contributed, they should be employed as mere _workmen_, without the least right to take a part in the arrangement of their respective spheres of labour, and without a particle of authority, except what was implied in their advices, in the general legislation of a body now numbering more than forty thousand people? Was it surprising, that Wesley’s expulsion of M‘Nab, for claiming a pulpit to which he had been appointed at the conference, but into which Wesley desired to introduce an expelled Irish clergyman, should create dissatisfaction and incipient rebellion? There can be no doubt, that this was one of the most dangerous ordeals through which Methodism passed in the lifetime of its founder. It was hardly a fair statement of the case, when Wesley said, that all that he would lose, by fifty of his preachers leaving him, would be “a great deal of labour and care.” If such an event had happened, Methodism would have been split into fragments, and, as a system, would have ceased to exist; and Wesley, seeing the demolition of such a work, would have been a sorrowful man for the remainder of his life. The crisis, in 1779, was most momentous. It was really the first time that Wesley’s supreme and absolute power was professedly and openly resisted. The whole question hinges on the point, were the appointments to chapels and to circuits made by Wesley and his conference of preachers _conjointly_? or were they made by Wesley himself _alone_? Wesley argues, that the power of appointment rested solely with himself. We can only answer, that this was an unreasonable and dangerous power to wield. Under the circumstances, Wesley could not claim it, without ignoring the reasonable claims of a large body of the most remarkable men that England has ever had; and he could not exercise it without serious danger to himself and to his system.