Chatham County GaArchives History .....The 1st African Baptist Church, Chapter V 1925 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Joy Fisher http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00001.html#0000031 October 11, 2004, 7:39 pm CHAPTER V. "For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." 2 Cor. 13:8. "Every one wishes to have truth on his side, but it is not every one that sincerely wishes to be on the side of truth."—Whately. While it is impossible to discuss this question clearly without referring by name to the First Bryan Baptist Church, be it understood that the author bears absolutely no ill will nor animosity to either that church or any of its constituency, and that whenever it is designated by name, it is with due respect, and only as essential to the treatise. Both her pastor and many of her members are our personal friends whose respect and good will we prize very highly. Until the schism in 1832, we were all one, and their and our historical records up to that point are identical. But after the split and the reorganization of the minority in January, 1833, one of the churches remained the original First African Baptist with the original date of birth. But manifestly, the other became some other church with a birthday dating from its organization. One was the old church of 1775. The other was a new church of 1833. Hence, while we both celebrate tonight; one of us is celebrating its 150th anniversary; while the other is celebrating its 92nd. Which is which? In approaching this question, we are aware that the overwhelming majority of the thinking public clings to the conviction that the First African Baptist Church is first. In order that these may be refreshed as to the basis of that fact and have a reason for the faith that is in them, in order that those who are in doubt may reach the right conclusion, and in order that that still smaller groups who are in error may be undeceived, we invite a careful and unbiased analysis of the following argument. When the Controversy Began. Bear in mind that for 91 years after its formal organization, the priority of the First African Baptist Church had never been questioned. For the first 33 years of the organized life of the Third African Baptist Church, as its name was, until 1867 when it changed it to the First Bryan Baptist Church, that church made no attempt to appropriate any such honor to herself. When she was organized in 1833 and joined the Sunbury Association, then composed of both white and colored churches, she was the fourth colored church to become a member. All the minutes of this Association are bound and are now in the hands of Commissioner J. C. Morcock of the Federal Court in this city, and Clerk of the New Sunbury Association, who very generously placed them at my disposal. They register these colored churches under the following titles: "First African Baptist", "Second African Baptist," now pastored by Bev. S. D. Boss; "Great Ogeechee", and. the "Third African Baptist." That church chose for itself the name: Third African Baptist Church, and remained in the Sunbury Association with the name and title of Third African Baptist Church until the dissolution of that association in 1861 without one dissenting word. But because they were worshipping on the First African Baptist's old spot, although the First African Baptist Church in special agreement with representatives from the First Baptist Church, white, consented to relinquish to the minority of this body all our right and title to the old church so soon as they shall agree to give up and do relinquish to us all their right and title to the newly purchased one. (Minutes of Savannah Baptist Church, white, January 4, 1833). The Third African Baptist Church thought to wrest our birthright from us. So, in the January 1867 term of Superior Court of Chatham County, the Third African Baptist Church secured a charter under the name and title of First Bryan Baptist Church, being in the 34th year of her age. But the First African Baptist Church, having the right, would not be thus divested of the claim. A wordy war ensued. Claims and counter claims, charges and counter charges were hurled back and forth; and sometimes street brawls and physical encounters took place. In October, 1884, Dr. E. K. Love offered a resolution in the Executive Board of the State Convention in Milledgeville, calling attention to the approaching Centennary of Baptist work in Georgia, and asked that they prepare to celebrate it with an appropriate program. The resolution was adopted, and committees were appointed. Then in 1885, to hit a decisive stroke, the First Bryan Baptist Church invited the Missionary Baptist State Convention of Georgia to hold its session of 1888 in Savannah in a program that would celebrate her as the original First Colored Baptist church of North America. But in October, 1885, the gallant Dr. E. K Love was called to the pastorate of the First African Baptist Church. Being already conversant with the salient facts of the history of this grand church, and determined that her enemies should not rob her of her pristine glory and later achievements, he set himself to the task of compiling her history, which we now possess. In this excellent work, he had as his chief advisor and assistant the same Rev. James M. Simms who later, considering the temper of the Bryan people, and evidently estimating the capital that might accrue to him from a similar book compiled for them, instigated an altercation with Dr. Love, broke away to the Bryan people, and wrote their book for them, contradicting in the main all he had said in the former book. Respecting the evidence, let the Bryan people first state their case. This they set forth in seven propositions in their book on pages 108 to 123. For brevity and clearness I shall state each of these respective contentions in one simple sentence, and disclose how weak they are to justify the conclusion sought. (1) Andrew Bryan doubtless secured this spot as a place of perpetual worship for his race. (2) Those left were the old representatives in the Association and had the faith and doctrine. (3) There is no evidence of a new organization as of the Third African Baptist Church. (4) Negro delegates to an association took a back seat, and were too timid to demur or protest or make a demand for what they knew to be their rights. ((5) Advice of a white council in any of our colored churches or from the Association was equivalent to a command. (6) To rule, the majority must stay, not run. (7) Marshall failed in his attempt to become heir of the old property as successor of his uncle. Replying to these feeble efforts to bolster up an erroneous claim, we submit the following: (1) "Andrew Bryan doubtless secured this spot as a place of perpetual worship for his race." Ans.— There is no way of determining whether or not Bryan ever thought of this spot remaining a place of worship till the judgment; and even if he did, his desire would have no power to keep the church in this particular place. It actually did move in 1832. (2) "Those left were the old representatives in the Association and had the faith and doctrine." Ans.—It was never charged of Marshall's followers that they did not have the faith and doctrine. He alone was charged with heresy, and he was not a member of that church. (Bryan's book, p. 108). Yet Marshall was one of the regular, delegates from 1825 till the split. (Bryan's book, pp; 91-92). (3) "There is no evidence of a new organization as of the Third African Baptist Church." Ans.—In the minutes of the First Baptist Church, white, Dec. 24, 1832, we read "An application was made that the minority of the First African Baptist Church be received as a branch of this church, when it was decided it was proper that they first be formed into a church and afterward could come under the supervision of a committee, as also the Second African, should they wish to do so." Then on January 4, 1833, the First African Baptist Church addressed a communication to the white church, which "was laboring to settle the difficulties in African churches," which contained among other things this paragraph: "We agree to dismiss all members and such as have been members of our church, that they may either join another or form a new Baptist church, and as soon as such church shall be satisfied with and receive them then they shall be dismissed from us." Then on January 28, 1833, in the minutes of the white Baptist church, this resolution follows: "Resolved, That inasmuch as the minority of the First African Baptist (now the third) Church have conformed to the requirements of this church in constituting themselves into a church, that they be received under the supervision of this body upon the same terms as the First African Church." If that is not evidence that a new church was formed, what do you call evidence? Hence, it is plain that they were organized between January 4, and January 28, 1833. In the face of such evidence, how do they manage to muster the courage to call themselves "First", or how can they dare to say there is no evidence of that organization? (4) "Negro delegates to an association took a back seat, and were too timid to demur or protest or make a demand for what they knew to be their rights." Ans.—Isn't it quite strange that although the First African Baptist Church was expelled from the Association in 1832 for no other reason than that they refused to dismiss A. C. Marshall from their pastorate, and that these First African Baptist Negroes were so bold and demonstrated such Christian manhood as to defy both the white church and the association in holding on to him, and finally won out, and in 1837 were readmitted into the Association with this same man as pastor, while the Third African Baptist Church was so timid ? Time and again this grand old church acted with such boldness that the white church became disgusted and ceased to supervise them. But they clung to Marshall as Ruth to Naomi; and he held to them as with hoops of steel. Be it said to the credit of the whites of Savannah, that while they might have used compulsion, and would have in temporal things, being in spiritual things, they simply resorted to persuasion and moral force. ^Too, remember it was the same great Adam Johnson who led the forces against the pastor and who had been a delegate to the Association for so many years, who now happens to be so very timid that although he knows that his church is the oldest, he neither "demurs nor protests nor makes a demand." The truth is he knew he was third, the church called itself third, and he did not even think of claiming anything else. (5) "Advice of a white council in any of our colored churches, or from the Association was equivalent to a command." Ans.—The Sunbury Association, in its minutes of 1834, p. 5, tells us their attitude toward sovereign churches: "This Association, being an advisory body, and having no power to dictate to or bind any church or churches of which it is composed, Resolved, That it be respectful for any church differing as to the expediency or propriety of any resolution of this Association to submit their views in their next annual letter or instruct their delegates in regard to the ground of their objections." Does this seem "equivalent to a command?" (6) "To rule, the majority must stay, not run." Ans.—Out of their own mouths, they are condemned. For they did the running. The split did not occur at the old site, but on Franklin Square. (Bryan History, p. 98). "The white Baptist church had this year, (1832) completed and moved into their new brick church edifice on Chippewa Square, and their wooden building on Franklin Square, in which they had worshipped since 1800 was vacant. Mr. Marshall, through the intercession of some very influential white friends, purchased this building from the white church, which was more commodious than the old house built by Rev. A. Bryan." (First A. B. History, p. 31)." "The First African Baptist Church bought this property for $1,500. They were required to pay this amount between April 28,1832, and November 1,1832. The terms were rigid, considering those days. The bargain was authorized to be made in the conference of the Savannah Baptist Church (white) April 28, 1832, and in the conference of the same May 10, 1832, the First African Baptist Church is credited with $1,000. The poor slaves had paid in less than thirty days this amount of money. They worked all day for the white people and paid them whatever money they made at night between times. The church (white) ordered the trustees to give the First African Baptist Church possession of the building as soon as they had paid the balance due." In the records of the Chatham County Court House, "Book S S" p. 74, are the records of the deeds for this property by the deacons of the Savannah Baptist Church to the trustees of the First African Baptist Church, for the sum of $1,500, December 20,1832. As quoted from various sources above, the records conspire to show that the Third African Baptist Church was not organized until between January 4, and January 28, 1832, from fifteen to thirty-nine days after the deeds for the property were recorded at the court house. Do not forget either, that both Rev. Marshall and Deacon Adam Johnson had jointly represented the First African Baptist Church as a united body at Walthourville, November 9 and 10, 1832, after the contract expired November 1. Besides, in all these deliberations, the principals were the Savannah Baptist Church and the First African Baptist Church. The Third Church was still in its incipiency, trying to be born. How could it run anybody? Further, in a communication to the Savannah Baptist Church from the First African Baptist Church, January 4, 1833, (F. A. B. Hist, p. 12), is another elucidating paragraph: "We agree to relinquish to the minority of this body all our right and title to the old church so soon as they shall agree to give up and relinquish to us all right and title to the newly purchased one, and when we are put in full and free possession of it, and our trustees, viz., Wm. H. Styles, Peter Mitchell, and John Williamson, shall satisfy us that they have good and sufficient titles." The Bryan-site already belonged to the church. Before the split they bought and paid for the Franklin Square site. Hence, all, still being one church, owned both pieces of property. Therefore as a reasonable and practical act of generosity, the mother church, now comfortably and handsomely housed in her new quarters, and having no pressing necessity for it, decided to turn over her old site to her third daughter, now a fretful baby child, and let her go out and undertake housekeeping for herself. (7) Marshall failed in his attempt to become heir of the old property as successor of his uncle." Ans.—When Andrew Bryan sold the property to the church it was no longer personal property. Hence no individual can ever own the property unless the church decides to sell to such one. This, however, has no bearing on the question at issue. It is clear, therefore, that the Third African Baptist Church, now styled the First Bryan Baptist Church, has absolutely no basis for her claim of priority, but that she was organized in January, 1833, and is now 92 years old; and that the First African Baptist Church is the original first church, dating its history to 1775 and even earlier. It should be said in passing that two other churches had already been organized from the .membership of the First Church, viz.: Second Baptist Church, organized in Savannah, December, 1802; and the Great Ogeechee, organized of members in the country about nine miles from Savannah, January, 2,1803. Then the First Bryan was organized in January, 1833. It was the policy of the church in those days, as practically all the members attended the church services regularly so that it was difficult to house all comers, to organize new churches as rapidly as the congregation outgrew the meeting house. Hence, the first two offsprings of the First Church were organized in peace. Having disposed of these seven contentions of the First Bryan people, we wish to make a few additional observations on this important subject. A Misinterpreted Statement. In the minutes of the association held at Walthourville, November 9, and 10, 1832, there was a resolution adopted embodying the action taken by that body against the First African Baptist Church, which has been misinterpreted and has furnished cause for unfavorable criticism of the association, and doubt as to the subsequent status conceded to the First Church. Let us quote: Resolved, That the First African Baptist Church, as a member of this association, on account of its corrupt state, be considered as dissolved, and that measures be adopted to constitute a new church as a branch of the white Baptist church. It seems strange to us that both Dr. Love and Rev. Simms in their respective books, and all others we have heard refer to this action, take that resolution to mean that the association here attempted to dissolve the church. But the association did not mean that, neither does the language imply that. It simply means that on account of the corrupt state of the First African Baptist Church, it be dissolved as a member of this association. In plain words, it simply means that they withdraw fellowship from the First African Baptist Church, on account of its corrupt state. Nothing more, nothing less. The First African Baptist Church continued in frequent correspondence with the Savannah Baptist Church, white, the Sunbury Association, the City of Savannah, and the County of Chatham, holding councils, recording deeds, and adjusting matters incident to the organization of and the granting of letters to the Third African Baptist Church. In none of these is there the slightest intimation of any impairment of its individuality; but rather is there the evidence of a most potent, vigorous, and up-standing institution that commands the respect and consideration of everybody. It received deeds and recorded them as First African Baptist Church, came in and out of the supervision of the white church as First African Baptist Church, granted letters of dismission to applicants of the Third African Baptist Church as First African Baptist Church, and finally reentered the Sunbury Association as First African Baptist Church. Why Did the Third Church Wait so Long to Make the Claim and Change Its Name? If the Bryan people were first, why did they call themselves and permit themselves to be called Third African Baptist Church so long before making the contention? Why did they not object, at least, during the first five years of their existence, while they were in the association, and in the good graces of both the white church and the association, and the First African Baptist Church was out of the association and in war with both the white church and the association? The First Church was not there, and had neither voice nor advocate there. Then was her chance. She was under the supervision of the white church, had white trustees, and always had white friends to speak for her, if she was afraid to speak for herself. Why did she not speak out then? The reason is plain. She had no claim and did not even think of such a thing. The Relative Strength of the Churches. In the Baptist denomination, numbers count! The one deciding factor, in case of a split or any other kind of controversy in a Baptist church, is: "Where is the majority"? THE MAJORITY RULES! In this also, the Third African Baptist Church is weighed in the balances and found wanting. In the minutes of Sunbury Association in 1831, the last year the church affiliated with that body before the split, she reported 2,795 members. In 1832 they were denied fellowship and the split f ollowed. In 1833 the Third African Baptist Church applied for membership and was accepted, reporting a membership of only 155. If you refer to their book of course, you will find them saying the number was 398, (page 100); but examining the minutes of the association, you will find that it was the Great Ogeechee that had the 398, while the Third Church had 155. How could 155 members out of 2,795 be the church? Or how could they run, them? The Third Church then had one eighteenth; while the First Church had seventeen-eighteenths. Have you any doubt as to which was First? The period out of the association was five years of severe test and trial for this grand old body. Suspicion and apprehension of the power and influence of this wonderful Negro pastor and his determined congregation upon the slaves, the whites succeeded in influencing and forcing most of the country members to unite with and become a part of white churches. Hence, when the church reentered the association in 1837, she registered 1810 members, the Second Church, 1268, the Third Church, 189. In 1860, the last year of the existence of the old Sunbury Association, these churches registered: First African Baptist, 1814; Second African Baptist, 1266; Third African Baptist, 261. Thus we see that after 27 years, the Third Church is still less than one-sixth of the First. The Bryan people claim that practically all the deacons were in this 155 with deacon Johnson. What if they were? That is not the first time that practically all the deacons united against the pastor. Yet a deacon's vote in a Baptist church counts no more than any other layman's. The majority rules. And although the First African Baptist Church was out of the association, and defiant, the association acted advisedly. They knew that the First Church still existed and was still the first. They knew also that this remnant was neither the first, nor the second; but the third; and so they designated her,—"Third African Baptist Church." Why Evade the Issue at Law? But when the Third African Baptist" Church decided to make the claim and take up the fight, why did she not go to the courts and sue for her rightful name and have herself chartered the "First African Baptist Church," if she thought her claim was valid? Why did she go into the wilderness and hunt up a name that had never been in existence, instead of forcing her own name, if she had one? For there never was a First Bryan Baptist Church till 1866. That is the name the First Church registered in before the split. And she was either that or not that. But if she did not duly comprehend her dilemma at that time, it is not too late yet. She can go into the courts and get it now, if it belongs to her. We heartily commend this course to her. Her New Dilemma. And now that it is successfully proven that the First African Baptist Church really existed as early as 1775, and that Mrs. George Leile, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Bryan, Samson Bryan and Kate Hogue and Hagar Simpson was baptized into its membership; and that Rev. David George and Mrs. Hannah Williams belonged to it as well as others; and that Rev. George Leile was pastoring it when be baptized Andrew Bryan; and that he was the first pastor and not Andrew Bryan. What will they do for a name now? They are compelled to go back beyond Andrew Bryan in order to be first, for he was baptized into the First African Baptist Church. The Leile Monument Farce. They have made quite a little capital of the fact that during the session of the National Baptist Convention in this city in 19*16, the George Leile monument was set up at the Bryan Church; claiming this was done by the National Baptist Convention in recognition of the priority of that church. The truth is: It was simply a prize in a foreign mission financial contest and was devised, offered, and awarded by Dr. L: G. Jordan, personally, as Corresponding Secretary of that Board. The National Baptist Convention, per se, had nothing to do with it; and the priority of the churches was in no wise at issue. Substantiating these facts, I subjoin a letter to me from Dr. Jordan: 726 W. Walnut St., Louisville, Ky., January 24, 1925. Rev. E. G. Thomas, B. D., 717 W. Broad St., Savannah, Ga., My Dear Brother: "Replying to yours of the 10th instant, permit me to say the Baptist Foreign Mission Board took no part, expressed no opinion nor in no way interfered with the controversy with the churches of Savannah as to priority. The Board simply said which ever of these churches made the largest contribution in a given time to the work of the Foreign Mission Board they would put the monument to George Leile in the yard of that church, this would have been done in the youngest church in Savannah had they made the largest contribution. "Secure the minutes of 1916, search the National Baptist Convention and you will find the entire report of the Foreign Mission Board and of all that was said and done touching that monument I have no authority to speak for the Foreign Mission Board now as you know I am Secretary "Emeritus" and not the acting secretary, but I think I am giving you the facts as they were at that time." "Yours in His Service, L. G. JORDAN. The author feels that this argument, which he has striven to state honestly and argue fairly, is proof conclusive that the First African Baptist Church, Franklin. Square, is the original First African Baptist Church of Savannah, and consequently of North America. For the decision of the Missionary Baptist State Convention of Georgia, see Chapter XI. Additional Comments: From: THE FIRST AFRICAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA BY REV. EDGAR GARFIELD THOMAS, A. B., B. D. SAVANNAH, GEORGIA Copyright, 1925 By E. G. Thomas, Author. File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/chatham/history/other/gms376the1staf.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/ File size: 26.1 Kb