_superstition_. In former times, wherever an unusual concern for the
things of God hath appeared, on the one hand, _strange and erroneous
opinions_ continually sprung up with it; on the other, a _zeal_
for things which were no part of religion, as though they had been
essential branches of it. And many have laid as great (if not greater)
stress on trifles, as on the weightier matters of the law. But it
has not been so in the present case. No stress has been laid on any
thing, as though it were necessary to salvation, but what is undeniably
contained in the word of God. And of the things contained therein,
the stress laid on each, has been in proportion to the nearness of
its relation, to what is there laid down as the sum of all, the love
of God and our neighbour. So _pure_ from _superstition_, so throughly
_scriptural_ is that religion, which has lately spread in this nation.
* 10. It is likewise _rational_ as well as _scriptural_; it is as
_pure_ from _enthusiasm_, as from _superstition_. It is true, the
contrary has been continually _affirmed_. But to _affirm_ is one thing,
to _prove_ is another. Who will _prove_, that it is _enthusiasm_ to
_love_ God? Even though we love him with all our heart? To _rejoice_
in the sense of his love to us? To _praise_ him, even with all our
strength? Who is able, to _make good_ this charge, against the _love
of all mankind_? Or, laying rhetorical flourishes aside, to come close
to the question, and _demonstrate_, that it is _enthusiasm_, in every
state we are in, therewith to be _content_? I do but just touch on the
_general heads_. Ye men of reason, give me a man, who setting raillery
and ill names apart, will maintain this by dint of _argument_. If not,
own _this religion_ is the thing you seek; sober, manly, rational,
divine: however exposed to the censure of those, who are accustomed to
revile what they understand not.
11. It may be farther observed, the religion of those we now speak of,
is entirely clear from _bigotry_. (Perhaps this might have been ranked
with _superstition_, of which it seems to be only a particular species.)
They are in no wise _bigotted_ to _opinions_. They do indeed hold
right opinions. But they are peculiarly cautious not to rest the weight
of Christianity there. They have no such overgrown fondness for any
opinions, as to think those alone will make them Christians, or to
confine their affection or esteem to those who agree with them therein.
There is nothing they are more fearful of than this, lest it should
steal upon them unawares. Nor are they _bigotted_ to any particular
branch, even of practical religion. They desire indeed to be exact
in every jot and tittle, in the very smallest points of _Christian
practice_. But they are not attached to one point more than another:
they aim at uniform, universal obedience. They contend for nothing
_trifling_, as if it was important; for nothing _indifferent_, as if it
were necessary; for nothing _circumstantial_, as if it were essential
to Christianity; but for every thing in its own order.
12. Above all, let it be observed, that this religion has no mixture
of _vice_ or _unholiness_. It gives no man of any rank or profession,
the least licence to sin. It makes no allowance to any person, for
ungodliness of any kind. Not that all who follow after have attained
this, either are already perfect. But however that be, they _plead_
for no sin, either inward or outward. They condemn every kind and
degree thereof, in themselves as well as in other men. Indeed, most in
themselves; it being their constant care, to bring those words home to
their own case, _Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in
one point, he is guilty of all_.
* 13. Yet there is not found among them that _bitter zeal_, in points
either of small or of great importance, that spirit of _persecution_,
which has so often accompanied the spirit of reformation. ’Tis an idle
conceit, that the spirit of persecution is among the _Papists_ only:
it is wheresoever the devil, that old murderer, works; and he still
_worketh in_ all _the children of disobedience_. Of consequence, all
the children of disobedience, will on a thousand different pretences,
and in a thousand different ways, so far as God permits, persecute the
children of God. But what is still more to be lamented is, that the
children of God themselves, have so often used the same weapons and
persecuted others, when the power was in their own hands.
Can we wholly excuse those venerable men, our great _reformers_
themselves, from this charge? I fear not, if we impartially read over
any history of the _reformation_. What wonder is it then, that when
the tables were turned, bishop _Bonner_ or _Gardiner_ should make
reprisals? That they should measure to others (indeed _good measure
shaken together_) what had before been measured to them? Nor is it
strange, when we consider the single case of _Joan Bocher_, that God
should suffer those (otherwise) holy men, archbishop _Cranmer_, bishop
_Ridley_, and bishop _Latimer_, to drink of the same cup with her.
14. But can you find any tincture of this in the case before us? Do
not all who have lately known the love of God, know _what spirit they
are of_? And that _the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives,
but to save them_? Do they approve of the using any kind or degree
of _violence_, on any account or pretence whatsoever, in matters of
_religion_? Do they not hold the _right_ every man has to judge _for
himself_, to be sacred and inviolable? Do they allow any method of
bringing even those who are farthest out of the way, who are in the
grossest errors, to the knowledge of the truth, except the methods of
reason and persuasion? Of love, patience, gentleness, long-suffering?
Is there any thing in their _practice_ which is inconsistent with this
their constant _profession_? Do they in fact hinder their own relations
or dependents from worshipping God according to their own _conscience_?
When they believe them to be in error, do they use _force_ of any kind,
in order to bring them out of it? Let the instances, if there are such,
be produced. But if no such are to be found, then let all reasonable
men who believe the _bible_, own, that a work of God is wrought in our
land: and such a work (if we survey in one view the _extent_ of it, the
_swiftness_ with which it is spread, the _depth_ of that religion which
was so swiftly diffused, and its _purity_ from all corrupt mixtures,)
as it must be acknowledged, cannot easily be paralleled, in all these
concurrent circumstances, by any thing that is found in the _English_
annals, since Christianity was first planted in this island.
II. 1. And yet those _who can discern the face of the sky, cannot
discern the signs of the times_. Yet those who are esteemed wise men
do not know, that God is now reviving his work upon earth. Indeed
concerning some of these the reason is plain; they _know_ not, because
they _think_ not of it. Their thoughts are otherwise employed; their
minds are taken up with things of quite a different nature. Or perhaps,
they may think of it a _little_ now and then, when they have nothing
else to do; but not seriously, or deeply; not with any closeness or
attention of thought. They are too much in haste to _weigh_ the facts
whereof we speak, and to draw the just inference therefrom: nor is the
conviction which they may sometimes feel, suffered to sink into their
hearts: but things that have a larger share in their affections soon
destroy the very traces of it.
2. True it is, that there are some who think more deeply, who
are accustomed to consider things from the foundation, and to lay
circumstances together, that they may judge of nothing before they
have full evidence: and yet even some of these appear to be _in doubt_,
concerning the present work. Now, supposing it to be a work of God,
how can this be accounted for? That they who so diligently inquire
concerning it, do not know the time of their visitation? Perhaps,
because of the deeply rooted _prejudice_ which they brought with them
to the enquiry; and, which still hanging on their minds, makes it
scarce possible for them to form an impartial judgment. Perhaps, even a
slight _prepossession_ might occasion their stumbling on some of those
rocks of _offence_, which by the wise permission of God, always did and
always will attend any revival of his work. Nay, it may be, their very
caution was carried to excess. They would not judge before they had
such evidence as the nature of the thing would _not_ admit, or at least,
God did not see fit to give.
3. All this is very easy to conceive. But it may at first appear
surprising, to find men of renown, men supposed to be endowed
with knowledge, and with abilities of every kind, flatly, openly,
peremptorily _denying_, that there has been any _unusual_ work of God
at all! Yea, a late eminent writer goes farther yet, accounts it an
instance of downright _Enthusiasm_, to _imagine_, that there is any
_extraordinary_ work now wrought upon the earth.¹
¹ _Observations_, part III.
It avails not to say, “no, he does not deny this, but he denies it
to be the work of God”. This is palpably trifling: for the work under
consideration, is of such a nature (namely, the conversion of men from
all manner of sins, to holiness of heart and life) that if it be at any
time wrought at all, it must be the work of God: seeing it is God alone
and not any child of man, who is able _destroy the works of the devil_.
* Yet neither is this difficult to be accounted for, if we consider
things more closely: for the same _prejudice_ which keeps some _in
doubt_, may easily be conceived so to influence others, as to make them
wholly _deny_ the work of God. And this it may do in several ways: it
may either bring them to question the facts related, and hinder their
endeavouring to be more fully informed; or prevent their drawing such
inferences from those facts, as they would otherwise see to be plain
and undeniable. Yea, and it will give ten-fold weight to the _offences_
which must come, so as to over-ballance all evidence whatsoever.
4. This also may account for the behaviour of those, who not content
to suspend their judgment, or to _deny_ the work of God, go farther
still, even to the length of _contradicting_ and _blaspheming_. Nay,
some of these have expressed a deeper abhorrence, and shewn a stronger
enmity against this, than they were ever known to do against popery,
infidelity, or any heresy whatsoever. Some have _persecuted_ the
_instruments_ whom it pleased God to use herein, only _not to the
death_: and others have treated in the same manner, all those whom they
termed their _followers_. A few instances of this it may be proper to
mention, out of very many which might be recited.
5. On the 20th of _June, 1743_, a great multitude of people gathered
together, chiefly from _Walsal_, _Darlaston_ and ♦_Bilston_, in
_Wensbury_ church yard, _Staffordshire_. They went from thence (when,
by sounding a horn they had gathered their whole company together)
to Mr. _Eaton_’s house, in the middle of the town, who was at that
time _constable_. He went to the door with his constable’s staff, and
began reading the act of parliament against riots; but the stones flew
so thick about his head, that he was forced to leave off reading and
retire. They broke all his windows, the door of his house, and a large
clock in pieces. They went then to above fourscore houses, in many of
which there were not three panes of glass left.
♦ “Dilston” replaced with “Bilston” per Errata
6. On _June 20, 1743_, _John Baker_, at the head of a large mob came
to the house of _Jonas Turner_, at _West-Bramwick_ near _Wensbury_, and
asked him, “Whether he would _keep from these men_ that went preaching
about, and go to the church?” he answered, “I do _go to the church_.
But I never see any of you ♦there.” Presently one _Dan. Oniens_ with
a great club, broke great part of the window at one blow. Others laid
hold of him, and dragged him about sixty yards, before he could get
loose from them. Afterwards they broke all his windows, and threw into
the house abundance of stones, to break his goods.
♦ ‘there,” presently’ replaced with ‘there.” Presently’
per Errata
About four in the afternoon they came to the house of widow _Turner_ of
_West-Bramwick_. They threw in bricks and stones so fast, that she was
forced to open the door and run out among them. One of her daughters
cried out, “My mother will be killed!” On which they fell to throwing
stones at her. She ran into a neighbour’s house, but before she
could shut the door, they broke the bottom off with a brick end. They
followed her other daughter with stones, and one with a great stake.
She ran into another house, much frightened, expecting to be murdered.
The widow asked “How can you come and abuse us thus?” On which one
came with a large club, and swore, “If she spoke another word, he would
knock her on the head, and bury her in the ditch.” Then he went and
broke all the glass that was left. The same they did to many of the
neighbouring houses.
7. On the 19th of _June_, _James Yeoman_ of _Walsal_, saw _Mary Bird_
in her father’s house at _Wensbury_, and swore, “By G―― you are there
now; but we will kill you to-morrow.” Accordingly he came with a mob
the next day; and after they had broken all the windows, he took up
a stone, and said, “Now by G―― I will kill _you_.” He threw it, and
struck her on the side of the head. The blood gushed out, and she dropt
down immediately.
“Another of them took Mr. _Hands_ of _Wensbury_ by the throat, swore
he would be the death of him, gave him a great swing round, and threw
him upon the ground. As soon as he rose, one _Equal Baker_ gave him a
blow on the eye, and knocked him down ♦again. In about half an hour the
mob came to his house, and broke all the windows, except about twenty
panes. The kitchen windows they cleared, lead, bars and all, broke the
window-posts, and threw them into the house. The shop was shut up (he
being an apothecary:) but they quickly broke all the pots and bottles
in pieces, and destroyed all his medicines. They broke also the shelves
and drawers in the shop to pieces, and many of his houshold goods.
♦ “again, in” replaced with “again. In” per Errata
8. On _January 13, 1743‒4_, the mob rose again at _Darlaston_, broke
all the windows of all who _followed this way_ (except two or three who
bought themselves off) broke open several houses, and took what they
liked, the people belonging to them being fled for their lives.
About the same time the Rev. Mr. _E――_ came to _Darlaston_; and meeting
some others at _Thomas Forshew_’s they drew up a writing, and _Nicholas
Winspur_, the crier of the town, gave public notice, “That all the
people of the society must come to Mr. _Forshew_’s, and sign it; or
else their houses would be pulled down immediately.” It was to this
effect, “That they would never read, or sing, or pray together, or hear
these parsons any more.”
Several signed this through fear. They made every one who did, lay down
a penny――――“To MAKE THE MOB DRINK.”
9. About _Candlemas_, the wife of _Joshua Constable_, of _Darlaston_,
was going to _Wensbury_, when a mob met her in the road, threw her
down several times, and abused her in a manner too horrible to write.
A warrant was procured for some of these. But one of them only was
carried before Mr. _G――――_, who came back and told his companions, the
justice said, “That they might go home about their business.” On this
the mob rose again, came to _Joshua_’s house, and destroyed all the
necessary goods therein. They likewise broke and spoiled all his shop
tools, threw the tiles off the roof of the house, and pulled down one
room, the joist of which they carried away with them. All his gunlocks
they took away; they tore in pieces all his wife’s linen, cut the
bed and bedstead, so that it was good for nothing, and tore her bible
and common-prayer book all to pieces. She and her husband retired to
another house. But one telling the mob they were there, they swore
“they would tear it down immediately, if the man let them stay any
longer.” So they went out in the frost and snow, not knowing where to
lay their head.
10. On _Tuesday, January 31, 1743‒4_, _Henry Old_ came to _John
Griffiths_’s house, saying, “If he did not leave _following this way_,
he had a hundred men at his command, who should come and pull his house
down.” Soon after he brought some with him; but the neighbours gave him
money, and sent him away for that time.
_Monday, February 6_, between seven and eight at night, came part of
the same company. Hearing them afar off, _John_ and his wife fastened
the door, and left the house. Some of the neighbours going in soon
after, found them destroying all they could. Two chairs and several
bundles of linen were laid upon the fire. After they had destroyed
what they could, they loaded themselves with cloaths and meat, and went
their way.
The same day public notice was given at _Walsal_, by a paper fixt up
there, “That all who designed to assist in breaking the windows, and
plundering the houses of the _Methodists_ at _Wensbury_, should be
ready at ten o’clock, the next morning, on the _Church-hill_.”
11. The next morning, _February 7_, (being _Shrove-Tuesday_,) about
half an hour after ten, great numbers of men were gathered together on
the _Church-hill_. Thence they marched down, some armed with swords,
some with clubs, and some with axes. They first fell upon _Benjamin
Watson_’s house, and broke many of the tiles, and all the windows. Next
they came to Mr. _Addinbrook_’s, broke a fine clock, with many of his
goods, and stole all the things they could carry away. The next house
was _Jane Smith_’s, whose windows they broke, with what little goods
she had. The next was Mr. _Bird_’s, where they destroyed every thing
they found, except what they carried away; cutting the beds in pieces,
as they did all the beds which they could any were find. Thence they
went to Mr. _Edge_’s house; he was ill of a fever; so, for a sum of
money, they past it over. The next house was Mr. _Hand_’s. They broke
all his counters, boxes and drawers, and all (except some bedsteads)
that axe or hammer could break. They spilt all his drugs and chymical
medicines, and stole every thing they could carry, even all his and his
wife’s wearing apparel, beside what they had on.
12. Mr. _Eaton_’s house was next. They broke all his windows, and all
his inside doors in pieces, cut the lead off his house, destroyed or
stole whatever they could lay their hands on. Some gentlemen offered
to stop them, if he would sign a paper implying, “That he would never
hear those parsons more.” But he told them, “He had felt already what
a wounded conscience was; and by the grace of God he would wound his
conscience no more.”
After they had done at Mr. _Eaton_’s, they plundered several other
houses in _Wensbury_ and _West Bramwick_. It is scarce possible
to describe the outrages they committed. Only they left them they
plundered alive.
While they were plundering _John Turner_’s house, he waded thro’ the
brook, to try if he could save some of his goods, which one _David
Garington_ was carrying away. Upon which _Garington_ told him, “It
would be the same here as it was in _Ireland_, for there would be a
_massacre_ very quickly. And he wished it was _now_.”
13. About eleven o’clock, _Sarah_, the wife of _John Sheldon_, being
told the mob was coming to her house, went and met them at the gate.
She asked _John Baker_, their captain, “What they were come for?” He
answered, “If she would have nothing to do with _these people_, not a
penny worth of her goods should be hurt.” She made no reply. Then they
broke the door open, and began breaking and plundering the goods. ♦One
coming out with a fire shovel, she begged him, “not to take it away.”
He swore if she spoke another word, he would “beat her brains out.”
♦ “On” replaced with “One” per Errata
_John Sheldon_ was this while helping _Thomas Parkes_ to hide his
goods, though he knew by the noise they were breaking his own to
pieces. Between two and three he came to his house with _William
Sitch_. _William_ asked _Sarah_, how she did? Saying, “For his part, he
took joyfully the spoiling of his goods.” She answered, that, “seeing
so much wickedness, she could not rejoice; but she blessed God she
could bear it patiently, and found not the least anger in her.” _John
Sheldon_ seeing the spoil they had made, smiled and said, “Here is
strange work.” His wife told him, “if she had complied with their terms,
not one penny-worth would have been hurt.” He replied, “That if she had
complied to deny the truth, and he had found his goods whole on that
account, he should never have been easy as long as he lived; but he
blessed God that she had rather chosen to suffer wrong.”
I believe every reasonable man will allow, that nothing can possibly
excuse these proceedings: seeing they are open, bare-faced violations
both of justice and mercy, and of all laws divine and human.
III. I suppose no _Protestant_ will undertake to defend such
proceedings, even toward the vilest miscreants. But abundance of
_excuses_ have been made, if not for _opposing_ it thus, yet for
_denying_ this work to be of God, and for not acknowledging the time
of our visitation.
Some alledge, that the _doctrines_ of these men are _false_,
_erroneous_ and _enthusiastick_: that they are _new_, and unheard of
till of late: that they are Quakerism, Fanaticism, Popery.
This whole pretence has been already cut up by the roots! It having
been shewn at large, that every branch of this doctrine, is the plain
doctrine of scripture, interpreted by our own church. Therefore it
cannot be either _false_ or _erroneous_, provided the scripture be
true. Neither can it be _enthusiastick_, unless the same epithet
belongs to our articles, homilies and liturgy. Nor yet can these
doctrines be termed _new_, no newer, at least, then the reign of queen
_Elizabeth_; not even with regard to the _way_ of _expression_, or the
manner wherein they are proposed. And as to the substance, they are
more antient still; as antient not only as the gospel, as the times of
_Isaiah_, or _David_, or _Moses_, but as the first revelation of God
to man. If therefore they were _unheard_ of till of late, in any that
is termed a Christian country, the greater guilt is on those, who as
ambassadors of Christ, ought to publish them day by day.
_Fanaticism_, if it means any thing at all, means the same with
_Enthusiasm_, or religious madness, from which (as was observed before)
_these doctrines_ are distant as far as the east from the west. However,
it is a _convenient_ word to be thrown out, upon any thing we do not
like; because scarce one reader in a thousand, has any idea of what ♦it
means. If any part of this doctrine is held by the _Quakers_, there is
the more reason to rejoice. I would to God they held it all: though the
doctrine itself, would be neither better nor worse for this.
♦ “is” replaced with “it”
_Popery_ in the mouth of many men means just nothing: or at most,
“Something very horrid and bad.” But _Popery_, properly speaking, is
_The distinguishing doctrines_ of the church of _Rome_. They are summed
up in the _twelve articles_ which the council of _Trent_ added to the
_Nicene_ creed. Now who can find the least connexion between any of
these, and the doctrines whereof we are speaking?
2. Others alledge, “Their doctrine is too strict. They make the way
to heaven too narrow.” And this is in truth the original objection,
(as it was almost the only one for some time) and is secretly at the
bottom of a thousand more, which appear in various forms. But do they
make the way to heaven any narrower, than our Lord and his apostles
made it? Is their doctrine stricter than that of the bible? Consider
only a few plain texts. _Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy strength.――For every idle word which men shall speak, they shall
give an account in the day of judgment.――――Whether ye eat, or drink,
or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God._ If their doctrine is
stricter than this, they are to blame. But you know in your conscience,
it is not. And who can be one jot less strict, without _corrupting the
word of God_? Can any steward of the mysteries of God be found faithful,
if he change any part of that sacred depositum? No. He can abate
nothing, he can soften nothing. He is constrained to declare to all men,
“I may not _bring down_ the scripture to your taste. You must _come up_
to it, or perish for ever.”
3. This is the real ground of that other popular cry, concerning “the
uncharitableness of these men.” Uncharitable are they? In what respect?
Do they not feed the hungry and clothe the naked? No, that is not the
thing. They are not wanting in this. But they are so _uncharitable_ in
judging! They think none can be saved, but those of their own way. They
damn all the world beside themselves.