by the trustees and people of Dewsbury; and not with a happy ending. The trustees of Dewsbury went farther than those of Birstal; for they claimed the right to try their own preachers and even expel them if necessary. They wished to function as accusers, juries, and executives. Conference denied that the people of Dewsbury could try and expel its preachers, and at the same time asserted its right to station whom it would at Dewsbury. When the people of the chapel would not give in, Conference abandoned the chapel, August 14, 1788, and street preaching was begun again in Dewsbury.93 Wesley characterized the situation, saying, "I have no right in any house in England. What I claim is the right of stationing preachers. This the trustees have robbed me of in the present instance." The preachers and the people rallied and a year later £209 was raised for a new chapel at Dewsbury. Here again, after much strife, the authority of Conference, as over against that of the trustees of local meeting houses, was supreme.

94

Out of this opposition to the authority of Conference came the Deed of Declaration. Hitherto, there had been objections to Conference, and as there was no legal "Conference," a weak side of Methodism was exposed. What property was held in trust, was held either by the two Wesleys jointly, or by local boards of trustees. This being the situation, when the Wesleys died, things might be in a very chaotic condition. After the opposition from the trustees of Birstal, Wesley determined to incorporate and legalize the Conference. He felt that: "without some authentic deed, fixing the meaning of the term, the moment I died the Conference had been nothing.95 This deed incorporated Conference with a membership of one hundred persons.96 Such a corporation could hold property, and have the right to station preachers, and also other guarded privileges. The deed was signed by Wesley in 1784, and enrolled in the Court of Chancery, making the Conference legal and sovereign.97

95 T. Jackson: Life of Charles Wesley, p. 717.

97

Vide Deed of Declaration, full text in Journal, vol. viii, p. 335ff.

It assured the unity of the Methodist movement and prevented the possibility of the itineracy's ceasing when Wesley died.98

From within the Conference itself came hot opposition. Many who had hitherto supported Wesley, objected to the passing of this undemocratic legislation. Fletcher of Madeley, Wesley's loyal supporter, worked hard for its passage, and when it was adopted several members of Conference withdrew by way of protest. Joseph Pilmoor, the preacher sent formerly to New York, John Hampsons junior and senior, and John Atlay retired from the Conference.99 Not only within Conference but outside also, this action was opposed. William Moore left the church at Plymouth Dock and the people were quite uneasy.100 Hampson was very angry over the discrimination shown in choosing one hundred men to be incorporated, while leaving other men equally as able and loyal out of such an incorporation. "As every itinerant had always considered himself, on his admission to travel, as a member of Conference, and as the intended selection of the one hundred was industriously concealed, not a man, except a few who were in the secret, had the least idea of what was going forward. When they saw the deed, it was with great astonishment and indignation!" 101 Because Wesley succeeded in forcing this Deed of Declaration upon the Conference in spite of much opposition, many said that Conference was of little use to Methodism inasmuch as it served only the purpose of declaring and ratifying decisions that Wesley had already made.102 But notwithstanding its humble origin, and the many attempts to oppose its will, the Conference asserted its will and became under Wesley's leadership an institution of power, cementing the Methodists together into a more compact body than before.

Did the Conference make for separation? Vobally, No, Conference declared: "What may we reasonably benere God's design in raising up the preachers called Methodists Answer:

101 Hampson: Life of Wesley, vol. ii, pp. 160-161.

102

Not to form any new sect; but to reform the nation, particularly the Church; and spread scriptural holiness over the land." 103 And at the first Conference in 1744, the members asserted and reaffirmed in quite a little detail: that Methodists were Churchmen; they will not leave the Church unless put out; they have a proper definition of Church; their preaching will be to support the Church.104 But in spite of all these expressions of loyalty to the Church, the Methodists by action, did just the opposite. Every time they asserted the primary authority of their Conference they thereby denied any real authority of the Established Church over them. Hence one must conclude that the institution of the Conference worked for unity among the Methodists; and therefore, for a lack of unity with the Church. One will readily agree with Prof. Faulkner of Drew, when he says: "There were profound inconsistencies in Wesley's relation to the Church of England. Professing constantly undiminished love for that Church, circumstances were always driving him to acts utterly inconsistent with loyalty thereto." 105

SECTION III. METHODIST CLASSES, BANDS, STEWARDS,

QUARTERLY MEETINGS

As the Methodist societies were united into a larger unit called the Conference for the sake of furthering their practices and increasing their efficiency; even so were they divided into smaller groups for the more extensive furthering of their practices and the greater increase of their efficiency.

In a certain sense, Methodist societies were begun in 1739, but it was not until 1742 that they were divided into "classes." 106

The immediate cause for their formation was a financial one. The members of the societies at Bristol met together to find ways and means of discharging their common debt. A suggestion was made for doing this under three heads. a. Every member of the society contribute two cents, b. the whole society be divided into companies of twelve-these were to be called

103 Works, vol. v, p. 212.

104 Ibid., vol. v, p. 197-198.
105 Faulkner: The Methodists, p. 96.

107

classes, c. one person was to be appointed to receive a contribution from the members of a class and give it to the stewards. Wesley quickly fell in with these suggestions, and the system of classes was inaugurated. In the first instance, it was a system to get money. The more deep lying cause for the beginning of classes was the problem of supervising the large numbers of people who came under Wesley's care. He could not attend to these individually, so he organized them into small groups, and placed a leader over them who could inspect their lives in some detail, 108 "That it may be more easily discerned whether the members of our societies are working out their own salvation, they are divided into little companies called classes." 109 Wesley summed up the reasons which prompted him to organize these classes as follows: "The need of comradeship to maintain loyalty to the cause of religion, and the need of an agency to pay the debts of the society at Bristol." 110

The division of the Methodist societies into classes was made without regard to rank or distinction.111 The entire society was divided into these classes and every member of the society was expected to attend a class. In 1788, there were over nine hundred in the classes of Bristol, not counting those who had been lost through moving or misconduct.112 All kinds of people were members of these classes and Wesley recorded: "I met a class of soldiers." Some of these were stalwart fellows, thus showing the popularity of the classes. 113

Indeed, these classes were so popular with the Methodists that one was able to restrict attendance upon them by means of admission tickets. These tickets varied in size and form at the various periods of time.114 They were probably first given out to limit admissions about 1742. After the year 1750, texts of Scripture were printed upon them for the edification of the

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 485.

114 Vide W. H. S. Proceedings, vol. v, p. 32, opposite, for good reproduc

holders.115 These small tickets were signed by John Wesley, or by the class leader, and were good for one quarter of a year. After that, they had to be renewed, or else the holder could not attend class. It was necessary to present a ticket to be admitted to a session of the class.116 The Methodists must have valued these classes highly, else they would not have consented to submit to such restrictions as these.

Each of these classes was in charge of a man called the "leader”. At first the leader visited from house to house; but this was dropped, for it was considered easier to get the people together.117 These men had no authority over the assistants of Wesley, and they could not eject any member from their class without the consent of either Wesley or one of his assistants. They could not displace another class leader and they had nothing to do with the temporal affairs of Methodism. The contributions which they weekly collected in their classes, they handed over to the stewards. All other money was collected by the assistant, and the leaders were not concerned with the collection. 118 These class leaders were men of importance and influence. In Dublin the class leaders insisted in a strong handed manner on conducting things their own way. Wesley finally went to Dublin and told the leaders to stay in their places. Men of less zeal and ability would not have shown this energy displayed by the leaders of Dublin.119 Once in a while, women were permitted to be leaders. In the old book of Yarmouth, begun in the year 1785, the name "Sister Mary Sewell" appeared as a class leader. This woman was a member of the Methodist Class, and doubtless acted as a leader. But as in the case of preaching, the woman who led the class was no more the rule than the woman who preached; although both were allowed.120

Wesley was very careful to see that the leaders enforced the Methodist discipline in their classes; and went to considerable lengths himself to see that it was done. Class inspection Wesley

Whitehead: vol. ii, pp. 148-149.

Jour., vol. v, p. 405.

119 Ibid., vol. v, p. 406.