Enoch George was born in Lancaster county, State of Virginia, in the year 1767 or ‘68. It appears that his mother died while he was quite young, thus leaving him at an age when he mostly needed a mother’s care and a mother’s instructions. Young Enoch, however, realized the truth of the declaration of the holy psalmist, at least in part, when he says, “When father and mother forsake me, the Lord will take me up.” While he was thus deprived of a mother, it fell to the lot of an elder sister to act the parts both of sister and mother, to the youthful orphan. During the minority of Enoch, his father removed from Virginia to the State of North Carolina, and it was while residing in this State, that he was awakened to a sense of his lost and ruined condition as a sinner before God. These convictions of sin came upon him through the instrumentality of the Methodist ministry, when he was in his eighteenth or nineteenth year. Young as he was, he felt that he was not too young to be a sinner against God, that he was not too young to die, and that if he died without being converted to God, he must be damned forever. This conviction led him to seek for the remission of sins, through the blood of the atonement: and after having struggled for liberty, he at length obtained forgiveness at the hand of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. The forgiveness thus extended to him, was not of that nature which some teach it to be — a visitation, or infliction of the whole penalty of the law on the head of the offender, and then an overlooking of the guilt, without reference to the sacrifice upon the cross — to the atonement made by Jesus Christ — but a remission of the penal consequences of transgression, so that the hitherto condemned culprit could exclaim, “Lord! I am damned; but thou hast died,” or more appropriately in the words of Scripture, “Therefore being justified by faith (not by punishment), we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

After Enoch’s conversion, he was soon called upon, to ”Tell to sinners round, What a dear Saviour he had found,” and not only to tell what the Lord had done for his soul, but to pray for those who were still out of the ark of safety, and to exhort them publicly to be reconciled to God. It is true, he did not rush thoughtlessly and heedlessly into the vineyard of the Lord, without waiting for a call from the Master of the vineyard, and it was after a great sacrifice of feeling, that he consented to become a preacher of the gospel. He had received at different times, impressions that it was his duty to go out and devote his entire time and talents to the service of the Church; he had listened to the voice of the Spirit saying, “Go preach,” and after laboring in vain to suppress these impressions in regard to duty, and feeling that a “woe” would be pronounced against him, if he “preached not the gospel;” he at length said, “Here I am, Lord; send me,” and he entered at once upon the work, but with much diffidence and distrust of his own abilities, yet looking to the “Master of the vineyard,” for grace and strength to enable him to discharge the duties of his holy vocation, in a manner acceptable to God and profitable to his fellow-creatures.

After having accepted the call of God and of his Church, to labor as a herald of salvation, and having received a “license” or certificate of his call by the latter, he traveled for a short time on a circuit in connection with the Rev. Philip Cox, and was then sent by Bishop Asbury to assist the Rev. Daniel Asbury in forming a circuit, on the head-waters of Catawba, and Broad Rivers. Having made “full proof of his call to the ministry,” while laboring upon these circuits, he was at the next session of the Conference, received on trial, and appointed to labor on the Pamlico circuit, where he remained for a single year, and at the next session of the Conference in 1791, was appointed to the Caswell circuit, where he also remained one year. After having thus traveled two years, and having given further proof of the divinity of his call, he was admitted into full connection with the Conference, and was ordained a deacon in the Church of God, in 1792, by Bishop Asbury. He then received an appointment to Guilford circuit, and the following year, 1793, was appointed to Broad River where he had previously labored. At the close of the latter year, he was ordained elder in the Church, and stationed on the Great Pee Dee circuit. In 1795, he was stationed in Edisto circuit, with instructions to labor three months in Charleston, South Carolina. In 1796, and ‘97, he filled the office of presiding elder, and gave general satisfaction to both preachers and people, as also to the appointing power of the Church, by the manner in which he discharged the important and laborious duties of the presiding eldership.

In 1798, Mr. George’s health partially failed, and supposing the northern climate would best agree with his constitution, he traveled as far north as New York. After two years spent in a northern locality, his health was measurably restored, and he resumed his labors in the southern section of the work. In 1800, he was appointed presiding elder of Potomac district in the Baltimore Conference, but before the close of the year, on account of his arduous labors, his health again failed, and becoming somewhat discouraged about the probability of being able to render himself useful as a traveling minister, he thought best to apply for a location in 1801, which the Conference granted, and he again entered the local ranks. After a partial respite of two years, from the toils and cares of the itinerancy, his health again rallied, so that he ventured in 1803, to reenter the traveling connection, and was appointed to Frederick circuit. In 1804, he was appointed to the presiding eldership of Baltimore district, and in 1805, to that of the Alexandria district, in the District of Columbia. In 1807, he received an appointment to Georgetown, D. C.; in the following year to Frederick circuit; in 1809, to Montgomery circuit, and in 1810, to Baltimore circuit. In 1811, he was re-appointed presiding elder of the Potomac district, where he labored most efficiently during the constitutional term of office — four years — and at the expiration of that term, was further honored with the charge of Georgetown district.

It is a matter of regret that so little is known of the labors and history of Mr. George, previous to the year 1815, and it is also to be deplored, that subsequent to that time no authentic records have been kept, so that the Church might now be favored with incidents connected with the private life and public labors of this truly great man. Such has been the paucity of materials from which to furnish even a brief history of the life and labors of Bishops McKendree and George, that the author, after surveying them, concluded to let them pass without any attempt to write a separate chapter for these worthy men, but knowing that in a work of this character, the reader might expect at least a brief account of all the deceased bishops of the Church; and that the virtues and sacrifices of these men of God demanded that their names should be perpetuated; and believing that the reader will readily forgive the comparative brevity of these articles, in view of the impossibility of furnishing a correct account to any considerable length, without the aid of materiel, the author has concluded to give the reader the benefit of all the light he can find on the subject, hoping that the day is not far distant when an extended biography of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, will be given to the Methodist public.

Mr. George was elected a delegate by the Baltimore Annual Conference, to the General Conference of 1816, which latter body assembled on the first of May, in the city of Baltimore. The first thing which seemed to arrest the attention of the delegates on their meeting together, was the absence of their beloved senior bishop Asbury — who had a short time previously departed this life. His absence, and the knowledge of his death, and that the Conference would never again see his face on earth, and have the advantage of his long experience in conducting the affairs of the Church, and in presiding over their deliberations, spread a melancholy gloom over the house, and caused the members to feel that there was a vacancy in the episcopacy which no man could possibly fill with all that acceptability and talent which had characterized the episcopal labors of the now-sainted Asbury. As Bishop McKendree was the only surviving bishop, it became necessary at an early stage of the session, to fill the episcopal bench by the election and consecration of two additional bishops. Accordingly the Committee on the episcopacy reported that in their opinion, “the superintendency in consequence of the ever to be lamented death of our venerable father, Bishop Asbury, and the impaired state of the health of Bishop McKendree, and the increasing extent of the work, is such as to require immediate and adequate strengthening,” and they further recommended the appointment of “two additional bishops.”

After the adoption of the report of the Committee, the Conference proceeded on the 14th day of May, to the serious and awfully responsible duty of electing two persons to the episcopacy; and notwithstanding the many brilliant names that might have been presented as candidates for the honors of the episcopate, the choice of the Conference fell on Enoch George, and on Robert R. Roberts, the former having fifty-seven, and the latter fifty-five votes, out of one hundred and six that were cast on the occasion — fifty-four votes in either case being necessary to a choice.

After their election, they were solemnly set apart to their sacred office by the imposition of the hands of Bishop McKendree, who was assisted in the service by a few of the elders present.

After his election and consecration to the episcopacy, Bishop George began to discharge all the duties devolving on him as a servant of the Church, with that diligence and zeal which has always been characteristic of the Methodist episcopacy in America. The entire work was so laid out by the three bishops, that each one during the intervals of the General Conference, might visit once, or oftener, every Conference in the Connection, thus preventing the possibility of a resemblance in their fields of labor, to a diocesan episcopacy. They considered themselves as bishops of the whole Church, and not of any particular portion thereof; hence their diocess, if it might be called such, comprehended the whole of the United Sates and its territory, and rendered it necessary for them to travel the whole length and breadth of the land. Wherever Bishop George went, he diffused the spirit of piety among the people, and of ministerial zeal and fidelity among the preachers, and in his hands, as well as in those of his colleagues, the government of the Church was administered with all due faithfulness, the Conferences being punctually attended, and the union, peace, stability and prosperity of the Church being very generally promoted in all its borders.

At the General Conference of 1820, the three bishops were present, but on account of the feeble health of the senior bishop — McKendree, the labor of presiding over the deliberations of the Conference, devolved mostly on Bishops George and Roberts, both of whom in a verbal address, called the attention of the Conference to various subjects of public interest, and especially to the state of our Church in Canada, which had suffered very materially from the war of 1812-15. As all intercourse between the States and the Canadas was suspended during the continuance of the war, the Methodists in those Provinces were but partially supplied with preachers from the American Conferences; and the British Conference, anxious to supply the Methodists who were subject to the British government, with preaching and the ordinances, sent various missionaries to Upper and Lower Canada. Many of the Methodists in these provinces, however, were ardently attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and were not at all pleased with the appointment of English missionaries among them; while others of the Canadian Methodists, not only preferred the English missionaries, but insisted on their remaining to the exclusion of the American ministers. This state of things begat mutual jealousies and mistrust among the members in Canada, and at the General Conference of 1820, the subject came formally before that body, by the address of the bishops just adverted to, and then by means of memorials, petitions, remonstrances, etc., from the adherents of the American preachers. After a long and patient consideration of the whole matter, the Conference solemnly, and with great unanimity, resolved that it was “the duty of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church to continue their episcopal charge over our Societies in the Canadas, all except Quebec.” The Conference also ordered an address to be sent to the brethren in Canada, in which mention is made of a “letter sent by Bishop George to the British Conference, containing a full development of the affairs of Canada.”

It would appear from this address, that Bishop George had been corresponding with the British Conference on the subject of the existing Canadian difficulties during the interim of the General Conference, but as no direct and conclusive reply had been received, he thought it necessary to present the matter, as before stated, to the consideration of the latter body.

It may be proper to state in this connection, that the Rev. John, afterward Bishop Emory, was at the Conference of 1820, appointed a delegate or representative to the British Conference in England, with full power to adjust all existing difficulties between the two bodies, arising out of the Canadian affairs, and that he happily succeeded in so doing to the perfect and lasting satisfaction of all parties interested in the matter.

Nothing worthy of special notice appears to have taken place in the life or history of Bishop George during the interval between the General Conferences of 1820-24. His time was wholly occupied in attending to the duties of his station and the interests of the Church. At the session of 1824, he was present in connection with Bishops McKendree and Roberts, and as during the preceding four years the work had gradually extended itself, so as to require additional strength in the episcopal board, it was at this General Conference, resolved, that two additional bishops be elected and consecrated, and the choice fell on the Rev. Joshua Soule and Rev. Elijah Hedding, who, on the 27th of May, 1824, at 12 o’clock M., were solemnly consecrated to the office of bishops, by the bishops then present, the senior bishop officiating.

After the adjournment of the General Conference, Bishop George, accompanied by Bishop Hedding, paid a visit to the brethren in Canada, and presided over the deliberations of the Canada Annual Conference, which held its session in Hallowell, U. C. A desire had been growing, for a few of the past years, on the part of some of the Canadian preachers, headed by a member of the Canada Conference, named Ryan, for the establishment of an independent Church organization in Canada, with power to appoint a bishop of their own selection, who should reside among them. A petition to this effect had been presented to the General Conference of 1824, signed by a portion of the Canadian preachers; but as the General Conference did not consider that it had constitutional power to grant the prayer of the petitioners, a resolution was passed whereby a separate Conference was erected in Canada, to continue under the superintendence of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This decision of the General Conference by no means suited the ambitious views of Ryan and his associates, by whom a Conference, consisting mostly of local preachers, was organized previous to the assembling of the Canada Conference, which had recently been formed by the action of the General Conference. It was under these circumstances, that Bishops George and Hedding met the Canada Conference at its first session, and through their laudable endeavors and explanations, peace was measurably restored among the brethren, and things continued as they had been, until the next session of the General Conference in 1828, when the Canada brethren were authorized, if they preferred it, to constitute themselves into an independent body, which act was consummated by them at their ensuing session.

At the General Conference of 1828, a long and affectionate address to the Wesleyan Conference in England, signed by Bishop George, as the President of the body, was adopted, and subsequently sent by the Rev. Wm. Capers, who was appointed delegate to the British Conference. As this address contains much information in relation to the state of the Church at that time, we will copy it for the benefit of the reader. “Address of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to the Wesleyan Methodist Conference. “Beloved Fathers and Brethren: Having by the mercy of our God brought the present session of our General Conference near to a close, we avail ourselves of this opportunity; to convey to you our Christian salutations. Our beloved brother, the Rev. William Capers, whom we have elected as our representative to your Conference, will more fully explain to you the state of our affairs, the strong affection we have to you as our elder brethren, and our fervent desire to preserve with you the bond of peace and the unity of the spirit. “Our present session, though laborious, and involving various and important points vitally connected with the interests of our Church, and of Christianity generally, has been marked with general harmony of feeling, and mutual good-will; and we humbly trust it will tend to strengthen the bond of union among ourselves, more fully to combine our strength, to concentrate and harmonize our views and affection, and to give a new impulse to the great work in which we are engaged. “To stimulate us to diligence in this most sacred of all causes, the bright example of your persevering efforts in the cause of God, is placed before us. Deriving our doctrines from the same great fountain of truth, the Holy Scriptures, and admitting the same medium of interpretation, the venerable Wesley and his coadjutors, and we humbly hope, pursuing the same great objects, the present and future salvation of souls, we desire ever to cultivate with you the closest bond of union and Christian fellowship. Under the influence of these views and feelings, we have rejoiced in your prosperity and witnessed with unmingled pleasure, the extension of your work, particularly in your missionary department.

With you also, we have our portion of afflictions. Through the disaffection of some, and the honest, though as we think, mistaken zeal of others, in some parts of our extended work, the harmony of our people has been disturbed, and principles to us novel in their character, and deleterious in their influence on the excellent system we have received from our fathers, have been industriously circulated. Though we may not flatter ourselves that these unhappy excitements are fully terminated, yet we presume to hope that the decided and almost unanimous expression of disapprobation to such proceedings by this General Conference, and among our preachers and people generally, will greatly weaken the disaffection, and tend to correct the errors of the wandering, as well as to confirm and strengthen the hand of all who desire to cleave to the Lord, ‘in one faith, one baptism, and one hope of our calling.’

Since our last session we have witnessed with joy and gratitude an unusual effusion of the Holy Spirit. Revivals of religion have been numerous and extensive in almost every part of our continent.

Upward of sixty-nine thousand have been added to our Church during the past four years, and the work is still extending.

Stretching our lines over so large a continent, many parts of our work, particularly in the new settlements, require great personal sacrifices to carry to them the blessings of our ministry, and much diligence and patient perseverance to preserve our beloved people in the unity of the faith. For these great objects we are not sufficient — ‘our sufficiency is of God!’ But having devoted ourselves exclusively to this work, and confiding in the strength and goodness of Him, whose we are, and whom we profess to serve in the fellowship of the Gospel, we hope not to faint in the day of trial, but to persevere in conveying the glad tidings of peace to the destitute inhabitants of our land, until every part of it shall break forth into singing, and hail with joy the coming of the Lord. “Cheered with this prospect, we are endeavoring to strengthen each other in the Lord. And the happy results of our missionary labors, both among the frontier settlements of our white population and the Indian tribes, particularly the latter, are pleasing indications of the Divine approbation. It does indeed seem as if the set time had come to favor these lost tribes of our wildernesses, and to bring them into the fold of Christ. These natives, hitherto ‘peeled and scattered’ in the United States and territories, as well as in Upper Canada, are bowing to the yoke of Christ with astonishing alacrity, and thus giving evidence that his grace is sufficient to convert even the heart of a savage, and to transform him to the gentleness of Christ. On this subject, however, we need not enlarge, but refer you to our periodical works — the extensive circulation of which, among our people, gives increased impulse to the work, carrying information cheering and delightful to many thousands, of the efficacy and triumph of redeeming mercy, — to our beloved brother and representative, the bearer of this address, who will more particularly tell you, face to face, how much we rejoice to be coworkers with you in the extensive field of labor, and to witness such evident tokens of the Divine goodness to our fallen world. “Recollecting the Christian deportment, the ministerial gravity and dignity, and what is more endearing to us, the brotherly affection of your late delegate to our Conference, the Rev. Richard Reece, and his amiable companion, the Rev. John Hannah, both of whom have left a sweet savor behind them, we take much pleasure in giving to you this renewed assurance of our unabated attachment to those doctrines and that discipline, by which both you and we are distinguished; to set our seal to the maxim that ‘the Wesleyan Methodists are one throughout the world;’ and also our desire that the intercourse between us, by the mutual exchange of delegates, may be kept up and continued; and that as a means of our edification and comfort, we shall be happy to receive whomsoever you may appoint to visit us at our next session. “With sentiments of unfeigned respect and Christian affection, we are, dear brethren, one with you in the fellowship of Jesus Christ. “Signed in behalf of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held at Pittsburgh, (Pa.,) May, 1828. “Enoch George, President. “Martin Ruter, Secretary.”

At the General Conference of 1828, at which the above document was prepared, Bishop George was present, and assisted his episcopal colleagues in the discharge of their official duties. Nothing calling for special remark, otherwise occurred, at this session of the body, if we may except the important fact, that it was the last session of the General Conference that Bishop George ever attended; he having on the 23d of the ensuing August, died at Staunton, Virginia, in the sixty-first year of his age, and in the thirty-eighth year of his ministry. His last words were: “Glory to God!”

Bishop George was a man greatly and deservedly beloved by all who knew him, and as might be supposed, his death was severely felt and deeply lamented, throughout the length and breadth of our Zion. Much might be said relative to his character and conduct as a Christian and Christian minister. A few words, however, on this point, must suffice. Dr. Bangs, who was personally acquainted with him, thus describes him: “That which distinguished Bishop George among his fellows, was the warmth of his zeal and the quickness of his movements. This, no doubt, arose from the depth of his piety. He seemed, indeed, to live and walk with God. This was evident from the uniformity of his devotions, as well as from his general deportment, both before the public, and in his more private intercourse with his friends. He always rose early in the morning, and if circumstances permitted, would spend the morning before breakfast in a solitary walk in the field, for meditation and private devotion; and in these lonely rambles, he delighted in the contemplation of the Deity as he is seen in his works and ways, and in holding communion with him in praise and prayer. “He was naturally eloquent, and his eloquence was all natural. He never sought to embellish his subjects with artificial tinsels of pulpit oratory, substituted by some, for those overflowings of the heart, which proceed from being filled and fired with the truth which the lips utter. Hence his ‘preaching was not with the enticing words of mans’ wisdom,’ but it was in ‘demonstration and power,’ and ‘with much assurance in the Holy Ghost.’ He was more distinguished, however, for affecting the heart and moving the passions, than for enlightening the understanding and informing the judgment.

Whenever, therefore, you saw him begin to rub his eyes with his fingers, as if wiping thence the gushing tear, you might expect a pouring forth of those streams of gospel truth, generally of that declamatory or hortatory character which were calculated to move the hearer to weep or shout, according to his predominant feeling.

And he seldom concluded a sermon without greatly moving his audience in either of these ways, because he was first moved himself by those sacred and heavenly emotions which were evidently produced by the energetic workings of the Holy Spirit. “Viewing him, therefore, simply as an ambassador of God, sent peculiarly to awaken the conscience of the sinner, and to alarm or strengthen the faith of the believer, and quicken him in the divine life, he was most eminently qualified for his great work. In addition to the holy pathos with which he breathed out the ‘words of truth and soberness,’ his voice was exceedingly musical, shrill, and clear, his action natural and expressive of the feelings of his heart, and all calculated to impress the hearer with the solemn truths which fell from his lips. If however, we may judge him by other tests of a pulpit orator, we should detect some defects. In education he was quite deficient, and his general reading was very limited. For this lack of acquired knowledge, he might be considered as furnishing more than a substitute, in the pointedness of his appeals, and the manner in which he fortified all his positions by direct appeals to the sacred Scriptures. And if he dealt in detached sentences, instead of following a consecutive order and arrangement of argumentation, he was abundantly compensated in the blessed effects which he saw produced in the hearts of those who heard him, and knew how to appreciate the value of a sermon more from its unction than its argument. His premises were found where every minister of Christ should find them — in the Bible; and his conclusions were then drawn without much regard to logical arrangement, and certainly without any circumlocution, direct and with a force it was hardly possible to resist. And from the earnestness of his manner, some have entirely mistaken his object and his motives. Beholding the emotions which were very generally produced in the pious part of his hearers, sometimes expressed in loud shouts of praise, those who were mere outward court worshippers, or uninterested hearers, have retired from the sanctuary under a conviction that Bishop George was acting the part of a mountebank, speaking for the purpose of gaining shouts of applause. A sad mistake this. He ascended the pulpit, not as a stage player mounts the stage, but as an ambassador of Christ, commissioned to declare his counsel unto the people, and to negotiate a treaty.‘Peace ‘twixt earth and heaven.’

And in the fulfillment of this commission, he did not trifle with the awful realities of time and eternity, but poured forth from a full heart the solemn truths of God, in a manner which penetrated the conscience and drew forth the confession, by sobs and shouts, that God was with him of a truth. “Such was Bishop George in the pulpit. In the chair of the Conference he was less acceptable. Though he was always intent on accomplishing the greatest amount of good, by the best possible means, he often defeated his purpose by the haste with which he endeavored to dispatch the business. His manner, was sometimes abrupt and undignified, and of course did not always command that respect which every conscientious mind would wish to feel, and pay to a superior. Nor were his decisions always made with that wisdom and deliberation, needful to produce a conviction of their correctness in all cases. He appeared, therefore, to much greater advantage in the pulpit, than in the chair of the Conference: and had he lived and died simply as an itinerant Methodist preacher, he had commanded more respect, than was felt for him as a general superintendent of the Church. These defects, however, detract nothing from his natural worth, nor render him less worthy of affection as a Christian bishop, or as a man deeply and seriously devoted to the best interests of the human family; — for who is perfect in every respect? “But in whatever light we view him, he will long be remembered with affection, as one of the early pioneers, in the ranks of the itinerancy, as an indefatigable laborer in the Lord’s vineyard, who won many sinners to Christ, and was a ways a sun of consolation to God’s believing people. “The warmth of his affections won him many friends, and the affability of his manners endeared him to them as a brother beloved, who might be approached at all times, with a cheerful confidence.

His death was sudden and unexpected. Its announcement, therefore, spread a temporary gloom over the Methodist community. But death did not find him unprepared. He met this ‘last enemy’ not only with meek submission, but with a holy triumph, and a well-grounded hope of eternal life. As the words, ‘Glory to God!’ had often fell from his lips in the pulpit, so in his last moments, in full view of the invisible world, he shouted forth the praise of God, and no doubt went to the shades of bliss and immortality.”

Thus far the historiographer of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in relation to the character of Bishop George; and from the account thus candidly, and as we have no doubt, impartially given, we learn that the most eminent men are not above criticism, and that, however perfect a man may be in many respects, yet absolute perfection cannot be predicated of any mortal even in his “best estate.” Bishop George, however, with all his imperfections, was undeniably a great man, and what is of still more importance, he was a holy man. Let his name and memory, therefore, be honored by succeeding generations; for “the memory of the just is blessed.”