From this, it would appear that difficulties in administering the system of itineracy had made desirable a body to have better oversight of Methodism and conduct its fortunes more efficiently. Therefore one can say, that the purpose of the Conferences was to promote a unity of action and feeling among the Methodists. To this end the Conference undertook to supervise the circuits; it established them as definite units in 1767. In that same year the total membership of Methodism reached the number of 25,911 persons.73 It kept oversight of the rules governing the societies; they were read over and reaffirmed yearly." The members of Conference expressly agreed not to act independently of each other, but to cooperate.75 In 1773, the Conference drew up a set of rules which were to establish more firmly this unity. These rules were: a. The members of the Conference were to be entirely consecrated to God; b. They were to preach the old Methodist doctrine; c. They were to enforce the Methodist discipline as it was in the minutes. Forty-seven preachers signed the minutes, making this spirit of cooperation a definite factor.76

Since the purpose of Conference was to promote efficiency and unity among the Methodists, it considered that anything directly or indirectly pertaining to Methodism, was of concern to itself. It was careful to see that the doctrines of the Church were clearly set forth and at the very first Conference, the question of "justification" was examined and set forth in detail.77 Other Conferences discussed the problems in connection with: three orders in the Established Church; field preaching; those who took the sacraments unworthily; the purging of the "bands"; the plan for watch-night services; and the regulation of the itineracy.78 Conference carefully looked over the young men who were proposed for preaching and outlined the discipline for itinerants.79 It even decided matters of personal conduct, and on

Minutes, Works, vol. v, p. 194.

78 Jour., vol. iii, p. 302, note i.

one occasion the question was formally asked of the Conference, "Is it right to employ hairdressers on Sunday?" The answer of Conference was, "We are fully persuaded it is not"; and doubtless those Methodists who went for their Sunday morning shave, ceased, when Conference spoke against it.80

Not only in doctrinal matters; but also in economic affairs Conference interested itself. Again and again, financial questions were brought before the Conference, and Conference outlined the policies that were to be followed.81 The first scheme for raising money was brought before the Conference of 1767 and involved the raising of £5000-at that time a large sum. Conference undertook it.82 Later New York sent over an appeal for more help, and Conference decided against this appeal.83 It also kept in mind the conduct of financial matters within each of the local societies.

It insisted that the books of each society be accurately kept, and that the wives and children of the many preachers be provided for. This was a heavy task; but the Conference, year after year attended to it as best it could.84

By keeping thus in close touch with the business of Methodism, the Conference was able to prevent any movement in Methodism from going to extremes. One of the efforts of Wesley in connection with his activities at Conference, was to hold this radicalism in check. He usually opened Conference with prayer, and either he or Charles Wesley preached.85 Wesley himself did the major share of the preaching at Conference and in this way kept control of the situation.86 He spent a fortnight in London at the time of the Conference of 1761, "guarding the preachers and the people against running into extremes on the one hand or the other." 87 These efforts were not only aimed at the preachers assembled in Conference; but also at any other Methodists

who might live near the place where Conference met. These were often invited in to spend a day in fasting and prayer with the preachers.88 From this, there can be no doubt but that Conference was in a large measure responsible for the sanity of procedure that usually marked early Methodism.

Conference carried the major share of the responsibility for Methodism and so claimed a certain directing power. It outlined the duties of Wesley's assistants and these men were instructed to keep the loyalty of the people firmly fixed in the Established Church.89 The many details connected with the itineracy were reviewed by the Conference. It claimed the authority to station the preachers where it would. John Edwards, one of the preachers, wished a permanent appointment to Leeds, but this was refused him, and he was appointed to that place for six months only. When his time expired, he refused to give up his appointment and for this cause was ejected from the Methodists. Conference succeeded in this instance in supporting its claim to the absolute right to appoint its preachers.90 But this power did not go unchallenged. The trustees of the chapel at Birstal had it in mind to elect their own preachers monthly, and all such preachers were to preach twice each Sunday before the people of Birstal. Wesley was urged to sign to this. Such a plan as this took all the power away from the Conference and vested it in a body of trustees.91 This matter of authority was brought before the Conference and Wesley was instructed by the Conference to interview the trustees of Birstal and present to them the claim of Conference, that the said Conference alone should have the authority to appoint the preachers and conduct the affairs at Birstal.92 Wesley did as instructed. He requested these trustees to settle their chapel on the "Methodist Plan." Only five out of nine approved of this plan; but the chapel was eventually settled upon the Methodist Plan and the centralized authority was upheld. A little later the authority of Conference was questioned

Tyerman: vol. iii, p. 373ff.

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

93

94

Tyerman: vol. iii, pp. 553-554.

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 560.

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

"Vide Deed of Declaration, full text in Journal, vol. viii, p. 335ff. "Jour., vol. vi, p. 481, note i.

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? Verbally, No, Conference declared: "What may we reasonably believe God's design in raising up the preachers called Methodists? Answer:

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