About 1830, the great increase of business, as well as the scattered situation of the churches, seemed to justify, in the opinion of many, some modification of a general annual Conference. It was therefore proposed to divide the denomination into two Conferences, according to their geographical position. When the subject came up for action, it was judged most expedient to continue the Conference, but to divide the churches into Associations, which should meet annually, to transact the business of the churches within their own bounds, and appoint delegates to represent them in the General Conference, which, according to a resolution passed at one of its meetings, convened at Shiloh, in 1846, is hereafter to meet triennially instead of annually. Five Associations have been formed, in accordance with this plan,—the Eastern, embracing the churches in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey,—the Central, including those in the State of New York, east of the small lakes,—the Western, composed of the churches in Western New York and Pennsylvania,—the Southwestern, comprising those in Ohio and Virginia,—and the Northwestern, including those in Wisconsin and Iowa. The utility of this arrangement is unquestionable, and, so far as it has been tested, has been found to answer all the purposes of an Annual Conference without its disadvantages. But it must not be supposed that during all this time, the sun of prosperity to this people has been unclouded; that no difficulties have arisen in their straight and narrow path. On the contrary, they have been subjected to many and peculiar trials. They have been despised by the worldly and the great, have been oppressed by law, and persecuted in more ways than one by those professing the Christian name. Even now they are subjected to many inconveniences from their nonconformity, and are deprived of many social and literary privileges that they might otherwise enjoy. In consideration of this, and the strong worldly tendencies that bind the human heart, it is not surprising that thousands who have been brought up to recognise the obligatory and sacred character of the fourth commandment, and who were fully convinced of its unalterable claims, have been induced to abandon it; while others, for the same reasons, although fully convinced of their duty, have refused to embrace it. Yet some have been able to appreciate the vast importance of the stake at hand, have felt the danger of trifling in an affair on which eternal interests depended, and have concluded that popular applause was nothing comparative with an approving conscience, and the smiles of God. Such have strictly adhered to the Sabbath, or have embraced it, notwithstanding the consequences. Of the latter, we might instance several eminent and worthy ministers, who now occupy prominent places in the denomination. Rev. Wm. M. Jones,[36] and Rev. J. W. Morton, Professor of Modern Languages in the De Ruyter Institute, are both converts to Sabbatarianism.