these Gentlemen, I say, set my main Principles aside, all the Scripture in the World will be nothing to their Purpose. Not but in the main the Bible is against them; for the Scriptures reveal God’s Being and Attributes more clearly than they do most Points of Doctrine: the Reason is, because the Doctrines commonly embraced, are in themselves not so plain to Reason, as the Being and Attributes of God; the latter being generally acknowledged in all Christian Churches, tho’ at the same Time they widely differ about particular Doctrines, some of which have no doubt been greatly corrupted in passing through various Hands and Translations: and I have been informed, by much better Judges than I pretend to be, that the New Testament, even in these very Doctrines I have been contending against, has, by some Partiality or Neglect, been made to speak more roundly in their Favour, than the original Greek, or best Copies, will support; and that, in some Places, the Meaning of the Original is inverted in the Translation. The Scripture not only revealing to us the Being and Attributes of God, more clearly than it does many Doctrines, and that Fundamental of all true Religion being also in itself perfectly agreeable to the Light of Nature; ’tis evident, we are bound to reject the most positive Text of Scripture militating against this everlasting and fundamental Truth: and rather than part with this, we had much better suppose the Writer, as to disputable Points, to have been mistaken at the first, or the true Meaning corrupted by others. The Translators are allowed to have been fallible Men, and ’tis very probable some Errors might creep in at that Door: But it will not so easily be granted, that the inspired Writers could mistake, nor would I suppose it, unless in very extraordinary Cases, where either that or something worse must be supposed; and such a Supposition will, I am sure; much better become us, than to imagine it possible for God to make a Revelation of his Will to Man, which shall upon Examination be found contrary to his Being and Goodness, as well as expressly contrary to other plain Parts of this Revelation, Tho’ the Argument, I say, might be safely rested here, yet as there are some well meaning Persons, who believe that Adam was made upright, and furnished with a Stock of Strength and Understanding, sufficient to preserve his Innocence; that God made a Covenant with him, as our Federal or Representative Head, wherein it was stipulated, that if he continued upright, during the Time of Probation allotted, all his Posterity should be for ever happy; but that if he fell, all should be subject to everlasting Misery, as the counter Part of the Covenant; and he falling, the Restoration of his fallen Race should be intirely owing to the good Pleasure of God, who might redeem all or only a Part, and leave the rest to perish in the State wherein he found them, and in which Adam had involved them by his Transgression: This they call Preterition, or a Passing by, which sounds a little better than that harsh Word Reprobation, tho’ in reality no better at all: And on this first Transgression some found the Doctrine of Election, and others that of Infant-Baptism, as an Expedient to wash away this original Guilt; and it must be owned, the Virtue of the Remedy is admirably well suited to the Malignity of the Disease. I shall, for their sakes, inspect a little farther into the Affair; to me it appears unreasonable, and therefore improbable, that God should make with Adam any such Covenant or Agreement, or suffer the eternal State of all Mankind to hang upon the single Thread of one Man’s Behaviour, and who too (it seems) God knew would swerve from his Obedience: besides, in all equitable Covenants, every Party concerned has a Right to be consulted, nor can they be justly included to their own Detriment, without Consent first obtained, (especially if the Thing covenanted for, has an immediate, or may have a very fatal, tho’ very remote, Tendency, to make wretched and unhappy) which, in this Case, with regard to the Unborn, could not possibly be had. I am sensible the Gentlemen against whom I am arguing (especially Mr. Gill) have many pretty Inventions, to justify such a Conduct in the Divine Being, such as producing parallel Instances, drawn from the allowed Practice of Men, and Usage of the State; in particular, the Law relating to High-Treason, whereby a Rebel’s immediate Descendants are deprived of inheriting their Father’s Estate, with others of a like Kind; to all which, what I am about to offer may, I hope, be a sufficient Answer: The two Cases differ so widely, that it will be no easy Undertaking to make any Thing of this Instance in their Favour; and ’tis very surprising, to find Men of the brightest Intellects, so weak as to argue and infer, from the Laws of Fallible Men, to the Laws of an Infallible and Holy Being: The Inference ought rather to be just the Reverse; for such Institutions as Men, in this weak and imperfect State, may think convenient for their own Sakes, and the Good of Society, to establish and ordain, can be no Rule to him, whose Infinite Wisdom and Almighty Power set him far above all such Necessity. Nor, again, does this Case come up to the Matter in Dispute: It is true, that the Heir of a convict Rebel cannot, according to our Laws, inherit his Father’s Estate; but what then, does it deprive him of any thing that was his own before? No; the Law convicts the Rebel, while in Possession of his Estate, which it considers as his own Property, and which therefore it justly takes away for his own Offence. Perhaps, in Cases of Hereditary Possessions, it may seem a little hard, because it prevents the next Heir from inheriting; but if there be any Evil or Imperfection in this, we must excuse it, for the Sake of the Intent, which might be for the general Good, the more effectually to deter Men from treasonable Conspiracies against their Prince, whereby the Happiness of Society hath been often greatly disturbed, and whole Kingdoms and Countries depopulated: but in this Case, it is not strictly the Heir’s, till he comes into Possession; for the Law, by which he may possess hereafter, may be considered as having in it this particular Exception, as to the Crime of High-Treason, which, whenever it occurs as to the Parent, renders the Son incapable, &c. With regard to our Laws, we may, in some Sense, be said to make them ourselves, by our Representatives, whom we constitute for that End: and ’tis besides very probable, that some great Men, who formerly possessed Estates, and settled them on the Male Heirs in their Families, from one Generation to another, might help to make this very Law itself concerning Treason, and consequently they could not but acquiesce with this very Exception to the Right of Inheritance in their Posterity. But if it be still said to be unjust, though necessary, ’tis no Argument; for it cannot be unjust and necessary too: the Law, in this Case, ought rather (with Submission) so far as it unjustly affects a Man’s Children, to be alter’d; and if it robs us of the Security, which arises from deterring the Parent, on Account of the Evils which shall afterwards befall his Child, ’tis easy to remedy this, by laying an additional Punishment on the Traitor himself; which, as Self is much nearest to us all, might better prevent the Sin of Rebellion, If the present Law be just in itself, there can be no Objection to it; if it be unjust, no Argument of