lies not in the validity of any particular part, but in the aggregate. Though some points have considerably more weight than others which may be adduced, yet not only the whole, but the most weighty portions are considered at a disadvantage if separated from the mass,-if deprived of the accessory evidence afforded by less impressive points. Some constellations more than others, may relieve and direct the traveller's midnight journey; but his whole advantage lies in the blended effulgence of the starry heavens.-And further, it should be kept in view, that though some parts of the argument may possibly fail to impress an individual mind, contributing little or nothing to produce conviction in him, they may have a different aspect to a mind differently constituted, or contemplating them under the influence of different, though equally warrantable associations. At all events, the failure of one point does not invalidate any other, but merely detracts from the whole that weight which it has been supposed to possess.

Taking with us these reflections, if the opinion here advocated should appear fairly inferable from various distinct and important announcements of Holy Scripture, while as we have seen in the former part-it harmonizes with the system of revealed truth in general, we shall probably obtain as much satisfaction, as from the nature of the case we have any reason to expect.

SECTION I.

The revealed character of God, a ground of hope for the happiness of deceased Infants.

God revealed-in his RELATIVE CHARACTER as supreme ruler ;-his government regulated by equity which cannot injure, and by sovereignty which is essentially benevolent;—infants not amenable to justice; therefore dealt with in sovereignty-which requires their happiness; this reconcilable with-natural and spiritual evils of time-not, with those of eternity ;—with the condition of personal sinners ;—with “visiting the iniquities of the fathers;”—with the sufferings of the innocent Jesus;—hence, the relative character of God encourages our hopes.

His MORAL CHARACTER; though holy he delights in mercy; therefore exercises it as far as his honour allows;-Infants not excluded from mercy, by personal rejection ;—nor by sins hypothetically future ;— their temporal sufferings do not oppose the argument.

His NEW COVENANT CHARACTER, as in Christ;-he thus regulates the death and eternal condition of infants;-Jesus Christ a representative of the divine character;-Christ's regard to children generally adverted to as encouraging our hopes. Conclusion.

EXERCISING Supreme and uncontroulable dominion over the universe, the adorable Jehovah "doth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; none can' stay his hand, nor say unto him, what dost thou?” Or should there arise some presumptuous being prepared to question his right, such daring would be as easily repelled, as the murmuring of those

discontented labourers, whose eye was evil because their master's was 'good.* "May I not do what I will with mine own?" must effectually put to silence the petulance and arrogance of reason, venturing to arraign the divine proceedings, and to sit in judgment on the universal Sovereign and Benefactor. This supremacy of God we rejoice to acknowledge, and all its administrations would awfully reverence and adore.

But supremacy is only a relative attribute of Deity, it merely indicates his relation to creatures as the universal Ruler, leaving undefined the qualities of his government, which depend of course upon his character. As the administrations of an earthly potentate, so far as they are the result of his own pleasure, are regulated by his moral dispositions; so must be those of the blessed God. Holy and benevolent in himself, he is just and good to all his creatures. The divine perfections chiefly illustrated in the government of man as intelligent and accountable, are, justice and grace, or equity and sovereign benevolence.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” may be considered as a question directly replied to in the language of inspiration, "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." Hence, he injures none; he administers to none.

*Matt. xx. 11–15.

less of good, or more of evil, than is deserved. On the other hand, we are taught that "the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." Hence, he administers more of good and less of evil, than is deserved. Had we not been guided by his own declaration, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," we might nevertheless have readily concluded that the exercise of divine benevolence must be sovereign, or the mere result of his own pleasure, because if the objects had a meritorious claim, it must be an exercise of justice; equally may we conclude that the exercise of sovereignty must be benevolent, because as it cannot trench on the province of justice so as to injure, nor be the same as justice so as to bestow exactly what equity demands, the only alternative is, that it operate to bless the undeserving.

It appears, therefore, that suffering results to any creature from the administration of divine equity, and undeserved happiness from the administration of sovereign benevolence.*

* Instead of pursuing any further the illustration of these important topics, I beg leave to refer to "An Essay on the Equity of the Divine Government, and the Sovereignty of Divine Grace," by the late Dr. Edward Williams, who, by his excellencies as a man and a christian, secured himself a place in the hearts of all who knew him, and, by his labours as a divine, conferred on the church incalculable benefits, which may be expected to increase in proportion as his views on the present subject especially, are understood and maintained.

In dealing with individuals according to strict equity, the righteous Governor of the universe treats them according to their deeds, whether they have been good or evil. But as infants are, by hypothesis, incapable of either moral good or evil, they cannot in equity deserve either happiness or misery. The ills which they endure in the present state proceeding by natural consequence from the relations in which they are placed, equity does not require them to be superseded; for as they have not done evil to deserve punishment, so neither have they done good to merit favour at the divine hand. In fact, to conceive of infants as subject to the administrations of distributive justice, is to conceive of them as moral agents, a character which they are naturally incapable of sustaining.

As the only alternative, we might therefore conclude, that the conduct of God towards infants, is an exercise of his prerogative as the Supreme Ruler, that is, he deals with them in sovereignty. Such a conclusion is indeed demanded by the obvious facts of the case. By the sovereign pleasure of God, they are brought into existence; by a sovereign constitution they inherit the nature of fallen Adam, and are liable to sufferings and death; and by a sovereign act they are individually removed from the present state, before they become personal transgressors. But if the condition of infants be thus altogether at the disposal of divine sovereignty,