Chapter X: The Reforming Tendency (1)

I had a third tendency which helped to get me into trouble; namely, a reforming tendency. Earnest and active-minded young men are generally reformers. In me the reforming tendency was unusually strong. I wanted to reform everybody and everything, and to do it thoroughly, and without delay. And I commenced operations very early.

1. It was the custom of my class-leader to read over to his class once a quarter the rules of society, and to request the members, if they were aware of any breach of any of the rules by any of the members, to name the matter as he proceeded. Now one of the rules forbade the putting on of gold or costly apparel; yet several of the members of our class put on both. So when he came to that rule, I asked why it was not enforced. The leader seemed confused. One of the offenders was the wife of one of the travelling preachers, and another was the wife of an influential layman, and both were customers at his store, and he had never entertained a thought, I imagine, of running the risk of offending them by rebuking them for their offences; so he muttered something in the way of excuse and then passed on. The truth was, that the rule, though copied from the New Testament, and regarded by Mr. Wesley as of great importance, was no longer considered binding either by the preachers or the leading members. The reading of the rules in the class was merely a form, and my remarks, instead of inducing my offending class-mates to return to the old Methodist custom, only caused them and those who sided with them, to look on me as a troubler of Israel.

2. I got myself into a little trouble on a later occasion at a local preachers' meeting. It was the custom at those meetings for the superintendent preacher to read over the names of the local preachers, and to request any brother who knew of any breach of rule by any of his brethren, to name the matter. When the name of Mr. H. was read over, I stated that he had been guilty of evil speaking against one of his brethren. I gave the particulars, and the offence was acknowledged, but the offending brother was not without excuse, and the business of the meeting proceeded. But there was a very strong feeling in the minds of many that such attempts as I was making to press neglected rules on the attention of the meeting, ought not to be encouraged; and my endeavors to enforce consistency brought down upon me many sharp rebukes.

3. Among the books that I read in those early days was _Mason on Self-knowledge_. I found some excellent remarks on temperance and frugality in this work. I met with some similar remarks in translating portions of the writings of Seneca and Cicero. In a conversation that I had with one of the travelling preachers, and a person that was supplying the place of another travelling preacher, I quoted the beautiful sentiments which I had been reading and translating, and added some remarks of my own, with a view to recommend attention to the lessons they inculcated. The travelling preacher remained silent, but his companion answered me with a scornful laugh, and said, there was no need to urge such matters on them, for they had not the _means_ to be anything else but frugal and temperate. This was neither true nor courteous, and though I made no answer, it left an impression on my mind by no means favorable to the wisdom and piety of those who, at that time, were placed over me as my teachers and guides.

4. Though I met with such poor encouragement in my early efforts to reform or check abuses among my brethren, I still persisted in my course, even after I became a travelling preacher. It was the custom of the richer members of society to have large parties, to which they invited each other and the preachers and their families. At many of these parties there was a good deal of drinking, and a serious waste of money on many things that were not only useless but injurious. And each family tried to outdo the rest in the costliness of their parties. I regarded this custom as anti-Christian, and tried to get it changed for something better. I thought the money wasted on drink and hurtful luxuries would be better spent in doing good. In some cases I referred to the words of Christ about making feasts, recorded in Luke xiv. 12-14; but no one seemed to think Christ's rule to be binding on professing Christians now. Even my brother ministers thought me needlessly particular, and helped to render my efforts for reform both unsuccessful, and productive of disagreeable results.

5. The custom of treating the rich who came to our chapels with more respect than the poor, was as prevalent probably when I became a minister, as it was in the days of James. I often saw the officials of the church conducting gaily-dressed people to comfortable pews, while they left such as were poorly clad to stand in the aisles, or to find their way into seats themselves; and on some occasions I showed my dissatisfaction with such proceedings.

6. It was customary to have society meetings in each place once a quarter, and at these meetings I used to refer to what I thought amiss in the conduct of professors, and to urge attention to such lessons of Christ and His Apostles as seemed to be generally overlooked or forgotten. On some occasions too on week nights, instead of preaching a regular sermon, I used to give a kind of lecture or exhortation, in which I presented a summary of neglected duties, and read over the passages of Scripture in which they were enjoined, making remarks on them. There were many matters pertaining to marriage, to the education and government of children, and to domestic duties generally; and there were matters pertaining to trade, to social intercourse, to mental improvement, and the like, on which preachers, as a rule, were entirely silent in their sermons, from the beginning of the year to the end. Yet many of these matters were of the utmost importance, and for want of information on them many religious people were neither so happy themselves, nor so useful to others, as they ought to be. On these matters I spoke in as plain and faithful a way as possible. I cautioned the young against wasting their time, advised them to spend their leisure hours in reading and writing, told them what books to read, and how to read them, showed them the most profitable plan of reading the Bible, warned them against bad company, and advised them not to spend too much time even in good company. I urged them, if they thought of being preachers, to endeavor to be preachers of the highest order, workmen that needed not to be ashamed, rightly distributing the word of truth. And whether they thought of being preachers or not, I urged them to improve their talents, and to become as wise, as able and as useful as possible. Many were delighted, and reduced my lessons to practice. Others however took offence, and repaid my endeavors to do them good with uncharitable censures.

7. It was the custom in the Body to which I belonged to keep the doors of the annual conference closed against all but those who were sent as delegates by the circuits. I and a few others thought this course led to inconsiderate, and, in some cases, to unjust and oppressive measures, and in 1835 I wrote a letter on the subject to the _Christian Advocate_. My remarks were not agreeable to the leading members of conference, and I was instantly called to account and severely censured, and threatened with the heaviest punishment if ever I offended so grievously again. The reason why my letter proved so offensive was probably its truthfulness, for the change I recommended was afterwards adopted, though not till the old objectionable system had produced most disastrous consequences.

8. One rule of the Connexion to which I belonged forbade the preachers to marry till after they had been engaged in the ministry from four to five years or upwards. This regulation seemed to me to be the cause of serious evils. Some of these evils I had myself experienced, and others I had seen in the conduct and mishaps of many of my brethren. The reason assigned for the law seemed to me to be not only insufficient, but to be a disgrace to a body of Christians situated as _we_ were. I urged an alteration or a repeal of the law, recommending conference to take out the best and ablest men as ministers, whether they were married or not, and to allow such ministers as were single to marry whenever they thought fit, and to urge the churches to provide for the additional expense of married preachers by a little additional liberality. There were members that wasted as much on one foolish and mischievous party, as would have made up the difference between a single man's salary and a married man's salary. There were members that spent as much in intoxicating drinks as would have kept a married preacher or two out and out. There were tradesmen that could have supported five or six preachers out of their yearly profits, if they had been as liberal as the old selfish Jews were required to be. If they had been as liberal as _Christians_ are required to be,--if they had loved their neighbors, or Jesus, or God, as they loved themselves, they could have supported twenty preachers, and still retained enough to keep their families in comfort and plenty, and to carry on and extend their businesses too. To shut good men out of the ministry because they were married, and take in doubtful men because they were single, was, in my view, disgraceful and inexcusable. But in this also I was considered wrong by the rulers of the Connexion, and was once more censured and admonished for what was considered my presumptuous interference.

9. Fifty years ago, and for some years after, almost everybody used to drink intoxicating drinks. Ale and beer, wine and spirits, were as freely used as tea and coffee, and were taken in great quantities by many even in the church and ministry. I remember once, while yet a local preacher, going round with Mr. Etchells, a new minister in my native town, on his first pastoral visits, to show him where the principal members of the church lived. He was invited to drink at every house, and never failed to comply with the invitations. I saw him drink sixteen glasses of beer, wine and spirits, on that one round, occupying only two or three hours. This same minister prosecuted Mr. Farrar, his superintendent, for drunkenness, and got him suspended. Whether his superintendent drank more than he or not, I do not know, but he did not keep up appearances so well. He showed himself drunk in the pulpit,--so drunk, on one or two occasions, that he was unable to speak plainly, or even to stand steadily. He also fell down in the streets sometimes, and had to be carried home. His colleague did not commit himself in such ways, though he drank enough at times in one day to make half a dozen sober people drunk.

The leading member in the Methodist church, Richard Wilson, opened the first wine and spirit store at Bramley, and corrupted the whole country round with his wares, doing far more for the devil and sin than the preachers could do for God and holiness. Yet no one seemed to think there was anything dishonorable or diabolical in the business.

At a social party to which I was invited at Leeds, consisting of preachers and leading members of the church, one man, a preacher, got so drunk, that he became a most distressing spectacle. I cannot describe his mishaps. There were others who ought to have committed themselves in the same sad way, for they drank as much, and even more, but they had stronger constitutions, or were better seasoned.

At Liverpool, my first station, every one on whom the preachers called in their pastoral rounds, asked them to drink. Even Dr. Raffles, the popular Congregational minister, had wine and cakes brought out, when I and my superintendent called on him one morning. Wine and cakes, or cakes and spirits, were placed on the table by all who were not too poor to buy such things, and even the poorer members contrived to supply themselves with rum or whisky. And all expected the preachers to drink. And the preachers did drink. Mr. Allin, my superintendent, was not by far the greatest drinker in the Connexion, yet he seldom allowed the poison placed before him to remain untasted. I was so organized, that I never could drink a full glass of either wine or ale without feeling more or less intoxicated, and for spirits I had quite a distaste; so that I was obliged to take intoxicating drinks very sparingly. Yet I conformed, to some extent, to the prevailing custom; and it was not, I fear, through any great goodness of my own, that I did not become a drunkard. Several of my fellow-ministers became drunkards. Mr. Allin himself, after he fell under the influence of that bad rich man at Sheffield became a drunkard, and brought on shocks of paralysis by his excesses. My superintendent at Sheffield drank himself into _delirium tremens_, and I fear he never got over his bad habits. Mr. Chapman was a notorious sot. I knew him personally, and was compelled, at times, to witness his disgusting habits. Yet he was never expelled, though he was superannuated some forty years or more before his death. His superannuation reduced his income some seventy-five per cent., and made it impossible for him to drink so freely as he had been wont, and so, very probably, helped to prolong his miserable life.

While stationed at Liverpool, I was called away to supply the place of the superintendent preacher in the Chester circuit for a few weeks, who had died very suddenly, under very peculiar circumstances. His name was Dunkerley. I was told by persons likely to know the truth, that he was a very drunken man. On one occasion, while he was over at Liverpool, he fell down in the Theatre Square, and had to be taken up and carried into a neighboring shop. At first it was supposed he had had a fit; but a little further attention to the case revealed the secret that he was drunk. On another occasion, on his return from Liverpool to Chester, he was observed, when he got off the coach, to stagger backwards and fall down. Some friends that were waiting for his arrival, ran and helped him up, and took him to a member's house just by. He was found to be drunk then also. The members spoke to him on the subject, and reproved him sharply, and then put him to bed. The Tuesday night following, the matter was mentioned at the leaders' meeting, when he was present. The leaders told him that such conduct could not be tolerated, and that unless a change took place for the better, the matter would have to be laid before the Quarterly Meeting. The preacher acknowledged his fault, and promised, if they would forgive him that once, that he would do so no more. I believe that from that time he gave up the use of intoxicating drinks for a week or two; but shortly after, having to go to the Welsh side of the Circuit, he began to use them again. At one of the places on that side of the Circuit, the leaders were accustomed to have their meetings in a room in a public-house, near the Chapel, and to lodge the preacher there. Perhaps poor Dunkerley thought it would hardly look right for him to be accommodated at a public-house with a bed, and yet take nothing to drink; so he got some gin. The relish for the gin must have returned upon him with great power when he began to taste it, for he drank very freely. He drank so much, that the publican himself began to feel alarmed for him. A short time after he had gone up stairs to bed, the people of the house heard a noise of an unusual character in his room, and on going to see what was the matter, they found the preacher on his knees, in an apoplectic fit, the blood gushing from his nose and ears. He died the same evening. He died drunk.

It was this man's place that I went to supply. I do not wonder now that Dunkerley and several other preachers in the New Connexion were drunkards, when I take into consideration the customs and habits of the people of the Connexion in those days. I never met with anything in any society, that I recollect, more at variance with the principles of Christian temperance, and more likely to lead both preachers and people into drunkenness and profligacy, than the habits and customs of many of the members of the New Connexion in the Chester circuit. In the first place they were all users of intoxicating drinks, and all those that were in tolerable circumstances regularly kept spirits as well as milder, weaker kinds of intoxicating drinks in their houses. In the next place a preacher could never call at the houses of those people, whatever the time of day, without being urged to drink of either the stronger or weaker kinds of intoxicating drinks. And he could hardly refuse to drink without seeming to slight the kindness of the people, and running the risk of giving offence. In the third place they were very much addicted to extravagant social parties, pleasure jaunts, &c. They were worse than the people of Leeds in this respect; unless they were worse than usual while I was there. All the time that I was in Chester, there was not a single week or day when they had not either some dinner-party or tea-party, or both, or else some pleasure jaunt on the water or on land. And those pleasure parties and feasts were always occasions of extravagant eating and drinking. Besides abundance of flesh and game, and other luxuries, there was always an overwhelming supply of intoxicating drinks, and great quantities were consumed. I have seen men on those occasions drink five, six, eight, or even ten glasses of wine or spirits, besides drinking ale, or porter, or wine at meals. I recollect very distinctly seeing a person, and that a preacher, drink, in addition to what he consumed over his meal, ten glasses of Port wine between dinner and tea, after which he went to preach.

Religious society was not quite so corrupt in the principal towns of the Hanley circuit, where I was next stationed, as at Liverpool and Chester, yet there was a fearful amount of respectable intemperance there. There was no end to the feasting. And as I, though so young, was very popular, I was always expected to be present. The luxuries in which I indulged brought on indigestion. Indigestion, and close study, and hard work in the pulpit, brought on a most wearisome languor and depression. To help me, one rich friend sent me a bottle of Sherry wine. Another sent me Elderberry wine. These made me worse. It was well this mistaken kindness did not ruin me. But I was preserved, thank God, both from death and drunkenness.

For two years more I was in the midst of these awful temptations to intemperance, and a witness to their deadly effects on several of my brethren. I felt that I was in danger. And I saw that the church was suffering. I looked round for a remedy.

Just then there came rumors of a temperance society, and of attempts at a temperance reformation. One of our young preachers had joined this new society, and had labelled his whisky and brandy _medicine_. He left his beer, and porter, and wine, unlabelled, and drank them as freely as before. The people who told me of this, ridiculed the man, and ridiculed the movement for temperance reform. I was rather pleased with the news, though news of a more thorough movement might have pleased me better. But the beginnings of things are small. The movement soon became radical enough, and I kept pace with it.

In 1832 I gave up the use of ardent spirits, and became a member of the old-fashioned temperance society. In 1833 I gave up the use of intoxicating drinks of all kinds, and joined the teetotal society. In 1834 I gave up the use of tobacco. A few months later I gave up tea and coffee, and took water as my usual drink.

These changes in my way of life gave great offence to many in the church to which I belonged, and led them to speak of me, and act towards me, in a way that was anything but kind and agreeable. This was especially the case with regard to my disuse of intoxicating drinks, and my advocacy of teetotalism. I might have been borne with perhaps if I had become a drunkard; for drunkards were in some cases tolerated; but a teetotaler was not to be endured. Some called me a fool, and some a madman, and one man pronounced me no better than a suicide and a murderer. "You will be dead," said he, "in twelve months, if you persist in your miserable course, and what will become of your wife and children? And what account can you give of the people you are leading to untimely death by your example?" One person at Chester, at whose house I had visited some years before, when supplying the place of the deceased minister, would neither invite me to his house, nor speak to me in the street, except in the way of insult, now that I had become a teetotaler. He said no one should ever sit at his table who would not take a glass of wine. And I never did sit at his table after. He invited my colleagues, and he invited the old superannuated minister, whose character I cannot describe, but he never invited me.

One object that I had in view in adopting my abstemious way of life was to save a little money to buy books. I had become an author too, and had thoughts of publishing a number of works, and I wanted to be able to do so without having to go into debt. Then I wanted to do good in other ways. I liked to be able to give a little to the distressed and needy that I was called upon to visit. And I liked to subscribe occasionally to funds for the erection of new schools and chapels in circuits where I was stationed. Among my reasons for becoming a teetotaler was a desire to induce others to do so, who seemed to me to be likely, if they continued to use intoxicating drinks, to become drunkards. Then I had seen the terrible effects of the drinking system, both in the Church and among my relations. And I was anxious for the success of every kind of measure that seemed likely to promote the reformation and salvation of mankind.

10. I had not been a teetotaler long before I became anxious to see my brethren in the ministry teetotalers. I wrote a letter to the _Temperance Advocate_, giving an account of the experiment I had made, and stating the happy results by which it had been followed, and urging others, by all the considerations that had influenced my own mind, to adopt and advocate the teetotal principle. Mr. Livesey sent a copy of the _Advocate_ containing my letter to all the ministers of the Body to which I belonged. There were but few of them however who seemed to be able to enter into my views and feelings, or to understand and appreciate the motives by which I was actuated. The generality looked on the course I had taken as a proof of a restless and ill-regulated mind, and instead of following my example, treated me and my teetotalism with ridicule. Some were angry, and scolded me in right good earnest. They supposed that it was _I_ that had sent them the Paper containing my letter, and seemed to think themselves called upon to resent my interference with their tastes and habits in a very decided manner. Several of them sent me very offensive letters, and one of them concluded a long outpouring of abuse and insolence with some very cutting but just remarks on my inconsistency in pressing abstinence from intoxicating drinks so earnestly on others, while I myself was guilty of the unreasonable and offensive practice of smoking tobacco.

I had long had misgivings as to the propriety of smoking, and when I read this cutting rebuke, I resolved to smoke no more. I said to my wife, "They shall not be able to charge me with inconsistency again on that score," and I there and then broke my pipe on the grate, and emptied my tobacco cup into the fire, and I have never annoyed others, or defiled myself, with the abomination of tobacco smoke or tobacco spittle from that day to this. My angry correspondent had done me an important service.

11. I met with some of the bitterest and most persistent enemies of teetotalism in the circuit in which I was then travelling. There were several members of society, class-leaders, and local preachers, in and around Chester, who were slaves to intoxicating drinks. Some of them were habitual drunkards, and others of them were not much better; and they treated all who would not countenance their excesses as personal enemies. Many of them were accustomed to go to public houses, and sit there drinking and smoking for hours together, like ordinary drunkards. This horrible habit they gave up shortly after my appointment to the circuit, but several of them raged against me with tremendous fury, and would have done anything to destroy my influence. At first they were kept in check to some extent by the wisdom and goodness of my superintendent, who, though he did not become a teetotaler himself, showed great respect for those who did. When he left Chester, a man of a very different character came in his place, who sided with the drinkers, and took a savage delight in annoying the teetotalers, and exulted as if he had achieved some wonder of benevolence and piety when he had induced some poor reformed drunkard to break his pledge, though he plunged again into the horrors of intemperance. I called one forenoon on Mr. Downs. He was frantic, and his wife was wild with anxiety and terror. She seemed as if she had been awake and weeping all the night. I soon saw the cause of the dreadful spectacle. Downs had been a drunkard, but had, under my influence, become a teetotaler, and joined the church. His wife had been a member of the church for some years. She was overjoyed with the reformation and conversion of her husband, and was promising for herself and her husband, for the future, a very happy life. My superintendent had got poor Downs into his company, and by reasoning, ridicule, and coaxing, had induced him to take a glass of ale. His horrible appetite for intoxicating drink returned with irresistible force, and he drank himself drunk. He went home in a very deplorable condition. His wife, distressed beyond measure, got him to bed, and he fell asleep, and she, poor woman, sat watching him, and weeping, hoping he might wake to lament his error and become again a sober man. He awoke in a fury, and attempted to destroy himself. He was mad with shame and horror, and declared he could not and would not live. When I entered, his wife had been watching him and struggling with him for several hours, to keep him from suicide. I just got in in time to save the man, and relieve his exhausted wife, and I was enabled to reconcile the man to live a little longer, and try teetotalism again. My misguided superintendent never attempted to reason with me, but when he thought he had a chance of punishing me for my teetotalism, he snatched at the apparent opportunity with the greatest eagerness.

One week night, when appointed to preach in Chester Chapel, I gave the people a sermon on temperance. Some days after, I was summoned to a meeting of officials, to give an account of my doings. I attended. My superintendent, the bitter enemy of teetotalism, was in the chair, and on each side of him sat a number of men of similar feelings, and of grosser habits. I was told there was a complaint against me, to the effect that the last time I was at Chester I had preached teetotalism instead of the Gospel. I said, "Is that all?" And they answered "Yes." "Then you ought to be ashamed of yourselves," I said, and left the meeting. What they did after my departure I was never told.

One man in that neighborhood circulated a report that I had asked my mother-in-law, who had been staying some time at our house, to have a glass of brandy and water, when she was leaving for home in the coach. This slander was refuted by a deputation, who at once visited my mother-in-law, and brought back from her a flat contradiction of the statement.

I ought to say, that while I was in this circuit, hundreds of drunkards were reformed, many of whom became happy, exemplary, and useful members of the Church. I was the means of tens of thousands becoming teetotalers in the country round about, and the happy effects of my labors in those regions remain, to some extent, to the present day.

12. In 1837, while I was stationed in the Mossley Circuit, I began a weekly periodical called the _Evangelical Reformer_. I had long wished for a suitable means of laying my views before my friends, but had found none. The editor of the magazine published by the Body to which I belonged was a very disagreeable man, and to me he was more unaccommodating and offensive than to others. He would have published articles under my name, but not till he had altered them, and made them conformable to his own ideas and tastes. And this was more than I could endure. There was another periodical which I could use, and had used occasionally, but it lent itself to ill-disposed people as a vehicle of slander, and I had ceased to feel myself at liberty to give it my countenance. With a small periodical of my own I could communicate with my friends at pleasure, and I used my _Evangelical Reformer_ for this purpose with great freedom. I published my views on temperance, on marriage, on trade, on education, on dress, on diet, on religious parties, on books and reading, on the use of money, on the duty of the Church to support its poor members, on toleration and human creeds, and on a multitude of other subjects, and urged on the churches a reform on all these points. My freedom of expression soon brought me into fresh trouble. An article which I published on "Toleration and Human Creeds," was considered by some of my brethren to be highly objectionable and dangerous, and was brought before Conference. Conference was pressed by many to condemn the article, and to show its disapprobation of it by punishing the author. Others entreated that Conference should spare the author, lest mischief should follow, and content itself with privately expressing disapprobation of the article. The latter parties prevailed; but their moderation was made of no effect by the editor of the magazine who wickedly published the obnoxious resolution to the world, and so rendered it necessary for me to write again on the subject, to defend myself and my article. The result was a controversy between me and some of my brethren, which led at length to the most serious consequences.

Another article was objected to by many of my brother ministers. A draper, a leading member of the society at Ashton, published a circular, announcing the winter fashions, and sent copies to members of my congregation, pressing them to go and purchase his wares, many of which were both costly and useless. I copied this circular into my periodical, and advised my readers to disregard its counsels, and to spend their money like Christians. I added some remarks on the inconsistency of professing Christians urging people, even in the way of trade, to waste their Master's money on things forbidden by His word. This article created a great amount of excitement, and some would fain have had it censured by Conference, along with the other article; but they were not allowed to have their way.

Both my periodical and my other publications were favorably received, and had a large circulation, and my opponents thought they gave me too much power, and made me dangerous; and this became the occasion of further unpleasantness. On the other hand the magazine had but a poor circulation, and the Book-room, though it had a large amount of capital, did but a very limited business; and I suggested reforms with a view to render them more useful. I urged an improvement of the magazine, and the publication of cheap books, with a view to supply useful reading to the members of the churches, and to people generally. All these propositions proved unpalatable to the easy-going officials, and brought on me fresh trials.

13. Again; the standard of morality was low in many of our societies, and I pleaded for the enforcement of Christian discipline. Some of our members were brewers, some publicans, some spirit-merchants, some beer-shop keepers. Old Mr. Thwaites was a publican. His son, who was both class-leader and local preacher, was both a drink-seller and a pawnbroker. And I am not certain that pawnbroking in England is not as bad a business as drink-selling. The two are nearly related and are fast friends. Drunkenness leads to pawnbroking, and pawnbroking helps drunkenness. Timothy Bentley, one of the greatest brewers in England, the poisoner-general both of the souls and bodies of the immense population of my native county, was a Methodist class-leader at Huddersfield. I once met in his class. He was a most venerable and saintly-looking man, and stood in high repute. I regarded these businesses as anti-christian, and contended that those who persisted in them after due admonition, should be expelled.

The businesses named above were not the worst. Some members of society were wholesale panders. Take the following facts. When I was sent to Liverpool I had a young man, whose name I need not give, for a bed-fellow. He was a draper, and his customers were unfortunate women. He sold to them on trust, and went round weekly to collect his money. His father, who was a leading man in the society, and his brothers, were in the same way of business. Another man who was a leading member and an official, followed the same dishonorable occupation. It was usual with those people, when their wretched customers were turned out of their houses by their landlords, to provide them with fresh houses, and even to supply them with furniture. When fairs or races were at hand, they supplied them with extra dresses and ornaments, to enable them to ply their horrible trade to better advantage. These facts I had in part from my bed-fellow, and in part from the people in whose house he kept his shop, and with whom I lived. When I came to know these things I was very uneasy; and on finding that it was unsafe to sleep with my bed-fellow, I got fresh lodgings. This vexed my bed-fellow and all his family, and made them my enemies. I spoke of these things to my superintendent, but he advised me to be cautious what I did and said in reference to such matters. And he told me a story that he had met with in a work on the ministry by an American, which he had just been reading. This author said, that out of fifty ministers whom he had known expelled from their holy office, only one or two had been expelled for immoral conduct or gross inconsistency: all the rest had been discarded on account of imprudences. This was meant to deter me from interfering either by word or deed with faulty members of society. And he backed his ungodly counsel by as bad an example. For he not only left those wicked people to pursue their evil courses undisturbed, but visited at their houses, allowed his family to receive presents from them, and, when he was leaving the circuit, did himself accept from their unclean hands a portion of their filthy gains, in the shape of a testimonial of their respect for his great abilities and distinguished virtues. This person, whose general conduct was much in keeping with the facts I have given above, though he was the foremost minister in the Connexion, proved my most persistent adversary in after life, and never rested till he had brought about my expulsion from the ministry.

14. I will mention another affair to show what notions certain members of the church had of what was required of Christians in reference to business matters. I bought some handkerchiefs of a man, a member of society, in Chester, on his assurance that they would wash. When we washed them they came to pieces. I asked the man afterwards if he was aware when he sold the handkerchiefs that they were rotten. He said he was. "Then why did you sell me them?" I asked. He said he had bought them for good ones himself, and that he could not afford to lose what he had given for them. I wanted such people to be dealt with according to the rules of Christian discipline.

15. There were many other sad facts, far more than I have either time or disposition to mention, which forced themselves on my notice, and obliged me, in conscience, to plead and labor for reform. There seemed a dreadful distance between the character of Christ and the character of the Church; and I wished to make it less. How far I erred in my efforts to bring about this desirable result, and how far I acted wisely, it is not for me to say. I know that my object was good, and that the course I took was the one that seemed best to me at the time; but it is probable that some would have gone about the work in a wiser way. I never excelled in certain forms of prudence. I was prone to speak forth my thoughts and feelings without much consideration and with but little reserve; and I often used the plainest and even the strongest words. I was too open. My heart was too near my mouth. I thought aloud. And I was not sufficiently tender of people's feelings. Nor did I make sufficient allowance for their prejudices and imperfections. I probably expected too much from men. And some of the reforms which I proposed might at the time be impracticable. I was accustomed to muse very much on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, and to image to myself a state of things in the Church which, though very desirable, was probably unattainable, except through many slow preliminary changes. I wished for a church "without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,"--a church that should set forth and carry out the highest principles of Christian purity and charity--and that was a blessing to be looked for not in the present, but in the future only.

16. Then I had but little knowledge of human nature, either in its regenerate or unregenerate state. I over-rated men's virtues, and under-rated their defects. I trusted them too much and feared them too little. I took all who put on a fair appearance, for friends, and imparted to them the innermost thoughts of my soul. And many proved unworthy of my confidence. And I often over-rated men's talents or capabilities. I was not aware of the infinite difference in men's powers. I thought all my brethren in the ministry, and almost all my brother Christians, were capable, under proper culture, of being made as wise, as able, as eloquent, as the most distinguished in the Church. I was not aware that some men were naturally palm-trees, and others only brambles; that some were pearls, and others only pebbles; and that these constitutional differences were unalterable. Hence I expected too much of some, and was too impatient perhaps when disappointed. I erred with regard both to men and institutions, and my colleagues were often offended with what they deemed my unreasonable expectations and demands.

17. But in truth, it is not necessary for reformers to err, in order to give offence. The best and wisest One that ever appeared on earth gave offence to those who were wedded to error and abuses. A Christian reformer can never please the "earthly, the sensual, and the devilish." The history of Christ and of Paul has settled that. A Christian reformer never does the right thing in the estimation of the idle, the selfish, the corrupt: and if he does, he never does it at the right time, or in the right way. He always meddles too early, or too late; and he always goes too fast, or too slow; and he always does too much, or too little. He interferes with their ease, their interests, and their pleasures, and that is enough. They will, in return, endeavor to destroy his influence, if not to take away his life. They will impute to him the vilest motives. They will stick at no lie, no wrong, that seems likely to damage his reputation. They will magnify his innocent weaknesses or trifling inconsistencies, and represent them as gross and unpardonable faults. If he is faithful they will call him rash; if he is prudent they will call him hypocritical; and they will labor in every way to awaken against him distrust and prejudice in the minds of the better-disposed among their brethren.

And many of the better-disposed themselves often see what tries them greatly in the character and doings of reformers. It is the natural tendency of the reforming spirit to lead a man to look too much at what is amiss in men and systems, and too little at what is right and praiseworthy. It is what is amiss that _wants_ reforming, so he fixes his mind on that, and makes it the constant subject of his conversation. And so it was with myself no doubt to some extent. And this, to men of conservative tendencies, who look more at the good and less at the evil in the men and systems with which they are connected, seems a grievous fault, an inexcusable piece of injustice, deserving the severest censure. And they repay it with the sternest condemnation.

And conservatives can be as blind or one-sided as the most eager reformers. They can shut their eyes to what is evil, or treat great abuses as excusable trifles; while they magnify what is good beyond all bounds. And when they get excited or vexed they can be as unjust towards the reformer, as the most rabid reformer can be towards them or their pet institutions. And there are few things fiercer than the fire of bigotry, even in minds not destitute of piety. The truth is, when men wax hot, either in favor of reform or against it, justice is forgotten, and kindness and courtesy are out of the question.

And so it was in the controversies which arose out of my efforts at reform. I was assailed both by the malignity of the corrupt, and by the bigotry of the misguided. I was hated by the bad, and dreaded by some of the good, and abused and persecuted by both. And some of my enemies had neither mercy nor moderation. They pressed matters to the most terrible extremes.

And I was not sufficiently on my guard. Instead of possessing my soul in patience, and casting my care on God, I allowed their persecutions to increase the bitterness of my unhappy feelings, and render my ultimate separation from them inevitable.

18. There were several other matters which had something to do in causing unpleasant feelings between me and a number of my brethren.

It fell to my lot to be unusually popular. I became so at a very early period. I was, in consequence, often invited by other circuits to preach their special sermons, and I frequently accepted those invitations. Some of my superintendents were annoyed at this, and showed their displeasure in very offensive ways. While I was in Hanley circuit my superintendent called a meeting of a number of leading friends, before which I was summoned to appear. There my acceptance of invitations to preach occasional sermons was charged against me as an offence, and I was ordered not to _go_ into other circuits any more, without the consent of my superintendent. I offered no objection to this. My superintendent next charged me with having a number of objectionable books in my library. He had requested the woman at whose house I lodged to show him into my room during my absence, and there he had found the works of Shakespeare, Barrow, Tillotson, and Paley, and some volumes of poems by Lord Byron. The meeting advised me to get rid of Shakespeare and Byron, and to be careful how I used the works of Barrow, Tillotson, and Paley, as they were not Methodistical, and my great concern, it was said, should be to excel as a teacher and defender of Methodism. With this recommendation I could not entirely comply. I retained my Shakespeare; I have him yet. And I read the works of Tillotson, Barrow, and Paley as freely as I had done before. But I lost all confidence in my superintendent, and a portion of the respect I had felt for those who took his part. Towards the close of the year my superintendent and his friends endeavored to prevent me from receiving a perfect certificate, on the pretence that I had expressed a doubt whether my health would prove equal to the work of the ministry. Their objections proved of no avail; but the spirit which my superintendent showed, increased the unhappy feeling which his previous unkindness had awakened in my breast.

19. The wife of one of our ministers published a book, and the husband sent it to me for review. It contained, mixed up with a great variety of useful remarks, a number of anti-scriptural and antinomian passages. While I did justice to the rest of the book, I exposed its errors with great fidelity, and gave the husband great offence.

20. About the same time a gentleman at whose house I was billeted at Bury, when lecturing there on temperance, made me a present of a volume of Channing's discourses. I read this volume with the greatest delight, and spoke of it highly in my periodical. Now Channing was a Unitarian, and in one of the discourses contained in the volume which I had commended, there were several Unitarian expressions. The husband of the lady whose book I had reviewed brought the matter before Conference. He also quoted from my periodical a number of passages which he contended were not Methodistical. He was very violent in his remarks, and concluded his address by demanding my expulsion. He had conferred with a number of other preachers before Conference came on, and formed a considerable party, and the clamor for my condemnation was both loud and somewhat general. A gentleman, however, of great influence in Conference,--the same who had pleaded for moderation at the Conference previous,--rose and proposed a gentler course. The result was a committee, explanations and a settlement. After the Conference, the terms of the settlement were misrepresented by my opponents, and I felt called upon to put them in their proper light. This revived the controversy, and made matters worse than they had been before.

21. I have referred to the rule which required young preachers to remain single for four or five years. When a person was received into the ministry, he was required to give a pledge that he would keep this rule. I declined to give this pledge, I said I had no _intention_ to marry before the appointed time, and that if I _did_ so, I should be in the hands of the Conference, and they could do with me what they thought best. This was considered sufficient, and I was accepted. As it happened I _did_ marry before the appointed time. I had had such unsuitable lodgings found me where I had been stationed, and I had suffered so much in consequence, that I felt justified in taking a wife and providing accommodations for myself, I took for my wife a woman of exemplary character, of amiable disposition, and engaging manners, and I put the circuits in which I was stationed to no additional expense or trouble. I took my own house, and provided my own furniture. And I neither begged nor borrowed a penny, nor did I run one penny into debt. And I worked as hard after marriage as before, and probably harder, and to better purpose. The Conference however punished me by putting me a year back, and transporting me to the most distant part of a very distant circuit. Thither I had to remove my wife and furniture at great expense. And the allowance for board there was the lowest that the laws allowed a society to give. My whole yearly income was only forty pounds, or two hundred dollars. I was required too to be often and long from home in distant parts of the circuit. I went however to my appointment and set to work, disposed, though sorrowful, to do my duty. I got a part of an old uninhabited house, and my wife made it comfortable. We lived economically, and kept out of debt, without the aid of either gifts or loans, and I never had a happier year, and my labors were never better received or more successful; and Blyth, the place of my banishment, will be dear to me as long as I live.