Wesley and Episcopacy [microform] : a collection of evidence showing that John Wesley neither originated nor approved of episcopacy in American Methodism

Preface

The series of articles included in this pamphlet appeared in the Methodist Recorder ^ beginning Jan. 19th, 1892. The occasion for the appearance of the articles was as follows : Assertions that John Wesley introduced episcopacy into American Methodism had appeared in the Christian Advocate, of New York, and in the Methodist Review. The editor of the Methodist Recorder ventured to dissent from these statements, and to affirm that documentary evidence could be adduced going to show that Wesley neither originated nor approved of introducing episcopacy into American Methodism. The Central Christian Advocate, of St. Louis, then challenged the Recorder to produce evidence that would sustain this assertion. The editor of the Recordet , unwilling to again go over the ground that had been partly traversed in his reply to Dr. Buckley’s affirmation on this point in the Christiaii Advocate, referred the Central Christian Advocate to this previous discussion. The Central Christian Advocate was not satisfied, and interpreted this reluctance to take up the subject again so soon after having gone over the ground, as a confession of defeat. It contained in its issue of Jan. 6th, 1892, the following:

. ..

II Preface

“ The Pittsburgh Methodist Recorder having affirmed that Mr. Wesley disapproved of the episcopacy of the Methodist Episcopal Church as established at its organization, and that ‘ documentary evidence ’ could be produced to sustain its position, we challenged it ‘to produce a line from the pen of John Wesley against the episcopal form of church government.’ Instead of making good its boast it changes the issue and challenges us to produce anything from Mr. Wesley, in favor of the episcopacy established here. This is a miserable retreat, and shows just how much such assertions as the Recorder makes on this subject are worth.

“The Recorder knows that Mr. Wesley prepared the forms of ordination which were used at the organization of American Methodism by taking those of the Episcopal Church of England, with slight alteration that does not affect their essential character. The form used for the ordination of bishop is the same as that for bishop in the English Church, only he called the person so ordained a ‘ superintendent.’ And he always explains this word ‘ superintendent ’ by referring to the Greek word which is translated bishop in the New Testament. The Recorder knows, too, that Charles Wesley and those who were opposed to any separation from the Church of England always accused Mr. Wesley of ordaining Coke a bishop and of setting up an episcopal Church in this country. Neither of the Wesleys believed in the Presbyterian form of Church government.

“The letters that passed between John Wesley and his brother Charles in regard to the ordination of

PREFACE.

Ill

Dr. Coke show plainly that John Wesley knew exa6lly what Dr. Coke had done. The sermon preached by Dr. Coke defending his course is referred to in the letters, bat Mr. Wesley does not say, or intimate, that Dr. Coke had exceeded his instructions. He criticised the spirit of Coke and Asbury in the office of supertendent, but he never criticised the polity itself. Had he believed in Presbyterian forms he would not have ordained Dr. Coke, who was already a presbyter, as the preparatory step for ordaining the American Methodist preachers.

“We renew our challenge. Let the Recorder produce its ‘ documentary evidence ’ that Mr. Wesley disapproved of the church government of the Methodist Episcopal Church.”

Having been called again to the discussion of this subject the editor of the Recorder determined to give a thorough presentation of evidence and argument bearing on this point. The result was the series of articles herewith presented, with a few slight changes. Friends reading these articles, and believing that they contained historical fa6ls of value bearing on this question, requested their preparation in such form that they could be preserved and used for. general circulation. In answer to this demand this pamphlet has been prepared.

In this discussion we have confined ourselves to the one point of the historical relation of Wesley to episcopacy in American Methodism. Of the merits of episcopacy in itself we say nothing. This is another and a distin6l question.

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

Chapter I. Did John Wesley Ordain Dr Coke A Bishop?

The position w-hich we shall endeavor to maintain in this pamphlet is that the plan on w’hich the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in America was not the production of Wesley, but was the work of Francis Asbury and Dr. Coke. There are several points involved in the ecclesiastical device which Asbury and Coke wrought out, which we shall endeavor to show had no countenance from Wesley and were, on the other hand, the objeCts of his expressed disapproval.

That Wesley had some plan according to which he intended the American societies should be conduced is obvious. But we hold that the episcopal system instituted by Asbury and Coke does not correspond to the purposes Wesley had in view. Wesley affirms that he had prepared an outline of the plan that he intended should be pursued. In his letter of September lo, 1784, to “Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury and our brethren in North America.” he says :

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

“ In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice ; and in compliance with these desires I have drawn up a little sketch.”

Anything that would answer to the “ little sketch” here referred to has never come to the light. It has been claimed that the letter in which this expression occurs itself was the “ little sketch” referred to. But this we think can hardly be the case. This letter is mainly an explanation and defense of his ordination of Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey as elders for |

the American Methodists, and the appointment of Dr. j

Coke and Francis Asbury as joint superintendents. I

It contains no outline of a plan as a basis for the or- I

ganization of the American Methodists. Whatever Mr. Wesley’s plan may have been, his statement was never made public. His ideas and purposes with regard to the basis of the organization for the American societies were made known only so far as they were ^

communicated through the mediumship of Dr. Coke. ]

The fa6l that Wesley’s plan has never been fully (

disclosed has been admitted by at least one notable \

Methodist Episcopal writer. Bishop S. M. Merrill, D. j

D., in the Daily Ck?isiian Advocate, published at \

Omaha, Nebraska, May 2, 1892, says : ]

“ The contents of Mr. Wesley’s plan of organization are not |

known in detail, but it is understood that he contemplated the \

consecration of Mr. Asbury as General Superintendent, very ;

much as it occurred, but on his own appointment.” 1

In another place in the same article Bishop Mer- \

rill says : ^

“ Mr. Wesley preferred the Episcopal form of Church government, and intended to establish it for his people here, according to a plan which he outlined, and with which he made

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

Dr. Coke acquainted, and probably placed a copy of it in his hand. What a privilege it would be to see that plan as drawn by Wesley.”

The plan proposed by Asbury and Coke, and adopted by the Conference of 1784, had several features, however, which we will try to show were contrary to Wesley’s wishes and designs. The ecclesiastical system devised by Asbury and Coke involved points of departure against which we have Wesley’s explicit protest.

That we may present in a conne< 5 led manner the material we have accumulated on this subjedl we shall consider several of the points involved in succession. The first and most important fa6l bearing upon this subje< 5 l is the appointment of Dr. Coke to the superintendency of the American societies by Mr. Wesley. If the significance of this ceremony of appointment can be determined, it will throw light upon all subsequent events. If Mr. Wesley intended this as the initial step of an episcopal system, as has been claimed, then all of Dr. Coke’s subsequent doings are justified. If it had no such import, then Dr. Coke stands forth as having misused the trust imposed upon him. We begin, therefore, by asking the following question :

I. Did Mr. Wesley^ hi the appohiiment of Dr. Coke as superintendeiit invest him with episcopal authority f

This point really is the key to the situation. If in the appointment of Dr. Coke to superintend the American societies Wesley did not intend to confer upon him episcopal powers, then the assumption of the title of bishop by Coke and Asbury, and their eslO

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

tablishmtnt of a psuedo-episcopal church become im- |i| pertinenct'S. Whatever authority Dr. Coke possessed

|| ' came from Wesley. He admittedly was but the agent

I; to carry out Wesley’s designs. Wesley’s intentions,

therefore, in inventing Coke with authority to carry out the plan he had prepared for him must be accepted as the criterion by which Dr. Coke’s subsequent pretensions and ads must be judged.

In appointing Dr. Coke as superintendent jointly with Francis Asbury, Wesley evidently did not intend to create an episcopal system He intended simply to transfer the right of governing to the delegated person, with a view to overcome the objedions which might possibly be offered if any attempt was made to govern without Wesley’s consent. Wesley calls it “ investing the doctor with fuller powers.”

The ceremony of laying on of hands was evidently the result of Dr. Coke’s importunity rather than of Wesley’s deliberate judgment. Whitehead, in his “ Life of Wesley,” says, in speaking of Mr. Wesley’s indisposition to take this step :

“ In this purpose, however, he appeared so languid, if not wavering, that Dr. Coke thought it necessary to use some further means to urge him to the performance of it.”

Dr. Coke therefore sent a letter to Wesley giving reasons why he should receive authority to ordain others from Wesley by “ the imposition of hands.” Among lhe«e reasons he names, (i) “That it seems to me the most Scriptural way,” and (2) “I may w^ant all the influence in America which you can throw into the scale.”

Under this pressure Wesley was led to go through

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY. II

a form of ordination. But that he did not regard this ceremony as instituting an episcopal form of government for the American societies is apparent. In the very letter of September lo, 1784, in which he»communicates his action to the “ brethren of North America,” he declares his disbelief in the theory of episcopal ordination. He says in this letter : '

“ Lord King’s account of the primitive church convinced me many years ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain.”

Had it been Wesley’s intention to create an episcopacy, he would not have disavowed the principle which is the very foundation stone of the episcopal system. To establish an episcopacy which shall be consistent with ordination by presbyters is an incongruity that can be explained only by the presence of an overweening ambition for episcopal dignities that shuts its eyes to all absurdities and inconsistencies that stand in the way of aspiring vanity.

The act of imposition of hands can not be taken as evidence that this ceremony had the chara6Ier of episcopal ordination, for Wesley in his Works (Vol X., page 257) says that the rite of laying on of hands is one which is used not in ordination only, but in blessing and on many other occasions.

Coke was an ordained presbyter in the Church of England, just as was Wesley himself And he had as much right to ordain Wesley to episcopal authority as Wesley had to ordain Coke in that sense. To regard this ceremony as anything more than the signification that Wesley delegated Coke to govern the American societies in his place is to involve him in a maze of absurdities. That this view is correct, we cite an historical authority in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Dr. John Atkinson, the^uthor of the “ Cen- ; tennial History of Methodism,” has carefully gone

j over this ground, and as the result of his investigation,

I he says :

“ The ordination of Coke was not, as Wesley understood it, episcopal, according to the ordinary signification of that term, but presbyterial ; and as Coke’s letter to Wesley suggests,

; it was apparently meant to provide against the criticisms and

i ' opposition which the exercise of the ordaining power by Coke

; might possibly provoke in America.”

Again Dr. Atkinson speaks upon this same sub- , ject in terms that can not be misunderstood :

“ From all that appears in Wesley’s utterances in relation to this matter, he did not intend to make Coke a bishop.” “He certainly did not mean to engraft its substance (i. e., episcopacy) into the Methodism of the western hemisphere.”

“ His simple purpose seems to have been to provide the [ holy sacrament for the numerous Methodists in the United

States by means of a presbyterial superintendency.”

That the ordination of Dr. Coke invested him j with no authority different from that received by the

I members of the British Conference who succeeded Mr.

’’ Wesley in the government of British Methodists is

evident. He gave to them all the authority that he ever conferred upon Dr. Coke. Yet they never dreamed of assuming episcopal authority because I Wesley had deputed to them the authority of govern-

, ment which he possessed in his life. On this point

. . Nicholas Snethen says :

I “ The hundred successors of Mr. Wesley who compose the

British Conference unite in themselves all the powers and func-

i

I

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

tions that are exercised by our General Conference and superintendents. They are all bishops de facto. Our ordination conveys nothing which Mr. Wesley did not give to them.”

The truth is that the assumption of episcopal authority is accounted for only by the ambition and vanity of Coke and Asbury. Coke’s overweening aspirations led him to unconsciously or purposely misrepresent Wesley’s wishes in this matter. Rev. Henry Moore, in his “ Life of Wesley,” says of Dr. Coke’s character in this respedf :

“ He was, as his biographer acknowledges, naturally ambitious and aspiring ; and for some years had made great efforts to obtain preferment in the church.”

We have, however, from Wesley’s own pen that which shows beyond cavil to any open mind that Wesley had no thought of conferring episcopal authority on Dr. Coke. Sometime after, when it reached Wesley’s ears that Asbury and Coke had assumed episcopal power, he wrote the now famous letter of rebuke to Asbury for his assumption of episcopal airs. This letter did not come to light for years after Wesley’s death. Asbury never revealed it. Dr. Coke, who had access to Wesley’s papers, undoubtedly knew of it, but in his “ Life of Wesley” it is suppressed. Had not Moore, in his later “ Life of Wesley,’’ brought it to light, it might never have become known. It was written from London, September 20, 1788, to Francis Asbury (“Moore’s Life of Wesley,” Vol. II., page 202), and runs as follows :

“ There is indeed a wide difference between the i-elation wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to all Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists ; I am, under God, the father of the whole

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

F

I

I

1 ;

family. Therefore I naturally care for you all in a manner no other person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for you all ; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you he could not iprovide, were it not for me — were it not that I not only permit him to collect, but also support him in so doing.

“ But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the doctor (Dr. Coke) and you differ from me. I study to be little ; you study to be great. I creep ; you strut along. I found ?. school, you a college ! Nay, and call it after your own names. O beware ! Do not seek to be something ! Let me be nothing and Christ all in all. One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great concern.’ How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, and I am content ; but they shall never, by my consent, call me a bishop. For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end to this. Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better. Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart, and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother.

“John Wesley.”

This letter never can be explained consistently with the theory that Wesley intended to confer episcopal power on Dr. Coke. No amount of torture with words can make it “ square ” with the notion that Wesley was intending to establish a system of episcopacy in American Methodism. If Wesley had recommended an “ episcopacy in fact” under the name of superintendent, it would have been unreasonable for him to write to Asbury in terms of such caustic severity as he did. A mere substitution of one term for another never could have drawn forth such a letter. Wesley was not a man to quibble over mere terms. We cannot think that a man of his directness and candor

I WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY. 1 5

would recommend “episcopacy in fact” but object in the strongest conceivable manner to the use of the appropriate terms for designating the episcopal office. Wesley was always concerned about realities, not terms. “ I dispute not about words,” he tersely said on one. occasion. And to assume that this violent outburst was directed solely against the use ol a term does no credit either to Wesley’s honesty or his judgment. Such a letter as this, on the supposition that Wesley intended to institute an “ episcopacy in fa6f ” for American Methodism, would be an evidence of aberration of mind to the point of insanity.

Nor are we alone in this interpretation of Wesley’s letter. Dr. Atkinson, to whom we have before referred, a Methodist Episcopal writer, in his “Centennial History of Methodism,” gives his conviction as to the meaning of this letter.

“In the presence of such declarations, and of such an outburst of indignant affection, it would be uncandid to say that Mr. Wesley constituted Dr. Coke a bishop, or that an episcopate, in the established sense of that word, was the product of his brain and heart. All that he ever gave to the American Methodists, in this particular, was a simple superintendency, subject to his guidance and control, and the tenure of which was limited by his pleasure. When it became other than that, it ceased to be the superintendency of Wesley.”

Again Dr. Atkinson declares on this point:

“ If Wesley contemplated an episcopate, and considered Asbury a bishop, by virtue of Coke’s ordination, it is inexplicable that he should have shuddered at his being designated by the name. The thing and the name belong of right to each 1 other.”

In the light of this testimony it must be conceded that it was farthest from Wesley’s thoughts lo make Dr. Coke and Asbury bishops.

Chapter II

WAS DR. COKE FAITHFUL TO WESLEY’S INSTRUCTIONS?

In the last chapter we endeavored to present evidence goin^ to show that Wesley did not intend to induct Dr. Coke into the episcopal office in his appointment as superintendent, in Mr. Wesley’s place, of the American societies. We noted that the ceremony accompanying the appointment was more at Coke’s importunity than Wesley’s deliberate choice ; that Wesley disclaimed belief in episcopal ordination in the very letter through which he informed the “ brethren in North America ” of what he had done ; that if the appointment of Dr. Coke was episcopal ordination, then the hundred successors of Mr. Wesley in the British Conference were also ordained bishops ; that the acknowledged vanity and ambition of Coke and Asbury explained the assumption of episcopal authority; that Wesley’s famous letter to Asbury was irreconcilable with the supposition that Coke and Asbury had been episcopally ordained ; and, finally, that candid authorities in the Methodist Episcopal Church have admitted that these fa<5Is make untenable the theory that Wesley intended to make Dr. Coke a bishop.

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

We now advance a step further. Leaving the circumstances attendant upon the appointment of Dr. Coke, let us inquire how Dr. Coke acquitted himself in the performance of the duty with which Wesley entrusted him regarding the government of the American societies. Dr. Coke acted simply in the capacity of Wesley’s agent. He came to America avowedly as Mr. Wesley’s representative, to carry out the instru6tions given him, having accepted whatever authority he possessed at Wesley’s hands. The next inquiry we make, therefore, will be the following :

2. Was Dr. Coke faithful to the instructions given him by Wesley ?

Wesley undoubtedly had a “ plan,” according to which he intended the American Methodists to be governed. He refers to this “plan ” on several occasions, and says that he had prepared a “ little sketch,” setting it forth. This “ plan ” was committed to Dr. Coke to be communicated to the American brethren.

Just how far Dr. Coke presented Wesley’s wishes to Mr. Asbury and the American preachers cannot now be fully known. Enough is known, however, to make it clear that Dr. Coke did not fully and correctly represent Wesley’s views.

In the first place, the documents in the possession of Dr. Coke were not properly placed before the conference. Among the papers given to Dr. Coke was a letter of appointment from Wesley. This letter began thus :

“ Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North America who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, etc.”

i8

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

The beginning of this letter indicated Wesley’s purpose that American Methodists should remain under his authority and continue under the “ do6lrine and discipline of the Church of England.” Such a purpose would not have been in harmony with the creation of an independent Episcopal Church. This letter was not made known to the American preachers by Dr. Coke. It did not come to light until years after the Christmas Conference of 1784.

We have already noticed that nothing corresponding to the “ little sketch,” to which Wesley referred, was placed before the American preachers. Wesley alludes on several occasions to a “ plan,” a “little sketch,” etc., containing an outline of his purposes respe6ling the government of American Methodists, but what that was can only be inferred from utterances on other occasions, and the development of subsequent events.

Furthermore, the letter of September loth, addressed to “Dr. Coke, Francis Asbury and the brethren in North America,” was not given to the Conference of 1784 in full. In the minutes of the British Conference it is found that a paragraph appears that was omitted in the version presented to the American Methodists. ‘ It had reference to the use of a liturgy, and runs as follows ;

“ And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of the Church of England (I think the best constituted national church in the world), which I advise all the travelling preachers to use on the Lord’s day, in all- the congregations, reading the litany on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days.”

Why was this paragraph suppressed? It will be

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

^9 observed that this paragraph implies that American Methodists should remain in close conne6lion with the Church of England. It would, therefore, not be in harmony with the establishment of an independent episcopacy, such as Coke and Asbury desired to have established among American Methodists. This paragraph, like the letter of appointment for Dr. Coke, would be inconsistent with the idea that Wesley intended an independent Episcopal Church for the American Methodists ; and this inconvenient paragraph disappeared.

Whatever the explanation, the paragraph failed to appear in the minutes of the American Conference of 1784.

These facts, all taken together, make evident that Wesley’s purpose could have been but imperfectly ap prehended by the famous Christmas Conference. They furnish a basis on which Alexander McCaine, in his Defence of the Truth,” charges Coke with perverting Wesley’s purposes. McCaine in his book says :

“ If there was no design on the part of Dr. Coke to depart from Mr. Wesley’s instructions, why did he suppress one document entirely, mutilate a second and destroy a third? He could not say he was ignorant of Mr. Wesley’s design ; for the disposition of these documents is proof that he understood them well and that they were adverse to his ambitious designs and prospects. And besides the instructions which these papers contained, we are told by Rev. Henry Moore, Mr. Wesley’s biographer, ‘ that the doctor was enjoined in the most solemn manner not to take on himself the title of bishop.’ And yet, notwithstanding the pains which Mr. Wesley took to set forth

the nature of the office to which the doctor was appointed, and

the extent of his authority with which he was invested, the very first thing he did w'as contrary to Mr. Wesley’s instructions, by

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

adopting episcopacy and imposing an episcopal form of government on the Methodist societies in America, under the sanction of Mr.' Wesley’s name.”

But not alone do the facts relating to the documents intrusted to him show that he failed to follow Wesley’s instru6lions. Testimony from various sources corroborates this. Expressions from Wesley himself and others show this fact.

Rev. Henry Moore in his “Life of Wesley,” speaks emphatically of the way in which Dr. Coke misrepresented Wesley’s wishes. Mr. Moore says, speaking of Coke’s assumption of episcopal dignities :

“In this and every similar deviation, J can not be the apologist of Dr. Coke ; and I can state, in contradiction to all that Dr. Whitehead and Mr. Hampson have said, that Mr. Wesjey never gave his sanction to any of these things ; nor was he the author of one line of all that Dr. Coke published in America on this subject. His views on these points were very different from those of his zealous son in the gospel. He knew that a work of God neither needed nor could be truly aided, nor could recommend itself to pious minds, by such additions.”

This is very direct evidence that Coke was not faithful to the instrudlions Wesley had given him.

Tyerman quotes a letter from Pawson, a Methodist preacher, sent to Scotland in 1857, who says :

“ Wesley, a few months before his death, was so annoyed with Dr. Coke’s conduct in persuading the people to depart from his original plan that he threatened in a letter to have no more to do with him, unless he desisted from such a procedure.”

Here we have dire6l testimony that Coke did depart from Wesley’s “plan.” Indeed there is every evidence to believe that the course of Asbury and Dr. Coke was the occasion of grief to Wesley. Asbury

WESLEY AND EPISCOPACY.

himself noticed this, and in a letter to Benson said in regard to Wesley, “It appeared we had lost his confidence entirely.”

Freeborn Garretson, a prominent member of the conference of 1784, testifies that Wesley expressed to him his dissatisfaction with the course taken by Dr. Coke. He says :

“ We were grieved for the rejection of Wesley’s appointments, and for the loss of his name from our yearly minutes. After Dr. Coke returned to England, I received a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he spoke freely. He was dissatisfied with three things : the rejection of his appointments ; the substitution of the word bishop for superintendent ; and the discontinuance of his name from our minutes.”

Is not this enough to show that Coke and Asbury went far beyond the instructions and wishes of Wesley in entailing episcopacy upon American Methodism ? But we have the declaration of Coke himself upon this point. As time went on, because his conscience smote him, or for some other reason, he made this admission in a letter to Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, on April 24, 1791 :

“ I am not now sure but that I went farther in the separation of our church in America than Mr. Wesley, from whom I received my commission, did intend. He did, indeed, solemnly, invest me, so far as he had a right so to do, with episcopal authority, but did not intend, I think, that our entire separation should take place. This I am certain of, that he (Wesley) is now sorry for the separation.”

Here Dr. Coke specifically admits that he deviated from Wesley’s “plan.” True, he does so in a sort of a doubtful way, but the fa6f of his consciousness that he had not faithfully carried’ out Wesley’s purpose is none the less apparent.

It might be urged in Dr. Coke’s defense, that he innocently misapprehended Wesley’s purposes, and • failed to 'correctly present them because of his own imperfect understanding of them. Even this defense can not be left to the doctor. The withholding of the documents referred to does not sustain this view. Furthermore, Henry Moore, in his “ Life of Wesley ” testifies to Dr. Coke’s willful violation of Wesley’s directions in at least one point. It appears that Wesley had some forebodings of Dr. Coke’s itching for episcopal dignities. He had misgivings as to the lengths to which Coke’s ambitions might lead him ; for, according to Moore’s testimony, Wesley solemnly enjoined him to refrain from assuming episcopal powers. Mr* Moore says in his Life of Wesley, Vol. II., p. 198 :