This is a sermon given in 1741 which apparently was deliberately intended and responsible for accelerating the Great Awakening in the New England area. It is the purest form of over-the-top fire-and-brimstone, fear-based and terror-mongering preaching I ever thought imaginable (and the link and following passage should be content-warned as such), to the point of saying the following (most of the way through, right before reaching the first signs of hopeful light at the end):
There is Reason to think, that there are many in this Congregation now hearing this Discourse, that will actually be the Subjects of this very Misery to all Eternity. We know not who they are, or in what Seat they sit, or what Thoughts they now have: it may be they are now at Ease, and hear all these Things without much Disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the Persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one Person, and but one, in the whole Congregation that was to be the Subject of this Misery, what an awful Thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful Sight would it be to see such a Person! How might all the rest of the Congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter Cry over him! But alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this Discourse in Hell? And it would be a Wonder if some that are now present, should not be in Hell in a very short Time, before this Year is out. And it would be no Wonder if some Person that now sits here in some Seat at this Meeting-House in Health, and quiet & secure, should be there before to morrow Morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural Condition, that shall keep out of Hell longest, will be there in a little Time! your Damnation don’t slumber; it will come swiftly, and in all probability very suddenly upon many of you. You have Reason to wonder, that you are not already in Hell.
A few notes of observation about the 18th-century English used:
As far as I can tell, absolutely all nouns are capitalized as in German, rather than contemporary practices of capitalizing some nouns that appear to me to be less consistent.
There are many contractions used, including our familiar can't, also 'tis (which I don't think was surpassed in popularity by it's until sometime a century later), but also han't instead of haven't, while 'em for them is also used liberally.
The most puzzling convention to me is that don't is used multiple times (including in the above passage) as a 3p singular form instead of doesn't.
