The employment of colored ministers in the traveling connection in the Church, like Methodism itself, was a child of necessity. It has grown to be a man, however, and is the father of several children. Notwithstanding the secession of nearly all our white conferences and Churches—500,000 members in the slaveholding States before mentioned—the record is not written where the Methodist Episcopal Church extended overtures to them to return that in any way involved the relinquishment of its hold on the throat of slavery, or that equaled that offered by our revered president, Abraham Lincoln, to the Southern Confederacy, if they would return to the Union. The whole question of opposing slavery by the Church seems to have been, all along, a work of conscience, not to be repented of; that the work had to be done, because the seal of God’s approval rested upon it. The action and firm stand taken by the Church in 1844 put a quietus upon all who professed to believe the rules relating to slavery would not be enforced during the ensuing quadrennium.

The General Conference of 1852, that met in the city of Boston, was called upon to consider the expediency of separate conferences for colored members. The custom of the Church had usually been to leave all colored congregations, in the appointments, “to be supplied.” But as the work progressed and the colored membership found the braggadocio of those “who went out from us” was invading the rank and file of their work; that each year it increased with telling and disheartening effect, and the more ambitious members among us were becoming restless and wavering in their opinions, threatening with dissolution the work of the colored members within the Church, the members within the bounds of the Philadelphia and New Jersey Conferences—at any rate from members of our Church in Pennsylvania and New Jersey—sent up, not only memorials to this General Conference, but representative men of the more intelligent class, to represent them and see, at the same time, the way the great Methodist Episcopal Church would treat colored memorialists. When the memorials were presented, asking again for separate conferences, they were promptly referred to the Committee on Missions. After careful examination of the memorials, they called before them the representatives. “An open and free discussion of the interests at stake and the benefits anticipated therefrom, was had.” The committee then submitted to the General Conference the following:

“The Committee on Missions, to whom was referred the petition of our colored brethren from Philadelphia, asking that the pastors within the Philadelphia and New Jersey Annual Conferences may be formed into an annual conference, under the supervision of the bishops and of the presiding elders of said conference within whose bounds their (the colored pastors’) work may lie, beg leave to report that the committee have given due consideration to the petition, and have heard the bearers of it in person, and have obtained all the information within their reach, and have come to the following conclusions:

“1. That it is very desirable that the colored pastors mentioned in the petition aforesaid should have an opportunity to meet together once a year, in the presence, or under the supervision, of the bishop or bishops, in order to confer together with respect to the best means of promoting their work, and to receive the assignment of their work from the bishops to the Churches usually left in the Minutes ‘to be supplied.’

“2. That in this meeting it is desirable that the presiding elders, in whose bounds the colored Churches and congregations lie, should be present to assist the bishop in the assignment of the work.

“3. Provided, upon due inquiry by the bishops, they shall find a sufficient number of colored preachers of sufficient qualifications to justify an annual meeting. Having arrived at these conclusions, the committee have agreed on the following resolution, which is reported for adoption by this General Conference:

“Resolved, That we advise that the colored local preachers now employed, or who may be employed, within the bounds of the Philadelphia and New Jersey Annual Conferences, be assembled together once in each year by the bishop or bishops, who may preside in said conference, for the purpose of conferring with the said colored local preachers with respect to the best means for promoting their work, and also for the purpose of assigning their work, respectively; and that the presiding elders within whose bounds and under whose care the colored Churches and congregations are, be present and aid the bishop or bishops in said annual meeting of local preachers: Provided, that upon due inquiry the said bishop or bishops shall find such annual meeting aforesaid to be practicable and expedient.”

So far as we have gone, we have seen a disposition on the part of the Church to give the colored man all the rights and benefits practicable and wise that are accorded other members. It was not to have been expected that he would demand what was not best for him as he saw it, or that he should be given what he asked for when it was as impracticable as unwise. There is no parent that is willing to allow a child to have its own way in everything—i.e., if a wise parent. When at the General Conference of 1848 the committee reported a separate conference for the colored members within the Church “inexpedient,” what was thought of it? Was it, under the then existing circumstances, impracticable and inexpedient? It was most assuredly impracticable, in that but few localities would allow slaves to have a meeting of their own in the absence of some white person. The Lord Jesus said: “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law.” He verified this by paying taxes, and observing (and having others do the same) the Jewish law. Suppose the Church, at that time, had given them a separate conference for Maryland and Delaware, could they have enjoyed the benefits of it? Most assuredly not. On the other hand, it would have undoubtedly weakened the influence of the Church with the masters, and subjected the colored members to restrictions of privileges, and brought upon them uncalled-for hardships.

The tasks imposed upon the poor Hebrews in Egypt were increased, as well as the inflictions of punishment, as soon as they began to believe in Moses’ plan of a “three days’ journey into the wilderness to worship God.” When a desire for a separate conference came from those who could enjoy it without let, it was at once arranged for them. I believe the more intelligent colored men listened to the words of advice and wisdom of the General Conference with confidence. And yet it must be declared that many of the influential colored members of our Church were urged up to the belief that it was refused them from mere jealousy on the part of ‘the white folks,’ because they did not want the colored man elevated; because they wished to boss him in Church matters as his master did in every-day affairs.

Very many advantages were offered the African Churches by the failure of our Church to grant the requests made by our members for separate annual conferences. Whether they took advantage of them or not, a great many people in these United States believe they did. Every time the General Conference was asked to grant separate conferences, and it did not do so because of its impracticability, it was not strange that they were vexed, hearing everywhere, “I told you colored folks so.” As a result of such failure we lost, from 1844 until we were granted separate conferences, not less than one-fourth of the membership of the African Churches in this country at that time. As strange as it may seem, it is really true. But probably the Church was not to be blamed altogether for not doing for the colored members that which would have inevitably worked hardships for them in the slaveholding States. But why did not the Church at once form separate conferences for our people in those States where the African and African Zion Churches were then operating? As we turn these questions over in our minds, several valid reasons occur to us. Either because the Church loved the colored man, and wanted him to have his own choice when allowed to enjoy it—whether for separate congregations, conferences, or Churches—even though they all declared a desire to unite with one of the two colored organizations, or both of them, already in existence, and thus become a religious power in those States where it was practicable, in the which they could still aid them; or because the Church thought the world would declare—had they organized another colored Church—that they were following with opposition and spite those two bodies, by setting up a “colored Church” within a white one to break those two down; or the Church did not want to move in the matter until somewhat of the outcome of the Negro question could be seen or known; or else, because they really thought it the duty of the Methodist Episcopal Church to look after those colored members in the slave States where “the colored organizations” could not go, and abandon all other colored members as material for the upbuilding of their work. The latter, I believe, is nearer the truth. And by this is not meant that they refused to allow colored members to join the Church, or to commune with it in the “free States,” but that no special pains were put forth to induce them to join the Methodist Episcopal Church where either of those bodies had charge. This is one of the advantages they have enjoyed over the colored members remaining in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Again, may it not be surmised that since ours is “the Prince of peace,” and rivalry in ecclesiastical, as other matters, usually is followed by strife, that the refusal of the Church to grant separate conferences to the colored members in those States was but an effort to avoid strife? Again, for the Church to have granted separate conferences, as a stay against the secession spirit manifested in 1816 and 1823, would have been considered by a great many good people—and used to advantage by the seceders—as a declaration of the charges made by the African Churches that “the whites were anxious to get rid of the colored element within the Church.” From whatever point we take cognizance of that matter, it would appear as if the Church tried to do what was for the best. Every conceivable thing was done to pacify and keep the colored members within the Church. The secession of the Wesleyans had a great deal to do with the complication of this matter, for they were, in many instances, naturally the main stay for African Methodism.

The interest the Methodist Episcopal Church had in the colored man was not confined to America.

The first foreign mission-field of the Methodist Episcopal Church was Africa. When the “freed people” of these United States began to move to the west coast of that country, the Church began to follow them by sending over missionaries to look after her colored members and others who would accept the service. From time to time the membership multiplied, and in 1833 a mission was organized and then an annual conference. This missionary field may have been the outgrowth of the seeds sown by Dr. Coke, who in 1814, on his voyage to India, left a missionary at the Cape of Good Hope. The work continued to increase until it was declared by some the leaven that was to leaven Africa. In 1834, in company with Rev. John Seys, was sent Rev. Francis Burns from New York, he having been ordained deacon and elder by that man of God, Bishop Janes. In 1849 he was appointed presiding elder of the Cape Palmas District of the Liberia Annual Conference. When the General Conference of 1856 convened in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, a new phase of the colored membership question came up. Africa was knocking at the door of the conference, asking for a missionary bishop. The General Conference at once took up the cry, examined the matter, and requested the Liberia Annual Conference to select the man. This was done by the selecting of Rev. Francis Burns. He at once prepared to return to America for ordination.

Why did the Methodist Episcopal Church not send a bishop by the West Coast of Africa and have him ordained there? Why bring him back to America, where the colored man was only recognized as a chattel, a bondman, a serf? And yet, to her praise be it said, she did for the colored man in America what no other denomination found it convenient to do—ordained a colored man to the episcopacy. When Rev. Francis Burns arrived he was given all the honor any man could have expected. He was accordingly ordained at the session of the Genesee Conference, October 14, 1858, the services being conducted by Bishops Janes and Baker. But after all this, what did the Church really think and say concerning this colored man at that time? The assembly that witnessed his ordination, and those who grasped his ebony hand and bid him God-speed, declare in the words of Dr. Robie, who was present: “Though of ebony complexion, he had gained wonderfully on the affection and respect of all who had made his acquaintance, and especially those privileged to an intimate association with him. His manner is exceedingly pleasant, and his spirit kind, sweet, and good as ever beamed from human heart or disposition. He seems to be lacking in none of the qualifications of the gentleman and Christian minister. He possesses also an intelligent and cultivated mind, speaks readily and fluently, and even eloquently, and is in all respects a model African. Such is the man whom the Liberia Conference has selected for a bishop, and such the one the highest authorities of our American Church have set apart for the sacred and responsible position.” We add, Thus shall it be done to the colored man whom the Methodist Episcopal Church delights to honor on slave soil, where prejudice against the race grew as rank as wild weeds.

The election and ordination of Bishop Burns was not a subterfuge, for the Church elected another colored man to the episcopacy—Rev. John W. Roberts, in 1866—one year after the war closed. He was consecrated in St. Paul’s Methodist Episcopal Church, in New York City, June 20th of that year.

With the interests of the race at heart, what more could she have done?

But the advance steps already taken by the Church on that question were twisted by those who opposed the Church in her efforts to do God’s will toward the downtrodden race, into every shape but the proper one. The cry still went up from at least two sources that the Church was not willing to recognize the colored ministry and members within her borders. The colored members within the Church where such attacks were made still felt that a further step must be taken by the Church to save the colored membership. So there came up to that General Conference from the colored members within the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Jersey Conferences one or more memorials, all of which were referred to a special committee, which reported as follows:

“The committee to whom were referred the memorials of colored members within the bounds of the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Jersey Conferences, after due consideration, report the following for the adoption of the conference, and recommend that it be inserted in the Discipline as a distinct chapter, entitled,

“CHAPTER VIII. OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF OUR COLORED MEMBERS.

“1. Our colored preachers and official members shall have all the privileges which are usual to others in quarterly conferences, where the usages of the country do not forbid it. And the presiding elder may hold for them a separate quarterly conference when in his judgment it shall be expedient.

“2. The bishop or presiding elder may employ colored preachers to travel and preach, when their services are judged necessary: Provided, that no one shall be so employed without having been recommended by a quarterly conference.

“3. The bishops may call a conference once in each year of our colored local preachers, within the bounds of any one or more of our districts, for the purpose of conferring with them with respect to the wants of the work among our colored people, and the best means to be employed in promoting its prosperity; at which conference the presiding elder within whose district, and under whose care the colored charges and congregations are, shall be present: Provided, that the holding of said conference or conferences shall be recommended by an annual conference, and the bishops, upon due inquiry, shall deem it practicable and expedient.”

Again, by this action, the Church recognized the colored members within her communion as being eligible to all privileges usual to other members, showing at once that her heart was all right.

THE FIRST EDUCATIONAL EFFORT.

By this is not meant that no interest in the education of the race had been manifested prior to this. The education of Bishop Burns, alone, would refute such an idea. But the Church began to see and feel that something on a larger scale ought to be done for the higher education of the colored youth within the Church. The very idea points out the fact that the Church saw for her colored members a better day coming. At the General Conference above mentioned, Wilberforce University, now in the hands of our brethren of the African Church, at Xenia, Ohio, was purchased by a number of individuals, and was under the patronage of the Cincinnati Conference of our Church, and was “devoted to the higher education of colored youth.” Rev. J. F. Wright, D.D., its efficient agent, presented its claims to the General Conference. He traveled in its interest, and it continued to flourish. Rev. R. S. Rust, D.D., became president of this institution in 1859. Our brethren of the African Church began to feel the need of a better educated ministry, and having no outlook for such an institution turned their attention toward this institution. Bishop D. A. Payne, having formed the acquaintance of President Rust, began negotiations for the transfer of that property to the African Methodist Episcopal Church; and, in 1863, it accordingly “passed into their hands for a nominal sum.” Thus the beginning of the educational work in the African Methodist Episcopal Church was but the outgrowth of the generosity of the Methodist Episcopal Church toward the colored race, whether within or without the Church. It is true that but little, if any, credit is ever given to the Church that was represented in the matter by our own Dr. R. S. Rust. They sometimes—and Bishop Payne all the time—mention gratefully his name, but no public acknowledgment by that Church has yet been made to us for the advantages given them in this transaction; and hence many a student, who has attended there, has gone away ignorant of these facts. That transaction is but another proof of the fact that but little, if any, opposition or rivalry has ever been allowed from our Church toward their Church.

It did seem that, ecclesiastically as well as politically, “Providence had wisely mingled their cup.” When one phase of the question touching slavery had been met, another phase developed. If ecclesiasticism met this “sum of all villainies” in its way, and struck it down, leaving it wounded, bleeding, and dying, it would, phœnix-like, the next day appear in the political field. Like “Banquo’s ghost,” it would not down at the bidding. The General Conference of 1856 had hardly adjourned before the political world was startled by the case of a colored man—Dred Scott—which was brought before the courts for decision. The appeal was brought up to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the court, declared in this case that “Negroes, whether free or slaves, are not citizens of the United States, and they can not become such by any process known to the Constitution.” This decision caused a ripple, not only on the sea of politics, but over the placid stream of Methodism; for it must not appear or be considered egotism when it is said nothing relating to the interests of the colored man has transpired in this country in which Methodism did not take part. And yet, as strange as it may appear, the Church has always objected to mixing politics with religion; but believing the converse admissible, our Church papers began to wage war in favor of this colored man, as if he had been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

This excitement had not subsided when Abraham Lincoln, as the nominee of the Republican party, was elected President of the United States. The relation our Church sustained to that conflict will be better understood when it is remembered that Torrey and Lovejoy, the two martyrs to the Abolition cause, were New England ministers; that the New England Methodists very early identified themselves with this cause, and poured hot shot into the foul slave oligarchy. As early as June 4, 1835, the New England Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church had organized an anti-slavery society—not simply a non-partisan, namby-pamby sort of a stay-at-home-and-pray society, but active, vigilant, and progressive—on the basis of the immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery. North Bennett Street Methodist Episcopal Church, in Boston, was opened in that year for Rev. George Thompson to preach a sermon against slavery. William Lloyd Garrison spoke of that meeting as follows:

“In these days of slavish servility and malignant prejudices, we are presented occasionally with some beautiful specimens of Christian obedience and courage. One of these is seen in the opening of the North Bennett Street Methodist Episcopal meeting-house in Boston to the advocates for the honor of God, the salvation of our country, and the freedom of enslaved millions in our midst. As the pen of the historian, in after years, shall trace the rise, progress, and glorious triumph of the Abolition cause, he will delight to record, and posterity will delight to read, that when all other pulpits were dumb, all other churches closed on the subject of slavery in Boston, the boasted ‘cradle of liberty,’ there was one pulpit that would speak out, one Church that would throw open its doors in behalf of the downtrodden victims of American tyranny, and that was the pulpit and Church above alluded to. The primitive spirit of Methodism is beginning to revive with all its holy zeal and courage, and it will not falter until all the Methodist Churches are purged from the pollution of slavery, and the last slave in the land stands forth a redeemed and regenerated being.”

Notwithstanding the above, such Methodist ministers as Rev. Gilbert Haven and others kept the ball rolling. It is said of one of our bishops: “Throughout the late contest Bishop Simpson did much to strengthen the hands of President Lincoln, and to nerve the spirit of the nation to endure any sacrifice for the cause of the Union.” Is it any wonder, then, that the Church, in one way or the other, was connected with nearly every effort for the emancipation of the slaves? Therefore the eighteenth session of the General Conference that convened in the city of Buffalo, May, 1860, was anticipated with much anxiety.

The great debate on the question of slavery at the last General Conference had, during this entire quadrennium, proven sufficient to keep up the agitation all along the line. Dr. Abel Stevens, then editor of the Christian Advocate, addressed an “Appeal” to the general Church “concerning what the next General Conference should do on the question of slavery.” This appeal aimed simply to have the next General Conference declare “the sense of the Church on the whole subject,” with “a note, put in the margin of the General Rule,” that declared “the only cases of slaveholding admissible to our communion are such as are consistent with the Golden Rule.” Drs. Nathan Bangs and J. H. Perry, at the head of a “Ministers’ and Laymen’s Union,” formed within the New York Conference in 1859, and the Anti-slavery Society, with Dr. Curry leading, hurled their anathemas against Dr. Stevens’s proposition. Resolutions favoring a new rule on slavery, prior to the General Conference of 1860, were voted upon as follows: Cincinnati, 319 votes for, 1,212 votes against it; Providence, 1,242 for, and 1,329 votes against it; Erie, 1,795 for, and 1,416 votes against it. It was conceded that the cause of human liberty would receive a fresh impetus from the ringing speeches that would be delivered, and from the solid resolutions that would be passed at that General Conference. Accordingly two classes of petitions were presented: “Those asking for the extirpation of slavery from the Church,” and “those asking that no change be made in the Discipline on the subject of slavery.” A special committee was ordered to receive resolutions of this kind. There was also appointed “a Committee on our Colored Membership.” Several memorials and petitions from our colored membership were presented. After due consideration, notwithstanding the excitement on account of the agitation of the question of slavery, that committee reported as follows:

“The Committee on Colored Membership, to which were referred certain memorials from colored local preachers, respectfully represent: That having examined said memorials, they find that they request this body, (1) To extend the bounds of the conference of colored local preachers, called in accordance with the provisions introduced into the Discipline at the last General Conference; (2) To grant them the power to try and expel their own members; (3) To confer upon the conference of colored local preachers power to elect to deacons’ and elders’ orders; (4) To invest said conference with all the powers of a regular annual conference; (5) To admit colored preachers to membership in our annual conferences. Your committee find that the first two objects prayed for are, in substance, covered by provisions already existing in the Discipline, which appear to have been overlooked by the petitioners. In regard to items three and four, referred to above, your committee find that the prayer of the memorialists could not be granted without doing violence to our usages and Disciplinary regulations. The fifth item embraced in the memorials before us was withdrawn by the representative of the petitioners, who appeared in person before the committee. In view of the whole of the foregoing, your committee recommend that the whole subject be dismissed. All of which is respectfully submitted.

When the Committee on Slavery reported, there were submitted a “majority” and a “minority” report, a substitute for the majority report. The first resolution of the committee was:

“Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences, in General Conference assembled, That we recommend the amendment of the General Rule on Slavery, so that it shall read: ‘The buying, selling, or holding of men, women, or children, with an intention to enslave them.’”

This motion was lost, since it required a two-thirds vote; and 138 voted for it, and 74 against it. The second resolution was:

“Resolved, That we recommend the suspension of the fourth Restrictive Rule, for the purpose set forth in the foregoing resolution.”

The first resolution having failed, this was laid on the table. The third was:

“Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences, in General Conference assembled, That the following be, and hereby is, substituted in the place of the seventh chapter on Slavery: Question. What shall be done for the extirpation of slavery? Answer. We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery. We believe that the buying, selling, or holding of human beings as chattels, is contrary to the laws of God and nature, inconsistent with the Golden Rule, and with that rule in our Discipline which requires all who desire to remain among us to ‘do no harm, and to avoid evil of every kind.’ We therefore affectionately admonish all our preachers and people to keep themselves pure from this great evil, and to seek its extirpation by all lawful and Christian means.”

This was necessarily the last work of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church on behalf of the colored man before the terrible Civil War in this country, that began during the ensuing quadrennium.