any Weight can be drawn from it, in regard to the Divine Being; who is holy, wise, and true, and so are all his Appointments concerning the Children of Men.

To bring this kind of Reasoning of theirs up to the Point, they should have produced a Law, which subjected the Son (for the Father’s Offence) to the same corporal Punishment with the Father, and then also they must have proved such a Law to be just and good. But, as these Gentlemen are so fond of bringing Instances from the Practice of Men in this frail State, in Justification of their own Doctrine, I shall present them with one or two of my own. Murder has sometimes been committed under such Circumstances, that though the Murderer has been arraigned, there hath been no room to condemn him, all Circumstances having concurred, in the Eye of the Law, to acquit him; will the Almighty therefore acquit him? Again, on the other hand, in the Case of Murder, things have so fallen out, as to make an innocent Person look like the Murderer, in the Eye of the Law or Court, which has therefore sometimes proceeded to Death itself; is this Man therefore guilty before God? I have put these two Cases, purely to shew the Absurdity of such kind of Arguments: and I hope they will consider better of it, and advance them no farther.

If there was such a Covenant between God and Adam, ’tis strange no Notice should be taken of it in the Law given to Adam, as laid down in the Bible, and where, of all Places, we have most Reason to expect it—this must surely have been the fittest Place for its Insertion—Nor is it only absent here, for there is no positive Account of any such Covenant in all the Old Testament. Besides, when the Law was given, and threatening (in Case of Disobedience) pronounced on Adam, ’twas merely personal—In the Day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. And when Adam and Eve had broke the Command, and God descended to judge them for it, their Sentences were personal and particular, and no reproaching Adam on the Account of Evils to be thence brought on his Posterity, and much less of eternal Damnation. The Jews indeed, many of whom were weak enough to embrace any Absurdity at all, had by some Means contracted a Notion, not altogether unlike this of original Sin, probably from a Misunderstanding of the second Commandment, which speaks of “visiting the Iniquity of the Father upon the Children, &c.” But ’tis highly worthy of our Notice, that God himself was greatly displeased with their having imbibed this Notion, and commanded the Prophet Ezekiel to refute it at large; the Substance of which I cannot avoid setting down, it being so full to my Purpose. The Prophet introduces it thus, Ezek, xviii. 2. What mean ye, that use this Proverb in Israel, The Fathers have eaten sour Grapes, and the Children Teeth are set on edge? Ver. 4. Behold all Souls are mine, as the Soul of the Father, so also the Soul of the Son is mine: the Soul that sinneth, it shall die. The Prophet then, from ver. 5. to 19. puts the two Cases of a righteous Man’s having a wicked Son, and a wicked Man’s having a righteous Son, in order to shew, that neither is the one better for his Father’s Uprightness, nor the other at all worse for his Father’s Wickedness; but that all is, as it should be, placed to the Account of their own Merits or Demerits. Ver. 20. The Soul that sinneth, it shall die: the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father bear the Iniquity of the Son; the Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him, and the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him. Ver. 23. Have I any Pleasure at all that the Wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his Ways and live? Ver. 25. Yet ye say, the Way of the Lord is unequal. Hear now, O House of Israel, Is not my Way equal? are not your Ways unequal? Ver. 32. For I have no Pleasure in the Death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn your selves and live ye.

Words more positive against this Doctrine cannot be laid together. Justice and Equity are here, by the Almighty himself, consider’d as the very same, both in God and Man; and the same Justice and Equity, which He commands us to make the Rule of our Actions, ’tis evident He here makes the Rule of his own. He blames them for their false Principles, their Ignorance and Bigotry, and is not a little offended, because they thought him capable of acing in so evil and unrighteous a Manner, as that would be, of punishing the Child for the Parent’s Offence; and strongly and solemnly assures them, he will do no such Thing. And as Justice and Equity would not bear it then, it is plain that, God could never take any such cruel and disreputable Measures, either in the Beginning, or at any time afterwards; because, to act thus at the Creation of Man, and disdain the Imputation with Indignation afterwards, argues a strange Inconsistency in the Conduct of God towards Men; but the Truth is, the same Reasons which made him abhor the Imputation afterwards, could not but infallibly prevent his making any such unrighteous Covenant in the Beginning. What would you think of a Man, who is a Villain to-day, and boasts much of his great Honesty tomorrow? The Appearance of Christ in the Flesh was, we are told by these Gentlemen, on Account of Adam’s Transgression, without which it would have been, they say, wholly superfluous. But the Expediency or End of Christ’s coming, may be resolved into the Love of God, on the one hand; pitying the Ignorance and Folly of Mankind, on the other: and whether this State was the Effect of Adam’s Sin, or of their own personal Demerits, it makes no Difference in this Case. Whoever looks carefully into the Evangelists, will find abundant Reason to disapprove and condemn this Doctrine of Original Sin, and of Christ’s coming into the World on that Account only. Our Saviour, had this been the Case, would either have plainly express’d, or have given some strong Intimations concerning it: Yet no such thing appears; but the contrary, to a Demonstration, from no less than two Passages of Scripture, recorded by St. Mark, (ix. 36.) When the Disciples had been privately contending for Preheminence above each other, our Saviour, to rebuke this aspiring Spirit, sets before them, as a Pattern of Simplicity and Innocence, a little Child; which must have been very absurd, according to the Notion of Original Sin: The second is Mark x. ver. 13. 14. 15. 16. where Christ assures his Disciples, that, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, they must become as little Children. And in St. Matthew (xviii. ver. 3.) this very thing is, if possible, more Strongly and Emphatically express’d. Which Declarations, had there been such a Thing as the Guilt of Original Sin, subjecting Children to God’s Wrath and Displeasure, would have been ungrounded, and erroneous in a high Degree; for if they were to become like such a little Child, as a necessary and fit Condition for Heaven, the Condition of Infants must also be suitable to that Blessed Place—Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Word Such, is a general Term, equally applicable to all Infants whatever: it shews their Innocence, and how