatthewB, When the purse reached the pas tor’s hand he felt that no word could express the thankfulness of his heart. May the Circle live long to work for God and Zion. Enclose find one dol lar donated for the Star. - Seicickley, Pa. FAIR PLAY IN THE CHURCH. BY REV. H. F. MARTIN. One thing ought to be aimed at by all mem; that is the interest of each individually and all collectively. When I balance all things in my thoughts, I grow more favorabl.e to Plato, and do not wonder that he re solved not to make any laws for such, an would not submit to a community of all things ; for so wis b it foresee that the setting all upon a level was the only way to make a na tbn happy. Mt n oo the members ot the church ought tc pay their connectional claims, and ti e ministers ought to see to it, and also see that each member takes the S'.?ab of Zion, or at least that one member in the family takes the paper. The last General Conference has made it a law that each minister must take the paper or be left without an ap pointment. The minister ought not be satisfied by just paying his general fund at the annual conference; but to pay his pro-rata share of the connec tional claims and should lead* out in the collection first and the members will follow. I know ministers that will meet every daily train and buy newspapers but will not take the Stab. This is not fair play in the church; -and then they will get up in tha pulpit on Sunday and brag about our literature. What in the name of God does he know about our litera ture ? This is not a fair play in the church. Rockwood, Tain. AN EXPLANATION, inston, N. C., December 9th, 188G. Duar Mr. 8mxth—I beg for a short space to explain that some of my pres ents received on the occasion of my mi.rriage were not put in the lfst Jof last w< ek, simply because that list was..sent from Fayetteville, and my presents from Winston and one or two other places arrival in Winst XM