Chapter VI: Part III (1)

_And when he came near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy
day, the things which belong unto thy peace!_ Luke xix. 41, 42.

I. 1. NOW, what can an impartial person think concerning the present state of _religion_ in _England_? Is there a nation under the sun which is so deeply fallen from the very _first principles_ of all religion? Where is the country, in which is found so utter a disregard to even _Heathen morality_? Such a thorough _contempt_ of _justice_ and _truth_, and all that should be dear and honourable to rational creatures?

What species of _vice_ can possibly be named, even of those that nature itself abhors, of which we have not had, for many years, a plentiful and still increasing harvest? What _sin_ remains either in _Rome_ or _Constantinople_, which we have not _imported_ long ago (if it was not of our native growth) and _improved_ upon ever since? Such a _complication_ of villainies of every kind, considered with all their _aggravations_, such a _scorn_ of whatever bears the face of _virtue_, such _injustice_, _fraud_, and _falshood_: above all, such _perjury_, and such a _method of law_, we may defy the whole world to produce.

What multitudes are found throughout our land, who do not even _profess_ any religion at all? And what numbers of those who _profess much_, and confute their profession by their _practice_? Yea, and perhaps by their exorbitant pride, vanity, covetousness, rapaciousness, or oppression, cause the very _name of religion_, to stink in the nostrils, of many (otherwise) _reasonable_ men?

2. “However, we have many thousands still, of truly, _virtuous_ and _religious_ men.” Wherein does their _religion_ consist? In _righteousness_ and true _holiness_? In _love_ stronger than death? Fervent _gratitude_ to God? And tender _affection_ to all his creatures? Is their religion, the religion of the _heart_? A renewal of soul in the image of God? Do they _resemble_ him they _worship_? Are they free from pride, from vanity, from malice and envy; from ambition and avarice, from passion and lust; from every uneasy and unlovely _temper_? Alas, I fear neither they (the great part at least) nor _you_, know what _this religion_ means; or have any more notion of it, than the peasant that holds the plough, of the religion of a _Gymnosophist_.

’Tis well if the _genuine religion_ of Christ has any more alliance with what you _call religion_, than with the _Turkish_ pilgrimages to _Mecca_, or the _Popish_ worship of our Lady of _Loretto_. Have not _you_ substituted in the place of the _religion of the heart_, something (I do not say equally _sinful_, but) equally vain, and foreign to the _worshipping_ of God in _spirit and in truth_?――――What else can be said even of _prayer_, (_public_ or _private_) in the manner wherein you generally perform it? As a thing of _course_, running round and round, in the same dull track, without either the _knowledge_, or _love_ of God? Without one heavenly _temper_, either attained or improved? O what mockery of God is this!

And yet even _this religion_, which can do you no good, may do you much harm. Nay, it is plain, it does: it daily increases your _pride_, as you measure your goodness by the _number_ and _length_ of your performances. It gives you a deep _contempt_ of those, who do not come up to the full _tale_ of your virtues. It inspires men with a _zeal_, which is the very fire of hell, furious, bitter, implacable, unmerciful; often to a degree that extinguishes all compassion, all good nature and humanity. Insomuch, that the execrable _fierceness_ of spirit, which is the natural fruit of such a religion, hath many times, in spite of all ties, divine and human, broke out into open violence, into rapine, murder, sedition, rebellion, civil war, to the desolation of whole cities and countries.

_Tantum_ hæc _Religio potuit suadere malorum_!

3. Now if there be a God, and one that is not a mere idle spectator of the things that are done upon earth, but a rewarder of men and nations according to their works, what can the event of these things be? It was reasonable to believe, that he would have risen long ago and maintained his own cause, either by sending the famine or pestilence among us, or by pouring out his fury in blood. And many wise and holy men have frequently declared, that they daily expected this; that they daily looked for the patience of God to give place, and judgment to rejoice over mercy.

4. Just at this time, when we wanted little of _filling up the measure of our iniquities_, two or three clergymen of the CHURCH of ENGLAND began vehemently to _call sinners to repentance_. In two or three years they had sounded the alarm, to the utmost borders of the land. Many thousands gathered together to hear them; and in every place where they came, many began to shew such a _concern_ for religion, as they never had done before. A stronger _impression_ was made on their minds, of the importance of things eternal, and they had more earnest _desires_ of serving God, than they had ever had from their earliest childhood. Thus did God begin to draw them toward himself, with the cords of love, with the bands of a man.

Many of these were in a short time deeply _convinced_ of the _number_ and _heinousness_ of their _sins_. They were also made throughly sensible of those _tempers_, which are justly hateful to God and man, and of their utter _ignorance_ of God, and entire _inability_, either to know, love, or serve him. At the same time, they saw in the strongest light, the _insignificancy_ of their _outside religion_: nay, and often confessed it before God, as the most abominable _hypocrisy_. Thus did they sink deeper and deeper into that _repentance_, which must ever precede _faith_ in the Son of God.

And from hence sprung _fruits meet for repentance_. The drunkard commenced sober and temperate; the whoremonger abstained from adultery and fornication; the unjust from oppression and wrong. He that had been accustomed to curse and swear, for many years, now swore no more. The sluggard began to work with his hands, that he might eat his own bread. The miser learned to deal his bread to the hungry, and to cover the naked with a garment. Indeed the whole form of their life was changed. They had _left off doing evil and learned to do well_.

* 5. But this was not all. Over and above this _outward change_, they began to experience _inward_ religion. _The love of God was shed abroad in their hearts_, which they continue to enjoy to this day. They love him, _because he first loved us_, and with-held not from us his Son, his only Son. And this love constrains them to love all mankind, all the children of the Father of heaven and earth, and inspires them with every holy and heavenly temper, the whole mind that was in Christ. Hence it is that they are now uniform in their behaviour, unblameable in all manner of conversation. And in whatsoever state they are, they have learned therewith to be content: insomuch that now they can _in every thing give thanks_: they more than patiently acquiesce, they rejoice and are exceeding glad, in all God’s dispensations toward them. For as long as they love God (and that love no man taketh from them) they are always happy in God. Thus they calmly travel on through life, being never weary nor faint in their minds, never repining, murmuring or disatisfied, casting all their care upon God, till the hour comes that they should drop this covering of earth, and return unto the great Father of Spirits. Then especially it is, that they rejoice with joy _unspeakable and full of glory_. You who credit it not, come and see. See these living and dying Christians.

“Happy while on earth they breathe
Mightier joys ordain’d to know,
Trampling on sin, hell and death,
To the third heaven they go?”

Now if these things are so, what reasonable man can deny (supposing the scriptures to be true) that God is now visiting this nation, in a far other manner than we had cause to expect? Instead of pouring out his fierce displeasure upon us, he hath made us yet another tender of mercy: so that even when _sin did_ most _abound, grace_ hath _much more abounded_.

6. Yea, _the grace of God which bringeth salvation_, present salvation from inward and outward sin, hath abounded of late years in such a _degree_ as neither we nor our fathers had known. How _extensive_ is the change which has been wrought on the minds and lives of the people! Know ye not that the sound is gone forth into all the land? That there is scarce a city or considerable town to be found, where some have not been roused out of the sleep of death, and constrained to cry out, in the bitterness of their soul, _What must I do to be saved_? That this _religious concern_ has spread to every age and sex; to most orders and degrees of men? To abundance of those in particular, who in time past, were accounted monsters of wickedness, _drinking in iniquity like water_, and committing all _uncleanness with greediness_.

7. In what age has such a work been wrought, considering the _swiftness_ as well as the _extent_ of it? When have such _numbers_ of sinners in so _short_ a time been recovered from the error of their ways? When hath religion, I will not say, since the _reformation_, but since the time of _Constantine the Great_, made so large a progress in any nation, within so small a space? I believe, hardly can either antient or modern history, supply us with a parallel instance.

* 8. Let understanding men observe also the _depth_ of the work, so _extensively_ and _swiftly_ wrought. It is not a slight or superficial thing: but multitudes of men have been so thoroughly _convinced of sin_, that their _bones were smitten asunder, as it were with a sword dividing the very joints and marrow_. Many of these have been shortly after so filled with _peace and joy_ in _believing_, that whether they were in the body, or out of the body, they could scarcely tell. And in the power of this faith they have trampled under foot, whatever the world accounts either terrible or desirable: having evidenced in the severest trials, so fervent a love to God, so invariable and tender a good-will to mankind, particularly to their enemies, and such a measure of all the fruits of holiness, as were not unworthy the apostolic age. Now so deep a repentance, so firm a faith, so fervent love and unblemished holiness, wrought in so many persons, within so short a time, the world has not seen for many ages.

9. No less remarkable is the _purity_ of the religion which has extended itself so _deeply_ and _swiftly_. I speak ♦particularly, with regard to the doctrines held by those, among whom it is so extended. Those of the church of _England_, at least, must acknowledge this. For where is there a body of people in the realm, who, number for number, so closely adhere to what our church delivers as pure doctrine? Where are those who have approved and do approve themselves more _orthodox_, more sound in their opinions? Is there a _Socinian_ or _Arian_ among them all? Nay, were you to recite the whole catalogue of _heresies_, enumerated by Bishop _Pearson_, it might be asked, who can lay any one of these to their charge?

♦ “paticularly” replaced with “particularly”

Nor is their religion more _pure_ from _heresy_, than it is from _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.

* What do you mean? “They think none can be saved, but those of their own way.” Most surely they do. For as there is but _one heaven_, so there is but _one way_ to it; even the way of _faith_ in Christ, (for we speak not of _opinions_, or outward _modes_ of _worship_) the way of _love_ to God and man, _the highway of holiness_. And is it uncharitable, to think or say, That none can be saved, but those who walk in this way? Was he then uncharitable, who declared, _He that believeth not shall be damned_? Or he that said, _Follow holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord_? And again; Though _I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned_, yet, _if I have not_ (ἀγάπην) _charity, love_, all this profiteth me nothing.”

“But they damn all, you say, beside themselves.” _Damn_ all! What kind of word is this? They damn no man. None is able to damn any man, but the Lord and judge of all. What you probably mean by that strange expression is, they declare that God condemns all, beside those who believe in Jesus Christ, and love him and keep his commandments. And so must _you_ also, or you sin against God, and your neighbour, and your own soul. But is there any _uncharitableness_ in this? In warning sinners to flee from the wrath to come? On the contrary, not to warn a poor, blind, stupid wretch, that he is hanging over the mouth of hell, would be so inexcusable a want of charity, as would bring his blood upon our own head.

4. But there is no room for dispute, touching these _doctrines_ in general, seeing our Lord gives you so plain a rule, by which you may easily and infallibly know, whether they be of God. _The tree is known by its fruit, either therefore make the tree good, and its fruit good; or else, make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt._ (Matthew xii. 33.) Now what fruit does the tree before us bring forth? Look and see; believe your own eyes and ears. Sinners leave their sins. The servants of the devil become the servants of God. Is this good or evil fruit? That _vice_ loses ground, and _virtue_, practical _religion_, gains? O dispute no more. Know the tree by its fruit. Bow and own the finger of God.

But many, who own _these doctrines_ to be of God, yet cannot be reconciled to the _instruments_ he hath made use of. A very common exception taken against these is (and was from the beginning) “That they are so _young_.” Therefore (abundance of men have readily inferred) “This work cannot be of God.”

Perhaps they are not so young as you conceive. Mr. _Whitefield_ is now upwards of thirty; my brother is thirty-seven years of age. I have lived above forty-two years. And a gentleman in _Cornwall_, for whom I often preach, has the merit of having lived threescore and seventeen years.

But, supposing the antecedent true, what a consequence is this? What shadow of scripture have you to support it? Doth not God _send by whom he_ will _send_? And who shall say to him, _What dost thou_? “These are too young; send elder men.” What shadow of reason? Is it not possible, that a person of thirty or forty may have as true a judgment in the things of God, and as great a blessing attending his preaching, as one of fifty or fourscore?

I wish you would explain yourself a little on this head:

_Scire velim_, verbo, _pretium quotus arroget annus?_

How old do you require a man to be, before God should have leave to speak by his mouth?――――O my brethren, who could have believed any serious man would once have named such an argument as this? Seeing both scripture and reason teach, that God herein _giveth account to none of his ways_. But he worketh by whomsoever he _will_ work; he sheweth mercy by whom he _will_ shew mercy.

* 6. “But there are only _a few_ young heads,” I cannot but observe here, what great pains have been taken, what diligence shewn, to make and to keep them _few_. What arts have not been used, to keep back those of the clergy in particular, who have been clearly convinced from time to time, that they ought to join hearts and hands in the work? On this occasion, it has been accounted meritorious, to _say all manner of evil of us falsely_: to _promise_ them whatever their hearts desired, if they would refrain from these men: and, on the other hand, to _threaten_ them with heavy things, if ever they went among them more. So that how fully soever they were convinced, they could not act according to their conviction, unless they could give up at once all thought of _preferment_, either in church or state; nay, all hope of even a _fellowship_, or poor _scholarship_, in either university. Many also have been threatened, that if they went on in this way, what little they had should be taken from them. And many have, on this very account, been disowned by their dearest friends and nearest relations. So that there was no possibility the number of these labourers should ever be increased at all, unless by those who could break through all these ties, who desired nothing in the present world, who counted neither their fortunes, nor friends, nor lives, dear unto themselves, so they might only _keep a conscience void_ of offence toward God and toward men.

7. But what do you infer from their _fewness_? That because they are _few_, therefore God cannot _work by them_? Upon what scripture do you ground this? I thought it was _the same to him, to save by many or few_. Upon what reason? Why cannot God save ten thousand souls by one man, as well as by ten thousand? How little, how inconsiderable a circumstance is number before God? Nay, is there not reason to believe, that whensoever God is pleased to work a great deliverance, spiritual or temporal, he may first say, as of old, _The people are too many for me to give the_ Midianites _into their hands_? May he not purposely chuse _few_ as well as inconsiderable instruments, for the greater manifestation of his own glory? Very _few_, I grant, are the instruments now employed: yet a great work is wrought already. And the fewer they are by whom this large harvest hath hitherto been gathered in, the more evident must it appear to unprejudiced minds, that the work is not of man, but of God.

8. “But they are not only few, but _unlearned_ also.” This is a grievous offence; and is by many esteemed a sufficient _excuse_, for not acknowledging the work to be of God.

The ground of this offence is partly true. Some of those who now preach are _unlearned_. They neither understand the antient languages, nor any of the branches of philosophy. And yet this objection might have been spared, by many of those who have frequently made it: because _they_ are _unlearned_ too (though accounted otherwise.) They have not themselves the very thing they require in others.

* Men in general are under a great mistake with regard to what is called “The Learned World.” They do not know, they cannot easily imagine, how little _learning_ there is among them. I do not speak of _abstruse learning_; but of what all divines, at least of any note, are supposed to have viz. The knowledge of the _tongues_, at least _Latin_, _Greek_ and _Hebrew_, and of the common _arts_ and _sciences_.

* How few men of learning, so called, understand _Hebrew_? Even so far as to read a plain chapter in _Genesis_? Nay, how few understand _Greek_? Make an easy experiment. Desire that grave man, who is urging this objection, only to tell you the _English_ of the first paragraph that occurs in one of _Plato’s dialogues_? I am afraid we may go farther still. How few understand _Latin_? Give one of them an _epistle_ of _Tully_, and see how readily he will explain it, without his _dictionary_. If he can hobble through that, it is odds but a _georgick_ in _Virgil_, or a _satire_ of _Persius_ sets him fast.

* And with regard to the _arts_ and _sciences_: How few understand so much as the general principles of _Logick_? Can one in ten of the clergy (O grief of heart!) or of the _masters_ of _arts_ in either university, when an argument is brought, tell you even the _mood_ and _figure_ wherein it is proposed? Or _compleat_ an _Enthymeme_? Perhaps, you do not so much as understand the term: supply the _premiss_ which is wanting, in order to make it a full _categorical syllogism_. Can one in ten of them demonstrate a _problem_ or _theorem_ in _Euclid’s Elements_? Or define the common terms used in _metaphysicks_? Or intelligibly explain the first principles of it? Why then will they _pretend_ to that learning, which they are conscious to themselves they have not? Nay, and censure others who have it not, and do not _pretend_ to it? Where are sincerity and candour fled?

* It will easily be observed, that I do not depreciate _learning_ of any kind. The knowledge of the _languages_ is a valuable talent; so is the knowledge of the _arts_ and _sciences_. Both the one and the other may be employed to the glory of God, and the good of men. But yet I ask, Where hath God declared in his word, that he _cannot_, or _will not_ make use of men that have it not? Has _Moses_, or any of the prophets affirmed this? Or our Lord? Or any of his apostles? You are sensible all these are against you. You know the apostles themselves, all except St. _Paul_, were ανδρες αγραμματοι και ιδιωται· common, unphilosophical, unlettered men.

9. “What! Then you make yourselves, _like the apostles_.” Because this silly objection has so often been urged, I will for once spend a few words upon it, though it does not deserve that honour. Why, must not every man, whether clergyman, or layman, be in some respects _like the apostles_, or go to hell? Can any man be saved, if he be not holy, _like the apostles_? A follower of them, as they were of Christ? And ought not every preacher of the gospel, to be in a _peculiar_ manner _like the apostles_, both in holy tempers, in exemplariness of life, and in his indefatigable labours for the good of souls? Woe unto every ambassador of Christ, who is not _like the apostles_ in this! In holiness; in making full proof of his ministry; in spending and being spent for Christ! We _cannot_ and therefore we _need_ not be like them, in _working outward miracles_. But we may and ought, in _working together with God_ for the salvation of men. And the same God who was always ready to help _their_ infirmities, is ready to help _ours_ also. He who made them _workmen that needed not to be ashamed_, will teach us also _rightly to divide the word of truth_. In this respect likewise, in respect of his _having help from God_, for the work whereunto he is called, every preacher of the gospel is _like the apostles_. Otherwise he is of all men most miserable.

* 10. And I am bold to affirm, that these unlettered men, _have help from God_ for that great work, the saving souls from death; seeing he hath enabled, and doth enable them still, to _turn many to righteousness_. Thus hath he _destroyed the wisdom of the wise, and brought to nought the understanding of the prudent_. When they imagined they had effectually shut the door, and locked up every passage, whereby any help could come to two or three preachers, weak in body as well as soul; who they might reasonably believe would humanly speaking, wear themselves out in a short time: when they had gained their point by securing (as they supposed) all the men of learning in the nation; _he that sitteth in heaven laughed them to scorn_, and came upon them by a way they thought not of. _Out of the stones he raised up_ those who should beget children to _Abraham_. We had no more foresight of this than you. Nay, we had the deepest prejudices against it: until we could not but own, that God gave _wisdom from above_ to these unlearned and ignorant men; so that the work of the Lord prospered in their hand, and sinners were daily converted to God.

Indeed in the one thing which they profess to know, they are not _ignorant_ men. I trust there is not one of them who is not able to go thro’ such an examination, in substantial, practical, experimental divinity, as few of our candidates for holy orders, even in the university (I speak it with sorrow and shame, and in tender love) are able to do. But oh! what manner of _examination_, do most of _those candidates_ go through? And what proof are the _testimonials_ commonly brought (as solemn as the _form_ is wherein they run) either of their _piety_ or _knowledge_, to whom are intrusted those sheep, which God hath purchased with his own blood!

11. “But they are _laymen_. You seem to be sensible yourself, of the strength of this objection. For as many as you have answered, I observe you have never once so much as touched on this.”

I have not. Yet it was not distrust of my cause, but tenderness to you which occasioned my silence. I had something to advance on this head also: but I was afraid you could not bear it. I was conscious to myself, that some years since, to touch this point, was to touch the apple of my eye. And this makes me almost unwilling to speak now; lest I should _shock_ the prejudices I cannot _remove_.

* Suffer me, however, just to intimate to you some things, which I would leave to your farther consideration. The _scribes_ of old, who were the ordinary _preachers_ among the _Jews_, were not _priests_; they were not better than _laymen_. Yea, many of them were incapable of the priesthood, being of the tribe of _Simeon_, not of _Levi_.

Hence probably it was, that the _Jews_ themselves never urged it as an objection to our Lord’s preaching (even those who did not acknowledge or believe, that he was sent of God in an _extraordinary_ character) that he was no _priest_ after the order of ♦_Aaron_. Nor indeed could be; seeing he was of the tribe of _Judah_.

♦ “Aron” replaced with “Aaron”