* 19. What a surprising _apparatus_ of Providence was here! And what stronger demonstrations could have been given, of men’s acting from _a zeal_ for God, whether it were _according to knowledge_ or no? What persons could, in the nature of things, have been (antecedently) less liable to exception, with regard to their _moral character_, at least, than those the all-wise God hath now employed? Indeed I cannot devise what manner of men could have been more unexceptionable on all accounts. Had God endued us with greater natural or acquired abilities, that very thing might have been turned into an objection. Had ♦we been remarkably _defective_, it would have been matter of objection, on the other hand. Had we been _dissenters_ of any kind, or even _low-church men_, (so called) it would have been a great stumbling-block in the way of those who are _zealous for the church_. And yet had we continued in the impetuosity of our _high-church zeal_, neither should we have been willing to converse with _dissenters_, nor they to receive any good at our hands. Some objections were kept out of the way, by our known _contempt_ of money and preferment: and others, by that rigorous strictness of life, which we exacted, not of others, but ourselves only. Insomuch, that twelve or fourteen years ago, the censure of one who had narrowly observed us, (_me_, in particular) went no farther than this; “Does _John_ beyond his strength persist to go, To his frail carcase literally foe? Careless of health, as if in haste to die, And lavish time t’ insure eternity!” So that upon the whole, I see not what God could have done more in this respect which he hath not done. Or what _instruments_ he could have employed in such a work, who would have been less liable to exception. ♦ “he” replaced with “we” per Errata