_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.