INTRODUCTION

The reader is doubtless aware that the first discovery of America has been attributed to the Norwegians, by whom Iceland was peopled. It seems indeed indisputable, especially from the documents which have been recently brought to light by “The Royal Society of Northern Antiquarians,” that as early as 986 Greenland was discovered by a company of Norwegians from Iceland, and a settlement effected there by emigrants from that place. And it is equally true, by the same authority, that these persons, assisted by some of their countrymen from Norway, from the year 1000 and onward to near the close of the 13th century, discovered various portions of the coast of North America, from Nova Scotia along down as far south as the Chesapeake Bay, if not even as Florida. It seems also that landings were made at a number of places, and a traffic carried on for short seasons with the natives. But it is equally certain that no permanent settlements were made, nor any right acquired to the soil from the aboriginal inhabitants.

Whether Columbus had any knowledge of these facts, as some contend, or not, it is certain that he struck out a new path for the discovery of this western world, inasmuch as the Norwegians came across from one of the most northern kingdoms of Europe Iceland, and probably never dreamed of a connection between America and the south of Europe in the direction taken by Columbus. Nor were there, so far as has been discovered, the least traces of civilization on the northern coast of America when taken possession of by Europeans in the 16th century. The adventures of Columbus, therefore, and his immediate followers, had all the characteristics of original enterprise, and of priority in discovery, as much so as if the eye of civilized man had never before beheld the western continent. fta2 Bancroft PREFACE: ftb1 His manuscript journals, which were quite voluminous, were also consumed by the burning of the Book Room.

1: These rules will he inserted in their proper place.

2: The name of this pious woman was Hick, the mother of the late Paul Hick, who became a member of the Methodist E. Church in his youth, and was subsequently a class leader and trustee, in which offices he continued until near the close of life, and finally died in the triumphs of faith in the 74th year of his age. He has children and grandchildren now members of the church in the city of New York. He has often conversed with the writer respecting the circumstances and incidents of these early days of Methodism, with much apparent delight and gratitude. When quite a lad, his mother used to lead him by the hand to the meetings; and, said he, “the first sixpence I could ever call my own, I put into the plate which was carried around to receive the contributions of the people, and I felt, in so doing, an inexpressible pleasure.” God abundantly rewarded him in after life, with both temporal and spiritual blessings, and he lived to see this “seed of the kingdom spring up and bear fruit, even a hundredfold.” Several of the facts above narrated were received by the writer from Mr. Hick and other members of the family.

As it is my intention to give a condensed account of such preachers as were any way eminent for their labors, sufferings, and success, when their death is noticed, no more will be said of them in the thread of the history than is necessary to a connected account of the work which was carried on by their instrumentality. fte2 It is said, however, in a memoir of the Rev. Mr. Mann, a preacher who afterward went to Nova Scotia, that for a considerable time during the war, at the request of the trustees and leaders, he held meetings in the chapel in New York, until he was relieved by the coming of Mr. Spragg, a regular traveling preacher, who came from Philadelphia, after the British took possession of that city. Through the labors of those men of God a small society was kept together, notwithstanding the difficulties with which they had to contend in those troublesome time. fte3 This refers to a partial separation which took place in Virginia on account of the ordinances.

Moore's Life of Wesley, vol. ii, p.273. ftf2 As the translators of our version of the Bible have used the English word “bishop” instead of “superintendent,” it has been thought by us that it would appear more Scriptural to adopt their term “bishop.” — Discipline ftf3 Mr. Allen was not ordained until the conference in 1785; and Mr. Willis not being present, was ordained a few weeks afterward. — Lee. ftf4 See Original Church of Christ. ftf5 For the trial of a bishop, see the 4th question of the 4th section. ftf6 This part refers wholly to towns and cities, where the poor are generally numerous, and church expenses considerable. ftf7 Probably the reason why these rules are not found in the printed books is, that the Minutes were not printed, but merely preserved in MS. until 1785, at which time the above rules were suspended.

Mr. Lee assigns other reasons for the nonelection of Mr. Garrettson but the above is taken from Mr. G's own account of the transaction, in which he corrects the mistake of Mr. Lee. ftg2 See “Defense of our Fathers,” and “An Original Church of Christ.” ftg3 See book iii, chap. ii. ftg4 How such an affirmation could have been made by any honest and intelligent American appears almost inconceivable, when it is so well known that General Washington was at that time, 1785, a private gentleman, living on his farm in Virginia, and was not elected president of the United States until 1789. The fact is, as stated in Mr. Morrell's letter, (which see,) that the address was written at the time it stands dated in the address itself, during the session of the New York conference in June, 1789, and at the very time the congress were assembled, and a few days after Washington had delivered his first inaugural address to the representatives of the nation. How could an address be presented to President Washington when there was no such official personage in existence! The supposition carries such selfevident absurdity on its face, that it is a wonder how malignant ingenuity itself could have ever hazarded its assertion. Its refutation therefore is rendered necessary only from the fact, that such is the state of human society that no absurdity is too glaring to gain some proselytes. ftg5 There is a trifling error in the date in Dr. Emory's account, as he says it was the 3d of June. The true date of the document, May 29, 1789, it will be perceived, corresponds with the date given to it by Mr. Sparks.

Mr. Embury continued a faithful follower of Jesus Christ, and a diligent laborer in the gospel as a local preacher in the Methodist connection, until the year 1775, when he ended his days in peace in the above region of country; and his remains were buried about seven miles distant from Ashgrove, “in a spot of peculiar beauty in the gorge of two romantic hills, on a small elevation surrounded by a lovely scenery, and in view of two or three handsome cottages.”

In 1832, some of his surviving friends, moved by a pious respect to the memory of this humble and devoted servant of God, and with a view to deposit his bones in a burying ground in the midst of his children and friends, had them removed from their former resting place, and, with suitable religious services, in the presence of a large multitude of people who had assembled on the occasion, committed them to the earth in the Methodist burying ground in Ashgrove. Over them is placed a marble tablet, with the following inscription: —PHILIP EMBURY, The earliest American minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Here found His last earthly resting place. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints, &c.

The remainder of the epitaph need not be copied here. The widow of Mr. Embury was afterward married to a member of our Church by the name of Lawrence, who settled in Upper Canada, and they were the nucleus of a society in the place where they lived, which has continued to flourish to the present day.

Mr. Wesley undoubtedly alludes to this unpleasant affair in his Journal, under date of July 26, 1787. He says, “We were agreeably surprised with the arrival of Dr. Cake, who came from Philadelphia in nine and twenty days, and gave us a pleasing account of the work of God in America.” — “I desired all our preachers to meet me and consider the state of our brethren in America, who have been terribly frightened at their own shadow, as if the English preachers were just going to enslave them. I believe that fear is now over, and they are more aware of Satan's devices.”

Their fears, whether groundless or not, were removed by the assurance they received from Dr. Coke, that he would not again interpose his authority while at a distance from them, in altering the time for holding their conferences; or when here, of stationing the preachers without the concurrence of Bishop Asbury.

For the clearing up of all these difficulties, and the vindication of Bishop Asbury, see Original Church of Christ, p. 143. ftg9 It is presumed that this alludes to the Cokesbury College, as it is not known to the writer that any other seminary or learning, under the patronage of the Methodist Episcopal Church, was then in existence.

There is an error in the printed minutes for this year of 12,884 in the aggregate number of the whites, which is there stated to be 63,269.

This error originated from adding the number of the colored to the whites, and at the same time retaining the number of the colored in a separate column.

The end of this unhappy man reads a fearful lesson to all those who presume to trifle with sacred things. In the notice we have taken of the rise and progress of Methodism in Charleston, South Carolina, we have seen that Mr. Allen brought a great reproach upon the Church in that place by his apostasy. What the particular sin was by which he thus wounded the cause of God, I am not informed; but from a notice of him in Bishop Asbury's Journal, vol. ii, page 184, it appears that in the bishop's estimation he had been “going from bad to worse for seven or eight years,” speaking hard things against the bishop among the people, and writing to Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke, and thereby stirring up prejudice in their minds, as is presumed, against Bishop Asbury. On this account, says the bishop, “I have had my opinion of him these nine years, and gave Dr. Coke my thoughts of him before his ordination.”