Shafton 1-4-33 [iii] THE PREFACE. 'HE doctrine advanced in this discourse THE is by no means new, and the interpretations I have given of those texts, which at first fight seem to be the most unfavourable to it, are, in fact, the fame that are given by Grotius, and other divines and commentators of the greateft repute. It ought not, therefore, to give any particular offence. And yet, because the doctrine is here, perhaps, more distinctly laid down, more largely illuftrated, and urged with lefs caution and reserve, than, I believe, it has been hitherto done, it is not impoffi A 2 impoffible but that it may excite more attention; and that to many, who have been long accustomed to a different view of things, it may give more alarm, than it did while the views exhibited of it were but tranfient and indistinct. I fhall, therefore, make a few obfervations on the nature and confequences of it, that no perfons may complain that they were not fully apprized of the whole extent of what is propofed to them. This doctrine of the exclufion of all immediate agency of the Deity on the minds of men, restraining them from evil, or difpofing them to good, and of his doing this by no other means than the natural influence of proper inftructions and motives, certainly goes to the root of the groffeft and most dangerous delufions that the christian world has, in all ages, been subject to. It precludes the bold pretenfions of all empirics in religion, by whatever name they have been diftinguished, with the vain hopes of all that are liable to be deluded by them; and it supplies the only basis of that practical religion that that is truly rational and fafe. It is utterly incompatible with the very principle and ground of the doctrine of fovereign and irrefiftible grace, the poffibility of inftantaneous converfion, and confequently of any true and availing conversion at the latest hour of life. Let all those, therefore, who are attached to such notions be apprized, that the doctrine contended for in this difcourfe is exceedingly hoftile to them. It is, however, a doctrine that, I am confident, the more it is examined, the more confonant it will appear to be to reafon (that is, to all actual appearances and facts) and to the genuine sense of fcripture; and on this account, I am fatisfied, that their doctrine of a new and miraculous birth is altogether unfcriptural and deceitful. On the other hand, the doctrine that excludes all miraculous interpofitions is by no means inconfiftent with the belief of a particular providence, or of an intended correspondence between all events that are coincident, or that have any relation to each other. A 3 other. For whether those coincidences, which are afcribed to a particular providence, be brought about juft at the time of the refpective events, or were originally provided for in the general plan, the defign is the very fame. We equally acknowledge the hand of God, though we confider him as acting by the intervention of fecond caufes. It is an uncontroverted maxim of the fchools, that caufa caufa eft caufa caufati. If, therefore, there be an intelligent Author of Nature, who fixed the laws of it, and put the whole complex frame in motion, whatever is the neceffary refult of this conftitution, is to be afcribed to him. On this account, however, it may be imagined that the doctrine of this discourse is properly neceffarian, and, taken in its whole extent, true only on that hypothefis. I answer, fo very great, important, and comprehenfive, as the doctrine of philofophical neceffity, in my idea of it, is, I believe there cannot be any valuable moral truth that does not connect and harmonize with it, if it do not |