174 Reproaching G. to fpeak diminutively of his ordin's. PART II.. of fruit it was. This comes in naturally, and fully pertinent here; fince that with Adam, was a Sacamental Token, as well as this of baptifm, treated upon in this place. And here, by the magnitude of the evil, incurred by fo fmall an act of Adam; we are amply taught, that it is not abfurd to expec great confequences, from fmail things in our conduct; efpecially when they are relative to God's in-ftitutions or directions. However, it is not uncommon, or frange for unbelievers to esteem God's inftitutions contemptible, or infignificant.

Thus I fee not. but all the force of the fuppofed pofing question, What good can it do, &c.? is fully obviated; and all may pafs without being ob.. fructed thereby. Yet I will attempt to fhow fome: good there is in baptizing infants. Though I will not be fo vain as to fuppofe I can tell all the good;: yet fome things may be fuggefted. I conclude it is fully proved in the foregoing pages; that it is... plainly the will of God, according to all his inftitutions and difpenfations, that children fhould be in. cluded with their parents. It is therefore evident.. ly the will of God. And when God entered into, covenant with Abraham, he exprefsly included children. Hence there is an important good, be-cause it is conforming to the will of God.

Again,baptizing them in the name of the Trinity.. is emphatically putting God's name upon them, up. on which God fays, he will blefs them.

Again, we find that when Chrift was here in the flefh, they did actually bring infants to Chrift, and › he did actually and vifibly accept of them, and lefs them, declaring that of fuch his kingdom confifted. And will any contend that Chrift is not as acceffable now, as then? But he is prefent now, on.. ly in his ordinances; therefore, bringing them to hias

PART II. Chrift's command for Infants to be brought to him. 175 ordinance is bringing them to him; and we have grounds for the strongest affurance, that he accepts of them, bleffes them, and owns them as members of his kingdom. And is not this an uofpeakable good? We read of thofe in the days of Chrift's flesh, that oppofed bringing infants to him, as there are alfo now; but he was much difpleafed with them, for their oppofition; and there can be no doubt, but he is equally difpleafed now, with fuch oppofition. And I never heard any reafon offered, fhowing why Chrift's command, to fuffer little chil dren, infants, to be brought unto him, and by fome public visible token, be recognized as belonging to his kingdom; is not in as full force now, as ever it was, and we know of no token but baptifm. Therefore, Chrift's command to fuffer little children, infants, to come or be brougnt unto him, at that time, will fairly amount to a command to bring them to baptifm.

From the above confiderations, I think it plainly appears, what good there is in baptizing infants; that God has inftituted it, mean or condition of. his owning, and beftowing on them his bleffing. And is therefore, of ineffable importance, and good to the fubjects.

But after all; if we could not comprehend or devife any good that circumcifion did, or baptifm now, does infants; yet, to negle& it becaufe we cannot comprehend the good it does; is fetting up our own incomprehenfion, in competition with the divine word; and is therefore doing, as I have fup.. posed the Devil began his own apoftacy, and as we know he began with the woman, and alfo endeav ored to feduce Chrift: First making a question of the truth or propriety of the divine word; then ap plying his arguments on the negative fide of the:

PART II,

Thus

375 To Queftion divine Truth, is dangerous.: queftion. Thus he did with the woman. he endeavored to provoke Chrift, to make a quel tion of his own divinity. So here about baptifm, What good can it do to baptize infants? you cannot comprehend or conceive of any good; therefore, there is no good in it, and it ought not to be done! On the whole,

This question, What good can it do infants to baptize them, &c.? and the purpofe for which it is advanced, bears fuch an exact refemblance, of the mode of deceiving and feducing, which the Devil. has always practifed; that it thould make us cau. tious, not to be feduced thereby.

I now proceed to the IIId. Part of my TREA

TISE.

PART III.

On the SACRAMENTS as connected with the COVENANTS.

ERHAPS the Sacraments have always been confidered, as effentially connected with the Covenants; and not improperly as feals of the covenants God has been pleased to make with man. They are plainly tokens of the covenants, and are connected with them, in fuch a manner as may properly be termed feals, from their being fome fenfible fign, fomething betides a mere name, or word denoting the covenants; as in Inftruments of written covenants between man aud man, or official inftruments of authority, the Seal is fomething real, more than the name: Which feals generally have fome fignificant device upon them; and Sacraments may in fome special sense, have fuch a kind of connection with the covenants, between God and man. In that view, they have a very effential and important connection with the covenants of God, with man: and the real meaning,. and full defign of the Sacraments, would be very imperfectly exhibited, without this part of the work, here propofed.

I am here led to confider, and define a Covenant. In which, as I have propofed to do from the beginning, I fhall wave ali definitions of Covenants, that I have ever feen; and attempt to define Cove

178

God's Covenant with day and night.

PART II,

nants, according to the fenfe they are fpoken of in the Bible. And perhaps the following general definition of a Covenant, will comport with the Scripture use of the term, as well as any I can offer, viz.

A COVENANT, is fuch a connection, of perfons and things, as that, there are certain reciprocal confiderations and obligations, for, and toward each oth

er.

Such connections and relations, may be formed, either with, or without a particular explicit perfonal propofal of one party, to another; and the other's perfonally acceding to it. Perhaps none will be difpofed to deny or doubt, that a Covenant may be formed by an explicit perfonal propofal on the one part,anda personal acceptance on the other. This is what fome place the whole Idea of a covenant in; and fuppofe there can be no covenant obligations in any other way. But if we reftrict covenants to that definition, we shall fall greatly short of what the Scriptures denominate covenants..

God fpeaks of his covenant with day and night, Jer. xxxiii. 20, 25. This could mean no other than his creating the bodies of the fun, earth, &c. with fuch powers, properties and relations, as fitted them to perform their revolutions, to bring about day and night in due order, he upholding them with those properties, and in thofe relations; they thereby, being thus fitted, and maintained by him, were in a proper fenfe obligated to their Creator and upholder, to perform thofe revolutions; fo there are as may be termed reciprocal operations between God and those bodies, God created, and upholds them, and they perform thofe revolutions

for him. I mention this, as an inftance to fhow how that God denominates the connections and relations between himself, and mere material things,,